2010.03.23 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
MARCH 23, 2010
6:15 p.m. - Executive session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate.
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-2920 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2010.
C. AM-2921 Approval of claim checks #117726 through #117850 dated March 18, 2010 for $371,958.19.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #46164 through #49191 for the pay period of
March 1 - March 15, 2010 for $631,935.83.
D. AM-2829 Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 8 to the professional services agreement with
RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 water system improvement project.
E. AM-2918 Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 6 to the professional services agreement with
Gray & Osborne, Inc. for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West walkway & 162nd Street
SW park project.
F. AM-2912 Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District #15
to develop upgraded neighborhood park elements at Westgate Elementary School.
G. AM-2905 Funding request for Edmonds Night Out.
H. AM-2922 Proclamation in honor of Earth Hour - Saturday, March 27 from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m.
3. AM-2919
(10 Minutes)
Update and overview of SnoCom.
4. AM-2877
(30 Minutes)
Public comment on the subject of budget cuts.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
6. AM-2924
(20 Minutes)
Report from Planning Division on Comprehensive Plan outlook for 2010-2011.
Packet Page 1 of 167
7. AM-2906
(30 Minutes)
Presentation of proposed update of the Stormwater Management Code (ECDC 18.30)
8. AM-2911
(15 Minutes)
Establish fire proceeds fund.
9. AM-2881
(10 Minutes)
Adopt a Park
10. (15 Minutes)Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
11. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
12. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 167
AM-2920 2.B.
Approve 03-16-10 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
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 March 16, 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: 03-16-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 10:06 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 10:12 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 01:03 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 03/18/2010 10:05
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 3 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
March 16, 2010
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session
regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. He stated that the executive session was scheduled
to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public
Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected
officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, and Councilmembers Bernheim,
Orvis, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney
Bio Park, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Finance Director
Lorenzo Hines and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., the Mayor announced to the public that an
additional 30 minutes would be needed in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:26
p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Bio Park, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Haakenson relayed the City Attorney’s request to remove Item J from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Packet Page 4 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 2
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #117634 THROUGH #117725 DATED MARCH 11,
2010 FOR $409,569.88.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM BRAY REALTY
($607.58).
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX
COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT GRANTING THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY VISITOR'S BUREAU $6,000 FOR TOURISM PROMOTION AND SUPPORT
OF VISITOR SERVICES TO PROMOTE EDMONDS.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX
COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT GRANTING THE EDMONDS
CENTER FOR THE ARTS $10,000 TO ATTRACT VISITORS TO EDMONDS
THROUGH ADVERTISING AND PROMOTING DOWNTOWN EDMONDS AND
ANNUAL CULTURAL EVENTS/FESTIVALS IN THEIR 2010/2011 SEASON
BROCHURE.
G. CONTRACT WITH ORCHID CELLMARK FOR DNA TESTING.
H. APPROVAL OF 2010 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSES FOR LOW FARE,
NORTHSOUND TAXI INC., AND YELLOW CAB OF WASHINGTON, INC..
I. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MARCH 2, 2010 FOR THE BNSF UTILITIES UPGRADE
PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC.
($1,059,341.33).
ITEM J: AMENDMENT OF EMC 5.05.121 AND 5.05.123 (POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG)
TO ALLOW FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS SHOULD A DOG BE DECLARED
"POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS."
City Attorney Bio Park explained revisions were made to clarify that any appeal of a declaration of a
dangerous dog was heard by the City’s Municipal Court Judge rather than the Hearing Examiner. On
page 2, ECC Section 5.05.123(E) the reference to the Hearing Examiner should be changed to the Judge
of the Edmonds Municipal Court.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM J AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The item approved is as follows:
J. ORDINANCE NO. 3786 – AMENDMENT OF EMC 5.05.121 AND 5.05.123
(POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG) TO ALLOW FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS
SHOULD A DOG BE DECLARED "POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS."
3. APPOINTMENT OF MIKE POPKE TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD
Joe McIalwain, Executive Director, Edmonds Public Facilities District/Edmonds Center for the
Arts, thanked the Council for its past support of the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) which inhabits a
1939 building that was the original Edmonds High School, Edmonds Junior High, Puget Sound Christian
Packet Page 5 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 3
College and now the ECA. The ECA is in the midst of a great season of theater, music, dance, and
comedy and its audiences and support is growing.
Two Boards oversee the facility, a non-profit ECA Board and the Public Facilities District (PFD) Board.
Dave Earling resigned in January after serving six sears on the PFD Board. He thanked Dave Earling for
his leadership on the PFD Board, noting the ECA would not be where it is today without his efforts. Mr.
McIalwain relayed the PFD Board’s recommendation to appoint Mike Popke to fill the vacant position.
Mr. Popke is the General Manager/General Sales Manager of Lynnwood Honda. He was active early in
the ECA as a member of the Capital Campaign Committee and served as President of the ECA Board in
2007 and 2008. Mr. Popke’s leadership, business knowledge, familiarity with the ECA and passion for
the mission make him the perfect candidate. On behalf of the entire ECA organization, Mr. McIalwain
offered their full support for Mr. Popke’s appointment.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his support for the appointment of Mr. Popke to the PFD Board.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPOINT MIKE POPKE TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDING THE SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN ORDER TO ADD A PROJECT: RECONSTRUCTION OF
DAYTON STREET FROM THE RAILROAD TRACKS TO SUNSET AND RESURFACING OF
220TH BETWEEN 84TH AND HIGHWAY 99.
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained a federal 2010 Jobs Bill will soon be approved to fund
transportation projects. The purpose of the Bill, similar to the 2009 Stimulus Package, is to create
additional jobs. The Snohomish County Tomorrow Infrastructure Coordination Committee (ICC) meets
monthly to discuss transportation issues. At a recent meeting, the ICC developed a list of recommended
projects and contingency projects in anticipation of the passage of the Jobs Bill. The total allocated funds
anticipated for 2010 is approximately $14.4 million, the amount allocated in the 2009 Stimulus Package.
Projects are ranked based on readiness for completion and number of jobs created.
The recommended list contains the Dayton Street Reconstruction and the 220th Street Overlay. The
contingency list contains the Downtown Street Lighting and Sidewalk Replacement projects. The Dayton
Street Reconstruction and 220th Street Overlay projects ranked highly because design for both projects is
nearly complete. In order to fund the Dayton Street Reconstruction and 220th Street Overlay via the 2010
Jobs Bill, they must be added to the City’s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Adding
the projects to the City’s TIP will allow Washington State Department of Transportation to amend the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program if the federal funds become available.
These projects meet Goal V (Prioritize and finance transportation improvements for the greatest public
benefit emphasizing transit, demand management, and maintenance of current facilities) of Section
15.25.010 of the adopted 2009 Transportation Plan since it is a maintenance preservation project. Staff
recommends amending the TIP to add Reconstruction of Dayton Street from the railroad tracks to Sunset
and resurfacing of 220th between 84th and Highway 99.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the City could not qualify for stimulus funds if the projects were not included
in the TIP. Mr. Hauss agreed.
Council President Bernheim asked why the projects were not included in the City’s Six Year TIP when
they were ranked so highly in the 2010 Jobs Bill. Mr. Hauss clarified the TIP identifies funding for
Packet Page 6 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 4
overlays over a six year period but specific locations are not identified. Council President Bernheim
asked if the Downtown Street Lighting and Sidewalk replacement were included in the TIP. Mr. Hauss
they were included in the Six Year TIP but not funded in 2010.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the proposal to reconstruct Dayton and resurface 220th. He
expressed concern with the inclusion of signals at Walnut & 9th and at Main & 9th in the TIP. He was also
concerned that the signal at Walnut & 9th was described as a traffic safety signal installation but the Main
& 9th signal was described as a signal to reduce injury and potential property damage accidents. He was
also concerned that the 212th intersection at Five Corners was described as design and construct
intersection improvement when it was common knowledge the project was a roundabout. He suggested
the TIP clearly state the Five Corners intersection improvement was a roundabout.
Mayor Haakenson assured any intersection improvement project would require Council approval.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented staff did a good job identifying projects for the 2010 Jobs Bill. He
cautioned the federal government would be verifying that the funds were used appropriately.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2010-2015) AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION NO. 1223.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED TITLE 18 AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW USE OF CITY
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BISTRO AND OUTDOOR DINING AND PLACEMENT OF ART IN CITY
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Community Services/Development Services Committee reviewed the
proposed amendment and requested staff present it to the full Council for review and approval.
City Engineer Rob English explained the proposed amendments would address outdoor dining within the
City right-of-way and placement of art in the City right-of-way. A permit was issued last summer for
fencing and tables and chairs for a downtown restaurant to provide outdoor dining. Upon installation of
the fencing, the City received several citizen complaints about the lack of sidewalk clearance between the
fencing and the back of curb. He displayed a photograph of the outdoor dining area.
Staff researched the code in six other cities with regulations regarding outdoor dining that addressed the
following:
Sidewalk clearance
Barrier definition
Allowable times for right-of-way use
General & exclusive use of right-of-way
City permit process
Right-of-Way use fee
Other approvals
Staff defined two categories of use:
Packet Page 7 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 5
General – Outdoor table and chairs with no barriers and open to public use. Also includes
temporary objects such as planters, signs, benches, etc.
Exclusive – Use of right-of-way to serve customers at the exclusion of the general public.
For General Use, the following code provisions would apply:
Sidewalk clearance – 5 feet minimum
Barriers – None
Allowable Times
o <24 inches from building, items can remain in right-of-way
o >24 inches from building; items must be removed by 11:00 p.m. or close of business,
whichever is earlier
Street Use Permit Fee $100
Annual Renewal Fee $30
For Exclusive Use, the following code provisions would apply:
Sidewalk clearance – 5 feet
Barriers – Temporary objects (stanchion, rope, fencing or planters)
Allowable Times
o <24 inches from building; items can remain in right-of-way
o >24 inches from building; items must be removed by 11:00 p.m. or close of business,
whichever is earlier. Barrier must be brought inside building
Street Use Permit Fee $100
Annual renewal fee $30
Right-of-Way Use Fee $1.05/square foot + 12.84% Leasehold tax (per month)
Other Approvals – Washington State Liquor Board & County Health
Mr. English explained the $1.05/square foot right-of-way use fee was based on the vendor agreement
approved for the vendor near the ferry holding lanes. He provided photographs of examples of
barriers/stanchions used for outdoor dining.
Mr. English reviewed proposed code changes related to art work in the right-of-way:
Incorporates existing permit submittal requirements into Chapter 18.70
Provides definition of art work
Review by Edmonds Art Commission
Outlines submittal requirements for permit
Review criteria
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council was interested in as much outdoor dining and outdoor
amenities as possible. He asked if staff had pushed the envelope as much as possible to allow that to
occur or could more be done. Mr. English responded the proposed changes would provide guidance for
processing applications. The initiative for businesses to pursue outdoor dining would need to come from
the businesses themselves.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Council wanted to do everything possible to bring this experience
to Edmonds and it was clearly in the public and economic interest to do so. He suggested providing less
guidance and more flexibility. He questioned the proposal to require barriers to be removed by 11:00
p.m. and suggested it be close of business. He suggested the right-of-way use fee may be a disincentive
and unless there was a state law, that be eliminated with a finding the use was in the public interest. He
also suggested the submittal requirements be lessened such as not requiring an elevation design. He
Packet Page 8 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 6
asked how much detail an applicant would be required to provide. Mr. English answered they would
need to provide information regarding the style of the barrier and dimensions to allow staff to evaluate
their proposal. Councilmember Wilson suggested providing a checklist for the applicant to complete. He
concluded although the guidelines were well-intended, he preferred to eliminate some of them to make it
as easy as possible. He was willing to listen to complaints about clutter on the sidewalks because of the
benefits outdoor dining provided the community.
Council President Bernheim asked if the proposed 5-foot sidewalk requirement applied to bistro dining.
Mr. English advised it did. Council President Bernheim recalled the outdoor dining at the restaurant next
to the theater provided approximately 40 inches of clearance. Mr. English answered under this proposal,
that restaurant would need to move their barrier closer to the building to provide 5-feet of clearance.
Council President Bernheim asked the standard sidewalk width downtown. Mr. English answered it was
8-9 feet.
Student Representative Marmion asked why the barrier and table and chairs beyond the 2-foot area would
need to be brought inside the building rather than simply moved inside the 2-foot area. Mr. English
answered only the barrier needed to be brought inside, the table and chairs needed to be moved against
the building in order to minimize clutter and for safety reasons.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a 5-foot distance was determined. Mr. English answered 44 inches
was the City’s current requirement; the 5-foot requirement was based on staff’s research of other cities
and the complaints the City received that there was not enough clear zone. Councilmember Buckshnis
observed the barriers that restaurant utilized were permanent. Mr. English answered under the proposal,
permanent installation would not be allowed; the barrier would need to be temporary and movable.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the restaurant downtown that had outdoor dining last summer and
suggested removing the parking space in front of the restaurant to allow more space for pedestrians. Mr.
English responded he preferred to keep citizens on the sidewalk to prevent pedestrians from negotiating
the 6-inch vertical curb. From a liability standpoint, it was preferable to provide a clear zone on the
sidewalk.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the $1.05/square foot right-of-way use fee and suggested renting a
parking space in front of a business for tables/chairs. Mr. English agreed that could be considered,
relaying concern with delineating the parking space to prevent vehicles from parking there and placing
pedestrians in closer proximity to the travel lane. With regard to whether the City was required to charge
for use of the right-of-way, City Attorney Bio Park explained if the Council found allowing businesses to
use the sidewalk provided a public purpose such as revitalizing the downtown area, it could be argued
there was no gift of public funds.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the Community Services/Development Services Committee whether they
considered these suggestions. Councilmember Peterson answered the Committee discussed the Right-of-
Way Use Fee and preferred that be discussed by the full Council. The Committee wanted the full Council
to discuss the matter to balance the current 44 inch requirement, the distance required by other cities and
the width of the City’s sidewalks, benefits to the community and safety concerns.
Councilmember Peterson noted the vendor near the ferry holding lanes who was charged the $1.05/square
foot right-of-way use fee did not pay property taxes such as a downtown business owner would. He
asked if that could be considered in the gift of public funds. Mr. Park explained a leasehold excise tax
must be charged when there was rental/lease of City property that is non-exempt. Even if the City
decreased the rental/lease rate to zero, the leasehold excise tax would be calculated on the market rate.
Packet Page 9 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 7
Councilmember Peterson asked how the $1.05/square foot right-of-way use fee was determined. City
Clerk Sandy Chase explained it was based on the rate the Port was charging a similar vendor. That
agreement is in its second year and the rate was increased 3% last year.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, commented she was from France where people enjoy eating outside. The
problem in Edmonds is the sidewalk widths; when the wine bar had its outdoor enclosure, people
occasionally had to walk in the street and the sidewalk was very crowded when the people were entering
and exiting the theater. She suggested the City adopt a policy allowing as many eating establishments as
possible to have outdoor dining areas but retain the 5-foot sidewalk clearance. She suggested in
conjunction with the monthly art walk, an area downtown be closed to traffic after 5:00 p.m. to allow
restaurants to have outdoor dining. She referred to a report by former Economic Development Director
Jennifer Gerend that stated Edmonds was not bold enough. Ms. Larman agreed with Ms. Gerend’s
comment and encouraged the City to think outside the box and to be daring.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented staff has addressed the issue of sidewalk clearance many times. He
suggested this proposal was an effort to increase revenue and to retain businesses. He suggested the
overpass over the railroad tracks extend into downtown.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, referred to Section 18.020 Applications, Item 7 Encroachment Permits which
requires ownership or evidence showing the applicant to be the agent/owner of record, and questioned
whether outdoor dining would require an encroachment permit or street use permit. If it is an
encroachment permit, ownership information may not be available as the business may not own the space
and the building owner may not be available or interested in participating in the application for outdoor
dining. With regard to the Review Section, Item B, that states in the definition of art work that paintings
may not be located in the right-of-way, she questioned how a mural or a painting on a building would be
considered. She questioned whether the $1.05/square right-of-way use fee and the leasehold tax applied
to the shop/restaurant space or the outdoor dining area on the sidewalk. It was her understanding the
Liquor Board required permanent fencing for businesses to serve alcohol in an outside area.
Do H. Kim, Edmonds, expressed concern with the requirement to move barriers and tables and chairs
from the right-of-way by 11:00 p.m. particularly on weekends, and preferred it be the close of business.
He explained businesses would need to begin removing the outdoor area 15-30 minutes prior to 11:00 pm.
He suggested Edmonds establish a theme for downtown, commenting many people only knew Edmonds
as a place to take the ferry to Kingston. He suggested developing Edmonds as a destination and
developing a theme would attract visitors.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Kim’s comment that the time outdoor items needed to be
removed should be close of business rather than 11:00 p.m. With regard to art work in the right-of-way,
he pointed out the sign code addresses wall graphics which are not located in the right-of-way. He
assumed the definition of art work in the right-of-way did not include the side of a building. If there was
a conflict, a wall graphic should be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board. He pointed out bicycles
were often parked along the fencing installed downtown around the outside dining area which further
reduced the sidewalk area. He supported the proposal not to allow permanent barriers as well as the other
proposals recommended by staff.
Autumn Hegley, Edmonds, commented outdoor dining was an attraction for many people; she and her
husband travel from Everett to Capitol Hill where there are numerous outdoor dining areas that allow
customers to interact with passersby, enjoy the weather, etc. Outdoor dining areas create a vibrant
atmosphere and cities that provide that space draw visitors from long distances. She suggested rather than
Packet Page 10 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 8
requiring that a 5-foot clearance be maintained, the City consider extending the sidewalk into the parking
spaces outside a cluster of restaurants, possibly with the restaurants participating in the cost. She also
suggested the City consider a parking garage as well as signage directing drivers to parking.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Mr. English explained of the six cities staff researched, 2 had a 6-foot clear zone (Seattle and Kirkland)
and the other 4 had a 5-foot clear zone (Bellingham, Everett, Anacortes and Mt. Vernon). With regard to
the right-of-way use fee, Seattle charges $1.54/square foot; Kirkland has an annual fee of $654 plus
$0.73/square foot charge, Bellingham and Anacortes have a $50 annual fee, Everett charges $0.45/square
foot and Mt. Vernon charges a $100 annual fee.
In response questions, Mr. English explained the right-of-way use fee would be charged on the right-of-
way space that is used, not the building square footage. With regard to the comment that 11:00 p.m. was
too early to require items to be removed from the right-of-way, Mr. English explained many downtown
areas are adjacent to residential condominiums and staff felt 11:00 p.m. would be an appropriate time for
outdoor activity and the associated noise to cease to avoid disrupting the residential uses.
With regard to whether outdoor dining was a street use permit or an encroachment permit, Mr. English
explained it was a street use permit and ownership information would be required. Art work in the right-
of-way requires an encroachment permit.
With regard to the comment that the Washington State Liquor Board required a permanent barrier, Mr.
English explained they did not require the barriers be permanently anchored. In response to Ms.
Larman’s suggestion to close the street, Mayor Haakenson explained that ability already exists; merchants
currently have the ability to submit an application to the City to close a street.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he wanted people to be able to drink on the City’s streets. Mr. English
assured as long as the restaurant had the appropriate liquor license and barrier that would not be
prohibited.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was a fee for the encroachment permit for art work in the right-
of-way. Mr. English advised the encroachment permit fee was $290. Cultural Services Manager Frances
Chapin clarified an encroachment in the public right-of-way would be for a sculpture that was affixed to
the right-of-way, not a mural or application of an artistic element to the wall of a building. She explained
a definition of art work was added after the Community Services/Development Services Committee
meeting due to their interest in including a definition. The intent was to distinguish between art work that
would encroach into the right-of-way, typically a sculpture, and to incorporate the Visual Artists Rights
Act definition of art work.
Councilmember Wilson requested staff respond to Ms. Arista’s question regarding a painting on a
building. Ms. Chapin responded if art work were affixed to the building, it would not encroach into the
right-of-way. Councilmember Wilson suggested visual art work could extend into the right-of-way. Ms.
Chapin responded it likely could be defined as a sculpture. Staff could further refine the definition.
Councilmember Wilson asked how far an item could extend before triggering the sign ordinance. Mr.
English answered once something encroached into the right-of-way, an encroachment permit was
required. Councilmember Wilson suggested that may need further clarification to avoid limits on
creativity and to avoid applying the sign ordinance to art work.
Packet Page 11 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Orvis advised the Community Services/Development Services Committee referred code
language regarding murals to the Planning Board. The goal of that effort is to allow words on a mural as
long as they are not related to a commercial entity. Ms. Chapin clarified that was part of the sign code.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether a flat right-of-way use fee would address the market value of the
use of the right-of-way. Mr. Park answered it would depend on if the fee was for the permit or rental for
the use of the public property. A leasehold excise tax is not charged on a permit fee but would apply to
the rental of the right-of-way whether a per square foot fee or a flat fee.
Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with the staff hours required to calculate a per square foot
fee versus an annual flat fee. Mr. English reiterated of the cities staff researched, three had a per square
foot fee and three had a flat fee. The reason staff proposed a per square foot fee was to account for the
difference in the size of the frontage used by businesses.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented a per square foot fee would be more equitable than a flat
fee. She was supportive of clarifying the requirements and was hopeful outdoor dining spaces would
bring more visitors to the City.
Council President Bernheim supported allowing barriers and tables/chairs to remain in the right-of-way
until close of business, noting it could be changed if this became problematic. He suggested the City
could proactively promote street closures and occasionally close the blocks around the fountain to allow
outdoor music and dining. He was supportive of imposing a reasonable right-of-way use fee as the
merchants would realize benefit from the outdoor seating area. He also supported establishing a
mechanism to allow seating areas in parking spaces, suggesting a temporary platform could be used to
extend the sidewalk into the parking space. He suggested establishing a mechanism whereby merchants
could petition the City to occupy a parking space to maintain the 5-foot clearance.
Council President Bernheim commented his suggestion was consistent with his 10-year plan that he
presented at the January 2008 retreat to add benches and wider sidewalks downtown by removing a lane
or parking or traffic and deed it for pedestrian/dining uses. He noted this could be a nice addition without
a large investment.
Councilmember Wilson suggested sending the proposal back to the Community Services/Development
Services Committee for consideration of the Council’s comments. He also offered to work with another
Councilmember to revise the proposed amendments to incorporate the Council’s comments.
Councilmember Plunkett supported eliminating the 11:00 p.m. removal of items, eliminate the per square
foot right-of-way use fee, lessen the submittal requirements so that a merchant did not have to hire an
architect/designer to illustrate the enclosure, and to clarify the definition of art work. He questioned if the
Community Services/Development Services Committee considered the proposed amendments from the
viewpoint of making downtown a festive place. Community Services/ Development Services Committee
members indicated they would be willing to consider the proposed amendments.
Council President Bernheim suggested approving the proposed amendments to promote art work display
and bistro dining for businesses that could accommodate the requirements and the Council could continue
to refine the amendments.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED TITLE 18 AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW USE OF
THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BISTRO AND OUTDOOR DINING AND PLACEMENT OF
ART IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Packet Page 12 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Peterson expressed support for moving forward to allow businesses to take advantage of
the ability to use the City right-of-way. He was satisfied with either the Community
Services/Development Services Committee reconsidering the amendments or Councilmembers working
with staff on further refinements.
Council President Bernheim suggested passing the ordinance with an amendment to remove the 11:00
p.m. requirement and bringing additional changes such as allowing occupation of parking spaces to the
Committee in the future.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with approving the amendments knowing they needed to be
revised. Council President Bernheim supported approving the proposed amendments so that the
businesses who have adequate space could begin planning now.
Councilmember Wilson offered to work with Councilmember Peterson to refine the amendments.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with allowing Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson to expedite the
changes.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the current regulations. Mr. English answered the current
encroachment permit required a 44-inch clearance. If an application were submitted today under the
current requirements, there was the potential for more complaints.
Councilmember Orvis observed the current code was also vague with regard to exclusivity. Mr. English
advised if alcohol is served, the Liquor Board requires barriers.
Council President Bernheim explained his intent was a solution would be presented to the Council within
three weeks. It was the consensus of the Council to continue the public hearing to April 6.
6. CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 2010 - PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO
EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.05.060: DOGS ON PUBLIC GROUNDS
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jack Faris, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their work and echoed Ms. Larman’s comment for the
Council to think boldly. He expressed support for Agenda Items 11 and 12, particularly the Economic
Development Commission’s recommendation to develop a comprehensive and bold vision for Edmonds
that balances economic development, financial sustainability, esthetics and environment. As a member of
Imagine Edmonds, he relayed they are encouraged about four game-changing elements, 1) opportunity to
marshal more positive energy around a vision for the future of Edmonds which can be via broad-based
support for win-win-win solutions, 2) opportunity to enlist citizens’ remarkable creativity, 3) a broad-
based process could produce ideas that are not yet envisioned, and 4) the potential philanthropy to play a
major role. Imagine Edmonds is working in cooperation with a nonprofit organization, the Pomegranate
Center, on a proposal in conjunction with the Hazel Miller Foundation for funding to enable a community
process.
Craig Stewart, Edmonds, applauded the Council for their work and the citizens who attend Council
meetings and participate in Commissions and task forces. As a participant in Imagine Edmonds, he spoke
Packet Page 13 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 11
to the role of public/private partnerships and particularly philanthropy. His day job is running a private
family foundation in Bellevue. They have supported major public/private partnerships and are currently
engaged in a significant public/private partnership involving the State and federal government, Tukwila,
Seattle, Highline School District, Museum of Flight and Aviation High School to build a new high school.
There are unique opportunities in Edmonds and he encouraged all entities in Edmonds to coordinate and
collaborate their efforts.
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, a member of the Chamber of Commerce Board and the PFD Board, expressed
support for Agenda Item 12, commenting he was impressed with the work of the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) who are representative of the majority of citizens. The EDC has a wide spectrum of
viewpoints and two Councilmembers participate as liaisons. The Council charged the EDC with
identifying new revenue streams; they worked on foundation building and provided solid ideas and no
quick fixes. In all six recommendations the EDC made, Edmonds is the winner. He expressed support
for all six recommendations and strongly endorsed the commitment of $100,000 without which little
would be accomplished. He also endorsed the recommendation for a full-time Economic Development
Director.
Don Hall, Edmonds, explained the Lewis Braille School provides a holistic education for children with
special needs arising from vision impairment or other multiple challenges. He invited the public to
donate and/or bid on items at the Lewis Braille School auction on March 20 at the Senior Center 12:00 –
3:00 p.m. The School’s urgent needs include a desktop computer and exercise equipment for special
needs children. The School can be contacted at 10130 Edmonds Way or at 425-776-4042. They are also
collecting Campbell Soup and education labels which can be dropped off at the School or at Garden Gear
downtown.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item #12, commenting he has attended all the EDC’s
meetings and found them to be a very hardworking group. In addition to their monthly meetings, they
have held numerous subcommittee meetings. He urged the Council to adopt the resolution supporting the
EDC’s recommendations. Next, he referred to the Council’s discussion regarding campaign finance
reform, noting the $500 limit the Council approved was lower than the $800 limit proposed by the
Legislature. He disagreed with a comment that the average contribution in the 2009 campaign was $80,
explaining it was actually $171; a total of 750 contributions were made, dividing the total campaign
contributions by 750 equates to an average of $171. A $500 limit would eliminate 13 contributions that
exceeded $500. A $250 limit would eliminate 31 contributions and reduce the average contribution from
$171 to $142. He noted the Council may wish to change the campaign contribution limit in the future.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed Mayor Haakenson spoke to the Kiwanis Club today. With regard to the
amendments to allow use of the right-of-way for outdoor dining, he recalled former Mayor Fahey’s
efforts to organize a December 31 event but the merchants were not interested. He also recalled Old Mill
Town’s request to close the street for a street dance was not approved and suggested staff research why
that request was denied. Next he announced a Food Drive at a Top Foods on March 31 and April 2-3.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, on behalf of the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, thanked the Council for
their support to raise money for the Old Mill Town garden. The Garden Club raffled a quilt and the
winner was announced yesterday. She announced spaces are available in the Edmonds Community
Garden and Olympic View Water District has agreed to provide the water. She invited a community
member with a truck to help her gather cardboard.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to WSDOT’s presentation regarding the possible construction of a
sky bridge over the railroad tracks. He noted an overhead structure on the shoreline was referred to in the
Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the location of the sky bridge be reconsidered, explaining if a
Packet Page 14 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 12
structure were built in the City-owned right-of-way on James Street, it would land in the park at the old
Anderson Marina. Such a sky bridge would allow southbound train passengers to cross the tracks,
provide easy access to the Senior Center, and could be used by ferry passengers. He envisioned a
continuation of that structure along the James Street right-of-way, over the ferry holding lanes and
landing on 2nd Avenue which would provide a connection from the waterfront to downtown, provide a
viewpoint, and qualify for the WSDOT’s future rails project. He suggested that possibility be discussed
with WSDOT.
David Arista, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the resolution supporting the EDC’s recommendations
(Agenda Item 12). He strongly urged the Council to consider making Mr. Clifton the full-time Economic
Development Director, noting the City is realizing the impact of the four years that position has been
vacant. He urged the Council to make economic development a top priority and to schedule an economic
development topic on every agenda. He was excited by Mr. Faris’ and Mr. Stewart’s interest in being
involved and encouraged them and others to bring their ideas to the Council.
Autumn Hegley, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Arista’s request for the Council to adopt the resolution
supporting the EDC’s recommendations, noting they are basic, practical suggestions that will provide
direction for real action toward generating more activity in downtown Edmonds and making Edmonds a
viable community. She commented there is a certain amount of stagnation now and their suggestions
would provide a turnaround.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, commented each day everyone has the choice between sitting in one place and
taking steps on a journey. Reaching for change is something optimistic, fundamentally inspiring. She
expressed support for the roadmap the EDC has created via their recommendations and the proposal for a
neighborhood visioning process. She pointed out although the members of the EDC and Planning Board
have very diverse backgrounds, they unanimously agreed on these recommendations. She envisioned the
recommendations could be a guideline for action, improvement, continuing growth and boosting the
quality of life in Edmonds.
8. PRESENTATION ON PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (PRD).
Councilmember Orvis explained Planning Manager Rob Chave informed the Community
Services/Development Services Committee of plans to initiate a rewrite of the subdivision code to include
elements of the PRD Code. The City currently has a PRD code and a subdivision code; the intent was to
combine them which would also involve the Council in appeals. However, because the rewrite may take
some time, he questioned whether the Council was interested in an interim ordinance to return the
Council to the appeal process on PRDs as well as address the perimeter setback issue raised by Lora
Petso. A third option is to accelerate the subdivision rewrite. He inquired about the timeline for the
rewrite. Mr. Chave answered staff briefed the Council in late 2009 on issues to be addressed via the
rewrite. Staff plans to present the rewrite to the Planning Board in April; it is unknown how long the
Planning Board will spend reviewing it.
Council President Bernheim commented the primary objective of the agenda item was to clarify the intent
to have a perimeter buffer in a PRD that is in addition to the setback requirement of homes adjacent to the
perimeter buffer. He asked whether the code currently required a perimeter buffer in addition to the
individual unit setback. Mr. Chave answered lot lines and their relationship to the perimeter buffer was
an ownership issue. The perimeter buffer could be established as a common tract that the entire
subdivision owns via a homeowner’s association. Another method is the individual homeowners own
their section of the perimeter buffer. It was not important which way the perimeter buffer was
established, only that it was clear that there was a perimeter buffer, whether commonly owned or
individually owned. It currently could be done either way; if the code were amended to require a
Packet Page 15 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 13
commonly owned perimeter buffer with no lot lines, the result would be the lot lines would be removed
from the buffer area but the useable space would not change.
Councilmember Wilson commented the original intent of the PRD when created by the State was a tool to
allow for maximum flexibility for parcels with difficult topography or other environmental features. The
intent was to allocate the environmentally sensitive areas to the lot total and allow the same number of
units but smaller lots and a large conservation area. He wanted to ensure the subdivision regulations
continued to provide maximum flexibility for developments with environmental sensitive areas and/or
topography challenges. He suggested the City’s current PRD ordinance did not adequately reflect the
original intent of the PRD legislation. Mr. Chave explained the intent was to provide flexibility for
developments with environmentally sensitive areas as well as provide a mechanism for alternative forms
of home ownership/development such as cottage housing, zero lot line, etc. The City does not allow
attached housing in a PRD but does permit alternate forms of home ownership. For example the standard
way of developing a lot requires setbacks on all sides which dramatically reduces the usable area for a
small lot; a zero lot line makes the space around the house more usable by concentrating it and having the
house on one property line. That type of development cannot be done in a standard subdivision; a PRD is
the only option.
Mr. Chave explained the PRD ordinance was an alternative form of subdivision but was contained in a
separate chapter, making it somewhat confusing. The intent is to combine the PRD regulations with the
subdivision regulations, holding density constant but giving more flexibility at the subdivision design
phase.
Councilmember Wilson suggested staff provide a table identifying tools in the current PRD ordinance
versus the subdivision ordinance and the State’s intent of the original PRD. He wanted to ensure the
benefits of the original PRD legislation were not lost. Mr. Chave suggested staff provide periodic updates
to the Community Services/Development Services Committee as the Planning Board’s review progresses.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CRAFT AN INTERIM ORDINANCE THAT WOULD
RESTORE COUNCIL APPEAL TO PRDs AND ELIMINATE OVERLAPS BETWEEN
PERIMETER SETBACKS AND REAR SETBACKS AND BRING IT BACK FOR PUBLIC
HEARING AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF BUDGET CUTS.
Council President Bernheim explained this was scheduled on the agenda as an opportunity to gather
public input regarding potential budget cuts. There will be another opportunity to comment at the March
23 Council meeting.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the City’s budget crisis was similar to that experienced by other
cities, counties and states; the need for more revenue, budget cuts and tax increases. He provided the
following suggestions: wage increases this year should be very conservative as the City cannot afford to
provide raises; employee furloughs should continue or employees offered a choice of layoffs or furloughs;
utilize retirements and not filling vacancies as a way to reduce staff; make budget cuts before increasing
taxes; and delay a levy another year as residents are unlikely to support a tax increase at this time.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of a proforma analysis of the budget which matches fees to the
service provided. A proforma analysis was very helpful to the Health Board, allowing the Board to
identify programs that pay for themselves and programs that rely on discretionary revenue.
Packet Page 16 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson requested a formal presentation on the status of the committee work regarding the
City’s insurance benefit issue. He explained the current employee benefit plan is being eliminated next
year and the City will need to identify an alternate plan. He also suggested staff conduct an actuary
analysis of the City’s pension and retirement liabilities to its employees. One of the biggest threats to
corporations including municipal corporations is the inability to keep up with retirement costs. This
information is particularly important since the City’s staff has an older average age and what appears to
be an above average retirement compensation package. He suggested staff research the cost of hiring a
consultant to conduct an actuary analysis. He anticipated the pension and retirement liability was a much
larger amount than the City was currently budgeting for.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she recently retired from the State of Washington with 32
years of service. She expressed interest in amending the budget to reduce expenditures in the area of
supplies, travel, training, meals, professional dues other than those required by law, etc., a process the
State uses to reduce their budget. Reductions in those areas would not affect the community, employees
or citizens. She was not comfortable asking the taxpayers for a levy until the City’s own house was in
order. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council could amend the budget anytime they wished. He urged
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to meet with him to identify cuts she felt could be made in those areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and she meet with Mayor
Haakenson. As an example, she described cuts her family made while her husband was unemployed. She
commended staff for taking furloughs last year. She encouraged citizens interested in learning more
about the City’s finances to attend the Finance Committee meetings on the second Tuesday of each month
at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Wilson recalled when he was involved with developing the 2009/2010 budget, the total
for supplies, travel, professional dues for the eight quarters in the two year budget was approximately
$25,000. Only three quarters remain in the two year budget, which significantly reduces the cuts that
could be made to those items.
Councilmember Wilson expressed frustration with two instances in the budget process. Mayor
Haakenson’s interim budget cuts in April 2009 included freezing a $300,000 transfer from the General
Fund to an Automobile Replacement Fund. However, in reviewing the budget, he was unable to find
reference to that transfer. He would not have supported closing Yost Pool for the 2009 season had he
been aware not making that transfer was an alternative. Another source of frustration was the existence of
three reserve funds that do not appear in the budget book, two of which he acknowledged were very
small. He summarized those details would make the City’s finances more transparent as well as would be
helpful to the Council in making budget decisions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented whether potential budget cuts were $25,000 or $2500, she
had a responsibility to the Edmonds taxpayers to ensure the Council acted in a fiscally responsible
manner. She summarized $25,000 may not seem like a lot compared to the City’s entire budget but it
would fund 25% of the Economic Development Director position.
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated fiscal policies would be completed in the next 2-3 weeks. One of
the policies is a monthly General Fund analysis.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 17 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 15
10. PROPERTY TAX INCREASE PUT TO VOTERS.
Council President Bernheim explained on July 28, 2009 the Council voted 4-2 to postpone the property
tax levy to 2010. According to that action, the Council now has nine months to put a levy on the ballot.
In order to put a levy on the General Election ballot in November, the deadline to submit the resolution to
the Snohomish County Auditor is August 10. To place a levy on the August 17 primary election ballot,
the deadline to submit the resolution is May 25. He recommended the Council review the last levy
resolution, talk with their colleagues and constituents and decide what to do. Council President Bernheim
recalled he voted against postponing the levy.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he would not be prepared to propose Edmonds residents tax
themselves until the Council conducted further review such as Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested
and until the Council had a better understanding of labor costs. Labor costs over the next five years are
projected to be approximately $5 million, approximately a 4.2% increase each year. The Council will
also be renegotiating its labor contracts this year.
Councilmember Wilson explained his day job involves polling for different groups, in many cases in
regard to placing a matter on the ballot in various jurisdictions. This year they are finding the
constituency that is likely to vote in November is more less likely to support a levy than the constituency
that will vote in August; usually it is the reverse. Every year is an election year; this year it is the
congressional election which means approximately $300 million will be spent by republicans to say
democrats are terrible, the economy is terrible and that change is needed. That will also likely depress
voter support for a tax increase. For those reasons, if the Council wanted to place a levy on the ballot in
2010 that had the maximum opportunity to pass, he recommended it be done in August. To accomplish
that, the Council needs to act by May 25. Next year is also an election year for the City of Edmonds and
other cities; Edmonds will have four Council positions and a mayoral position up for election.
In 2009 the Council voted nine times unanimously to go to the ballot and when it got close to the election,
the Council changed its position. It will not be easier in 2011 for the Council to retain its consensus with
four Councilmembers up for election and a likely open mayoral seat. Therefore, Councilmember Wilson
doubted a levy would be placed on the ballot in 2011 and if the Council wanted to place the levy on the
ballot in 2010, it should be on the August ballot rather than November. He acknowledged perfect
information would not be available to make that decision; however, if the Council was ever going to
address the issue of underfunding and providing more services to the community than the City could pay
for, it needed to be done soon. He requested Council President Bernheim develop an ambitious process to
allow the Council to reach consensus by May 25, a process that addressed as many of the Council’s
concerns as possible. He recognized the Council did not want to get to a vote with a fractured Council
and/or Mayor.
Councilmember Orvis supported placing a levy on the August ballot and supported having a resolution
completed by May 25. He recalled he had supported placing a levy on last year’s ballot. He suggested
the Council start asking the voters and if the levy were not approved, the Council find out the problem
and ask again. Based on the January 25, 2010 numbers, he asked what levy amount would be needed to
balance the budget for five years. Mayor Haakenson suggested first forming a levy committee and
getting citizens involved. Councilmember Orvis suggested leveraging last year’s process.
Council President Bernheim commented after spending 9-10 months working on a levy last year, he did
not feel the Council needed to convene the levy committee; it was the Council’s responsibility to
determine the amount. He suggested existing materials could be used to determine that amount.
Packet Page 18 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 16
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for a levy. She was doubtful the public would approve a
levy without transparent financials. Financial policies are being developed that will include placing
financials on the City’s website. There are still a number of questions to be answered such as the 4.2-
4.8% per year increase in salaries. She spoke in favor of providing the public information to illustrate the
need for a levy. She preferred the Council take its time, not try to rescue but rather reform.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the Council had been doing that for the past year, recognizing
Councilmember Buckshnis’ position on the Council was a reflection of her active participation in the
Citizen Review Committee as well as a candidate. He acknowledged the levy would not be an easy sell
but if the Council felt it was the right thing to do, the Council would need to campaign for the levy. The
City is a highly under-capitalized corporation and does not have the money to make the investment to do
things smarter, better faster, leaner. He recalled last year Mayor Haakenson proposed funding for
technology upgrades that would not require as much staff; his attempt toward doing things smarter, better,
faster, leaner via technology. He summarized there was no more important task for the Finance staff to be
working on than this. To Councilmember Orvis’ question regarding the levy amount, he suggested after
removing the fire related purchases in the levy, the levy amount was approximately $2.5 – $2.7 million.
The levy may need to be lower than that, $2 - $2.5 million.
Mayor Haakenson explained the City is audited annually, the auditors are here now and finance staff will
be busy with them for the next 3-4 months. Staff is in a budget preparation cycle that typically begins in
July and culminates in early October when he presents the 2-year budget. Therefore, a full set of accurate
numbers will not be available until the 2-year budget is prepared. In addition, the Council will be
negotiating labor contracts throughout this year and typically they are not resolved until fall. The labor
unions have asked to begin negotiations earlier this year but that is because they want more to recoup
what they gave up last year. He concluded the Council would not have labor negotiation numbers until
late this year.
11. PROPOSAL FOR CITY COUNCIL TO CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ON ISSUES
OF NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CITY-WIDE "VISION."
Council President Bernheim referred to the resolution that states in order to solicit vision input from
residents, and to elicit neighborhood business center recommendations from residents, the Council
resolves to hold seven meetings over the next seven months, each chaired by a different Councilmember
and each in a different neighborhood or a different sector. He suggested the seven areas Councilmembers
would focus on would be Stevens Hospital, Highway 99, the Downtown Waterfront Activity Area, Five
Corners, Perrinville, Westgate and Firdale Village. He suggested holding meetings in these areas where
residents could discuss citywide vision as well as the local improvement area. The meetings could be
facilitated by third parties or directed by the Councilmember. He referred to the Citizen Levy Review
Committee process lead by Councilmember Wilson as an example of an impressive management exercise
that illustrated it was possible to have successful, valuable neighborhood meetings without hiring a
consultant.
Each Councilmember would be responsible for directing his/her own meeting and preparing the results of
the meeting and no later than November 30 the Council would meet to articulate the results of the
meetings, plans for initiation of Neighborhood Business Centers and a community vision that addresses
the balance between quality of life and growth objectives while furthering Edmonds’ green initiatives.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION, ENABLING CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ON ISSUES OF NEIGHBORHOOD
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CITYWIDE VISION.
Packet Page 19 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 17
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Councilmembers could hold more than one meeting. Council
President Bernheim answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas and she should prepare a summary of the discussion at each of their meetings. Council President
Bernheim responded it would be helpful to summarize the content and results of the meetings.
Councilmember Peterson applauded the spirit of the resolution, recognizing it addressed some of the
EDC’s recommendations; however, it seems too much at one time, both Neighborhood Business
Development and community vision. It was clear in the EDC’s recommendation that those were two very
separate issues. Although he applauded Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas’ neighborhood
meetings, he did not have the expertise to create a business model for a neighborhood. Initiating a true
business center plan requires a professional without any political agenda, an effort that has been
successful in Shoreline and in other areas. He preferred not to pass the resolution and seek direction from
the EDC regarding how to structure neighborhood meetings.
Councilmember Plunkett did not support the resolution, finding it redundant of the work being done by
the EDC. He preferred to have the EDC conduct neighborhood meetings as part of their work.
Councilmember Wilson echoed Councilmember Peterson’s comment about the spirit of the resolution.
He preferred to have the EDC oversee this effort and was concerned the Council was not obtaining this
level of vision from the EDC.
Council President Bernheim explained the purpose of this exercise was not to develop a plan but to solicit
input from residents. At the EDC meetings he has attended, the EDC members indicated they are
sufficiently representative of the community and outreach to the community or direct input from residents
was unnecessary. The shortcoming of past plans was that they did not solicit input from residents. He
anticipated it would be helpful to gather residents’ input regarding their vision for the City and what they
wanted for their local neighborhood and efficient to ask both questions at the same meeting. If the
Council did not approve the resolution, he planned to hold a meeting anyway and he hoped other
Councilmembers would do the same. He recalled the economic development representatives from
Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and Bothell emphasized the importance of seeking the residents input first
and building on those ideas. Mayor Haakenson advised the citizens who live near Firdale Village and
Five Corners have already provided input at meetings that staff held in those neighborhoods in the past.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the EDC implement a citywide visioning process and gather
input on Neighborhood Business Centers. The EDC could request Councilmembers attend those
meetings.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to involve the EDC. He pointed
out two very influential people spoke to the Council during Audience Comments, Mr. Faris and Mr.
Stewart. Mr. Faris commented on the possibility of a philanthropic public/private partnership. Mr.
Stewart, who lives in Edmonds, runs the McCaw Foundation and is interested in establishing a vision for
the Harbor Square, Antique Mall, Skippers and DOT properties. Councilmember Wilson pointed out
action was likely to take place on three of those properties in the next 3-4 months; the Skipper’s property
is likely to change ownership, the DOT property will likely change ownership and efforts are underway to
redevelop the Harbor Square property. If the Council waits too long, it will be too late. He suggested
scheduling a meeting in late April/early May where each Councilmember would make a 10 minute
presentation regarding his/her vision for the community with regard to economic development and invite
citizen feedback. He noted previous Councils have attempted neighborhood meetings; turnout has been
mediocre and the meetings cannot be taped for television viewers.
Packet Page 20 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 18
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
12. RESOLUTION REGARDING CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED ITEMS.
Councilmember Peterson explained with the guidance of the 6 recommendations developed by the 17-
member EDC, Council President Bernheim and he developed this resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1224 IN SUPPORT OF THE JANUARY 2010
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO AMEND ITEM ONE TO ADD “BY ANALYZING CURRENT STAFFING POSITIONS.”
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in analyzing staffing before committing funds to the
position. Mayor Haakenson explained the Economic Development Director is a funded position in the
budget. Mr. Clifton and he have developed a plan to free him from his other responsibilities and allow
him to concentrate completely on economic development.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT WITH THE
AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ELIMINATE “AND FUND” IN ITEMS 5 AND 6.
Councilmember Buckshnis spoke in support of initiating a business/marketing plan for tourism
development and offered to participate in that effort. She also was in favor of initiating a business
marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optics network but did not want to fund it yet.
Councilmember Peterson explained a funding mechanism was included to avoid unfunded mandates;
marketing plans cost money. He recognized Finance Director Lorenzo Hines is working on a
business/marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optics network with CTAC’s guidance.
Councilmember Plunkett commented Mr. Hines was working on a business/marketing plan for the fiber
optics and the cost of developing a business/marketing plan for tourism development was unknown. He
expressed support for initiating the plans.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY REMOVING THE LAST PARAGRAPH (NOW THEREFORE
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SHALL FUND THESE
GOALS FOR THE FIRST YEAR USING $100,000 FROM FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY
FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SALE TO FIRE DISTRICT ONE AND COMMITS TO FIND
ONGOING FUNDING FOR THE FOLLOWING YEARS).
Councilmember Peterson clarified this funding request was not made by the EDC, it was added by
Council President Bernheim and him to provide funding to carry out the EDC’s recommendations. He
suggested scheduling each of the EDC’s recommendations as an agenda item, pointing out some of them
will require funding. He envisioned as the EDC delves deeper into each of their recommendations they
Packet Page 21 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 19
would identify alternative funding sources such as partnerships with the University of Washington,
Imagine Edmonds, etc.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
At Mayor Haakenson’s request, Councilmember Peterson read the seven recommendations in the
resolution:
1. Ensure that the City’s Economic Development Director position can devote full time to economic
development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and activities.
2. Develop a strategic plan and commit to reviewing/updating this plan every year, this includes
setting goals and continually assessing progress metrics.
3. Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood Center),
Perrinville, and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to position these areas to
attract development.
4. Support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that recognizes the need
to generate revenue while emphasizing environmental/community needs and concerns.
5. Initiate a business/marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optic network.
6. Initiate a business/marketing plan for tourism development.
7. Develop a community vision that addresses quality of life and growth objectives while furthering
Edmonds’ “green” initiatives.
Councilmember Wilson questioned how these items would get accomplished, noting in many cases it was
most appropriately done by staff. Mayor Haakenson advised he would handle Item 1. With regard to
developing a strategic plan, Councilmember Wilson relayed he was not aware of any city with a strong
Mayor-Council form of government that had a strategic plan. In all cases he was aware of where there
was a strategic plan, there was a Council-City Manager form of government. He would support the
resolution as it expressed the Council’s support for the EDC’s recommendations but he questioned how
the items would be accomplished.
Council President Bernheim looked to the EDC to accomplish these items. With the adoption of the
resolution, the EDC can be confident these are the topics they should pursue. The Council is giving the
EDC guidance and looking to the EDC for answers. He assured the Council was ready to act on good
ideas in these topic areas.
Councilmember Peterson commented this was the first step to show the Council’s support for the EDC.
He anticipated the EDC would quickly expand on these ideas and make more recommendations. He
explained Council President Bernheim and he added the business/marketing plan for tourism development
to the EDC’s six recommendations. He suggested the Council could eliminate the recommendation
regarding a strategic plan if they wished.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
TO CHANGE THE RESOLVE PARAGRAPH TO READ, “NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO FURTHER DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:”
Councilmember Peterson expressed concern this puts the burden on the EDC. The EDC was seeking
assurance that the City Council would discuss and act on ideas they propose. He accepted the language to
direct the EDC to further develop recommendations but he did not support removing the clause, “the
Edmonds City Council shall act.”
Packet Page 22 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 20
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that the EDC wanted the City Council to commit to doing
what they recommend. The EDC was not created to tell the Council to do things they already knew
needed to be done; they were asked to focus on revenue and to develop actionable items. He was
frustrated the majority of the EDC’s recommendations were not actionable. He was opposed to offering a
blank check for these items without further information.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested changing “act” to “support” so that the paragraph reads,
“Now therefore be it resolved the Edmonds City Council shall support act on the work of the Economic
Development Commission and its recommendations including, but not limited to:” She agreed the
Council did not have the ability to implement the seven points and agreed the burden should not be
shifted to the EDC to accomplish the recommendations. She suggested passing the resolution voicing the
Council’s support for the seven recommendations and the EDC and City Council have a dialogue
regarding how they would be accomplished.
Councilmember Wilson suggested if his amendment passed, another resolve be added to the resolution
expressing the Council’s appreciation for the work of the EDC.
Councilmember Peterson clarified “act’ did not mean approve, it simply meant the Council would take
action on it, whether it was to approve or deny it. The Council will be required to take action on most of
the EDC’s recommendations.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE RESOLVE “AND SHALL ACT ON THE WORK
OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.”
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wilson suggested passing his amendment first and to consider Councilmember
Peterson’s amendment separately.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
THE VOTE ON COUNCILMEMBER WILSON’S AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
ADD ANOTHER RESOLVE THAT READS, “NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
THAT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SHALL ACT ON THE WORK OF THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:”
Councilmember Wilson explained he was willing to take up every issue the EDC presented but was
concerned “shall act” implied the Council would affirmatively act on the EDC’s recommendations.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADD AFTER POINT 7, “NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
THAT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL COMMITS TO TAKE UP EACH AND EVERY
RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
WITHIN A 30 DAY PERIOD FOLLOWING ITS FINAL REPORT OF DECEMBER 31, 2010.
Packet Page 23 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 21
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with waiting to act on the EDC’s recommendations until
their final report. She was also concerned with the word act and suggested inserting “consider and act.”
Councilmember Plunkett was confident the Council President would schedule Council consideration of
the EDC’s recommendations in a timely manner. Councilmember Wilson offered to eliminate the
reference to a 30 day period and the December 31, 2010 date.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETERSON VOTING
NO.
Councilmember Plunkett did not support the amendment, envisioning act would be interpreted as enact.
Council President Bernheim expressed his support for acting on every recommendation the EDC presents,
clarifying act on did not mean enact but to consider and put it to a vote.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON’S AMENDMENT
CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND BUCKSHNIS
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, WILSON AND ORVIS VOTING NO.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 9, 2010
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee had further discussion with Climate Solutions; the
representative will develop a proposal for consideration by the full Council. The Committee then
discussed the proposed amendments to Title 18 and recommended increasing the fine for illegal
connections and asked staff to investigate the fine for illegal tree cutting in critical areas. Review of
transportation capital project funding options followed including options for increasing the Transportation
Benefit District (TBD) license fee to complete some or all projects. Next, the Committee discussed
proposed amendments to traffic impact fees. A partnership with Westgate Elementary to develop
upgraded neighborhood park elements at the school site was discussed by the Committee and approved
for the Consent Agenda. Draft sign code amendments were also discussed.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Committee discussed renaming the Cemetery Fund 130 to the
Cemetery Improvement and Maintenance Fund. The Committee discussed a proposal to segregate the
Fire District 1 funds; this will be presented to the full Council. Staff presented revenue and expenditure
trends of the General Fund year-to-date; progress to date is the same as last year. The Committee also
reviewed a draft of the fiscal policies.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed a proposed Styrofoam ban including a
grandfather clause to allow businesses to exhaust their current supplies. This will be presented to the full
Council for discussion. The Committee discussed a contract to touch DNA testing which was approved
on the Consent Agenda. Next they discussed amendment to EMC 5.05, which was approved on the
Consent Agenda, that allows for an appeal process should a dog be declared potentially dangerous.
Packet Page 24 of 167
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 22
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Bernheim relayed this was the first meeting to extend past 10:00 p.m. this year; a
number of important issues had been discussed. During Executive Session, the Council appointed a
committee, Councilmembers Buckshnis and Wilson and himself, to further discuss the possible purchase
of real estate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick’s Day tomorrow.
Councilmember Buckshnis announced the second Town Hall meeting on Friday, March 26 from 6:00 –
8:00 p.m. at the Lund Building at 18401 76th Avenue West. This Town Hall meeting is an opportunity for
citizens to tell Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and her how they envision Edmonds.
Councilmember Wilson reported he attended the workshop hosted by WSDOT related to the overpass
they are proposing to have built in exchange for the parking lot property. A vendor in the audience
commented due to the political dynamics, a project was not feasible because the value of the land was not
sufficient under the current zoning. The person asked whether there was any political will on the part of
the Edmonds City Council to make the project happen. Mr. Clifton accurately represented the Council’s
position which was not well received by the vendors in the audience. Councilmember Wilson commented
the vendors clearly did not feel the Council was interested in being creative or innovative. He suggested
the Council may want to develop and communicate their vision to the vendor community via WSDOT or
Mr. Clifton.
Student Representative Marmion advised the first Council meeting in January lasted until midnight. He
thanked Ms. Arista for staying until the meeting was over. On behalf of Edmonds-Woodway High
School he thanked the members of the community who donated to their Battle of the Sexes Food Drive.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:41 p.m.
Packet Page 25 of 167
AM-2921 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposit and Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #117726 through #117850 dated March 18, 2010 for $371,958.19.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #46164 through #49191 for the pay period of March
1 - March 15, 2010 for $631,935.83.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:$1,003,894.02
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $371,958.19
Payroll: $631,935.83
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 3-17-10
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Finance Lorenzo Hines 03/18/2010 02:46 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 03:02 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/19/2010 07:24 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/19/2010 07:26 AM APRV
Packet Page 26 of 167
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 03/18/2010 10:42
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/19/2010
Packet Page 27 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117726 3/18/2010 070941 AAF INTERNATIONAL 357366 Fac Maint - Filters
Fac Maint - Filters
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 396.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.63
Total :433.75
117727 3/18/2010 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 310304 VOLLEYBALL T-SHIRTS
WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 83.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 7.89
Total :90.93
117728 3/18/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101348975 M5Z34
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.38
M5Z34101357852
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 53.15
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 5.05
Total :85.58
117729 3/18/2010 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8826 Monthly Wholesale Water Charges for Feb
Monthly Wholesale Water Charges for Feb
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 85,211.23
Total :85,211.23
117730 3/18/2010 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001193954 FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 121.33
Public Works Facility0197-001194041
1Page:
Packet Page 28 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117730 3/18/2010 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
Public Works Facility
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 24.52
Public Works Facility
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 93.19
Public Works Facility
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 93.19
Public Works Facility
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 93.19
Public Works Facility
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 93.19
Public Works Facility
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 93.20
garbage for F/S #160197-001194111
garbage for F/S #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 126.26
garbage for MCC0197-001194769
garbage for MCC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 57.40
Total :795.47
117731 3/18/2010 001528 AM TEST INC 58222 SAMPLE NUMBERS/CHLORIDE/ICP SCAN
SAMPLE NUMBERS/CHLORIDE/ICP SCAN
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 348.00
Total :348.00
117732 3/18/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 10968 PLAQUE
GRENNAN BENCH PLAQUE
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 159.40
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6.50
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 15.76
Total :181.66
117733 3/18/2010 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC QJ29 NPDES TESTING
2Page:
Packet Page 29 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117733 3/18/2010 (Continued)064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
NPDES TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 130.00
Total :130.00
117734 3/18/2010 060228 ANS OF WASHINGTON INC JOHNSON 2010 NOTARY ANNE JOHNSON 2010 NOTARY APPLICATION
SELF INKING STAMP
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 37.00
NOTARY SURETY BOND
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.95
STATE LICENSE FEE
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 30.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 3.52
Total :131.47
117735 3/18/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4800310 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 30.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.89
Total :33.26
117736 3/18/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4764007 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 61.19
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.81
21580001655-4787946
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 61.74
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet Page 30 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117736 3/18/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.87
Total :134.61
117737 3/18/2010 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 109749 MOTOR
MOTOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,322.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 312.97
Total :1,634.97
117738 3/18/2010 071120 ASHLAND INC 93202276 441142
POLYMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 2,125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 201.88
Total :2,326.88
117739 3/18/2010 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.89
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.17
Total :37.74
117740 3/18/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 54293 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 114.60
4Page:
Packet Page 31 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117740 3/18/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 114.60
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 118.08
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 368.35
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 368.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.89
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.89
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 11.21
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS54324
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.31
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.31
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 93.04
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 290.22
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 290.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.58
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.58
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.84
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS54378
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 123.78
5Page:
Packet Page 32 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117740 3/18/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 123.78
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 127.53
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 398.51
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 398.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 11.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 11.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 12.11
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS54457
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 89.16
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 89.16
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 91.86
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 287.24
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 287.24
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.73
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS54498
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 23.15
6Page:
Packet Page 33 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117740 3/18/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 23.15
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 23.85
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 97.68
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 97.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.26
Total :4,347.30
117741 3/18/2010 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2008-920 INV# 2008-920 EDMONDS PD
PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING 3-12-10
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
117742 3/18/2010 073146 BEACON ATHLETICS 0400961-IN BASE SET
PRO BASE SET
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 119.00
Freight
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 18.00
Total :137.00
117743 3/18/2010 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 7868 Summer seasonal pool ads (#10-04 -
Summer seasonal pool ads (#10-04 -
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 22.96
Parks Dept. BPW & Laborer ads (#10-11 &
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 23.46
Total :46.42
7Page:
Packet Page 34 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117744 3/18/2010 002258 BENS EVER READY 2149 Edmonds Sr Center - Replaced Hydro Fire
Edmonds Sr Center - Replaced Hydro Fire
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 5.23
Total :60.23
117745 3/18/2010 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0003042 E8GA.SERVICES FROM 1/22-2/19/10
E8GA.Professional Services from
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 4,921.65
E8GB.SERVICES 1/22-2/19/100003045
E8GB.Professional Services 1/22-2/19/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 8,727.74
Total :13,649.39
117746 3/18/2010 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 248 FEB-10 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE
Feb-10 Web Site Maintenance less
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 352.95
WEB SITE MAINTENANCE264
Web Site Maintenance & fees thru 3/15/10
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 393.53
Total :746.48
117747 3/18/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 792496 INV#792496 EDMONDS PD - ROBINSON
NAMETAGS- J.P.ROBINSON (REDONE)
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.71
INV#794074 - EDMONDS PD - SAMPLES794074
S/S WOMEN'S POLO SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 43.90
3/4 SLEEVE WOMEN'S GOLF SHIRT 2XL
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 22.00
3/4 SLEEVE WOMEN'S GOLF SHIRT
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 40.00
DOWNTOWN JACKET BLACK
8Page:
Packet Page 35 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117747 3/18/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 95.90
DOWNTOWN JACKET BLACK 2XLG
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 51.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 26.19
S/S KNIT WOMEN'S POLO SHIRT 2XL
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 21.95
INV#794074-80 RETURN SAMPLES-EDMONDS PD794074-80
S/S WOMEN'S POLO SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -43.90
S/S WOMEN'S KNIT SHIRT 2XL21.95
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -21.95
3/4 SLEEVE WOMEN'S GOLF SHIRT 2XL
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -22.00
3/4 SLEEVE WOMEN'S GOLF SHIRTG
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -40.00
DOWNTOWN JACKETS, BLACK
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -95.90
DOWNTOWN JACKET, BLACK 2XL
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -51.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -26.19
INV#797982 - EDMONDS PD - MARSH797982
SGT CHEVRONS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.71
INV#798380 - EDMONDS PD - MARSH798380
L/S 511 TACTICAL SHIRT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.99
CAP EMBLEM "POLICE"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.95
BACK EMBLEM "POLICE"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.50
9Page:
Packet Page 36 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117747 3/18/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
SGT CHEVRONS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.93
Total :84.79
117748 3/18/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN11855 YOGA
YOGA #11855
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 50.40
Total :50.40
117749 3/18/2010 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1018420 E8GC.PROJECT POSTING FOR BID
E8GC.Project posting for bid.
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 25.25
E8GC.Project posting for bid.
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 25.25
E8GC.Project posting for bid.
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 25.25
Total :75.75
117750 3/18/2010 072717 CALVIN JORDAN ASSOC INC 10805.4R Sr Center - Prof Svcs - Construction
Sr Center - Prof Svcs - Construction
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 2,249.24
Total :2,249.24
117751 3/18/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN02101022 2954000
ARGON/NITROGEN/OXYGEN
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 33.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 3.15
Total :36.35
117752 3/18/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11990 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11990
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 64.40
10Page:
Packet Page 37 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :64.401177523/18/2010 064840 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E
117753 3/18/2010 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT Chave3/10 Air travel to American Planning Assoc.
Air travel to American Planning Assoc.
001.000.620.558.600.430.00 295.80
Total :295.80
117754 3/18/2010 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1002 E9GA.SERVICES FOR 2/2010
E9GA.SERVICES FOR 2/2010
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 22,572.23
E0FA.SERVICES THRU 2/26/10451001-1002
E0FA.Services thru 2/26/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,995.54
Total :25,567.77
117755 3/18/2010 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 16434535 COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 607.12
Total :607.12
117756 3/18/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7755 INV#7755, CUST#1430, EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONE 01/10 - NARCS
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 58.74
INV#7756, CUST#1430, EDMONDS PD7756
VERIZON PHONE 02/10 - NARCS
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 57.53
Total :116.27
117757 3/18/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7741 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 13,800.83
Total :13,800.83
117758 3/18/2010 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 1ST PMT 2010 REIMBURSE NARCOTICS BUY FUND - 1ST PMT
REIMBURSE BUY FUND 2010 1ST PMT
104.000.410.521.210.490.00 5,000.00
11Page:
Packet Page 38 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :5,000.001177583/18/2010 065519 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
117759 3/18/2010 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 Water Usage for the Month of Feb 2010
Water Usage for the Month of Feb 2010
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 552.39
Total :552.39
117760 3/18/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2165517 SOAP
LIQUID SOAP & HAND SOAP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 439.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.72
Total :480.88
117761 3/18/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS w2162617 Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Hand Soap,
Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Hand Soap,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 420.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.92
Fac Maint - Cable, Towelsw2162617-1
Fac Maint - Cable, Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 84.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.00
Library - Prolite Brushw2164193
Library - Prolite Brush
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 110.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 10.50
Fac Maint - HD Cleaner, TT, Towels,w2166546
Fac Maint - HD Cleaner, TT, Towels,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 495.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.04
Total :1,215.54
117762 3/18/2010 004377 COLE INDUSTRIAL INC 9076 FAC - Boiler Repairs
12Page:
Packet Page 39 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117762 3/18/2010 (Continued)004377 COLE INDUSTRIAL INC
FAC - Boiler Repairs
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,345.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 127.79
Total :1,473.00
117763 3/18/2010 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0311 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT @ EDMONDS
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 84.00
Total :84.00
117764 3/18/2010 062891 COOK PAGING WA 7830349 Water Watch Pager
Water Watch Pager
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 4.24
Total :4.24
117765 3/18/2010 068161 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION INC 1000106368 PS - 2010 Annual Contract Fees for
PS - 2010 Annual Contract Fees for
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 393.25
Total :393.25
117766 3/18/2010 073087 DAVENPORT, TONI DAVENPORT12787 GOURD ART
GOURD ART - INTRODUCTION #
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 99.45
Total :99.45
117767 3/18/2010 063064 DEZURIK WATER CONTROLS RPI/56002692 869683
VAVLE PLUG
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 284.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.27
Total :300.27
117768 3/18/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001050/1 FASTENERS, ETC.
FASTENERS, HANGERS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.11
13Page:
Packet Page 40 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117768 3/18/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
PAINT001052/1
WHITE PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.95
CONCRETE MIX001053/1
CONCRETE MIX
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.04
WASHERS, ETC001055/1
O-RING AND WASHERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.26
Total :41.09
117769 3/18/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 19512 OIL
GEAR OIL
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 23.96
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.28
Total :26.24
117770 3/18/2010 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP YS03172010 DICKERSON, BEEKS, KENNEMUR
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: MALEA DICKERSON
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: BRAUNTE BEEKS
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS: ALISON AND MATTHEW
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 150.00
Total :300.00
117771 3/18/2010 069912 EDMONDS PFD COE-HUD-006 REIMB ECA HUD GRANT EXPENSES
Reimb ECA/PFD for HUD grant expenses
14Page:
Packet Page 41 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117771 3/18/2010 (Continued)069912 EDMONDS PFD
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 6,263.11
Total :6,263.11
117772 3/18/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 8-40000 STORM DRAIN/HICKMAN PARK
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,591.31
Total :3,591.31
117773 3/18/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 48.45
Total :48.45
117774 3/18/2010 070676 EFFICIENCY INC 208618 Inbound mic for Courtroom
Inbound mic for Courtroom
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 165.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 15.68
Total :180.68
117775 3/18/2010 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0059315-IN INV#0059315-IN, ACCT#0011847 EDMONDS PD
REFINISH/CHG DETECTIVE BADGE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 54.00
HANDLING CHARGE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.86
Total :65.36
117776 3/18/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU19411 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.74
SUPPLIESWAMOU19450
SUPPLIES
15Page:
Packet Page 42 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117776 3/18/2010 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.51
Total :26.01
117777 3/18/2010 009880 FEDEX 7-002-84938 SHIPPING CHARGES
SHIPPING CHARGES: PRESERVE AMERICA
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 62.73
SHIPPING CHARGES: BUILDING OFFICIAL
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 22.37
Total :85.10
117778 3/18/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0242536 Water - Fastite Pipe
Water - Fastite Pipe
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 503.88
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 47.87
Total :551.75
117779 3/18/2010 067042 FINAL TOUCH FINISHING KING11724 ETIQUETTE CLASSES
ETIQUETTE: YOUNG LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 275.00
Total :275.00
117780 3/18/2010 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 120835 SERVICE/LABOR COURTROOM 2ND PHONE JACK
Service/Labor Change Courtroom 2nd
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 99.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 9.41
Total :108.41
117781 3/18/2010 011800 GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION 1407330 Binding machine repair on 3/2/10.
Binding machine repair on 3/2/10.
001.000.620.558.800.480.00 205.00
Total :205.00
16Page:
Packet Page 43 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117782 3/18/2010 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER11907 TAI CHI & QIGONG CLASSES
TAI CHI #11907
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 672.00
TAI CHI #11908
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 245.00
QIGONG #11914
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 392.00
TAI CHI #11910
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 196.00
QIGONG #12732
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 105.00
Total :1,610.00
117783 3/18/2010 072515 GOOGLE INC 1123366 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Mar-10 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 558.92
Total :558.92
117784 3/18/2010 012190 GORSUCH, BRUCE GORSUCH12139 INTERMEDIATE VOLLEYBALL SKILLS
INTERMEDIATE VOLLEYBALL SKILLS #12139
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 784.00
Total :784.00
117785 3/18/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6621335 229817
TERMINATION BOX
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 246.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 24.89
1128306631459
GLASS FILTER/SODIUM CHLORIDE/ROSOLIC
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 426.38
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 26.95
9.5% Sales Tax
17Page:
Packet Page 44 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117785 3/18/2010 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 43.07
Total :783.24
117786 3/18/2010 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD 33 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 190.20
Total :190.20
117787 3/18/2010 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007B2415 036570
PIPE/PVC TUBING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 101.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.66
Total :111.46
117788 3/18/2010 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-144 Drug testing services
Drug testing services
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 185.00
Total :185.00
117789 3/18/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 21982 E8FD.SERVICES THRU 2/26/2010
E8FD.Professional Services thru
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 14,169.53
E9FB.SERVICES THRU 2/26/1022023
E9FB.Services thru 2/26/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 3,684.95
Total :17,854.48
117790 3/18/2010 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 47267716 Processor Upgrades
Processor Upgrades
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 3,792.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 360.24
Total :4,152.24
117791 3/18/2010 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - Towels, Hand Cleaner
18Page:
Packet Page 45 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117791 3/18/2010 (Continued)070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
Fac Maint - Towels, Hand Cleaner
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 367.20
Total :367.20
117792 3/18/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81681488 COPIER LEASING
Cannon Image Runner
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 945.32
Total :945.32
117793 3/18/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81681484 Rent on Engineering color copier from
Rent on Engineering color copier from
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on large copier from 3/1-3/31/2010.81681491
Rent on large copier from 3/1-3/31/2010.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,270.48
117794 3/18/2010 065306 INSTITUTE OF TRANSP ENGINEERS 35424 ITE-MEMBERSHIP FOR BERTRAND HAUSS
Institute of Transportation Engineers
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 262.00
Total :262.00
117795 3/18/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS ED4437 INV#ED4437 - EDMONDS PD
CR123A 3 VOLT BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.80
9 VOLT BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.06
Total :92.86
117796 3/18/2010 069526 KEMCO SUPPLY OF WA INC 55971 INV#55971 - EDMONDS PD
PROTECTION + NITRILE GLOVES-M
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.90
PROTECTION + NITRILE GLOVES-LG
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.90
19Page:
Packet Page 46 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117796 3/18/2010 (Continued)069526 KEMCO SUPPLY OF WA INC
PROTECTION + NITRILE GLOVES-XL
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 17.07
INV#55972 - EDMONDS PD55972
PROTECTION + LATEX GLOVES- M
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 47.00
PROTECTION + LATEX GLOVES-LG
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 47.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 13.40
PROTECTION + LATEX GLOVES-XL
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 47.00
Total :351.17
117797 3/18/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 26333 C-322
C-322 ODOR CONTROL
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 4,455.50
Total :4,455.50
117798 3/18/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 3010-413 TAP HEAD/ENGINE BELT
TAP HEAD
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 67.98
WALKER ENGINE PTO BELT
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 45.45
Freight
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.77
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.52
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.25
Total :130.14
20Page:
Packet Page 47 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117799 3/18/2010 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 697325 PARTS
PARTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 46.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.41
Total :50.84
117800 3/18/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 48849481 123106800
ANCHOR/FLANGE/PIPE FITTINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 469.39
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.23
Total :483.62
117801 3/18/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-091227 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-091228
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: SIERRA
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-094173
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 412.76
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-094177
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :982.37
117802 3/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 708370 INV#708370 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
HP LASTERJET CART #Q5942X
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 223.80
4 SECTION FOLDERS-LETTER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 63.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 21.27
9.5% Sales Tax
21Page:
Packet Page 48 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117802 3/18/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.05
INV#768919 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD768919
WHITEBOARD CLEANER- 8 OZ BOTTLE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.86
WHITEBOARD CLEANER-GALLON
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 29.96
PATROL MEMO BOOKS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.04
DRY ERASE MARKERS - 1 SET
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.14
PURELL 8 OZ HAND SANITIZER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 23.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.41
Total :400.14
117803 3/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 775213 Archive boxes & pens
Archive boxes & pens
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 65.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 6.20
Total :71.43
117804 3/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 602960 520437
FOLDERS/COPIER PAPER/SEALING
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 79.38
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 7.54
Total :86.92
117805 3/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 717787 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 83.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.95
22Page:
Packet Page 49 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117805 3/18/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
OFFICE SUPPLIES766287
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 133.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.65
Total :237.43
117806 3/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 515549 Magazine files for Diane shipped
Magazine files for Diane shipped
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 21.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.02
Misc. office supplies including pen776318
Misc. office supplies including pen
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 343.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 32.68
Biodegradable plastic knives shipped776379
Biodegradable plastic knives shipped
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 53.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 5.06
Total :458.18
117807 3/18/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 000292 0 WATER FOR L/S #13
WATER FOR L/S #13
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.39
FIRE STATION #20002140 0
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 163.63
Total :191.02
117808 3/18/2010 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION AB6282 Color copy overage fee / No B/W fees
Color copy overage fee / No B/W fees
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 28.86
23Page:
Packet Page 50 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117808 3/18/2010 (Continued)066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
Color copy overage fee / No B/W fees
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 28.86
Color copy overage fee / No B/W fees
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 28.86
Color copy overage fee / No B/W fees
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 28.86
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 2.74
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 2.74
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 2.74
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 2.75
Total :126.41
117809 3/18/2010 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 1/1-3/15/10 PW - Fasteners for Signout Board
PW - Fasteners for Signout Board
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.54
PW - Postage Stamps
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 8.80
Part 1 PW Calendars
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.94
Part 1 PW Calendars
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 4.94
Part 1 PW Calendars
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 4.94
Part 1 PW Calendars
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.94
Part 1 PW Calendars
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.94
Part 1 PW Calendars
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.85
Part 2 Water/Sewer Calendars
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.21
24Page:
Packet Page 51 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117809 3/18/2010 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
Part 2 Water/Sewer Calendars
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.21
Fac Maint Unit 95 Truck Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.73
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Tool Tote
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.22
Sewer - Card Stock
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 19.70
Sewer - Strainer
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.37
Sewer - Jetting Net
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.58
Sewer - Jetting Nets
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 27.36
Storm - Box for Truck
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 93.01
Unit eq62re - license fees
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 32.75
Unit 304 - Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.63
Unit 100 Lic Fees
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 32.25
Unit 114 Lic Fees
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 32.75
Fleet - File for Office
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.89
Total :388.55
117810 3/18/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 182544 Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.30
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
25Page:
Packet Page 52 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117810 3/18/2010 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.31
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of182724
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.39
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.39
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.39
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.37
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of182883
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.32
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.32
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.32
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.32
Total :28.03
117811 3/18/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 1,665.96
Total :1,665.96
117812 3/18/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 MCC
24 hour alarm monitoring MCC
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 415.61
Total :415.61
117813 3/18/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 437.97
26Page:
Packet Page 53 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117813 3/18/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 272.48
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 544.13
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 33.44
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 127.05
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 127.05
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 127.05
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 127.05
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 127.05
200 DAYTON ST-OLD PW BLDG3689976003
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 536.14
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 325.46
Fire Station # 165322323139
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 794.25
SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 37.52
FLEET5903085008
27Page:
Packet Page 54 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117813 3/18/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 384.16
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 885.83
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,529.52
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 280.27
Total :7,785.17
117814 3/18/2010 065579 QUIKSIGN 57875 Underhill rezone/PLN2009-19 sign
Underhill rezone/PLN2009-19 sign
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 16.06
Total :185.06
117815 3/18/2010 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 332B TELEMETRY
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 138.52
Total :138.52
117816 3/18/2010 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 3/10/10 OT from sick leave buy back not bought
OT from sick leave buy back not bought
001.000.410.521.220.110.00 88.31
Total :88.31
117817 3/18/2010 073144 SCBC ENGINEERING PLLC 2010EdmondsPR_1 Structural Plan Review Fee for Olympic
Structural Plan Review Fee for Olympic
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,609.00
28Page:
Packet Page 55 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,609.001178173/18/2010 073144 073144 SCBC ENGINEERING PLLC
117818 3/18/2010 073110 SEATTLE RADIOLOGISTS APC 75.1985874.1 Testing services
Testing services
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 117.00
Total :117.00
117819 3/18/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 281517 FERTILE MULCH
FERTILE MULCH
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,190.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 113.05
Total :1,303.05
117820 3/18/2010 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 32 LEOFF 1 reimbursement
LEOFF 1 reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 974.00
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,156.80
Total :2,130.80
117821 3/18/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5085-1 600 3RD AVE S
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.99
600 3RD AVE S2006-5164-4
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 993.95
131 SUNSET AVE2006-6395-3
131 SUNSET AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 387.74
250 6TH AVE N2008-6924-6
250 6TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 248.56
50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7
50 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 313.87
23700 104TH AVE W2011-8453-8
29Page:
Packet Page 56 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117821 3/18/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 192.41
603 3RD AVE S2013-8327-0
603 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
251 6TH AVE N2014-5305-7
251 6TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 113.21
600 3RD AVE S2021-1448-4
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 205.08
100 RAILROAD AVE2021-3965-5
100 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 50.00
Total :2,593.85
117822 3/18/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 1120005119 Signal at 84th & 220th
Signal at 84th & 220th
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 82.00
STREET LIGHT2060015456
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK2180017895
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 35.18
fire station # 162540794324
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,678.28
SIGNAL LIGHT2900012432
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
LIFT STATION #32960019335
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 136.08
SIGNAL LIGHT3630019994
30Page:
Packet Page 57 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117822 3/18/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 44.42
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger3900430020
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.04
STREET LIGHT4220016176
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 41.88
STREET LIGHT4430018418
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 42.22
FIRE STATION #204650022645
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 876.41
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St4670302498
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 290.30
STREET LIGHT4860014960
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.71
SIGNAL LIGHT5450010938
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 107.21
SIGNAL LIGHT5450011118
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 104.94
Fire station #167060000275
Fire station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 32.54
Total :3,603.27
117823 3/18/2010 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 693 Reimb New World Project
Reimb New World Project
001.000.390.528.600.510.00 110,511.00
31Page:
Packet Page 58 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :110,511.001178233/18/2010 065910 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS
117824 3/18/2010 073109 SNYDER ROOFING OF 10-W018-2 M051
M-051 BLDG. 500 REPLACEMENT
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 6,855.00
M-051 RETAINAGE ROOF REPLACEMENT
414.000.000.223.400.000.00 -342.75
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 651.23
Total :7,163.48
117825 3/18/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03587-0210 WASTE DISPOSAL
PARK MAINTENANCE WASTE DISPOSAL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 569.64
Total :569.64
117826 3/18/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03583 garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.74
garbage & recycle for FAC03585
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
garbage & recycle for Library03586
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23
garbage & recycle-City Hall03588
garbage & recycle-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 495.66
Total :2,276.10
117827 3/18/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4163609-01 2714
RAIN GEAR/GARCIA
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 254.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 24.19
Total :278.79
32Page:
Packet Page 59 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117828 3/18/2010 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3000839282 INV#3000839282 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 0.36
Total :10.36
117829 3/18/2010 040480 STUSSER ELECTRIC 2338-476376 44-26789
DC HUB
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 45.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.35
Total :50.13
117830 3/18/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10977882 BOLTS, SCREWS
BOLTS, SCREWS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 147.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.00
DRILL10979589
PRECISION R57173 DRILL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.39
Total :188.93
117831 3/18/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1687577 NEWSPAPER ADS
Ordinance 3785
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 32.20
Total :32.20
117832 3/18/2010 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 278221 KIT REPAIR
KIT REPAIR FOR 5874 VALVE HAWS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 403.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.30
33Page:
Packet Page 60 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :441.501178323/18/2010 027269 027269 THE PART WORKS INC
117833 3/18/2010 071590 TOWEILL RICE TAYLOR LLC FEB2010-EDMONDS Hearing Examiner Services for February
Hearing Examiner Services for February
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,600.00
Expenses (postage & copies) for Feb.FEB2010-EDMONDSEXP
Expenses (postage & copies) for Feb.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 18.34
Total :3,618.34
117834 3/18/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8421500 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
DRIP LINE, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 604.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.41
Total :661.78
117835 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 - 03/08/10-THOMPSON-EDMONDS PD
LIFE GEAR GLOW STICKS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 46.35
AERON POSTUREFIT CHAIR
001.000.410.521.910.350.00 918.99
CARBON REMOVAL TOOL
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 53.63
INV#3181 - 03/08/10 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
REG. FBI/LEEDA - BARKER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 650.00
FOOD/ TRAINING CLASS 2/8/10
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 16.97
REG. STREET SURVIVAL - MEHL
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 215.00
15' CABLE USB A TO MINI B (PATROL)
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 24.55
NIK SELF TRAINING CD/FIELD DVD
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 27.40
2GB SD FLASH MEORY CARD 2 PACK
34Page:
Packet Page 61 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117835 3/18/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 68.16
4GB USB FLASH DRIVE 2 PACK
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 55.30
INV#3314 - 03/08/10-LAWLESS-EDMONDS PD3314
SUBSCRIPTION FBI LAW ENFORCEMT
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 53.00
INV#3512 - 03/08/10 -TRAINING-EDMONDS PD3512
MEALS/NACA - DAWSON 02/08/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 19.01
MEALS/NACA - DAWSON 02/09/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 32.91
MEALS/NACA - DAWSON 02/10/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.08
Total :2,194.35
117836 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 3207 Conni Curtis retirement poster
Conni Curtis retirement poster
001.000.210.513.100.410.00 196.22
Refreshments for Director's Retreat
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 29.35
Cake for Conni's retirement party 2/28
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 33.99
WA Festivals and Events Association -
120.000.310.575.420.490.00 125.00
Resource books for Econ. Dev. Comm.
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 52.11
Refreshments for Director's Retreat
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 13.14
Resource books for Econ. Dev. Comm.
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 90.63
Mayor's monthly mtg3264
Mayor's monthly mtg
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 19.00
Summer Seasonal pool ads (#10-04 -3280
Summer Seasonal pool ads (#10-04 -
35Page:
Packet Page 62 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117836 3/18/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Parks Dept. BPW, #10-12 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Parks Dept. Laborer, #10-11 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Lunches for the Building Official
001.000.620.524.100.310.00 50.15
Total :684.59
117837 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 3330 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
PARKING - B. MCINTOSH
001.000.640.574.100.430.00 2.25
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 555.26
FOSSIL FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAMS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 49.07
PLANT FOSSIL FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAMS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 11.79
METEORITE FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAMS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 39.95
SNAIL FOSSIL FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAMS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 29.45
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 311.94
EMAIL SERVICE PROVIDER
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 269.95
CREDIT/FLAGHOUSE3330
CREDIT FOR GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 -525.00
Total :744.66
117838 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 2462 PrinterTech.com - HP JetDirect Printer
PrinterTech.com - HP JetDirect Printer
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 109.00
N Tool + Equip - Plastic bins &
36Page:
Packet Page 63 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117838 3/18/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 100.93
N Tool + Equip - 3 Digital High
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 296.96
newegg.com - 7 iamaKey flash drives
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 201.48
newegg.com - 2 8gb flash drives
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 39.57
N Tool + Equip - Stacking Dividers
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 23.59
CDW - Video Card
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 149.23
Black Box -- Patch Cabels
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 82.05
Experts Exchange - 2 yr maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 189.95
Black Box - Patch Cabels
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 192.72
godaddy.com - email service
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 14.28
godaddy.com .com domain name
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 10.87
WFOA Dues thru 12/31/20103470
WFOA Dues thru 12/31/2010
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 50.00
Total :1,460.63
117839 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 9399 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 268.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 310.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 310.00
Total :888.00
37Page:
Packet Page 64 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117840 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 3348 APWA Meeting Fees - N Miller
APWA Meeting Fees - N Miller
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 37.00
APWA Spring Confrence
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 400.00
APWA Monthly Meeting - N Miller3348
APWA Monthly Meeting - N Miller
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 37.00
Svc Fees
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 4.37
Total :478.37
117841 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 1000 Flash memory for Jaime in Engineering
Flash memory for Jaime in Engineering
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 37.52
Manual on Uniform Traffic Constrol
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 126.00
Washington Finance Officers Association
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 50.00
Total :213.52
117842 3/18/2010 062693 US BANK 3389 City Council Refreshments
City Council Refreshments
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 20.04
Total :20.04
117843 3/18/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.02
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.36
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 108.92
Total :194.30
38Page:
Packet Page 65 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117844 3/18/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM425-206-8379
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 19.96
Pt Edwards Sewer Pump Stations Monitor425-640-8169
Pt Edwards Sewer Pump Stations Monitor
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 36.11
LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978
Lift Station #1
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 49.76
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.66
FS # 16425-771-0158
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 226.61
Lift St 7425-775-2069
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.27
39Page:
Packet Page 66 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117844 3/18/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 54.76
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.97
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.97
OLD PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.74
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.80
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.62
Total :1,436.20
117845 3/18/2010 062812 WA CRANE AND HOIST CO INC 0008787-IN EWW 1EW
LOAD TEST
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 11.88
Total :136.88
117846 3/18/2010 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 43362 INV#43362 - EDMONDS PD - #10-0879
TOWING 1994 TOYOTA 324SCS
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
117847 3/18/2010 026510 WCIA 100624 POLICY # USC 9421926 02
FS #20 Storage Tank Liability 1/10/10-
40Page:
Packet Page 67 of 167
03/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
11:31:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117847 3/18/2010 (Continued)026510 WCIA
511.000.657.548.680.460.00 1,107.38
Total :1,107.38
117848 3/18/2010 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 6824 INV#6824 EDMONDS PD - BATTERIES
2700 MAH RADIO BATTERY
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1,176.00
7.5/4000 MAH BATTERY PACK
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 336.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 143.64
Total :1,655.64
117849 3/18/2010 071631 WILLIAMS, SUE WILLIAMS12035 CROCHET 101
CROCHET 101
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 195.00
Total :195.00
117850 3/18/2010 060474 WSHNA 2010 SEMINAR WSHNA SEMINAR - FRAUSTO
WSHNA SEMINAR - FRAUSTO
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
WSHNA SEMINAR - FROLAND
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
WSHNA SEMINAR - MACK
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
Total :297.00
Bank total :371,958.19125 Vouchers for bank code :front
371,958.19Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report125
41Page:
Packet Page 68 of 167
AM-2829 2.D.
2003 Water System Improvements Project Addendum 8
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 8 to the professional services agreement with RH2
Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 water system improvement project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 8 to the professional services agreement with
RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 Water System Improvement Project.
Previous Council Action
On June 24, 2003, Council Authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with
RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 Water System Improvements project.
On July 5, 2005, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to the professional
services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the project.
On May 20, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 5 to the professional
services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the project.
On February 24, 2009, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 6 to the professional
services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the project.
Narrative
The Five Corners Booster Pump Station is an integral component of the City’s water system and is
necessary to provide fire flow and sufficient water supply to meet customer demands during the
summer months. The Five Corners Pump Station Improvements project will improve the operating
efficiency of the Pump Station to better regulate water system pressure and storage. Additional
project improvements include telemetry upgrades, reservoir security, seismic improvements and
valve and piping improvements on the City’s water system reservoirs (Five Corners, Yost and
Seaview).
A soil sample collected during excavation from the project site contained lead in excess of
Department of Ecology (DOE) Model Toxics Control Act cleanup level. The City had RH2
Engineering prepare a work plan for removal of the contaminated soil and document and report
the lead abatement to DOE and Snohomish County Health District. During the initial site clean-up
Packet Page 69 of 167
process it was determined that additional soil sampling and testing was needed to prove that the
lead levels were in accordance with US Environmental Agency testing protocols. These
additional services were not part of the original scope of work.
The Addendum also includes additional time for support services during construction. The
additional tasks include project management for the lead contaminated soil sampling and
assessment, review of shop drawings and submittals, response to technical questions, attendance
and assistance with testing and startup of the various facility sites and telemetry changes to the
control systems.
The additional services in Addendum No. 8 ($28,188) will be funded by the 412 Utility Fund.
Funding for this project also includes a low-interest Public Works Trust Fund loan of $408,000.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Addendum 8
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 03/17/2010 10:52 AM APRV
2 Public Works Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 08:34 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 08:36 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 08:43 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 08:48 AM APRV
Form Started By: curtis Started On: 02/18/2010 07:57
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 70 of 167
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
o
f
1
6
7
AM-2918 2.E.
76th Ave W/75th Pl W Walkway & 162nd Street SW Park Project
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Megan Cruz Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 6 to the professional services agreement with
Gray & Osborne, Inc. for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West walkway & 162nd Street SW
park project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 6 to the professional services agreement with
Gray & Osborne, Inc. for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West walkway & 162nd Street SW
park project.
Previous Council Action
On May 23, 2006, Council authorized Staff to advertise for statements of qualifications for the
design of the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West walkway and 162nd Street SW park project.
On September 26, 2006, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement
with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for design of the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West walkway and
162nd Street SW park project.
Narrative
The City contracted with Gray & Osborne in 2006 to design the 76th Avenue West/75th Place
West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park project. This addendum will provide additional
engineering and project related services for the purpose of providing technical support during
construction. In addition, the landscape architect firm of Susan Black & Associates (SBA) is
providing support services during the construction of the new 162nd St. park. The services
provided include reviewing material submittals, responding to requests for information, attending
meetings with the contractor, assisting with project close-out activities and preparing as-built
drawings. This improvement project and the additional services in Addendum No. 6
($43,200) are being funded by the Parks Improvement Fund (Fund 125).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1
Form Routing/Status
Packet Page 77 of 167
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 03/18/2010 04:11 PM APRV
2 Public Works Sandy Chase 03/19/2010 07:16 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/19/2010 07:16 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/19/2010 07:24 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/19/2010 07:26 AM APRV
Form Started By: Megan
Cruz
Started On: 03/18/2010 09:32
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/19/2010
Packet Page 78 of 167
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
9
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
0
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
1
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
2
o
f
1
6
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
3
o
f
1
6
7
AM-2912 2.F.
Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District for Westgate Elementary
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:
Review Committee:Community/Development Services
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District #15 to
develop upgraded neighborhood park elements at Westgate Elementary School.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District for
improvements at Westgate Elementary School.
Previous Council Action
Adoption of 2009-2010 Budget including $25,000 Playground Partnership funding from Fund 125.
The March 9, 2010 Community Services/Development Services Committee recommended placing
this item on the Council Consent agenda.
Narrative
One of the community objectives of the Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan is to
partner and assist in the development of or upgrading of playgrounds, sports fields, and recreation
amenities used by the community within City boundaries. These projects provide an excellent
opportunity to partner with local schools and the Edmonds School District to improve safety,
playability, and the local recreation experience.
In many cases, such as at Westgate Elementary, school grounds help fulfill neighborhood park
needs in their local community. The City partnership contribution of $25,000 becomes part of the
Westgate PSO Playground Committee's match of voter approved School District Capital
Partnership matching funds. Total project costs are budgeted for $190,000.
Attachments include supporting documents from the 2009-2010 City Budget and the adopted
2008 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan, a site plan, preliminary cost estimate,
and a draft Interlocal Agreement.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Budget support docs
Link: Parks Comp Plan support docs
Packet Page 84 of 167
Link: Site plan & cost estimate
Link: Westgate draft Interlocal
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 12:54 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 01:24 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 01:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 03/17/2010 04:06
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 85 of 167
Packet Page 86 of 167
Packet Page 87 of 167
Packet Page 88 of 167
Packet Page 89 of 167
Packet Page 90 of 167
Packet Page 91 of 167
Packet Page 92 of 167
Packet Page 93 of 167
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15
Westgate Elementary Playground Improvements
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made this _____ day of
_______________, 2010, by and between the Edmonds School District No. 15 and
the City of Edmonds, both municipal corporations under the laws of the State of
Washington, hereinafter referred to as "District" and "City" respectively.
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34, RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local
government units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to
cooperate with other government entities on the basis of mutual advantage and
thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner pursuant to forms of
governmental organizations that will accord best with geographic, economic
population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local
communities; and
WHEREAS, the District owns and operates Westgate Elementary School
which is located within the comprehensive planning area of the City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the City operates park and recreation programs and has identified
a need for additional outdoor recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has allocated funds for development of school fields and
playgrounds and has determined that the renovation of the play ground and fields
located on the School Property will be of positive benefit to the citizens of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the District and the City agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this agreement is to provide a cost-sharing
arrangement between the District and the City to allow for improvements in the
playfields and playground located on the School Property to facilitate its recreational
use by the City.
1.2 The District will prepare budget estimates, develop a plan for
playfield improvements, and identify any necessary permits and regulatory processes
prior to approving any improvement plan in accordance with this Agreement and
applicable laws.
{WSS632486.DOC;1/00006.900000/} PAGE 1
3/19/10 4:09 PM
Packet Page 94 of 167
2. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
2.1 Pursuant to RCW 39.34.030(4)(a), the District will hereby
appoint a Contract Administrator who will be responsible for administering this
Agreement, and at the direction of the parties, this Contract Administrator shall take
such action as is necessary to ensure that this Agreement is implemented in
accordance with its terms. The parties hereby designate the District’s Director of
Facilities, Operations, as the Contract Administrator of this Agreement.
2.2 This Agreement does not create a separate legal or administrative
entity, and consequently is being administered in accordance with RCW 39.34.030(4),
as provided in paragraph 2.1.
3. REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
3.1 The District owns the real School Property which is the subject
of this Agreement. This Agreement does not contemplate the transfer of ownership of
the School Property nor to limit the District's ability to comply with its statutory
obligations regarding the use and disposition of school property pursuant to Ch.
28A.335 RCW. The District may assign its rights and obligations under this
Agreement in its sole discretion.
3.2 The parties will not, during the term of this Agreement, jointly
acquire or hold any property (real or personal) under the terms of this agreement.
3.3 Upon approval by the District and the City of a plan for the
playfield improvements as defined by paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the District and
the City shall provide funds, as set forth in paragraph 6 below, to the Contract
Administrator for use in obtaining the personal property needed to construct the
playground improvements and to pay for the labor and professional services required
to renovate the playground.
3.4 By operation of this Agreement, the City acquires no interest in
and disclaims any interest in the improvements constructed pursuant to this
Agreement, which said improvements will be the District's property. In consideration
of the City's contributions under this Agreement, the City shall have the right to use
the School Property pursuant to RCW 28A.335.250 for its park and recreation
programs so long as such use does not interfere with the District's use of the School
Property for school purposes.
3.5 If, in the exercise of its sole discretion, the District elects to sell
or otherwise remove the recreational improvements funded by this Agreement from
use by the City during the ten (10) years immediately following execution of this
{WSS632486.DOC;1/00006.900000/} PAGE 2
3/19/10 4:09 PM
Packet Page 95 of 167
Agreement, the City shall be entitled to a pro-rata refund of its contribution. The
refund shall be based on the percentage of months remaining in said ten (10) year
period, stipulated to be approximately equal to the normal useful life of the funded
recreational improvements.
4. DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND
PERMITTING
4.1 The District shall:
4.1.1 Develop an improvement plan.
4.1.2 Cooperate with the City to ascertain any necessary permits
or required governmental approvals to complete the improvement plan. To the extent
required by local regulations related to any permits necessary to implement the plan,
the District shall cooperate with the City in preparing permit applications and
soliciting citizen input. If the Edmonds City Council and Mayor determines that
additional citizen input is desirable, the City may request additional assistance from
the District, which shall not be unreasonably withheld so long as the assistance is
consistent with its statutory obligations and does not involve an undue financial
burden on the District.
4.1.3 Provide the City with conceptual plans of the proposed
improvement plan.
4.2 The City shall:
4.2.1 Cooperate with the District to ascertain any necessary
permits or required governmental approvals to complete the improvement plan. To
the extent required by local regulations related to any permits necessary to implement
the plan, the City shall cooperate with the District in preparing permit applications
and soliciting citizen input. The City's Parks and Recreation Department shall gather
any public comments and forward them to the District prior to any hearing held by the
City related to the improvement plan.
5. APPROVAL OF FINAL DESIGN
5.1 Upon completion of the improvement plan and final cost
estimates, the District and City may independently reexamine and confirm the
project's scope of work. No final contract for the construction of the improvements
shall be entered by the District, the City, or the Contract Administrator until the
Contract Administrator has received written approval to proceed from both the
District and the City.
{WSS632486.DOC;1/00006.900000/} PAGE 3
3/19/10 4:09 PM
Packet Page 96 of 167
5.2 Prior to approval of the final design of the improvement plan, the
District and the City will have taken action, independent of this Agreement, to budget
and provide the financing necessary to perform their respective obligations under this
Agreement, including, but not limited to, the construction and installation of the
agreed improvements.
6. FUNDING OF PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
6.1 Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement as
defined by paragraph 7.1 of this Agreement, the City shall obtain approval as required
under relevant laws to fund up to Twenty-five Thousand Dollars NO/100
($25,000.00) and the District up to One Hundred Sixty-five Thousand and NO/100
($165,000) to be used to finance the planning and installation of the playground
improvements contemplated by this Agreement. The District Funding includes
contributions made by the Westgate Elementary School Playground Committee. The
District and the City shall also obtain approval as required under relevant laws for any
additional contributions required under paragraph 6.4 of this Agreement.
6.2 The District shall fund its and the City's obligations under
paragraph 4.1 of this Agreement until such time as the District requests payment from
the City for its share of the expenditures. Any such funds expended shall be so
expended in accordance with RCW 39.34.030 and shall apply to the District's total
obligation set forth in paragraph 6.1.
6.3 The City shall fund its obligations under paragraph 4.2 of this
Agreement upon request for reimbursement by the District as stated in paragraph 6.2
of this Agreement. The City shall confirm that any such funds reimbursed to the
District are in accordance with laws governing such expenditures and shall apply to
the City's total obligation set forth in paragraph 6.1.
6.4 Upon approval of the final design of the playfield improvement
plans under paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the District shall transmit funds to the
Contract Administrator for use in completing the approved playfield improvement
plan. Unless the parties mutually agree in writing, the total costs of the completion of
the playground improvement plan may not exceed $190,000 PROVIDED THAT
nothing in this Agreement requires or authorizes any expenditure of funds in excess of
what is allowed by RCW 39.04.155.
6.5 Following approval of the final design of the playground improvement
plans as specified in paragraph 6.4 above, the District and the City will direct the
Contract Administrator to secure appropriate contracts for labor, goods and
professional services as needed to complete the work identified in the plans in
accordance with applicable laws, including but not limited to Ch. 39.04 RCW and Ch.
{WSS632486.DOC;1/00006.900000/} PAGE 4
3/19/10 4:09 PM
Packet Page 97 of 167
28A.335. The Contract Administrator will be instructed to provide regular progress
reports to the District and the City and inform the District and the City if expenditures
necessary to complete the approved improvements are expected to exceed $190,000
of the public contract amount. The Contract Administrator will also notify the
District and City of completion of the playground improvements for their final
inspection and approval of completed work. The District and City shall provide the
Contract Administrator with written approval of project completion. The Contract
Administrator shall have the authority to carry out the purposes of this Agreement in
accordance with this Agreement, and to carry out any necessary and proper matters to
otherwise facilitate the completion of the approved playground improvement plan.
7. DURATION AND TERMINATION
7.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date first
written above and shall end on December 31, 2010, unless this Agreement is
terminated prior to such date in accordance with paragraph 7.2. This Agreement shall
take effect upon either filing a copy thereof with the County Auditor or posting on
either parties’ web sites in accordance with RCW 39.34.040.
7.2 Termination of this Agreement may be accomplished by mutual
agreement of the parties prior to final approval of the playground improvement plan
in accordance with paragraph 5. A party seeking to terminate this Agreement under
this paragraph shall give the other party advance written notice of not less than thirty
(30) days.
7.3 In the event it becomes necessary for the District to terminate this
Agreement in order to comply with its statutory obligations regarding the use and
disposition of school property under Ch. 28A.335, the District may terminate this
Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City and the Contract
Administrator.
7.4 If this Agreement is terminated in accordance with paragraph 7.2
or 7.3, the District and the City shall share equally in any expenditures previously
incurred by either the District or the City in furtherance of the playfield improvement
plan. Any plans, engineering drawings or other documents made in preparation for
project design approval are deemed to be the property of the District.
7.5 Following the effective date of the termination of this Agreement
under this paragraph 7, the District may complete any playground improvement plan
on its own without any further obligation to the City.
{WSS632486.DOC;1/00006.900000/} PAGE 5
3/19/10 4:09 PM
Packet Page 98 of 167
8. MISCELLANEOUS
8.1 The Contract Administrator shall supervise and manage the
completion of the playground improvement project on behalf of the District and the
City following final design approval pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Agreement. The
City shall have no responsibility to supervise or manage completion of the approved
playfield improvement plans under paragraph 5 of this Agreement.
8.2 The District provides no and disclaims any and all express or
implied warranties of any kind, including but not limited to the warranty of fitness for
a particular purpose, in connection with or arising out of the activities under this
Agreement. The District will, however, direct the Contract Administrator to make
reasonable efforts to obtain warranties from the persons or entities providing labor,
goods or professional services to complete the approved playground improvement
project.
8.2 In the event that the District utilizes an architect or engineer by
independent contract or a public works contract to fulfill completion of the project,
the District shall direct the Contract Administrator to use its best efforts to obtain
whatever warranties may be reasonably available and to secure contractual
indemnities to protect the District and the City from liability arising out of the work
performed under this Agreement, PROVIDED, however, that the District shall incur
no liability arising from this Agreement if the Contract Administrator is unable to
obtain such warranties and indemnities. The Contract Administrator shall also require
such professional or contractor to provide adequate insurance to cover any and all
liability incurred during the course of improvements which names the City and the
District as named insureds and to extend such coverage to cover damage or injury to
any reasonably foreseeable third parties and to confirm such insurance has been
obtained by obtaining a copy of any related certificate of insurance before
construction or installation of the approved playfield improvement plans is begun.
8.3 The District and the City will adequately provide through
insurance or participation in insurance pooling for loss reserves to provide for their
respective liability that could arise in connection with this Agreement.
8.4 The District and the City shall maintain records necessary to
carry out the purposes of this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Such records shall be available during normal working hours
for the review of the respective parties, their accounting representatives or the State
Auditor.
8.5 Each party to this Agreement shall be responsible for its own
negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, or those of its agents or employees, to
{WSS632486.DOC;1/00006.900000/} PAGE 6
3/19/10 4:09 PM
Packet Page 99 of 167
{WSS632486.DOC;1/00006.900000/} PAGE 7
3/19/10 4:09 PM
the fullest extent required by law. Each party shall save, indemnify, defend and hold
the other party harmless from any such liability. If more than one person or entity is
negligent, any damages allowed or indemnity provided, shall be levied in proportion
to the percentage of negligence attributable to each party under the laws of the State
of Washington.
8.6 This Agreement and all questions concerning the capacity of the
parties, execution, validity (or invalidity), and performance of this Agreement, shall
be interpreted, construed and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws of
the State of Washington.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
DATE:
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15
Dr. Nick Brossoit, SUPERINTENDENT
DATE:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Packet Page 100 of 167
AM-2905 2.G.
Funding Request for Edmonds Night Out
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Al Compaan Time:Consent
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Committee:
Information
Subject Title
Funding request for Edmonds Night Out.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval
Previous Council Action
Reviewed by Public Safety Committee on March 9, 2010 and approved for Consent Agenda.
Narrative
For a number of years local Edmonds businesses have sponsored, and the Edmonds Police
Foundation has organized, Edmonds Night Out, held during a summer evening at Anderson
Center field. This has been an opportunity to promote the concept of neighbors knowing
neighbors; to help the community work together in crime awareness; to promote Edmonds as a
better place to live; to build partnership between citizens, Edmonds Police, and other public safety
personnel. It has been a family event complete with public safety displays, hot-dog barbeque, and
activities for children. This has been open to all citizens at no direct cost to them.
The city has traditionally assisted with providing a limited number of police officers to assist with
logistics for Night Out. Some of that assistance involved limited overtime (est. $1500) since there
are insufficient regular on-duty staff to attend Night Out, as well as to be available for 911 calls.
The Police Department had also included as part of its previous annual budgets a $2000
appropriation specifically for defraying some of the Police Foundation's hard costs for the event.
This had been included in the Crime Prevention Unit budget. That unit was cut for the 2009-2010
budget, as was the $2000 appropriation. Night Out was not held in 2009.
The Police Department feels the city has lost an important opportunity to promote a sense of
neighborhood and cooperation between citizens and police that are the hallmarks of Night Out.
The Police Department is asking for a $3500 supplemental appropriation. This will cover $2000 of
hard costs as well as $1500 of police overtime to provide logistical support for the event.
In its action on March 9, 2010, moving this item forward to Consent Agenda, Public Safety
Committee designated the source of funds to be a $3500.00 General Fund appropriation added to
the 2010 Police Department operations budget specifically designated for Edmonds Night Out.
Fiscal Impact
Packet Page 101 of 167
Fiscal Year: 2010 Revenue: Expenditure: $3500.00
Fiscal Impact:
$2000.00 for hard costs; up to $1500.00 for police overtime. To be a supplemental appropriation
from General Fund to the 2010 Police Department operations budget, funds specifically
designated for Edmonds Night Out.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/15/2010 10:58 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/15/2010 11:07 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/16/2010 07:51 AM APRV
Form Started By: Al
Compaan
Started On: 03/12/2010 10:57
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/16/2010
Packet Page 102 of 167
AM-2922 2.H.
Earth Hour Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Earth Hour - Saturday, March 27 from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
“Earth Hour” started on March 31, 2007 in Sydney, Australia as a way for that city to send a
powerful message worldwide regarding global warming. Millions of people and over 2,000
businesses participated. Like last year, Mayor Haakenson is joining the effort of cities all over the
world to reduce energy consumption and send the message that every action—no matter how
small—can impact our environment. Mayor Haakenson encourages everyone in Edmonds to turn
off their lights for one hour, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m., on Saturday, March 27. This hour can be used
to change energy-wasting light bulbs to energy-efficient ones in your home, have a block party
with neighbors, or have a candlelit dinner in a participating local restaurant. Every action has an
impact, and the more we can do to lessen negative effects, the better chance for a brighter future
for our planet.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 12:54 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 01:24 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 01:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 03/18/2010 11:25
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 103 of 167
Packet Page 104 of 167
AM-2919 3.
Update and Overview of SnoCom
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Update and overview of SnoCom.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Debbie Grady, SnoCom Executive Director, will attend this evening's meeting to provide an
update and overview of SnoCom.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 10:03 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 10:04 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 10:07 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 03/18/2010 09:53
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 105 of 167
AM-2877 4.
Public Comment on the Subject of Budget Cuts
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public comment on the subject of budget cuts.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Council will take public comment on the subject of budget cuts.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/15/2010 10:58 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/15/2010 11:07 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/16/2010 07:51 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 03/04/2010 02:35
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/16/2010
Packet Page 106 of 167
AM-2924 6.
Report from Planning Division on Comprehensive Plan Outlook for 2010-2011
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:20 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report from Planning Division on Comprehensive Plan outlook for 2010-2011.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No action is required; the information is provided to assist in developing the Council's extended
agenda.
Previous Council Action
This item was discussed at the Council Retreat on February 6th.
Narrative
Attached is a general outline of various comprehensive plan, code development, and issues
referred to the Planning Board for study during 2010. This work plan contained in Exhibit 2 is
the current "best guess" at a time frame and represents a very aggressive scheduling of all of these
projects. Note that this is NOT an all-inclusive list; for example, it does not include (1) ongoing
work by the Economic Development Commission and products that may come out of that effort,
(2) work by the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee on reusable bags and sustainability/climate
change initiatives, (3) historic preservation initiatives and grants, (4) ongoing projects and
community outreach efforts funded by the federal Energy Efficiency Community Block Grants,
and (5) potential Planning Board and Council review of Port of Edmonds proposals and a pending
quasi-judicial review of the Edmonds Landing project.
While the focus of the attached material is on 2010, there is also a significant amount of
longer-range planning going on related to implementing the regional vision (PSRC's Vision 2040
plan) at the county-wide level through the development of county-wide planning policies (CPP's).
Council briefing on this effort will begin this year, though it is not yet scheduled. This will set the
stage for potential planning efforts beginning in 2011 and continuing through 2014 to bring the
city's comprehensive plan through the next mandated GMA update cycle, which now appears to
be targeted for the 2011-2014 time frame.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Planning Board 2010 work program
Link: Exhibit 2: Planning and Code Development work plan
Packet Page 107 of 167
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/19/2010 07:15 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/19/2010 07:24 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/19/2010 07:26 AM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 03/18/2010 03:54
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/19/2010
Packet Page 108 of 167
Potential 2010 Planning Board Work Plan
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan
Water Comprehensive Plan
Update to policy discussion in Public Utilities Chapter of Comprehensive Plan
Update to Capital Facilities Element
Update to Economic Development Plan
Comprehensive Plan Framework (e.g. compatibility with Vision 2040)
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding land use and urban design
Streetscape Plan (see Council minutes, 5/26/2009)
Comprehensive Plan provisions mandating Hearing Examiner review of projects
and property decisions
Shoreline Master Program
Port of Edmonds Master Plan Update(s)
Code Revision Project
Title 16 Zoning Classifications
Title 17 Zoning Standards
Subdivision Regulations / PRD’s
City Council Referrals
Economic Development (with Economic Development Commission)
Highway 99 Parking Standards
Homeless Shelters / Tent Cities
Title 20 Procedures
Wireless Facilities Regulations – update
Civil Enforcement Procedures – 20.110.040(F)
Parks Issues
Park Naming
Periodic Updates & Reports
Other Items
Sustainability Implementation
Stormwater Code & Low Impact Development Provisions
Five Corners, Westgate neighborhood plans & implementation
Edmonds Landing (Rezone & Development Agreement)
Packet Page 109 of 167
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
/
V
i
s
i
o
n
2
0
4
0
A
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
St
r
e
e
t
T
r
e
e
P
l
a
n
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
R
e
v
i
e
w
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
/
T
e
n
t
C
i
t
y
Wi
r
e
l
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ti
t
l
e
2
0
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
Co
d
e
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
/
U
p
d
a
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ti
t
l
e
1
6
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ti
t
l
e
1
7
Z
o
n
i
n
g
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
P
R
D
’
s
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
Ci
v
i
l
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
Te
n
t
C
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
9
9
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
SE
P
A
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
PB PB
PB PB PB
Wa
l
l
M
u
r
a
l
s
a
n
d
A
r
t
w
o
r
k
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
CC
CC
CC CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
PB
PB
CC
CC
PB
PB
PB
CC
CC
PB
PB
PB
CC
CC
PB
PB
CC
CC
PB
CC CC
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
CC
CC
PB
PB PB CC CC
PB
PB
PB
CC
CC
CC CCPBPB
Fe
b
2
0
1
0
Ma
r
2
0
1
0
Ap
r
2
0
1
0
Ma
y
2
0
1
0
Ju
n
2
0
1
0
Ju
l
2
0
1
0
Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
PB
PB
PB
CC
PB
Public meetingPublic hearing
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
PB
PB
CC CC
PB
PB PB PB PBPB
PB
PB
CC
CC
PB
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
0
of
16
7
AM-2906 7.
Proposed Update of the Stormwater Management Code (ECDC 18.30)
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Time:30 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Information
Review Committee:Community/Development Services
Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of proposed update of the Stormwater Management Code (ECDC 18.30)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Proceed with Public Hearing next month.
Previous Council Action
Stormwater Management Code was last updated in 1995.
On February 24, 2009 there was a presentation to the Council on the planned code update.
On June 9, 2009 there was a Presentation to Council CS/DS Committee of the progress of the code
update.
Narrative
What is a Stormwater Code?
The purpose of the stormwater code is to control runoff from new development, redevelopment
and construction sites to minimize the effects these activities have on:
• Private and public property (including roads) from flooding or erosion.
• The quality of our receiving waters from sediment or other pollutants.
• Aquatic habitat, including the physical damage of excessive flows that cause erosion and
sedimentation.
Who Does it Affect?
The provisions of the code affect actions taken by:
• Homeowners
• Businesses
• Developers
• Contractors
• Public utilities (PUD, Comcast, etc.)
• City (capital projects),
As well as, anyone who performs “land disturbing activity” over a certain threshold or otherwise
causes a change in the rate, volume, or quality of stormwater runoff leaving their property.
Packet Page 111 of 167
History of the Stormwater Code in Edmonds.
Edmonds’ first stormwater code approved by Council in July 1977 required “retention/detention”
for sites that met a certain threshold of impervious surface. The primary intent of this first code
was flood prevention. The Code was revised in 1980 and again in 1995. This last revision
incorporated water quality concerns in response to the Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan issued by the state in early 1990’s. Most stormwater best management practices (BMP’s) that
are required in existing code are from either the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual
or the 1979 Snohomish County Drainage Manual.
Why the Revision?
There are two main reasons for the code revisions:
1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (or Phase II Permit) from the
Department of Ecology requires we adopt updated regulations for sites with one acre or more of
land disturbing activity (i.e., clearing, grading, development).
2. Stormwater management for all size sites has advanced in the past 15 years since the code was
last updated.
Approach to proposed new code is a complete re-write with more choices and updated standards,
including, allowing for the use of low impact development (LID) techniques. The current code
only allows detention of runoff or infiltration (infiltration is currently allowed in only 12% of the
City, based on soil type).
The Phase II Permit requires the City to require stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
from the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington or other
manuals that Ecology has approved. These large sites represent only about 10% of the existing
privately-owned lots in the City. For these large sites, the proposed new Code is in compliance
with this requirement.
For lots under one acre or Small Sites (represent 90% of the lots in Edmonds), the Phase II Permit
give jurisdictions a choice, either:
• Continue to apply the local stormwater requirements in effect at the time of permit issuance
(February 2007) or
• Apply the same minimum requirements as for the Large Project Sites.
The Phase II Permit also emphasizes that no “back-sliding” is allowed from existing local
stormwater management regulations (i.e., local governments can not loosen their current
regulations on smaller sites). Edmonds currently has some of the strictest requirements for Small
Sites compared to other jurisdictions. This will continue in the proposed new code.
The proposed new code continues using the current stormwater requirements for Small Site
Projects, however, it:
• Clarifies and updates the requirements
• Provides more choices (a larger pallet of BMP’s)
• Allows for use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for stormwater control.
Low Impact Development
Packet Page 112 of 167
Low Impact Development (LID) means different things to different people. It is different if you
are a planner, a developer, a contractor, an engineer, or a homeowner. This code revision, LID
means:
• “Stormwater management and land development strategies applied at the parcel and subdivision
scale that emphasizes the conservation and use of on site natural features integrated with
engineered, small scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic the predevelopment hydrologic
functions.”
The current code was written before LID became a best management practice and it is difficult to
“fit it into” the current stormwater management requirements.
Any stormwater code can only do so much to allow and encourage LID. More can be done at the
site layout and design level (i.e., clustering buildings to preserve natural/vegetated areas, density
limits, or impervious surface limits, to name a few planning tools available). These are beyond the
scope of a stormwater management code.
In the proposed new code, LID is allowed and encouraged by:
• Minimizing the amount of rainfall that becomes stormwater runoff by recognizing the benefits
of:
o Green Roofs/Rainwater Harvesting (Currently evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the City
Building Department using alternate material and methods approach).
o Minimizing site footprint/native vegetation retention and reforestation (encouraged and
sometimes required by the Planning Department).
o Pervious pavement.
• Maximizing the amount of stormwater that is managed on-site by allowing:
o Rain Gardens.
o Other infiltration practices.
• Use of compost-amended soils in new lawn and landscaped areas to act as a “sponge” to absorb
and hold as much rainwater as possible on-site (this is a requirement).
We must be careful in Edmonds when we retain stormwater on-site using LID practices that rely
on infiltration because:
• Only 12% of the City’s land area has “good” soils for infiltration. (Use of small scale LID such
as rain gardens is possible in less than ideal soil conditions, if built and maintained properly).
• 25% of the City’s land area has slopes of 15% or greater.
• The presence of the Earth Subsidence and Landside Hazard Area in the northern part of the City.
• High density development in parts.
LID must be used carefully as not to cause flooding or erosion impacts to neighboring properties.
Planned Approach
The proposed new code (Exhibit A) provides what is required and provides the legal framework
for applicability, administration, exceptions, exemptions, adjustments, and enforcement. The
approach also includes a Stormwater Supplement (Exhibit B) details on how we want to see the
requirements implemented. This document provides the pallet of stormwater BMP’s for the
applicant to choose from to meet the minimum requirements that apply to their site.
The proposed new code contains more choices for meeting the requirements, i.e., the current code
only offers infiltration or detention for flow control; proposed new code will allow the applicant to
Packet Page 113 of 167
use a pallet of LID Best Management Practices to meet the standards. A lot of these Best
Management Practices will have pre-sizing table to make them easier to size and use.
Schedule/Public Involvement
Public Process to Date:
• February 24, 2009 – Council Presentation on planned code update.
• June 9, 2009 – Presentation to Council CS/DS Committee of progress of code update.
• November 19, 2009 – Public Open House presenting the planned approach to the new code.
• December 31, 2009 – draft code and supplement sent to state Department of Commerce for
GMA review.
• January 4, 2010 - draft code and supplement sent for SEPA review and public comment –
documents placed on City website soliciting written comments.
Current and Future Public Process:
• Now-Draft Code & Supplement available on the City website soliciting written comments.
• April 20, 2010 – Scheduled Public Hearing.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit A
Link: Exhibit B
Link: Exhibit C
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 03/17/2010 09:24 AM APRV
2 Public Works Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 08:35 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 08:36 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 08:43 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 08:48 AM APRV
Form Started By: Megan
Cruz
Started On: 03/16/2010 07:15
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 114 of 167
Chapter 18.30
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Sections:
18.30.000 Purpose
18.30.010 Definitions
18.30.020 Administration and Authority
18.30.030 Applicability
18.30.040 Project Classification
18.30.050 Stormwater Management
Requirements
18.30.060 Exemptions, Exceptions, and
Adjustments
18.30.070 Easements, Deeds, and
Covenants
18.30.080 Inspection and Maintenance
Roles and Responsibilities
18.30.090 Enforcement Procedures
18.30.000 Purpose
A. To protect water resources, reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable, and satisfy the state
requirement under Chapter 90.48 RCW to
apply all known, available, and reasonable
methods of prevention, control, and
treatment (AKART) to stormwater runoff
prior to discharge to receiving waters.
B. To control stormwater runoff
generated by development, redevelopment,
construction sites, or modifications to
existing stormwater systems that directly or
indirectly discharge to the City stormwater
system, in a manner that complies with the
Western Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit issued by the Department
of Ecology.
C. To protect land and the ecological
balance of receiving water bodies near
development sites from increased surface
water runoff rates and durations that could
cause flooding or erosion, scouring, and
deposition of sediment (caused by
development).
D. To protect private and public property
and city streets and rights-of-way (including
easements) from flooding or erosion due to
development activity.
E. To provide for inspection and
maintenance of stormwater facilities in the
city to ensure that these facilities perform as
designed.
F. To require that all public and private
stormwater facilities be operated, maintained,
and repaired in a manner that conforms to
this chapter.
G. To establish the minimum standards
that must be met for compliance.
H. To provide guidelines for all who
inspect and maintain stormwater facilities.
I. To promote development practices that
ensure the above purposes are met.
18.30.010 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the
following definitions shall apply:
A. “Adjustment” means a variation in the
application of a Minimum Requirement to a
particular project. Adjustments provide
substantially equivalent environmental
protection.
B. “Approval” means the proposed work or
completed work conforming to this chapter
as approved by the Public Works Director or
their designee.
C. “Applicant” means the owning
individual(s) or corporations or their
representatives applying for the permits or
approvals described in this Chapter.
D. “Best management practice (BMP)”
means the schedule of activities, prohibition
of practices, maintenance procedures, and
structural or managerial practices approved
by the City that, when used singly or in
combination, prevent or reduce the release
pollutants and other adverse impacts to
waters of Washington State.
E. “City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System or MS4” means a conveyance, or
system of conveyances (including roads with
March 19, 2010 1
Packet Page 115 of 167
drainage systems, municipal streets, catch
basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade
channels, or storm drains) that are owned or
operated by the City of Edmonds, designed
or used for collecting or conveying
stormwater, and are not a combined sewer
nor part of a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works as defined in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 122.2.
F. “Clearing” means the act of cutting or
removing vegetation, including grubbing.
G. “Common plan of development or sale”
means a site where multiple separate and
distinct construction activities may take place
at different times on different schedules, but
still under a single plan. For example:
phased projects and projects with multiple
filings or lots, even if the separate phases or
filings/lots will be constructed under separate
contract or by separate owners (e.g., a
development where lots are sold to separate
builders); a development plan that may be
phased over multiple years, but is still under
a consistent plan for long-term development;
or projects in a contiguous area that may be
unrelated but still under the same contract,
such as construction of a building extension
and a new parking lot at the same facility.
H. “Construction Activity” means land-
disturbing operations including clearing,
grading, or excavation that disturbs the
surface of the land. Such activities may
include road construction, construction of
residential houses, office buildings, or
industrial buildings, and demolition activity.
I. “Converted Pervious Surface” means the
change in land cover changed from native
vegetation to lawn, landscape, or pasture
areas.
J. “Creek” is synonymous with “stream”,
which is defined in Chapter 23.40.320
ECDC.
K. “Critical areas” is defined in Chapter
23.40.320 ECDC.
L. “Design storm” means a rainfall event or
pattern of events for use in analyzing and
designing drainage facilities.
M. “Detention” means a facility for
controlling stormwater runoff for a
prescribed design storm and releasing the
stormwater at a prescribed rate.
N. “Director” means the Public Works
Director or a designee with an appropriate
background in engineering or another related
discipline.
O. “Earth material” means any rock, natural
soil, fill, or any combination thereof.
P. “Ecology” means the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Q. “Effective impervious surface” means
those impervious surfaces that are connected
via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a
drainage system including the City’s MS4.
Impervious surfaces on residential
development sites are considered ineffective
if the runoff is dispersed through at least one
hundred feet of native vegetation in
accordance with BMP T5.30 – “Full
Dispersion,” as described in Chapter 5 of
Volume V of the Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (2005).
R. “Erosion” means the displacement of any
earth material of existing vegetation by
rainfall, stormwater runoff, or seepage.
S. “Excavation” means the removal of any
earth material.
T. “Exception” means relief from the
application of a Minimum Requirement to a
project.
U. “Fill” means a deposit of earth material
placed by artificial means.
V. “Groundwater” means water in a
saturated zone or stratum beneath the land
surface or below a water body.
W. “Highway” means a main public road
connecting towns and cities. In Edmonds,
this includes State Highway 99 and portions
of State Highway 104, both classified as
Principal Arterials in the City’s
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
March 19, 2010 2
Packet Page 116 of 167
X. “Illicit discharge” means any direct or
indirect non-stormwater discharge to the
City’s MS4, groundwaters, or a water body,
except as expressly allowed by Chapter
7.200 of Edmonds City Code.
Y. “Impervious surface” means a hard
surface area that either prevents or retards the
entry of water into the soil mantle as it
occurs under natural conditions prior to
development, resulting in stormwater runoff
from the surface in greater quantities or at an
increased rate of flow compared to
stormwater runoff characteristics under
natural conditions prior to development.
Common impervious surfaces include (but
are not limited to) rooftops, walkways,
patios, driveways, parking lots or storage
areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel
roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled
macadam or other surfaces that similarly
impede the natural infiltration of stormwater.
Open, uncovered retention/detention
facilities shall not be considered impervious
surfaces for purposes of determining whether
the thresholds for application of minimum
requirements are exceeded. However, open,
uncovered retention/detention facilities shall
be considered impervious surfaces for
purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor
swimming pools shall be considered
impervious surfaces in all situations.
Z. “Lake” means an inland body of fresh
water surrounded by land.
AA. “Land-disturbing activity” means any
activity that results in movement of earth, or
a change in the existing soil cover (both
vegetative and non-vegetative) or the existing
soil topography. Land-disturbing activities
include, but are not limited to clearing,
grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction
that is associated with stabilization of
structures and road construction shall also be
considered a land-disturbing activity.
Vegetation maintenance practices are not
considered land-disturbing activity.
BB. “Low Impact Development” means
development conducted in a way that seeks
to minimize or completely prevent alterations
to the natural hydrology of the site. Low
impact development includes site planning
and design to reduce alterations of natural
soil and vegetation cover, minimize
impervious surfaces, and specific practices
that help to replicate natural hydrology such
as permeable pavements, green roofs, soil
amendments, bioretention systems, and
dispersion of runoff.
CC. “Maintenance” means repair and
maintenance activities conducted on
currently serviceable structures, facilities,
and equipment that involves no expansion or
use beyond that previously existing, and
results in no significant adverse hydrologic
impact. It includes those usual activities
taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation
in the use of structures and systems. Those
usual activities may include replacement of
dysfunctional facilities, including cases
where environmental permits require
replacing an existing structure with a
different type structure, as long as the
functioning characteristics of the original
structure are not changed.
DD. “Maximum extent feasible” means the
requirement is to be fully implemented,
constrained only by the physical limitations
of the site, practical considerations of
engineering design, and reasonable
considerations of financial costs and
environmental impacts.
EE. “MS4” means the City’s Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System.
FF. “Native vegetation” means vegetation
comprised of plant species (other than
noxious weeds) indigenous to the coastal
region of the Pacific Northwest which could
have been reasonably expected to occur
naturally on the site. Examples include trees
such as Douglas fir, western hemlock,
western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple, and
vine maple; shrubs such as willow,
elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and
herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam
flower, and fireweed.
March 19, 2010 3
Packet Page 117 of 167
GG. “Natural drainage systems and outfalls”
means the location of the channels, swales,
and other non-manmade conveyance systems
as defined by the earliest documented
topographic contours existing for the subject
property, either from maps or photographs,
or such other means as appropriate.
HH. “New development” means land-
disturbing activities, including Class IV
general forest practices that are conversions
from timber land to other uses per Chapter
76.09.050 RCW; structural development,
including construction or installation of a
building or other structure; creation of
impervious surfaces; and subdivision, short
subdivision, and binding site plans, as
defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW.
Projects meeting the definition of
redevelopment shall not be considered new
development. If the project is part of a
common development plan or sale, the
disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used
in determining permit requirements.
II. “New Impervious Surface” means
impervious surface created after July 6, 1977
(the effective date of the City’s first drainage
control ordinance) that meets the conditions
described in the City of Edmonds
Stormwater Supplement (see Chapter
18.30.050).
JJ. “Person” means any individual,
partnership, corporation, association,
organization, cooperative, public or
municipal corporation, agency of the state, or
local government unit, however designated.
KK. “Project site” means that portion of a
property, properties, or right of way subject
to land-disturbing activities, new impervious
surfaces, or replaced impervious surfaces. If
the project is part of a common development
plan or sale, the disturbed area of the entire
plan shall be used in determining permit
requirements.
LL. “Receiving waters” means waterbodies
or surface water systems to which surface
runoff is discharged via a point source of
stormwater or via sheet flow.
MM. “Redevelopment” means on a site that is
already substantially developed, the creation
or addition of impervious surfaces; the
expansion of a building footprint or addition
or replacement of a structure; structural
development including construction,
installation, or expansion of a building or
other structure; replacement of impervious
surface that is not part of a routine
maintenance activity; and land-disturbing
activities.
NN. “Replaced impervious surface” means
for structures, the removal and replacement
of any exterior impervious surfaces or
foundation. For other impervious surfaces,
means the removal down to bare soil or base
course and replacement. For sites with
existing single family dwelling units, (as
defined in Chapter 21.90.080 ECDC) a
project that solely replaces the other
impervious surfaces in-kind (footprint and
imperviousness of material does not change),
shall not be considered replaced impervious
surface for the purposes of this chapter,
unless the project site has 1 acre or greater of
land-disturbing activities. (Note: These
surfaces may qualify as “new impervious
surface” – see definition.)
OO. “Roadway” means the traveled
impervious portion of any public or private
road or street.
PP. “Site” means the area defined by the
legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land
that is (are) subject to new development or
redevelopment. For road projects, or utility
projects in the right-of-way, the length of the
project site and the right-of-way boundaries
define the site.
QQ. “Slope” means the degree of slant of a
surface measured as a numerical ratio,
percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio,
the first number is the horizontal distance
(run) and the second is the vertical distance
(rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent
slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the
angle from the horizontal plane, with a 90-
March 19, 2010 4
Packet Page 118 of 167
degree slope being vertical (maximum) and
45 degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope.
RR. “Soil” means the unconsolidated mantle
of the earth that serves as a natural medium
for the growth of land plants.
SS. “Source control” means a structure or
operation that is intended to prevent
pollutants from coming into contact with
stormwater through physical separation of
areas or careful management of activities that
are sources of pollutants.
TT. “Stormwater” means runoff during and
following precipitation and snowmelt events,
including surface runoff and drainage.
UU. “Stormwater facility” means a
constructed component of a stormwater
drainage system, designed and constructed to
perform a particular function, or multiple
functions. Stormwater facilities include, but
are not limited to, pipes, pumping systems,
swales, ditches, culverts, street gutters, catch
basins, detention basins, wetlands,
infiltration devices, and pollutant removal
devices.
VV. “Stormwater site plan” The report and
associated plans containing all of the
technical information and analysis necessary
for the City to evaluate a proposed new
development or redevelopment project for
compliance with stormwater requirements.
Contents of the Stormwater Site Plan will
vary with the type and size of the project, and
individual site characteristics. It may include
a Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a
Permanent Stormwater Control Plan (PSC
Plan).
WW. “Substantially developed” means for
sites in zone district RS (as defined Chapter
16 ECDC) those that have an existing single
family dwelling unit (as defined in Chapter
21.90.080 ECDC). For sites with all other
zone districts, substantially developed shall
mean those sites with 35 percent or more
existing impervious surface coverage.
XX. “Threshold discharge area” means an
onsite area that drains to either a single
natural discharge location or multiple natural
discharge locations that combine within one-
quarter mile downstream (as determined by
the shortest flowpath). The examples in
Figure 2.1 presented in Volume I of the
Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (2005) illustrate this
definition. The purpose of this definition is to
clarify how the thresholds of this code are
applied to project sites with multiple
discharge points.
YY. “Variance” means the same as
“Exception”.
ZZ. “Water body” means a surface water
feature, whether standing or flowing,
including (but not limited to) sounds, lakes,
ponds, rivers, streams, and creeks including
waters of the state.
AAA. “Watershed” means a geographic
region within which water drains into a
particular river, stream, or water body.
BBB. “Waters of the state” includes those
waters as defined as “waters of the United
States” in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the
geographic boundaries of Washington State,
and “waters of the state” as defined in
Chapter 90.48 RCW which includes lakes,
rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters,
underground waters, salt waters and all other
surface waters and water courses within the
jurisdiction of the State of Washington.
CCC. “Wetlands” are as defined in Chapter
23.40.320 ECDC.
18.30.020 Administration and Authority
A. Director. The Public Works Director
or a designee shall administer this chapter
and shall be referred to as the Director. The
Director shall have the authority to develop
and implement procedures to administer and
enforce this chapter.
B. Review. The Director shall review all
plans for compliance with this chapter.
March 19, 2010 5
Packet Page 119 of 167
Revision and resubmittal to Stormwater Site
Plans may be required.
C. Fee. A review fee as set in Chapter
15.00 ECDC shall be paid.
D. Enforcement Authority. The Director
shall enforce this chapter.
E. Inspection. All activities regulated by
this chapter shall be inspected by the
Director. The Director shall inspect projects
for approval at various stages of the work to
determine that they are being constructed per
the approved Stormwater Site Plans. Stages
of work requiring inspection include (but are
not limited to) preconstruction, installation of
BMPs, land-disturbing activities, installation
of utilities, landscaping, and completion of
project. When required by the Director, a
special inspection or testing shall be
performed. The drainage system shall be
installed concurrently with site development
and shall be completed as shown on the
approved plan before city approval of an
occupancy permit or final inspection.
18.30.030 Applicability
A. This chapter applies if any of the
following pertains to a site:
1. Issuance of a City permit is
required:
a. Under all other chapters of
Title 18 ECDC
b. By the Building Division.
2. A Subdivision application is
submitted per Chapter 20.75.040.
3. The proposed project:
a. Involves 500 square feet or
more of land-disturbing activity, new
impervious surface, or replaced impervious
surface. Routine landscape maintenance
practices outside of Critical Areas (as defined
in Title 23 ECDC) and ongoing farming or
gardening activities shall be excluded unless
there is the potential for such an activity to
cause an illicit discharge to the City’s MS4.
b. Is a utility or other
construction projects consisting of 500 lineal
feet or more of trench excavation.
c. Is located in, adjacent to, or
drains into (currently or as a result of the
project) a Critical Area or a Critical Area
Buffer.
B. This chapter applies to actions
whenever the Director determines there is a
potential for:
1. An illicit discharge or physical
damage to the City’s MS4 or downstream
properties, or
2. A violation of applicable City,
State, or Federal laws, regulations or permits.
C. If a City Permit has been issued or a
subdivision application submitted for a site,
as provided in Section 18.30.030.A, the
requirements of this chapter shall be
administered under those permits. If the site
activities triggered in Section A of this
subchapter do not necessitate City-issued
permit, the requirements of this chapter shall
be administered under a Stormwater Permit.
D. The requirements of this chapter are
minimum requirements. They do not replace,
repeal, abrogate, supersede or affect any
other more stringent requirements, rules,
regulations, covenants, standards, or
restrictions. Where this chapter imposes
requirements that are more protective of
human health or the environment than those
set forth elsewhere, the provisions of this
chapter shall prevail. When this chapter
imposes requirements that are less protective
of human health or the environment than
those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of
the more protective requirements shall
prevail.
E. The minimum requirements that apply
to a project site will differ based on (but are
not limited to) the following: project scope
and configuration, physical site
characteristics, site location, and subsurface
conditions. The combination of site
activities and physical characteristics will
March 19, 2010 6
Packet Page 120 of 167
F. Approvals and permits granted under
this chapter are not waivers of the
requirements of any other laws, nor do they
indicate compliance with any other laws.
Compliance is still required with all
applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations, including rules promulgated
under authority of this chapter.
G. Compliance with the provisions of this
chapter does not necessarily mitigate all
impacts to the environment. Thus,
compliance with this chapter should not be
construed as mitigating all drainage water or
other environmental impacts, and additional
mitigation may be required to protect the
environment pursuant to other applicable
laws and regulations. The primary obligation
for compliance with this chapter and for
preventing environmental harm on or from
property is placed upon the applicant.
18.30.040 Project Classification
For purposes of this chapter, projects are
classified as Large Site, Small Site, or Minor
Site as described below, primarily based in
the extent of land-disturbing activities.
A. Large Site Project. Projects are Large
Site Projects if they involve:
1. 1 acre or more of land-disturbing
activity, or
2. If the project disturbs less than 1
acre of land and it is part of a larger common
plan of development or sale where land-
disturbing activity involves 1 acre or more.
B. Small Site Project. Projects are Small
Site Projects if are they are not Large Site
Projects and they involve:
1. 2,000 square feet or greater of
new, replaced, or new plus replaced
impervious surface area or
2. At least 7,000 square feet of land-
disturbing activity or
3. 50 cubic yards or more of either
grading, filling, or excavating as described in
Chapter 18.40.000 ECDC.
C. Minor Site Project. Projects are Minor
Site Projects if they involve:
1. 500 square feet or greater of new
development or redevelopment including
land-disturbing activity and utility projects
that cause land disturbance and
2. Are not a Large or Small Site
Project
18.30.050 Stormwater Management
Requirements
A. General
1. All activities covered by this
chapter shall comply with the site planning
and best management selection and design
criteria in the Stormwater Code Supplement
to Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC)Chapter 18.30 (Exhibit A), herein
referred to as the Stormwater Supplement, to
implement the applicable minimum technical
requirements listed in this chapter.
2. The City may allow alternative or
regional approaches to treatment, flow
control, or other minimum requirements per
the Basin/Watershed provisions the Western
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit.
B. Illicit Discharges and Connections.
Non-stormwater illicit discharges, including
spills into the City’s stormwater drainage
system, are prohibited per ECDC 7.200.
C. Low Impact Development. Low
Impact Development techniques shall be
employed where feasible, reasonable, and
appropriate. When low impact development
techniques are employed, the design shall be
consistent with the most recent version of the
Low Impact Development, Technical
March 19, 2010 7
Packet Page 121 of 167
Guidance for Puget Sound (Puget Sound
Action Team and Washington State
University Pierce County Extension), other
Low Impact Development standards
approved by Ecology, or the Stormwater
Supplement.
D. Minimum Technical Requirements by
Project Classification. The following lists
the additional requirements that apply to the
specific project classes:
1. Large Site Projects. Large Site
Projects shall meet the minimum technical
requirements outlined in Section 3 and
Section 4 of Appendix 1 of the Western
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit) and the Stormwater Supplement.
2. Small Site Projects. Small Site
Projects are further defined as Category 1 or
Category 2. All new development or
redevelopment projects shall, at a minimum,
comply with the applicable requirements for
Category 1 or Category 2 as found in the
Stormwater Supplement. Any or all of small
site minimum requirements (SSMRs) may be
required on any Small Site Project by the
Director to meet the purpose of this Chapter
based on site specific factors including, but
not limited to, location, soil conditions,
slope, and designated use. These
requirements are summarized as follows:
a. Category 1: For Small Site
Projects with less than 5,000 square feet of
new, replaced, or new plus replaced
impervious surface area the following
SSMRs shall apply:
i. SSMR #1 – Preparation of
Stormwater Site Plan
ii. SSMR #2 – Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
iii. SSMR #3 – Source
Control of Pollution
iv. SSMR #4 – Preservation
of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
v. SSMR #5 – Onsite
Stormwater Management/Low Impact
Development Techniques
vi. SSMR #7 - Flow Control -
This SSMR may be waived by the Director
based on the extent of application of SSMR
#5 to infiltrate, disperse, and retain
stormwater runoff on site without causing
flooding or erosion impact, per the criteria in
the Stormwater Supplement.
vii. SSMR#11 – Financial
Liability – Applies to stormwater systems
constructed in or adjacent to Critical Areas or
Critical Area buffers.
b. Category 2: For Small Site
Projects that include 5,000 square feet or
greater of new, replaced, or new plus
replaced impervious surface area; or convert
¾ acre or more of native vegetation to lawn
or landscaped area; or, through a
combination of creating effective impervious
surface and converted pervious surfaces,
causes a 0.1 cubic feet per second increase in
the 100-year flow frequency from a threshold
discharge area as estimated using an
approved model. The following SSMRs
shall apply:
i SSMR #1 - Preparation of
Stormwater Site Plan
ii. SSMR #2 – Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
i. SSMR #3 – Source Control
of Pollution
ii. SSMR #4 – Preservation of
Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
iii. SSMR #5 – Onsite
Stormwater Management/Low Impact
Development Techniques for Controlling
Runoff
iv. SSMR #6 – Runoff
Treatment.
v. SSMR #7 – Flow Control
vi. SSMR #8 – Wetland
Protection
vii. SSMR #9 – Operation and
Maintenance
viii. SSMR #10 – Off-Site
Analysis and Mitigation
March 19, 2010 8
Packet Page 122 of 167
ix. SSMR #11 – Financial
Liability
c. Any or all of SSMRs may be
required on any Small Site Project by the
Director to meet the purpose of this Chapter
based on site specific factors including, but
not limed to, location, soil conditions, slope,
and designated use.
3. Minor Site Projects The following
Minimum Requirements apply to Minor Site
Projects:
a. Minor Site Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Practices as
described in the Stormwater Supplement.
b. Additional requirements may
be imposed by the Director or designee on
Minor Project Sites to meet the purpose of
this Chapter based on site specific factors
including, but not limed to, location, soil
conditions, slope, and designated use.
18.30.060 Exemptions, Exceptions, and
Adjustments
A. Exemptions The following land uses
and land-disturbing activities are exempt
from the provisions of this chapter:
1. Forest practices regulated under
Title 222 WAC, except for Class IV general
forest practices that are conversions from
timber land to other uses, are exempt from
the provisions of the minimum requirements.
2. Commercial agriculture practices
that involve working land for production are
generally exempt. However, land conversion
from timberland to agriculture, and the
construction of impervious surfaces are not
exempt.
3. Construction of drilling sites, waste
management pits, and associated access
roads, and construction of transportation and
treatment infrastructure such as pipelines,
natural gas treatment plants, natural gas
pipeline compressor stations, and crude oil
pumping stations are exempt. Operators are
encouraged to implement and maintain best
management practices to minimize erosion
and control sediment during and after
construction activities to help ensure
protection of surface water quality during
storm events.
4. The following roadway
maintenance practices or activities are
exempt: pothole and square-cut patching,
overlaying existing asphalt or concrete
pavement with asphalt or concrete without
expanding the area of coverage, shoulder
grading, reshaping/regrading drainage
systems, crack sealing, resurfacing with in-
kind material without expanding the road
prism, and roadside vegetation maintenance.
a. For Large Site Projects only,
the following road maintenance practices or
activities are considered redevelopment, and
therefore are not categorically exempt. The
extent to which this exemption applies is
explained for each circumstance.
i. Removing and replacing a
paved surface to base course or a lower level,
or repairing the roadway base: If impervious
surfaces are not expanded, Large Site Project
Minimum Requirements #1 - #5 apply.
However, in most cases, only Large Site
Project Minimum Requirement #2,
Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention, shall be required. Where
appropriate, project proponents are
encouraged to look for opportunities to use
permeable and porous pavements.
ii. Extending the pavement
edge without increasing the size of the road
prism, or paving graveled shoulders are
considered new impervious surfaces and are
subject to the minimum requirements that are
triggered when the thresholds identified for
redevelopment projects are met.
iii. Resurfacing by upgrading
from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; or
upgrading from gravel to asphalt, or
concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous
surface treatment (“chip seal”) to asphalt or
concrete: These are considered new
March 19, 2010 9
Packet Page 123 of 167
impervious surfaces and are subject to the
minimum requirements that are triggered
when the thresholds identified for
redevelopment projects are met.
5. Underground utility projects that
replace the ground surface with in-kind
material or materials with similar runoff
characteristics are only subject to Minimum
Requirement #2, Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention.
6. With respect to replaced
impervious surfaces, a redevelopment
project may be exempt from compliance
with SSMR 6 (treatment), SSMR 7 (flow
control), and SSMR 8 (wetlands protection)
(or the associated applicable minimum
requirements for large sites) should the City
adopt a plan and schedule that fulfills those
requirements through a regional drainage
control plan (e.g., via a regional facility or
facilities, stream restoration, or basin-
specific development requirements).
7. City capital and maintenance
projects are exempt from the financial
liability minimum requirement.
B. Exceptions
1. The Director may approve a
request for an exception to the requirements
of this chapter when the applicant
demonstrates that the exception will not
increase risks to public health, safety, and
welfare, or to water quality, or to public and
private property in the vicinity or
downstream of the property, and it has been
determined that one or more of the following
applies:
a. The requirement would cause
a severe and unexpected financial hardship
that outweighs the requirement’s benefits,
and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be
met; or
b. The requirement would cause
harm or a significant threat of harm to public
health, safety, and welfare, the environment,
or public and private property, and the
criteria for an adjustment cannot be met; or
c. The requirement is not
technically feasible, and the criteria for an
adjustment cannot be met; or
d. An emergency situation exists
that necessitates approval of the exception.
2. An exception to the requirements
shall only be granted to the extent necessary
to provide relief from the economic hardship
as determined by the Director, to alleviate the
harm or threat of harm to the degree that
compliance with the requirement becomes
technically feasible, or to perform the
emergency work that the Director determines
is warranted. The exception shall be the least
possible exception that could be granted and
still provide compliance with the intent of the
minimum requirements.
3. The Director may require an
applicant to provide additional information at
the applicant’s expense, including (but not
limited to) an engineer’s report or analysis.
4. When an exception is granted, the
Director may impose new or additional
requirements to offset or mitigate harm or the
threat of harm that may be caused by
granting the exception, or that would have
been prevented if the exception had not been
granted.
5. Public notice of an application for
an exception and of the Director’s decision
on the application shall be provided for in the
manner prescribed in ECDC Chapter 20.03.
6. The Director’s decision shall be in
writing with written findings of fact.
7. An application for an exception on
the grounds of severe and unexpected
financial hardship shall describe, at a
minimum, all of the following:
a. The current, pre-project use of
the site; and
b. How application of the
requirement(s) for which an exception is
being requested restricts the proposed use of
the site compared to the restrictions that
existed prior to adoption of this chapter; and
March 19, 2010 10
Packet Page 124 of 167
c. The possible remaining uses
of the site if the exception were not granted;
and
d. The possible uses of the site
that would have been allowed prior to the
adoption of this chapter; and
e. A comparison of the estimated
amount and percentage of value loss as a
result of the requirements versus the
estimated amount and percentage of value
loss as a result of requirements that existed
prior to adoption of the requirements of this
chapter; and
f. The feasibility of the applicant
to alter the project to apply the requirements
of this chapter.
8. An applicant aggrieved by the
Director’s decision on an application for an
exception may appeal the decision to the
Hearing Examiner’s Office in accordance
with a Type II appeal process in ECDC
Chapter 20.105.
9. The Hearing Examiner shall affirm
the Director’s decision unless the Hearing
Examiner finds the decision is clearly
erroneous based on substantial evidence. The
applicant for the exception shall carry the
burden of proof on all issues related to
justifying the exception.
10. The Director shall keep a record
including the Director’s findings of fact, on
all approved requests for exceptions.
C. Adjustments
1. The Director may approve a
request for adjustments to the requirements
of this chapter when the Director finds that:
a. The adjustment provides
substantially equivalent environmental
protection; and
b. The objectives of safety,
function, environmental protection, and
facility maintenance are met, based on sound
engineering practices.
2. During construction, the Director
may require, or the applicant may request,
that the construction of drainage control
facilities and associated project designs be
adjusted if physical conditions are discovered
on the site that are inconsistent with the
assumptions on which the approval was
based, including (but not limited to)
unexpected soil or water conditions, weather
generated problems, or changes in the design
of the improved areas; and
3. A request by the applicant for an
adjustment shall be submitted to the Director
for review and approval prior to
implementation. The request shall be in
writing and shall provide facts substantiating
the requirements of subsection C.1, and if
made during construction, the factors in
subsection C.2. Any such modifications
made during the construction of drainage
control facilities shall be included with the
final approved drainage control plan.
4. An applicant aggrieved by the
Director’s decision on an application for an
adjustment may appeal the decision to the
Hearing Examiner’s Office in accordance
with a Type II appeal process in ECDC
Chapter 20.105.
18.30.070 Easements, Deeds, and
Covenants
A. Easements A Public Storm Drainage
Inspection Easement shall be required where:
1. Stormwater facilities identified on
project plans will be located on property
owned by a party other than the owner of the
project site or
2. Access is needed to structural or non
structural stormwater facilities for inspection
by the City to ensure that these stormwater
best management practices continue to
function as designed.
Easements shall be as specified in
Engineering Division documents or approved
March 19, 2010 11
Packet Page 125 of 167
by the Director, and recorded with
Snohomish County and on all proper deeds.
B. Deeds and Covenants for Low Impact
Development. Deed restrictions and
covenants shall be required for all sites using
low impact development techniques to
ensure that these stormwater best
management practices continue to function as
designed. The deed restrictions or covenants
shall address or append requirements and
responsibilities for long term management
and maintenance of these best management
practices.
18.30.080 Inspection and Maintenance
Roles, and Responsibilities
Proper inspection and maintenance of
stormwater facilities (including construction
BMPs) is essential for the protection of the
City’s MS4 and the environment. Inspection
and maintenance of all stormwater facilities
shall be required in accordance with the
Stormwater Supplement.
A. Stormwater Maintenance and
Inspection Standards Stormwater facilities
shall be inspected and maintained per the
requirements of the Stormwater Supplement.
For systems which do not have a
maintenance standard, the owner shall
develop a standard based on guidelines from
the manufacturer, designer, or a registered
professional engineer and submit the
standards to the Director for approval.
B. Ownership. Stormwater facilities are
either privately or publicly owned and
maintained. All stormwater facilities that
serve commercial and industrial sites are
private. Storm drainage facilities or controls
that are privately owned by a homeowner’s
association or similar organization also are
private.
C. Maintenance and Inspection. All
privately owned storm drainage facilities or
controls shall be maintained by the owner, or
the homeowner or owner association
(“Owner”) if one is established as part of a
residential or commercial development. All
private storm drainage facilities shall be
regularly inspected to ensure proper
operation and shall monitor the facility or
control as required or as set forth in the
Stormwater Supplement. The Owner shall
maintain records of inspection and
maintenance, disposal receipts, and
monitoring results. The records shall catalog
the action taken, the person who took it, the
date said action was taken, how it was done,
results of any monitoring effort, and any
problems encountered or follow-up actions
required. The records shall be made available
to the City upon request. The Owner shall
maintain a copy of the Stormwater
Operations and Maintenance Manual (if
required) on site, and shall make reference to
such document in real property records filed
with Snohomish County, so others who
acquire real property served by the privately
owned storm drainage facilities or controls
are notified of their obligation to maintain
such facilities or controls.
D. When an inspection identifies an
exceedance of the maintenance standard,
maintenance shall be performed:
1. Within 1 year for wet pool
facilities and retention/detention
facilities.
2. Within 6 months for typical
maintenance.
3. Within 9 months for maintenance
requiring re-vegetation, and
4. Within 2 years for maintenance
that requires capital construction of less
than $25,000.
E. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance
Activities Disposal of waste from
maintenance activities shall be conducted in
accordance with the minimum Functional
Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter
173-304 WAC, guidelines for disposal of
waste materials from storm water
maintenance activities, and where
March 19, 2010 12
Packet Page 126 of 167
appropriate, the Dangerous Waste
Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC.
F. City Inspection The regular inspection
of privately owned storm drainage facilities
or controls is essential to enable the City to
evaluate the proper operation of the City’s
MS4 and the environment. The City shall
have access to private stormwater facilities
for inspection to ensure they are properly
operated and maintained per the provision in
ECC Chapter 7.200.100. The City may offer
an incentive program to owners to encourage
the proper maintenance of private storm
drainage facilities.
18.30.090 Enforcement Procedures
A. General Enforcement action shall be
in accordance with this chapter whenever a
person has violated any provision of this
chapter. The choice of enforcement action is
at the discretion of the City. The severity of
any penalty shall be based on the nature of
the violation, the damage or risk to the public
or to public resources, or the degree of bad
faith of the person subject to the enforcement
action.
B. Stop Work Order. The Director shall
have the authority to serve a person a stop
work order if an action is being undertaken in
violation of this chapter.
1. Content of order – the order shall
contain:
a. A description of the specific
nature, extent, and time of violation and the
damage or potential damage
b. A notice that the violation or
the potential violation cease and desist, and,
in appropriate cases, the specific corrective
action to be taken within a given time
c. A civil penalty under ECDC
18.30.090.C below may be issued with the
order.
2. Notice. A stop work order may be
imposed by a notice in writing, either by
certified mail with return receipt requested,
or by personal service, to the person(s)
shown on the rolls of the Snohomish County
assessor as the owner of the site, noted as the
applicant on any application for development
approval or observed doing regulated activity
on the site.
3. Effective date. The stop work
order issued under this section shall become
effective immediately upon receipt by the
person to whom the order is directed.
4. Compliance. Failure to comply
with the terms of a stop work order shall
result in enforcement actions including (but
not limited to) the issuance of a civil penalty.
C. Maintenance Orders. The Director
shall have the authority to issue to an owner
or person an order to maintain or repair a
component of a stormwater facility or BMP
to bring it into compliance with this chapter,
the Stormwater Supplement, and the
Edmonds Community Development Code.
The order shall include:
1. A description of the specific nature,
extent and time of the violation and the
damage or potential damage that reasonably
might occur;
2. A notice that the violation or the
potential violation cease and desist and, in
appropriate cases, the specific corrective
actions to be taken; and
3. A reasonable time to comply,
depending on the circumstances.
D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to
comply with the requirements of this chapter,
who fails to conform to the terms of an
approval or order issued, who undertakes
new development or redevelopment project
without first obtaining approval, or who fails
to comply with a stop work order or
maintenance order issued under these
regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty
as outlined below:
1. Civil penalties for code violations
shall be imposed for remedial purposes and
shall be assessed for each violation identified
in a notice of violation, notice and order, or
March 19, 2010 13
Packet Page 127 of 167
March 19, 2010 14
stop work order, pursuant to the following
schedule:
a. Notice and orders and stop
work orders: basic initial penalty: $500.00.
2. Additional initial penalties may be
added where there is:
a. Public health risk – amount
depends on severity: $0 – $2,500.
b. Environmental damage –
amount depends on severity: $0 – $2,500.
c. Damage to property – amount
depends on severity: $0 – $2,500.
d. History of similar violations
(less than three): $500.00.
e. History of similar violations
(three or more): $2,500.
f. Economic benefit to person
responsible for violation: $1,000 – $5,000.
3. The above penalties may be offset
by the following compliance:
a. Full compliance with a
voluntary compliance agreement with prior
history of zero to one similar violations: $0 –
$1,500.
b. Full compliance with a
voluntary compliance agreement and a
history of two or more prior similar
violations: $0 – $500.00.
4. If the violation(s) are not corrected
as required by the notice and order or stop
work order, or a voluntary compliance
agreement is not entered into within that time
period, and no appeal is filed, the penalties
for the next 15-day period shall be 150
percent of the initial penalties, and the
penalties for the next 15-day period shall be
200 percent of the initial penalties. The intent
of this subsection is to increase penalties
beyond the maximum penalties stated as an
additional means to achieve timely
compliance.
5. Civil penalties shall be paid within
30 days of service of the notice and order or
stop work order if not appealed. Payment of
the civil penalties assessed under this chapter
does not relieve a person found to be
responsible for a code violation of his or her
duty to correct the violation or to pay any
and all civil penalties or other cost
assessments issued pursuant to this chapter.
6. The city may suspend civil
penalties if the person responsible for a code
violation has entered into a voluntary
compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin
to accrue again pursuant to the terms of the
voluntary compliance agreement if any
necessary permits applied for are denied,
canceled or not pursued, if corrective action
identified in the voluntary compliance
agreement is not completed as specified, or if
the property is allowed to return to a
condition similar to that condition which
gave rise to the voluntary compliance
agreement.
7. Civil penalties assessed create a
joint and several personal obligations in all
persons responsible for a code violation.
E. The remedies provided for in this
section shall not be exclusive. The city may
also use other civil and administrative
remedies available to it, including but not
limited to, the remedies provided in ECDC
Title 19 and the State Building and
Dangerous Building Code.
Packet Page 128 of 167
1
DRAFT
STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE CHAPTER 18.30
Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
2.0 Classifying Projects...........................................................................................................3
2.1 Project Classifications ...........................................................................................3
2.2 Determining New Impervious Surface Area ..........................................................3
2.3 Determining Replaced Impervious Surface Area ..................................................3
2.4 Determining Project Basin Type............................................................................4
3.0 Large Site Requirements ..................................................................................................7
3.1. Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan........................7
3.2 Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.9
3.3 Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution.......................................9
3.4 Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and
Outfalls..............................................................................................................................9
3.5 Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management/Low Impact
Development Techniques for Controlling Runoff ............................................................10
3.5.1 LID Facility BMP Selection ......................................................................11
3.5.2 LID Techniques and Infiltration................................................................12
3.6 Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment ...................................................13
3.6.1 Project Thresholds...................................................................................13
3.6.2 Runoff Treatment Standards ...................................................................13
3.6.3 Runoff Treatment BMP Selection............................................................14
3.7 Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control...........................................................14
3.7.1 Project Thresholds and Applicability........................................................14
3.7.2 Flow Control Standards...........................................................................16
3.7.3 Flow Control Facility Sizing......................................................................19
3.7.4 Flow Control BMP Selection....................................................................20
3.8 Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection.................................................21
3.9 Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance...................................21
3.10 Minimum Requirement #10 – Offsite Analysis and Mitigation.............................21
3.10.1 Qualitative Analysis .................................................................................21
3.10.2 Quantitative Analysis...............................................................................22
3.11 Minimum Requirement #11 – Financial Liability..................................................22
4.0 Small Site Requirements.................................................................................................25
4.1 Small Site Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan.....26
Packet Page 129 of 167
2
4.2 Small Site Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan...............................................................................................................27
4.3 Small Site Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution ...................28
4.4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage
Systems and Outfalls ......................................................................................................28
4.5 Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management/Low
Impact Development Techniques for Controlling Runoff.................................................28
4.5.1 LID Facility BMP Selection ......................................................................29
4.5.2 LID Techniques and Infiltration................................................................30
4.5.3 Bioretention Cells or Rain Gardens for Single Family Residential Sites..31
4.6 Small Site Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment..................................32
4.6.1 Project Thresholds...................................................................................32
4.6.2 Runoff Treatment Standards ...................................................................32
4.6.3 Runoff Treatment BMP Selection............................................................33
4.7 Small Site Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control..........................................33
4.7.1 Project Thresholds and Applicability........................................................33
4.7.2 Flow Control Standards...........................................................................34
4.7.3 Flow Control Facility Sizing......................................................................36
4.7.4 Flow Control BMP Selection....................................................................37
4.8 Small Site Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection................................38
4.9 Small Site Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance..................38
4.10 Small Site Minimum Requirement #10 – Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation..........38
4.10.1 Qualitative Analysis .................................................................................38
4.10.2 Quantitative Analysis...............................................................................39
4.11 Small Site Minimum Requirement #11 – Financial Liability.................................39
5.0 Minor Site Requirements.................................................................................................41
5.1 Minor Site Minimum Requirement – Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan...............................................................................................................41
6.0 Operation and Maintenance Requirements ....................................................................43
7.0 Terminology ....................................................................................................................45
8.0 References......................................................................................................................49
Appendix A – Synopsis of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.......... 51
Appendix B – Supplemental Technical Information ....................................................................53
Edmonds Watersheds and Soils.....................................................................................53
Edmonds Watersheds.....................................................................................................53
Edmonds Soils and Slopes .............................................................................................53
Packet Page 130 of 167
3
Appendix C – Approved Methods for Obtaining Design Infiltration Rates ..................................59
USDA Textural Classification..........................................................................................59
Modified Pilot Infiltration Testing (PIT) Method ...............................................................60
Infiltration Test.................................................................................................................61
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................62
Apply Correction Factor ..................................................................................................62
Packet Page 131 of 167
March 23, 2010
1
11
Stormwater Code Revision
for
Controlling Runoff from New Development,
Redevelopment, and Construction Activities
Overview and Approach
March 23, 2010
22
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
••What is a Stormwater Code?What is a Stormwater Code?
••Who Does it Affect?Who Does it Affect?
••History of Edmonds Stormwater CodeHistory of Edmonds Stormwater Code
••Why the Code Revision?Why the Code Revision?
••Planned Approach Planned Approach --encouraging Low encouraging Low
Impact Development (LID) techniquesImpact Development (LID) techniques
••Schedule / Public InvolvementSchedule / Public Involvement
33
What is a Stormwater Code?What is a Stormwater Code?
••Purpose:Purpose:
––Control Control stormwater runoffstormwater runoff from:from:
Construction sites Construction sites
New development and redevelopmentNew development and redevelopment
––To minimize the effects from development on:To minimize the effects from development on:
Private and public property (including roads) from Private and public property (including roads) from
floodingflooding or erosionor erosion
The The quality of our receiving watersquality of our receiving waters from sediment from sediment
or other pollutantsor other pollutants
Aquatic habitatAquatic habitat including the physical damage of including the physical damage of
excessive flows that cause erosion and excessive flows that cause erosion and
sedimentation.sedimentation.
Packet Page 132 of 167
March 23, 2010
2
44
What is a Stormwater Code?What is a Stormwater Code?
••Construction SitesConstruction Sites
55
What is a StormwaterWhat is a Stormwater
Code?Code?
••New development and New development and
RedevelopmentRedevelopment
Traditional Stormwater
Management
66
Who Does It Affect?Who Does It Affect?
••HomeownersHomeowners
••Business OwnersBusiness Owners
••DevelopersDevelopers
••ContractorsContractors
••Stream/LakeStream/Lake --side residentsside residents
••Public Utilities Public Utilities (PUD, Comcast, etc.)(PUD, Comcast, etc.)
••City Capital ProjectsCity Capital Projects
Packet Page 133 of 167
March 23, 2010
3
77
History of Stormwater CodeHistory of Stormwater Code
••First Code effective July 7, 1977First Code effective July 7, 1977
––Required “retention/detention” for sites that met Required “retention/detention” for sites that met
impervious surface threshold (Chapter 12.17)impervious surface threshold (Chapter 12.17)
––Relied partially on first King County Drainage ManualRelied partially on first King County Drainage Manual
••December 1980 First Revision December 1980 First Revision
––Incorporated into Edmonds’ first Development Code Incorporated into Edmonds’ first Development Code
(Chapter 18.30)(Chapter 18.30)
––Relied on 1979 Snohomish County Drainage Manual and Relied on 1979 Snohomish County Drainage Manual and
King County Drainage ManualKing County Drainage Manual
88
History of Stormwater CodeHistory of Stormwater Code
••1995 1995 ––Last Last Significant RevisionSignificant Revision in in
response to response to Puget Sound Water Quality Puget Sound Water Quality
Management PlanManagement Plan
––Infiltration or Detention onlyInfiltration or Detention only
––Inflexible to other approaches/Difficult to Inflexible to other approaches/Difficult to
approve LIDapprove LID
––Different set of requirements for sites >= 1 Different set of requirements for sites >= 1
acre and <1 acreacre and <1 acre
––Different set of requirements for sites with Different set of requirements for sites with
>2,000 sf impervious <5,000 sf.>2,000 sf impervious <5,000 sf.
––1992 Ecology Stormwater Manual1992 Ecology Stormwater Manual
99
Why the Revision?Why the Revision?
••Dept. of Ecology Issued Dept. of Ecology Issued Phase II Municipal Phase II Municipal
Stormwater PermitStormwater Permit to Edmonds and 80+ other to Edmonds and 80+ other
cities.cities.
••Section S5.C.4 of the Section S5.C.4 of the Phase II PermitPhase II Permit prescribes prescribes
how the City should how the City should regulate runoff from new regulate runoff from new
development, redevelopment, and construction development, redevelopment, and construction
sites.sites.
••Intent: Intent: Protect Protect water qualitywater quality, by reducing the , by reducing the
discharge of pollutants to the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent maximum extent
practicable.practicable.
Packet Page 134 of 167
March 23, 2010
4
1010
Why the Revision?Why the Revision?
••Phase II PermitPhase II Permit divides the world into two categories: divides the world into two categories:
––Projects with Projects with 11--acre or more of landacre or more of land --disturbing activitydisturbing activity
(“regulatory threshold”) or Large Site Projects(“regulatory threshold”) or Large Site Projects
––Projects below the regulatory threshold, or Small Site Projects below the regulatory threshold, or Small Site
ProjectsProjects
••Phase II PermitPhase II Permit prescribes a process for new development prescribes a process for new development
and redevelopment of Large Site Projects: and redevelopment of Large Site Projects:
––Use the Use the Stormwater Management Manual For Western Stormwater Management Manual For Western
WashingtonWashington (Ecology 2005) or an equivalent manual(Ecology 2005) or an equivalent manual
••Only applies to approx. Only applies to approx. 10 %of the current privatelyof the current privately--
owned parcels in the City.owned parcels in the City.
1111
Why the Revision?Why the Revision?
••For Small Site Projects (less than 1 acre) For Small Site Projects (less than 1 acre)
the the Phase II PermitPhase II Permit gives regulated gives regulated
jurisdictions a choice: jurisdictions a choice:
––Continue to apply the local stormwater Continue to apply the local stormwater
requirements in effect at the time of permit requirements in effect at the time of permit
issuance (February 2007) issuance (February 2007) or or
––Apply the same minimum requirements as for Apply the same minimum requirements as for
the Large Project Sites.the Large Project Sites.
1212
Why the Revision?Why the Revision?
••Revised codeRevised code continue using the current continue using the current
stormwater requirementsstormwater requirements for Small Site for Small Site
Projects Projects but:but:
––Clarify and updateClarify and update the requirementsthe requirements
––Provide more choicesProvide more choices (Best Management (Best Management
Practices or BMPs) Practices or BMPs) ––last update 15 years agolast update 15 years ago
––Allows forAllows for use of Low Impact Development use of Low Impact Development
(LID) techniques for stormwater control.(LID) techniques for stormwater control.
Packet Page 135 of 167
March 23, 2010
5
1313
How is Low Impact Development How is Low Impact Development
Like Health Care Reform? Like Health Care Reform?
Question:Question:
It means It means differentdifferent things to things to
differentdifferent people? people?
1414
““Stormwater management Stormwater management
and and land development land development
strategiesstrategies applied at the
parcel and subdivision
scale that emphasizes the
conservation and use of
on-site natural features
integrated with
engineered, small scale
hydrologic controls to
more closely mimic the
predevelopment
hydrologic functions.”
1515
Planned Approach: Planned Approach:
LID in the New Stormwater CodeLID in the New Stormwater Code
1.1.Minimize the amount of rainfall that becomes stormwater Minimize the amount of rainfall that becomes stormwater
runoff by runoff by recognizing the benefitsrecognizing the benefits of:of:
Green Roofs /Rainwater Harvesting Green Roofs /Rainwater Harvesting ––Building Dept.Building Dept.
Minimizing site footprint/native vegetation retention and reforeMinimizing site footprint/native vegetation retention and reforestation station ––
Planning Dept.Planning Dept.
Pervious pavementPervious pavement
2.2.Maximize the amount of stormwater that is managed onMaximize the amount of stormwater that is managed on--
site by allowing:site by allowing:
Rain GardensRain Gardens
Other infiltration practicesOther infiltration practices
Without causing flooding or erosion impacts!Without causing flooding or erosion impacts!
3.3.Require compostRequire compost--amended soilsamended soils in new lawn and in new lawn and
landscaped areaslandscaped areas
Packet Page 136 of 167
March 23, 2010
6
1616
Planned ApproachPlanned Approach
1.1.Edmonds Community Development Code Edmonds Community Development Code
Chapter 18.30 Chapter 18.30
––Completely ReCompletely Re --writtenwritten
–It describes WhatWhat you need to do to you need to do to
meet the comply.meet the comply.
2.2.New Exhibit to the Code New Exhibit to the Code --Stormwater Code Stormwater Code
SupplementSupplement
––HowHow we want it done in Edmondswe want it done in Edmonds
1717
Planned ApproachPlanned Approach
••Overall Overall More ChoicesMore Choices & & Updated StandardsUpdated Standards
••Large Site Projects (>=1 acre)Large Site Projects (>=1 acre)
––Primarily rely on the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Primarily rely on the 2005 Ecology Stormwater
Manual, with reference to other sections of Manual, with reference to other sections of
“equivalent” Phase I Manuals where appropriate.“equivalent” Phase I Manuals where appropriate.
••Small Site Projects Small Site Projects ––updatedupdated
––Allows LID techniques where feasibleAllows LID techniques where feasible
––More preMore pre --sized approachessized approaches
––Updated sizing based on modern stormwater modelsUpdated sizing based on modern stormwater models
1818
Planned ApproachPlanned Approach
••Minimum Requirements (MR):Minimum Requirements (MR):
––Large Site Projects must evaluate applicability of MR #1 Large Site Projects must evaluate applicability of MR #1
--11 (Ecology 2005)11 (Ecology 2005)
6. Runoff Treatment
11. Financial Liability5. On-Site Stormwater Management
10. Off-site Analysis &
Mitigation
4. Preservation of Natural Drainage
systems and Outfalls
9. Operation &
Maintenance
3. Source Control of Pollution
8. Wetland Protection2. Construction Pollution Prevention
Plan
7. Flow Control1. Preparation of Stormwater Site
Plan
Packet Page 137 of 167
March 23, 2010
7
1919
Planned ApproachPlanned Approach
••Small Site Minimum Requirements (SSMR):Small Site Minimum Requirements (SSMR):
––Less Complicated than for Large SitesLess Complicated than for Large Sites
Category 1 - >+2,000 sf but <5,000 sf impervious surface
SSMR 11 Financial Liability (may not apply)
SSMR 7. Flow Control (may not apply)
SSMR 5. On-Site Stormwater Management
SSMR 4. Preservation of Natural Drainage systems and
Outfalls
SSMR 2. Construction Pollution Prevention Plan
SSMR 1. Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan
2020
Planned ApproachPlanned Approach
••Small Site Minimum Requirements (SSMR):Small Site Minimum Requirements (SSMR):
––Less Complicated than for Large SitesLess Complicated than for Large Sites
SSMR 6. Runoff Treatment
SSMR 11. Financial
Liability
SSMR 5. On-Site Stormwater
Management
SSMR 10. Off-site
Analysis & Mitigation
SSMR 4. Preservation of Natural
Drainage systems and Outfalls
SSMR 9. Operation &
Maintenance
SSMR 3. Source Control of Pollution
SSMR 8. Wetland
Protection
SSMR 2. Construction Pollution
Prevention Plan
SSMR 7. Flow ControlSSMR 1. Preparation of Stormwater
Site Plan
Category 2 - >=5,000 sf impervious surface
2121
PrePre--Sizing of BMPsSizing of BMPs
Bioretention or Rain GardenBioretention or Rain Garden
Packet Page 138 of 167
March 23, 2010
8
2222
PrePre--Sizing of BMPsSizing of BMPs
Sizing FactorsSizing Factors
Bioretention (Rain Garden)Bioretention (Rain Garden)
4.2%4.2%1.01.0
1212 inch inch
ponding depthponding depth
6.8%6.8%1.01.0
66 inch inch
ponding depthponding depth
Sizing Factor Sizing Factor
(% Contrib. Area)(% Contrib. Area)
2.3%2.3%
6.2%6.2%
9.6%9.6%
3.9%3.9%
9.7%9.7%
15.7 %15.7 %
2.02.0
BMPBMP
2.02.0
0.50.5
0.250.25
0.50.5
0.250.25
Design Infilt. Rate Design Infilt. Rate
(in/hr) (in/hr)
2323
PrePre--Sizing of BMPsSizing of BMPs
Sizing FactorsSizing Factors
Bioretention (Rain Garden)Bioretention (Rain Garden)
4.2%4.2%1.01.0
1212 inch inch
ponding depthponding depth
6.8%6.8%1.01.0
66 inch inch
ponding depthponding depth
Sizing Factor Sizing Factor
(% Contrib. Area)(% Contrib. Area)
2.3%2.3%
6.2%6.2%
9.6%9.6%
3.9%3.9%
9.7%9.7%
15.7 %15.7 %
2.02.0
BMPBMP
2.02.0
0.50.5
0.250.25
0.50.5
0.250.25
Design Infilt. Rate Design Infilt. Rate
(in/hr) (in/hr)
Example: If Infiltration Rate is 1.0 in/hr and Ponding Depth is 12 inches,
Bioretention Bottom Area = Contributing Impervious Area x
4.2%
2424
PrePre--Sizing of BMPs Sizing of BMPs --ChamberChamber
Kitsap County Stormwater Manual
Packet Page 139 of 167
March 23, 2010
9
2525
PrePre--Sizing of BMPsSizing of BMPs
Sizing FactorsSizing Factors
* Also have factors for 4* Also have factors for 4--and 6and 6--foot drywells , infiltration trenches & foot drywells , infiltration trenches &
equations for detention pipeequations for detention pipe
Stormwater ChamberStormwater Chamber
Sizing Factor* (% Contrib. Area)Sizing Factor* (% Contrib. Area)
3.9 %3.9 %
7.7 %7.7 %
10.2 %10.2 %
2.02.0
BMPBMP
0.50.5
0.250.25
Design Infilt. Design Infilt.
Rate (in/hr) Rate (in/hr)
2626
Schedule/Public InputSchedule/Public Input
••Public Process to DatePublic Process to Date
February 24, 2009February 24, 2009 ––Council Presentation on Council Presentation on
planned code updateplanned code update
June 9, 2009June 9, 2009 ––Presentation to Council CS/DS Presentation to Council CS/DS
Committee of progress of code updateCommittee of progress of code update
November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 ––Public Open House Public Open House
presenting the planned approach to the new presenting the planned approach to the new
code.code.
December 31, 2009December 31, 2009 ––draft code and supplement draft code and supplement
sent to state Dept. of Commerce for GMA reviewsent to state Dept. of Commerce for GMA review
January 4, 2010 January 4, 2010 --draft code and supplement sent draft code and supplement sent
for SEPA review and public comment for SEPA review and public comment ––
documents placed on City website soliciting documents placed on City website soliciting
written commentswritten comments
2727
Schedule/Public InputSchedule/Public Input
••Current and Future Public ProcessCurrent and Future Public Process
NowNow --Draft Code & Supplement available Draft Code & Supplement available on on
City Website City Website soliciting written commentssoliciting written comments
April 20, 2010April 20, 2010 ––Scheduled Public HearingScheduled Public Hearing
Packet Page 140 of 167
March 23, 2010
10
2828
Questions?Questions?
Packet Page 141 of 167
AM-2911 8.
Establish Fire Proceeds Fund
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Establish fire proceeds fund.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On February 23, 2010, the City Council resolved to spend $100,000 of the proceeds from the Fire
District 1 sale for Carnegie Library building maintenance. The sale of the Fire District Assets
generated a payment to the City of $696,017.
See attached Status of Cash Flows from FD1 Contract Proposal, dated February 1, 2010.
Attachment 1: Status of Cash Flows from FD 1 Contract Proposal
Attachment 2: Bernheim Memo
Attachment 3: 2/23/2010 Council Meeting Minutes
During the March 9, 2010 Finance Committee Meeting, Councilperson Bernheim made a
proposal to create a segregated account with Fire District sale proceeds (less $100,000 already
dedicated to Carnegie Library restoration as per Council resolution on February 23, 2010).
Councilperson Bernheim requests the Committee review the proposal and recommend
consideration by the full council at the next available meeting.
The Committee requested that the approximated $596,000 remaining as a result of the
sale of fire service related assets be segregated in a separate fund. Committee members
forwarded this item to the full Council for action on the 4/06/2010 Agenda. Subsequent
to the Committee meeting Council President Bernheim placed the item on the 03/23/2010 Agenda.
Attachment 4: 3/9/2010 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
Narrative
I propose creation of a segregated, interest-bearing account with remaining Fire District sale
proceeds in order to preserve the fund for capital acquisition or replacement, or such other purpose
as the Council shall direct at a future time, rather than using it for ongoing expenses via the
General Fund.
The Finance Committee heard the proposal on March 9, 2010, and requested that the
approximated $596,000 remaining as a result of the sale of fire service related assets be segregated
Packet Page 142 of 167
approximated $596,000 remaining as a result of the sale of fire service related assets be segregated
in a separate fund, and also forwarded this item to the full Council for action.
I plan to propose a motion to create the fund and, if passed, asked staff to return with the required
technical resolution for a future consent agenda.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
The proposal would take the remaining proceeds from the Fire District 1 asset sale and place
them in a segregated, interest-bearing account benefiting the fund, until such time as the Council
directs how it should be used, rather than deposit the remaining proceeds into the General Fund
balance.
Attachments
Link: Attach 1 - FD1 Revenue Schedule Comparison
Link: Attach 2 - Bernheim FD 1 Fund Proposal Memo
Link: Attach 3 - 02-23-10 Approved City Council Minutes
Link: Attach 4 - 03-23-10 Finance Committee Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 10:03 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 10:04 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 10:07 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 03/17/2010 01:12
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 143 of 167
Term
Original
Proposal
August, 2009
Status as of
February 1,
2010 Difference
Land -$ -$
Building - -
Rolling Stock Lump Sum Yr 1 1,419,205 1,103,205 (316,000)
Furniture Lump Sum Yr 1 - 30,337 30,337
Attractive Assets Lump Sum Yr 1 248,399 248,299 (100)
On-Board Lump Sum Yr 1 100,253 100,253 -
Sub Total 1,767,857$ 1,482,094 (285,763)
Leave Transfer Lump Sum Yr 1 (786,077) (786,077) -
Station 20 Debt
Settlement Lump Sum Yr 1 - - -
Total 981,780$ 696,017$ 285,763
Assume:
Sell Equipment, Retain all stations, transport fees, land, no apparatus replacement.
February 1, 2010
Status of Cash Flows from FD1 Contract Proposal
City of Edmonds
Rolling Stock: We were initially supposed to purchase 2 Braun units for $306K and FD1 was to reimburse us
for this purchase . It was anticipated the two Braun units would be delivered prior to the end of 2009 and would
be part of the rolling stock sales transaction. That did not happen and delivery of the two Aid Units will not occur
until sometime during 2010. Given this, we and FD1 decided it was more expeditious for FD1 to purchase the
cars directly from the dealer. This issue was on the January 19, 2010 Council consent agenda (AM-2707).
Secondly, FD1 did not purchase the historic donated fire truck worth $10K. The $306K + $10K = ($1,419,205 -
$1,103,205). Furniture: This amount was included in the proposal however it was not reflected on the
schedule. Attractive Assets: We still have an additional $100 to collect from FD1.
Packet Page 144 of 167
Retreat Agenda Memo
City of Edmonds
City Councilman Steve Bernheim
February 8, 2010
Re: Disposition of Proceeds from Sale of Fire Equipment to Fire District 1
I propose that the proceeds from the sale of the fire department equipment to Fire District 1 be placed in
a designated, segregated, interest-bearing account (interest accruing in the account, that is) and
reserved for such future purposes as the Council shall direct.
Unless formal action on this matter can be taken at the Retreat, I would propose it for the agenda of the
City Council meeting on February 16, 2010.
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 145 of 167
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 146 of 167
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 147 of 167
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 148 of 167
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 have 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 associated 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 149 of 167
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2010
6:50 PM
Present: Councilmember Bernheim
Councilmember Buckshnis
Staff: Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director, Finance and Information Services
Brian McIntosh, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Public: Ron Wambolt
Bob Stevenson
Melissa Johnson
Roger Hertrich
Councilmember Buckshnis called the meeting to order at 6:50 PM.
A. Discussion regarding clarification of funding Cemetery operations through Funds 130
and 610
Brian McIntosh, Director, Parks and Recreation Department briefed the Committee on the
history of the cemetery’s operations and funding sources and uses. Director McIntosh
indicated that current law needed to be amended to reflect the cemetery’s long standing
practices; and this situation was the result of an oversight when the current law was drafted.
The Committee agreed to the change in current law. The Committee also requested that the
Cemetery Fund be renamed to the Cemetery Improvement and Maintenance Fund.
Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for approval on the Consent
Agenda for the 03/23/2010 Agenda.
B. Fire District 1 segregation fund proposal
The Committee requested that the approximated $596,000 remaining as a result of the sale of
the fire service related assets be segregated in a separate fund. Committee members
forwarded this item to the full Council for action on the 4/06/2010 Agenda. Subsequent to
the Committee meeting Council President Bernheim placed the item on the 03/23/2010
Agenda.
C: General Fund Report for the two months ending February 28, 2010
Lorenzo Hines presented the revenue and expenditure trends of the General Fund for the
period, as well as responded to questions on same. For information only, no further action
required.
D. Edmonds Fiscal Policies
Councilmember Buckshnis presented a draft of the Edmonds fiscal policies for comment.
Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for action on an Agenda to be
named.
Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM.
Packet Page 150 of 167
AM-2881 9.
Adopt a Park
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/23/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilmember Buckshnis Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Adopt a Park
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In conjunction with fulfilling our Comprehensive Plan, the Adopt a Park Project places a
responsibility upon citizens of Edmonds to work together in assisting the City of Edmonds Parks
and Recreation (P&R) staff by adopting a park. Citizen teams can meet and determine the timing
for their particular park clean-up and will notify the City of Edmonds P&R, meet to determine
where to leave debris, fill out the necessary forms and then have fun. A clean park equates to a
healthy and safer park.
This project fulfills the following Comprehensive Plan indicators: Community Health B.2 –
Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting access to recreation and physical
activities; Environmental Quality Goal B.2 – The City should promote and increase public
awareness and pride in its natural areas and wildlife heritage; and Vegetation and Wildlife Goal C
– The City should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its wildlife heritage.
Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving the natural habitats of the City’s wildlife.
Additionally the following Implementing Sustainability Principles can be met:
Engage and educate – let’s work together as a community and educate our youth about the
importance of community involvement and keeping our parks clean.
Innovate: Let’s utilize our community and think beyond conventional approaches (i.e. City of
Edmonds P&R) park clean-up and provide assistance in helping them keep our parks clean.
Be a Leader: Let’s lead by example and it only takes one volunteer to come forward and begin this
process and let’s work towards 10 volunteers.
Background:
There are over 60 parks in Edmonds ranging for large parks such as Yost Park and Seaview Park to
smaller pocket and corner parks that are located on various intersections and other areas around
Packet Page 151 of 167
Edmonds. Hutt Park and Marina Beach Off Leash Parks are good examples of groups that have
adopted a park. Parks listed as follows are best suited for the Adopt a Park program but this list is
not inclusive and any park can be adopted. The type of work volunteers could perform would be
picking up litter, pet feces, and garbage. Additional duties could be removing invasive species
such as ivy, blackberry, scotch broom and morning glory.
Best Suited Parks to be Adopted:
Pine Ridge Park
Yost Park
Hickman park
Ballinger Park
City Park
Maplewood Park
Seaview Park
Civic Field Park
Required Forms:
City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation has a Volunteer Service Information Form. This form
welcomes community participation and provides information regarding policies and attire. This
form also provides the City with information regarding the days and hours the community group
will clean-up and contact information.
City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Adopt a Park Program Agreement is a new form that
identifies the Group and contact information of the leaders. It also provides information as to the
frequency of the clean-up and provides instructions to the Group Leaders.
Attach 1 - Adopt a Park
Attach 2 - Volunteer Form
Attach 3 - Adopt a Park Agreement Form
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1 - Adopt a park REV 3-16-10
Link: Attach 2 - Volunteer Form
Link: Attach 3 - Adopt a Park Agreement Form
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 01:03 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/18/2010 01:24 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/18/2010 01:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 03/05/2010 10:00
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/18/2010
Packet Page 152 of 167
Packet Page 153 of 167
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
4
of
16
7
Th
e
r
e
a
r
e
o
v
e
r
6
0
p
a
r
k
s
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
o
r
l
a
r
g
e
p
a
r
k
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
Y
o
s
t
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
S
e
a
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
t
o
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
p
o
c
k
e
t
a
n
d
c
o
r
n
e
r
p
a
r
k
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
on
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
.
Th
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
c
o
u
l
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
i
c
k
i
n
g
u
p
l
i
t
t
e
r
,
p
e
t
fe
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
g
a
r
b
a
g
e
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
u
t
i
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
i
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
as
i
v
y
,
b
l
a
c
k
b
e
r
r
y
,
s
c
o
t
c
h
b
r
o
o
m
,
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
g
l
o
r
y
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
.
Pa
r
k
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
a
r
e
b
e
s
t
s
u
i
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
d
o
p
t
a
P
a
r
k
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
b
u
t
t
h
i
s
li
s
t
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
a
n
d
a
n
y
p
a
r
k
c
a
n
b
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
.
Pi
n
e
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
Yo
s
t
P
a
r
k
Hi
c
k
m
a
n
p
a
r
k
Ba
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
P
a
r
k
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
P
a
r
k
Se
a
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
Ci
v
i
c
F
i
e
l
d
P
a
r
k
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
5
of
16
7
Ma
r
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
O
f
f
L
e
a
s
h
a
r
e
a
i
s
a
g
o
o
d
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
o
f
a
g
r
o
u
p
(
O
.
L
.
A
.
E
.
)
t
h
a
t
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
p
a
r
k
i
n
2
0
0
5
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
6
of
16
7
Wi
t
h
t
h
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
a
r
k
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
bo
y
s
c
o
u
t
g
r
o
u
p
s
,
O
.
L
.
A
.
E
.
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
u
s
e
r
s
w
a
s
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
t
h
e
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
o
f
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
t
o
d
a
y
i
t
i
s
a
b
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
a
n
d
c
l
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
.
It
h
a
s
t
a
k
e
n
O
.
L
.
A
.
E
.
a
n
d
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
h
e
l
p
e
r
s
a
b
o
u
t
f
o
u
r
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
g
e
t
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
li
k
e
i
t
d
o
e
s
t
o
d
a
y
.
N
o
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
l
o
o
k
s
c
l
e
a
n
,
w
e
f
i
n
d
p
a
r
k
u
s
e
r
s
a
r
e
m
o
r
e
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
p
i
c
k
i
n
g
u
p
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
i
r
d
o
g
s
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
7
of
16
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
8
of
16
7
Th
a
n
k
-
y
o
u
D
a
n
,
B
B
,
C
o
c
o
,
D
i
a
n
e
,
Lo
r
i
P
a
r
s
o
n
s
f
o
r
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
O
.
L
.
A
.
E
.
st
a
r
t
e
d
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
u
s
e
r
s
f
o
r
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
th
e
a
r
e
a
c
l
e
a
n
a
n
d
B
o
y
S
c
o
u
t
T
r
o
o
p
s
31
2
a
n
d
3
1
9
a
n
d
W
e
b
e
l
o
s
P
a
c
k
3
6
3
.
Of
c
o
u
r
s
e
,
w
e
c
a
n
f
o
r
g
e
t
R
i
c
h
L
i
n
d
s
a
y
an
d
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
f
o
r
a
l
l
t
h
e
i
r
h
e
l
p
!
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
9
of
16
7
AN
N
U
A
L
HU
T
T
P
A
R
K
CL
E
A
N
U
P
Se
p
t
2
6
,
2
0
0
9
9:
3
0
T
O
1
2
N
O
O
N
CO
M
E
A
N
D
M
E
E
T
Y
O
U
R
NE
I
G
H
B
O
R
S
PL
E
A
S
E
B
R
I
N
G
,
I
F
P
O
S
S
I
B
L
E
:
W
H
E
E
L
B
A
R
R
EL
,
B
U
N
G
I
E
C
O
R
D
S
,
R
A
K
E
S
,
G
L
O
V
E
S
,
CL
I
P
P
E
R
S
,
A
N
D
Y
O
U
R
S
E
L
F
!
SE
E
Y
O
U
T
H
E
R
E
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
0
of
16
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
1
of
16
7
Pine Ridge Park also had an invasive plant
re
m
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
c
l
e
a
n
-up in 2009 set up by Steve Bernheim (taking
th
e
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
)
a
n
d
broadcasted by the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat
(E
B
W
H
)
.
The EBWH network
te
a
m
h
a
s
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
and many volunteered hundreds of hours of parks clean up and
in
v
a
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
t
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
.
Al
l
k
i
n
d
s
o
f
g
r
o
u
p
s
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
g
e
t
t
h
e
w
o
r
d
o
u
t
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
a
c
l
e
a
n
-
u
p
.
L
o
c
a
l
p
a
p
e
r
s
al
s
o
w
i
l
l
p
r
i
n
t
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
:
“
F
r
i
e
n
d
s
o
f
P
i
n
e
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
”
i
s
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
n
an
n
u
a
l
c
l
e
a
n
-
u
p
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
e
t
h
e
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
t
i
m
e
.
R
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
Y
O
U
m
u
s
t
a
l
w
a
y
s
h
a
v
e
a
l
e
a
d
e
r
t
o
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
2
of
16
7
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
F
l
o
r
e
t
u
m
G
a
r
d
e
n
Cl
u
b
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
O
l
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
an
d
w
o
r
k
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
P
&
R
t
o
c
o
m
e
u
p
wi
t
h
t
h
i
s
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
Th
e
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
co
l
l
e
c
t
m
o
n
e
y
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
vi
s
i
o
n
t
o
l
i
f
e
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
3
of
16
7
Wh
a
t
C
a
n
Y
O
U
D
O
?
1)
G
e
t
I
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
.
2)
G
e
t
Y
o
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
.
3)
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
&
R
a
n
d
a
s
k
f
o
r
Vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
F
o
r
m
a
n
d
/
o
r
A
d
o
p
t
a
P
a
r
k
f
o
r
m
.
4)
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
w
i
t
h
P
&
R
w
h
e
r
e
t
o
p
u
t
d
e
b
r
i
s
a
n
d
sc
o
p
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
.
5)
P
i
c
k
a
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
t
i
m
e
.
6)
N
o
t
i
f
y
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
,
P
a
r
k
U
s
e
r
s
a
n
d
L
o
c
a
l
Pa
p
e
r
s
(
i
.
e
.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s
o
f
H
u
t
t
P
a
r
k
)
7)
B
r
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
/
o
r
d
o
n
u
t
s
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
f
u
n
cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
y
o
u
r
l
o
c
a
l
p
a
r
k
!
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
4
of
16
7
Ad
o
p
t
i
n
g
a
P
a
r
k
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
:
En
g
a
g
e
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
e
–
l
e
t
’
s
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
a
s
a
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
e
o
u
r
y
o
u
t
h
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
o
u
r
pa
r
k
s
c
l
e
a
n
.
In
n
o
v
a
t
e
:
L
e
t
’
s
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
o
u
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
i
n
k
be
y
o
n
d
c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P&
R
)
p
a
r
k
c
l
e
a
n
-
u
p
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
n
h
e
l
p
i
n
g
th
e
m
k
e
e
p
o
u
r
p
a
r
k
s
c
l
e
a
n
.
Be
a
L
e
a
d
e
r
:
L
e
t
’
s
l
e
a
d
b
y
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
a
n
d
i
t
o
n
l
y
t
a
k
e
s
on
e
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
t
o
c
o
m
e
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
a
n
d
b
e
g
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
an
d
l
e
t
’
s
w
o
r
k
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
1
0
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
5
of
16
7
City of Edmonds
Parks & Recreation
Volunteer Service Information
The city of Edmonds welcomes any community service person or club to assist Parks Department in cleaning or
landscaping our parks on certain days of the year.
Please read the following requirements by the City of Edmonds Parks Manager
Volunteer groups must call and meet with Parks Manager before any volunteer work may begin.
Some materials may be supplied by City of Edmonds as needed for various volunteer projects.
Polices:
All volunteer groups must have at least one person over 21 years of age on site at any given time.
Cell phone is required on all volunteer projects for emergencies.
First Aid kit is required to be on site at all times.
Report any accident to adult supervisor immediately. Call 911 if needed, then report to Parks Manager.
No power equipment may be used by anyone without Parks Managers approval.
You must be 21 years old to operate any power equipment if approved.
Operation of power equipment requires wearing eye goggles and hearing protection.
Work Attire:
You will be working outdoors so dress appropriately for weather conditions.
Must wear jeans or equivalent.
Heavy shirts recommended.
Boots or heavy type shoes are recommended.
No tank tops or shorts allowed.
Name of Volunteer & Address:_______________________________________________________________
Contact phone number:_____________________________________________________________________
Number of Volunteers:______________________________________________________________________
Project location:____________________________________________________________________________
Type of work performed:____________________________________________________________________
Start Date:______________ End Date:________________Hours of Service:_________
Volunteer Signature:________________________________________________________________________
If you have any questions please contact Rich Lindsay, City of Edmonds Parks Manager.
Office phone: 425-771-0289 - Cell phone: 425-343-2269 - E-mail ( Lindsay@ci.edmonds.wa.us )
Thank you for volunteering for the City of Edmonds
Packet Page 166 of 167
City of Edmonds
Parks & Recreation
Adopt a Park Program Agreement
Name___________________________________________________________________
Group Name____________________________________________________________
Participant Names________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Adult Sponsor/Guardian/Supervisor ( If a Youth Group)
Address________________________________________________________________
City______________________________________State/Zip______________________
Phone____________________________________E-Mail________________________
Name the Park I/We would like to adopt_____________________________________
Proposed Task or Project_________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Frequency ( One Time Only, Weekly, Monthly, Yearly, As Needed Etc.__________
Starting Date____________________ Ending Date ( If Applicable______________
Applicant / Volunteer assumes all risks of personal injury and property damage caused
negligently or otherwise by any park activities, conditions of premises, or other causes.
A. Applicant will be responsible for any damage to park property resulting from
applicants actions.
B. Applicant must comply with all pertinent City ordinances and regulations
governing the use of City of Edmonds Parks & Recreation lands and facilities.
Failure to do so will result in applicable penalties by law and permit will be revoked.
Authorized Signature__________________________________________________
(Group Representative) (Date)
Approved By_________________________________________________________
(City Representative) (Date)
Packet Page 167 of 167