Loading...
2011.01.04 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet                 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds JANUARY 4, 2011                 6:15 p.m. - Executive session regarding threatened litigation and labor negotiations. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute   1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda   2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.Roll Call   B. AM-3644 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 21, 2010.   C. AM-3650 Approval of claim checks #123003 through #123023 dated December 21, 2010 for $389,972.56, and #123024 through #123171 dated December 29, 2010 for $247,255.55. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #50107 through #50135 dated December 20, 2010 for $621,822.20.   D. AM-3643 Approval of Professional Services Agreement between City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday.   E. AM-3638 Resolution thanking Councilmember Steve Bernheim for his service as Council President.   F. AM-3645 Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 1.03.030 to direct staff to provide information to the City Council when publication of an ordinance is delayed, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.   3. (5 Minutes) AM-3640 Presentation of Resolution and plaque to Councilmember Steve Bernheim.   Packet Page 1 of 240 4. (10 Minutes) AM-3635 Selection of Council President for 2011.   5. (10 Minutes) AM-3636 Selection of Council President Pro Tem for 2011.   6. (5 Minutes) AM-3637 Appointment of Committee representatives.   7. (5 Minutes) AM-3647 Resolution appointing a Councilmember to the Snohomish County Health District Board.   8. (5 Minutes) AM-3648 Resolution appointing Councilmembers as representative and alternate to the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation.   9. (30 Minutes) AM-3651 Public Hearing on Home Occupations (ECDC 20.20) - A proposed code amendment that addresses the issues of permit type, process and cost, including the degree that customers, employees or signage should be permitted for home occupations in residential zones (File No. AMD20100016).   10.Audience Comments  (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.   11. (10 Minutes) AM-3634 Interlocal Agreement authorizing establishment of the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area.   12. (15 Minutes) AM-3653 Discussion and potential action on Sound Transit, City of Edmonds and Community Transit - Term Sheet and Interlocal Agreement.   13. (15 Minutes) AM-3649 Discussion and potential action on a proposed Resolution creating a Planning Committee to consider a Regional Fire Authority.   14. (20 Minutes) AM-3652 Discussion and possible action regarding bond refunding.   15. (20 Minutes) AM-3646 Discussion of procedure for reviewing City Attorney applicants.   16. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments   17. (15 Minutes) Council Comments   ADJOURN   Packet Page 2 of 240 AM-3644   Item #: 2. B. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 21, 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. Attachments 12-21-10 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 09:54 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 10:32 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/28/2010 10:48 AM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 3 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES December 21, 2010 At 5:30 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding real estate negotiations and labor negotiation strategy. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss, City Engineer Rob English, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:50 p.m. The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Steve Bernheim, Council President D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Peter Gibson, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Leonard Yarberry, Building Official Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Scott Snyder, 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 BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD “INTERURBAN TRAIL EASEMENT SETTLEMENT” AS ITEM 11A. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Wilson requested Item Q be removed from the Consent Agenda. Packet Page 4 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2010. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #122847 THROUGH #123002 DATED DECEMBER 16, 2010 FOR $345,318.86. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM EILEEN BEAN ($100.00). E. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM EXTERIOR REPAIRS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. F. ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT FOR TALBOT ROAD/PERRINVILLE CREEK IMPROVEMENT AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, PHASE I. G. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN AND RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR THE 228TH STREET SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. H. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO COMPLETE THE DESIGN PHASE OF THE MAIN STREET DECORATIVE LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. I. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE MUNICIPAL STORMWATER CAPACITY GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR $178,115. J. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN AND PERMITTING SUPPORT FOR THE TALBOT ROAD/PERRINVILLE CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE II). K. APPROVAL OF THE REAPPOINTMENT OF RICK SCHAEFER TO A 4-YEAR TERM ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD, AND ANDY ECCLESHALL FOR A 3-YEAR TERM ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. L. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PENDING COMPLETION OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS. M. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN ADDENDUM TO THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES AGREEMENT PENDING COMPLETION OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS. N. HEARING EXAMINER'S ANNUAL REPORT. O. RESOLUTION NO. 1238 – ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE COPYING AND TRANSCRIPTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS. P. ORDINANCE NO. 3829 – AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 8.64.060, UPDATING PARKING PROVISIONS ON BELL STREET. R. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACT THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2011. Packet Page 5 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 3 ITEM Q: CAMPING ORDINANCE Councilmember Wilson advised he was absent from a portion of the Public Safety Committee meeting when this item was reviewed. He requested additional time to work on the ordinance before Council adoption. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what areas in the ordinance Councilmember Wilson was interested in working on. Councilmember Wilson explained under the proposed ordinance, it would be a criminal offense for a homeless person to live in their car; he wanted an opportunity to work on that since the Council had made assisting the homeless a priority issue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her understanding was the ordinance referred to camping within City parks. Councilmember Wilson referred to language in the ordinance regarding any park, street or public owned parking lot or public area improved or unimproved. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether adoption of the ordinance was time sensitive. Assistant Chief Gerry Gannon advised it was not. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on the January Public Safety Committee agenda. 3. RESOLUTION TO NAME THE EDMONDS LIBRARY BUILDING IN HONOR OF COUNCILWOMAN PEGGY PRITCHARD OLSON. Councilmember Peterson explained it was his honor to present the resolution to name the Edmonds Library Building in honor of Councilwoman Peggy Pritchard Olson. The Library Board as well as the Sno-Isle Library unanimously endorsed the resolution. Councilmember Peterson read the resolution naming the Edmonds Library Building in honor of Councilwoman Peggy Pritchard Olson. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 1239, NAMING THE EDMONDS LIBRARY BUILDING IN HONOR OF COUNCILWOMAN PEGGY PRITCHARD OLSON. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the library was a park and if the Council was required to follow the procedures for naming a park. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered staff would need to research the City’s Park Plan to determine which properties were designated as parks. Councilmember Plunkett asked the ramifications of naming the library building in honor of Councilwoman Olson and later determining the library was a park. Mr. Snyder stated there was no monetary liability or risk. The naming procedures could be amended at any time at the Council’s discretion. Councilmember Wilson commented the park naming ordinance requires the Planning Board review names and provide a recommendation to the Council. The Council then has total authority to select a name of their choosing. He recalled Councilwoman Pritchard Olson led a campaign in 2000 to save the library and annex to the Sno-Isle Library System. He concluded there was no better way to honor her memory and service than naming the library building in her honor. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Peterson relayed Norm Olson’s appreciation to the Council, Mayor and audience members for their support of the resolution. 4. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NEW HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS. Human Resources Director Debi Humann explained the purpose of this presentation was to review the process that the Health Benefits Committee (HBC) conducted over the past 18 months to identify new citywide medical plans and to provide a recommendation regarding medical plan changes. She expressed her thanks to the members of the HBC: Larry LaFave, Teamsters; Ed Siebrel and Cindi Cruz, SEIU; MaryAnn Hardie, Human Resources Assistant; and Jack Loos, the volunteer community consultant. Packet Page 6 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 4 In response to the ever increasing costs of health insurance and spurred on by AWC’s announcement to discontinue both of the City’s medical plans effective December 31, 2011, the City formed a Health Benefits Committee. The initial meeting of the HBC took place in April 2009. The goals of the HBC were to research and recommend city-wide health insurance plans that: • Replace the two plans being eliminated in 2011. • Provide adequate health insurance protection for our employees, elected officials and their families. • Can be used to promote retention as well as recruitment of staff and elected officials. • Meet the financial needs of the city, i.e., do not result in increased costs and, preferably, result in cost savings. To educate themselves regarding health insurance, the Committee met with representatives of AWC, Benefits West, LBG Advisors, ClearPoint , PEBB, Teamsters, Copperleaf, Sound Consulting, and VEBA Service Group LLC. The HBC explored self-insured plans, partially funded plans, fully funded plans, high deductible plans, and plans that combined plan elements. Following their education, the HBC agreed that in order to make a diligent and responsible recommendation to Council, the City needed to go to the market place to determine what other health insurance options were available outside of AWC. An RFQ was advertised on April 5, 2010 with a deadline of April 23. Following the RFQ, three brokers were selected to move forward to an RFP process. The deadline for the RFP submittal was May 14, 2010. After reviewing the submitted proposals, and meeting several times with the top candidates, Wells Fargo was selected as the City’s broker. This selection was due, in part, to Wells Fargo’s success in moving another city from AWC to an outside plan. The HBC met with Wells Fargo and finalized the scope of work on July 29. On approximately August 1, Wells Fargo went to the market on the City’s behalf and shopped our work force with various providers including AETNA, CIGNA, Premera Blue Cross, Regence Blue Shield, Group Health, Healthnet, and United Healthcare. Wells Fargo presented their analysis of the marketplace to the HBC with their recommended alternative medical, dental and vision plans on October 5. As explained at the October 12, 2010 Finance Committee meeting, much to the surprise of the HBC and Wells Fargo, the big players in the health insurance market either would not quote the City of Edmonds or would only quote well above AWC’s current premium level. Further research revealed that several of the health insurance carriers, such as Regence and Washington Dental, held non-compete agreements with AWC which prevented them from providing competitive quotes on any group currently covered under an AWC program. When contacted by Wells Fargo, Premera quoted 35% above AWC’s rates and Delta Dental, because we are currently with AWC, would only quote the standard rate (opposed to preferred) which is 9.72% above AWC’s. After reviewing and analyzing the market based materials from Wells Fargo, and also acknowledging that Health Care Reform will also add additional complications and expenses to all health care plans in the coming years, it was the unanimous decision of the broker Wells Fargo, the HBC, and Jack Loos that none of the quoted fully funded or self-insured plans would meet the needs and goals of the City from a benefit or a cost containment perspective. This information was reported to the Finance Committee on October 12. As a result of these findings, the HBC met with AWC to review and discuss alternative health plans. After careful review of all AWC plans, the Health Benefits Committee recommends allowing all city employees and elected officials to self-select to one of the two AWC plans as follows: • The $10 Group Health Co-Pay Plan which replaces the $5 Group Health Co-Pay Plan • The HealthFirst Plan which replaces Plan A Packet Page 7 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 5 The new plans, while providing preventive health care which the current Plan A does not, do result in decreased benefits to employees and elected officials. The decreases include co-pays not previously paid by employees and a reduced benefit for hospital stay. The two recommended plans do, however, meet the goals of the HBC as they: • Are plans that are available immediately to City employees, elected officials and their families. • Provide adequate health insurance protection for all users. • Provide a vehicle to promote retention of skilled staff as well as a recruitment tool when appropriate. • Will result in a decrease in premium expenses for the City and employees. If the City moves to the two plans as outlined above, it is estimated that the total premium savings city-wide on a monthly basis, would be slightly over $29,000/month or approximately $352,000 annually. The savings are estimated total savings that do not reflect premium share with employees or the premium costs for LEOFF 1’s. With Council approval, the timing for this move will be negotiated with the City’s four unions through the collective bargaining negotiating process. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEALTH BENEFITS COMMITTEE REGARDING NEW HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS. Councilmember Wilson commented getting the City’s medical benefits in line with reality has been a priority of his since becoming a Councilmember. He viewed AWC as a poor partner as evidenced by the non-compete agreements with healthcare providers which required a city to incur significant expenses the first year to change plans. He looked forward to ending the City’s partnership with AWC with regard to healthcare insurance in the future. The City’s current healthcare insurance does not cover wellness such as immunizations. The new plan increases co-pays which he found acceptable, but covered only 90% of a hospital stay. He agreed with employees participating in the cost of their healthcare but did not agree with the reduced benefit for hospital stays. He encouraged employees to be open minded to a plan that would limit catastrophic expenses and allow employees to participate in the cost of basic primary care. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Cooper commented one of the first briefings he received when appointed Mayor was from Ms. Humann on the HBC’s work. He thanked the HBC for their work on this issue. 5. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' BENEFIT TRUST (MEBT) PLAN AMENDMENT, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2011 TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS-QUO 2010 CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. Police Chief Al Compaan, Chair, MEBT Plan Committee, explained the proposed amendment is required due to changes in the federal tax legislation approved by Congress last week. The City has participated in MEBT since 1977. The employer and employee contribution rates have mirrored Social Security rates. The 2011 tax legislation includes a temporary 2% reduction in employee contributions to Social Security. The federal legislation does not change the employer contribution rate. Although the City does not participate in Social Security, the temporary reduction in the employee contribution rate impacts MEBT. In order to maintain the status quo employee contribution rates of 6.2%, a plan amendment is required. Absent a plan amendment, the employee contribution rates will decrease to 4.2% during 2011. Such a decrease would be a departure from the status quo and result in a decrease in the amount an employee can contribute to MEBT on a pre-tax basis and may negatively impact employee account balances long term. MEBT legal counsel, the City Attorney and the Edmonds MEBT Plan Committee, comprised of appointed and elected MEBT participants, have reviewed the amendments and unanimously recommend adoption. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Chief Compaan commented if an employee contributed at a lower rate, their account balance at the time of retirement could be lower. Packet Page 8 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 6 COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE MEBT PLAN AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. ANNUAL REPORT - CITY ATTORNEY. City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to his written report included in the Council packet. In view of the Council’s desire for transparency, smooth operations as well as establish a process for future Council’s, he suggested the Council consider confirming its operating procedures with regard to the Council President and committee structure via resolution. For example, he recalled the Council President indicating earlier this year that Consent Agenda items should first be reviewed by a committee. He then invited the Council to ask questions and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve the City. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if an ordinance that states financial statements or month-to-date actual numbers are “requested” rather than “required” would allow those items not to be provided. Mr. Snyder explained RCW 35A.33 gives very specific direction regarding the City’s financial reporting and compliance with State Auditor requirements. Many cities have alternative/shadow documents that clarify government accounting methods. He recalled the two ordinances related to financial policies were directive with regard to items the Council can direct by statute and requested other items. Mr. Snyder explained the Council may request the Mayor direct staff and the Mayor determines staff times and priorities. The “request” language reflects the realities of State statute. Councilmember Buckshnis noted other cities’ financial practices are not in an ordinance or resolution, but good, sound policies that follow the Government Finance Officers Association’s booklet. She asked what would be needed in the coming year to get clarity with regard to the General Fund and fund balances. Mr. Snyder stated the Council has done what they could do legally; the remainder was staff time, priorities and budget decisions. It was his understanding Mayor Cooper has committed to providing those materials in the first quarter. Councilmember Wilson recognized Ogden Murphy Wallace worked with several cities. He asked how the Council might consider reorganizing Council committees. Mr. Snyder responded State statute provides a structure and each city develops its internal mechanisms. The Council is a legislative body and acts as a whole. If powers are delegated to committees, the committees are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. He suggested recommendations be made to the Council and the Council as a whole take action particularly when directing staff time. He recommended committees make motions to establish a record of discussions/decisions, ensure that meetings occur with notice and that agendas are posted on the City’s website. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Mr. Snyder’s memo and his suggestion that the Council set aside the reduction in the legal budget in a contingency fund. She asked if that suggestion was because he believed the additional funds would be needed. Mr. Snyder referred to the survey of other cities’ legal expenses that found Edmonds was approximately in the middle. He acknowledged there were efficiencies; his suggestion with regard to placing the additional funds in a contingency account was due to, 1) the City was spending approximately what could be expected to be spent and what has been spent historically over the past 2-3 years, and 2) the City is conducting an RFQ for a City Attorney and will have an opportunity to negotiate with the provider. For those reasons, rather than budgeting 20% less than the City has spent in the last 3 years, he suggested placing the additional funds in a contingency account where funds could be released by the City Council. Although the Council has been meeting in executive session more frequently and has provided earlier input on legal strategies, there have been unbudgeted legal expenses. Mr. Snyder summarized the Council rarely made the choice to engage in litigation; the Council typically responded to situations. 7. ANNUAL REPORT - PUBLIC DEFENDER Public Defender James Feldman commented 2010 was average in terms of working with the courts. The only difference was the addition of the in-custody jail calendar. In the past, officers brought defendants to the Municipal Court from the Snohomish County and Lynnwood jails and proceedings took 1-3 hours depending on the charge. That is now done while defendants are in custody at the Snohomish County Jail. This reduced Packet Page 9 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 7 security issues as well as transport costs although it added a requirement for them to meet with defendants at the Snohomish County Jail. The video in-custody calendars take longer because the parties are not all physically present in the court. He explained in the past, attorneys in his office were assigned by calendar and as a result, defendants often meet with different attorneys during the process. That has been changed and specific attorneys are designated to handle the majority of defendant contacts in each city. The 2011 contract includes a cost increase to cover the increased work associated with in-custody calendars. Their office, Feldman & Lee, handles seven cities; Edmonds is the only city that still calculates compensation on a per-case basis, the other cities have gone to a flat fee. The City can choose to either continue the per-case basis or convert to a flat monthly fee. He anticipated the City would have approximately 1,000 appointments by yearend 2010. In July 2010 the Washington State Supreme Court stated their intent to develop standards for public defense representation and to require the attorney providing services state under oath that he/she complied with the standards. The originally proposed date for the standards was September 1, 2010. The State realized no standards exist and the requirement was postponed to September 2011. The State Bar Association was asked to form a committee to develop standards. The proposed standards would limit representation in misdemeanor cases to no more than 400 cases per attorney. Edmonds’ existing case load is currently at approximately 2.5 attorneys. There is also a proposal that the public defender receive the prevailing rate of the city attorney in the jurisdiction. Additionally the standards require a certain number of paralegals and investigators for each staff attorney. The State Bar Association has recommended adherence to the standards be postponed until January 1, 2013 to allow jurisdictions to prepare for the increased costs. A definition will also be developed for “appointments.” Their firm currently sees 8-9 people each session or approximately 20/week that they are not officially appointed to represent and for which they do not currently bill. It is unclear how the guidelines will impact that practice. If each time an attorney talked to an individual it was considered an appointment, the City would have approximately 1,500-2,000 appointments/year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the City appeared to be paying the same as it paid before video conferencing. Mr. Feldman answered the City paid approximately $11,300/month through November. He proposed either a flat fee of $13,000 per month or to add $1600-$1700/month to the same per-case basis for the in-custody calendars. He summarized either way was approximately the same; his intent was not a greater increase via the flat fee. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Feldman explained in the past, in-custody hearings were done while they were at the court on other public defender cases. Now they go to the jail twice a week to handle in-custody calendars. That additional cost was factored into the proposed increase. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: 2010 COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN; 2010 STORM AND SURFACE WATER PLAN; 2010 STREET TREE PLAN; 2010 UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT STATEMENTS; THE 2010 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council requested an additional public hearing on all the Comprehensive Plan amendments the Council reviewed throughout the year. The most significant updates were to the Comprehensive Water Plan and the Storm and Surface Water Plan. There were also clarifying amendments to the Street Tree Plan and minor amendments to the Comprehensive Plan purpose and scope to address regional planning, updates and consistency with the Sustainability Element. The amendments also include the annual update to the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Packet Page 10 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 8 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed support for retaining the language, “meets the Comprehensive Plan.” He noted the Architectural Design Board’s motions require they state their decisions meet the Comprehensive Plan. Next, he invited Councilmember Petso to speak to the difference between her and Mr. Chave’s interpretations. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented the Comprehensive Water Plan was several years late according to the Growth Management Hearings Board. He expressed concern with the tendency for plans to be shelved and for there to be no follow through. When the original Water Plan was approved, the Council directed staff to minimize water leakage. He asserted that Edmonds’ water leakage rate was much higher than surrounding cities; Edmonds was losing more than 10% of its water via leaks. Because the City purchases its water from Alderwood Water, leaks cost the City money. He recommended the Council direct staff to address leaks, noting reducing leakage was a sustainable practice. He questioned why flooding issues on Dayton had not been addressed during construction that had occurred in that area during the past two years. Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso explained she met with Mr. Chave and City Attorney Scott Snyder on November 5; the packet includes a memo from Mr. Snyder regarding their discussion. As a result of that discussion, a compromise was reached to leave in a reference that projects will comply with the Comprehensive Plan but in a manner that Mr. Chave and Mr. Snyder did not feel would impair the City’s ability to do business. Councilmember Petso explained one of the purposes in the Plan is to facilitate adequate provision for public services; she preferred the City provide better than adequate services, noting some areas that experienced flooding recently do not even have adequate service. She suggested retaining the existing language, to facilitate adequate public services, and to add a new section that incorporates the proposed new language, to facilitate the provision of sustainable public services consistent with the community’s values and needs. Councilmember Wilson asked Public Works Director Phil Williams to comment on Mr. Tupper’s statement regarding the City’s leakage percentage and whether 10% was a lot relative to other cities. Mr. Williams agreed the City’s unaccounted for water, the difference between water billed to customers versus the amount of water the City purchased from Alderwood Water, was approximately 10%. He commented a rate of 10% was not unusual; some cities’ rates are lower and many have a much higher rate. He agreed it was a good idea to minimize that percentage as part of maintenance and operation functions. Councilmember Wilson commented on the limited amount the City spends on its streets and lack of funding for overlays. He inquired about the waterline replacement schedule. Mr. Williams answered the Comprehensive Water Plan includes a target of replacing 1% of the City’s waterlines each year. With a replacement rate of 1% per year, it will take 100 years to replace all the City’s waterlines. He noted aging infrastructure is a problem facing all cities. Maintenance costs, outages and damage costs increase exponentially if infrastructure replacement is not addressed. He pointed out the City will spend approximately $3.5 million in 2011 for new waterlines. Mr. Chave advised the amendment referenced in Mr. Snyder’s memo is already incorporated in the language and does not require a Council amendment. With regard to Councilmember Petso’s suggestion regarding adequate, he suggested inserting “to facilitate the provision for adequate and sustainable.” COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO REINSTATE THE PRESENT POLICY AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY (TO FACILITATE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE TREATMENT, AND PARKS), AND ADD “TO FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC SERVICES CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY’S VALUES AND NEEDS.” Packet Page 11 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 9 Councilmember Wilson asked whether the proposed amendment was substantive enough to require another public hearing. Mr. Snyder answered the test is whether it is within the range of alternatives considered; since the proposed amendment is to combine two alternatives, it met the test. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3830, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS: 2010 COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN; 2010 STORM AND SURFACE WATER PLAN; 2010 STREET TREE PLAN; 2010 UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT STATEMENTS; THE 2010 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN. Councilmember Wilson commented the Council was adopting five elements of the Comprehensive Plan via these amendments. He expressed support for the Comprehensive Water Plan and the Storm and Surface Water Plan. He was concerned that the Street Tree Plan did not contain enough protections for mature trees in pedestrian zones of importance. With regard to the CFP, there are no significant funds budgeted to maintain the City’s facilities. He could not support the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for those reasons. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Chris Johnson, Edmonds, commented the purpose of government was to keep order via the collection and disbursement of taxes as well as law enforcement. He expressed concern that the City had not been keeping order particularly on Daly Street. He referred to the five-year Thuesen-Reidy dispute, suggesting that was not an example of officials keeping order in the community. With regard to renewing the City Attorney’s contract, he pointed out Mr. Snyder’s recommendation regarding a temporary construction easement was outside his expertise. He asserted that recommendation started the litigation that cost taxpayers, the Reidys and Mr. Thuesen a great deal of money. The only entity that profited from litigation was the City Attorney. He inquired about the amount the City spent on legal costs throughout the year. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, requested the Council investigate the delay in publishing the Critical Areas Ordinance and to hold those responsible for the delay accountable. The new CAO was passed by the Council on November 23, 2004 but not published until February 10, 2005, 79 days later. The Thuesen development application was submitted on January 18, 2005. As publishing an ordinance is a ministerial duty only, she asserted the delay in publishing cannot legally delay the effective date of the ordinance. In this case, the ordinance was passed by Council on November 23, 2004 and became effective shortly thereafter in 2004 despite the fact that the ordinance was not published until February 2005. Council President Bernheim has been provided case law that supports this conclusion. This is important because the developer was allowed to vest under the old CAO. If Mr. Snyder had informed staff that the new CAO was in effect prior to the submittal of Mr. Thuesen’s application, taxpayer dollars, litigation costs, staff time and court costs could have been saved; private citizens spared the expense, time and stress of the past 5½ years; and a valuable resource would have been protected. She commented on damage to the wetland as a result of partial filling, clearing and grading by the property owner. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented he did not object to the Council’s action regarding the new healthcare plans but was disappointed the presentation did not clarify that the $300,000 savings was from what the City would have paid in 2011 for the same plans, not what the City paid in 2010. He summarized there would be no savings in 2011; healthcare costs would actually be higher. Dave Page, Edmonds, referred to Lynnwood’s financial disaster and the need for Lynnwood to cut $22.6 million to balance their budget. He recognized that most towns, counties, cities and the State are upside down with regard to their budgets. A member of the original levy committee, it was his understanding the Council was ready to place a levy on the ballot but that never materialized. He viewed Edmonds as a well run city. He Packet Page 12 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 10 expressed concern with economic studies that have been conducted in the past that did not produce any results. He anticipated the Council’s recent decision to spend $100,000 on a strategic plan would be a waste of money. He urged the Council to show leadership and do some of that work themselves. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the RCW regarding use of REET funds does not list Public Works as a category for the use of REET 1 funds. The REET fund is burdened by bonded indebtedness from City Hall as well as the Public Works facility. He asserted payment of debt with REET funds was illegal because, 1) the RCW did not allow funding of Public Works facilities with REET funds, and 2) RCW 82.46.035.3 does not allow new bonded indebtedness from the REET fund after 1992. Next, he questioned why the 2010 ending cash balance differed from the 2011 beginning cash balance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Human Resources Director Debi Humann to respond to Mr. Wambolt’s comments regarding the savings for the healthcare plan. Ms. Humann explained the premium savings are easy to determine via AWC’s website; the HealthFirst Plan is significantly less than Plan A. When premiums for all employees and their families were determined, the savings was $352,000/year less than what the City would pay for Regence Plan A. Mayor Cooper clarified it was $352,000 less than the City would be paying for Regence Plan A and Group Health in 2011. Ms. Humann agreed. Mayor Cooper advised that was slightly less or the same as the City was paying in 2010. Ms. Humann agreed it would bring premium costs below what the City paid in 2010. 10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF THE 2011 BUDGET. Mayor Cooper advised there was a motion on the table from the December 7, 2010 meeting to adopt the budget. Councilmember Plunkett asked the City Attorney’s opinion regarding Mr. Hertrich’s assertion that debt was being paid illegally with REET funds. Mr. Snyder stated he was unfamiliar with the matter as the Council uses bond counsel for bond issues. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the bond relates to the development of the Public Works Operations Center that staff began occupying in 1994. The total cost of the project at that time was approximately $3.5 million. The Water and Sewer Utilities, which were the only City utilities at that time, occupied certain spaces in the building. Their share of the project, based on square footage, was calculated and amounted to approximately $2.42 million of the total $3.5 million. That was financed via revenue bonds issued by the 411 Combined Utility Fund. The Water and Sewer Utilities continue to pay the debt service on that portion. The difference between what the Water and Sewer Utilities pay and the total cost of the project is $1.075 million. That amount is paid by the remaining tenants of the property which include the 111 Street Fund, the stormwater function that was a new utility when the bonds were refinanced in 1998 and the General Fund that pays 12.35% of the overall debt service. Those three sources fully service the remainder of the debt on the Public Works Operations Center. No REET funds are used to service the debt on the Public Works Operations Center. Councilmember Plunkett asked where Mr. Hertrich may obtain this information. Mr. Williams acknowledged the City was obligated to provide documents that clearly establish the above explanation; he continues to search for those documents. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Williams explained REET funds are used to service a portion of the debt on the reissued bonds but only on the portion of the bonds related to the City Hall building, not the Public Works building. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained the total bond issue, a 1998 refunding, was $4.480 million; $1.075 million was allocated for the Public Works debt and $2.985 million was allocated to City Hall debt. He summarized 73.53% of the bonds are funded with REET, the portion allocated to City Hall debt. The remaining percentage is paid as described by Mr. Williams. Packet Page 13 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 11 Councilmember Petso referred to a comment by the auditor during the exit interview, “The auditor was unable to determine whether the allocation for repayment of the debt for construction was equitable between the funds.” She has not been able to find documentation indicating the debt was being paid properly. She asked about the auditor’s next step if the Council approved the 2011 budget. Mr. Snyder responded it was a request by the auditor for the City to show its work; staff is attempting to locate that information. He assured if the Council approved the budget, they could continue working on the issue. The issue was ensuring there were adequate internal accounting procedures to identify funds expended from each source. Councilmember Petso concluded from Mr. Snyder’s explanation that she could approve the budget, continue research in 2011 and propose a budget amendment if it cannot be demonstrated that the funds came from an appropriate source. Mr. Snyder explained the first step is to locate and review the information. If adjustments need to be made, they do not necessarily have anything to do with the budget. Councilmember Petso asked the ramification if the auditor returned in 2011 and no documentation had been located. Mr. Snyder reiterated the auditor was asking the City to show its work. He questioned how that related to the 2011 budget. Mr. Hines explained there were three levels of severity for the auditor’s comments, first, the comment at the exit interview to inform the City; second is a management letter, and third, a finding. Given that the auditor saw and tested the journal entries, they simply want to know the allocation methodology. He was confident that Mr. Williams and he could locate the methodology before the auditor arrived in April 2011 to respond to that exit item. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s question regarding the difference in the yearend cash balance and the beginning cash balance, Councilmember Petso asked for an estimated ending working capital. Mr. Hines answered he would need to figure that out. He preferred to have a final balance sheet to calculate working capital. Councilmember Petso commented hypothetically if the City ended 2010 with $2.5 working capital, the City will also start 2011 with $2.5 million working capital. Mr. Hines answered theoretically yes. He will update the working capital once a final balance sheet for 2010 is prepared. Councilmember Petso noted on December 7 the Council approved a budget amendment that shows the City ending 2010 with $2 million. Also at that meeting, the Council discussed the 2011 budget that shows beginning cash of $2.8 million. Mr. Hines explained the budget amendment and the current forecast are two different streams. The budget amendment tracks appropriation authority whereas the forecast is actual cash received and spent. Based on the last estimate for the forecast, the actuals indicted the working capital would increase to $2.8 million. However, he will know the actuals once the December books are closed. Councilmember Wilson asked if funds for a compensation consultant to review the Non-Represented Compensation Policy were included in the budget. Councilmember Plunkett stated it was included in the budget; the Finance Committee did not provide a recommendation with regard to hiring a compensation consultant. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Hines for the additional exhibits. She noted the packet did not include Police or Administrative Services summaries. Mr. Hines offered to provide that information tomorrow. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Exhibits 2 and 6, noting there was no indication of the loss of revenue from Fire District 1. Mr. Hines explained the Fire District 1 revenue stream is spread over a few sources. There is $3.2 million from EMS bonds, $700,000 from EMS transport fees, and some other funds. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the total revenue lost from Esperance and Woodway. Mr. Hines answered he would need to research that. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about discrepancies between reports with regard to amended revenues. Mr. Hines explained the exhibits in the Mayor’s budget are actuals as of July 31, 2010. The General Fund report contains the actuals from the City’s accounting system as of last Thursday or Friday. Packet Page 14 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 12 Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a working capital was not provided more frequently than once a year. Mr. Hines offered to send her a response. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 7 of Exhibit 5, noting Finance and Information Services estimates increased by $97,000, (11% in Finance and 6.7% in Information Services) compared to other departments that were either the same or decreased. Mr. Hines answered those were estimates as of July 2010. Both amounts are below the 2010 budget; the Information Services budget was below by $3,000 and Finance was below by $19,268. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the 2009 actual for Information Services was $464,000 compared to the 2011 budget of $580,000. CIO Carl Nelson explained in 2008 and 2009 negotiations began with Microsoft for increased licensing. Those amounts were budgeted but not spent. He anticipated those would come to fruition in the next few months. That is the primary increase and there are other small adjustments. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mr. Snyder’s memo regarding the ramification of the Council not passing the budget. She recalled he stated certain departments could be placed in the Council Contingency to get a better understanding of what was going on if the Council was not comfortable. Mr. Snyder explained the budgeting process established by statute is very rigid. As his memo stated, if the Council does not pass a budget, there is no spending authority. Without spending authority to pay salaries, no City services will be provided. In rare circumstances where Councils were unable to reach a consensus on expenses, he has seen budgets passed where monies in excess of 1-2 months operating costs were placed in the Council Contingency Fund subject to release when the necessary information was provided or the Council reached a majority decision. He offered that as a worst case scenario; if the Council could not reach agreement, that was a tool that could be discussed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out unapproved budget amendments have been included in financials; financials have been provided with budget amendments not footnoted; there have been cost overruns with no explanation; etc. Mr. Snyder explained the statute provides that within funds, such as the General Fund, the Mayor has authority to move monies around within an approved budget within each fund to address operating differences between departments. The Council can set limits on the mayor’s ability to move monies. Other changes are typically approved by the Council and are approved via mid-year and year end budget amendments. A super majority would be required to revoke an appropriated amount. If the Council wished to restrict spending authority within an approved budget, a contingency fund could be established and funds released on a monthly or bimonthly basis. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council could put the entire Finance Department into a special contingency fund in the Council’s budget and have authority over those funds and the mayor would have no authority over those funds. Mr. Snyder commented on the difference between the Council’s appropriation authority and the Mayor’s authority to direct employees. The statute is very clear; the Council appropriates funds but the Mayor directs the actions of the employees on a day-to-day basis. If the Council was not satisfied with information it received or is unable to reach agreement on an item, the funds represented by the items of disagreement or expenditures the Council was not ready to act upon, could be placed into a contingency fund until the necessary information was provided. Councilmember Plunkett’s suggestion was to place employee costs tied to a department into a contingency fund; the Mayor continues to direct staff. The Council could place some of the Finance Department’s funds in a contingency fund but they would need to be released monthly for salaries. He asked what Councilmember Plunkett hoped to accomplish via his suggestion. Councilmember Plunkett summarized it appeared the Council could do what he suggested. Mr. Snyder answered it would need to be clear that the Council was not impinging on the Mayor’s authority to direct staff. Councilmember Plunkett observed funds other than salaries could be placed in a contingency fund. Mr. Snyder agreed the Council could require that contract or capital costs be individually released. The Council could also change its adopted contracting and bidding policies to reduce department heads’ discretion. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the absence of the pages Councilmember Buckshnis referenced would effect her decision on the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis answered although she would like to see the actuals in order to do cost comparisons, she was ready to pass the budget. Packet Page 15 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 13 Councilmember Plunkett advised he learned at the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting that the $7500 amendment for the HPC was actually for printing of a brochure and newsletter as well as a calendar. Therefore, the Council needed to either, 1) amend the purpose of the funding for the HPC to fund the brochure, newsletter and calendar, 2) if the Council did not wish to fund the calendar, amend the amount to $5,000 for the brochure and newsletter, or 3) acknowledge that the HPC will produce a brochure and newsletter and require that they return to the Council to ask to spend the remainder on a calendar. Councilmember Petso asked Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton to explain funding for the webpage update. Mr. Clifton explained a few weeks ago he requested the use of $35,000 of existing funds for a website update. Under the previous contractor’s proposal, the expenditure would have been approximately $32,000 in 2010 and $3,200 in 2011. That contractor withdrew; the City hired another contractor and the expenditure will be approximately $16,000 in 2010. He requested the Council appropriate $15,000 in the Economic Development budget in 2011 with $3,200 from Information Services. The net amount, $35,000, will not change. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO AMEND THAT THE $7500 ALLOCATED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION BE USED TO FUND A BROCHURE, NEWSLETTER AND A CALENDAR. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD THE FUNDING REALLOCATION FOR THE WEBPAGE UPDATE AS DETAILED BY MR. CLIFTON. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Cooper relayed the motion on the table made at the December 7 meeting: COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3831, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2011 AS AMENDED. Mr. Snyder clarified although the Council had amended the exhibits, the proposed ordinance did not change. Councilmember Petso pointed out Exhibit A was not accurate as it appears in the Council packet. Mr. Hines advised Exhibit A would be revised once the budget is adopted. Mr. Snyder advised the Council had reviewed and approved the minutes of the December 7 Council meeting. He assumed the budget amendments reflected in the December 7 minutes would be incorporated into Exhibit A. Mr. Hines agreed. Mayor Cooper advised tonight’s packet included a list of all the amendments considered by Council and the amendments that were approved. For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Snyder explained publication of the ordinance will include exhibits amended in accordance with Council motions as reflected in the minutes and the Council packet. Councilmember Wilson explained he would not support approval of the budget due to two fundamental flaws, 1) there is no direction to address major funding concerns – the budget does not move the City toward sustainable funding, and 2) the budget contains a surplus which although is great on paper, is accomplished by not funding some costs which he found irresponsible. At a minimum he encouraged Council to proceed with a levy or Regional Fire Authority (RFA) early in 2011 before they got caught up in next year’s election cycle. Councilmember Peterson agreed with several of Councilmember Wilson’s points but planned to vote in favor of the budget. He agreed the budget was not perfect and it was a stopgap in addressing serious issues facing the City. He acknowledged there were items in the budget that he disagreed with such as the arbitrary 20% reduction in attorney costs. Overall the staff and Mayor have developed a very lean budget that he could support. Packet Page 16 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 14 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she would support the budget. The Mayor and staff did as good a job as they could with the revenue available. She expressed her appreciation to the Finance Department for providing exhibits and verifying information. She looked forward to identifying new revenue sources in the future and better ways of spending the revenue the City receives. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she would reluctantly support the budget as amended. She reiterated her quest for clarity in the City’s finances that has been lacking for over a year. She expressed concern that the Council’s questions, comments and requests have often been ignored. She planned to continue to work with the Citizen Levy Committee and the Council to get financial statements that are similar to other cities that provide a monthly General Fund balance. Although she was reluctant to vote for the budget, Councilmember Petso said she was excited because this may be the first City budget she voted for. She was disappointed the Council did not have the answer to the auditor’s questions and that things promised to the Council were not provided such as a breakdown of the Fire District 1 transaction and a schedule of interfund transfers. Because that information was coming, she would support the budget. She also supported the budget due to policy decisions made via budget amendments such as reimbursing the Park Trust Fund Flower Program, expressing the intent to reduce litigation expenses and the decision to spend one-time revenue from the sale of fire equipment on one-time expenditures. She acknowledged not all Councilmembers got what they wanted but it was a budget the City could live with as efforts continued to perfect the system. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. 11. NON-REPRESENTED COMPENSATION POLICY (NRC) REVIEW. Councilmember Plunkett explained the Council approved the NRC Policy five years ago. The Finance Committee and some other Councilmembers have expressed interest in reviewing the policy which may require hiring a consultant. The question before the Council tonight was whether to review the policy. If the Council chose to review the policy, a future decision will be how the review will be conducted such as via the use of a consultant. Human Resources Director Debi Humann referred to the historical background she provided regarding the compensation policy including the L5 policy adopted in approximately 2000 and the NRC policy adopted in approximately 2005/2006. She acknowledged there were good and bad things about any compensation policy. The purpose of a compensation policy was to retain workforce and recruit employees, not bankrupt the city and to support the goals and vision of the city. The packet also includes compensation policies for nine other cities; the majority are similar to the NRC policy and use the same comparables. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the steps that should be taken if the Council agreed to proceed with a review of the NRC policy. Ms. Humann answered the Council needed to agree on a scope of work such as the consultant developing comparables and updating job descriptions which has not been done in its entirety since 1997. Councilmember Plunkett envisioned the Council likely could identify 2-3 issues with the current policy and suggested Ms. Humann could assist with drafting those issues into a scope of work. Councilmember Plunkett identified his issue with the NRC policy by referencing the position of the Mayor’s Executive Secretary, assuring it was nothing personal. According to the NRC policy, the top of the range for the position is $80,000 - $85,000. Acknowledging that the position was an Executive Secretary, he felt a salary of $85,000 was too much for that position. He was uncertain how to translate that concern into the scope of work. He suggested the scope also include a review of the bands. Ms. Humann suggested one of the goals could be to have all the non-represented positions reviewed and compared to whatever comparables the City deems appropriate. Packet Page 17 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 15 City Attorney Scott Snyder advised there were some positions that were directly comparable to positions in other cities. Because the City operates in such a lean manner, there are some positions whose job descriptions are an amalgam of duties. He suggested identifying key positions in each department that are readily comparable. Comparing the one-of-a-kind positions will be very subjective and extrapolation will be required for those positions. Ms. Humann explained that was one of the reasons for adopting the NRC policy. At least one-third of the non-represented positions are not easily matched in other cities. Because of the way Edmonds staffs, positions tend to absorb additional duties and their job descriptions are not relative to other cities. Councilmember Wilson stated the previous Executive Assistant may have been at the top of the range. He noted Ms. Cole, Mayor Cooper’s Executive Assistant, is not at that level. He pointed out Ms. Cole has a Juris Doctor degree (lawyer) and is an elected official in the City of Lynnwood and in the Stevens Hospital District. He found Ms. Cole to be very highly qualified, noting Edmonds attracts and retains many highly qualified employees. Mayor Cooper suggested all job descriptions and their location in the bands be reviewed regardless of the position. The difficulty as Mr. Snyder mentioned is comparing job descriptions in other cities. For example in a nearby city, the Mayor has an Executive Assistant and a Receptionist. Edmonds has a Human Resources Director and a Human Resources Analyst; Lynnwood has six people in the Human Resources Department. Councilmember Buckshnis stated her issue was looking at the bands and the job descriptions. She referred to the Council’s unsuccessful attempt to move Information Services out of Administrative Services and expressed interest in ensuring departments are properly staffed so that the Council can get the information they need. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this discussion was not about friendships or personalities but taking a holistic look at non-represented compensation. Council President Bernheim asked for more time to review other cities’ compensation policies. He noted only one of the cities hired a consultant, a person they were familiar with and who was not expensive. He did not support hiring a consultant, noting the $50,000 cost of a consultant could be better spent on employee salaries. He preferred staff and Councilmembers review the NRC policy in-house over the next six months. Councilmember Plunkett asked Ms. Humann to comment on the suggestion to review the policy in-house. Ms. Humann commented it would be very time consuming. The two projects Human Resources plans to undertake in 2011 are to update the City personnel policies and job descriptions; both will require an incredible amount of time. The City can hire a consultant who will bring a wide variety of ideas and information. The difficulty with a consultant is they do the research and present information; if the consultant determines non-represented employees are paid below the market, it will be up to the Council to determine a way to fund the salary changes. She suggested meeting with cities who have good compensation plans to determine what works/does not work for them and customize a compensation plan that combines elements from several cities. Councilmember Peterson asked the number of non-represented employees. Ms. Humann answered approximately 40. Councilmember Peterson commented even if the City saved 10% on the salaries of these 40 employees, it would not fix the City’s budget problems. He summarized reducing labor costs of the already lean workforce would not save the City’s budget. Councilmember Peterson asked if any of the other cities’ policies looked promising. Ms. Humann answered most of the cities’ policies were similar to Edmonds. They all use the same comparable cities, most do not compare to private industry, etc. She noted the use of a similar formula may be why other cities do not typically use consultants. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the need to balance the cost of a consultant with savings via revisions to the compensation policy. He agreed it could be costly if the City found its employees were paid below market. Ms. Humann advised many of the cities compare one-third of their non-represented employees to the marketplace each year or compare all non-represented positions to the marketplace every other year. Due to limited Human Resources staff, Edmonds’ policy only does market-based surveys of two positions per year, the highest and the lowest position. She acknowledged this was not adequate but was all Human Resources staff had time to do. Packet Page 18 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 16 Councilmember Plunkett commented all employees, both union and non-represented are affected by comparables. Mr. Snyder agreed it could have a ripple effect. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in reviewing the NCR policy. She recognized the City’s limited Human Resources staff did not have time to review/revise the policy. She did not envision a change to the policy as chipping away at the non-represented employees salaries; it would be fixing a policy that needed to be fixed. She was interested in determining whether the City’s wages were below market, recognizing that when the economy improved, the City will need to have competitive wages. Her research found a comprehensive evaluation could be obtained for a cost of $20,000-$25,000. She anticipated the 40 non-represented employees would be interested in having an evaluation conducted to ensure their wages were comparable to other cities. She did not envision this as a negative but to move the City into the future and to provide accurate information. Mr. Snyder commented studies can have a number of components, the key components are, 1) creating policy, and 2) benchmarking positions. He cautioned the creation of a public document via a study can be good and bad. There are a number of employees who could unionize and be subject to collective bargaining. A study could provide information that the Council will see again. Councilmember Petso expressed support for reviewing the NRC policy including surveying more positions more frequently, refining the comparables and eliminating the bands. She was hopeful some comparables could be found that would justify the expense and did not believe it could be done in-house due to limited Human Resources staff. Councilmember Wilson commented the City operates like an undercapitalized organization; there is not enough money to operate smartly or efficiently. Things like updating the compensation policy are not accomplished and a $50,000 expenditure is required to update the policy. He found this pennywise and pound foolish, but until the City had a sustainable funding model, anticipated it would continue to happen. Councilmember Peterson commented nationwide there was a feeling that government could save incredible amounts of money by reducing labor costs. Edmonds has been doing that over the past ten years and he did not envision a study would result in a huge net savings or have a big impact on the City’s finances. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was not seeking savings but rather to pay a fair wage and do business better. Councilmember Plunkett summarized a sufficient number of Councilmembers were interested in considering a draft scope of work. He asked Ms. Humann whether she could provide a draft scope of work in the near future. Mayor Cooper advised staff would work with the Finance Committee to develop a scope of work. 11A. INTERURBAN TRAIL EASEMENT SETTLEMENT. Council President Bernheim explained the Council was presented with an easement settlement in executive session to address a construction issue on a portion of the Interurban Trail. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO THE INTERURBAN TRAIL EASEMENT SETTLEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 14, 2010 Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Peterson reported the majority of items discussed by the Committee were approved on the Consent Agenda. He highlighted the Acceptance of Project for Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Improvement and Habitat Enhancement Project Phase 1 and the Authorization to Advertise a Request for Qualifications to Packet Page 19 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 17 complete the design phase of the Main Street Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancement Project. The City received a $725,000 federal grant to fund design and construction of the Main Street project; staff continues to seek grants for the project. He expressed his thanks to Mr. Williams and his staff for developing creative funding ideas and for securing the $725,000 grant. Councilmember Petso reported the Committee also discussed a possible amendment to the ECC regarding publication of ordinances. A procedure can be instituted at staff level so that Councilmembers are notified when ordinances are finalized. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed the Camping Ordinance which the Council agreed early on tonight’s agenda to delay. The Committee also discussed the less than anticipated amount of EMS Transport Fees. In addition to a third party vendor’s software problem, collection of transport fees is significantly delayed, often up to three years. Although collection is delayed, the average of 2009 and 2010 billings is approximately $850,000 which is above the $700,000 budgeted amount. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised billings are often delayed a quarter and a percentage of the transport fees will never be collected. Finance Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee discussed the following: • Monthly Financial Reports – due to workload priorities the November GF report will be released toward the end of December 2010 • Health Insurance Plans –approved by the Council tonight • Resolution establishing fees for copying and transcription of public records – approved on the Consent Agenda • Interlocal Agreement Authorizing Establishment of the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area – forwarded to the full Council • Public Comments – Roger Hertrich referenced funding from REET Funds 125 and 126. Bruce Witenberg recommended savings from the new healthcare plan be retained to cover cost increases in 2012. Ron Wambolt urged the Committee to inform Administration that they expect to have reports provided in a timely manner. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper applauded Public Works Director Phil Williams and Public Works crews for their efforts during the heavy rains this weekend including the sandbags they made available to citizens. ESCA opened their Emergency Operations Center; as this was a Public Works flooding emergency, a decision was made not to open Edmonds’ EOC. He toured the City with Public Works and is now acquainted with most of the flooding problems in Edmonds. Mayor Cooper reported the South Snohomish County Commission for Health, formerly the Stevens Hospital Board, is in the process of hiring a CEO. After a CEO is hired, they will develop criteria for health-related programs that will be eligible for grants. No grants have been awarded yet and it is unlikely that the first round of grants will include capital related funds. The Commission is seeking outcome-based programs. Recreation Manager Renee McRae as well as advocacy groups are meeting regularly with Commissioners. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wished everyone Happy Holidays and Happy New Year. Packet Page 20 of 240 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 21, 2010 Page 18 Councilmember Buckshnis also wished everyone Happy Holidays, peace, to think kindly and to pay it forward. Councilmember Petso expressed holiday wishes. Student Representative Gibson wished everyone Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas. Councilmember Peterson expressed holiday wishes. He thanked Councilmembers and the Mayor for a great year in Edmonds politics. He also expressed his thanks to staff, particularly Ms. Spellman and Ms. Chase. Councilmember Plunkett thanked Council President Bernheim for serving as Council President. He supports rotating the Council Presidency, finding it enhances everyone’s experience and appreciation for the job of Council President. He thanked Mayor Cooper for his hard work and leadership over the past six months. He wished everyone Happy Holidays and looked forward to next year. Councilmember Wilson wished everyone Happy Holidays. Council President Bernheim enumerated the Council’s 2010 accomplishments: • Repairs to the Carnegie Library building • $10,000 for the UW Five Corners/Westgate Study • Funding for Climate Solutions • Increased stormwater rates that paid for stormwater improvements • Rescinded the increases in the Mayor’s salary • $500 Council campaign contribution limit • Appeal process for dangerous dogs • Accepted Mayor Haakenson’s resignation • Appointed Mayor Cooper • Financial reporting ordinance • Directed staff to prepare cost estimates on the fiber optic installation and to provide quarterly reports • Request bids for City Attorney • Appointed Councilmember Buckshnis and Councilmember Petso • Appointed Public Works Director Phil Williams • Restored Council authority in Title 20 • Clarified the ambiguity in the perimeter setback in the PRD ordinance • Expanded flexibility in homeless shelters • Adopted the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan • Instituted bistro dining • Expanded dog leashed areas • Permitted wall murals • Established the Tree Board • Established recycling at the Boys & Girls Club 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Packet Page 21 of 240 AM-3650   Item #: 2. C. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type:Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #123003 through #123023 dated December 21, 2010 for $389,972.56, and #123024 through #123171 dated December 29, 2010 for $247,255.55. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #50107 through #50135 dated December 20, 2010 for $621,822.20. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit & 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:$1,259,050.31 Fiscal Impact: Claims $637,228.11 Payroll $621,822.20 Attachments Claim Checks for 12-21-10 Claim Checks for 12-29-10 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Lorenzo Hines 12/29/2010 09:45 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 09:47 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 09:55 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 10:32 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 12/29/2010 09:11 AM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 22 of 240 Packet Page 23 of 240 12/20/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 3:09:05PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123003 12/21/2010 069157 AIONA, CYNDI AIONA13191 HULA HULA #13191 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 577.50 Total :577.50 123004 12/21/2010 001057 ALMY, DON ALMY1221 VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION 12/21/10 VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 76.50 Total :76.50 123005 12/21/2010 073492 ARROW SIGN CO PLN20100069 Withdrawing application. Withdrawing application. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 280.00 Total :280.00 123006 12/21/2010 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST January 2011 JANUARY 2011 AWC PREMIUMS 01/11 Fire Pension AWC Premiums 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,517.25 01/11 Retirees AWC Premiums 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 29,919.45 01/11 AWC Premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 286,505.97 Total :320,942.67 123007 12/21/2010 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL13047 OIL PAINTING OIL PAINTING #13047 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 184.80 OIL PAINTING #13046 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 277.20 Total :462.00 123008 12/21/2010 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 10597984 INV#10597984 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD COPIER RENTAL (4) 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 COPY CHARGES FOR (1) TO 11/30/10 1Page: Packet Page 24 of 240 12/20/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 3:09:05PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123008 12/21/2010 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 20.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 57.24 Total :659.80 123009 12/21/2010 068116 CLIFTON, STEPHEN JAN-DEC 2010 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 2010 2010 Mileage reimbursement 001.000.610.519.700.430.00 248.90 Total :248.90 123010 12/21/2010 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 1217ADMIN REIMB FOR MKGT MANAGER ADMIN FEES Reimbursement for marketing manager 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 5,000.00 REIMB ECA MKTG EXP FOR TOURISM PROMO1218MKTG Reimbursement for marketing expenses 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 17,197.71 Total :22,197.71 123011 12/21/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 768328 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service thru 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,797.35 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 0.80 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 0.33 Total :1,798.48 123012 12/21/2010 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE 12152010 MONITOR FOR ECON DEV COM MTG 12/15 Monitor for Economic Dev Commission 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00 Total :36.00 123013 12/21/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT 11172010 MONITOR FOR EC DEV COM MTG 11/17 Monitor for Economic Dev Commission 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00 2Page: Packet Page 25 of 240 12/20/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 3:09:05PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :36.0012301312/21/2010 073136 073136 LANG, ROBERT 123014 12/21/2010 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK Pat Lawler Registration and materials cost for Registration and materials cost for 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 431.93 Total :431.93 123015 12/21/2010 073429 MALLOY, GLORIA MAYYOY12934 ZUMBA ZUMBA #12934 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 57.20 Total :57.20 123016 12/21/2010 072492 MOLINA, NILDA MOLINA12930 ZUMBA CLASSES ZUMBA #12930 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 624.40 Total :624.40 123017 12/21/2010 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Nov-2010 NOV-10 COURT/BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMTL Nov-10 Emergency Medical Services & 001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,269.33 Nov-10 PSEA 1 2 & 3 Account 001.000.000.237.130.000.00 27,516.85 Nov-10 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 168.00 Nov-10 State Patrol Death 001.000.000.237.170.000.00 517.62 Nov-10 Judicial Information Systems 001.000.000.237.180.000.00 4,486.93 Nov-10 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.000.237.200.000.00 213.11 Nov-10 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,503.55 Nov-10 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.000.237.260.000.00 472.30 Total :37,147.69 3Page: Packet Page 26 of 240 12/20/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 3:09:05PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123018 12/21/2010 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ13076 FELDENKRAIS FELDENKRAIS #13076 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 334.60 Total :334.60 123019 12/21/2010 073493 SITE ENHANCEMENT SERVICES PLN20100068 Applicant withdrew application. Applicant withdrew application. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 265.00 Total :265.00 123020 12/21/2010 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000262523 3Q-10 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES 3Q-10 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes 001.000.390.567.000.510.00 2,599.72 Total :2,599.72 123021 12/21/2010 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Nov-2010 NOV-10 CRIME VICTIMS COURT REMITTANCE Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.000.237.140.000.00 808.61 Total :808.61 123022 12/21/2010 062693 US BANK 3280 ID badge supplies ID badge supplies 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 158.60 Holiday breakfast decorations (2010) 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 80.25 Total :238.85 123023 12/21/2010 062693 US BANK 4986 CLASS REGISTRATION Webcast-Ethics L Hines 11/30/2010 001.000.310.514.100.490.00 149.00 Total :149.00 Bank total :389,972.5621 Vouchers for bank code :front 389,972.56Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report21 4Page: Packet Page 27 of 240 12/20/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 3:09:05PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 5Page: Packet Page 28 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123024 12/29/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 289340 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56 Total :75.56 123025 12/29/2010 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 10-632 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 FLOORING MAINTENANCE10-633 FLOORING MAINTENANCE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33 Total :607.33 123026 12/29/2010 065568 ALLWATER INC 121610039 DRINKING WATER DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 17.57 Total :17.57 123027 12/29/2010 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 7129 TREE REMOVAL @ PINE RIDGE PARK TREE REMOVAL @ PINE RIDGE PARK 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 47.50 Total :547.50 123028 12/29/2010 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-101107 Mike Clugston APA membership. Mike Clugston APA membership. 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 411.00 Total :411.00 123029 12/29/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5286567 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 27.75 1Page: Packet Page 29 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123029 12/29/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.64 UNIFORM SERVICES655-5298923 PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 27.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.64 Total :60.78 123030 12/29/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5286572 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.38 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.40 Total :73.78 123031 12/29/2010 073523 ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF AACS1213 PLAZA ROOM REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT AND PATIO USE 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 600.00 Total :600.00 123032 12/29/2010 072576 ART ACCESS 12109 LISTING ART COMMISSION SHARE OF LISTING 123.000.640.573.100.440.00 50.00 Total :50.00 123033 12/29/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0138303-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,486.70 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 236.23 Total :2,722.93 123034 12/29/2010 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Fax Line 2Page: Packet Page 30 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123034 12/29/2010 (Continued)064343 AT&T 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.87 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.08 Total :37.35 123035 12/29/2010 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC D06858 FS 20 - Repair Supplies FS 20 - Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 92.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.76 Total :100.94 123036 12/29/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 58255 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.41 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.41 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 290.72 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.59 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.59 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.85 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 93.15 3Page: Packet Page 31 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123036 12/29/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 290.73 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS58343 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 124.30 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 124.30 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 128.07 UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 400.61 UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 400.60 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 11.81 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 11.81 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 12.16 Total :2,095.11 123037 12/29/2010 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEYS12908 TOT TAEKWON DO CLASSES TOT TAEKWON DO #12908 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 96.20 TOT TAEKWON DO #12912 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 168.35 Total :264.55 123038 12/29/2010 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2010-560 INV 2010-560 EDMONDS PD PRE-EMPLOY SCREENING - HOIRUP 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00 Total :150.00 123039 12/29/2010 073526 BENNETT, DAVID 5-06900 RE: #30037499-320 JP8 UTILITY REFUND RE: #30037499-320 JP8 Utility Refund 4Page: Packet Page 32 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123039 12/29/2010 (Continued)073526 BENNETT, DAVID 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 153.30 Total :153.30 123040 12/29/2010 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG13039 TAI CHI TAI CHI #13039 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 237.30 Total :237.30 123041 12/29/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 840797 INV#840797 - EDMONDS PD - HARBINSON BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 800.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 76.00 INV#844964 - EDMONDS PD - BLACKBURN844964 NAME TAG - BLACKBURN 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 11.00 SGT CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 1.52 INV#845359 - EDMONDS PD - MOORE845359 MOCK TURTLENECKS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.79 INV#846076 - EDMONDS PD - MOORE846076 L/S UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 269.61 SERVICE BARS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 26.54 INV#847119 - EDMONDS PD - SPEER847119 ATAC BOOT W/SIDE ZIP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 85.00 5Page: Packet Page 33 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123041 12/29/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.08 INV#848399 - EDMONDS PD - FALK848399 S/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 65.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 6.24 INV#848834 - EDMONDS PD - FRAUSTO848834 TACLITE PRO PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 79.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.60 INV#850189 - EDMONDS PD - FROLAND850189 TACLITE PRO PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.80 Total :1,539.46 123042 12/29/2010 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 121510 Unit 336 - Car Seat Repairs Unit 336 - Car Seat Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 245.00 8.6% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 21.07 Total :266.07 123043 12/29/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN13015 YOGA YOGA #13015 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 539.00 YOGA #13021 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 245.00 YOGA #13018 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 441.00 YOGA #13009 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 198.80 6Page: Packet Page 34 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123043 12/29/2010 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY YOGA #13012 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 539.00 PILATES YOGA FUSION #13062 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 242.20 PILATES RELAXED MAT #13059 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 112.00 Total :2,317.00 123044 12/29/2010 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 91164359 Roadway - Washed Rock Roadway - Washed Rock 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 197.78 Total :197.78 123045 12/29/2010 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON13119 ART FOR KIDZ ART FOR KIDZ - ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 409.50 Total :409.50 123046 12/29/2010 070153 CCH INCORPORATED 368719 2011 Governmental GAAP Guide 2011 Governmental GAAP Guide 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 239.00 Freight 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 13.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 23.94 Total :275.94 123047 12/29/2010 068484 CEMEX 9420629721 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 602.63 Street - Washed Sand (Delivered) 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 625.92 9.2% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 57.59 Storm - Dump Fees9420629725 7Page: Packet Page 35 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123047 12/29/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX Storm - Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1,461.83 Street - Washed Sand9420635884 Street - Washed Sand 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 1,048.34 Storm - Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 138.48 9.2% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 96.44 Roadway - Asphalt9420667262 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 351.56 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 33.40 Storm - Dump Fees9420681774 Storm - Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 501.31 Street - Washed Sand 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 530.15 9.2% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 48.78 Roadway - Asphalt9420699679 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 228.40 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 21.70 Total :5,746.53 123048 12/29/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY163867 WELDING SUPPLIES OXYGEN, ACETYLENE, ELECTRODES, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 163.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.57 Total :179.43 8Page: Packet Page 36 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123049 12/29/2010 003515 CH2M HILL INC 3749613A E6MA.SERVICES THRU 3/26/10 E6MA.Services thru 3/26/10. 129.000.240.595.700.410.00 558.37 Total :558.37 123050 12/29/2010 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 27925787 INV#27925787 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 122.49 CAR WASH FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 5.99 Total :128.48 123051 12/29/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8348 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS EDMONDS PORTION OF MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.576.800.510.00 33,267.05 Total :33,267.05 123052 12/29/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2263904 Fac Maint - Vac Filters, TT, Towels, Fac Maint - Vac Filters, TT, Towels, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 352.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.47 Fac Maint- Hosp Grade FiltersW2263904-1 Fac Maint- Hosp Grade Filters 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 79.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.56 Total :472.85 123053 12/29/2010 073246 D SQUARE ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC WO-5596 Sewer LS - Evaluate Generators Sewer LS - Evaluate Generators 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 472.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 44.89 Total :517.39 9Page: Packet Page 37 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123054 12/29/2010 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 149183 INV#149183 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATION #GHD-03881 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.13 Total :82.13 123055 12/29/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001379/1 FASTENERS/COUNTERSINK MISC. FASTENERS, COUNTERSINK 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.25 Total :14.46 123056 12/29/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 29845 E-RING E-RING 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.10 Total :1.10 123057 12/29/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 61.96 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 546.97 SPRINKLER1-00875 SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.78 CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125 CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58 SPRINKLER1-03900 SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.76 10Page: Packet Page 38 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123057 12/29/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION SPRINKLER1-05125 SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.17 GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285 GAZEBO IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.78 CORNER PARK1-05340 CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 36.56 EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650 EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58 PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675 PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 569.16 EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700 EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 36.56 CORNER PARK1-09650 CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 56.32 SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800 SW CORNER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.76 PLANTER1-10780 PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.54 CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130 CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.76 CORNER PARKS1-16300 CORNER PARKS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.11 118 5TH AVE N1-16420 118 5TH AVE N 11Page: Packet Page 39 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123057 12/29/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.97 CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450 CITY HALL TRIANGLE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.52 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.78 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 45.34 PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950 PINE STREE PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 51.83 1141 9TH AVE S1-36255 1141 9TH AVE S 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58 SPRINKLER2-28275 SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58 MINI PARK2-37180 MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 35.65 820 15TH AVE SW7-05276 820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 105.24 Total :2,104.00 123058 12/29/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 LIFT STATION #14 12Page: Packet Page 40 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123058 12/29/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.58 Total :25.58 123059 12/29/2010 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG12926 TAEKWON DO CLASSES TAEKWON DO #12926 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 129.50 Total :129.50 123060 12/29/2010 009332 EVERETT TENT & AWNING 3919 Roadway - Tarp Roadway - Tarp 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 396.00 9.2% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 36.43 Total :432.43 123061 12/29/2010 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC M817 1388 INSTALL VFD CONTROL PANEL 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 5,213.40 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 463.99 1388M819 SLUDGE PUMP WORK 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 3,398.58 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 302.47 1388M820 INSTALL CONTROLLER 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 5,468.18 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 486.67 Total :15,333.29 123062 12/29/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU21799 Traffic - Sign Mounting Supplies Traffic - Sign Mounting Supplies 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 94.70 13Page: Packet Page 41 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123062 12/29/2010 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 9.45 Total :108.95 123063 12/29/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0278557 Water - Supplies to replace air-vac Water - Supplies to replace air-vac 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3,120.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 296.41 Total :3,416.61 123064 12/29/2010 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 302676 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT 4th Ave Parking Lot Rent Dec-10 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total :300.00 123065 12/29/2010 063181 FITTINGS INC 00081060 Unit 11 - Supplies Unit 11 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.39 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.03 Unit 11 - Supplies00081061 Unit 11 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.33 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.51 Unit 11 - Supplies00081700 Unit 11 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.86 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.27 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.33 14Page: Packet Page 42 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :113.7212306512/29/2010 063181 063181 FITTINGS INC 123066 12/29/2010 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH13178 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+ #13178 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 22.10 IRISH DANCE 13+ #13182 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 236.60 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #13194 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 20.80 Total :279.50 123067 12/29/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425 AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 12/16/10 - 1/15/11 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 411.10 Total :411.10 123068 12/29/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 53.72 YOST POOL425-775-2645 YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.420.00 247.76 Total :301.48 123069 12/29/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-672-7132 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 95.98 TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.54 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.54 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.69 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 15Page: Packet Page 43 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123069 12/29/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 73.47 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 61.72 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 61.72 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 82.28 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE FIRE ALARM LINE425-745-4313 Meadowdale Club House Fire Alarm Line 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.16 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.98 Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & UB 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.08 LS 7425-776-2742 LS 7 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56 LS 8425-778-5982 LS 8 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.45 PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133 Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 16Page: Packet Page 44 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123069 12/29/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total :837.67 123070 12/29/2010 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE GILL-ROSE13734 WATERCOLOR & DRAWING CLASSES WATERCOLOR # 13734 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 46.20 DRAWING #13731 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 30.80 Total :77.00 123071 12/29/2010 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER13033 TAI CHI TAI CHI #13033 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 392.00 QIGONG #13072 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 245.00 TAI CHI #13035 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 183.40 QIGONG #13074 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 252.00 TAI CHI #13037 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 275.80 Total :1,348.20 123072 12/29/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9408211960 Sewer - Pressure Switch Sewer - Pressure Switch 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 20.21 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.91 Total :22.12 123073 12/29/2010 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 119021/1 Water - Supplies - Low-Rise Resetters Water - Supplies - Low-Rise Resetters 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,173.60 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 25.00 17Page: Packet Page 45 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123073 12/29/2010 (Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 113.87 Total :1,312.47 123074 12/29/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 7033385 Water Quality - Fluoride Test Kits Water Quality - Fluoride Test Kits 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 790.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 36.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 78.56 Total :905.51 123075 12/29/2010 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD 92 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,387.40 Total :1,387.40 123076 12/29/2010 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 6329 Unit 405 - Supplies Unit 405 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 290.18 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.57 Unit 203 - Supplies6475 Unit 203 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 150.19 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.27 Unit 203 - Tour Pack Hinge Kit8561 Unit 203 - Tour Pack Hinge Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.80 Unit 582 - Repairs, minus deposit and8712 Unit 582 - Repairs, minus deposit and 18Page: Packet Page 46 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123076 12/29/2010 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 363.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 48.28 Unit 405 - Supplies9651 Unit 405 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 75.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.23 Total :1,021.09 123077 12/29/2010 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 2373388 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 180.99 7.7% sales tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.93 Total :194.92 123078 12/29/2010 062383 HEPBURN INDUSTRIES IN094709 URN VAULT BURN VAULT 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 262.20 Freight 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 32.94 Total :295.14 123079 12/29/2010 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 29232682-003 HP COMPAQ 6000 PRO SFF PC HP Compaq 6000 Pro SFF PC 4GB PC3-10600 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 5,770.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 548.15 Total :6,318.15 123080 12/29/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 93 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 7.52 Total :7.52 19Page: Packet Page 47 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123081 12/29/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 36573 0205 KEYS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.37 02054046333 GATE PULLS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.89 02056045838 STAKES, AK FASTSET 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 23.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.25 02059043932 15/32 PT CDX 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 34.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.32 02059082382 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 26.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.55 Total :142.69 123082 12/29/2010 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 472202-1 Fleet Shop Tool - Grabit Bits Fleet Shop Tool - Grabit Bits 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 29.95 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 7.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 3.57 Total :41.15 20Page: Packet Page 48 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123083 12/29/2010 070042 IKON 83852050 INV#83852050 467070-1005305A3 EDMONDS PD COPIER RENTAL 12/13 - 01/12/11 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 123.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 44.02 Total :507.47 123084 12/29/2010 070042 IKON 83871696 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE/RECREATION OFFICE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 425.56 Total :425.56 123085 12/29/2010 065306 INSTITUTE OF TRANSP ENGINEERS HAUSS 2010 DUES ITE BERTRAND HAUSS.2010 ITE MEMBERSHIP DUES Bertrand Hauss.2010 ITE Membership Dues 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 272.00 Total :272.00 123086 12/29/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 491629 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,169.66 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 299.02 Total :3,468.68 123087 12/29/2010 015490 K & K CONCRETE PRODUCTS 38141 Water - Sika Plug W Water - Sika Plug W 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 89.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.50 Total :98.00 123088 12/29/2010 063923 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 403-00000117879 Fire Hydrant Supplies Fire Hydrant Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 218.24 21Page: Packet Page 49 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123088 12/29/2010 (Continued)063923 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.73 Total :238.97 123089 12/29/2010 066273 KETCH ALL COMPANY 31992 INV#31992 - EDMONDS PD/ANIMAL CONTROL REPLACEMENT CABLE FOR POLE 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 46.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 6.75 Total :52.75 123090 12/29/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT Lang, Robert City Hall Monitor for CM Wilson's City Hall Monitor for CM Wilson's 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 36.00 Total :36.00 123091 12/29/2010 073226 LIFE LINE SCREENING LL1227 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00 Total :200.00 123092 12/29/2010 069594 LINK PIPE INC 5789 Sewer - Sewer Sealer Sewer - Sewer Sealer 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 967.35 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 71.00 Total :1,038.35 123093 12/29/2010 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 28228 2795 MAINTENANCE HVAC 411.000.656.538.800.480.23 846.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.23 80.37 Total :926.37 123094 12/29/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105418I Calendar/batteries/notebooks/pop up 22Page: Packet Page 50 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123094 12/29/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS Calendar/batteries/notebooks/pop up 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 92.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 8.82 Total :101.65 123095 12/29/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105499I EDMCTY BINDERS/WALL POCKET/FOLDERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 144.15 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 13.69 EDMCTY105501I BINDERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 95.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 9.12 Total :262.93 123096 12/29/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105503 Misc. office supplies including Lysol Misc. office supplies including Lysol 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 463.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 44.00 Misc. office supplies including binders105512 Misc. office supplies including binders 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 344.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 32.73 Binders for Engineering.105514 Binders for Engineering. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 93.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 8.88 Misc. office supplies including blue105528 Misc. office supplies including blue 23Page: Packet Page 51 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123096 12/29/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 164.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 15.67 Toner for Building Dept.105531 Toner for Building Dept. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 229.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 21.85 Total :1,419.14 123097 12/29/2010 019583 MANPOWER INC 21416232 Reception coverage on Fri. 12/3/10. Reception coverage on Fri. 12/3/10. 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 81.15 Total :81.15 123098 12/29/2010 019583 MANPOWER INC 21458804 Temp for DSD Receptionist Ross 12/7/10 Temp for DSD Receptionist Ross 12/7/10 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 73.04 Total :73.04 123099 12/29/2010 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0074642 BOOTS, OVERALLS, JACKETS BOOTS, JACKET & OVERALLS FOR CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 123.10 BOOTS, JACKETS & OVERALLS FOR PARK 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 207.20 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 11.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.69 Total :361.69 123100 12/29/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 119485 Street - Blower Repair Supplies Street - Blower Repair Supplies 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 18.55 9.5% Sales Tax 24Page: Packet Page 52 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123100 12/29/2010 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 1.76 Sewer - Starter Rope119763 Sewer - Starter Rope 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.40 Street - 2 Cycle Oil119807 Street - 2 Cycle Oil 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 107.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 10.25 Total :143.06 123101 12/29/2010 070793 NAPC 2011 1 year renewel - expiring in February 1 year renewel - expiring in February 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 35.00 Total :35.00 123102 12/29/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0286935-IN Traffic - Supplies Traffic - Supplies 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 172.55 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 12.35 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 17.56 Total :202.46 123103 12/29/2010 063034 NCL 280126 13465 LAB SUPPLIES/ BOD SEED 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 685.50 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 23.11 Total :708.61 123104 12/29/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0442103-IN Fleet Filter Inventory 25Page: Packet Page 53 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123104 12/29/2010 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 121.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 11.56 Unit 55 - Filters0442955-IN Unit 55 - Filters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 79.18 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.53 Total :219.87 123105 12/29/2010 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3621668.002 2091 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 94.92 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 12.72 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.23 2091S3728575.001 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 15.62 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1.48 Total :134.97 123106 12/29/2010 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 38320 Unit 55 - Supplies Unit 55 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.81 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.85 Total :45.66 123107 12/29/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 17232 260 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 913.50 26Page: Packet Page 54 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123107 12/29/2010 (Continued)066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 86.78 Total :1,000.28 123108 12/29/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-228981 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MARINA BEACH 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 412.76 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-230541 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-232859 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HAINES WHARF PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 137.20 CREDIT/PINE STREET PARK1-233138 CREDIT @ PINE ST PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -59.45 Total :680.38 123109 12/29/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 183 Historic Preservation Meeting Minutes Historic Preservation Meeting Minutes 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 144.00 Total :144.00 123110 12/29/2010 073522 NW HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC 14026 E7FD.SERVICES THRU 11/30/10 E7FD.Services thru 11/30/10 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,183.72 Total :1,183.72 123111 12/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 112182 INV#112182 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD KLEENEX TISSUES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 62.15 GEL WRIST RESTS 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 30.78 GEL MOUSE WRIST PAD 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 14.29 27Page: Packet Page 55 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123111 12/29/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 4.28 INV#135716, ACCT# 520437-RETURN ITEM135716 RETURN KLEENEX-WRONG ITEM SENT 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 -62.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 -5.91 INV#135876 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD135876 KLEENEX TISSUES/OFFSET BY CREDIT 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 62.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.91 Total :117.40 123112 12/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 095390 Office supplies - HR Office supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 86.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 8.20 Total :94.49 123113 12/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 116677 CALENDAR CALENDAR FOR CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 7.42 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 0.71 Total :8.13 123114 12/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 085554 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 136.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.92 28Page: Packet Page 56 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123114 12/29/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC OFFICE SUPPLIES151425 Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 128.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.23 Total :289.97 123115 12/29/2010 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00058710 Unit 55 - Idler Pull Unit 55 - Idler Pull 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,219.99 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 359.29 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 150.03 Unit 55 - Rubber IS Mount00058735 Unit 55 - Rubber IS Mount 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.12 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.24 Unit 55 - Rubber IS Mount00058751 Unit 55 - Rubber IS Mount 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.12 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.21 Total :1,815.13 123116 12/29/2010 066988 PACIFIC LITTLE LEAGUE-LYNNWOOD PLL1213 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 270.00 Total :270.00 123117 12/29/2010 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK12920 PILATES PILATES ENERGY MAT #12920 29Page: Packet Page 57 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123117 12/29/2010 (Continued)069944 PECK, ELIZABETH 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 125.30 PILATES RELAXED MAT #12924 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 115.75 Total :241.05 123118 12/29/2010 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 27096.000-26 E7CB.SERVICES THRU 11/28/10 E7CB.Services thru 11/28/10 112.200.630.595.440.410.00 432.50 Total :432.50 123119 12/29/2010 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 10/18-12/22/10 City Holiday Breakfast Supplies City Holiday Breakfast Supplies 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 40.00 FS 16 - Ice Cube Relay 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.35 MCH - Gas Shut Off Wrench 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.18 Fac Maint - Work Gear 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 47.79 PW - Soap Supplies 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 25.05 PW - Soap Supplies 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 25.05 PW - Soap Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 25.05 PW - Soap Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 25.05 PW - Soap Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.07 PW - Office Paper Products 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 25.36 Street - Cert Letter - Rupik 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 6.15 Water Quality - Cross Connection 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 74.70 30Page: Packet Page 58 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123119 12/29/2010 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS Fleet - Parking for Meeting 511.000.657.548.680.430.00 10.00 Fleet - ASE Certification for C Rugg 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 64.00 Street - CDL P Johnson 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 30.00 Total :458.80 123120 12/29/2010 073473 PIONEER MASONRY RESTORATION 23851 Museum Exterior Repairs Completed Museum Exterior Repairs Completed 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 700.00 Retention 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 -35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 66.50 Total :731.50 123121 12/29/2010 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100DC10 POSTAGE METER LEASE Lease 11/30 10 12/30 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00 Total :866.00 123122 12/29/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER Pier StormWater Rent for 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,028.36 Total :2,028.36 123123 12/29/2010 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 100238 INV#100238 - EDMONDS PD TASER TRGT 2 PART COND BACK 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 64.75 TSR TRGT 2 PART COND FRONT 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 64.75 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 31Page: Packet Page 59 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123123 12/29/2010 (Continued)071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 13.24 Total :152.69 123124 12/29/2010 073056 PROSPECT CONSTRUCTION INC 2010-01 ODOR DUCT EXCAVATION ODOR DUCT EXCAVATION 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 5,000.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 475.00 INSTALL RST PUMP 6082010-02 INSTALL RST PUMP 608 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 3,283.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 311.89 Total :9,069.89 123125 12/29/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC 24 Hr & Fire Alarm Monitoring for FAC~ 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 201.75 Total :201.75 123126 12/29/2010 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2010-3641 PD - 4th Qtr 2010 testing fees PD - 4th Qtr 2010 testing fees 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 500.00 Total :500.00 123127 12/29/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 166.93 Total :166.93 123128 12/29/2010 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0036157-IN 0089152 IMPELLER PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2,176.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 206.72 32Page: Packet Page 60 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,382.7212312812/29/2010 030695 030695 PUMPTECH INC 123129 12/29/2010 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 65525 INV#65525 - EDMONDS PD TOWING SUBARU #320XAG 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 INV#65722 - EDMONDS PD65722 TOWING CHEV MALIBU #030-WDG 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 INV#65756 - EDMONDS PD65756 TOWING CHEVROLET #030-WDC 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 INV#65757 - EDMONDS PD65757 TOWING SUBARU #320-XAG 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 Total :692.04 123130 12/29/2010 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 53169 E3JC.SERVICES THRU 11/28/10 E3JC.Services thru 11/28/10 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 860.65 Total :860.65 123131 12/29/2010 073443 ROHDE, DAVID 007 PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,416.00 City Wide GIS 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 1,534.00 Sewer 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,003.00 33Page: Packet Page 61 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123131 12/29/2010 (Continued)073443 ROHDE, DAVID Water 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 708.00 City Wide Tech Hours for Updates 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 34.00 Total :4,695.00 123132 12/29/2010 072553 SEFAC INC 90543 Fleet Shop Lube Pot Service & Fleet Shop Lube Pot Service & 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,659.00 Total :1,659.00 123133 12/29/2010 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 195443 INV#195443 - EDMONDS PD TOWING FORD PATROL CAR P-4 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 INV#195506 - EDMONDS PD195506 TOWING HONDA ACCORD #461VOK 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 Total :346.02 123134 12/29/2010 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1102277 2010 TAX FORMS & ENVELOPES 2010 tax forms & envelopes 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 294.10 Freight 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 18.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 29.68 Total :342.06 123135 12/29/2010 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0117223-IN Unit 648 - Supplies Unit 648 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 350.00 34Page: Packet Page 62 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123135 12/29/2010 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75 Total :363.75 123136 12/29/2010 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-225814 Fleet Returns - Super Z Chains Fleet Returns - Super Z Chains 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -307.72 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -29.23 Units 336,337,650,680 - Supplies14-225816 Units 336,337,650,680 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 379.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.05 Unit TOYO - Supplies14-226159 Unit TOYO - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 75.90 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.98 Unit 36 - Parts14-226388 Unit 36 - Parts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.87 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.33 Total :319.70 123137 12/29/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 286848 Street - Replaced Plant for Constuction Street - Replaced Plant for Constuction 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 12.49 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 1.19 Total :13.68 123138 12/29/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDOIN WAY 9537 BOWDOIN WAY 35Page: Packet Page 63 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123138 12/29/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 605.01 19827 89TH PL W2004-9314-6 19827 89TH PL W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.05 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7 8100 190TH ST SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.05 Total :669.11 123139 12/29/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 116948048 2019-2988-2 8421 244 SW/Richmond Park 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 32.05 2030-9778-7143429656 WWTP SNO PUD 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 34,175.19 2002-0255-4146751013 24400 HIGHWAY 99/RICHMOND PARK 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 32.05 Total :34,239.29 123140 12/29/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95th AVE W 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05 SIGNAL LIGHT 84TH & 220TH200348233 Signal Light at 84th & 220th 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 81.83 fire station # 16200398956 fire station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,612.43 LIFT STATION #9200611317 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 236.45 SIGNAL LIGHT200706851 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05 36Page: Packet Page 64 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123140 12/29/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 SIGNAL LIGHT 961 PUGET DR200723021 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.92 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN200865202 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 126.48 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW201151412 School Flashing Light 8400 219th St SW 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05 BLINKING LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR201431244 BLINKING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05 TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT 21531 HWY 99201441755 Traffic Control Light 21531 Hwy 99 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 85.22 LIBRARY201551744 LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,738.97 SIGNAL LIGHT 19600 88TH AVE W201656758 Signal Light at 19600 88th Ave W 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.59 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220TH ST SW201751476 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220th ST SW 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 120.44 Public Works201942489 Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 103.27 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 392.42 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 392.42 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 392.42 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 392.42 37Page: Packet Page 65 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123140 12/29/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 392.39 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 194.93 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,626.41 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW202427803 TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05 CITY HALL202439246 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,569.36 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE202519864 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05 Fire station #16 Light202807632 Fire station #16 Light 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 32.29 FIVE CORNERS WATER TOWER203652151 Five Corners Water Tower 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 410.24 Total :17,171.20 123141 12/29/2010 037723 SNO CO VISITOR INFO CENTER Edm1210 TOURISM MKTG CONTRACT FOR JULY-DEC 2010 Tourism marketing contract for 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 3,000.00 Total :3,000.00 123142 12/29/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 46677 "DRAFT" stamp for Engineering Dept. "DRAFT" stamp for Engineering Dept. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 19.26 Total :19.26 38Page: Packet Page 66 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123143 12/29/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 122010 ASH DISPOSAL ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 3,507.28 Total :3,507.28 123144 12/29/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4173661-0001-04 Street - Coveralls - C Hiatt Street - Coveralls - C Hiatt 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 95.30 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 9.05 Total :104.35 123145 12/29/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO January 2011 Stand JANUARY 2011 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS January 2011 Standard Insurance Premiums 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,605.52 Total :13,605.52 123146 12/29/2010 067148 STERNBERG LANTERNS INC 13239 Traffic - Street Sign Brackets Traffic - Street Sign Brackets 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 882.00 Total :882.00 123147 12/29/2010 073525 STEWART-FOWLER, PATRICK & VICKI 5-11150 RE: #1302-5007231 UTILITY REFUND RE: #1302-5007231 Utility Refund 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 50.33 Total :50.33 123148 12/29/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2374215 Fac Maint - Code Book Fac Maint - Code Book 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 65.00 Streets - Street Lights 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 291.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.18 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 27.67 39Page: Packet Page 67 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123148 12/29/2010 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY Fac Maint - Elect Supplies2378048 Fac Maint - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 165.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.68 FAC - Elect Supplies2380495 FAC - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 54.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.16 Total :630.29 123149 12/29/2010 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIO313127 KINDERMUSIK CLASSES CLASS #13127 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 235.20 CLASS #13126 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 940.80 CLASS #13125 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,394.40 CLASS #13124 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 705.60 Total :3,276.00 123150 12/29/2010 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360003587413 C/A 360000657091 Basic e-commerce hosting 425-771-0219 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 C/A 360000764828360003591285 12-2010 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 C/A 430001405909440010706025 P&R Directory Listing 425-771-0230 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 132.50 Total :202.40 123151 12/29/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18922695 FAC - Hex Cap Nuts 40Page: Packet Page 68 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123151 12/29/2010 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC FAC - Hex Cap Nuts 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.51 Total :51.99 123152 12/29/2010 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 54316 GYMNASTICS T-SHIRTS GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY T-SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 178.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 16.99 Total :195.79 123153 12/29/2010 065342 THE BAG LADY INC 18737 Storm - Empty Sand Bags (2000) Storm - Empty Sand Bags (2000) 411.000.652.542.320.310.00 580.00 Freight 411.000.652.542.320.310.00 125.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.310.00 66.98 Total :771.98 123154 12/29/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1721077 NEWSPAPER AD 12/21 Hearing (Comp Plan) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 64.12 NEWSPAPER AD1721114 Ordinance 3827 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 33.88 NEWSPAPER ADS1721115 Ordinance 3826 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 185.08 NEWSPAPER AD1721116 Ordinance 3725 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 30.52 41Page: Packet Page 69 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :313.6012315412/29/2010 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 123155 12/29/2010 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 17403 Sewer - LS 4 - Pad lock supplies Sewer - LS 4 - Pad lock supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.13 FAC - Cabinet Locks17460 FAC - Cabinet Locks 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.50 Parks - Padlocks (6) 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 177.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.81 Total :261.10 123156 12/29/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8605780 Water Meter Inventory - M-Meter-02-010 Water Meter Inventory - M-Meter-02-010 411.000.654.534.800.342.00 2,797.90 Water Inventory - W-Valvbr-02-010 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 256.96 Water Supplies - Resetters 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3,054.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.342.00 265.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 24.41 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 290.18 Water Inventory - W-Clmpci-06-0278611683 Water Inventory - W-Clmpci-06-027 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 614.60 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 58.39 42Page: Packet Page 70 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :7,362.7412315612/29/2010 061192 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 123157 12/29/2010 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC 35938 E8GA.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBER 2010 E8GA.Services thru November 2010 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 6,248.02 Total :6,248.02 123158 12/29/2010 043935 UPS 00002T4T13500 RETURN SHIPPING CHARGES SERVERSUPPLY.COM Return Shipping Charges to 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 7.76 Total :7.76 123159 12/29/2010 062693 US BANK 3363 Roy Robinson - Unit 40 - Supplies Roy Robinson - Unit 40 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 76.43 Union 76 -Unit 127 -Car Wash 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 8.75 Metropolitan Detail - Unit 379 - Stain 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 82.13 T&C Chrysler - Unit 123 - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 712.41 Total :879.72 123160 12/29/2010 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 292408 Traffic - Vinyl Warning Flags 18'x18' Traffic - Vinyl Warning Flags 18'x18' 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 136.80 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 54.25 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 12.42 Total :203.47 123161 12/29/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0932050356 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 120.05 Cell Service-Eng 43Page: Packet Page 71 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123161 12/29/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 144.08 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 117.87 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.27 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 63.32 Cell Service-PD 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 459.37 Cell Service-Planning 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.54 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.56 Cell Service-PW Storm 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 27.58 Cell Service-PW Water/Sewer 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 39.88 Cell Service-PW Water/Sewer 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.88 Cell Service-PW Fleet 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.29 Cell Service-WWTP 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 39.85 Total :1,131.54 123162 12/29/2010 047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE313ATB01214005 CUST 916001244 PROJ DP00994R IT Maintenance & Operations Fiber Optic 001.000.310.518.870.410.00 503.33 Total :503.33 123163 12/29/2010 073527 WALKER, MICAH REDUND FEE REFUND 2011 DOG LICENSE FEE FEE FOR 2011 DOG LICENSE #117 001.000.000.322.300.000.00 5.00 Total :5.00 44Page: Packet Page 72 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123164 12/29/2010 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-8282 Street - Tree removal at 7900 200th Street - Tree removal at 7900 200th 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 650.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 61.75 Street - Tree Removal - Shell Park06-8323 Street - Tree Removal - Shell Park 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 175.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 16.63 Total :903.38 123165 12/29/2010 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 7103 Unit 62 - Replacement Battery Pack 7.5 V Unit 62 - Replacement Battery Pack 7.5 V 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 97.40 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.12 Total :116.65 123166 12/29/2010 049500 WEST PUBLISHING 821916695 CODE UPDATES RCW Updates/Pocket Inserts 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 1,783.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 169.44 Total :1,952.94 123167 12/29/2010 068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN 21388 Street - Cross Chains & Swivel (75) Street - Cross Chains & Swivel (75) 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 575.25 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 54.65 Total :629.90 123168 12/29/2010 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 90 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 45Page: Packet Page 73 of 240 12/29/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 8:51:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 123168 12/29/2010 (Continued)049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 368.34 Total :368.34 123169 12/29/2010 073524 WORK OPPORTUNITIES WORKOPP1213 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 300.00 Total :300.00 123170 12/29/2010 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 91 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 464.57 Total :464.57 123171 12/29/2010 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 929 DEC-10 RETAINER Dec-10 Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00 Total :13,000.00 Bank total :247,255.55148 Vouchers for bank code :front 247,255.55Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report148 46Page: Packet Page 74 of 240 AM-3643   Item #: 2. D. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Approval of Professional Services Agreement between City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff City administration recommends approving subject professional services agreement. Previous Council Action January 5, 2010 - The City Council approved a one-year Professional Services Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday.  Mr. Doubleday has provided professional services on behalf of the City for the past six years. Narrative Attached is a City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda as adopted by the City Council on November 30, 2010.  The legislative agenda serves as a non-exclusive scope of work for Mr. Doubleday. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue: Expenditure:35,670 Fiscal Impact: The Community Services professional services line item of the the adopted 2011 City Budget will pay for services rendered under this professional services agreement.  Attachments Attachment 1 - Professional Services Agreement Attachment 2 - City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/27/2010 04:16 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/27/2010 02:19 PM Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 75 of 240 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0251 COMMUNITY SERVICES / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mike Cooper Mayor Item02.D._Att1_Attachment 1 - Professional Services Agreement.doc PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT MIKE DOUBLEDAY GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS January 1, 2011 – Dec 31, 2011 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and Mike Doubleday, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consultant to provide advocacy for funding mechanisms that will help finance local and regional infrastructure, recreational, environmental and transportation projects, e.g., projects such as the 228th/SR99 intersection, Five Corners intersection, Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues, Puget Sound watershed health and salmon recovery, etc., in addition to monitoring and/or supporting legislation that may impact the City of Edmonds. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above-mentioned objectives in accordance with the specifics noted below. A. General Description. Provide advocacy for funding mechanisms that will help finance local and regional infrastructure, recreational, environmental and transportation projects, e.g., 228th/SR99 intersection, Five Corners intersection, Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues, Puget Sound watershed health and salmon recovery, etc. Additional services include monitoring and/or supporting legislation and activities using the adopted City of Edmonds 2011 Legislative Agenda as a non-exclusive scope of work, and providing regular updates to the City. B. Term. This contract shall cover intergovernmental services provided from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. C. Deliverables. Work with the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County Council, local State legislative delegations, appropriate State departments, legislative leadership, the Governor, and other intergovernmental representatives to: 1) Assist with the passage of legislation favorable to the City of Edmonds; and 2) Assist with the defeat or veto of legislation that either fiscally harms the City, or imposes unfunded program mandates. Provide monthly and year end reports to the City. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work Packet Page 76 of 240 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 2 performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Amount. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety One and 25/100 Dollars ($2,391.25) per month for when the legislature is not in session, and Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five and No/100 Dollars ($4,135) per month while the legislature is in session. Payments shall not exceed Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and No/100 Dollars ($35,670) for activities performed during a 12-month period. All expenses are included in the fee: no expenses shall be reimbursed without prior written approval by the City. Should the legislature meet for part of a month, payment will be prorated based upon the percentage of days convened during the month. B. Process. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City on or before the fifth of each month for services performed during the previous month. Billings shall show the amount of time spent working each major issue so the City will be advised of the intergovernmental costs of supporting each issue. Invoices will be in a form and content reasonably acceptable to the City and will describe: • Services performed • Number of hours expended in performing the services • Base contract amount • Amount invoiced to date • Current invoiced amount • Contract balance amount C. Record Retention. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of Consultant and shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. Final Document. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. Copies. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. Default. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. Packet Page 77 of 240 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 3 4. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all injury or damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of negligent work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of the Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Consultant specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the Consultant may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant further agrees to fully indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City. 5. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to his contract a policy of business general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and shall name the City as a named insured, and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. 6. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 7. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 8. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant’s status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasi-judicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent. 9. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 10. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the payments discussed in Section 2.A, unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. Packet Page 78 of 240 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 4 11. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 12. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 13. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 14. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 15. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances. Including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. A. B&O Taxes. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. B. Public Disclosure Commission. The Consultant shall be responsible to register with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and provide notice to the City regarding any obligation on his part to report his services to any State or Federal agency. Additionally, Contractor and the City shall sign and Contractor shall forward to the Public Disclosure Commission a registration of lobbyist form (if necessary) before doing any lobbying or within 30 days after being employed as a lobbyist, whichever occurs first (RCW 42.17.150). Contractor shall be otherwise responsible for compliance with all requirements of chapter 42.17 RCW (lobbying disclosure). C. Potential Conflicts. The contractor shall not advocate or promote any legislative objectives on behalf of existing or potential clients that are determined by the City to be in conflict with City of Edmonds’ legislative objectives. The City acknowledges that contractor currently represents the Cities of Bellevue, Burien, the Performing Arts Center Eastside (PACE), and certain financial issues for the City of Seattle, before the state legislature. Packet Page 79 of 240 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 5 16. Notices. Notices shall be sent to the following address, with receipt of any notice being deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice. City of Edmonds Contractor Stephen Clifton Mike Doubleday City of Edmonds Doubleday Government Relations 121 Fifth Avenue North 1561 NW 190th Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Shoreline, WA 98177 425-771-0251 206-499-0749 clifton@ci.edmonds.wa.us mikedoubleday@earthlink.net DATED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 2011. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. Scott Snyder CONSULTANT By: Its: Packet Page 80 of 240 City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda November 30, 2010 Page 1 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0251 COMMUNITY SERVICES / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mike Cooper Mayor City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda (Approved on November 30, 1010) TOP PRIORITY 1. Washington State Ferries • Existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal Public Private Partnership and Safety Support a continued partnership with the DOT Public Private Partnership Office to develop a workable safety solution at the Edmonds waterfront for pedestrian ferry riders. No Expansion – Request legislative assistance in preventing Washington State Ferries from expanding the existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal. • Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Project – Request legislative assistance in preventing the reassignment of the Mukilteo/Clinton Ferry route to Edmonds. Packet Page 81 of 240 City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda November 30, 2010 Page 2 2. Protect State-Shared and State-Committed Revenues Protect state-shared and committed revenues such as: • Liquor profits and taxes, • The municipal criminal justice account, • The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF), • The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). 3. Local Fiscal Flexibility Support a package of local fiscal flexibility measures such as: • Unifying the uses of the first and second quarters of the local Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), including flexibility to use the local REET for parks maintenance and operations, • Additional flexibility with lodging taxes, • Reduce matching requirements for state grants, • Review statutory update schedules for land use and environmental planning updates, such as GMA, SMA, water systems and sewer plans, to determine if streamlining is possible or updates can be delayed. In addition, oppose temporary suspension of local impact fee authority. 4. Public Records Requests Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other governmental agencies from overly burdensome public records requests. 5. Street Maintenance Utility Authority Support the Street Maintenance Utility Authority legislation as both a management tool and a funding source for local transportation systems. Packet Page 82 of 240 City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda November 30, 2010 Page 3 6. Transportation Revenue Package Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package to address infrastructure projects in Edmonds. • Edmonds’ highest transportation funding priority is the 228th/SR99 safety project. We recently were selected to receive grant funding for design and ROW acquisition for this project. • Seek support for an engineering pre-design, detailed traffic study, and ROW plan for a signature, five-legged round-a-bout at Five Corners. This project will address a significant but correctable congestion problem on the primary corridor leading into downtown Edmonds. 7. Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project (from 5th Avenue North to 6th Avenue North); this includes incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. 8. Phase II Storm Water Funding • Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase II storm water requirements. • Seek a delay of further storm water requirements now scheduled for 2012. 9. LEOFF 1 Medical Costs – Oppose any further expansion of LEOFF 1 retiree medical benefits without an alternative funding source. Cities and towns are not in a position to take on any additional costs. Packet Page 83 of 240 City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda November 30, 2010 Page 4 Look for opportunities to fund ongoing LEOFF 1 retiree health care costs. 10. Extension of Public Facilities District sales and use tax credit - Support the Spokane PFD request to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) from 2027 to 2037. SECONDARY PRIORITY 1. Airport Siting Monitor legislation that seeks to site a new commercial airport in the Puget Sound region. 2. Aerospace Industry Support the Washington Aerospace Partnership and other stakeholder groups in developing a unified strategy (e.g., training & education, research & development, Office of Aerospace and Defense, unemployment insurance tax, worker’s compensation, transportation infrastructure) to ensure that Washington State remains the leading location in the world for aerospace. Led by The Boeing Company, the aerospace industry within Snohomish County employs as many as 45,000 people, while one out of every three to six Washington State jobs is supported either directly or indirectly by the aerospace industry 3. Economic Development Support “tax-increment financing (TIF)”, a tool used by most other states to foster economic and community development to allow cities to proactively implement their comprehensive plans and to ensure local, regional and national competitiveness. Packet Page 84 of 240 City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda November 30, 2010 Page 5 4. Driving While License Suspended Monitor legislation that reduces DWLS 3 to an infraction which will reduce the large number of DWLS 3 cases in municipal court. 5. Public Safety Authority Monitor discussion of a Public Safety Authority, a separate taxing district dedicated to police services in a city or region that could be governed by the Mayor and City Council. 6. Gang Activity Support additional tools for combating gang activity including intervention and prevention activities. • Support local tools and innovation for gang prevention and intervention; seek sustainable, ongoing funding for gang prevention and intervention, graffiti removal programs, and law enforcement suppression activities. • Support the creation of new offenses for criminal gang intimidation and school criminal gang intimidation and sentence enhancements for gang-related offenses. • Support new tools for nuisance abatement and protection orders related to criminal street gang activity. 7. Vehicle Prowling Support additional penalties for vehicle prowling. 8. Business License Streamlining Monitor the discussion around local government business license streamlining. Packet Page 85 of 240 City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda November 30, 2010 Page 6 9. Additional Revenue Authority for Transit Agencies Monitor transit agencies (including Community Transit) legislation, which likely will request additional revenue authority in order to avoid large cuts in service. 10. Preserve local government’s current ability to purchase health care insurance. Oppose any requirement to mandate participation in state- wide health insurance pools. Advocate for maintaining current authority for selecting health insurance programs. 11. Pensions Support level/stable contribution rates for cities that do not fluctuate with economic “boom/bust” cycles. In addition, consider pursuing a deferral of any increase in employer contributions from July 2011 to January 2012. 12. Lake Ballinger capital funding request, subject to review and approval by the City Council. 13. Municipal Research Services Center Support placing MRSC on firm financial footing. This could include something other than liquor profits and taxes in the future. 14. Puget Sound Watershed Health and Salmon Habitat Recovery (From Water Resource Inventory Area 8 Partners) • Support request for $55 million for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund in the Puget Sound Partnership budget request which includes the following salmon habitat projects from the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed: o Cedar River Acquisitions o Issaquah Creek Fish Passage Packet Page 86 of 240 City of Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda November 30, 2010 Page 7 o Mapes Creek Restoration (Lake Washington tributary) o 6% of funding would also support watershed staffing and technical capacity to implement salmon recovery plans. • Continue Lead Entity funding: $1,451,676 for 2011-2013 biennium budget which supports local watershed staffing to manage the annual Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant process. • Support the Secure Medicine Return Bill (2SHB 1165/2SSB 5279) which would require producers of medicines sold in Washington to create and fund a convenient and safe return program for unwanted medicines from residential sources. Packet Page 87 of 240 AM-3638   Item #: 2. E. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Resolution thanking Councilmember Steve Bernheim for his service as Council President. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative This Resolution has been placed on the Consent agenda for approval. Attachments Council President Bernheim Resolution Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 11:10 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 02:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 02:26 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/27/2010 11:35 AM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 88 of 240 No. A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Thanking Council President Steve Bernheim for His Service To The Edmonds City Council Whereas, Steve Bernheim has served as Council President from January to December 2010 and during his tenure as President was very well-organized in the preparation of the agenda, all the while attentive to citizens’ and Council’s suggestions and requests in scheduling of the agenda until the end of the year; and Whereas, Mr. Bernheim, during his term as Council President, had the unusual task of filling not only two Council vacancies but replacing former Mayor, Gary Haakenson. He did a commendable job in leading the interview process which included extra meetings with an abundance of candidates and then bringing the appointment process to fruition; and Whereas, Council President Steve Bernheim, in addition to carrying out countless duties as Council President, worked diligently to bring a number of agenda items in front of the Council including: • Airing of Martin Luther King Jr. DVD • Establishing fire proceeds fund • Reform of campaign contributions • Changes in marijuana laws • Prohibiting certain uses of Polystyrene • Green power purchase by City • Health care issues • Purchase of Skipper’s property • Car-free parking day • Dark skies proposal • Tree Board formation • Opening more parks to leashed dogs • Land use and building codes topics • Wireless internet in Council Chambers • Future of Sr. Center • Long-range plans for future real estate acquisitions • Individual Councilmembers’ vision statements • 2011 Edmonds State Legislative Agenda • Repairs to Carnegie Library Building • Appeal process for dangerous dogs • Financial Reporting Ordinance • Restored Council authority in title 20 • Expanded flexibility in homeless shelters • Adopted Stormwater Comprehensive Plan • Instituted bistro dining • Permitting of wall murals • Renaming Edmonds Sno-Isle Library to Peggy Pritchard Olson Library all the while being supportive of the needs of not only Councilmembers but citizens as well. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that Steve Bernheim be commended and thanked for serving as Council President. The Council looks forward to his continued dedication and service to the citizens of Edmonds. Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 4th day of January, 2011. Mike Cooper, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember D.J. Wilson, Councilmember Attest: City Clerk Lora Petso, Councilmember Packet Page 89 of 240 AM-3645   Item #: 2. F. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Community/Development Services Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type:Action  Information Subject Title Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 1.03.030 to direct staff to provide information to the City Council when publication of an ordinance is delayed, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. Previous Council Action The Community Services/Development Services Committee reviewed this topic on 12-14-10 and requested the proposed ordinance be prepared and placed on the Consent Agenda.  The minutes of the meeting are attached. Narrative At the 12-14-10 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting, the Committee discussed a possible amendment to ECDC 1.03.030 regarding publication of adopted ordinances.  Councilmember Petso stated that she added this item to the agenda in order to minimize any problems that could arise from a delay in publication of an adopted ordinance. Councilmember Petso requested that a sentence be added to City Code Chapter 1.03.030 that states: “In the event an ordinance is not published within 14 days of adoption, each Councilmember shall be advised of the reason for delay and expected publication date.” Councilmember Peterson concurred with the addition of this sentence. The City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance in response to this request. Attachments 12-14-10 CSDS Committee Meeting Minutes Proposed Ordinance Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:31 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/28/2010 10:59 AM Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 90 of 240 CS/DS Committee Minutes December 14, 2010 Page 3 3 Mr. Shuster told the Committee that the funding for the design and the construction was programmed in the 2011 CIP from the 412 utility fund totaling $522,000. ACTION: ACTION: Move to Consent Agent for 12/21 Council Meeting. F. Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) 8.64.060, updating parking provisions on Bell Street. Mr. Rob English, City Engineer, explained that the Parking Committee recommended a 3-hour parking regulation on both sides of Bell Street from Sunset Avenue to 190’ west of 6th Avenue in 2007. Ordinance 3667 was later adopted by the City Council to implement this parking provision. Upon a recent field review, the distance of 190’ needs to be revised to 250’ in order for the regulation limits to extend to the start of the parallel stalls instead of within the parallel stalls. This change will reduce driver confusion and provide clear boundaries for enforcement. ACTION: Move to Consent Agent for 12/21 Council Meeting. G. Discussion of possible amendment to ECC 1.03.030 regarding publication of adopted ordinances. Councilmember Petso stated that she added this item to the agenda in order to minimize any problems that could arise from a delay in publication of an adopted ordinance. City Clerk Sandy Chase commented that City Code Chapter 1.03.030 as well as RCW address requirements related to publication of ordinances. She provided the committee members with a copy of a response from Municipal Research Services Center regarding the publication and effective dates of ordinances. With input from Planning Manager Rob Chave, Councilmember Petso requested that a sentence be added to City Code Chapter 1.03.030 that states: “In the event an ordinance is not published within 14 days of adoption, each Councilmember shall be advised of the reason for delay and expected publication date.” Councilmember Peterson concurred with the addition of this sentence. ACTION: Committee Members requested that an ordinance be prepared incorporating one sentence into Edmonds City Code Chapter 1.03.030, for adoption on a future Consent Agenda. H. Sound Transit, City of Edmonds and Community Transit – Term Sheet. Stephen Clifton discussed that an Interlocal Agreement and Developer Agreement between Sound Transit and the City of Edmonds were approved by the City Council on January 5, 2010. The Interlocal Agreement calls for Sound Transit owning, operating and/or maintaining all facilities associated with the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, which includes a Community Transit Bus Station. ("Transit Center") Packet Page 91 of 240 {WSS844554.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 12/23/10 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 1.03.030 TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE IS DELAYED, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code Section 1.03.030 is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.03.030 Publication - Effective date of ordinances. Promptly after adoption, every ordinance of the city of Edmonds shall be published at least in the official newspaper of the city; provided, that the city reserves the right to publish ordinance summaries as authorized by law. The effective date of ordinances published pursuant to this section shall be five days after the date of publication, unless otherwise provided by statute, except that an ordinance passed by a majority plus one of the whole membership of the City Council, designated therein as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of the public health, public safety, public property or the public peace, may be made effective upon adoption, but such ordinance may not levy taxes, grant, renew or extend a franchise or authorize the borrowing of money. In the event that an ordinance is not published within fourteen (14) calendar days of adoption, the City Council, by individual notice to each Councilmember, shall be advised by the City Clerk of the reason for the delay and the expected date of publication. Packet Page 92 of 240 {WSS844554.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Section 2. Effective Date APPROVED: . This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. MAYOR MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 93 of 240 {WSS844554.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 3 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 1.03.030 TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE IS DELAYED, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2010. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 94 of 240 AM-3640   Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Presentation of Resolution and plaque to Councilmember Steve Bernheim. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Presentation of Resolution and plaque to Councilmember Steve Bernheim for his service as Council President in 2010. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 10:53 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/27/2010 11:36 AM Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 95 of 240 AM-3635   Item #: 4. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Selection of Council President for 2011. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Selection of Council President for 2011. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 10:53 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:29 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/26/2010 04:53 PM Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 96 of 240 AM-3636   Item #: 5. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Selection of Council President Pro Tem for 2011. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Selection of Council President Pro Tem for 2011. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 10:53 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/26/2010 04:55 PM Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 97 of 240 AM-3637   Item #: 6. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Subject Title Appointment of Committee representatives. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Appointment of Committee representatives by 2011 Council President.  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 11:24 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/26/2010 04:56 PM Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 98 of 240 AM-3647   Item #: 7. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Resolution appointing a Councilmember to the Snohomish County Health District Board. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council announce the appointment of the Councilmember to serve on the Health District Board and adopt the attached resolution. Previous Council Action The City Council appoints a Councilmember to serve on the Snohomish County Health District Board each January. Narrative The Snohomish County Health District Board requires formal designation of its City representative.  The Councilmember designated to serve on this Board will be announced at this evening's meeting. Attachments Resolution - Health District Board Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:31 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/28/2010  Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 99 of 240 RESOLUTION NO. ___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Health District Board requires formal designation of its City representative, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the appointment of ____________________ to such Board would be in the best interest of the City, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby appoints ____________________ as its appointee to the Snohomish County Health District Board for the calendar year 2011 and thereafter until such time as the Council shall make a new appointment. RESOLVED this 4th day of January, 2011. APPROVED: _______________________________ MAYOR, MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 12-30-2010 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 100 of 240 AM-3648   Item #: 8. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Resolution appointing Councilmembers as representative and alternate to the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council announce the appointment of Councilmembers to serve as the representative and alternate to the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation. Previous Council Action The City Council appoints representatives each January. Narrative The Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (also known as Community Transit Board) requires formal designation of the City of Edmonds  representatives.  The name of the Councilmember appointed, along with an alternate, will be announced at this evening's meeting. Attachments Resolution - Snohomish Co. Public Transportation Benefit Area Corp. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:31 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/28/2010  Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 101 of 240 RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPOINTING __________________ AS THE CITY OF EDMONDS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION AND _______________ AS ALTERNATE. WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation requires formal designation of the City of Edmonds representative, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the appointment of __________________ would be in the best interest of the City, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. __________________ is hereby appointed as the representative of the City of Edmonds to the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation for calendar year 2011 or until a new representative is named. Section 2. In the event that __________________ is unwilling or unable to serve, __________________ is hereby appointed as an alternate to serve on behalf of the City for calendar year 2011 or until a new alternate is named. RESOLVED this 4th day of January, 2011. APPROVED: _______________________________ MAYOR, MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 12-30-2010 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 102 of 240 AM-3651   Item #: 9. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Gina Coccia Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Public Hearing on Home Occupations (ECDC 20.20) - A proposed code amendment that addresses the issues of permit type, process and cost, including the degree that customers, employees or signage should be permitted for home occupations in residential zones (File No. AMD20100016). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the Planning Board's recommendations. Previous Council Action The Community Services/Development Services Council Committee met on May 11, 2010 to discuss the issues involved with the current home occupation code (Exhibit 2), as well as the way in which it is administered, and referred the issue to the Planning Board for study. The Planning Board met on July 17, October 13, and November 10 (Exhibit 4) and has recommended a draft code for the Council’s review (Exhibit 1). Narrative CURRENT PROCESSING EXPLANATION The City reviews and processes two types of business license applications: those for general commercial activity, and residential home occupations. ECDC 21.40.040 defines home occupations as follows: “Home occupation means an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit or buildings accessory to a dwelling unit, incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, including the use of a dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing address.” The Home Occupation code (ECDC 20.20) was last revised 17 years ago under Ordinance 2951.  When home occupation applications are submitted to the City Clerk’s office, various departments (Fire, Planning, Building, Police, and Engineering) will review the proposed scope of work and how it complies with applicable city codes. The zoning code allows certain types of home occupations in residential (RS and RM) zones as a permitted secondary use, subject to specific approval criteria (no customers or employees are permitted to visit the premises, no odor/dust/vibration should be created, no storage of business materials outdoors, etc. – refer to Exhibit 2 for details). As long as a proposed business meets the permitted use criteria in ECDC 20.20.010.A, the Planning Division can sign off on the business license application as it relates to zoning standards. Businesses that cannot meet all of the basic home occupation criteria require either (1) a change to their proposal so that they can meet the code, or (2) they need to apply for and obtain a conditional use permit, with a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Packet Page 103 of 240 The standard fee for a home occupation business license application is $100. However, if a conditional use permit is required, the fee for this process jumps to $1,500 due to the Hearing Examiner requirement. The chief complaint heard by the Planning Division about home occupation conditional use permit requirements is the fee. For example, because of the code criteria, even if a piano teacher wanted to teach one student out of their home one time in a given a year, a conditional use permit would be required. Typical conditions imposed during the conditional use permitting process include limiting the number of customers, hours of operation, and determining if there is sufficient onsite parking to accommodate the proposal.  APPLICABLE CODES Applicable ECDC sections include Chapter 16.20.010.B.2 and Chapter 16.30.010.B.2 which allow home occupations as a permitted secondary use in residential (single-family & multi-family) zones. ECDC 20.20 is the Home Occupation chapter, which provides the regulations and outlines permitted and prohibited home occupations (Exhibit 2). Also, it is important to note that the City’s Community Sustainability Element encourages local business and reductions in the city’s overall greenhouse gas emissions. Relevant policies include: Sustainability Goal E. Develop economic development policies and programs designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage the co-location of jobs with housing in the community, seeking to expand residents’ ability to work in close proximity to their homes. Encourage and support infrastructure initiatives and land use policies that encourage and support home-based work and business activities that supplement traditional business and employment concentrations. → E.1 Economic development should support and encourage the expansion of locally based business and employment opportunities.  → E.3 Regulatory and economic initiatives should emphasize flexibility and the ability to anticipate and meet evolving employment, technological, and economic patterns.  → E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally. POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES The Planning Board has recommended that the Council streamline the permitting of home occupations that should logically ‘fit’ within neighborhood settings. One way to accomplish this is to clarify the standards for approvable home occupations (review conducted during the business license application process), such as permitting outright home occupations that have a single off-site employee or allowing customers to visit the site. Many issues were discussed at the Planning Board meetings (see Exhibit 4) and a review of other local codes was also undertaken (see Exhibit 3). The following outlines the changes to the current code as recommended by the Planning Board. The Planning Board has recommended a revised code (Exhibit 1) that breaks the review down into two processes:  1. Those business license applications that meet all of the permitted use criteria in ECDC 20.20.010.A shall be approved outright. The only review fee is the business license home occupation fee ($100). 2. Those business license applications that do NOT meet all of the permitted use criteria in ECDC 20.20.010.A  shall be required to apply for an administrative home occupation conditional use permit (a “Type II” decision, $585) and staff will conduct a review and issue the decision. Home occupation conditional use permits will no longer go before the Hearing Examiner for review saving the customer Packet Page 104 of 240 $965. Examples of permits that require similar administrative review by staff include Accessory Dwelling Unit permits (ADUs) and tree cutting permits – public notice is still required, but the decision is ultimately made by staff (with the decision appealable to the Hearing Examiner). Whether an approval is made administratively by staff or through review by the Hearing Examiner, the permit can be conditioned and there is always public notice provided.  CODE CHANGES PROPOSED IN EXHIBIT 1 1. Reference to the City’s Community Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan was added to the Purpose section (20.20.000). 2. One employee would be permitted outright (20.20.010.A.6). Currently NO employees are permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the code. 3. Reference to the commercial vehicle standards from ECDC 17.50.100 was inserted, warning folks that a separate review process is required if they would like to have a commercial vehicle in excess of 10,000 pounds GVW. 4. The home occupation could have ONE VISIT by a vehicle per hour between the hours of 8:00 am and 9:00 pm (20.20.010.A.9). This implies that the vehicle could contain more than one customer. Currently NO customers are permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the code. 5. A section was deleted that explains how a business license can be revoked if it is found that a customer visited the premises, because it is recommended that the code be amended to allow customers. 6. If a business can not meet the permitted use criteria outright, then a conditional use permit is required. The process was changed (ECDC 20.20.010.B) so that the conditional use permit review is ADMINISTRATIVE and conducted by staff as a “Type II” permit ($585) instead of going to the Hearing Examiner for review ($1550). This is a major change to the code. 7. A section was deleted that describes how traffic from customers should not be generated from outside the neighborhood (ECDC 20.10.010.B.5). This is impossible to document and enforce. 8. Regulations added that require not more than one employee to visit per day, not more than one customer vehicle per hour, and prohibits customers from coming to visit at night between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. 9. Regulations added that require the applicant to prove there is sufficient parking (for three vehicles) if they would like to have customers or employees. 10. Two new definitions were created: “Urban Farming” and “Artist Studio” along with associated regulations (20.10.010.C and 20.10.010.D). For Urban Farming, applicants could sell their home grown produce on site, but they would have to remove their display (canopy/tables) during non-operating hours. For Artist Studios, applicants could display and sell their hand-made artwork created on site, so long as they can prove that they can accommodate customers without creating a traffic hazard or nuisance to adjoining properties. Also, the studio would need to be indoors. 11. A section on prohibited home occupations was deleted. 12. Commercial signage in residential zones was discussed. Currently, the sign code allows folks to erect a 4 square foot sign in residential zones (e.g. “The Smith Family”) without a building permit, but the home occupation code did not allow commercial signs outright (e.g. “Smith’s Accounting Services”). A section was changed to clarify that commercial signage would be allowed, so long as the total residential signage does not exceed the allowed 4 square feet. Also, that a building permit is required so review can be conducted. The current code allows for an applicant to ask the Hearing Examiner for anything that isn’t outright permitted with their conditional use permit application. The Planning Board agreed that the process should be changed to allow staff to conduct the conditional use permit review. However, one detail may have been overlooked during the last draft revision. As written, the recommended code does not allow Packet Page 105 of 240 the applicant to ask staff for anything that isn’t outright permitted – there are limitations on customers and employee visits. 20.20.010.B.4 would not allow more than one employee to visit, 2020.010.B.5 would not allow more than one customer vehicle per hour, and 20.20.010.B.6 would not allow visits from customers between 9:00 PM and 8:00 am. If this was unintentional, then these items should be stricken. If it was intentional, then it could be revised for clarity. Attachments Exhibit 1: PB Recommended Code Exhibit 2: ECDC 20.20 Exhibit 3: Matrix Comparison Exhibit 4: Meeting Minutes Exhibit 5: Parties of Record Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Planning Department Rob Chave 12/29/2010 01:42 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 01:56 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 02:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 02:26 PM Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 12/29/2010 09:40 AM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 106 of 240 Planning Board’s Recommendation File No. AMD20100016 Page 1 of 6 Chapter 20.20 HOME OCCUPATIONS Sections: 20.20.000 Purpose. 20.20.010 Home occupation. 20.20.015 Prohibited home occupations. 20.20.020 General regulation. 20.20.030 Permit. 20.20.000 Purpose. A home occupation is generally an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit, or buildings accessory to the dwelling unit which are incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, including the use of the dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing address. The purpose of this chapter is to allow residents to carry on home occupations on their property while guaranteeing neighboring residents freedom from excessive noise, excessive traffic, nuisance, fire hazard and other possible potential negative impacts from the maintenance of a commercial use within a residential neighborhood. The purpose of this chapter is to permit two types of home use occupations while prohibiting other commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Commercial enterprises employing only the residents of a structure which are operated entirely within the structure and which require no deliveries or other traffic are intended to be permitted activities. The City’s Community Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages local business and reductions in the city’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, so this chapter seeks to encourage home-based work and business activities while preserving the character of residentially-zoned neighborhoods by limiting the number of customers and employees permitted to visit the home occupation. Other occupations such as music teachers, newspaper delivery and other commercial activity which are intended to serve the neighborhood and which promote traffic only within the neighborhood as opposed to attracting traffic to the neighborhood from outside, are also intended to be permitted uses. A home occupation is generally an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit, or buildings accessory to the dwelling unit which are incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, including the use of the dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing address. 20.20.010 Home occupation. A home occupation may be conducted as a permitted secondary use in any residential zone of the city subject to the following regulations: A. A Home home occupation shall be a permitted use if it: 1. Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit; and 2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site, without any significant outside outdoor activity; and EXHIBIT - 1 Packet Page 107 of 240 Planning Board’s Recommendation File No. AMD20100016 Page 2 of 6 3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a residence; and 4. Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the U.S. Mail) which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (except for the U.S. Mail and standard UPS/FedEx sized delivery vehicles); and 5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a residential area beyond that normally associated with residential use; and 6. Does not include any employees visits by more than one non-resident employee per day, outside of the family members residing at the residence, including but not limited to persons working at or visiting the subject property; and 7. Complies with aAll performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010. 8. Does not park or store more than one commercial vehicle or any commercial vehicle over 10,000 pounds licensed gross vehicle weight per dwelling unit pursuant to ECDC 17.50.100. 9. Does not include visits from customers in excess of one vehicle per hour between the hours of 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. Any permit granted to such an occupational use shall be immediately voidable upon proof of any visit to the site in excess of the standards provided in paragraphs A(4) and A(6) of this section or any visits by a customer, client or other persons purchasing goods or services from the home occupation. Proof of one such occurrence shall be sufficient to void the permitted use provided under this section and thereby requiring the home occupation to meet the permitting provisions hereinafter contained in this chapter. An example of an out right permitted home occupation is a writer or artist who develops a book or art work and does not show the work from the home. B. A home occupation which does not meet one or more of the requirements of subsection (A) of this section may be approved as a conditional use permitstaff approval (Type III-B II decision) pursuant to Chapter 20.05 ECDC and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC, if the home occupation will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by meeting all of the following criteria: 1. Will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood; 12. The temporary and permanent keeping of animals associated with a home occupation must comply with all provisions of Chapter 5.05 ECC (Animal Control) and ECDC Title 16; and 23. The home occupation Wwill not include storage, display of goods, building materials and/or the operation of building machinery, commercial vehicles or other tools, unless it meets all of the following criteria: EXHIBIT - 1 Packet Page 108 of 240 Planning Board’s Recommendation File No. AMD20100016 Page 3 of 6 a. Is wholly enclosed within a structure or building, b. Does not emit noise, odor or heat, and c. Does not create glare or emit light from the site in violation of the city’s performance criteria; and, 34. Does not create a condition which injures or endangers the comfort, or pose health or safety threats of to persons on abutting properties or streets; and 5. Will not generate traffic from outside of the neighborhood nor excessive intra-neighborhood traffic or necessitate excessive parking beyond that normally associated with a residential use; and all performance criteria established by ECDC 17.60.010 are met. Any permit granted to such a home occupation shall be immediately voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by any client, patient or customer in excess of the standard established through the conditional use permit process, and proof of one such occurrence shall be sufficient to void such permit in any proceeding under ECDC 20.100.040 relating to review of approved permits. 4. Does not include visits to the site from more than one non-resident employee per day; and 5. Does not include visits from customers in excess of one vehicle per hour; and 6. Does not include visits from customers between the hours of 9:00 pm and 8:00 am; and 7. If visits to the site are to be made by either an off-site employee or customer, on-site parking shall be provided for at least three (3) vehicles; and 8. No parking or storage is provided for more than one commercial vehicle or any commercial vehicle over 10,000 pounds licensed gross vehicle weight per dwelling unit pursuant to ECDC 17.50.100. C. Urban farming. 1. A home occupation for urban farming is defined as the display or sale of edible farm products or fresh produce grown on-site. 2. Urban farming may be permitted if it meets all of the criteria contained in ECDC 20.20.010(B), except that: a. Condition 20.20.010(B)(5) does not apply. An applicant for a home occupation for the sale of on-site farm products or produce shall be required to submit a site plan showing how any visitors to the site can be accommodated without creating a traffic hazard or nuisance to adjoining properties. EXHIBIT - 1 Packet Page 109 of 240 Planning Board’s Recommendation File No. AMD20100016 Page 4 of 6 b. The general prohibition of the display of goods in ECDC 20.20.010(B)(2) does not apply to the display or sale of edible farm products or produce, so long as the display is removed during non-operating hours. D. Artist Studio. 1. A home occupation for an artist studio is defined as the display or sale of hand-made products (artwork) that is produced on-site. Items or artwork created off site is not included in this definition. 2. An artist studio may be permitted if it meets all of the criteria contained in ECDC 20.20.010(B), except that: a. Condition 20.20.010(B)(5) does not apply. An applicant for a home occupation for an artist studio shall be required to submit a site plan showing how any visitors to the site can be accommodated without creating a traffic hazard or nuisance to adjoining properties. b. The display or sale of hand-made artwork shall remain completely enclosed within a building pursuant to ECDC 20.20.010.A.2. 20.20.015 Prohibited home occupations. Certain home occupations depend for their economic viability upon the sale or provision of services to persons throughout the city or the regional community rather than the neighborhood in which they reside thereby attracting to a neighborhood traffic beyond that generally associated with the neighborhood or intra-neighborhood traffic. Such home occupations which depend upon travel to the site by customers, clients or patients are specifically prohibited. A. The following occupational uses shall be presumed to generate such traffic: 1. The offices of any doctor of medicine, dentist, orthodontist, chiropractor or other health care professional licensed under the state of Washington (excluding licensed massage therapists); 2. The offices of any person engaged in the practice of law; 3. The offices of any veterinarian; and/or 4. Any structure used for the retail sale of goods, except as expressly permitted by ECDC 20.20.020(E) as an adjunct to a permitted use. B. The presumption established by subsection A of this section shall be rebuttable, but the applicant shall have the burden of proving that no commercial traffic will be generated by clients, patients or customers. Any permit granted to such an occupational use shall be voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by a client, patient or customer, and proof of one such visit shall be sufficient to void such permit and any proceeding under ECDC 20.100.040 relating to the review of approved permits. EXHIBIT - 1 Packet Page 110 of 240 Planning Board’s Recommendation File No. AMD20100016 Page 5 of 6 C. The limited sale of services on site by occupations other than those listed in subsection A of this section shall be permitted so long as: 1. All performance criteria established by ECDC 17.60.010 are met and the conditional use permit issued pursuant to ECDC 20.20.010(B) and Chapter 20.05 ECDC are met; and 2. The home occupation is advertised, intended and/or in fact attracts traffic only from the residential neighborhood in which it is located, does not create traffic in excess of normal residential levels, and is not intended or designed to create additional traffic into the neighborhood by attracting clients or customers from beyond the neighborhood. Examples of home occupations which might qualify for a permit include the musical instruction of pupils in clearly defined and limited numbers which does not generate traffic from outside of the residential neighborhood in which it is located nor in excess of normal residential levels or operating as a news carrier from a residential home in which the only outside traffic is delivery of papers to the site by the news agency. D. Home occupations which employ any individual outside of resident family where the employee(s) work at or visit the subject property shall be prohibited in any planned residential development or individual lot thereof. 20.20.020 General regulation. A. Sale or Display of Goods. No goods shall be sold or rendered on the premises except instructional materials pertinent to the home occupation (e.g., music books) or as described in ECDC 20.20.010(C) for Urban Farming, above. Display or storage of goods outside the premises or in the window thereof is prohibited, except related to an Urban Farming display located entirely on the subject property. Such farm or produce display shall be removed during the hours it is not in operation. B. Signs. A sign is permitted in conjunction with conditional use permita home occupation approval and does shall not exceed three four square feet in size. and shall contain only the name and address of the residence.The sign area shall be calculated as part of, not in addition to, the total sign area permitted on the site. A building permit is required for any proposed commercial signage in a residential zone. C. Reasons for Denial. A home occupation conditional use permit is a special exception to the zoning ordinance and the applicant has the burden of persuasion that he/she comes within the stated purposes and criteria of this chapter. The following are among common reasons for denial but are not intended to be exclusive: 1. The on-street or on-site parking of trucks or other types of equipment associated with the home occupation; 2. The littered, unkempt and otherwise poorly maintained condition of the dwelling site; EXHIBIT - 1 Packet Page 111 of 240 Planning Board’s Recommendation File No. AMD20100016 Page 6 of 6 3. Visits to the site are made by more than one vehicle per hour, such as a contractor or business operation that includes multiple employees meeting at the site to collect materials or equipment that will be used at another location. 43. Noncompliance with the criteria of this chapter or conditions of approval or other provisions of city ordinance; and/or 54. The proposal cannot be conditioned in order to meet the criteria and findings of the chapter. 20.20.030 Permit. All permits for home occupations are personal to the applicant and shall not be transferred or otherwise assigned to any other person. The permit will automatically expire when the applicant named on the permit application moves from the site. The home use occupation shall also automatically expire if the permittee fails to maintain a valid business license or the business license is suspended or revoked. The home occupation shall not be transferred to any site other than that described on the application form. EXHIBIT - 1 Packet Page 112 of 240 Chapter 20.20 HOME OCCUPATIONS Sections: 20.20.000 Purpose. 20.20.010 Home occupation. 20.20.015 Prohibited home occupations. 20.20.020 General regulation. 20.20.030 Permit. 20.20.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to allow residents to carry on home occupations on their property while guaranteeing neighboring residents freedom from excessive noise, excessive traffic, nuisance, fire hazard and other possible potential negative impacts from the maintenance of a commercial use within a residential neighborhood. The purpose of this chapter is to permit two types of home use occupations while prohibiting other commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Commercial enterprises employing only the residents of a structure which are operated entirely within the structure and which require no deliveries or other traffic are intended to be permitted activities. Other occupations such as music teachers, newspaper delivery and other commercial activity which are intended to serve the neighborhood and which promote traffic only within the neighborhood as opposed to attracting traffic to the neighborhood from outside, are also intended to be permitted uses. A home occupation is generally an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit, or buildings accessory to the dwelling unit which are incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, including the use of the dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing address. 20.20.010 Home occupation.* A home occupation may be conducted as a permitted use in any residential zone of the city subject to the following regulations: A. Home occupation shall be a permitted use if it: 1. Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit; and 2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site, without any significant outside activity; and 3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a residence; and 4. Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the U.S. Mail) which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and 5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a residential area beyond that normally associated with residential use; and EXHIBIT - 2 Packet Page 113 of 240 6. Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at the residence, including but not limited to persons working at or visiting the subject property; and 7. All performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010. Any permit granted to such an occupational use shall be immediately voidable upon proof of any visit to the site in excess of the standards provided in paragraphs A(4) and A(6) of this section or any visits by a customer, client or other persons purchasing goods or services from the home occupation. Proof of one such occurrence shall be sufficient to void the permitted use provided under this section and thereby requiring the home occupation to meet the permitting provisions hereinafter contained in this chapter. An example of an out right permitted home occupation is a writer or artist who develops a book or art work and does not show the work from the home. B. A home occupation which does not meet one or more of the requirements of subsection (A) of this section may be approved as a conditional use permit (Type III-B decision) pursuant to Chapter 20.05 ECDC and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC, if the home occupation: 1. Will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood; 2. The temporary and permanent keeping of animals associated with home occupation must comply with all provisions of Chapter 5.05 ECC (Animal Control) and ECDC Title 16; 3. Will not include storage, display of goods, building materials and/or the operation of building machinery, commercial vehicles or other tools, unless it meets the following criteria: a. Is wholly enclosed within a structure or building, b. Does not emit noise, odor or heat, and c. Does not create glare or emit light from the site in violation of the city’s performance criteria; 4. Does not create a condition which injures or endangers the comfort, or pose health or safety threats of persons on abutting properties or streets; and 5. Will not generate traffic from outside of the neighborhood nor excessive intra- neighborhood traffic or necessitate excessive parking beyond that normally associated with a residential use; and all performance criteria established by ECDC 17.60.010 are met. Any permit granted to such a home occupation shall be immediately voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by any client, patient or customer in excess of the standard established through the conditional use permit process, and proof of one such occurrence shall be sufficient to void such permit in any proceeding under ECDC 20.100.040 relating to review of approved permits. [Ord. 3783 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 52, 2009]. EXHIBIT - 2 Packet Page 114 of 240 *Code reviser’s note: Ordinance 3783 amends interim Ordinance 3775 amending ECDC 20.20.010(B). Ordinance 3775 expires July 5, 2010. 20.20.015 Prohibited home occupations. Certain home occupations depend for their economic viability upon the sale or provision of services to persons throughout the city or the regional community rather than the neighborhood in which they reside thereby attracting to a neighborhood traffic beyond that generally associated with the neighborhood or intra-neighborhood traffic. Such home occupations which depend upon travel to the site by customers, clients or patients are specifically prohibited. A. The following occupational uses shall be presumed to generate such traffic: 1. The offices of any doctor of medicine, dentist, orthodontist, chiropractor or other health care professional licensed under the state of Washington (excluding licensed massage therapists); 2. The offices of any person engaged in the practice of law; 3. The offices of any veterinarian; and/or 4. Any structure used for the retail sale of goods, except as expressly permitted by ECDC 20.20.020(E) as an adjunct to a permitted use. B. The presumption established by subsection A of this section shall be rebuttable, but the applicant shall have the burden of proving that no commercial traffic will be generated by clients, patients or customers. Any permit granted to such an occupational use shall be voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by a client, patient or customer, and proof of one such visit shall be sufficient to void such permit and any proceeding under ECDC 20.100.040 relating to the review of approved permits. C. The limited sale of services on site by occupations other than those listed in subsection A of this section shall be permitted so long as: 1. All performance criteria established by ECDC 17.60.010 are met and the conditional use permit issued pursuant to ECDC 20.20.010(B) and Chapter 20.05 ECDC are met; and 2. The home occupation is advertised, intended and/or in fact attracts traffic only from the residential neighborhood in which it is located, does not create traffic in excess of normal residential levels, and is not intended or designed to create additional traffic into the neighborhood by attracting clients or customers from beyond the neighborhood. Examples of home occupations which might qualify for a permit include the musical instruction of pupils in clearly defined and limited numbers which does not generate traffic from outside of the residential neighborhood in which it is located nor in excess of normal residential levels or operating as a news carrier from a residential home in which the only outside traffic is delivery of papers to the site by the news agency. EXHIBIT - 2 Packet Page 115 of 240 D. Home occupations which employ any individual outside of resident family where the employee(s) work at or visit the subject property shall be prohibited in any planned residential development or individual lot thereof. [Ord. 3465 § 4, 2003]. 20.20.020 General regulation. A. Sale or Display of Goods. No goods shall be sold or rendered on the premises except instructional materials pertinent to the home occupation (e.g., music books). Display or storage of goods outside the premises or in the window thereof is prohibited. B. Signs. A sign is permitted in conjunction with conditional use permit approval and does not exceed three square feet in size and shall contain only the name and address of the residence. C. Reasons for Denial. A home occupation conditional use permit is a special exception to the zoning ordinance and the applicant has the burden of persuasion that he/she comes within the stated purposes and criteria of this chapter. The following are among common reasons for denial but are not intended to be exclusive: 1. The on-street or on-site parking of trucks or other types of equipment associated with the home occupation; 2. The littered, unkempt and otherwise poorly maintained condition of the dwelling site; 3. Noncompliance with the criteria of this chapter or conditions of approval or other provisions of city ordinance; and/or 4. The proposal cannot be conditioned in order to meet the criteria and findings of the chapter. 20.20.030 Permit. All permits for home occupations are personal to the applicant and shall not be transferred or otherwise assigned to any other person. The permit will automatically expire when the applicant named on the permit application moves from the site. The home use occupation shall also automatically expire if the permittee fails to maintain a valid business license or the business license is suspended or revoked. The home occupation shall not be transferred to any site other than that described on the application form. [Ord. 2951 § 1, 1993]. This page of the Edmonds City Code is current through Ord. 3792, passed April 20, 2010. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us City Telephone: (425) 771-0245 Code Publishing Company EXHIBIT - 2 Packet Page 116 of 240 Ho m e  Oc c u p a t i o n  Ma t r i x  – Co m p a r i n g  Re v i e w  Pr o c e s s e s   Ci t y   In e x p e n s i v e  Ad m i n   Pr o c e s s ?   Ad d i t i o n a l   CU  Pr o c e s s ?   No t e s   On l i n e  Information   Sh o r e l i n e   Ye s .    $1 4 5  (m i n i m u m  on e   ho u r  re v i e w )  an d  on e  no n ‐ fa m i l y  em p l o y e e  is   pe r m i t t e d  to  vi s i t .   No .   SM C  20 . 4 0 . 4 0 0 .   Ap p r o x i m a t e  tw o  we e k  re v i e w .   Su b m i t t a l  Ch e c k l i s t  & Su m m a r y ,  Application, and  Criteria  Sheet:  ht t p : / / w w w . s h o r e l i n e w a . g o v/ i n d e x . a s px?pa ge=270   Ly n n w o o d   No  la n d  us e  pr o c e s s  – on l y   re v i e w e d  th r o u g h  th e   bu s i n e s s  li c e n s e  (B L )   pr o c e s s .    Al l o w e d  1   cu s t o m e r  an  ho u r  (9 a m ‐ 9p m ) ,  no  em p l o y e e   ve h i c l e s  on / n e a r  th e  si t e .   No .   LM C  21 . 4 2 . 3 0 0 .   Th e  fe e  is  $2 8 . 5 0 / y e a r   Ho m e  Oc c u p a t i o n s :   ht t p : / / w w w . c i . l y n n w o o d . w a . u s / C o n t ent/Business.aspx?id=71   Ch e c k l i s t :  ht t p : / / w w w . c i . l y n n w o o d . w a . u s / D o c s / h o m e o c c s r v y 1 . p d f   Me r c e r  Is l a n d   No  la n d  us e  pr o c e s s  – on l y   re v i e w e d  th r o u g h  th e  BL   pr o c e s s .     No .   MI C C  19 . 0 2 . 0 1 0 . A . 5 .    Th e  fe e  is  $3 0  fo r  a  BL ,  th e  pr o c e s s  is   ma i n l y  co m p l a i n t  dr i v e n ,  an d  th e  mo s t  co m m o n   co m p l a i n t s  ar e  tr a f f i c  an d  pa r k i n g .    Se p a r a t e  re v i e w   cr i t e r i a  fo r  da y  ca r e s .   Ho m e  Bu s i n e s s  Re q u i r e m e n t s :   ht t p : / / w w w . m e r c e r g o v . o r g/ f i l e s / H o m e Business.pdf   Wo o d i n v i l l e   Ye s .    Ho m e  Oc c u p a t i o n s   ar e  $1 1 5  an d  ar e  re q u i r e d   to  me e t  th e  cr i t e r i a  – se e   ch e c k l i s t  an d  ap p l i c a t i o n .   Li m i t e d  cu s t o m e r s  an d   em p l o y e e s  pe r m i t t e d .   Ye s .    HI P s   re q u i r e  a   he a r i n g  an d  co s t   $5 3 0 5 .   WM C  21 . 3 0 . 0 4 0  an d  WM C  21 . 3 0 . 0 5 0 .  Th e  di f f e r e n c e   be t w e e n  th e i r  pr o c e s s e s  ha s  to  do  wi t h  th e  si z e  of  th e   bu s i n e s s  an d  lo t  an d  wh e t h e r  or  no t  th e r e  ar e  on ‐si t e  sa l e s .   Ho m e  Oc c u p a t i o n  Pe r m i t  Ap p l i c a t i o n  and  code  section:  ht t p : / / w w w . c i . w o o d i n v i l l e . w a . u s /Documen ts/Work/permits/2009 _H o m e _ O c c u p a t i o n _ P e r m i t _ A p p l i c a t i o n _ a n d _ C h e c k l i s t . p d f   Ho m e  In d u s t r y  Pe r m i t ( H I P )  Ap p l i c a t i o n  and  code  section:  ht t p : / / w w w . c i . w o o d i n v i l l e . w a . u s /Documents/Work/permits/2009 _H o m e _ % 2 0 I n d u s t r y _ P e r m i t _ A p p l i c a t i o n _ a n d _ C h e c k l i s t . p d f   Mu k i l t e o   No  la n d  us e  pr o c e s s  – on l y   re v i e w e d  th r o u g h  th e  BL   pr o c e s s .    $1 1 3 . 5 0  + FT E   li c e n s e  fe e s .    On e   em p l o y e e  al l o w e d  to  vi s i t .   No .   MM C  17 . 1 6 . 0 4 0 ( 1 4 )   Ho m e  Oc c u p a t i o n s  on l y  ad d r e s s e d  in  the  definitions  chapter  and  in   th e  pe r m i t t e d  us e  ma t r i x  of  th e  code:  ht t p : / / c o d e p u b l i s h i n g . c o m / w a / m u k i l t e o /    No  other  online   fo r m s / h a n d o u t s .   Ed m o n d s   No .    Ei t h e r  we  ca n  ap p r o v e   th e i r  ap p l i c a t i o n  wi t h  th e   BL  or  it  re q u i r e s  a  pu b l i c   he a r i n g  CU  pe r m i t   ap p l i c a t i o n .    No  cu s t o m e r s   or  em p l o y e e s  ar e   pe r m i t t e d .   Ye s .    If  th e y   pr o p o s e  an y   cu s t o m e r s  or   em p l o y e e s  (o r   fa i l  to  me e t  an y   of  th e  cr i t e r i a )   th e n  a  pu b l i c   he a r i n g  is   re q u i r e d .   EC D C  20 . 2 0 .   Th e  ch i e f  c om p l a i n t  we  he ar  is  th a t  th e r e  is   no  mi d d l e  gr o u n d .    A  pi a n o  te a c h e r  is  re q u i r e d  to  pa y   $1 5 0 0  fo r  a  CU  th a t  co u l d  ta k e  3 ‐4  mo n t h s  fo r  a  he a r i n g .    We  al r e a d y  ha v e  an  ad m i n i s t r a t i v e  CU  pr o c e s s  in  pl a c e   th a t  st i l l    re q u i r e s  pu b l i c  no t i c e .    St a f f  de c i s i o n s  co s t  $5 0 5   an d  ar e  ap p ea l a b l e  to  th e  HE  (e x a m p l e s :  AD U s  an d  tr e e   cu t t i n g  pe r m i t s ) .   EC D C  20 . 2 0 :   ht t p : / / w w w . m r s c . o r g / m c / e d m o nds/E dm onds20/Edmonds2020.ht ml # 2 0 . 2 0   Ha n d o u t  #P 4 2 :   ht t p : / / w w w . c i . e d m o n d s . w a . u s / P ublic_Han douts/Planning/P42 ‐ Ho m e _ O c c u p a t i o n . p d f   EXHIBIT - 3 Pa c k e t Pa g e 11 7 of 24 0 APPROVED DECEMBER 8TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 10, 2010 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair John Reed, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Planner Gina Coccia, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Chair Lovell added three items to the agenda under New Business: Planning Board Guidelines, Planning Board Student Representative, and Planning Board Vacancies. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON HOME OCCUPATIONS (ECDC 20.20) – A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES OF PERMIT TYPE, PROCESS AND COST, INCLUDING THE DEGREE THAT CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES OR SIGNAGE SHOULD BE PERMITTED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. (FILE NUMBER AMD20100016) Ms. Coccia reviewed the attachments in the Staff Report as follows:  Attachment 1 – Draft Code Amendments  Attachment 2 – Planning Board Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2010  Attachment 3 – Public Hearing Notice  Attachment 4 – Map of Arterial and Collector Streets Ms. Coccia recalled that on May 11th the City Council’s Community Services/Development Services Committee directed staff to work with the Planning Board to amend the home occupation code language. The intent of the proposed changes is to streamline the home occupation permit process, reduce fees to small business owners, support home-based work as a way for the City to be more sustainable, and preserve the residential character of the neighborhoods. The Planning Board EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 118 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 2 discussed the proposed amendments previously on July 14th and October 13th. The purpose of tonight’s hearing is to solicit public comment regarding the proposed amendments. At the conclusion of the public hearing and the Board’s deliberation, staff would invite the Planning Board to forward a recommendation to the City Council for action. She noted that the Home Occupation chapter (ECDC 20.20) was last revised 17 years ago under Ordinance 2951. Ms. Coccia reviewed the current definition for “home occupation” and explained that the current process requires a person who wants to operate a business out of their home to submit an application for a home occupation business license, which carries a fee of $100. A conditional use permit would also be required for any business that does not meet all of the home occupation criteria. A conditional use permit costs $1,550 and requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The proposed amendments include evaluating whether an administrative conditional use permit, which costs $585, would be equally as effective. Ms. Coccia further explained that, as per the current code, a home occupation shall be permitted if it meets the following criteria:  Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit.  Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site without any significant outside activity.  Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a residence.  Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the U.S. Mail) which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.  Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a residential area beyond that normally associate with residential uses.  Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at the residence, including but not limited to persons working at or visiting the subject property.  Meets all performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010. Ms. Coccia reported that staff researched how home occupations are regulated in other jurisdictions and learned the following:  Shoreline allows one non-family employee to visit the site.  Lynnwood allows one customer per hour and no employees or vehicles are permitted on or near the site.  Mercer Island has no land use process for home occupations. Their regulations are complaint driven.  Woodinville allows limited customers and employees.  Mukilteo allows one employee.  Edmonds allows no employees and no customers. As discussed earlier by the Commission, Ms. Coccia said staff is proposing two new definitions:  Urban Farming – A home occupation for urban farming is defined as the display or sale of edible farm products or fresh produce grown on site. Selling products that are produced off site would not be permitted.  Artist Studio – A home occupation for an artist studio is defined as the display or sale of hand-made products (artwork) that are produced on site. Items or artwork created off site would not be included in the definition. Ms. Coccia referred to Attachment 4, which is a map identifying all of the collector and arterial streets in the City. She explained that staff considered options for mitigating potential traffic impacts associated with home occupations. The current code requires a conditional use permit for home occupations that include employees or customers. Conditional Use Permit applications are heard by the Hearing Examiner, and the fee is $1,550. If the goal is to ensure that customers and employees visiting a home occupation do not create a significant impact to the surrounding neighborhood, another option is to allow one employee outright if the home occupation is located on an arterial or collector street. Ms. Coccia asked that the Board consider the following questions:  What types of businesses would they notice if they were a neighbor or passerby?  What types of impacts are important in a neighborhood setting?  How could the code be rewritten so that neighbors do not notice an impact to their residential quality of life? EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 119 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 3  How should the City regulate home occupations?  What are the differences between visits from employees and customers?  A home occupation is a permitted secondary use in single-family zones. The primary use is still residential. How much should the permits cost? To help the Board review the above questions, Ms. Coccia shared examples of how the proposed code language would be applied in various scenarios:  Scenario 1 – A Massage Therapist with Customers. This home occupation would be permitted outright on Olympic View Drive because it is a minor arterial. However, if the use were located on Talbot Road, an administrative conditional use permit would be required. The cost of the conditional use permit would be $585, and a public notice would be required. The administrative decision would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner.  Scenario 2 – Urban Farmer. This type of home occupation would be allowed to have customers in excess of one vehicle per hour if located on 196th Street. The application would be reviewed through the business license process as long as a site plan can demonstrate that sufficient parking would be available. The regulations would be the same if the home occupation were located on Bowdoin Way.  Scenario 3 – Accountant and One Employee, Occasional Customers, and Signage. If this type of home occupation were located on 220th Street, it would be permitted outright as a secondary use, but the commercial sign would require a conditional use permit. If the home occupation were located on Olympic Avenue, an administrative conditional use permit would be required for employees, customers and signage. Ms. Coccia advised that the Board still needs to consider whether employees should be permitted the same as customers. They should also discuss whether commercial signs should require an administrative conditional use permit. She requested specific feedback regarding the following proposed changes:  Allowing home occupations on arterials and collectors to have a single employee and/or one customer per hour. If the Board feels this is appropriate, the draft proposal must be revised to reflect the change.  Otherwise requiring staff-approved conditional use permit for home occupations seeking customers, employees, and/or signage in residential areas not on a collector or arterial street. Staff could evaluate the proposal to ensure that there is adequate parking for customers/employees and that the signage is appropriate in scale and design. This would help protect the neighborhood from degradation by vehicles parking off site or by indiscreet signage, while saving the business owner extra time and $965 in permitting fees.  Allowing urban farmers and artist studios as long as a site plan, which is submitted with the business license application, can sufficiently reflect that the site should be able to accommodate additional vehicles (more than the two required for the primary residential use) in order to reduce impacts to the neighbors.  Allowing commercial wall signage through a home occupation staff-approved conditional use permit and subsequent building permit. Currently, one would have to apply for review by the Hearing Examiner in order to have signage. However, section 20.20.020.B of the current draft proposal could be clearer on the process for obtaining a commercial sign. In response to Chair Lovell’s request for clarification, Ms. Coccia explained that, as per the current code, home occupations are permitted as secondary uses if they meet all the criteria in ECDC 20.20.010.A. Only a business license ($100) would be required. Home occupations that do not meet all of the criteria are required to obtain a conditional use permit ($1,550). As per the draft proposal, applicants would be required to obtain an administrative conditional use permit ($585) if the use does not meet all of the criteria. The application would only go before the Hearing Examiner for review if an appeal to the administrative conditional use permit is filed. She noted that administrative conditional use permits cost much less than a conditional use permit that is heard by the Hearing Examiner. Chair Lovell referred to the matrix comparing the home occupation requirements for various jurisdictions. He noted that Woodinville has a process that costs $5,305. Ms. Coccia noted that the matrix was actually included as part of the October 13th Staff Report. She explained that a planner from Woodinville was unable to clearly explain their complicated process, and he noted that no one actually applies for this particular permit. Vice Chair Reed reminded the Board that setting fee EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 120 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 4 amounts is not within their purview. Ms. Coccia clarified that if the Board recommends approval of the amendment to change home occupation permits from Type IIIB (Hearing Examiner) to Type II (Administrative) decisions, the cost would be reduced from $1,550 to $585. Vice Chair Reed emphasized that the proposed amendment does not identify a fee amount. Vice Chair Reed referred to Section 20.20.010.A, which lists the criteria a home occupation application must meet in order to be permitted outright without a conditional use permit, and noted that only a business license would be required for these uses. Section 20.20.010.B outlines the process for reviewing home occupation applications that do not meet the criteria found in Section 20.20.010.A. He noted that Type II (administrative) decision are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. He questioned why the proposed language calls out the type of permit (Type II) rather than using the term administrative conditional use permit. Mr. Chave explained that staff tries to use the permit type reference wherever possible to avoid confusion in the code. However, the matrix in ECDC 20.02 identifies Type II decisions as staff approved conditional use permits that are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Board Member Stewart referenced Sections 20.20.101.A.9, 20.20.010.B.5 and 20.20.020.C.3, which are inconsistent in how they describe the number of vehicles and/or people allowed to visit a home occupation. She reminded the Board that one goal of the proposed amendments is to minimize potential traffic impacts to neighborhoods. She also reminded them of the City’s Community Sustainability Element, which encourages alternative modes of transportation. She suggested the real intent is to limit the number of vehicle trips to a home occupation, and not the number of people. Therefore, she recommended the language in these three sections be changed to be consistent and to make the intent clear. The remainder of the Board concurred. Board Member Johnson suggested the Board consider following the example provided by Mercer Island, which regulates the employees and customers on a complaint basis. She recalled that at a previous meeting, the City’s Code Enforcement Officer, Mike Thies, indicated that he does not go out and count the number of visitors that come to a home occupation. Instead, issues are addressed on a complaint basis. She referred to the map provided in the Staff Report (Attachment 4) to identify collector and arterial streets in Edmonds. She noted that the functional classification map in the packet is out of date. It as updated and adopted in 2009 as part of the Transportation Element. Bowdoin Way is actually a collector street, and there are areas on 220th Street Southwest where parking is not allowed. Therefore, staff’s theory that the impacts would be less on arterial and collector streets that have higher functional classifications is illogical because there is an inverse relationship between land use and mobility. The higher the functional classification, the less likely there will be adequate on- street parking space to serve a home occupation. Since the home occupation code is enforced on a complaint basis, she suggested it would be appropriate to provide a qualitative measure that speaks about impacts to the residential neighborhood quality and addresses what actually occurs in the City. For example, to maintain a neighborhood quality, no more than two on-site vehicles at a time may visit the home occupation during business hours. Mr. Chave explained that qualitative standards are difficult to implement because there is no consistency and predictability. The City cannot tell someone that a home occupation is acceptable in one neighborhood and not another. Some residents may feel a home occupation fits into the neighborhood and some will not. The notion of limiting visitors to one per hour for home occupations is intended to keep traffic volumes commiserate with what is expected for a single-family residence (10 trips per day). Because there is already more traffic on collector and arterial streets than typical neighborhood streets, staff believes it would be appropriate to allow one visitor and one employee per hour without requiring an administrative conditional use permit. He summarized that the issue is less about available parking and more about traffic and the overall level of activity. He noted that a home occupation would be required to provide three off-street parking spaces regardless of the type of street it is located on. Board Member Johnson observed that allowing one visitor per hour could potentially triple the number of trips per day for a single-family residence. From her personal experience, she believes that some types of home occupations, such as a piano teacher, would not create significant impacts, even if located on cul-de-sacs. She reminded the Commission that the City’s intent is to encourage and promote home occupations. Board Member Clarke observed that it is challenging to have flexible codes that recognize different social and economic trends. Originally, the City consisted of the urban downtown core, with the occasional merchant living above his/her shop. This morphed into suburbia where residential neighborhoods were developed outside of the urban areas. The single-family EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 121 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 5 neighborhoods were designed for residential uses and did not allow business uses. In many cases, the infrastructure is very residential in character and designed to be residential friendly to allow children to play risk free, etc. Residential development on arterial and/or collector streets is a different type of arrangement and these property owners recognize that the volume and speed of traffic is much different. Board Member Clarke observed that residential neighborhoods have changed in recent years. It is not uncommon for electricians, plumbers, etc. to park their vehicles in residential neighborhoods. They either work from an office in their home, or they bring their vehicles home after work. He has also observed situations where truck drivers actually park their rigs in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Coccia emphasized that large trucks are not permitted to park in residential neighborhoods. Trucks that are under 20,000 pound gross weight are allowed. A conditional use permit would be required for a home occupation to park larger vehicles. Board Member Clarke agreed but noted that the code is only enforced on a complaint basis. He suggested that the weight of a vehicle has no relationship to its nuisance value. He noted that the impacts are the same whether a person works out of their home and commutes to various jobs or works from a different location and brings the vehicle home in the evenings. Therefore, the standards should be consistent for both types of uses. As proposed, only an electrician who works out of his/her home would be required to obtain a business license. Ms. Coccia pointed out that a business license is required for all home occupations. Board Member Clarke agreed but noted that is the only distinguishing factor between the two uses. The nuisance or size of the vehicle would likely be the same in both cases. Board Member Clarke also referred to a situation where a single-family property owner works on cars as a commercial enterprise. Ms. Coccia noted that this would not meet the criteria for a home occupation unless the activity takes place within an enclosed structure. Mr. Chave explained that an individual would be allowed to work on a car on his property without obtaining a business license, as long as he/she does not accept payment for the work. If they receive payment for their work, a business license would be required. He agreed that the impact to the neighborhood would be the same in both situations. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that a subdivision with only one way in and out and with no clear street pattern is not really appropriate for commercial vehicles. Sometimes even mail carriers have difficulty getting through because there is no parking available on the streets. When there are open ditches, narrow streets, and very little on-street parking, it will be a real challenge for commercial vehicles to safely maneuver. He referred to the Capital Hill and Green Lake neighborhoods in Seattle where it is difficult to drive a car through much less park on the street because many of the single-family residential structures are now rented out to numerous individuals. He concluded that the home occupation standards must be balanced with what is going on in the community. Vice Chair Reed recalled the Board’s previous discussion about the nuisance regulations, which is a separate set of regulations that deal with some of the issues raised by Board Member Clarke regarding parking and how many people can live in a single-family residential unit. The nuisance ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis. Chair Lovell said Board Member Clarke’s point is well taken that there is a delicate balance between the rights of an individual private property owner and mitigating impacts of certain uses on the surrounding property owners. Mr. Chave said this issue is one reason staff introduced the idea of allowing home occupations on arterial and collector streets to have one employee without requiring a conditional use permit. He referred to Section 20.20.010.B.7, which states that three on- site parking spaces must be provided if visits to the site are made by either an off-site employee or customer. The standard off-site parking requirement for single-family residential development is two spaces per unit. Ms. Coccia noted the Board’s discussion has focused on how the amendments would be applied in single-family zones, but they should keep in mind that, as proposed, the home occupation section would also apply in multi-family zones. Michelle Noble, Edmonds, said she has been a massage therapist for 13 years and moved to Edmonds 1½ years ago, just a few months before her first child was born. Some people can argue that she should have checked the code first, but she assumed she would be allowed to operate a massage business out of her home. Now that she is ready to go back to work, she discovered she would not be allowed to do so unless she obtains a conditional use permit at a cost of $1,550, which is prohibitive for her family at this time. She said she is glad the Board is considering changes that make home occupations more achievable in Edmonds. EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 122 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 6 Ms. Noble referred to Board Member Clarke’s earlier comments about how residential and commercial areas have changed over the years. She said the current trend is towards home occupations that allow people to live and work in the same structure. She said she understands that traffic and signage are issues of concern, and that the small town charm of the community should be preserved. However, having the ability to obtain needed services from her neighborhood makes for a rich community. She said she hopes her business can be part of that. She said it would be difficult for her to get back into her business if she has to rent space outside of her home. She noted that she has space to park at least four cars on site, and she anticipates she would see up to five clients, three to four days per week. She suggested that since there is already a process in place for reviewing business licenses, it should not cost significantly more for staff to look at the factors associated with her home occupation and approve a conditional use permit to allow her to serve one customer at a time. Dr. Jonathan Bannister, Executive Director, Non-Profit Pacific Northwest Budo Association, said he is a four-year resident of Edmonds. He stated his full support for the changes proposed by staff related to home occupations. The proposed amendments are a move in the right direction. He also went on record as support the provision that home occupations visitors should be locate don arterial and collector streets. He said he was opposed to home occupation signage in excess of 24” x 48” in single-family residential zones. He said he supports the proposal that home occupations be allowed one customer per hour, but that one additional off-street parking space must be provided. He said he feels the hours of operation should match the noise ordinance restrictions that apply to any other type of activity in single-family residential zones (8 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Mr. Bannister explained that he has been a Japanese martial and cultural arts instructor for 27 years and has won numerous awards from arts organizations and civic leaders for his efforts to promote the arts and friendship between the people of the United States, Canada and Japan. He said he currently teaches two days a week at the Spartan Center in Shoreline, primarily the peaceful art of Aikido and a non-combative martial discipline of laido (Japanese swordsmanship). He also offers specialty classes in bonsai, Japanese traditional flower arranging, and Japanese brush calligraphy. Up until two years ago, he had a thriving school in Seattle, which graduated 74 black belts and introduced thousands of students to the beautiful traditional culture of Japan. However, he was forced to close his school due to the economic downturn, and he remains only partially employed. He said his students continue to train as best they can in recreation department classes in Shoreline, and they have managed to remain dedicated to their arts. Their small club continues to field artists who win awards and recognition in both national and international events. Mr. Bannister said he is dedicated to the personal mission of sharing the arts that have given him so much joy with the community. Japanese martial and cultural arts offer wonderful recreational opportunities, as well as fostering a social and civic mission that encourages character development, harmonious cooperation, peaceful conflict resolution, global citizenship, and abiding appreciation for natural and artistic beauty. He said he would like to support his small club of dedicated members by offering private instruction in his home in Edmonds. He explained that the scope of his endeavor would be something akin to that of a music teacher. Individual instruction would be offered at a rate of one person per hour. His home is connected to an arterial street, and they would require no signage. In addition, there is ample off-street parking and the facility is modern and up to code. Also, the formal cultural arts are practiced in relative silence, and he can foresee no negative impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. Bannister summarized that he is eager to bring his life-long experience in Japanese cultural arts to Edmonds in the form of a home occupation. He attempted to apply for a Type III-B Conditional Use Permit last year, but he was advised that the application would cost $1,500. Because their club is a non-profit that has been starved nearly to death during the recessions, they do not have the resources to put in to the application process. Cultural arts education is not able to command high rates for instructional services. With their limited student base, it would take nearly a year to recoup such an expense. He said he wants to obtain the property permits, and he strongly supports the proposal to offer Type II administration conditional use permits to small home occupations such as he envisions. The $585 cost would be more manageable and would allow them to recoup the investment in a few months. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 123 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 7 Vice Chair Reed recalled that the Board has discussed the proposed amendments on two previous occasions, and they received good input from the public. He expressed his belief that the Board should be able to formulate a recommendation to the City Council at the conclusion of their discussion unless they want to make significant changes. Chair Lovell complimented staff for doing a good job of preparing draft language for the public hearing. He suggested the Board forward a recommendation of adoption to the City Council, with the recommendation that they consider reducing the fee for an administrative conditional use permit to $200. This would be similar to the fee charged by other jurisdictions for similar types of permits. He expressed his support for the proposed amendments given the economic conditions and the fact that the City is trying to promote home occupations as an element of sustainability. Board Member Cloutier suggested that before a motion is made to forward the amendments to the City Council, the Board should address the questions raised by staff. He summarized that the Board previously agreed that the language should be consistent as it relates to customers and vehicles. He suggested it would be appropriate to allow one vehicle per hour and then let common sense be the enforcement. The Board agreed that Sections 20.20.010.A.9, 20.20.010.B5, and 20.20.020.C.3 should all be changed to read, “visits from customers in excess of one vehicle per hour.” Vice Chair Reed referred to Board Member Johnson’s earlier recommendation and explained that one reason to set limits is to give people an idea of what the City expects. If the City does not have any qualifications, they will be stuck with what they get. Limiting customers to one vehicle per hour communicates to citizens regarding the amount of additional traffic that would be allowed. It provides guidance to people who want to establish home occupations. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that, in the end, code enforcement is complaint driven. Board Member Johnson said she is not opposed to some quantifiable measures, but those proposed in the draft amendments are not logical and not enforceable. The measures should be more directly tied to the residential nature of the neighborhood. She recommended the language be based more on current reality, which is that the code is enforced on a complaint-driven basis. If a home occupation is found to be incompatible with a neighborhood, people should be invited to contact the City to share their concerns, which could be defined in terms of nuisances or impacts. Unless you can actually measure what you are trying to regulate, it does not seem like a good way to go. Chair Lovell expressed his belief that removing the limit on the number of vehicles per hour would be counterproductive. Board Member Johnson countered that if the City wants to encourage the regulation of home occupations, they should take out this measure and replace it with a measurable standard that is fair and can be applied consistently and equally. Chair Lovell observed that if the language does not specifically limit the number of vehicles per hour, the City would not have the ability to address complaints they receive about a home occupation creating too much traffic. Board Member Johnson recalled that Mr. Thies previously indicated that the majority of complaints the City receives regarding home occupations are related to contractors and landscapers who have employees that tend to congregate at the start of the work day. He also discussed that homeowners could have Tupperware parties out of their homes, but they cannot be distributors unless they obtain a business license. She referred to Section 20.20.020.C, which lists the types of uses they want to avoid. She suggested that this section could be used as a basis for determining the appropriateness of a home occupation permit. Chair Lovell shared his belief that limiting customers to one vehicle per hour would set a reasonable benchmark for measurement. If the City does not have something to measure against, staff will not have clear direction as to what they are trying to create. He noted that Section 20.20.020.C is a list of reasons for denial, and he presumes that this same list could be used as a basis for revoking a home occupation permit. However, he felt it would be unreasonable to allow a neighboring property owner to cite Item C.3 (more than one vehicle per hour) as a reason to revoke a permit just because occasionally the vehicles coming to the business overlap. Board Member Johnson said that, currently, the code does not allow a home occupation to have any vehicles, customers or employees associated. This is too strict, and the current proposal should be revised to address complaints the City receives most frequently. Board Member Stewart summarized that Board Member Johnson is suggesting a subjective approach related to residential quality. The problem with that approach is that everyone has a different perception of quality and what they want to occur EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 124 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 8 on their neighborhood street. It is important to have guidelines to serve as a benchmark so staff can base their ruling on the code requirements. Board Member Clarke suggested the issue is not as simple as the proposed amendments make it seem. The home occupation regulations apply to both single-family and multi-family residential zones, and some condominium and neighborhood associations have private covenants that prohibit business uses. People who purchase homes in these developments have an expectation that the covenants will be enforced. He expressed concern about allowing certain types of uses in all residential zones, when they are specifically prohibited by some neighborhood covenants. Mr. Chave agreed that some private covenants run counter to what the City’s code allows, but this is not something the City can regulate. The City does not enforce private covenants. Board Member Clarke also expressed concern that if home occupations are allowed in multi-family residential zones, there could be, in theory, home occupations in most or all of the condominiums in a development. Mr. Chave agreed that would be true as per the current proposal. He advised that the Board could decide that the rules for home occupations in multi- family residential zones should be different than those for single-family residential zones. For example, because a higher density is already allowed and traffic is more significant, they could restrict home occupations in the multi-family residential zones from having customers. Ms. Coccia requested the Board consider the following points as they continue their discussion:  Is it necessary to allow both customers and employees outright, and what are the differences between these two types of visitors? She recommended the Board include the provision that allows employees or customer visits outright if a home occupation is located on an arterial or collector street. This provision was not included in the current proposal because it had not yet been discussed by the Board.  What is the importance of signage to the business owner and the impacts to the neighbors? The current code does not allow commercial signage in single-family residential zones without a conditional use permit. Perhaps commercial signs should be prohibited in order to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Chave recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board discussed that it would be appropriate to allow commercial signage for home occupations, as long as it is no greater than 4 square feet in size. This would be consistent with the size of residential signage already allowed by code in single-family residential zones. Ms. Coccia noted that this concept was incorporated into the draft proposal.  If the Board is unhappy with the threshold proposed by staff (arterial and collector streets), they could require an administrative conditional use permit for all home occupations. If this were the case, staff would review all home occupation permit applications. Those that would not have employees or customers would be approved outright. Board Member Clarke said he is concerned about allowing wall signs in single-family residential zones. He also asked if the code would allow the signs to be illuminated. Mr. Chave explained that the current code requires a conditional use permit for commercial signs in single-family residential zones, and the content is limited to business identification. The single- family residential zone allows residential signage of up to four square feet in size and the content is not regulated. Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that it is not in keeping with the character of the residential neighborhood to allow commercial signage. She expressed her belief that signage would not really be necessary in a residential community. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that the words “conditional use permit” should be deleted from the first sentence of Section 20.20.020.C. Mr. Chave agreed. Board Member Johnson asked staff to explain the fee associated with a business license to operate an artist studio or urban farm as a home occupation. Ms. Coccia answered that an applicant would apply for a business license, which has an associated fee of $100. The home occupation permit request would be reviewed by staff as part of the business license process. If an application meets all of the criteria in Section 20.20.010.A, staff would approve the permit without a conditional use permit. The total cost of the permit would be $100. If an application does not meet the criteria in Section 20.20.010.A, an administrative conditional use permit would be required at a cost of $585. Board Member Cloutier voiced his belief that it would be appropriate to allow home occupations to have one employee, regardless of whether it is located on an arterial/collector street or not. He felt it would be no different than having someone EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 125 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 9 visit a single-family home. He also said he is comfortable that staff’s proposal to allow one customer per hour without a conditional use permit if the home occupation is located on an arterial or collector street would adequately address traffic issues. He suggested that Section 20.20.010.A.6 be changed to read, “Does not include more than one employee outside of the family members residing at the residence.” To address the Board’s concern about the definition of “family,” Mr. Chave advised that the code defines “family” as “related individuals or up to five unrelated individuals.” He noted that this definition is based on the Federal Fair Housing Law requirements. Board Member Johnson said she does not want to tie the “one customer per hour” provision to the type of street it is located on. She shared her experience with an artist studio that is located off Talbot Road. The owner has a long driveway and sufficient parking space to accommodate customers without impacting the neighbors. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that, as proposed, art studios and urban farmers would be allowed one customer per hour regardless of location. Board Member Johnson suggested the Board eliminate Section 20.20.010.A.9, which requires an administrative conditional use permit for home occupations with customers that are not located on arterial or collector streets. She reminded the Board of their desire to encourage home-based businesses, and having a lower fee would be a step in the right direction. The remainder of the Board concurred. Board Member Cloutier suggested that small commercial signs be allowed for home occupations because he felt traffic would be reduced if people could easily locate their destination without having to circle back around. He felt that a limitation of 4 square feet in size would be sufficient to identify a business. He recommended the word “wall” be removed from the first sentence in Section 20.20.020.B to read. The majority of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave advised that he would double check the code to make sure illuminated signs are prohibited in residential zones. Board Member Cloutier noted that the Board previously agreed to change the threshold for requiring a conditional use permit. Therefore, staff’s third question is no longer an issue. Home occupation applications that do not meet the criteria in Section 20.20.010.A (as modified) will be required to obtain an administrative conditional use permit, which would provide an opportunity for public input regarding the application. Board Member Clarke recalled staff’s earlier request for direction regarding temporary structures associated with home occupations. Ms. Coccia said her comments were related to an urban farmer type of home occupation, in which the business owner sets up a small stand to sell items they produce on site. Mr. Chave pointed out that permits would not be required for temporary stands, and they would not have to meet the setback requirements. However, they would have to be taken down each night. He noted that these standards are found in the “temporary structure” section of the code. Permanent structures would only be allowed if the structure can meet all of the requirements of the zone. VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.20 (HOME OCCUPATIONS) TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS REVISED WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Johnson recalled that when the Board initially discussed the proposed amendments, they talked about several exceptions to the rule, one being the annual artist tour and art sales that result in more than one customer per hour. She asked what the City’s positions would be on these types of events. Ms. Coccia noted that these uses are temporary and sponsors do not typically apply for a business license. Therefore, the City does not regulate the uses. Chair Lovell agreed that these types of events would not be construed as home occupations. Instead, they would be one-time events. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Lovell recommended the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council asking them to consider reducing the administrative conditional use permit fee, which is currently set at $585. Mr. Chave explained that fees are set at an amount that allows the City to recover their administrative costs. A Hearing Examiner process is more costly than a staff decision, but there is a cost associated with staff decisions, as well. EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 126 of 240 APPROVED OCTOBER 27TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 13, 2010 Vice Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Philip Lovell, Chair (Excused) Kevin Clarke STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Gina Coccia, Planner Mike Clugston, Planner Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Officer Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Item 7c (Home Occupations) was placed before Item 7a (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities). The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one present to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE STREET TREE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE EDMONDS STREETSCAPE PLAN Mr. McIntosh reviewed that on July 14, 2010 staff presented recommendations, and the Planning Board provided input for updating the Street Tree element of the Streetscape Plan. A hearing was held on August 11, 2010. Due to the number of suggestions, the Board agreed to continue the hearing to a later date so that the document could be updated prior to the Board’s final recommendation to the City Council. He reminded the Board that the Street Tree Element was approved by the City Council in 2006 as part of the Edmonds Streetscape Plan. Mr. McIntosh explained that, in response to concerns regarding removal and replacement of street trees, particularly in the downtown, the City Council requested a review of the Street Tree Plan element. This review was held on May 26, 2009 and concluded with the City Council recommending changes to better reflect current practices in removing and replanting trees, specifically the caliper of replacement trees. Subsequent to the May 26th meeting, the question of replacing or retaining the mature trees at and near 5th Avenue and Dayton Street was discussed several times throughout the last summer and fall. At EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 127 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2010 Page 4 recognized that the main thrust of the proposed amendments is to address trees in the downtown that have gotten so large they are damaging the sidewalks, yet people do not want them to be removed. He referred to the list contained in the proposed Street Tree Plan, which provides guidelines for where street trees can be located. He expressed his belief that these guidelines would severely limit a property owner’s ability to plant trees. He recommended the Board start over and create a simpler document that identifies the goal, as well as the types of trees that are allowed and those that are not. If too much language is included in the plan, the average citizen might not take the time to review the document. THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THEREFORE, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chair Reed referred to the last sentence in the “Design” section on Page 120, which states that blocking of business signage, marquees and window displays should be avoided. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE STREET TREE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE STREETSCAPE PLAN AS PROPOSED, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cloutier reminded Mr. McIntosh that he agreed to review the written recommendations submitted by Ms. Paine and determine if any of them are appropriate for inclusion at this time. Board Member Johnson commended Mr. McIntosh for doing an excellent job of incorporating all of the issues and concerns raised at the last public hearing. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. On behalf of the Board, Vice Chair Reed expressed appreciation for the years of service Mr. McIntosh has provided to the City and the Parks Department. He wished him success in his retirement. Mr. McIntosh commented that the current Board, as well as previous Boards, has always been advocates for parks, recreation, and cultural services, and he appreciates their efforts as a Parks Board. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON HOME OCCUPATIONS (FILE NUMBER AMD20100016) Ms. Coccia explained that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to streamline the process and criteria and to support home-based businesses while preserving the residential character of the neighborhoods. As requested by the Board, she announced that Mr. Thies, Code Enforcement Officer, was present to answer questions from the Board and to give examples of the types of businesses for which he receives the most complaints. She referred the Board to the draft document, which was recently updated to incorporate the Board’s comments from their last discussion. She specifically invited the Board to comment regarding the following:  A new definition was added for the term, “urban farming.” An example of an urban farmer is someone who has chickens and wants to sell eggs.  Staff is leaning towards limiting the number of customers and the time frame for which they would be allowed to visit home occupations. She suggested they review the various types of potential home businesses (piano teachers, massage therapists, real estate agents, etc.), and identify how this type of limitation would impact these activities.  Should employees be allowed to visit the home occupation site? If so, what should the parking requirement be to ensure there is adequate space for customers and employees to park without impacting the neighborhood? The current code requires three parking spaces for home occupations, but tandem parking spaces will be counted.  The current draft adds criteria for which a home occupation could be approved. All applications that meet the criteria found in Section 20.20.010.A would be outright permitted and a business license would be issued. All other home occupation applications could be approved as a staff decision based on the criteria in Section 20.20.010.B. Staff decisions are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. The current code requires home occupations in the latter category to go before the Hearing Examiner for approval, and the application cost is $1,500.  Section 20.20.010.A.4 indicates that no pickup or delivery by business-related commercial vehicles is allowed, except for the U.S. Mail and standard UPS/Fed Ex sized delivery trucks. It also states that residents would not be allowed to EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 128 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2010 Page 5 park more than one commercial vehicle or any commercial vehicle over 10,000 pounds licensed gross vehicle weight per dwelling unit. The language makes reference to ECDC 17.60.010, which relates to commercial vehicles.  Section 20.20.015 was deleted to avoid creating a long list of prohibited businesses.  ECDC 20.60 is related to signs and allows up to four square feet of signage in residential zones. She questioned if the Board wants to address the issue of signage as part of the home occupations chapter. As currently drafted, a home occupation would be allowed a sign that does not exceed three square feet in size, but it can only contain the name and address of the residence. She questioned if the Board wants to restrict the content of signs associated with home occupation businesses. Ms. Coccia invited the Board to share their comments and suggestions so that the draft document could be finalized and forwarded to the SEPA review process. Once the SEPA review has been completed, the draft proposal would come before the Board for a public hearing as early as next month. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council directed them to consider options to reduce the cost of home occupation permits. At this time, the process has three levels of review: those that are permitted outright, those that are staff decisions, and those that require Hearing Examiner review. The proposed change would eliminate the Hearing Examiner as one of the permitting bodies, but there would still be the option of appealing some home occupation decisions to the Hearing Examiner. The purpose of the proposed language is to reduce the cost of obtaining a home occupation permit by eliminating the requirement for Hearing Examiner review, which is a costly process. Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 20.20.015, which is a list of home occupations that are presumed to be inappropriate, but not necessarily prohibited. He said it is often awkward for staff to explain why certain types of uses have been singled out. He suggested the existing code language is out of date and inconsistent with the current trend of people moving their offices into home settings. However, he suggested the new code language should specifically prohibit retail uses, which are not appropriate in home occupation settings, with two possible exceptions. Urban farmers should be allowed to sell the produce they grow on their property, which would be consistent with the City’s Community Sustainability Element that encourages the production of locally grown produce. They should not be allowed to sell produce that is grown off site. In addition to urban farmers, the code could allow art studios, which are not uncommon in residential areas in other jurisdictions. He reminded the Board that art is prominently mentioned in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and this would be a good time to incorporate it as a potential home occupation if the Board deems it appropriate. Board Member Stewart questioned if the Board would be in favor of allowing an artist to sell jewelry or some other type of art from a home occupation. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that this type of use would be appropriate, as long as they do not have studio tours, which invite certain parking and noise issues. Mr. Chave suggested the City could require home occupations to show plans for how they would provide ample parking to accommodate visitors to the site. In addition, they could require that displays come down during non-operating hours. Mr. Chave has considered the option of limiting the hours of operation for home occupations from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., recognizing that businesses such as music teachers are not limited to normal working day hours. He suggested it seems reasonable to allow only one customer per hour, since this would not likely cause a disturbance in the neighborhood. Board Member Stewart suggested that rather than limiting a home occupation to one customer per hour, it would be more appropriate to limit the number of vehicles per hour. She shared an example of a family therapist who may have more than one client in an hour, but not more than one vehicle. Board Member Johnson said she would like to hear from Mr. Thies about the more practical aspect of code enforcement and what the history has been related to home occupations. Mr. Thies explained that there are very few violations associated with most home occupations, but there are some that are problematic. The number of vehicles coming to a site is regulated based on the honor system because staff cannot sit in front of a site to count the number of vehicles that visit a home occupation each day and determine if a code violation is occurring. He said the City has more ability to enforce parking requirements. Vice Chair Reed questioned if limiting the number of visitors is a waste of time if the City cannot enforce the provision. Mr. Thies answered that most people follow the regulations, but they do receive complaints when neighbors think a home occupation exceeds the number of vehicles allowed. When staff explains how difficult it is to enforce the requirement, people often question why it even exists in the code. EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 129 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2010 Page 6 Board Member Johnson asked Mr. Thiess to share examples of code enforcement issues related to home occupations. Mr. Thies said that just a few weeks ago, someone complained about an electric company that is operated out of a home. The business owner eliminated his office space and moved the business into his home. The neighbors complained because it appears he is running a large business in a residential neighborhood. This situation was easier to enforce. A more confusing situation occurred three weeks ago when a man and his friends were building a recreational vehicle in his driveway. While it appeared to be a home occupation, he had no proof. The most he could do was ask the man to tone it down and finish the job quickly. Vice Chair Reed asked how many code enforcement violations Mr. Thies receives each year related to home occupations. Mr. Thies answered that he receives between 10 and 15 each year. Usually, they are related to construction type businesses (tree removal, landscaping, etc.) because they typically have larger equipment. Mr. Chave said that, in his experience, the more obvious violations tend to have a higher nuisance value for the neighborhood. The City does not typically receive complaints about home occupations that are quiet, such as music teachers. Board Member Johnson suggested that the code should be more specific about things they do not want to see and less specific on home occupations that are considered the norm. She cautioned that they should not over regulate something that isn’t a problem, yet they need to address the things that are truly neighborhood concerns. Mr. Chave said that is generally what staff is trying to do. There may be some ability to identify certain home occupations that are simply not permitted such as contractor operations where a number of people gather and there is storage of equipment. But they also should consider limiting the number of vehicles allowed per hour, even if it is difficult to enforce. If they identify a standard, most people will adhere to the regulations. If they have no standard, some people may abuse the situation. He said Mr. Thies has had good success in addressing problems by reminding people of the rules. The issue is how heavy handed should the City be and what are the goals. The Community Sustainability Element encourages more local and home-based activities. Board Member Johnson pointed out that, as currently written, the code does not allow even one customer to come to a home occupation. Mr. Chave answered that a home occupation that has customers or clients would require a higher level of permit review. If the permitting process is too onerous, people may decide not to obtain the required permits. Making it easier to obtain the permits encourages people to meet the requirements of the code. Board Member Stewart asked staff to explain the difference between the two types of home occupation permits proposed in the draft document. Mr. Chave answered that certain types of home occupations (those that meet the criteria in Section 20.20.010.A) would be permitted outright as a business license, and others would require a conditional use permit, which would involve a more extensive review by staff based on the criteria in Section 20.20.010.B. Staff decisions require public notice and can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the $500 charge for the staff review may discourage some businesses from obtaining the required licenses. She suggested that if the City wants to encourage home occupations, they could make the criteria in Section 20.20.010.A more generous, such as allowing employees or more than one customer per hour. This would result in fewer home occupation applications that require a conditional use permit. Mr. Chave agreed that is one option the Board could consider. Vice Chair Reed questioned if Section 20.20.020.A (sale or display of goods) adequately addresses the issue of retail sales associated with home occupations. Mr. Chave pointed out that Section 20.10.010.B.2 regulates the display of goods associated with home occupations and would adequately address the types of retail sales discussed earlier (urban farming and art studios). He explained that a general prohibition on retail sales would have a broader application. The code should be written so that retail uses are not allowed, regardless of the type of home occupation permit, unless they are associated with urban farming or art studios. Vice Chair Reed referred to Section 20.20.020.B, which states that while signs would be allowed in conjunction with a home occupation, they cannot exceed three square feet and can only contain the name and address of the residence. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that sign content should not matter, as long as the size is limited to three square feet. It would be helpful if a home occupation were allowed to identify its location so people can find the right house. Mr. Chave explained that the current code allows residential property owners to have up to four square feet of signage. Section 20.20.020.B would allow up to three square feet of the allowed signage to be related to the home occupation. The Board EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 130 of 240 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2010 Page 7 agreed that the content of the sign should not be limited, as long as the total sign area remains small. Mr. Chave agreed that it would be easy to enforce this type of regulation. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that it is not within the Board’s purview to recommend approval of changes in the permit fee structure. Mr. Chave agreed but added that the Board could certainly forward a recommendation to the City Council that they consider a change if they believe it is appropriate. Board Member Johnson referred to Section 20.20.010.A.8 related to parking and storing of commercial vehicles. She asked if this provision would speak to Board Member Clarke’s previously-mentioned concern about large vehicles parking on the street in his neighborhood. Mr. Thies pointed out that large vehicles are not allowed to park on the streets in residential neighborhoods between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. However, residents are allowed to park one large vehicle in their driveway. Board Member Cloutier questioned the difference between a 10,000 pound commercial vehicle and a very large recreational vehicle. Mr. Thies said the issue is usually related to signage. Only large vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are regulated as such. Board Member Johnson referred to Section 20.20.010.A.9, which limits a home occupation to no more than one customer per hour. She recalled that her music lessons were only ½ hour long, which means her teacher could teach two students in one hour. She suggested that if the regulation is not going to be enforced, they should explain the guideline differently. Perhaps they should allow two customers per hour, except for urban farming and art home occupations. Board Member Cloutier said another option would be to allow only one customer at a time. Mr. Chave explained that engineering standards estimate that single-family dwelling units generate approximately 10 trips per day, so a limit of one customer per hour would not be out of line with what currently takes place in single-family neighborhoods. However, two or three customers per hour could generate more than the neighborhood residents are willing to tolerate. He said he anticipates that customers for urban farms and art studios would likely come from pass-by traffic. He said one option is to allow a few more vehicles per hour if a home occupation is located on an arterial where there is already a higher level of traffic. However, allowing two or more vehicles per hour on a cul-de-sac would create a noticeable impact. Board Member Johnson questioned if it would be appropriate to regulate the number of customers per day rather than per hour. Mr. Chave cautioned against making the requirements too complicated. Vice Chair Reed suggested it would be more appropriate to regulate the number of visits or vehicles rather than the number of customers, and the remainder of the Board concurred. Board Member Johnson pointed out that Section 20.20.010.B.7 requires an applicant to provide at least three on-site parking spaces if they anticipate customers and/or employees would come to the site. Mr. Chave pointed out that the standard parking requirement for single-family residential zones is two parking spaces per unit. However, tandem parking can be counted in the total number of spaces. Board Member Johnson pointed out that houses built in the 1960’s and earlier typically have one-car garages, and property owners utilize on-street parking spaces to meet their additional parking needs. The Board directed staff to bring the draft document back for a public hearing on November 10th. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (FILE NUMBER AMD20100004) Mr. Clugston referred the Board to the attachments in the Staff Report. He also referred to the new document submitted by Richard Busch, President of the Northwest Wireless Association, titled “Integrated Site Code Classifications,” which document would replace Attachment 2 in the Staff Report. He reminded the Board that, at their last meeting, they agreed to participate in a self-guided driving tour to see the Edmonds wireless communication sites for themselves. He provided a PowerPoint presentation of each of the sites on the tour, as well as examples from other municipalities. He pointed out the good and bad qualities of each one. He noted that most of the wireless facilities in Edmonds are monopoles, retrofits on existing utility poles and on buildings. Some are camouflaged. Although not required by the current code, the Board could consider a provision that requires the facilities to be camouflaged. Mr. Clugston explained that the AT&T wireless facility located on the building at 546 Alder Street (Commodore Condominiums) is not a permitted use based on the existing code. He suggested the Board should discuss whether or not it EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 131 of 240 APPROVED JULY 28th CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 14, 2010 Vice Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Kristiana Johnson John Reed Valerie Stewart STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Gina Coccia, Planner Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Bowman, Chair READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.110.040(f) RELATING TO MONETARY PENALTIES TO COMPLY WITH CHANGES IN WASHINGTON LAW BY PROVIDING NOTICE TO ALL PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AND ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES TO SUPERIOR COURT (FILE NUMBER AMD20100005) Mr. Chave pointed out that City Attorney Snyder discussed the proposed amendments previously with the Board, and the outline of the intent of the amendments was provided in his memorandum. The intent is to bring the code language up to date with current Washington State law and Superior Court procedures. Board Member Reed questioned if the 3rd and 4th “whereas” statements on the second page of the draft ordinance (Attachment 2) are really necessary. He suggested that these may no longer be accurate statements. Mr. Chave said the language was contained in the original interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council. If the Board recommends that the content of the proposed amendment is appropriate, the City Attorney would update the ordinance before it is forwarded to the City Council. EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 132 of 240 non-conforming, big issues come up when an owner wants to make improvements or changes. He observed that because of the irregular platting that has occurred in some neighborhoods in the City, there has been significant hostility amongst neighbors. There can be significant impacts to surrounding properties when lots are allowed to subdivide as a result of the zoning change that occurs with annexation. He suggested they must carefully balance all of the concerns. Ms. Coccia reminded the Board that the public would be invited to comment on any subdivision applications that are submitted. Mr. Chave pointed out that the difference in size between the current RS-9600 zoning and the proposed RS-8 zoning is small enough and the lots are large enough that the lots could be subdivided with either designation. Board Member Clarke agreed with Board Member Reed that the adjacent properties that are part of Edmonds are zoned differently than the proposed RS-8. Therefore, the City would not be criticized if they were to zone the subject property using the same pattern. Mr. Chave referred to the zoning map and noted that there are small sections of RS-8 sprinkled throughout the northern portion of the City. He suggested that the plotting pattern of the subject properties is different enough to merit a different zoning designation. Board Member Clarke said that prior to the annexation of his neighborhood, the response for emergency service from the County was terrible. They would have done anything to annex into a City that could provide faster response. He summarized that taxation is not typically an issue; those who are interested in annexation are seeking better service and the opportunity to elect their own local government representatives. DISCUSSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS (FILE NUMBER AMD201000016) Ms. Coccia explained that when home occupation applications are submitted to the City, various departments review the proposed scope of work and how it complies with applicable City codes. As long as a proposed business meets the criteria in ECDC 20.20, the Planning Division can sign off on the business license application as it relates to the zoning standards. Businesses that cannot meet all the basic home occupation criteria must change their proposal to meet the code or apply for and obtain a conditional use permit. She noted that the standard fee for a home occupation business license is $100. However, if a conditional use permit and public hearing is required, the fee for the process jumps to about $1,500. Ms. Coccia said the chief complaint heard by staff about home occupation requirements is the fee. She suggested one option for addressing the concern is to change the process so that home occupations that require more review are handled as staff- approved conditional use permits rather than a conditional use permit requiring Hearing Examiner review. This would reduce the fee to about $500. She noted that administrative conditional use permits are also used for accessory dwelling unit permits and tree cutting permits. Public notice would still be required and a permit could be conditioned, but the decision would ultimately be made by staff. Ms. Coccia said another option would be to streamline the permitting of home occupations that should logically fit within neighborhood settings by clarifying the standards for approvable home occupations. For example, home occupations that have only a single off-site employee or not more than one customer coming to the site per hour could be permitted as part of a normal home occupation review. Ms. Coccia suggested the Board review the current codes and processes related to home occupations, compare them to other jurisdictions, and determine if an administrative conditional use review process would be more appropriate than a conditional use permit that requires a public hearing at three times the cost. She noted that the City Council’s Community Services/Development Services Committee has recommended further discussion about streamlining the process and keeping it simple. Staff is seeking feedback from the Board in order to proceed toward a public hearing proposal. Vice Chair Lovell requested more information about the breaking point where staff determines a conditional use permit would be required. Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 20.20.010 (A), which outlines the criteria used to evaluate a home occupation application. If an application does not meet all of the criteria, a conditional use permit would be required. ECDC 20.20.010(B) identifies the criteria used to evaluate conditional use permits. He observed that it would be difficult for many home occupations to strictly comply with all of the criteria. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2010 Page 8 EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 133 of 240 Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that based on the Community Sustainability Element, the City is trying to create a more favorable environment for home occupations. She hopes the regulations can be made more flexible. Mr. Chave said music teachers and accountants are good examples of typical home occupations that receive little or no objection from adjacent property owners. These could be approved via an administrative conditional use permit process. However, the City has had enforcement problems with home occupations that employ multiple people such as real estate offices. These types of home occupations could require a conditional review and public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The key is to establish a threshold such as one visitor per hour or a certain number of clients per hour. He suggested the threshold be tied to the typical traffic that is generated by a single-family home, which is about 10 trips per day. Board Member Johnson said the current code language contains a provision that says if you have evidence of even one visitor, the business license could be revoked. She asked how many licenses have been revoked for this reason. Mr. Chave said he could not think of a situation of this type. The most common case is that a home occupation license would be denied for this reason. He noted that very few home occupation applications have been sent to the Hearing Examiner. He said he suspects that many home occupations are “flying under the radar” and have not created a problem in the neighborhood. Board Member Stewart said that given the current economy and City goals related to sustainability, they need to make it possible for people to work out of their home. She suggested that limiting the clients to one per house may be too restrictive. Perhaps a better approach would be to allow no more than one car per hour. Mr. Chave cautioned that it is important to hold down the scale of home occupation uses to a reasonable level and to avoid negative impacts such as noise. He observed that more and more people are working from home a certain number days a week rather than going into the office. Home occupation regulations that are too restrictive do not encourage flexible work hours, etc. Ms. Coccia said Attachment 2 is a matrix comparing the City’s current regulations with those of other jurisdictions in the region. She noted that most of them allow one non-family employee or customer. Board Member Clarke said he finds it extremely frustrating that he lives in a neighborhood that has covenants, conditions and restrictions that prohibit commercial uses from being conducted inside the homes, but the City has taken the position that it will not interpret private covenants. As part of the proof of application, an individual should be required to prove that there are no private restrictions on the property that prohibit home occupations. Even though people read the title and understand the restrictions when they purchase their property, they often break the rules knowing that the only way to enforce the requirement is for a neighbor to sue. He said it is unfair for the City to allow a use that is not legally permitted by the covenants associated with the property. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City does not enforce private covenants. Board Member Johnson asked if the City has an enforcement process for home occupations. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively, but the City does not enforce private covenants. Board Member Clarke suggested that his concern could be addressed if the criteria for a home occupation permit requires an applicant to prove there are no private restrictions or conditions that prohibit home occupations. Mr. Chave agreed to solicit a response from the City Attorney regarding this issue. Board Member Clarke said he knows of a situation in his neighborhood where a home occupation cannot meet any of the criteria in ECDC 20.20.010(A). The business transports recreational vehicles with a large capacity pick up truck which is often parked in front of his living room window. The use violates several covenants such as storage of recreational vehicles, but it is being permitted by the City. Across the street from him is an electrician who parks his commercial vehicle on his property. In subdivisions with small lots and very little setback requirements, these types of uses can be very imposing to surrounding property owners. He suggested they look more carefully at the code requirements rather than simply making them broader. He further suggested that staff provide examples so the Board can determine whether or not the criteria is adequate to address most situations in the City. Mr. Chave suggested the Board invite the Code Enforcement Officer to participate in the discussion. He observed that Board Member Clarke’s concerns are more nuisance issues than problems with the home occupation provisions. Board Member Johnson said she learned a lot about the home occupation provisions by reading the Staff Report. She learned that in her particular neighborhood a piano teacher went through the process to obtain a conditional use permit, yet APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2010 Page 9 EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 134 of 240 another neighbor was illegally operating a business that has many people coming and going. She stressed that education and enforcement issues must be addressed. Board Member Cloutier observed that cost is the number one factor that discourages people from applying for the necessary home occupation permits. He suggested that if the financial cost were lower and the guidelines were clearer, more people would submit applications for the required permits. This would allow the City to have a better understanding of what is going on and they could start to see the correlation between approved home occupations and the associated uses to identify necessary changes. A proper checklist would be helpful to applicants, as well. He summarized his belief that the City should do what they can to encourage applications to be submitted. Mr. Chave said it would be less costly for the City to have a simpler process rather than increasing enforcement. Board Member Reed asked if every home occupation is required to obtain a permit. Ms. Coccia said they are required to obtain a business license through the City Clerk’s office. However, a conditional use permit would only be required if the use cannot meet the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.20.010(A). Board Member Reed said he found the document confusing because the word “permit” is used over and over again, and it is not meant to refer to a document, but to what is allowed. He suggested the term be changed to “allowed” if it is not talking about an actual permit. Board Member Reed said it is important to preserve the sanctity of neighborhoods in the City, but it is also important to encourage opportunities for economic development. He said he finds the current regulations to be too tight, but he is not sure how far they should be loosened. Mr. Chave suggested a discussion with the Code Enforcement Officer would be helpful in this regard. Board Member Clarke observed that with changes in technology, companies are downsizing their office space and having their employees work from home. As the economic base evolves to a service employment base, they will see more and more of these situations. Board Member Johnson said it is important for the City to encourage people to have their businesses at home legally. They should encourage them to apply for the correct licenses and permits. This can be done by having reasonable rules that allow them to work without impacting the neighborhood. Technology and economic circumstances have changed significantly since the current code language was written 17 years ago. She suggested the Board could be creative and come up with code language that allows an administrative process that can readily adapt to current situations. This would also avoid situations where people have to either go before the Hearing Examiner for a conditional use or operate the home occupation without the required permits. Ms. Coccia pointed out that delivery services such as UPS, Federal Express, etc. cannot be regulated by the City. The deliveries referred to in the code language are related to those that require vehicles larger than a standard UPS truck. She noted that more and more people are trying to operate web-based businesses from their home. They don’t have products stored in their homes, but they coordinate the shipment of merchandise from one site to another. Board Member Stewart said another reason to encourage home businesses is that they want to reduce the number of vehicle trips to reduce emissions. One positive step is to encourage home occupations so people do not have to drive to work. She encouraged the Board to keep this positive aspect in mind. The code language should be flexible, yet also protect the character of the neighborhoods. She expressed her position that if she lived in a neighborhood with covenants, she would like the City to honor the requirements. Board Member Johnson expressed her belief that the existing code requirements are so restrictive that they force people to disobey or ignore them. Board Member Clarke inquired if any consideration is given to the street patterns. Trucks associated with home occupations could create circulation issues. While some residential neighborhoods have free flowing traffic and capacity for street parking, most residential plats do not have wide enough streets to accommodate on-street parking, particularly for large vehicles. Ms. Coccia agreed and said that the Engineering Department reviews conditional use applications and provides feedback regarding traffic. Mr. Chave said the code could probably include rules that accomplish the same thing. For example, home occupations above a certain threshold could be required to locate on a collector or arterial streets. The Board agreed that the next step would be to discuss their issues and concerns with the Code Enforcement Officer, and then provide direction to staff to develop a proposal. Staff agreed to provide some alternatives for the Board to consider when they continue their discussion. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the goal of the proposed amendments it to make the process simpler without requiring Hearing Examiner review. Mr. Chave said that rather than requiring a Hearing APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2010 Page 10 EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 135 of 240 Examiner review, a conditional use application could be a staff decision with notice. He noted that most business licenses do not require notice, but another alternative would be to require notice only for businesses that propose to have people coming to the home. He summarized that staff supports an amendment that would move away from automatically sending home occupation applications to the Hearing Examiner since this is a costly process. Board Member Clarke asked about the penalty for operating a home occupation without a license. Mr. Chave said it becomes a code enforcement issue. There is no automatic monetary penalty. The person would be required to apply for a business license, and the City has the ability to increase fees up to five times for violations. If the situation is the result of an inadvertent mistake, they do not assess a higher fee. But if they know that a person blatantly violated the permit requirement, a higher fee would be assessed. Board Member Clarke said that if they are going to make it easier to obtain a home occupation permit, they should also increase the penalty for those who try to avoid the permit requirement. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board did not provide any comments regarding the extended agenda. ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER LOVELL AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER REED AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Reed announced that the public/private Washington State Ferry Partnership’s deadline for proposals for the lot adjacent to Skippers was June 30th, and no proposals were received for an overhead crossing in exchange for the lot. The appraisal of the property was approximately $1.5 million and was based on a statement from the bank that they received two offers of $1 million for the Skippers property. It was determined that the best option is to hold the property until the economy improves. He said he would like the City to work with the Washington State Department of Transportation and Burlington Northern Santa Fe to create a walking avenue from downtown to the waterfront that does not go in front of the ferry. Board Member Clarke advised that his employment requires a lot of travel that he has no control over. This has resulted in his absence from a number of Board meetings. He said he reviews the Commission materials that are distributed for each meeting. He said he loves being part of the Board and appreciates the opportunity to work with such a talented group of people. He indicated he does not intend to resign at this time. He observed that when he first joined the Board, previous Board Member Guenther missed several meetings for work related responsibilities, yet Mr. Rutledge never commented on his absences. He suggested that Mr. Rutledge appears to have a personal issue with him. Board Member Clarke recalled previous comments made by Al Rutledge regarding the issue of naming parks and putting up plaques to recognize people who submit potential names for parks. He explained that Mr. McIntosh has worked diligently to try and communicate the issues surrounding Mr. Rutledge’s concerns. The bottom line is that the park naming policy is very specific, and both times the committees followed the letter of the law. They have named two parks after individuals rather than groups of people. When Hickman Park was named and dedicated, there was a ceremony that recognized individuals APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2010 Page 11 EXHIBIT - 4 Packet Page 136 of 240 E X H I B I T - 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 7 o f 2 4 0 E X H I B I T - 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 8 o f 2 4 0 File No. AMD20100016 Home Occupations (ECDC 20.20) January 04, 2011 P ARTIES OF R ECORD 1. Jonathan Bannister 18201 76th Avenue West Edmonds WA 98026 2. Michelle Noble 19814 80th Place West Edmonds WA 98026 EXHIBIT - 5 Packet Page 139 of 240 AM-3634   Item #: 11. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type:Action  Information Subject Title Interlocal Agreement authorizing establishment of the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize Mayor Cooper to sign attached Interlocal Agreement on behalf of the City of Edmonds. Previous Council Action Mr. Shawn Walker, 360 Hotel Group and President of the Snohomish County Lodging Association, presented to the Edmonds City Council on September 15, 2009 (see attached PowerPoint presentation outline and City Council minutes). No City Council action was requested at that time.  On December 14, 2010, the City Council Finance Committee reviewed the same material included within the January 4, 2011 City Council agenda packet.  After a presentation by Stephen Clifton, the Finance Committee expressed general support for establishing a Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area and recommended this item be forwarded to the full City Council for their review and potential action. Narrative In December of 2008, Snohomish County received an initiation petition from the Snohomish County Lodging Association (SCLA) in conjunction with the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau requesting that a Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) be established in Snohomish County. They filed the petition following the process set out in RCW 35.101, which authorizes the establishment of a TPA and permitting the levy of special assessments to fund tourism promotion. Since the initiation petition was presented, the SCLA spent the ensuing months on the next step in the process, i.e., acquiring the approval of lodging businesses in the proposed area which would pay sixty percent or more of the proposed charges. That includes lodging businesses in Edmonds.  PowerPoint presentations were made by the Snohomish County Lodging Association President to each city council, including the City of Edmonds, in 2009. Snohomish County is now at the next step in the process: getting approved interlocal agreements (ILAs) between each of the cities and the county. A number of Cities will be considering the ILA in January, 2011, including the City of Edmonds.   Snohomish County Council approved the TPA Interlocal Agreement on December 15, 2010. The following cities have approved the TPA:  Everett Marysville Mukilteo Packet Page 140 of 240 NOTE: The City of Edmonds will be represented by Stephen Clifton who has been appointed to the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area Board of Directors by Snohomish County Executive Reardon.  Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure:0 Fiscal Impact: As a self funding mechanism, this does not impact city or county budgets Attachments Attachment 1 - November 10, 2010 Letter to the City of Edmonds  Attachment 2 - TPA ILA  Attachment 3 - Sept 15, 2009 City Council Minutes  Attachment 4 - Sept 15, 2009 PowerPoint Presentation Outline  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/22/2010 03:46 PM Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 12/22/2010 03:51 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/27/2010 09:13 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/28/2010 03:29 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/28/2010 03:40 PM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/22/2010 02:51 PM Final Approval Date: 12/28/2010  Packet Page 141 of 240 November 10, 2010 The Honorable Mayor Mike Cooper City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds WA 98020 Re: Interlocal Agreement authorizing establishment of the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area Dear Mayor Cooper: In December of 2008 the county received an initiation petition from the Snohomish County Lodging Association (SCLA) in conjunction with the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau requesting that a Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) be established in Snohomish County. They filed this petition following the process set out in RCW 35.101, which authorizes the establishment of a TPA and permitting the levy of special assessments to fund tourism promotion. Since the initiation petition was presented, the SCLA spent the ensuing months on the next step in the process, acquiring the approval of lodging businesses in the proposed area who would pay sixty percent or more of the proposed charges. That includes lodging businesses in your city. I understand that representatives of the industry have had some communications with you in the interim as well. We are now at the next step in the process: getting approved interlocal agreements (ILAs) between each of the cities and the county. That interlocal is attached, and I respectfully request this ILA be placed on a city council agenda as soon as is convenient for you. A public hearing on the ordinance establishing the TPA in county code has been tentatively scheduled for mid-December. We agree with the lodging industry and the tourism bureau that this is a good opportunity to generate revenue for tourism promotion, and one that does not impact city or county budgets. If you would like any further information about the ILA, or have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Dave Gossett, Council Chair cc: Sandra Chase, City Clerk Packet Page 142 of 240 Packet Page 143 of 240 Packet Page 144 of 240 Packet Page 145 of 240 Packet Page 146 of 240 Packet Page 147 of 240 Packet Page 148 of 240 Packet Page 149 of 240 Packet Page 150 of 240 Packet Page 151 of 240 Packet Page 152 of 240 Packet Page 153 of 240 Packet Page 154 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES September 15, 2009 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Mike Clugston, Planner Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2009. D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2009. E. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #113749 THROUGH #113863 DATED AUGUST 27, 2009 FOR $699,307.91, AND CLAIM CHECKS #113864 THROUGH #114029 DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 FOR $912,834.52, AND CLAIM CHECKS #114030 THROUGH #114143 DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 FOR $161,686.90. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48524 THROUGH #48592 FOR THE PAY PERIOD AUGUST 16, THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2009 FOR $737,902.56. Packet Page 155 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 2 F. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JUDY HOWELL (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). G. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICALS. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT WITH FOSTER PEPPER FOR WORK RELATED TO LAKE BALLINGER. I. RESOLUTION NO. 1205 – SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 PARKS PLAN ON OCTOBER 20, 2009 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PUBLISH NOTICE WHICH ALERTS THE PUBLIC TO THE KEY PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AND CHANGES CONTAINED IN THE PLAN FROM THE 2001 PARKS PLAN. J. ORDINANCE NO. 3752 – APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7631 212TH STREET SW FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-2.4) TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN). K. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH, SEPTEMBER 2009. 3. PRESENTATION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT OFFER. Mayor Haakenson explained approximately three weeks ago, the Fire District 1 (FD1) contract offer and documents related to the contract were provided to the Council as well as posted on the City’s website. Since then the Council has been provided updated documents with minor legal changes; no significant changes have been made. He commented since the Council authorized staff to begin negotiations with FD1, staff has made a tremendous effort to develop a proposal they were comfortable with. He advised Fire and Finance staff were present to answer questions and were open to any suggestions from the Council. Mayor Haakenson noted that after providing the Council the contract offer information, he had asked for additional questions on at least three occasions and Chief Tomberg prepared a “Frequently Asked Questions” white paper in response. As elected officials, Mayor Haakenson explained it was the Council’s and his responsibility to look at how services are provided to the taxpayers of Edmonds. It is also their responsibility to provide those services in a cost-efficient manner while still maintaining the quality of that service. Mayor Haakenson described what the City could expect from a contract for service with FD1: nothing less than the service levels the City had come to expect from the existing Fire Department, the same response times, and highly trained firefighters serving residents from the three existing fire stations in the City. Mayor Haakenson described FD1, a respected fire department that operates on the same model as the City’s Fire Department, with better training facilities, that does more community outreach through education and programs than Edmonds does, and that operates under a fire district model with an elected Board of Commissioners who set policy. The contract is written to ensure Edmonds residents will always have quality fire and medical service. The City’s expectations for service levels are laid out in the contract. If those levels are not met, the City has the option to modify or withdraw from the agreement. If the City chose to do that, the contract addresses how that would occur. Mayor Haakenson commented on the cost of public safety, pointing out costs will continue to rise and labor cost is the driving force. He described the cost to operate the Edmonds Fire Department: Packet Page 156 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 3  $8.0 million - 2010 budget for the Edmonds Fire Department  $1.1 million - Additional associated costs  $500,000 - Overhead costs  $9.6 million - Total cost to operate the Edmonds Fire Department He described Fire Department revenue:  $3.9 million - EMS levy  $750,000 - Esperance contract  $370,000 - Woodway contract  $700,000 - EMS ambulance fees  $270,000 - Voted taxes for the Public Safety Building  $6 million - Total revenue He summarized the 2010 expense to operate the Fire Department is $9.6 million; revenue taken in by the Fire Department totals $6 million, leaving a General Fund subsidy of $3.6 million. He reviewed the cost from a contract for service:  $6.2 million - FD1's offer for a contract for 2010  $800,000 - Recurring non-departmental fire costs that the City incurs whether or not it has its own Fire Department  $7.0 million - Total cost to provide fire service via a contract with FD1 Mayor Haakenson summarized the total cost of contracting ($7.0 million), less revenue from EMS levy and voted taxes for Station 17 ($4.2 million), leaves a $2.8 million General Fund subsidy. The General Fund subsidy to operate the Edmonds Fire Department is $3.6 million; the subsidy with a contract for service with FD1 is $2.8 million, a savings of $800,000 the first year and increasing to over $1 million in five years as the savings increase and the cost to provide fire service decreases. He noted the Council packet contained a schedule outlining the savings per year. To the question of whether citizens would be taxed for the new fire contract, Mayor Haakenson assured that aside from the continuing EMS levy, Edmonds citizens would not be taxed for this contract for service. He assured the contract for service was not a tax and it would not show up on Edmonds taxpayers’ property-tax statement. The contract would be paid from the City’s General Fund. The cost for service each year will be calculated per Exhibit C in the Council packet. There is a formula for figuring labor cost, overhead, maintenance and operations, the City’s costs for a Fire Marshal and Inspector and an annual assessment for apparatus replacement. In addition to maintaining quality fire/EMS service and saving $800,000 per year, the proposed contract calls for FD1 to purchase the City’s fire stations, the land under the stations, and all fire equipment. To determine the value, each station was assigned a replacement value by WCIA appraisers. The land was valued by Snohomish County at 2009 valuations and the total value assigned to the three stations and land was $8.3 million. He pointed out the assessed values of the land will decrease in 2010. FD1 will purchase the stations and land over a four-year period with the City receiving over $2.0 million per year. The City still owes approximately $400,000 on the previous purchase of Station 20 which will be paid from the final proceeds of the sale. The City has fiber and other equipment in Station 17 that will remain onsite as well as the generator. These will be handled via an inexpensive lease such as $1 per year. Packet Page 157 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 4 With regard to Edmonds Fire Department employees, Mayor Haakenson explained the contract calls for all firefighters and management staff to leave as City employees and become FD1 employees. FD1 will assume all employee liabilities with the exception of $800,000 in sick leave and vacation accruals. The City will have 54 fewer employees and have one less labor contract to negotiate. FD1 will purchase 17 vehicles from the City at a value $1.4 million which was determined by Fire Trucks Plus. This is payable in a one-time, lump-sum payment. He noted the City was scheduled to replace its ladder truck in 2013 at a cost of approximately $1.3 million. Other Fire Department assets including radios, gear, cameras, phones and some onboard equipment will also be purchased by FD1 in the amount of $350,000. With regard to concern that has been expressed regarding a loss of control, Mayor Haakenson assured the only thing citizens should worry about controlling were the quality and cost of fire/EMS service. Mayor Haakenson summarized with the station and land sales, the City will receive a cash infusion of nearly $3 million in 2010 and $2 million each year through 2014. With this contract, the City’s ending cash balance increases from slightly over $1.0 million to over $4 million in 2010 and over $5 million in 2011. It maintains those levels through 2013. Two forecasts are contained in the Council packet showing cash flow scenarios with and without the fire service contract. He summarized the increase in the City’s ending cash balance is possible due to the large reduction in labor costs and the addition of the contract for service as well as the cash infusion from the station and equipment sales. It will solve the City’s financial problems for the next four years. He emphasized this was an opportunity to put the city in great financial shape for years to come while the Economic Development Commission does its work. Mayor Haakenson explained the financial assumptions for the report were prepared by former Finance Director Kathleen Junglov who now holds a similar position with FD1. To the question of whether that represented a conflict of interest, he reviewed the following chronology:  March 2009 - Ms. Junglov applies for open position at FD1  April 2009 - FD1 sends unsolicited contract offer to the City  May/June 2009 - Ms. Junglov and City staff work on details of contract for service  July 2009 - FD1 offers job to Ms. Junglov Mayor Haakenson explained following Ms. Junglov’s resignation, he brought on Lorenzo Hines as the Interim Finance Director. Mr. Hines has studied the proposal and all the assumptions used in the contract proposal. He has made some valuable recommendations, saving additional dollars. Mr. Hines agrees with the former Finance Director on the basics of the contract. Mayor Haakenson concluded the Council had the opportunity to ensure the provision of quality fire and EMS services to the citizens of Edmonds at less cost than the City currently pays and receive much needed cash to a cash-strapped City budget. He urged the Council to take advantage of this opportunity. Councilmember Plunkett commented most citizens wanted to know whether they would receive the same service; would firefighters and paramedics show up in the same expeditious manner. He asked who determined response times, how response times were measured, and how the response times would be determined and measured via this contract. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg advised Question 2 of the FAQ addressed that question. He recalled in 2006 the Council adopted Senate House Bill 1756, now codified as RCW 35.103, which required career Fire Departments to adopt response time standards. Consistent with that legislative requirement, the Council adopted 11 response time standards. That standard is interwoven throughout the contract. FD1 has a similar standard based on their current station locations Packet Page 158 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 5 and level of service. The contract requires they adhere to the same standard. The fire stations in Edmonds will continue to be staffed as they are today. Councilmember Plunkett invited Chief Tomberg to comment on the loss of control. Chief Tomberg assured that was addressed throughout the contract via a required level of service, formula for the contract based on labor, overhead, maintenance and operations and vehicle replacement. The contract also addressed how disputes would be resolved and what happened for example if a law was passed by the legislature that forced action to be taken; the contract would be reopened and the issue worked out. Councilmember Plunkett referred to other consolidations such as 911 dispatch, observing although the Edmonds City Council did not control 911 dispatch, the City had a say in the organization. He asked whether 911 dispatch was effective in southwest Snohomish County. Chief Tomberg described three regional services provided by a consortium of governments. 911 dispatch or SnoCom is governed by a Board; Mayor Haakenson and he are on that Board. SnoCom has been in operation for over 20 years, has an annual budget of approximately $4 million and is responsible for providing EMS, fire and law enforcement dispatch throughout southwest Snohomish County. Chief Tomberg explained the City also has a seat on the Board of Emergency Service Coordinating Agency (ESCA), and he is the current chair. ESCA provides pre, during and post disaster planning and response services to seven communities in south Snohomish County and three communities in north King County. A third regional organization is the Snohomish Emergency Radio System (SERS) who brought 800 MHz to every fire and law enforcement agency in Snohomish County. Mayor Haakenson is currently the Vice Chair of the Board and has served as the Chair in the past. Councilmember Plunkett asked if those service consolidations had been effective for Edmonds citizens. Chief Tomberg answered they had been extremely cost effective and very successful. The region has a fine 800 MHz system; good disaster planning, response and recovery; and very good 911 dispatch. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Chief Tomberg would become the Fire Chief of FD1. Chief Tomberg answered Ed Widdis, the FD1 Fire Chief, recently signed a new 3-year contract. Chief Tomberg assured he would not be the Fire Chief of FD1. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the comment in Mayor Haakenson’s presentation that the City still owed approximately $400,000 on the previous purchase of Station 20 and that would be paid off with the proceeds of the sale. However the financial statements show $330,000 in future debt service for Station 20. Mayor Haakenson answered he assumed the amount owing on Fire Station 20 would be paid off with the proceeds of the sale; Mr. Hines showed it remaining in the budget. That was a decision for the Council to make. The City could continue to pay the debt service once the station was sold; he recommended paying off the $400,000 with the proceeds of the sale. Councilmember Wambolt requested an analysis of selling the fire stations versus retaining them. He also questioned why Lynnwood and Mukilteo did not accept FD1’s contract for service offer. Mayor Haakenson answered he was unaware whether the contract for service that FD1 offered to Edmonds was the same as was offered to Lynnwood and Mukilteo. In Mukilteo, the Mayor refused to look at the offer and did not provide it to the Council due to issues with FD1 over annexation. In Lynnwood, the Mayor made a similar assessment. Both Lynnwood and Mukilteo are in disagreement with FD1 over annexation issues. He believed if Edmonds entered into a contract for service with FD1, Mukilteo eventually would follow suit, but he did not believe Lynnwood would. Council President Wilson asked how FD1’s response times compared to Edmonds. Chief Tomberg agreed they differed due to the location of their stations and the shape of the district. He suggested that Packet Page 159 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 6 question be posed to the FD1 Commissioners. He assured every Fire Department in south Snohomish County made every effort to get to the scene of an emergency as soon as possible. He assumed FD1’s standards were adopted in good faith based on common sense. FD1 has relocated stations in the past in order to reach the greatest number of people in the least amount of time. He advised response times would not be affected by the contract as long as the stations in Edmonds remained in their current locations. Assuming Edmonds response standards were higher and FD1 decided to close/realign/build a new station, Council President Wilson asked the impact of that action if Edmonds were to take its Fire Department back. Chief Tomberg assured under the contract, none of the Edmonds fire station locations would change. FD1 is building a new fire station at 156th that would be taken over by Lynnwood if annexation was successful. FD1 is also building a new fire station that they will own in Brier. Council President Wilson observed response times would certainly not get worse and with luck, they would get better in the future. Chief Tomberg commented with luck in the future there would be one single fire department in southwest Snohomish County via merger, consolidation or Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Council President Wilson asked whether the cities were moving toward an RFA. Mayor Haakenson responded for cities Edmonds’ size to survive, consolidation of Fire Departments, Police Departments, Public Works Departments, etc. would be necessary and possibly someday consolidation of cities to improve competition with other cities for national dollars. He was hopeful consolidation of more services would occur in the future. Council President Wilson agreed with Councilmember Wambolt’s request for an analysis of selling versus not selling fire stations. Mayor Haakenson answered without the sale of the fire stations, land and equipment, the City lost one of the benefits of a contract for service - incoming cash. Although there would still be the $800,000 per year savings in the General Fund, without a cash influx from the sale of the fire stations, land and equipment, there would need to be a levy request to the voters. He pointed out if the City retained the fire stations and land, they would also retain the responsibility for maintaining the stations and grounds, insurance, etc. He summarized one of the biggest reasons for selling the fire stations and land was to bring in cash and avoid a levy. With regard to a citizens’ question why Mountlake Terrace retained the transport fees (currently approximately $700,000/year) and in Edmonds’ contract those fees go to FD1, Mayor Haakenson explained the transport fees run with the stations. Mountlake Terrace did not sell their stations and therefore retained the fees. With the sale of the stations and land, FD1 would collect the transport fees. He acknowledged Edmonds could retain its stations and land; the City would retain the $700,000/year in transport fees but would not receive the $8 million cash infusion and would drop into deficit in 2013 versus 2015. He advised ending cash balance would go into deficit in 2011 without a contract for fire service. The City goes into deficit in 2013 if the City contracts for service with FD1 and retains the stations, land and transport fee revenue. If the proposed contract for service with FD1 is accepted, the City does not go into deficit until 2015. Chief Tomberg suggested the question regarding selling/retaining stations be posed when the Council meets with the Brier’s Mayor and Mountlake Terrace’s Mayor and City Manager. When/if a RFA is formed, Council President Wilson asked whether the assets of the fire departments would migrate without compensation to the RFA. Chief Tomberg responded the legislation passed in 2004 that allowed RFA’s is still maturing and is being modified every legislative session. There are many rules regarding implementation that have yet to be written. There are also challenges to the rules that produce case law that dictates how a RFA is formed/operated. It was his understanding that upon formation of a RFA, cities did not receive compensation for their stations. Packet Page 160 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 7 Council President Wilson commented the only red flag in the contract for him was in regard to the formation of a RFA. According to the proposed contract, if the City sold its assets today and a RFA were formed in the future, the contract would be unwound, requiring Edmonds to buy back the stations and give them to the RFA. Mayor Haakenson responded if the Interlocal Agreement were terminated and Edmonds re-formed its Fire Department, the same process under which they were sold would be followed. It was his understanding if a RFA were formed, it would be to Edmonds’ benefit to have entered into a contract for service with FD1. Council President Wilson referred to language in Section 11.5 of the contract, “in the event that a Regional Fire Protection Authority, RFA or other legally recognized means of providing fire service is created, inclusive of the City and District, this agreement will be terminated.” Section 11.7 states, “regardless of the reason for termination, the parties and District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as part of this Agreement shall be returned to the City.” Chief Tomberg answered the intent was that Edmonds would be part of the RFA. He agreed the language may need to be clarified to reflect the intent. Council President Wilson commented another policy issue was the use of funds from the sale of assets. In his experience it was not best policy to sell assets and use the proceeds to fund operations. Mr. Hines answered it depended on the need for the proceeds and the flexibility to put the proceeds aside or use them for operations. As a general policy, the proceeds from the sale of assets were not used for operations but it depended on how dire the situation was. Council President Wilson commented the $800,000 operational savings was significant enough. He requested staff consider how to protect the funds from the sale of assets. Mayor Haakenson commented it was up to the Council to determine whether to place the money in a certain fund such as the emergency fund, set it aside to pay the fire contract, etc. Council President Wilson asked staff to explore mechanisms such as establishing a separate trust fund for the proceeds that would be used for future asset purchases or retain the proceeds for up to five years in the event the stations and land had to be purchased. Councilmember Peterson asked Chief Tomberg to comment on FD1’s training facilities and the lack of an Edmonds training facility has on the City’s fire insurance rating. Chief Tomberg answered Edmonds was in need of a Fire Department Headquarters and a training facility. Both a headquarters and training facility are provided via the contract for service with FD1. FD1 is currently constructing a 4-story tower with a 2½ story residential building and smoke room, adjacent to their 40,000 square foot headquarters on a 2.5 acre site off 128th. To duplicate those structures in Edmonds would cost millions of dollars. With regard to fire insurance ratings, Chief Tomberg explained in the past the Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau evaluated cities’ fire defenses and provided a rating that was then used by insurance companies. A higher rating of the Fire Department resulted in a better insurance rate for residential and commercial property owners. Recent research revealed a higher rating no longer resulted in a better insurance rate. He pointed out one of Edmonds Fire Department’s deficiencies when they were rated in 1990 was the lack of a training facility; the availability of FD1’s training facility would improve the City’s rating which although it would not result in lower insurance rates, was beneficial to the residents. Council President Wilson advised City Attorney Scott Snyder would report to the Council next week on his experience with regionalization as a City Attorney for other municipalities including reverse annexations and other ways regionalization could be accomplished. On October 6 Brier’s Mayor and Mountlake Terrace’s Mayor and City Manager will meet with the Council. On October 13 there will be a joint City Council/Fire District 1 Commission meeting which may be held in the Brackett Room. Public Packet Page 161 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 8 comment will be accepted at all meetings. He anticipated the Council may be prepared to take a vote on October 20 or 27 assuming no major issues arise. (Councilmember Plunkett left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.) 4. PRESENTATION ON TOURISM PROMOTION AREA BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY LODGING ASSOCIATION. Shawn Walker, President, Snohomish County Lodging Association, explained a Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) is a self-imposed assessment by the lodging industry to generate funds to increase tourism and convention business, attract and welcome tourists and operate tourism designation marketing organizations. Senate Bill 6026 passed in 2003 provided this tool. TPAs have been successfully established in Spokane, Tri Cities, Clark County, Liberty Lake, Yakima, and Wenatchee, and Tacoma is in the process of establishing a TPA. He reviewed the process for Establishing a TPA: 1. Support of local hotels - hotels generating 60% of the revenue must agree. These hotels in Snohomish County have approved forming the TPA. 2. County Council adopts a resolution of intention to establish a TPA, conducts a hearing, adopts an ordinance, and imposes the charge. 3. Requires interlocal agreements with affected municipalities. He reviewed the outcome of balloting of the 44 eligible properties in Snohomish County:  55% voted in support  5% voted no  41% did not respond Of the 4,312 eligible rooms:  64% were supportive  3% were not supportive  33% did not respond In Edmonds:  1 of 3 (33%) eligible properties voted to support (Best Western Edmonds Harbor Inn)  48% eligible rooms support  No Edmonds hotels voted against the TPA but 2 did not respond to numerous attempts to contact the owners  Edmonds represents 5% of the eligible rooms and 7% of the eligible properties in Snohomish County The initiation petition induces the TPA boundary, assessment amount, Advisory Board composition, approved uses, grant application overview and method to halt assessments and dissolve the TPA. He reviewed the following details regarding the TPA:  Boundary: Snohomish County  Zone: Properties with 50 or more rooms  Rate: $1.00 per room night  Estimated annual revenue: $944, 547 Mr. Walker reviewed the composition of the Snohomish County TPA Advisory Board: 9 voting members who include 1 lodging representative from each of the 5 County Council Districts and 4 lodging Packet Page 162 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 9 representatives at large and must include 1 each from Everett, Lynnwood and SCLA Executive Committee. The Board will also include 5 ex-officio members, 1 from each County Council District. The members serve 3 year terms, staggered. The Board meets annually or more frequently as needed. He provided examples of approved uses for the funds, advising all uses must relate to tourism development and generate overnight stays in commercial lodging in Snohomish County. He reviewed the grant application process which is patterned after the existing Lodging Tax Advisory Committee application. He also described how the TPA could be dissolved or modified. He reviewed next steps for forming the TPA:  Signatures of approval have been gathered - complete  Petition to initiate TPA has been authored - complete  County Council Resolution to adopt a TPA is estimated for 3rd quarter 2009  Public hearing is estimated for late 2009  Interlocal agreements are estimated fourth quarter 2009  Begin collecting fee first quarter 2010 Councilmember Orvis asked if the money raised in Edmonds from the 3 hotels would be returned for use in the City. Mr. Walker answered although Edmonds hotels contributed only 5% of the total revenue they had the opportunity to obtain as much of the funds as there were events that attracted overnight stays. He commented in poor economic times, more marketing was necessary to increase occupancy levels. Councilmember Orvis asked who would submit requests for the funds. Mr. Walker anticipated it would be the same organizations that currently request Lodging Tax Advisory funds. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ray Martin, Edmonds, expressed reservations about the contract for service with Fire District 1, fearing it was too good to be true. He pointed out the City had been giving away at least $500,000/year in subsidies to Fire District 1 and Woodway for the past 5-10 years and suggested obtaining a full accounting. He commented the contract for service with Fire District 1 would be good for the firefighters and for the City’s coffers, but would not be good for the Edmonds taxpayers. He was concerned a final vote was being anticipated when there had not yet been a public discussion of the issue. He pointed out Mayor Haakenson and Council President Wilson had also proposed closing Yost Pool permanently and cut funds to the Senior Center. He urged the Council to give this matter a great deal of serious thought before rushing to approve a contract for fire service with Fire District 1. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, expressed appreciation to the Interim Finance Director Lorenzo Hines. She referred to the Finance Committee’s consideration of the biennium budget amendments, pointing out the beginning cash for the 2009 General Fund which included the Emergency Reserve Fund did not match the ending cash balance for 2008; there is a difference of approximately $2.2 million. She stated Mr. Hines agreed to work on reconciling those numbers. Next, she pointed out a reduction of $121,000 from the Parks Trust Fund ($85,000 from Yost and $36,500 from the Flower Program) into the General Fund. Ordinance 3466 states City Council approval is required prior to any fund reductions, yet there has not been any City Council discussion regarding the fund reduction. She audited the Parks Trust Fund and found the funds had never been removed. She advised the income from Yost Pool in June reflected a 50% higher income than budget or approximately $117,400. She was concerned Ordinance 3466 was not being administered properly. Packet Page 163 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 10 Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported the Fire District 1 meeting scheduled for tonight was rescheduled to September 17 due to a lack of a quorum. One of the items on the agenda is the Edmonds contract proposal. Next, he advised the change to allow residents to have 3 animals versus 5 animals was adopted in January 2001. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned how the City could get more for less via the Fire District 1 contract. Next, he referred to the application submitted by Al Dykes for a contract rezone for the former Safeway/Antique Mall property for development of a “sky castle,” 60-80 foot towers. He advised the public could now comment on the SEPA process and there would also be an opportunity for comment at the public hearing at the Planning Board after the SEPA process was complete. The final decision will be made by the City Council. He commented on campaign literature on Council websites that was later removed. He urged candidates to file timely financial reports with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) regarding campaign donations. George Murray, Edmonds, commented an $8 million return for giving up $700,000 in revenue was an 8.7% return. However, he noted it may be worthwhile to continue that revenue stream. He agreed the contract for service with Fire District 1 may be “too good to be true,” explaining his skepticism was due to a May 2008 meeting where the issue of regionalizing the Fire Department was tabled because the taxpayers paid for fire service via property taxes. He also questioned how Fire District 1 could operate their Fire Department cheaper than Edmonds Fire Department. With regard to training, he commented the City’s firefighters were well trained. Next, he pointed out Al Dykes submitted an application to rezone the waterfront area two days after the Council’s action to change Chapter 20. Notice of development application was published on August 28, providing an opportunity for public comment of 14-30 days. Although the notice was published in the Everett Herald, it was not posted on the property until today. He suggested the period for comment on the project be reopened. Jack Jacobsen, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers walk on the south side of Main Street where blacktop patches were being installed to keep people from falling and suing the City. He urged the Council to have the large trees removed and replaced with trees that would not damage the sidewalk. With regard to the comments concerning the Council websites, Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Martin had filed a complaint with the PDC. The City Attorney advised the Council was not to engage in any dialogue over that issue. With regard to comments that the contract for service with FD1 was too good to be true, Mayor Haakenson advised the Mayor and City Manager of Mountlake Terrace and the Mayor of Brier will meet with the Council on October 6. Mountlake Terrace and Brier have had a contract for service with FD1 for approximately eight years. Next, he pointed out a Regional Fire Authority and a contract for service were completely different; the RFA meetings were tabled due to Mukilteo and Lynnwood’s disagreement with FD1 over annexation. Discussions were delayed until those issues are resolved. He commented Lynnwood and Mukilteo were reconsidering the annexations due to the economic climate. Mayor Haakenson clarified he never said the Edmonds firefighters did not have any training; he has said that the firefighters do not have a training facility. 6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2009. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Orvis reported staff provided the Committee an update to the City’s subdivision regulations as part of the code rewrite. No action was required. Staff also presented a draft ordinance to amend provisions of Title 18 to correct references to Chapter 20. The proposed code revisions will be Packet Page 164 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 11 presented to the full Council for discussion, noting a split vote of Committee Members Councilmember Olson and Councilmember Orvis. Finance Committee Councilmember Wambolt reported staff briefed the Committee on surplus of computers and monitors which was forwarded to the Council as a Consent Agenda item. Next, Mr. Hines reviewed the revenue and expenditure trends of the General Fund for July and August 2009. Expenses are on budget and revenues are below forecast but in line with year-to-date projections. REET revenues improved slightly, August 2009 was the same as August 2008. Mr. Hines also provided the Committee an overview of the proposed budget amendment which was forwarded to the full Council for discussion on the September 22 agenda. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson recalled he emailed the Council two weeks ago requesting they look at the six trees between 5th & Dayton and 4th & Dayton. The City’s Arborist determined the trees were damaged and needed to be removed. One of the trees is bolted together to keep it from splitting, another has a large rotten section and a portion of that tree broke off during last winter’s storm. An independent arborist also prepared a report which he emailed to the Council yesterday. He had intended to add this as an agenda item tonight but neglected to do so. He relayed Public Works Director Noel Miller’s determination that next week was the last possible date to take action and not disrupt the Dayton overlay project. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule it on next week’s agenda. Mayor Haakenson referred to a memo from Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh regarding the final revenue/expenditures for the 2009 Yost Pool season. The loss of $17,000 will be covered by a portion of the approximately $50,000 raised by the citizen group, leaving approximately $34,000 in that fund. He advised reducing the pool’s hours and staff saved $29,000 over 2008 and revenues were approximately $24,000 higher than 2008. Staff’s recommendation is to operate Yost Pool in 2010 with the same hours and schedules, staff will again review the fees. Lynnwood’s pool will be closed in 2010 which may increase attendance at Yost Pool. Staff does not plan to do a RFP/RFQ for a pool operator next year; the City will continue to operate the pool and use the funds raised by the citizen group to cover any subsidy. The Council also has several options to consider with regard to an aquatics facility. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Wilson recalled there had been consideration of a September 29 meeting for a joint meeting with the Fire District 1 Commission that has now been scheduled for the October 13 meeting. Although there were several items on the September 22 and October 6 agendas, he recommended not holding a meeting on September 29, the fifth Tuesday. Following a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to schedule a meeting on September 29 and move items from the September 22 and October 6 agendas to the September 29 agenda. Council President Wilson referred to the update to the legal contract with Foster Pepper for work related to Lake Ballinger not to exceed 10 hours or $3600 that was approved on the Consent Agenda. Although there was $20,000 included in the budget for Lake Ballinger, funds in the Council budget for professional services as well as funds in the Council Contingency Fund, he recommended the legal fees come from Council Contingency. This would retain the funds in the professional services budget for consultants, legal services, etc. and retain the $20,000 for future Lake Ballinger expenditures. With regard to the comments that the FD1 contract for service was too good to be true, Council President Wilson commented that same sentiment was expressed by some members of the Firefighters Union; they Packet Page 165 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 2009 Page 12 have since worked through their concerns and skepticism. He acknowledged that he also had a high degree of skepticism that he was working through. The process over the next two months will provide ample opportunity to examine the issue particularly with the addition of meetings on September 29 and October 13. If the Council was not ready to vote by October 27, the process would be extended as long as necessary to ensure all questions were answered. Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation to Mr. Martin for his watchdog role with regard to Yost Pool and the Senior Center, pointing out he supported including an additional $100,000 for the Senior Center in the levy. With regard to the Councilmembers’ websites, he assured the City’s policy has always mirrored the State’s policy and it was appropriate for the PDC to address any questions. Councilmember Peterson reported the Edmonds Classic Car Show, the Edmonds Bird Fest and the 3-Day Walk were great events. He thanked everyone who volunteered at those events. Councilmember Wambolt reported when he was collecting his campaign signs, he noticed many of his as well as other candidates’ signs had been vandalized. He pointed out the signs cost approximately $5 each plus the labor to put them up and it was highly illegal to vandalize campaign signs. He estimated 99% of the signs were in authorized locations; if they were displayed on private property, it was because the candidates had obtained permission. He urged citizens to call 911 if they observed anyone vandalizing candidates’ signs; the penalties are severe and can include jail time. 9. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Packet Page 166 of 240 To u r i s m P r o m o t i o n A r e a Pr e s e n t e d t o E d m o n d s C i t y C o u n c i l Se p t e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 7 of 24 0 To u r i s m P r o m o t i o n A r e a Wh a t i s i t ?  A s e l f i m p o s e d a s s e s s m e n t b y t h e l o d g i n g in d u s t r y t o g e n e r a t e f u n d s t o f u r t h e r t o u r i s m  to i n c r e a s e t o u r i s m a n d c o n v e n t i o n b u s i n e s s  to a t t r a c t a n d w e l c o m e t o u r i s t s  to o p e r a t e t o u r i s m d e s t i n a t i o n m a r k e t i n g or g a n i z a t i o n s  20 0 3 - S e n a t e B i l l 6 0 2 6 p r o v i d e s t h i s t o o l Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 8 of 24 0 Ot h e r W a s h i n g t o n T P A s  TP A h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n :  Sp o k a n e  Tr i C i t i e s  Cl a r k C o u n t y  Li b e r t y L a k e  Ya k i m a  We n a t c h e e  Ta c o m a i s i n t h e p r o c e s s o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a T P A Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 9 of 24 0 Pr o c e s s f o r E s t a b l i s h i n g a T P A 1. Su p p o r t o f l o c a l h o t e l s  Ho t e l s g e n e r a t i n g 6 0 % o f th e r e v e n u e m u s t a g r e e 2. Co u n t y C o u n c i l 1. Ad o p t s a r e s o l u t i o n o f i n te n t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h a T P A 2. Co n d u c t s a h e a r i n g 3. Ad o p t s a n o r d i n a n c e 4. Im p o s e s t h e c h a r g e 3. Re q u i r e s i n t e r - l o c a l a g r e e m e n t s w i t h af f e c t e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 0 of 24 0 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y To u r i s m P r o m o t i o n A r e a Su p p o r t e d b y S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y L o d g i n g Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 1 of 24 0 Ba l l o t O u t c o m e Of t h e 4 4 e l i g i b l e p r o p e r t i e s i n S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y  55 % ( N = 2 4 ) v o t e d i n s u p p o r t  5% ( N = 2 ) v o t e d a g a i n s t  41 % ( N = 1 8 ) d i d n o t r e s p o n d Of t h e 4 3 1 2 e l i g i b l e r o o m s  64 % ( N = 2 7 3 8 ) s u p p o r t  3% ( N = 1 3 9 ) d o n o t s u p p o r t  33 % ( N = 1 4 3 5 ) d i d n o t r e s p o n d In E d m o n d s  1 o f 3 ( 3 3 % ) e l i g i b l e p r o p e r t i e s v o t e d t o s u p p o r t ( B e s t W e s t e r n Ed m o n d s H a r b o r I n n )  48 % ( N = 1 8 4 ) e l i g i b l e r o o m s s u p p o r t  No E d m o n d s h o t e l s v o t e d a g a i n s t t h e T P A b u t 2 d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o nu m e r o u s a t t e m p t s t o c o n t a c t t h e o w n e r s  Ed m o n d s r e p r e s e n t s 5 % o f t h e e l i g i b l e r o o m s a n d 7 % o f t h e el i g i b l e p r o p e r t i e s i n S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 2 of 24 0 Wh a t L o d g i n g I n d u s t r y P r o p o s e d  In i t i a t i o n p e t i t i o n i n c l u d e s  TP A B o u n d a r y  As s e s s m e n t a m o u n t  Ad v i s o r y B o a r d c o m p o s i t i o n  Ap p r o v e d U s e s  Gr a n t a p p l i c a t i o n o v e r v i e w  Me t h o d t o h a l t a s s e s s m e n t s a n d d i s s o l v e T P A Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 3 of 24 0 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y T P A BO U N D A R Y : Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ZO N E : Pr o p e r t i e s w i t h 5 0 o r m o r e ro o m s RA T E : $1 . 0 0 p e r r o o m n i g h t ES T I M A T E D A N N U A L RE V E N U E : $9 4 4 , 5 4 7 Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 4 of 24 0 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y T P A Ad v i s o r y B o a r d Ma k e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o C o u n t y C o u n c i l o n e x p e n d i t u r e s  9 v o t i n g m e m b e r s  1 l o d g i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f r o m e a c h 5 C o u n t y C o u n c i l D i s t r i c t s  4 l o d g i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a t l a r g e ; m u s t i n c l u d e  on e f r o m E v e r e t t ,  on e f r o m L y n n w o o d ,  on e f r o m S C L A E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e  5 e x - o f f i c o m e m b e r s  1 f r o m e a c h 5 C o u n t y C o u n c i l D i s t r i c t s  Me m b e r s s e r v e 3 y e a r t e r m s , s t a g g e r e d  Bo a r d m e e t s a n n u a l l y  Or m o r e f r e q u e n t l y i f n e e d e d Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 5 of 24 0 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y T P A Ap p r o v e d U s e s Al l u s e s m u s t r e l a t e t o t ou r i s m d e v e l o p m e n t a n d g e n e r a t e ov e r n i g h t s t a y s i n c o m m e r c i a l lo d g i n g i n S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ap p r o p r i a t e u s e s i n c l u d e :  Ma r k e t i n g m a t e r i a l s  Ad v e r t i s i n g  Co n f e r e n c e s / c o n v e n t i o n s / t r a d e s h o w s  Bi d f e e s  Ev e n t m a r k e t i n g  Co m m u n i t y d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s  Lo c a l h o s t i n g o f e v e n t s  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Sp o r t s f a c i l i t y d e v e l o p m e n t o n l y i f in c l u d e d i n a b i d p r o c e s s  St a f f & O p e r a t i o n s Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 6 of 24 0 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y T P A Gr a n t A p p l i c a t i o n Pa t t e r n e d a f t e r t h e e x i s t i n g L T A C a p p l i c a t i o n  Pr o j e c t w i l l :  Co n t r i b u t e t o o v e r n i g h t s t a y s i n S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y  Be l o c a t e d i n S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y o r r e a s o n a b l e p r o x i m i t y  Be o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c  25 % o f p r o j e c t c o s t s a r e m a t c h e d  Sp e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r  At t r a c t i n g o f f s e a s o n r o o m n i g h t s  Su c c e s s f u l h i s t o r y  Mu l t i p l e y e a r s a n d / o r e x t e n d e d s t a y s  Pr o m o t e t h e C o u n t y  Ac k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f S u p p o r t f r o m T P A  Po s t e v e n t r e p o r t i n g t o v a l i d a t e R O I Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 7 of 24 0 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y T P A Di s s o l u t i o n TP A c a n b e d i s s o l v e d o r m o d i f i e d  Pr o p e r t i e s c o l l e c t i n g 4 0 % o f t h e r e v e n u e c a n f i l e a p e t i t i o n t o mo d i f y o r d i s e s t a b l i s h t h e T P A  Co u n t y C o u n c i l w i l l a d o p t t h e r e s o l u t i o n a n d h o l d a p u b l i c he a r i n g  TP A w i l l b e m o d i f i e d o r d i s e s t a b l i s h e d u n l e s s p r o p e r t i e s pa y i n g o v e r 5 0 % o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t v o t e o t h e r w i s e . Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 8 of 24 0 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y T P A Ne x t S t e p s  Si g n a t u r e s o f a p p r o v a l h a v e b e e n g a t h e r e d  Pe t i t i o n t o i n i t i a t e T P A h a s b e e n a u t h o r e d  Co u n t y C o u n c i l R e s o l u t i o n t o a d o p t a T P A i s es t i m a t e d f o r 3 rd qu a r t e r 2 0 0 9  Pu b l i c h e a r i n g i s e s t i m a t e d f o r l a t e 2 0 0 9  In t e r l o c a l a g r e e m e n t s a r e e s t i m a t e d f o r Q 4 2 0 0 9 Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 9 of 24 0 Qu e s t i o n s - C o m m e n t s Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y T P A Pa c k e t Pa g e 18 0 of 24 0 AM-3653   Item #: 12. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Review Committee: Community/Development Services Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type:Action  Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action on Sound Transit, City of Edmonds and Community Transit - Term Sheet and Interlocal Agreement. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize Mayor Cooper to sign the attached Term Sheet and Interlocal Areement on behalf of the City of Edmonds. Previous Council Action April 30, 2002 - The Edmonds City Council reviewed plans approved by the Architectural Design Board on April 17, 2002.  February 24, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council concurred with City Administration's recommendation that Sound Transit work with stakeholders, e.g., City of Edmonds, Community Transit and WSDOT, etc., to implement the Sound Transit Edmonds Station Plan approved by the City's Architectural Design Board and reviewed by the City Council in 2002.  January 5, 2010 - The Edmonds City Council approved a Development Agreement for Edmonds Commuter Rail Station Between The City of Edmonds, Washington, and Sound Transit, and an Interlocal Agreement between Sound Transit and the City of Edmonds.  December 14, 2010 - The Edmonds City Council reviewed attached Term Sheet which defines the roles and responsibilities of Sound Transit, the City of Edmonds and Community Transit with respect to the long-term operation, use, ownership and maintenance of the "Transit Center"portion of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station project (see Narrative below).   Narrative Section 3.2 of the Interlocal Agreement Between Sound Transit and the City of Edmonds, which was approved by the City Council on January 5, 2010 (Attachment 3), calls for Sound Transit owning, operating and maintaining all facilities associated with the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, which includes a Community Transit Bus Station ("Transit Center"). Although Sound Transit is financing the construction of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, Sound Transit and Community Transit have negotiated to have Community Transit assume the ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities of the Community Transit "Transit Center" portion of the commuter rail station project. Sound Transit is requesting assignment of these responsiblities to Community Transit pursuant to Sections 10.1 of the Interlocal Agreement, and 11.1 of a related Development Agreement (attchment 4). Attached is a Term Sheet (Attachment 1) agreed to by Sound Transit and Community Transit. The Packet Page 181 of 240 Attached is a Term Sheet (Attachment 1) agreed to by Sound Transit and Community Transit. The purpose of the Term Sheet is to define the roles and responsibilities of Sound Transit, the City of Edmonds and Community Transit with respect to the long-term operation, use, ownership and maintenance of the "Transit Center" portion of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station project. The Term Sheet provides a framework for the Interlocal Agreement which describes the final commitment, terms and conditions between the parties and is subject to approval by the Sound Transit Board, City Council, and Community Transit Board. Page 1 of the attached Term Sheet defines specifically what constitutes the "Transit Center" portion of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. The City's Community Services Development Services (CSDS) Committee reviewed the Term Sheet on December 14, 2010 and recommended the document be forwarded to the full City Council with a CSDS recommendation to approve the Term Sheet. Attached is a three-party Interlocal Agreement (Attachment 2) that defines the commitments and responsibilities as outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the attached Term Sheet. If approved by Sound Transit, Community Transit and the City of Edmonds, Sound Transit would complete the construction of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, and transfer the Transit Center improvements and applicable warranties to Community Transit. The agreement also grants Community Transit a non-exclusive use of portions of the City right-of-way (the City granted Sound Transit this same provision within the attached Interlocal Agreement approved on January 5, 2010). Lastly, the Interlocal Agreement acknowledges that Community Transit has accepted the transfer of Transit Center improvements from Sound Transit, which includes owning, operating and maintaining the Transit Center at its own cost.   During the December 14, 2010 CSDS Committee meeting, Community Transit had yet to sign the Interlocal Agreement.  Regarding a guarantee that Community Transit will fulfill all obligations pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, Section 3 provides that Sound Transit agrees to guarantee Community Transit's obligations, which includes ultimately performing all rights, duties and obligations contained within the originally approved Interlocal Agreement (Attachment 3) and Development Agreement (Attachment 4). Because the Interlocal Agreement is tied to the Term Sheet, the Interlocal Agreement is being provided to the full Council for its consideration and potential action.  This allows the full City Council an opportunity to review both documents together and not in isolation.  NOTE: The attached Term Sheet and Interlocal Agreement have been approved and signed by Community Transit.  If approved by the City Council, both will be signed by Mayor Cooper and forwarded to Sound Transit for their signature. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure:0 Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the City of Edmonds as a result of executing the attached Term Sheet and Interlocal Agreement. Attachments Attchment 1 - Interlocal Agreement (Assignment of Rights) Attachment 2 - Term Sheet Attachment 3 - Original January, 2010 Interlocal Agreement  Attachment 4 - Original January, 2010 Development Agreement  Attachment 5 - Enlarged Site Plan  Packet Page 182 of 240 Attachment 5 - Enlarged Site Plan  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 11:24 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 02:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 02:26 PM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/29/2010 09:55 AM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 183 of 240 Packet Page 184 of 240 Packet Page 185 of 240 Packet Page 186 of 240 Packet Page 187 of 240 Packet Page 188 of 240 Packet Page 189 of 240 Packet Page 190 of 240 Packet Page 191 of 240 Packet Page 192 of 240 Packet Page 193 of 240 Packet Page 194 of 240 Packet Page 195 of 240 Packet Page 196 of 240 Packet Page 197 of 240 Packet Page 198 of 240 Packet Page 199 of 240 Packet Page 200 of 240 Packet Page 201 of 240 Packet Page 202 of 240 Packet Page 203 of 240 Packet Page 204 of 240 Packet Page 205 of 240 Packet Page 206 of 240 Packet Page 207 of 240 Packet Page 208 of 240 Packet Page 209 of 240 Packet Page 210 of 240 Packet Page 211 of 240 Packet Page 212 of 240 Packet Page 213 of 240 Packet Page 214 of 240 Packet Page 215 of 240 Packet Page 216 of 240 Packet Page 217 of 240 Packet Page 218 of 240 P a c k e t P a g e 2 1 9 o f 2 4 0 AM-3649   Item #: 13. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Mayor Cooper and Councilmember Wilson Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Public Safety Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type:Action  Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action on a proposed Resolution creating a Planning Committee to consider a Regional Fire Authority. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff The Mayor recommends adoption of the resolution. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A discussion will be held regarding the possible formation of a Planning Committee to consider a Regional Fire Authority. A copy of the Resolution forming a Planning Committee is attached. In addition, an informational meeting has been scheduled on January 31, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall to learn how a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority is formed.  A copy of the letter inviting City Councils and other entities to the meeting is attached.  Please note that the invitation/letter has been signed by seven Mayors from cities located in South Snohomish County.   Attachments Resolution 12-01-10 Letter to City Councils Signed by Mayors re Regional Fire Authority Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 02:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 02:26 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/28/2010  Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 220 of 240 Resolution regarding creating a Planning Committee to consider a Regional Fire Authority Whereas a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) has been under consideration for almost two years since Council previously approved the creation of a RFA Planning Committee, and Whereas a Planning Committee is a required legal step to consider and develop a process for possible development of an RFA plan and Whereas any plan developed by the committee must be approved by the Council and a vote of the public, and Whereas given the turnover in elected officials since January, 2009, when the committee was previously formed, it is appropriate that Council reaffirm its willingness to allow for consideration of an RFA through a Planning Committee, and Whereas the Public Safety Committee has reviewed an RFA for three meetings and feels it necessary for the Council to re-affirm a Planning Committee, in part since two of the three members required by law are no longer elected officials in the City of Edmonds, and Whereas the law requires three elected officials participate, and Whereas the mayor was the author of the original bill creating an RFA while he served in the Legislature, Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council affirms the creation of a Regional Fire Authority Planning Committee, as required by law, and Therefore be it further resolved that it appoints Mayor Mike Cooper, Council member Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, and Council member DJ Wilson to fill the positions on the RFA Planning Committee. Packet Page 221 of 240 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 2 o f 2 4 0 AM-3652   Item #: 14. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Discussion and possible action regarding bond refunding. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve refunding the City’s:  1) 1998 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds  2) 1998 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 3) 2001 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 4) 2001B Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds. We anticipate that this action will result in approximately $54,000 in annual debt service savings. Previous Council Action The issue was discussed on 12-14-2010.  Narrative Council was given an overview of the city's bond debt by the city's bond advisors and further discussed this issue on 12-14-2010. Council posed questions to the city's bond advisors. Their response is attached. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue: Expenditure:-54,000 Fiscal Impact: Attachments Response to questions posed on 12-14-2010 Bond Presentation from 12-14-2010 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 10:21 AM Finance Lorenzo Hines 12/29/2010 10:27 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 10:31 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 11:05 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 11:10 AM Packet Page 223 of 240 Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 12/29/2010 09:55 AM Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 224 of 240 1 December 23, 2010 MEMORANDUM To: Lorenzo Hines From: Scott Bauer Alan Dashen Re: Refunding of the City’s 1998 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds – Summary At the December 14 council meeting, Councilmember Petso requested that we review several options for refunding (i.e. refinancing) the City’s 1998 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds (the “1998 Bonds”), particularly the portion being paid for with REET 1 funds. The three options requested were (1) refund the entire 1998 Bonds without extending the term of the bonds (i.e. final maturity 12/1/2014); (2) refund the entire 1998 Bonds, extending the City Hall portion to 20 years (i.e. final maturity 12/1/2030); and (3) provide the cost of paying off the City Hall portion of the 1998 Bonds with cash. Results Below are the results of refunding the 1998 Bonds, with and without extending the City Hall portion: Refunding – No Extension City Hall Portion Non-City Hall Portion Total Issue Avg. Annual Savings (Loss) $14,020 $5,283 $19,303 Gross Savings (Loss) $56,079 $21,133 $77,212 Present Value Savings (Loss) (1) $55,433 $19,935 $75,369 Present Value Savings (Loss) as % of Refunded Bonds (1) 4.20% 4.20% 4.20% (1) Present value to 2/1/2011 at 3%. Refunding – Extend City Hall Portion City Hall Portion Non-City Hall Portion Total Issue Avg. Annual Savings (Loss) 2011-2014 $265,095 $5,283 $270,378 Avg. Annual Savings (Loss) 2015-2030 ($103,517) N/A ($103,517) Gross Savings (Loss) ($595,886) $21,133 ($574,753) Present Value Savings (Loss) (1) ($161,669) $19,935 ($141,734) Present Value Savings (Loss) as % of Refunded Bonds (1) (12.25%) 4.20% (7.90%) (1) Present value to 2/1/2011 at 3%. Note that by extending the final maturity, the City Hall (REET 1) portion results in lower debt service payments through 2014, but greater total payments since the debt is outstanding for a longer period of time. Packet Page 225 of 240 2 Paying Off City Hall Portion with Cash As an alternative, the City could use cash to pay off the City Hall portion of the 1998 Bonds. Based on current investment rates and the amount of outstanding debt, the required cash payout would be approximately $1,334,438. Other City Bonds The City also has several other bond issues outstanding which were reviewed during the Council meeting. Based on current rates, refunding the City’s 1998 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds results in present value savings of about $34,000. Refunding the 1998, 2001, and 2001B LTGO Bonds results in present value savings of about $280,000, unless the 1998 Bonds are structured as discussed above. These are true savings to the City, net of all costs, and refinancing the debt is good financial “housekeeping”. We would recommend proceeding with the preparation of refunding these bonds. Prior to issuing the refunding bonds, we would review with the City the amount of the savings. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Packet Page 226 of 240 Update on City Outstanding Bonds Alan Dashen Scott Bauer December 14, 2010 City of Edmonds, Washington Packet Page 227 of 240 Bond Market Update •City last sold bonds in March 2007 •Market collapsed in Fall 2008, but has since recovered •No AAA Bond insurers remaining •Recently, market has been volatile due in part to large supply and the apparent agreement on extension of tax cuts 1 Packet Page 228 of 240 Bond Market Update - Market Indices 2 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Ra t e 20-Bond GO & 30-Year Treasury 20-Year Bond GO Index 30-Year Treasury Bond Packet Page 229 of 240 Bond Ratings •In April 2010, Moody’s changed their municipal ratings to a “Global Rating Scale” –Resulted in a one-notch shift upward in the general obligation ratings –Resulted in a two-notch shift upward in the revenue ratings •The City’s current ratings are: 3 Moody's Aaa Aa1 UTGO Aa2 Aa3 LTGO / Revenue A1 A2 A3 Baa Packet Page 230 of 240 Debt Capacity 4 *Excludes other obligations. Assessed Valuation for 2011 Tax Collections 6,436,673,659$ Limited Tax General Obligation Debt Capacity (Non-Voted) (1.5 percent of assessed valuation)96,550,105 Less: Outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds*15,935,000 Remaining Capacity (Non-Voted)80,615,105$ Total General Obligation Debt Capcity (Voted and Non-Voted) (2.5 percent of assessed valuation)160,916,841$ Less: Outstanding Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds 4,990,000 Less: Outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds*15,935,000 Total Voted and Non-Voted Debt 20,925,000 Remaining Capacity (Voted and Non-Voted)139,991,841$ Packet Page 231 of 240 Outstanding Bonds – Unlimited Tax General Obligation 5 Refunding UTGO Bonds Candidate?$7,000,000 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2003 Par Amount Outstanding $4,990,000 Dated Date July 1, 2003 Final Maturity December 1, 2016 Interest Rates 3.125% - 3.50% Call Date December 1, 2013 Insured by Ambac Purpose Advance refund $6,115,000 of UTGO 1996  •Advance refunded 1996 UTGO Bonds •Originally issued for Public Safety Buildings •Cannot be refunded until call date Packet Page 232 of 240 Outstanding Bonds – Limited Tax General Obligation 6 Refunding LTGO Candidate?$5,230,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007 Par Amount Outstanding $4,510,000 Dated Date March 15, 2007 Final Maturity December 1, 2026 Interest Rates 3.65%-3.95% Call Date December 1, 2016 Insured by CIFG Purpose Repay and redeem the W&S BAN and LTGO BAN, HVAC improvements, and the Anderson Center seismic project. $7,015,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002 Par Amount Outstanding $6,155,000 Dated Date November 1, 2002 Final Maturity December 1, 2026 Interest Rates 3.75%-4.90% Call Date December 1, 2012 Insured by Ambac Purpose Repay the City's outstanding LTGO BAN and to acquire and renovate a performing arts theater and gymnasium. $3,045,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2001 Par Amount Outstanding $1,980,000 Dated Date September 1, 2001 Final Maturity December 1, 2021 Interest Rates 4.25%-4.90% Call Date December 1, 2011 Insured by FSA Purpose Improvements to Frances Anderson recreation center, replace library roof, fund a sewer meter rehab. project, and make street $2,260,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2001 Series B Par Amount Outstanding $1,495,000 Dated Date December 15, 2001 Final Maturity December 1, 2021 Interest Rates 4.80%-5.45% Call Date December 1, 2011 Insured by FSA Purpose Acquire 4.9 acres of park land $4,480,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1998 Par Amount Outstanding $1,795,000 Dated Date December 1, 1998 Final Maturity December 1, 2014 Interest Rates 4.25%-4.40% Call Date December 1, 2008 Insured by MBIA Purpose Advance refund $1,075,000 of LTGO 1993 and to advance refund $2,985,000 of LTGO 1995      Packet Page 233 of 240 Outstanding Bonds – Water & Sewer Revenue 7 Refunding Revenue Bonds Bonds Candidate?$7,875,000 Water & Sewer Revenue Improvement and Refunding Bonds, 2003 Par Amount Outstanding $2,045,000 Dated Date April 1, 2003 Final Maturity December 1, 2022 Interest Rates 3.25-4.45% Call Date December 1, 2012 Insured by FSA Purpose Water main replacement, repairs and renovations to sewer lift stations, storm drainage improvements, and other utility related projects. Current refund the W&S Rev. Ref. Bonds, $2,420,000 Water & Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1998 Par Amount Outstanding $825,000 Dated Date March 1, 1998 Final Maturity December 1, 2013 Interest Rates 4.5-4.85% Call Date December 1, 2007 Insured by FSA Purpose Advance refund $2,180,000 of the City's W&S Bonds, 1993 (maturities 2003-2013)   Packet Page 234 of 240 Refunding Savings Summary 8 $(32,599) $(9,057) $(2,661) $10,356 $11,599 $12,051 $20,389 LTGO 2007 LTGO 2002 W&S 2003 LTGO 2001 W&S 1998 LTGO 2001B LTGO 1998 Average Annual Savings $(384,901) $(100,469) $(22,191) $95,692 $34,424 $109,855 $73,131 LTGO 2007 LTGO 2002 W&S 2003 LTGO 2001 W&S 1998 LTGO 2001B LTGO 1998 Total PV Savings Savings % 4.07% 7.90% 4.18% 5.21% (1.24%) (1.74%) (12.34%) Packet Page 235 of 240 Recommendations & Next Steps •Recommendations –Proceed with refunding –Include the advance refunding 2001 LTGO issues, but watch the savings –Combine Water & Sewer 1998 issue with LTGO refundings –Plan to sell competitively, with option to switch to negotiated sale •Next Steps –Decision to proceed –Prepare financing documents (Official statement and ordinance) –Financing team –Bond rating –Sale –Close 9 Packet Page 236 of 240 AM-3646   Item #: 15. City Council Meeting Date: 01/04/2011 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilman Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Discussion of procedure for reviewing City Attorney applicants. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Attached is an excerpt from the 08-24-10 City Council Minutes regarding this topic. Narrative The procedures for evaluating proposals, interviewing and selecting the City Attorney, and possible further action, will be discussed. Attachments Excerpt from the 08-24-10 City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 09:43 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 12/29/2010 09:57 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/29/2010 10:32 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/28/2010  Final Approval Date: 12/29/2010  Packet Page 237 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 24, 2010 Page 11 envisioned it would be less expensive to string cable above ground rather than underground. She wanted to avoid any view blockage as a result of overhead fiber optic cable. Council President Bernheim thanked everyone involved in bringing the fiber project to this stage. He recalled attending a Council meeting as a citizen when the CTAC committee was originally formed. He was very satisfied with the way this economic development opportunity was progressing. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the resolution limited the City from reviewing other business models. Councilmember Plunkett answered no, assuring the members of CTAC and EDC wanted to consider all possibilities whether it was a different model, the existing model, targets of opportunity, etc. Mr. Hines assured they were open to any and all business models that result in a positive cash flow. The targets of opportunity currently being considered lend themselves to a cost/benefit model; other targets may lend themselves to other models. They will be as flexible as is necessary. Councilmember Wilson responded it was his intent to move forward as quickly as possible. Councilmember Wilson asked whether it was necessary to identify tasks CTAC would undertake and what tasks EDC would undertake. Councilmember Plunkett responded a collaborative process has enabled the project to reach this point. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS. Council President Bernheim suggested as part of the budget process the City ask qualified providers of legal services to bid on the City’s professional services work. The City’s Hearing Examiner contract expires at the end of the year and although there have been no issues with the work performance, there may be opportunities for modest savings. With regard to legal services, Finance Director Lorenzo Hines provided him a report that indicated legal expenses January 2009 through today are in excess of $1 million. Councilmember Petso suggested the City also seek bids for actuarial services. Mayor Cooper questioned whether the City had a contract for actuarial services and whether it was up for renewal. The contracts Council President Bernheim has proposed the Council seek bids on are due to expire at the end of this year. The option is to renew the contract or seeks bids. It was his understanding the only contracts expiring this year are the Public Defender, Hearing Examiner and the City Attorney. Councilmember Petso offered to research the actuarial contract. Councilmember Peterson referred to a letter the City received today from Toweill Rice Taylor, the City’s current Hearing Examiner, advising they would not be seeking renewal of their professional services agreement. With regard to soliciting requests for proposals (RFP) for legal services, he acknowledged the City’s legal fees have increased in recent years and he suggested comparing the City’s costs with other cities’ costs. One of the reasons for increased legal fees is the increase in public records requests which is epidemic statewide. Before embarking on a time consuming RFP process, he suggested investigating whether other cities were experiencing increased legal fees. If everyone’s costs are increasing for the same reasons, it was doubtful the City would realize a significant cost savings. If there were issues regarding quality of service, that was a different discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Citizen Levy Committee (CLC) has requested information on all the City’s consultants. Council President Bernheim, Mayor Cooper, Mr. Clifton, Debi Humann and she attended a seminar this week and talked to a number of cities. Renton recently made a change from a contract City Attorney to an in-house attorney. She offered to contact Renton regarding a cost Council President Bernheim suggested as part of the budget process the City ask qualified providers of legal services to bid on the City’s professional services work. The City’s Hearing Examiner contract expires at the end of the year and although there have been no issues with the work performance, there may be opportunities for modest savings. With regard to legal services, Finance Director Lorenzo Hines provided him a report that indicated legal expenses January 2009 through today are in excess of $1 million. Packet Page 238 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 24, 2010 Page 12 comparison. She commented another consideration is the longevity that the City’s current City Attorney Scott Snyder provides. He provided the CLC pros and cons of a contract City attorney and an in-house attorney. He also provided the CLC information regarding moving emails to the web in response to a new law that will allow public requests to be directed to a website as long as the website was identified. She noted this would save paper although it would not save staff time. Councilmember Wilson advised it was his understanding that actuary services were contracted for on a project by project basis. Those projects were relatively rare, occurring only once every couple years. Councilmember Wilson commented Edmonds uses Mr. Snyder far more than other cities use their City Attorney. As a consultant working with various cities, in his experience cities are typically very regimented in the use of their City Attorney. Edmonds has a policy of the City Attorney only attending Council meetings the first and third Tuesdays but he often attends other meetings and is has become a central resource for the Council. He noted although the Council sees Mr. Snyder, the City gets the benefit of his entire firm. If the Council replaced Mr. Snyder with one attorney, there would be a significant reduction in servicing the City’s needs. If the City hired an in-house attorney, it was likely 3-5 additional support staff would be necessary. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested researching an in-house attorney. Other groups with budgets similar to the City’s have moved from a contract attorney to an in-house attorney. Advantages of an in- house attorney include that he/she is present in City Hall and his/her schedule is established in accordance with the City’s needs. She agreed in addition to an in-house attorney, the City would need to hire a paralegal and possibly a part-time assistant. The other groups who have changed to an in-house attorney found it provided better coverage of legal representation. Mayor Cooper explained the $1 million Council President Bernheim referred to is all the legal costs, not just Ogden Murphy Wallace. It includes litigation costs that Mr. Weed and other attorneys have charged the City. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines advised the $1,031,000 was all costs associated with the City Attorney function, both retainer and litigation fees. It did not include costs for the prosecuting or defense attorneys. Mayor Cooper observed there have been two options discussed, 1) a RFP for a City Attorney, and 2) researching hiring an in-house City Attorney rather than a contract City Attorney. He asked Council President Bernheim clarify his request. Council President Bernheim responded his request was a RFP for legal services in the manner in which they are currently provided. He was not interested in restructuring the way legal services are provided at this time. He was satisfied there were many qualified firms and lawyers who could provide the same or better quality legal advice for the same or better price. Councilmember Peterson suggested if there was some uncertainty regarding whether the Council wanted to have a contract versus an in-house attorney, qualified law firms may not apply to a RFP. He asked the timeline for a RFP and whether there was time to have a further discussion regarding the City Attorney. Mayor Cooper answered the Council needed to provide direction on how to proceed at one of their September meetings in order to provide sufficient time for a RFP, interview and selection process and to have an attorney under contract by January 1, 2011. Councilmember Peterson reiterated his request to research cost increases other cities are experiencing to determine whether Edmonds legal costs were out of whack before directing staff to proceed with a RFP process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Peterson was interested in a comparison of fees from cities with in-house and contract attorneys. Councilmember Peterson answered his interest Packet Page 239 of 240 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 24, 2010 Page 13 was in determining whether other cities’ legal costs have increased whether their attorney services are provided in-house or via a contract. He anticipated legal costs were increasing due to increased public records requests regardless of whether a city had an in-house or contract attorney. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in researching what other cities paid for in-house and contract attorneys. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, THAT THE CITY ISSUE AN RFQ FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES AND HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED. Councilmember Plunkett commented he had a great deal of faith and trust in Mr. Snyder but in these economic times he was interested in investigating what other possibilities were available and the cost. Councilmember Wilson suggested rather than directing staff to do a great deal of work on in-house counsel versus a contract attorney, consideration be given to hiring a legal staffing consultant to determine how an in-house attorney’s office would be structured based on the City’s case load. He was uncertain whether the City’s limited Human Resources staff had the capacity to provide that information. If the Council was serious about changing the form of its legal services, the City should use a labor negotiator separate from Ogden Murphy Wallace as he feared it could be complicated if labor negotiations were not concluded by December 31. He suggested when researching the cost of an in-house attorney, the City determine the true cost including medical benefits, and union contracts for support staff now and in the future. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether AWC or Municipal Research Services Center could provide the information Councilmember Wilson requested. Mayor Cooper advised Human Resources staff has done some preliminary work on that matter at his request and could provide the information to the Council at a future meeting. Councilmember Wilson supported the request to research other cities’ costs. His request was to determine the cost of an in-house legal department to accomplish Edmonds’ workload. He emphasized other cities have different work loads; researching other cities costs for in-house staff would be informative but not necessarily comparable to Edmonds. He reiterated his suggestion to consider hiring a legal staffing consultant. Mayor Cooper suggested the Council keep the two items separate. The motion is to seek bids for a City Attorney. If the Council decides during the budget process or some other time to do a study or consider an in-house legal department, there will be a transition period and the City likely would need a contract City Attorney at least through 2011 even if a decision was made to pursue an in-house attorney. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. 6. 2010 SECOND QUARTER BUDGET REPORT. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to the 2010 second quarter report, explaining the City’s revenue position was approximately 55% of budget and expenditures were approximately 48% of budget. The second quarter budget report contains two pending budget amendments that were included because they were material and needed to be reflected in the budget. The first was an expenditure authority amendment regarding a Council action that occurred earlier this year. The Council decided the proceeds from the sale of fire assets would be moved out of the General Fund into a special reserve fund, the Public Safety Reserve. Approximately $600,000 was moved into the Public Safety Reserve. The Council also made a COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, THAT THE CITY ISSUE AN RFQ FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES AND HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER Packet Page 240 of 240