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