2011.02.08 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
City Council Committee Meetings
February 8, 2011
The Committee Meetings will immediately follow the City Council Meeting that began at 6:00 p.m.
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not
public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
1.Community/Development Services Committee
Meeting Room: Council Chambers
A. (10 Minutes)Ordinance amending provisions of Chapter 10.50 ECC, Public Library Board, to reflect 2001 changes to
the agreement between Sno-Isle and the City and the 2006 closing of Special Library Fund 621.
B. (10 Minutes)Potential addition of HB1265 to legislative agenda as a priority item.
C. (15 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Perteet, Inc for the
Shell Valley Emergency Access Project and report on the January 27, 2011 public meeting.
D. (5 Minutes)Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications for professional design and right of way services on the Five
Corners Roundabout project.
E. (5 Minutes)Edmonds Senior Center Roof Project
2.Finance Committee
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
A. (5 Minutes)Monthly General Fund Update.
B. (10 Minutes)Review and approval of Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
C. (10 Minutes)Proposed 2011 equipment rental hourly rates for external agencies and the Transportation Benefit District.
D. (10 Minutes)Cash Flow/Working Capital
E. (10 Minutes)Re-formatting City Financial Reports.
F. (15 Minutes)Revisions to Financial Reporting Ordinance.
Packet Page 1 of 76
F. (15 Minutes)Revisions to Financial Reporting Ordinance.
G. (10 Minutes)Timeliness of Financial Reporting and Compliance with City Code.
H. (15 Minutes)2010 Fourth Quarter Budget Update.
I. (10 Minutes)Public Comments (3-minute limit per person)
3.Public Safety Committee
Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room
A. (30 Minutes)Camping Ordinance.
Packet Page 2 of 76
AM-3707 Item #: 1. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Carrie Hite Submitted By:Frances Chapin
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending provisions of Chapter 10.50 ECC, Public Library Board, to reflect 2001 changes to the agreement
between Sno-Isle and the City and the 2006 closing of Special Library Fund 621.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend approval for the City Council Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
Intent to annex to the Library District, Ordinance 3342, approved by City Council 1/2/2001 and authorization for Mayor to sign
Library Annexation Agreement on April 3, 2001. City Council approval of Ordinance 3612 including closing Fund 621,
effective 12/05/2006.
Narrative
The proposed ordinance provides amendments to the Edmonds Community Code Chapter 10.50 Public Library Board to reflect
changes that have been made by City Council in past years but were never updated in the ECC.
Effective January 2002, the City and Sno-Isle Regional Library District reached an agreement in which the City, following a
vote of the citizens, was annexed to the Library District. Under this agreement the City provides quarters for the Library to the
Library District in the building located at 650 Main Street (the Peggy Pritchard Olson Building). The City is responsible for
maintenance, repair or capital costs to the building, and the Library District provides library services to the residents of the
City.
The City appointed Library Board serves in an advisory capacity to the City and to the Library District. The primary
responsibilities of the Library Board following annexation pertain to the facility and the Library Board has not acted as a
managing body for the provision of library services since 1998 (Ordinance 3213). The Special Library Fund 621 was
originally established in 1967 by Ordinance 1312 for donations to the Library which were allocated by the
Library Commission for the purpose of "bettering the services of the library." This is no longer a function of the Library Board
and the fund was closed in 2006.
The amendments in the proposed ordinance bring the ECC up to date to reflect past actions by the Edmonds City Council.
Attachments
Revised Library Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 02:19 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 01/31/2011 03:39 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 3 of 76
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
10.50 ECC, PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
, TO REFLECT THE
CLOSE OF SPECIAL LIBRARY FUND 621 AND TO REVISE
REFERENCES TO SNO-ISLE LIBRARIES AND ITS
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, library services at the City of Edmonds are provided by Sno-Isle
Libraries, partly under the terms of the Library Annexation Agreement entered into by the parties
in 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Public Library Board serves, in part, as an advisory board
to the Mayor, City Council, and Sno-Isle Libraries concerning library facility and services at the
City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the special library fund 621 was closed when Ordinance No. 3612
was adopted and became effective; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amended.
Section 2.
Chapter 10.50 ECC is hereby amended to read as set forth
in Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference.
Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
Packet Page 4 of 76
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 2 -
APPROVED:
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 5 of 76
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
10.50 ECC, PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD, TO REFLECT THE
CLOSE OF SPECIAL LIBRARY FUND 621 AND TO REVISE
REFERENCES TO SNO-ISLE LIBRARIES AND ITS
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 6 of 76
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 4 -
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 10.50
PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
Sections:
10.50.010 Appointment of trustees – Terms.
10.50.020 Powers and duties.
10.50.010 Appointment of trustees – Terms.
As provided in RCW 27.12.190, the mayor shall appoint five trustees to serve on the public
library board. Appointments shall be for a full term of five years on a rotating basis, i.e., one
term shall expire and one new trustee shall be appointed each year. No trustee shall serve more
than two consecutive full terms. An appointment to fill an unexpired term less than two years in
length shall not be considered a full term. Trustees who are serving on the date this amendment
is adopted shall complete their term of office.
10.50.020 Powers and duties.
A. Advice to the Mayor and City Council. The public library board shall advise the mayor and
city council at least annually or on such other reporting schedule as may be agreed by the mayor,
council, and board, regarding:
1. The planning, management, use, care, and disposition of the library's property, equipment
and physical facilities;
2. The policies, rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the library and its facilities;
3. The budget, administration, scope and quality of library resources and services provided to
the city of Edmonds by the Sno-Isle Libraries;
4. The acceptance or rejection of all gifts of money or property to the city for the benefit of
the library and its patrons;
5. Such other matters as the mayor or city council may assign to the board at their discretion.
B. Coordination. The board shall coordinate its advice to the mayor and city council with the
liaison staff of the parks, recreation, and cultural services department of the city of Edmonds
before bringing matters to the mayor and council.
C. Advice to the Sno-Isle Libraries. The board shall advise the Sno-Isle Libraries, an inter-
county rural library district organization which provides library services to the city of Edmonds,
on policies for the development of the library's collection, the use of the library, and the scope
and quality of the services provided.
Packet Page 7 of 76
AM-3728 Item #: 1. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:City Council Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office
Department:City Council
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Potential addition of HB1265 to legislative agenda as a priority item.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Council approved the legislative agenda for 2011 prior to the introduction of HB1265.
Narrative
HB1265 has been advanced in an effort to assure that development at Point Wells is either at a density consistent with the
surrounding jurisdictions, or includes interlocal agreements with nearby jurisdictions regarding urban services and impacts.
HB1265 is co-sponsored by Kagi, Ryu, Liias and Roberts, among others. The atttachment will be provided at the City Council
meeting.
Form Review
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/04/2011 08:56 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 8 of 76
AM-3709 Item #: 1. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Perteet, Inc for the Shell Valley
Emergency Access Project and report on the January 27, 2011 public meeting.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward Addendum No. 4 to the consent agenda for approval at the February 15, 2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On October 16, 2007, Council approved the professional services agreement with Perteet, Inc. for the Shell Valley Emergency
Access project.
On February 19, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement.
On June 15, 2010, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to update the environmental documentation required
for regulatory permitting.
On January 11, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed proposed Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Perteet, Inc.
Narrative
On January 11, 2011, the Community Services/Development Services Committee reviewed proposed Addendum No. 4 to the
Professional Services Agreement with Perteet, Inc. The scope of services for this Addendum includes the design and
permitting work for a 22 ft wide street alternative, design modifications to comply with DOE grant requirements, changing the
pavement material and providing consultant support services during construction.
The state legislature approved $250,000 in funding for the Shell Valley Emergency Access project as part of the 2010
Transportation Budget, stipulating that the project funds must be authorized by June 1, 2011. The City was also awarded a
stormwater grant from the State Department of Ecology (DOE) in fall 2010 and $100,000 of this grant was allocated to this
project. The new grant requires the project design to be approved by DOE and several design modifications are needed to
make the project eligible for funding.
The consultant’s fee for this addendum is $65,035. The costs will be funded by the following sources:
• $15,000 DOE grant
• $15,000 Stormwater Utility Fund
• $35,035 WSDOT State grant
The CS/DS committee requested that staff conduct a neighborhood meeting to solicit input on the proposed project and how
the access road should be operated during the winter season. The meeting was held on January 27, 2011 and a summary of the
meeting is included as attachment 1. Staff will review the comments from the meeting and concerns related to opening
and closing the access road.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Attachment 2-Perteet Addendum No. 4
Packet Page 9 of 76
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 02/03/2011 11:49 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 02/03/2011 03:55 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 04:01 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 02/01/2011 03:50 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 10 of 76
City of Edmonds
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX(425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Page 1 of 2
Date of Meeting: January 27, 2011, 6pm. Plaza Room, Edmonds Public Library
Project Name/Address: Shell Valley Emergency Access Project
Meeting Purpose:
To inform the residents about the project, review alternatives for either a 15 ft. or 22 ft. wide access road and
receive feedback on how the access road should be operated.
Attendance:
Approximately 25 people attended the meeting, nine of whom reside on Pioneer Way. The City staff in
attendance was Phil Williams, Public Works Director; Rob English; City Engineer and Ed Sibrel, Project
Manager.
Topics Covered:
A general overview of the project philosophy was presented, along with a brief history of the residential
development of the Shell Valley neighborhood. A summary of the design challenges regarding the existing
steep slopes and wetlands were presented, as well as the opportunities presented by those challenges, via
the green design of the access road utilizing pervious pavement, and the enhancement of the wetland itself.
Presented were the two design options – the 15’ wide access road as originally scoped in the design, and the
22’ wide option under current consideration. The 22-foot option was described as the safer, albeit more
expensive alternative to the design originally envisioned.
Funding sources were also described: the $250,000 legislative appropriation, the $100,000 Department of
Ecology grant, and City funding sources.
Operation of the access road was discussed and staff proposed an option to open the road on November 1st
and close it in February or March. This schedule would prevent staff from having to monitor road conditions
and being called out on overtime to open the gate. It would also simplify communications with Shell Valley
residents on when the road was open or closed.
Audience Q&A / Discussion:
See Exhibit A.
Summary:
Overall, the residents were generally supportive of the design. Given the 15- and 22-foot wide pavement
alternatives, there was no distinct audience preference for one over the other. There was some discussion on
the methods for access restriction when the roadway is closed – current design utilizes bollards, which would
encourage pedestrians and bicyclists, while simultaneously limiting automobiles. A few residents preferred the
use of gates to limit access, arguing that bollards would not deter motorcycles from use of the roadway.
Of all the items covered, it was the scheduling of how the access road would be opened and closed that drew
the most comments and concerns from those who attended the meeting. Several of the citizens were
strongly opposed to the City’s proposal to keep the road open 4 or 5 months during the winter season. They
believe this duration is not warranted since there are a limited number of snow and ice events each year.
City staff will provide citizen feedback from the meeting to Council and continue discussions on how to
operate the road at the February 8, 2011 CS/DS Committee.
Packet Page 11 of 76
City of Edmonds
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX(425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Comments Response
When is the road due to go to Construction? Assuming the permitting and related approvals go smoothly, we
anticipate going to construction in late summer.
Will roadway be maintained? Because the roadway is of permeable pavement, there will be
regularly scheduled maintenance and cleaning of the street.
Will stormwater rates go up as a result of this project? The project is budgeted under the current rate structure; no utility
rate increases will be caused by this project.
Will City commit to never opening the road full time? The roadway is not intended for year-round use by automobiles.
City staff can’t make this commitment to the residents.
What would be the deciding factor for which pavement
width?
It’s anticipated that the results from the contract bidding will
determine which pavement width to pursue.
Is there a safety concern with the entering / exiting of
vehicles onto Main Street?
The sight distance concerns, as well as the curvature of Main
Street, have been taken into account in the design.
When Main Street is closed, will access be closed?
In the rare occasions that Main Street is closed due to inclement
weather, the closure would affect only travel to the west; Main
Street will still be open to the east for access to the roadway.
Why were bollards selected to control access? Gates
would be better, in that motorcycles could not use the
access road.
Bollards are but one way to ensure access restrictions. There are a
number of solutions that may be utilized. The point will be taken
into consideration during further design efforts.
Would the existing road beyond [south of] Madrona
Cove be widened?
There are no current plans, and no plans under concept for the
widening of Pioneer Way
Concerns regarding the width of Pioneer way and
parked cars in the street. Residents park on the street
when conditions are icy and using their steep
driveways is a problem.
Pioneer Way, north of Shell Valley Road and south of the Madrona
Cove development is built along the lines of a “yield street,” where
in the presence of on street parking, one of two oncoming cars
must pull over to let the other pass. This is fairly typical of many
residential streets.
Speed bumps as traffic calming. Speed bumps are not being considered in this project.
Can the Shell Valley residents control the
opening/closing of the access road?
There may be liability issues with allowing private citizens to
control the opening/closing of the road.
Why can’t police open the road so public works staff
doesn’t have to be there on overtime?
Police, Fire, and Aid will have full access to the roadway in the
course of their duties. The Public Works Department will be
responsible for opening/closing the road.
Packet Page 12 of 76
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
o
f
7
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
o
f
7
6
AM-3710 Item #: 1. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications for professional design and right of way services on the Five Corners
Roundabout project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the February 15, 2011 Council meeting
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W currently experience long queues and delays during peak traffic hours for all approaches.
The intersection operates at level of service (LOS) F and the City's 2009 Transportation Plan identifies the intersection as a
concurrency project since the City's LOS standard is D.
The project will install a modern landscaped roundabout at 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W in order to improve traffic
flow and raise the level of service above the City's standard. The project will require the acquisition of right of way at the
intersection to complete the improvements. The City was successful in securing a $463,000, Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) federal grant for this work. A 13.5% local match is required and will be funded by motor vehicle fuel tax
revenue from the Street Construction Fund.
The scope of services for the contract will include the completion of the plans, specifications, environmental documentation,
cost estimate, and right of way services. The design and environmental phases are scheduled for 2011 through 2012 and the
right of way acquisition phase will begin in the fall of 2012.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 02/03/2011 12:07 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 02/03/2011 03:55 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 04:01 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 02/02/2011 07:49 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 23 of 76
AM-3706 Item #: 1. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Senior Center Roof Project
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend the full Council award the project for the Edmonds Senior Center Roofing Repairs Project to the low bidder,
Wright Roofing in the amount of $96,156.33. Recommend the acceptance of the total project budget amount to comprise
$110,579.78.
Previous Council Action
There has not been previous Council action on this project because it was bid using standard City procedures that employed the
MRSC Small Works Roster for projects valued at less than $200,000.
Narrative
The Edmonds Senior Center currently holds a contract for funding through the Washington State Department of Commerce, a
Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) grant totaling $197,000. Because this grant is for the current state
biennium, it expires this July, and any remainder will very likely be pulled back into the state coffers to assist with its budget
woes.
The grant was written to cover a variety of building repairs and improvements, and, at this time, approximately $140,000
remains unspent. One of the major items listed on the grant contract is a solution for the three areas of the Senior Center roof
that remain unaddressed since the City completed a roofing project there in 2006. These areas are in sore need of attention, in
fact, the area of the breezeway has a leak that lands on the walkway beneath whenever it rains. To qualify for grant eligibility,
the roofing work must carry a manufacturer's warranty of at least 10 years, so the specifications for the project include this
requirement, as well as the technical specifications covering the installation of the new roofing material and associated repairs
to joists, caps, parapet walls, etc.
The City Purchasing Policies and Procedures allow for bidding for projects valued less than $200,000 to be conducted by
employing the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) Small Works Roster to request contractors of the appropriate
category provide bid information on work the City is bidding. Late last year, staff used this process to select five firms from
the roster to provide pricing for this work using one particular roofing manufacturer's system. Unfortunately, none of the bids
received for this effort were within the reach of the CTED funding available, and all bids were rejected.
Nonetheless, the project needed to be accomplished for the good of the facilities and the expiration of the grant loomed closer.
On January 3, 2011, reformulated bid documents were sent out to all the contractors in the MRSC Small Works Roster roofing
subcategory. The project was opened to manufacturers of additional roofing systems and the work was split up to comprise
smaller chunks of what is needed. In this way, staff intended that it would be possible to at least some part of the roofing work
needed and access the maximum amount of grant funding possible before the expiration of the contract.
Bids were opened on January 31, 2011 (see the attached bid recap form), and the firm providing the low bid is Wright
Roofing. Because of the way the bid form was structured, there are two base schedule pieces and two alternates. The City is
most fortunate to have received a bid from this firm that will allow all the reamining roof work to be addressed, but, even
better, there is also budget to accept both the alternates. These alternates provide adding insulation to the areas above the
occupied portions of the Center (Thrift Shop and two-story building) to increase the energy efficiency of the structure and
reduce the heating costs paid by the Center.
At this point, staff recommends that the Finance Committee approve the award of this contract to Wright Roofing in the total
amount, including tax, of $96,156.33. Because there is at least one known leakage issue affecting the areas to be addressed,
and because the entire project area is covered by roof material of advanced age, staff also recommends a contingency amount
Packet Page 24 of 76
and because the entire project area is covered by roof material of advanced age, staff also recommends a contingency amount
of 15% be established, contributing to a total project budget of $110,579.78. This level of approved funding will put the City
in a better position to address any additional issues of water intrusion that may come to light as the work progresses.
Because the Edmonds Senior Center is the agency holding the grant that is intended to pay for this work, staff has coordinated
with Farrell Fleming, its Executive Director, that the City will pay the contractor directly for the project, and the Senior Center
will apply for grant reimbursement. Grant payments from the state to the Center will be funneled back to the City using a
process that already has assisted the City in paying for additional work performed in the Senior Center Kitchen
Improvement Project and the Senior Center Entryway Renovation Project. In this way, there will be ultimately no expense
incurred by the City because the entire project is reimburseable and will be completed well ahead of the grant deadline.
Attachments
Roof Bid Recap
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 02/03/2011 08:10 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 12:23 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/03/2011 12:46 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 03:14 PM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 01/31/2011 11:41 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/03/2011
Packet Page 25 of 76
BID TABULATION SHEET
ABSTRACT OF QUOTES/BIDS AUTHORIZATION DATE: N/A OPENING DATE: 1-31-11 AWARD DATE: TBD
Supplies or Ser vices:NAME OF BIDDERS:Remar ks
SCSC Roofing Repairs Project 1 2 3 4
Pacific Tech Lloyd A. Lynch Wright Roofing Wayne's Roofing
Originating Office: Public Works Construction Roofing
Department: Public Works
ITEM
1a BASE BID - SCHEDULE A 60,350.00 44,913.00 21,302.00 94,800.00
1a BASE BID - SCHEDULE B 130,000.00 65,869.00 28,030.00 81,100.00
2 ALTERNATE #1 10,000.00 6,022.00 11,492.00 14,700.00
3 ALTERNATE #2 23,500.00 18,661.00 26,990.00 29,300.00
WA State Sales Tax $18,083.25 $10,524.29 $4,686.54 $16,710.50
TOTAL BASE BID $208,433.25 $121,306.29 $54,018.54 $192,610.50
Unit Price #1 $11.50 $1.50 $4.10 2
Unit Price #2 $8.50 $10.00 $26.00 $20.00
Bid Deposit Bond Bond Bond Bond
Bid Signed Yes Yes Yes Yes
Warranty
Rec'd Addenda if Required #1 #1 #1 #1
Is this product a WA State Contract item? Yes No XXX
Indicate vendors from above listing who have previously provided services or products to the City and indicate whether the results were satisfactory or unsatisfactory:
Recommended Awar dee: I CERTIFY THAT ALL BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION WERE OPENED,
READ AND RECORDED ACCORDING TO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.
Low Bid That Is Unacceptable:__________________________________
Agent for the City of Edmonds:________________________________________________________________
Note: Indicate N/A in each of the above categories that does not apply to the bid being presented
EXCELDATA\ADMIN\BIDS
Packet Page 26 of 76
AM-3725 Item #: 2. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Monthly General Fund Update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
General Fund Overview – January 2010
This report will either be emailed prior to the meeting or provided at the committee meeting.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 05:27 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 02/03/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 27 of 76
AM-3719 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Debi Humann
Department:Human Resources
Committee:Finance Type:
Information
Subject Title
Review and approval of Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor and Staff respectfully request Finance Committee approval of the attached Professional Services Agreement with a
recommendation to move forward to full Council.
Previous Council Action
The previous Land Use Hearing Examiner, Toweill-Rice-Taylor, elected to not renew their contract with the City of Edmonds
at the end of the year (2010), thereby creating a critical vacancy.
Narrative
As stated above, our former Land Use Hearing Examiner elected to not renew their contract with the City of Edmonds. As a
result of that decision, the City of Edmonds created an RFQ/RFP and advertised for a new Hearing Examiner. Four applicants
applied for the position; Olbrechts & Associates PLLC, Sound Law Center, Wick Dufford, and Margaret L. Sanders, Esq.
After review of all applicants, Olbrechts & Associates and Sound Law Center moved forward to the interview process which
was held on November 29, 2010.
The interview panel selected Olbrechts & Associates as the City's new Land Use Hearing Examiner pending contract
approval.
Attached is a copy of the Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services with Olbrechts &
Associates. The contract has been reviewed by Legal and by the Planning Division. The main change from the previous
contract is that the fee structure has changed from a fixed, flat monthly fee to an hourly rate with an annual cap as per
Council's preference to attempt to lower contract costs.
Also attached is a copy of the Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services that shows the
changes from the original contract.
Attachments
Land Use Hearing Examiner Contract
Revised Hearing Examiner Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 02/03/2011 02:36 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 12:59 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 01:10 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:59 PM
Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 02/03/2011 11:07 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 28 of 76
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 1 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
Professional Services Agreement
For Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants herein and the mutual benefits to be derived,
the City of Edmonds (the City) and Olbrechts and Associates, P.L.L.C. (or the Hearing
Examiner) agree as follows:
1. Duties of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall provide those services
and fulfill those duties identified in the City of Edmonds ordinances relating to the Office
of the Hearing Examiner and carry out such other responsibilities as agreed to herein
between the City and the Hearing Examiner. Those services, duties, and responsibilities
include reviewing information provided by City staff and applicable laws in preparation
for the hearing; holding pre-hearing conferences and issuing pre-hearing orders on
individual cases as necessary for the clarification of issues to be addressed at the hearing;
conducting hearings on all matters to which the City’s ordinances grant Hearing
Examiner jurisdiction; receiving testimony and documentary evidence; preparing final
written decisions including findings of fact and conclusions of law for each case heard;
and issuing decisions on post-hearing motions. The Hearing Examiner shall be
responsible for providing a final written decision in each matter to the City and to parties
of record via notice from the City of Edmonds Office of Hearing Examiner. The date by
which the final decision shall be issued will be the date set forth in City’s code.
2. Duties of the City. The City shall be responsible for providing the support necessary to
execute the duties established in this Agreement, including but not limited to: a complete
copy of all appropriate current city codes and resolutions; a public hearing room
sufficient to accommodate the Hearing Examiner, City Staff, applicants/respondents,
attorneys, and members of the public wishing to attend; recording equipment adequate to
establish a verbatim recording of each public hearing; a staff person to accept exhibits,
operate recording equipment during hearings, and maintain custody of the official record
in each matter; and telephone conferencing for pre-hearing conferences as needed. The
City shall be responsible for publishing legal notice of hearings pursuant to the provisions
set forth in the City’s code; for recording hearings; preserving the audio and documentary
record on each matter; and providing the Hearing Examiner with a complete mailing list
for all parties of record known in advance of the public hearing. The City shall be the
keeper of the official record in each matter and shall provide the Hearing Examiner with
a working copy of said record. The City shall provide to the Hearing Examiner copies of
recordings of the public hearing. The City shall provide the Hearing Examiner with
Office of Hearing Examiner stationery and shall reimburse the Hearing Examiner for the
cost of copies and postage incurred in mailing final decisions to parties of record.
3. Term of Agreement. The services of the Hearing Examiner pursuant to this Agreement
are to commence on January 1, 2011 and will expire on December 31, 2014. The first
partial calendar year of the term (2011) shall be probationary (probationary year) during
which the Hearing Examiner will serve subject to the approval of the Mayor. During the
probationary year, the Mayor at his sole discretion may terminate this contract or in his
Packet Page 29 of 76
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 2 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
sole discretion, terminate the provision of services by the Hearing Examiner or any
individual approved service-providing member of the Hearing Examiner’s firm. During
the balance of the term, the Hearing Examiner shall be removed from the Hearing
Examiner Office only for good cause, provided, however, that good cause termination
may be applied to either the Hearing Examiner or any individual approved service-
providing member at the sole discretion of the City. In the event of termination, the
Hearing Examiner will complete any matter then pending at the rates set forth in this
Agreement, invoice the City accordingly, and the City shall compensate the Hearing
Examiner within thirty (30) days of invoicing.
4. Nonassignment; Approval of Service Providers. The City has interviewed Phil A.
Olbrechts and approves the provision of services under this Agreement by this individual.
The City reserves the right to approve the provision of service as Hearing Examiner by
any person other than the approved service-providing members of Olbrechts &
Associates, P.L.L.C. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the Hearing
Examiner from utilizing clerical assistance through its employees in the provision of
services under this Agreement. The term “clerical assistance” includes law students or
other qualified individuals employed by the Hearing Examiner to provide summaries of
testimony for preliminary drafts and to perform other similar paralegal type functions.
The provisions of this Agreement may not be assigned, whether to another entity or to
another or future member of Olbrechts & Associates, P.L.L.C.
5. Hearing dates. The City’s land use hearings shall be conducted, if any, on a Thursday of
each month, with the schedule set by mutual agreement. If additional hearing time is
required, a second docket shall be scheduled on an additional Thursday of each month.
In the event of specially set hearings required to be held on other dates, the City shall
provide the Hearing Examiner with notice of the special hearing date no less than twenty-
one (21) days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City shall provide the Hearing
Examiner with the working copies of the record in each matter, including the staff report
and all available exhibits, no less than seven (7) days prior to the scheduled hearing date.
6. Compensation. Phil Olbrechts shall be paid by the City at the rate of $145.00 per hour ;
associates at the rate of $135 per hour; and alternate examiners at the rate of $100 per
hour. Clerical assistants may be billed at actual cost plus ten percent (10%) not to exceed
$55 per hour. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services
rendered to complete the work and shall not exceed $42,000 on an annual basis.
7. Payment. The Hearing Examiner shall maintain time and expense (if any) records and
provide them to the City monthly, along with monthly invoices in a format acceptable to
the City for work performed to the date of the invoice. All invoices shall be paid by the
City within thirty (30) days of receipt of a proper invoice.
8. Discrimination and Compliance with Laws. The Hearing Examiner agrees not to
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment or any other person in
the performance of this Agreement because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital
status, sex, age, disability, or other circumstance prohibited by federal, state, or local law
Packet Page 30 of 76
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 3 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
or ordinance, except for a bona fide occupational qualification. The Hearing Examiner
shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work
to be done under this Agreement. The Hearing Examiner shall also comply with the
Washington State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.
9. Standard of Care. The Hearing Examiner represents and warrants that it has the
requisite training, skill and experience necessary to provide the services under this
agreement and is appropriately accredited and licensed by all applicable agencies and
governmental entities. Services provided by the Hearing Examiner under this agreement
will be performed in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing in similar
circumstances.
10. Ownership of Work Product
11. Correspondence and Notices.
. All final decisions, orders, and other documents issued
by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to this Agreement, all exhibits submitted into the
record, and all official recordings shall be the property of the City. All such documents,
exhibits, and recordings shall be forwarded to the City upon request and may be used by
the City as it sees fit. The City agrees that if the documents, exhibits, and recordings are
used for purposes other than those intended in this Agreement, the City does so at its sole
risk and agrees to hold the Hearing Examiner harmless for such use. All services
performed under this Agreement shall be conducted solely for the benefit of the City and
shall not be used for any other purpose without express written consent of the City.
(a) Correspondence and Notices to the City shall be sent to the following address:
Edmonds Planning Division
City of Edmonds
121 5th
Edmonds, WA 98020
Avenue North
(b) Correspondence and Notices to the Hearing Examiner shall be sent to the
following address:
Olbrechts & Associates, PLLC
ATTN: Phil Olbrechts
18833 74th
Granite Falls, WA 98252
Street NE
206.650.7268
olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
12. Independent Contractor Relationship. Both parties recognize the quasi-judicial nature
of the Office of Hearing Examiner. It is agreed by and between the parties that this
Agreement shall not constitute nor create an employer-employee relationship. The
Hearing Examiner is an independent contractor and shall be responsible for all
obligations relating to federal income tax, self-employment, and other typically
Packet Page 31 of 76
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 4 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
employer-paid taxes and contributions. Any employee of the Hearing Examiner, while
engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Hearing Examiner
under this Agreement, shall be considered an employee of the Hearing Examiner only
and not of the City.
13. Freedom from Influence. The Hearing Examiner shall be free of any supervision or
other influence from City officials and employees with respect to any decision or
recommendation made by the Hearing Examiner on a specific case, issue, or permit.
14. Dispute Resolution. This section applies only to billing and for disputes under Sections
6 and 7, and not to any other provision of this Contract.
(a) Mediation.
(b)
Any dispute arising out of this Agreement will be submitted to
mediation before a neutral third party. If the parties cannot mutually agree upon a
mediator, they will ask the presiding judge of Snohomish County Superior Court
to appoint one. The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve their dispute
through mediation. The parties will participate in mediation no more than 15 days
later than one party provides written notice to the other of the nature of the
dispute and the desire for mediation. All costs of mediation, if any, will be split
equally between the parties and each party will bear its own attorney fees.
Arbitration.
(c)
If mediation is not successful, the parties will submit the dispute to
binding arbitration under rules and procedures set forth by the American
Arbitration Association. If the parties cannot mutually agree upon an arbitrator,
they will ask the presiding judge of Snohomish County Superior Court to appoint
one. The substantially prevailing party at arbitration will be entitled to recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees from the other party.
Injunctive and Equitable Relief.
15. Indemnification.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the
foregoing, in the event a good faith attempt at mediation is not successful and in
lieu of arbitration, any party may apply to Snohomish County Superior Court for
equitable or injunctive relief. The parties agree that in any such action neither
party will submit nor will the Court have authority to consider any claims for
money damages, it being the intent of the parties that all such claims be resolved
through mediation or arbitration. The substantially prevailing party in any Court
action for equitable or injunctive relief will be entitled to recover its reasonable
costs and attorney’s fees from the other party.
(a) The Hearing Examiner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
agents, and employees from and against any and all liability arising under this
contract or from claims resulting in whole or in part from negligent or unlawful
acts or omissions of the Hearing Examiner, its agents, servants, officers, or
employees.
Packet Page 32 of 76
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 5 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
(b) The City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Hearing Examiner, its
agents and employees, from and against any and all liability arising under, from,
or out of the negligent or unlawful acts or omissions of the City, its’ officers,
agents, and employees during the performance of this contract by the Hearing
Examiner.
16. Insurance. The Hearing Examiner shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
Automobile Liability.
17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the complete and integrated understanding
and agreement between the parties and supersedes any understanding and/or agreement
of negotiation, whether oral or written, not set forth herein. Any waiver of breach, by
TRT or the City, of any provision of this Agreement by the other party will not operate,
or be construed, as a waiver of any subsequent breach by either party or prevent either
party from thereafter enforcing any such provisions. If any part of this Agreement is
found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null, and void
insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, and the remainder of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
The Hearing Examiner shall maintain auto insurance covering all
owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles with a minimum combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.
AGREED TO this __________ day of _______________________ 2011.
___________________________
Mayor Mike Cooper, City of Edmonds
(i)
(ii)
(iii) Olbrechts & Associates, PLLC
____________________________
Phil A. Olbrechts
Packet Page 33 of 76
Packet Page 34 of 76
Packet Page 35 of 76
Packet Page 36 of 76
Packet Page 37 of 76
Packet Page 38 of 76
Packet Page 39 of 76
Packet Page 40 of 76
Packet Page 41 of 76
Packet Page 42 of 76
Packet Page 43 of 76
Packet Page 44 of 76
Packet Page 45 of 76
AM-3713 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Debra Sharp
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:
Information
Subject Title
Proposed 2011 equipment rental hourly rates for external agencies and the Transportation Benefit District.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Move to consent for council approval
Previous Council Action
Updated the hourly rates back in 2009 based on FEMA rates.
Narrative
There are instances when the City is required to use City equipment for projects that will be reimbursed by an outside agency.
When the City is reimbursed by a governmental agency, for example grant reimbursement, the City historically has used rates
set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When a private contractor is to reimburse the City, the rates are set at
twice the amount of FEMA rates.
This memo seeks Council approval to update the Equipment Rental Hourly Rates for reimbursement by external agencies. The
rates were last updated in July of 2009. The City uses FEMA rates as a guideline and these rates were recently updated. This
was the first update since the rates were brought before the Council in 2009.
This increase also affects the City's rates to the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD). The rates charged to the TBD
will be the same rates used for governmental reimbursement.
Attachments
2011 Proposed Equipment Rental Rates
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 02/03/2011 04:29 PM
Public Works Kim Karas 02/04/2011 02:03 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 02:06 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 03:27 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 03:44 PM
Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 02/03/2011 09:31 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 46 of 76
Intergovernmental Contractor
UNIT #DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates
2 2005 Ford F-250 8802 $20.00 $40.00
3 1995 Case Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y.8571 $23.50 $47.00
4 2006 Toyota Forklift 8300 $11.75 $23.50
5 1997 Chevrolet Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
6 2008 Ford F250 8802 $20.00 $40.00
7 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
8 2002 Ford Tractor Mower 8381 $19.00 $38.00
9 2002 CAT Loader 2 c.y.8392 $28.75 $57.50
10 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
11 2001 International Dump Truck 8721 $45.00 $90.00 (3)
Snow Plow addition 8457 $16.00 $32.00
Sand spreader 8457 $7.50 $15.00
12 1993 Dodge Pickup 8802 $20.00 $40.00
13 2008 W acker - Asphalt Roller 8222 $25.00 $50.00
14 2009 International Dump truck 8721 $45.00 $90.00
Snow Plow addition 8457 $16.00 $32.00
18 1995 Ford Tractor Loader 8391 $21.50 $43.00
19 1995 Ford Service Truck 8802 $20.00 $40.00
20 1995 Freightliner Dump Truck 8 c.y.8720 $35.00 $70.00
21 1995 GMC Dump Truck 8 c.y.8720 $35.00 $70.00
22 2000 International Dump Truck 8 c.y.8720 $35.00 $70.00
Snow Plow addition 8457 $16.00 $32.00
Sand spreader 8457 $7.50 $15.00
23 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
24 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
25 2006 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
28 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
29 2004 Chevrolet Colorado 8801 $14.00 $28.00
30 1999 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
31 1996 Volvo Vactor 8721, 8713 $66.50 $133.00 (2,3)
32 2007 Brush Bandit Chipper 8202 $21.75 $43.50
33 2001 Grimmer Air Compressor 175 CFM 8013 $20.00 $40.00
34 2008 Ford Escape (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
35 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
36 2006 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
37 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8802 $30.00 $60.00
38 1995 Ford Pickup 8802 $20.00 $40.00
39 1996 Ford Pickup 8801 $20.00 $40.00
40 Workhorse Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
41 2000 Utility Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
42 1995 Ford Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROPOSED 2011 HOURLY RENTAL RATES
Packet Page 47 of 76
Intergovernmental Contractor
UNIT #DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates
43 2002 Ford F-450 8805 $30.00 $60.00
45 2002 Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
46 1997 Isuzu Paint Stripper 8445 $70.00 $140.00 (2)
47 1973 Tack Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
48 2006 Ford Escape (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
50 2005 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
51 2005 Ford F-450 8805 $30.00 $60.00
55 2001 Elgin Street Sweeper 8157 $59.00 $118.00
57 2007 Cat Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y.8392 $28.75 $57.50
58 1999 Dodge Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
59 2005 Interstate Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50
61 1980 Gorman Rupp Pump 8474 $9.25 $18.50
62 $0.00
63 1993 CAT Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y./25 HP 8392 $28.75 $57.50
67 1993 Butler Asphalt Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
69 1994 Water Mower Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
70 1996 Ford Flatbed 8640 $20.00 $40.00
72 1998 Magnum Utility Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
74 2007 Towmaster Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50
78 1996 Walton Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50
79 1992 GMC Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
80 2000 Grimmer Air Compressor 175 CFM 8013 $20.00 $40.00
81 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
82 1976 Huber Min. M-700 Grader 8330 $34.50 $69.00
83 1985 Hitchman Trailer & Generator 8312 $17.00 $34.00
85 1999 Whiteman Cement Mixer 8410 $3.25 $6.50
86 1999 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
88 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
89 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
90 1999 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
91 2002 Ford Mower 8381 $19.00 $38.00 (1,2)
92 1986 Multiquip Pump 8474 $9.25 $18.50
93 2008 Ford F-250 8801 $14.00 $28.00
94 2000 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
95 2007 Workhorse Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
96 1999 Chevrolet Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
97 2008 Ford F450 8805 $30.00 $60.00
98 2007 Sterling Jet Truck 8721, 8713 $66.50 $133.00 (2,3)
100 2010 Bucket Truck 8700, 8486 $37.75 $75.50 (2)
102 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
104 2004 Ford Taurus (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
105 2008 Ford Escape (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
106 2007 International Vactor 8784, 8713 $66.50 $133.00 (2,3)
119 1999 Ford Taurus (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
120 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
Packet Page 48 of 76
Intergovernmental Contractor
UNIT #DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates
121 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
122 2001 Cevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
123 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
124 2002 Air Compressor 8013 $20.00 $40.00
125 2002 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
126 2002 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
127 2002 Chevrolet Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
128 2002 F-250 Ford 8802 $20.00 $40.00
129 2002 Ford Flatbed F-450 8700 $20.00 $40.00
130 2002 Crack Sealer $30.00 $60.00
131 2003 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
132 2003 Ford Flatbed F-450 8802 $20.00 $40.00
133 2003 Isuzu Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
134 Ford Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
135 2004 Ford Taurus 8070 $0.50 $1.00
136 2004 Ford F-250 8020 $20.00 $40.00
137 2004 Air Compressor 8013 $20.00 $40.00
138 2007 Elgin (Sterling SC8000) Street Sweeper 8157 $59.00 $118.00
140 2007 Zipper Asphalt Grinder 8635 $24.75 $49.50
M-16 RESCUE BOAT 30 ft.8142 $65.00 $130.00
EPD Patrolling Car (charged per mile)8072 $0.60 $1.20
EPD Stationary Car With Engine Running 8073 $16.25 $32.50
495 1999 GMC Sonoma Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
Packet Page 49 of 76
AM-3715 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilman Steve Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Cash Flow/Working Capital
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilman Bernheim proposes that the City begin to report its financial statements on a cash flow basis rather than on a
"working capital" basis. The Mayor has agreed to adopt this proposal and has promised in the past to adopt it for financial
reports prepared in 2011. Councilman Bernheim requests an update from the Mayor on this project.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 02:20 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/03/2011 10:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 50 of 76
AM-3716 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilman Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Re-formatting City Financial Reports.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilman Bernheim proposes that the City re-format its monthly, quarterly, and annual reports. Formats from other
Washington cities will be presented. The Mayor is requested to identify any single Washington City submitting financial
reports on a "working capital" basis. Items that would be valuable for the City Council and the public to see in the City's
reports will be identified and discussed. A report from the Mayor regarding the special committee assigned to prepare the
re-formatted reports is requested.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 02:20 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/03/2011 10:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 51 of 76
AM-3717 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilman Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Revisions to Financial Reporting Ordinance.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilman Bernheim proposes revisions to the City's Financial Reporting ordinance, ECC 3.04. His suggested revisions are
attached.
Attachment 1: Email from Councilman Bernheim
Attachment 2: Financial Reporting Revisions
Attachment 3: Ordinance 3789
Attachment 4: Minutes from April 6, 2010 Council Meeting
Attachment 5: Memo from Scott Snyder, City Attorney dated March 31, 2010
Attachments
Attach 1 - Bernheim e-mail
Attach 2- Financial Report Revisions
Attach 3 - Ord 3789
Attach 4 - 4-6-2010 Council Minutes
Attach 5 - Memo from City Attorney
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 02:19 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/03/2011 10:30 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 52 of 76
Packet Page 53 of 76
Chapter 3.04
FINANCIAL REPORTING
Sections:
3.04.010 Financial reporting.
3.04.020 Quarterly reports.
3.04.040 030 Quarterly summaries.
3.04.030 040 Monthly updates.
3.04.050 Comprehensive annual financial report.
3.04.010 Financial reporting.
The city’s financial system shall assure that the status and transactions of each account in a
relationship to budget authority is clear. The form of the city’s financial reporting system is
established by the State Auditor and the city shall comply in all respects with state financial
reporting requirements. [Ord. 3789 § 1, 2010].
3.04.020 Quarterly reports.
The mayor and staff shall provide quarterly reports within thirty (30) days of quarter’s end
3.04.040 030 Quarterly summaries.
showing the expenditures and liabilities against each separate budget appropriation incurred
during the preceding reporting period together with the unexpended balance of each
appropriation. The report shall also show the receipts from all sources. [Ord. 3789 § 1, 2010].
Quarterly summaries shall be provided within a minimum of thirty (30) days of quarter-end.
Reports should include including
3.04.030 040 Monthly updates.
an: overview, major revenue projections, general revenue
detail, expenditure summary, expenditure detail by fund and expenditure detail by department. A
narrative discussing the trends, the drivers and assumptions should be included and after finance
committee review, these statements will be made available on the website under finance. [Ord.
3789 § 1, 2010].
The city council requests that the staff Mayor shall provide monthly revenue reports to the city
council’s finance committee monthly revenue reports. At a minimum, t The following funds are
requested to shall be provided: REET 1 and 2, sales and use tax, gas utility tax, telephone utility
tax, electric utility tax, any other taxes/fees received, license and permit income;
intergovernmental transfers, inter-fund transfers, fees for service; and fines. A monthly general
fund analysis of report comparing revenue budget to actual and expenditure budget to actual with
the net balance is requested shall be provided. After review by the finance committee, these
reports will be available on the city’s website under the finance area. All proposed budget
amendments or council-approved changes that will be included in future budget amendments are
requested to be included in the monthly report. Graphs and trend analysis are requested to shall
be integrated into a the report to provide trend analyses. [Ord. 3789 § 1, 2010].
Packet Page 54 of 76
3.04.050 Comprehensive annual financial report.
The comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shall be timely and meet or exceed
professional industry standards. A preliminary CAFR summary will be required by the first month
subsequent to the first quarter.
A. Revenues and expenditures for the general fund and all operating funds shall be projected for
the ensuing biennium budget year.
B. The city’s budget and biennial budget documents shall provide for comparison with prior years.
[Ord. 3789 § 1, 2010].
Biennium b Budget amendments shall be clearly labeled
identifying the report and date and if any ordinance requires city council deliberations, those items
shall be highlighted.
Packet Page 55 of 76
Packet Page 56 of 76
Packet Page 57 of 76
Packet Page 58 of 76
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 7
basis and to schedule a public hearing within the next 1-2 months. He explained the options before the
Council were to adopt the interim ordinance tonight and have these two provisions in place for a six
month period pending a public hearing and further discussion/action. If no further action was taken, the
provisions would expire in six months. The other option was not to adopt the interim ordinance and set a
public hearing prior to any further action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3787, ALTERNATIVE 1 IN THE COUNCIL
PACKET.
Mr. Snyder clarified PRD’s allow concentrated density not enhanced density. He explained Council
President Bernheim’s direction to the City Attorney’s office was to prepare an ordinance for public
hearing; it was unclear whether the intent was a public hearing tonight or on a future date. The ordinances
provide both options. Council President Bernheim advised a public hearing would be scheduled for a
future date. Mr. Snyder advised the date of the public hearing was not included in the ordinance; a date
within 60 days should be inserted.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3787 – AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE
OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
5C. FISCAL POLICIES (Formerly Agenda Item 12)
Councilmember Buckshnis explained at the Council retreat she was asked to prepare fiscal policies. After
conducting a great deal of research of other cities’ fiscal policies, and discussion with Finance Director
Lorenzo Hines and Councilmember Plunkett she drafted fiscal policies and resolution. After reviewing
the policies, City Attorney Scott Snyder drafted an alternate resolution as well as an ordinance. She
identified sections of her proposed fiscal policies that Mr. Snyder separated into a resolution and an
ordinance and his addition of a section that states the forms and information must be compliant with the
requirements established by the State Auditor. She relayed the conversation Mr. Hines and she had
regarding modified accrual accounting and full accrual accounting; modified accrual accounting is
typically used in municipalities because there is not a net worth or income statement.
She reviewed the changes that would occur when the policies were adopted:
Improved report labeling. She displayed City of Redmond’s reports that are labeled Monthly All
Recap Funds, the month, biennium budget. By comparison, Edmonds’ reports are labeled
Example B.
Including financial information on the City’s website. She displayed financial information
available on the City of Lake Oswego’s website that included budget projections and details that
help the citizens understand the city’s financial condition. The goal will be to provide information
in the finance section of the City’s website.
Providing the fund flow of the General Fund.
Improved narrative of trends and indicators. She displayed the City of Des Moines quarterly
report that provides explanation of revenue and expenses. This provides a framework to support
the City’s financials.
She summarized providing this information on the City’s website would allow citizens to become more
familiar with the City’s financial condition.
Packet Page 59 of 76
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 8
Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Buckshnis’ efforts to improve the
transparency of the City’s financial policies. He pointed out the City did not have a Finance Director for
several months which increased the difficulty in understanding the City’s current finances.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what the financial policies would provide the Council and citizens that did
not currently exist. Councilmember Buckshnis responded one of the primary items is the cashflow in the
General Fund. Another is adding the information to the City’s website. She anticipated a levy would be
necessary; in order for a levy to be successful, it will be important for the Council to provide a roadmap
for citizens to educate them regarding the City’s financial condition.
Councilmember Plunkett commented some Councilmembers would like to have certain conditions met
before a levy is place on the ballot. He referred to his interest in labor negotiations and changing the
City’s form of government to Council-Manager. He recognized Councilmember Buckshnis’ focus has
been on the City’s financial policies. He observed Councilmember Buckshnis would be more comfortable
with a levy with improved transparency of the City fiscal policies. Councilmember Buckshnis responded
she envisioned a levy will be needed in the future but until she had a better understanding of the City’s
financial situation and assumptions, she was unable to comment. The fiscal policies are a roadmap to
assist citizens in understanding the City’s financial condition.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why a resolution and an ordinance were necessary. City Attorney Scott
Snyder referred to his memo, summarizing the Council had certain defined budgetary authority. The
powers the Council has under State statute are specified in the ordinance. For example, the Council could
by ordinance define when reports would be provided; under State statute it can be no less than quarterly.
Councilmember Buckshnis has summarized what the City’s financial reporting should look like in a
citizen/user-friendly format; those policies are contained in the resolution. Mr. Snyder clarified the
Council could not require the Finance Director to provide monthly accounting but the Council could
request it. The items the Council does not have the authority to require are contained in the resolution as
requests or standards.
Council President Bernheim clarified the recommended action was approval of Attachments 6, the
resolution prepared by the City Attorney and Attachment 7, the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3789, ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.04,
FINANCIAL REPORTING, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1226, ADOPTING A FINANCIAL POLICY. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5D. PRESENTATION ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
Councilmember Plunkett questioned why this was added to the agenda at the last minute and why no
information was provided to the Council. Council President Bernheim answered it was added to the
agenda at Councilmember Wilson’s request to introduce the topic of land acquisition as it relates to
economic development.
Councilmember Wilson displayed a PowerPoint presentation entitled The Future of Edmonds Downtown
Activity Center. He explained three weeks ago, the Council directed Council President Bernheim,
Councilmember Buckshnis and him as a committee to review possible land acquisition. A meeting was
held on March 25 that included Council President Bernheim, Councilmember Buckshnis and him,
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Planning Manager Rob Chave,
Packet Page 60 of 76
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 9
Mayor Haakenson, two Port Commissioners and the Port’s Executive Director, and representatives of the
State. The intent was to get as many of the parties who represent the public and are interested in the
Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, the area from the Port on the south to the Skipper’s property on
the north, together around a table. This same presentation was provided at that meeting.
The PowerPoint is being presented to the Council tonight to kickoff an expedited community visioning
process that could reach a conclusion by yearend regarding what the waterfront area could look like as
well as meet the Economic Development Commission’s recommendation for a community visioning
process. The presentation was being made tonight in response to a public records request and a suggestion
that secret meetings were being conducted. Rather than have misinformation circulating, it was
determined it would be appropriate to present this information tonight.
Councilmember Wilson clarified this was not his presentation, it was not the committee’s presentation, it
was an attempt to compile all the information that has been heard in the community. There is no political
agenda, the intent is a fair and open conversation.
Councilmember Wilson explained the presentation addressed four topics:
Assumptions: Interests and goals
Current “state of play”
Future: Thought Exercise or hypothetical
Bottom line
Councilmember Wilson identified the properties under discussion today: Skippers, DOT parking lot and
Harbor Square, recognizing success with those three could lead to future discussion of the Safeway,
Senior Center, Sound Transit, DOT parking at Port and lower Unocal properties. He explained there were
willing players with regard to the three properties (Skippers, DOT parking lot and Harbor Square).
Councilmember Wilson identified the interests and goals of the parties who participated in the meeting:
City of Edmonds
o Do no harm – make sure something very bad doesn’t happen at Skippers or other properties
o Ideal – an engaging public space
Doorway to Edmonds from ferry
An integration of downtown to the Port area
o Common sense , innovative, frugal
Port of Edmonds
o Financial – make Harbor Square increasingly viable
Purchase of land and buildings expensive
Limited occupancy depresses Port budget activities
o Vision – create a vibrant waterfront
Leave a lasting legacy
A new element of the Edmonds community
o Economic development – be a catalyst and driver of economic activity for the community
Department of Transportation/Washington State Ferries
o Add to the safety of ferry passengers
Fund the creation of a pedestrian overpass
Not directly tied to economic development
o Take advantage of situations which offer worthy return on investment like the Edmonds
facility does
Councilmember Wilson reviewed the current state of play for each property:
Packet Page 61 of 76
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 10
Skippers
o Owned by the bank
o Offer made and declined for $1 million
o Many interested developers, including various Councilmember and others
Talk about a visioning exercise by City and citizens
Finding the resources is a challenge
WSDOT Property
o Moving toward an exchange for a pedestrian overpass
Deadline for engagement appears to be April 15
Appears to be on a very ambitious and aggressive timeline
Harbor Square
o Interest by Port of Edmonds to bring a redevelopment proposal to the City
o Discussion is around increasing heights to allow for five stories on the property
o Vacancies on site and state of buildings is a significant drain on Port resources
McCaw Foundation
o Invest in project which makes sense from a social impact perspective as well as a financial
return perspective
Project must serve a social good
Money is not the whole reason projects take place
o Committed to northwest communities
Councilmember Wilson reviewed a “thought exercise,” assuring it was not a proposal, it was a purely
hypothetical “what if.” Assumptions in the thought exercise include:
We should work together where we can
o Lot of interested parties
o Sum is greater than the component parts
A little complicated but not really
o Public-private partnerships sometimes take a little extra work
o Tries to keep everyone at the table
Steps in the thought exercise include:
Port of Edmonds wins contract to build pedestrian overpass
o Gets DOT property in exchange upon completion
o No immediate cost
o Timeline: immediate
Proposal includes overpass to connect with Skippers property
Also includes a southerly connector
Port of Edmonds signs option to purchase Skippers property
o Timeline: immediate
o Immediate cost: minimal
Likely through a bank financing mechanism
Includes key commitment from City leaders on future
Port of Edmonds, City Council initiate a visioning process for three parcels (Harbor Square,
Skippers and DOT)
o Process includes citizens, Sound Transit and Community Transit
o Timeline: definite end date of August/September
o Cost: $40,000-$100,000, possibly split between the City, Port and McCaw
May be value in having philanthropic “glue”
Models include the levy work group, Group of 33
Three Council representatives commit to:
o Willingness to go to 5 stories at Harbor Square
Packet Page 62 of 76
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 11
o Willingness to go to 38 feet at the DOT site
o Must be within the right context, package, vision
o Not a blank check
o Return on investment driven by social interest rather than purely financial
Council goes to voters with a levy in August
o City’s top priority is operational revenue stability
o Should not make a major acquisition of property before levy revenues are secured
Mixed message to the public and staff
Council threaten City’s primary concern of financial stability
Following a successful levy, City Council uses councilmatic bonds to purchase Skippers property
(possibly DOT too) from the Port
o Eliminates Port’s liability with bank
o City’s commitment allows initial flexible financing between bank and Port
Takes property off market but does not hinder levy campaign
Requires a good faith effort and engagement by all parties
Includes commitment from three Council representatives to purchase from bank
Vision process concludes in the fall
o Integrated development of Skippers and DOT properties and Harbor Square
o Moves Community Transit bus outflow back to James (Councilmember Wilson displayed
maps to illustrate this and the next point)
Makes James a hub for bus traffic in and out
Reduces asphalt and car traffic at Main Street
o Significantly public utility of space at Main and Sunset
Connects foot traffic from ferry to downtown
Draws foot traffic to the DOT parcel
Rezone and Developer Agreement move through the Council
o Begin in late fall and conclude by end of the year
o Includes updated agreements with Community Transit/Sound Transit as needed
o Includes changes to James Street as needed
Port issues RFP for developer
o Rebuild Harbor Square, DOT/Skippers in exchange for compensation
Maybe cash
Could be condominiums/real estate such as 5th floor at Harbor Square, building or area at
DOT
o Work to begin during second quarter of 2012
o Includes pedestrian overpass for ferry
Councilmember Wilson reviewed the bottom line of the above thought exercise:
City of Edmonds
o Controls shape of Skippers/DOT development
Owns land at Skippers and possibly DOT
Ensures a public utility of Skippers that integrates with the DOT property, ferry
pedestrian bridge
o Gets 1-2 new public spaces/buildings
Little to no financial liability to develop parcels
Community vision implemented
o Secures interest in site without threatening viability of an operations levy
WSF/DOT
o Gets pedestrian overpass
Integrates into building on east side of tracks
Not just a landing to street
Packet Page 63 of 76
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 12
o Gets two pathways for foot traffic
One path to Skippers property
One bridge southward toward the Sound Transit/Community Transit connection
o No additional cost
Port of Edmonds
o Redevelopment of Harbor Square up to five stories
Once rezoned by City, immediate multimillion dollar increase to assets on balance sheet
Gets predictability, commitments for projects where non would otherwise exist
o Project that integrates into northerly parcels
Councilmember Wilson summarized this thought exercise was one way to reach a community vision, the
City implements the vision and the public entities (State, Port and City) come together perhaps with a
philanthropic organization. He assured the intent of this thought exercise was to begin a conversation that
may lead the community forward.
Councilmember Plunkett asked who set up the meeting between the Councilmembers, staff, the Port and
the State. Council President Bernheim responded Councilmember Wilson had. Councilmember Plunkett
referred to Councilmember Wilson’s comment regarding the intent to get public representatives around a
table, pointing out meetings such as this needed to be public. Council President Bernheim explained
Councilmembers Wilson and Buckshnis and he had been delegated by the Council to explore options and
were using their discretion in how they explored the options. Other meetings have been held with citizens,
residents, experts, and others in an effort to gather ideas with the goal of presenting to the public in the
future. He assured Councilmember Plunkett’s comments would be considered by the committee but they
did not intend to have all their discussions announced as public meetings. He assured no decisions were
being made in any of the committee’s meetings. The committee plans to provide the Council and the
public periodic updates on the information they gather.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the meeting did not violate the Open Public Meetings Act,
however, he was uncomfortable with the appearance of a private meeting between three Councilmembers,
City staff, Port Commissioners and DOT. He suggested future meetings be open to the public and
questioned why the same discussion could not occur in a public meeting that occurred in a private
meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the meeting was an informative gathering. She did not necessarily
agree with the information Councilmember Wilson provided but agreed with the spirit in which the
information was provided, an opportunity to think outside the box. For example, she did not support
placing a levy on the ballot in August until the City’s financials were reformed. The meeting was intended
to be fact-finding and Councilmember Wilson’s presentation was thought-provoking and opened up
discussion.
Councilmember Peterson recalled the Council’s objective of appointing three Councilmembers to a
committee was to present the Council with ideas. He was impressed that three Councilmember were able
to get the major players at the table at this early stage. No decisions were made, only ideas were
discussed. He recalled the Economic Development Commission and the public have encouraged the
Council to be bold; this was a bold step. Although he did not agree with the presentation in its entirety, he
agreed with the intent to get a conversation started and to involve the other parties including the Port,
DOT and citizens. He highlighted the suggestion for the City, Port, and perhaps the McCaw foundation
and other citizen groups to contribute to funding a professional visioning process, noting if the elected
officials and civic organizations led that process, it would be community driven instead of development
driven.
Packet Page 64 of 76
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 13
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her appreciation for the presentation, commenting she had no
problem with the three Councilmembers meeting with the Port and DOT. She was uncomfortable the
presentation appeared to be from the three Councilmembers but this discussion revealed there was not
consensus on the ideas.
Councilmember Wilson clarified none of the three Councilmembers agreed with all the material in the
presentation. The presentation was not a proposal; it was to collect what has been heard in the community
and begin working through it toward building a framework for a solution. He acknowledged the concepts
in the presentation may be politically uncomfortable, recognizing heights were a sensitive issue. He
supported talking about all possibilities particularly in the current climate where there is time, where there
is a group of citizens, the Economic Development Commission, interested in moving forward. He assured
this was the first Council meeting where this presentation could have been provided since the meeting. He
explained the reason some meetings were held in private was to respect the desire of some other parties
not to have everything they said be public. He envisioned members of the Council, Port and/or DOT may
behave differently in a public meeting. He urged the Council not to sidetrack the goodwill put forth by the
three Councilmembers with a quarrel over process.
Councilmember Plunkett requested the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the Council.
Council President Bernheim assured it would. Councilmember Plunkett commented he would be the first
one to sidetrack this process if it was not conducted in public. He did not support the idea that the Port
Commissioners or DOT representatives were uncomfortable speaking in public.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Wilson’s comment that the presentation
collected what had been heard in the community however it appeared only to contain data from DOT, the
Port and Council. The community needs to be represented in this process, for example the Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, as development of that area would greatly impact the Marsh. She emphasized the City
consists of more than just the downtown corridor, there is Perrinville, Firdale Village, Ballinger, Aurora,
etc.; everyone needs to be involved.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, viewed Councilmember Wilson’s presentation as a preemptive strike. She
recalled two years ago the Council paused its discussion regarding whether to acquire the Skippers/
Safeway property to allow a willing partner, a private owner, to offer to participate. No offers have been
made by the private sector in those two years. She recalled the owner of the Safeway property was
interested in swapping open space for a height increase to 75 feet and has said he is not interested in
developing the property until the height limit is increased. The Skippers owner at that time was willing to
construct a green building for a height increase to 6 stories. Recently WSF expressed their willingness to
swap their parking lot for a pedestrian bridge. A potential builder commented at the WSF work meeting
that due to political dynamics a project was not feasible because the value of the land was not sufficient
under current zoning height limits. The market considers the Skippers property worthless at this time
unless the height limit is increased. She noted two years ago the residents requested the Council allow the
public the opportunity to say whether they wanted to purchase the property for public use. She
summarized tonight’s presentation and discussion was simply to evade a discussion regarding placing a
measure on the ballot to purchase the property. She suggested that item be struck from the minutes,
finding it highly improper as it was not on the agenda and no public notice had been provided. She
suggested the Council review the minutes of March 25, April 1, May 22, June 3 and August 5, 2008
where this subject has been discussed previously.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the Highway 99 task force appeared to have correctly identified the
problem, that Edmonds citizens spend their money in Lynnwood and Shoreline but misidentified the
solution as developing commercial property with mixed use transited oriented development. She
Packet Page 65 of 76
{WSS779285.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
ATTACHMENT 5
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 31, 2010
TO: Lorenzo Hines, Jr., Finance Director
City of Edmonds
Diane Buckshnis, City Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, City Councilmember
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: City Financial Policies
You have asked me to review and comment on new City Council financial policies preparatory
to their adoption by resolution or ordinance. My comments are intended to assist Ms. Buckshnis
and the Finance Committee in accomplishing their goals.
State Law Structure
The City Council’s ability to adopt financial policies is constrained by the provisions of Title
35A setting forth the City’s budget procedures. It is important to note that the form of the City’s
financial documents and accounting systems is dictated by state law and the State Auditor. RCW
35A.34.190 regarding accounting forms for biennial budget cities states:
The State Auditor is empowered to make and install the forms and
classifications required by this chapter to define what expenditures
are chargeable to each budget class and to establish the accounting
and cost systems necessary to secure accurate budget information.
[Emphasis added] See RCW 35A.33.110 containing similar provisions regarding annual budget
cities.
Similarly, RCW 35A.34.060, RCW 35A.34.030, RCW 35A.33.040, RCW 35A.33.110 all
require that the City’s forms be “prepared in accordance with the requirements and classification
established by the State Auditor.” RCW 35A.33.030. The State Auditor’s oversight is also
Packet Page 66 of 76
Lorenzo Hines, Jr., Finance Director
March 31, 2010
Page 2
{WSS779285.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
reinforced by the requirement that complete copies of the City’s biennial budget be transferred to
the State Auditor upon adoption. RCW 35A.34.120. The State Auditor performs annual audits
of the City’s financial reporting.
The City Council is granted power in a number of specific situations. While the statutory
structure generally authorizes the Mayor to transfer appropriations within a fund (as in General
Fund, Utilities Fund), the City Council may impose regulations regarding such transfers by
ordinance. RCW 35A.34.190 (3). The Council also has the responsibility to approve warrants
for payment.
Finally, please note that the Council may also require by ordinance “not less than quarterly”:
… a report showing the expenditures and liabilities against each
separate budget appropriation incurred during the preceding
reporting period together with the unexpended balance of each
appropriation. The report shall also show the receipts from all
sources.
RCW 35A.34.240.
With that background mind, I offer the following comments:
1. Establishment of “Rules and Procedure.” As noted, the form and content of City
financial reporting is established by the State Auditor and is not subject to amendment by the
City Council. To the extent that the Council’s financial management policies track the Auditor’s
requirements, they serve as good public information. I suggest that the following language be
added:
The form and content of City financial reporting documents and
financial records is established by the State Auditor. These
policies shall be interpreted to comply with the requirements
established by the State Auditor, and in the event of conflict, the
State Auditor’s requirements shall control.
2. Accounting Records and Reports. As noted the City Council’s ability to establish rules
and regulations is limited to three areas. The City Council can establish regulations on the
ability of the Mayor to transfer appropriations within funds, can establish procedures for warrant
approval, and can specify the period (not less than quarterly) on which it receives status reports
regarding the expenditures, liabilities and receipts of the City. The form of the report will be
determined by the State Auditor.
Packet Page 67 of 76
Lorenzo Hines, Jr., Finance Director
March 31, 2010
Page 3
{WSS779285.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
I suggest that we work with City Councilmember Buckshnis to accomplish her goals. A
significant portion of the proposed policies relates to reports to be received by the City’s Finance
Committee. The City Council has the ability to require quarterly reporting. Therefore, much of
what
Ms. Buckshnis is proposing in Section 3, financial reporting of the accounting records and report
section, is an appropriate exercise of the Council’s authority under RCW 35A.34.240 but needs
to be limited to quarterly updates. A number of references to “budget amendments” are out of
sync with the statutory structure. Budget amendments are done by the Council on a mid-year
and year end basis throughout the biennial budget. RCW 35A.34.130. This requires formality
(publication of notice and public hearing) and shall occur no sooner than eight months after the
start nor later than the conclusion of the first year of the biennium. Other amendments can be
undertaken on a super majority vote as emergency approvals. (RCW 35A.34.140) My read is
that the Councilmember intends to refer to matters brought to the City Council as budget
deviations during the course of a budget year, which are held for budget amendment on a
periodic basis. If that is the Councilmember’s desire, the language could be clearer.
The portion of the policies relating to City Council direction for quarterly status reports should
be adopted by ordinance. The City Council can also request that:
1) The Mayor make the information available on the web site -- the reports will be public
documents subject to release and are certainly appropriate for posting on the web site. The City
Council also has the option of having the work done by a contract or its counsel assistant (if it
wishes to direct rather than request);
2) The staff provide more frequent reports (monthly) to the committee.
CONCLUSION
The policies combine a restatement of accounting principles that are established by the State
Auditor and an exercise of City Council authority to direct financial status updates. I suggest
that the document be divided into two parts. One would be a restatement or summary of policies
established by City Council resolution, which acknowledges the ultimate supremacy of the
accounting standards and forms established by the State Auditor. The other would primarily
contain the material contained in the Section III Financial Reporting and should be adopted by
ordinance. The ordinance would constitute an exercise of the City Council’s authority under
RCW 35A.24.240 but must be limited to quarterly reporting.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these proposed policies. I look
forward to working with Ms. Buckshnis and you to accomplish the Finance Committee’s goals.
WSS/gjz
Packet Page 68 of 76
AM-3718 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilman Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Timeliness of Financial Reporting and Compliance with City Code.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilman Bernheim proposes to discuss the timeliness of the City's financial reporting. As of February 1, 2011, the City was
in violation of ECC 3.04.040: "Quarterly summaries shall be provided within a minimum of 30 days of quarter-end."
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 02:19 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/03/2011 10:47 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 69 of 76
AM-3726 Item #: 2. H.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
2010 Fourth Quarter Budget Update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
This report will either be emailed prior to the meeting or provided at the committee meeting.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/03/2011 05:27 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 02/03/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 70 of 76
AM-3724 Item #: 3. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 02/08/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Gerry Gannon Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Committee:Public Safety Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Camping Ordinance.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve Camping Ordinance for the consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The police department is requesting that Council approve this new ordinance to Chapter 5 to effectively deal with camping in
the city parks, public areas, and those individuals that are living out of their vehicles. Recently the department dealt with an
individual living out of his vehicle. The behavior exhibited by this person caused a safety concern with several of the local
residents. In addition he was causing a public nuisance and health risk in the neighborhood where he was parked by using the
neighborhood as a public rest room. This ordinance will provide police the ability to deal with make-shift camps found
throughout the city including parks, public areas, and the individuals living in cars. Similar ordinances are currently in place in
Everett and Lynnwood and have been effective dealing with situations we recently had.
Rich Lindsey of the Parks Department reviewed the ordinance and felt it is a benefit to the City and maintain our parks as a
safe place for our residents.
The ordinance has been approved as to form by Bio Park of our City Attorney’s office.
Attachments
Camping Ordinance
Signature pages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/04/2011 12:55 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/04/2011 01:01 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 02/03/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2011
Packet Page 71 of 76
{BFP832391.DOC;1\00006.900160\ }
Chapter 5.70
CAMPING
Sections:
5.70.010 Unlawful camping.
5.70.020 Storage of personal property in public places.
5.70.030 Definitions.
5.70.040 Penalty for violations.
5.70.050 Parked recreational vehicles exempt.
5.70.010 Unlawful camping.
It shall be unlawful for any person to camp in the following areas, except as otherwise provided
by ordinance or as authorized pursuant to permits issued by the City:
A. Any park;
B. Any street;
C. Any publicly owned parking lot or publicly owned area, improved or unimproved.
5.70.020 Storage of personal property in public places.
It shall be unlawful for any person to store personal property, including camp facilities and camp
paraphernalia, in the following areas, except as otherwise provided by ordinance or as authorized
pursuant to permits issued by the City:
A. Any park;
B. Any street; or
C. Any publicly owned parking lot or publicly owned area, improved or unimproved.
5.70.030 Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
A. “Camp” means to pitch, use, or occupy camp facilities for the purposes of habitation, as
evidenced by the use of camp paraphernalia.
B. “Camp facilities” include, but are not limited to, tents, huts, temporary shelters, or vehicles
if said vehicle is being used as a temporary living quarters.
C. “Camp paraphernalia” includes, but is not limited to, tarpaulins, cots, beds, sleeping bags,
blankets, mattresses, hammocks or cooking facilities or equipment.
D. “Park” means the same as defined in ECDC 21.80.005.
Packet Page 72 of 76
{BFP832391.DOC;1\00006.900160\ }
E. “Store” means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, to
place or leave in a location.
F. “Street” means any highway, lane, road, street, right-of-way, boulevard, alley, and every
way or place in Edmonds open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel.
5.70.040 Penalty for violations.
Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is a misdemeanor, and shall be subject to
penalties as provided in ECC 5.50.020.
5.70.050 Parked recreational vehicles exempt.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to recreational vehicles parked on any street, or in
any publicly owned parking lot or publicly owned area, improved or unimproved, if said
recreational vehicle is not at that time being used as temporary living quarters. For purposes of
this chapter, “recreational vehicle” means a travel trailer, motor home, truck camper, or camping
trailer that is primarily designed and used as temporary living quarters, is either self-propelled or
mounted on or drawn by another vehicle, is transient, is not occupied as a primary residence, and
is not immobilized or permanently affixed to a mobile home lot.
Packet Page 73 of 76
{BFP832459.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } - 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 5.70 ECC
CONCERNING CAMPING ON PUBLIC PLACES AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds Police Department has been receiving
complaints concerning people living in their cars that are parked on public property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds finds that it is for the best
interest of the public to regulate camping on publicly owned property NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adopted
Section 2.
. A new Chapter 5.70 ECC is hereby adopted to read as set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
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
Packet Page 74 of 76
{BFP832459.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } - 2 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY
CITY ATTORNEY, W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 75 of 76
{BFP832459.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } - 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 5.70 ECC
CONCERNING CAMPING ON PUBLIC PLACES 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 ________________,2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 76 of 76