2011.02.22 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
6:45 p.m. - Meeting with candidate for appointment to the Arts Commission.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-3758 Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of February 4 and 5, 2011.
C. AM-3759 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011.
D. AM-3760 Approval of claim checks #123915 through #124039 dated February 17, 2011 for
$336,867.66. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #50231 through #50258 for
the period February 1, 2011 through February 15, 2011 for $619,089.68.
E. AM-3750 Authorization to expend budgeted conference registration funds for Edmonds Arts
Commissioners.
F. AM-3757 Approval of 2011 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi.
3. (5 Minutes) Confirmation of appointment to the Arts Commission.
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
5. (45 Minutes) Update from the 2010-11 Citizen Levy Committee.
Packet Page 1 of 112
5. (45 Minutes)
AM-3751
Update from the 2010-11 Citizen Levy Committee.
6. (30 Minutes)
AM-3754
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. Public comment will be received on
this item.
7. (30 Minutes)
AM-3755
Final City Council deliberation on selection of City Attorney.
8. (15 Minutes)
AM-3752
Discussion regarding House Bill 1265, relating to land use planning in qualifying
unincorporated portions of urban growth areas; and amending RCW 36.70A.110.
9. (15 Minutes) Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
10. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 112
AM-3758 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of February 4 and 5, 2011.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
02-04 and 02-05-11 Draft City Council Retreat Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/17/2011 09:20 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 3 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
DRAFT MINUTES
February 4-5, 2011
The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 8:48 a.m. on Friday, February 4, 2011 in the Brackett
Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Friday, February 4
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 8:52 a.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Saturday February 5
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Saturday February 5
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
PUBLIC PRESENT
Friday, February 4
Peter Gibson, Council Student Representative
Darrol Haug
Harry Gatjens
Roger Hertrich
Phil Lovell
Jan Vance, Chamber of Commerce
Frank Yamamoto
Ron Wambolt
Don Hall
Christiana Johnson
Val Stevens
Al Rutledge
PUBLIC PRESENT
Saturday, February 5
Finis Tupper
Darrol Haug
Jan Vance
Roger Hertrich
Al Rutledge
Paul Anderson
STAFF PRESENT
Friday February 4
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Assistant
Kim Cole, Executive Assistant
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Saturday February 5
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Packet Page 4 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 2
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2010 – INTRODUCTION / RETREAT GOALS
Council President Peterson called the meeting to order at 8:48 a.m. He explained the retreat was intended to be
informal to begin a broad conversation regarding issues for 2011. Staff was asked to provide an overview of
their outlook for 2011, not budget details, but what they expected to get done with the available time, staff and
budget to ensure the Council and staff were on the same page. He summarized there was nothing specific to
accomplish at the retreat other than moving forward. He thanked Councilmembers for the input they provided.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS / DIRECTORS’ REPORTS
Mayor Cooper explained the following reports are the result of a recent staff retreat where he asked staff to
provide their priorities and then the group established a consensus of priorities.
Police
Police Chief Al Compaan described the following 2011 projects:
• PD and IT: New World/MDC/commercial wireless/SECTOR
• PD: Complete v1.1 of Policy Manual and post on website
• PD and HR: Civil Service testing – Corporal, Sergeant
• PD and HR: Medical leaves, L&I, fitness for duty, sick leave buy-back, new hire orientation
• PD, HR and Finance: Labor negotiations
• PD: Evidence Tech – Crime Scene Tech training
Chief Compaan responded to questions regarding labor relations, labor negotiations, DNA testing, and
opportunity to partner with other agencies on fingerprint examination.
Chief Compaan described the following projects that are needed but lack funding:
• In-car video ($100,000)
• Additional Police Services Assistant position
• Crime Analyst/Crime Prevention position ($125,000)
• Enhanced security of Public Safety Building parking lot ($100,000)
• P/T or contract latent fingerprint examiner
Chief Compaan responded to questions regarding vandalism and pedestrian safety in the Public Safety parking
lot, School District funding for a school resource officer, and discussions at Council Committee regarding
whether to pursue Woodway paying more for police services.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding to the polling questions whether voters would support $100,000
for in-car videos, a school resource officer and/or crime analyst/crime prevention.
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained she has been engaged in a look, listen and learn process
with staff, Councilmembers and citizens. She reviewed the following 2011 projects:
• City Park: Install new playground equipment ($210,000 funded from REET 2)
• Yost Pool: Re-plaster ($120,000)
• Old Mill Town Plaza ($40,000)
• Interurban Connection ($1.327 million, includes grants)
• Haines Wharf ($2.3 million – still negotiating cost overruns)
• SR99 Enhancement ($230,000) – considering combining two phases to save management costs
• Flower Poles – a goal to replace 10 poles in 2011
• Community Solar Project
Packet Page 5 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 3
• Budget/marketing/web presence/revenue enhancements
• Partnerships
• Grant opportunities
Ms. Hite described the following needed projects that lack funding:
• 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Planning ($75,000), grants have been secured for interpretive signage
• Dayton Street Plaza ($135,000). Ms. Hite recommended moving this to 2012 due to staffing
• Asphalt Issues at parks/City-owned facilities
• City Spray Park – needs a fund development campaign
Ms. Hite responded to questions and discussion ensued regarding additional funding needed for the Old Mill
Town Plaza, obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Frances Anderson Center before seeking
approval of the project from the City Council, determining whether installation of solar panels on the Frances
Anderson Center roof would invalidate the roof guarantee, Old Mill Town businesses’ concern with the
structure planned for the plaza and their desire to be involved in the design, the relationship between the design
of Old Mill Town Plaza and the Cultural Plan, quantifying the benefit to the City of the solar panels and
identifying an alternate site, seeking grants and other funding opportunities for the Edmonds Marsh, cost
overruns at Haines Wharf, project management, whether users of City facilities cover their costs, expanding the
availability of WiFi in areas near City facilities, interest in increasing height limits downtown up to 2 feet
exclusively to allow solar panels, and funding for a spray park.
Ms. Hite was asked to provide cost estimates for the 4th Avenue Corridor, asphalt repairs at parks and City
facilities and the spray park so that questions regarding support for those projects could be included in the
polling questions
Public Works
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained most staff members spend the majority of their time on
operating and maintenance; he was not proposing to change that. He identified 2011 projects/priorities:
Water
• Complete design, bidding and construction of both the 2010 and 2011 water main replacement programs
including 15,5000 feet of new mains (3 miles) and 250 new or replaced services - $3.8 million
• Complete the Alderwood Intertie and Yost Reservoir Improvement project - $520,000
Wastewater
• Lift Station improvement program – update/replace 12 of the City’s 14 wastewater pumping stations -
$3.55 million
• Design sewer main replacement on Alder, Beach Place, Dellwood and McAleer for construction in 2012
- $140,000
Stormwater
• Design and construct Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Flooding and Habitat Enhancement Project -
$522,000
• Lake Ballinger Forum projects – flood control – $50,000-$100,000
Transportation
• Begin design of Five Corners Roundabout – $150,000
• Design Main Street pedestrian lighting and streetscape improvements - $725,000 enhancement grant,
still seeking additional funding
• Design/ROW in 2011/2012 for 228th/Hwy 99 safety and access improvements - $310,000
• Bid and construction Interurban Trail improvements 244th to 228 - $1.327 million
• Bid and construct Hwy 99 International District lighting enhancement – $230,000
• Bid and construct Shell Valley winter weather access (safety) – $463,000
Additional Projects
Packet Page 6 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 4
• GFC Analysis for Utility connections/Road Rating Study/GIS functional expansion/Water/Sewer/Storm
conservation rate feasibility analysis/bicycle lanes and/or sharrow striping/route signage
• Senior Center Roof (reimbursed via grant)
He identified the following projects that lack funding:
• Street Funding – need to establish an ongoing source of revenue for street preservation (maintenance
paving) - $1.5 million/year
• Funds for Main Street Project enhanced scope development – undergrounding power, mid-block
pedestrian crossing, LID features, fiber optic expansion, electric vehicle charging stations, etc. –
$600,000
Mr. Williams responded to questions regarding use of TBD funds for operations and maintenance, whether
water main replacement includes full width overlay or patching, design of the Five Corners roundabout, and the
width and operation of the Shell Valley access road.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding to the polling questions whether voters would support
$150,000/year for overlays and to improve pedestrian/bicycle facilities on Sunset north of Main to Caspers
(need cost estimate).
Development Services
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton reviewed 2011 project/priorities:
• Define development services in terms that integrate sustainability into the department’s daily operations
• Code and Standards – rewrite in a fashion that reflects principles of sustainability, a clarity of purpose
and coherent path of implementation
• Developing Green – create an interdepartmental “Green Team” that will serve as an implementation tool
in moving operations and service delivery toward sustainable levels
• Implement Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Clifton reviewed citywide priorities:
• Council and Director’s retreats – focus on setting annual priorities and thereby serve as an initial step in
the strategic planning process
• Support strategic planning a neighborhood budgeting by priorities proposals.
Mr. Clifton identified needed projects that lack staffing levels:
• ECDC rewrite – No director to direct and implement overall process
Economic Development
Mr. Clifton reviewed department priorities:
• Development and implement economic development initiatives
• Complete Five Corners and Westgate Special District Planning effort
• Strategic Planning Effort
• Liaison to Port of Edmonds on Harbor Square Master Planning Effort
• Comcast Franchise Agreement (April 2010)
Mr. Clifton reviewed citywide priorities:
• Website update
• Develop a structural outline/framework along with the Levy Committee in order to create a levy
proposal by midyear 2011
Packet Page 7 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 5
• Recommendation: 1) explore budgeting by priorities or some version of this process, and 2) Council
and Director’s retreats focus on setting annual priorities which serve as a significant step in the strategic
planning process
The Council agreed to delay further Directors’ Reports until after the following reports:
REPORTS / Q & A FROM EDC, PORT, PLANNING BOARD, FIRE DISTRICT 1
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
EDC Chair Frank Yamamoto advised he will provide the Council an update regarding the EDC’s efforts at an
upcoming Council meeting. He relayed the ten commandments for economic development according to Dr.
Maury Forman, Director of Education and Training, Washington State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development:
1. Remember the Economic development Plan and keep it flexible
2. Fill the land with new value
3. Teach and train for a highly skilled, adaptable and creative work force
4. Continually assess existing markets
5. Invest in citizens and communities strategically
6. Encourage innovation
7. Recognize assets and build on them
8. Create transportation systems that ignite economic growth
9. Seek out global opportunities
10. Honor vibrant communicates that improve the quality of living
When checking the EDC’s work against these commandments, he found they were doing most of them. The
EDC is working on and improving the existing situation and encouraging businesses to locate in Edmonds. For
example, downtown Edmonds added seven new businesses this year. He commented businesses are locating
here due to the vitality, growth and potential for a successful business. This is the result of the EDC, Council
and staff.
The EDC plans to continue working on the original four areas – land use, technology, strategic plan and tourism
and are looking for new topics. The EDC is interested in green initiatives, tourism, utilizing and enhancing what
exists, taking advantage of the transportation network, seeking partnerships, and the Strategic Plan. He invited
the Council to provide input.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the EDC look into development agreements and investigate the impact of
a 4-story boutique hotel downtown, referring to a presentation provided to the EDC regarding development of
the post office property. Discussion followed regarding businesses that have left Edmonds, new businesses
locating in Edmonds, and improving the perception of parking downtown via the creation of satellite parking
lots.
Councilmembers suggested the EDC consider the creation of a parking map/signage and potential benefits of a
year-round Farmers Market due to transportation connections.
Port of Edmonds
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, provided several facts about the Port:
• The Port has a marina, dry stack storage, fuel dock, public launch, guest moorage and work yard
• Of 665 total slips, occupancy is 89%, most vacancies are seasonal and for small boats
• 280 dry storage slots are 78% occupied
• Over 3,000 vessels spent over 4,800 nights in guest moorage in 2010. This benefits the City because
they spend money in Edmonds.
Packet Page 8 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 6
• 78 local vendors participate and provide discounts and promotions in the Port’s Designation Edmonds
Program. The Port provides a van to shuttle boaters downtown.
• Marina budget for 2011 is $4.8 million
• The Port manages 50 leases. Property budget in 2011 is $2 million. Occupancy at Harbor Square has
increased to 75%
Last year the Port completed an economic feasibility study that established benchmarks to guide a Master
Planning process. The Port also completed phase 1 public outreach which was intended to engage the
community in understanding the opportunities and constraints that shape the future Master Plan. That public
outreach process was very successful. The Port is committed to creating a Master Plan for Harbor Square that
satisfies two principles, 1) has broad community support, and 2) it is economically feasible.
The Port has established a process for a phase 2 public outreach that will include further discussion of design
concepts. A Harbor Square Steering Committee has been established. He. He summarized the Port expects to
complete phase 2 by late March/early April following by an open house to provide a more detailed but not yet
final concept The desired outcome is a Harbor Square Redevelopment Master Plan concept that would be
approved by the Port Commission. The plan concept would then be submitted to the City for approval. He
recognized the Plan would ultimately require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which they hoped could
be accomplished in 2011.
The Port is also working with the Planning Department on Shoreline Master Program changes as well as with
Public Works to discuss a strategy to resolve flooding issues at the intersection of SR104 & Dayton. Mr.
Chesney responded to Council questions.
Planning Board
Council President Peterson advised he planned to schedule a joint Council/Planning Board meeting.
Phil Lovell, Planning Board Chair, referred to the Planning Board’s written 2010 report. He explained during
the past year when discussing proposals, the Planning Board has considered how their recommendations relate
to the economic and livability sustainability of the City. Their goal is to work with staff to ensure code
amendments, regulatory adjustments, etc. proceed smoothly.
The Planning Board held their annual retreat on February 2 and had consensus on items they will be working on
in 2011 as well as new items the Board may initiate regarding economic development, supporting the EDC and
sustainability.
Mr. Lovell highlighted areas and subjects in process and new/pending items for 2011 listed in the Planning
Board Report. Although the Planning Board is not currently involved in the UW Study of Five
Corners/Westgate or the Harbor Square Master Plan process, they are supportive of groups initiating changes to
encourage growth and development.
Mr. Lovell summarized the one area that needs improvement is communication. The Planning Board would like
to reinstitute regular meetings between the Planning Board leadership and the Mayor. He also recommended
scheduling at the City Council’s convenience a joint City Council/Planning Board meeting.
Council President Peterson declared a brief recess.
Fire District 1
Council President Peterson advised there was a meeting Monday, January 31 with representatives of
neighboring cities to discuss the creation of a Regional Fire Authority (RFA).
Packet Page 9 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 7
Fire District 1 Chief Ed Widdis provided a PowerPoint regarding the creation of a RFA or annexing into a Fire
District. He described:
• Differences between the formation of a RFA and annexation into a Fire District with regard to planning,
governance, and creation
• Creation of a RFA is approved by the majority vote of the entire area, annexation into the Fire District is
approved by a majority vote of both the City and the Fire District
• City versus Fire District revenue generation methods
• Benefit Charge
• Growth potential map of FD1
• Assessed value map of Fire Districts 1 and 7
• Assessed value map of Edmonds
• Assessed value map of FD1 Silver Lake Area
• FD1 cost of operations
• Edmonds contract cost of operations
• District taxation
• Registered voters and registered voter percentages in southwest Snohomish County by city and in FD1
• Population by city and FD1
• Population per square mile
• Assessed value by city and FD1
• Assessed value by square mile
• Assessed value per population
• Housing units by city and FD1
• Housing units per square mile
• Population per housing unit
• Total assessed value by housing unit
• 2011 new construction by city and FD1
• 2011 new construction percentage of assessed value by city and FD1
• Tax limitations on city, library district and fire district
• Tax limitations with a benefit charge
• Tax levy limitations without benefit charge by city
• Tax levy limitations with benefit charge by city
• Equivalent tax rate by city and FD1
• Fire District 1 rate compared to city property tax rate
• Current tax rate for Edmonds and FD1
• Total Edmonds Fire Department costs (contract, station maintenance/repair, SNOCOM/SERS)
• Edmonds total Fire Department costs funded by EMS levy and General Fund
• Fire only tax rate – Edmonds and FD1
• Fire only tax rate with benefit charge
• Property taxes generated by Edmonds and FD1
Chief Widdis responded to questions regarding the ability of the majority of voters in an area to approve the
creation of a RFA, participation in the RFA planning committee, required City Council approval to place
formation of a RFA on the ballot, benefit service charge, taxation limits, other areas that have formed a RFA,
other planning committees that are considering a RFA, how an area/city joins once a RFA is established, process
for annexing into FD1, impact on Edmonds property taxes if a RFA is approved or the City annexes into FD1.
Mayor Cooper described the RFA process. At the monthly mayors meeting, it was decided to move forward
with inviting all the cities and FD1 to appoint three representatives to the planning committee and begin the
planning process. At any time the City Council can say they no longer want to participate in the planning
Packet Page 10 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 8
committee or they could proceed to the end of the process and then decide they do not want to participate. The
planning committee plans to meet in March. He explained Kent had an intensive 2-year planning process prior
to placing the RFA on the ballot as well as a 6-month outreach/public education process before the vote
occurred. Because it is a 2-3 year process, the RFA discussions are not competing with the current discussions
regarding a levy. He acknowledged a RFA would result in a tax increase but the City would no longer be
spending General Fund money for fire protection and it would save the City’s budget approximately $3.2
million/year. He advised Councilmembers Wilson, Petso and he are participating on the RFA planning
committee.
Discussion continued regarding definition of a region (at least two jurisdictions with contiguous boundaries),
State law regarding formation of a RFA, guarantees that individual cities could request, equivalent tax rate of
jurisdictions, cities and districts interested in participating in the planning committee, ability to have an advisory
vote prior to the ballot measure, and FD1’s consideration of a contractual consolidation with FD7.
DIRECTORS’ REPORTS (Con’t)
City Clerk
As City Clerk Sandy Chase is on vacation, Mayor Cooper suggested Councilmembers review the information in
the PowerPoint slides, and direct any questions to Ms. Chase.
Human Resources
Human Resources Director Debi Humann explained the Human Resources Department consists of Human
Resources Assistant Mary Ann Hardie and herself. She briefly reviewed their backgrounds, education, and
certifications. She described the Human Resources Department’s responsibilities, summarizing she and Ms.
Hardie are involved in all aspects of Human Resources from hiring to resignation/retirement/termination.
Ms. Humann reviewed statistics since 2004 for L&I (workman’s compensation), Family Medical Leave, and
costs associated with the Disability Board (LEOFF 1). She emphasized the minimal staffing in Edmonds makes
it difficult for staff to get their work done; this is particularly challenging in Human Resources with only two
staff members. She provided a comparison of FTE to Human Resources staff in Edmonds and other cities.
Ms. Humann reviewed 2011 Work Priorities/Opportunities:
• Complete Hearing Examiner process
• Assist Council with City Attorney process
• Public Defender contract
• Update City job descriptions (WCIA mandate)
• Update City policies (WCIA mandate)
• Recruitment for Development Services Director
• Transition to new medical plans
• Compensation Consultant process
• Partner with PD on Corporal Assessment Center
• LEOFF 1 records issues
• Completion of union negotiations
• Create job descriptions for new positions and negotiate with unions
Ms. Humann reviewed 2011 projects that may not be completed:
• Citywide accident prevention plan (OSHA requirement)
• Website update
• Emergency Operations Committee (EOC)
Packet Page 11 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 9
Ms. Humann responded to questions regarding creation of a citywide accident prevention plan and potentially
assigning the Emergency Operations Plan to another department.
Finance & Information Services
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines reviewed 2011 priorities:
• Closing the 2010 fiscal year – due mid to late February 2011
• Preparation of the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement – due April 1, and May 27, 2011
• Preparation of the 2012 budget – due September 23, 2011
• Deployment of Office 2007 citywide
• Limited deployment of Windows 7 throughout the organization
Mr. Hines distributed an organization chart with each staff person’s responsibilities. With regard to projects in
need that lack funding, he advised there were none. Everything the Finance Department does is regulated or
mandated and a way must be found to complete all the projects despite limited resources.
Council President Peterson relayed that Mayor Cooper has formed a committee to review financial reporting
issues; they plan to meet within the next week.
The retreat was recessed for lunch from 12:22 p.m. to 1:34 p.m.
Mayor
Mayor Cooper explained the directors and he spent a day together to develop and review priorities that staff
presented as well as develop general priorities and a vision statement for 2011. The vision statement: Edmonds
delivers cost effective, highly responsive services that provide an enhanced quality of life within our community.
Mayor Cooper reviewed 2011 Administrative priorities:
Creating financial viability now that creates Sustainability for generations
• Begin the most effective budget for 2012 by planning for the process now.
• Ensure budget planning includes the highest possible level of community input. Redmond spent
approximately $200,000 on the change in their budget process. He plans to consider and implement
elements of that type of budget process without spending that kind of money such as holding
community meetings, form stakeholder groups to meet with directors, etc.
• Protect the taxpayer assets we currently have as resources for the future; including cash, property,
workers and infrastructure.
• Develop framework so that responsible voter-approved revenue proposals can be thoughtfully
considered by the community. The Levy Committee is getting close to providing a recommendation to
the Council and can expect a recommendation from Mayor and staff.
Communication that is positive, productive, transparent and frequent – begins with us
• Integrate communication that uses full spectrum of media and technology resources in order to reach the
most people. Person priority is to explore all media options and do ones that not cost $.
• Encourage positive communication between the Executive Branch, City Council, members of the
public, employees by modeling the ideal
• Ensure the finest representation of the needs and strengths of Edmonds to local, regional, state and
federal lawmakers. For example, Mountlake Terrace spends $30,000/year on a federal lobbyist and
receive far more direct appropriations.
• Fully integrate the community in the 2011 strategic planning process.
• Ensure a technology infrastructure that is safe, secure and protects the public’s information, while
enhancing efficiency of service delivery to the public.
The future of Edmonds starts with planning for the future today
• Establish a strategic plan that is geared toward implementation.
Packet Page 12 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 10
• Optimize the continued focus on citywide economic development in Edmonds – opportunities for
increased sales tax reduces the property tax burden.
• Ensure the highest level of emergency preparedness.
• Develop and implement a citywide energy conservation plan.
Mayor Cooper responded to questions regarding the goal to do more than the usual and typical ways of
gathering public input via meetings with stakeholders, and outreach to voters who do not attend Council
meetings.
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (REET) FUND INFORMATION
SETTING COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Council President Peterson referred to list of 2011 Council issues/priorities provided by Councilmembers. He
noted there were many great ideas; the Council will need to do more of the leg work than they have done in
previous years. The Council reviewed the list of 2011 Council Issues/Priorities and added issues/priorities
(shown in italics):
Environmental Initiatives
• Building Codes rewrites/green initiatives
o Identify incentives vs. mandates, barriers, etc.
• Renewable power purchase
• Tree Board
• Polystyrene
• Transportation (parking, address ADA issues, fix potholes, Complete Streets)
Levy
• Survey
• Levy Committee
• Timeline
• Options/alternatives
• Public involvement, engagement and education
• Transparency (website, government channel, press, community forums, etc.)
Downtown/Waterfront
• Street dining
• Parking (tourism, satellite parking)
• Downtown hotel
• Retail depth/ceiling height
• Main Street project (pilot project for wider sidewalks)
• Review zoning regulations applicable to Old Safeway property to make it more attractive to the
development community
o Drainage issues – effects on developable land? Will there be a need to acquire land to store
stormwater?
• Development agreements
Finances
• Financial Reports
• REET Allocation
• Borrowing policies
• Financial Policies
• Medical/benefit costs – Public Safety & Human Resources Council Committee to consider medical self-
insurance
Packet Page 13 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 11
Other
• Complete Streets
• Hwy 99/Medical Corridor
• Fiber
• Strategic Planning
• RFA – next steps
• Public input in a timely manner (website, government channel, social media?)
• Tourism (focused efforts, boutique hotel, parking, WiFi, partnerships, Farmers Market, sport
events/activities to bring people to town such as marathon or triathlon). How does the code effect
tourism related proposals?
• 311 (non emergency government information) – example: City of Portland
• Hwy 99/Swedish Edmonds/International District
• Woodway Police Contract – review prior to expiration
During the above identification of Council issues/priorities, CIO Carl Nelson described the update and launch of
the City’s website and there was discussion regarding the effectiveness of social media, Edmonds’ engaged
electorate, and the EDC Tourism Subgroup’s inventory of existing recreation assets and events and identifying
ways to build on those.
Council President Peterson declared a brief recess.
POLLING QUESTIONS FOR SURVEY MONKEY
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding polling questions regarding $125,000 for a Crime Analyst/Crime
Prevention, $100,000 for Police in-car video, $100,000 for enhanced security in the Public Safety parking lot
and funds for park improvements (staff to provide a cost estimate). Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed the
draft polling questions.
Discussion followed regarding the Edmonds Center for the Arts’ (ECA) capital shortfall, the ECA/PFD
governance structure, need for a more complete explanation of the questions, adding the rate of a B&O tax if
that question is included, adding a disclaimer that polling is not from the City Council, concern that responses
via Survey Monkey are not statistically valid, whether the purpose of the survey is to engage the public or to use
the results to make policy decisions, whether to spend the money on a scientific survey that will assist with
policy decisions, concern with the length of a survey, typically short online surveys, cost of a statistically valid
phone survey, preference to offer voters 2-3 levy options with dollar amounts, formulating levy options over the
next few months, concern the polling will not provide information from which the Council can reach a
conclusion, purpose of polling to engage the public and start a dialogue, the need to ascertain the Council’s
political will before engaging/educating the public, engaging the public via scheduling levy discussions on
Council agendas, and revenue provided by various per $1000 AV amounts.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the retreat at 3:47 p.m.)
Councilmember Wilson explained a levy of $0.25/$1000 AV generates approximately $1.6 million which would
provide a status quo budget for the next 4 years. Every additional $0.05/$1000 AV generates approximately
$300,000. He suggested the Council start with $0.25/$1000 AV and add amount for roads, parks, etc.
Discussion continued regarding levy amounts, timeline for placing a levy on the ballot, concern that division
among Council candidates would result in failure of a levy on the primary or general election ballot, timing of
the 2012 budget, frustration with continued Council discussion regarding a levy and no action, the time
necessary to build the public’s confidence and establish transparency, developing 2-3 options with the Citizen
Levy Committee’s (CLC) assistance, a targeted/specialized levy versus an operating levy, the need for
Packet Page 14 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 12
transparent financial reporting, the need to address the increased cost of benefits, financial projections, the need
to make cuts now if the Council does not plan to put a levy on the ballot, support for the “right” levy, concern a
targeted levy for street overlays would not provide funds for the General Fund, scheduling a regularly occurring
levy agenda item on Council agendas to vet options and the upcoming CLC report to the Council.
With regard to timing of any budget cuts, Mayor Cooper explained if a levy is not placed on the ballot or the
voters do not approve a levy in 2011 and a levy is then approved in 2012, revenue from the levy will not be
collected until 2013. In the absence of a levy in 2011, the 2012 budget will reflect some cuts to prepare for
shortfalls in future years and to provide a one month reserve.
Mayor Cooper suggested the Council consider a statistically valid poll which he estimated would cost $15,000.
Council President Peterson, Mr. Hines and he will identify a source of funding. Discussion continued regarding
the Council committing to doing something with the poll data such as placing a levy on a date certain ballot,
potential that a levy will fail and need to be placed on a future ballot, testing levy rates via a poll, Redmond’s
successful levy, and limiting an online survey/poll to 10 questions. Council President Peterson suggested
scheduling discussion regarding a statistically valid survey on an upcoming agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to reduce the number of polling questions and include a disclaimer that the
poll is from the CLC and not the Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, member of the EDC and the CLC, explained the CLC is discussing targeted levy
options and a General Fund levy with a 3-year time line. He commented on the decision facing the Council in
2014 with regard to the Fire Department. If the Fire Department is funded outside the General Fund, it will free
up $3 million to the General Fund.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, disagreed the proposed polling would not be harmful. He did not support a poll that
mixed asking citizens how much more they were willing to pay in taxes and whether they supported various
revenue sources. In addition, much of the public was not informed enough to answer questions regarding
gambling or B&O taxes. For example, most citizens are unaware that gambling cannot be restricted to certain
locations within the City or that neighboring cities do not have a B&O tax and that implementing a B&O tax in
Edmonds would severely impact car dealerships.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recommended the poll be kept simple. He anticipated the voters did not support the
TBD fee because they dislike car tab increases and there were too many projects. He recommended the Council
identify the City’s critical needs that will not be funded without additional revenue; citizens will support items
that are important to them. With regard to annexing into Fire District 1 or forming a RFA, he pointed out both
would increase property taxes like annexing into the SnoIsle Library District did.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to a petition submitted in Lynnwood recommending they pursue a City
Manager. He noted Edmonds residents could circulate a petition recommending the Council pursue alternate
revenues sources such as gambling. He announced the Edmonds Lutheran Church is sponsoring an Easter Egg
Hunt. They also plan to have a Christmas in July event downtown this summer. The Edmonds Log Cabin hopes
to a holiday event downtown. He summarized events generate revenue for the City.
DAY 1 WRAP UP
Council President Peterson thanked staff for their reports. He advised tomorrow the Council will discuss an
action plan based on the priorities. There will also be an opportunity tomorrow for Councilmembers to discuss
process questions such as agenda memo, the role of Council President, future retreats, etc.
Packet Page 15 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 13
The first day of the retreat concluded at 4:35 p.m.
SATURDAY FEBRUARY 5, 2010 – CALL TO ORDER
The second day of the retreat was called to order at 9:05 a.m.
COUNCIL 2011 ACTION PLAN
Council President Peterson distributed notes taken during yesterday’s discussion regarding Council
issues/priorities. He suggested Councilmembers identify which items they are interested in taking on and which
are already being done. The Council reviewed the priorities and identified an action plan for several of the
priorities (shown in italics)
Environmental Initiatives
• Building Codes rewrites/green initiatives –in process.
o Identify incentives vs. mandates, barriers, etc.
• Renewable power purchase – Councilmember Bernheim offered to investigate a partnership with
Snohomish PUD.
• Tree Board – Council President Peterson relayed the ordinance forming the Tree Board did not provide
staff; he is working with Planning Manager Rob Chave to identify staff to be involved at meetings.
• Polystyrene –Councilmember Bernheim offered to develop a strategy.
• Transportation (address ADA issues; fix potholes; Complete Streets) – Council President Peterson
advised he planned to present a Complete Streets ordinance to the Council in the next month.
Levy – The CLC will provide a report to the Council on February 15 or 22. The Council can then decide
whether to schedule discussion regarding a levy as a periodically agenda item
• Survey – Councilmember Buckshnis advised she has reduced the poll to four basic questions.
• Levy Committee
• Timeline
• Options/alternatives
• Public involvement, engagement and education
• Transparency (website, government channel, community forums, etc.)
Downtown/Waterfront
• Street dining – Council President Peterson pointed out it is better to allow street dining on an ongoing
basis due to the cost to rent tables, chairs, etc. for only occasional use. Councilmembers Bernheim and
Buckshnis offered to meet with Public Works Director Phil Williams, the Chamber and Downtown
Merchants to discuss transforming parking spaces into pedestrian/park space such as adjacent to the
Old Mill Town Plaza. Councilmember Petso suggested that would make satellite parking more
important. Ms. Hite suggested a pilot project in conjunction with design of the Old Mill Town Plaza.
• Parking (tourism, satellite parking)
• Downtown hotel
• Retail depth/ceiling height – Mr. Clifton described the past process to reduce retail depth. Discussion
followed regarding the intent of the reduced depth to allow parking behind the building, some
businesses’ interest in a smaller square footage, and determining a depth that would still allow parking
behind. Mr. Clifton relayed the Planning Board is considering a code amendment regarding the
requirement for commercial frontage in some areas. Councilmember Wilson suggested the Community
Services/Development Services Committee consider a code amendment to require retail on the first
floor in BD1 and to grandfather existing uses.
• Main Street project (pilot project for wider sidewalks)
Packet Page 16 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 14
• Review zoning regulations applicable to Old Safeway project to make it more attractive to the
development community
o Drainage issues – effects on developable land? Will the land be needed for storing stormwater?
Councilmember Bernheim commented the Zoning Code should not be an impediment to
development/sale of property. He asked whether minor changes could be made to the zoning in this
area. Mr. Clifton suggested the EDC, Planning Board, the new Development Director and he address
that issue. Discussion followed regarding uses for the site such as a Farmers Market or hotel, and how
to attract a boutique hotel to downtown.
Mr. Clifton relayed the owner of the post office site (Doug Spee) presented a concept to the EDC that
includes a hotel. Because an hotelier will require a certain number of rooms, increased height will be
required. That could be done via a development agreement that allows a modification to height. He
offered to post Mr. Spee’s conceptual presentation on the EDC’s webpage.
• Development agreement
Finances
• Financial Reports – A committee consisting of Councilmember Bernheim, Council President Peterson,
Darrol Haug and Lorenzo Hines is working on this.
• REET Allocation – Councilmembers discussed paying off the City Hall bonds to free up the REET
revenue stream for capital needs and/or potential park purchases, and revising the current allocation to
provide more to streets and less to parks. It was suggested the Council have a complete discussion
regarding the allocation of REET funds at a regular Council meeting.
• Borrowing policies – Finance Committee is working on this.
• Financial Policies – Finance Committee is working on this.
• Medical costs and benefits (Human Resources/Public Safety Committee) – Councilmember Wilson
described medical self-insurance and the savings that can be realized, emphasizing the importance of a
stop loss policy and a transition fund. He suggested loaning the $1.3 million in the Public Safety
Reserve to provide transition funds for self-insurance. Discussion followed regarding the need for
approximately 200 employees to disseminate the risk, the City’s past experience with self-insurance,
poor partner in AWC (non-compete contracts with healthcare insurance providers), Kirkland’s
evaluation and implementation of self-insurance, other ways to create the transition fund, projected
savings, ensuring that options that lower the cost do not lower benefits to employees, need to bargain
any change in medical with unions, requirements for self-funded plans under healthcare reform, and
forming a Public Safety & Human Resources Committee to consider medical self-insurance.
Mayor Cooper agreed AWC was a poor partner and offered to contact the City’s legislators to
encourage them to propose a bill that requires association plans to provide experience ratings. Mr.
Clifton offered to contact Mike Doubleday.
Other
• Complete Streets
• Hwy 99/Medical Corridor – Mr. Clifton reported the Hwy 99 Taskforce has discussed combining their
efforts with the EDC. He offered to check on the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the
boundaries of the Medical Activity Center.
With regard to the bill proposed by Representative Kagi (HB 1265) regarding Pt. Wells, Mayor Cooper
cautioned the danger of that bill is that similar legislation could be proposed regarding development on
Hwy. 99 within Edmonds. He recommended the Hwy. 99 Taskforce consider the impacts of development
on adjacent cities. He has directed Mike Doubleday to support Representative Kagi’s bill. Discussion
followed regarding the Community Services/Development Services Committee’s consideration of formal
Council action to support the bill, the decision to be made by the Growth Management Hearings Board
in March regarding the Pt. Wells Urban Center, Edmonds’ plan to be a party of record in the Pt. Wells
SEPA, direction the Snohomish County Council has received to limit their comments on the project due
Packet Page 17 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 15
to potential future quasi judicial decisions, impacts of development at Pt. Wells on Edmonds and
potential mitigation. Councilmember Wilson offered to develop a resolution for Council consideration.
• Fiber – making progress; several potential customers
• Strategic Planning – in process, updates on the RFQ will be provided to the Council soon
• RFA – next steps – RFA Planning Committee is moving forward
• Public input in a timely manner (website, government channel, social media)
• Tourism (focused efforts, boutique hotel, how does code ECDC effect tourism related proposals?
parking, WiFi)
• Retail Depth, ceiling height
• 311? Example City of Portland
• Highway 99/Swedish/International District
• Woodway Police Contract – review prior to expiration – On the Finance Committee agenda in March. It
was suggested Police staff be involved in the discussion. The Council discussed call volume, who bears
the cost/time of major investigations, charging Edmonds residents for false alarms, financial impacts if
Woodway terminated the contract and the need to illustrate the City’s costs to Woodway. Mayor Cooper
offered to work with the City Attorney on a letter to Woodway to mutually open the contract.
Council President Peterson advised he would formalize the action plan and send it out to the Council, Mayor
and staff. He declared a brief recess.
PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS
Role of Council President
Council President Peterson referred to the section of the City code that describes the duties of the Council
President. He viewed his role as a liaison between Council, staff and Mayor. He invited Councilmembers to
submit agenda items, advising items will be scheduled as agendas allowed.
Agenda Memos
Council President Peterson encouraged Councilmembers to assist staff such as completing the agenda template
and doing it as soon as possible to allow staff to provide the Council as much information as possible. He also
encouraged Councilmembers to contact staff with questions prior to Council meetings. Mayor Cooper reminded
staff must have agenda memos in by noon Thursday for his approval. The more lead time Councilmembers can
provide, the better.
Council suggestions included:
• Staff providing copies of minutes from the meeting when an issue was first initiated
• Agenda items not necessarily be scheduled for action the first time they appear on the agenda to provide
Council an opportunity to review the materials
• Items be reviewed by Council Committee first
• Move Audience Comment to the beginning of the agenda. The Council agreed to have Audience
Comment at the beginning of the agenda as often as possible.
• Stagger the start time of Council Committee meetings to allow Councilmembers to attend meetings
other than those they are assigned to.
• The agenda memo state whether the item is an update or action is requested
• The agenda memo identify the lead for the item
• Hotlink agenda memos to the Extended Agenda and post information as it is prepared rather than
waiting until it is scheduled on the agenda to provide Councilmembers and opportunity to review
materials ahead of time
• Council consider hiring a Council Budget Analyst due to limited staff to answer questions.
Packet Page 18 of 112
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 4-5, 2011
Page 16
Councilmember Buckshnis requested an Executive Session at end of the retreat regarding a personnel issue.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, remarked at last year retreat, five Councilmembers had Styrofoam cups; this year
none of the Councilmembers did. From the public’s point of view, this has been an exciting two days. He
thanked Council President Peterson for a great retreat and Councilmembers for being candid, open and honest.
He thanked staff for attending and for doing a good job helping the public understand issues. He thanked Mayor
Cooper for his ideas and for setting the tone, attitude and direction. He suggested the Council demonstrate
retreat-type behavior in front of public rather than the behavior that often occurs at Council meetings.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented it was an interesting retreat and he learned a few things. He noted
information provided in the retreat packet regarding REET funds had been requested by the Finance Committee
in November but had not been provided by staff. As a result of a public records request he submitted, he
received information regarding the bond payment made out of the REET fund. He also requested and received
information regarding where the City’s reserves are invested. He looked forward to better communication
regarding the City’s finances.
WRAP UP
Councilmember Bernheim looked forward to the Council’s decision regarding the City Attorney. He noted
improving the Senior Center is still a priority for him. He planned to conduct an independent investigation as
well as with the Hwy. 99 Taskforce of Hwy. 99 businesses and introduce them to City government. He thanked
Mayor Cooper for the process to prioritize issues. He relayed two Best Human Resources Practice Principles: 1)
even well intentioned lectures convey negative messages, and 2) no great insight ever enters the mind through
an open mouth.
Councilmember Petso thanked staff who came today and participated in the discussion.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she planned to continue assisting with development of financial policies.
She looked forward to working with Councilmember Wilson to investigate medical self-insurance.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Council President Peterson for his efforts and thanked everyone for a good
retreat.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – PERSONNEL ISSUE (RCW 42.30.110.1.g.)
At 12:10 p.m., Council President Peterson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session
regarding a personnel matter per RCW 42.30.110.1.g. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Fourtner Meeting Room, located in City Hall. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session
were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson.
Recorder Jeannie Dines was also present. At 12:45 p.m., Councilmember Petso announced the executive session
would be extended 15 minutes. The executive session concluded at 1:05 p.m.
The retreat was adjourned immediately following the conclusion of the Executive Session.
Packet Page 19 of 112
AM-3759 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
02-15-11 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/17/2011 09:22 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 20 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 15, 2011
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiation strategy. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately one
hour and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive
session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson,
Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Human Resources Director Debi
Humann, Public Works Director Phil Williams and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session
concluded at 6:57 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember (arrived 7:42 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Peterson requested Agenda Item 6 be moved to follow Item 3.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2011.
Packet Page 21 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #123783 THROUGH #123914 DATED FEBRUARY 10,
2011 FOR $185,556.57.
D. ORDINANCE NO. 3835 – 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.
E. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES ON THE FIVE CORNERS
ROUNDABOUT PROJECT.
F. ORDINANCE NO. 3836 – AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 8.48.190,
UPDATING PARKING PROVISIONS IN DESIGNATED BIKE LANES.
G. EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER ROOF PROJECT.
H. PROPOSED 2011 EQUIPMENT RENTAL HOURLY RATES FOR EXTERNAL
AGENCIES AND THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT.
3. ENERGY STAR AWARD FOR CITY HALL
Public Works Director Phil Williams recognized the City’s receipt of an Energy Star Award from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Largely through the efforts of Jim Stevens, Facilities Coordinator, a
series of energy saving improvements have been implemented in City Hall. The Energy Star Program
compares a building’s energy and environmental performance with similar type buildings throughout the
United States. To qualify, the building must perform better than at least 75% of the other buildings. He
pointed out when City Hall was built, energy savings were not the primary goal and the building
envelope, construction materials, windows, and heating system were not necessarily optimized. Many of
those built in design decisions had to be overcome to achieve better performance. By contrast, a new
LEED certified platinum building would provide exceptionally good energy performance. In the case of
City Hall, there has been an effort to adapt an existing building and improve the performance.
Mr. Williams presented a plaque and certificate to Mayor Cooper. The brass plaque will be mounted on
the interior of City Hall. City Hall can now qualify each year if improvements continue and the building
remains in the upper 25% of office buildings.
Mayor Cooper asked Mr. Williams to relay his thanks to the Public Works staff. He also thanked staff
who work in City Hall, noting the building is sometimes a little cold in the morning but everyone
recognizes it saves energy. Mr. Williams agreed the energy savings are the result of choices that the
building’s tenants make regarding the use of lighting and thermostats.
6. ORDINANCES REGARDING BOND REFUNDING.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained this item is consideration of an ordinance that would allow for
the refunding of the 1998 Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1998 Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO)
Bonds, 2001 LTGO Bonds, and 2001E LTGO Bonds. If the bonds are refunded, it is anticipated to result
in approximately $46,634 in annual debt service savings. The present value of those savings over the
remaining life of the bonds is approximately $288,000-$289,000.
Alan Dashen, A. Dashen & Associates, recalled approximately a month ago they reviewed with the
Council potential savings by refunding the outstanding LTGO bonds and will update that information
tonight. He referred to the Refunding Update included in the Council packet, advising interest rates
Packet Page 22 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 3
increased during the October – December timeframe and have recently decreased slightly. He attributed
the increase to the fear among buyers of municipal bankruptcies which he felt had been overblown. They
have considered the savings of refunding the bonds again and recommend proceeding with the bond sale.
Mr. Dashen explained there were two ways bonds for the City could be sold:
1. Negotiated sale – an underwriting firm is selected. That firm sells the bonds on the City’s behalf
on a best effort basis.
2. Competitive sale – the bonds are offered for sale on the internet; lowest interest rate wins.
Because Edmonds is a highly rated City, these are LTGO bonds, and the $4-5 million size, he
recommended a competitive sale for this bond issue. If a determination is made that method will not work
well, they will work with the Finance Director on an alternate method.
Scott Bauer, A. Dashen & Associates, referred to the Refunding Update and the 1998 Water & Sewer
Revenue Bonds, 1998 and 1998, 2001, and 2001E LTGO Bonds they recommended be refunded in the
upcoming bond issue. He referred to the average annual savings and present value savings, advising the
total gross savings for the four issues is approximately $326,000 or present value savings of $288,000. He
reviewed the bond schedule:
• February 15 Adoption of bond ordinance
• Week of March 7 Moody Rating Call
• March 23 Post Preliminary Official Statement
• April 5 Bond Sale
Adoption of Bond sale Resolution
• April 19 Bond Closing
Mr. Dashen explained the $288,000 present value savings could change between now and when the bonds
are sold depending on interest rates. If rates increase dramatically and the savings become significantly
less, they will work with staff to determine whether it is worthwhile to sell the bonds or wait. When the
bonds are sold, they are purchased contingent on City Council action. If the Council does not plan to vote
yes on the sale of the bonds, they would rather know before the bonds are sold as it is awkward to have
the process stop at that point.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the Council began discussing refunding in August 2010 when rates
were significantly better. Rates have increased in recent months. She asked what the rate would be in
April when the bonds would be sold. Mr. Dashen answered the consensus in the market is rates will
slowly increase over the next year. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if rates increase, the savings
via refunding are reduced. Mr. Dashen anticipated the fear associated with municipal bonds would lessen
between now and April.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the cost of a bond sale. Mr. Dashen answered it is 1- 1½ % of the issue.
Mr. Bauer estimated costs of $90,000. Mr. Dashen advised that covers the rating, their fee, bond counsel
fees, and underwriting fees. Councilmember Buckshnis noted approximately 1½ years of savings were
consumed by costs; some of the bonds mature in 2013. She questioned whether the Council should pursue
bond refunding with rates at this level.
Councilmember Petso asked what rates were included in tonight’s presentation materials. Mr. Bauer
answered the current rate, 4.9%. Councilmember Petso asked whether the process could be halted if staff
determines in the next few weeks that the savings are not sufficient. Mr. Dashen answered the process
could be stopped and the City could wait until interest rates are more favorable. Mr. Dashen commented
Packet Page 23 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 4
the longer the Council waits, the City continues to pay the high interest rates. If the City waits long
enough, the savings disappear completely. He advised the savings are net of all costs.
Alice M. Ostdiek, Foster Pepper, explained the bond ordinances outlines the structure of the transaction
and authorizes the refunding of the four bond issues. She advised the Water & Sewer refunding may not
be included depending on whether the City decides to go forward with other Water & Sewer Revenue
Bonds in the near future. The ordinance provides sufficient flexibility to allow the Finance Director to
work with the team to monitor the market and determine appropriate timing should interest rates change.
Tonight Council is being asked to adopt the ordinance. They will return to the Council with a Sale
Resolution that includes a summary of the terms agreed to that morning in the market based on that
competitive sale. She reiterated the importance of the Council being comfortable with moving forward as
the next time they are before the Council it will be after purchasers have agreed to purchase the bonds.
Ms. Ostdiek explained the ordinance pledges the City’s general taxing authority as well as to the extent
there is a Water & Sewer bond included, the water and sewer revenues for that portion.
Councilmember Petso asked whether via the ordinance the Council agrees to anything they have not
already agreed to do such as maintain a high coverage ratio in utility rate setting or any other obligation.
Ms. Ostdiek advised the specific covenants are not included in the ordinance. If the water & sewer portion
is included, the same covenants would continue.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3837, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CONTRACTING INDEBTEDNESS; PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND REVENUE BONDS TO
PROVIDE THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT A REFUNDING OF ALL OR A
PORTION OF CERTAIN OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND REVENUE
BONDS OF THE CITY AND TO PAY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF SUCH
REFUNDINGS AND THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE BONDS; FIXING
CERTAIN TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLIC
SALE OF THE BONDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett was not
present for the vote.)
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported late Sunday/early Monday a vehicle being pursued by the State Patrol
crashed into a neighbor’s garage and the driver fled on foot. Several police agencies responded and the
driver was eventually located by the Edmonds Police Department K-9 unit. He commended the Edmonds
Police Department’s response. Next, he relayed that Swedish Edmonds reported a loss last quarter. The
Hospital Board paid off one of their bonds. The Hospital District tax may be reduced.
Donna Alexander, Edmonds, explained the house next door to her home was destroyed in a fire
approximately a year ago. She expressed concern with the appearance of the house and the amount of
debris in the yard, commenting it was unsightly as well as dangerous to children in the neighborhood and
the environment. The homeowner has not been responsive to her requests to cleanup the property She
asked whether the City could pursue cleanup via the nuisance ordinance. Mayor Cooper relayed Council
President Peterson’s indication that he has contacted the Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies today
about this issue. Mayor Cooper suggested she send photographs of the property to Mr. Thies.
Kristie Simard, Edmonds, also a neighbor of the house destroyed by fire, explained they have contacted
Code Enforcement who indicated he can do nothing about the situation and that the owner of the property
has done all he is required to do. She referred to the photographs, commenting the property was unsafe,
Packet Page 24 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 5
unsightly and in danger of collapse. The building was declared a total loss by the insurance company and
there is apparently a dispute regarding value. She was hopeful the City Council could assist them in
remedying the situation.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, asked how the 11 applicants for City Attorney were reduced to the 4 the
Council interviewed. He has been unable to determine what other firms applied or what process was used.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HOME
OCCUPATIONS, EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.20.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council held a public hearing on Home Occupation
amendments on January 4, 2011. Following the public hearing, the Council provided direction to staff and
staff has been drafting amendments for further Council discussion. On January 14, the Council voted to
reconsider and hold a public hearing to reconsider the January 4 vote.
He provided a comparison of the current code and the current draft amendment
Current code Current Staff Draft
Amendment
Home Occupation with no visitors Permitted Permitted
Cost $1550 $585
Public Notice/Comment Yes Yes
Hearing Yes Yes (on appeal)
Limitations (hours, visits, employees) No (set by Hearing Examiner) Yes (upper limits established
in code)
Mr. Chave explained in the current process, because the code is silent with regard to conditions, staff
must develop a “rule of thumb” to assist the Hearing Examiner in applying conditions. At the January 4
public hearing there was interest in establishing standard conditions for home occupations. Under the
proposed draft amendments, the upper limits would be codified. The proposed amendments also address
art studios and small urban farms. Under the current code they are allowed as a home occupation but none
of the art work or produce could be sold on site. For example, if the City held an art studio tour, people
could visit the art studio but the artist could not sell their artwork. He clarified the amendments were not
before the Council for consideration tonight.
He noted there were several misconceptions as a result of the public hearing. The goal is to streamline and
simplify the process as well as provide more certainty for home occupations.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether home occupations could locate anywhere in the City. Mr.
Chave answered yes, the code applies citywide. Local circumstances are considered for specific home
occupations; that would not change. It is possible in some locations if there is not adequate parking that
additional conditions will be applied or a home occupation denied.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed if staff’s recommendation is not approved, there will be no
change to the current situation. The only change will be the cost. Mr. Chave responded the amendments
provided by staff provide a more streamlined process (staff decision rather than Hearing Examiner),
public notice will be the same, ability to comment on an application remains the same, and additional
standards (upper limits) will be established in the code. If the Council does not approve amendments, the
situation with regard to art studios and urban farms continues to exist.
Packet Page 25 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 6
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council voted to reconsider their January 4 motion and that
motion is now on the table (to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the Planning
Board’s recommendations as amended). If the vote on the motion fails, the Council will proceed with the
public hearing and the Council can make a new motion and proceed with deliberations. Mayor Cooper
clarified if the motion is approved, the agenda item is concluded and staff will proceed as directed on
January 4.
Councilmember Wilson summarized the process: On January 4 the Council amended the Planning Board
recommendation and directed staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the Planning Board’s
recommendations. The Council then passed a motion to reconsider the motion. The Council is now voting
again on the January 4 motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she brought the motion to reconsider because January 4 was not a
good time for a public hearing. Subsequent to the Council’s decision she received at least 25 emails
objecting to the amendments to home occupation regulations and 1 email in support of the amendments.
She assumed citizens were not aware the home occupation regulations were being expanded.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he opposed this the first time and was happy to vote again.
Councilmember Wilson commented he typically was deferential to public comment when so many emails
were received on a topic. However, whoever was organizing the opposition was providing poor
information because the comments and concerns were not reflective of the proposed amendments. For
example the amendments will not turn every residential neighborhood into a strip mall as has been
suggested. The amendments clarify what can already occur and propose limitation such as the number of
employees. He summarized many of the concerns raised by the public were wholly unfounded.
Council President Peterson echoed Councilmember Wilson’s comments. He agreed the timing of the
public hearing may have added to the sense of misinformation. As Mr. Chave explained, the amendment
will make it easier for the average citizen to access the process via a staff decision rather than the Hearing
Examiner. The proposed process provides more direct communication with staff, notice will still be
provided to neighbors as well as the fee reduced from $1550 to a more reasonable $585.
Student Representative Gibson referred to Exhibit 1 that states no vehicles can visit the property or
business between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. He asked whether someone could park their vehicle and walk
to the residence between those hours.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the community has not been sufficiently educated regarding
the amendments if the Council is receiving numerous emails.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the emails and telephone calls she received were from people who
watch City Council meetings on TV. She preferred the home occupation regulations remain as they
currently exist until the public can be better educated.
Mayor Cooper restated the motion now on the table:
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED.
Mayor Cooper clarified a yes vote reaffirms the action the Council took on January 4 to direct staff to
bring back the ordinance as amended. A no vote starts the process over.
Packet Page 26 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 7
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND BERNHEIM
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO,
PLUNKETT, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dr. Jonathan Bannister, Edmonds, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Budo Association,
requested the Council support the changes proposed by staff to ECDC 20.20 with regard to home
occupations. He has been an instructor of Japanese martial and cultural arts for more than 30 years. He is
internationally accredited to teach Aikido, classical swordsmanship, calligraphy and flower arranging and
would like to share his knowledge and enthusiasm for the arts by offering private, one-on-one instruction
in his home. Instruction would be limited to one person per hour 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. He is located on
an arterial street, requires no signage, has ample off-street parking, and his facilities are modern and up to
code. The arts he teaches are practiced in silence and he will not offer regular classes. The scale of
activity contemplated is modest and in keeping with the sensibilities of the community. In January 2010
he applied for a Type IIIB conditional use permit but was deterred by the $1550 application fee. He urged
the Council to support the staff’s and Planning Board’s recommendation for a home occupation
administrative permit. The proposal is the result of more than a year of careful discussion and
consideration by many parties that included ample opportunity for public review and comment. The
amendment streamlines the process, reduces fees and facilitates the licensing of home occupations that
likely would be permitted under any circumstance.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the issue was dollars versus neighbors’ rights. He anticipated the
previous speaker would have groups of people visiting his home which results in additional traffic. He
referred to Councilmember Bernheim’s comment that remedies were available if problems developed or
the character of the neighborhood changed, advising he had not found any remedies in the code to address
problems. He anticipated if problems arose, the business would get their way after talking to staff and
neighbors would be forced to appeal, costing them more than the original applicant paid. He suggested
appeals be to the City Council and have no fee. Next, he objected to the hours of operation, commenting
the hours in the construction noise ordinance were more restrictive. He preferred to retain the existing
regulations that allow one office, one employee, and no signs, as such businesses were not visible to the
neighborhood. He feared the proposed amendments would result in residential neighborhoods that
function like a commercial zone. He objected to any change that altered the character of his
neighborhood.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out on February 17, 2009 the Council increased fees. He inquired about
the cost of a home occupation application in 2009.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was supportive of generating tax dollars for Edmonds and did not want
to prevent citizens from creating a business in their home. She was concerned that at least the 15-40
people who provided comment have been given the wrong impression. She was uncertain how to educate
the public. She received emails from citizens expressing concern with businesses locating in their
neighborhood, however, businesses can already locate in neighborhoods.
Council President Peterson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas regarding the difficulty
educating the public. Two public hearings have been held and three people spoke at each one; Dr.
Bannister and Mr. Hertrich spoke at both, Mr. Rutledge spoke at one and Mr. Spellman spoke at one.
There were also public hearings at the Planning Board. He was uncertain how the Council could further
educate the public; the Council is elected to study issues and make decisions. He did not think it was
Packet Page 27 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 8
feasible to hold meetings in neighborhoods throughout the City in an effort to educate the public. He was
frustrated the Council made a decision and was now changing its mind based on a couple dozen emails.
He preferred to educate the people who had expressed concerns one at a time rather than allow them to
derail the process.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO ADOPT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
As the original Planning Board ordinance was not included in the packet, Councilmember Wilson
suggested delaying further discussion and amendments to a future meeting. His goal by making the
motion was to put the matter back in play and not let it drop.
Mr. Chave agreed with continuing the ordinance to a future date, explaining the Council has not yet seen
the ordinance that was drafted in response to the public hearing. Staff tried to take the suggestions
regarding reducing the cost of the application and streamlining the process, retaining public notice and
addressing art studios and urban farms. He asked whether the Council wanted to have another public
hearing.
Councilmember Wilson commented if there were four votes to not talk about this anymore, he was open
to that option as well.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE STAFF-RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE WITH THE
CHANGES MR. CHAVE REFERENCED ON A FUTURE DATE.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
REFER THE ORDINANCE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COMMITTEE FIRST.
Mayor Cooper ruled that Councilmember Buckshnis’ motion took precedence over Councilmember
Wilson’s motion.
Councilmember Plunkett was intrigued by the idea of reducing the cost of an administrative review.
However, along the way it became something else that he was unable to support. He looked forward to an
opportunity for the Community Services/Development Services (CS/DS) Committee to review the
proposed amendments.
Council President Peterson reiterated this is the second public hearing before the Council and the matter
has been reviewed by the CS/DS Committee at least once before as well as reviewed by the Planning
Board. He was uncertain what new light would be shed by two Councilmembers reviewing it again. He
preferred the ordinance be presented to the full Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated a lot of light would be shed on the issue. After received 25 emails,
she felt it was important to listen to the public.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out there are different Councilmembers on the CS/DS Committee than
were on the Committee when the matter was reviewed previously. He did not recall that the Council was
provided a strike out version comparing the original code to the changes recommended by the Planning
Packet Page 28 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 9
Board. He questioned how the intent to reduce the $1550 fee to $585 became amendments that would
significantly impact residential communities.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas anticipated having the matter reviewed by the CS/DS Committee would
allow consideration of options, the appeal process, etc.
Councilmember Bernheim supported staff developing an ordinance on January 4; the ordinance simply
expands the use of home occupations and gives people living in residential areas more flexibility to use
their home for a business in order to maximize economic development. He viewed the amendments as
economic development. He disagreed the issue was dollars versus neighbor’s rights, noting often
neighbor’s rights are associated with dollars. Some of the complaints about the proposal were that it
would reduce property values. He viewed it as neighbor’s rights against neighbor’s rights; no one has a
right to prevent a neighbor from using their home as a home occupation, subject to the City’s regulations.
He believed the critics of the amendments were exaggerating the negative consequences. With regard to
remedies, if negative consequences arise and neighborhoods are crowded with cars, children are
prevented from playing in the street, neighborhood character changes and there are signs everywhere,
they can be addressed via additional amendments. He summarized this was a good, progressive idea and
although the opposition was heartfelt, the negative consequences are exaggerated.
Councilmember Wilson encouraged the CS/DS Committee to present the Council a work product and not
just let it languish.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Council President Peterson advised this will be scheduled on the March 8 CS/DS Committee agenda.
7. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT AND APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES.
Human Resources Director Debi Humann explained the City’s previous Land Use Hearing Examiner
elected not to renew their contract at the end of 2010. The City created an RFQ/RFP and advertised for a
new Hearing Examiner. Four applicants applied for the position, two applicants moved forward to the
interview phase, Olbrechts & Associates and Sound Law Center. Interviews were held November 29,
2010. The interview panel selected Olbrechts & Associates as the City’s new Land Use Hearing Examiner
pending contract approval and confirmation by City Council.
The Council packet contains a copy of the Professional Service Agreement with Olbrechts & Associates.
The contract has been reviewed by Legal and Planning. The main change from the previous contract is a
change in the fee structure from a fixed flat monthly fee to an hourly rate with an annual cap in an attempt
to lower contract costs. She requested Council approval of the Professional Services Agreement.
Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Olbrechts’ comment in his application materials that he intended to
use Mr. Snyder as a backup Hearing Examiner. Ms. Humann advised that was discussed with Mr.
Olbrechts and he does not plan to use Mr. Snyder. Mayor Cooper referred to his memo to Council today
clarifying that Mr. Olbrechts raised that issue during the interview and stated because Ogden Murphy
Wallace was the City Attorney, he would not use him as a backup.
Councilmember Petso advised that fact was not reflected in the contract document. Mr. Snyder advised
Mr. Olbrechts left Ogden Murphy Wallace approximately six months ago and did not ask him whether he
wanted to serve as backup Hearing Examiner. The contract does not mention his acting as a backup. The
Packet Page 29 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 10
City would need to authorize individuals serving as backup. In Mr. Olbrechts’ proposal he mentions the
availability of Vicki Orrico and Emily Terrell.
Councilmember Petso referred to the first paragraph on page 2 of Mr. Olbrechts’ Statement of
Qualifications that states he will be providing dual representation with OMW on city attorney clients and
OMW will be handling most issues not related to land use. She asked whether there was a conflict of
interest if Mr. Olbrechts planned to partner with OMW. Mr. Snyder advised OMW had no intention of
partnering with Mr. Olbrechts on this contract. He anticipated this verbiage was a word processing error.
Mayor Cooper explained Mr. Olbrechts brought that to the interview team’s attention and made it very
clear that he did not intend to partner with Ogden Murphy Wallace. The professional service agreement
requires the City Council to approve backup Hearing Examiners.
Council President Peterson advised the reference to OMW is only in the Statement of Qualifications
which was included in the packet as information and was not part of the contract. He participated in the
interviews and found Mr. Olbrechts to be an excellent applicant. He believed Mr. Olbrechts’ demeanor
and openness would be very fitting for Edmonds. As he displayed during the interview and his references
and experience demonstrate, he will serve citizens well by encouraging and helping them through the
process. He summarized Mr. Olbrechts has the personality and professional credentials to make the
Hearing Examiner process more comfortable for citizens. He supported the Mayor’s recommendation.
Councilmember Bernheim observed the Hearing Examiner indemnifies the City for any negligent acts of
the Hearing Examiner. He asked whether there was a bond or insurance requirement. The only insurance
requirement in the contract is auto liability. He asked whether a bond or insurance was contractually
required. Mr. Snyder answered it was not.
Mr. Snyder suggested if the Council makes a motion to approve the contract, they also approve the
additional service providers, Ms. Orrico and Ms. Terrell.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR’S APPOINTMENT OF OLBRECHTS &
ASSOCIATES PLLC AS THE CITY’S HEARING EXAMINER AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT.
Councilmember Bernheim was disappointed a greater choice of applicants was not provided and that no
information was provided regarding the other three applicants. Mr. Olbrechts is obviously qualified but he
would prefer to have a choice of qualified applicants. He will support appointing Olbrechts & Associates
as the City’s Hearing Examiner as long as a bond or insurance is provided.
Mayor Cooper referred to Section 10.35.010 that states the Hearing Examiner shall be appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council for 4 years and that the first year will be probationary.
Councilmember Petso advised she will not support the motion. The Council has an enormous
responsibility to ensure fair hearings as well as hearings that appear to be fair. She found it bizarre that the
applicant that emerged from the process was the former backup City Attorney and proposed, whether an
error or not, to partner with the City Attorney.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE LIMITING THE BACKUP ATTORNEYS TO THE
SERVICE PROVIDERS IDENTIFIED AND TO REQUIRE AN INDEMNITY BOND.
Packet Page 30 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 11
Mayor Cooper ruled Councilmember Petso’s motion out of order as this is a confirmation. Her motion
was more appropriate as a separate motion following confirmation and approval of the professional
services contract.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she will support the motion but was disappointed with the materials
provided, anticipating that staff and the Mayor should have read all the documents and discovered the
verbiage regarding OMW. Mayor Cooper assured the interview team and he read all the materials. He
reiterated Mr. Olbrechts had brought the error to the interview team’s attention, advising it was the result
of using a template. He summarized the reference to OMW was only in the Statement of Qualifications
and not in the contract.
To Councilmember Bernheim’s comment that the City only had two qualified applicants, Councilmember
Wilson relayed his understanding that the previous Hearing Examiner did not renew their contract
because they felt they were not treated well by the Council. His understanding through colleagues is that
is a commonly held opinion about this Council and the perceived treatment of the former Hearing
Examiner by the Council. If the Council is getting that reputation, deserved or not, it may impact how
many applicants for Hearing Examiner apply. He summarized the way the Council behaves does have
consequences. He shared the frustration with the process and the documents.
With regard to the size of the pool for the Council’s consideration, Mayor Cooper advised the pool of
Hearing Examiners is fairly limited. There are only a handful of law firms that do Hearing Examiner
work. For whatever reason, the last two Hearing Examiners have not continued their service with the City
which limited the pool further. Mr. Olbrechts is approximately $30/hour less expensive than the other
applicant that was interviewed. The other two applicants, while they may be well qualified lawyers, had
no experience as Hearing Examiner and did not meet the qualifications in the RFQ.
Councilmember Bernheim referring to Councilmember Wilson’s understanding that the past two Hearing
Examiners had been insulted out of their job by a disrespectful City Council or citizens and that that
justified the narrow pool. He disagreed with Councilmember Wilson’s statement and was suspicious of
the limited number of applications the City received. He recalled the City’s previous Hearing Examiner,
Toweill-Rice-Taylor, broke up.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her support for Mr. Olbrechts as the City’s Hearing Examiner.
She found it interesting that some heard the prior Hearing Examiner left due to Council conduct; she was
told directly that the Hearing Examiner chose to leave due to conduct and behavior of particular citizens
during numerous hearings and it had nothing to do with the Council.
Student Representative Gibson suggested everyone be polite to the new Hearing Examiner.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
ADD TO THE CONTRACT A PROVISION LIMITING BACK UP HEARING EXAMINERS TO
THE TWO INDIVIDUALS IDENTIFIED AND REQUIRING AN INDEMNITY BOND.
Mr. Snyder asked whether the request was for an indemnity bond or personal liability insurance. Mayor
Cooper suggested staff include the appropriate language in the contract.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why language approving backup Hearing Examiners and a requirement
for an indemnity bond/personal liability insurance was not included in the contract. Mr. Snyder answered
Packet Page 31 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 12
it was not in previous contracts. Often Hearing Examiners are not lawyers and cannot obtain professional
liability insurance.
Council President Peterson asked whether the backup Hearing Examiners could be easily changed. Mr.
Snyder advised if additional backup Hearing Examiners are necessary, they simply need to be approved
by the Council by voice motion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 8, 2011
Public Safety & Human Resources Committee
Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed the camping ordinance and plans for oversight
and review of Human Resources. The Committee will hold its next meeting on March 1 at 5:30 p.m.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Committee reviewed amendments to reflect 2011 changes
to the agreement between Sno-Isle and the City. This was approved on the Consent Agenda. She
requested potential addition of HB 1265 to the legislative agenda as a priority item be scheduled on an
upcoming Council agenda. The Committee discussed the Shell Valley emergency access project. This
item will be scheduled on the next available Council agenda for consideration and allow public comment.
Next, the Committee reviewed an RFQ for professional design and right-of-way services on the Five
Corners Roundabout project which was approved on the Consent Agenda. Staff presented bids for the
Senior Center roof project. This was approved on the Consent Agenda.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Petso reported the Finance Committee considered proposed 2011 equipment rental
hourly rates for external agencies and the Transportation Benefit District which was approved on the
Consent Calendar. The Committee reviewed the Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing
Examiner services. The Committee also reviewed the following:
• General Fund update for January 2011
• Four items related to financial policies. Discussion of those items will occur via different paths.
Some are revisions to existing financial policies and others are changes to financial reports.
• Preliminary 2010 Fourth Quarter report
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported he will be in Olympia February 16 and 17, representing the City at the AWC
Legislative Conference.
Mayor Cooper explained in reading the contract between the City and Fire District 1, he found a
requirement for a joint City Council meeting with Fire District 1 Commissioners prior to April 1. Staff is
working to schedule that meeting. He noted that is a different meeting than the March 29 joint meeting
which is the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wilson advised he initiated that amendment to the Fire District 1 contract and was
waiting to see if the meeting would be scheduled.
Packet Page 32 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 13
Councilmember Wilson reported he was in Olympia recently to testify in support of HB 1265 on his own
behalf. He also raised some of the concerns the Council raised during their deliberations. Representatives
Kagi and Ryu were appreciative of his input. He also testified regarding RFA bills. He summarized it has
been a very active session and the City’s lobbyist, Mike Doubleday, is doing good work for the City.
Councilmember Bernheim commented even though the Council has difficult decisions to make,
Councilmembers are able to make them and move on. He asked why the minutes of the February 1
meeting when the Council interviewed City Attorney candidates, did not include the remarks made by the
applicants. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered that has been standard operating procedure whenever the
Council conducts interviews of City Council applicants and the same procedure was followed for the City
Attorney applicants.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Council President Peterson had received Councilmember
Wilson’s email requesting that consideration of Council staff be scheduled on an agenda.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas apologized to Councilmembers and staff for stumbling through the last
few meetings. Next week is her last chemo treatment and she anticipated it will take six weeks to recover.
She thanked everyone for their indulgence and patience while she maintained her Council position and
continued to represent the citizens of Edmonds in a thoughtful and prudent manner.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed that she has been asked to do a presentation regarding the cash flow
versus working capital approach. She explained the working capital approach was used by Edmonds for
General Fund Ending Cash and is the industry standard as outlined in Edmonds Ordinance 3789.
Edmonds utilizes a “Calculation of General Fund Beginning Working Capital” approach which is defined
as current assets minus current liabilities. This one value is used throughout the entire year regardless of
any differences between actual General Fund Revenue and actual General Fund Expenditures that occur
throughout the year.
She provided an example using her own household budget:
Example Diane’s Household:
Current Assets $400,000
Current Liabilities 200,000
Working Capital $200,000
This $200,000 would be used in all forecast summaries throughout the year, a practice that is not
sanctioned by Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) or GFOA Standard #11.2.
Cash flow reporting is just that, reporting actual revenue compared to revenue budget and reporting actual
expenditure to expenditure budget. The actual difference is either added or subtracted from the General
Fund Cash Flow Balance which means the starting General Fund Balance should agree to the Ending
General Fund balance year to year. The reporting of actual revenues and actual expenditures and then
compared to their respective budget balance is an accepted GFOA practice. It is very transparent for
citizens to understand as it is like looking at your own checkbook.
She provided other examples using her budget monthly cash flow, explaining, this method provides an
actual and accurate General Fund Cash Flow Balance month by month and a GFOA practice. Citizens can
see exactly where the City’s revenue and expenditures are and this method is more accurate than the
working capital approach which would still state that as of the end of February the beginning General
Fund balance was still at $200,000 which is misleading.
Packet Page 33 of 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 14
She provided an example of a report comparing each month’s budget to actual and the percentage
over/under, noting in this method everything ties.
The cash flow approach is citizen friendly. It allows citizens to see exactly where the General Fund stands
in terms of revenue and expenditures compared to budget. The Working Capital Approach does not
provide accurate and current General Fund data and does not require ensuring that all numbers tie and/or
balance.
The difference is the working capital approach is not sanctioned by the GFOA as it uses one number
throughout the entire year for very important decisions (labor, potential levy, staffing, etc.). The cash flow
approach is sanctioned by the GFOA (#11.2) and provides a detailed analysis of month by month of
actual revenue compared to budget and actual expenditure compared to budget. At any point in time,
citizens can trace and tie any of the numbers.
This is important because:
• Remember last year, the City of Edmonds was “running out” of money in 2012.
• Now we are “not running out” of money until 2014.
• What happened? Projections changed using varying percentages on a executive summary that
does not use actual General Fund numbers.
• Why not show the citizens exactly where their money is being spent in an easy format?
• Why not comply to industry standards?
• Ordinance 3789 outlines just these issues
She asked what an average citizen willing to open their pocket and give the City money by passing a levy
would prefer: a working capital General Fund Balance that is the same each month or a Cash Flow
Monthly General Fund balance that shows a detailed analysis of month by month of actual revenue
compared to budget and actual expenditure compared to budget.
Council President Peterson advised he received Councilmember Wilson’s email and will schedule
consideration of Council staff on an upcoming agenda. He thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for her
report and suggested in the future she provide the Council the PowerPoint slides prior to the meeting.
Council President Peterson advised Councilmember Bernheim, Darrol Haug, Mr. Hines, the Mayor and
he met to begin discussing how to improve the clarity of the City’s financial reports. Mr. Hines has
contacted the software company who indicated they have methods to create the budget reports
Councilmember Buckshnis is interested in. The meeting was very productive and they are well on their
way toward addressing many of the concerns within the next month. He thanked Mr. Haug for
volunteering his time and Mr. Hines for listening to their concerns.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Packet Page 34 of 112
AM-3760 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #123915 through #124039 dated February 17, 2011 for $336,867.66. Approval
of payroll direct deposit and checks #50231 through #50258 for the period February 1, 2011 through
February 15, 2011 for $619,089.68.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit & checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011
Revenue:
Expenditure:955,957.34
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $336,867.66
Payroll $619,089.68
Attachments
Claim Checks for 2-17-11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 02/17/2011 11:41 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/17/2011 11:49 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/17/2011 09:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 35 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123915 2/17/2011 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 211119 PICKLEBALL SHIRTS
PICKLEBALL SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 27.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 2.59
Total :29.83
123916 2/17/2011 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101001253 M5Z34
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 60.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 5.72
M5Z34101991419
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.38
Total :93.35
123917 2/17/2011 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8965 Monthly Wholesale Charges for Jan 2011
Monthly Wholesale Charges for Jan 2011
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 84,890.65
Total :84,890.65
123918 2/17/2011 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001309077 3-0197-0807770
RECYCLE ROLLOFF
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 10.64
Total :10.64
123919 2/17/2011 065568 ALLWATER INC 021011037 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 27.47
Total :27.47
123920 2/17/2011 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 13127 PLAQUES
1Page:
Packet Page 36 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123920 2/17/2011 (Continued)069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
SMALL PLAQUES FOR DR. HICKMAN'S BENCH
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 196.70
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6.90
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 19.34
Total :222.94
123921 2/17/2011 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0212 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 12.00
Total :12.00
123922 2/17/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5386352 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 25.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.38
Total :27.40
123923 2/17/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5373845 21580001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.38
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.40
21580001655-5386358
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.38
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.40
Total :147.56
123924 2/17/2011 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.06
2Page:
Packet Page 37 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :42.06123924 2/17/2011 064343 064343 AT&T
123925 2/17/2011 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 16718 BURIAL SUPPLIES
BURIAL SUPPLIES: JENSEN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 393.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES16738
BURIAL SUPPLIES: FERGUSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 393.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES16997
BURIAL SUPPLIES: MURPHY
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 393.00
Total :1,179.00
123926 2/17/2011 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 1170 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEES1174
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEES1175
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.00
Total :300.00
123927 2/17/2011 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 75529 BRASS PLATES/LETTERS
BRASS PLATES/ENGRAVED LETTERS
117.200.640.575.500.490.00 79.05
Freight
117.200.640.575.500.490.00 3.73
9.5% Sales Tax
117.200.640.575.500.490.00 7.87
Total :90.65
123928 2/17/2011 073566 BAY PRODUCTS INC 10208100 MIST ELIMINATOR PADS
MIST ELIMINATOR PADS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 560.00
3Page:
Packet Page 38 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123928 2/17/2011 (Continued)073566 BAY PRODUCTS INC
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 75.00
Total :635.00
123929 2/17/2011 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 384 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE
Web Site Maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 390.00
Total :390.00
123930 2/17/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 854903-01 INV#854903-01 - EDMONDS PD - PLOEGER
NAMETAG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.00
BELT KEEPERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.00
5 IN 1 JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 200.00
NAMETAGS FOR JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.00
HEAT STAMP/APPLY LETTERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
REFLECTIVE POLICE PANEL
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 24.22
Total :279.17
123931 2/17/2011 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN13353 YOGA CLASSES
YOGA #13353
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 649.60
YOGA #13332
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 714.56
PILATES YOGA FUSION #13510
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 599.76
YOGA #14033
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 75.60
4Page:
Packet Page 39 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123931 2/17/2011 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
YOGA #14034
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 72.80
YOGA #14035
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 84.00
PILATES YOGA FUSION #14036
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 61.60
Total :2,257.92
123932 2/17/2011 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1024693-E0JA E0JA.PROJECT POSTING FOR BIDS
E0JA.Project Posting for Bids
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 72.25
Total :72.25
123933 2/17/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 10777155 INV#10777155 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL (4)
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 75.69
COPY CHARGES FOR (5) TO 1/31/11
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 214.92
Total :872.21
123934 2/17/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN1111030 2954000
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 33.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 3.15
Total :36.35
123935 2/17/2011 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT13466 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #13468
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.20
Total :67.20
123936 2/17/2011 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 18630961 COPIER LEASE PW
5Page:
Packet Page 40 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123936 2/17/2011 (Continued)066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 643.07
Total :643.07
123937 2/17/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8450 INV#8450 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONE- NARCS - 1/11
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 50.76
INV#8464 CUST#45 - EDMONDS PD8464
NEXTEL PHONES- NARCS - 01/11
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 57.39
Total :108.15
123938 2/17/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8449 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 13,800.83
Total :13,800.83
123939 2/17/2011 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH
Water Useage for the Month of Jan 2011
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 525.00
Total :525.00
123940 2/17/2011 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC FEB-11 C/A CITYOFED00001
Feb-11 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20
Total :916.20
123941 2/17/2011 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3245102 E0JA.INVITATION TO BID ADVERTISEMENT
E0JA.Invitation to Bid advertisement
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 327.60
Total :327.60
123942 2/17/2011 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 121257 FAC MAINT -ELEVATOR FEES
FAC MAINT -ELEVATOR FEES
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 120.20
LIBRARY
6Page:
Packet Page 41 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123942 2/17/2011 (Continued)046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 109.40
MUSEUM
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 109.40
PW ELEVATOR ANNUAL FEES 2011121425
PW - 2011 ANNUAL FEES
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 5.47
PW - 2011 ANNUAL FEES
111.000.653.542.900.490.00 20.79
PW - 2011 ANNUAL FEES
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 20.79
PW - 2011 ANNUAL FEES
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 20.79
PW - 2011 ANNUAL FEES
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 41.56
Total :448.40
123943 2/17/2011 073570 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 0257 OPERATOR CERTF/VAN PELT
OPERATOR CERTF/VAN PELT
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 200.00
Total :200.00
123944 2/17/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3176 MINUTE TAKING
Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 255.00
Total :255.00
123945 2/17/2011 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001463/1 FACILITIES MAINT
PS - ANT BAIT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.04
FAC MAINT001474/1
PLAZA - CLEANERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.46
9.5% Sales Tax
7Page:
Packet Page 42 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123945 2/17/2011 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.65
FAC MAINT001477/1
PS - DELTA ACE REPAIR KIT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.38
FAC MAINT1446/1
FS 17 - ANT BAIT, KEY RING
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.83
FAC MAINT1450/1
FAC - FASTENERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.36
FAC MAINT1452/1
PS - EXT CORD, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.61
Total :171.33
123946 2/17/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 31183 2005
WD-40
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 31.52
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.99
Total :34.51
123947 2/17/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 LIFT ST 7
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50
LIFT STATION #81-00925
LIFT STATION #8
8Page:
Packet Page 43 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123947 2/17/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.87
LIFT STATION #11-01950
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50
LIFT STATION #21-02675
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms1-03950
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 493.91
Public Works Meter Shop1-05350
Public Works Meter Shop
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 68.27
LIFT STATION #61-05705
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.99
CITY HALL1-13975
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 422.84
CITY HALL1-14000
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 72.70
Total :1,226.08
123948 2/17/2011 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 093672 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - March
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total :152.00
123949 2/17/2011 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES ENGLAND13492 SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE CLASSES
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #13492
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 902.88
Total :902.88
123950 2/17/2011 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 469068 ANGLE STEEL
9Page:
Packet Page 44 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123950 2/17/2011 (Continued)009410 EVERETT STEEL INC
ANGLE STEEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 449.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 42.70
Total :492.20
123951 2/17/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU22204 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.14
Total :1.62
123952 2/17/2011 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH13534 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ #13534
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 44.20
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #13552
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 104.00
IRISH DANCE 13+ #13538
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 245.70
Total :393.90
123953 2/17/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.49
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.83
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER425-775-1344
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 54.39
YOST POOL425-775-2645
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 50.96
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
10Page:
Packet Page 45 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123953 2/17/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 110.23
Total :299.90
123954 2/17/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425 NW1-0060 02 0210 10796569413 10
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.47
03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 218.12
03 0210 1014522641 07425-771-5553
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 95.26
Total :354.85
123955 2/17/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-197-0932 TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 261.46
TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 261.46
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 71.80
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.93
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.75
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 42.49
LS 7425-776-2742
LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56
11Page:
Packet Page 46 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123955 2/17/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.04
LS 8425-778-5982
LS 8
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 28.21
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.75
PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :1,053.95
123956 2/17/2011 068265 FRONTIER ONLINE 26761643 WATER - BROADBAND SERVICE
Water- Broadband Service for
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 79.99
Total :79.99
123957 2/17/2011 072515 GOOGLE INC 2149787 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 523.37
Total :523.37
123958 2/17/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9447763039 EAR MUFFS
12Page:
Packet Page 47 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123958 2/17/2011 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
EAR MUFFS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 99.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.46
Total :109.02
123959 2/17/2011 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 952359068 CCH-CP 12-59 Corning Pnl w/6 SC Duplx
CCH-CP 12-59 Corning Pnl w/6 SC Duplx
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 655.23
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 17.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 63.93
T5PLS-12F Leviton Mfg Co molded splc952365332
T5PLS-12F Leviton Mfg Co molded splc
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 117.12
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 10.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 12.13
Total :876.73
123960 2/17/2011 073565 GREEN, SANDRA & CHARLES 8-28975 RE: #005252547 UTILITY REFUND
RE: #005252547 Utility Refund
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 121.96
Total :121.96
123961 2/17/2011 012560 HACH COMPANY 7103423 112830
LAB SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 798.56
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 36.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 79.38
13Page:
Packet Page 48 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :914.89123961 2/17/2011 012560 012560 HACH COMPANY
123962 2/17/2011 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 23872 E9FB.SERVICES THRU 1/28/11
E9FB.Services thru 1/28/11
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,895.79
Total :2,895.79
123963 2/17/2011 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 48287029 3 HP DOCKING STATIONS - MAYOR, IT, ENG
3 HP Docking stations
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 393.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 37.34
3 HP LAPTOPS-MAYOR, IT, ENG48318751
3 HP laptops 4GB ram, 250G HDD, DVDRW,
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 3,600.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 342.08
Total :4,373.32
123964 2/17/2011 013315 HIATT, CHUCK 2011 BOOTS STREET - 2011 BOOT ALLOWANCE - C HIATT
STREET - 2011 BOOT ALLOWANCE - C HIATT
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 162.84
Total :162.84
123965 2/17/2011 070042 IKON 84134329 467070-1003748A5 COPIER LEASE
Cannon Image Runner 12/22-1/24
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 942.15
Total :942.15
123966 2/17/2011 070042 IKON 83982977 Rent on Engineering copier for billing
Rent on Engineering copier for billing
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on Engineering copier for billing84161446
Rent on Engineering copier for billing
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on large copier for billing period84161449
Rent on large copier for billing period
14Page:
Packet Page 49 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123966 2/17/2011 (Continued)070042 IKON
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,713.96
123967 2/17/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1800381 226961
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 14.33
WRITING PADS/COPIER PAPER/PENCILS~
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 150.83
Total :165.16
123968 2/17/2011 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 496380 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,461.44
Total :3,461.44
123969 2/17/2011 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD13481 BASIC PHOTOSHOP
BASIC PHOTOSHOP #13481
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 49.00
Total :49.00
123970 2/17/2011 073086 KIMMEL ATHLETIC SUPPLY CO 0313668-IN SCOREBOOKS/LINE UP CARDS
KIMMEL SCOREBOOKS & SCORECARDS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 943.50
Freight
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 57.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 95.09
Total :1,095.97
123971 2/17/2011 067552 KING CO FINANCE & BUSINESS 58902 114939
BALLING P.S. COSTS
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 79,144.76
Total :79,144.76
123972 2/17/2011 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 01252011-01 INV#01252011-01 EDMONDS PD
35 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 - 12/2010
15Page:
Packet Page 50 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123972 2/17/2011 (Continued)017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 176.05
Total :176.05
123973 2/17/2011 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 2011-129 SICKLE, BLADES
SICKLE, AGRESSOR BLADES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 88.29
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.76
Total :112.45
123974 2/17/2011 018140 LEIN, JONATHAN 3875218 0283
BOOTS/LEIN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 183.00
Total :183.00
123975 2/17/2011 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 28696 2795
HVAC REPAIR
411.000.656.538.800.480.23 241.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.23 22.96
Total :264.68
123976 2/17/2011 073460 MALAN, LINDA MALAN13462 CARD WEAVING
CARD WEAVING #13462
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 98.80
Total :98.80
123977 2/17/2011 073569 MARINE ECOLOGICAL HABITATS 10767 WHEELS FOR TOUCH TANK
WHEELS FOR TOUCH TANK
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 76.00
Freight
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 17.20
Total :93.20
16Page:
Packet Page 51 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123978 2/17/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1001 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.65
INTERPRETER FEES1016
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.65
INTERPRETER FEE1060
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.25
Total :262.55
123979 2/17/2011 073500 MATSON, CYNTHIA 012811 REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO COURT TRAINING
REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO COURT TRAINING
001.000.230.512.500.430.00 33.93
Total :33.93
123980 2/17/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 71510069 123106800
STAINLESS STEEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 159.30
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 22.18
12310680076899266
HOSE/PLIERS/BACKER ROD/OIL SORBENT PADS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 441.93
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.67
12310680076899431
STEEL WIRE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.05
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.49
Total :668.62
123981 2/17/2011 063773 MICROFLEX 19837 JAN-11 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
JAN-11 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 140.00
17Page:
Packet Page 52 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :140.00123981 2/17/2011 063773 063773 MICROFLEX
123982 2/17/2011 062381 MRSC 3601-IN CODE HOSTING
City Code on MRSC Site
001.000.250.514.300.480.00 350.00
Total :350.00
123983 2/17/2011 073568 NEW ART PROJECTS CO INC REIQUAM0215 ART ELEMENTS FOR FLOWER BASKET POLES
FIRST PAYMENT: DESIGN, FABRICATE &
117.200.640.575.500.410.00 330.00
Total :330.00
123984 2/17/2011 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB13415 FUN FACTORY
FUN FACTORY #13415
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 694.40
MINI ME FUN FACTORY #13406
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 307.07
Total :1,001.47
123985 2/17/2011 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3801519.001 2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 470.00
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 43.24
Total :513.24
123986 2/17/2011 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 18584 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 609.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 57.86
Total :666.86
123987 2/17/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-251282 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 412.76
18Page:
Packet Page 53 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :412.76123987 2/17/2011 061013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
123988 2/17/2011 073522 NW HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC 14272 E1FC.SERVICES THRU 1/31/11
E1FC.Services thru 1/31/11
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 3,133.01
Total :3,133.01
123989 2/17/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 599866 INV#599866 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
LETTER COPY HOLDER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.70
INV#843392 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD843392
POST IT NOTES 5x3
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.01
CERTIFICATES-METALLIC BLUE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.96
3x5 MEMO PADS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.60
PREFORATED PADS-LETTER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.73
LEGAL PADS 5x8
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.79
BINDER CLIPS-MEDIUM
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.85
Total :63.97
123990 2/17/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 728169 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 30.12
SUPPLIES834324
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 109.07
19Page:
Packet Page 54 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :139.19123990 2/17/2011 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
123991 2/17/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 70923855 CREDIT FOR INK
CREDIT FOR INK
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 -34.63
PENCILS, BATTERIES839743
PENCILS, 9 VOLT BATTERIES FOR PLAZA
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 11.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.13
SCISSORS862976
SCISSORS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.40
COVERSTOCK888044
YELLOW COVERSTOCK
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 11.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.12
POST IT'S906324
POP UP POST ITS FOR FRONT DESK
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 9.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.86
Total :5.58
123992 2/17/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 767849 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supples
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 167.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 15.95
OFFICE SUPPLIES841534
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 2.43
Office Supplies
20Page:
Packet Page 55 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123992 2/17/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 25.60
Total :211.88
123993 2/17/2011 073563 OFFICES OF SHARON RICE HEARING 2 Hearing Examiner Services for Jan. 2011.
Hearing Examiner Services for Jan. 2011.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,875.00
Total :1,875.00
123994 2/17/2011 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 689326 JAN-11 LEGAL FEES
Jan-11 Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 21,966.54
JAN-11 RETAINER FEES689333
Jan-11 retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 20,493.13
Total :42,459.67
123995 2/17/2011 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION C34535 B/W copy overage fee
B/W copy overage fee
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 6.35
B/W copy overage fee
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 6.35
B/W copy overage fee
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 6.35
B/W copy overage fee
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 6.33
Color copy overage fee
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 39.42
Color copy overage fee
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 39.42
Color copy overage fee
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 39.42
Color copy overage fee
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 39.41
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 4.35
21Page:
Packet Page 56 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123995 2/17/2011 (Continued)066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 4.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 4.35
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 4.34
Total :200.44
123996 2/17/2011 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 111047 DUMP FEES
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.00
CLEAN GREEN DUMP111056
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.00
DUMP FEES111062
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.00
Total :80.00
123997 2/17/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 190649 2000
UPS GROUND/AUCTION ITEMS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.12
Total :41.12
123998 2/17/2011 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Pier StormWater Rent for
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,993.26
Total :1,993.26
123999 2/17/2011 029800 PRINZ, DANIEL 13 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,681.00
Total :1,681.00
124000 2/17/2011 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL
22Page:
Packet Page 57 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124000 2/17/2011 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
24 hour Alarm Monitoring-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 37.85
Total :37.85
124001 2/17/2011 030410 PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL 2933700 SUBSCRIPTION PS BUSINESS JOURNAL 2011
Subscription to Puget Sound Business
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 81.00
Total :81.00
124002 2/17/2011 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 114937 INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: SODERLUND
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 108.00
INSCRIPTION114938
INSCRIPTION: WEISS
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 81.00
INSCRIPTION114939
INSCRIPTION: AARING
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION114940
INSCRIPTION: CONNER
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
Total :349.00
124003 2/17/2011 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 332B TELEMETRY
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 101.18
Total :101.18
124004 2/17/2011 068816 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 66258681 TEST & INSPECT SPRINKLER SYSTEM
TEST & INSPECT SPRINKLER SYSTEM
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 321.03
Total :321.03
124005 2/17/2011 036955 SKY NURSERY 288912 STRAWBERRY TREE
STRAWBERRY TREE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.91
23Page:
Packet Page 58 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124005 2/17/2011 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.98
PLANTS, ETC.288914
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 15.57
PLANTS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 163.92
Total :225.38
124006 2/17/2011 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000267056 4Q-10 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES
4Q-10 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes
001.000.390.567.000.510.00 2,559.32
Total :2,559.32
124007 2/17/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2025-4064-7 8100 190TH ST SW
8100 190TH ST SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
Total :31.04
124008 2/17/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 113650017 2002-0255-4
24400 HIGHWAY 99 RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 30.02
2019-2988-2126933795
8421 244TH ST SW RICHMOND BEACH
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 30.02
2025-7952-0136798042
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 16.14
Total :76.18
124009 2/17/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200706851 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
SIGNAL LIGHT 961 PUGET DR200723021
SIGNAL LIGHT
24Page:
Packet Page 59 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124009 2/17/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.27
BLINKING LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR201431244
BLINKING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT 21531 HWY 99201441755
Traffic Control Light 21531 Hwy 99
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 84.16
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 900 PUGET DR201690849
Traffic Signal - 900 Puget Dr
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
TELEMETRY SYSTEM201790003
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 29.45
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99202289450
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 197.01
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE202519864
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
Total :473.05
124010 2/17/2011 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000266600 INV#I000266600 CUST#SSH00095-EDMONDS PD
SCSO RANGE USAGE 10 HRS 11/19/10
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 500.00
INV#I000266602 CUST#SSH00095-EDMONDS PDI000266602
SCSO RANGE USAGE 10 HRS 11/23/10
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 500.00
Total :1,000.00
124011 2/17/2011 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE JAN-11 INMATE MEDICAL - EDMONDS PD - 2/9/11
INMATE MEDS - JANUARY 2011
001.000.410.523.600.310.00 947.15
Total :947.15
124012 2/17/2011 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000267305 SOLID WASTE CHARGES/57565
25Page:
Packet Page 60 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124012 2/17/2011 (Continued)006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 448.00
Total :448.00
124013 2/17/2011 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2011-559 INV#2011-559 EDMONDS PD
64.83 BOOKING DAYS - JAN 2011
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,834.70
555 HOUSING DAYS - JAN 2011
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 34,687.50
37 WORK RELEASE DAYS - JAN 2011 LESS
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 594.00
Total :41,116.20
124014 2/17/2011 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 30231 FS 16 - INSTALLED SAFETY EDGE ON REAR
FS 16 - INSTALLED SAFETY EDGE ON REAR
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 737.50
9.5% Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 70.06
Total :807.56
124015 2/17/2011 067262 SR SOFTBALL WORLD 783 SOFTBALLS
SOFTBALLS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 518.00
Total :518.00
124016 2/17/2011 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3001271626 INV#3001271626 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 0.36
Total :10.36
124017 2/17/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2419203 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 120.75
26Page:
Packet Page 61 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124017 2/17/2011 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.47
Total :132.22
124018 2/17/2011 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18926758 100323
UTILITY TOOL/ABRASIVE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 102.82
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.77
Total :112.59
124019 2/17/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1725843 E7AA.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E7AA.RFQ Advertisement
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 206.64
Total :206.64
124020 2/17/2011 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 769480 MUSEUM
monthly elevator maint-museum
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 199.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 19.00
FAC769481
monthly elevator maint-FAC
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 882.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 83.80
MONTHLY ELEVATOR MAINT-LIBRARY769482
Monthly elevator maint-Library
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 874.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 83.06
PUBLIC SAFETY769483
quarterly elevator maint-PS
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 751.63
9.5% Sales Tax
27Page:
Packet Page 62 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124020 2/17/2011 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 71.41
MONITORING-PS769484
monitoring-PS
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 44.29
MONTHLY ELEVATOR MAINT-LIBRARY769485
Monthly elevator monitoring-Library
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 67.80
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE776954
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 163.81
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 15.56
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING776955
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 13.33
Total :3,270.07
124021 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 8313 ENG CREDIT CARD JANUARY 2011
MRSC Annual Renewal $300~
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 820.00
Total :820.00
124022 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 02/07/11 - THOMPSON -EDMONDS PD
FRAME CERT. SGT PLOEGER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 69.11
FOOD FOR ORAL BOARD 1/19/11
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 28.03
FOOD FOR ORAL BOARD 1/20/11
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 43.21
INV#3181 02/07/11 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
REG. GREENMUM-COMD INST 8/11
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 650.00
REG. MACHADO- COMD INST 8/11
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 650.00
STREAMLIGHT 26000 FLASHLIGHTS
28Page:
Packet Page 63 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124022 2/17/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 303.27
FLASH DRIVES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 30.65
LASER BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 174.08
REG. BARKER- EXEC SURVIVAL 6/11
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 550.00
MALE TORSO TARGETS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 186.62
REG.PLOEGER- IAI MGT 3/11
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00
REG. PLOEGER- SUPER LEAD 4/11
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 650.00
AIRFARE BARD-NEW WORLD 5/11
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 342.40
INV#3314 02/07/11 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314
HOLSTERS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 198.12
CHIEF'S BFT-COMPAAN/LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 26.00
INV#3512 02/07/11 TRAINING-EDMONDS PD3512
PARKING FOR CLASS-ANDERSON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 14.00
FEDEX - RETURN ARMORY GUN
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 129.53
Total :4,345.02
124023 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 47.50
Total :47.50
124024 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 3280 Aquatic Manager (#11-01) - 2 ads,
Aquatic Manager (#11-01) - 2 ads,
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 125.00
29Page:
Packet Page 64 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124024 2/17/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
ID badging software
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 150.56
Total :275.56
124025 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 2143 Monoprice adjustable tilting/swiveling
Monoprice adjustable tilting/swiveling
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 59.14
Monoprice adjustable tilting/swiveling
001.000.620.524.100.350.00 19.71
Monoprice adjustable tilting/swiveling
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 19.71
Monoprice adjustable tilting/swiveling
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 19.72
Northwest Computer Support Message
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 1,387.08
Shape 5 software/template access
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 224.99
Domain name registration
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 38.85
Monoprice.com Ethernet Network Cables
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 104.19
ARIN Annual Maintenance Fee
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 100.00
TigerDirect.com Cables, Battery
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 313.51
Tec It software
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 114.00
Total :2,400.90
124026 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 3306 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 280.22
NITRILE GLOVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,144.80
EXAMINATION/SLENKER
30Page:
Packet Page 65 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124026 2/17/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 102.00
Total :1,527.02
124027 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 88.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 558.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 558.00
Total :1,204.00
124028 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 6045 2009 WA State Non-Res Energy Code
2009 WA State Non-Res Energy Code
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 50.00
The ABC's of Form-Based Codes class for
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 250.00
Coffee for Westgate Workshop on 1/26/11.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 14.18
Form-Based Codes class for Rob Chave on
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 250.00
Stacks for posting for Planning Dept.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 33.93
Pizza for Planning Board Retreat.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 57.54
Click to mail post card mailings -
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 578.59
2 mice for Rob Chave.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 53.80
Total :1,288.04
124029 2/17/2011 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for Council Retreat
Refreshments for Council Retreat
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 115.53
AWC Conf Ref. Council Member Wilson
31Page:
Packet Page 66 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124029 2/17/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 135.00
Total :250.53
124030 2/17/2011 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0348465-WA INV# 0348465-WA EDMONDS PD
PE-FIT FOR DUTY- COMPLEX 2/8/11
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 115.00
Total :115.00
124031 2/17/2011 045517 WACA 2011 WACA DUES 2011 WACA DUES - DAWSON/SHOEMAKE
2011 WACA MEMBERSHIP - DAWSON
001.000.410.521.700.490.00 35.00
2011 WACA MEMBERSHIP - SHOEMAKE
001.000.410.521.700.490.00 35.00
Total :70.00
124032 2/17/2011 073564 WALTER WILSON & BRENT GARHOFER 5-11175 RE: #1302-5009676 UTILITY REFUND
RE: #1302-5009676 Utility Refund
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 78.48
Total :78.48
124033 2/17/2011 045912 WASPC 29418 ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING
ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 120.75
Total :120.75
124034 2/17/2011 047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 1554 WEF MEMBERSHIP/ZUVELA
WEF MEMBERSHIP/ZUVELA
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 173.00
Total :173.00
124035 2/17/2011 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 22 C/A 4181-01M
Reidy/Theusen conflict matter
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 1,267.25
Total :1,267.25
124036 2/17/2011 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5040 BUSINESS CARDS FOR P & R, PD & PW
32Page:
Packet Page 67 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124036 2/17/2011 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC
Business Cards-Ken Ploeger250-00259
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 19.16
Carrie S. Hite250-00259
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 19.16
Dave Sittauer250-00259
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.82
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.82
Total :62.94
124037 2/17/2011 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 1817662 Misc. office supplies including 66/Pk
Misc. office supplies including 66/Pk
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 135.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 12.92
Total :148.66
124038 2/17/2011 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 7151 INV#7151 - EDMONDS PD
2700 Ni-MH RADIO BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1,176.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 111.72
Total :1,287.72
124039 2/17/2011 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E66337 2714
UNIFORM/GARCIA
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 315.76
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 29.05
0283E66338
UNIFORM/LEIN
33Page:
Packet Page 68 of 112
02/17/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
8:47:32AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124039 2/17/2011 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 315.48
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 29.02
0283E66339
UNIFORM/JACKET/LEIN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 53.99
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 4.97
Total :748.27
Bank total :336,867.66125 Vouchers for bank code :front
336,867.66Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report125
34Page:
Packet Page 69 of 112
AM-3750 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Frances Chapin
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to expend budgeted conference registration funds for Edmonds Arts
Commissioners.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize expenditure of up to $500 budgeted in the 117-100 for Arts Commissioners to attend
2011 statewide Cultural Congress.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Washington Cultural Congress, an annual conference put on by the Washington State Arts
Alliance, is the primary gathering of arts administrators and members of community based arts
organizations in the state. This year the conference is being held in Stevenson, WA, April 25-27,
2011. The Arts Commission requests authorization to use budgeted funds of up to $500 to
register one or more Arts Commissioners to attend this conference. Commissioners pay for their
own accommodations and travel. Sessions include workshops on funding challenges facing arts
organizations, cultural tourism, arts education, and municipal outlooks on arts investments. This
is a key opportunity for Commissioners to learn more about arts endeavors throughout
Washington and Oregon and to participate in workshops that will benefit the Commission’s own
programs and planning. Knowledge gained from attending this conference will be helpful in
implementing the goals of the EAC strategic plan and the Community Cultural Plan.
City Council authorization is required as per Ordinance 2893 (Section 1, 2.25.050, D).
Attachments
Cultural Congress schedule
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/17/2011 09:31 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 02/15/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 70 of 112
Washington State Arts
Alliance
2011 Cultural Congress
April 25 - 27
Skamania Lodge
along the Columbia River Gorge in Stevenson, Washington
REGISTER NOW
Drafting the Blueprint for Arts & Culture
Join your colleagues at the 19th annual arts conference to get
the most relevant information, connect with peers and strategize
for our future.
Now, more than ever, we need to come together to share
challenges, gain skills, and build relationships. This year’s
Cultural Congress will offer these vital opportunities as well as
the unique chance to be instrumental in setting strategy and
direction for the future of arts and culture in our rapidly changing
communities.
Schedule at a Glance
MONDAY, APRIL 25
1:00 - 2pm Opening Session
2:15 – 4:00pm Concurrent Sessions
4:15 – 5:45pm Blueprint for Arts & Culture Dialogues
6:00 – 8:00pm Dinner / Keynote Address
8:30 – 9:30pm Peer Group Discussions
TUESDAY, APRIL 26
7:00 – 8:00am Early Morning Activities / Breakfast
8:30 – 10:00am Concurrent Sessions
10:15 - 11:45am Blueprint for Arts & Culture Dialogues
Noon – 1:00pm Lunch
1:30 – 3:00pm Meeting of Mayors Panel Discussion
3:30 – 5:00pm Concurrent Sessions
6:00 – 8:00pm Dinner / Performance
Conference Fees &
Deadlines
Early-Bird rate through 1/
31/11
3 days: $300 (member);
$350
2 days: $200
Advanced rate through
2/28/11
3 days: $325(member);
$375
2 days: $225
General rate through
3/28/11
3 days: $350 (member);
$400
2 days: $250
On-site rate
3 days: $450 (member);
$500
2 days: $325
1 day: $200
* Group & student rates
available
Packet Page 71 of 112
8:30 – 9:30pm Peer Group Discussions
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27
7:00 – 8:00am Early Morning Activities / Breakfast
8:30 – 10:00am Concurrent Sessions
10:15 – 11:30am Blueprint for Arts & Culture Dialogues
11:30 a.m. – noon Final words / Closing presentation
* Presenters & scholarship
recipients contact WSAAF.
THANK YOU FOR GENEROUS SUPPORT FROM:
Packet Page 72 of 112
AM-3757 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of 2011 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2011 Taxicab Operator's License for North
End Taxi.
Previous Council Action
Taxicab Operator's Licenses are issued annually.
Narrative
Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 requires that the City Council approve Taxicab Operator's
Licenses. A copy of the license application for North End Taxi is attached.
In addition, the Police Department reviewed the application and recommended approval.
Attachments
2011 North End Taxi Application
Police Department Approval
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/17/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 73 of 112
Packet Page 74 of 112
Packet Page 75 of 112
Packet Page 76 of 112
Packet Page 77 of 112
AM-3751 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilmembers Buckshnis &
Plunkett
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Update from the 2010-11 Citizen Levy Committee.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The levy committee first met on July 29, 2010 and has had twelve meetings to date. Copies of our
minutes can be found on the website. The committee has done a lot of research both at the Edmonds staff
level as well as listening to other Finance Directors from surrounding cities (Shoreline, Redmond, Lake
Forest Park) as well as the Superintendent for the Edmonds School District to obtain “lesson learned”
insight.
A summary was already provided by the levy committee and now one of its members, Darrol Haug will
do a presentation of the following models and summaries that he has developed:
1) A summary of the Ending General Fund Balance as provided from our Executive Summaries and what
levy scenarios will provide.
2) The impact a levy will have on average citizens’ property taxes.
3) Forecasting the effects of one of the City’s largest expenditures (FD1 payments)
4) Discussion topics for both models and talking points.
Attachments:
Final Draft Report
Edmonds General Fund Ending Cash Balance
Property Tax Summary Model
General Fund Large Expenditure (FD1) Forecasting
Summary of both models and discussion points
Attachments
Final Draft Report
Report\Levy Committee Edmonds Ending Cash Fund
Levy Commitee Property Tax Summary
Large Expenditure Example
Summary of both models and discussion points (3).
Packet Page 78 of 112
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/17/2011 09:31 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/16/2011 10:10 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 79 of 112
Final DRAFT
What have we researched to date and where are we now?
• The Levy Committee conducted information sessions with representatives from the
Cities of Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Redmond and the Edmonds School District to
obtain an understanding of how they approach(ed) preparing levies in addition to
discussing what has worked and what did not.
• City expenditures have been examined to the extent possible (with the exception of
labor cost which includes benefits). Our purpose in examining expenditures is to
assure the public that all expenditures have been fairly examined in concert with the
fiscal responsibilities of the Legislative Branch.
• The Committee believes labor cost (salaries, benefits, and retirement) exceed the levy
committee’s authority to review and the final decisions on salaries and benefits rest
with the legislative branch of government.
o However, the Levy Committee recommends that the Council continue to
negotiate in “good faith” on labor cost and benefits and ensures the public is
made more aware of these costs.
• The committee believes the 2011 budget represents a financial baseline of information
for the future even though we have yet to receive the final document.
• The Levy Committee has produced various sample models of taxation using ratios based
on County Property Tax Statements and levy draft scenarios.
• The Levy Committee recognizes that the City of Edmonds’ previous cost control and
revenue generation efforts have resulted in a relatively sustained level of service to
date, in spite of economic difficulties.
• The Levy Committee is in the process of initiating a survey but needs the City Council
acknowledgement.
What levy ideas have we come up with?
• Any levy should be for 2-3 years.
• A general operations levy that makes up the projected shortfalls.
• A capital levy for one or more specific projects such as roads, fixing up Yost Pool and/or
city buildings where levy funding is used for certain capital cost in lieu of using general
fund operating dollars - thus reducing the operating budget.
• Or general operations and capital levy at same time, (e.g., two propositions on ballot).
Packet Page 80 of 112
What challenges do we see these next few months?
• Trying to get the council, administration and levy committee to agree on a strategy.
• Obtaining current, accurate and complete financial statements.
• Making sure the right levy, (i.e., type and amount, is put before the citizens)
• City Council elections in 2011.
• Public education and addressing public perceptions.
What must we do to get things moving forward?
• The Levy Committee needs to finalize an annual report and provide it to the City
Council.
• The Levy Committee must finalize work product and provide a final report which
includes an agreed upon levy type(s) and funding option(s) and model samples.
• Council conducts full, educational public discussions on recommendation(s) from the
Levy Committee.
What are the trends we are seeing?
• That the people of Edmonds will support a levy if it’s the right levy is clearly specified
and there is a unified administration, legislation and Levy Committee support.
• More importantly a clear, concise and consistent message has to be presented to the
citizens of Edmonds with supporting citizen friendly financial reports.
Packet Page 81 of 112
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2011 Final 4,106,195 3,400,424 3,641,250 977,951 2,167,156 2,815,313 2,952,335 2,376,001 1,104,001 (842,158) (3,315,644) (6,477,793)
GF Levy 2011 2,952,335 3,376,001 3,104,001 2,157,842 (315,644) (3,477,793)
GF Levy 2014 2,157,842 2,684,356 2,522,207
One Mo. Res 2,275,507 2,509,931 2,661,621 2,762,513 2,746,091 2,822,941 2,693,408 2,778,939 2,861,085 2,951,978 3,034,367 3,130,861
GF Levy2011 1,000,000 These data shown only 1 2 3 3 3
GF Levy2014 3,000,000 to make model work.1 2
Notes for table and chart:
2011 Final is the ending cash balance from General Fund Forecast, Executive Summary dated Jan 31, 2011
GF Levy 2011 is the data for a 3 year levy for the amount shown in the yellow field. Model allows any levy amount to be entered and chart is produced.
GF Levy 2014 is the data for a levy with revenues beginning in 2015 for the amount shown in the yellow field. Any levy amount may be entered an then charted.
One Mo. Reserve is the amount Council has recommended as a reserve for the General Fund. Reserve is posted for prior years to show consistant data.
Model allow any levy amount to be posted in the yellow fields and both the table and chart are updated to reflect the levy amount entered.
Model is set to show a levy in 2011 with revenue beginning in 2012 and running for only 3 years. A second levy will produce revenue starting in 2015.
Data from General Fund Forecast appears to be conservative. As the ecomomy improves these data are likely to show better numbers than posted here.
Edmonds General Fund Ending Cash Balance
Prepared by Darrol Haug Feb. 14, 2011
(8,000,000)
(6,000,000)
(4,000,000)
(2,000,000)
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2011 Final
GF Levy 2011
GF Levy 2014
One Mo. Res
Packet Page 82 of 112
Packet Page 83 of 112
Packet Page 84 of 112
Packet Page 85 of 112
Packet Page 86 of 112
Packet Page 87 of 112
1
Summary of Large General Fund Expenditure (Fire District 1 Model)
and Edmonds Tax Model Prepared for Levy Work
Prepared by Darrol Haug Feb 12, 2011
These two models are interrelated and show a set of Levy Examples do the following:
Levy Examples produce $19,000.000 over a six year period.
Sets into motion a plan to fully fund the cost of the fire services provided by Fire District 1 with its own
dedicated taxes and revenues and eliminates the need for funding FD1 from the General Fund.
The levy examples are designed to respond to perceived public wishes for:
1. Tax payer voted taxes
2. Taxes which are not regressive
3. Taxes which are not permanent
4. Taxes that are for targeted purposes
Levies are designed:
1. Restore services which have been eliminated from General Fund
2. Restore Street overlay program
3. Do catch-up on deferred maintenance
4. Repair Yost Pool and provide reserve for operations
5. Provide permanent funding and revenue sources to support FD1 payment for life of contract.
The FD1 Model has two sheets: FD1 Model and Model Comments. The model allows testing of various
growth assumptions to see the impact on costs, taxes and revenues associated with FD1 contract.
Summary of FD1 Key Points:
FD1 contract is for 20 years and the first decision point is in 2014. Current contract is for $6.2 annually with
a COLA increase. First year increase was less than 1% but the FD1 model is set to test the costs with a 4%
COLA. CPI for Seattle has averaged +3.09% over the last 20 years. With the current EMS tax rate at $.50 per
thousand the anticipated 2011 collection will exceed $3.2m. Property values have declined from $7.7B in
2009 to $6.4B+ in 2011, a 16% decrease. As property values slowing return to prior levels the EMS tax will
produce increases proportional to the property value increases. This tax is not limited to a 1% limit. The
model is currently set to show a 4% increase. The transport fees associated with the FD1 are slow in
collection. As of 1/13/2011 the collections for 2009 were $868,404 on charges of $1.443,191. These fees
are the net fees collected after FD1 bills and collects for EMS transport. If FD1 does not collect the fee it is
written off. There is no incentive provided to FD1 to manage and increase collections. As Obama Care kicks
in and more people are covered with health insurance these fees will likely increase. Edmonds should
create a plan to optimize collections both now and in the future. The model is set for a 5% increase. With
the model set as outlined above the contract costs will grow from $6.2m to $6.97m in 2014. The EMS tax
Packet Page 88 of 112
2
will grow from $3.2m to $3.6m and transport fees will grow from $700k to $810k and the contribution from
the GF will grow from $2.3m to $2.56m.
The FD1 model can be used to test alternative growth assumptions. And while the numbers mentioned
above are estimates the model provides a way to predict and track the costs, taxes and revenues associated
with the FD1 contract.
In 2014 Council will have choices for FD1 contract:
1. Continue contract as is, and pay the contracted amount plus COLA
2. Cancel the contract with a two year notice.
3. Do something else. Some have advanced ideas to create a regionalize tax plan.
Continuing the contract may well be the most cost effective way for Edmonds.
If we cancel we have two years to get back into the fire service business. We own the stations and we
would need to buy equipment and hire personnel to restart a fire service. With no constraints we could
study alternatives and find the most cost effective model to provide fire services.
Any form of regionalizing payments for FD1 should be judged against the costs associated with the existing
contract. Care should be taken to insure Edmonds does not subsidize others communities. The Sno-Isle
Library regional funding caused Edmonds to pay more for Sno-Isle services than the contract method of
payment.
The Tax Model Levy has 3 sheets. Tax Model allows for testing of various levies and home values to see the
tax impact. Tax and Rev Summary shows a summary of taxes and revenues generated by the proposed
levies. Tax Tables show the tax rates and revenues from the 3 Edmonds taxes: Regular, EMS, and Bonds.
Here are the details for each levy and how they fit with the objectives above.
Street Overlay Levy: $1.5m per year for 3 years. This restores overlay work that has been cut from the GF.
Unlike the TBD, this tax is not linked to car tabs, it is not regressive, is not a forever tax unless voted on
again in the future and it is large enough to get us back on pace with street overlay work. Street Overlay
work is directly measurable and predictable as far as lane miles paved for the dollars received. If the public
is pleased with the results during the 3 year period they can vote again to do more work. This dedicated tax
will restore a basic service and create funding for the targeted work.
Deferred Maintenance Levy: $500k per year for 3 years. This tax will dedicate funds that have been cut
from the GF and will allow for catch up of documented deferred maintenance. This tax has the same
characteristics as the street overlay tax.
Yost Pool Levy: $1m for 1 year. This dedicated tax will generate sufficient funds to do primary pool repair
and will also fund a reserve fund that can be used for operations. This will allow for additional time to
evaluate alternatives for the pool’s future.
Time will allow for a full public discussion of the pros and cons of the 3 levies above. The public will then be
allowed to express their own priorities on all 3 issues. Because of the targeted nature of each levy for items
Packet Page 89 of 112
3
which have good public support all would have good chance of success. But if voted down the public will
have made the choice on individual items instead of a larger general levy. Voted on individually will give the
public confidence that the money will be spent as advertised.
General Fund Levy: $1m for 3 years. Since the other levies are targeted as planned this levy would be to
augment the GF. Based on the current budget forecast these dollars will keep the GF above the reserve
levels set by Council. Just as the administration has been asked to show what will be cut as the GF is
reduced, the administration should be asked to show how they plan to spend the added $3m. Since this
levy is for 3 years the public will be have time to judge how well the money is being spent and could be
asked for an added levy at the expiration of the 3 years.
The model shows a new tax payer approved tax in 2014 and taking effect in 2015. Based on the FD1 model
the contribution from the GF to pay the FD1 contract is estimated to be $2.66m in 2015. Setting the new
tax rate to generate $3m will allow the full payment of the FD1 contract from dedicated source and create
a small reserve.
By voting for a new tax with a rate of $.48 together with the EMS rate of $.50/1000 would produce a total
rate of about $.98/1000. This increase will produce enough money in both taxes along with the transport
fees to cover the cost of the contract. Because this new tax is not accompanied by a reduction of the tax
rate for the GF the passage of the new EMS tax will free up $3m for other uses in the GF. Effectively we
would be adding $3m to the GF on an annual basis. Based on the current budget forecast, the $3m would
be more than necessary to say above the target reserves and would allow for expanded uses of the GF.
Once again it would be useful if the administration would outline how the additional funds would be used.
The Model allow for the testing of various levy assumptions and various assumptions for home values.
Changing the home value from the current setting of $400,000 to any other number will produce not only
the current tax for the 3 types of Edmonds taxes it produces the estimated additional tax for new levies.
The model is also set to estimate the tax required to pay of a 20 year bond for any capital project. The
model is currently set to show the impact of the levies discussed above and it illustrates what tax would be
required to retire a $10m bond. That tax would run for 20 years to retire the $10m.
The final page of the model summarizes the taxes paid for current taxes and for the levies outlined. The
model also shows the total revenue generated for each tax outlined.
The emphasis on these levy examples is to create targeted taxes with a time period certain to demonstrate
to the public that there taxes are being spent for the intended purposes. Because the taxes are limited in
time the public is not asked to commit to a forever tax. This is similar to how we do school funding with
replacement levies. If the public is confortable with how their money is being spent they are likely to renew
the taxes when asked.
Packet Page 90 of 112
AM-3754 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
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. Public comment will be received on this item.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize Mayor to sign Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Perteet, Inc.
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. and recommended a neighborhood meeting be held to
receive public input on the project.
On February 8, 2011, the CS/DS Committee was presented with a summary (Attachment 1) of the
neighborhood meeting held on January 27, 2011. The Committee's recommendation was to forward the
Addendum and report on the neighborhood meeting to the full Council for discussion and possible action
and allow public comment.
Narrative
On February 8, 2011, staff provided a report to the CS/DS Committee on a neighborhood meeting held on
January 27th for the Shell Valley Emergency Access project. The CS/DS Committee asked staff to
conduct this meeting to solicit input on the project and how the access road should be operated during the
winter season. After reviewing the staff report and discussing the concerns raised by the residents, the
CS/DS committee recommended that the proposed Addendum and report on the neighborhood meeting
be provided to the full Council for discussion and possible action. The Committee also asked staff
to notify residents about the meeting and provide an opportunity for them to comment on how the access
road should be operated.
Packet Page 91 of 112
The proposed Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Perteet, Inc will complete
the following services: (1) design and secure permits for a 22 ft wide street alternative; (2) design
modifications to comply with State Department of Ecology (DOE) grant requirements; (3) change the
pavement material to pervious hot-mix asphalt; and (4) provide consultant support services during
construction.
The current design width for the emergency access road is 15 ft. and a second alternative for a 22 ft wide
pavement width would be a bid alternative in the contract documents. If the City receives construction
bids on the 22 ft wide alternative that were within the Shell Valley construction budget, then staff will
recommend constructing the 22 ft. wide pavement section.
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 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
Attachments
Attachment 1-Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Attachment 2-Perteet Addendum No. 4
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 02/17/2011 11:28 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 02/17/2011 12:23 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/17/2011 01:48 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 02/16/2011 02:42 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 92 of 112
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. Exhibit B is the sign-in
sheet from the meeting. 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 93 of 112
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 94 of 112
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
5
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
6
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
7
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
8
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
9
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
0
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
1
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
2
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
3
o
f
1
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
4
o
f
1
1
2
AM-3755 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Council Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Final City Council deliberation on selection of City Attorney.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On February 1, 2011, the Council interviewed the following City Attorney applicants:
5:30 p.m. - Gary McLean
6:30 p.m. - Scott Snyder, Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC
7:30 p.m. - Break
7:45 p.m. - Jeffrey Taraday, Lighthouse Law Group PLLC
8:45 p.m. - Grant Weed, Weed Graafstra and Benson, Inc., PS
On February 8, 2011, the Council voted to move Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC and the Lighthouse
Law Group PLLC forward.
Narrative
Final deliberations on this process were set for tonight's meeting.
Attachment: Wilson Resolution
Attachments
Councilmember Wilson's resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/17/2011 09:31 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/16/2011 06:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 105 of 112
Wilson Resolution Re-Considering City Attorney Applications
Whereas 11 applications were submitted for consideration for the contract of City Attorney of Edmonds,
and
Whereas 4 applicants were interviewed, of which 2 were found to not have Council support and 2 were
found to be worthy of additional examination, and
Whereas the Council concludes that it would like to interview additional candidates for City Attorney
before making a final decision on awarding the contract,
Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council commits to re-open interviews of up to 3 applicants
for the position of City Attorney for further consideration of the applicant pool before awarding
the final contract, and
Therefore be it further resolved that the Council direct any comments regarding additional applicant
interviews to the Council President for the purposes of selecting applicants and coordinating
interviews.
Packet Page 106 of 112
AM-3752 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/22/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:City Council Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding House Bill 1265, relating to land use planning in qualifying
unincorporated portions of urban growth areas; and amending RCW 36.70A.110.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Council approved the legislative agenda for 2011 prior to the introduction of HB1265.
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.
This agenda item was put on the CS/DS Committee. The Committee did not have a recommendation and
asked that it be placed on the an upcoming Council Agenda.
Narrative
Per CS/DS Committee directive, this item has been placed on this agenda for discussion.
Attachment: HB 1265
Attachments
HB 1265
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/17/2011 09:31 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/17/2011 05:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2011 08:36 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/16/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2011
Packet Page 107 of 112
H-0306.2 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 1265
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By Representatives Kagi, Ryu, Rodne, Liias, Takko, Roberts, Smith, and
Upthegrove
Read first time 01/18/11. Referred to Committee on Local Government.
1 AN ACT Relating to land use planning in qualifying unincorporated
2 portions of urban growth areas; and amending RCW 36.70A.110.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 36.70A.110 and 2010 c 211 s 1 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 (1) Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW
7 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which
8 urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur
9 only if it is not urban in nature. Each city that is located in such
10 a county shall be included within an urban growth area. An urban
11 growth area may include more than a single city. An urban growth area
12 may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such
13 territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the
14 urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already
15 characterized by urban growth, or is a designated new fully contained
16 community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350.
17 (2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for
18 the county by the office of financial management, the county and each
19 city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to
p. 1 HB 1265
Packet Page 108 of 112
1 permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or
2 city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban
3 growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve.
4 As part of this planning process, each city within the county must
5 include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and
6 uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as
7 appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service,
8 retail, and other nonresidential uses.
9 Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall
10 include greenbelt and open space areas. In the case of urban growth
11 areas contained totally within a national historical reserve, the city
12 may restrict densities, intensities, and forms of urban growth as
13 determined to be necessary and appropriate to protect the physical,
14 cultural, or historic integrity of the reserve. An urban growth area
15 determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and
16 shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining this
17 market factor, cities and counties may consider local circumstances.
18 Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to
19 make many choices about accommodating growth.
20 Within one year of July 1, 1990, each county that as of June 1,
21 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, shall begin
22 consulting with each city located within its boundaries and each city
23 shall propose the location of an urban growth area. Within sixty days
24 of the date the county legislative authority of a county adopts its
25 resolution of intention or of certification by the office of financial
26 management, all other counties that are required or choose to plan
27 under RCW 36.70A.040 shall begin this consultation with each city
28 located within its boundaries. The county shall attempt to reach
29 agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area within
30 which the city is located. If such an agreement is not reached with
31 each city located within the urban growth area, the county shall
32 justify in writing why it so designated the area an urban growth area.
33 A city may object formally with the department over the designation of
34 the urban growth area within which it is located. Where appropriate,
35 the department shall attempt to resolve the conflicts, including the
36 use of mediation services.
37 (3) Urban growth should be located first in areas already
38 characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public
HB 1265 p. 2
Packet Page 109 of 112
1 facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in
2 areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served
3 adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and
4 services and any additional needed public facilities and services that
5 are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the
6 remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be
7 located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW
8 36.70A.350.
9 (4) In general, cities are the units of local government most
10 appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is
11 not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or
12 expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to
13 be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the
14 environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural
15 densities and do not permit urban development.
16 (5) On or before October 1, 1993, each county that was initially
17 required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040(1) shall adopt development
18 regulations designating interim urban growth areas under this chapter.
19 Within three years and three months of the date the county legislative
20 authority of a county adopts its resolution of intention or of
21 certification by the office of financial management, all other counties
22 that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt
23 development regulations designating interim urban growth areas under
24 this chapter. Adoption of the interim urban growth areas may only
25 occur after public notice; public hearing; and compliance with the
26 state environmental policy act, chapter 43.21C RCW, and under this
27 section. Such action may be appealed to the growth management hearings
28 board under RCW 36.70A.280. Final urban growth areas shall be adopted
29 at the time of comprehensive plan adoption under this chapter.
30 (6) Each county shall include designations of urban growth areas in
31 its comprehensive plan.
32 (7) An urban growth area designated in accordance with this section
33 may include within its boundaries urban service areas or potential
34 annexation areas designated for specific cities or towns within the
35 county.
36 (8)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, the expansion
37 of an urban growth area is prohibited into the one hundred year
38 floodplain of any river or river segment that: (i) Is located west of
p. 3 HB 1265
Packet Page 110 of 112
1 the crest of the Cascade mountains; and (ii) has a mean annual flow of
2 one thousand or more cubic feet per second as determined by the
3 department of ecology.
4 (b) Subsection (8)(a) of this section does not apply to:
5 (i) Urban growth areas that are fully contained within a floodplain
6 and lack adjacent buildable areas outside the floodplain;
7 (ii) Urban growth areas where expansions are precluded outside
8 floodplains because:
9 (A) Urban governmental services cannot be physically provided to
10 serve areas outside the floodplain; or
11 (B) Expansions outside the floodplain would require a river or
12 estuary crossing to access the expansion; or
13 (iii) Urban growth area expansions where:
14 (A) Public facilities already exist within the floodplain and the
15 expansion of an existing public facility is only possible on the land
16 to be included in the urban growth area and located within the
17 floodplain; or
18 (B) Urban development already exists within a floodplain as of July
19 26, 2009, and is adjacent to, but outside of, the urban growth area,
20 and the expansion of the urban growth area is necessary to include such
21 urban development within the urban growth area; or
22 (C) The land is owned by a jurisdiction planning under this chapter
23 or the rights to the development of the land have been permanently
24 extinguished, and the following criteria are met:
25 (I) The permissible use of the land is limited to one of the
26 following: Outdoor recreation; environmentally beneficial projects,
27 including but not limited to habitat enhancement or environmental
28 restoration; storm water facilities; flood control facilities; or
29 underground conveyances; and
30 (II) The development and use of such facilities or projects will
31 not decrease flood storage, increase storm water runoff, discharge
32 pollutants to fresh or salt waters during normal operations or floods,
33 or increase hazards to people and property.
34 (c) For the purposes of this subsection (8), "one hundred year
35 floodplain" means the same as "special flood hazard area" as set forth
36 in WAC 173-158-040 as it exists on July 26, 2009.
37 (9)(a) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, the maximum
HB 1265 p. 4
Packet Page 111 of 112
1 residential density of an unincorporated portion of an urban growth
2 area may not exceed that of the immediately adjacent areas of the
3 abutting city or cities.
4 (b) Subsection (a) of this section applies only to unincorporated
5 portions of urban growth areas that:
6 (i) Border the Puget Sound;
7 (ii) Are surrounded on the landward side entirely by one or more
8 cities;
9 (iii) Are one or more miles from any other portion of an urban
10 growth area that is in unincorporated territory; and
11 (iv) Are fifty or more acres in size.
12 (c) This subsection (9) does not apply to otherwise qualifying
13 areas if the county has entered into an interlocal agreement under
14 chapter 39.34 RCW with the city or cities surrounding the urban growth
15 area that stipulates: (i) Urban governmental services will be provided
16 by the surrounding city or cities; and (ii) limitations on and
17 mitigation of transportation impacts on the roads and impacts on the
18 park facilities of the surrounding city or cities.
--- END ---
p. 5 HB 1265
Packet Page 112 of 112