2011.03.01 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
MARCH 1, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-3765 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2011.
C. AM-3764 Approval of claim checks #124040 through #124124 dated February 24, 2011 for
$434,357.55.
D. AM-3769 Review and approval of Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing
Examiner Services.
3. (15 Minutes) Executive session regarding potential litigation.
4. (5 Minutes)
AM-3775
Potential action regarding a Settlement Agreement with Nansi Karlsten.
5. (15 Minutes)
AM-3776
Discussion and potential action regarding a Professional Services Agreement with
Lighthouse Law Group, and a Transition Agreement with Ogden Murphy Wallace.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
Packet Page 1 of 103
7. (15 Minutes)
AM-3772
Combined 2010 Year End Reports from the City of Edmonds Economic
Development Commission and the Planning Board.
8. (2 Hours)
AM-3773
Joint Meeting with the Edmonds Planning Board.
9. AM-3768 Discussion and potential action regarding pending legislation of interest to the City
of Edmonds.
10. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 103
AM-3765 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
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 22, 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
02-22-11 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/25/2011 08:33 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 08:58 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/24/2011 10:08 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2011
Packet Page 3 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 22, 2011
At 7:53 p.m., Council President Peterson announced that the City Council would interview a candidate
for the Arts Commission, Suzie Herivel Maloney. Elected officials present were: Councilmembers
Bernheim, Plunkett, Buckshnis, and Petso. Ms. Maloney responded to questions from the Council. The
interview concluded at 7:56 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 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
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember (via
telephone)
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Peterson requested Item 7 be moved to follow Item 4 to ensure that Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas, who was participating via telephone due to illness, could participate in that item.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4 AND 5, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011.
D. 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.
Packet Page 4 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 2
E. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND BUDGETED CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FUNDS
FOR EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSIONERS.
F. APPROVAL OF 2011 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI.
3. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF SUZIE HERIVEL MALONEY TO THE
ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Laura Townsend, Edmonds, commented the City has a City Attorney with experience. Ogden Murphy
Wallace represents more mid-sized cities than any other firm in the area and they have done a good job
representing the City. With several family members in the legal field, she relayed their recommendation
for experience. Her research indicates the other firm under consideration does not have the same
experience that Ogden Murphy Wallace has. She feared one lawsuit could cost the City a great deal of
money. Ogden Murphy Wallace knows the City’s history which a new firm does not.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, recalled Councilmember Bernheim prevailed in litigation against the City in
2004; litigation that cost him, his wife and neighbors a considerable amount of money and time. Although
Councilmember Bernheim has said if Mr. Snyder is selected he will not have any difficulty continuing to
work with him, Mr. Wambolt anticipated Councilmember Bernheim will harbor some resentment toward
Mr. Snyder. Although the selection was not a quasi judicial matter and the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine does not apply, for the process to appear fair to citizens, he urged Councilmember Bernheim to
recuse himself from the vote. Next, Mr. Wambolt referred to Councilmember Petso’s several year legal
battle with the City and Mr. Snyder, costing the City in excess of $150,000 and Councilmember Petso
considerable time and money. Anticipating such an extended adversarial relationship would taint how she
viewed Mr. Snyder, Mr. Wambolt recommended Councilmember Petso also recuse herself from the vote
in order for the selection process to appear fair to citizens. He requested before voting all
Councilmembers state the reasons for their selection.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, urged the Council to make a decision to change the City Attorney. In his
opinion Mr. Snyder had been involved in a number of unnecessary lawsuits or extended lawsuits longer
than necessary. Mr. Hertrich supported the use of the $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve to pay off
the City Hall bond to free up funds in the REET funds to purchase parks such as the Civic Center
playfields if it became available. He anticipated it was too late to refinance bonds as transaction costs and
increasing interest rates reduced the savings. With regard to the Shell Valley access road, he recalled the
road originally proposal was an 11-foot road due to environmental issues. Engineering is now
recommending a 22-foot wide road and $65,000 more for a consultant to upgrade the project. He
questioned whether the residents had an opportunity to provide their opinion and he feared Engineering’s
recommendations did not reflect what the residents want. He cited the Five Corners roundabout as an
example of a project Engineering was pursuing when the Council had not yet decided that was the best
solution for Five Corners.
Steve Jones, Edmonds, Shell Valley resident, was hopeful that providing emergency access, which he
supported, was not a step toward creating through traffic. He was concerned the scale of the emergency
access as proposed would lead to through traffic. He pointed out that providing an emergency access
route did not guarantee emergency access. Two years ago during winter storms when Pioneer was closed,
Main was also closed for a period of time thus the proposed emergency access would not have been
available.
Packet Page 5 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 3
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, relayed her choice of final City Attorney candidates would have been Gary
McLean and the Lighthouse Group. Gary McLean provided her the most hope for the future of Edmonds;
she appreciated his ideas about green issues and water gardens as well as his work as City Manager and
City Attorney in Puyallup. The Lighthouse Group is very well qualified and she appreciated their
youthful energy and the wealth of experience they offer. When she learned the Council had narrowed the
selection to Ogden Murphy Wallace and the Lighthouse Group, she emailed the Council with her
concerns about the process and her understanding there would be two opportunities for the public to
comment before the number of candidates was narrowed at the January 15 meeting. In response
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas forwarded her an email from Councilmember Wilson with charges
against Mr. McLean. She expressed concern that the Council was willing to eliminate Mr. McLean on the
basis of potentially unsubstantiated charges, yet nothing was done to investigate the delay in publishing
the Critical Areas Ordinance in which Mr. Snyder was involved or his failure to present the Council the
framework for resolution. She preferred the Council had eliminated Ogden Murphy Wallace from the
candidates under consideration and suggested other candidates be considered. She summarized the
Lighthouse Group is a good option for City Attorney.
Matt Douglas, Edmonds, invited citizens, Councilmembers and the Mayor to attend the Edmonds-
Woodway High School Booster Club/Parent Student Organization’s auction on March 19. Budget cuts
have impacted funding for education and proceeds from the auction will be used to provide funds to
athletics as well as other programs at Edmonds-Woodway High School. Tickets can be purchased at the
Edmonds-Woodway High School Athletic Booster website.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, resident of the Aurora Marketplace neighborhood and an attorney
practicing in King and Snohomish Counties since 1975, 2-term member of the Planning Board, current
member of the Economic Development Commission and Highway 99 Task Force and Harbor Square
Steering Committee, explained he has never been sued by the City or sued the City or been professionally
involved in any litigation with Ogden Murphy Wallace or the Lighthouse Group. During his volunteer
activities in the City he has had opportunity to work with Mr. Snyder and other members of Ogden
Murphy Wallace on issues affecting the City. Mr. Snyder regularly staffed Planning Board meetings and
always treated him professionally and courteously. As a member of the legal community, he is aware of
Ogden Murphy Wallace and Mr. Snyder’s excellent reputation. Ogden Murphy Wallace has been in
existence for 100 years and have 30 lawyers in Seattle and 13 in Wenatchee as well as numerous support
staff. The firm represents more municipalities than any other firm in the state and as a result Edmonds has
the benefit of economy of scale because other municipalities they represent face similar issues. He
anticipated a new City Attorney will have a substantial learning curve which could adversely impact day-
to-day legal services provided to the City as well as the loss of Ogden Murphy Wallace’s institutional
memory and costs associated with transitioning to a new firm. The Lighthouse Group has only existed for
a few months, has not represented a municipality and do not have the experience that Ogden Murphy
Wallace has. He urged the Council to consider the totality of the circumstances, not just the cost. Based
on the totality of the circumstances, he urged the Council to support the retention of Ogden Murphy
Wallace as the most qualified candidate for City Attorney.
7. FINAL CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON SELECTION OF CITY ATTORNEY.
Council President Peterson thanked the applicants, the Council and citizens for their patience with the
process.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he was not pleased with the two candidates the process resulted in.
With additional discussions and review, he has become more supportive of the Lighthouse Group. He
supported a third alternative, Weed, Graafstra and Benson. He spoke with Mr. Weed today who provided
additional information. If the Council chose not to select a City Attorney tonight, he has considered
Packet Page 6 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 4
suggesting the process be reset to consider other candidates. However, he reached the decision it was
preferable that the Council select a City Attorney tonight and planned to make a motion to reconsider
Weed, Graafstra and Benson. One of the concerns with Mr. Weed was that he is the lead attorney for
another city and would not be able to attend all Council meetings. If the Council moved Committee
meetings to another week, Mr. Weed could attend Council meetings and be the City’s lead attorney. Mr.
Weed also provided additional information regarding his fees.
Councilmember Wilson explained he has been an advocate for pushing the process forward. He drafted a
resolution to provide a third option, review other applicants, in the event there were not four votes for one
candidates. He anticipated that would not be necessary and there would be four votes to select a City
Attorney tonight. The reason he did not second the motion to include Weed, Graafstra and Benson was
Mr. Weed was unavailable to participate as the lead City Attorney, a situation that has since changed.
Based on interviewing the other members of Mr. Weed’s firm, he was not interested in them as City
Attorney. He knew Mr. Weed through some of the more contentious issues the Council has addressed in
executive session and he has always been a very calming influence and fully competent. He offered to
second a motion to consider Weed Graafstra and Benson, recognizing neither of the two candidates under
consideration was as strong as they could be and both have fundamental flaws.
Councilmember Wilson commented in the end, Edmonds was a great community. Whoever the Council
selected as City Attorney, this was one staff position and there was not a single staff person or elected
official that the City could not do without.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented one of her concerns with the process was not having the
opportunity to interview more than four applicants. She acknowledged it may have been due to her
absence because of illness but she did not recall the Council narrowing the number of candidates in an
open meeting to the four who were interviewed. There was at least one other candidate she would have
liked to investigate further. She preferred Council proceed as Councilmember Wilson’s resolution stated
to consider additional candidates. Her goal was to ensure the City had the best City Attorney and felt the
process was flawed because she had been unable to vote on the other seven applicants in an open meeting.
Councilmember Bernheim explained the Council voted on January 4 to interview four candidates. None
of the Councilmembers recommended interviewing any of the other candidates. He summarized there was
nothing untoward or off-base about the process; it was entirely public. Prior to the January 4 Council
meeting, Councilmembers had months to review the 11 applicants. All 11 applicants were extremely
competent and the remaining 2 candidates, Ogden Murphy Wallace and the Lighthouse Group are very
competent. He cited the qualified, 10-year experience of attorneys in the Lighthouse Group including
lawyers at Microsoft, Nordstrom, City of Woodinville, Ogden Murphy Wallace and the extensive
experience of the environmental attorney. He supported the Lighthouse Group as the City Attorney.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO RETAIN THE LIGHTHOUSE GROUP AS THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her question about how the four candidates who were
interviewed were selected. She recalled the four were presented to the Council. Mayor Cooper
commented Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may have been absent when the decision was made
regarding which candidates to interview. He recalled Councilmember Bernheim made a motion for three
firms and Councilmember Petso made a motion for an additional firm. Those were the only four that the
Council selected for the interview process.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the Council was provided the 11 applications for City Attorney and
invited to conduct their own research. She researched all 11 candidates and was impressed with her
Packet Page 7 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 5
discussions with the labor attorneys with the Lighthouse Group. She felt the Lighthouse Group was a very
strong group and she favored the team concept they offered.
Council President Peterson agreed with a team concept; one of the reasons he has supported Ogden
Murphy Wallace during this process is the similar business model they offer. His concern with the
Lighthouse Group was not their individual experience but their experience as a group. He referred to his
experience in the construction business, explaining the best carpenter may not be a good contractor. In his
experience in the restaurant business, a great home cook is not necessarily a restaurateur. Until they have
experience as a business entity, it is risk for the citizens of Edmonds to select the Lighthouse Group as the
City Attorney. He anticipated in a few years the Lighthouse Group would prove to be excellent attorneys
and excellent business people; he was uncomfortable with Edmonds being the test subject.
Council President Peterson acknowledged the Lighthouse Group’s offer was outstanding but in his
experience as a small business owner, one of the biggest reasons business owners fail is they do not
charge/make enough money. He was concerned with the Lighthouse Group, who is hungry and willing to
make a deal, that serious litigation could overturn the flat fee. He questioned whether the Lighthouse
Group could put in the necessary hours with that type of fee structure. He did not support the Lighthouse
Group because he was uncomfortable with their business model and a business that was so young.
Councilmember Petso spoke in favor of the Lighthouse Group, recalling she added them to the candidates
to be interviewed. She found their fee proposal intriguing and would provide significant benefit. She was
satisfied with the attorneys’ competence, noting some appear to be outstanding. Hiring a new law firm
was not the same risk as hiring another new business; rules of conduct for attorneys do not allow them to
refuse to prepare to go to court. Attorneys are not allowed to decide they do not want to represent the
City; they are required to arrange a smooth transition to new legal counsel and assist new counsel with
getting up to speed. That mitigates the risk of selecting a newly formed firm.
Councilmember Wilson commented both firms could perform admirably and competently. This decision
is less about threats of litigation because the attorney is not typically the reason the City gets sued. The
City gets sued because the Council or staff does something. Hiring a new City Attorney is not as much of
a liability as a new Council. One of his concerns with the Lighthouse Group is one of the attorneys has a
full-time job at Nordstrom, a fundamental, though not fatal, flaw. Because he not think the Lighthouse
Group interviewed well, he met with Mr. Taraday as he did with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Weed. During his
discussion with Mr. Taraday, many of his concerns were allayed. In the end, this is a cultural decision;
whether to select the most qualified and most expensive firm, Ogden Murphy Wallace, the luxury
Cadillac option, or the very competent and apparently efficient Hyundai version, the Lighthouse Group.
He viewed Edmonds as a very frugal minded community, willing to pursue a good investment. Edmonds
is not in a position to select a Cadillac, the City has Hyundai staff and Council. He expressed his support
for the Lighthouse Group and hoped they would serve the City well. He offered Mr. Snyder and Mr.
Weed his highest recommendation, noting he thought the world of Mr. Snyder.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the Lighthouse Group was a viable alternative, just not his first
choice.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, BERNHEIM,
BUCKSHNIS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Councilmember Wilson suggested keeping Ogden Murphy Wallace on for all matters related to
bargaining/labor issues. Mayor Cooper responded the Council could request that staff and he negotiate a
contract with Ogden Murphy Wallace; he offered to provide a recommendation to the Council at the next
Packet Page 8 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 6
meeting. He commented that may be appropriate given the City is in the middle of contract negotiations
with three bargaining units.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO KEEP OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE ON FOR ALL LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND TO
COMPLETE EXISTING LITIGATION.
Councilmember Petso did not support the motion, noting one of the Lighthouse Group’s strengths was
their two outstanding labor attorneys and that they do not bill extra for labor negotiations. She recognized
some transition time to get them up to speed would be necessary. She anticipated the same process for
ongoing litigation. She did not support the City continuing to pay an additional fee for litigation when the
Lighthouse Group’s fee structure includes litigation expenses, which encourages them to settle litigation
as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support the motion because he preferred Mayor Cooper return with a
recommendation regarding the transition after talking with the Lighthouse Group and Mr. Snyder.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion, echoing Councilmember Bernheim and
Councilmember Petso’s comments. She found the labor attorneys with the Lighthouse Group very
knowledgeable.
Councilmember Plunkett did not support the motion because he welcomed someone new stepping into
labor negotiations. He suggested an executive session to outline why Mr. Snyder should continue with
existing litigation.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND WILSON VOTING YES.
Mayor Cooper advised that unless the Council provided specific direction regarding the timing of the
transition, he will discuss the transition with the Lighthouse Group and Ogden Murphy Wallace and
return to the Council with a contract containing transition time periods.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it may be appropriate to keep Ogden Murphy Wallace involved in
litigation that is approaching conclusion.
5. UPDATE FROM THE 2010-11 CITIZEN LEVY COMMITTEE
Councilmember Buckshnis recognized members of the Levy Committee in the audience, Darrol Haug,
Harry Gatjens and John Carlin. She provided a summary of the Committee’s work to date, where they are
now, what to do in the future and obstacles. She relayed the following with regard to what the Committee
has researched to date and where are they now:
• The Levy Committee conducted information sessions with representatives from the cities of Lake
Forest Park, Shoreline, and Redmond and the Edmonds School District to obtain an
understanding of how they approached 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). The 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 majority of the Committee believes labor cost (salaries, benefits, and retirement) exceed the
Levy Committee’s authority to review but suggest benefits be separated and reviewed separately
with a Committee Member. The Committee recommends the Council continue to negotiate in
“good faith” on labor cost and benefits and ensure the public is made more aware of these costs.
Packet Page 9 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 7
• 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 which will be presented tonight by
Mr. Haug.
• 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 was in the process of initiating a survey but it was later determined no
survey would be initiated.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the following ideas developed by the Committee:
• Any levy should be for 2-3 years.
• A general operations levy for 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.
• Two propositions on the ballot – one general operations and one capital improvement levy
Challenges the Committee sees in the next few months include:
• 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
Tasks to move forward include:
• The Levy Committee needs to finalize an annual report and provide it to the City Council
• The Levy Committee must finalize work products which includes an agreed upon levy type and
funding options and model samples
• Council conducts full, educational public discussions on recommendations
• Attempt to keep the levy committee members together
Councilmember Buckshnis read emails from the following Committee Members: Evelyn Wellington,
Barbara Chase, and Jessie Beyer. Mayor Cooper requested Councilmember Buckshnis provide a copy of
the emails to the Council.
Darrol Haug, Levy Committee Member, provided a PowerPoint presentation, beginning with the
statement, “good government costs money, better government costs more.” His credentials include: 20
years of revenue forecasting for a $1 Billion Fortune 500 and for a $500 Million Start Up.
Mr. Haug provided the following background information:
• Edmonds has a $75 million budget
• General Fund is $35 million
• Property taxes generate approximately $14 million
• Other taxes and fees generate the rest.
He displayed a chart illustrating a one month General Fund reserve 2005-2016, the emergency reserve,
and forecasts in 2007 and 2008. During that time period, March 2009, the first Levy Committee was
established comprised of 80 members. That Committee recommended a $2-4 million levy. The Council
took no action.
Packet Page 10 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 8
Next, Mr. Haug provided a chart illustrating the actual General Fund Ending Balance 2005-2010
compared to the 1 month reserve. During that period of time, staff has made extensive cuts including 9
furlough days, layoff of 23 employees and $3.8 million in cuts as well as generated new revenues via
EMS levies, transport fees, contracting with Fire District 1, and annexation to the Sno-Isle Library
District. These actions extended the budget shortfall into the future. He provided a comparison of budget
growth compared to CPI for the years 1991-2010:
• CPI: 3.09% annual growth rate
• Police: 5.56% annual growth rate
• Fire: 9.34% annual growth rate
• Parks & Recreation: 4.82% annual growth rate
• Streets: 1.66% annual growth rate
He provided a comparison of the 1 month General Fund reserve compared to the 2011 budget projection
that illustrates a decline below the 1 month reserve beginning in 2012. The challenge is how to address
that; the options are to make more cuts or increase revenue.
Mr. Haug provided a summary of Edmonds property tax, highlighting the decrease in assessed value and
revenue:
2009 2010 2011
Assessment $7,709,209,490 $6,955,482,717 $6,450,768,068
Type of Tax Rate/$1000 Rate/$1000 Rate/$1000
Regular 1.20 1.35 1.47
EMS 0.50 0.50 0.50
Bonds 0.12 0.13 0.14
Total 1.82 1.98 2.11
Revenue Revenue Revenue
Regular $9,251,051 $9,389,902 $9,482,629
EMS $3,854,605 $3,477,741 $3,225,384
Bonds $925,105 $904,213 $903,108
Total $14,030,761 $13,771,856 $13,611,121
He demonstrated several models that illustrated the cost of a levy to an individual tax payer. He
emphasized no decisions or recommendations had been made, these were simply examples. He
demonstrated the impact of a $1 million General Fund levy on a home valued at $100,000 ($0.16/$1000
AV or $16/year), a home valued at $1 million ($016/$1000 AV or $155/year0 and an average Edmonds
home valued at $400,000 ($0.16/$1000 AV or $62/year). He offered to provide the models to anyone who
was interested, explained the numbers in the models, both the levy amount and the property value, could
be changed to reflect individual property values/taxes. He provided a model illustrating the cost of an
additional $1.5 million levy on a home valued at $400,000 ($93/year); the combined total for a $1 million
levy and a $1.5 million levy on a home valued at $400,000 is $155/year, increasing an Edmonds home
owners’ City taxes from $844 to $999/year.
Next he demonstrated a model that illustrated the impact of a $10 million project over 20 years; $62 on a
home valued at $400,000. He summarized a $10 million project financed for 20 years generally costs
approximately $20 million over the 20 year period.
Mr. Haug referred to a list of unfunded projects that totals $130 million and $61 million in transportation.
Funding $100 million in projects would cost a home owner of a $400,000 home $433 for 30 years. The
model allows the insertion of various project costs to determine the cost to an individual tax payer. He
Packet Page 11 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 9
commented there were several capital projects that could be considered including an aquatics center,
Senior Center, repair of the Boys & Girls Club, library repairs, purchasing ball fields, art center, etc.
Mr. Haug provided examples of 3-year levies, emphasizing they were examples only, they that had not
been approved or recommended:
Levy Examples Amount Cost/$1000 Tax/Year
Street Overlay $1,500,000 .23 $93
Deferred Maintenance $500,000 .08 $31
Yost Pool and Operating Reserve $1,000,000 .16 $62
General Fund $1,000,000 .16 $62
Subtotal $4,000,000 .62 $248
He displayed the comparison of the 1 month General Fund reserve to the 2011 budget projection,
illustrating how a $1,000,000 General Fund levy would affect the forecast. He provided a summary of the
impact to a property owner of a $400,000 of $4 million in levies ($0.62/$1000 AV or $248/year) and $10
million for a project ($0.16/$1000 AV or $62/year), increasing an Edmonds residents’ City taxes from
$844/year to $1,154/year.
Next, Mr. Haug reviewed a model of Fire District 1 costs and growth rate, assessed value and growth rate,
and revenues (EMS, transport fees and General Fund) and rate/$1000 for 2011-2018, advising the Council
will need to make a decision in 2014 regarding the future of fire service in Edmonds.
With regard to how this impacts the General Fund, Mr. Haug again displayed the comparison of the 1
month General Fund reserve to the 2011 budget projection. He displayed how a $1 million or a $2 million
General Fund levy would impact the General Fund Ending Balance, and the impact of a change in the tax
structure for Fire District 1 in 2014, providing $3 million to the General Fund.
Mr. Haug summarized the models are a tool that can be used to demonstrate the impact of various levy
amounts on the General Fund forecast and on individual homeowners’ taxes. With regard to what’s next,
he explained it was up to the Council. He suggested the Council begin to have public discussions whether
at Council meetings, a retreat or prior to Council meetings.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised her PowerPoint presentation as well as Mr. Haug’s models would be
available on the City’s website.
6. 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.
City Engineer Rob English explained this project has been in the design phase for several years and
received momentum last year when the State provided a $250,000 appropriation to build the project. The
two issues to be discussed with the Council tonight are:
1. An option to modify the design to incorporate a 22-foot street alternative.
2. Operational considerations for this new public street.
He displayed an aerial photograph, identifying the location of the emergency access that provides a
connection from Main Street to Pioneer Way. The original design called for a 15-foot wide roadway. He
provided photographs of the area looking north from the end of Pioneer Way at the hammerhead for the
Madrona Cove development, looking north from the 12-foot wide path at the end of Pioneer Way to the
gate and looking south toward Pioneer Way. He provided a drawing of the roadway footprint,
Packet Page 12 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 10
highlighting the connection at Main Street and the roadway connecting to the gate at the hammerhead in
the Madrona Cove development. He advised the access would provide a 7% slope, an improvement over
the existing access to the area that is quite steep. A water line will also be constructed as part of the
project to connect to the water main on Main Street and continue to Pioneer Way, improving water
service by providing a loop water system. The new roadway will impact approximately 280 square feet of
a 2500 square foot wetland. The project mitigates those impacts by providing 1500 square feet of new
plantings.
Another design feature that the public commented on at the January 27 meeting is the use of bollards to
prevent vehicles from accessing the road via Main Street. The bollards, 8-inch diameter posts, would be
locked in place and unlocked and removed when the access is needed. The bollards were selected as the
road also serves as a pedestrian and bicycle path and the bollards provide 3½ feet between them for
access. There were concerns expressed at the January 27 meeting that the space could allow a motorcycle
to access the road. Staff will consider whether a side pedestrian access would be preferable.
Mr. English reviewed the proposed Addendum #4:
• $34,595 – Design & permitting a bid alternative for a 22-foot wide road
• $13,617 – DOE design modifications (related to 2010 grant for stormwater improvements)
• $4,377 – Pervious hot mix asphalt pavement
• $12,446 – Construction support services
$65,035 – Total Fee
Mr. English provided a comparison of the options:
15-foot Wide Road 22-foot Wide Road
Construction $267,900 $441,500
Contingency $ 53,600 $ 88,300
Construction Management $ 48,000 $ 53,000
Total Construction $369,500 Cost $582,800
Mr. English reviewed the construction budget for the project:
• $200,000 – State Grant
• $ 85,000 – DOE Grant
• $ 80,000 – Stormwater Utility Fund
• $ 55,000 – Water Utility Fund
$420,000 – Total
Due to the current bidding climate, Mr. English was hopeful the construction bid would be within this
budget. If that is not possible, the 15-foot wide road will be constructed. The benefit of a 22-foot wide
road is safety as it would allow two vehicles to pass. He recommended the Council approve addendum #4
to provide a 22-foot roadway if the construction bids are favorable.
Mr. English advised the agenda packet contains a summary of the January 27 meeting with Shell Valley
residents, questions asked by the residents and staff responses. A majority of the concerns were related to
operation of the access road such as how long it will be open, when it will be open and how it will be
opened.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the four components of Addendum #4, assuming tasks 3 and 4 would
still be completed for a 15-foot roadway and asking whether task 2 would still be necessary. Mr. English
answered task 2 (design modifications to comply with State Department of Ecology (DOE) grant
requirements) would still be necessary as it would change the current pavement structural section to a
Packet Page 13 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 11
section that would allow use of the DOE grant funds. Councilmember Plunkett asked what would be
necessary if the Council wished to proceed with a 15-foot wide road. Mr. English responded a 15-foot
wide road has already been designed. If the Council wanted to pursue a 15-foot road, the first task
($34,595 design and secure permits for a 22 ft wide street alternative) would be eliminated. The
addendum then would be $13,617 for DOE design modifications, $4,377 for pervious pavement and
$12,446 for construction support services.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the decision to increase the width from 15 feet to 22 feet was to allow
vehicles to pass. Mr. English answered that was the primary reason; two 11-foot lanes provide adequate
space for vehicles to pass particularly in ice/snow conditions. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether
the 15-foot option impacted the wetland less than the 22-foot option. Mr. English answered both widths
impact the wetland by approximately 200 square feet.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the cost to add 7-10 feet of asphalt in the future would be nominal.
Mr. English answered there were economies of scale by doing it all at once. He anticipated the cost to add
7 feet in the future would be more than adding it as part of this project, for example a new building permit
would be required. The current bidding climate also may be more favorable than in the future.
Councilmember Wilson observed this was a vision question. There are 92 houses in that area and
assuming most traffic left in the morning and returned in the afternoon, it would be rare that two cars
would pass. He asked if an estimate had been done of the trip count during bad weather when the
emergency access would be open. Mr. English answered no. Councilmember Wilson estimated with 92
houses, there would be 5-10 occasions when 2 cars needed to pass. If the vision is emergency access
during bad weather conditions, an additional $200,000+ for those few occasions did not seem appropriate.
If the road were open five months of the year and was intended to be a full service road, it may be more
appropriate.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained it was his understanding the original intent of the project
was use by emergency vehicles only. This was expanded to a roadway both for emergency vehicle access
in/out of the community as well as use by the neighborhood during winter events which results in the
proposed change in the design parameters. He explained there are two issues associated with this project,
first the roadway width, 15 feet versus 22 feet. He referred to information provided to the Council today
regarding staff’s rationale for a 22-foot road rather than a 15-foot road, primarily public safety. He
explained drivers entering the roadway would not know when they might meet another vehicle. Passing a
garbage truck, emergency vehicle or snow plow on a 15-foot road would be difficult on the small gravel
shoulders with a drop-off on either side with no guardrails and snow and ice on the roadway. He relayed it
was the combined recommendation of Public Works, the Police Department and Fire District 1 to
construct a 22-foot road. He acknowledged a 15-foot road could work but would require accepting a
number of compromises.
The second issue is operation of the road. There were concerns expressed at the January 27 neighborhood
meeting with staff’s initial proposal to have the road open during the winter, starting early November
through the end of February. Staff has considered the neighborhood’s input and now recommends
opening the road during the months of December and January, the period when the majority of winter
events occur. He preferred to have a period when the road was open because opening and closing the road
would be an operational and maintenance issue for Public Works. It may be difficult to determine when
the road should be opened/closed and what constitutes winter weather. Additional access to the
neighborhood via the dirt road through Yost Park has only been opened 3-5 times in the past 20 years. If
the road is only opened during those types of events, his concern is constructing a roadway with the intent
of increasing safety in the neighborhood and not using it during events when safety could be increased.
Packet Page 14 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 12
Mr. Williams anticipated if the road were only opened when events occurred, staff could be opening and
closing the road daily for an extended period of time which would be a burden on staff and the budget. He
preferred to have the road open for a period of time during the winter months. During the other winter
months, the road could be opened on an as needed basis. He noted if the roadway is opened only when
events occur, there is the issue of communicating with the neighborhood when the roadway is
open/closed.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council could address the street width tonight and leave the
operational question for another time. Mr. Williams recognized the only item in the agenda packet is the
addendum; however, he anticipated many of the neighborhood residents would speak about the operation
of the road.
Council President Peterson asked Mr. Williams to expand on the Police Department and Fire District 1’s
recommendation regarding the roadway. Mr. Williams relayed Police Chief Compaan’s support for staff’s
recommendation.
John Westfall, Fire Marshal, Fire District 1, explained from Fire District 1’s perspective, the roadway
width and operation of the road are connected. He agreed when the emergency access road was originally
proposed, it was intended to be used by emergency vehicles. The 15-foot width was approved when the
use was limited to seasonal access by Law Enforcement, Fire Department, and Public Works/Utilities.
When the community suggested they be allowed to use the roadway during snow events, a 15-foot width
became a concern. If the intent is to allow the community to use the roadway during winter events, a 20-
22 foot width would be preferable.
Councilmember Wilson defined emergency access as access for emergency vehicle during any time of
year as well as access for residents in emergency 1-2 day cold weather situation. Fire Marshal Westfall
defined emergency access as access by Law Enforcement, Fire Department, and Public Works/Utilities.
In the event of an emergency during a cold weather event, residents could call 911.
Councilmember Wilson recognized a 22-foot roadway would be easier for operations and maintenance
but is not reflective of the original vision or what the Shell Valley community wants. He viewed it as a
“no brainer” to save $200,000, give the residents what they want and provide emergency access. Mr.
Williams answered the 15 versus 22 feet does not affect maintenance and operations. He was concerned
with the potential liability of constructing a new access to the community that was safer than the existing
access and then not opening it during a cold weather event. He cited the importance of an operational plan
for the road once it is constructed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mr. Williams had vetted this issue with City Attorney Scott Snyder in
terms of liability. Mr. Williams answered it was up to interpretation of the City’s construction standards.
When asked about the liability he described above, Mr. Snyder did not have an answer. Mr. Williams
asked the Council for direction regarding operation of the road whether it is 15 feet or 22 feet wide.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the road through Yost Park is used for emergency vehicles. Fire
Marshal Westfall advised that access has always been a concern as it was not built to accommodate
emergency vehicles. When Shell Valley was being developed, the developer paid half the cost of a mini-
pumper/bush truck. That small 4-wheel drive vehicle is how the Fire Department anticipated addressing
problems in Shell Valley for the first 20 years. The pump eventually failed and was surplused and no
adequate replacement was identified. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Yost Park emergency road
could be used by the Fire Department. Fire Marshal Westfall answered no, it was not constructed to carry
apparatus.
Packet Page 15 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 13
Councilmember Plunkett asked where the road through Yost Park goes. Mr. Williams replied he was not
familiar with that road. It is a dirt road and cannot be plowed. Councilmember Plunkett asked if it could
be paved. Mr. Williams answered paving that road may be more expensive due to the length. Student
Representative Gibson explained the road goes from the lower parking lot where the basketball court is,
north of the pool.
Mayor Cooper opened public comment on this item.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, commented during last year’s snow, a call to the Assistant Police Chief
resulted in opening the gate through Yost Park. He thanked everyone involved in this project since its
inception over 20 years ago, especially Mr. Spellman for his constant voice to see this through. He
supported limiting the use of the access road to a bikeway and walkway, emergency and maintenance use
only. He did not support it being a through street for any length of time and wanted a gate to limit access.
He recalled on January 21, 2003, a street amendment was presented to the Council for this project. At that
time, staff indicated the combination of steep slope and wetland left little room for a road. Staff also
indicated the minimum for a bikeway, walkway, and emergency access was 11-16 feet. When asked about
a 20-foot road, then-Fire Chief Tomberg pointed out there was an additional shoulder provided.
Following questions, the Council voted unanimously to limit the use of the access road. Now there is a
proposal for a 22-foot road and leaving the access open 4-5 months. He did not support the 22-foot road
due to increased cost and damage to the wetland. He questioned whether the road would be required to
have drainage, sidewalks, gutters and lighting. He urged the Council to limit pavement to 15 feet, not
have it be a through street and to place a gate at the entrance.
Matthew Douglas, Edmonds, a Pioneer Way resident, pointed out the line on the aerial map was not
representative of a 22-foot roadway and identified a road on the map that was 22-feet wide. He thanked
staff for the public meeting they held with the neighborhood to gather their input. He relayed his
concerns: 1) everyone in the neighborhood only wants one way in and out and do not want a through
street, 2) the vegetation near the gate provides a sound buffer for the neighborhood. A 22-foot road would
remove more vegetation than a 15-foot road, 3) the existing gate provides space for bikes and pedestrians,
4) the additional $240,00 cost of a 22-foot road, 5) a 15-foot road causes less damage to the wetland, and
6) smaller gates are required for a 15-foot road. He anticipated few residents would use the emergency
access, noting during recent snow days most residents stayed home. He also objected to leaving the
emergency access open for a period of time as it would eliminate on-street parking. He suggested giving
the key to one of the City employees who lives in Shell Valley or one of the other residents.
Ross Conley, Edmonds, a Pioneer Way resident, agreed with Mr. Douglas’ comments, expressing his
support for an emergency access that was only opened for a few days during the year when it was needed.
He disagreed with selecting December and January as the months to leave the access open, pointing out
the snow that fell this year did not fall during those months. He expressed appreciation for the deicer the
City has spread. He noted the access through Yost Park worked in the past until the snow melted and
created mud.
Donna Vasdrin, Edmonds, echoed the previous speakers’ comments. She pointed out the residents on
Pioneer Way have managed to get in and out during snow events in the past, parking their cars above, etc.
The Yost Park entrance provides ample access during genuine emergencies. She encouraged the Council
to consider the community’s concerns as well as the considerable expense.
Paul Harrison, Edmonds, a resident of Shell Valley, commented although they have managed to
enter/exit the neighborhood for the past 25 years, as they get older, walking up Pioneer Way during
inclement weather has become more of an issue. He anticipated the 22-foot road was proposed due to the
drop-off and suggested that be addressed by a sign stating emergency road, use at your own risk. He has
objected to the City’s occasional placement of a Road Closed sign at Pioneer Way, viewing it as an
Packet Page 16 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 14
attractive nuisance because it encourages children to sled while vehicles still drive on the hill. He also
expressed concern with the consultant fees to date and the proposed additional fee. He supported an
access road for emergency vehicles and emergency use by Shell Valley residents and that it not be open
for a period of time during the winter. He questioned why Public Works felt opening/closing the gate
would be their responsibility; in the past the gate through Yost Park has been opened by the Police or Fire
Departments.
Walter Orowski, Edmonds, a Pioneer Way resident, commented he has managed the hill for the past 33
years but is finding it more difficult. For example, tonight he must decide whether to park on top of the
hill and walk down the hill and back up the slippery hill next day, or drive down and be stuck if it snows.
An emergency access road is needed and vital to allow residents to get in and out.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested staff consider a level access toward Yost Park. He noted in the
original report the engineer estimated the lanes had the capability of accommodating a certain number of
vehicle trips per day, which he assumed anticipated it would be a two-way road. He pointed out the
significant angle to enter the road from Main Street as well as sight distance issues when exiting up the
hill. He anticipated the access road would also be used by customers visiting home occupations.
David Moore, Edmonds, a resident on the proposed access road, pointed out everyone who has spoken is
opposed to opening of the access road longer than the weather event. If that is not possible, he
recommended minimizing the width of the road to prevent it being used as a thoroughfare. He agreed with
the comments made by his neighbors.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed public comment on this item.
Mayor Cooper commented the operational opening/closing of the road is an important issue that the
Council may wish to discuss in the future regardless of the roadway width. The action staff is seeking
tonight is approval of the addendum to allow the design of the 22-foot road to be completed.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support the Council approving funds to design a 22-foot road,
preferring the 15-foot road.
Mayor Cooper asked whether Council action was necessary if the desire was a 15-foot road. Mr. English
answered if no action is taken, the road will be 15 feet wide. The tasks in the proposed addendum are:
1. Design and secure permits for a 22-foot 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
4. Provide consultant support services during construction.
If the Council does not proceed with a 22-foot roadway, the first task is eliminated. The remaining tasks
are required for the 15-foot roadway.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
MODIFY THE CONTRACT TO ADD DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO COMPLY WITH STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) GRANT REQUIREMENTS, CHANGE THE PAVEMENT
MATERIAL TO PERVIOUS HOT-MIX ASPHALT AND PROVIDE CONSULTANT SUPPORT
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION.
Councilmember Wilson assumed during wet and cold weather events the dirt road in Yost Park is not
constructed for use by a great deal of traffic. Mr. English agreed, relaying comments from a resident that
when it snows or is wet, the road condition deteriorates.
Packet Page 17 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 15
Councilmember Wilson expressed support for the motion and offered to make an additional motion to
clarify the Council’s vision for the access road such as ensuring it is a 15-foot road and how often the
road is opened.
Council President Peterson offered an amendment to include the first task, design and secure permits for a
22-foot wide street alternative. His reasons for offering the amendment were, 1) public safety – the Police
Department and Fire Department recommend the wider road for safety reasons and he deferred to those
professionals, 2) this is a bid alternative and may provide insight into what could be, and 3) the Council
just hired a law firm whose advice was to avoid litigation to save money; a safer road avoids liability.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED TO INCLUDE $34,595 FOR DESIGN AND
SECURE PERMITS FOR A 22-FOOT WIDE STREET ALTERNATIVE. MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Wilson disagreed with Council President Peterson’s characterizations. He did not
anticipate the City’s liability would be increased if the road were open for emergency vehicles and a
couple times a year to provide a better access than the existing 21% grade hill into the area.
Mayor Cooper relayed the intent of Councilmember Bernheim’s motion, which did not include the first
task, was for a 15-foot road.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
THAT THE ACCESS ROAD ONLY BE USED FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND THAT
EMERGENCY ACCESS IS DEFINED AS USE BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES WHICH CAN BE
POLICE, FIRE OR OTHER CITY RELATED VEHICLES, AND DURING PERIODS OF
EMERGENCY COLD WEATHER ACTIVITY.
Councilmember Wilson wanted to limit use of the road as the residents have requested and leave it to
Public Works or Engineering to determine what constitutes emergency cold weather, anticipating it was
not just temperatures below 32 degrees; it may include periods like tonight when snow is predicted. He
suggested staff work with the residents to determine “something that works.” He did not support leaving
the access open for 2-5 months, he preferred it only be open for select period of time when temperatures
and climate conditions suggest.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented in her discussions with Shell Valley residents, they have
indicated a desire for pedestrian and bicycle access in addition to emergency access.
Councilmember Wilson clarified his intent was motorized vehicles; pedestrian traffic would be
appropriate.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Senior Center observes the Edmonds School District closures.
The access road could be opened when the Edmonds School District closes due to weather.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support the motion as the operation of the road was not included on the
agenda. Tonight’s agenda item was a 15-foot versus 22-foot roadway width. The decision regarding
operation could be made at a later time.
Councilmember Wilson suggested if the intent was to use the road for anything other than as described in
the motion, a 15-foot road width may not be adequate. He pointed out staff is seeking policy direction
from the Council.
Packet Page 18 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 16
Council President Peterson commented without a definition of cold weather, emergency, ice, etc., the
Council was not providing staff policy direction. He would not support the motion because it did not
provide direction to staff.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the motion, questioning what more the Council could say
to staff. He questioned whether the Council should define inclement conditions via an ordinance. If
conditions are defined, they are still subject to interpretation. In the end, emergency personnel, whether a
police officer, firefighter or Public Works employee, will make the decision when to open the gate. He
anticipated that decision would be made based on conditions on the ground, not what the code states.
Student Representative Gibson agreed the Police Department was unlikely to consult the code before
opening the gate. In the past, when it looked like Main Street needed to be closed, the Police Department
closed it.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WILSON AND
PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper suggested scheduling this on a future Public Safety Committee agenda to have further
discussion about options for opening the gate. As an alternative, he suggested scheduling it for Council
discussion at a future meeting.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSE BILL 1265, RELATING TO LAND USE PLANNING IN
QUALIFYING UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND
AMENDING RCW 36.70A.110.
Mayor Cooper explained HB 1265 was sponsored in the House by Representative Kagi and in the Senate
by Senator Chase. It deals with density and land use in unincorporated areas and their ability to permit
projects that exceed the density of the neighboring community, more specifically, Pt. Wells. HB 1265
would not allow development at Pt. Wells to exceed the density in Woodway or Shoreline’s
Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the City support HB 1265 as long as it was clear that it was
specifically Pt. Wells and would not have an unintended consequence on a development in Edmonds
adjacent to Esperance.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested developing a resolution of support. She pointed out traffic
generated by development at Pt. Wells would have a tremendous impact on traffic. Mayor Cooper advised
Friday, February 25 is the Committee cutoff date, making it too late for the Council to pass a resolution.
The Council’s support tonight would allow staff to work with the City’s lobbyist on a letter that could be
emailed to Representatives. A resolution in the future may be appropriate if the bill continues to move.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO DIRECT THE MAYOR TO DRAFT A LETTER TO MIKE DOUBLEDAY
EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL’S SUPPORT.
Councilmember Wilson suggested a motion expressing the Council’s support for passage of the bill.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF HB 1265 AND COMMUNICATE THAT TO
THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATORS.
Packet Page 19 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 17
Councilmember Wilson explained he testified in support of HB 1265. He suggested the Council consider
an amendment to require an annexation process by the city whose building standards must be met. For
example if Pt. Wells is required to be developed in accordance with Shoreline’s building standards,
Shoreline should annex the area. He added the following to the motion:
RECOMMEND REQUIRING ANNEXATION BY THE JURISDICTION WHOSE BUILDING
STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wilson advised there are other bills sponsored by the City’s House delegates such as
banning the sale of fertilizers that contain phosphorous. The bill has moved out of committee. He asked
whether the Council was interested in a motion to support HB 1489 and SB 5194.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO EXPRESS THE COUNCIL’S SUPPORT FOR HB 1489 AND SB 5194.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what is phosphorous, what does it do and why is there interest in banning
it. Councilmember Wilson responded it provides no benefit to fertilizing lawns but is included in
fertilizers. When it rains, the phosphorous enters the watershed and when it reaches lakes or streams it
creates food for algae growth which consume the oxygen in the water. As a result the ecology within the
lake dies due to the lack of oxygen and it also has downstream effects.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why fertilizers contained phosphorous. Councilmember Wilson agreed
that was a great question. He recalled at the retreat Public Works Director Phil Williams mentioned he
was one of the lead forces in banning this in the Spokane and northern Idaho area. The Lake Ballinger
Forum took a position today to support these bills.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would abstain as the topic was not on the agenda and had not been
reviewed by Council Committee.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-1-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND
WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
PLUNKETT ABSTAINING.
Mayor Cooper offered to provide further information by next week’s meeting.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Councilmember Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum took a position supporting HB 1489 and SB
5194. The Forum also discussed removing culverts between I-5 and the Nile Country Club which will
eliminate much of the flooding that occurs in that area.
With regard to the Community Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC), Councilmember Plunkett
reported the Council budgeted $35,000 to improve the City’s website. The City contracted with Paul
Bishop who is working on the update. After considering hundreds of websites, staff chose to model
Bellingham’s site. A difference in the City’s website should be noticeable later this spring.
Packet Page 20 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 18
CTAC is discussing with Planning and Public Works extending fiber from Main to Dayton in connection
with Sound Transit and a business is also interested in that extension. With regard to targets of
opportunity, there are 1-2 businesses interested in connecting to fiber. A fiber pricing subcommittee has
been formed to determine the charge for businesses to hookup to fiber. The Council will be provided
individual contracts for the individual businesses.
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has $48,000 for a
Heritage Tour; $24,000 from events that was matched by the Hubbard Foundation that will be used to
identify historic sites along the 4th Avenue Corridor. The HPC also sent out an RFQ for a historic
architect to inventory sites to be placed on the historic register, funded by a grant. The HPC also adopted
the 2011 Historic Preservation Strategic Plan which is included in the Comprehensive Plan and helps with
obtaining grants.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she would provide the Council the emails written by the three Levy
Committee Members. She offered special thanks to Committee Member Darrol Haug for his presentation.
She commented the Levy Committee is having difficulty with a quorum due to members being out of
town.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting,
advising that comments on the Strategic Plan RFQ need to be submitted this week. The EDC discussed
progress on the Five Corners and Westgate studies and what the Commission wants to work on during the
coming year such as tourism and a development agreement for the post office site.
Councilmember Bernheim reported the Port’s Harbor Square Steering Committee continues to review
development ideas for Harbor Square. The Port Commissioners are interested in eliminating the perceived
artificial ground floor commercial requirement as they are considering a plan that includes ground floor
residential.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported on Saturday’s State high school wrestling tournament, offering congratulations to
Ryan DeWeese, Edmonds-Woodway High School, who won the State 4A wrestling title, the first State
champion from Edmonds-Woodway in the history of the school. Three other Edmonds-Woodway
wrestlers placed at State and the team finished in 8th place, the highest ever. He planned to congratulate
the team on behalf of the City at their awards banquet. The Edmonds-Woodway High School basketball
team is in the State tournament.
Mayor Cooper reported Council President Peterson, Councilmember Wilson and he were in Olympia last
week and received a good reception from the legislative delegation who are working hard on the citizens
behalf to convince the appropriate committee chairs to send capital dollars to Edmonds, recognizing that
there are no capital dollars. Representative Liias and Senator Shin are supporting funding for the Main
Street project and Representative Moscoso and Senator Shin are supporting the 228th/Hwy 99 realignment
project. Both have some limited opportunity to be included in the budget. He invited Councilmembers to
communicate with the Chairs of the Transportation and Capital Budget Committees.
Mayor Cooper reported the bill to extend the PFD legislation is struggling; he encouraged the House
Ways and Means Chair to move the bill forward although he is not inclined to do so because he wants to
capture the sales tax credit for budget balancing measures. The public records issue is moving forward in
some manner although it is difficult to tell what it will look like. He recommended Councilmembers
follow Mr. Doubleday’s weekly updates regarding that matter anticipating the Council may need to take a
position on that bill depending on what it becomes.
Packet Page 21 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 19
Mayor Cooper reported the local government bailout bill that extends deadlines on buildable lands and
stormwater mandates, is moving forward. The requirements are not being changed but the deadlines for
compliance may be extended. A proposal to allow cities the ability to form a street utility has turned into a
bill that will set up pilot projects in several cities who have expressed interest including Edmonds. Again
this is legislation the Council may want to consider because it has gone from a bill that would allow the
city to establish a street utility via Council action to legislation that will require a public vote, perhaps a
super majority, and only allowed it to happen in a few cities. If those cities do not place the street utility
on the ballot in six years, they lose their opportunity to put it on the ballot. He encouraged
Councilmembers to email legislators regarding extending the PFD legislation.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Mayor Cooper for the legislative update.
With regard to the selection of a City Attorney, Councilmember Plunkett commented it was an
accomplishment that Mr. Snyder had been the City’s Attorney for 27 years, approximately 6-7
generations of Councils. In many cities, when the Council, City Manager or Mayor changes, the City
Attorney is changed. Mr. Snyder has prevailed through several generations of Councils and 5-6 Mayors.
He doubted there was another attorney in the State that had lasted 27 years with one city through so many
different City Councils. After working with Mr. Snyder for 15 years, he had a great deal of respect for
him and wished he had the opportunity to tell him that personally.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she planned to call Mr. Snyder to wish him the best of luck.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she was notified by WRIA 8 that the deadline to move the Edmonds
Marsh cleanup from the 10 year plan to the 3 year plan was February 28. She welcomed the Lighthouse
Group and their environmental attorney. Mayor Cooper advised staff had already met the deadline.
Councilmember Bernheim advised he voted against the motion to express the Council’s support for the
bills to eliminate phosphorous from fertilizer because he did not have any information and he preferred to
have it scheduled on the agenda. If it did not pass at the State level, he suggested a local ban.
Councilmember Wilson requested consideration of support for HB 1489 and SB 5194 be scheduled on
next week’s agenda. He advised the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee is meeting on March 1
at 5:30 p.m.
Councilmember Wilson suggested Council President Peterson determine an appropriate method of
recognizing Mr. Snyder. He found the vote regarding selection of a City Attorney very difficult. He thinks
the world of Mr. Snyder and always found him to be very competent. The rationale for change and
opportunity to do things differently and save over $200,000 was worth the risk. He noted the Lighthouse
Group had big shoes to fill.
Councilmember Petso apologized for missing a PFD meeting this morning. She has relied on the emailed
packets to inform her of the date and has been informed that her email is having problems. She also
apologized to the public who provided testimony at the last Finance Committee meeting, relaying that she
was informed her minutes of a citizens remarks were not sufficiently detailed. In lieu of not allowing
public comment, she committed to taking better minutes in the future.
Council President Peterson welcomed the Lighthouse Group and looked forward to working with them.
He thanked Mayor Cooper and Councilmember Wilson for attending the events in Olympia and special
thanks to the legislative delegation for meeting with them. The legislature is working hard in a very
difficult situation.
Packet Page 22 of 103
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 20
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 103
AM-3764 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
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 #124040 through #124124 dated February 24, 2011 for $434,357.55.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim 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:434,357.55
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $434,357.55
Attachments
Claim Checks for 2-24-11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 02/23/2011 04:32 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/23/2011 04:43 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/24/2011 09:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/24/2011 02:16 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/23/2011 03:52 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/24/2011
Packet Page 24 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124040 2/24/2011 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 291363 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56
Total :75.56
124041 2/24/2011 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 211789 PICKLEBALL SHIRTS
PICKLEBALL SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 34.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 3.23
Total :37.28
124042 2/24/2011 000195 ACCENT DESIGN 1020475 Plaza Rm - Supplies
Plaza Rm - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 130.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.43
Total :143.23
124043 2/24/2011 073580 ADAMS, WANDA ADAMS0222 REFUND
REFUND - SHOULD HAVE HAD SENIOR RATE
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 10.00
Total :10.00
124044 2/24/2011 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001308334 FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 124.16
Public Works Facility0197-001308414
Public Works Facility
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 25.47
Public Works Facility
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 96.77
Public Works Facility
1Page:
Packet Page 25 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124044 2/24/2011 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 96.77
Public Works Facility
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 96.77
Public Works Facility
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 96.77
Public Works Facility
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 96.74
FS 160197-001308480
garbage for F/S #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 130.27
MCC GARBAGE0197-001309187
garbage for MCC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 60.02
Total :823.74
124045 2/24/2011 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO13704 UKULELE
UKULELE #13704
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 287.00
Total :287.00
124046 2/24/2011 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC SH46 EDMONDS
NPDES SAMPLING
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 130.00
Total :130.00
124047 2/24/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5398566 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 25.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.46
Total :28.38
124048 2/24/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5398572 21580001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.38
2Page:
Packet Page 26 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124048 2/24/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.40
Total :73.78
124049 2/24/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5366272 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5378552
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5378554
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5386353
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW MATS655-5391041
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
3Page:
Packet Page 27 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124049 2/24/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5391042
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5398567
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
Total :136.38
4Page:
Packet Page 28 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124050 2/24/2011 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.91
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.26
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.26
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.26
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.26
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.26
Total :38.21
124051 2/24/2011 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST March 2011 AWC MARCH 2011 AWC PREMIUMS
Fire Pension Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.290.00 4,517.25
Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 28,112.55
March 2011 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 285,220.34
Total :317,850.14
124052 2/24/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 798452-01 INV#798452-01 - EDMONDS PD - BLACKHAWK
BELT ACCESS. PISTOL MAG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 36.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.41
BELT ACCESS. RADIO HOLDER
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 20.95
Total :62.36
124053 2/24/2011 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK13594 ART FOR KIDZ
ART FOR KIDZ - ART CAMP #13594
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 315.00
5Page:
Packet Page 29 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :315.00124053 2/24/2011 071510 071510 BUCK, ALICIA
124054 2/24/2011 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1024693.E0IA E0IA.PROJECT POSTING FOR BIDS
E0IA.Project Posting for Bids
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 50.25
Total :50.25
124055 2/24/2011 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 293026 Water/Sewer/Street - Crushed Rock
Water/Sewer/Street - Crushed Rock
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 940.28
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 89.33
Water/Sewer/Street - Crushed Rock
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 940.28
Water/Sewer/Street - Crushed Rock
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 940.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 89.33
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 89.32
Total :3,088.86
124056 2/24/2011 072717 CALVIN JORDAN ASSOC INC 201018.1 Sr Center - Prof Svcs - Roof Repairs
Sr Center - Prof Svcs - Roof Repairs
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 9,272.00
Total :9,272.00
124057 2/24/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS CW2250514 Recycle - Return Untouchables
Recycle - Return Untouchables
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 -22.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 -3.50
Recycle - Restock fee refundCW2250514-1
Recycle - Restock fee refund
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 -14.74
Recycle - Untouchables RefundedCW2250514A
6Page:
Packet Page 30 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124057 2/24/2011 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
Recycle - Untouchables Refunded
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 -44.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 -4.23
Recycle - Untouchables, Slim Jim BottleW2250514A
Recycle - Untouchables, Slim Jim Bottle
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 96.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 9.18
Fac Maint - Rolled TowelsW2277203-1
Fac Maint - Rolled Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 92.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.79
Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, TowelsW2279853
Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 465.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.23
Fac Maint - CleanerW2279853-1
Fac Maint - Cleaner
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.25
Fac Maint - Brooms, Cleaners, MagicW2282861
Fac Maint - Brooms, Cleaners, Magic
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 472.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.90
Fac Maint - Broom HandelsW2282861-1
Fac Maint - Broom Handels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.34
7Page:
Packet Page 31 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,221.21124057 2/24/2011 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABS
124058 2/24/2011 068161 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION INC 1000141037 PS - 2011 Annual Monitoring Fees
PS - 2011 Annual Monitoring Fees
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 393.25
Total :393.25
124059 2/24/2011 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3245044 E7AC.228TH ST SW.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E7AC.228th St. SW.RFQ Advertisement
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 403.20
E0IA.ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS3245144
E0IA.Advertisement for bids
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 363.60
E7AC.228TH ST. SW.ADDENDUM #1 TO RFQ AD3245368
E7AC.228th St. SW.Addendum #1 to RFQ
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 60.00
Total :826.80
124060 2/24/2011 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 121270 City Hall - Annual Fees
City Hall - Annual Fees
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 131.00
Total :131.00
124061 2/24/2011 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 1/26/11 - 2/23/11 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 255.00
Total :255.00
124062 2/24/2011 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2011-WAR124705 E2DB.STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
E2DB.Stormwater Contruction Permit Fees
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 274.73
Total :274.73
124063 2/24/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3179 MINUTE TAKING
Council Minutes 2/15/11
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 213.00
8Page:
Packet Page 32 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :213.00124063 2/24/2011 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
124064 2/24/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3177 Minutes for 2/4-5/2011 Edmonds City
Minutes for 2/4-5/2011 Edmonds City
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 537.00
Total :537.00
124065 2/24/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 31634 UNDERCOAT
UNDERCOAT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.52
Total :17.50
124066 2/24/2011 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP KNAUSS0222 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: LUKE KNAUSS
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
124067 2/24/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 66.65
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 405.98
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
9Page:
Packet Page 33 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124067 2/24/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 540.59
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
10Page:
Packet Page 34 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124067 2/24/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.84
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 55.86
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
Total :1,569.42
124068 2/24/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.87
Total :29.87
124069 2/24/2011 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 1973665 FS 20 - Supplies
FS 20 - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.77
Total :20.44
124070 2/24/2011 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 123173 PD NETWORK JACKS
Police department new network jacks
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 409.16
Police department new network jacks
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 409.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 38.87
11Page:
Packet Page 35 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124070 2/24/2011 (Continued)072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 38.87
Total :896.06
124071 2/24/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 61.85
Total :61.85
124072 2/24/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-745-4313 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE FIRE ALARM LINE
Meadowdale Club House Fire Alarm Line
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 103.53
Total :103.53
124073 2/24/2011 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE13255 WATERCOLOR & DRAWING CLASSES
WATERCOLOR #13255
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 431.20
DRAWING #13251
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 492.80
Total :924.00
124074 2/24/2011 012190 GORSUCH, BRUCE GORSUCH13658 GENEOLOGY CLASS
I'M RELATED TO WHO? #13658
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 90.00
Total :90.00
124075 2/24/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9462937351 CABLE
CABLE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 142.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.55
Total :156.20
124076 2/24/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9453699671 Fac Maint - Bin Boxes
Fac Maint - Bin Boxes
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.75
12Page:
Packet Page 36 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124076 2/24/2011 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.20
Total :25.95
124077 2/24/2011 073437 GRATING PACIFIC LLC 0098692-IN 04-COEWW
PERFORATED METALS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 953.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 90.54
Total :1,043.54
124078 2/24/2011 012560 HACH COMPANY 7113909 112830
GLASS FILTER FBR
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 267.75
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 26.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 28.00
Total :322.70
124079 2/24/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1034827 FAC - EXT Tube
FAC - EXT Tube
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.21
FAC - Supplies1043990
FAC - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.17
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies1047493
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.90
13Page:
Packet Page 37 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124079 2/24/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
City Hall - Supplies2034678
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.97
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies24015
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.16
Fac Maint - Nozzle Supplies281115
Fac Maint - Nozzle Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.41
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies3045322
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 74.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.12
FS 20 - Supplies4034307
FS 20 - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.92
Fac Maint Shop - Supplies4045138
Fac Maint Shop - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 59.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.69
Fac Mant - Shop Paint Supplies4045230
Fac Mant - Shop Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.93
9.5% Sales Tax
14Page:
Packet Page 38 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124079 2/24/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.37
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies4046943
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.27
Unit 106 - Pipe4593753
Unit 106 - Pipe
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.16
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies47563
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.54
Fac Maint - Drawer Pulls, and Slides47641
Fac Maint - Drawer Pulls, and Slides
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 174.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.57
PW - Supplies5035725
PW - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.25
Water Supplies5062567
Water Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 155.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.81
City Hall - Supplies5080220
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.90
15Page:
Packet Page 39 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124079 2/24/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.60
Fac Maint Shop - Supplies5281204
Fac Maint Shop - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.70
Fac Maint - Bucket, Tile Bit7035363
Fac Maint - Bucket, Tile Bit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.85
Fac Maint - Shop and Truck Supplies7042962
Fac Maint - Shop and Truck Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 181.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.26
FAC - Plumbing Supplies7046265
FAC - Plumbing Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 60.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.75
City Park Shop - Drawer Slides8044627
City Park Shop - Drawer Slides
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 26.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.56
Water Supplies - Shovels, Spray Paint8089748
Water Supplies - Shovels, Spray Paint
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 146.24
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.89
Traffic Control - Drill Bits for Truck8566342
Traffic Control - Drill Bits for Truck
16Page:
Packet Page 40 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124079 2/24/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 23.91
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2.27
FS 20 - Plumbing Supplies9036495
FS 20 - Plumbing Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.52
Sewer - Caulk9089486
Sewer - Caulk
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 19.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.90
Total :1,404.13
124080 2/24/2011 073539 HORTIN, DOUGLAS D E2DB.TempCnst.7.Pmt2 E2DB.TEMP CONST EASEMENT.HORTIN.PMT 2
E2DB.Temp Construction Easement.Hortin.
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 717.42
Total :717.42
124081 2/24/2011 070042 IKON 84244053 INV#84244053 ACCT#467070-1005305A3
COPIER RENTAL 2/13-3/12/11
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES 1/3/-2/2-11
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 150.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 46.64
Total :537.48
124082 2/24/2011 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 7943071 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,838.93
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 0.17
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
17Page:
Packet Page 41 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124082 2/24/2011 (Continued)071634 INTEGRA TELECOM
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 0.61
Total :1,839.71
124083 2/24/2011 073469 KIPPER, SANDRA KIPPER13372 NURTURING PATHWAYS
NUTURING PATHWAYS CREATIVE MOVEMENT
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 280.80
Total :280.80
124084 2/24/2011 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 369137-001 MEASURING WHEEL
4' MEASURING WHEEL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 162.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.48
Total :178.47
124085 2/24/2011 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 02142011-01 INV#02142011-01 EDMONDS PD
36 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 - 01/11
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 181.08
Total :181.08
124086 2/24/2011 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 2011-211 ENGINE OIL
ENGINE OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 97.50
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.02
Total :115.54
124087 2/24/2011 070959 MAINTSTAR INC 20 ANNUAL SUPPORT
ANNUAL SUPPORT
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 1,747.00
Total :1,747.00
124088 2/24/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 77054637 123106800
STEEL HOSE/PIPE FITTINGS/TUBE FITTINGS
18Page:
Packet Page 42 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124088 2/24/2011 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 424.30
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.94
12310680077140254
STEEL WIRE/BOLT ANCHOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 335.18
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.41
12310680077318099
SAW BLADE/STEEL SQUARE TUBE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 164.94
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 29.80
12310680077321980
ENCLOSURE PANEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 71.06
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.17
Total :1,051.80
124089 2/24/2011 072010 MEISER, GARLAND MEISER0222 PICKLE BALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR
PICKLEBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR @ ANDERSON
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 96.00
Total :96.00
124090 2/24/2011 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3801519.002 2091
ELECTRICAL WIRE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 159.10
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 14.64
2091S3825183.001
PHTO CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.43
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 0.96
19Page:
Packet Page 43 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :185.13124090 2/24/2011 024960 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
124091 2/24/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-252530 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-253477
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HAINES WHARF PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 137.20
Total :327.07
124092 2/24/2011 073575 NORTHWEST PLUMBING CO INC BLD2011.0063 Overpayment of permit
Overpayment of permit
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 19.00
Total :19.00
124093 2/24/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 189 HPC Minute taker 1/13/11
HPC Minute taker 1/13/11
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 128.00
PB Minutes 2/9/11000 00 193
PB Minutes 2/9/11
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 192.00
ADB Minutes 2/16/11000 00 194
ADB Minutes 2/16/11
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 192.00
Total :512.00
124094 2/24/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 732979 Water Quality - Toner
Water Quality - Toner
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 83.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.91
PW Admin Office Supplies774164
PW Admin Office Supplies
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 99.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 9.43
20Page:
Packet Page 44 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124094 2/24/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Street - Ink872006
Street - Ink
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 54.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 5.15
Total :259.06
124095 2/24/2011 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 689333 Council/Legislative Legal Fees for 1/11
Council/Legislative Legal Fees for 1/11
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 4,428.80
Total :4,428.80
124096 2/24/2011 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT13503 SKAGIT RIVER ESTUARY BIRDING ADVENTURE
SKAGIT RIVER ESTUARY BIRDING ADVENTURE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 246.94
Total :246.94
124097 2/24/2011 071020 PALADA, RANDY 101881767 2397
UNIFORM/PALADA
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 350.00
Total :350.00
124098 2/24/2011 073578 PETERSON, MARY PETERSON13274 ALTERED BOOKS
ALTERED BOOKS #13274
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 180.00
Total :180.00
124099 2/24/2011 065579 QUIKSIGN 58876 Sign Install - Eng (PLN 2010.0078)
Sign Install - Eng (PLN 2010.0078)
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 185.06
Install sign-Woodhaven Vet58919
Install sign-Woodhaven Vet
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 185.06
Total :370.12
124100 2/24/2011 073567 RF VALVES, INC 4020167 TRAY COOLER VALVES
21Page:
Packet Page 45 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124100 2/24/2011 (Continued)073567 RF VALVES, INC
TRAY COOLER VALVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2,558.25
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 39.16
Total :2,597.41
124101 2/24/2011 073443 ROHDE, DAVID 11 PW (STORM, ENGINEERING) GIS ANALYST
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 324.50
City Wide GIS
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 855.50
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 177.00
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 354.00
Total :1,711.00
124102 2/24/2011 073574 SERVICE PLUMBING & HEATING BLD 2011.0106 Bld permit refund contractor did not
Bld permit refund contractor did not
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 65.00
Total :65.00
124103 2/24/2011 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/13897123 Fleet- Shop - Small Tools
Fleet- Shop - Small Tools
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 529.87
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 50.34
Total :580.21
124104 2/24/2011 073572 SNO CO MASTER GARDENER FOUND 13568 GROW YOUR OWN FRUITS & VEGETABLES
GROW YOUR OWN FRUITS & VEGETABLES
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 172.80
Total :172.80
124105 2/24/2011 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV I000267458 2011 SNO CO TOMORROW DUES
22Page:
Packet Page 46 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124105 2/24/2011 (Continued)037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV
2011 Sno Co Tomorrow Dues
001.000.390.519.900.490.00 6,743.00
Total :6,743.00
124106 2/24/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDOIN WAY
9537 BOWDOIN WAY/YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 778.32
Total :778.32
124107 2/24/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 126938790 2030-9778-7
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 33,098.85
Total :33,098.85
124108 2/24/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W
SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95th AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
fire station # 16200398956
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,685.00
LIFT STATION #9200611317
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 194.59
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW201151412
School Flashing Light 8400 219th St SW
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,829.06
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 106.98
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 406.51
Public Works
23Page:
Packet Page 47 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124108 2/24/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 406.51
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 406.51
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 406.51
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 406.52
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,099.71
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW202427803
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
CITY HALL202439246
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,081.42
FIVE CORNERS WATER TOWER203652151
Five Corners Water Tower
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 590.26
Total :15,711.68
124109 2/24/2011 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 13111 Services Street/Storm - HEP A/B, TDAP
Street/Storm - HEP A/B, TDAP
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 209.00
Street/Storm - HEP A/B, TDAP
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 209.00
Total :418.00
124110 2/24/2011 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 47123 INV#47123 - EDMONDS PD
SELF INKING STAMP "JUVENILE"
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.09
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.67
24Page:
Packet Page 48 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :19.26124110 2/24/2011 038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
124111 2/24/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 2152011 ASH DISPOSAL
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 4,614.62
Total :4,614.62
124112 2/24/2011 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4179731-01 0366
UNIFORM/NORDQUIST
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 255.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 24.25
02834179951-01
UNIFORM/NORDQUIST
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 63.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.60
Total :350.00
124113 2/24/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2424172 PW - Elect Supplies
PW - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 117.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.20
PS & FS 20 - Elect Supplies2427537
PS & FS 20 - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 229.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.79
PS - Elect Supplies2427538
PS - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.40
Total :396.45
25Page:
Packet Page 49 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124114 2/24/2011 072555 SYSTEMS DESIGN ED0211 JAN-11 POSTAGE FOR EMS TRANSPORT STMTS
EMS Billing Services-Postage Private
001.000.510.526.100.420.00 2.64
Total :2.64
124115 2/24/2011 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18927477 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.08
Total :35.53
124116 2/24/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1014161312011 E0IA.ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
E0IA.Advertisement for bids
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 186.00
Total :186.00
124117 2/24/2011 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 195586 Sr Center - Install Oil Lubrication
Sr Center - Install Oil Lubrication
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 2,191.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 208.16
Total :2,399.16
124118 2/24/2011 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY TRUAX0222 MONITOR TRAINING
MONITOR TRAINING
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 12.00
Total :12.00
124119 2/24/2011 062693 US BANK 4675 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
6 X 4 POSTCARDS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 151.11
ART SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 41.04
EASTER CANDY
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 240.00
26Page:
Packet Page 50 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124119 2/24/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
DISPLAY AD
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 1,150.00
BOOKS FOR PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 15.51
PRESCHOOL CLASSROOM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 59.21
BACKORDER - SEEDS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.99
ADMISSION FOR 7 EMPLOYEES OF PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 119.00
PLANTS FOR FLOWER PROGRAM
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 253.07
EGG HUNT SUPPLIES
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 84.10
PLANTS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 26.90
Total :2,142.93
124120 2/24/2011 062693 US BANK 3405 L&I - Electrical Permit for PW
L&I - Electrical Permit for PW
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 38.20
Best Buy - PW Replacement TV
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 788.40
Best Buy - PW Replacement TV
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 394.20
Best Buy - PW Replacement TV
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 394.19
Monoprice Inc - Installation Supplies
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 31.04
Monoprice Inc - Installation Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.52
Monoprice Inc - Installation Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 15.51
Multi Products - PW Wall Bracket
27Page:
Packet Page 51 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124120 2/24/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 185.00
Guardian Sec - Old Public Works Security
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
ASCO Power - Sewer LS 9 Elect Switch3546
ASCO Power - Sewer LS 9 Elect Switch
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1,087.66
USPS - CamCal Inc Return by Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 4.75
Total :3,009.47
124121 2/24/2011 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 1010114 utility locates for Jan 2011
utility locates for Jan 2011
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 46.42
utility locates for Jan 2011
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 46.42
utility locates for Jan 2011
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 47.81
Total :140.65
124122 2/24/2011 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0949798295 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 121.57
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 145.28
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 119.72
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.36
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 60.63
Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 475.10
Cell Service-Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.72
Cell Service-PW Street
28Page:
Packet Page 52 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124122 2/24/2011 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.77
Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 27.24
Cell Service-PW Water/Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.28
Cell Service-PW Water/Sewer
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 40.28
Cell Service-PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.36
Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.08
Total :1,150.39
124123 2/24/2011 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E66352 000040000120
UNIFORM/OLIVER
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 297.15
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 27.34
000040000120E66369
UNIFORM/VAUGHAN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 272.69
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 25.09
000040000120E66371
BOOTS/VAUGHAN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 139.49
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 12.83
000040000120E66372
UNIFORM/DANIELSON
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 283.41
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 26.07
000040000120E66391
BOOTS/SLENKER
29Page:
Packet Page 53 of 103
02/23/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
3:22:46PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
124123 2/24/2011 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 183.00
Total :1,267.07
124124 2/24/2011 073576 WILSON, DJ Wilson, D.J.Reimburse Councilmember Wilson for AWC
Reimburse Councilmember Wilson for AWC
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 117.34
Total :117.34
Bank total :434,357.5585 Vouchers for bank code :front
434,357.55Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report85
30Page:
Packet Page 54 of 103
AM-3769 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
Time:
Submitted By:Debi Humann
Department:Human Resources
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Review and approval of Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
The Professional Services Agreement was reviewed at Finance Committee on February 8 and reviewed
by full council on February 15. At full council, it was requested that the Professional Services
Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services be updated with 1) a contract provision limiting
back-up Hearing Examiners to the two individuals identified and 2) requiring an indemnity bond. The
attached materials contain information regarding both requests. Staff and the Mayor respectfully request
approval of the updated Professional Services Agreement.
Previous Council Action
See "Recommendation from Mayor and Staff."
Narrative
See "Recommendation from Mayor and Staff."
Attachments
Updated Hearing Examiner Contract and Memorandum
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/24/2011 02:16 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/25/2011 08:33 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 08:58 AM
Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 02/24/2011 11:34 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2011
Packet Page 55 of 103
Packet Page 56 of 103
Packet Page 57 of 103
Packet Page 58 of 103
Packet Page 59 of 103
Packet Page 60 of 103
Packet Page 61 of 103
Packet Page 62 of 103
AM-3775 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Phil Williams
Department:Public Works
Committee:Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Potential action regarding a Settlement Agreement with Nansi Karlsten.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Move to approve attached settlement agreement, authorize the Mayor to sign and execute the same, and
appropriate $280,000 from the Storm Water/Combined Utility fund, subject to confirmation in the
mid-year budget adjustments.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
This settlement agreement resolves a flooding claim through purchase of the site by the storm water
utility. The property is located at 20719 86th PL West below Good Hope Pond. Council will determine at
a future date whether the property will be retained by the city or resold with appropriate stormwater
easements. This matter has been discussed at a number of executive sessions, including a session
scheduled for March 1st. Approval of the settlement agreement should be accompanied by a motion to
appropriate $280,000 from the storm water utility/combined utility fund subject to confirmation in the
midyear budget adjustments.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:Revenue:Expenditure:$280,000
Fiscal Impact:
$280,000 expenditure from the Combined Utility Fund 411 matched with $20,000 from WCIA
Attachments
Settlement Agreement - Karlsten
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 02/25/2011 01:45 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 02:03 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/25/2011 02:49 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 02:57 PM
Form Started By: Phil Williams Started On: 02/25/2011 07:32 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2011
Packet Page 63 of 103
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and is effective as of the __th day of
March, 2011, by and among Nansi Karlsten (“Karlsten”); and the City of Edmonds (“the City”)
(hereinafter the “Parties”).
In consideration of the promises and covenants exchanged herein, the Parties hereby
agree as follows:
Statement of Purpose
1. The Parties wish to settle and resolve all claims and causes of action that were or
could be asserted by Karlsten, arising of the continual and repeated flooding of the Karlsten
property located at 20719 86th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, 98026, Snohomish County
Assessor Number 00544600004603 (“Karlsten Property”), as described in the damage claim
filed by her on February 9, 2010, City of Edmonds claim number ________.
2. The Parties wish to agree to the terms set out in this Agreement, pursuant to
which Karlsten will sell, and the City of Edmonds will purchase, the Karlsten property.
3. This Agreement is made to settle and compromise disputed claims, and to avoid
the expense and burden of litigation. It does not constitute and shall not be construed in any way
as an admission of liability as to any claim, theory or factual allegation made against any party.
Purchase and Sale
4. Karlsten expressly represents and covenants that she owns and has the authority to
alienate the Karlsten property described above.
5. Karlsten will convey her property via Quit Claim Deed and the conveyance will
be under the threat of eminent domain and the City will pay a total of $300,000 for the purchase
of the Karlsten property (the “Purchase”).
6. The Parties agree that they will exercise best efforts to close the Purchase of the
Karlsten property on or before May 1, 2011. The Parties acknowledge that unanticipated
obstacles to closing may arise, but agree to work diligently to meet the closing deadline.
Releases
7. Contingent upon the closing of the Purchase, and at the closing for the Purchase,
the Parties shall exchange mutual releases in the following form:
(a) Each Party, each on their own behalf and any and all of their successors,
predecessor, assigns, and representatives, shall and hereby do release the other Party its
successors, predecessors, assigns, subsidiaries, departments, affiliates, agents, employees,
officers, directors and representatives (“the Released Parties”) to the fullest extent not prohibited
by law, for and from any claims, rights, obligations, suits, payments, demands, accounts, debts,
covenants, promises, agreements, judgments, causes of action, liabilities, losses, response or
Packet Page 64 of 103
investigative costs under federal or state law, or damages of any kind whatsoever, whether
known or unknown at this time, whether in law or equity, whether under the laws of the United
States or the laws of the State of Washington, whether such claims have arisen or accrued as of
the date of this Agreement, or may arise or accrue after the date of the Agreement that are based
upon or relate in any manner to any act or omission occurring on or before the date of their
execution of this Agreement (the “Released Claims”). The Released Claims include but are not
limited to claims for property damage, for past, present or future property stigma, loss in
property or rental value, personal injury or annoyance, increased risk of injury, emotional
distress or fear of injury, nuisance, trespass, strict, liability, inverse condemnation, and/or any
other federal or state environmental law, ordinance, rule, regulation or code, punitive damages or
other willful or wanton misconduct, civil penalties injunctive relief or any kind, attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses, contribution or indemnity, interest, and any other claims that could have
been brought in a lawsuit or that arise out of or have any connection to conduct, acts, or
omissions that occurred on or before the date of this Agreement.
(b) Pursuant to this Agreement, all claims and rights of whatever kind with respect to
the Released Claims are fully and completely released, waived, satisfied, discharged and settled.
This release is intended to cover any and all future injuries, damages or losses arising from or
relating to any of the Released Claims not now known to the Parties to this Agreement, but
which may develop, or be discovered; and the Parties expressly acknowledge that they may, at
some later point, discover or learn facts of information that relate to the Released Claims that
they do not now know or appreciate. The Parties nonetheless intend their discharge and release
of all the Released Claims to be irrevocable and forever binding.
(c) Each Party is permanently barred and enjoined from asserting any of the Released
Claims against any of the Released Parties.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 7(1), 7(b), and 7(c), nothing in
those paragraphs or in this Agreement is intended to or shall release any claim for breach of this
Agreement.
Other Provisions
8. The Parties represent and warrant that they have all authority necessary to enter
into this Agreement, and the persons who sign on behalf of the Parties represent and warrant that
they have the authority to bind their respective parties to its terms and provisions. Further, the
Parties represent and warrant that no other person or entity has, or has had, any interest in the
released claims; and that the Parties have not sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or otherwise
disposed of, by operation of law or otherwise, any of the Released Claims, or any part of such
claims.
9. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties and
their respective legal representatives, successors and/or assigns.
10. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington. The exclusive venue and forum for any litigation arising from or relating to this
Agreement shall be the state or federal court located in Snohomish County, Washington. The
Packet Page 65 of 103
Parties submit to the jurisdiction of such courts for this purpose, and irrevocably waive any right
they otherwise may have to bring or defend such litigation in any other forum, or to seek to
transfer any such litigation brought in Snohomish County, Washington to any other forum. The
prevailing party in any action arising from or relating to this Agreement, including but not
limited to any action to enforce this Agreement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs incurred, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.
11. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to its
subject matter. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, arrangements or understandings
with respect to its subject matter. The Parties make no representations and have no
understandings other than those expressly set forth in this Agreement. Modifications of this
Agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties sought to be bound thereby. The subject
headings in this document are for convenience and ease of reference only, and shall not be used
to construe any provision of this Agreement.
12. This Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall (when the Agreement is or counterparts have been signed by all Parties) be an original, to
the same effect as if all the signatures were on the same instrument.
13. The Parties represent and acknowledge that they have read this Agreement and
fully understand and agree to its terms. The Parties are satisfied that the terms and conditions of
this Agreement are fair, adequate and reasonable. The Parties were afforded and had the full and
unfettered opportunity to consult legal counsel of their choosing, and to obtain any and all legal
advice he, she or it desired. For purposes of its interpretation or construction, this Agreement is
not drafted by any party hereto, but rather is the subject of negotiation and agreement among the
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of
the date set forth above.
Nansi Karlsten
Date:______________________
The City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation
By:______________________________
Name:____________________________
Title:_____________________________
Date:_____________________________
Packet Page 66 of 103
AM-3776 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:City Attorney Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action regarding a Professional Services Agreement with
Lighthouse Law Group, and a Transition Agreement with Ogden Murphy Wallace.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On 02-22-2011, the City Council passed the following motion:
Councilmember Bernheim moved, seconded by Councilmember Buckshnis, to retain the Lighthoue
Group as the City Attorney. Motion carried (4-3); Councilmembers Wilson, Bernheim, Buckshnis,
and Petso voting yes; Council President Peterson and Councilmembers Plunkett and
Fraley-Monillas voting no.
Narrative
Attached is a memorandum from Scott Snyder, City Attorney. In addition, attached is a copy of a
proposed Professional Services Agreement with Lighthouse Law Group.
Grant Weed, Weed Graafstra and Benson, is preparing a Transition Agreement with Ogden Murphy
Wallace. This Transition Agreement was not available to include with this packet. It will be forwarded
to the City Council as soon as it is received.
Attachments
City Attorney Memorandum re: Professional Services Agreement - Lighthouse Law Group
Professional Services Agreement - Lighthouse Law Group
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/25/2011 02:49 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 02:57 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/25/2011 11:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2011
Packet Page 67 of 103
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS862816.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 2011
TO: Edmonds City Council
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Professional Services Agreement - Lighthouse Law Group, PLLC
Attached is a draft agreement for civil legal services. Please note that Mr. Taraday was out of
town on vacation at the end of last week and was not able to review this draft. There may be
changes after he has had an opportunity for review.
I put this forward at the earliest opportunity to permit a potential transition on the first of March
in order to reduce any duplicative legal fees to minimum.
The draft was based on our firm’s current legal contract with the City. It is a contract which can
be terminated by either party without cause on sixty day notice (Section 7.). The term matches
up with the City’s ordinance providing for a four-year term of appointment. The numerical
insertions, such as the monthly fees (Section 3.), the amount of malpractice fees, (Section 8.) are
based on the Lighthouse Group’s proposal. The malpractice insurance amount is significantly
less than the $10,000,000 which our firm is currently providing, but is the amount shown on
Lighthouse Group’s proposal and was therefore included for your review.
Following Mr. Taraday’s return, there may be changes which will be provided at the Council
meeting. This document is provided as both a placeholder and for your comment.
WSS/gjz
Attachment
Packet Page 68 of 103
{WSS862743.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
- 1 -
AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT entered into between the City of Edmonds ("the City") and
Lighthouse Law Group, PLLC (“Lighthouse”) effective March 1, 2011, is entered into in
consideration of the terms and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services to be Provided. LIGHTHOUSE will serve as attorneys for the City on all
civil legal matters assigned or referred to LIGHTHOUSE by the City during the term of this
Agreement, and will perform all civil legal services for the City with the exception of litigation
covered by the City’s insurance pool and legal services related to the insurance of any bond.
This is a nonexclusive agreement and the City at its sole discretion may engage other legal
counsel regarding any matter. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to:
1.1 Preparing for and attending City Council meetings;
1.2 Drafting ordinances, resolutions, and decisions;
1.3 Answering telephone calls from City elected officials and staff and providing
general consultation on civil legal matters;
1.4 Attending meetings with City staff (including regular office hours if
requested), the Mayor, and/or Council Members on civil legal matters;
1.5 Attending meetings of other City boards and commissions, such as the
Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner, when requested to do so; and
1.6 Negotiating with third parties other than in a litigation context, e.g.,
negotiating development conditions.
1.7 Representing the City and its officials in litigation matters, provided, that in
cases where the City and its officials have insurance coverage through
WCIA, LIGHTHOUSE will represent the City and its officials only until
WCIA retained attorneys are actively handling the case or to the extent
necessary to deal with non-covered claims or to provide consultation and
coordination between the City and the WCIA retained attorneys;
1.8 Labor negotiation or arbitration;
1.9 Services related to local improvement districts;
1.10 Services requiring a tax specialist;
Packet Page 69 of 103
{WSS862743.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
- 2 -
1.11 Services requiring expertise in CERCLA, MOTCA, or other state or federal
environmental cleanup laws;
1.12 Representing the City in administrative proceedings before another
governmental unit (such as Boundary Review Board hearings, proceedings
before the State Shoreline Hearings Board, or proceedings before the State
Growth Management Hearings Board); and
1.13 Telecommunications services, including franchise negotiation and leasing.
2. Personnel Performing Services. Jeff Taraday will be the lead attorney and shall have
the primary responsibility for attending City Council meetings and delegating work to other
LIGHTHOUSE attorneys as needed. Mr. Taraday may assign work to any attorney named in
LIGHTHOUSE’S proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as
if herein set forth. Provision of service by any other attorney shall require prior approval of the
service provided by the Mayor.
3. Payment for Services. The City will pay LIGHTHOUSE for the services specified
in the sum of $32,000 a month for the balance of 2011. This amount may be adjusted upward in
future years with the mutual consent of the parties. LIGHTHOUSE shall submit any proposed fee
increase by September 15 of any year for consideration in the budget process. Approval of a budget
including a proposed or negotiated rate shall be deemed to amend the rate set forth above.
4. Legal Work Reimbursable to City. In some circumstances, the City may be able to
have third parties reimburse it for its legal services. This will most commonly occur for land use
permitting work. It may also occur in the negotiation of cell tower leases (cell tower companies
typically reimburse cities for their legal work) or interlocal agreements where other jurisdictions
must reimburse the City of Edmonds for its legal time. The rate to be charged by all members of
LIGHTHOUSE for such work shall be $225 per hour for these services. Any sums paid for by a
third party shall be in excess of the set fee provided for in Section 3.
5. The City will not be charged separately for normal clerical or secretarial work, the
expense of which has been calculated into LIGHTHOUSE's set fee. Reimbursement will be made
by the City for expenditures related to court costs and fees, copying, postage and mileage and
parking. Other expenses shall be reimbursed when authorized in advance by the City.
6. Billing. LIGHTHOUSE shall bill the City monthly. Payment by the City for all
undisputed billings shall be within thirty (30) days of such billing.
7. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on March 1, 2011 and shall
remain in effect until December 31, 2014. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause
upon sixty (60) days' written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, work in progress
will be completed by LIGHTHOUSE if authorized by the City under terms acceptable to both
parties. If completion of work in progress is not authorized or acceptable terms cannot be worked
out, LIGHTHOUSE will submit all unfinished documents, reports, or other material to City and
Packet Page 70 of 103
{WSS862743.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
- 3 -
LIGHTHOUSE will be entitled to receive payment for any and all satisfactory work completed
prior to the effective date of termination.
8. Professional Liability Insurance. LIGHTHOUSE will maintain professional liability
insurance throughout the duration of this Agreement in the minimum amount of $2,000,000.
9. Discrimination. LIGHTHOUSE agrees not to discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of
race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age, or physical, mental or sensory handicap,
except where a bona fide occupational qualification exists.
10. Independent Contractor. LIGHTHOUSE is an independent contractor with respect
to the services to be provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be liable for, nor obligated
to pay to LIGHTHOUSE, or any employee of LIGHTHOUSE, sick leave, vacation pay, overtime or
any other benefit applicable to employees of the City, nor to pay or deduct any social security,
income tax, or other tax from the payments made to LIGHTHOUSE which may arise as an incident
of LIGHTHOUSE performing services for the City. The City shall not be obligated to pay
industrial insurance for the services rendered by LIGHTHOUSE.
11. Ownership of Work Product. All opinions, data, materials, reports, memoranda, and
other documents developed by LIGHTHOUSE under this Agreement specifically for the City are
the property of the City, shall be forwarded to the City at its request, and may be used by the City as
the City sees fit.
12. Hold Harmless. LIGHTHOUSE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the
City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims,
judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of
LIGHTHOUSE. The City agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend LIGHTHOUSE, its
members and employees, from and against any and all claims, judgments or awards of damages,
arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the City, its elected and appointed
officials, employees and agents. to the extent necessary to fully fulfill these promises of indemnity,
the parties waive their immunity under Title 51 RCW.
13. Rules of Professional Conduct. All services provided by LIGHTHOUSE under this
Agreement will be performed in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys
established by the Washington Supreme Court.
14. Work for Other Clients. LIGHTHOUSE may provide other services for clients
other than the City during the term of this Agreement, but will not do so where the same may
constitute a conflict of interest as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct unless the City, after
full disclosure of the potential or actual conflict, consents in writing to the representation. Any
potential conflicts shall be handled in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct referred to
above.
Packet Page 71 of 103
{WSS862743.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
- 4 -
15. Subcontracting or Assignment. LIGHTHOUSE may not assign or subcontract any
portion of the services to be provided under this agreement without the express written consent of
the City.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement
between the City and the LIGHTHOUSE, superseding all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, written or oral This agreement may be modified, amended, or added to, only by written
instrument properly signed by both parties hereto. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement
and Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control.
Date: Date:
CITY OF EDMONDS LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
Mayor Mile Cooper Jeff Taraday
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
Packet Page 72 of 103
AM-3772 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Edmonds Econ Dev't Comm and
Planning Board
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Combined 2010 Year End Reports from the City of Edmonds Economic Development
Commission and the Planning Board.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On April 21, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Resolution 1198 which directed City of Edmonds
staff to create an Ordinance, where if approved, would create a Citizens Economic Development
Commission. On June 2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, which amended the
Edmonds City Code, Title 10, adding a new Chapter 10.75 Citizens Economic Development
Commission. On October 5, 2011, the Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3808 which extends
the sunset date for the Economic Development Commission from December 31, 2010 to December 31,
2011.
Narrative
The Citizens Economic Development Commission, consisting of 17 members. two City Council liaisons,
and a Planning Board liaison is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council, and as appropriate to the Planning Board, Architectural Design Board or other Boards or
Commissions of the City on such matters as may be specifically referred to the Commission by the
Mayor or City Council including but not limited to 1) determining new strategies for economic
development within the City of Edmonds, and 2) identifying new sources of revenue for consideration by
the City Council, and other strategies for improving commercial viability and tourism development. The
City of Edmonds Economic Development Commission and Planning Board, in response to their charge to
prepare and submit an annual report, respectfully submit the attached reports to the Edmonds City
Council and Mayor Cooper for review and consideration.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Combined 2010 Year End Reports from the City of Edmonds Economic Development
Commission and Planning Board
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/24/2011 03:52 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 02/24/2011 04:17 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/24/2011 04:21 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/25/2011 08:33 AM
Packet Page 73 of 103
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 08:58 AM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 02/24/2011 03:10 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2011
Packet Page 74 of 103
COMBINED 2010 ANNUAL REPORTS
FROM THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AND
PLANNING BOARD
The City of Edmonds Economic Development Commission and Planning Board, in response to their
charge to prepare and submit an annual report, respectfully submit this combined report to the
Edmonds City Council and Mayor Cooper for review and consideration.
Packet Page 75 of 103
2
The Citizens Economic Development Commission
On April 21, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Resolution 1198 which directed City of Edmonds staff to
create an Ordinance, that would, if approved, create a Citizens Economic Development Commission. On June
2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, which amended the Edmonds City Code, Title 10,
adding a new Chapter 10.75 Citizens Economic Development Commission.
The Citizens Economic Development Commission, consisting of 17 members, is empowered to advise and
make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate to the Planning Board ,
Archit ectural Design Board or other Boards or Commissions of the City on such matters as may be
specifically referred to the Commission by the Mayor or City Council including but not limited to 1)
determining new strategies for economic development within the City of Edmonds, and 2) identifying new
sources of revenue for consideration by the City Council, and other strategies for improving commercial
viability and tourism development.
Packet Page 76 of 103
3
Background
The Edmonds Economic Development Commission (EDC) has been meeting on a monthly basis
since the commission was formed in June of 2009. During year 2010, much was accomplished by the
Commission; the following highlights some of the more significant Economic Development
Commission activities related to economic development efforts.
Major Economic Development Commission (EDC) Activities for 2010
• January 6, 2010 – A joint meeting between the Economic Development Commission and the
Planning Board took place in the Brackett meeting room. The main topic discussed was the
Edmonds Economic Development Commission and Planning Board report.
• January 19, 2010 – A Combined Economic Development Commission and the Planning
Board 2009 Annual Report was submitted to the City Council and presentations were given
by the Edmonds Economic Development Commission and Planning Board Chairs during the
City Council meeting. The Edmonds EDC and Planning Board submitted and recommended
the following six higher priority proposals and requested support from the Edmonds City
Council to allow work to begin in 2010:
1. Ensure that the City’s economic development position can devote full time to
economic development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and
activities. A focus of this role is to continue to define and promote Edmonds’ brand.
2. Commit to developing/reviewing/updating a strategic plan every year, ideally
corresponding to the City Council’s annual retreat; this includes setting goals and
continually assessing progress metrics.
3. Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood Center)
and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to position these areas to
attract redevelopment.
4. Support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that ensures
a balance between generating revenue and addressing environmental concerns. .
5. Initiate and fund a business/marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optic network.
6. Develop a community vision that addresses a balance between quality of life and
growth objectives while furthering Edmonds’ “green” initiatives.
• February 17, 2010 – A joint meeting between the Economic Development Commission
(EDC) and City Council members took place in the Brackett meeting room. Each Council
member shared their thoughts about economic development and whether they supported the
Packet Page 77 of 103
4
Edmonds EDC’s proposed six higher priority recommendations contained within the
Combined Edmonds EDC and Planning Board Economic Development Report presented to
the City Council on January 19, 2010.
• March 16, 2010 – The Edmonds City Council approved Resolution 1224 which expressed
support for the Edmonds EDC Commission to move forward with its six higher priority
recommendations referenced above, albeit slightly modified, and one was added by the City
Council.
1. Ensure that the City’s economic development position can devote full time to
economic development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and
activities.
2. Develop a strategic plan and commit to reviewing/updating this plan every year. This
includes setting goals and continually assessing progress metrics.
3. Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood
Center), Perrinville, and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to
position these areas to attract redevelopment.
4. Support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that
recognizes the need to generate revenue while emphasizing environmental/community
needs and concerns.
5. Initiate a business/marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optic network.
6. Initiate a business/marketing plan for tourism development.
7. Develop a community vision that addresses quality of life and growth objectives while
furthering Edmonds’ “green” initiatives.
• August 3, 2010 – The City Council voted 6-1 to authorize City staff to initiate necessary
professional services agreements with the University of Washington in order to proceed with
implementing special district plans for the Five Corners and Westgate Neighborhood Centers
(initially recommended by the Edmonds Economic Development Commission and
subsequently supported by City Council Resolution 1224). Although necessary funding was
authorized for most of the study, the City Council requested additional information be
provided at a later City Council meeting regarding how much it might cost to perform a
market analysis for each commercial area.
• August 24, 2010 – The City Council voted 6-1 to allocate $10,000 from the salary savings of
the vacant Development Services Director position to pay for a market study tied to special
district plans for the Five Corners Neighborhood and Westgate Commercial centers.
Packet Page 78 of 103
5
• September, 2010 – Phase 1 of the special district planning efforts related to the Five Corners
and Westgate Neighborhood Centers began.
• October 5, 2011 – The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3808 which extends the
sunset date for the Economic Development Commission from December 31, 2010 to
December 31, 2011.
• October 20, 2010 – The Edmonds Economic Development Commission was provided an
update from the Port of Edmonds Executive Director regarding the Harbor Square Master
Planning Process; and an update from Jill Sterrett, Affiliate Instructor with the UW Dept. of
Urban Design & Planning, and University of Washington students, about special district
planning efforts related to the Five Corners and Westgate Neighborhood Centers.
• November 17, 2010 – The Planning Board and Edmonds EDC co-hosted a three person panel
with experience on business-friendly green initiatives. The Edmonds Economic Development
Commission and Planning Board were involved in putting together this presentation while
Sustainable Edmonds endorsed it with their support and presence. The presentations were
open to the public and were also advertised via the City’s website and Government Channel.
The City of Bellingham is doing remarkable things and was featured on a PBS special about
green initiatives and businesses working together. Many of the programs are incentive based;
for example in Bellingham, LEED certified buildings are guaranteed a one week turnaround
on their building permit application. Nick Hartrich of Sustainable Connections in Bellingham
has offered his assistance to the City of Edmonds should it choose to go down a similar path.
• December 15, 2010 - Jill Sterrett, Affiliate Instructor with the UW Dept. of Urban Design &
Planning, and University of Washington students provided an update on initial findings of the
Phase 1 special district planning efforts related to the Five Corners and Westgate
Neighborhood Centers. A citizen survey and Phase 1 Special District report can be found on
the City’s website at http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CitEconDevCommDocs.stm under Five
Corners and Westgate Neighborhood Commercial Areas.
• December 22, 2010 – The Edmonds City Council approved the 2011 City Budget which
contains an amount of $100,000 to fund the Edmonds EDC’s recommendation to develop a
city-wide strategic plan.
Packet Page 79 of 103
6
In March of 2010, the Edmonds Economic Development Commission discussed the seven
recommended higher priority items and agreed that the recommendations generally fall within four
categories: Strategic Planning and Visioning; Technology; Land Use; and Tourism. A subgroup was
formed for each category and Commission Chair requested that each subgroup meet regularly to
address each category. During each monthly Edmonds EDC meeting, each subgroup presents
updates on progress made towards developing recommendations or implementing tasks/goals related
to each subgroup below.
• Land Use: This revolves around how to best utilize what land we have, since the city is 96%
built out, our best options for improvement will come from redesign of our existing areas and
the key here is doing something that not only will enhance the community economically, but
also conducting a public process that results in future development that enhances the City. The
City’s Development Services Department has been a great driver of this and helped to develop a
collaborative effort between the City, Economic Development Commission, UW Urban Design
/ Planning & Green Futures Lab, and Cascade Land Conservancy, herein referred to as the
project team.
o Phase 1 took place last fall with the University of Washington conducting an inventory of
amenities, buildings, uses, etc., and assessment of the areas. A web survey was also
conducted and is underway until the end of February. A citizen survey and Phase 1
Special District report can be found on the City’s website at
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CitEconDevCommDocs.stm under Five Corners and
Westgate Neighborhood Commercial Areas - Planning Process.
o Phase 2 is currently underway. The special district project team is hosting several
meetings to solicit citizen and business/property owner input. As mentioned during
community meetings, the special district project team considers the citizens and
business/property owners to be a fifth member of the project team. By engaging now in
this process, they have the opportunity to shape possible concepts related to development
regulations.
o During the 3rd
Phase, which is scheduled to take place during the second quarter of this
year, recommendations will be submitted to the Economic Development Commission and
Planning Board which will consider and discuss recommendations from the project team
during public meetings. The Planning Board will then forward recommendations to the
City Council for their consideration and potential action.
• Strategic Planning: This is probably the one the most important pieces to the future of the City.
Strategic planning determines where an organization is going over the next few years or more
and how it's going to get there. A Strategic Plan is intended to help the City direct its efforts and
resources toward a clearly defined vision for its future. The plan should include benchmarks or
milestones that measure the City’s progress along the way. A key element of the strategic
planning process is that it will be established proactively and transparently with community
acceptance. The process is expected to allow for both active and passive involvement ensuring
diverse and extensive community participation. The City is preparing to issue to a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ). The purpose of a RFQ is to seek proposals from qualified consultants to
assist in the development of a Strategic Plan for the City. The City’s Community
Services/Economic Development Director has completed a draft RFQ and sent it to the
Edmonds EDC, City Council, Planning Board and Department Directors asking for input prior
to submitting a draft RFQ to the Edmonds City Council for their review.
Packet Page 80 of 103
7
• Technology: The Edmonds EDC has determined that its focus would be on the City’s existing
fiber optics network and opportunities that exist related to making it readily available to other
organizations and businesses that may have a need for high speed broadband. Along with the
Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) which has been working in this area for
several years, the Edmonds EDC and CTAC are at the doorstep of creating significant and
immediate additional revenue source for the City.
• Tourism: The City of Edmonds, the Chamber and the Downtown Edmonds Merchants
Association have always promoted Edmonds through its events and marketing. This being said,
the potential could be much greater. The Edmonds EDC sub-committee is reviewing and
discussing potential opportunities to create new tourist attractions in the area. One of these is in
the area of “sports tourism”. The Edmonds EDC Tourism sub group is also in the process of
identifying assets, programs, events, and various attractions that might be attractive to tourists,
including those participating in active sports or recreation. On a broader level, what the City
has in its favor is the city itself, i.e., a beautiful place to visit and enjoy, waterfront accessible to
the public, walkable pedestrian friendly downtown/waterfront, an arts community, a full
calendar of year round community events and public marina. Shopping and dining
opportunities exists within the Downtown/Waterfront activity area and can also be found along
Highway 99 and the neighborhood commercial districts of Westgate, Perrinville, Firdale
Village, and Five Corners
The Citizens Economic Development Commission continues to fulfill its charge to secure and seek
new revenue streams and find ways in which to improve a much needed revenue base, either directly
or indirectly. Where the Commission is headed is to continue exploring, working on, and
implementing, initiatives related to the four categories above. Additionally, during the February,
2011 Edmonds EDC meeting, the Commission discussed additional topics/studies they are interested
in participating in, implementing, learning about and/or discussing. These include:
1. Undertaking a comprehensive approach to studying downtown design and its effects on
existing and future development; there is an opportunity here to engage EDC, Planning Board,
ADB, and the Arts Commission on such topics as streetscapes, buildings design, public
spaces, 4th
2. Snohomish County Tourism Plan and what it means for the City of Edmonds and Edmonds
Center for the Arts.
Ave. etc.
3. Existing post office site and future development plans.
4. City Website and future use to promote Edmonds.
5. Port of Edmonds Master Planning process - where are they in the process and what concepts
are being considered.
6. Public and private partnerships, e.g., tourism, land use; grants, property acquisition, etc.
7. Strategic Planning process.
8. Development agreements – What is involved and what do they allow?
9. Possible educational series for the Edmonds EDC to help the Commission become more
knowledgeable about development regulations.
The Commission will also proactively seek new ideas not only from EDC members, but from
Edmonds’ citizens, business owners, property owners, the City Council, Mayor, City staff and
various organizations. The Harbor Square master planning effort, existing Post Office site, Highway
99, and existing development related regulations, are important areas of focus. Working with other
Packet Page 81 of 103
8
boards and commissions has been, and continues to be, a priority to maintain communication and to
coordinate efforts. A Planning Board member now serves as a liaison to the Edmonds EDC to insure
that is accomplished. Key City staff continue to be a tremendous help to the Commission in all
regards.
Lastly, as noted earlier in the report, the Edmonds EDC was to sunset Dec 31, 2010, but the council
voted to extend the sunset date for an additional year, understanding that the process to review,
consider and implement economic development related initiatives not only takes time, but we are on
the right track to insure we accomplish our goals.
Packet Page 82 of 103
9
Edmonds Planning Board’s Activities and Efforts Over the Course of
2010 in Context of Economic Development within the City of Edmonds
1. The Planning Board’s Report to Council for 2010 contains a complete listing of the year’s studies,
actions, and recommendations to Council for further action primarily in the areas of amendments to
both the city’s Comprehensive Plan and governing Codes. From a broad perspective the Planning
Board’s goal with regard to economic development is to study and support efforts to create long term
sustainability of our city for our citizens and visiting public from environmental, economic, and
livability standpoints while at the same time respecting the historical, residential, and other
characteristics of Edmonds that attract citizens and visitors.
2. Areas in which the Board has worked to support economic development in supplement to efforts being
undertaken by the Economic Development Commission [EDC]:
• Comprehensive Plan—updates to provisions and plans towards support of long-term viability of
our environment, infrastructure, and public facilities to the benefit of Edmonds citizenry both now
and into the future
• Code Revisions—a 3-pronged approach:
A] Simplify language so that both public and staff can both understand and implement provisions
free of such hindrances as redundancy, conflicting and/or inconsistent language, incongruity of
chapters/sections, and outdated provisions.
B] Where appropriate introduce flexibility within certain sections to better enable Development
Services staff and other enforcing departments to process work within the intent of identified
provisions rather than being bogged down by either incomplete or lacking written language within
the regulations.
C] Where appropriate recommend code revisions be modified to relieve permitting and/or
application fees/costs to the benefit of applicants with an eye towards encouraging economic
growth from resultant undertakings.
• Longer-term studies:
i] Potential revisions to downtown business area in order to enable more adaptable project(s)
development supportive of economic growth within the city .
ii] Participate with EDC in development of strategic plan being undertaken with help from outside
consultant team towards a long-range workable program for the city.
iii] Undertake specific area-focused studies for the hospital district and highway 99 [in concert
with the latter’s task force] with the goal of enhancing and enabling appropriate economic and
potential project development within those areas of the city.
Packet Page 83 of 103
10
iv] Content/context study of ‘form based zoning’ principles and practices with the potential of
applying same towards facilitating future development of certain areas/neighborhoods of the city,
including, but not necessarily limited to Westgate, 5 Corners, and the downtown waterfront areas.
[Form Base Zoning emphasizes regulation of building “form” (versus just “use”) to assure a
building’s general shape, massing, height and orientation positively contribute to the existing
or desired neighborhood context.]
• Tracking of potential master plan efforts being currently undertaken and/or contemplated [such
efforts being undertaken with primary goal of enhancing project opportunities within the city in
support of economic development]:
4th Avenue Arts Corridor
5 Corners neighborhood
Westgate neighborhood
Port of Edmonds Harbor Square redevelopment/revitalization
Spee/USPS development—both phases
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center
Packet Page 84 of 103
AM-3773 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
Time:2 Hours
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Committee:Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Joint Meeting with the Edmonds Planning Board.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
This is a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Board to discuss items of mutual interest.
A short topic outline is attached (Exhibit 1) to get the discussion started.
Exhibit 2 contains the Planning Board's report given to the City Council at the retreat on February 4, 2011.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Agenda / Discussion Outline
Exhibit 2: Planning Board Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/24/2011 03:56 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/25/2011 08:32 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 08:58 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 02/24/2011 03:31 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2011
Packet Page 85 of 103
Joint Meeting: City Council and Planning Board
Topic Agenda
A. Planning Board Priorities
1. Mandatory and ongoing commitments.
Background: See attached “2010 Accomplishments” summary – which was presented to
the Council at the February retreat and includes current 2011 commitments. This is
provided for information only. In general, the Planning Board’s goal is to integrate
sustainability principles into work products, while keeping in mind the goals of simplifying
and improving the consistency of codes and regulations in implementing comprehensive
plan goals.
2. Highlight: Design.
Background: Collaborating with and building on the work of the Economic Development
Commission, the Planning Board is looking toward a design‐based approach to address key
land use and zoning issues. The intent is to use the ideas and templates developed during
the UW/Cascade Land Conservancy work at Five Corners and Westgate to develop design‐
based solutions for (1) Highway 99 and the Medical/Hwy 99 Activity Center; (2) multifamily
project design and RM zones; and (3) downtown Edmonds. Form‐based codes which focus
on design issues and streetscape and neighborhood relationships should be at the forefront
of the discussion in each case.
3. Highlight: “Green” incentives.
Background: Incentives should be developed to achieve desired sustainability goals while
promoting attractive design, neighborhood character, and economic development. Some
incentives could be city‐wide, such as priority permitting or discounting for achieving green
development standards. Other incentives could be location specific, employing such tools as
development agreements which provide design flexibility in exchange for achieving city
goals (e.g. providing amenities or desired uses).
B. City Council Priorities
1. Open discussion.
C. Other items of mutual interest…
1. Open discussion.
Packet Page 86 of 103
1
Edmonds Planning Board
Report to City Council for the Year 2010
Feb. 4, 2011
Listing of areas and subjects received, reviewed, and analyzed with findings and recommendations
forwarded to the Council for discussion and further action as warranted by the Council
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Water System Comprehensive Plan Update [from 2010 draft]
Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan Update
Update to Street Tree Plan [last done in 2006]
Comprehensive Plan Purpose, Effect and Context
To provide improved consistency with Vision 2040, currently adapted elements of the Plan,
process and standards described in city codes, and Growth Management Act
Update to Capital Facilities Element within the Plan [2011 – 2016]
Code Amendments
Homeless Shelters / Tent City [to replace city’s temp. Ord. 3769]
Title 20 Procedures‐proposed revisions to [ECDC 20.01 – 20.08 (excl 20.050)]
Notice requirements, land use applications, Council role in appeals process
Civil Enforcement Procedures [ECDC 20.110.040(f)]
Wall Murals and Artwork [added provisions to Chapt. 20.60‐ definitions, guidelines]
Minor sign chapter clarification [ECDC 20.60.025, RE: permitted permanent signs in business
and commercial zones]
Minor SEPA chapter update [ECDC 20.15A – Environmental Review]
Home Occupations update
PRD perimeter buffers update
Fees for illegal tree cutting
Packet Page 87 of 103
2
Following is a listing of areas and subjects currently started or in process of discussion/review by the
Planning Board
In Process
Sustainability Indicators [energy audits and consumption within the City, home energy
usage/conservation audits]
Wireless Regulations update
Subdivision chapter update
UW Neighborhood studies (Five Corners, Westgate) and potential for form‐based zoning
templates and Comp Plan adjustment recommendations templates
Informal tracking progress‐‐‐ Port of Edmonds Harbor Square
Highway 99 parking requirements (referred by Council)
New / Pending Items for 2011
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 244th Ave SW near Denny’s [private Comp Plan amendment
proposal]
Review of Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center boundary (referred by Council)
Shoreline Master Program update (State mandate)
Minor Downtown BD zone updates (referred by Council)
Other code chapters… (Title 17 miscellaneous zoning standards)
Parks and Recreation quarterly reports
Collaboration Opportunities
Economic Development Commission [land use issues; UW studies; sustainability and branding
initiatives; ‘Green’ building incentives]
Planning Board has representative member sitting in EDC meetings and reporting on efforts
as well as collaborative opportunities
Highway 99 Task Force[Hwy99 transit oriented development; zoning update to reflect evolving
character in Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center]
Mayor’s Climate Committee [Sustainability and Climate Action Plan; Sustainability indicators]
Green’ building incentives [PB, EDC, ADB, and Climate Committee with potential PB lead]
Packet Page 88 of 103
AM-3768 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/01/2011
Time:
Submitted For:Councilman Wilson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action regarding pending legislation of interest to the City of
Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Discussion and potential action regarding pending legislation of interest to the City of Edmonds.
Attachments
HB 1721
Wilson Reso Supporting HB 1721
Sub HB 1489-S
1489-S AMH MORR H1935.2
Wilson Reso supporting HB 1489-5194
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/24/2011 02:44 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/25/2011 08:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2011 08:58 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/24/2011 11:12 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2011
Packet Page 89 of 103
H-1802.1 _____________________________________________
SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1721
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By House Environment (originally sponsored by Representatives Frockt,
Kenney, Roberts, Fitzgibbon, and Stanford)
READ FIRST TIME 02/17/11.
1 AN ACT Relating to preventing storm water pollution from coal tar
2 sealants; and adding a new chapter to Title 70 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The definitions in this section apply
5 throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
6 "Department" means the department of ecology.
7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. After January 1, 2012, no person may sell at
8 wholesale or retail a coal tar pavement product that is labeled as
9 containing coal tar.
10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. After July 1, 2012, a person may not apply
11 a coal tar pavement product on a driveway or parking area.
12 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) The department may issue a notice of
13 corrective action to a person in violation of section 2 or 3 of this
14 act.
15 (2) A city or county may adopt an ordinance providing for
p. 1 SHB 1721
Packet Page 90 of 103
1 enforcement of the requirements of section 2 or 3 of this act. A city
2 or county adopting an ordinance has jurisdiction concurrent with the
3 department to enforce this section.
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. Sections 1 through 4 of this act constitute
5 a new chapter in Title 70 RCW.
--- END ---
SHB 1721 p. 2
Packet Page 91 of 103
Resolution supporting SHB 1721 regarding prevention of storm water pollution from coal tar sealants
Whereas Rep. Stanford and Rep. Roberts have co-sponsored legislation by Rep. David Frockt to prevent
the use of carcinogenic coal tar sealant to limit pollution in storm water, which ultimately finds
its way to waterways in our watersheds, and
Whereas coal tar sealant, which is known to cause tumors in fish, has been identified to be highly
concentrated in Lake Ballinger, the stewardship of which has been identified as a high priority
item for the City Council,
Now, therefore be it resolved that the City of Edmonds supports SHB 1721, and encourages Senators
Shin, Chase, and McAuliffe and Representatives Liias, Kagi, Ryu, and Moscoso, which represent
Edmonds, to support this legislation.
Packet Page 92 of 103
H-1427.2 _____________________________________________
SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1489
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By House Environment (originally sponsored by Representatives Billig,
Morris, Frockt, Carlyle, Crouse, Ryu, Finn, Jinkins, Fitzgibbon,
Tharinger, Rolfes, Liias, Moscoso, Stanford, Dunshee, Pettigrew,
Ladenburg, Ormsby, Van De Wege, Moeller, Hunt, Pedersen, Maxwell,
Roberts, Reykdal, Kagi, Darneille, Clibborn, Jacks, and Kenney)
READ FIRST TIME 02/15/11.
1 AN ACT Relating to protecting water quality through restrictions on
2 fertilizer containing phosphorus; amending RCW 15.54.270, 15.54.470,
3 and 15.54.474; adding new sections to chapter 15.54 RCW; creating a new
4 section; and providing an effective date.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
6 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature finds that:
7 (a) Phosphorus loading of surface waters can stimulate the growth
8 of weeds and algae and that this growth can have adverse environmental,
9 health, and aesthetic effects;
10 (b) Turf fertilizer contributes to phosphorus loading. Limits on
11 turf fertilizer labeled as containing phosphorus can significantly
12 reduce the discharge of phosphorus into the state's ground and surface
13 waters;
14 (c) Turf fertilizer containing no or very low amounts of phosphorus
15 is readily available and maintaining established turf in a healthy and
16 green condition is not dependent upon the addition of turf fertilizer
17 labeled as containing phosphorus; and
18 (d) While significant reductions of phosphorus from laundry
p. 1 SHB 1489
Packet Page 93 of 103
1 detergent and dishwashing detergent have been achieved, similar
2 progress in reducing phosphorus contributions from turf fertilizer has
3 not been accomplished.
4 (2) It is the intent of the legislature to significantly limit the
5 use of turf fertilizers labeled as containing phosphorus.
6 Sec. 2. RCW 15.54.270 and 1998 c 36 s 2 are each amended to read
7 as follows:
8 ((Terms used in)) The definitions in this section apply throughout
9 this chapter ((have the meaning given to them in this chapter)) unless
10 the context clearly ((indicates)) requires otherwise.
11 (1) "Brand" means a term, design, or trademark used in connection
12 with the distribution and sale of one or more grades of commercial
13 fertilizers.
14 (2) "Bulk fertilizer" means commercial fertilizer distributed in a
15 nonpackaged form such as, but not limited to, tote bags, tote tanks,
16 bins, tanks, trailers, spreader trucks, and railcars.
17 (3) "Calcium carbonate equivalent" means the acid-neutralizing
18 capacity of an agricultural liming material expressed as a weight
19 percentage of calcium carbonate.
20 (4) "Commercial fertilizer" means a substance containing one or
21 more recognized plant nutrients and that is used for its plant nutrient
22 content or that is designated for use or claimed to have value in
23 promoting plant growth, and shall include limes, gypsum, and
24 manipulated animal and vegetable manures. It does not include
25 unmanipulated animal and vegetable manures, organic waste-derived
26 material, and other products exempted by the department by rule.
27 (5) "Composting" means the controlled aerobic degradation of
28 organic waste materials. Natural decay of organic waste under
29 uncontrolled conditions is not composting.
30 (6) "Customer-formula fertilizer" means a mixture of commercial
31 fertilizer or materials of which each batch is mixed according to the
32 specifications of the final purchaser.
33 (7) "Department" means the department of agriculture of the state
34 of Washington or its duly authorized representative.
35 (8) "Director" means the director of the department of agriculture.
36 (9) "Distribute" means to import, consign, manufacture, produce,
SHB 1489 p. 2
Packet Page 94 of 103
1 compound, mix, or blend commercial fertilizer, or to offer for sale,
2 sell, barter, exchange, or otherwise supply commercial fertilizer in
3 this state.
4 (10) "Distributor" means a person who distributes.
5 (11) "Fertilizer material" means a commercial fertilizer that
6 either:
7 (a) Contains important quantities of no more than one of the
8 primary plant nutrients: Nitrogen, phosphate, and potash;
9 (b) Has eighty-five percent or more of its plant nutrient content
10 present in the form of a single chemical compound; or
11 (c) Is derived from a plant or animal residue or by-product or
12 natural material deposit that has been processed in such a way that its
13 content of plant nutrients has not been materially changed except by
14 purification and concentration.
15 (12) "Grade" means the percentage of total nitrogen, available
16 phosphoric acid, and soluble potash stated in whole numbers in the same
17 terms, order, and percentages as in the "guaranteed analysis," unless
18 otherwise allowed by a rule adopted by the department. Specialty
19 fertilizers may be guaranteed in fractional units of less than one
20 percent of total nitrogen, available phosphorus or phosphoric acid, and
21 soluble potassium or potash. Fertilizer materials, bone meal, manures,
22 and similar materials may be guaranteed in fractional units.
23 (13) "Guaranteed analysis."
24 (a) Until the director prescribes an alternative form of
25 "guaranteed analysis" by rule the term "guaranteed analysis" shall mean
26 the minimum percentage of plant nutrients claimed in the following
27 order and form:
28 Total nitrogen (N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . percent
29 Available phosphoric acid (P2O5) . . . . . percent
30 Soluble potash (K2O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . percent
31 The percentage shall be stated in whole numbers unless otherwise
32 allowed by the department by rule.
33 The "guaranteed analysis" may also include elemental guarantees for
34 phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).
p. 3 SHB 1489
Packet Page 95 of 103
1 (b) For unacidulated mineral phosphatic material and basic slag,
2 bone, tankage, and other organic phosphatic materials, the total
3 phosphoric acid or degree of fineness may also be guaranteed.
4 (c) Guarantees for plant nutrients other than nitrogen, phosphorus,
5 and potassium shall be as allowed or required by rule of the
6 department. The guarantees for such other nutrients shall be expressed
7 in the form of the element.
8 (d) The guaranteed analysis for limes shall include the percentage
9 of calcium or magnesium expressed as their carbonate; the calcium
10 carbonate equivalent as determined by methods prescribed by the
11 association of official analytical chemists; and the minimum percentage
12 of material that will pass respectively a one hundred mesh, sixty mesh,
13 and ten mesh sieve. The mesh size declaration may also include the
14 percentage of material that will pass additional mesh sizes.
15 (e) In commercial fertilizer, the principal constituent of which is
16 calcium sulfate (gypsum), the percentage of calcium sulfate (CaSO4.2H2O)
17 shall be given along with the percentage of total sulfur.
18 (14) "Imported fertilizer" means any fertilizer distributed into
19 Washington from any other state, province, or country.
20 (15) "Label" means the display of all written, printed, or graphic
21 matter, upon the immediate container, or a statement accompanying a
22 fertilizer.
23 (16) "Labeling" includes all written, printed, or graphic matter,
24 upon or accompanying a commercial fertilizer, or advertisement,
25 brochures, posters, television, and radio announcements used in
26 promoting the sale of such fertilizer.
27 (17) "Licensee" means the person who receives a license to
28 distribute a commercial fertilizer under the provisions of this
29 chapter.
30 (18) "Lime" means a substance or a mixture of substances, the
31 principal constituent of which is calcium or magnesium carbonate,
32 hydroxide, or oxide, singly or combined.
33 (19) "Manipulation" means processed or treated in any manner,
34 including drying to a moisture content less than thirty percent.
35 (20) "Manufacture" means to compound, produce, granulate, mix,
36 blend, repackage, or otherwise alter the composition of fertilizer
37 materials.
SHB 1489 p. 4
Packet Page 96 of 103
1 (21) "Micronutrients" are: Boron; chlorine; cobalt; copper; iron;
2 manganese; molybdenum; sodium; and zinc.
3 (22) "Micronutrient fertilizer" means a produced or imported
4 commercial fertilizer that contains commercially valuable
5 concentrations of micronutrients but does not contain commercially
6 valuable concentrations of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, available
7 phosphorus, potash, calcium, magnesium, or sulfur.
8 (23) "Official sample" means a sample of commercial fertilizer
9 taken by the department and designated as "official" by the department.
10 (24) "Organic waste-derived material" means grass clippings,
11 leaves, weeds, bark, plantings, prunings, and other vegetative wastes,
12 uncontaminated wood waste from logging and milling operations, food
13 wastes, food processing wastes, and materials derived from these wastes
14 through composting. "Organic waste-derived material" does not include
15 products that include biosolids.
16 (25) "Packaged fertilizer" means commercial fertilizers, either
17 agricultural or specialty, distributed in nonbulk form.
18 (26) "Person" means an individual, firm, brokerage, partnership,
19 corporation, company, society, or association.
20 (27) "Percent" or "percentage" means the percentage by weight.
21 (28) "Produce" means to compound or fabricate a commercial
22 fertilizer through a physical or chemical process, or through mining.
23 "Produce" does not include mixing, blending, or repackaging commercial
24 fertilizer products.
25 (29) "Registrant" means the person who registers commercial
26 fertilizer under the provisions of this chapter.
27 (30) "Specialty fertilizer" means a commercial fertilizer
28 distributed primarily for nonfarm use, such as, but not limited to, use
29 on home gardens, lawns, shrubbery, flowers, golf courses, municipal
30 parks, cemeteries, greenhouses, and nurseries.
31 (31) "Ton" means the net weight of two thousand pounds avoirdupois.
32 (32) "Total nutrients" means the sum of the percentages of total
33 nitrogen, available phosphoric acid, and soluble potash as guaranteed
34 and as determined by analysis.
35 (33) "Washington application rate" is calculated by using an
36 averaging period of up to four consecutive years that incorporates
37 agronomic rates that are representative of soil, crop rotation, and
38 climatic conditions in Washington state.
p. 5 SHB 1489
Packet Page 97 of 103
1 (34) "Waste-derived fertilizer" means a commercial fertilizer that
2 is derived in whole or in part from solid waste as defined in chapter
3 70.95 or 70.105 RCW, or rules adopted thereunder, but does not include
4 fertilizers derived from biosolids or biosolids products regulated
5 under chapter 70.95J RCW or wastewaters regulated under chapter 90.48
6 RCW.
7 (35)(a) "Turf" means land, including residential property,
8 commercial property, and publicly owned land, which is planted in
9 closely mowed, managed grass.
10 (b) "Turf" does not include pasture land, land used to grow grass
11 for sod, or any other land used for agricultural production or
12 residential vegetable or flower gardening.
13 (36)(a) "Turf fertilizer" means a commercial fertilizer that is
14 labeled for use on turf.
15 (b) "Turf fertilizer" does not include commercial fertilizers
16 derived solely from organic materials, biosolids, or biosolid products.
17 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 15.54 RCW
18 to read as follows:
19 (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, a person
20 may not apply turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing phosphorus
21 to turf.
22 (2) A person may not apply turf fertilizer labeled as containing
23 phosphorus to turf when the ground is frozen.
24 (3) A person may not intentionally apply turf fertilizer labeled as
25 containing phosphorus to an impervious surface.
26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 15.54 RCW
27 to read as follows:
28 Section 3(1) of this act does not apply in the following instances:
29 (1) Application for the purpose of establishing grass or repairing
30 damaged grass, using either seeds or sod, during the growing season in
31 which the grass is established;
32 (2) Application to an area if the soil in the area is deficient in
33 plant available phosphorus, as shown by a soil test performed no more
34 than thirty-six months before the application; or
35 (3) Application to pasture, interior houseplants, flower and
SHB 1489 p. 6
Packet Page 98 of 103
1 vegetable gardens located on either public or private property, land
2 used to grow grass for sod, or any land used for agricultural or
3 silvicultural production.
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 15.54 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, no person
7 may sell turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing phosphorus.
8 (2) The sale of turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing
9 phosphorus is allowed for the following purposes:
10 (a) Application for the purpose of establishing grass or repairing
11 damaged grass, using either seeds or sod, during the growing season in
12 which the grass is established;
13 (b) Application to an area if the soil in the area is deficient in
14 plant available phosphorus, as shown by a soil test performed no more
15 than thirty-six months before the application; or
16 (c) Application to pasture, interior houseplants, flower and
17 vegetable gardens located on either public or private property, land
18 used to grow grass for sod, or any land used for agricultural or
19 silvicultural production.
20 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 15.54 RCW
21 to read as follows:
22 A person who sells turf fertilizer at retail may only display turf
23 fertilizer that is labeled as containing phosphorus if it is also
24 clearly labeled for a use permitted by section 5 of this act.
25 Sec. 7. RCW 15.54.470 and 1998 c 36 s 11 are each amended to read
26 as follows:
27 (1) Except for violations of sections 3, 5, and 6 of this act, any
28 person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a
29 misdemeanor, and the fines collected shall be disposed of as provided
30 under RCW 15.54.480.
31 (2) Nothing in this chapter shall be considered as requiring the
32 department to report for prosecution or to cancel the registration of
33 a commercial fertilizer product or to stop the sale of fertilizers for
34 violations of this chapter, when violations are of a minor character,
p. 7 SHB 1489
Packet Page 99 of 103
1 and/or when the department believes that the public interest will be
2 served and protected by a suitable notice of the violation in writing.
3 (3) It shall be the duty of each prosecuting attorney to whom any
4 violation of this chapter is reported, to cause appropriate proceedings
5 to be instituted and prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction
6 without delay. Before the department reports a violation of this
7 chapter for such prosecution, an opportunity shall be given the
8 distributor to present his or her view in writing or orally to the
9 department.
10 (4) The department is hereby authorized to apply for, and the court
11 authorized to grant, a temporary or permanent injunction restraining
12 any person from violating or continuing to violate any of the
13 provisions of this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter,
14 notwithstanding the existence of any other remedy at law. Any such
15 injunction shall be issued without bond.
16 Sec. 8. RCW 15.54.474 and 1998 c 36 s 12 are each amended to read
17 as follows:
18 Except for violations of sections 3, 5, and 6 of this act, every
19 person who fails to comply with this chapter, or any rule adopted under
20 it, may be subjected to a civil penalty, as determined by the director,
21 in an amount of not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars for
22 every such violation. Each and every such violation shall be a
23 separate and distinct offense. Every person, who, through an act of
24 commission or omission, procures, aids, or abets in the violation shall
25 be considered to have violated this chapter and may be subject to the
26 penalty provided for in this section.
27 NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. This act takes effect January 1, 2013.
--- END ---
SHB 1489 p. 8
Packet Page 100 of 103
1489-S AMH MORR H1935.2
SHB 1489 - H AMD 40
By Representative Morris
1 Beginning on page 6, line 17, strike all of sections 3 through 6
2 and insert the following:
3 "NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 15.54 RCW
4 to read as follows:
5 (1) A person may not:
6 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, apply turf
7 fertilizer that is labeled as containing phosphorus to turf;
8 (b) Apply turf fertilizer labeled as containing phosphorus to turf
9 when the ground is frozen;
10 (c) Intentionally apply turf fertilizer labeled as containing
11 phosphorus to an impervious surface;
12 (d) Except as otherwise provided in this section, sell turf
13 fertilizer that is labeled as containing phosphorus; or
14 (e) Display turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing
15 phosphorus in a retail store unless the turf fertilizer is also clearly
16 labeled for a use permitted by this section.
17 (2) The prohibitions in this section on the application, sale, and
18 retail display of turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing
19 phosphorus, other than the prohibitions in subsection (1)(b) and (c) of
20 this section, do not apply in the following instances:
21 (a) Application for the purpose of establishing grass or repairing
22 damaged grass, using either seeds or sod, during the growing season in
23 which the grass is established;
24 (b) Application to an area if the soil in the area is deficient in
25 plant available phosphorus, as shown by a soil test performed no more
26 than thirty-six months before the application; or
27 (c) Application to pasture, interior house plants, flower and
28 vegetable gardens located on either public or private property, land
29 used to grow grass for sod, or any land used for agricultural or
30 silvicultural production.
Official Print - 1 1489-S AMH MORR H1935.2Packet Page 101 of 103
1 (3)(a) Nothing in this section:
2 (i) Limits the ability of a city or county to adopt a local
3 ordinance regarding the application or sale of turf fertilizer that is
4 labeled as containing phosphorus that is more restrictive than the
5 provisions of this section;
6 (ii) Requires the enforcement or monitoring of compliance with this
7 section by local governments; or
8 (iii) Requires local governments to participate in the
9 administration of this section, including the verification of soil
10 tests under subsection (2)(b) of this section.
11 (b) A city or county may not adopt a local ordinance regarding the
12 application or sale of turf fertilizer that is labeled as containing
13 phosphorus that is less restrictive than this section."
14 Renumber the remaining sections consecutively, correct any internal
15 references accordingly, and correct the title.
16 On page 7, line 27, after "violations of " strike "sections 3, 5,
17 and 6" and insert "section 3"
18 On page 8, line 18, after "violations of " strike "sections 3, 5,
19 and 6" and insert "section 3"
EFFECT: Consolidates the substantive portions of the bill into
one section and adds language expressly allowing a local government to
adopt more restrictive ordinances.
--- END ---
Official Print - 2 1489-S AMH MORR H1935.2Packet Page 102 of 103
Resolution supporting SHB 1489 / SSB 5194 banning the sale of fertilizers containing phosphorus
Whereas Senator Chase, and Representatives Liias, Roberts, Kagi, Chase, Moscoso and Standford have
all co-sponsored SHB 1489 “Protecting water quality through restrictions on fertilizer containing
phosphorus” and
Whereas the Edmonds City Council identified this matter as a cause of concern and potential local action
item at its 2011 Council Retreat,
Now, therefore be it resolved that the City of Edmonds supports SHB 1489 and its companion SSB 5194,
and encourages Senators Shin and McAullife, as representatives of the City of Edmonds, to
support adoption of this bill, and
Therefore be it further resolved that the City of Edmonds supports passage of Rep. Morris’s amendment
(40) strengthening this bill further.
Packet Page 103 of 103