2010.04.27 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
APRIL 27, 2010
6:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding negotiation for the purchase of real estate.
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-3018 Approval of Special City Council Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2010.
C. AM-3019 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2010.
D. AM-3016 Approval of claim checks #118441 through #118579 dated April 22, 2010 for $779,781.34.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49231 through #49266 for the pay period of
April 1 - April 15, 2010 for $622,945.37.
E. AM-3014 Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – April, 2010.
F. AM-3012 Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement
with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and
Stormwater Management Program Update.
G. AM-3011 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus exercise equipment.
H. AM-2983 Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Chattel Deed relating to the return of a 1938 Ford fire
engine (Model: FIREEX VIN#:1184892) to the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation.
I. AM-3021 Proclamation in honor of Loyalty Day, May 1, 2010.
3. AM-2951
(30 Minutes)
Future of the Senior Center.
4. AM-3017
(5 Minutes)
Council President comments on budget outlook.
5. AM-3023
(15 Minutes)
Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals for Professional Labor Negotiator to
Assist with City Labor Negotiations.
6. AM-3002
(30 Minutes)
Public comment regarding possible purchase of Skipper's property.
7. AM-3015 Presentation by Parks Department on funding and grant options for Skipper's property.
Packet Page 1 of 248
7. AM-3015
(30 Minutes)
Presentation by Parks Department on funding and grant options for Skipper's property.
8. AM-3013
(20 Minutes)
Skippers property Purchase and Sale Agreement - due diligence activities
9.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
10. AM-2952
(15 Minutes)
Fiber Optic Report.
11. AM-3022
(15 Minutes)
2009 budget review.
12. AM-2953
(10 Minutes)
Public comment on budget cuts.
13. AM-2954
(45 Minutes)
Council review of levy options.
14. (15 Minutes)Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
15. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
16. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 248
AM-3018 2.B.
Approve 04-09-10 Special City Council Meeting Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Special City Council Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 04-09-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:20 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 10:24 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:36 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/22/2010 10:16
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 3 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 9, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
April 9, 2010
The special meeting of a quorum of the City Council was called to order by Councilmember
Michael Plunkett at 2:30 p.m. in the Fourtner Room, City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /
Economic Development Director
ALSO PRESENT
Fay May
Craig Stewart
Jack Faris
Roger Hertrich
Ron Wambolt
Bill Angle
Ray Martin
Roger Hertrich
Natalie Shippen
Paul Aries
Darlene Nordquist
Sue Bauer
Councilmember Plunkett stated that he arranged for a meeting to discuss engaging the people of Edmonds
in how to improve the downtown waterfront properties. He invited representatives of Imagine Edmonds
to give a presentation.
Craig Stewart, Fay May and Jack Faris were present representing Imagine Edmonds. The agenda
included:
1. Introductions
2. Imagine Edmonds presentation
3. Discussion on the Pomegranate Center
4. Proposed actions
5. Discussion of proposed budgets
Representatives of Imagine Edmonds discussed the experience each of them as individuals had in regard
to community development. They wanted to do anything to simply be facilitators and help move the
community forward to develop a vision.
The following individuals then spoke and all had positive contributions, comments and questions:
Bill Angle
Diane Buckshnis
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Ray Martin
Stephen Clifton
Roger Hertrich
Natalie Shippen
Packet Page 4 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 9, 2010
Page 2
Ron Wambolt
Paul Aries
Darlene Nordquist
Sue Bauer
Councilmember Plunkett concluded the meeting by saying everyone would have a future opportunity.
The next task is to determine how Imagine Edmonds is coordinated and channeled into a process of
visioning in association with the other groups and organizations that are involved in the city in talking
about visioning. He explained to everyone that this was an informal meeting; it was not intended to come
to any specific conclusions but that it was an opportunity for people to meet and learn more about
Imagine Edmonds.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Packet Page 5 of 248
AM-3019 2.C.
Approve 04-20-10 City Council Meeting Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 04-20-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:22 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 10:24 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:36 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/22/2010 10:21
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 6 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
April 20, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 7:02 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr.
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.)
2. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT – EDMONDS BICYCLE GROUP.
Hank Landau, Co-Chair, Edmonds Bicycle Group, explained when his children were young bicycle
skills training was provided by Officer Fred Bonallo funded via the Edmonds Police Department. A few
years ago the Edmonds Bicycle Group began a low-key program teaching bicycle safety at schools. The
Edmonds Bicycle Group then learned of a more formal program offered by Cascade Bicycle Club who
taught bicycle safety and skills to 1,100 children via the 3 school districts in King County. This was done
primarily through volunteers and the participation of the PE teachers at a cost of approximately $2-$3 per
student, at no cost to the cities or school districts; costs are borne by fundraising done by Cascade and
other bicycle groups.
The Edmonds Bicycle Group contacted the Cascade Bicycle Club who expressed interest in extending
their program into Snohomish County. The Edmonds Bicycle Group contacted the Edmonds School
District and although they were initially uninterested, the PE coordinator, Jennifer Hershey, championed
the program and the Edmonds School District agreed to participate. Cascade and the School District
reached an agreement that will be signed once funding is identified.
Packet Page 7 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 2
Mr. Landau described benefits of the program including enhanced childhood health, safety, and improved
interaction between cyclists and motorists. The program is accomplished by 30 bicycles that are rotated
between approximately 9 schools every 3 weeks. The PE teachers teach the students in the classroom and
outside and the children’s progress is monitored. Cascade and other volunteers provide maintenance of
the bicycles and Cascade provides instruction to the PE teachers.
The Edmonds Bicycle Group requests the Council consider a resolution, authored by Councilmember
Peterson. Resolutions from Edmonds, Woodway, Mountlake Terrace and other cities will assist with
obtaining funding for the program. The cost of the first year is approximately $17,000; several funding
sources have been identified and the grant application process has begun. Once funding is secured, the
program will begin in half the Edmonds School District this fall with 30 bicycles and hopefully expand to
60 bicycles and the entire Edmonds School District the following year. (Note: Resolution in Support of
Bicycle Skills and Safety Training is Item P on the Consent Agenda.)
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT – CASCADE BICYCLE CLUB.
David Hiller, Advocacy Director, Cascade Bicycle Club, thanked Councilmember Wilson and
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for attending the Bike to Work Breakfast today. He announced this year
is Cascade Bicycle Club’s 30th anniversary. The Club has 13,000 members and central Puget Sound is its
service area. They work closely with staff in Edmonds and other communities to develop and implement
non-motorized projects. He recognized the hard work and enthusiasm of local advocates and their efforts
to bring Cascade’s bicycle safety program to Snohomish County. There is tremendous interest in the
program; they serve 3 school districts in King County with 4 trailers and 300 bicycles that rotate between
schools and there is an approximately 2 year waiting list.
Other assets that communities can avail themselves of include their website, www.bikewise.org to report
bicycle hazards and thefts. This is a great resource for the Public Works Department to learn of hazards in
the community. Cascade also has a community-based social marketing and education program in Seattle,
Bike Smart, that they are replicating for other eastside cities. The Bike Smart program provides resources
to the community via classes on maintenance and riding and encouraging citizens to trade a few of their
2-mile or less car trips for a bicycle trip. Cascade is also involved in major bicycle advocacy efforts.
4. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2010,
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2010,
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #118163 THROUGH #118257 DATED APRIL 8, 2010
FOR $336,677.94, AND #118258 THROUGH #118440 DATED APRIL 15, 2010 FOR
$309,906.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #49192
THROUGH #49230 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OF MARCH 16 - MARCH 31, 2010 FOR
$644,165.25,
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM GAVIN HESSE
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), ROBERT E. THOMAS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED),
AND TONY CARABELLO ($4,877.49),
Packet Page 8 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 3
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE
EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR THE 2010
EDMONDS MARKET,
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE
EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE 2010 EDMONDS ARTS
FESTIVAL,
H. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE 4TH OF JULY
PARADE AND FIREWORKS DISPLAY,
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE 2010 TASTE OF
EDMONDS,
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE 2010 CLASSIC CAR
SHOW,
K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EASEMENT WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES
DISTRICT #1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR PORTIONS OF THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST TRACTION COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PURPOSES OF
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE INTERURBAN TRAIL
PROJECT FROM 76TH AVENUE WEST TO MATHAY BALLINGER PARK, AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAID EASEMENT,
L. SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE, 2010-2011 INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT,
M. SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT,
N. APPROVAL OF 2010 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI,
O. ORDINANCE NO. 3790 AND FEE RESOLUTION NO 1228 FOR TITLE 18
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW USE OF CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BISTRO AND
OUTDOOR DINING AND PLACEMENT OF ART IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
P. RESOLUTION NO. 1229 IN SUPPORT OF BICYCLE SKILLS AND SAFETY TRAINING.
Q. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIVE PLANT APPRECIATION WEEK, APRIL 25
- MAY 1, 2010
5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF EARTH DAY, APRIL 22, 2010.
Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, 2010, inviting the public to an
Earth Day event at 6:00 p.m. on April 22 at City Hall hosted by the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Committee and Sustainable Edmonds for citizens interested in learning how to help inspire local action.
The proclamation also urged citizens to consider the many ways they can be responsible stewards of the
planet’s limited and precious resources.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.05.060:
DOGS ON PUBLIC GROUNDS
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh thanked Cascade Bicycle Club and Edmonds Bicycle Group
for their support of the City’s grant process for the Interurban Trail.
Packet Page 9 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 4
The current Edmonds City Code 5.06.060, Dogs on Public Grounds, designates parks and areas within the
park as on or off-leash areas. Currently there are eight designated parks where dogs are permitted. Seven
require dogs to be on-leash and at one, Marina Beach South, dogs are permitted off-leash. Staff
recommends that three additional park areas be designated as permitted on-leash sites:
1. Sunset Overlook Park: The path and grassy strip west of Sunset Avenue. Citizens have requested this
change in the past to allow people to not only walk their dogs here but also to be able to sit on the
numerous memorial benches along the overlook in the company of their canine companions.
2. Hickman Park Trails: During the public meetings phase, in advance of the final planning and
construction of Hickman Park, testimony indicated a strong desire for on-leash dogs along the 3,500
feet of paved and wooded paths in this new park. This is consistent with other City parks with
pathways such as Sierra, Pine Ridge, Yost, and others.
3. Haines Wharf Park: This overlook park will have a small interior trail and many benches for resting
and viewing. This park will be particularly attractive for people walking in the neighborhood that is
now connected to the recently completed walkways north from Meadowdale Beach Road. The new
walkways now provide a continuous off-street walkway from downtown Edmonds to the city's
northern boundary, Meadowdale Beach Park, and beyond.
In addition to the above, it has been suggested that dogs also be permitted on-leash on the paved paths of
Brackett's Landing North & South. Staff does not recommend this due to safety, control, and maintenance
concerns. At this time dog owners may use all City sidewalks including those nearest to, but not in, the
waterfront parks. When the designated on and off-leash areas were established in the mid 1990's staff
heard that mixing regular walkers with leashed dogs had created problems at the waterfront. As a public
safety concern, that is still observed today; Beach Rangers inform those who do not realize these walkway
are out of bounds. Walkers can be intimidated, worry about their balance, and be forced off the walkway
when a dog or two or more approach. Most dog owners are responsible and well-intentioned but some do
not exercise the best judgment or have the best control of their dogs.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Parks & Recreation staff for their assistance at the Marina Beach
Dog Park. She relayed that she spoke with the homeowners on Sunset Avenue regarding allowing dogs on
both sides of the street and most were supportive. She encouraged staff to post signs on Sunset Avenue
reminding dog owners to clean up after their dogs.
Council President Bernheim expressed his support for expanding on-leash areas to include the paved
paths of Brackett's Landing North & South. in order to encourage dog walkers to use the area and did not
find it sufficiently dangerous to exclude on-leash dogs. He observed staff’s reason for not supporting that
expansion was concern with dog waste and pedestrians who may be intimidated by on-leash dogs in those
areas. Mr. McIntosh responded the paved paths in Brackett's Landing North & South were extremely
popular with walkers and as a result was more congested than a typical sidewalk.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, expressed support for the changes proposed by staff. He disagreed with
Council President Bernheim’s suggestion to expand the on-leash area to include the paved paths of
Brackett's Landing North & South, envisioning dogs would be on the grassy area as well as the paved
areas and often on-leash dogs were not under the owner’s control.
Josh Preston, Edmonds, suggested the civic playfields as an additional area for dogs on public grounds.
He cited problems with goose waste on the fields and suggested a program whereby dog owners could
register one dog at a time to run off-leash to chase away the geese.
Packet Page 10 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 5
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained there was insurance available to address safety or damage associated
with walking pets in public places. He relayed that 68% of children have a dog or cat.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed support for the ordinance as proposed and disagreed with
expanding the on-leash area to include paved paths of Brackett's Landing North & South. He commented
dogs and their owners were given expanded rights already. The waterfront is a very special area and many
dog owners do not pick up after their pet. He suggested on-leash areas be expanded as proposed and if
there were no problems, on-leash areas could be further expanded. He noted dog owners could walk their
pets on any sidewalk in the City.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, suggesting adding Hutt Park as an additional on-leash park, explaining the 4-
acre Hutt Park was completely natural with large trees, ferns and trails and provides a loop from the
neighborhood up from 190th to Olympic View Drive. She explained her dog is a rescue that has leash
aggression issues. It will be helpful to be allowed to walk on the opposite side of the street on Sunset to
avoid other dogs.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if staff considered Hutt Park as an on-leash area. Mr. McIntosh
recalled 15 years ago Hutt Park was not considered because it is a natural area with no established paths.
He was not opposed to including Hutt Park but preferred input be sought from the neighborhood first.
Councilmember Buckshnis remarked Off-Leash Area – Edmonds (OLEA) receives many comments
about goose waste on the civic fields. Mr. McIntosh acknowledged goose waste was a problem in many
areas. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised staff was in the process of reviewing an Interlocal Agreement
with the Washington State Department of Fisheries regarding participation in a multi-city group for goose
control and removal where appropriate. The Interlocal Agreement will be presented to the Council within
the next month. The City’s activities to date with regard to geese have been concentrated on the Lake
Ballinger area. Requesting the State’s attention to the civic fields would be appropriate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented most of the geese were Canadian Snow Geese and it was
illegal to haze them without a special permit. Mr. Snyder advised the Interlocal Agreement would allow
trained professionals to control the geese.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS CITY CODE
5.05.060 ALLOWING DOGS ON-LEASH AND ON THE DESIGNATED PATHS AT HICKMAN
PARK AND HAINES WHARF PARK AS WELL AS THE PATH AND GRASSY STRIP ALONG
THE WEST SIDE OF SUNSET AVENUE KNOWN AS THE SUNSET OVERLOOK.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented allowing on-leash dogs at Brackett’s Landing had been discussed
at Town Hall meetings. She supported starting with the recommended expansion and considering
expanding to Brackett’s Landing and Hutt Park in the future.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE
ASPHALTED AREAS OF BRACKETT’S LANDING NORTH AND SOUTH. MOTION DIED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder advised an ordinance adopting the amendments would be scheduled on a future Consent
Agenda.
Packet Page 11 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 6
Councilmember Orvis suggested scheduling a discussion of expanded on-leash areas to include Hutt Park
and other parks on a future Community Services/Development Services Committee agenda.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.82 (TRAFFIC IMPACT
FEES) OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Transportation Engineer Bernard Hauss explained a traffic impact fee is a one time payment paid by new
development for capital costs of public facilities. Impact fees can pay for system improvements that are
concurrency projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The funds must be spent within six
years of receipt of payment. Examples include signal improvements or widening projects. Impact fees
cannot pay for project improvements such as local street improvements, existing deficiencies or repair,
replacement, or renovation. He described how the updated traffic impact fee was calculated using the
eligible project list, eligible project costs, and growth trips in Edmonds to determine the unfunded cost
per growth trip.
Eligible Project costs $10,376,999
Adjustment for other Revenues @3.23% of eligible cost -335,177
Unfunded Eligible Cost 10,041,821
Total Growth Trips 1,049.41
He noted the cost per growth trip has been updated since approval of the Transportation Plan ($1,041/trip)
as the incorrect baseline capacity was used (LOS D City standard level instead of LOS E for SR-524
Highway of Regional Significance (HRS). He provided the following comparison of 2003 and 2009
impact fees:
2003 2009
Eligible Costs $4,669,041 $10,376,999
Growth Trips 6,114 9,569
Cost per Growth Trip 763.66 1,049.41
Impact Fee: Single family Residence $840.72 $1,196.33
Mr. Hauss explained Lynnwood and Shoreline currently do not collect impact fees for single family
residences; Mountlake Terrace’s fee is $1,070, Issaquah’s is $1,628 and Bothell’s is $2,865. He reviewed
a chart of traffic impact fees for various land use categories. New categories added include senior
housing, health/fitness center, specialty retail, shopping center, fast food with drive-up, and coffee/donut
shop. Land use categories for hotel (addressed via motel land use category), racquet club and hospital
were removed.
Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell highlighted revisions to Chapter 18.82 to improve
administration and collection of traffic impact fees:
1. Calculation of impact fee for a change in use
Current code states the impact fee for the proposed use is reduced by:
o the amount previously paid for the prior use or
o if no fees were previously paid, reduce by current rates for the prior use
Proposed code change to reduce the impact fee by:
o An amount equal to fee of prior use at time use was permitted or
o If previous use was permitted prior to adoption of Ordinance 3516 (09/12/04), the 2004
rates shall be used.
Inconsistencies in fee calculation are eliminated.
2. Assessment of impact fee
Packet Page 12 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 7
Current code
o Fee assessed at rates in effect when application is deemed complete
o Fee collected with issuance of a building permit
Proposed code
o Fee assessed at rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
o If no building permit, chapter applies at issuance of business license.
Allows collection of impact fees at current rates and eliminates inconsistent
assessment/collection
3. Addition of Section 18.82.150 (Procedure Guide)
4. Removal of Section 18.82.030 (D) - subsection no longer needed as the assessment of impact fees
for a change in use are specifically addressed in a separate subsection
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired why Shoreline and Lynnwood do not charge impact fees. Mr. Hauss
answered both cities were in the process of updating their impact fees.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the eligible projects could be funded via PSRC grants. Mr.
Hauss agreed they could; however, the impact fee would still be charged.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern that many of the projects on the eligible project list were
unfunded.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3791, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.82 0F THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES; UPDATING THE CITY’S
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE; CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE TRAFFIC
IMPACT FEE FOR DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING A CHANGE IN EXISTING USE BUT NOT
REQUIRING A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT; UPDATING CODIFIED REFERENCES TO
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS AND DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE;
AUTHORIZING THE PROMULGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES; SETTING
FORTH LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A REVISED EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.30, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster explained the purpose of the Stormwater
Management Code was to:
• Control stormwater runoff from:
– Construction sites
– New development and redevelopment
• Minimize the effects from development on:
– Private and public property (including roads) from flooding or erosion
– The quality of our receiving waters from sediment or other pollutants
– Aquatic habitat including the physical damage of excessive flows that cause erosion and
sedimentation.
Packet Page 13 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 8
This revision is necessary because the Department of Ecology issued a Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit to Edmonds and 80+ other cities. The intent is to protect water quality, by reducing the discharge
of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The code was last revised 15 years ago and the science
of stormwater has changed a great deal in that time.
He reviewed the approach in the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit:
• Large site projects (>=1 acre):
– Primarily rely on the Permit and the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Manual, and other
ecology-approved equivalent and LID manuals Construction sites
• Small site project – updated:
– Allows LID techniques where feasible (such as permeable pavement)
– More pre-sized approaches (such as rain gardens, infiltration trenches, and dry wells)
– Updated sizing based on modern stormwater models
• Overall more choices and updated standards
Mr. Schuster provided a comparison of flow control standards in the proposed code versus the current
code for large sites, small sites with >2,000 but <5,000 square feet impervious surface and small sites
>=5,000 square feet impervious surface. He described the process for exceptions which include public
notice of the application for exception, legal notice of the City’s decision on the application and written
findings of fact that document the City’s decision on the application. The City’s decision is appealable to
the Hearing Examiner by the applicant or other party.
The proposed code requires all private stormwater systems to be maintained by the owner rather than the
city. The City is allowed to inspect facilities and to require the owner to perform maintenance if standards
are not met. The companion Illicit Discharge Code (Chapter 7.200) allows the City to perform
maintenance on a private facility causing a water quality problem and to charge the owner for the work.
Mr. Snyder pointed out in response to a citizen comment, the appeal section was clarified to state the
appeal provision was open to any citizen and not only the applicant.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the requirement for owners to maintain private systems was
managed. Mr. Shuster answered the program would first target larger commercial and multi family
facilities due to the potential for those larger facilities to impact water quality. Councilmember Buckshnis
inquired about the number of private systems. Mr. Shuster estimated there were 400-600 not including
single family systems. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how maintenance was currently managed. Mr.
Shuster acknowledged the inspection program was currently behind due to staffing issues. Staff will soon
present the Stormwater/Sewer Comprehensive Plan to the Council which includes a new approach to
maintenance. He invited anyone witnessing a problem with a stormwater facility to contact the City.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the stormwater/sewer program was part of the City’s combined
utility. The Council has the ability to adjust utility rates to cover an enhanced inspection program.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rita Miller, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the proposed amendments. She proposed adding requirements
for existing properties with no drainage systems. Her neighborhood was developed in 1898 and has no
drainage system; however, her property tax includes an assessment for a drainage system. She suggested
staff analyze areas that do not have drainage systems where runoff is eroding property or impacting public
property such as in her neighborhood where runoff impacts Hummingbird Park. She objected to being
charged for a drainage system when her neighborhood did not have one. She also proposed prohibiting
Packet Page 14 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 9
ChemLawn from working in the city due to runoff from ChemLawn treated lawns that pollutes creeks and
streams.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Miller. As a resident on Lake Ballinger, he explained the
residents in that area began taking care of their own drainage issues approximately four years ago. He
agreed with the proposal for property owners to address their own drainage problems.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to address Ms. Miller’s question regarding existing property with no
drainage and whether the City could prohibit ChemLawn from working in the city. Mr. Snyder responded
under Washington law, existing property owners are vested until they apply for a new permit. The City
has two tools to address existing properties causing drainage problems, 1) nuisance abatement procedures
can be utilized if they impact public property, and 2) neighbors have the ability to initiate Local
Improvement Districts to fund projects. Mr. Snyder encouraged Ms. Miller to file a complaint with Mr.
Shuster regarding damage to property. With regard to properties without drainage systems paying
drainage fees, Mr. Snyder explained that issue was resolved by the Washington courts who found
stormwater drainage fees convey an area-wide benefit and allows fees to be applied to developed and
undeveloped properties. With regard to ChemLawn, he suggested staff could consider the issue in the
future. The City has some enforcement ability if fertilizers/pesticides impact runoff into streams;
Constitutional issues may arise if one business were prohibited without considering all fertilizers and
pesticides. Mr. Shuster advised under the current Elicit Discharge Code, it was illegal for a property to
knowingly discharge pesticides/herbicides/fertilizer into the storm drainage system.
With regard to areas without stormwater facilities, Mr. Shuster advised as part of the Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan, staff is developing projects to address erosion, water quality, etc. He invited the
public to inform him of areas of the City in need of storm drainage.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3792 REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 18.30 STORM
WATER MANAGEMENT OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
PROVIDING FOR THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING CHAPTER 18.30 TO VESTED
PERMITS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF SKIPPER'S PROPERTY.
Mayor Haakenson explained he was in Washington DC last week pleading the case to elected leaders on
behalf of cash strapped cities like Edmonds. Although he did not return with any money, he believed
Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressman Inslee have a deep appreciation of the dilemma that
cities find themselves in during these difficult economic times. He found it ironic that between visits with
the Senators he received messages from reporters asking about the Council decision to sign a Purchase
and Sale Agreement for the Skipper’s property.
Because the Council has tasked staff over the past few weeks with gathering information related to the
possible purchase of the site, the Council’s action was not a complete surprise. He declined to comment to
the newspapers other than a brief statement because he had no idea exactly what the Council had done
and he wanted to read the minutes and review the video before reacting. He had the minutes sent to him in
Washington DC and has now watched the replay of the meeting. He had hoped the Council would have
refined the process and their thoughts to a vision that could be shared with Edmonds residents.
Packet Page 15 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 10
Unfortunately as he watched the meeting, he saw the same discussion witnessed for the past several
weeks, an attitude of we want to buy this property, period.
He recalled the first question he asked the Council in executive session was for what purpose the Council
wanted to buy the property. After watching the Council meeting, he still did not know the purpose. He
learned a lot about what the Council did not want there but had not heard a vision supported by a majority
of Councilmembers of what they envisioned on the site that made spending a million dollars appealing to
the residents of Edmonds. He questioned how the purchase would be funded, noting four
Councilmembers had not yet agreed on that aspect of the purchase. He referred to the Council’s
authorization of up to $100,000 for feasibility studies and questioned where that money would come
from. He referred to the motion made by Council President Bernheim and approved 5-2, to appropriate
$100,000 from some source. He envisioned the Council would react negatively if he asked them to
expend $100,000 on needed computer equipment funded via an appropriation from some source.
He found it interesting that Council President Bernheim had allowed ten minutes on tonight’s agenda for
public comment regarding the possible purchase of Skipper’s property, envisioning it would take much
longer. More interesting was the next item on the agenda was public comment on budget cuts. He
summarized the public was being asked to comment on the purchase of property and then asked where to
make budget cuts.
With regard to whether it was wise for the City to purchase the property, he agreed it may or may not be;
without knowing what it would be used for or how to pay for it, it was difficult to judge. He recognized
some speakers would think there was no better time to purchase the property because difficult economic
times allow it to be purchased for a good price from a distressed seller. However, he questioned why
someone else had not already purchased the property if it was such a bargain. He questioned how the
Council knew it was a bargain when no appraisal had been done. These are a few of the many questions
for the Council to answer over the next 90 days.
He commented these were difficult economic times; no one saw this recession coming and it has
exacerbated the City’s already precarious budget situation. The budget shortfalls the City is experiencing
did not just appear in the last six months. In every budget book for the last six years, going back to 2004,
the General Fund cash flow projections forecast the City to dip into the red sometime between 2009 and
2012. The latest projections provided the Council dated March 15, 2010 show the deficit in 2012.
Contrary to some Council comments, past Councils have taken many steps along the way to push the
deficit year further out but the economy has finally taken its toll.
Watching last week’s Council meeting, he heard a Councilmember skeptical of the budget numbers staff
provided. He explained the 2004 through 2010 budgets he quoted from were built by three different
Finance Directors and all reached the same conclusion regarding when the deficit would come to fruition.
The City has a knowledgeable, conservative finance staff who have many more years of training and
experience than anyone on the Council and they have served the City well for many years. Expense and
revenue projections are conservative; that is how he has chosen to operate for the past 11 years and sees
no reason to move away from a conservative viewpoint today.
With regard to the timing of this potential property purchase, he commented that due to the City’s
economic situation, either new revenues need to be identified or services reduced. The Council
formulated a plan last year to go to the voters with a levy request to raise taxes. If the levy failed, services
would be cut. In the midst of that effort, the Fire District 1 proposal arose and the Council chose to move
ahead with that proposal and push the levy to 2010. To date, he had not heard any concrete plans from the
Council for a 2010 levy although Council President Bernheim has said it is moving ahead and discussion
is scheduled later on tonight’s agenda. He anticipated Edmonds voters would question the need to pay
Packet Page 16 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 11
more taxes when it appeared the City had money to buy property. He believed the Council’s action to
purchase the Skipper’s site would doom any levy vote in 2010 to failure.
Mayor Haakenson referred to furlough days requested of staff last year to balance the budget and requests
that non-union employees forego any merit increases, emphasizing City employees had done their part.
This year all labor contracts will be negotiated for the next three year cycle; to ask the labor unions to
consider furloughs, wage freezes or contracts that favor management will be a very difficult task if the
City is out purchasing property. He envisioned labor’s logic would be if you can buy property, you can
pay City employees.
He recognized the Council had some time to make this decision and several hurdles to overcome. He
suggested the Council consider doing an appraisal of the property and/or doing a soil study since work the
City has done near the area found some contamination. If the Council chose to buy this property, he urged
the Council to provide their vision for its purpose and not buy property as a defense against what private
ownership may do there. He recommended the Council prioritize the City’s needs, questioning whether
this purchase was more important than passing a levy that would continue current service levels or
negotiating favorable labor contracts. He urged the Council to keep in mind the message they were
sending to taxpayers, City employees and labor unions if they moved ahead with the proposed purchase.
Council President Bernheim asked about the contamination the City found in that area. Mayor Haakenson
responded last week when staff learned of the Council’s action, the Engineering Department provided
him studies done in the area over the past couple years. The Council requested staff bring back contracts
for next Tuesday’s meeting to do due diligence which includes a feasibility study; those reports would be
provided at that time. Council President Bernheim asked whether Mayor Haakenson was aware of the
studies when the Council was discussing the purchase. Mayor Haakenson answered he was not, advising
it was contamination under Railroad Avenue.
Mayor Haakenson reported the Council received 16 emails before tonight’s Council meeting, 9 opposed
to the purchase and 7 in favor. The Council also received 3 emails regarding building heights although the
Council was not discussing building heights tonight.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she was told during executive session that the Council could
not discuss a vision for the property, that had to be done during a public meeting. That was why the
Council had not yet had an opportunity to reach a consensus on a vision for the site. The first time the
Council was able to talk about the purchase during a public meeting was last Tuesday. There were many
suggestions made regarding funding; she was particularly interested in grants or other methods of funding
the purchase that would not affect the City’s budget. She suggested the public comment on whether or not
they supported the purchase, not that the Council was taking money out of the General Fund to purchase
the property. She also urged the public to provide their vision for the site, noting the Council still must
decide whether to proceed with the purchase. She summarized the Council would be remiss if they did not
consider this opportunity.
Council President Bernheim urged the audience to listen to what everyone has to say. He objected to
Mayor Haakenson’s criticism of the Council for not presenting a vision for the site, commenting the
Council was unable to discuss their vision for the site during executive session. The Council is soliciting
the public’s input on their vision for the property. He agreed grants were available for the purchase from
outside sources and anticipated the purchase would not be 100% funded from operating funds. He
commented the deficit figures provided to the Council assume an annual labor increase in excess of 5%
per year compounded annually. He summarized the City needed to do both; pay its employees reasonable
salaries and provide reasonable work conditions as well as provide for the future.
Packet Page 17 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Peterson explained the Council appointed three Councilmembers to develop a vision for
the property; however, when Councilmember Wilson presented an idea he was resolutely lambasted by
other Councilmembers. He agreed with Mayor Haakenson’s point questioning why the property had not
already been sold if it was such a good deal and questioned why the Purchase and Sale Agreement was
necessary before a vision has been developed. He acknowledged the purchase may be a good idea, but
disagreed with allocating up to $100,000 before the Council knew whether it was a great idea. With
regard to increases in labor costs, he emphasized City employees were not receiving extravagant raises
every year; the increase was due to filling positions that had not been filled in the past and cost increases
in healthcare benefits.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented $1.6 million was on the books for the property at Cascade Bank
and they turned down an offer for $1 million. The Mayor negotiated the $1.1 million purchase price. She
agreed three Councilmembers were appointed to discuss a vision for the site, anticipating the emails
regarding building heights were in response to Councilmember Wilson’s presentation that proposed 38-
foot tall buildings on the WSDOT property. With regard to visioning, Councilmember Buckshnis pointed
out the fiber optics project cost $450,000, yet little has happened. The City spent over $600,000 on
attorneys to do code rewrites; that is visioning. She questioned whether the vision for people exiting the
ferry was a Jack in the Box, noting that was not her vision.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council had not received financials since September 30, 2009
and there is no support, assumptions or trends for the information she has been provided. This is one of
the reasons fiscal policies were created; to allow citizens to understand the City’s financial health. Since
learning the Fire District 1 numbers were not as they should have been, she has questioned the accuracy
of all the numbers. She was unable to accept the forecasts until actual financial information and
assumptions to support the forecasts were provided, noting there were no EMS fees in the forecasts.
Recognizing that all Councilmembers were sincere in their efforts to serve the public, Councilmember
Wilson emphasized the vast majority of funds for this purchase will be from the General Fund. The
biggest chunk will either be debt for which the City will pay debt service on from the General Fund or it
will be from the Fire District 1 funds that were in the General Fund until recently when Council action
moved them into a separate account. He summarized the purchase would impact the General Fund other
than a small amount of REET.
Councilmember Wilson explained the property was valued at one time at $1.9 million. The property was
sold in 2006 at the height of the market for $1.0 million and he anticipated the value had diminished since
then. To the point that the Council had not yet made a decision, he pointed out the Council made a 5-2
decision to make an offer on the property and another 5-2 decision to spend $100,000 on feasibility
studies. The Council could not have it both ways – say they were not looking at it and voting to spend
money to look at it. To the point regarding the Council appointing Council President Bernheim, her and
himself to a committee to discuss a vision, he noted the three had entered into that process open minded,
flexible and in good faith. His intent was never to undermine that good faith; the presentation provided in
the meeting with the WSDOT, the Port, and City staff and later to the Council was “literally throwing
stuff at the wall to see what might stick.” He concluded the Council had an opportunity to have a
visioning conversation the evening he made that presentation; however, some Councilmembers chose to
demagog that process.
Councilmember Wilson referred to an email from Susan Tate stating she did not support Councilmember
Wilson’s taller building plans for the waterfront or Mr. and Mrs. Sacks objecting to an 8-story building on
the Skipper’s property, commenting it was a disservice to the public that they had been led to believe by
some Councilmembers that was the topic of discussion.
Packet Page 18 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 13
Councilmember Orvis advised the 2010 assessment of the property is $1.180 million; last year’s
assessment was $1.246 million. He recognized the real estate market fluctuated and was down at present,
which was the reason he felt this was a good time to purchase the property rather than wait five years.
Councilmember Plunkett was hopeful half the funds for the purchase, $600,000, would come from one-
time Fire District 1 money. Although the funds had been in the General Fund until recently, he explained
the Council had agreed early in the process that those funds would not be used for General Fund
expenses. The intent was to use those funds for an asset-to-asset purchase, one time money for a one time
purchase. He pointed out any property purchase required the expenditure of some money for due
diligence. Of the remaining $500,000, he recognized the possibility that $400,000 - $500,000 from the
General Fund may need to be applied to the purchase; however, there was potential for transportation,
park or trail grants and WSDOT is interested in having an overpass constructed. He anticipated the
purchase price could be covered by the use of Fire District 1 funds and repaying the General Fund with
grant proceeds. There has also been a suggestion for structured parking below with a park on top. He
anticipated parking could generate $100,000/year that could be used to repay the General Fund.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out labor costs would increase to $16.5 million next year and $22.3
million in five years. He explained that was not to maintain the labor force, those were increasing costs in
the labor force. The purchase of the Skipper’s property would be a public asset at the cost of $1.1 million
weighed against ongoing operating costs such as labor costs. He explained the entire increase in the
budget over the next five years was $9 million. He summarized there was room to reduce operating costs
as well as potentially purchase an asset with non-operating funds.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had not had an opportunity to state her vision for the
property. The Council was not allowed to discuss visioning during executive session and Councilmember
Wilson has made a presentation regarding his vision. Councilmember Wilson clarified it was not his
vision, it was not the Council committee’s vision; it was simply a thought exercise. He pointed out the 5-
story concept was from the Port. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas anticipated during the upcoming
weeks, the citizens of Edmonds would provide their vision. Her vision for the property was for it to
become an entryway for the City, not just a park, not just picnic tables, but a tourism center with the
history of the Edmonds waterfront and staffed by volunteers. She also envisioned places to stay, eat and
shop in the center and connectivity between the waterfront and downtown corridor. She recognized it may
be years before the vision for the site could be realized but unless the City purchased the site, people
exiting the ferry would not really see Edmonds.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her understanding was the $50,000 earnest money was
refundable at nearly any point. Mayor Haakenson responded the terms the Council negotiated did not
require the earnest money be paid for 24 days. He believed the bank was amenable to giving the City back
its $50,000 if the Council decided to walk away. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not interested in
losing the City’s money but was interested in seeing what could be developed on the site. She encouraged
the citizens of Edmonds to speak to the Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented in addition to the emails Mayor Haakenson referred to, most
of the telephone calls, text messages, emails she has received have been in favor of the purchase.
Mayor Haakenson explained the Council appropriated $100,000 to do studies; if the Council issued an
RFQ for a consultant to do soil studies or whatever studies the Council requested and those funds were
expended and the Council later decided not to purchase the property, those funds would not be returned.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas believed the $100,000 included the earnest money. Mayor Haakenson
explained there were two different motions, one to authorize him to sign the Purchase and Sale
Agreement with $50,000 due in 24 days and a second to appropriate $100,000 for studies.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the studies would cost $100,000. Mayor Haakenson
Packet Page 19 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 14
advised the contracts would be presented to the Council at next Tuesday’s meeting. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas summarized the Council would have a better idea of costs next Tuesday.
Councilmember Peterson commented Councilmembers Buckshnis and Councilmember Plunkett are on
the Finance Committee. Councilmember Plunkett references a document that contains increases in labor
costs and states that because the labor numbers can be changed, the City can afford the property. He
questioned whether the Council and public should believe Councilmember Plunkett’s numbers or
Councilmember Buckshnis who refuses to believe the numbers.
A member of the audience inquired whether there was to be a public hearing. Council President Bernheim
responded it was intended to be a public hearing before Mayor Haakenson made his comments.
To Council President Bernheim’s comment that this was a public hearing before he made his comments,
Mayor Haakenson emphasized he was in Washington DC last week and was not present on Committee
night when the Council made a decision to hold a meeting and did not have an opportunity to make his
comments last. It is appropriate for him provide comment when the Council was spending $1 million of
the taxpayers money. Council President Bernheim said he would prefer to follow the agenda.
Mayor Haakenson provided the following in response to Council comments:
To Council President Bernheim’s claim that City employees are receiving 5% pay increases,
Mayor Haakenson stated that was incorrect. The wage increases in the 2011 budget are 3.5%, and
3.3% in the 2012 budget. Council President Bernheim clarified he said the labor budget increase
was an average of 5% compounded per year.
To Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment that he negotiated the $1.1 million purchase price, he
explained the Council directed him to negotiate with the bank and get the best deal possible. He
offered $1,050,000, the bank countered at $1.1 million.
To Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments regarding fiber optics, he assured the fiber optic
program was created, supported and funded each year by the City Council.
To Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment that she has not received financials since September
2009, Mayor Haakenson said financials mean different things to different people. Last week
before executive session the Council was provided a cash flow projection dated March 15, 2010
for the next seven years, an executive summary, and a current forecast for all revenues and
expenses that show the City going into deficit in 2012. He summarized it was disingenuous to say
no financials had been provided.
To Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment that the Fire District 1 numbers were not as they should
have been, he had no idea what that meant. The Fire District 1 numbers have come in exactly as
staff projected. Although he continues to hear that is not the case, no one has yet shown him what
that means.
To Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments that EMS fees are not in the numbers, Mayor
Haakenson said EMS fees are included in the budget book for 2009 and 2010 at $700,000 and in
the forecast at $800,000 for 2010 and $820,00 for 2011.
To Councilmember Plunkett’s comments that the General Fund budget would increase $9 million
in 5 years, Mayor Haakenson clarified it had increased $9 million over the past 5 years, it was
status quo. The budget went down $2 million in 2010 due to transferring the Fire Department.
Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, commented two years ago when the Council considered development of
the Waterfront Activity Center he did not believe that an owner or City-driven master plan that relied on
an owner being a willing partner with the at-large community’s interest was plausible based on history.
The owners obtained these properties seemingly without intent of developing under the current code and
they remain blighted and underdeveloped. The Skipper’s property is a valuable community asset from a
quality of life and economic development standpoint due to its proximity to the waterfront, ferry, train
Packet Page 20 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 15
station, marina and downtown businesses. The ability to control development of the Skipper’s property is
too great an opportunity to pass and the opportunity becomes more valuable given WSDOT’s interest in
developing the adjacent property via a public-private partnership. He recalled a presentation made to the
Economic Development Commission (EDC) by a Bothell representative describing their economic
development program who stated taking possession of critical properties was a key element of their plan.
Bothell relied on an imminent domain process because they did not have the same opportunity to
purchase property. He commented on the value Edmonds lost when the Council did not pursue the
property where Costco and Home Depot are now located. He commented on the energy from the EDC
and citizen groups such as Imagine Edmonds, summarizing if the Council believed in Edmonds, they
must be willing to find a way to make investments in the future. He encouraged the Council to have the
will to find a way.
John Quast, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the proposed purchase of the Skipper’s property.
Although Councilmembers have stated the City’s finances are in such dire straits that they were
considering asking voters this fall to raise their taxes, some of those same Councilmembers now
enthusiastically support spending more than $1 million to purchase the Skipper’s site. He recommended
the Council inform the public prior to any real estate purchase of the source of funds for the down
payment, to complete the purchase, to develop the property, and for operating and maintenance. Once
those questions were answered, the Council could be justified in asking for a levy, until then the message
was the City’s running out of money but wants to buy real estate. He was concerned that Councilmembers
do not trust the financial reports they have been provided and do not know the City’s financial status, yet
supported spending money for an undefined dream. Before the City purchased any property, the Council
should inform the public of the plans for the property and it should be a plan supported by the public. Last
year the City’s financial state was so dire, employees were asked to take unpaid days off; this proposal to
spend money on real estate makes a mockery of their sacrifice. He summarized the Council’s priorities
were misplaced, their vote hasty and their offer to purchase the property ill-conceived.
Priya Cloutier, Edmonds, was surprised by tonight’s discussion, recalling when she spoke with several
Councilmembers last week she was told this was a done deal. She pointed out last year staff was asked to
take sabbatical days and the Council would soon be renegotiating contracts. She referred to
Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment in a blog that some companies have instituted salary freezes,
clarifying that salary freezes were quite different from sabbatical days. She pointed out other debts the
City is responsible for including $8 million for the self-funded firefighters’ insurance. She compared the
$600,000 the City received from Fire District 1 from the sale of assets to a tax refund, should the taxpayer
choose to pay off credit card debt or take a trip to Disneyland with the tax refund? She spoke in support of
paying off debt, funding the firefighters insurance and paying staff what they are worth. She referred to
Councilmember Orvis’ comment on a blog that the purchase could be funded via a bond, reminding him
that a bond was a loan that required repayment. She summarized the current recession was the result of
living in debt; she expected the Council to act more responsibly. She urged the Council not to say that
their minds were not made up when the blogs and emails clearly showed that they had made up their
mind. She urged the Council to do the right thing.
Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, commented he was dressed in black tonight, mourning the slow death of the
community. The fiscal irresponsibility that has pervaded in the system and the process over the past few
years has pushed the City close to bankruptcy, projected to occur in 2012. He believed in dreams and that
the Skipper’s property under certain circumstances and different conditions could be a magnificent entry
to the community; however, the City simply did not have the money. He recalled when interested citizens
urged the City to fund Yost Pool and later fundraised to keep the pool open. He urged the Council to get
back to basics; if they did not have the money, they could not purchase property. He pointed out the
$100,000 the Council approved for a feasibility study was nearly 10% of the total purchase price, yet the
Council talked about that amount like it was nothing. He noted $100,000 was a lot of money to most
people including the Police and Fire Departments and the City employees who last year took pay cuts and
Packet Page 21 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 16
furloughs. As a business man, he did not understand how the Council could purchase this property,
pointing out some Councilmembers did not even understand the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a
realtor, he explained an assessed valuation meant nothing in this market; most commercial properties, the
few that were selling, were sold far below assessed value. He respectfully requested the five
Councilmembers who supported purchasing the Skipper’s property open their minds and listen to the
community over the next 24 days.
Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, expressed her opposition to purchasing the Skipper’s property for all the
reasons mentioned by Mayor Haakenson. She commented the waterfront of Edmonds was being talked
about as though it were Mukilteo. The Edmonds waterfront is and has been a beautiful place even with
Skipper’s; there is a wonderful park on one side of the ferry terminal and a great park and walkway on the
other. She urged the Council to wait to buy property until the City could afford it.
John McGibbon, Edmonds, commented last year it was his understanding the City was operating under
financial duress but after watching last week’s meeting, he may have been misinformed. He urged the
Council to provide citizens an accounting of discretionary funds and a prioritized list of how those funds
might be spent. He challenged the Council to develop a solid business case for purchasing the Skipper’s
property as well as a compelling rationale for buying the property versus servicing the community’s other
needs. He hoped the final decision was based on thought rather than emotion. As a taxpayer, he did not
appreciate the Council spending from the hip.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, urged the Council to abandon the Skipper’s property purchase for the
following reasons: first, the purchase is not critical; all Councilmembers agree it is important for the City
to control the Skipper’s property and certainly the site could be significantly improved. Second, the City
does not have the money to purchase the property. Councilmember Buckshnis has said she does not
believe the financial statements since September 2009 because they lack clarity and the outlook is more
optimistic than predicted. He questioned how a self-described fiscal conservative would conclude that
statement she finds vague are also too pessimistic. If some Councilmembers did not believe the financials,
he questioned why that issue was not being resolved as accurate financial statements was a far more
important issue than spending hours on property acquisition. The five Councilmembers have discussed
getting $600,000 of the purchase price from the City’s Emergency Fund. The purchase of the property is
not an event that is sudden and unexpected and it is not an emergency. He suggested depleting the
Emergency Fund by one-third could also lower the City’s credit rating. Third, the purchase price of $1.1
million is too high. The property sold in 2006 for $1 million; it likely appreciated in 2007 and dropped
again in 2008 and 2009 and is now worth less than $1 million. He pointed out Snohomish County’s 2010
assessments were done in 2009. He advised the motion passed by the Council on November 2 with regard
to Fire District 1 stated the funds from depreciating assets would be placed in the General Fund.
Todd Cloutier, Edmonds, commented he had already made several public statements regarding the
Skipper’s property on the MyEdmondsNews.com website and Councilmember Orvis’ blog. He objected
to the purchase, viewing it as a taking of resources for a very poorly defined need at a time when
resources were scarce. He recalled last month the Council denied $2500 to the police, citing a short
budget. He was reminded of a speech by President Eisenhower who stated while it seemed like a good
idea to buy a new bomber, a single bomber could pay for 50 schools. By choosing to obligate citizens to a
$1 million purchase, the Council took control of valuable resources that could not be used for other
purposes. He was proud of the Economic Development Commission the Council appointed, noting they
could have and should have been part of this process. By this purchase, the Council has informed them
their services were no longer needed or appreciated, just as the Council’s actions told City employees that
their sacrifices last year were for naught. He urged the Council not to betray the public’s trust again.
George Murray, Edmonds, explained he had been asked by Rick Steves to read a letter but had been
informed he needed a letter from Mr. Steves authorizing him to read the letter. Mr. Murray commended
Packet Page 22 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 17
the Council for their decision to purchase the Skipper’s property, urging the public to separate operating
expenses from capital purchases. The $1.1 million purchase price represented approximately $80 per
household. He supported purchasing the Skipper’s property as well as reducing the City’s expenses. The
property provides a lot of great opportunity as well as enormous potential for the waterfront. The
purchase was beyond a business model and represents a community model. He supported the community
determining how to pursue the property purchase as well as develop the property. He commented on
revenue potential via development on Hwy. 99.
Chris Fleck, Edmonds, commented he was wearing green to denote the waste of $1 million. He
questioned the Council voting 5-2 to buy real estate for over $1 million when there was not enough
money to maintain the City’s Fire Department, when the City nearly lost its pool due to budget cuts and it
was saved only by public donations, when there is a citywide hiring freeze, when City staff must be
furloughed to save money, when employees were required to take pay cuts, and when essential
maintenance of roads and other projects were deferred. He questioned the decision to purchase property
for which no appraisal has been done and for which no use has been identified, a decision made during a
Council meeting intended for committee meetings and feasibility studies that will cost thousands more
that the City cannot afford. He questioned why the Economic Development Commission and taxpayers
were not consulted and why no public meetings were held. Now instead of a business person purchasing
the property for a fast food restaurant as rumored or other business that would contribute badly needed
sales and property tax dollars, the property would be taken off the tax rolls. While the Council was
wasting tax dollars, the Police Department has closed its Crime Prevention Program including the
Vacation House Check Program that has only been operating for the past 16 months via the generosity of
the Rotary Club and people who use the service. To Councilmember Plunkett’s comment that the site
could be developed with underground parking and a park above, his understanding was the water table
would not permit underground parking.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, enthusiastically endorsed the Council’s intent to purchase the Skipper’s
property. She explained it had been four years since information was provided by the Group of 33; no
previous Council had been able to make a decision during that time and this Council did so within four
months. With regard to funding, she suggested cutting the Economic Development Department,
questioning the wisdom of establishing a new department when the City was struggling to pay existing
staff. She also supported the use of the Emergency Reserve Fund, commenting $1.9 million was unlikely
to solve problems created by a natural disaster. She noted economic development was not the most
important issue for a city; quality of life and citizens’ enjoyment was foremost. Her vision for the site was
simply to landscape it, and she viewed this purchase as the first step in acquiring the entire waterfront by
public vote.
David Page, Edmonds, referred to a blog that included numerous attachments with unkind rhetoric about
the City. He commented the City employees who sacrificed by taking pay cuts and furloughs over the past
year and future years would view this purchase as an ethics and integrity issue. He anticipated the
property could be worth $10 million in 10 years. He urged the Council to get out of the Purchase and Sale
Agreement as gracefully and as fast as possible in order to avoid the repercussions that would occur if the
sale were finalized.
Beth Aversa, Edmonds, expressed her opposition to the purchase for many of the reasons that had
already been mentioned. Her bottom line was if the City did not have the money, it should not be spent.
The City clearly did not have the money and should stop spending. She suggested Mr. Murray pay the
$80 for her household because she was definitely opposed to the purchase.
Liz Marks, Edmonds, commented she thought she lived in Edmonds but now thinks it is La-La Land. As
a financial planner she often tells people that while it is great to have dreams, the reality is they cannot
afford many of the things they want. She suggested the City could not afford this purchase right now,
Packet Page 23 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 18
certainly not in view of the sacrifices made by City staff. She was embarrassed by the Councilmembers
who voted to purchase the property.
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, commented given the current economic state the City was in, it was
incomprehensible that the Council would be so irresponsible to offer to purchase property without
adequate resources. Making this decision during a committee meeting without input from the public who
will be forced to pay for this reckless behavior was not transparency in government. Whether or not the
Council ultimately purchased the property, they were spending considerable resources just to obtain
environmental and feasibility studies while they continue to cut City services and personnel because there
is not enough money. No reasonable or responsible person would make an offer to purchase property if
their budget was not balanced. The taxpayers should not be treated like a line of credit that the Council
could tax at will. She respectfully requested the Council not purchase the property. She thanked Mayor
Haakenson for his comments, finding them thoughtful and common sense.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, was saddened by the amount of underlying nastiness she has heard. She urged
citizens to pull together to reach a reasonable solution and to move forward and be bold. With regard to
the comment regarding Mukilteo, she pointed out although Mukilteo was a beautiful city, the landscape
near the ferry terminal was dominated by an ugly, massive condominium building. She did not want Jack
in the Box as the gateway to the City and wanted people exiting the ferry to visit Edmonds. She noted
during difficult times, businesses needed to advertise and better their businesses by making investments.
She thanked the Council for having the courage to invest during bad times to improve the future better.
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, agreed it was important for citizens to be civil both at Council meetings and on
blogs. He emphasized the question was not what the vision was for this property but how the property fits
the vision for the City in the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed most would like to have the property near
the waterfront developed, but the question was whether acquisition at this point in time fit where the City
was headed. In his opinion it did not and now was not the time to purchase the property. He commented
the emails, letters and telephone calls Councilmembers received were not the same as a long range
visioning process to arrive at a decision to spend $1.1 million. Two visions have been expressed by the
Council, a park atop a garage and a tourism center; throwing out a solution was not the way to arrive at a
vision. He urged the Council to focus on the process and get it right.
Brian Larman, Edmonds, commented there were a number of times in his life when he regretted not
taking action or not taking the time to research financing until an opportunity was lost. He urged the
Council to look carefully at funding alternatives. This purchase was a wonderful opportunity, one of the
biggest things facing the City. He urged the Council to be bold and move forward with the purchase as
well as think through how the purchase would be funded. He supported developing an overall vision for
the City and how this site would fit into that vision.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented everyone could agree improvement was needed in the City’s
waterfront area. He recalled an opportunity to purchase a park in South Edmonds resulted in the City
purchasing only half the property for approximately the same amount as all the property due to
unanticipated legal costs. He acknowledged any property purchase involved some risk but there were also
significant rewards. He supported the public having an opportunity to comment on the purchase but hoped
the Council would take the lead and make it happen. He summarized the Edmonds waterfront had
tremendous potential and cited Friday Harbor as an example. He was strongly in favor of the Council’s
action to purchase the Skipper’s property.
Chris Davis, Edmonds, voiced his opposition to the purchase of the Skipper’s property, pointing out the
$1.1 million purchase price did not include the cost of determining the use and developing the site, a
process he anticipated cost another $1 million to $10 million. He agreed with Councilmembers Wilson
and Peterson that this was not the time or financial climate to spend money the City did not have. He
Packet Page 24 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 19
found it ironic that the next agenda item was public comment on budget cuts; this should be the first
budget cut. Government’s primary responsibility is health and safety; this purchase represents neither.
Health and safety was the Fire Department that the Council abrogated to Fire District 1. The City can ill
afford to spend money on dreams and personal agendas. It has been suggested the City purchase the
property to control it; citizens are not interested in government controlling their lives. Citizens have lost
faith in their government due to actions such as this, government that is not responsive to the people and
government spending money that is not theirs on something they cannot afford. He suggested the
Skipper’s building could be used as a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen or for a monument to fiscal
irresponsibility.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated his vision for the property was similar to the modeling done by the
high school students, the property between Main and Dayton would be public use with other public-
private partnership uses on the remainder. He envisioned this property purchase could be funded via the
funds from the sale of assets to Fire District 1, REET funds and grants. Before the site was developed it
could be used for parking and the City collect funds paid for parking. With regard to fiscal
irresponsibility, he recalled when property on the waterfront was purchased for $500,000 and grants were
obtained to repay the General Fund.
Tracy Cobbin, Edmonds, a real estate agent for 11 years, urged the Council to walk away from this deal,
commenting the assessed value or what the property was worth in 2006 had little to do with its current
value. The purchase was not appropriate at the expense of City employees, Yost Pool or in this economy.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out the Diamond Parking Lot did not renew their parking application in
2010 in the waterfront area. He would support purchase of the Skipper’s property if it were funded 100%
via grants and developed with a use that generated revenue. He suggested Councilmembers contact
Financial Director Lorenzo Hines to discuss the City’s finances.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, reported the post office property was sold for $2+ million; the listing price was
$4.150 million, illustrating the stated price of a property did not reflect its actual value. Although she
wholeheartedly agreed with the vote to purchase the property, it was sometimes necessary to make
decisions not with your heart but with your head. As a small business owner, she envisioned if she cut her
employees pay while buying a second home, there would be integrity issues. During her education in
urban planning/city management/community design, wonderful places such as Central Park and cities
where property was transformed into gathering places were often showcased. One of the most important
messages was these places begin with a plan and input from the community before they methodically
began accumulating properties that worked for that plan. Purchasing property the City could not afford
and spending millions for a plan later was not prudent. She recalled a community member who spent
$25,000 on flower baskets a few years ago and citizens who fundraised to keep Yost Pool open. She
summarized citizens want the Council to lead and have a vision but also wanted them to be fiscally
responsible. She objected to spending $1.1 million on the Skipper’s property when employee’s wages had
not been reestablished and other budget cuts were threatened. She summarized she was not able to
purchase a new house because she got a windfall; she must stay and put a roof on the house she has.
10. PUBLIC COMMENT ON BUDGET CUTS.
Priya Cloutier, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers who think not getting paid was not a big deal
return their salary and healthcare insurance to the City.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented on nearly the $500,000 that had been spent on the fiber optics
program. He anticipated if the Council were required to resell the Skipper’s property even at a loss, there
would be some return on the money spent, unlike the fiber optics program. The City was investing
Packet Page 25 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 20
$6,000-$7,000/month on fiber optics with only continued promises it would generate revenue. He viewed
the fiber optics as speculation and did not support the City being in that business.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, proposed the budget include pay raises for employees who provide good service.
He pointed out the primary issue was increases in healthcare insurance premiums for union and non-union
employees. He anticipated the second quarter revenues would be higher.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested in the future budget cuts comply with the ordinance that states
financials for September 2009 and December 2009 be available on the website. She also suggested a
proforma be available on the website. Mayor Haakenson asked what she considered a proforma.
Councilmember Buckshnis answered the executive summary was a five year proforma. Mayor Haakenson
agreed to have the executive summary posted on the website as well as the December 2009 financials
when they were available.
Councilmember Orvis commented his primary interest during the budget process would be distinguishing
revenues particularly government service fees and parks fees in order to determine each department’s
dependence on fees.
11. COUNCIL REVIEW OF LEVY OPTIONS.
Council President Bernheim announced May 18, 2010 was the deadline for Council action to place a levy
on the August ballot and August 3, 2010 was the deadline for placing a levy on the November ballot.
Council President Bernheim reviewed the history of the Council action with regard to the levy:
April 21, 2009 the Council requested staff prepare two options, 1) a general operations levy, and
2) a dedicated parks/public safety/families option.
The following week the Council took public comment and five people commented.
The next week the Council again took public comment and a couple more people commented.
May 19, 2009 the Council passed a resolution to have some kind of levy in 2009.
June 16, 2009 staff returned with proposed language for only a general operations levy.
June 23, 2009 the Council voted again to reaffirm their commitment to a levy.
July 21, 2009 Councilmember Wilson and he presented a dedicated levy option for parks, public
safety and family/social services.
July 21, 2009 the Council voted unanimously to put a levy option to the people.
July 28, 2009 the Council voted 4-2 to postpone placing a levy o the ballot to 2010.
Since then the Edmonds School District and the Library District levies have passed.
Council President Bernheim explained annual property taxes increases were capped at 1%; however, the
City’s expenses increase by a greater amount. Labor expenses, whether individual salaries or health
benefits or hiring more people, have historically increased by more than 1%/year. He summarized the
City’s budget shortfall was not due to irresponsible spending but because revenues did not keep pace with
expenses. As a result government must periodically ask the voters for tax increases.
Council President Bernheim voiced his support for giving the voters an opportunity to choose whether
their property taxes should increase via a targeted levy that supported parks, the Senior Center,
recreational activities. In 1-2 weeks, he planned to present the Council a variant of the dedicated levy
Councilmember Wilson and he proposed last year in time to take action by May 18.
Packet Page 26 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 21
Councilmember Wilson was discouraged the Council postponed the vote on the levy last year,
anticipating a levy on the November ballot was unlikely to succeed due to national elections that would
highlight the poor state of the economy. It was also unlikely a levy would be placed on the ballot in 2011
as four Councilmembers and the Mayor’s position were up for election. Waiting to place a levy on the
ballot in 2012 would require the closure of a major portion of City government. If City pursued the
purchase of the Skipper’s property, under the current projections, the City would be in the red in second
quarter of 2012 versus the fourth quarter if the property were not purchased. The Council could not
complete the 2011-2012 budget without either closing a portion of City government or proposing a levy.
He anticipated there was little chance the voters would approve a levy unless it was done in August.
However, he found it irresponsible to purchase the Skipper’s property and then ask for a levy.
Councilmember Orvis recalled the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) has shown a willingness to
place an increase in the vehicle license fee on the ballot. He asked whether the TBD would be meeting to
decide when that would be placed on the ballot. Council President Bernheim recalled at their last meeting
the TBD agreed to schedule a follow-up meeting once staff provided a list of priority projects. He agreed
to schedule a TBD meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE BRING THE COUNCIL TWO OPTIONS BY THE MAY 4
MEETING SO THAT PLACING A LEVY ON THE AUGUST BALLOT COULD BE DISCUSSED.
THE TWO OPTIONS WOULD INCLUDE A TARGETED OPTION AND A GENERAL
OPERATIONS OPTION.
Councilmember Wilson commented it would be a tight timeline although much of the work had been
done. The Finance Committee would need to meet outside the regular schedule and he anticipated the
process would be to coalesce the data that had previously been prepared and work with Mr. Hines to
update the numbers.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested each Councilmember have an understanding of the composition of
the forecasts.
Council President Bernheim encouraged Councilmembers to caucus with each other outside Council
meetings and to review the materials presented by the Citizen Levy Review Committee and the two levy
options presented to the Council in 2009, 1) a general operations levy and 2) a modified general with
provision for police, Senior Center, and other social and family services. Although the actual 2009 budget
numbers had yet to be completed, he assumed they would be similar to those presented last year and
clearly the City’s financial situation was dire, originating from the law that caps property tax increases at
1% unless approved by voters. He did not support delaying politically difficult decisions such as a levy
until the Council had absolute confidence in the financials.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what a targeted levy would fund. Councilmember Peterson suggested the
Council caucus and the Finance Committee prepare options. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern
with the Finance Committee developing a targeted levy without input from the Council regarding what
they wanted to fund via a levy.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented things had changed significantly since last year with the sale of
the Fire Department and 54 fewer employees. She was uncertain a decision regarding a levy could be
made within one month, noting there also had not been input from the public.
Councilmember Wilson noted Councilmember Buckshnis participated as a citizen on the Levy Review
Committee. The Committee formed eight groups and all eight recommended proceeding with a levy. As
part of that process, the Council stated several policy positions including that one of the purposes of a
Packet Page 27 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 22
levy would be to build up one month of ending cash balance. Another area of primary interest was
technology. He wanted to focus on public safety and parks. Council President Bernheim wanted to focus
on parks. He suggested the Finance Committee start with the Mayor’s option as the general operations
levy and the modified general as the targeted levy. The Finance Committee should determine the length
of time before another levy would be necessary which would dictate the amount of the levy. He recalled
under last year’s scenario a $3.75 million levy would be required to reach 2014; the removal of Fire
Department would reduce that amount. He recognized the Finance Committee may need to meet outside
the regular schedule to meet the May 4 deadline.
Council President Bernheim questioned whether it was possible to get financial documents that reflected
the City’s future cash flow needs without the Fire Department expenses and whether staff would be
available to assist the Finance Committee before May 4. Mayor Haakenson anticipated the Finance
Committee could readily accumulate the information available to the Levy Review Committee and deduct
the Fire Department expenses. Staff could assist if needed.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked when the December 2009 quarterly financials would be available.
Mayor Haakenson answered when it was completed, it would be provided to the Council. He commented
the numbers would be very similar to the proforma provided to the Council dated March 15, 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with the broadness of the targeted levy. He suggested further
information may be necessary from the Council before May 4. Council President Bernheim advised the
topic was on next week’s and the May 4 agenda.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, reported 200 people attended the second annual luncheon and Downtown
Edmonds Merchants Fashion Show at the new Yacht Club on April 17 and many of the attendees shopped
in downtown Edmonds after the show. She commended Petra Rousu, Savvy Traveler, and Denise at
Cynderellies Closet, who chaired the event. She echoed Councilmember Wilson’s disappointment that the
Council postponed a levy last year after the Citizen Levy Review Committee recommended a levy. She
was concerned with Council meeting the May deadline for the August ballot and urged Council to work
together. She anticipated citizens would be willing to pay for services and amenities and that a levy could
be successful with the Council’s leadership and community meetings to educate the public regarding the
how the funds would be used and what services would be lost if voters did not approve the levy.
Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, announced via the leadership of Laura Spehar and many others, Edmonds
received its Backyard Wildlife Habitat Certification from the National Wildlife Federation. A celebration
will be held on Saturday at Yost Park from 11:00 – 4:00 coinciding with the Watershed Fun Fest and cake
cutting at 3:00 p.m. He noted the Consent Agenda included a Proclamation in honor of Native Plant
Appreciation Week; as part of that celebration the official opening ceremony for the Willow Creek
Habitat Native Plant Demonstration will occur on Sunday, April 25 from 1:00 - 3:30 with ribbon cutting
at 1:00 and maps to tour local homes with backyard habitats. Edmonds received the Backyard Wildlife
Habitat Certification in less than two years, a short period of time compared to the length of time it has
taken other communities to receive certification.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended the Edmonds School District workshop last week where
there was discussion regarding placing a supplementary levy on the August ballot. The consensus at that
meeting was the August ballot was preferable. Next, he reported King County would be making a
decision regarding the Shoreline jail site during the third or fourth quarter this year. He also reported a
citizen group was meeting with Finance Director Lorenzo Hines regarding the City’s finances.
Packet Page 28 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 23
13. QUARTERLY UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES OF CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY AND
SUSTAINABLE EDMONDS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave reported on his conversations with Jeff Aken, Project Manager, Cascade
Land Conservancy (CLC), regarding the livability assessment. As part of the Leadership City
commitment, the City is entitled to 25 hours of dedicated CLC staff time to support a project of the City’s
choice. They have discussed having CLC assist with design of Five Corners and Westgate neighborhood
centers or the transitional area on Hwy. 99. It may be possible to supplement CLC’s hours with a small
amount of money for a consultant to assist with that process. He offered to have further discussions with
Mr. Aken and make a presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee next
month. He advised neighborhood center design was also a priority for the Economic Development
Commission (EDC).
Councilmember Peterson requested a representative of the EDC be included in emails or attended the
meetings with CLC. Mr. Chave relayed his intent to involve the EDC.
Todd Cloutier, Operations Director, Sustainable Edmonds, explained Sustainable Edmonds was an all
volunteer, non profit organization committed to finding ways to make Edmonds a more sustainable
community. He presented the first quarterly update of the Save Energy Now program, a program the
Council voted to support with $5000 in funding last December. He displayed a comparison of 2008 and
2009 electricity and natural gas consumption. He displayed a comparison of average 2008 and 2009
commercial and residential electricity and gas utility bills, approximately $9000/year for a business and
$1900/year for a residence. A 10% savings on utilities represents approximately a $4 million “stimulus”
package. Edmonds citizens spent $38 million on utilities in 2009. Saving 10% frees up money for better
uses and supports the local economy.
The purpose of the Save Energy Now program was a pilot project to find the most cost effective ways for
homes and businesses in Edmonds to reduce utility usage via 10 homes and 10 businesses participating in
a pilot program. The Council funding is used to partially offset the cost of a comprehensive energy audit.
The audits are useful in identifying and prioritizing energy savings actions by a homeowner. The Audit
contractor, Eco-Fab of Seattle, was selected in a competitive bid process in January. The first audits
began in February. Based on what the auditor finds, the participants then begin taking action to reduce
their usage as much as possible, for as little investment as possible with a goal of at least a 10% sustained
savings on their utility bills.
During the program, which lasts for one full year, Sustainable Edmonds tracks participants’ progress in
lowering their bills. They also set up an online blog (http://edmondsenergy.blogspot.com) where lessons
learned by participants are posted for all in Edmonds to use as a roadmap to their own savings. They also
email this information out to the Sustainable Edmonds email list of friends, which is about 200 families
strong, and copies are sent out as press releases to local media outlets.
He reported that just two months into the program the initial numbers are astounding. Annual usage is
already down by 10%. That means, if participants stopped right now and returned to their old ways for the
rest of the year, at the end of the year, they already would have saved 10% on their bills. However, even
without the program, the average home in Edmonds has reduced their usage by 7% due to the mild
weather.
Only four businesses have signed up for the program. He encouraged business owners or landlords to
contact Sustainable Edmonds at SustainableEdmonds@gmail.com to enroll in the program.
Packet Page 29 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 24
He explained energy audits have consistently identified un-insulated and/or leaking ducts in crawlspaces,
attic, floor and wall insulation below current code; and leaking doors, attic access hatches.. Through
changes in habits alone, two participating homes saved over $200 in two months without any investment
in upgrades. Replacing current appliances with EnergyStar appliances can make homeowners eligible for
a State energy rebate.
Barriers to the success of their program include more business participants are needed and a significant
publicity effort will be needed to communicate lessons learned from the pilot project to the rest of the
City.
Councilmember Wilson recognized the program far exceeded the Council’s expectations.
Councilmember Peterson commended Sustainable Edmonds for their efforts.
14. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 13, 2010.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Committee met with two labor negotiators. Staff also provided
the Committee information regarding health insurance transition. The Committee next discussed potential
cost cutting measures and asked Finance Director Lorenzo Hines to follow up on suggestions made
during audience comments. The Committee discussed the General Fund Report with Mr. Hines. Public
comment was accepted; Ron Wambolt commented on labor negotiations and internal versus external City
Attorney. Roger Hertrich commented on labor negotiations and suggested the Council consider an
internal City Attorney.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee was provided an update regarding the Highway 99/CG-
3 proposal for a new mixed use one. Next the Committee discussed with the new Building Official
Leonard Yarberry building code revisions to include reference to LEED standards. The final item was a
discussion on motorized mobile vendors. The Committee voiced their support for motorized mobile
vendors operating within the City and directed staff to develop a new section in ECC 4.12 for
consideration by the Committee before proceeding to the full Council.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Committee discussed the Snohomish County Regional Task
Force 2010-2011 Interlocal Agreement and the Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement which were
both approved on the Consent Agenda. Next, the Committee discussed fire sprinklers in new or
remodeled buildings and three builders provided input. The matter will be discussed again at the
Committee’s next meeting. The Committee was also provided an update on problems other cities are
experiencing with emergency responder radio coverage.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he met with Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressman Inslee about the
demise of cities due to the lack of assistance from the State to continue providing services. These
representatives are well aware of the situation. He also spoke with them about a successful business
owner in Edmonds who has been unable to get a $65,000 loan and the need to help small business owners
in order to jumpstart the economy. All three said they were working on that issue but there was a
disconnect between Congress/Senate and the President. He had the same conversation with the staff of the
National Conference of Mayors in Washington DC who said he was one of many mayors who have
voiced similar concerns. In the past mayors have asked for money; this year mayors were asking for help
for small businesses.
Packet Page 30 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 25
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Peterson welcomed Fire Marshal John Westfall back after two years in Iraq and other
active military duty.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was disappointed much of the information regarding Skipper’s was a
one-sided view of what was occurring at the Council and from that arose a series of emails and blog
entries.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported Councilmember Buckshnis and she will hold a Town Hall
meeting on Friday, April 30, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at Colonial Pantry in Firdale Village.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commended the Edmonds Police Department who participated in the
Special Olympics Tip a Cop event at the Red Robin in Lynnwood. All the tips the officers received were
donated to Special Olympics. She recognized Assistant Chief Gannon who was serving and Sgt. Marsh
who organized the event.
Councilmember Wilson thanked Mayor Haakenson for his efforts in Washington DC. He expressed his
appreciation to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for her apology for the disparaging remarks made to him
via email.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on a meeting she had with Portland’s Mayor. Portland has developed
a draft plan that she planned to share with the Economic Development Commission. Portland is interested
in green technology, eco-tourism and bicycling.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Packet Page 31 of 248
AM-3016 2.D.
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposit and Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #118441 through #118579 dated April 22, 2010 for $779,781.34.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49231 through #49266 for the pay period of April
1 - April 15, 2010 for $622,945.37.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:$1,402,726.71
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $779,781.34
Payroll: $622,945.37
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 4-22-10
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Finance Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 05:22 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 05:26 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 05:27 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/23/2010 08:30 AM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie Started On: 04/22/2010 09:41
Packet Page 32 of 248
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 04/22/2010 09:41
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/23/2010
Packet Page 33 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118441 4/22/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 280513 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 63.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.01
Total :69.26
118442 4/22/2010 069157 AIONA, CYNDI AIONA12031 HULA CLASSES
HULA ADULT #12031
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 373.63
HULA KIDS #12028
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 205.63
Total :579.26
118443 4/22/2010 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 33373 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE
AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 360.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.20
Total :394.20
118444 4/22/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101408595 M5Z34
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.38
M5Z34101420230
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 58.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 5.53
Total :91.11
118445 4/22/2010 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001204880 FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
1Page:
Packet Page 34 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118445 4/22/2010 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 121.33
FIRE ST 160197-001205037
garbage for F/S #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 126.36
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE0197-001205699
garbage for MCC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 57.40
Public Works Facility197-0800897
Public Works Facility
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 24.52
Public Works Facility
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 93.18
Public Works Facility
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 93.18
Public Works Facility
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 93.18
Public Works Facility
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 93.18
Public Works Facility
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 93.21
Total :795.54
118446 4/22/2010 065568 ALLWATER INC 040810036 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 26.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67
Total :27.47
118447 4/22/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0417 DANCE MONITOR
ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR FOR
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
118448 4/22/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4860547 UNIFORM SERVICES
2Page:
Packet Page 35 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118448 4/22/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 32.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.04
Total :35.07
118449 4/22/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4848669 21580001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 61.36
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.83
Total :67.19
118450 4/22/2010 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST May 2010 MAY 2010 AWC PREMIUMS
05/10 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,197.55
05/10 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 27,322.73
05/10 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 261,139.25
Total :292,659.53
118451 4/22/2010 001527 AWWA 7000207072 AWWA DUES - 6/1/10-5/31/11 - J WAITE, N
AWWA DUES - 6/1/10-5/31/11 - J WAITE, N
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 1,805.00
Total :1,805.00
118452 4/22/2010 001527 AWWA 7000192230 WATER - TRAINING MANUALS
WATER - TRAINING MANUALS
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 1,388.90
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 97.22
Total :1,486.12
118453 4/22/2010 002258 BENS EVER READY 2422 City of Edmonds Bldgs - Annual
City of Edmonds Bldgs - Annual
3Page:
Packet Page 36 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118453 4/22/2010 (Continued)002258 BENS EVER READY
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 667.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 63.37
Total :730.37
118454 4/22/2010 073208 BIGGS, DAVID C F-010-004 REIMBURSE IMPOUND FEES F-10-004
REFUND IMPOUND FEES PER COURT ORDER
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 328.50
Total :328.50
118455 4/22/2010 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 270 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE
Web Site Maintenance thru 4/15/2010
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 390.00
Total :390.00
118456 4/22/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 801911-01 INV#801911-01 EDMONDS PD - POFF
5 IN 1 JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 200.00
NAME TAGS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.00
HEAT STAMP LETTERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
REFLECTIVE PANEL "POLICE"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 21.28
INV#802391-81 EDMONDS PD - SCHEELE802391-81
NAME TAGS- SCHEELE-REDONE
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 18.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 1.71
INV#803117 - EDMONDS PD - EQUIPMENT803117
BASKET WEAVE OC HOLDERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 69.90
9.5% Sales Tax
4Page:
Packet Page 37 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118456 4/22/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.64
INV#803818 EDMONDS PD - COMMENDATION BAR803818
COMMENDATION BAR-BLANK
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 13.00
COMMENDATION BAR-W/2 GLD STAR
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 26.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.71
INV#806851 EDMONDS PD - TRYKAR806851
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 217.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 20.62
INV#807555 - EDMONDS PD - SCHELE807555
BLACK OXFORDS- SHOES
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 119.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 11.40
Total :753.21
118457 4/22/2010 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN12050 GARDENS FOR BIRDS
GARDENS FOR BIRDS #12050
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 151.20
Total :151.20
118458 4/22/2010 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1019147 C311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT PUBLISH
C311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT PUBLISH
414.000.656.538.800.410.00 25.00
Total :25.00
118459 4/22/2010 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9885462 INV#9885462 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD
RENTAL - 4 COPIERS THRU 5/1/10
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60
COPIES 2/28/10 -3/31/2010
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 233.28
5Page:
Packet Page 38 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118459 4/22/2010 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 77.41
Total :892.29
118460 4/22/2010 070892 CASCADE BANK E6DA.PMT 8 Ret E6DA.PRECISION RET 8
E6DA.Precision Ret 8
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 11,735.04
Total :11,735.04
118461 4/22/2010 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC SGK5534 IT Parts
IT Parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 79.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 7.53
Parts for repair & maintenance &SHJ3033
Parts for repair & maintenance &
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1,560.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 148.20
Total :1,794.99
118462 4/22/2010 068484 CEMEX 9418996861 Street - Cement for Harbor
Street - Cement for Harbor
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 371.25
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 34.16
Storm Dump Fees9419023035
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 45.50
Storm Dump Fees9419023039
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 38.08
Storm Dump Fees9419023041
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 50.60
6Page:
Packet Page 39 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118462 4/22/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
Storm Dump Fees9419023042
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 38.54
Storm - Dump Fees9419023046
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 48.30
Storm Dumpr Fees9419023048
Storm Dumpr Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 35.63
Storm Dump Fees9419023049
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 40.45
Street- Cement for 100 Dayton St9419055131
Street- Cement for 100 Dayton St
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 208.45
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 19.22
Roadway - Asphalt9419063496
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 421.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 40.05
Street - Cement for 100 Dayton St9419098097
Street - Cement for 100 Dayton St
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 649.50
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 59.76
Total :2,101.05
118463 4/22/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY B2 965 2954000
BELT SANDER TABLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 176.92
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.74
9.5% Sales Tax
7Page:
Packet Page 40 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118463 4/22/2010 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.80
2954000RN03101030
ARGON/NITROGEN/OXYGEN
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 33.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 3.15
Total :244.81
118464 4/22/2010 064690 CHAMPION BOLT & SUPPLY INC 517738 EDM00001
FLOW TUBE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.07
Total :23.83
118465 4/22/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11998 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11998
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 81.20
Total :81.20
118466 4/22/2010 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1003 E9GA.SERVICES THRU 3/31/10
E9GA.Services thru 3/31/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 28,296.39
E0FA.CONCEPT PLAN LABOR451001-1003
E0FA.Concept Plan Labor
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 635.92
E0FA.CONSTRUCTION PLAN LABOR451002-1003
E0FA.Construction Plan Labor
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,057.50
Total :29,989.81
118467 4/22/2010 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I10000902 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 599.40
Total :599.40
8Page:
Packet Page 41 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118468 4/22/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7823 CRAZE POSTAGE
EDMONDS PORTION OF POSTAGE FOR MAY -
001.000.640.574.200.420.00 5,498.27
Total :5,498.27
118469 4/22/2010 073186 CITY OF SPOKANE RIOT CONTROL RIOT CONTROL 4/14-4/16 BARKER, MCINTYRE
RIOT CONTROL #6221 - BARKER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00
RIOT CONTROL $6221 - MCINTYRE
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00
Total :600.00
118470 4/22/2010 068473 COMMERCIAL SOUND & COMM.030558 Labor & Materials for upgrades to
Labor & Materials for upgrades to
001.000.110.511.100.480.00 1,008.32
Labor & Materials for upgrades to
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 1,008.32
Labor & Materials for upgrades to
001.000.620.558.800.480.00 1,008.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.110.511.100.480.00 95.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 95.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.480.00 95.80
Total :3,312.38
118471 4/22/2010 072042 CRACUT, DANIEL 2462 UNIFORM/CRACUT
UNIFORM/CRACUT
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 324.40
Total :324.40
118472 4/22/2010 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0410 2989771 5374044 INV#0410 2989771 5374044 - EDMONDS PD
HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.00
5 GALLON BOTTLES OF H20
9Page:
Packet Page 42 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118472 4/22/2010 (Continued)066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 59.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.67
Total :69.13
118473 4/22/2010 072189 DATASITE 65202 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
Total :50.00
118474 4/22/2010 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2010030121 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for March, 2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 306.27
Microsoft 2007 Project/Hawkins & LemckeI159752
Microsoft 2007 Project/Hawkins & Lemcke
001.000.620.532.200.310.00 635.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.310.00 60.36
Total :1,002.03
118475 4/22/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3090 INV#10-3090 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-0186
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 60.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #09-5008
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 138.00
TRANSCRIPTION SMART SCSO09-2870
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 54.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #09-4510
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 24.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-0982
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 93.00
10Page:
Packet Page 43 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118475 4/22/2010 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-1086
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 27.00
Total :396.00
118476 4/22/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 20605 CABLE, DUST CAPS
CEMETERY SUPPLIES:
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 14.09
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.34
Total :15.43
118477 4/22/2010 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 18271 UPS/DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES
UPS/DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 11.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.09
UPS/PLYMOUTH/BANNER ENGR.18273
UPS/PLYMOUTH/BANNER ENGR.
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 27.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 2.61
UPS/ANALYSIS18308
UPS/ANALYSIS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 11.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.09
Total :55.31
118478 4/22/2010 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP BROCKMANN0407 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: GAVIN BROCKMANN
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 150.00
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPMORGAN0412
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: RUBY MORGAN
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 51.00
Total :201.00
11Page:
Packet Page 44 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118479 4/22/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.59
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 450.45
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 445.22
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
12Page:
Packet Page 45 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118479 4/22/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.42
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.12
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
Total :1,436.40
118480 4/22/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00925 LIFT STATION # 8
LIFT STATION # 8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
13Page:
Packet Page 46 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118480 4/22/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #11-01950
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
LIFT STATION #21-02675
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms1-03950
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 359.66
Public Works Meter Shop1-05350
Public Works Meter Shop
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 54.79
LIFT STATION #61-05705
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 48.45
LIFT STATION # 71-0655
LIFT STATION # 7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.88
CITY HALL1-13975
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 413.17
CITY HALL1-14000
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 62.55
Total :1,037.90
118481 4/22/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU19718 NITRILE GLOVES
NITRILE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 196.32
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.45
Total :224.17
14Page:
Packet Page 47 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118482 4/22/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0248928 Water - Accessories
Water - Accessories
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 416.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 39.54
Water Inventory - W-PIPE-0.75-011A248928
Water Inventory - W-PIPE-0.75-011
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,381.70
Brass Pipe
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 806.55
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 131.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 76.62
Total :2,851.82
118483 4/22/2010 072796 GIPPERT, WINFIELD GIPPERT0409 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER
BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER @ ANDERSON
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 39.00
Total :39.00
118484 4/22/2010 072515 GOOGLE INC 1188498 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
04/10 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 561.01
Total :561.01
118485 4/22/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9219159747 SAFETY EYEWEAR
SAFETY EYEWEAR, MIRROR
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 79.32
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.30
SAFETY EYEWEAR9219159754
SAFETY EYEWEAR
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 75.40
15Page:
Packet Page 48 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118485 4/22/2010 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.93
Total :187.11
118486 4/22/2010 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-31 E6DA.SERVICES 1/10-4/3/10
E6DA.Services 1/10-4/3/10
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 28,770.28
Total :28,770.28
118487 4/22/2010 012845 HARBOR SQUARE ATHLETIC CLUB 2010 MEMBERSHIP 2010 MEMBERSHIP FEES-EDMONDS PD
2010 GROUP MEMBERSHIP FEES
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 5,760.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 547.20
Total :6,307.20
118488 4/22/2010 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2664359 WATER - HYDRANT PART FOR 21805 96TH
WATER - HYDRANT PART FOR 21805 96TH
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 414.00
WATER - BRASS NON INVENTORY PARTS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 987.56
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 133.15
WATER -BRASS ADAPTERS AND BALL VALVESI2674579
WATER -BRASS ADAPTERS AND BALL VALVES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,091.84
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 103.73
Total :2,730.28
118489 4/22/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 22127 E9FB.SERVICES THRU 4/2/10
E9FB.Services Thru 4/2/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 14,637.06
16Page:
Packet Page 49 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :14,637.061184894/22/2010 072647 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
118490 4/22/2010 013350 HIGHLAND, SCOTT E3JC.27.28 E3JC.SERVICES THRU 3/26/10
E3JC.Services thru 3/26/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 336.00
Total :336.00
118491 4/22/2010 013350 HIGHLAND, SCOTT Refund Verizon Wireless Refund
Verizon Wireless Refund
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 3.07
Total :3.07
118492 4/22/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1031279 0205
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 69.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.64
PINE STREET IMPROVEMENT2206139
SHRUBS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 257.53
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.47
02055049016
REBAR
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.70
02056036130
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 32.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.13
02058037982
LUMBER
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 90.10
9.5% Sales Tax
17Page:
Packet Page 50 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118492 4/22/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 8.56
02059094130
TOILET SEATS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 80.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.68
Total :612.99
118493 4/22/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 6741380 C/A 768328
PR1-2 City Phone Service thru 4/11/2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 846.96
Total :846.96
118494 4/22/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 018128 0068
BATTERIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 359.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.18
Total :393.98
118495 4/22/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 464156 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 2,972.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 282.39
Total :3,254.86
118496 4/22/2010 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE T09011 DSD, #10-15 ad
DSD, #10-15 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 210.00
PWD, #10-16 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 245.00
Total :455.00
118497 4/22/2010 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 113452 INV 113452 EDMONDS PD
3 PRE-OFFER REPORTS
18Page:
Packet Page 51 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118497 4/22/2010 (Continued)068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 36.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 1.73
Total :37.73
118498 4/22/2010 072304 KOTIS DESIGN 100835 PARK MAINTENANCE TEES
T-SHIRTS FOR PARK MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 497.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 49.11
Total :566.11
118499 4/22/2010 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0310-108246 E8GC.SERVICES 2/1-2/28/10
E8GC.Services 2/1-2/28/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,997.62
E8GC.Services 2/1-2/28/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,997.62
E8GC.Services 2/1-2/28/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 1,997.62
Total :5,992.86
118500 4/22/2010 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 360141-001 Traffic - Sign Shop - Supplies
Traffic - Sign Shop - Supplies
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 50.12
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.76
Total :54.88
118501 4/22/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0418 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
TRAINING/PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 4/18/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 135.00
Total :135.00
118502 4/22/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 4010-271 GLOVES
19Page:
Packet Page 52 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118502 4/22/2010 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
ASSORTED GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 165.60
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.34
Total :188.39
118503 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104038 PRESENTATION FOLDERS
Presentation folders
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 73.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 7.03
Total :81.01
118504 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103975 INV#103975 EDMONDS PD - FIR CARDS
1500 FIR CARDS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 126.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 11.97
Total :137.97
118505 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104024 ENVELOPES
ENVELOPES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 72.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.92
Total :79.79
118506 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103921 CONFERENCE TABLE
Conference Table
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 290.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 27.60
Total :318.10
20Page:
Packet Page 53 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118507 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104032I EDMCTY
GLUE/FILES/INK JET CARTRIDGES/MARKERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 184.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 17.53
Total :202.06
118508 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104056 Office Supplies for Council Office
Office Supplies for Council Office
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 71.27
Total :71.27
118509 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104036 DSD Office Supplies
DSD Office Supplies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 105.37
Total :105.37
118510 4/22/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103942 BUSINESS CARDS FOR P & R & DEV. SER.
Business Cards~250-00238
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 16.87
Jennifer Lambert250-00238
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.87
Megan Cruz250-00238
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.87
Leonard Yarberry250-00238
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 1.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 4.81
Total :73.89
118511 4/22/2010 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0074002 JACKETS, PANTS
PVC JACKETS & BIB PANTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 221.00
9.5% Sales Tax
21Page:
Packet Page 54 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118511 4/22/2010 (Continued)066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.00
Total :242.00
118512 4/22/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 52186401 123106800
CAPACITOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 18.08
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.24
Total :23.32
118513 4/22/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 104222 MCH - FLOOR SANDER RENTAL FEES
MCH - FLOOR SANDER RENTAL FEES
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 69.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 6.60
Street - Roadway - Shock Mounts for104574
Street - Roadway - Shock Mounts for
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 131.60
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 12.50
Total :220.20
118514 4/22/2010 067891 MYSTIC SEA CHARTERS MYSTIC12142 GRAY WHALE CRUISE
GRAY WHALE CRUISE #12142
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 98.00
Total :98.00
118515 4/22/2010 063034 NCL 267612 MEMBRANE CAPS
MEMBRANE CAPS
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 261.90
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 8.85
Total :270.75
118516 4/22/2010 073207 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS CORP 000641 INV 000641 AEGIS 2010 CONF - AMY COLLINS
AEGIS 2010 CONFERENCE 05/10
22Page:
Packet Page 55 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118516 4/22/2010 (Continued)073207 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS CORP
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 945.00
INV 000642 2010 AEGIS CONF - MIKE BARD000642
AEGIS 2010 CONF - MIKE BARD
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 945.00
Total :1,890.00
118517 4/22/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 10307 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 893.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 84.85
Total :978.05
118518 4/22/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-107802 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :189.87
118519 4/22/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 122 Planning Board Minutetaker 4/14/10
Planning Board Minutetaker 4/14/10
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 384.00
Total :384.00
118520 4/22/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 160246 INV#160246 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
DRY ERASE MARKERS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 17.92
ERASER
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 2.88
STAPLES, OPTIMA
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 3.85
CDROM ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 37.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 5.94
INV#200092 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD200092
23Page:
Packet Page 56 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118520 4/22/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
DYMO LABEL WRITER
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 97.49
STENO BOOKS 6X9
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.96
LEGAL PADS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.17
BLACK SHARPIES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.24
KLEENEX FACIAL TISSUE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 62.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 9.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.65
Total :263.46
118521 4/22/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 120109 PAPER, PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
INKJET PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.58
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: BRASS PLATES,
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 18.09
DISCOVERY PROGRAM: GLOVES
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 6.91
PENS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 19.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 2.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.94
PAPER, PENS, LAMINATING SUPPLIES216580
LAMINATING POUCHES, PENS, FOLDERS, ETC.
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 88.68
9.5% Sales Tax
24Page:
Packet Page 57 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118521 4/22/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.42
COVER STOCK250139
WHITE COVER STOCK
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 21.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 2.00
LASER TONER CARTRIDGE258423
LASER TONER CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 127.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 12.07
Total :327.96
118522 4/22/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 167115 Pencils; Notebook; Erasers; Lead; date
Pencils; Notebook; Erasers; Lead; date
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 72.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 6.88
Total :79.40
118523 4/22/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 149226 PW ADMIN - PACKAGING TAPE, TECH PENCIL
PW ADMIN - PACKAGING TAPE, TECH PENCIL
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 25.59
WATER - INK FOR WATER LEAD PRINTER
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 62.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.13
PW ADMIN - PENCIL LEAD, LABLEMAKER TAPES163208
PW ADMIN - PENCIL LEAD, LABLEMAKER TAPES
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 40.80
SIGN SHOP - INK SUPPLY FOR PRINTER
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 51.44
9.5% Sales Tax
25Page:
Packet Page 58 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118523 4/22/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.88
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 4.89
SIGN SHOP - PRINTER163316
SIGN SHOP - PRINTER
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 99.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 9.50
PW Admin Supplies -- Jewel Box for CDs328576
PW Admin Supplies -- Jewel Box for CDs
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 44.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.21
Total :355.89
118524 4/22/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 155507 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 125.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 11.90
Total :137.11
118525 4/22/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 682581 MARCH 2010 BASIC LEGAL FEES
March 2010 Basic Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 25,384.09
March 2010 ECDC Rewrite 2006-2007
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 50.10
MARCH-10 LITIGATION LEGGAL FEES682623
March 2010 Litigation Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 9,025.90
Total :34,460.09
118526 4/22/2010 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION AD6267 B/W copy overage fee~
B/W copy overage fee~
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 9.71
26Page:
Packet Page 59 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118526 4/22/2010 (Continued)066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
B/W copy overage fee~
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 9.71
B/W copy overage fee~
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 9.71
B/W copy overage fee~
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 9.71
Color copy overage fee (857)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 23.07
Color copy overage fee (857)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 23.07
Color copy overage fee (857)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 23.07
Color copy overage fee (857)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 23.08
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 3.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 3.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 3.12
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 3.10
Total :143.59
118527 4/22/2010 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 97966 BRUSH DUMP
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 158.40
BRUSH DUMP97982
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 178.20
BRUSH DUMP97997
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 178.20
Total :514.80
27Page:
Packet Page 60 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118528 4/22/2010 065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC 97553 Water - Asphalt & Concrete Blades
Water - Asphalt & Concrete Blades
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 341.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.00
Roadway - Concrete Blades97572
Roadway - Concrete Blades
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 336.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 15.00
Total :706.00
118529 4/22/2010 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100AP10 POSTAGE METER LEASE
Lease 03/30 to 04/30
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00
Total :866.00
118530 4/22/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 183892 Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I183968
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.26
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.26
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.26
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.27
FAC MAINT - Dept of L&I Safety Film183981
28Page:
Packet Page 61 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118530 4/22/2010 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
FAC MAINT - Dept of L&I Safety Film
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 9.29
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I184117
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water/Sewer/Street /Storm - Dept of L&I
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
Total :36.28
118531 4/22/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax~
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 1,665.96
UNIT F1 B1 FUEL04371
Fire Boat - Fuel
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 37.65
Total :1,703.61
118532 4/22/2010 070979 PRECISION EARTHWORKS INC E6DA.PMT 8 E6DA.PMT 8 WORK COMPLETED THRU 3/31/10
E6DA.Pmt 8 Work Completed thru 3/31/10
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 239,444.95
Total :239,444.95
118533 4/22/2010 071184 PROCOM 2010-1322 MARCH-2010 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ
Mar 10 Prof Serv Fiber Optic Proj
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 3,125.00
Total :3,125.00
118534 4/22/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS~
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 48.67
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS~
29Page:
Packet Page 62 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118534 4/22/2010 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 48.67
Fire Monitoring F/S 16~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 97.50
Total :194.84
118535 4/22/2010 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ11864 FELDENKRAIS CLASS
FELDENKRAIS FINDING FLEXABILITY #11864
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 262.50
Total :262.50
118536 4/22/2010 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 10 045S ACCOUNT NO. EDMO005
Q2-2010 Clean Air Assessment per RCW
001.000.390.531.700.510.00 6,045.75
Total :6,045.75
118537 4/22/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 107514 STOCK VASES
STOCK VASES
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 420.00
Total :420.00
118538 4/22/2010 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 001664 Storm Sweeping Dump Fees
Storm Sweeping Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1,106.65
Total :1,106.65
118539 4/22/2010 073166 REIMER, CRAIG PLN20090049 Refund pre app fee PLN 2009.0049
Refund pre app fee PLN 2009.0049
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 1,467.50
Total :1,467.50
118540 4/22/2010 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 51740 E3JC.SERVICES 2/22-3/28/10
E3JC.Services 2/22-3/28/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 3,648.72
Total :3,648.72
118541 4/22/2010 032505 ROBIN HOOD LANES ROBINHOOD12194 BUMPER BOWLING
30Page:
Packet Page 63 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118541 4/22/2010 (Continued)032505 ROBIN HOOD LANES
BUMPER BOWLING #12194
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 411.60
Total :411.60
118542 4/22/2010 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 17944 SPRING/SUMMER CRAZE
SPRING/SUMMER 2010 CRAZE RECREATIONAL
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 7,891.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 749.70
CRAZE BULK MAIL PREP17947
CRAZE SPRING/SUMMER 2010 BULK MAIL PREP
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 93.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 8.87
Total :8,743.46
118543 4/22/2010 073206 SIERRA, KATIE SIERRA0415 REFUND
REFUND/MEDICAL
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 25.00
Total :25.00
118544 4/22/2010 060855 SILVER LAKE TROPHY &17336 Retirement Plaque
Retirement Plaque
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 32.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 3.13
Total :36.08
118545 4/22/2010 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52161866 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION PLANTS
ASS'T PLANTS FOR CITYWIDE BEAUTIFICATION
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,348.96
Freight
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 131.95
31Page:
Packet Page 64 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,520.911185454/22/2010 071725 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC
118546 4/22/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 282107 PLANTING MIX, SEEDS
PLANTING MIX, SEEDS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 61.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 5.83
Total :67.24
118547 4/22/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDOIN WAY
YOST POOL 9537 BOWDOIN WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 518.72
8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7
8100 190TH ST SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.53
Total :549.25
118548 4/22/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 103523350 2019-2988-2
8421 244TH ST SW
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 29.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.79
2002-0255-4113498118
24400 HIGHWAY 99/RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 29.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.79
2019-9517-2130117334
9805 EDMONDS WAY/WESTGATE
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 29.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.76
Total :94.14
118549 4/22/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200706851 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
32Page:
Packet Page 65 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118549 4/22/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SIGNAL LIGHT200723021
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.04
TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT 21531 HWY 99201441755
TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT 21531 HWY 99
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 80.99
SIGNAL LIGHT201656758
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.59
TELEMETRY SYSTEM201790003
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 29.76
TRAFFIC LIGHT202289450
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 180.54
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS202519864
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
Total :432.02
118550 4/22/2010 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 28595 FS 17 - SERVICE CALL - FRONT MIDDLE
FS 17 - SERVICE CALL - FRONT MIDDLE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 367.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 34.91
Total :402.41
118551 4/22/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO May 2010 Standard MAY 2010 STANDARD INSURANCE
May 2010 Standard Insurance Premiums
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 15,205.90
Total :15,205.90
118552 4/22/2010 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L82805 MAR-2010 AUDIT FEES
March, 2010 Audit Fees
001.000.390.519.900.510.00 2,483.52
33Page:
Packet Page 66 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118552 4/22/2010 (Continued)039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
March, 2010 Audit Fees
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 124.18
March, 2010 Audit Fees
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 413.92
March, 2010 Audit Fees
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 413.92
March, 2010 Audit Fees
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 413.92
March, 2010 Audit Fees
111.000.653.543.300.510.00 124.18
March, 2010 Audit Fees
511.000.657.548.680.510.00 165.56
Total :4,139.20
118553 4/22/2010 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q1 2010 Q1-2010 Leasehold Tax Liability
Q1-2010 Leasehold Tax Liability
001.000.000.237.220.000.00 4,443.06
Total :4,443.06
118554 4/22/2010 068010 STATE OF WASHINGTON AN31580 004,316-10
Overpayment of time loss 2/2 - 2/8/10 &
111.000.653.543.700.110.00 820.08
Total :820.08
118555 4/22/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2164440 FAC MAINT - ELECT SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 70.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.68
PW - ELECT SUPPLIES2168032
PW - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 185.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.60
FAC- Elect Supplies2168033
34Page:
Packet Page 67 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118555 4/22/2010 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
FAC- Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 140.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.34
Total :433.63
118556 4/22/2010 072519 SWERVE FLEET TRAINING 10954 INV 10954 EDMONDS PD - CRYSTAL
DRIVER COACHING - CRYSTAL
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
118557 4/22/2010 073167 T&D HOME IMPROVEMENT bld201000229 REFUND FOR BLD 201000229
Refund for BLD 20100029
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 85.00
Total :85.00
118558 4/22/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 80972735 Roadway - Supplies - Lag Screws,
Roadway - Supplies - Lag Screws,
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 857.71
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 81.48
Total :939.19
118559 4/22/2010 072468 TECHLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 00005118 TechLine Support for Voice Mail System
TechLine Support for Voice Mail System
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 23.75
Total :273.75
118560 4/22/2010 069826 TECHNICAL RESULTS GROUP LTD 3-18-10 EDMONDS PROP ROOM REV & AUDIT
REVIEW AND AUDIT OF PROP ROOM
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 472.00
Total :472.00
118561 4/22/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1691491 INV#I01691491-04082010, CUST#126500- EPD
35Page:
Packet Page 68 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118561 4/22/2010 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD 04/08/10
001.000.410.521.100.440.00 28.77
Total :28.77
118562 4/22/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1691025 NEWSPAPER AD
04/20 Hearing (Stormwater)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 55.72
NEWSPAPER AD1691026
04/20 Hearing (Dogs)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 54.04
Total :109.76
118563 4/22/2010 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 42383 Service call on Large Plotter Printer
Service call on Large Plotter Printer
001.000.620.524.100.480.00 190.75
Service call on Large Plotter Printer
001.000.620.558.600.480.00 190.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.524.100.480.00 18.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.480.00 18.12
Total :417.74
118564 4/22/2010 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 16746 SAFE.2ND FL.COMBO CHANGE
SAFE.2nd Fl. Combo Change
001.000.620.532.200.480.00 105.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.480.00 9.98
Total :114.98
118565 4/22/2010 062693 US BANK 3363 Town & Contry - Unit 10 - Part
Town & Contry - Unit 10 - Part
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 103.37
Lowes - Unit 13 - Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.91
36Page:
Packet Page 69 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118565 4/22/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Olympic Brake Supply - Unit 10 - Disc
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.07
CarQuest - Unit 88 - Sensor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.87
Wesco - Unit 473 - Plastic Car Masker
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.01
Gleason Reel - Unit 35 - Locking Dog
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 109.90
Fisheries Supply - Unit 132 - Fuse
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 162.62
Fisheries Supply - Unit M-16 - Ball
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.96
Gardner Equip - Oil Filter Crusher
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 2,535.00
Edmonds Ace Hdwr - Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 9.82
Olympic Brakes Refund for Parts3363
Olympic Brakes Refund for Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.72
SETON - PS - Sign Posts and Supports3405
SETON - PS - Sign Posts and Supports
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 142.68
Guardian Sec - Old PW - Security
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
Total :3,232.49
118566 4/22/2010 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 649.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 279.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 279.00
Total :1,207.00
37Page:
Packet Page 70 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118567 4/22/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 54.06
YOST POOL425-775-2645
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 48.15
Total :102.21
118568 4/22/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE
Police T1 Line 4/10-5/9/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 377.23
Total :377.23
118569 4/22/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.48
Total :56.48
118570 4/22/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 15.01
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 96.84
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.93
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS425-775-1534
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 160.31
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 297.72
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.42
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
38Page:
Packet Page 71 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118570 4/22/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 43.52
SEWER LS 7425-776-2742
SEWER LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56
LIFT ST 8425-778-5982
LIFT ST 8
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.81
PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :888.62
118571 4/22/2010 045515 WABO 20321 2009 Int Property Maintenance Code
2009 Int Property Maintenance Code
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 32.58
Total :32.58
118572 4/22/2010 069380 WASHINGTON CHAPTER FBINAA 5-25-10 MORRISON 5-25-10 LESSONS LEARNED - MORRISON
LESSONS LEARNED - NON-MEMBER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 60.00
Total :60.00
118573 4/22/2010 073168 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS bld20100154 Refund of BLD 20100154
Refund of BLD 20100154
39Page:
Packet Page 72 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118573 4/22/2010 (Continued)073168 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 105.00
Total :105.00
118574 4/22/2010 067230 WASHINGTON STATE 28774 INV#28774 - EDMONDS PD
3,000 SILHOUETTE TARGETS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 788.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 74.87
Total :862.98
118575 4/22/2010 062552 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 1781127 0283
WEF RENEWAL/LEIN
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 110.00
Total :110.00
118576 4/22/2010 049500 WEST PUBLISHING 820438714 CODE UPDATES
RCW Update
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 159.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 15.16
Total :174.66
118577 4/22/2010 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 0032512-IN PCB ASSY
PCB ASSY
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 543.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 21.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 53.64
Total :618.21
118578 4/22/2010 067465 WOOD, JULIA WOOD11956 GYROKINESIS
GYROKINESIS #11956
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 97.50
Total :97.50
40Page:
Packet Page 73 of 248
04/22/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
9:13:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118579 4/22/2010 045565 WSPCA WSPCA-HAWLEY2010 WSPCA 2010 DUES - EDMONDS - HAWLEY
2010 MEMBERSHIP HAWLEY & ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.490.00 45.00
Total :45.00
Bank total :779,781.34139 Vouchers for bank code :front
779,781.34Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report139
41Page:
Packet Page 74 of 248
AM-3014 2.E.
Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – April, 2010.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Time:Consent
Department:Community Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – April, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
As requested by the City Council, this report provides an update on major projects currently
worked on by staff of the Community Services and Economic Development Departments.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – April, 2010.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:07 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 10:24 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:36 AM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 04/21/2010 05:43
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 75 of 248
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Economic Development Department
Date: April 22, 2010
To: Mayor Haakenson and City Council members
From: Stephen Clifton, AICP
Community Services and Economic Development Director
Subject: Community Services and Economic Development
Quarterly Report – April, 2010
As requested by the City Council, this report provides an update on major projects currently
worked on by staff of the Community Services and Economic Development Departments.
Community Services
I. EDMONDS CROSSING
Project Description
Edmonds Crossing is a regional project intended to provide a long-term solution to current
operational and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic in
downtown Edmonds and along State Route 104. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) (including Washington State Ferries [WSF]), and City of Edmonds
propose to relocate the existing state ferry terminal from Main Street, in downtown
Edmonds, to Pt. Edwards, south of the downtown core. In the process, a multimodal center
would be established that would integrate ferry, rail, and transit services into a single
complex. A realigned SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street would provide
access. The new complex would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the
operational requirements for accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail
station designed to meet intercity passenger (Amtrak) and commuter rail (Sounder) service;
a transit center that would meet local bus system and regional transit system loading
requirements; facilities that allow both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers to
utilize various transportation modes; parking, drop-off areas, retail/ concessionaire space,
waiting areas; and a system linking these facilities to allow for the safe movement of users.
Packet Page 76 of 248
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – WSF staff continue to explore minimum build
alternatives / options for Edmonds ferry improvements.
II. SOUND TRANSIT (PHASE 1, AKA SOUND MOVE)
Project Description
During the past few years, Sound Transit has been implementing what is called the Sound
Move Plan. One element calls for commuter rail services, otherwise known as Sounder.
Commuter rail will eventually link Everett in the north with Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood in
the South, a total of 82 miles through three counties. Sounder is being implemented in
three phases, one of which includes Everett to Seattle or the North Commuter Rail corridor.
Three commuter rail stations exist along this corridor, i.e., Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds.
Everett-Seattle Sounder, at full operation, now calls for 8 trains per day, i.e., four round trips,
and will include reverse trips. This is a reduction of two round trips from the originally
proposed operational plan. Initial service will be phased in. The first roundtrip train run
began in December, 2003.
Edmonds Station is currently located between Main and Dayton Streets along both sides of
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. The station area is also co-located with
Amtrak’s Edmonds Passenger Station. The Sounder commuter rail station, once completed
will include ADA accessible rail platforms, shelters, signage, lighting fixtures, hanging flower
baskets, ticket vending machines, on-site parking, and Community Transit bus station.
In an attempt to environmental enhance Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh, a culvert will be
installed near the Marina Beach property beneath both BNSF Railroad tracks, concurrent with
the construction of a second BNSF rail line. This will allow for the eventual daylighting of
Willow Creek, if funding is available.
Significant Activities since January 22, 2010
March 26, 2010 – The City of Edmonds issued a building permit for the Sound Transit
Edmonds Commuter Rail Station.
March 25, 2010 – Sound Transit advertised Edmonds Station for bidding related to
construction. Bid opening is scheduled for April, 26, 2010 and Sound Transit anticipates
issuing a Notice to Proceed in mid June, 2010.
III. SOUND TRANSIT 2
Expanding the regional mass transit system
On Nov. 4, 2008, voters of the Central Puget Sound region approved a Sound Transit 2 ballot
measure. The plan adds regional express bus and commuter rail service while building 36
additional miles of light rail to form a 55-mile regional system. For additional information,
visit http://soundtransit.org/
Packet Page 77 of 248
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
April 15, 2010 – I attended a Sound Transit North Link Policy Advisory Committee meeting
at Mountlake Terrace.
IV. UNOCAL AKA CHEVRON SITE CLEANUP
Project Description
The UNOCAL property currently consists of a lower yard which currently contains petroleum
contamination resulting from more than 60 years of operation. Chevron, which acquired
UNOCAL, is now the entity responsible for cleaning up the site. Cleanup work at the lower
yard, which began in 2007, is a continuation of remediation work that has been ongoing at
the site since 2001. Chevron conducted the following work from summer 2007 through fall
2008:
Excavated soil with metals contamination exceeding Washington State Department of
Ecology standards in order to protect against direct contact with the soil (such as
ingestion) and impacts to the groundwater.
Excavated soil with petroleum contamination exceeding safe levels for direct contact.
Excavation of this soil was for protection of groundwater and surface water.
Excavated contaminated sediment in Willow Creek, on the northern edge of the site.
The primary excavation work at the lower yard (including the Willow Creek area) was
complete by September 2008. Over 140,000 tons of contaminated soil and 9,000 gallons of
petroleum product have been removed from the site. The lower yard site has been re-graded
and reseeded. The Willow Creek area has been re-planted with native vegetation.
Significant Activities since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – Monitoring of the site continues.
V. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
Overview
The City Council, pursuant to state law, approved the formation of the Public Facilities District
(PFD) at its April 24, 2001 meeting. A PFD is a separate municipal corporation that has
authority to undertake the design, construction, operation, promotion and financing of a
Regional Center in the city. The Public Facilities District board consists of five members
originally appointed by the City Council on June 19, 2001. Phase 1A renovation of the
original Edmonds High School Auditorium into a first class Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA)
and multipurpose facility was completed in September of 2006.
Packet Page 78 of 248
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
April, 2010 – HUD authorized the release of a 2005 grant in the amount of $72,160 and
the funds have been received by the Edmonds Public Facilities District/Center for the
Arts.
VI. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE FIELD
Overview
On July 14, 2004, a Mead & Hunt Inc. Business Travel Survey was issued which focused on
the market potential and options for Paine Field. On August 20, 2004, a Snohomish County
Citizen Cabinet issued an Economic Development Final Report -Blueprint for the Economic
Future of Snohomish County. Both reports put Paine Field in the regional spotlight as they
highlight the possibility of using Paine Field for commercial aircraft operations, thus changing
its general aviation status.
Although Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon and some County Council members
have said they do not support commercial air service at Paine Field, federal law obligates the
county to accommodate commercial service. Federal law does not allow the county to
prohibit or limit scheduled passenger air service. Instead, it requires that the county
negotiate with the airlines in good faith to accommodate their proposed service.
Horizon Airlines has indicated it wants to operate four times a day to Portland and twice per
day to Spokane, using 75-seat Bombardier Q400 turboprop airplanes on both routes.
Allegiant has said it plans to operate twice a week to Las Vegas, using 150-seat MD83 jet
aircraft.
Before airlines may begin commercial service, the FAA must amend the county’s operating
certificate for Paine Field as well as the airlines’ operating specifications. The county was
required to prepare an environmental assessment for FAA approval before those
amendments can occur.
Key points of the draft environmental assessment include:
1. Considering all current aircraft operations (take offs and landings) at Paine Field.
2. Traffic mitigation.
3. Emissions affecting air quality.
The draft environmental assessment is available for review at the airport office, on the Paine
Field Web site http://www.painefield.com/airserviceea.html, at
www.snoco.org/departments/airport and also in local public libraries.
The public now has the opportunity to review and comment on the draft environmental
assessment before a final determination is made by the FAA. Comments may be submitted
by email to cayla.morgan@faa.gov or airserviceeacomments@snoco.org. The public
comment period was extended until Feb. 5, 2010.
Packet Page 79 of 248
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
February 5, 2010 – On behalf of the City of Edmonds, I submitted a formal response to
the Draft NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Amendment of Operations
Specifications for Air Carrier Operation, Amendment of a FAR Part 139 Certificate, and
Modification and Modular Expansion of the Terminal at the Snohomish County Airport/
Paine Field. A response from Snohomish County has yet to be received.
VII. RAILROAD QUIET ZONE
Overview
As discussed on a few occasions, there is an expressed desire of the City Council and Port of
Edmonds to establish a full or partial quite zone along the City's shoreline. A quiet zone is a
section of rail line that contains one or more consecutive public crossings at which locomotive
horns are not routinely sounded.
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – Although there is no new information at this
time, e.g., studies, reports, analysis, etc., I have been communicating with a second
consulting company to discuss the possibilities/feasibility of implementing a partial or full
quiet zone.
VIII. CITY OF EDMONDS / COMCAST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
Overview
On July 14, 2008, the City of Edmonds received a letter dated October 22, 2008 from Stan
Finley, Comcast Director of Franchising and Government Affairs (Exhibit 2) regarding renewal
of the existing franchise agreement. While Comcast is asking to reach a mutually
satisfactorily agreement through an informal negotiation process pursuant to Section 626 of
the 1984 Cable Act, the second paragraph of the Comcast letter also states “to preserve our
statutory rights to this formal procedure, this letter is our official notice to you invoking that
provision.”
With a record of successfully negotiating Verizon franchise agreements, several members of
the North Puget Sound Consortium wish to form a new Consortium for the purposes of
negotiating franchise agreements with Comcast. Jurisdictions which have been invited to
participate include: Snohomish County, the Cities of Bothell, Carnation, Edmonds, Kenmore,
Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Shoreline, Woodinville, and the Town of Woodway.
Benefits of a coordinated effort include: ensuring that the public receives the maximum
rights and benefits from their respective franchise agreements; better coordination of
negotiations with Comcast; sharing the costs of negotiations including hiring a national
consultant and attorneys to assure the citizens of each jurisdiction that their franchise is
competitive, both locally and nationally; and creating a common template and negotiation
strategy through the assistance of a national consultant and attorneys to maximize leverage
during the negotiations.
Packet Page 80 of 248
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
March 17, 2010 – The North Puget Sound Consortium representatives continue to work on
a draft franchise agreement template. Ogden Murphy Wallace has a Comcast Template
which they will be reviewing with their clients such as the City of Edmonds. I will also
be discussing with Ogden Murphy Wallace whether the City will need to utilize River
Oaks Communications to help tailor the Comcast Franchise to the needs of Edmonds.
IX. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS ACQUISITION OF VERIZON
Overview
On May 13, 2009, Verizon announced plans to divest its local wireline communications
system to Frontier Communications. According to a May 19, 2009 letter to the City of
Edmonds from both entities, the transaction includes Verizon’s residential and small business
telephone lines, internet service, long-distance voice accounts, as well as Verizon’s fiber-to-
the-premises (FTTP) assets; Frontier will continue to provide video services after the
completion of the merger.
Similar to the process used to negotiate the Verizon and Comcast Interlocal Agreements,
participating entities (Consortium) to an Interlocal Agreement have jointly contracted with
River Oaks Communications and Ogden Murphy Wallace for common services as well as a
mechanism for each entity to utilize the consultant’s services, as that entity sees fit, and for
additional support in reviewing or negotiating the transfer to meet specific needs of each
participating entity.
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – Verizon Northwest and Frontier are in the
process of acquiring approvals from nine states for the transition to Frontier. To date,
seven of nine states have approved the acquisition and Verizon/Frontier are waiting for
two more state commission decisions (Illinois and West Virginia) plus the Federal
Communications Commission. Frontier has named a Senior VP General Manager for
Washington named Tim Travaille.
April 16, 2010 – Washington State got a new phone company when state regulators
approved the sale of Verizon's landline business to Frontier Communications. The
approval came with a number of conditions, including a requirement that the new owner
not raise basic phone rates for the next three years. In approving the sale, the
commission said it tried to determine which company would be best for customers.
Economic Development
Packet Page 81 of 248
I. PARTNERSHIPS
Goal 1, Policy 1a of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan is to promote a results-
oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review timelines, eliminates
unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach.
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
Goal 1 of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: ”foster a healthy business
community that provides employment and other economic opportunities.”
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January 28, 2010 – Mayor Haakenson and I met with Cascade Bank representatives to
discuss the marketing of Old Milltown and Skipper's properties. Our goal was to help
find tenants who will help add vitality to the downtown area and developers who want to
create something along the waterfront that will enhance the area and serve as an
appropriate use for the City's western gateway.
In communications with Cascade Bank prior to the meeting, I expressed that the City
has been working for some time to attract businesses that will help bring life to the City's
downtown streets during the evening hours. Edmonds’ distinctive downtown character
is defined by the diversity and concentration of complimentary commercial uses. These
uses generate pedestrian activity and a lively social environment that, in turn, sustain a
mix of uses. Creation of a critical mass of activity also helps to increase the drawing
power of the central area retail sector. To encourage a vibrant downtown within our
City, the first floor spaces in the retail core are encouraged to be designed with
adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses such as
restaurants, art galleries, etc. and that provide storefront windows that display items for
sale to the public for those walking along city streets. To encourage this type of
interaction, street front facades of buildings are to provide a high percentage of
transparent window area. The Old Milltown spaces at 5th and Dayton meet these
criteria.
Regarding the Skippers property, as a primary gateway to the community, via
Washington State Ferries, AMTRAK and Sound Transit Commuter Rail, any development
that takes place on the Skippers property must make a positive first impression. As
such, Mayor Haakenson and I requested JSH Properties market the property to
businesses that will be an asset to the City and waterfront area.
Economic Development Commission Overview
On June 2, 2009 – The City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which creates a new Citizens
Economic Development Commission (EDC) in order to determine new strategies for
economic development within the City and identify new sources of revenues. In conjunction
with the Planning Board, the new commission is to review and consider strategies designed
to improve commercial viability, tourism development, and activity.
Packet Page 82 of 248
The ED Commission consists of 17 members appointed by Mayor Gary Haakenson and the
City Council. The commission is staffed by the City’s Economic Development Director. The
Commission will make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, as well as to other
City boards or commissions as appropriate, regarding economic development strategies. The
commission will provide an annual report to the Council in December of every year. The
commission is scheduled to end on December 31, 2010. Minutes from monthly meetings
(once approved by the Edmonds EDC) can be found at
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/EconDevMinutes.stm.
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
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 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.
March 17, 2010 – The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a meeting
in the Brackett Meeting Room. The Commission discussed the six recommended higher
priority items and which categories they could fall within. The Commission agreed that
the six recommendations would fall within four categories called Strategic Planning and
Visioning; Technology; Land Use; and Tourism. A subgroup was formed for each
category and Commission Chair requested that each subgroup meet between the March
17, 2010 meeting and the April 21, 2010 meeting.
April 21, 2010 – Edmonds EDC Sub groups referenced above presented reports.
Commissioners provided comments following each presentation.
Goal 1, Policy 1f of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: ”Continue to partner
with business and economic development organizations, and address feedback from the
business community.”
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – I continue to attend monthly Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee meetings and Downtown
Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA) meetings in order to share information about
City issues and hear about Chamber and DEMA concerns.
II. BUSINESS EXPANSION, RETENTION, AND DIVERSIFICATION OF TAX
BASE
Packet Page 83 of 248
Goal 1, Policy 1c of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Encourage and
expand business expansion and retention programs. Goal 3 calls for diversifying the tax base
and increasing revenues to support local services.”
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – I continued working with property and
business owners in attempts to help find leaseable space and relocate existing
businesses, in addition to discussing potential leasing and redevelopment of buildings
and land.
III. IMPROVING BUSINESS CLIMATE
Goal 2, Policy 2e of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “explore options such
as Business Improvement Districts/Areas (special assessment districts) as a way to help
shopping areas fund marketing and beautification in a sustainable fashion.
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – Representatives from the City of Edmonds
and Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce continued to meet and discuss the
possibility of establishing a Downtown Edmonds Business Improvement Area.
Goal 2, Policy 2h of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Work to identify and
“brand” distinct business districts, where there is a natural synergy, such as the Highway 99
International District, the Stevens Hospital Medical Corridor, and the 4th Avenue Arts
Corridor.”
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – Highway 99 Enhancement Project - includes
adding street lighting fixtures and artwork along the portion of Highway 99 passing
through the International District. Light fixtures have been delivered to the City of
Edmonds. City staff received authorization from WSDOT to utilize grant funding to
prepare bid documents. The City anticipates issuing bids in June, 2010.
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – Frances Chapin continues to work on
wayfinding signage opportunities including kiosks and locator signs. Additionally, public
parking signs, utilizing the universal parking symbol, have been installed at various
locations within the downtown area to direct visitors to public parking areas. Small
directional signs to the Edmonds Center for Arts and Public Safety Complex have also
been installed.
IV. TECHNOLOGY
Goal 3, Policy 3b of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Leverage technology
assets, such as existing fiber connections, to pursue new revenue streams.”
Packet Page 84 of 248
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January, February, March, and April, 2010 – The Economic Development and Community
Services staff continue to meet monthly with the City’s Community Technology Advisory
Committee regarding existing technology assets, e.g., fiber and communications
equipment.
V. TOURISM
Goal 3, Policy 3g of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Expand tourism efforts to
take advantage of regional trends, such as nature tourism.”
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
April, 2010 – Cindi Cruz completed the City’s “Rack Brochure” for distribution in years
2010 and 2011. The brochure, which is tourism related, will be distributed throughout
Western Washington, e.g., hotels, Edmonds Log Cabin, Future of Flight Museum, ferry
terminals, etc. Funds to pay for creation of the brochure come from lodging taxes. The
brochure is more colorful than past brochures and better highlights many of the activities
available to visitors and residents. A copy of this brochure will be given to the City
Council prior to the April 27, 2010 City Council meeting.
April, 2010 – The Economic Development Department, Information Technology Division
and Parks and Recreation Cultural Services Division are working to revise Tourism Guide
web pages contained within the City of Edmonds website. As mentioned within past
Community Services and Economic Development quarterly reports, VisitEdmonds.com is
now a functioning web domain address and connects to the Visitor’s Guide on the City’s
website. This web domain will continue to be used as the primary advertising link after
the Tourism Guide web pages are revised.
NOTE: Obtaining a web domain address is different from actually formatting and
maintaining a website. At a minimum, the VisitEdmonds.com web address can be used
in ads to direct people to the City's existing and revised Visitor's Guide web pages until a
tourism website or new Visitor's Guide/tourism web pages are created.
Items of Interest
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
In March of 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced plans to invest $3.2 billion in
energy efficiency and conservation projects in U.S. cities, counties, states, territories,
and Native American tribes. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
(EECBG) program, funded by President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment
Packet Page 85 of 248
Act, will provide formula grants for projects that reduce total energy use and fossil fuel
emissions, and improve energy efficiency nationwide. The City of Edmonds received
notification that it is eligible for a $160,200 block grant under the EECBG program. The
City has until June 25, 2009 to submit an application, i.e., "claim" the grant amount, and
18 months to obligate and three years to expend the funds. This is an entitlement grant
for cities over 35,000 in population, rather than a competitive grant.
City staff conducted several meetings to discuss possible projects or programs that
might be eligible for this type of funding and have developed a preliminary list; these
projects are considered short term. City staff also participated in a DOE webcast to
learn about application submittal procedures and how the funds can be used.
In addition to the above, I contacted other entities such as the Port of Edmonds, Puget
Sound Energy, Snohomish County PUD, Edmonds School District and Stevens Hospital,
to find out whether they might have projects which are small in scale but could be
included in our grant application under a partnership proposal. We are not looking to
expend the grant money on a single project, and we have already identified more than
enough City of Edmonds projects to expend all of the grant money (several times over).
I requested representatives from these entities to share whether they have a project
that (1) would have benefits for the entire community, (2) could be small enough in
terms of cost to fit within an overall multi-project application, and (3) would have
measurable, identifiable results. Examples of projects we are considering include energy-
efficient equipment retrofits, vehicle replacement, traffic signal timing, energy code
training and information programs, and software that can turn off electronic equipment
during late night non-working hours. The second reason I contact these entities is to
explore opportunities for partnering on projects that may go beyond the funding
available in this first round of block grants. US-DOE has indicated that there will be a
"competitive round" of grants available, although details have not been established. We
believe that grant applications emphasizing partnering on a community or regional level
will be what DOE is looking for, especially those that have long-term effects and can
serve as "demonstration projects" for others to access. Announcement of the EECBG
opportunity was shared with, and a proposed project list was also reviewed by, the
Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee.
On September 22, 2009, the City was notified that the Department of Energy has awarded an
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant to the City of Edmonds. The award is the full
amount referenced in the March 2009 eligibility announcement ($160,200). The funds
will be used for the following six different projects. Announcement of the EECBG
opportunity was shared with, and the attached proposed project list was also reviewed
by, the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee.
Project 1 - PC Energy Management (federal funds)
Purchase and install energy management software for City computers (PC's).
Enables automatic shut-down and management of upgrades. The cost covered
under the grant is for the purchase of the software and licenses to cover
Packet Page 86 of 248
Project 2 - Network Server Energy Upgrades – (federal funds)
Purchase and install energy-efficient PC network servers, replacing old servers
still in use. Estimated project cost should enable four (4) servers to be replaced.
Existing servers will be taken out of service, thereby reducing overall energy
usage.
Project 3 - Residential & Commercial Energy Meters (federal and local non-federal
funds)
Purchase energy meters to support residential and commercial energy
monitoring, partnering with ongoing programs operated by local utilities.
Establish public information plan, coordinated with the utilities, which provides
educational resources and web-based support. The meters would be available for
loan to private citizens or businesses to help monitor and assess energy needs,
encouraging conservation and energy reduction.
This program will consist of two components: (1) the purchase of home energy
meters for loan to residential households and businesses within the city, and (2)
website development to promote the meter program and enable homeowners to
log their experiences and energy savings, and to encourage others to participate
and ultimately save energy.
Two types of meters will be purchased, which can be loaned out as a “set.” One
meter will be similar to a simple plug-in meter (e.g. the P3 International Kill A
Watt EZ Electricity Usage Monitor) which allows monitoring of appliance energy
consumption. The second type of meter (e.g. PowerCost Home Electricity
Monitor) is a unit that will interface with the home electric utility meter, allowing
monitoring of overall electrical energy used in the home. In tandem, these will
allow homeowners to monitor and potentially reduce overall energy usage. The
meters will be loaned out free of charge, for a defined time period, with
information on usage and savings to be reported as feedback to help assess the
benefits of the program.
The second part of the program is an enhancement to the City’s website to
promote and provide for online reporting and feedback on the effectiveness of
the program. Privacy will be afforded users, but reporting will be required of
residents choosing to participate in the program so as to provide some
measurement of effectiveness.
Project 4 - Heating System Design and Feasibility Study (federal funds)
A consultant will be hired to perform an analysis and feasibility study to replace
the Frances Anderson Cultural Center (a heavily used community center) steam
boiler heating system with ground source heat pumps or an alternative energy-
Packet Page 87 of 248
Project 5 - Purchase Hybrid Vehicles – (federal and local non-federal funds)
The City would purchase up to seven (7) hybrid vehicles to replace existing low-
efficiency City vehicles. EECBG funds can only be used to fund the delta between
the cost of a hybrid vehicle (or Alternative Fuel Vehicle – AFV) and the cost of a
non-hybrid vehicle (or non-AFV). Existing mid-size cars and trucks/pickups would
be replaced with small hybrid cars and hybrid utility vehicles (SUV’s). The
average fuel efficiency of the existing vehicles ranges from 8 to 22 MPG while the
new hybrid replacements provide between 32 and 50 MPG.
When purchasing vehicles, the City uses Washington State contracting
procedures and contract listing prices. According to the State of Washington
Current Contract Information, there are two types of small sedan AFV vehicles
available and one small SUV AFV vehicle available for purchase using this
process.
Note: It is possible that the City may consider the purchase of an electric police
scooter and/or other electric sedan(s) in lieu of one or more of the hybrid
vehicles identified above as technology and availability improves. This is
dependant on availability and pricing within the required 3-year expenditure
window.
Project 6 - Low-Energy Lighting Retrofit – (federal funds)
Existing exterior lighting of the outdoor work yard at the Public Works facility is
provided by traditional, inefficient 150-watt high pressure sodium fixtures. Based
on discussions with the electrical utility provider (Snohomish PUD), the City has
determined that energy and cost savings are possible if the existing lights are
replaced with low-energy lumen-equivalent lights, such as LED fixtures. This
project would complement ongoing City efforts to replace existing lighting
fixtures with more energy efficient lights.
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
January 28, 2010 – Project 2 energy efficient PC network servers were purchased by
the City. Request for payment in the amount of $23,118 up to $27,705.39 (full
cost) will be submitted to the Department of Energy on January 11, 2010 for
reimbursement.
March 11, 2010 – One Project 5 Hybrid Toyota Prius was purchased by the City of
Edmonds. Request for payment in the amount of $9,628.67 will be submitted to
the Department of Energy for reimbursement. As mentioned above,
reimbursement is for the delta between the cost of a hybrid vehicle (or Alternative
Fuel Vehicle – AFV) and the cost of a non-hybrid vehicle (or non-AFV). Using this
Packet Page 88 of 248
NOTE: The Prius replaces an older City vehicle which will be surplused and sold
helping further offset the cost of the new hybrid vehicle.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe – Installation of Second Rail Line
As a part of the Sound Transit’s Sound Move, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) will
be installing a second rail line alongside the existing rail line between the areas north of
Downtown Edmonds and south of Marina Beach Park. During a meeting with Sound
Transit earlier this year, BNSF presented a plan depicting what BNSF believes to be the
final alignment and realignment of the second and existing rail lines respectively. The
plan depicts Port of Edmonds and City of Edmonds leased areas in addition to what
portions of the leased areas BNSF intends to take back from both entities as a result of
the above mentioned activities. Upon reviewing the plan, City staff requested that BNSF
survey and stake/mark in the field where the fencing (west side of tracks) is to be
located. The City and Port of Edmonds submitted this request in order to begin assessing
future impacts, and planning for post installation/realignment of the rail lines.
As expressed on a number of occasions to BNSF, the City and Port are concerned about
potential impacts related to realignment and installation of BNSF rail lines. We are
equally concerned about the amount of time the City and Port may have to react to any
decision(s) made by BNSF and the potential financial impacts to our budgets. Depending
on the magnitude of BNSF construction related impacts, the City and Port of Edmonds
may not have the staffing and financial resources to mitigate the impacts. The City has
asked BNSF representatives if they have a mitigation fund set aside to mitigate adverse
impacts. To date, we have not heard back from BNSF.
Based on BNSF engineering plans and field stakes, there will be impacts to Admiral Way
and Marina Beach Park. As mentioned in the 2010 Community Services and Economic
Development Quarterly Reports, the City secured the services of an engineering firm in
order to fully determine the impact and possibly design a new Admiral Way alignment
that will maintain access to Marina Beach Park, Port of Edmonds and existing parking
areas (see Significant Activities below).
Regarding a timeline related to the installation of a BNSF second rail line, BNSF has
begun grading south of Dayton Street and the installation and relocation of the existing
and second rail lines respectively, could begin sometime in 2011 and 2012.
Significant Activities Since January 22, 2010
April, 2010 – BNSF has yet to formally respond to a request from the City and Port of
Edmonds to fund improvements necessary of offset impacts created from installation
and relocation of the existing and proposed rail lines respectively. The City and Port are
working to elevate this issue to a higher level at BNSF and perhaps legislative officials.
Packet Page 89 of 248
15
Packet Page 90 of 248
AM-3012 2.F.
Addendum to Professional Services Agreement with Herrera Environmental
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater
Management Program Update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council to authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement
with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater
Management Program Update.
Previous Council Action
On September 16, 2008, Council authorized Staff to advertise for statements of qualifications for
the engineering consultant services for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater
Management Program Update.
On December 16, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement
with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater
Management Program Update.
Narrative
This addendum will provide additional engineering consulting services to support the City’s
Stormwater Management Program and comply with the provisions of the state-issued Western
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.
The following items are expansions of tasks that were in the original scope of services:
1. Providing support for cost estimating additional capital improvement projects.
2. Providing additional computer modeling in support of the development of revised stormwater
management standards for development projects including, pre-sizing tables of best management
practices, such as rain gardens and infiltration trenches.
The following items are additional tasks added to the original scope of work:
1. Providing training to 15 City staff to identify and respond to illicit discharges to the City-owned
stormwater system.
2. Providing additional technical support to the development of a Stormwater Code Supplement to
Packet Page 91 of 248
guide developer and homeowners to the Best Management Practices that comply with the revised
Stormwater code.
The original amount approved by Council on December 16, 2008 was $184,633. The additional
budget to fulfill the revised scope of services is $38,062, bringing the total contract amount to
$222,695. The additional budget to fund this Addendum will come from the dollars remaining in
the original budget, a grant from the Department of Ecology to support stormwater programs, and
from the 412-200 Stormwater utility fund.
The original amount budgeted for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan in the 2009-2010 Final
City Budget was $200,000. When the original contract with Herrera was signed for less than the
budgeted amount, it was anticipated additional tasks may be added. Therefore, the $15, 367
remaining the original budget will go into this contract addendum.
The City received a $50,000 grant from the Department of Ecology this year to assist with
compliance with the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. This grant is being spent on a variety
of public education, infrastructure mapping, spill prevention planning, and training initiatives to
keep the City in compliance with the Permit. To assist the City in complying with the stormwater
issues related to development contained in the Permit, $13,333 of the grant money will be used in
this Addendum to fund the Stormwater Code Supplement. The balance of the additional amount
($9,362) will come from the utility fund.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit A-Scope
Link: Exhibit B-Addendum
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 04/22/2010 12:12 PM APRV
2 Public Works Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:34 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:56 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 02:57 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:59 PM APRV
Form Started By: Megan
Cruz
Started On: 04/21/2010 11:25
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 92 of 248
rs edmonds stormwater comp plan supplemental scope of work.doc
April 20, 2010 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants
City of Edmonds Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and
Stormwater Management Program Update
Supplemental Scope of Work and Budget
The City of Edmonds (City) is updating its stormwater management policies, programs, and
capital improvement project plans to comply with current and future regulatory requirements and
to effectively address the City’s ongoing stormwater-related needs. Herrera Environmental
Consultants (Herrera) is assisting the City in updating several aspects of its stormwater
management work, culminating in development of a Storm and Surface Water Management
Comprehensive Plan that will serve as a guidance document for the City’s stormwater program.
This scope of work supplements the original contract scope of work, and describes the services
that Herrera will perform for the City in developing that plan, and in preparing educational
materials related to the plan. The City has limited funding to complete a variety of tasks in this
effort, while Herrera has found that some of the originally scoped tasks required more and less
effort than envisioned. Two tasks are also added to the original scope of work.
This scope of work summarizes the work that remains to be completed on tasks in the original
scope of work, and details the work of two new tasks. The overall intention of this supplemental
scope of work is to outline a plan for completing the desired work within the available funding.
Table 1 at the end of this supplemental scope of work lists the original contract budget by task
and the actual budget needed per task. The tasks included in the supplemented contract between
the City and Herrera are as follows:
Task 1 – Review Available Information
Task 2 – Stormwater Program Gap Analysis and Needs Assessment
Task 3 – Update Drainage CIP Project Plans and Priorities
Task 4 – Develop Stormwater Management Design Requirements
Task 5 – Develop Tools for Small Sites
Task 6 – Public Education and Outreach
Task 7 – Develop Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program
Task 8 – Evaluate Funding Needs for Stormwater Programs
Task 9 – Prepare Draft Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Report
Task 10 – Prepare Final Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Report
Task 11 – Revise Municipal Code
Task 12 – Assist with City Council Approval Process and Initial Plan Implementation Phase
Task 13 – Project Management/Contract Administration.
Task 14 – NPDES Permit Compliance Training
Task 15 – Prepare Stormwater Manual Supplement
Packet Page 93 of 248
rs edmonds stormwater comp plan supplemental scope of work.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 2 April 20, 2010
Task 1 – Review Available Information
This task was completed in 2009. The work performed on this task generally fit well within the
original scope of work and the budget for this task.
Task 2 – Stormwater Program Gap Analysis and Needs Assessment
This task is complete as of April 2010.
Additional items supplementing the original scope of work:
Herrera performed detailed analysis of staffing needs for engineering and operations and
maintenance staff to support definition of program funding requirements for 2010, 2011, and
2012. This additional work included breakdown of staffing requirements by NPDES permit
compliance elements in a spreadsheet, coordination with City staff on that breakdown, several
rounds of revisions to the breakdown of labor hours, and preparation of two technical
memoranda documenting the staffing needs.
Task 3 – Update Drainage CIP Project Plans and Priorities
This task will be complete in late April 2010.
Additional items supplementing the original scope of work:
The original scope of work for this task called for Herrera to perform one day of site
reconnaissance to support documentation of up to 20 individual CIP projects. To adequately
characterize existing CIP site conditions and develop conceptual design solutions, Herrera
conducted a total of four site reconnaissance trips. The final CIP summary sheet submittal
includes 19 projects; however, Herrera evaluated a total of 26 sites and developed interim cost
estimates and summary sheets for all 26 sites in order to facilitate review and consideration by
the City. The cost estimates for each of those 19 projects have also been revised numerous times
in coordination with the City. Additionally, Herrera developed a database that links the project
description, concept graphics, and cost information to a presentation template that streamlines
the City’s ability to update the CIP project summary sheets in the future. The extra work
performed on this task consumed much more budget than originally anticipated.
$5,000 of additional budget is allocated to this task in the contract supplement.
Task 4 – Develop Stormwater Management Design Requirements
This task is complete as of April 2010.
Additional items supplementing the original scope of work:
Packet Page 94 of 248
rs edmonds stormwater comp plan supplemental scope of work.doc
April 20, 2010 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants
The original scope of work for this task assumed that Herrera would develop recommendations
for stormwater management requirements based on a qualitative evaluation only (i.e., a
quantitative analysis was explicitly excluded). Per the City’s request, robust quantitative
analyses were performed to develop project site thresholds and stormwater management
performance targets appropriate for the City. Specifically, the following subtasks were
completed at the City’s request:
Subtask 1: The current City standards for small sites were analyzed to evaluate the current level
of protectiveness. The BMP sizes required by City flow control standards for sites less than 1
acre in size were evaluated for a representative detention facility (detention pipe) and infiltration
facility (bioretention facility). BMPs were sized to meet the current City stormwater standards
using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method and HydroCAD software.
Subtask 2: The BMP sizes required to meet the existing City standards were compared to those
required by other jurisdictions. Detention and bioretention facilities were sized to meet the City
of Seattle and Washington State Department of Ecology duration-based flow control standards
using WWHM3Pro software and the default precipitation data for Edmonds (the Everett gage
data with precipitation factor of 0.8). Bioretention facilities were also sized to meet the small-site
standards for Normandy Park, Bainbridge Island, and King County using each jurisdiction’s
available pre-sized methods.
Subtask 3: The current City standard for small sites was updated to base it on continuous
simulation runoff modeling. Detention pipe and bioretention facilities were sized to meet the
current standards and then evaluated using WWHM3Pro software, a continuous model with a
158-year precipitation timeseries. Based on this evaluation, maximum allowable release rates for
various scenarios (2-, 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval flows as determined using
continuous modeling) were developed for creek and capacity constrained basin standards. These
proposed release rates (i.e., updated standards and methods) are approximately equivalent to the
existing standards, provide a similar level of protection, and result in a similar flow control
facility size.
Subtask 4: The effect of a minimum detention orifice size on the feasibility and protectiveness of
the Ecology and proposed City flow control standards was evaluated for a range of contributing
areas. Recommendations were made regarding the minimum allowable orifice size and the
applicability of detention for small projects.
Subtask 5: The modeling methods, results and recommendations were included in a preliminary
draft, draft and final memorandum.
Subtask 6: To further evaluate the proposed standards for detention, Herrera evaluated an
example single family residential project with greater than 5,000 square feet of new plus
replaced impervious surface. The mitigation required by the City’s existing code (i.e., vault size)
was evaluated in WWHM to determine if the proposed standards would be equally protective for
this project.
Packet Page 95 of 248
rs edmonds stormwater comp plan supplemental scope of work.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 4 April 20, 2010
$10,000 of additional budget is allocated to this task in the contract supplement.
Task 5 – Develop Tools for Small Sites
This task is scheduled to be complete by May 2010. The work performed on this task generally
fit well within the original scope of work and the budget for this task. Remaining work includes
preparation of a final technical memorandum documenting the methods and results of pre-sizing
selected BMPs for small sites, and producing a handout that the City can give to developers.
Task 6 – Public Education and Outreach
This task is ongoing as of March 2010. The work being done on this task is less than planned in
the original contract scope of work and budget for this task, therefore some of the budget for this
task is reallocated to other tasks that need it.
Task 7 – Develop Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program
This task was begun in 2009, but has been on hold for quite some time. Due to the need to
allocate additional funds to other tasks in this scope of work, this task is eliminated in the
contract supplement.
Task 8 – Evaluate Funding Needs for Stormwater Programs
This task is ongoing as of April 2010. The work being done on this task fits within the original
contract scope of work and budget for this task.
Task 9 – Prepare Draft Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Report
This task is ongoing as of April 2010. To enable completion of the project within available
funding, Herrera’s effort in producing the draft plan will be scaled back somewhat, and the City
will assist in writing sections of the plan to a slightly greater extent than originally envisioned.
Task 10 – Prepare Final Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Report
This task has not yet begun as of April 2010. The original contract scope of work can be
expected to apply as planned. Revisions of the draft plan report to create the final version will be
a shared responsibility between Herrera and the City, reflecting lead author roles in developing
the draft plan.
Packet Page 96 of 248
rs edmonds stormwater comp plan supplemental scope of work.doc
April 20, 2010 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants
Task 11 – Revise Municipal Code
This task is ongoing as of April 2010, with intent of having the updated stormwater code adopted
by City Council in late April. The original contract scope of work and budget generally fits with
the work being performed on this task.
Task 12 – Assist with City Council Approval Process and Initial Plan Implementation
Phase
This task is ongoing as of April 2010. The original contract scope of work and budget generally
fits with the work being performed on this task.
Task 13 – Project Management/Contract Administration
This task is ongoing as of April 2010. The original contract scope of work and budget generally
fits with the work being performed on this task.
Task 14 – NPDES Permit Compliance Training (new task)
Herrera prepared for and provided IDDE awareness and response level training sessions to City
of Edmonds staff on July 15, 2009 to enable the City of meet one of its NPDES permit
requirements.
$3,062 of additional budget is allocated to this new task in the contract supplement.
Task 15 – Prepare Stormwater Manual Supplement (new task)
Herrera will assist the City in preparing a technical supplement to its updated stormwater code
that describes specific stormwater management requirements for all development and
redevelopment project sites in Edmonds, referencing requirements set forth by the Washington
State Department of Ecology and potentially other “equivalent” stormwater manuals in western
Washington. Herrera will work collaboratively with City staff in developing this supplement.
Assumptions:
No in-person meetings with City staff will be needed to prepare the stormwater
manual supplement. Coordination required for preparation of the supplement will be
accomplished via frequent telephone and email communications.
Herrera and the City will coordinate early on determining source content for key
sections of the supplement.
Herrera will send preliminary draft sections of the supplement content for which it is
responsible to the City’s project manager for review and comment, and will
Packet Page 97 of 248
rs edmonds stormwater comp plan supplemental scope of work.doc
Herrera Environmental Consultants 6 April 20, 2010
incorporate comments received into the complete draft supplement that is submitted
for wider review.
Herrera will review and comment on draft sections prepared by the City in a timely
manner to support the desired schedule set by the City.
Herrera will compile a complete draft of all sections of the supplement, incorporating
sections led by Herrera and sections led by the City.
This task includes technical editing on the entire supplement for readability,
consistency, and user-friendliness.
Deliverables:
Herrera will submit draft-in-progress sections of stormwater manual supplement
content to the City’s project manager in the form of Microsoft Word files sent via
email, for review and comment.
Comments and text revisions in the form of tracked edits in Microsoft Word files for
portions of the supplement prepared by the City.
Final draft stormwater manual supplement – electronic file in Adobe Acrobat format
and 2 hard copies (incorporating sections authored by the City)
Final stormwater manual supplement - electronic file in Adobe Acrobat format and 2
hard copies, incorporated comments received in public meetings and from other City
reviewers.
$20,000 of additional budget is allocated to this new task in the contract supplement.
TOTAL ORIGIINAL CONTRACT BUDGET: $184,633
ADDITIONAL BUDGET INCLUDED IN CONTRACT SUPPLEMENT: $38,062
TOTAL REVISED CONTRACT BUDGET: $222,695
Packet Page 98 of 248
ADDENDUM NUMBER 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update and Stormwater Program Update
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and
Herrera Environmental Consultants hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”, entered into an
underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project
known as Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update and Stormwater Program Update project,
dated December 30, 2008 and
WHEREAS, two additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified
with regard to 1) Staff Training for illicit discharge identification, response, and enforcement;
and 2) Authoring a technical supplement to the new draft stormwater code. In addition, the
following existing tasks were expanded 1) Updated Drainage Capital Improvement Project
Plans and Priorities; and 2) Develop Stormwater Management Design Requirements; NOW,
THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of December 30, 2008 between the parties,
incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the
following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement
shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the
stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if
herein set forth.
1.2 The $184,633 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement
and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional
not to exceed amount of $38,062 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this
addendum. As a result of this addendum, the total contract amount is increased to a new total
not-to-exceed amount of $ 222,695 ($184,633 plus $38,062).
1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost
reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached
Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein.
Packet Page 99 of 248
Original Contract No. 5191
Addendum No. 1 Reference No.
DONE this day of , 20 .
CITY OF EDMONDS HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
By: By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson Title:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20____, before me, the under-signed, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared , to me known to be the of
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the
seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 100 of 248
AM-3011 2.G.
Surplus Exercise Equipment
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus exercise equipment.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that authorization be given to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus
exercise equipment as it has proven to be a very cost effective method to surplus vehicles and
other City surplus items.
Previous Council Action
City Council has previously approved contracting with James G. Murphy for the sale of Public
Works surplus vehicles and general equipment.
Narrative
On April 10, 2010, the Public Works Department was given a universal gym as a donation. This
required the removal of surplus equipment, listed below, that Public Works did not have room
for. The following four pieces of equipment were acquired from the Fire Department fifteen (15)
plus years ago for use in the Public Work's exercise room.
The following equipment has been deemed surplus and has a total surplus value of $250.
Nautilus 145738
Stair Master 4000PT
Randal Windracer Stationary Bicycle
Nordic Track 900
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:$250
Expenditure:0.00
Fiscal Impact:
Proceeds from the auction will be deposited into the City General Fund account.
Attachments
Packet Page 101 of 248
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 01:41 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 01:42 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:27 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 04/21/2010 08:29
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 102 of 248
AM-2983 2.H.
Return 1938 Ford Fire Engine to the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Chattel Deed relating to the return of a 1938 Ford fire engine
(Model: FIREEX VIN#:1184892) to the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend that the Mayor sign a Chattel Deed (Exhibit 1), returning the 1938 Ford fire engine to
the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation per §C-2. of the Transfer Agreement (Exhibit 2) signed in
February 2004.
Previous Council Action
In February 2004, authorization was given to the Mayor to sign a Transfer Agreement (Exhibit
2) with the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation, allowing the City of Edmonds to store, use and
display a 1938 Ford fire Engine (Model FIREEX VIN#:1184892).
Narrative
The 1938 Ford fire engine has been displayed at the Edmonds Fire Department since February
2004 when a Transfer Agreement (Exhibit 2) was signed by the City to maintain and store the
engine. In December 2009, the Edmonds Fire Department was transferred to Fire District 1. The
District is not able to store the vehicle on behalf of the City at Fire Station 17 any longer due to
Fire District 1's apparatus storage needs. A suggestion by the Edmonds Fire Foundation was to
store the fire truck at the old public works site on 2nd and Dayton. Currently, at the 2nd and
Dayton site, no extra storage space is available. Art Works leases 3 of the 5 storage bays leaving
2 storage bays (50x60) for city use. The space is used to house multiple city departments,
treatment plant, parks, water/sewer, streets, parks and recreation, police impound overflow storage,
and a staging areas for current and future city projects (treatment plant upgrade and Hwy 99
lighting projects). Emergency supplies for the Red Cross are also stored inside the storage area.
The Transfer Agreement (Exhibit 2) required, in §C-2 that the City offer to transfer the 1938 Ford
fire engine back to the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation if, in its sole discretion, it is no longer
willing or able to maintain or store the engine. Therefore, the City Attorney has drafted a Chattel
Deed (Exhibit 1), which completes the return of the Fire Engine to the Edmonds Fire Safety
Foundation as the 2004 Transfer Agreement (Exhibit 2) provides.
Fiscal Impact
Packet Page 103 of 248
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Chattel Deed
Link: Exhibit 2 - Agreement Relating to the Transfer of 1938 Ford Fire Engine
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 01:41 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 01:42 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:27 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 04/14/2010 08:30
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 104 of 248
Packet Page 105 of 248
Packet Page 106 of 248
Packet Page 107 of 248
Packet Page 108 of 248
AM-3021 2.I.
Loyalty Day Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Loyalty Day, May 1, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Loyalty Day was established in 1958 by the U.S. Congress in order to reaffirm our loyalty to the
United States and the documents upon which it was founded. Loyalty Day is designated as May 1
of every year.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 11:54 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 01:17 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 01:41 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/22/2010 11:03
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 109 of 248
Packet Page 110 of 248
AM-2951 3.
Future of the Senior Center
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Future of the Senior Center.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Senior center leaders have asked for the opportunity to address the City Council regarding Center
activities and plans for the future. They have also asked the Council to review and consider the
continuing effect of Council Resolution 342, passed October 21, 1975.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1: McNulty e-mail re Sr. Center
Link: Attach 2: Reso 342 re Sr. Center
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:25 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 10:26 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:36 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/01/2010 09:03
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 111 of 248
Packet Page 112 of 248
Packet Page 113 of 248
AM-3017 4.
Council President Comments on Budget Outlook
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Council President comments on budget outlook.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
"The Mayor's most recent five-year projection (attached) disclose annual, year-to-year labor cost
increases of 6.7% (2011), 4.4% (2012), 5.7% (2013), 4.4% (2014), 4.5% (2015) and 4.6% (2016).
Put another way, the mayor's forecasts that our current annual labor budget of $16.5 million
increases by 35% in five years. Based on the Mayor's projections, all of the annual labor savings
allegedly incurred by selling the fire department -- $6.7 million per year -- ALL of it is completely
restored to the remaining labor budget (with 54 fewer employees) after only five years.
QUESTION: Should the City abandon plans to enhance the waterfront area in order to raise city
payroll more than five percent per year, compounded annually?
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1: 5 Year Outlook
Link: Attach 2: Budget Information Request E-mails
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:19 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 10:24 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:36 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/22/2010 09:54
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 114 of 248
Packet Page 115 of 248
Packet Page 116 of 248
Packet Page 117 of 248
Packet Page 118 of 248
Packet Page 119 of 248
Packet Page 120 of 248
Packet Page 121 of 248
AM-3023 5.
Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals for Professional Labor Negotiator
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals for Professional Labor Negotiator to Assist
with City Labor Negotiations.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
During the April 13, 2010 Council Finance Committee upcoming labor negotiations were
discussed - please see attached minutes.
Narrative
Council President Bernheim will ask the Council to approve preparation of a public solicitation of
interest from professional labor negotiators to assist the City with upcoming labor negotiations.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: April 13, 2010 Finance Committee Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 05:09 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 05:10 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 05:20 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/22/2010 11:47
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 122 of 248
Packet Page 123 of 248
AM-3002 6.
Public Comment Regarding Possible Purchase of Skipper's Property
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public comment regarding possible purchase of Skipper's property.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Council will take public comment regarding the possible purchase of the Skipper's property.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 04:57 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 05:01 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 05:20 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/16/2010 08:53
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 124 of 248
AM-3015 7.
Funding and Grant Options for Skipper's Property
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:30 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation by Parks Department on funding and grant options for Skipper's property.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
This report will provide background information in response to a request by Council President
Bernheim to illustrate Parks & Recreation's grant seeking efforts and how they may relate to the
.37 acre Skipper's property. This information is related to possible park funding should the future
use of the property ultimately be to develop the site as a park.
The predominant state grant funding program for parks is the Washington Wildlife & Recreation
Program (WWRP) administered by the Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO). This program
provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation opportunities
including park acquisition and development.
Grant Type, Process, & Timing
The WWRP provides funding in 11 categories with funding support split between a Habitat
Conservation Account (i.e. Critical Habitat, Urban Wildlife, etc.), an Outdoor Recreation Account
(i.e. Local Parks, Trails, etc.), a Riparian Protection Account, and a Farmlands Preservation
Account. This property would only be eligible for the Local Parks category. In 2010 the grant
cap is $1,000,000 for acquisition projects in the Local Parks category, $500,000 for development
projects, or $1,000,000 for a combination of both. Generally, a 50% match is required. If funding
remains at the same level as adopted in the 2009 Legislative session, approximately $7-8 million
may be available in the Local Parks category.
In the previous grant cycle (2008) 76 Local Parks projects were submitted requesting $31m. 21
projects were funded for a total of $7.85m.
Packet Page 125 of 248
Applications for the Local Parks category are accepted early in May in even years only
-oral project presentations are in August
-projects are ranked in October
-the Recreation & Conservation Funding Board considers and approves the list and forwards it
to the Governor's Office for inclusion into the capital budget request to the State Legislature
-the Legislature determines the funding level in the spring
-the Legislature approves a list of projects
-the Recreation & Conservation Funding Board makes the final funding award
-the funds are available late summer, more than a full year after the application.
If an acquisition grant is received for real property, it is locked in for that park use in perpetuity. It
cannot be "bought out", resold, or the park use changed in any way.
Waiver of Retroactivity
Based on written justification by an applicant regarding the critical need to purchase property
before funding approval, the RCO Director may issue a "Waiver of Retroactivity". Such a waiver
allows the acquisition project to remain eligible for reimbursement through two consecutive grant
cycles. The waiver application and all required attachments (Attachment #1 Waiver of
Retroactivity Checklist) are required as soon as possible and must be submitted before closing
escrow and taking title to a property. There is no guarantee of funding if a waiver is granted; the
project competes with all other projects for funding.
Will the Project Score High Enough?
The Local Parks category is for "outdoor recreation" and there must be a specific outdoor
recreation park need and use identified. A landscaped area would not qualify. Community
centers, concessionaire buildings, environmental learning centers, gyms, and covered pools or
rinks do not qualify for funding. Walkways and paths as part of a bigger park project would be
included.
Evaluation Criteria
Projects are evaluated on 10 criteria as outlined in Attachment #2
1. Public Need - considers existing facilities in service area. Areas with fewer outdoor rec sites
score higher.
2. Project scope - does the scope meet deficient recreational opportunities within the service area?
3. Project Design - n/a for acquisition
4. Immediacy of Threat - is there a threat to the public availability of the resources the site
possesses?
5. Site Suitability - is it well-suited for its intended recreational use?
6. Expansion/Renovation - will this expand an existing recreation area?
7. Project support - the extent the public has been informed and/or support for the project is
apparent.
Packet Page 126 of 248
8. Cost Efficiencies - demonstrates efficiencies through use of volunteers, donations, cooperative
agreements
9. GMA Preference - not evaluated, City qualifies
10. Population Proximity - not evaluated, set score
A challenge for this site would be to convince the Evaluation Team that this property is
contiguous with the existing waterfront parks and an expansion or continuation of them (criteria
#6) given its separation due to the railroad tracks and Railroad Avenue/Main Street .
Specific intended recreational use needs to be identified.
Cost of Development, Maintenance & Operations
Until a specific use for the property has been identified it is difficult to estimate development costs
or M & O costs. These depend on intensity of use and what amenities are to be present at the site.
Other Funding Sources
One possible source for development funds could be Federal Transportation Enhancement
(TE) Grants. This is the grant program currently funding the Highway 99 Lighting / International
District project. Attachment #3 outlines eligible projects that can be funded by this program.
Recent Grants for Edmonds Parks Projects (Attachment 4)
Hickman Park: RCO Acquisition (using Waiver of Retroactivity) $ 500,000 (max at that
time)
Snohomish County (from county mitigation funds) 1,200,000 (these funds no
longer available)
Shell Valley: RCO Urban Wildlife (using waiver) 100,000
Interurban Trail: RCO Trail Grant 577,000
PSRC Transportation CMAQ Grants (2) 750,000
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor (Park Service - Preserve America) 50,000
Dayton Street Plaza (local organizations) 25,000
Total $3,202,000
Efforts to secure Federal appropriations in 2009 (Interurban Trail) and State Capital Budget -
Local Community Project grants in 2006, 2007, 2009 (Former Woodway H.S.) have been
unsuccessful.
Packet Page 127 of 248
Current REET Status
REET (Real Estate Excise Tax) funds are collected each time there is a real estate transaction in
Edmonds. The total amount collected is one-half of one percent of the purchase price. These are
the funds used by the department when grant applications require matching grants.
This collection is split into two equal parts:
-the first 1/4 (.25%) collected goes into Fund 126 used for Specialized Capital Projects &
Debt Service.
-the second 1/4 (.25%) goes into Fund 125 used for park capital improvements.
Current REET collection projections for 2010 are approximately $531,000 for each fund and are
collected monthly.
Current (April 21) balances in each fund are: Fund 126 $ 547,557
Fund 125 $ 768,828
please note: Fund126 is encumbered by debt service of approximately $700,000 per year for
debt on
City Hall, Marina Beach, ECA, the Library roof, and the Anderson Center
Seismic retrofit.
Fund 125 2010 projects (Interurban, 75/76th St Walkway/Haines Wharf Park,
Dayton St.
Plaza, Yost Pool repairs, miscellaneous small projects) will account for most of
these funds this
year.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Waiver
Link: Evaluation criteria
Link: TE Grant
Link: Recent grants
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:57 PM APRV
Packet Page 128 of 248
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:57 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 02:57 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 02:59 PM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 04/21/2010 06:03
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 129 of 248
Packet Page 130 of 248
Attachment 2
Evaluation Criteria
Projects are evaluated on the following 10 criteria:
1. Public Need
- considers existing facilities in service area. Areas with fewer outdoor rec
sites score higher.
2. Project scope
- does the scope meet deficient recreational opportunities within the
service area?
3. Project Design
- n/a for acquisition
4. Immediacy of Threat
- is there a threat to the public availability of the resources the site
possesses?
5. Site Suitability
- is it well-suited for its intended recreational use?
6. Expansion/Renovation
- will this expand an existing recreation area?
7. Project support
- the extent the public has been informed and/or support for the project is
apparent.
8. Cost Efficiencies
- demonstrates efficiencies through use of volunteers, donations,
cooperative agreements
9. GMA Preference - not evaluated, City qualifies
10. Population Proximity - not evaluated, set score
Packet Page 131 of 248
Attachment 3
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT (TE) GRANT
The following 12 activities can be funded by this program:
1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles
2. Provision of safety and educational activities for
pedestrians and bicyclists
3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic
sites (including historic battlefields)
4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including provision
of tourist/welcome center facilities)
5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification
6. Historic preservation
7. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation
buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic
railroad facilities and canals)
8. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors
9. Inventory control and removal of outdoor advertising
10. Archaeological planning and research
11. Environmental mitigation
12. Establishment of transportation museums
Packet Page 132 of 248
Attachment 4
Recent Grants for Edmonds Parks Projects
Hickman Park
RCO Acquisition (using Waiver of Retroactivity) $ 500,000 (max at that time)
Snohomish County (mitigation funds; no longer available) 1,200,000
Shell Valley
RCO Urban Wildlife (using Waiver) 100,000
Interurban Trail
RCO Trail Grant 577,000
PSRC Transportation CMAQ Grants (2) 750,000
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Park Service - Preserve America 50,000
Dayton Street Plaza
Local organizations 25,000
Total $3,202,000
Efforts to secure Federal appropriations in 2009 (Interurban Trail) and State Capital
Budget - Local Community Project grants in 2006, 2007, 2009 (Former Woodway
H.S.) have been unsuccessful.
Packet Page 133 of 248
AM-3013 8.
Skippers Property Purchase and Sale Agreement - Due Dilligence Activities
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Submitted For:City Council Time:20 Minutes
Department:Community Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Skippers property Purchase and Sale Agreement - due diligence activities
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On April 14, 2010, the City Council voted 5-2 to approve a purchase and sale agreement for $1.1
million for the Skippers property with a $50,000 earnest money to be delivered no later than 24
days after mutual acceptance; with a provision for a 30 day feasibility study; with a provision for
an additional 30 day feasibility study at the cost of $10,000 to be applied to the purchase price if
the property is sold; with the possibility of an additional 30 day feasibility period for an additional
$10,000 to be credited to the purchase price if the property is purchased.
On April 14, 2010, the City Council voted 5-2 to allow for an appropriation from some source of
$50,000 - $100,000 to cover the costs of these studies, subject to Council approval of
individual of contracts at a later date.
Narrative
See attached April 22, 2010 staff report.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:Council Contingency
Expenditure:$25,000 - $100,000
Fiscal Impact:
$25,000 - $100,000
Attachments
Link: Skippers Property Purchase and Sale Agreement - Due Dilligence Activities Staff Report
Link: Attachment 1 - Professional Services Agreement - Skippers Property Appraisal
Link: Attchment 1A - Appraisal - Engagement Contract
Link: Attachment 2 - Level 1 Env Analysis - HWA Professional Services Agreement
Packet Page 134 of 248
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/23/2010 11:20 AM APRV
2 Mayor Sandy Chase 04/23/2010 11:21 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/23/2010 11:21 AM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 04/21/2010 11:32
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/23/2010
Packet Page 135 of 248
Date: April 22, 2010
To: Mayor Haakenson and City Council members
From: Stephen Clifton, AICP
Community Services and Economic Development Director
Subject: Skippers Property Purchase and Sale Agreement – Due Diligence
Activities
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Economic Development Department
On April 14, 2010, the Edmonds City Council voted 5-2 to execute a purchase and sale
agreement related to the potential purchase of the Skippers property located at 102 Main
Street, Edmonds, Washington. Contained within the purchase and sale agreement are three
potential feasibility periods, totaling up to 90 days. As a part of conducting due diligence
activities during this overall timeframe, the following actions/steps are proposed:
1. Appraisal (City Council Action Item) – The City Council will need to authorize the
Mayor to execute a contract to perform an appraisal of subject property (Attachment
1 and 1A). The amount of the base appraisal contract is $4,000. NOTE: Because
the appraisal may also be used in the course of state or federal grant applications,
the appraisal will be presented in accord with state and federal appraisal standards.
Additionally, a peer review will also need to be performed to address potential grant
requirements. The estimated amount to conduct a peer review is $1,500.
2. Level or Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (City Council Action Item) –
The City Council will need to authorize the Mayor to execute a contract to perform a
Phase 1 ESA of subject property (Attachment 2). The amount of the contract is
$2,200. The primary objective of a Phase I ESA is to evaluate the property for
recognized environmental conditions (RECs). The term recognized environmental
conditions means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products under conditions that indicate an existing or past release, or
threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into
structures, soil, ground water, or surface water on the property.
Actual sampling of soil, air, groundwater and/or building materials is typically not
conducted during a Phase 1 ESA. The Phase I ESA is generally considered the first
step in the process of environmental due diligence, and includes environmental and
historical data reviews, visual site examination, and owner/operator interviews, in
Packet Page 136 of 248
compliance with ASTM standard E-1527-05. Parties typically seeking Phase I ESAs
include lending institutions or their assigns, parties seeking protection under CERCLA
innocent landowner, bona fide prospective purchaser, or contiguous property owner
defense, or potential EPA Brownfields grant recipients.
3. Feasibility Study – As part of the due diligence associated with the purchase of this
property, the City Council has indicated it may want to: (1) conduct a public process
to evaluate potential uses for subject property, and (2) better understand the costs
associated with the development of the property for public or public/private uses.
Due to the short purchase and sale agreement feasibility time frame(s), the following
will require the assistance of a consultant.
a. Feasibility study by consultant regarding potential uses and development of
subject site:
i. Determine possible uses:
1. Assist in/conduct public process.
b. Compare the costs and benefits of:
i. City development for:
1. purely public use(s) by city;
2. mixed public use(s) (port and city);
3. primary city use(s) with rental of a portion of the site to a
private entity for cash flow purposes, until space is needed for
public use.
ii. Public/Private development.
1. For Example: Take proposals to construct improvements
under strict limitations, providing public uses (monumental
structure, visitors bureau, gateway etc.). Under the
Washington State Constitution, the foundation needs to be
carefully established for a mixed use purchase.
Under these scenarios, the City of Edmonds would be seeking a real estate/land use
advisor to evaluate the potential redevelopment of a 0.37 acre parcel located at a
key intersection in downtown Edmonds, and recommend a set of roles and actions
for the City to take in the redevelopment process. While this is a relatively small
parcel, it occupies a gateway position between Edmond’s Downtown and
Waterfront. Therefore, the property is highly visible and its development can either
significantly contribute to or detract from the City’s objectives. Potential goals of this
engagement could be to:
a. Evaluate the types and scale of uses likely to be economically viable on the
property. The range to be considered could include a variety of public or civic
uses (community center, City offices/tourism center, open space, etc.) along
with housing, office, retail/entertainment, and institutional uses.
b. Recommend whether the City should purchase the property or direct or
incentivize redevelopment of the property by other parties willing to partner
to achieve the City’s desired development solution.
Packet Page 137 of 248
3
c. Define potential tools, incentives, and policies that the City might employ to
encourage desirable development at the site, which could in turn, be
applicable to other properties, while diminishing the number of incompatible
uses.
NOTE: Timing of a feasibility process/study is under the control of the City Council
and can either be conducted now, in whole or in part, or deferred to a later date.
Based on communications with five firms with expertise in conducting the above
referenced feasibility studies, the estimated cost of preparing a feasibility study
ranges from $25,000 to $50,000. Typically, the more complex the study, the higher
the price. A higher cost study usually allows consultants to conduct a more thorough
analysis and further refine assumptions, thus improving the degree of confidence in
the information.
4. Special counsel letter of engagement – These services are recommended to assist
the council as it considers financing options and costs (and potential future
restrictions on use or ability to resell if economic circumstances require) as well as
what the public process and eventual council decision must include if the council
wants to keep the option of development via a public/public or public/private
partnership. The latter issue is what could drive the overall due diligence cost
upwards towards $100,000. The council can decide early on to pass on that option
or to defer it to a later date. The City’s Attorney recommends the use of the City’s
normal bond counsel for several reasons.
a. The first is the need for bond counsel for any sort of borrowing—whether
from the bank, inter fund loans, or actual bonds. It’s all public debt.
b. The second is that, despite their higher rate, it would be more efficient to use
Foster Pepper—while Ogden Murphy Wallace has attorneys who can provide
the council with information regarding the issues on public purchase and
resale, Foster Pepper does this every day and can help answer questions
rather than have Ogden Murphy Wallace do research and provide a report.
c. Odgen Murphy Wallace has indicated that Foster Pepper’s real estate group is
handling the transaction on behalf of Cascade Bank. The City Attorney would
like to discuss whether the city should waive the conflict and use Foster
Pepper with a internal wall requirement; assert the conflict, disqualify Foster
from representing Cascade bank in the transaction and seek separate
counsel; or waive the conflict as to Foster and seek separate counsel. The
City Attorney is working to find alternative bond counsel (if needed).
5. City Council Direction – The Mayor, City staff and the City Attorney are requesting
City Council give direction on a public process. At one end of the spectrum, if a
majority of the City Council wants to go for a straight park use, the process will be
relatively straight forward given the City’s current Comprehensive Plan provisions. If
there is a desire to keep the door open on some form of partnership to assist in
funding development or create a mix of use on the site, the feasibility and bond
counsel processes will be more complex.
Packet Page 138 of 248
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds,
hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Lamb Hanson Lamb, hereinafter referred to as
the "Consultant";
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance
of a consulting firm to provide consulting services with respect to a Full Narrative
Property Appraisal Report for an an approximately .37 acre property located at 102 Main
Street, Edmonds WA 98020-3132 .
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed
by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material
necessary to complete a USPAP Compliant Full Narrative Property Appraisal for the
above mentioned property.
2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work
for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall
be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials,
supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work.
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement
shall be a fixed lump sum amount of $4,000. If Consultant defaults and fails to deliver a
final product satisfactory to the City, no payment shall be made. If the agreement is
terminated at the convenience of the owner, part payment equivalent to the percentage of
work done shall be paid to the Consultant.
B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate
amount to the Consultant. Billings shall be reviewed in conjuction with the City’s
warrant process. Payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle.
C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be
kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years
after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys,
preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the
Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this
Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant and shall not be considered
public records, provided, however, that:
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the
Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and
acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records.
B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect,
review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product.
Packet Page 139 of 248
0035_3013_Professional Services Agreement appraisal 4.21.101.doc 2
C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in
the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided,
the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of
default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work
product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The
summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work
authorized by this Agreement to be delivered to the City of Edmonds no later than three
weeks following the signing of the contract (May 17, 2010).
5. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract,
Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any
and all injury or damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims,
demands, and cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or
in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of work performed under the
terms hereof, caused by the fault of the Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives
or subcontractors.
Consultant specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought
under Title 51 RCW by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that
the Consultant may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant
futher agrees to fully indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any
such claim or demand to the end that the City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph
shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City.
6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall
secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to
this contract a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of
at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury;
$1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate for property damage; and professional liability
insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. Such policies, except the professional liability
insurance policy, shall name the City as a named insured and shall include a provision
prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the
City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of
execution of this Agreement.
7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex,
national origin or physical handicap.
8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an
independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent,
employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or
representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all
acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance
of this contract.
Packet Page 140 of 248
0035_3013_Professional Services Agreement appraisal 4.21.101.doc 3
9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the
Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant
to this contract must meet the approval of the City.
10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either
party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written
notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of
said termination.
11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this
document and the Consultant's proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A. These writings
constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a
writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written
Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control.
12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform
services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to
additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall
not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and
compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this
Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of
Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be
required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to
obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the
Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is
approved in writing by both parties.
13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the
necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this
Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best
efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering
practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and
customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of
Services.
14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or
any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any
other provision.
15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not
be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has
not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not
paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other an a bona fide employee working
solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any
other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this
contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul
this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or
Packet Page 141 of 248
0035_3013_Professional Services Agreement appraisal 4.21.101.doc 4
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this
Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances,
including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and
accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as
described in the Agreement to assure quality of services.
The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B &
O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement.
18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following
address:
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Seravices
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Lamb Hanson Lamb, Appraisal Associates, Inc.
4025 Delridge Way SW., Suite 530
Seattle WA 98106
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written
notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.
Packet Page 142 of 248
0035_3013_Professional Services Agreement appraisal 4.21.101.doc 5
DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 2010.
CITY OF ________________________ CONSULTANT:
By:_____________________________ By__________________________
________________________________ Its___________________________
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this ______ day of ______________________, 2010, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly
commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ______________________________,
to me known to be the _____________________________ of the corporation that
executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the
free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said
instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first
above written.
____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
_____________________________
Packet Page 143 of 248
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530, Seattle, WA 98106
www.LambHansonLamb.com, Tele: (206) 903-1500 Fax: (206) 903-0648
Engagement Letter
April 22, 2010
Mayor Gary Haakenson
c/o Brian McIntosh
City of Edmonds
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone (425) 771-0256
mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Re: Summary appraisal report to provide an opinion of the fair market value of the former Skipper’s
restaurant building located at 102 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020.
Dear Mayor Haakenson,
Thank you for the opportunity to propose our real estate valuation services. This letter includes both the
details regarding our proposal and our professional services agreement. We look forward to any
questions and comments you might have regarding this proposal.
Real Property Assets to Be Appraised
Lamb Hanson Lamb will provide valuation services regarding the commercial restaurant building located at
102 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020. (Snohomish County Parcel number 00454800300700).
Purpose and Use of the Appraisal
The purpose of the appraisal is to express an opinion of the fair market value of the fee simple interest of
the subject property to be used in price negotiations, as well as for state and federal grant applications.
Fair Market Value
The Appraisal Foundation defines Market Value as: “The most probable price which a property should
bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller
each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.
Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
Packet Page 144 of 248
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530, Seattle, WA 98106
www.LambHansonLamb.com, Tele: (206) 903-1500 Fax: (206) 903-0648
buyer and seller are typically motivated;
both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best
interests;
a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto; and
the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or
creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.”
Effective Date
The effective date of valuation will be the date of inspection.
Scope of Appraisal and Methodology
Valuation of real estate interests requires consideration of all pertinent factors bearing upon their
investment merits. The purpose and function of the appraisal, the type and age of the assets, and the
quantity and quality of available data affect the applicability of each approach in a specific appraisal
situation.
As with most whole property, the Direct Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization approaches are the
most applicable and necessary methods in determining the market value of the commercial property. The
Cost Approach may, or may not be applicable to the valuation depending on the accuracy of estimating
accrued depreciation of the improvements. The appraisal process is concluded by a review and re-
examination of each of the approaches to value that have been employed and the approaches are
reconciled to a final market value conclusion.
We will rely on the Client and his/her agents to provide appropriate listings, access to maintenance
records, and recent purchase cost/construction information, as appropriate. We will verify all comparable
land sales through public records and discussions with buyers, sellers, and sales agents, as appropriate.
Public records alone will not suffice to identify special sale or market conditions or other problems with a
particular transaction. It is further noted that the subject property has not undergone any environmental
studies. The appraisers do not anticipate any issues of environmental contamination. However, the report
will not take into consideration of any environmental issues that may or may not be present. We will rely
on the information provided by the Client, such as soils surveys and geo-tech studies, to analyze any
unknown physical conditions of the property
Presentation of Findings
The results of the analysis will be presented in a summary appraisal report format that is in compliance
with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. It is intended for the use of the City of
Edmonds. Other intended users may include the City’s legal representation, agents, and transaction
facilitators. We will provide 3 copies of the appraisal report to the Client.
Packet Page 145 of 248
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530, Seattle, WA 98106
www.LambHansonLamb.com, Tele: (206) 903-1500 Fax: (206) 903-0648
Timing
We recognize that time is of the essence in the completion of this appraisal assignment. Completion date
of the report will be two to three weeks following the signing of the contract, or sooner. Said
completion date is an estimate and does not take into consideration delays beyond the control of the
appraiser, such as illness, court testimony, lack of specific necessary data and/or Acts of God.
Professional Fees
Valuation service fees are $4,000, including expenses and travel. Also, a 50% retainer is collectable at the
onset of the assignment- following the signing of this contract. The following is a breakdown of the
assignment fee:
Summary Narrative Appraisal Report: $3,500
Rush Fee $500
Total Fee $4,000
If asked to review and evaluate new data and significantly modify the appraisal, the time for this additional
service will be billed at the standard billing rate of $225.00 per hour plus out of pocket expenses. Any
services related to the presentation of the value conclusion, such as participation in negotiations,
consultation on terms and tax planning shall also be billed at $225.00 per hour for these services plus out
of pocket expenses.
The signatory of this agreement guarantees payment of fees due Lamb Hanson Lamb for this engagement.
One and one half percent (1.5 %) per month will be charged on overdue accounts. Invoices are due
when rendered. The balance of the fee for the valuation is due within thirty days of a draft report having
been mailed to you and your representative. Lamb Hanson Lamb reserves the right to stop work in the
event that it is not apparent to their satisfaction as to when payment in full would be expected. Client
warrants that the information and data it supplies to Lamb Hanson Lamb will be complete and accurate in
every material respect; that any reports, analysis, or other documents or oral advice prepared by Lamb
Hanson Lamb will be used by Client and only in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Client agrees that it will not provide the work of Lamb Hanson Lamb to any party or allow any other party
to rely on it without the express written consent of Lamb Hanson Lamb.
Client will indemnify and hold harmless Lamb Hanson Lamb (Indemnified Persons) from any and all
liabilities and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising out of any action related to this
engagement and will assume the defense thereof with counsel reasonably suitable to Lamb Hanson
Lamb. The indemnification obligations hereunder shall not apply to any loss, claim, damage, liability or
expense that is finally judicially determined on the merits to have been caused primarily by the
negligence, bad faith, willful misfeasance, or reckless disregard of obligations or duties on the part of
Lamb Hanson Lamb.
Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by providing written notice to the other
party. In the event of early termination, for whatever reason, Client will be invoiced for time and expenses
incurred up to the end of the notice period together with reasonable time and expenses incurred to
bring the provision of services to a close in a prompt and orderly manner. In the event that any action is
used to enforce this Agreement to resolve a dispute under its terms, the prevailing party shall be entitled
Packet Page 146 of 248
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530, Seattle, WA 98106
www.LambHansonLamb.com, Tele: (206) 903-1500 Fax: (206) 903-0648
to recover its costs and attorneys fees. All such actions shall be brought in King County, Washington and
governed in all respects by the laws of the state of Washington without regard to its conflicts of law rules.
If you would like us to proceed with the engagement, please sign and return one copy of this letter.
Please retain a copy for your files. Please call Patrick M. Lamb at 206-838-1216, if you have any questions.
We look forward to working with you on this project.
Sincerely, Accepted By: Date
Patrick M. Lamb Gary Haakenson
WA State Certified General Mayor, City of Edmonds
Appraiser & Consultant
Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates, Inc.
Packet Page 147 of 248
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530, Seattle, WA 98106
www.LambHansonLamb.com, Tele: (206) 903-1500 Fax: (206) 903-0648
Subject Aerial Photos
Figure 1: Plat Map
Figure 2: Birdseye Aerial
Packet Page 148 of 248
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530, Seattle, WA 98106
www.LambHansonLamb.com, Tele: (206) 903-1500 Fax: (206) 903-0648
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL DATA REQUEST LIST
(If Available)
Site Description
1. Title Report, if available, inclusive of description of deed restrictions, liens, easements, etc.
2. If Title Report not available, full legal description
3. Street address and assessor’s parcel number(s)
4. Survey map, if available
5. Environmental Assessment Report summary, if any
Improvements Description
1. Architectural drawings including elevations, if available, or floor plan layouts
2. Year built, remodeled, upgraded, expanded
3. Number of parking spaces
4. Copies of prior appraisals, if any
5. List of all major repairs or maintenance issues that are to be addressed (deferred
maintenance)
Ownership
1. Full name of property owner
2. If within last three years, date property acquired and/or listed for sale and how long
property was on market prior to sale. Provide copies of all documentation regarding sale.
3. If within last three years, identify special sale conditions, if any (e.g., premium or discount
paid, distressed sale, assemblage, non cash payments, tax free exchange, additional fees,
etc.)
Tax Issues
1. Tax statements (last three years) reflecting both assessed values and taxes paid.
2. Identify past, existing, or proposed LID or other special assessments
Financial Data
1. Copy of leases or lease summaries.
2. Copy of management and/or brokerage agreements or summaries thereof.
3. Historical financial statements (balance sheet, operating statement, use and source of funds,
supplemental data and all notes) for last three years, budgeted current year and projection
period.
Packet Page 149 of 248
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
0
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
1
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
2
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
3
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
4
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
5
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
6
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
7
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
8
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
9
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
0
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
1
o
f
2
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
2
o
f
2
4
8
AM-2952 10.
Fiber Optic Report
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilman Plunkett Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Fiber Optic Report.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Fiber Optic Report
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1 - CTAC 5-4-2010 Agenda
Link: Attach 2 - 4-16-2008 Edmonds Fiber Network - Staff Recommendations
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:06 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 10:24 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:36 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/01/2010 09:04
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 163 of 248
Citizens Technology Advisory Committee
Meeting of May 4, 2010
AGENDA
TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY
CTAC shall provide advice to the City for the highest and best use of technology to better engage the
citizens of Edmonds
A. Update of City Council use of wireless computers at City Council meetings. Mr. Hines
B. Update National Broadband Plan Rick Jenness
C. Google application Rick Jenness
EDMONDS FIBER NETWORK
Internal City Usage:
A. CTAC Recommendation 9/02/08: Continue to support through the budgeting process, those capital
investments that are directly attributable to projects that result in direct cost offsets to City's
telecommunications budget.
Information Services Nelson
B. CTAC Recommendation 9/02/08: Approve the issuance of one or more Water/Sewer Revenue Bonds
Resolution not to exceed $4.2 million for the acquisition of replacement for all city water customers along with
an "Electronics Package" that contains radio transmitters for each of the meters and provides for radio
receiving towers, associated fiber optic cable runs, and related systems expenses.
Engineering, Policy and development guideline recommendations:
A.CTAC Recommendation 9/02/08: Request that the City Engineer review the City's engineering and design
guidelines in light of new technology that allows fiber to be placed underground with minimal impact to streets or
earthen right-of-way substantially reduced cost to the City. Achieved objectives for court case and additional roll-
out subject to priorities of Public Works Department and consideration given to targets of opportunity.
B.CTAC Recommendation 9/02/08: Move to adopt a policy requiring installation of fiber optic conduit when
streets are either reconstructed, dug-up for water/sewer/storm replacement or other major infrastructure
improvements. Achieved objectives for court case and additional roll-out subject to priorities of Public Works
Department and consideration given to targets of opportunity.
C.CTAC Recommendation 9/20/08: Move to adopt a policy requiring all development, when feasible, projects
that install new or move existing utility services, to install a communications conduit into the structure or
structures and that it is dedicated for City use. Achieved objectives for court case and additional roll-out subject
to priorities of Public Works Department and consideration given to targets of opportunity.
Public Education Government Role-out (PEG)
A. CTAC Recommendation 9/02/08: Continue pursing government and educational institutions that would benefit
both financially and operationally, from having access to EFN's ultra high-speed broadband capacity. Update
review/analysis Finance Director Hines.
B. Update on Snohomish County “Meet-Me-Room:” Mr. Nelson
C. Update on other municipal partners: Mr. Nelson
Business Role-out
A. Update test case appeal: Mr. Nelson
B. Update on finance review/analysis: Finance Director Hines
Residential Role-out
CTAC Recommendation 2/09/08: Direct staff to seek grants funding for a demonstration project that would create
a technology display of ultra high-speed Internet.
Next Meeting June 1th, 8:30 City Hall 3rd Floor
Packet Page 164 of 248
Packet Page 165 of 248
Packet Page 166 of 248
Packet Page 167 of 248
Packet Page 168 of 248
Packet Page 169 of 248
Packet Page 170 of 248
Packet Page 171 of 248
Packet Page 172 of 248
Packet Page 173 of 248
Packet Page 174 of 248
Packet Page 175 of 248
Packet Page 176 of 248
Packet Page 177 of 248
Packet Page 178 of 248
AM-3022 11.
2009 Budget Review
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
2009 budget review.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Council President Bernheim offers this opportunity for Council members to comment on the 2009
budget. The third quarter budget report is attached, showing budget and actual
expenditures/income for the third quarter 2009. Figures for the fourth quarter are not available
from City Staff.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2009 Q3 report
Link: Email 1
Link: Email 2
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 05:26 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 05:27 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/23/2010 08:30 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/22/2010 11:09
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/23/2010
Packet Page 179 of 248
C:\Documents and Settings\spellman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK3C\2009 Q3 Report.doc
CITY OF EDMONDS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(December 8, 2009)
Overview
General Fund Update.......2
Major Revenue Projections........3
General Fund Revenue Detail....6
Expenditure Summary
Status by Fund.................11
Status by Department.......11
Expenditure Detail by Fund
General Fund ...................12
Street Fund.......................13
Street Construction..........13
Multi-Modal.....................13
Building Maintenance......14
Municipal Arts.................14
Hotel/Motel......................14
Employee Parking............14
Tourism Promotion..........15
Real Estate Excise Tax 2 ..15
Park Improv. (REET 1)......15
Gifts Catalog....................16
Cemetery Maintenance....16
Parks Construction ..........16
Combined Utility .............17
Equipment Rental.............18
Expenditure Detail by Department
City Council.....................19
Mayor...............................19
Human Resources............19
Municipal Court...............20
Economic Development...20
City Clerk.........................20
Fiber Project.....................21
Information Services........21
Finance.............................21
City Attorney ...................22
Non-Departmental............22
Police Department............23
Fire Department...............23
Community Services........24
Development Services .....24
Parks & Recreation..........25
Public Works....................25
Engineering......................26
Facilities Maintenance.....26
Storm Drainage................27
Water................................28
Sewer................................29
Treatment Plant................30
Packet Page 180 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 2
CITY OF EDMONDS
2009 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET REPORT
General Fund
The attached charts contain revenue collection projections for the major General Fund sources with
the exception of Property taxes. Significant revenues from Property taxes are received in April,
May, October and November, and given the uneven receipt of these funds, monthly forecasts are
not prepared. REET receipts are received into a stand alone fund and are not part of the General
Fund.
Historically, General Fund receipts at the end of November are 94.6% of the annual revenue
budget. As of November 30, 2009, General Fund receipts are slightly below target at 93.65% of
the annual revenue budget.
General Fund expenditures through November 30, 2009 are 85.33% of budgeted expenditures,
slightly below the historical trend for November of 87.68%.
Expenditure and Revenue Summary and Detail Reports
This report will provide preliminary information regarding the City of Edmonds’ financial
operations for the quarter ending September 30, 2009. Budgets have been updated to reflect the
first 2009 budget amendment.
Packet Page 181 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 3
CURRENT FORECAST 348,351
2009 AMENDED BUDGET 350,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %7.12%5.85%8.32%8.50%7.87%11.20%10.73%8.55%10.12%7.03%8.35%6.36%
Cumulative Forecast %7.12%12.97%21.30%29.80%37.67%48.86%59.59%68.14%78.26%85.29%93.64%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $24,930 20,475 29,132 29,747 27,558 39,184 37,553 29,910 35,408 24,620 29,233 22,248
Cumulative Forecast $24,930 45,406 74,538 104,285 131,843 171,027 208,580 238,490 273,899 298,518 327,752 350,000
Actual Collected $33,425 13,822 22,049 34,498 38,514 40,979 56,199 53,582 55,571 97,440 67,204 22,144
Cumulative Collection $33,425 47,247 69,296 103,793 142,307 183,287 239,486 293,068 348,639 446,079 513,284 535,427
YEAR END FORECAST 469,257 364,191 325,386 348,351 377,779 375,088 401,861 430,096 445,507 523,009 548,126 535,427
Projected YE Variance 119,257 14,191 (24,614) (1,649) 27,779 25,088 51,861 80,096 95,507 173,009 198,126 185,427
Budget Variance %34.07%4.05%-7.03%-0.47%7.94%7.17%14.82%22.88%27.29%49.43%56.61%52.98%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK line represents Budget, SOLID RED line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED line represents Forecast
REVISED FORECAST 4,256,274
2009 AMENDED BUDGET 4,169,949
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %8.00%10.21%6.97%7.32%8.84%7.63%8.02%9.17%8.11%8.36%9.32%8.06%
Cumulative Forecast %8.00%18.21%25.18%32.50%41.33%48.96%56.98%66.15%74.26%82.62%91.94%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $333,393 425,844 290,825 305,065 368,489 317,996 334,572 382,209 338,177 348,721 388,703 335,955
Cumulative Forecast $333,393 759,237 1,050,062 1,355,127 1,723,615 2,041,611 2,376,184 2,758,393 3,096,569 3,445,291 3,833,994 4,169,949
Actual Collected $339,679 435,279 333,653 323,038 366,629 339,411 353,578 427,885 372,614 413,382 389,546 342,910
Cumulative Collection $339,679 774,958 1,108,610 1,431,648 1,798,278 2,137,689 2,491,267 2,919,152 3,291,766 3,705,148 4,094,694 4,437,603
YEAR END FORECAST 4,248,570 4,256,290 4,402,453 4,405,418 4,350,579 4,366,185 4,371,907 4,412,973 4,432,807 4,484,463 4,453,492 4,437,603
Projected YE Variance 78,621 86,341 232,504 235,469 180,630 196,236 201,958 243,024 262,858 314,514 283,543 267,654
Budget Variance %1.89%2.07%5.58%5.65%4.33%4.71%4.84%5.83%6.30%7.54%6.80%6.42%
SALES AND USE TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK Line represents Budget, SOLID RED Line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED Line represents Forecast
Packet Page 182 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 4
CURRENT FORECAST 961,262
2009 AMENDED BUDGET 902,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %13.90%14.53%13.40%10.77%9.33%6.27%4.81%3.40%3.24%3.71%6.34%10.30%
Cumulative Forecast %13.90%28.43%41.84%52.61%61.93%68.21%73.01%76.41%79.66%83.36%89.70%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $125,365 131,103 120,905 97,136 84,116 56,588 43,376 30,660 29,240 33,430 57,180 92,901
Cumulative Forecast $125,365 256,468 377,373 474,509 558,625 615,212 658,588 689,248 718,489 751,918 809,099 902,000
Actual Collected $125,589 151,001 135,758 119,592 86,092 63,510 36,261 33,789 30,701 30,701 60,937 99,005
Cumulative Collection $125,589 276,590 412,348 531,940 618,033 681,543 717,804 751,593 782,294 812,995 873,932 972,937
YEAR END FORECAST 903,614 972,770 985,597 1,011,171 997,925 999,251 983,101 983,589 982,102 975,267 974,278 972,937
Projected YE Variance 1,614 70,770 83,597 109,171 95,925 97,251 81,101 81,589 80,102 73,267 72,278 70,937
Budget Variance %0.18%7.85%9.27%12.10%10.63%10.78%8.99%9.05%8.88%8.12%8.01%7.86%
GAS UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK Line represents Budget, SOLID RED Line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED Line represents Forecast
CURRENT FORECAST 1,308,122
2009 AMENDED BUDGET 1,353,897
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %6.22%7.65%10.20%7.90%8.06%6.65%9.65%7.68%7.98%10.20%7.29%10.51%
Cumulative Forecast %6.22%13.87%24.07%31.97%40.03%46.68%56.33%64.01%71.99%82.19%89.49%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $84,266 103,515 138,066 107,023 109,081 90,006 130,655 103,973 108,092 138,155 98,763 142,303
Cumulative Forecast $84,266 187,781 325,847 432,870 541,951 631,957 762,612 866,584 974,676 1,112,831 1,211,594 1,353,897
Actual Collected $72,742 180,408 114,173 29,514 140,918 97,646 129,420 197,450 33,098 209,682 95,424 137,492
Cumulative Collection $72,742 253,149 367,322 396,836 537,754 635,400 764,820 962,270 995,368 1,205,050 1,300,474 1,437,966
YEAR END FORECAST 1,168,731 1,825,198 1,526,226 1,241,194 1,343,413 1,361,274 1,357,818 1,503,391 1,382,640 1,466,093 1,453,216 1,437,966
Projected YE Variance (185,166) 471,301 172,329 (112,703) (10,484) 7,377 3,921 149,494 28,743 112,196 99,319 84,069
Budget Variance %-13.68%34.81%12.73%-8.32%-0.77%0.54%0.29%11.04%2.12%8.29%7.34%6.21%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK Line represents Budget, SOLID RED Line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED Line represents Forecast
Packet Page 183 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 5
CURRENT FORECAST 1,455,025
2009 AMENDED BUDGET 1,492,400
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %9.83%11.94%10.34%10.69%8.99%7.78%7.24%6.28%6.63%5.78%7.47%7.03%
Cumulative Forecast %9.83%21.78%32.11%42.81%51.80%59.58%66.82%73.10%79.73%85.50%92.97%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $146,716 178,264 154,276 159,586 134,207 116,112 108,076 93,685 98,902 86,233 111,441 104,902
Cumulative Forecast $146,716 324,980 479,256 638,842 773,049 889,161 997,238 1,090,923 1,189,825 1,276,058 1,387,498 1,492,400
Actual Collected $148,433 162,088 156,732 156,636 146,543 106,612 104,537 92,133 96,670 89,599 108,650 102,275
Cumulative Collection $148,433 310,521 467,253 623,889 770,432 877,044 981,581 1,073,714 1,170,384 1,259,983 1,368,633 1,470,908
YEAR END FORECAST 1,509,869 1,426,001 1,455,025 1,457,468 1,487,348 1,472,062 1,468,970 1,468,858 1,468,016 1,473,600 1,472,108 1,470,908
Projected YE Variance 17,469 (66,399) (37,375) (34,932) (5,052) (20,338) (23,430) (23,542) (24,384) (18,800) (20,292) (21,492)
Budget Variance %1.17%-4.45%-2.50%-2.34%-0.34%-1.36%-1.57%-1.58%-1.63%-1.26%-1.36%-1.44%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actual Budget
Packet Page 184 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 6
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Title Budget
As of
9/30/2009
Revenues Balance % Received
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 977,951 1,341,971 (364,020) 137.2%
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,234,239 4,889,870 4,344,369 53.0%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,856,851 2,018,690 1,838,161 52.3%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 839,084 440,866 398,218 52.5%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,169,949 3,291,766 878,183 78.9%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,065 14,452 1,613 90.0%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 649,836 395,478 254,358 60.9%
GAS UTILITY TAX 902,000 751,593 150,407 83.3%
CABLE TV FRANCHISE 531,750 403,619 128,131 75.9%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,353,897 995,369 358,528 73.5%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,492,400 1,170,385 322,015 78.4%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 275,400 197,891 77,509 71.9%
WATER UTILITY TAX 343,975 337,977 5,998 98.3%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 477,868 352,688 125,180 73.8%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 185,024 158,625 26,399 85.7%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 242,000 176,775 65,225 73.0%
PULLTABS TAX 55,000 46,537 8,463 84.6%
AMUSEMENT GAMES 500 0 500 0.0%
PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES 500 0 500 0.0%
TOTAL TAXES 24,626,338 15,642,581 8,983,757 63.52%
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,130 1,270 3,860 24.8%
PROF AND OCCUPATION LICENSE 1,500 360 1,140 24.0%
AMUSEMENTS 5,875 6,575 (700) 111.9%
BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 1,500 3,805 (2,305) 253.7%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 117,900 100,294 17,607 85.1%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS 589,375 441,104 148,271 74.8%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS 0 21,815 (21,815) -
OLY VIEW WATER DIST FRANCHISE 121,462 106,133 15,329 87.4%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 20,000 15,165 4,835 75.8%
NON RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 47,100 31,000 16,100 65.8%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 0 0 0 -
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 667,000 310,314 356,686 46.5%
ANIMAL LICENSES 14,000 8,774 5,226 62.7%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 40,000 49,865 (9,865) 124.7%
OTHER/NON-BUS/LIC/PERMIT 6,100 5,389 711 88.3%
TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,636,942 1,101,863 535,079 67.31%
Packet Page 185 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 7
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Title Budget
As of
9/30/2009
Revenues Balance % Received
DOJ 15-0404-01-754 2006 BPV 2,500 5,053 (2,553) 202.1%
EECBG GRANT 0 10,494
WA ASSOC OF SHERRIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT 1,500 0 1,500 0.0%
WTSC-SPEEDING EMPHASIS SA2448 0 2,041 (2,041) -
WTSC-CLICK IT OR TICKET 0 0 0 -
WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING 1,664 2,497 (833) 150.0%
WTSC-DUI TRAFFIC SAFETY 6,891 6,891 (0) 100.0%
WTSC-HIGHWAY SAFETY 0 2,000 (2,000) -
WTSC-NIGHTTIME SEATBELT 5,000 4,067 933 81.3%
WSP-DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT OT 500 0 500 0.0%
WA ST ADMIN OFFICE OF COURT
INTERPRETOR 0 2,647 (2,647) -
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 3,032 3,032 0 100.0%
WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH GRANT 3,370 1,726 1,644 51.2%
WASPC AUTO THEFT GRANT 0 28,617 (28,617) -
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 179,375 0 179,375 0.0%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 13,000 6,476 6,524 49.8%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,421 6,530 2,891 69.3%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 31,793 24,971 6,822 78.5%
DUI - CITIES 7,337 5,559 1,778 75.8%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 205,430 147,479 57,951 71.8%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 299,586 221,130 78,456 73.8%
SHARED COURT COSTS 9,000 2,420 6,580 26.9%
POLICE FBI CONTRACTS 13,500 12,000 1,500 88.9%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 8,777 7,105 1,672 80.9%
FIRE PROTECTION - WOODWAY 360,496 360,497 (1) 100.0%
FIRE PROTECTION - DISTRICT #1 600,000 730,523 (130,523) 121.8%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 54,402 45,012 9,390 82.7%
WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 7,000 5,079 1,921 72.6%
CITY OF MTLK TERR-ANIMAL CONTR 22,632 22,447 185 99.2%
SNOCOM/DIRECTOR SERVICES 170,497 96,774 73,723 56.8%
SNO-ISLE 65,792 32,712 33,080 49.7%
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 2,082,495 1,795,778 297,211 86.23%
Packet Page 186 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 8
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Title Budget
As of
9/30/2009
Revenues Balance % Received
CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS 0 0 0 -
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,200 1,303 (103) 108.6%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 900 0 900 0.0%
CIVIL FEE 0 33 (33) -
SALE MAPS & BOOKS 1,000 207 793 20.7%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 600 152 448 25.3%
PHOTOCOPIES 7,100 2,330 4,770 32.8%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 5,200 3,212 1,988 61.8%
ASSESSMENT SEARCH 0 10 (10) -
RESALE ITEMS/VENDING MACHINE 0 0 0 -
BIRD FEST MERCHANDISE-WHOLESALE 0 0 0 -
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 30,000 16,500 13,500 55.0%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 22,000 25,038 (3,038) 113.8%
FIRE TRAINING CLASS FEES 0 0 0 -
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 119,000 72,494 46,506 60.9%
ELECTRONIC MONITORING 19,000 11,209 7,791 59.0%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 10,000 2,850 7,150 28.5%
BOOKING FEES 6,900 5,491 1,409 79.6%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 15,019 5,650 9,369 37.6%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 9,000 15,716 (6,716) 174.6%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES-HAZMAT 0 412 (412) -
DUI EMERGENCY AID 0 0 0 -
EMS TRANSPORT FEES 700,000 447,142 252,858 63.9%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 1,000 10 990 1.0%
CRIM CONV FEE DUI 6,700 534 6,166 8.0%
CRIM CONV FEES CT 4,400 5,281 (881) 120.0%
CRIM CONV FEES CN 1,900 2,136 (236) 112.4%
POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 250 298 (48) 119.0%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 114,000 63,567 50,433 55.8%
STORM DRAINAGE FEES 0 0 0 -
AMIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 7,000 5,630 1,370 80.4%
ANNUAL VEHICLE FEE (TBD) 200,000 1,623 198,377 0.8%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 83,520 50,268 33,252 60.2%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 11,955 2,670 9,285 22.3%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 355,000 109,093 245,907 30.7%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 4,050 986 3,064 24.4%
CERT/PHOTO/RECORD SEARCH FEE 0 0 0 -
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,950 2,475 4,475 35.6%
SHORELINE PERMIT 850 0 850 0.0%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 19,720 12,700 7,020 64.4%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 82,300 66,964 15,336 81.4%
LOCKER FEES 500 524 (24) 104.7%
SWIM CLASS FEES 65,350 69,953 (4,603) 107.0%
PROGRAM FEES 738,510 700,752 37,758 94.9%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 8,200 5,102 3,098 62.2%
CANCELLATION FEES 0 50 (50) -
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 0 1,129 (1,129) -
INTERFUND REIMB. CONTRACT SVCS 1,322,009 989,672 332,337 74.9%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 0 0 0 -
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 3,981,083 2,701,168 1,279,915 67.85%
Packet Page 187 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 9
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Title Budget
As of
9/30/2009
Revenues Balance % Received
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,000 6,701 3,299 67.0%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 56,000 45,742 10,258 81.7%
BC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 260,000 206,818 53,182 79.5%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 6,000 6,547 (547) 109.1%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 500 1,201 (701) 240.3%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 12,000 22,867 (10,867) 190.6%
PR - HANDICAPPED 7,000 3,971 3,029 56.7%
PARKING INFRACTION LC 100 340 (240) 340.0%
DWI PENALTIES 6,000 5,877 123 98.0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 2,000 137 1,863 6.8%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 47,000 38,091 8,909 81.0%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 1,600 199 1,401 12.4%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 13,000 8,671 4,329 66.7%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSMT 900 994 (94) 110.4%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 110,000 70,890 39,110 64.4%
JURY DEMAND COST 100 0 100 0.0%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 35,000 24,151 10,849 69.0%
COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 213 87 70.9%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 25,000 34,894 (9,894) 139.6%
TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITURES 592,500 478,304 114,196 80.73%
INVESTMENT INTEREST 69,500 31,170 38,330 44.8%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 25,000 12,698 12,302 50.8%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 4,000 1,406 2,594 35.1%
PARKING 4,000 8,325 (4,325) 208.1%
SPACE & FACILITIES RENTALS 122,290 110,275 12,016 90.2%
GYM & WEIGHTROOM FEES 7,800 5,673 2,127 72.7%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 2,426 2,574 48.5%
LEASES LONG-TERM 160,730 124,794 35,936 77.6%
VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 2,200 850 1,350 38.6%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 14,000 9,020 4,980 64.4%
DONATION / CONTRIBUTION 0 200 (200) -
PARKS DONATIONS 4,200 1,700 2,500 40.5%
POLICE CONT FROM PRIVATE SOURCES 2,000 9,710 (7,710) 485.5%
BIRDFEST CONTRIBUTION 0 1,190 (1,190) -
CONTRIBUTIONS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION 0 0 0 -
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 0 444 (444) -
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 3,000 4,993 (1,993) 166.4%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 1,500 4,935 (3,435) 329.0%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 0 0 0 -
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 3,200 1,467 1,733 45.9%
CASHIER OVERAGE/SHORTAGE 0 (173) 173 -
OTHER MISC REVENUES 48,712 6,286 42,426 12.9%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT 0 105 (105) -
NSF FEES - PARKS 0 90 (90) -
NSF FEES - MUNI CT 500 657 (157) 131.4%
NSF FEES - POLICE 0 0 0
NSF FEES - DEVEL SVCS DEPT 0 30 (30)
PLANNING SIGNAGE REVENUE 1,900 1,764 136 92.8%
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 479,532 340,034 139,498 70.91%
Packet Page 188 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
Page 10
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Title Budget
As of
9/30/2009
Revenues Balance % Received
INSURANCE PROCEEDS 0 2,862 (2,862) -
TRANSFER FROM FUND 113 25,000 22,395 2,605 89.6%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 121 22,862 11,431 11,431 50.0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 411 52,599 0 52,599 0.0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 511 0 0 0 -
TOTAL TRANSFERS 100,461 36,688 63,773 36.52%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 34,477,302 23,438,387 11,049,409 67.98%
Packet Page 189 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES
Page 11
BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
# Title Appropriation
As of
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
All Funds 73,777,529 43,644,775 30,132,754 59.2%
001 General Fund 33,622,622 23,736,907 9,885,715 70.6%
111 Street Fund 1,424,031 1,044,124 379,907 73.3%
112 Street Const./Improvement 1,443,407 905,257 538,150 62.7%
113 Multimodal Transportation 3,100,000 361,696 2,738,304 11.7%
116 Building Maintenance 256,200 137,296 118,904 53.6%
117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 105,425 40,710 64,715 38.6%
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 74,883 39,428 35,455 52.7%
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 23,862 12,302 11,560 51.6%
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 22,100 15,137 6,963 68.5%
125 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 4,544,175 1,962,037 2,582,138 43.2%
126 Park Acquisition (REET 1) 956,072 368,555 587,517 38.5%
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 43,192 24,854 18,338 57.5%
130 Cemetery Maintenance 142,513 96,219 46,294 67.5%
132 Park Construction Fund 235,000 15,941 232,650 6.8%
411 Combined Utility Operation 13,055,717 8,898,281 4,157,436 68.2%
511 Equipment Rental Fund 2,069,929 1,081,467 988,462 52.2%
BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT
Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
City Council 310,440 191,720 118,720 61.8%
Office of Mayor 255,550 183,474 72,076 71.8%
Human Resources 277,297 192,425 84,872 69.4%
Municipal Court 749,628 533,190 216,438 71.1%
Economic Development 46,700 4,052 42,648 8.7%
City Clerk 494,166 348,301 145,865 70.5%
Fiber Optic Project 197,200 101,158 96,042 51.3%
Information Services 597,700 337,658 260,042 56.5%
Finance 592,147 444,378 147,769 75.0%
City Attorney 513,488 415,018 98,470 80.8%
Non-Departmental Expenses 5,127,393 2,898,201 2,229,192 56.5%
Police Services 9,020,659 6,532,728 2,487,931 72.4%
Fire Services 7,412,661 5,685,901 1,726,760 76.7%
Community Services 348,807 228,508 120,299 65.5%
Development Services 1,826,825 1,295,536 531,289 70.9%
Parks & Recreation 3,159,631 2,360,929 798,702 74.7%
Public Works 295,740 223,993 71,747 75.7%
Engineering 1,070,057 790,681 279,376 73.9%
Facilities Maintenance 1,326,533 969,134 357,399 73.1%
Storm Drainage 1,892,336 922,261 970,075 48.7%
Water 4,161,634 1,643,799 2,517,835 39.5%
Sewer 3,771,830 1,971,888 1,799,942 52.3%
Treatment Plant 3,337,072 1,623,577 1,713,495 48.7%
Packet Page 190 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND
Page 12
001 GENERAL FUND
# Title Appropriation
As of
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 16,440,529 12,170,446 4,270,083 74.0%
120 OVERTIME 747,763 956,417 (208,654) 127.9%
150 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 334,085 4,473 329,612 1.3%
230 BENEFITS 5,709,955 4,205,434 1,504,521 73.7%
240 UNIFORMS 120,234 55,225 65,009 45.9%
250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 28,500 39,113 (10,613) 137.2%
310 SUPPLIES 535,271 271,911 263,360 50.8%
320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 33 967 3.3%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 171,857 72,956 98,901 42.5%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,830,409 1,257,364 573,045 68.7%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 258,792 179,403 79,389 69.3%
430 TRAVEL 73,066 24,172 48,894 33.1%
440 ADVERTISING 48,745 24,752 23,993 50.8%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 142,400 97,692 44,708 68.6%
460 INSURANCE 402,000 404,040 (2,040) 100.5%
470 UTILITIES 440,916 326,411 114,505 74.0%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 259,105 172,428 86,677 66.5%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 348,810 206,524 142,286 59.2%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 2,028,555 1,545,699 482,856 76.2%
530 EXCISE TAXES 10,000 4,154 5,846 41.5%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,396,111 698,056 698,056 50.0%
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 41,667 (1,667) 104.2%
710 BOND PRINCIPAL 932,712 0 932,712 0.0%
750 BOND PRINCIPAL 61,520 61,520 0 100.0%
790 BOND PRINCIPAL 21,702 10,851 10,851 50.0%
830 INTEREST ON LT DEBT 398,383 201,521 196,862 50.6%
840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 179 (179) -
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 869 631 57.9%
920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 49,386 (16,655) 150.9%
930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 40,184 46,643 (6,459) 116.1%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 674,156 530,157 143,999 78.6%
980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 91,631 73,471 18,160 80.2%
990 OTHER INTERFUND SVCS 0 3,942 (3,942) -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 33,622,622 23,736,907 9,885,715 70.6%
Packet Page 191 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND
Page 13
111 STREET FUND
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 427,413 353,784 73,629 82.8%
120 OVERTIME 32,413 14,339 18,074 44.2%
230 BENEFITS 163,157 145,548 17,609 89.2%
240 UNIFORMS 7,300 4,444 2,856 60.9%
310 SUPPLIES 199,600 119,048 80,552 59.6%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 34,136 5,698 28,438 16.7%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,000 8,061 10,939 42.4%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,200 1,447 2,753 34.5%
430 TRAVEL 3,380 0 3,380 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 805 1,695 32.2%
460 INSURANCE 35,116 43,258 (8,142) 123.2%
470 UTILITIES 254,250 192,707 61,543 75.8%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 13,800 33,035 (19,235) 239.4%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,660 3,267 9,393 25.8%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 16,000 1,757 14,243 11.0%
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 10,595 0 10,595 0.0%
710 BOND PRINCIPAL 34,383 0 34,383 0.0%
830 BOND INTEREST 10,664 5,332 5,332 50.0%
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 21 (21) -
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 143,464 111,573 31,891 77.8%
TOTAL STREET FUND 1,424,031 1,044,124 379,907 73.3%
112 STREET CONST/IMPRV FD
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 242,668 (242,668) -
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 44,283 42,284 1,999 95.5%
650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,311,000 431,918 879,082 32.9%
780 LOAN PRINCIPAL 72,201 72,201 (0) 100.0%
830 LOAN INTEREST 5,923 5,923 (0) 100.0%
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 110,262 (100,262) 1102.6%
TOTAL STREET CONST/IMPRV FD 1,443,407 905,257 538,150 62.7%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANS FD
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000,000 339,302 1,660,698 17.0%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 22,395 (22,395) -
610 LAND 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 0.0%
TOTAL MULTIMODAL TRANS FD 3,100,000 361,696 2,738,304 11.7%
Packet Page 192 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND
Page 14
116 BUILDING MAINT FUND
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 10,000 0 10,000 0.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,000 30,486 (5,486) 121.9%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 6,700 91,650 (84,950) 1367.9%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 200 0 200 0.0%
640 MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 0 15,160 (15,160) -
650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 214,300 0 214,300 0.0%
TOTAL BUILDING MAINT FUND 256,200 137,296 118,904 53.6%
117 MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 4,475 673 3,802 15.0%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 79,200 34,035 45,165 43.0%
430 TRAVEL 0 3 (3) -
440 ADVERTISING 4,000 4,000 0 100.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 0 300 0.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,450 2,000 10,450 16.1%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 0 3,000 0.0%
TOTAL MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND 105,425 40,710 64,715 38.6%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,000 2,504 17,496 12.5%
440 ADVERTISING 25,000 28,538 (3,538) 114.2%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 125 9,875 1.3%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 19,883 8,260 11,623 41.5%
TOTAL HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND 74,883 39,428 35,455 52.7%
121 EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 1,000 871 129 87.1%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 22,862 11,431 11,431 50.0%
TOTAL EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD 23,862 12,302 11,560 51.6%
Packet Page 193 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND
Page 15
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 100 0 100 0.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,500 10,250 250 97.6%
440 ADVERTISING 3,000 721 2,279 24.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 8,500 4,166 4,334 49.0%
TOTAL TOURISM PROMOTIONAL 22,100 15,137 6,963 68.5%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 0 41,903 (41,903) -
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 300,000 255,701 44,299 85.2%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 0 0 -
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 422,000 98,184 323,816 23.3%
610 LAND 0 0 0 -
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 327,175 28,244 298,931 8.6%
650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,495,000 1,472,549 2,022,451 42.1%
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 0 65,455 (65,455) -
TOTAL REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 4,544,175 1,962,037 2,582,138 43.2%
126 PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1)
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 5,000 0 0 -
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0 0 -
490 MISCELLANOUS 0 304 (304) -
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 72,062 18,531 53,531 25.7%
610 LAND 250,000 255,837 (5,837) 102.3%
710 BOND PRINCIPAL 441,095 93,357 347,738 21.2%
830 BOND INTEREST 186,715 0 186,715 0.0%
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,200 527 673 43.9%
TOTAL PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1) 956,072 368,555 582,517 38.5%
Packet Page 194 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND
Page 16
127 GIFTS CATALOG
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 42,792 24,854 17,938 58.1%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 400 0 400 0.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 -
TOTAL GIFTS CATALOG 43,192 24,854 18,338 57.5%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 62,158 46,946 15,212 75.5%
120 OVERTIME 2,050 2,157 (107) 105.2%
230 BENEFITS 27,051 20,927 6,124 77.4%
240 UNIFORMS 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
310 SUPPLIES 7,000 3,412 3,588 48.7%
340 RESALE ITEMS 20,000 10,491 9,509 52.5%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 -
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 1,178 234 83.4%
430 TRAVEL 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
440 ADVERTISING 3,000 1,149 1,851 38.3%
470 UTILITIES 3,700 2,733 967 73.9%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 0 500 0.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 747 253 74.7%
790 INTERFUND PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 -
820 INTERFUND INTEREST 0 0 0 -
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 3,000 0 3,000 0.0%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,642 6,480 2,162 75.0%
TOTAL CEMETERY MAINTENANCE 142,513 96,219 46,294 67.5%
132 PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 15,941 (15,941) -
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 2,350 0 2,350 0.0%
650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 232,650 0 232,650 0.0%
TOTAL PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND 235,000 15,941 219,059 0.0%
Packet Page 195 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND
Page 17
411 COMBINED UTILITY
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 2,554,161 1,824,978 729,183 71.5%
120 OVERTIME 114,530 84,836 29,694 74.1%
230 BENEFITS 983,546 728,332 255,214 74.1%
240 UNIFORMS 28,500 17,857 10,643 62.7%
310 SUPPLIES 621,209 448,804 172,405 72.2%
320 FUEL CONSUMED 140,030 25,851 114,179 18.5%
340 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,540,000 1,028,716 511,284 66.8%
340 RESALE ITEMS 143,000 51,208 91,792 35.8%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,100 11,452 12,648 47.5%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 206,373 71,153 135,220 34.5%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 71,700 48,244 23,456 67.3%
430 TRAVEL 14,670 693 13,977 4.7%
440 ADVERTISING 2,820 0 2,820 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 32,350 38,461 (6,111) 118.9%
460 INSURANCE 323,202 345,888 (22,686) 107.0%
470 UTILITIES 910,364 487,431 422,933 53.5%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 133,238 142,659 (9,421) 107.1%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 461,970 354,476 107,494 76.7%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 280,003 237,751 42,252 84.9%
540 EXCISE TAXES 594,000 849,290 (255,290) 143.0%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,352,599 685,877 666,722 50.7%
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 61,925 0 61,925 0.0%
710 GO BOND PRINCIPAL 99,006 0 99,006 0.0%
720 REVENUE BOND PRINCIPAL 334,672 0 334,672 0.0%
790 OTHER LOAN PRINCIPAL 100,085 135,017 (34,932) 134.9%
830 BOND INTEREST 213,355 112,024 101,331 52.5%
840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 33,104 24,827 8,277 75.0%
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 254 (254) -
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 1,243,611 815,885 427,726 65.6%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 435,094 326,316 108,778 75.0%
980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 2,500 0 2,500 0.0%
TOTAL COMBINED UTILITY 13,055,717 8,898,281 4,157,436 68.2%
Packet Page 196 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND
Page 18
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL/REPAIR FUND
# Title Appropriation
9/30/2009
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 257,899 149,823 108,076 58.1%
120 OVERTIME 2,000 488 1,512 24.4%
230 BENEFITS 104,004 59,680 44,324 57.4%
240 UNIFORMS 2,000 1,269 731 63.4%
310 SUPPLIES 70,000 76,501 (6,501) 109.3%
320 FUEL CONSUMED 4,000 2,825 1,175 70.6%
340 ITEMS PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY 485,410 142,767 342,643 29.4%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 2,777 17,223 13.9%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,550 994 2,556 28.0%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,665 335 88.8%
430 TRAVEL 2,000 28 1,972 1.4%
440 ADVERTISING 500 0 500 0.0%
460 INSURANCE 34,654 33,537 1,117 96.8%
470 UTILITIES 17,000 10,780 6,220 63.4%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 145,000 55,093 89,907 38.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 5,788 (1,788) 144.7%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 4,000 2,664 1,336 66.6%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 -
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 880,000 522,173 357,827 59.3%
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 23,000 5,685 17,315 24.7%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 7,912 5,931 1,981 75.0%
TOTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL/REPAIR FUND 2,069,929 1,081,468 988,461 52.2%
Packet Page 197 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 19
110 CITY COUNCIL
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 112,324 75,945 36,379 67.6%
120 OVERTIME 5,590 5,148 442 92.1%
230 BENEFITS 102,576 75,338 27,238 73.4%
310 SUPPLIES 1,000 1,730 (730) 173.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56,000 31,529 24,471 56.3%
430 TRAVEL 2,500 477 2,023 19.1%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,500 0 1,500 0.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 28,950 1,554 27,396 5.4%
TOTAL CITY COUNCIL 310,440 191,720 118,720 61.8%
210 OFFICE OF MAYOR
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 192,711 138,660 54,051 72.0%
230 BENEFITS 50,739 39,634 11,105 78.1%
310 SUPPLIES 3,000 996 2,004 33.2%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,100 360 740 32.8%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,400 873 527 62.3%
430 TRAVEL 1,500 559 941 37.3%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,253 247 83.5%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100 378 (278) 378.4%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,500 761 2,739 21.7%
TOTAL OFFICE OF MAYOR 255,550 183,474 72,076 71.8%
220 HUMAN RESOURCES
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 166,761 120,192 46,569 72.1%
230 BENEFITS 53,081 38,076 15,005 71.7%
310 SUPPLIES 2,625 1,142 1,483 43.5%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 50 0 50 0.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24,500 13,855 10,645 56.6%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 453 (453) -
430 TRAVEL 500 174 326 34.9%
440 ADVERTISING 10,000 6,125 3,875 61.2%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,253 747 62.6%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 6,000 4,704 1,296 78.4%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 11,780 6,451 5,329 54.8%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 277,297 192,425 84,872 69.4%
Packet Page 198 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 20
230 MUNICIPAL COURT
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 486,675 339,205 147,470 69.7%
120 OVERTIME 2,800 1,909 891 68.2%
230 BENEFITS 163,203 112,820 50,383 69.1%
310 SUPPLIES 16,000 11,923 4,077 74.5%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,800 11,523 (9,723) 640.2%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55,000 37,116 17,884 67.5%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 1,034 (1,034) -
430 TRAVEL 2,500 721 1,779 28.8%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,118 882 55.9%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 850 3,929 (3,079) 462.3%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,800 3,050 1,750 63.5%
510 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 14,000 8,841 5,159 63.2%
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 -
TOTAL MUNICIPAL COURT 749,628 533,190 216,438 71.1%
240 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 2,500 290 2,210 11.6%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 615 185 76.9%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,000 1,732 17,268 9.1%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 9,400 0 9,400 0.0%
430 TRAVEL 3,000 227 2,773 7.6%
440 ADVERTISING 7,000 0 7,000 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 348 (348) -
490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 840 4,160 16.8%
TOTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 46,700 4,052 42,648 8.7%
250 CITY CLERK
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 250,340 191,445 58,895 76.5%
120 OVERTIME 410 0 410 0.0%
230 BENEFITS 83,009 58,959 24,050 71.0%
310 SUPPLIES 13,760 7,507 6,253 54.6%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 -
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,250 14,932 12,318 54.8%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 59,050 35,454 23,596 60.0%
430 TRAVEL 2,080 0 2,080 0.0%
440 ADVERTISING 20,420 14,254 6,166 69.8%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 23,810 16,585 7,225 69.7%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 6,857 1,180 85.3%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 2,307 3,693 38.4%
TOTAL CITY CLERK 494,166 348,301 145,865 70.5%
Packet Page 199 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 21
310 FIBER OPTIC PROJECT
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
310 SUPPLIES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 15,000 13,797 1,203 92.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104,000 56,587 47,413 54.4%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 33,600 25,245 8,355 75.1%
440 ADVERTISING 0 0 0 -
450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 3,072 (3,072) -
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 3,600 2,456 1,144 68.2%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 -
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 0 40,000 0.0%
TOTAL FIBER OPTIC PROJECT 197,200 101,158 96,042 51.3%
310 INFORMATION SERVICES
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 223,236 160,900 62,336 72.1%
120 OVERTIME 2,000 3,298 (1,298) 164.9%
230 BENEFITS 73,569 53,098 20,471 72.2%
310 SUPPLIES 57,950 12,667 45,283 21.9%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 93,500 8,225 85,275 8.8%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,000 12,697 (1,697) 115.4%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 47,340 42,196 5,144 89.1%
430 TRAVEL 750 15 735 2.0%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 72,355 35,704 36,651 49.3%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 16,000 8,858 7,142 55.4%
TOTAL INFORMATION SERVICES 597,700 337,658 260,042 56.5%
310 FINANCE
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 407,318 300,088 107,230 73.7%
120 OVERTIME 4,100 839 3,261 20.5%
230 BENEFITS 120,579 83,993 36,586 69.7%
310 SUPPLIES 8,400 5,728 2,672 68.2%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,750 19,622 (15,872) 523.3%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 461 (461) -
430 TRAVEL 2,000 15 1,985 0.8%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 9,600 2,117 7,483 22.1%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 31,400 28,395 3,005 90.4%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 3,119 1,881 62.4%
TOTAL FINANCE 592,147 444,378 147,769 75.0%
Packet Page 200 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 22
360 CITY ATTORNEY
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 510,488 415,018 95,470 81.3%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 0 3,000 0.0%
TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 513,488 415,018 98,470 80.8%
390 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 136,000 138,926 (2,926) 102.2%
120 OVERTIME 0 2,816 (2,816) -
230 BENEFITS 224,497 77,494 147,003 34.5%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 409 (409) -
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 211,415 147,239 64,177 69.6%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 -
430 TRAVEL 0 0 0 -
450 RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 2,700 900 75.0%
460 INSURANCE 402,000 404,040 (2,040) 100.5%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 -
490 MISCELLANEOUS 84,032 72,147 11,884 85.9%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 1,243,921 1,075,281 168,640 86.4%
540 EXCISE TAXES 10,000 4,154 5,846 41.5%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,396,111 698,056 698,056 50.0%
710 BOND PRINCIPAL 932,712 0 932,712 0.0%
750 BOND PRINCIPAL 61,520 61,520 0 100.0%
790 BOND PRINCIPAL 21,702 10,851 10,851 50.0%
800 BOND INTEREST 0 0 0 -
830 BOND INTEREST 398,383 201,521 196,862 50.6%
840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 179 (179) -
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 869 631 57.9%
TOTAL NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,127,393 2,898,201 2,229,192 56.5%
Packet Page 201 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 23
410 POLICE
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 5,294,399 3,833,074 1,461,325 72.4%
120 OVERTIME 254,557 335,216 (80,659) 131.7%
150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 180,196 458 179,738 0.3%
230 BENEFITS 1,707,241 1,285,107 422,135 75.3%
240 UNIFORMS 55,580 20,791 34,789 37.4%
310 SUPPLIES 72,005 49,441 22,564 68.7%
320 FUEL CONSUMED 0 33 (33) -
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 17,547 31,218 (13,671) 177.9%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 127,432 50,027 77,405 39.3%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 21,700 20,248 1,452 93.3%
430 TRAVEL 28,520 8,874 19,646 31.1%
440 ADVERTISING 2,500 64 2,436 2.6%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 12,000 10,256 1,744 85.5%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 26,676 19,395 7,281 72.7%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 42,879 36,909 5,970 86.1%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 703,384 422,815 280,569 60.1%
640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 0 35,073 (35,073) -
930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 0 701 (701) -
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 473,043 372,717 100,326 78.8%
980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 311 689 31.1%
TOTAL POLICE 9,020,659 6,532,728 2,487,931 72.4%
510 FIRE
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 4,558,371 3,376,019 1,182,352 74.1%
120 OVERTIME 445,121 595,701 (150,580) 133.8%
150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 153,889 4,015 149,874 2.6%
230 BENEFITS 1,639,116 1,229,907 409,209 75.0%
240 UNIFORMS 52,884 29,659 23,225 56.1%
250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 28,500 39,113 (10,613) 137.2%
310 SUPPLIES 103,826 48,419 55,407 46.6%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 17,500 2,250 15,250 12.9%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 88,084 79,337 8,747 90.1%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 30,747 18,492 12,255 60.1%
430 TRAVEL 15,590 10,806 4,784 69.3%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 253 1,547 14.1%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 21,140 10,439 10,701 49.4%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 50,248 34,914 15,334 69.5%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 0 0 0 -
920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 51,646 (18,915) 157.8%
930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 40,184 47,312 (7,128) 117.7%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 42,299 34,149 8,150 80.7%
980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 90,631 73,471 17,160 81.1%
TOTAL FIRE 7,412,661 5,685,901 1,726,760 76.7%
Packet Page 202 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 24
610 COMMUNITY SERVICES
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 199,339 150,058 49,281 75.3%
120 OVERTIME 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
230 BENEFITS 50,840 37,785 13,055 74.3%
310 SUPPLIES 2,000 247 1,753 12.3%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,500 0 10,500 0.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 77,000 37,045 39,955 48.1%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 690 541 149 78.4%
430 TRAVEL 2,000 21 1,979 1.1%
440 ADVERTISING 1,060 0 1,060 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 1,115 205 84.5%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 517 (17) 103.4%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 765 1,235 38.2%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 558 414 144 74.2%
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 348,807 228,508 120,299 65.5%
620 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,093,672 844,111 249,561 77.2%
120 OVERTIME 6,020 2,234 3,786 37.1%
230 BENEFITS 396,016 319,600 76,416 80.7%
240 UNIFORMS 1,610 260 1,350 16.1%
310 SUPPLIES 30,700 11,657 19,043 38.0%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,860 1,439 421 77.4%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 188,370 73,867 114,503 39.2%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 6,754 3,248 3,506 48.1%
430 TRAVEL 6,560 645 5,915 9.8%
440 ADVERTISING 3,490 1,364 2,126 39.1%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 27,590 17,771 9,819 64.4%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 14,338 579 13,759 4.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 38,215 9,623 28,592 25.2%
640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 -
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 11,630 9,138 2,492 78.6%
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,826,825 1,295,536 531,289 70.9%
Packet Page 203 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 25
640 PARKS & RECREATION
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,743,681 1,306,584 437,097 74.9%
120 OVERTIME 5,500 4,595 905 83.5%
230 BENEFITS 531,128 403,735 127,393 76.0%
240 UNIFORMS 6,540 2,252 4,288 34.4%
310 SUPPLIES 119,175 70,227 48,948 58.9%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 2,136 664 76.3%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 324,020 252,105 71,915 77.8%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 24,431 16,943 7,488 69.4%
430 TRAVEL 3,206 1,092 2,114 34.0%
440 ADVERTISING 3,775 2,945 830 78.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 50,694 34,634 16,060 68.3%
470 UTILITIES 128,416 115,494 12,922 89.9%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 23,769 18,476 5,293 77.7%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 35,881 19,184 16,697 53.5%
910 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 64,250 38,761 25,489 60.3%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 92,365 71,766 20,599 77.7%
TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 3,159,631 2,360,929 798,702 74.7%
650 PUBLIC WORKS
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 208,573 158,635 49,938 76.1%
120 OVERTIME 200 175 25 87.5%
230 BENEFITS 65,363 50,543 14,820 77.3%
310 SUPPLIES 5,330 4,201 1,129 78.8%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 -
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 78 (78) -
420 COMMUNICATIONS 480 724 (244) 150.9%
430 TRAVEL 960 272 688 28.4%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 6,486 5,218 1,268 80.4%
470 UTILITIES 2,500 1,759 741 70.3%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,100 159 1,941 7.6%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,200 945 1,255 43.0%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 1,548 1,284 264 82.9%
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 295,740 223,993 71,747 75.7%
Packet Page 204 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 26
ENGINEERING
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 779,647 577,615 202,032 74.1%
120 OVERTIME 11,965 252 11,713 2.1%
230 BENEFITS 240,150 174,750 65,400 72.8%
240 UNIFORMS 620 92 528 14.8%
310 SUPPLIES 0 7 (7) -
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 500 411 89 82.2%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 14,218 (12,218) 710.9%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,200 3,462 4,738 42.2%
430 TRAVEL 600 109 491 18.1%
440 ADVERTISING 500 0 500 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 0 0 -
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,740 1,307 433 75.1%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,125 4,001 1,124 78.1%
640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 -
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 19,010 14,457 4,553 76.0%
TOTAL ENGINEERING 1,070,057 790,681 279,376 73.9%
651 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 587,482 458,987 128,495 78.1%
120 OVERTIME 8,500 4,233 4,267 49.8%
230 BENEFITS 208,848 164,594 44,254 78.8%
240 UNIFORMS 3,000 2,171 829 72.4%
310 SUPPLIES 96,000 45,810 50,190 47.7%
320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 0 1,000 0.0%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 933 9,067 9.3%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 15,000 10,027 4,973 66.8%
430 TRAVEL 800 166 634 20.7%
470 UTILITIES 310,000 209,158 100,842 67.5%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 39,132 5,868 87.0%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,200 1,097 3,103 26.1%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 3,000 0 3,000 0.0%
640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 6,594 (6,594) -
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 33,703 26,232 7,471 77.8%
TOTAL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,326,533 969,134 357,399 73.1%
Packet Page 205 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 27
652 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 420,159 280,163 139,996 66.7%
120 OVERTIME 22,360 6,221 16,139 27.8%
230 BENEFITS 166,983 119,062 47,921 71.3%
240 UNIFORMS 6,500 4,093 2,407 63.0%
310 SUPPLIES 49,500 18,473 31,027 37.3%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 415 2,385 14.8%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,115 6,763 15,352 30.6%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 4,517 (1,317) 141.2%
430 TRAVEL 3,330 0 3,330 0.0%
440 ADVERTISING 500 0 500 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 24,000 15,390 8,610 64.1%
460 INSURANCE 36,382 43,522 (7,140) 119.6%
470 UTILITIES 10,000 6,683 3,317 66.8%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,486 4,957 3,529 58.4%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 68,540 73,320 (4,780) 107.0%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 20,070 35,114 (15,044) 175.0%
540 EXCISE TAXES 108,000 158,625 (50,625) 146.9%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 17,533 0 17,533 0.0%
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 0 1,925 0.0%
710 BOND PRINCIPAL 130,518 0 130,518 0.0%
780 PWTF 32,063 32,063 1 100.0%
790 BOA PHONE 1,747 1,020 727 58.4%
830 BOND INTEREST 96,889 50,029 46,860 51.6%
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 102 (102) -
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 436,736 304,462 132,274 69.7%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 183,049 137,286 45,763 75.0%
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 1,873,385 1,302,279 571,106 69.5%
Packet Page 206 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 28
654 WATER UTILITY
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 632,616 453,478 179,138 71.7%
120 OVERTIME 24,180 17,881 6,299 73.9%
230 BENEFITS 236,320 172,118 64,202 72.8%
240 UNIFORMS 6,880 2,288 4,592 33.3%
310 SUPPLIES 135,000 90,068 44,932 66.7%
340 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,540,000 1,028,716 511,284 66.8%
340 INVENTORY ITEMS 140,000 42,131 97,869 30.1%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 6,733 3,267 67.3%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74,300 17,024 57,276 22.9%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 16,870 13,130 56.2%
430 TRAVEL 4,850 7 4,843 0.1%
440 ADVERTISING 560 0 560 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,059 441 70.6%
460 INSURANCE 81,376 72,246 9,130 88.8%
470 UTILITIES 28,000 15,930 12,070 56.9%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 22,286 11,849 10,437 53.2%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 211,630 168,096 43,534 79.4%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 30,000 25,939 4,061 86.5%
540 EXCISE TAXES 216,000 337,977 (121,977) 156.5%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 17,533 0 17,533 0.0%
710 BOND PRINCIPAL 121,919 13,173 108,746 10.8%
830 BOND INTEREST 61,591 31,123 30,468 50.5%
840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,552 12,414 4,138 75.0%
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 152 (152) -
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 361,169 202,753 158,416 56.1%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 130,161 97,623 32,538 75.0%
980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 0 0 0 -
TOTAL WATER UTILITY 4,134,423 2,837,650 1,296,773 68.6%
Packet Page 207 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 29
655 SEWER
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 390,403 296,609 93,794 76.0%
120 OVERTIME 17,330 12,083 5,247 69.7%
230 BENEFITS 170,736 133,702 37,034 78.3%
240 UNIFORMS 5,170 2,789 2,381 53.9%
310 SUPPLIES 52,469 17,119 35,350 32.6%
340 FUEL CONSUMED 800 0 800 0.0%
340 INVENTORY ITEMS 3,000 9,077 (6,077) 302.6%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,000 4,304 1,696 71.7%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50,958 6,964 43,994 13.7%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 19,722 10,278 65.7%
430 TRAVEL 2,490 0 2,490 0.0%
440 ADVERTISING 560 0 560 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,870 1,463 407 78.2%
460 INSURANCE 120,963 148,204 (27,241) 122.5%
470 UTILITIES 440,394 192,642 247,752 43.7%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 18,666 7,313 11,353 39.2%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000 70,331 29,669 70.3%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 115,933 129,057 (13,124) 111.3%
540 EXCISE TAXES 270,000 352,688 (82,688) 130.6%
550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,317,533 685,877 631,656 52.1%
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 60,000 0 60,000 0.0%
780 BOND PRINCIPAL 150,363 86,563 63,800 57.6%
830 BOND INTEREST 30,328 18,580 11,748 61.3%
840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,552 12,413 4,139 75.0%
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 265,706 175,025 90,681 65.9%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 113,252 84,936 28,316 75.0%
980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 2,500 0 2,500 0.0%
TOTAL SEWER 3,753,976 2,467,459 1,286,517 65.7%
Packet Page 208 of 248
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT
Page 30
656 TREATMENT PLANT
# Title Budget
9/30/09
Expenditures Balance % Used
110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,110,983 794,727 316,256 71.5%
120 OVERTIME 50,660 48,652 2,008 96.0%
230 BENEFITS 409,507 303,450 106,057 74.1%
240 UNIFORMS 9,950 8,687 1,263 87.3%
310 SUPPLIES 384,240 323,144 61,096 84.1%
320 FUEL CONSUMED 139,230 25,851 113,379 18.6%
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,300 0 5,300 0.0%
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 59,000 40,403 18,597 68.5%
420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,500 7,135 1,365 83.9%
430 TRAVEL 4,000 686 3,314 17.1%
440 ADVERTISING 1,200 0 1,200 0.0%
450 RENTAL/LEASE 4,980 20,550 (15,570) 412.6%
460 INSURANCE 84,481 81,916 2,565 97.0%
470 UTILITIES 431,970 272,176 159,794 63.0%
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 83,800 118,540 (34,740) 141.5%
490 MISCELLANEOUS 81,800 42,729 39,071 52.2%
510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 114,000 47,642 66,358 41.8%
640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 -
710 BOND PRINCIPAL 97,153 2,199 94,954 2.3%
830 BOND INTEREST 24,547 12,291 12,256 50.1%
890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 0 0 -
910 INTERFUND SERVICES 180,000 133,645 46,355 74.2%
950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,632 6,471 2,161 75.0%
TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT 3,293,933 2,290,893 1,003,040 69.5%
Packet Page 209 of 248
Packet Page 210 of 248
Packet Page 211 of 248
Packet Page 212 of 248
Packet Page 213 of 248
Packet Page 214 of 248
Packet Page 215 of 248
Packet Page 216 of 248
AM-2953 12.
Public Comment on Budget Cuts
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public comment on budget cuts.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Council will receive public comment on budget cuts.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1: CM 3/16/2010
Link: Attach 2: CM 3/23/2010
Link: Attach 3: CM 4/20/2010
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:07 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 10:24 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 10:36 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/01/2010 09:05
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 217 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 13
commonly owned perimeter buffer with no lot lines, the result would be the lot lines would be removed
from the buffer area but the useable space would not change.
Councilmember Wilson commented the original intent of the PRD when created by the State was a tool to
allow for maximum flexibility for parcels with difficult topography or other environmental features. The
intent was to allocate the environmentally sensitive areas to the lot total and allow the same number of
units but smaller lots and a large conservation area. He wanted to ensure the subdivision regulations
continued to provide maximum flexibility for developments with environmental sensitive areas and/or
topography challenges. He suggested the City’s current PRD ordinance did not adequately reflect the
original intent of the PRD legislation. Mr. Chave explained the intent was to provide flexibility for
developments with environmentally sensitive areas as well as provide a mechanism for alternative forms
of home ownership/development such as cottage housing, zero lot line, etc. The City does not allow
attached housing in a PRD but does permit alternate forms of home ownership. For example the standard
way of developing a lot requires setbacks on all sides which dramatically reduces the usable area for a
small lot; a zero lot line makes the space around the house more usable by concentrating it and having the
house on one property line. That type of development cannot be done in a standard subdivision; a PRD is
the only option.
Mr. Chave explained the PRD ordinance was an alternative form of subdivision but was contained in a
separate chapter, making it somewhat confusing. The intent is to combine the PRD regulations with the
subdivision regulations, holding density constant but giving more flexibility at the subdivision design
phase.
Councilmember Wilson suggested staff provide a table identifying tools in the current PRD ordinance
versus the subdivision ordinance and the State’s intent of the original PRD. He wanted to ensure the
benefits of the original PRD legislation were not lost. Mr. Chave suggested staff provide periodic updates
to the Community Services/Development Services Committee as the Planning Board’s review progresses.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CRAFT AN INTERIM ORDINANCE THAT WOULD
RESTORE COUNCIL APPEAL TO PRDs AND ELIMINATE OVERLAPS BETWEEN
PERIMETER SETBACKS AND REAR SETBACKS AND BRING IT BACK FOR PUBLIC
HEARING AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF BUDGET CUTS.
Council President Bernheim explained this was scheduled on the agenda as an opportunity to gather
public input regarding potential budget cuts. There will be another opportunity to comment at the March
23 Council meeting.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the City’s budget crisis was similar to that experienced by other
cities, counties and states; the need for more revenue, budget cuts and tax increases. He provided the
following suggestions: wage increases this year should be very conservative as the City cannot afford to
provide raises; employee furloughs should continue or employees offered a choice of layoffs or furloughs;
utilize retirements and not filling vacancies as a way to reduce staff; make budget cuts before increasing
taxes; and delay a levy another year as residents are unlikely to support a tax increase at this time.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of a proforma analysis of the budget which matches fees to the
service provided. A proforma analysis was very helpful to the Health Board, allowing the Board to
identify programs that pay for themselves and programs that rely on discretionary revenue.
Packet Page 218 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 16, 2010
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson requested a formal presentation on the status of the committee work regarding the
City’s insurance benefit issue. He explained the current employee benefit plan is being eliminated next
year and the City will need to identify an alternate plan. He also suggested staff conduct an actuary
analysis of the City’s pension and retirement liabilities to its employees. One of the biggest threats to
corporations including municipal corporations is the inability to keep up with retirement costs. This
information is particularly important since the City’s staff has an older average age and what appears to
be an above average retirement compensation package. He suggested staff research the cost of hiring a
consultant to conduct an actuary analysis. He anticipated the pension and retirement liability was a much
larger amount than the City was currently budgeting for.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she recently retired from the State of Washington with 32
years of service. She expressed interest in amending the budget to reduce expenditures in the area of
supplies, travel, training, meals, professional dues other than those required by law, etc., a process the
State uses to reduce their budget. Reductions in those areas would not affect the community, employees
or citizens. She was not comfortable asking the taxpayers for a levy until the City’s own house was in
order. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council could amend the budget anytime they wished. He urged
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to meet with him to identify cuts she felt could be made in those areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and she meet with Mayor
Haakenson. As an example, she described cuts her family made while her husband was unemployed. She
commended staff for taking furloughs last year. She encouraged citizens interested in learning more
about the City’s finances to attend the Finance Committee meetings on the second Tuesday of each month
at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Wilson recalled when he was involved with developing the 2009/2010 budget, the total
for supplies, travel, professional dues for the eight quarters in the two year budget was approximately
$25,000. Only three quarters remain in the two year budget, which significantly reduces the cuts that
could be made to those items.
Councilmember Wilson expressed frustration with two instances in the budget process. Mayor
Haakenson’s interim budget cuts in April 2009 included freezing a $300,000 transfer from the General
Fund to an Automobile Replacement Fund. However, in reviewing the budget, he was unable to find
reference to that transfer. He would not have supported closing Yost Pool for the 2009 season had he
been aware not making that transfer was an alternative. Another source of frustration was the existence of
three reserve funds that do not appear in the budget book, two of which he acknowledged were very
small. He summarized those details would make the City’s finances more transparent as well as would be
helpful to the Council in making budget decisions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented whether potential budget cuts were $25,000 or $2500, she
had a responsibility to the Edmonds taxpayers to ensure the Council acted in a fiscally responsible
manner. She summarized $25,000 may not seem like a lot compared to the City’s entire budget but it
would fund 25% of the Economic Development Director position.
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated fiscal policies would be completed in the next 2-3 weeks. One of
the policies is a monthly General Fund analysis.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 219 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2010
Page 4
SNOCOM’s adopted 2010 budget is approximately $4.4 million with funding from 911 excise tax, VRMs
and assessments. The 2010 budget had two separate assessments, one for the SNOCOM operating budget
and one for New World project. There are no new positions or new project expenditures in the 2010
budget and the administrative staff was reorganized to improve efficiency. She provided SNOCOM’s
2010 goals with regard to personnel, training and projects. She highlighted the Community Notification
system, a reverse 911 system used to notify residents in the event of an emergency.
Terry Peterson, Information Systems Manager, SNOCOM, described the New World System, a
county-wide single database for dispatch, records, corrections, fire and mobile in which 52+ agencies
within Snohomish County will participate. From RFP to implementation, the New World System will be
a 4-5 year project. He explained the existing configuration has limited interface between police, fire and
the correction records management system, making it difficult to track crimes outside a jurisdiction. The
New World System will be a single county-wide database into which dispatch, records, corrections, fire
and mobile will enter and retrieve information.
The New World System will replace aging public safety communications equipment including Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS), and Corrections Management System
(CMS) and add Automated Field Reporting (AFR) and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). AFR will
make a police vehicle a mobile office, allowing an officer to start, finish, upload and complete all
reporting from their vehicle. AVL is similar to GPS and allows the dispatch center to recommend and
dispatch the unit closest to the incident.
The total system cost of the New World system is approximately $8 million, SNOCOM’s portion is
approximately $2.7 million. He described the budgetary impact to SNOCOM and project funding via $1
million from SNOCOM’s CAD/RMS Reserve Balance and a loan for the remainder. He described
implementation of the New World System, explaining the system is currently being configured,
corrections will be live in January 2011 and CAD/RMS will be live in June 2011.
Ms. Grady invited Councilmembers to visit SNOCOM and do a “sit-along” with a dispatcher. She also
invited them to National Telecommunicators Week events April 11-17, SNOCOM’s picnic in August and
the holiday open house in December.
Councilmember Wilson commented he hears many exemplary comments about SNOCOM and
SNOCOM is often referred to as an organization whose operations other organizations should aspire.
Mayor Haakenson remarked in the 14 years he has been on the Council and as Mayor, this is the first time
SNOCOM has ever made a presentation to the Council.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF BUDGET CUTS.
Council President Bernheim explained this was an opportunity for the public to provide their ideas
regarding budget cuts. The Council will be considering a tax increase later this year as well as continuing
to identify cuts to the budget. As the cost of providing services increases and caps on tax increases take
effect, the gap between the cost of services and available funds widens.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested the Council identify cuts that have been made in the past. As an
example, he pointed out the City Clerk’s office provides a person making a public records request a
minimal number of pages at no charge and charges a fee for additional pages. He also cited the removal
of the bird watching pier which used to attract numerous birdwatchers to the City. He suggested Police
Packet Page 220 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2010
Page 5
Department overtime also be considered, noting in the past it was less expensive to pay overtime than hire
another officer. He suggested each Councilmember develop a list of budget cuts for public comment.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the suggestions he made last week such as being conservative,
employee furloughs, and not filling vacancies created by retirements. After making a public records
request, he was surprised to see the volume of email between staff. He suggested a great deal of staff
time was being wasted on email. Next, he pointed out in difficult times, personal budgets focused on
essentials such as food and shelter and unnecessary expenditures were omitted. He expressed concern
with the Council’s expenditure of $15,000 for the Cascade Conservancy, pointing the City could not
afford to go green this year and any unnecessary expenditures should be eliminated.
Councilmember Buckshnis read an email that posed the following questions: the cost of in-house versus
using outside counsel, ways not to use consultants as much, and why the City was paying for Blackberry
cell phone service for Fire District 1 administrative staff.
Councilmember Wilson recalled one of the issues he raised last week was the potential unfunded pension
and retiree health benefits. After speaking with Mayor Haakenson and Human Resources Director Debi
Humann, he learned the City has a very limited liability, due primarily because several years ago the State
took over the majority of retirement benefits. The City currently has liability for pension and health
benefits for 39 retirees, 4 who draw a small pension ($3000/month total) and 35 law enforcement
employees and firefighters for whom the city pays health benefits. These employees have rich benefits
and often very costly healthcare, likely totaling $3 - $4 million, an unfunded amount. A study was done
by an actuarial firm in 2004 who identified ongoing costs of approximately $380,000 annually. Although
this is a very manageable amount, it may be appropriate to conduct another actuarial study to determine
whether it was still necessary to transfer that amount. He estimated the cost of an actuarial study at
approximately $10,000.
Due to the need to identify alternate healthcare benefits for City employees, Councilmember Wilson
suggested the City consider self insurance. He acknowledged the City was self-insured in the 1990s and
had a bad experience. A number of local cities are self-insured and many companies with over 200
employees self-insure. His preliminary analysis indicates the City could realize a $1 million - $1.5
million savings via a self-insurance model. He recognized there were costs associated with self-insurance
including stop loss coverage which the City did not have in the 1990s. Self-insurance would allow the
City to maintain the same or better benefits for its employees at a reduced cost. He urged the group
considering insurance alternatives to present options to the Council this summer prior to the budget
process.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Lora Petso, Edmonds, was disappointed in the lack of action on a PRD fix, pointing out although the
issue had not been dropped, the flaws remained in place, allowing a new application to take advantage of
those flaws. She was also disappointed with the new stormwater ordinance, pointing out the definition
section contained new words including variance and exception. She did not support exceptions to
drainage requirements and the associated litigation it could create. She expressed concern with allowing
only the applicant to appeal the Public Works Director’s decision on an exception and not allowing the
public to appeal a decision. She was also concerned with private ownership of stormwater facilities and
suggested private ownership not be allowed in areas with historic storm drainage issues. She pointed out
the importance of properly maintaining stormwater facilities and her preference that the City be
responsible for maintenance rather than a private owner. She commented phrases in the code such as 100
year storm were replaced with flow control credits. She urged the Council to determine whether the
proposed stormwater code increased or reduced stormwater regulations. To Councilmember Wilson’s
Packet Page 221 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2010
Page 6
suggestion, she offered to provide the name of a firm who could provide an actuarial analysis at a cost
lower than he suggested.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, recalled at last week’s Council meeting Mayor Haakenson reported the unions
had expressed a desire to begin negotiations earlier than in the past because they wanted to recoup some
of the compensation they gave up in 2009. He assumed this referred to compensation lost as a result of
furloughs. He recommended in the upcoming labor negotiations the City strive to recoup some of the
unjustified increases given for 2009; explaining that even after furloughs, individual employee
compensation in 2009 was above 2008. Most taxpayers continue to experience compensation reductions
that include furloughs and pay cuts. He recommended the City retain a person who specializes in labor
negotiations. Even without the Fire Department, employee compensation accounts for more than 50% of
total expenses and is growing faster than other expenses. The outlook for 2011 is compensation will
grow by 6.7% compared to 2.8% for all other expenses. For 2012-2016 compensation is expected to
grow twice as fast as other expenses.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, recalled approximately two years ago the Council discussed obtaining an
appraisal of the Skippers and old Safeway properties but no action was taken. She requested the Council
obtain an appraisal of those two properties to allow a decision to be made in time to place a purchase
measure on the November 2010 ballot. She suggested the property could be land banked and present and
future residents allowed to develop their vision for the property. She recalled past ideas for the property
included a maritime or art museum, or a cultural center. She commented the Council was lucky; few
Councils had the opportunity to oversee and coordinate 40 acres of prime waterfront property.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, noted his comments at last week’s meeting regarding the skybridge were
accurately reflected in the minutes except “WSDOT future rails” should be “DOT future trails.” He
commended staff’s presentation at last week’s meeting regarding use of the City’s right-of-way for bistro
and outdoor dining. With regard to the proposal in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan for a
signal at 9th & Walnut, he reported it took 43 seconds at 5:30 p.m. to get through the intersection; most
lights take 2 minutes. He expressed concern with trains on the double tracks blocking access to the ferry
and suggested the City research acquiring the Unocal property and trading it for property in the Antique
Mall. He endorsed Council President Bernheim’s suggestion for Councilmembers to hold visioning
meetings in the community.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported the March 19 Hearing Examiner meeting was conducted very well.
Next, he announced a Community Food Drive at Top Foods on March 31 and April 2-3 to benefit the
local food bank. The public can also purchase and donate Easter bags for $5. The Food Bank served 416
people today.
6. REPORT FROM PLANNING DIVISION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUTLOOK FOR 2010-
2011.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted in
Washington in 1990. The City’s first Comprehensive Plan under GMA was adopted in 1995. The last
major update was completed in 2004. Local jurisdictions are on a 7-year update cycle; Edmonds’ next
update was due in 2011. The Legislature passed SSB-6611 extending the deadline to 2014 although
Governor Gregoire has not yet signed the bill.
He explained the purpose of updates is to assure compliance with GMA as well as maintain consistency
with regional planning efforts. Updates also must address consistency between the Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations. He reviewed a diagram illustrating the interaction between GMA goals and
Packet Page 222 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2010
Page 7
mandates, multi-county planning policies, county-wide planning policies, Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) Vision 2040/Regional Vision and local plans.
With regard to regional planning, Mr. Chave explained Vision 2040 was adopted by PSRC in 2009; it
provides regional vision and growth strategy for the 4-county region through 2040. As part of that
regional planning strategy, PSRC also adopted multi-county planning policies for the 4-county region.
This requires consistency and ties between land use and transportation in a sustainable framework.
The Snohomish County Council in conjunction with Snohomish County Tomorrow is in the process of
updating Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to reflect Vision 2040 regional vision and growth strategy.
He pointed out the difference between CPPs and countywide population allocations. It happened that the
last 7-year Comprehensive Plan update and the 10-year population allocations occurred at approximately
the same time; countywide population allocations are due in 2015.
Edmonds usually updates specific plans (e.g. water, sewer, parks, or transportation) on a regular basis.
The formal 7-year update is a more comprehensive effort tied to GMA consistency and larger growth and
vision issues, for example population and capacity analyses. He provided a timeline for updating the
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, Water Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive
Plan Framework/Vision 2040 acknowledgement, Comprehensive Plan Hearing Examiner Review
requirement, Street Tree Plan, Shoreline Master Program and Sustainability Indicators. He suggested a
joint Council/Planning Board meeting to discuss Sustainability Indicators.
Mr. Chave also provided a timeline for review of City Council referrals and Code revision/updates, noting
the annual Comprehensive Plan update was a small portion of the Planning Board’s work plan. He
offered to have staff provide the Council a monthly update regarding the Planning Board’s progress on
these items. The 2010 amendments are intended to update certain specific plans (e.g. water,
storm/surface water, street tree plans), incorporate the vision and general sustainability framework from
Vision 2040 into Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan, and move sustainability forward by looking at
indicators and ways of measuring progress.
It will be important during the 2011-2014 planning period to further analyze how Edmonds can work
toward the regional vision and growth strategy. It will also provide an opportunity to review major
growth issues and vision within the community, such as Activity Centers, links to transit, and how
Edmonds Crossing fits within that framework. In 2015, Snohomish County will allocate population, a
process that involves all the jurisdictions. It will be critical prior to 2015 for the City to do its homework
to determine what its target should be in advance of that allocation process. He explained the regional
allocation does not allocate population to specific jurisdictions, it allocates population to groups of
jurisdictions; Edmonds is one of several large cities in Snohomish County.
Councilmember Plunkett commented regardless of what the City wants its population target to be, it will
be told what to take. Mr. Chave answered the State Office of Financial Management provides a total
population for Snohomish County and via Snohomish County Tomorrow the jurisdictions determine how
that amount is divided by jurisdiction. The difference in the upcoming allocation is PSRC’s regional
distribution goals must also be considered. Therefore, the allocation will not just be countywide but also
in relation to the region. It will be important for the City to consider what is reasonable. In the past the
allocation has been easy as several jurisdictions wanted the population growth. History has shown the
population targeted for Edmonds has not happened, largely because it was less expensive to develop
outlying areas. He anticipated the upcoming allocation may encourage infill to accommodate growth.
Therefore it is important for Edmonds to proactively determine its target and to be able to make its case
regarding what is achievable.
Packet Page 223 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2010
Page 8
Councilmember Wilson commented other reasons it was important for the City to proactively determine
its target include, 1) in the last 5-10 years there has been an effort to protect rural lands from further
development and less population will be allocated to those areas, 2) during the last allocation Mountlake
Terrace and Bothell got a disproportionately high share of population and Snohomish County
Councilmember Gossett is working to ensure that does not happen again. As a result Edmonds may get a
larger population allocation and if the zoning does not exist to accommodate development to meet the
allocation, the City can be compelled to change the zoning.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Mr. Chave’s suggestion to update the Council regarding the Planning
Board’s schedule. Mr. Chave suggested staff could also include an updated schedule with the Planning
Board minutes. Councilmember Wilson suggested including the timeline on the City’s website with links
to the material.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) included the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. Chave answered it was only the CFP; the intent was to develop a 2-year
CFP that was tied to the budget. He explained the CFP includes only capital projects in a 20-year
planning period; the CIP includes both capital and maintenance projects to be completed within six years.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the CIP will be presented to the Council. Public Works Director Noel
Miller advised in conversations with the Finance Director, he indicated the CIP will be incorporated into
the 2011-2012 budget process.
Councilmember Wilson suggested staff also be aware of minor activities that are not sustainable. Mr.
Chave explained as the Planning Board reviews the Plans, they will be referencing the Sustainability
Element to ensure the sustainability goals are reflected in the updates.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about establishing a tree maintenance program as part of the Street Tree
Plan, expressing concern that the trees at 5th & Dayton had to be removed because they were dangerous
and/or not adequately maintained.
Council President Bernheim commented Edmonds’ current population was approximately 40,000; the
target for 2025 was 45,000 or approximately 300 people per year. He summarized Edmonds’ growth
targets were not large. Mr. Chave agreed they were in line with the City’s experience. Council President
Bernheim advised he would be using the timeline Mr. Chave provided to schedule items on the Council’s
extended agenda. He questioned why each item had a public meeting and a public hearing at the Council.
Mr. Chave explained staff typically briefs the Council to explain the rationale and to take
questions/requests/feedback prior to the formal public hearing. He invited the Council to identify any
items where they wanted an additional public meeting or to only hold a public hearing.
Council President Bernheim pointed out the December 2009 Comprehensive Plan contains numerous
references to the importance of the Edmonds Crossing project, a project that has effectively been shelved.
Mr. Chave answered Edmonds Crossing is not just the Pt. Edwards project; the central importance of
Edmonds Crossing is the multimodal aspect and linking various modes of transportation. Regardless of
what ultimately happens with the Pt. Edwards project, it is important to keep Edmonds Crossing as a
concept. He suggested during the Comprehensive Plan update extension, discussions occur with
Department of Transportation, Sound Transit, and Community Transit regarding short term solutions that
would accomplish much of what Edmonds Crossing was intended to accomplish as well as the long term
vision of Pt. Edwards. He did not recommend any action that would jeopardize the concept of Edmonds
Crossing. The Comprehensive Plan is very specific about phasing; the short term phase did not include
Pt. Edwards and many of the short term efforts are consistent with the statements in the
Downtown/Waterfront Plan regardless of Pt. Edwards.
Packet Page 224 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 19
found it ironic that the next agenda item was public comment on budget cuts; this should be the first
budget cut. Government’s primary responsibility is health and safety; this purchase represents neither.
Health and safety was the Fire Department that the Council abrogated to Fire District 1. The City can ill
afford to spend money on dreams and personal agendas. It has been suggested the City purchase the
property to control it; citizens are not interested in government controlling their lives. Citizens have lost
faith in their government due to actions such as this, government that is not responsive to the people and
government spending money that is not theirs on something they cannot afford. He suggested the
Skipper’s building could be used as a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen or for a monument to fiscal
irresponsibility.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated his vision for the property was similar to the modeling done by the
high school students, the property between Main and Dayton would be public use with other public-
private partnership uses on the remainder. He envisioned this property purchase could be funded via the
funds from the sale of assets to Fire District 1, REET funds and grants. Before the site was developed it
could be used for parking and the City collect funds paid for parking. With regard to fiscal
irresponsibility, he recalled when property on the waterfront was purchased for $500,000 and grants were
obtained to repay the General Fund.
Tracy Cobbin, Edmonds, a real estate agent for 11 years, urged the Council to walk away from this deal,
commenting the assessed value or what the property was worth in 2006 had little to do with its current
value. The purchase was not appropriate at the expense of City employees, Yost Pool or in this economy.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out the Diamond Parking Lot did not renew their parking application in
2010 in the waterfront area. He would support purchase of the Skipper’s property if it were funded 100%
via grants and developed with a use that generated revenue. He suggested Councilmembers contact
Financial Director Lorenzo Hines to discuss the City’s finances.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, reported the post office property was sold for $2+ million; the listing price was
$4.150 million, illustrating the stated price of a property did not reflect its actual value. Although she
wholeheartedly agreed with the vote to purchase the property, it was sometimes necessary to make
decisions not with your heart but with your head. As a small business owner, she envisioned if she cut her
employees pay while buying a second home, there would be integrity issues. During her education in
urban planning/city management/community design, wonderful places such as Central Park and cities
where property was transformed into gathering places were often showcased. One of the most important
messages was these places begin with a plan and input from the community before they methodically
began accumulating properties that worked for that plan. Purchasing property the City could not afford
and spending millions for a plan later was not prudent. She recalled a community member who spent
$25,000 on flower baskets a few years ago and citizens who fundraised to keep Yost Pool open. She
summarized citizens want the Council to lead and have a vision but also wanted them to be fiscally
responsible. She objected to spending $1.1 million on the Skipper’s property when employee’s wages had
not been reestablished and other budget cuts were threatened. She summarized she was not able to
purchase a new house because she got a windfall; she must stay and put a roof on the house she has.
10. PUBLIC COMMENT ON BUDGET CUTS.
Priya Cloutier, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers who think not getting paid was not a big deal
return their salary and healthcare insurance to the City.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented on nearly the $500,000 that had been spent on the fiber optics
program. He anticipated if the Council were required to resell the Skipper’s property even at a loss, there
would be some return on the money spent, unlike the fiber optics program. The City was investing
Packet Page 225 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 20
$6,000-$7,000/month on fiber optics with only continued promises it would generate revenue. He viewed
the fiber optics as speculation and did not support the City being in that business.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, proposed the budget include pay raises for employees who provide good service.
He pointed out the primary issue was increases in healthcare insurance premiums for union and non-union
employees. He anticipated the second quarter revenues would be higher.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested in the future budget cuts comply with the ordinance that states
financials for September 2009 and December 2009 be available on the website. She also suggested a
proforma be available on the website. Mayor Haakenson asked what she considered a proforma.
Councilmember Buckshnis answered the executive summary was a five year proforma. Mayor Haakenson
agreed to have the executive summary posted on the website as well as the December 2009 financials
when they were available.
Councilmember Orvis commented his primary interest during the budget process would be distinguishing
revenues particularly government service fees and parks fees in order to determine each department’s
dependence on fees.
11. COUNCIL REVIEW OF LEVY OPTIONS.
Council President Bernheim announced May 18, 2010 was the deadline for Council action to place a levy
on the August ballot and August 3, 2010 was the deadline for placing a levy on the November ballot.
Council President Bernheim reviewed the history of the Council action with regard to the levy:
April 21, 2009 the Council requested staff prepare two options, 1) a general operations levy, and
2) a dedicated parks/public safety/families option.
The following week the Council took public comment and five people commented.
The next week the Council again took public comment and a couple more people commented.
May 19, 2009 the Council passed a resolution to have some kind of levy in 2009.
June 16, 2009 staff returned with proposed language for only a general operations levy.
June 23, 2009 the Council voted again to reaffirm their commitment to a levy.
July 21, 2009 Councilmember Wilson and he presented a dedicated levy option for parks, public
safety and family/social services.
July 21, 2009 the Council voted unanimously to put a levy option to the people.
July 28, 2009 the Council voted 4-2 to postpone placing a levy o the ballot to 2010.
Since then the Edmonds School District and the Library District levies have passed.
Council President Bernheim explained annual property taxes increases were capped at 1%; however, the
City’s expenses increase by a greater amount. Labor expenses, whether individual salaries or health
benefits or hiring more people, have historically increased by more than 1%/year. He summarized the
City’s budget shortfall was not due to irresponsible spending but because revenues did not keep pace with
expenses. As a result government must periodically ask the voters for tax increases.
Council President Bernheim voiced his support for giving the voters an opportunity to choose whether
their property taxes should increase via a targeted levy that supported parks, the Senior Center,
recreational activities. In 1-2 weeks, he planned to present the Council a variant of the dedicated levy
Councilmember Wilson and he proposed last year in time to take action by May 18.
Packet Page 226 of 248
AM-2954 13.
Council Review of Levy Options
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/27/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:45 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Council review of levy options.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
As part of the Council's continuing review of the 2010 levy options, please review the attached
proposals submitted by Council members Bernheim and Wilson on July 21, 2009.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Pages from July 21, 2009 Agenda Memo
Link: Agenda Memo Re resolution and final action on the 2009 Levy
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 11:54 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/22/2010 01:17 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/22/2010 01:41 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/01/2010 09:06
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Packet Page 227 of 248
The following compares two levy options. One is a “technology and general operations levy” or “Prop
1,” which was presented by the mayor in June. The second, “Prop 2,” would be called a “Public Safety
and Parks Levy” and will be presented July 21st.
Both levies are $3.75m in total, or equal to $18.50 per month for the average Edmonds home
($456,000). Both levies fully fund existing services (with 2 exceptions in Prop 2), provide for reserves to
carry us into the future, and begin the process of catching up with deferred investments from the last
decade.
Prop 1 Prop 2
1. Fire: Protective Clothing 114,000 114,000
General Operations (One-time purchases)
2. Fire: SCBA Air Compressor 39,000 39,000
3. Fire: Fire Hose Replacement 39,000 39,000
4. Fire: ALS Equipment for Backup Unit 40,000 40,000
5. Fire: Standardize Equipment on Eng 20 42,000 42,000
6. Fire: Replacement Tools and Equipment 50,000 50,000
7. Parks: Lawn Mower 15,000 15,000
8. Econ Dev: Resources/Advertising
$339,000 $549,000
$210,000 ($70k/yr, 3 yrs)
9. Parks: Senior Center
General Operations (On-going)
$0 $100,000
$100,000
10. Clerk: Document Mgmt System 100,000 100,000
Technology (One-time purchases)
11. IS: Offsite Data Backup 73,0001
12. IS: Offsite Server 24,000
13. IS: Storage Server Facilities Impr. 25,000
14. IS: Upgrade to GigE 9,000
15. IS: Basic Wireless Controllers 37,000
16. FIre: ePCR Hardware and Software 40,000 40,000
17. Dev Serv: Automated Permit Package 25,000
18. Dev Serv: Digital Records Initiative 30,000
19. IS: General Technology Purchases 160,000
20.
21.
$363,000 $240,000
1 Information Services expenditures have offsetting funding from the utility fund. In total, all of the IS line items
accumulate $104,000 in utility fund funding.
Packet Page 228 of 248
Prop 1 Prop 2
22. IS: GIS Analyst 87,450
Personnel (On-Going Costs)
23. IS: Server/Apps Support Staff 66,650
24. IS: Webmaster & Analyst 88,750
25. IS: Helpdesk Staff 38,050
26. Fire: Fire Inspector/Educator/Help 109,877 109,877
27. Police: Crime Prevention 108,803 108,803
28. Police: Staff Assistant 60,421 60,421
29. Parks: Parks Maintenance Worker 68,330 68,330
30. HR: Part Time HR Assistant 26,600
31. Clerk: Administrative Assistant 60,000 60,000
32. Public Works: Facilities Maintenance 55,900
33. Police: 2 New Uniformed Police Officers 220,000
34.
35.
36.
$770,831 $627,431
39. Public Works: Building Maintenance 200,000
Building Maintenance (On-going)
40. Parks: Yost/Senior Center/Boys & Girls/ Meadowdale 250,000
41. Fire: Station 17 & 20 150,000
42.
$200,000 $400,000
One-time $702,000 $789,900
Ongoing $970,831 $1,127,431
Subtotal 1,672,831 $1,916,431
Utility fund offset -$104,000
Cuts from “Baseline” - $91,006 2
Total $1,508,831 $1,825,425
2 This cost will be offset by savings $91,006 for not funding the Animal Control and DARE programs in Prop 2 which
are funded in Prop 1. There are 2 Animal Control positions currently funded. The third is currently unfilled and
this would not fund that unfilled position. The DARE Program is currently scheduled to be cut for 2009-2010
Packet Page 229 of 248
Total expenditures: both one-time and on-going
Fire 473,877 28.3% 623,877 32.8%
Dept Prop 1 % Prop 2 %
Police 169,224 10.1 389,224 20.5
Parks 83,330 5.0 433,330 22.8
Econ Dev 210,000 11.0
Public Works 255,900 15.3
Information Services 448,900 26.8 100,000 5.3
Human Resources 26,600 1.6
Clerk 160,000 9.6 160,000 8.4
Dev Services
55,000 3.3
Subtotal $1,672,831 $1,901,431
Offsets outlined above
-$104,000 -$91,006
Total $1,568,831 $1,810,425
Ending fund balance
Year Target 3
2010 $3,077,822 $3,012,724 $2,760,130
Prop 1 Prop 2
2011 $3,138,860 $4,364,200 $3,946,012
2012 $3,256,552 $5,071,433 $4,487,651
2013 $3,381,646 $5,122,985 $4,373,609
2014 $3,518,401 $4,420,449 $3,505,479
2015 $3,649,797 $3,053,314 $ 1,972,750
Current projected 2010 ending fund balance without a levy = $1,308,305. These numbers do not
account for inflation in personnel costs. Non-personnel ongoing costs would be held in 2010 dollars in
any case (Senior Center funding would remain at an additional $100,000). Marginal cost increases are in
2010 numbers. Also, all economic development dollars are allocated to 2010, even though those funds
are proposed to be spread over three years.
3 This comes from City Finance Dept goal of reserves equal to 1/12 of the annual expenses.
43.4% 76.1%
Packet Page 230 of 248
Le
v
y
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
#2
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
by
DJ
Wi
l
s
o
n
& St
e
v
e
Be
r
n
h
e
i
m
Ju
l
y
21
st
, 20
0
9
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
1
of
24
8
Wh
a
t
Bo
t
h
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
Do
1.
Fu
n
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2.
Se
t
as
i
d
e
re
s
e
r
v
e
s
to
pa
y
for the next
5 ye
a
r
s
of
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
3.
Be
g
i
n
to
fu
n
d
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
deferred
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
2
of
24
8
Ma
j
o
r
Is
s
u
e
s
•
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
is
in
th
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
of
de
f
e
r
r
e
d
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
–
Fo
c
u
s
on
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,
ge
n
e
r
a
l
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
Fo
c
u
s
on
pu
b
l
i
c
sa
f
e
t
y
,
pa
r
k
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
3
of
24
8
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
Two
Pr
o
p
1P r o p 2
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(O
n
e
‐ti
m
e
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
)
1.
Fi
r
e
:
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
Cl
o
t
h
i
n
g
11
4
,
0
0
0
114,000
2.
Fi
r
e
:
SC
B
A
Ai
r
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
39
,
0
0
0
39,000
3.
Fi
r
e
:
Fi
r
e
Ho
s
e
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
39
,
0
0
0
39,000
4.
Fi
r
e
:
AL
S
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
fo
r
Ba
c
k
u
p
Un
i
t
40
,
0
0
0
40,000
5.
Fi
r
e
:
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
on
En
g
20
42
,
0
0
0
42,000
6.
Fi
r
e
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
To
o
l
s
an
d
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
50
,
0
0
0
50,000
7.
Pa
r
k
s
:
La
w
n
Mo
w
e
r
15
,
0
0
0
15,000
8.
Ec
o
n
De
v
:
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
/
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
$210,000
$3
3
9
,
0
0
0
$549,000
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
4
of
24
8
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
Two
Pr
o
p
1P r o p 2
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(O
n
‐go
i
n
g
)
9.
Pa
r
k
s
:
Se
n
i
o
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
$100,000
$0
$100,000
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
5
of
24
8
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
Two
Pr
o
p
1P r o p 2
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
(O
n
e
‐ti
m
e
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
)
10
.
Cl
e
r
k
:
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
Mg
m
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
10
0
,
0
0
0
100,000
11
.
IS
:
Of
f
s
i
t
e
Da
t
a
Ba
c
k
u
p
73
,
0
0
0
12
.
IS
:
Of
f
s
i
t
e
Se
r
v
e
r
24
,
0
0
0
13
.
IS
:
St
o
r
a
g
e
Se
r
v
e
r
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Im
p
r
.
25
,
0
0
0
14
.
IS
:
Up
g
r
a
d
e
to
Gi
g
E
9,
0
0
0
15
.
IS
:
Ba
s
i
c
Wi
r
e
l
e
s
s
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
s
37
,
0
0
0
16
.
FI
r
e
:
eP
C
R
Ha
r
d
w
a
r
e
an
d
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
40,000
40
,
0
0
0
17
.
De
v
Se
r
v
:
Au
t
o
m
a
t
e
d
Pe
r
m
i
t
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
25
,
0
0
0
18
.
De
v
Se
r
v
:
Di
g
i
t
a
l
Re
c
o
r
d
s
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
30
,
0
0
0
19
.
IS
:
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
160,000
20
.
21
.
$3
6
3
,
0
0
0
$240,000
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
ha
v
e
of
f
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
fu
n
d
i
n
g
fr
o
m
th
e
utility fund. In total, all of
th
e
IS
li
n
e
it
e
m
s
ac
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
e
$1
0
4
,
0
0
0
in
ut
i
l
i
t
y
fu
n
d
fu
n
d
i
n
g
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
6
of
24
8
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
Two
Pr
o
p
1P r o p 2
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
(O
n
‐Go
i
n
g
Co
s
t
s
)
22
.
IS
:
GI
S
An
a
l
y
s
t
87
,
4
5
0
23
.
IS
:
Se
r
v
e
r
/
A
p
p
s
Su
p
p
o
r
t
St
a
f
f
66
,
6
5
0
24
.
IS
:
We
b
m
a
s
t
e
r
& An
a
l
y
s
t
88,750
25
.
IS
:
He
l
p
d
e
s
k
St
a
f
f
38
,
0
5
0
26
.
Fi
r
e
:
Fi
r
e
In
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
/
E
d
u
c
a
t
o
r
/
H
e
l
p
10
9
,
8
7
7
109,877
27
.
Po
l
i
c
e
:
Cr
i
m
e
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
10
8
,
8
0
3
108,803
28
.
Po
l
i
c
e
:
St
a
f
f
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
60
,
4
2
1
60,421
29
.
Pa
r
k
s
:
Pa
r
k
s
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Wo
r
k
e
r
68
,
3
3
0
68,330
30
.
HR
:
Pa
r
t
Ti
m
e
HR
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
26
,
6
0
0
31
.
Cl
e
r
k
:
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
60
,
0
0
0
60,000
32
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
:
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
55
,
9
0
0
33
.
Po
l
i
c
e
:
2 Ne
w
Un
i
f
o
r
m
e
d
Po
l
i
c
e
Of
f
i
c
e
r
s
220,000
34
.
35
.
36
.
$7
7
0
,
8
3
1
$627,431
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
ha
v
e
of
f
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
fu
n
d
i
n
g
fr
o
m
th
e
ut
i
l
i
t
y
fu
n
d
.
In total, all of the IS line items
ac
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
e
$1
0
4
,
0
0
0
in
ut
i
l
i
t
y
fu
n
d
fu
n
d
i
n
g
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
7
of
24
8
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
Two
Pr
o
p
1P r o p 2
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(O
n
‐go
i
n
g
)
39
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
:
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
20
0
,
0
0
0
40
.
Pa
r
k
s
:
Yo
s
t
/
S
e
n
i
o
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
/
250,000
Bo
y
s
& Gi
r
l
s
/
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
Cl
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
41
.
Fi
r
e
:
St
a
t
i
o
n
17
& 20
150,000
42
.
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$400,000
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
8
of
24
8
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
Two
Pr
o
p
1P
r o p 2
On
e
‐ti
m
e
$7
0
2
,
0
0
0
$7
8
9
,
9
0
0
On
g
o
i
n
g
$9
7
0
,
8
3
1
$1
,
1
2
7
,
4
3
1
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
1,
6
7
2
,
8
3
1
$1
,
9
1
6
,
4
3
1
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
fu
n
d
of
f
s
e
t
‐$1
0
4
,
0
0
0
Cu
t
s
fr
o
m
“B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
”
‐
$9
1
,
0
0
6
To
t
a
l
$1
,
5
0
8
,
8
3
1
$1
,
8
2
5
,
4
2
5
Th
e
co
s
t
fo
r
Pr
o
p
2 wi
l
l
be
of
f
s
e
t
by
sa
v
i
n
g
s
$9
1
,
0
0
6
by
no
t
fu
n
d
i
n
g
th
e
Animal Control and DARE
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
wh
i
c
h
ar
e
fu
n
d
e
d
in
Pr
o
p
1.
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
2 An
i
m
a
l
Co
n
t
r
o
l
positions currently funded.
Th
e
th
i
r
d
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
un
f
i
l
l
e
d
an
d
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
no
t
fu
n
d
th
a
t
un
f
i
l
l
e
d
position. The DARE Program
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
to
be
cu
t
fo
r
20
0
9
‐20
1
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
23
9
of
24
8
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
Two
To
t
a
l
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
:
bo
t
h
on
e
‐ti
m
e
an
d
on
‐go
i
n
g
De
p
t
Pr
o
p
1%
Pr op 2%
Fi
r
e
47
3
,
8
7
7
28
.
3
%
623,877 32.8%
Po
l
i
c
e
16
9
,
2
2
4
10
.
1
389,224 20.5
Pa
r
k
s
83
,
3
3
0
5.
0
433,330 22.8
Ec
o
n
De
v
210,000 11.0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
25
5
,
9
0
0
15
.
3
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
44
8
,
9
0
0
26
.
8
100,000 5.3
Hu
m
a
n
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
26
,
6
0
0
1.
6
Cl
e
r
k
16
0
,
0
0
0
9.
6
160,000 8.4
De
v
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
55
,
0
0
0
3.
3
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$1
,
6
7
2
,
8
3
1
$1,901,431
Of
f
s
e
t
s
ou
t
l
i
n
e
d
ab
o
v
e
‐$1
0
4
,
0
0
0
‐$91,006
To
t
a
l
$1
,
5
6
8
,
8
3
1
$1,810,425
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
24
0
of
24
8
En
d
i
n
g
Fu
n
d
Balance
YE
A
R
TA
R
G
E
T
PR
O
P
1
PROP 2
20
1
0
$3
,
0
7
7
,
8
2
2
$3
,
0
1
2
,
7
2
4
$2,760,130
20
1
1
$3
,
1
3
8
,
8
6
0
$4
,
3
6
4
,
2
0
0
$3,946,012
20
1
2
$3
,
2
5
6
,
5
5
2
$5
,
0
7
1
,
4
3
3
$4,487,651
20
1
3
$3
,
3
8
1
,
6
4
6
$5
,
1
2
2
,
9
8
5
$4,373,609
20
1
4
$3
,
5
1
8
,
4
0
1
$4
,
4
2
0
,
4
4
9
$3,505,479
20
1
5
$3
,
6
4
9
,
7
9
7
$3
,
0
5
3
,
3
1
4
$ 1,972,750
*N
u
m
b
e
r
s
no
t
ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
fo
r
inflation
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
24
1
of
24
8
AM-2403 4.
Resolution and Final Action on the 2009 Levy
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/21/2009
Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council
Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Resolution and final action on the 2009 Levy.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
This is anticipated to be the Council's final action on the size and scope of the 2009 Levy.
For Council consideration and discussion, Councilmember Bernheim provided a sample resolution
authorizing the levy, and a sample ballot proposition as it would appear to the voters (copies
attached).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Councilmember Bernheim Attachment
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/16/2009 11:17 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/16/2009 11:30 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/16/2009 12:54 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 07/16/2009 10:52
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/16/2009
Packet Page 242 of 248
Packet Page 243 of 248
Packet Page 244 of 248
Packet Page 245 of 248
Packet Page 246 of 248
Packet Page 247 of 248
AM-2403 4.
Resolution and Final Action on the 2009 Levy
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date: 07/21/2009
Submitted By: Jana Spellman, City Council
Submitted For: Council President Wilson Time: 30 Minutes
Department: City Council Type: Action
Review Committee:
C ommittee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Resolution and final action on the 2009 Levy.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
This is anticipated to be the Council's final action on the size and scope of the 2009 Levy.
For Council consideration and discussion, Councilmember Bernheim provided a sample resolution
authorizing the levy, and a sample ballot proposition as it would appear to the voters (copies
attached).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Councilmember Bernheim Attachment
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/16/2009 11:17 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson07/16/2009 11:30 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/16/2009 12:54 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 07/16/2009 10:52 AM
F inal Approval Date: 07/16/2009
Packet Page 248 of 248