2010.05.04 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
MAY 4, 2010
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-3043 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010.
C. AM-3040 Approval of claim checks #118580 through #118713 dated April 29, 2010 for $1,764,970.73.
D. AM-3028 Acceptance of list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the
Washington State Liquor Control Board, April 2010.
E. AM-3026 Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to the professional services agreement with
Brown & Caldwell for the Odor Control Improvement Project for $18,000.
F. AM-3032 Proclamation in honor of National Day of Prayer, May 6, 2010.
G. AM-3034 Proclamation in honor of National Police Week, May 10 - 16, 2010.
H. AM-3033 Proclamation in honor of Building Safety Month, May 2010.
3. AM-3029
(5 Minutes)
Community Service Announcement: Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce / New
Edmonds Chamber Foundation.
4. AM-3025
(15 Minutes)
Presentation on affordable housing.
5. AM-3005
(30 Minutes)
Public comment regarding possible purchase of Skipper's property.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. AM-3036
(15 Minutes)
2009 Budget Review.
8. AM-3045
(15 Minutes)
First Quarter 2010 Budget Update.
9. AM-2963 Council review and decision concerning Primary Election ballot resolution for 8/17/10
Packet Page 1 of 216
9. AM-2963
(45 Minutes)
Council review and decision concerning Primary Election ballot resolution for 8/17/10
levy.
10. AM-3024
(20 Minutes)
Discussion regarding Council-Manager form of government.
11. AM-2964
(30 Minutes)
Long range plans for future real estate acquisitions.
12. (15 Minutes)Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
13. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
14. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 216
AM-3043 2.B.
Approve 04-27-10 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
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 27, 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: 04-27-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 03:11 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 03:16 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 05:13 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/29/2010 03:09
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 3 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
April 27, 2010
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive
session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. He stated the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room,
located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session were:
Mayor Haakenson, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Orvis,
Peterson and Wilson. Others present were Community Services/Economic Development Director
Stephen Clifton, Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh, and City Clerk Sandy Chase.
The executive session concluded at 7:04 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 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
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, 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
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson explained the topic of the executive session was a counter offer from Cascade Bank on
the Skipper’s property. The bank has given the Council 72 hours to accept the terms or counter back. The
only material change is a reduction in the amount of time the bank gave the Council to make a decision
from 90 days to 60 days. The City Attorney has not had an opportunity to review the counter offer. The
Council has scheduled an executive session on Friday, April 30 at 9:00 a.m. in either Council Chambers
or the Brackett Room at City Hall if court is in session. He assumed the Council would take action
following the executive session as the terms of the counter offer require the Council to respond to the
bank by 2:00 p.m. on Friday.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 4 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 2
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wilson requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas and Council President Bernheim requested Item H be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2010
D. 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. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
– APRIL, 2010.
F. 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. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
EXERCISE EQUIPMENT.
I. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF LOYALTY DAY, MAY 1, 2010.
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2010
Councilmember Wilson advised he was not aware of the April 9 meeting and did not attend. He asked the
purpose of the meeting. Councilmember Plunkett responded there had been discussion regarding a
process for developing a vision including 1) whether to spend the money and 2) who would drive that
process. The members of Imagine Edmonds are experienced in community development and community
visioning and he wanted to hear from them with regard to visioning. He had planned to meet with them
and decided to open the meeting to everyone. The City Clerk provided notice of the meeting and
approximately 15 people attended. At the conclusion of the meeting, he encouraged Imagine Edmonds to
talk with Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and the Economic
Development Commission to determine if there was a role for Imagine Edmonds in a visioning process.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether any action was taken at the meeting. Councilmember Plunkett
advised there was not, it was for information only. He prepared minutes which were included in the
packet. Councilmember Wilson referred to a statement in the minutes, “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...” commenting it appeared Imagine Edmonds
would be coordinated/channeled into a process and if that was not the case, the minutes may need to be
revised. Councilmember Plunkett was satisfied with the statement in the minutes.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the meeting was called by Councilmember Plunkett or Council
President Bernheim. Council President Bernheim responded he did not participate in the planning and
Packet Page 5 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 3
assumed it was noticed the same as all other special meetings. Councilmember Wilson asked whether
proper notice of the meeting was provided. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained Councilmember Plunkett
requested she announce a meeting and the purpose. A special meeting notice was prepared and submitted
to the media, posted in public building and posted on the City’s website. The request was made on
Wednesday and the notice went out on Wednesday for the meeting on Friday.
Councilmember Wilson advised he did not receive notice of the meeting. He explained Councilmember
Plunkett sent out an email announcing the meeting but left off Councilmember Peterson and himself. The
Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) has specific criteria that must be met for a special meeting, 1) the
presiding officer must call the meeting or a majority of the members of the governing body, 2) notice
must be delivered to each local newspaper, radio and TV station with at least 24 hours notice, and 3)
notice must be delivered to all members of the governing body. By definition, at least of the two criteria
and perhaps more were not met and thus it was not an open meeting. It is a violation of the OPMA for
four members to convene for the express purpose of conducting City business and proper notice was not
provided. Proper notice would have been provided if Councilmember Plunkett had included
Councilmember Peterson and him in the email announcing the meeting. He objected to approving minutes
of a meeting that blatantly flouted state law.
Councilmember Peterson advised he was not informed of the meeting, did not attend and therefore could
not approve the minutes. He recalled an issue arose a few months ago over an alleged violation of the
OPMA, cautioning the City did not want to become known as a city that violates the OPMA. He was
troubled by two Councilmembers being expressly left off emails regarding the meeting, commenting
although the Council had disagreements, omitting Councilmembers from a meeting was not a good way
to govern. He suggested investigating how this occurred and appropriate steps be taken to ensure it did
not happen again in the future.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she saw the meeting notice on the City’s website. She did
not consider it a City Council meeting; she attended the meeting to hear about Imagine Edmonds. The
meeting consisted of questions and answers and no decisions were made.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged Councilmembers Wilson and Peterson’s concerns and suggested
if the Council was uncomfortable with the minutes for the reasons stated, the Council not vote tonight and
allow City Attorney Scott Snyder to comment on the minutes. He reiterated his intent was to invite the
public to a meeting to hear about Imagine Edmonds.
Council President Bernheim suggested it was not necessary for Mr. Snyder to comment. He accepted full
responsibility for the special meeting, noting he did not appreciate the significance of his own attendance
at the meeting. He asked if Ms. Chase had provided email notice to Councilmembers of the meeting. Ms.
Chase explained the notice was the same as has been provided for other meetings such as the Town Hall
meetings Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas hold or when Council President Bernheim
holds meetings at his office. The meeting was noticed in the event a quorum of the Council was present.
This is the first time minutes have been prepared because it was the first time a quorum of
Councilmembers attended. The minutes were not prepared because action was taken; it was only to
document discussion at the meeting. It has not been her past practice to send meeting notices to the City
Council because meetings are typically well published. The difference may be that this meeting arose
rather quickly. Council President Bernheim offered to establish a process to ensure this did not occur
again.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when discussing a subcommittee meeting with Councilmember
Wilson, she mentioned she was attending a meeting with Imagine Edmonds. She did not recall how she
was notified of the meeting but recalled talking with Council President Bernheim.
Packet Page 6 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 4
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised there was no quorum present at the meeting; Council President
Bernheim left the meeting after about five minutes.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the intent of the minutes was to document discussion at the meeting;
minutes were not required. The original intent was a meeting between Imagine Edmonds and him; he
opened it up to the public and prepared minutes.
Councilmember Wilson relayed the minutes state elected officials present were Michael Plunkett, Steve
Bernheim, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas and Diane Buckshnis. Although he did learn of the meeting ahead of
time, he did not learn of it with 24 hours notice. He would have liked to have attended but was concerned
his attendance would be a violation of the OPMA. He read from the OPMA, “A special meeting may be
called at anytime by the presiding officer of the governing body or a majority of the members by
delivering written notice personally, by mail, by fax or by electronic mail to each member of the
governing body,” which he noted did not occur in this instance. The OPMA goes on to state, “such notice
must be delivered at least 24 hours before the time of such meeting specified.” He concluded the meeting
was clearly a violation of the OPMA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, NOT TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AND TO APPOINT THE CITY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with appointing someone to investigate who although he has a
high level of integrity, was a party to the meeting that violated the OPMA. He questioned whether
Council President Bernheim, Councilmembers Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas or Buckshnis should be
conducting the investigation. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Mr. Snyder conduct an investigation.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND ORVIS VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, PETERSON, AND WILSON VOTING
NO.
Council President Bernheim advised he would report his findings to the Council.
Mayor Haakenson noted at some point the minutes of the meeting needed to be approved. Ms. Chase
agreed.
ITEM H: 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.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out this 1938 fire engine is owned by the City and displayed by
the Fire Safety Foundation in parades and various other functions. This item is to return the fire engine to
the Foundation; however, they have no place to house the engine. Mayor Haakenson advised the
Foundation donated the fire engine to the City and the agreement states if the City no longer wants the
engine, it is to be returned to the Foundation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas anticipated if the Council
agreed to return the fire engine to the Foundation, it would not be in the Edmonds parades and would no
longer be stored in Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson advised it was unknown where the engine would be
stored; there is a short-term plan to store it at a residence in Edmonds. He anticipated the engine would
still be in the parade and at other events. By returning the engine to the Foundation, the City would no
longer be responsible for maintenance or storage.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how long the fire engine would be housed in Edmonds. Mayor
Haakenson responded it was not certain that it would be housed in Edmonds at all; it was not the City’s
Packet Page 7 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 5
responsibility to determine where it would be stored. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she would
not support this item as she was opposed to getting rid of the fire engine due to its importance to the
City’s history.
Mayor Haakenson asked where Councilmember Fraley-Monillas would propose to store the fire engine; it
was currently housed in Fire Station 17 where Snohomish County Fire District 1 now has their
equipment. Public Works Director Noel Miller advised it was moved from Fire Station 17 during the last
week to a temporary location at the old Public Works site.
Councilmember Peterson advised the Foundation has the same dilemma with regard to where to store the
engine. He made a plea to anyone in Edmonds who could store the fire engine to contact the Edmonds
Fire Foundation.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM H.
Council President Bernheim advised he also would not support the motion and suggested identifying a
storage location for the next couple months due to the fire engine’s historical value.
Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Miller to comment on whether there was adequate space at the old Public
Works site to store the fire engine. Mr. Miller reported several items were moved to make space for the
engine and to keep it out of the weather. Its current location will hamper operations. Another option
would be to find commercial storage space to rent; however, the City’s Fleet Manager has not been able
to find a commercial space within the City thus it would need to be stored outside the City.
Councilmember Plunkett commented several Councilmembers had been contacted by a representative of
the Fire Foundation. He asked if Mr. Miller had contact with the Fire Foundation. Mr. Miller answered
Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer has been in contact with the Foundation.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long the City has been housing the fire engine. Mayor Haakenson
answered it has been stored at Fire Station 17 since 2004. It was moved because Fire District 1 located
additional equipment at that station and there was no longer space for the 1938 fire engine. He noted the
fire engine has been a maintenance issue for the City.
Council President Bernheim suggested delaying the return of the fire engine to the Fire Foundation for a
couple months to allow investigation of other storage options. Mayor Haakenson suggested removing the
item from the agenda and reschedule it in two months. Council President Bernheim agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
3. FUTURE OF THE SENIOR CENTER
Council President Bernheim explained this was an opportunity for the Senior Center to provide an update
regarding information provided at the Council retreat including the 1975 resolution that created the Senior
Center.
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, South County Senior Center (SCSC), expressed the Center’s
appreciation for the City’s:
Initial funds to purchase the property
Ongoing 38+ years of financial support
Ongoing provision of the Senior Center building and parking lot and maintenance
Packet Page 8 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 6
Annual grant of $60,000
Role in assisting the Center over the last two years
Ongoing help and support of City staff
He described the public-non-profit partnership:
U.S. cities definition of recreational services as part of the mandate of services to provide to the
public City-owned/city-run senior centers
Senior Centers are the primarily mechanism to provide those services to seniors
The City’s cost to operate the Senior Center would be approximately 10 times its present
contribution
Greater range of services than the City could provide
Alternate source of funding available to the Senior Center that are not available to the City
Snohomish County is a unique in that there are five old, large non-profit senior centers that were
originally regional
He provided the history of the SCSC:
1968 – the SCSC begins at the waterfront site in the building that is now the Thrift Store
1972 – The site is purchased for $400,000 with the City contributing $100,000 with the
understanding it would be maintained as a recreational site and specifically a Senior Center
1976-1980 – Grants obtained and the current Center constructed
1997-1998 – Mayor’s Task Force formed to discuss the future of the Senior Center. The Task
Force defined three possible futures, 1) keep the existing structure, refurbish as necessary and
sensible, 2) tear down the north building and build a 2-story building, and 3) tear down and start
over. Although the Task Force recommended option 3, for financial reasons option 1 has been the
reality
2004-2009 – CDBG grants for building improvements
2007-2009 – Change in the Center’s governance
He described current programming that include, 1) health, wellness and nutrition, 2) social
services/outreach and 3) education, recreation and social gatherings. The Center has over 350 volunteers
and hundreds of programs available annually.
He described the Center’s clientele:
Present: the majority are 75+ years, modest income, 70% women, age ranges from 60-100 years,
3,000 participants annually
Future: 85+ years, fastest growing as boomers finally arrive
Current demography: In Edmonds 16.6% are 65+ years old, Washington 11.2% and Florida 18%
Edmonds future demography: 18% 65+ years old
He described impacts of the Senior Center:
United Way asks the Center to decrease isolation and increases social connection
Providing seniors the best, maybe only, meal of the day
Learning new skills
Putting old skills to work
Strengthening sense of self-worth
The second home for many seniors and the first for some
He described the Center’s finances and funding:
Annual budget: $500,000
City grant: $60,000
Packet Page 9 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 7
Snohomish County: $70,500
United Way: $25,000
Lynnwood: $5,000
Total public funding: $160,000
Fundraising: $350,000 annual (Thrift Store $100,000 with the remainder from banquets,
rentals/fees, donations, memberships, events, etc.)
He described future short term plans:
Maintenance and survival mode like all other governments and non-profits and many businesses
Maintain public funding
Increase fundraising – Mr. Farrell announced a Health Fair on April 30 that was anticipated to net
approximately $10,000
Modest improvements to present building via a CTED grant
Strengthen partnerships with colleges and other senior centers
He described future long term planning:
New state of the art senior and community center – Edmonds residents deserve no less
Continuing the Center’s waterfront presence
Get boomers actively engaged
Well developed volunteer program in new areas
Creative and innovative programs
Mr. Farrell concluded there are no specific plans due to the number of unknowns including the state of the
building, future development of the waterfront area, etc. He advised the Center is interested in working
with the City and the Port to define the role of a senior/community center in that development.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she became involved with the Senior Center as a volunteer a
few years ago and recognized the importance of providing services for seniors. She explained for many of
the seniors who attend the Center’s lunches, it is the only hot, balanced meal they receive each day. She
encouraged everyone to belong to the Center, noting they do not discriminate on age. She announced the
Center’s annual fundraising auction and dinner on Friday, June 25.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she got involved with the Senior Center to provide assistance with
their website. She assured the Center was fun, it offers Wii Sports, has WiFi and they are on Facebook
under South County Senior Center. She commented it was amazing how many people were at the Center
every day.
4. COUNCIL PRESIDENT COMMENTS ON BUDGET OUTLOOK.
Council President Bernheim explained this presentation was in response to comments that the City was
headed toward bankruptcy. He displayed and reviewed the Executive Summary - Current Forecast
prepared by staff that illustrates beginning cash, annual revenues, expenses by function and ending cash
in the 2009 budget, 2009 actuals, 2010 budget and 2010-2016 outlook. He explained beginning cash plus
annual revenues adds up to the funds available for expenditures. He referred to expenses by function in
the Executive Summary, explaining for the purpose of this presentation, he divided them into labor and
non-labor. Labor costs include wages, salaries, benefits, health insurance, etc. He acknowledged the City
had highly experienced, professional staff.
Council President Bernheim displayed a similar chart (that he entitled the Steve Bernheim balanced
budget) in which he compared for 2010-2016 with the same annual revenue projections and non-labor
costs and assumptions that the City had a $2 million reserve each year and no tax increase between now
Packet Page 10 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 8
and 2016. He referred to numbers on his chart that represented the labor component of each annual budget
assuming a balance budget with a $2 million annual reserve and no tax increase, an amount significantly
lower than staff’s projection. He compared the labor costs in his chart to the City’s projection,
commenting without a tax increase, the City would be unable to pay the projected labor costs and provide
necessary services. He summarized according to his chart there would only be $16 million available for
labor costs in 2014 compared to $20 million in the City’s projection.
Council President Bernheim displayed a chart illustrating the projected labor increase each year, 6.7% in
2011, 4.4% in 2012 and 5.7% in 2013, compounded annually. He concluded labor costs were one of the
primary reasons for the large budget gap. He assured bankruptcy was not likely because the City could
not continue to pay those wages without a tax increase; however, serious budget shortages were highly
likely. He summarized the budget gap was not due to any single program. He acknowledged although the
City’s projections were conservative, they revealed the City did not have money for anything because
labor costs were projected to “go through the roof.”
Councilmember Wilson referred to Council President Bernheim’s chart that shows a $2.5 million ending
cash balance in 2014, noting the Council has a policy that the target ending cash balance in reserves is
equal to one month’s total operating expenses or approximately $3 million. Council President Bernheim
pointed out on his chart the ending cash balance was $3 million in 2015. Councilmember Wilson pointed
out the $4-5 million difference between staff’s projected labor and “Bernheim’s balanced budget”
represented approximately 25% of the labor costs. For perspective, the City has approximately 200
employees, the largest labor line item is the Police Department that has about 54 uniformed police
officers or about 25% of the labor force. For perspective, the difference is approximately equivalent to
laying off all the uniformed officers. He assured that would not be done but the gap is that dire.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Executive Summary – Current Forecast was for the City’s
operating budget. There was another budget for capital expenditures with revenues such as REET.
Council President Bernheim agreed there were other funds available for asset purchases, roads, parks, and
other special purposes. The Executive Summary is for General Fund monies only. He compared the
General Fund to a person’s operating account and capital funds to a person’s IRA.
Councilmember Peterson commented the labor increase in the Executive Summary – Current Forecast did
not represent the same number of employees in the next six years. It included filling positions that have
been left vacant to cover budget shortfalls in the past. Council President Bernheim acknowledged there
were many components of the labor budget. The City, under Mayor Haakenson’s leadership, has not filled
several executive positions in the exercise of prudent budget management. The forecast assumes those
positions are filled. The projections also reflect the increase in medical premiums. His goal was to show
the information in a simplified form without a tax increase. The choice without a tax increase is a 25%
lower overall labor budget in 2016.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she met with Mayor Haakenson on Friday to review the Executive
Summary – Current Forecast in detail. She agreed the 6.7% increase included filling three positions as
well as restoring the prior year’s budget cuts. She pointed out the Executive Summary – Current Forecast
was a forecast based on very conservative revenues and very aggressive expenses. She and Mayor
Haakenson have agreed once the fourth quarter 2009 financials, the first quarter 2010 financials and the
fiscal year end are available, a high and low forecast will be developed to assist citizens in understanding
the operating budget. She acknowledged forecasts change based on performance such as holiday sales and
the Cash for Clunkers Program. For example, the Executive Summary – Current Forecast includes a 1.3%
decrease in 2010 sales tax projection. She agreed there was a separate capital budget.
Councilmember Wilson explained when the Fire Department rolling stock was sold to Fire District 1, the
funds were placed in the General Fund, not a capital fund. The funds have been set aside within the
Packet Page 11 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 9
General Fund to a segregated account, similar to the Emergency Fund which is segregated within the
General Fund. To the union and non-represented employees, he assured the Council was not proposing a
25% pay cut for the same amount of work. If the City’s labor budget was reduced by 25%, he assumed
there would be 25% fewer employees.
Mayor Haakenson agreed labor expenses consisted of more than wages; it was a projection of wages,
benefits, State retirement plan contributions, and filling the vacant positions. The wage component of the
labor expense is currently projected to increase by approximately 3.5% over the next 5 years. He pointed
out the actual wages are unknown because the labor contracts have not yet been settled for even the next
three years. He relayed conversations with citizens over the past week regarding how wages are
determined for City employees; at least one person envisioned that he made that decision. He explained
only two members of the Council have participated in labor negotiations, Councilmembers Plunkett and
Orvis. The other five Councilmembers have not yet had an opportunity to participate. He explained labor
negotiations begin by the Council meeting in executive session where they are provided information
regarding each labor union’s requests and information regarding other cities’ recently settled labor
contracts; the Council then instructs the City’s labor negotiator on the next step. The Council eventually
decides the wages and benefits for each labor union. After all the labor contracts are settled, the Council
decides the wages for the non-union employees. He summarized the estimated increase in wages was
dependent on the end result of labor negotiations.
Mayor Haakenson referred to the labor projection that increases from approximately $17 million in 2010
to $22 million in 2016, pointing out there was the same increase from 2003 to 2009, from $18 million in
2003 to $24 million in 2009. He summarized the City’s labor budget historically increased approximately
$1 million per year. There was nothing striking about the labor increases; it was based on historical data
and was similar to increases in other cities. He explained while the City’s labor budget increased to a high
of $24 million in 2009, it has dropped to $17 million in 2010 as a result of contracting with Fire District
1. Even with the annual labor increases, the City’s labor budget in 2016 would still not reach 2007 levels.
Mayor Haakenson referred to a question posed by Council President Bernheim in the agenda memo,
should the City abandon plans to enhance the waterfront area in order to raise city payroll more than five
percent per year, compounded annually. In response, Mayor Haakenson explained these were two
separate issues. No Councilmember has yet made a case regarding how the potential purchase enhances
the waterfront. The Council has the oversight and decision-making ability to address project labor costs
when they negotiate the labor contracts and when they deliberate on the 2011-2012 budget.
5. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL
LABOR NEGOTIATOR TO ASSIST WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATIONS.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, THAT CITY STAFF PREPARE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS FOR A PROFESSIONAL LABOR NEGOTIATOR TO ASSIST WITH CITY
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Finance Committee had presentations from two labor negotiators.
She asked whether this request was for additional proposals and fees. Council President Bernheim
responded he invited the two people that presented at the Finance Committee meeting to answer questions
and describe the services they offered during labor negotiations to assist the City in achieving its
negotiating goals. He acknowledged he had not participated in any labor negotiations other than
approving the contracts the year following his election. His motion was not to hire a negotiator but to
solicit bids for consideration by the Council. He summarized there was no cost associated with the
solicitation of bids other than staff time. He offered to write the request for proposals.
Packet Page 12 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Buckshnis requested City Attorney Scott Snyder be included in the request for
Qualifications/Proposals, advising Human Resources was uncertain the amount paid to Mr. Snyder for
labor negotiation services in the past.
Councilmember Plunkett was interested in hearing what other labor negotiators offered as well as to have
an opportunity to compare their services with Mr. Snyder. He was comfortable with the services provided
by Mr. Snyder and would have to find a compelling reason, financially or otherwise, to make a change.
He emphasized the contracts were ultimately the Council’s decision. Council President Bernheim assured
the intent of his motion was to solicit proposals.
Councilmember Wilson concurred with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting he did not have any
overwhelming reason to displace Mr. Snyder from the process. He was open to the possibility but did not
anticipate it would happen. Unless a majority of the Council was interested in displacing Mr. Snyder, he
anticipated the motion would simply create work. As a participant on the labor side of negotiations at the
Community College, he explained when management brought in an outside labor negotiator, the union
brought in their own outside labor negotiator, a process that only served to ratchet up the contentiousness
of labor negotiations. If the unions planned to bring in an outside negotiator, he may agree to the City
hiring a labor negotiator. He was hopeful negotiations could remain amicable and local.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was willing to consider new things. Although she had
not been involved in the City negotiations, she had a good perspective after having been involved in
negotiations for the past 30 years. She explained one of the problems with bringing in an outside
negotiator was they did not have the history, personal relationships or understanding of the past and future
budget challenges. She summarized it did not necessarily improve negotiations to bring in strangers. It
may be a better use of resources to describe the Council’s goals to Mr. Snyder, Human Resources
Director Debi Humann and Mayor Haakenson.
Councilmember Peterson clarified Mr. Snyder was a professional labor negotiator. While in theory it may
be helpful to bring in a fresh face, he found the timing of this agenda item very poor; a discussion
regarding bringing in what some may consider to be a heavy hitter from the outside to squeeze labor
followed by a discussion about a spending $1 million on property. If the Council wanted to spend $1
million on a piece of property, he did not want the prerequisite to be a Council discussion regarding how
to save money on labor costs. He concluded this did not send a good message to City staff who have
made sacrifices in the last several years. He agreed with Councilmember Wilson that this scenario,
discussing wage cuts while spending money on property, would result in the unions bringing in their own
heavy hitter from outside. He acknowledged while the Council’s intent may not be to cut wages, that was
the perception. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Wilson observed although well intentioned, it would be a waste of time to solicit
proposals and hear presentations from labor negotiators. He did not support the motion and urged
Councilmembers who had no intent to remove Mr. Snyder from this process to also vote no.
Mayor Haakenson commented this would be the fifth or sixth negotiation he has participated in. Twice in
the past the City has hired outside negotiators other than Mr. Snyder and both times in his view it was a
mistake because the labor unions did the same and negotiations were not amicable. He invited the Council
to ask questions of Ms. Humann who was present; she will be tasked with doing the RFP along with the
other tasks the two person Human Resources Department does on a daily basis.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS,
BUCKSHNIS, WILSON, PETERSON, AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Packet Page 13 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 11
6. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF SKIPPER'S PROPERTY.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council received 22 emails; 10 in favor of the purchase and 12 opposed to
the purchase.
George Murray, Edmonds, read a letter from Rick Steves, Edmonds, that stated any time a community
worked together to create more public space, the entire community benefits and the benefits last forever.
In his experience with the joy and vibrancy that public spaces provide communities throughout Europe,
smartly used public space were a gift that keeps on giving. Given the central location of the Skipper’s
property, the creativity of community members with a vision for Edmonds and assuming the property was
available at a fair market price, he viewed not purchasing the site as a lost opportunity. The community
needed to recognize the potential Edmonds has to make the waterfront the best waterfront on Puget Sound
and exercise bold and visionary leadership to make that a reality. He urged the Council not to pass up this
rare opportunity even if the exact use had not yet been determined. This is a chance for a zone for
residents and visitors to celebrate how Main Street, the business community, beaches, mountain views
and ferries merge in a manner that makes one happy to be in Edmonds.
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, implored the Council to seriously consider purchasing the Skipper’s
property. She recalled the bold step to purchase the property south of the ferry terminal in the 1980s and
the wonderful park on that site. She doubted anyone regretted that purchase. She encouraged the Council
to look to the future.
Stacie Hearst, Edmonds, pointed out the Skipper’s property was not on the waterfront, it was near the
waterfront, an island adjacent to a Department of Transportation property. As a member of a City
committee, she had a better knowledge than most about the City’s budget challenges. Last year the City
faced the closure of Yost Pool; it was saved by private donations. It was unknown how long that would
continue. The City continues to experience cuts in service, staff furloughs, and unfilled positions. There
have been discussions of a levy to pay for existing operations. She summarized the City was having
trouble paying for what it had; the Council wanted to add to that burden. She asked how the property
would be used, how the City would pay for it, and how it would be maintained. If the Council purchased
the Skipper’s property, they were sending the message to voters that everything is fine financially; the
citizens know otherwise.
John Reed, Edmonds, urged the Council to consider acquisition of the Skipper’s property, commenting
it was an opportunity that should not be passed up. Ownership of the property allows the City to control
its use. Thousands of potential visitors drive past the site as they travel on the ferry and redevelopment by
the City of this gateway entrance would be a great benefit now and in the future. Failure to acquire the
site could result in its purchase by someone whose development goals are inconsistent with the vision for
the near waterfront currently being discussed by the City Council and its appointed Economic
Development Commission. A plan for the property other than a park or other public use to facilitate grant
funding does not need to be in place before acquisition occurs although development of a plan should be
priority. Once the City owns the property, financing can be offset by parking revenue while a plan for the
site is developed. His understanding was the bank recently declined an offer of $1 million for the
property, the assessed value of the land is $1,062,000 and it sold for $1 million in 2006; therefore the
offer of $1.1 million was not unreasonably high. The acquisition funds would not come from the General
Fund; possible funding sources include financing the transaction with REET funds, bond financing,
grants, or funds received from the Fire District 1 transaction. A public-private partnership for
redevelopment is a possibility. Funds to explore the acquisition, the $50,000 earnest money and
refundable deposits and other costs up to another $50,000 could come from the General Fund. He
summarized neither Police or other City staff would be sacrificed to fund this transaction. Two years ago
before the economic downturn, the Council considered the purchase of the Antique Mall property to the
Packet Page 14 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 12
point of a possible appraisal. That opportunity was passed up and is no longer available. He urged the
Council not to make that same mistake while the Skipper’s property is available.
Don Hall, Edmonds, questioned whether the Council had considered other ways to control development
of the Skipper’s property such as zoning to prevent a lot line to lot line building. He pointed out other
communities such as Leavenworth control building design and landscaping to achieve their vision. He
suggested the Council work with a developer to accomplish some of the City’s goals such as public art,
Welcome to Edmonds signage, etc. Working with a developer would save the City the cost of acquisition,
development and maintenance. He pointed out the City was already reducing maintenance of its parks and
did not have adequate funds to maintain public buildings. To those who view this site as an economic
gateway, he pointed out only a small percentage of ferry riders have not already committed to a
destination when they leave the ferry. The property is bordered by what will soon be double railroad
tracks to the west and a street where transit will have approximately 100 buses per day making a right
turn onto Main Street. He expressed concern with air and noise pollution in the area and with children
playing in a park on the site. He doubted people would visit a park on this site when there was a
waterfront park within ½ - 1 block.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he was usually in favor of purchasing property but the timing of this
purchase was terrible. He referred to his offers in the past to take the lead on an operations levy or a bond
to purchase the Antique Mall property. He anticipated if the City purchased the Skipper’s property, a
subsequent operations levy would fail. Although he remained committed to passing a levy, he was less
inclined if the Council irresponsibly purchased the Skipper’s property. He also anticipated the purchase of
the Skipper’s property would have negative political ramifications. Although the property may be worth
much more in the future, the City could not afford to purchase it today. He urged the Council to run away
from this transaction as fast as possible.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, read a letter from Jim Underhill, Edmonds, a member of the Highway 99
Task Force that stated the Council is out of touch with regard to the business opportunity. He was stunned
with the Council’s decision to purchase the Skipper’s property and their explanations. The Council does
not understand the financial opportunity the property represents. A restaurant has been located on the site
due to, 1) ferry traffic, 2) the scuba park and 3) the beach. Washington State Ferry data shows that 2.1
million vehicles and 1.9 million passengers used the Edmonds-Kingston ferry in 2009. Added to the
numerous divers and beach goers, with no effort from any elected official, there were many people in that
area to visit a restaurant on the site. His research found Jack in the Box to be a performer on Wall Street,
sharing many of Edmonds residents’ values such as sustainability and recycling, willingness to present a
new store design and work with staff to adjust their design. Jack in the Box wins awards for healthy
menus and developing a well trained and diverse workforce as well as bringing a strong community
commitment and resources. Jack in the Box would create new revenue for Edmonds. Mr. Underhill
suggested the Council and staff meet with Jack in the Box officials to identify a win-win solution.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, explained the real estate bubble hit Edmonds in 2005-2007; the old Skipper’s
property sold during that bubble in 2006 for $1 million. The property appreciated in 2007 but dropped in
value in 2008 and 2009. It is now worth less than $1 million. In response to the current Snohomish
County assessment that is in excess of $1 million, he pointed out Snohomish County’s 2010 assessments
were established January 1, 2009 and the market has continued to decline.
Tom Sheehan, Edmonds, was surprised to learn that five Councilmembers had elected to spend $1.1
million for the Skipper’s property without a plan for its use during a time when people were losing their
houses, real estate values continue to decline and the City was in a financial crisis.
Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, read a letter from the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors, expressing concern with, 1) the process that led to the Council’s 5-2 vote to pursue purchasing
Packet Page 15 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 13
the Skipper’s property for $1.1 million and 2) the fiscal prudence of such a purchase given the
acknowledged state of the City’s budget and general economic conditions. It appears there is no stated
purpose for the purchase. No reason or goal for the purchase has been shared with taxpayers and the
City’s Economic Development Commission, Comprehensive Plan, Parks Master Plan or other pertinent
planning bodies or documents did not include this property as a priority. With regard to the financial
feasibility and advisability of the purchase, the City’s budget is under serious strain similar to others in
the public/private realm. At a time when the City is considering asking voters raising their taxes, it seems
ill advised to pursue a million dollar real estate transaction whether using one-time monies or counting on
scarce grants. Ongoing costs of development and maintenance would have to come from the threadbare
General Fund. The letter recalled Mayor Haakenson’s statement at the monthly Chamber luncheon that
the City will be broke in two years. Given that dire forecast, it seems imprudent to consider actions that
may endanger all City services. The Chamber acknowledged the Council’s well-placed intention with
regard to this area adjacent to the City’s waterfront. The residents of Edmonds place great value on this
area that includes the Antique Mall, Harbor Square, and the Skipper’s site and the Chamber shares that
view. However, they questioned the merits of the proposed purchase at this price and at this time. The
Chamber Board urged the Council to present a full accounting of the purpose, purchase details and
ongoing costs of the proposal for review by all Edmonds residents.
Bill Vance, Edmonds, expressed concern with the process. He questioned how the purchase fit into the
City’s priorities and encouraged the Council to fully vet the unintended consequences of this purchase. He
referred to a suggestion that the site could be developed with parking with a park on top and the purchase
funded via parking fees, pointing out few people would pay to park in a parking lot on the site and walk to
shops downtown. He questioned why the Council would pursue purchasing he property without a plan,
why there was an urgent to purchase the property and whether there were other imminent purchasers for
this 1/3 acre site with poor access. Before committing to the purchase, he urged the Council to vet the
unintended consequences and take the time to do the appropriate due diligence.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, disagreed with the use of General Fund monies to purchase the small Skipper’s
property. He spoke in favor of the City acquiring the property owned by Al Dykes, financed over a 10
year period via a bond and matching grants. He suggested the City conduct community meetings to gather
input on how that property could be developed.
Barbara Chase, Edmonds, commented the first meeting she attended when moving to Edmonds ten
years ago was in regard to the City’s budget problems which illustrated budget problems were nothing
new. Several studies done regarding Edmonds cite the importance of the end of Main Street and the near
waterfront. She was disappointed two years ago when she learned the property had been purchased. After
attending a meeting regarding development of the site with 3-story condominiums with view corridors,
she realized the property owner could develop the site however they wanted as long as they complied
with the City’s regulations. Now the opportunity to purchase the site has arisen again and although there
was an economic downturn, the City needed to look to the future. She recognized $1 million was not an
insignificant sum, pointing out the City spent $250,000 on a skate park and purchased a park in South
Edmonds, sites that are now well used. She urged the public to review the budget and understand the
difference between General Fund and capital funds. To the question posed by a citizen regarding what
was the Council thinking, she said the Council was thinking of the future.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, thanked Council President Bernheim for setting the tenor of tonight’s
meeting by his presentation. He relayed information provided by the Snohomish County Treasurer that
the City collected $1,070,400 in REET in 2009. He anticipated REET collections would improve in 2010.
He suggested REET funds were available for the purchase of the Skipper’s property as well as grants to
repay those funds. He suggested the site could be developed with landscaping and a glass enclosure to
house the 1938 fire truck. He anticipated the costs to acquire the property could be recovered by the
income produced from parking fees over the next 5 years and the site developed in the future.
Packet Page 16 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 14
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented in his neighborhood there were three homes valued the same amount
as this property. The purchase represented only 3.5% of the annual budget. He cited his experience with
purchasing six homes and selling five, commenting he never lost money on any of them even though
being in the military he may not have had the opportunity to sell at optimum times. His current residence,
purchased in 1970 was worth approximately 40 times the purchase price. He commented it was difficult
to lose money in real estate, unlike the City’s fiber optics program or the Alliance. He concluded the
Skipper’s site was a wonderful piece of property and its purchase was a once in a lifetime opportunity.
George Murray, Edmonds, recalled Mayor Haakenson’s comments at the April 22 Earth Day event
acknowledging the importance of the environmental movement to sustain today’s world and how 40 years
ago there was no Earth Day. He compared this to his vision for the future, a wonderful shoreline where
future generations could enjoy the special, natural gift of the waterfront. The acquisition of the Skipper’s
property is a first step in accomplishing this, a step he viewed as fairly risk free. He relayed the
audience’s concerns last week were the City paying too much for the property, lack of money to pay for
the purchase, no vision for the property, and potential contamination. He viewed the purchase as an
investment and something that could be sold in the future if necessary. With regard to lack of money to
purchase the site, he commented there were ways to finance its purchase without using General Funds. He
envisioned the acquisition of the Skipper’s site could be a starting point for developing a common vision
for Edmonds.
Graham Marmion, Edmonds, understood the desire to keep a Jack in the Box from locating on the site
due to aesthetics but agreed with Mr. Hall that this triangle in the middle of a traffic zone next to a
beachside park was a poor location for a park. If the property was expected to maintain or increase in
value, he proposed the City purchase the property and spend the next year formulating a plan for its use.
If an appropriate use was not identified, the property could be sold at either the same or increased value to
a purchaser of the City’s choice who would work with the City on a use that was aesthetically and
economically appropriate. He concluded even if the subsequent purchaser was a Jack in the Box, a new
Jack in the Box would be an improvement over the current decrepit, boarded up building.
Michael Young, Edmonds, questioned the City’s involvement in land speculation, pointing out much of
the current economic crisis was due to people buying things they did not need and could not afford. He
was shocked by the Council’s intent to purchase property they could not afford or did not have a use for.
He pointed out the Skipper’s site was bordered by eight lanes of traffic and railroad tracks. He compared
this “bargain” to Nigerian email scams. He expressed concern that the property purchase was an end run,
from an executive session to making an offer. By comparison, he recalled the numerous public hearing
held regarding the subject of leashing cats. He pointed out the Council’s vision for the property ranged
from a park, a shingle museum, or visitor’s center with funding from grants or a levy. He concluded the
purchase was a poorly thought out plan.
Carol Wood, Edmonds, considered herself a bottom line person and found the purchase of the Skipper’s
property a bad idea. She urged the public to email each Councilmember their opinion regarding the
purchase. She recognized each Councilmember thought they were doing the right thing and acting in good
faith and encouraged them to consider how they would spend their own money, pointing out the money
they were spending on the Skipper’s property was the taxpayers’ money. There were serious budget
issues facing the City and limited amounts of money this year and into the future. She concluded to even
consider spending $1.1 million to purchase property for which there was no plan was not a good idea.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked those who spoke for their productive, insightful, articulate comments
on this emotional issue.
Packet Page 17 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 15
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council received a counter offer so the Council’s offer was no
longer on the table and further action would be necessary if the Council wanted to accept the counter
offer. He encouraged the public to email Councilmembers their opinion regarding the purchase. He
agreed this was an emotional issue, noting he received 114 responses to an email he sent out as well as
numerous unsolicited emails at his City email account. He recalled the presentation he made, a thought
exercise to think through a very emotional subject that culminated in an email last week from Mr. and
Mrs. Sacks that they did not support D. J. Wilson’s 8-story building on the Skipper’s property and his
response that that was garbage. Mr. and Mrs. Sacks objected to his referring to their email as garbage;
Councilmember Wilson apologized for offending them and being unclear. A transcript of his remarks
revealed his statement as it is garbage when public officials send out misinformation and falsehoods
around this very emotional issue.
Councilmember Wilson referred to comments that imply that ownership of this property equals control,
explaining the City already controlled the property via zoning. Further, the City is limited in what they
can do with property. For example, if the City purchases property, the City is precluded by law from
making money on its resale. If the City purchases the site and resells it in year, it must be sold for the
same or lower amount.
Councilmember Wilson referred to an email by a Councilmember that stated on Tuesday night D. J.
Wilson reported to the Council on his meeting with property owners. Councilmember Wilson clarified the
property owners were the Department of Transportation and the Port of Edmonds; the meeting also
included Council President Bernheim, Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Haakenson and Community
Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton. The email continued that the Councilmember
did not support D. J. Wilson’s taller building plan for our waterfront. Councilmember Wilson clarified he
had no plan for taller buildings on the waterfront; his presentation included 5 stories on the Harbor Square
property because that was what the Port has asked for and 38 feet on the WSDOT site because they stated
development was infeasible under the current 30 foot limit.
Councilmember Wilson referred to 3 emails he received stating he supports 8-story buildings on the
Skipper’s site and that the Council must work to defeat his plan. He does not have a plan for 8-story
buildings and there were no documents or statement from him that support the claim that he wants 8-story
buildings on the site. One member of the community responded to the Councilmember’s email that
Councilmember Wilson did not support 8-story buildings. A Councilmember stated that Councilmember
Wilson accepted a $3,000 contribution from the developer. Councilmember Wilson clarified he did accept
a $3,000 contribution from a developer in 2007, not the owner of the Skipper’s property but the owner of
the Safeway property and it had no relevance to the Skipper’s property. He offered to return the money if
his Council colleagues, particularly Councilmember Plunkett who has been providing misinformation,
would be willing to return the money they received from developers over the course of their Council
campaigns. He supported campaign finance limits including a recent Council action that limits
contributions to $500 per person. His lack of financial interest in this property should be abundantly clear.
Councilmember Wilson explained he provided the presentation a few weeks ago with an open mind and
because he had the community’s best interest in mind, not because he wanted taller buildings. To
Councilmember Plunkett’s comment regarding a parking structure with a park on top or Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas’ comment regarding a visitor’s center, he assured he would have an open mind when
those concepts were proposed. He was hopeful that further clarification of emails or comments regarding
these issue would be unnecessary.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she did not like the spin that was being used on staff,
comments that considering the purchase of this property would require furloughing staff or reducing
salaries. She asked the public’s opinion of the purchase if General Fund monies were not used and it was
funded in other ways such as selling one of the City’s fire stations that are used by Fire District 1 or if the
property paid for itself.
Packet Page 18 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 16
With regard to the Council’s goals for the property, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas emphasized if the
Council purchased the property, it was up to Edmonds citizens to establish a vision for the property. She
envisioned citizens would be upset if the Council decided on the use of the property without involving the
public. She disputed that there was any plan to develop the $1.1 million site as a park, clarifying there was
interest in incorporating green spaces on the site. She concluded the voters elected her because she was
willing to consider issues that benefitted them, not special interests. She assured the Council was not
planning to cut staff if the property was purchased.
To Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comment that no one was planning to develop the site as a park,
Councilmember Peterson pointed out a number of audience members and Councilmembers have
suggested it be developed as a park. He displayed a Google Earth image of the site and surrounding area,
questioning who would want a park with 8 lanes of traffic on one side, 6 lanes of traffic on another side,
soon to be double railroad tracks another side and a parking lot on the fourth side. Although he stated last
week that this may be a good site to purchase in good economic times, after further consideration, he
concluded it was a horrible purchase for the City as a park. Air quality and traffic noise also make its use
as a park questionable. He displayed another Google Earth image illustrating the City-owned park on the
waterfront on the other side of the railroad tracks. He questioned why the Council would want to purchase
a site in a horrible location when it was surrounded by parks in beautiful locations. To those that envision
the site could be used for parking, he questioned the use of a million dollar property for parking when the
adjacent site is developed with parking.
To those that have said the site could be purchased and later sold, Councilmember Peterson explained
once park acquisition monies were used to purchase the property, it was a park forever. He concluded the
Council could find better properties to purchase such as in neighborhoods that are underserved, the
downtown area had numerous parks including acres of waterfront and an off-leash dog park, If Skipper’s
was viewed as a stepping stone to purchasing more of the near waterfront area and ultimately the old
Safeway property, he urged the Council to make that clear.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who sent emails to the Council. She received 247 emails
and has been stopped on the street by many people. She noted a City park could be a waterfall that tied
the downtown area to the waterfront. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ concern with
comments regarding the use of General Fund when the intent was not to use General Fund but to use
other funding sources. She referred to an email regarding the City’s purchase of property in front of Old
Mill Town that had not been landscaped by the Garden Club. She assured the Garden Club was working
on a landscaping plan for that site.
With regard to the email about Old Mill Town Mayor Haakenson explained the Garden Club was tasked
with developing a plan to landscape that area and City funds would be used for materials. The Garden
Club has developed a plan but has encountered difficulties because there is no power or water available to
the site. Those issues are being resolved and there will be a beautifully landscaped park there thanks to
the Floretum Garden Club.
Councilmember Wilson clarified his comment was that the site could be used for a fountain not for a
waterfall.
7. PRESENTATION BY PARKS DEPARTMENT ON FUNDING AND GRANT OPTIONS FOR
SKIPPER'S PROPERTY.
Mayor Haakenson explained this report would 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 site.
Packet Page 19 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 17
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained 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, and Timing
Mr. McIntosh explained 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 $31 million. Of
those, 21 projects were funded for a total of $7.85 million. 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 in 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 and 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. The only way a conversion could occur
would be to swap property with equal value in a nearby location.
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 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. He displayed the Waiver of Retroactivity Checklist.
Once the request for Waiver of Retroactivity is submitted, the turnaround is approximately 7-10 days.
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, the first two are the weighted the highest:
Packet Page 20 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 18
1. Public Need - considers existing facilities in service area. Areas with fewer outdoor recreation 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
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. A 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 in the Council packet outlines eligible projects that can be funded by this program.
Recent Grants for Edmonds Parks Projects (Attachment 4)
Purpose Source Grant Amount
Hickman Park RCO Acquisition (using Waiver of Retroactivity)
Snohomish County (from county mitigation funds)
$500,000 (max at that time)
$1,200,000(these funds no
longer available)
Shell Valley RCO Urban Wildlife (using waiver) $100,000
Interurban Trail RCO Trail Grant
PSRC Transportation CMAQ Grants (2)
577,000
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 High School have been unsuccessful.
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:
Packet Page 21 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 19
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
Mr. McIntosh noted Fund 126 is encumbered by annual debt service of approximately $700,000 for debt
on City Hall, Marina Beach, ECA, the Library roof, and the Anderson Center Seismic retrofit. This fund
is currently not generating enough revenue to meet the existing debt. In Fund 125, 2010 projects
including the Interurban Trail, 75th/76th St Walkway/Haines Wharf Park, Dayton St. Plaza, Yost Pool
repairs, and miscellaneous small projects account for most of these funds this year.
Councilmember Plunkett commented some have suggested that the funds received from Fire District 1
could be a down payment and the remainder financed via Fund 126, funds designated for park purchases.
He referred to an email from Mr. McIntosh that indicated the balance in the 126 fund less the debt would
leave approximately $252,000 in the 126 Fund. Mr. McIntosh clarified the balance in the fund plus the
amount expected to collect and expected debt service would leave approximately $250,000.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the debt did not eliminate the 125 Fund, it encumbered it but left
approximately $252,000.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the baseline for the 2010 REET projections. Mr. McIntosh
advised it was revised quarterly based on the prior quarter’s receipts. Councilmember Plunkett asked
whether the projection anticipated a robust spring real estate market. Mr. McIntosh advised REET is
collected monthly and there was hope that the real estate market would improve. The projections are
based on the first three months of 2010.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Waiver of Retroactivity was due by May 3. She asked whether
the City could submit a waiver request as a placeholder even though the Council has not finalized its
decision. Mr. McIntosh answered there was no deadline for submitting the Waiver of Retroactivity as
long as the letter granting the Waiver of Retroactivity was received before the City closed on the property.
Applications for RCO grants are due this year by May 3.
Councilmember Buckshnis noted the 2010 Monthly Revenue Forecast projected $750,000 for 2010.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines advised $750,000 was the amount shown in the budget. Based on
January-March collections of REET, the year-end projections is approximately $531,000 as illustrated in
the General Fund Update for March.
Mr. McIntosh explained if there was $250,000 remaining in Fund 126 at the end of 2010 and next year’s
REET collection is $531,000, payment of the $700,000 debt service in 2010 will leave only
approximately $80,000 in the fund. Until REET collections exceed $700,000, the balance in the fund will
be used to cover the difference between REET collections and the $700,000 debt service. Councilmember
Wilson observed if REET collections did not increase, the City would have a debt service liability that
REET would not cover and likely would need to be covered by the General Fund. If the Council used
REET funds for this purchase, they were banking on the real estate market improving.
Councilmember Wilson explained if 22% of the purchase was funded via REET, was 100% of the
property required to be a park. Mr. McIntosh answered a portion of the site could be designated as a park.
For example if a portion of the site was a parking lot, an RCO grant could not be used for that portion
unless it was designated solely for park parking.
Packet Page 22 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 20
Councilmember Wilson asked how the use of the property was encumbered by the use of REET funds. If
the Council used $600,000 from the Fire District 1 revenue, $250,000 from REET, and the remaining
$250,000 from some other source/debt, would the entire site be required to be a park. Mr. McIntosh
answered yes. [Note: this was later clarified that use of Fund 126 monies did not require the site be
designated as a park.]
Councilmember Wilson recalled it was difficult to sell property that was zoned as a park, He asked
whether there were limits on future resale if REET funds were used to purchase the site. Mr. McIntosh
responded if RCO grant funds were used, the property could not be resold. The use of REET funds would
allow the property to be resold.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the projected balance in Fund 125 at the end of 2010. Mr. McIntosh
answered it would depend on the cost of the projects. Councilmember Plunkett estimated there may be
approximately $200,000 remaining in that fund at year-end.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the requirement for the site to be 100% park would
prohibit a structure. Mr. McIntosh answered no, citing Hickman Park as an example which has a
backstop, restroom, and picnic shelter. Those structures are within the guidelines of a neighborhood park.
The RCO grant cannot be used to fund indoor recreation facilities. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
if the site could have enclosed buildings such as a tourism center. Mr. McIntosh answered that would
require apportioning the site. However, once the portion of the site was funded via an RCO grant, it must
be a park in perpetuity. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed a waterfall or fountain could be
considered a park. Mr. McIntosh responded he would need to verify whether an RCO grant could be used
to fund amenities such as a fountain, gateway, sculpture, etc.
Councilmember Peterson inquired about the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) debt service. Mr.
McIntosh advised it was paid from the 126 Fund in the amount of $73,000/year. That represents
repayment of the City’s commitment of $2 million toward the ECA project. Councilmember Peterson
explained the Council used Councilmatic bonds for the ECA that are funded by Snohomish County sales
tax revenues which, similar to REET, are dwindling. He asked whether Fund 126 would be the revenue
source if those Councilmatic bonds had to be paid by the City. Mr. McIntosh explained the Council had
discretion regarding the use of REET funds above $700,000. With REET collections below $700,000
there was not enough money in Fund 126 for that.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Skipper’s site would need to be in the Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) if the Council wanted it to be a park. Mr. McIntosh answered yes, the only thing in the Parks Plan
was general reference to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center and the need for public amenities and
public space. The site was not specifically identified as a park; therefore, the CFP would need to be
changed. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether including the Skipper’s site in the CFP required review
and recommendation by the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson recalled Councilmember Plunkett
emailed planning staff and their response was a public hearing at the Planning Board would be required.
Councilmember Plunkett concluded according to City Attorney Scott Snyder the site could not be a park
until it was included in the CFP.
Councilmember Wilson explained if the Council used REET funds for the purchase, it must be used for a
park. To those who say they have not yet made up their mind about its use but wanted to use REET funds
for the purchase, it would be used as a park. He urged the citizens to be aware that those statements had
consequences.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the portion of the site for which REET funds were used would be required
to be a park; the Fire District 1 money did not have any restrictions on its use. Councilmember Wilson
Packet Page 23 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 21
asked whether the entire site must be a park if 22% of the total purchase price was funded with REET.
Mr. McIntosh answered no. He clarified whatever portion of a property was funded with RCO grants
must be designated and remain a park in perpetuity. Councilmember Wilson asked what portion of the
site needed to be a park if 22% of the funds for the purchase were from REET. Mr. McIntosh answered all
or none, unless there were RCO grant funds involved, the use could be whatever the Council wanted.
Councilmember Wilson observed the use of Fund 126 was restricted. Mr. McIntosh responded there were
a list of allowed uses for Fund 126 monies including Public Works projects, parks projects, etc., virtually
all public uses.
8. SKIPPERS PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT – DUE DILIGENCE
ACTIVITIES
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained in response to the City
Council’s Purchase and Sale Agreement, he developed the report dated April 22, 2010 included in the
Council packet. The report references the purchase and sale agreement terms, specifically the three
feasibility periods for a total of 90 days. The counter offer proposed by the bank would reduce this to 60
days. The report references four potential due diligence activities staff recommends to assist the City
Council make decisions related to the Purchase and Sale Agreement:
1. Conduct an appraisal: The City Council would need to authorize the Mayor to execute an appraisal
on the Council’s behalf. The packet includes a Professional Services agreement for Lamb Hanson
Lamb in an amount of $4,000, $500 of which is a rush fee to perform the appraisal within three
weeks. Because the Council has contemplated the use of state or federal grant monies, the appraisal
must be performed to state and federal standards. Because there is a potential to use grant funds for
the property, a peer review will also need to be performed on the Lamb Hanson Lamb appraisal, a
cost of approximately $1,500 for a total cost of $5,500 for the appraisal.
2. Conduct a Level 1/Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment: The Level 1 analysis would identify
potential contaminants on a site. Actual sampling of the soil, ground water or building materials is
typically not conducted during a Phase 1 study. If identifiers/indicators indicate contaminants exist, a
Level 2 analysis would need to be performed. The packet includes a Professional Services Agreement
with HWA to conduct a Level 1 assessment in the amount of $2,200.
3. Conduct a 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 the 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 timeframe, staff recommends the tasks be performed with the assistance of a
consultant. The consultant would assist with determining possible uses and conduct a public process,
compare the cost and benefits of City development for, 1) purely public use, 2) a mixed public-public
use such as the City and Port, or 3) a primary city use with rental of a portion of the site to a private
entity for cash flow purposes until the space is needed for a public use; or for a public/private
development. Using these scenarios, the City would seek a real estate/land use advisor to evaluate the
potential redevelopment of the Skipper’s property. He listed goals that could be included in an RFQ:
a. Evaluate 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 24 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 22
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
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. His contact with five urban
planning/real estate firms estimated the cost of preparing a feasibility study at $25,000 to $50,000.
Typically, 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: City Council Scott Snyder has indicated the level of bond
counsel involvement will be dictated by the feasibility study the Council chooses to undertake. If the
Council plans to keep the property as a park use, fewer resources from bond counsel will be needed.
If the Council wants to consider all possible uses for the site, more involvement by bond counsel may
be required.
5. City Council Direction: The Mayor, City staff and the City Attorney request City Council direction
on a public process. At one end of the spectrum, if a majority of the City Council wants the site used
for a park, 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.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council could use the site for a parking lot and if there was a
desire to change the use in the future, a feasibility study could be conducted at that time. Mr. Clifton
agreed it could but if the Council had any inkling that they wanted to consider all possible uses within the
60 or 90 day timeframe, he recommended conducting as comprehensive a feasible study as possible.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in the appraisal and identifying any environmental issues
before she was willing to commit. She asked whether the environment assessment could be done prior to
the feasibility study or should they be conducted at the same time. Mr. Clifton answered the appraisal and
Level 1 environmental assessment could be conducted prior to the feasibility study. Mr. McIntosh and
Mr. Snyder negotiated a 3-week turnaround for the appraisal. If there is only a 60 feasibility period, that
leaves only 39 days to conduct a feasibility process that includes public meetings.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether identification of a contaminant in the Phase 1 assessment forced
the City into a Level 2 assessment. Mr. Clifton answered it would be the Council’s choice whether to
proceed with a Level 2 analysis. For example, the Level 1 environmental assessment for the Edmonds
Center for the Arts found indications that contaminants existed; a Level 2 analysis followed that identified
the cost to mitigate the environmental contaminants and the cost was deducted from the purchase price.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Level 2 assessment would identify the cost of remediation.
Mr. Clifton answered the assessment could identify the contaminants and the cost of cleanup.
Councilmember Peterson asked the cost of a Level 2 assessment. Mr. Clifton answered it would depend
on the information identified in the Level 1 assessment.
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, explained the Port has been conducting
planning/visioning for Harbor Square but has not made any specific proposal/request to the City for
redevelopment of Harbor Square. The Port does not have a completed Master Plan or preferred
alternative, they have a bulk analysis that describes various plausible redevelopment scenarios and
measures their economic feasibility. He announced a redevelopment workshop at Harbor Square on May
5 in Harbor Square Building 2, 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. The purpose of the workshop is to continue the
Packet Page 25 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 23
conversation, share ideas about the concepts that have been developed, discuss economic feasibility and
obtain public comment. In addition to the workshop, he invited the public to submit comments to him, the
Commission or the Port’s website.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended the April 21 Snohomish County Council meeting where
they reversed their decision regarding guns in county parks. The County also plans to redistrict precincts
for 2012. Next, he announced a public hearing in Lynnwood regarding construction of 25 single family
homes on Halls Lake due to concerns with flooding of the lake.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented the idea of selling a fire station to Fire District 1 may be feasible
but would increase the price of the contract because Fire District 1 would be required to cover the
station’s operating expenses. The estimated $700,000 in EMS transport fees would also be reduced as
they were tied to the stations. He pointed out the funds obtained from the sale of equipment to Fire
District 1 was General Fund money; the Council’s action on November 1, 2009 specified funds from the
sale of depreciating assets would be placed in the General Fund. Next, he suggested the Council follow
the process used to purchase the space in front of Old Mill Town; in that instance an appraisal was
obtained, the City negotiated a lower price and sufficient REET funds were available for the purchase. He
concluded his comments noting if the Council was listening to the public, they would halt the purchase as
the overwhelming number of citizens here this week and last week did not support purchasing the
Skipper’s property. A recent website poll indicated 15% favored buying the property, 83% were opposed
and 2% were undecided.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented citizens’ extreme reaction was due to their being misled that the
source of funds for purchasing the Skipper’s property was the General Fund. He relayed that the Waiver
of Retroactivity was the most important thing to do if there was any possibility of using grant money for
the purchase. With regard to a feasibility study, he suggested using the site for parking with a sign it was
the site of a future park. Even if grant funds were used to purchase the property, its use could be changed
in the future by swapping properties. With regard to secret meetings, he explained Councilmember
Plunkett’s meeting with Imagine Edmonds was not a secret meeting because the public was invited.
Conversely, he was refused admission to Councilmember Wilson’s meeting with WSDOT, the Port and
Councilmembers.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comments regarding secret meetings. He referred to
information available on MyEdmondsNews.com including an article today that Police Chief Compaan
was concerned about Police Department funding if the Council purchased the Skipper’s property. He
urged the Council to retain the Police Department’s wages at the current rate at a minimum regardless of
whether they purchased the Skipper’s property. He commented most Edmonds employees had the best
job in town and enjoyed a 2% pay raise this year along with additional days off. By contrast his social
security did not have a cost of living increase. He complimented Council President Bernheim for the tone
of tonight’s meeting, finding it better than the uncivil meeting last week when Mayor Haakenson’s
comments stirred up the audience.
Harold Huston, Edmonds, reiterated the suggestion he made at the Council retreat that the Council
consider changing from a strong Mayor form of government to a strong City Manager. He relayed that
most people supported that idea. With a strong City Manager form of government, he/she would oversee
the department heads, serve at the pleasure of the City Council and answer directly to the City Council.
The Mayor would be Councilmember elected as an honorary position. He relayed that topic would be on
next week’s agenda. He concluded his comments by stating the employees of Edmonds were second to
none, top quality people and if the Council wanted to retain them, they must be paid a fare wage and
provide fair benefits.
Packet Page 26 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 24
Michael Young, Edmonds, questioned the ethics of the suggestion to purchase the Skipper’s property
and put up a sign identifying it as a future park. He also questioned the logic of the comment that City
employees received a raise when they took mandatory furlough days. He questioned the Council’s
continued pursuit of the Skipper’s property when the most intelligent minds in the audience have spoken
out against it. He questioned discussing union negotiations, staff furlough days, etc. prior to the Skipper’s
purchase and discussing due diligence after an offer had been made. He urged the Council to keep City
staff out of discussions regarding funding of the Skipper’s purchase.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE METING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10. FIBER OPTIC REPORT
Councilmember Plunkett explained Homeland Security provided fiber that runs down Main Street. The
Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) has been discussing fiber optics. It had been
anticipated the fiber optics would begin netting money in the area of public, education and government
and some of them began to hookup. When costs began to increase, some entities disconnected. The
income from those entities was anticipated to pay for the cost of doing business.
Councilmember Plunkett displayed a list of the CTAC’s recommendations with regard to fiber:
Internal City Usage – consider opportunities to create the infrastructure to hookup to fiber
Business Rollout – money must be expended to connect businesses. Finance Director Lorenzo
Hines was asked to review whether this was still a viable option,
Residential Rollout – this is a $25 million investment that was not even under consideration
Mr. Hines displayed a drawing of the fiber line that starts at the ferry, up to Hwy. 99 and into Seattle. He
was tasked with reviewing the feasibility of the fiber optic program. His first action was to meet with the
contract project manager and the City’s CIO to discuss the program. He felt the need for further analysis
or a Business Plan as this is an enterprise activity that is intended to create profit. Since the inception of
this effort, the City has expended approximately $437,000, the bulk of those funds in attorney fees on
legal activities on which the City prevailed. He explained although there were several target markets, the
feasibility of providing service to those markets has not been analyzed.
He displayed a comparison of capacity of broadband, dial up, wireless DSL, and Ethernet pipes compared
to the gigantic fiber pipe. He acknowledged the potential was there, how to maximize it must be
determined. He is working with a subcommittee of the Economic Development Committee to bring a plan
to the Council in late May/early June.
Councilmember Wilson commented fiber was a vital piece of Edmonds moving toward economic
development. If Edmonds wanted to position itself as an environmentally conscious community, the most
environmentally conscious businesses the City can recruit are high tech businesses. He suggested amazing
things could happen if the City were to require redevelopment or new construction within 3 blocks of the
fiber line connect because Edmonds would then be one of a few cities in the county with this capacity to
upload content. This could encourage a wide range of online content providers to move to downtown
Edmonds whose employees would then utilize downtown businesses. He suggested going to the voters at
an appropriate time, not this year, with a specific request for a tax increase to make an investment in
infrastructure.
11. 2009 BUDGET REVIEW
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
Packet Page 27 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 25
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ON BUDGET CUTS
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
13. COUNCIL REVIEW OF LEVY OPTIONS
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mayor Haakenson and she met last Friday to review several issues
including the levy. Although Councilmember Wilson has expressed support for pulling last year’s levy
off the shelf, she preferred to get the fiscal year end, the fourth quarter 2009 and first quarter 2010 and the
General Fund review and form a small committee to review the information and develop levy scenarios
that may include Yost Pool, the Senior Center, etc. The Finance Committee plans to meet on May 3 at
1:00 p.m. in the City Hall Fourtner Room to review the two scenarios that were presented last year and
present two options which may include the “D.J. option” from last year.
Councilmember Wilson clarified he did not have a levy option on the table. He the levy option considered
last year was $3.75 million; last week he noted a lesser amount would be appropriate. He suggested
having further Council review of levy options at Friday’s special Council meeting.
14. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council planned to take any action on an appraisal or Level 1
environmental assessment or if they were delaying it until the meeting on Friday. Councilmember
Plunkett responded he needed until Friday to review the materials. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was
interested in at least having the appraisal conducted. Councilmember Orvis suggested the Council move
forward with the appraisal if they accepted the bank’s counter offer. Council President Bernheim
suggested the Council defer action on the due diligence contracts until Friday’s Council meeting.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayor Haakenson for attending the Edmonds Center for the Arts’
fundraising event, Center Stage. The event was a great success and despite the economic times, the
ECA’s operations budget looks great, the result of a great staff and great performances. He encouraged
the public to view the schedule of events at EC4arts.org.
Councilmember Buckshnis announced the Town Hall meeting Friday, April 30 at Colonial Pantry Family
Restaurant in Firdale from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. The topic is how citizens envision Edmonds.
Councilmember Wilson provided clarification to the following statements made by Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas in a Guest View column of the April 23 Edmonds Beacon:
Councilmember Wilson was the Council President during the start of our recognized fiscal crisis.
Councilmember Wilson explained he was selected as the Council President January 2009; the
fiscal crisis began in September 2008.
His agenda included hiring a pool consultant for $65,000 to recommend a location for an aquatic
center we couldn’t afford to build while simultaneously cutting funding to seniors and Yost Pool.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council approved that consultant in April 2008. He
supported the Mayor proposed cuts to Yost Pool in April 2009 and proposed a levy in 2009 to
increase Senior Center funding by approximately $100,000.
Packet Page 28 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 26
Mr. Wilson voted on every budget containing cuts insufficient to keep our budget afloat.
Councilmember Wilson explained he had only voted on one budget since he had been on the
Council, the first balanced budget the Council had passed in years. The City was kept afloat
because of $1 million in cuts in that budget.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas states she is opposed to using Fire District 1 funds for day-to-
day operations and expenses. Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation for that position
and recalled he was the lead voice on that in the Fire District 1 negotiations.
In the past two years Mr. Wilson voted for a $25,000 raise for our mayor while voting to furlough
our staff. Councilmember Wilson explained the Council approved the increase in May 2008; after
the financial crisis, as Council President he drafted and led a repeal of that increase in 2009. He
pointed out there was never a vote on the issue of staff furloughs.
He voted to permit our directors and managers $4,000 per month in cell phones...and continuing
staff travel, conferences, professional dues and meals. Councilmember Wilson clarified the City
has a staff of 200, $4,000 is an appropriate amount for cell phones. It is also appropriate to have a
well-trained staff.
Mr. Wilson continues to represent negative votes, keeping our city from moving into real
economic development and financial stability. Councilmember Wilson pointed out he drafted the
ordinance creating an Economic Development Commission and championed a levy last year due
to the importance of financial stability.
Councilmember Wilson summarized none of the above equated to the $1.1 million purchase price of the
Skipper’s property. Although he was open to considering uses for the site such as a visitor’s center or
summer market, he pointed out the City already has both.
Councilmember Wilson explained any email received at the email address a Councilmember advertised
for City correspondence was public record. Recently Councilmember Plunkett received a public records
request from his opponent in last year’s election for email from the email address he advertises for City
correspondence from January 1, 2009 through April 20, 2010. Coincidentally a public records request was
submitted by Roger Hertrich, an active Council watchdog, for all his (Councilmember Wilson’s) email
during the same period. Mr. Hertrich asked for any and all electronic communications to and from the
email addresses, listing the email that Councilmember Wilson advertises for City correspondence, and
listing his professional email address which he also uses occasionally for personal use.
Councilmember Wilson explained the difference between the two requests is Councilmember Plunkett
was asked for email from the account he advertises for City business; he was asked for email from the
account he uses for City business, all of which are public record, as well as emails from the account he
uses for professional and personal use. His City email account is for City business and all those emails are
public record and are contained on the City’s server. He has a separate campaign email account that he
does not advertise for City business. He has a separate professional account he uses for his consulting
firm and his personal use. He does not advertise those accounts for City business and maintains a clear
line between City, campaign and professional emails. When he emails someone from his personal account
to a City address, those automatically become public record, collected via a server. Occasionally people
email him to his personal account about City business. When that happens it may/may not be a public
document. When he occasionally emails people about City business from his personal account, it
may/may not be a public document. For this public record request, he reviewed his emails back to January
1, 2009 and submitted approximately 65 emails that may/may not be public records to the City. However,
Mr. Hertrich is not satisfied with that, he wants any and all communications from his personal and
professional account regardless of whether they have anything to do with public business. Mr. Hertrich
wants copies of photographs he sends of his children to their grandparents, tax information he sends to his
accountant, correspondence with his clients that contains strategic and privileged information and is using
the Public Records Act to access that information.
Packet Page 29 of 216
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 27, 2010
Page 27
Councilmember Wilson noted if his clients knew that any correspondence he had with them was
disclosable, he soon would have no clients. If Mr. Hertrich is successful in accessing all his information,
his ability to earn a living would be eliminated. City Attorney Scott Snyder has informed him there is not
clear direction in the case law about his personal email and because of this he has retained an attorney.
The cost of the attorney will either be at his personal expense or the City’s expense. He expressed his
strong belief that Mr. Hertrich had no right to access his personal and professional information, that it was
his private, personal right to have a private, personal life and that Mr. Hertrich should not have the ability
to access it. He believed the intent of the law was on his side and he was willing to stand up for his rights
in a court of law. He did not believe Mr. Hertrich had the right to intimidate public officials through such
records requests.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the article she wrote in the Edmonds Beacon was in response
to Councilmember Wilson’s article saying the five Councilmembers were fiscally irresponsible in looking
at the purchase of the Skipper’s property. The intent of her article was to point out that she has on the
Council 3 ½ months, Councilmember Wilson has been on the Council for a couple years and the City is
still in a fiscal crisis. She believed the City was in this position due to people not doing what they should
have been doing.
Mayor Haakenson added that public records requests were overwhelming City staff. In addition to these
requests, the City receives countless other public records requests. He planned to ask for a full-time
position in the City Clerks office in the 2011-2012 budget just to handle public records requests. This
particular public records request has forced the City to hire a temporary full-time person for the next two
months. These requests are not unlike other public records requests the City has received this year; there
are certain perpetrators that submit public records requests weekly. He acknowledged it was an issue
across the country; sometimes the information gathered is a good thing, sometimes the intent of those
asking for the information is not good. Public records requests are a fact of life in government. In the end
taxpayers pay because additional staff has to be hired to gather the information.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:41 p.m.
Packet Page 30 of 216
AM-3040 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #118580 through #118713 dated April 29, 2010 for $1,764,970.73.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:$1,764,970.73
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $1,764,970.73
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 4-29-10
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 03:11 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 03:16 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 05:13 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 04/29/2010 12:45
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 31 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118580 4/29/2010 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND MAY 2010 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 5/10 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 5/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66
Total :2,032.66
118581 4/29/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 11104 PLAQUE
BENCH PLAQUE: BARBARA SMITH
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 159.40
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6.50
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 15.76
Total :181.66
118582 4/29/2010 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC QR98 EDMONDS
NPDES TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 130.00
Total :130.00
118583 4/29/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0424 GYM MONITOR
DANCE MONITOR FOR SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
118584 4/29/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4872610 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.96
Total :34.09
118585 4/29/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4860551 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 61.01
9.5% Sales Tax
1Page:
Packet Page 32 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118585 4/29/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.80
Total :66.81
118586 4/29/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4841091 Street/Storm Uniform Svc
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.19
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.19
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.21
Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4853096
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.19
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.19
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.21
Fleet Uniform Svc655-4853097
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.56
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4860548
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW Mats655-4864996
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW Mats
2Page:
Packet Page 33 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118586 4/29/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Fleet Uniform Svc655-4864998
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.57
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4872611
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
Total :115.11
118587 4/29/2010 073209 ASMUSSEN, VERN 0252020 REFUND SPAY/NEUTER REFUND INV#0252020
SPAY/NEUTER REFUND IMP#7609
3Page:
Packet Page 34 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118587 4/29/2010 (Continued)073209 ASMUSSEN, VERN
001.000.000.343.930.000.00 49.00
Total :49.00
118588 4/29/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0065716-IN Fleet Fuel - Mid Grade Gas 7,498 Gal
Fleet Fuel - Mid Grade Gas 7,498 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 17,976.46
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 2,966.82
Diesel - 3230 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 8,175.45
St Excise Tax Diesel, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,281.09
BioDiesel - 170 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 579.28
St Excise Tax BioDiesel, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 69.65
WA St Svc Fee
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.80
Total :31,092.55
118589 4/29/2010 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.91
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.25
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.25
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.25
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.25
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.23
4Page:
Packet Page 35 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :38.141185894/29/2010 064343 064343 AT&T
118590 4/29/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 55153 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 89.94
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 89.94
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 92.67
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 289.08
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 289.07
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.54
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.54
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.81
Total :876.59
118591 4/29/2010 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 73696 BADGE
DISCOVERY PROGRAM BADGE
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 8.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.84
Total :9.59
118592 4/29/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 808773 INV#808773 - EDMONDS PD - MANDEVILLE
WOMENS OXFORD SHOES
001.000.410.521.910.240.00 119.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.240.00 11.40
Total :131.35
118593 4/29/2010 067594 BROWN, MICHAEL 4/28/10 Time loss not bought back (4/1 -
5Page:
Packet Page 36 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118593 4/29/2010 (Continued)067594 BROWN, MICHAEL
Time loss not bought back (4/1 -
411.000.652.543.700.110.00 1,661.70
Total :1,661.70
118594 4/29/2010 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL11743 OIL PAINTING CLASSES
OIL PAINTING #11743
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 431.20
OIL PAINTING #11744
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 292.60
Total :723.80
118595 4/29/2010 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC SLF3136 Computer parts
Computer parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 351.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 33.35
Total :384.35
118596 4/29/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 154206 Fleet Shop - Supplies
Fleet Shop - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 201.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 19.18
Total :221.06
118597 4/29/2010 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT Chave4/10 APA Conference travel expenses
APA Conference travel expenses
001.000.620.558.600.430.00 813.72
Total :813.72
118598 4/29/2010 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 24451787 INV#24451787 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 147.76
CAR WASH FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 5.99
9.5% Sales Tax
6Page:
Packet Page 37 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118598 4/29/2010 (Continued)003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 0.53
Total :154.28
118599 4/29/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7849 INV#7849 EDMONDS PD - NARCOTICS SGT
NARCOTICS SGT. JAN-MAR 2010
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 9,883.86
Total :9,883.86
118600 4/29/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2182915 LINERS, ETC.
LINERS, TOILET TISSUE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 845.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 80.37
Total :926.32
118601 4/29/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2184210 City Hall & FAC - Carpet Vacuums
City Hall & FAC - Carpet Vacuums
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 1,698.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 161.31
Fac Maint - Brute, Towels, Filters, TT,W2184379
Fac Maint - Brute, Towels, Filters, TT,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 542.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 51.55
Total :2,453.52
118602 4/29/2010 071493 COLT DEFENSE LLC DAVID LIM LIM, EDMONDS PD - COLT AR15/M16 ARMORER
COLT AR15/M16 ARMORER COURSE - NOV 1-4,
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 400.00
Total :400.00
118603 4/29/2010 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 22518 Sewer - Supplies
Sewer - Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 298.72
9.5% Sales Tax
7Page:
Packet Page 38 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118603 4/29/2010 (Continued)068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.38
Total :327.10
118604 4/29/2010 005965 CUES INC 323869 Sewer - 8" Tires
Sewer - 8" Tires
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 485.28
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.43
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 47.00
Total :541.71
118605 4/29/2010 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3232184 RFQ - Health insurance ad
RFQ - Health insurance ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 75.60
Total :75.60
118606 4/29/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3092 MINUTE TAKING
4/13 & 4/20 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 480.00
Total :480.00
118607 4/29/2010 007253 DUNN LUMBER 02359475 Fac Maint - Repair Supplies
Fac Maint - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 65.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.24
Total :71.89
118608 4/29/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001072/1 PARKS & RECREATION
GAS CAN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.95
PARKS & RECREATION001074/1
MISC. FASTENERS
8Page:
Packet Page 39 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118608 4/29/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.17
PARKS & RECREATION001075/1
AIR HOSE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.68
Total :55.29
118609 4/29/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 1065/1 Cemetery - Supplies
Cemetery - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.90
Total :21.92
118610 4/29/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 20930 ADHESIVE
ADHESIVE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.65
Total :7.53
118611 4/29/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 19602 Sewer - Pumps - Bearings
Sewer - Pumps - Bearings
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 120.86
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.48
PS - Tester20868
PS - Tester
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 24.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 2.37
Total :159.70
9Page:
Packet Page 40 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118612 4/29/2010 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E763320 Testing services - PD
Testing services - PD
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 380.00
Total :380.00
118613 4/29/2010 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 18371 COPIES
COPIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 10.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 0.97
UPS/ANALYSIS PLUS18388
UPS/ANALYSIS PLUS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 11.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.08
Total :23.59
118614 4/29/2010 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP MARTINEZ0315 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: ATHENA MARTINEZ
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 150.00
Total :150.00
118615 4/29/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.84
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 33.13
Total :106.57
118616 4/29/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3
10Page:
Packet Page 41 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118616 4/29/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 48.45
LIFT STATION #144-34080
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
Total :72.25
118617 4/29/2010 068261 ENERGY SAVING PRODUCTS INC 0017669-IN FS 17 - Range Repair Parts
FS 17 - Range Repair Parts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 278.60
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 68.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.93
Total :379.53
118618 4/29/2010 073215 ENGLISH, ROB 3/2010 GREAT WOLF LODGE-TRAVEL EXPENSES
Rob English-Mileage Reimbursement to
001.000.620.532.200.430.00 95.00
Total :95.00
118619 4/29/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU18981 Unit 475 - Springs
Unit 475 - Springs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.42
Water - SuppliesWAMOU19713
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.87
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.98
Total :27.67
118620 4/29/2010 009880 FEDEX 7-065-82271 SHIPPING CHARGES GRANT DOCUMENTS
Shipping charges to HUD for grant
11Page:
Packet Page 42 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118620 4/29/2010 (Continued)009880 FEDEX
001.000.610.519.700.490.00 31.24
Shipping charges to Community Transit
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 22.47
Total :53.71
118621 4/29/2010 009880 FEDEX 7-065-80679 Transportation & Special Handling
Transportation & Special Handling
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 35.96
Total :35.96
118622 4/29/2010 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 278813 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
May-10 4th Avenue Parking Lot
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
118623 4/29/2010 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 121104 General Service Call
General Service Call
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 148.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 14.11
Total :162.61
118624 4/29/2010 073210 FRAINE, CHARLES FRAINE0409 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALL REFEREE @ ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 396.00
Total :396.00
118625 4/29/2010 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 094392 Unit 128 - Tire
Unit 128 - Tire
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 137.50
Tire Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,132.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 120.61
Unit 128 - Tire Disposal094397
Unit 128 - Tire Disposal
12Page:
Packet Page 43 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118625 4/29/2010 (Continued)063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.66
Total :1,420.85
118626 4/29/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9227443752 BARRICADE TAPE
YELLOW BARRICADE TAPE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 214.32
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.86
GLOVES9228369915
NEOPRENE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 51.36
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.72
Total :318.04
118627 4/29/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9224980095 Sewer - PSI Gauge
Sewer - PSI Gauge
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.08
Total :35.54
118628 4/29/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6584364 Water Quality - Testing Supplies
Water Quality - Testing Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 161.30
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.85
13Page:
Packet Page 44 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :194.101186284/29/2010 012560 012560 HACH COMPANY
118629 4/29/2010 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 310317 Unit 405 - Rear Tire Replacement
Unit 405 - Rear Tire Replacement
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 246.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 23.42
Total :269.86
118630 4/29/2010 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007B3431 036570
COUPLING/UNION/SOLVENT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 134.30
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.83
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.26
Total :164.39
118631 4/29/2010 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 102768 Unit 235 - Tail Lamp
Unit 235 - Tail Lamp
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 65.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.18
Unit 650 - Oil Seal Assembly, Spacer103555
Unit 650 - Oil Seal Assembly, Spacer
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.83
Refund Core Fees Unit P7CM105661
Refund Core Fees Unit P7
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -100.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -9.50
Unit 650 - RepairsFOCS265781
Unit 650 - Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 168.22
14Page:
Packet Page 45 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118631 4/29/2010 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 15.98
Total :166.93
118632 4/29/2010 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2646308 Water Inventory - w-setter-01-012
Water Inventory - w-setter-01-012
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 411.75
Meter Boxes & Lids (20 each) non
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,245.20
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1.71
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.29
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 39.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 214.18
Water Inventory -w-setter-01-012I2659121
Water Inventory -w-setter-01-012
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 823.50
Meter Setters 5/8" (20 ea)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,425.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 78.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 135.38
Water Inventory - w-setter-01-012I2659192
Water Inventory - w-setter-01-012
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 137.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 13.04
Total :5,533.81
118633 4/29/2010 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-148 Drug testing services 2/16 & 3/24/10
Drug testing services 2/16 & 3/24/10
15Page:
Packet Page 46 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118633 4/29/2010 (Continued)069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 85.00
Total :85.00
118634 4/29/2010 073202 HENTHORN, LISA BLD20090790 Permit Voided/House Demo'd./New
Permit Voided/House Demo'd./New
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 877.60
Total :877.60
118635 4/29/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81970433 INV#81970433 467070-1005305A3 EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 04/13-05/12/10
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 229.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 54.06
Total :623.07
118636 4/29/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5013975472 Rent on reception copier. Billing
Rent on reception copier. Billing
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 8.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 0.77
Total :8.86
118637 4/29/2010 072110 INFORMATION DISPLAY COMPANY 3737 Traffic Control - Repair Transceiver
Traffic Control - Repair Transceiver
111.000.653.542.640.480.00 410.00
Total :410.00
118638 4/29/2010 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 511905 Fleet Shop - Break Fluid Tester
Fleet Shop - Break Fluid Tester
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 53.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 5.13
Total :59.12
16Page:
Packet Page 47 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118639 4/29/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 110436586 Fleet Battery Inventory
Fleet Battery Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 147.15
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 13.98
Unit 102 - SL20X Flashlight763589
Unit 102 - SL20X Flashlight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.35
Total :303.43
118640 4/29/2010 073214 JOHNSON, STEPHEN BLD20080593 Overpaid ESLHA Consultant Fees.
Overpaid ESLHA Consultant Fees.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 639.84
Total :639.84
118641 4/29/2010 069355 KLEINFELDER INC 639389 C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 2,098.50
Total :2,098.50
118642 4/29/2010 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 360610-001 Large format copy paper for KIP 3000.
Large format copy paper for KIP 3000.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 164.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 15.58
Total :179.58
118643 4/29/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 04212010-1 INV#04212010-1 EDMONDS PD
47 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 - 03/10
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 236.41
Total :236.41
118644 4/29/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 03262010-03 City Car Wash Feb 2010
City Car Wash Feb 2010
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 5.03
17Page:
Packet Page 48 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :5.031186444/29/2010 017050 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
118645 4/29/2010 069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN LAMPHERE12021 SPRING DETOX & REJUVINATION
SPRING DETOX & REJUVINATION #12021
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
118646 4/29/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 26525 C-311
C-311 Odor Control Project
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 1,348.75
Total :1,348.75
118647 4/29/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 4010-462 ENGINE OIL
ENGINE OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 119.80
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.39
Total :142.76
118648 4/29/2010 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 186709 Unit 11 - Tire Replacement
Unit 11 - Tire Replacement
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 860.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 83.72
Unit 55 - Tire Repair186710
Unit 55 - Tire Repair
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 34.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 3.23
Total :981.13
118649 4/29/2010 061814 LEYDA, SHERRIE Apr-10 Mileage & Meals MCA Conference Chelan
Mileage & Meals MCA Conference Chelan
001.000.230.512.501.430.00 211.97
18Page:
Packet Page 49 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :211.971186494/29/2010 061814 061814 LEYDA, SHERRIE
118650 4/29/2010 073218 LOBERG ROOFING BLD20100295 Permit Voided. On-line permit not in
Permit Voided. On-line permit not in
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 80.00
Total :80.00
118651 4/29/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104096 Copy paper
Copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 22.00
Copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 22.00
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 22.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.09
Total :72.27
118652 4/29/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104108 Misc. office supplies including
Misc. office supplies including
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 97.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 9.25
Misc. office supplies. Binder clips104119
Misc. office supplies. Binder clips
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 26.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.50
Total :135.42
118653 4/29/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104042 Council Office Supplies
Council Office Supplies
19Page:
Packet Page 50 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118653 4/29/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 35.02
Total :35.02
118654 4/29/2010 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 600472 Unit 21 - Fuel, and Oil Filters
Unit 21 - Fuel, and Oil Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.35
Unit 133 - Reflectors, lamps600634
Unit 133 - Reflectors, lamps
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.43
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.89
Unit 648 - Pro Lite600798
Unit 648 - Pro Lite
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.51
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.76
Unit 42 - Break Fluid, Oil Pump600929
Unit 42 - Break Fluid, Oil Pump
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.00
Unit 648 - Defogger Repair601019
Unit 648 - Defogger Repair
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.28
Unit 96 - Blk Paint601100
Unit 96 - Blk Paint
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.58
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.48
Unit 14 - Connectors601118
Unit 14 - Connectors
20Page:
Packet Page 51 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118654 4/29/2010 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.85
Shop Supplies - Brake Fluid Pump601146
Shop Supplies - Brake Fluid Pump
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.92
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.08
Units 37 & 43 - Herculin (1 gal)601361
Units 37 & 43 - Herculin (1 gal)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 99.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.50
Unit 14 - Flat601417
Unit 14 - Flat
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.19
Unit PS16 - Magnet602323
Unit PS16 - Magnet
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.94
Total :326.44
118655 4/29/2010 061900 MARC 0413954-IN 00-0902224
GREASE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 109.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.42
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.97
Total :126.39
118656 4/29/2010 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 36456 YOST LANE DIVIDER ANCHORS
21Page:
Packet Page 52 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118656 4/29/2010 (Continued)019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 456.00
INSTALL OF LANE DIVIDER ANCHORS AT YOST
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 4,800.00
Total :5,256.00
118657 4/29/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 52631152 123106800
TUBING/PIPE FITTINGS/DRIVE SOCKET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 335.28
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.11
Total :342.39
118658 4/29/2010 071011 MIDCO-WEST INC 521376 8225680
SERVICE/FORKLIFT
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 301.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 28.68
Total :330.58
118659 4/29/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0270498-IN Sewer - 02 Sensor GX-2001
Sewer - 02 Sensor GX-2001
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 110.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.18
Total :128.88
118660 4/29/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0426092-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 100.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 9.53
Unit 55 - Filters0426376-IN
22Page:
Packet Page 53 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118660 4/29/2010 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Unit 55 - Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.60
Fleet Filter Inventory0426794-IN
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 141.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 13.43
Total :294.67
118661 4/29/2010 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3349894.001 2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.37
2091S3349894.002
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.45
Total :56.42
118662 4/29/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 10661 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,400.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 133.07
Total :1,533.77
118663 4/29/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-109776 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: EDMONDS ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-110625
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MADRONA ELEMENTARY
23Page:
Packet Page 54 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118663 4/29/2010 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 101.20
Total :291.07
118664 4/29/2010 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 041979 Fleet Shop Supplies - Glass Cleaner,
Fleet Shop Supplies - Glass Cleaner,
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 74.84
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.33
8.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 6.66
Total :84.83
118665 4/29/2010 073152 NORTHWEST GEOGRAPHICS INC 205 PW (Storm Engineering)- GIS Analyst
PW (Storm Engineering)- GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,100.75
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,933.75
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,725.50
PW (Storm Engineering)- GIS Analyst206
PW (Storm Engineering)- GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 416.50
City Wide
001.000.310.518.880.110.00 59.50
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 892.50
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3,391.50
Total :9,520.00
118666 4/29/2010 073213 NORTHWEST TRAVEL MAGAZINE 210495 TOURISM AD IN MAY/JUNE NORTHWEST TRAVEL
Tourism ad in Northwest Travel May/June
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 547.00
Total :547.00
24Page:
Packet Page 55 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118667 4/29/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 120 Historic Preservation Minutes on 4/8/10.
Historic Preservation Minutes on 4/8/10.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 112.00
ADB Minutes on 4/21/10.000 00 124
ADB Minutes on 4/21/10.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 208.00
Total :320.00
118668 4/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 232661 Office supplies - HR
Office supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 163.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 15.52
Office Supplies - HR245430
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 59.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 5.62
Total :243.81
118669 4/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 285066 CARTRIDGE, FOLDERS, CLIPS
INKJET CARTRIDGE, FOLDERS, PAPER CLIPS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 48.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.56
Total :52.60
118670 4/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 224635 520437
COPIER PAPER/FILES/NAPKINS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 46.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 4.43
520437226987
CALCULATOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 15.73
9.5% Sales Tax
25Page:
Packet Page 56 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118670 4/29/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 1.49
Total :68.33
118671 4/29/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 179492 PW Office Supplies - Full Sheet Labels
PW Office Supplies - Full Sheet Labels
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 25.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.44
PW - Surge Protectors (4)185733
PW - Surge Protectors (4)
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 13.78
PW - Surge Protectors (4)
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 13.78
PW - Surge Protectors (4)
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 13.78
PW - Surge Protectors (4)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.78
PW - Surge Protectors (4)
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.31
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 1.31
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 1.31
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.31
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.31
PW Admin Office - Ink for Printer516340
PW Admin Office - Ink for Printer
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 199.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 18.94
PW Admin Office Supplies - Storage CD670580
26Page:
Packet Page 57 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118671 4/29/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
PW Admin Office Supplies - Storage CD
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 225.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 21.40
Total :568.53
118672 4/29/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 682581 Prof Serv Legislative Legal Fees for
Prof Serv Legislative Legal Fees for
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 2,530.60
Total :2,530.60
118673 4/29/2010 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00056123 Unit 106 - Ignition Switch
Unit 106 - Ignition Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 160.70
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.84
Unit 138 - Service Manual00056223
Unit 138 - Service Manual
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 276.80
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.68
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.93
Total :492.95
118674 4/29/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.925610 Yost Park - Paint & Supplies
Yost Park - Paint & Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 138.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.15
Yost - Paint Supplies928052
Yost - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.35
27Page:
Packet Page 58 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118674 4/29/2010 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.55
Total :192.52
118675 4/29/2010 073211 PHOENIX ART RESTORATION 012910 ART RESTORATION
ART RESTORATION
117.200.640.575.500.410.00 210.00
9.5% Sales Tax
117.200.640.575.500.410.00 19.95
Total :229.95
118676 4/29/2010 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 7570984 2196
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/CONTACT KIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 511.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 48.56
Total :559.69
118677 4/29/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 184231 INV#184231 ACCT#2772 EDMONDS PD
SHIP TASER FOR REPAIR
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 13.90
Total :13.90
118678 4/29/2010 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0040570-IN EDMCITW
KNEE PADS
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 19.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 1.90
Total :21.85
118679 4/29/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 270.84
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 221.18
28Page:
Packet Page 59 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118679 4/29/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 452.26
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 26.13
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 99.29
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 99.29
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 99.29
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 99.29
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 99.32
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 365.79
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 295.35
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 583.25
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,054.85
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
29Page:
Packet Page 60 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118679 4/29/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 190.79
Total :5,045.67
118680 4/29/2010 072214 RT CORPORATION S1-143885 PERFORMANCE TESTING
PERFORMANCE TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 491.40
RT3659SI-143177
PERFORMANCE TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 490.80
Total :982.20
118681 4/29/2010 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-037222 Unit 338 - Battery
Unit 338 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.26
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.10
Unit 336 - Shock/Struts03-038689
Unit 336 - Shock/Struts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 102.54
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.74
Unit 424 - F Belt03-039747
Unit 424 - F Belt
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.53
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.81
Unit 10 - F Pads03-040752
Unit 10 - F Pads
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.93
Unit 338 - Shock/Struts03-040882
Unit 338 - Shock/Struts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 102.54
30Page:
Packet Page 61 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118681 4/29/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.74
Unit 537- Pads03-042398
Unit 537- Pads
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 47.54
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.52
Unit 94 - Pump Kit, Motorad03-043026
Unit 94 - Pump Kit, Motorad
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 151.13
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.36
Unit 88 - Pad Kit03-043181
Unit 88 - Pad Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 80.11
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.61
Unit 788 - Rotor03-043194
Unit 788 - Rotor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 112.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.71
Unit 88 - Bearing03-043544
Unit 88 - Bearing
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 143.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.67
Unit 338 - Motor & Fan03-044161
Unit 338 - Motor & Fan
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 193.41
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.37
Unit 252 - RR Pad Kit03-044212
Unit 252 - RR Pad Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.12
31Page:
Packet Page 62 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118681 4/29/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.29
Unit 132 - Spindle R End03-044665
Unit 132 - Spindle R End
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.63
Unit 96 - Cap, Rotor, Spark Plugs,03-044795
Unit 96 - Cap, Rotor, Spark Plugs,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 154.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.70
Unit 29 - Battery03-045245
Unit 29 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 94.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.95
Returns - Rotor, Pads, Seals05-338355
Returns - Rotor, Pads, Sealsg
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -354.81
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -33.71
Returned Core05-338606
Returned Core
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.76
Return - Motorad05-343254
Return - Motorad
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -16.64
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.58
Unit 736 - Pad Kit05-646972
Unit 736 - Pad Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.51
32Page:
Packet Page 63 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118681 4/29/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.75
Total :1,139.22
118682 4/29/2010 066738 SETCOM CORPORATION 5196 Unit 582 - Parts Repairs & Shipping
Unit 582 - Parts Repairs & Shipping
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 339.55
Total :339.55
118683 4/29/2010 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0108705-IN Unit 650 - Connectors
Unit 650 - Connectors
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 94.50
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
Unit 338 - Microphone Assembly (2)0108936-IN
Unit 338 - Microphone Assembly (2)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 212.82
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
Total :334.82
118684 4/29/2010 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-211999 Shop Tool - Typhoon Blow Gun (2)
Shop Tool - Typhoon Blow Gun (2)
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 37.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 3.60
Shop Supplies14-212581
Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 55.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 5.31
Stock Returns - Wheel Weights14-212619
Stock Returns - Wheel Weights
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -60.77
9.5% Sales Tax
33Page:
Packet Page 64 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118684 4/29/2010 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -5.77
Unit EQ64PM - Arcticflex Cables14-214204
Unit EQ64PM - Arcticflex Cables
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 29.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 2.80
Unit 106 - Spring Brake Sealed, Clevis19-026828
Unit 106 - Spring Brake Sealed, Clevis
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 60.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.71
Total :134.32
118685 4/29/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 281947 FERTILE MULCH
FERTILE MULCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 360.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 34.20
Total :394.20
118686 4/29/2010 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/12185241 Fleet Shop Supplies - Sockets, Cr Ft Set
Fleet Shop Supplies - Sockets, Cr Ft Set
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 222.34
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 16.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 22.74
Total :262.03
118687 4/29/2010 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Q2-2010 Q2-2010 Contract Pmt
Q2-2010 Contract Pmt
001.000.390.522.200.510.00 1,560,969.58
Total :1,560,969.58
118688 4/29/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 130128104 2030-9778-7
34Page:
Packet Page 65 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118688 4/29/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 25,037.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,502.28
Total :26,540.20
118689 4/29/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
STREET LIGHT200202562
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1.53
LIFT STATION #9200611317
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 260.37
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT201151412
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,097.71
STREET LIGHT201611951
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1.64
TRAFFIC SIGNAL201751476
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 103.05
STREET LIGHT201907862
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1.06
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 83.69
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 318.01
35Page:
Packet Page 66 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118689 4/29/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 318.01
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 318.01
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 318.01
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 318.02
SIGNAL LIGHT202289120
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 3.69
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,580.79
TRAFFIC LIGHT202427803
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
CITY HALL202439246
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,448.54
Total :11,267.28
118690 4/29/2010 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 4-15-10 FEB-MAR 2010 MED CHARGES - EDMONDS PD
INMATE MEDS - FEB/MARCH 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 631.69
FEB 2010 INMATE MEDS - EDMONDS PDFEB 2010 INMATE MEDS
INMATE MEDS - FEB 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 793.95
JAN 2010 INMATE MEDS - EDMONDS PDJAN 2010 MEDS
INMATE MEDS - JAN 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 1,155.13
CREDIT FOR ROUTINE MEDICATIONSJAN-FEB 2010
CREDIT FOR ROUTINE INMATE MEDS -
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -1,344.85
36Page:
Packet Page 67 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,235.921186904/29/2010 063941 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
118691 4/29/2010 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2010045 INV#2010045 - EDMONDS PD
64.03 BOOKINGS FOR 03/10
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,762.70
652.92 HOUSING DAYS FOR 03/10
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 40,807.50
10 DAYS WORK RELEASE 03/10
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 798.00
Total :47,368.20
118692 4/29/2010 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 283526 Sewer - HEP A/B, TDAP
Sewer - HEP A/B, TDAP
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 173.00
Total :173.00
118693 4/29/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44861 "Street File" stamp for Megan in
"Street File" stamp for Megan in
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 18.89
Total :18.89
118694 4/29/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2169282 FS 17 - Elect Supplies
FS 17 - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 133.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.64
Yost Park - Elect Supplies2172559
Yost Park - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 68.85
PW - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.93
Total :248.58
118695 4/29/2010 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360003315348 C/A 360000657091
Basic e-commerce hosting April-10
37Page:
Packet Page 68 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118695 4/29/2010 (Continued)070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 360000764828360003319928
Apr-10 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 430001405909440010410494
P&R Directory Listing May-10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 130.25
Total :200.15
118696 4/29/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18899093 Water Supplies - Nuts & Bolts
Water Supplies - Nuts & Bolts
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 48.41
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.60
Total :53.01
118697 4/29/2010 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 281873 Fac Maint - Closet Kits
Fac Maint - Closet Kits
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 163.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.50
Fac Maint - U Kits281960
Fac Maint - U Kits
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 163.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.50
Total :357.40
118698 4/29/2010 042260 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 928358 Hydrant Supplies - Blue Pavement
Hydrant Supplies - Blue Pavement
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 259.80
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 26.65
38Page:
Packet Page 69 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :307.171186984/29/2010 042260 042260 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO
118699 4/29/2010 073216 TRIUNITY ENGINEERING & MGMNT 2010.01.MAR SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING
SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 600.00
Total :600.00
118700 4/29/2010 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE 04212010 MONITOR CHARGES FOR EDC MTG 4/21/10
Monitor charges for Economic
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
118701 4/29/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8437301 Water - Hymax 3" Dismantal Joint
Water - Hymax 3" Dismantal Joint
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 884.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 83.98
Total :967.98
118702 4/29/2010 064540 UNIVERSAL REPAIR SHOP INC RA61756 Shop Tool - Power Unit
Shop Tool - Power Unit
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 600.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 57.00
Total :657.00
118703 4/29/2010 043935 UPS 00002T4T13160 Late fee on account
Late fee on account
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1.43
Total :1.43
118704 4/29/2010 062693 US BANK 2462 CDW-Power Strip
CDW-Power Strip
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 144.56
Lanshack-Plugs; wallplate for
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 70.99
CDW-Headset;LifeCam Cinema
39Page:
Packet Page 70 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118704 4/29/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.230.512.500.350.10 106.25
Domain Name Registration
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 12.95
Tigerdirect-Battery Cartride #27 & # 35
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 766.49
ARIN-Consolidated Maint fee for ASN
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 100.00
ACCIS-Registration Conf C Nelson
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 250.00
Survey Monkey-Annual Subscription
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 200.00
TigerDirect-Battery Cartridge #7
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 314.78
Dell-Hard Drives (4)
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 262.76
Total :2,228.78
118705 4/29/2010 062693 US BANK 3348 Great Wolf Lodge - APWA 2010 Spring
Great Wolf Lodge - APWA 2010 Spring
001.000.650.519.910.430.00 164.98
USPS - Fleet - Motorola Shipping Fees3546
USPS - Fleet - Motorola Shipping Fees
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.85
Office Max -Sewer - Jewel Cases
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.94
USPS - Fac Maint - Return Postage ATS -
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 4.80
USPS - Fleet - Return Postage Setcom
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 14.94
WA Dept of L&I - Parks - Seview Parks
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 140.80
Office Max - Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 59.41
American PW - PW Booklets (10)
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 43.00
40Page:
Packet Page 71 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118705 4/29/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Svc Fees
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 4.98
Ruud - PW Yard Security Light
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 205.34
Ruud - PW Yard Security Light
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 54.04
Ruud - PW Yard Security Light
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 205.34
Ruud - PW Yard Security Light
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 205.34
Ruud - PW Yard Security Light
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 205.34
Ruud - PW Yard Security Light
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 205.31
Total :1,536.41
118706 4/29/2010 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0304839-WA Sewer - DOT
Sewer - DOT
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 65.00
Fleet - Dot
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 65.00
Total :130.00
118707 4/29/2010 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 106685 Water - Pump, Adaptor
Water - Pump, Adaptor
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 872.20
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 55.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 88.15
Water - Utlity Locks (12)121256
Water - Utlity Locks (12)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 117.48
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.52
41Page:
Packet Page 72 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118707 4/29/2010 (Continued)064423 USA BLUE BOOK
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.64
Water - Flange Spacers, PVC Discharge127883
Water - Flange Spacers, PVC Discharge
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 152.40
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 24.11
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.77
Total :1,354.98
118708 4/29/2010 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS T0298897D INV#T0298897D - EDMONDS PD
PAGER & MESSAGING 04/27-05/26/10
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 157.78
Total :157.78
118709 4/29/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.71
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.71
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.12
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 70.58
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 59.28
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.28
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 79.04
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.06
42Page:
Packet Page 73 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118709 4/29/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 110.24
Total :501.02
118710 4/29/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0860489659 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg thru 4/12/10
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 120.20
Cell Service-Eng thru 4/12/10
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 168.58
Cell Service Fac-Maint thru 4/12/10
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 122.93
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.26
Cell Service Parks Maint thru 4/12/10
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 57.71
Cell Service-PD thru 4/12/10
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 560.83
Cell Service-Planning thru 4/12/10
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.52
Cell Service-PW Street thru 4/12/10
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 19.89
Cell Service-PW Storm thru 4/12/10
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 33.17
Cell Service-PW Water thru 4/12/10
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 67.45
Cell Service-PW Fleet thru 4/12/10
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.26
Cell Service-WWTP thru 4/12/10
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 39.78
Total :1,243.58
118711 4/29/2010 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 38940004 PLANTS
WHITE ROCK ROSE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 501.50
43Page:
Packet Page 74 of 216
04/29/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
12:28:49PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118711 4/29/2010 (Continued)064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 47.64
Total :549.14
118712 4/29/2010 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E64943 000040000120
UNIFORM/AMBURGEY
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 350.00
Total :350.00
118713 4/29/2010 045565 WSPCA 2010 - MCCLURE 2010 WSPCA MEMBERSHIP - MCCLURE & DASH
2010 MEMBERSHIP - JOSH MCLURE & DASH
001.000.410.521.260.490.00 45.00
Total :45.00
Bank total :1,764,970.73134 Vouchers for bank code :front
1,764,970.73Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report134
44Page:
Packet Page 75 of 216
AM-3028 2.D.
WSLCB April list
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acceptance of list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington
State Liquor Control Board, April 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City Clerk’s Office, the Police department, and the Mayor’s Office have reviewed the
attached list and have no concerns with the Washington State Liquor Control Board renewing the
liquor licenses for the listed businesses.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: WSLCB list
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/26/2010 03:24 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/26/2010 03:38 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/27/2010 01:40 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/26/2010 03:04
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/27/2010
Packet Page 76 of 216
Packet Page 77 of 216
AM-3026 2.E.
Contract Amendment with Brown & Caldwell for Treatment Plant Work
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to the professional services agreement with
Brown & Caldwell for the Odor Control Improvement Project for $18,000.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to the professional
services agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Odor Control Improvement Project.
Previous Council Action
On January 20, 2009, the City Council authorized staff to sign a professional services agreement
with Brown & Caldwell for designing the Odor Control Improvement Project for $294,217.
On October 6, 2009, City Council authorized awarding the construction of the Odor Control
Improvement Project to Prospect Construction for $1,410,312.
On October 20, 2009, City Council approved addendum #2 with Brown & Caldwell for $90,558 to
provide engineering support services for the construction project.
Narrative
Brown & Caldwell has designed the Odor Control Improvement Project which was awarded to
Prospect Construction. Additional construction support services have been needed to address
issues that have surfaced during construction. Brown & Caldwell has estimated that the expenses
should not exceed $18,000.
Project expenses are well within the approved amounts approved by Council in the October 6,
2009 meeting.
Other agencies share approximately 50% of all capital project expenses at the wastewater
treatment plant.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Construction award packet
Link: Addendum 3 with Brown & Caldwell
Packet Page 78 of 216
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 04/26/2010 03:53 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/27/2010 10:46 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/27/2010 10:54 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/27/2010 01:40 PM APRV
Form Started By: Steve
Koho
Started On: 04/24/2010 12:18
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/27/2010
Packet Page 79 of 216
Packet Page 80 of 216
Packet Page 81 of 216
Packet Page 82 of 216
Packet Page 83 of 216
Packet Page 84 of 216
Packet Page 85 of 216
AM-3032 2.F.
Day of Prayer Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
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 National Day of Prayer, May 6, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The National Day of Prayer is a vital part of our heritage. Since the first call to prayer in 1775,
when the Continental Congress asked the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming a nation, the call
to prayer has continued through our history, including President Lincoln’s proclamation of a day
of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer” in 1863. In 1952, a joint resolution by Congress, signed by
President Truman, declared an annual, national day of prayer. In 1988, the law was amended and
signed by President Reagan, permanently setting the day as the first Thursday of every May. Each
year, the president signs a proclamation, encouraging all Americans to pray on this day. Last year,
all 50 state governors plus the governors of several U.S. territories signed similar proclamations.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/27/2010 01:40 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/27/2010 01:43 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/27/2010 04:12 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/27/2010 11:03
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/27/2010
Packet Page 86 of 216
Packet Page 87 of 216
AM-3034 2.G.
Police Week Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
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 National Police Week, May 10 - 16, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
On May 15, 1982, the first National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day Service was held. Activities
during National Police Week now include the annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial, National Police Survivors’ Conference, as well as the National
Peace Officers’ Memorial Day service.
In October 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the legislation that allowed the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund to begin raising money for an appropriate
monument in Washington, DC, honoring the fallen law enforcement officers of America.
While police agencies may have celebrated National Police Week on the local level years ago,
today there is a new heightened awareness of National Police Week. The U.S. Congress has
passed legislation that allows the U.S. flag to be flown at half staff on May 15; numerous police
organizations hold memorial services locally, regionally, and on a statewide level during that
week; and police departments may have open houses and SWAT team demonstrations, etc. to
promote National Police Week.
This is the one week during the year when law enforcement honors their fallen officers and makes
the citizens of America aware that every 57 hours another law enforcement officer gives up his or
her life for perfect strangers.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 88 of 216
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/27/2010 04:12 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/27/2010 05:01 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/27/2010 02:45
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/28/2010
Packet Page 89 of 216
Packet Page 90 of 216
AM-3033 2.H.
Building Safety Month Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
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 Building Safety Month, May 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The International Code Council Foundation is sponsoring Building Safety Month throughout the
month of May to help create community-wide recognition and understanding of building safety
and sustainability and the critical role of codes and code officials.
The City supports the International Code Council in partnership with dedicated building safety and
fire officials, architects, engineers, and the construction industry, all of whom help develop and
enforce the codes that safeguard us in our homes, at school, and in the buildings we work in.
The United States has the highest level of building safety in the world. We encourage everyone to
raise their level of awareness of building safety and to take appropriate steps to improve our built
environment.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/27/2010 04:12 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/27/2010 05:01 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/27/2010 02:36
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/28/2010
Packet Page 91 of 216
Packet Page 92 of 216
AM-3029 3.
Community Service Announcement: Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce / New
Edmonds Chamber Foundation.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement: Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce / New
Edmonds Chamber Foundation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Community Service Announcement by Jan Vance regarding the Greater Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce / New Edmonds Chamber Foundation.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 09:06 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 12:42 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/27/2010 09:39
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 93 of 216
AM-3025 4.
Presentation on Affordable Housing
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilwoman Buckshnis Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on affordable housing.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) began in March 1989 as a voluntary association of cities,
towns, the county, and Tulalip Tribes. The meetings are called to focus on the new wave of growth
and the related impacts on road systems, public services and resource lands. SCT has a rich history
of success and provides a means for fostering communication and creating an interjurisdictional
forum.
Tonight, Shane Hope, the Community and Economic Director of Mountlake Terrace will provide
an over-view relating to a program concerning affordable housing. Affordable house is good
quality housing for working people, first-time buyers, and seniors and its definition will be defined
by each community.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: ATTACH 1 - SCT Housing.Interjurisd.Program.MEMO
Link: Attach 2 SCT Interjurisd.AfdbleHsng.Program_Edmonds_05.04.10
Link: Attachment 3 SCT Feasibility_execsumm
Link: Attachment 4 Interjurisd.AfdbleHsng
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 09:06 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 12:42 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/23/2010 10:13
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 94 of 216
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 95 of 216
Memorandum
To: City of Edmonds City Council
From: Shane Hope, Community & Economic Development Director, Mountlake Terrace
On behalf of Snohomish County Tomorrow’s Housing Committee
Date: May 4, 2010
Subject: Snohomish County Tomorrow Interjurisdictional Housing Program
The Edmonds City Council will consider options, at its May 4 meeting, for participating in the
proposed Snohomish County Tomorrow Interjurisdictional Housing Program.
OVERVIEW
Affordable, good quality housing for working people, seniors, and others is an important issue in
the Puget Sound region. Snohomish County Tomorrow, a city/county organization advising on
growth management within Snohomish County, has asked that member local governments
consider participating in an interjurisdictional housing program. The program would be similar
to “ARCH,” the program operated as a partnership by suburban cities in King County. In this
case, however, it would be operated through Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) as a
partnership among Snohomish County cities and perhaps the county. Its first focus would be on
technical assistance and coordination so that each community could get help in addressing the
housing needs it identifies.
ANALYSIS
A feasibility study for an interjurisdictional housing program for the Snohomish County area was
completed in 2009. (See the attached Executive Summary or, for the entire online report, go to:
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/County_Services/SCT/Links/Hsg_Feasibility.htm.) The study
concluded that an interjurisdictional housing organization could fill a need to: (a) provide
technical assistance to interested members on meeting housing goals and (b) help create more
affordable housing in Snohomish County.
What is “affordable housing”?
As stated in the SCT report on page 13:
The term “affordable housing” is used in different ways and can have different meanings
in a variety of settings. For the purposes of this report, housing is considered affordable
if a household can live in it without sacrificing essentials such as food, clothing,
transportation, and medical care. Therefore, affordable housing includes not just
subsidized or income-restricted housing units, but all private and public housing units
that are affordable for low- and moderate-income families.
Snohomish County Tomorrow recognizes the national standard for housing affordability
as described the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): The
Packet Page 96 of 216
Snohomish County Tomorrow Interjurisdictional Housing Program Page 2 of 4
May 4, 2010
generally accepted definition of housing affordability is for a household to pay no more
than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who earn less the county
median income (approximately $65,000 in 2008 for a family of four) and who pay more
than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered “cost-burdened” and may
have difficulty affording basic necessities.
The need for affordable housing is growing rapidly in Snohomish County. In 2000, more
than 49,000 households were cost-burdened…By 2007, 80,000 household were cost-
burdened, representing 63% of the 126,000 total household earning less than the median
income…There are cost-burdened families in every jurisdiction in Snohomish County.
What would the SCT housing program do?
The envisioned organization would have a different role than a housing authority or other
existing organization. For example, it would focus on helping member local governments
achieve their own housing objectives—in terms of identifying the type of local housing needs
and specific tools that could be employed, as well as providing educational outreach and
monitoring affordable housing progress, and also in terms of exploring ways to establish a future
local housing trust fund or other mechanisms to create desired housing.
Possible activities (not in priority order) for the program include the following:
Snohomish County Tomorrow Interjurisdictional Housing Program Page 3 of 4
May 4, 2010
concept be approved and that volunteer members (assuming a “critical mass” exists) move
forward with establishing the program in three phases:
1. Start-up phase (establishing organization, objectives, funding, and work program)—in
2010
2. Technical assistance phase (providing technical assistance to members)—starting no later
than 2012 or 2013
3. Optional housing project phase1 (participating in creation of housing projects, consistent
with local goals)—possible in 2014.
The recommended program would be administered through the Snohomish County Tomorrow
Steering Committee, an existing organization comprised of elected official representatives within
the county. Initial members would be those cities and the county that volunteer to be part of the
program. The volunteer member governments would also serve as the program’s governing
board. The program would be funded on a “proportional share” basis related to population size
or a similar measure; in addition, state funding may be available. Edmonds’ financial
contribution is estimated to be between about $3,000 and $20,000—but likely in the $5,000 to
$10,000 range, depending on the final number and type of other members. (See “Cost
Scenarios,” attached.) Support costs (such as an office from which to work, a computer, and
other administrative needs) would be covered as a donated service, at least in the beginning, by
an existing agency, such as the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, or by a willing city.
The program would start with one employee. Budget, work program, and direction would be
decided by the program’s governing board. For the first year, the work would probably be
focused on providing housing-related technical assistance to member local governments. In later
years (phase 3), the program may participate in creating new affordable housing, consistent with
local plans.
Currently, various city and county members of Snohomish County Tomorrow are beginning to
discuss whether or how they want to participate in the Interjurisdictional Housing Program. A
meeting to report and discuss these local decisions and to decide next steps will be held by the
Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee later this spring. So far, the cities of
Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace, Lake Stevens, Snohomish, and Marysville have indicated they
intend to support and participate in the program—though with the recognition that enough other
local governments would need to participate to make the program feasible. If enough SCT
members choose to participate this year, their representatives could begin to work this summer
on further defining the program and determining funding needs so that state funding could be
sought in 2011 and each local member could propose, for their governing body’s consideration, a
budget amount for the next year that would allow the actual program to launch by 2012 or 2013.
A slide presentation on this subject will be provided at the Edmonds City Council’s May 4 public
meeting. (See attachment.)
1 Whether the program moves into this phase depends on the members’ willingness to do so.
Packet Page 98 of 216
Snohomish County Tomorrow Interjurisdictional Housing Program Page 4 of 4
May 4, 2010
OPTIONS
Three options for the Edmonds City Council’s next steps are described below.
No participation. Under this option, the City Council would be signaling its Snohomish County
Tomorrow representative that Edmonds does not intend to participate in any manner in the
Snohomish County Tomorrow Interjuridictional Housing Program.
Observe only. Under this option, the City Council would be signaling that its Snohomish County
Tomorrow representative should observe the Interjurisdictional Housing Program’s development
but indicate that the City will absolutely not participate financially in any way (and therefore will
not be a member) in the foreseeable future.
Move forward carefully. Under this option, the City Council would be signaling its intent for the
City of Edmonds to support the Snohomish County Tomorrow Interjurisdictional Housing
Program and participate at some level, provided that a critical mass of support for the program is
established. The City’s SCT Steering Committee representative would carry a message of the
City’s support back to the SCT Steering Committee. Later this year, after SCT has determined
which members intend to participate in the program and what outside resources are available,
specific finance options would be provided for each city. A decision on future financial
participation and next steps would be made by each City Council, probably in 2011, so that the
actual program could launch by 2012 or 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
The SCT task force that has worked on this program has developed a recommendation that
corresponds to Option C—namely, for each local government to select the “Move forward
carefully” option. This option means that the Council would be providing direction to move
forward with the Snohomish County Tomorrow process to establish the Interjurisdictional
Housing Program in which the City of Edmonds would intend to be a participant. However, a
final decision on each city’s financial participation would still be decided by their respective
Councils as part of a future budget process. The following motion will accomplish this:
Move to provide direction that the City of Edmonds participate in the Snohomish County
Tomorrow process to establish the Interjurisdictional Housing Program and that an
update on this program and options for financial participation be brought back for
consideration when the information is ready.
ATTACHMENTS
Executive Summary of Feasibility Study for Interjurisdictional Housing Programs
“Cost Scenarios”
Slide Presentation
N:\PLANNING\Housing\SCT Info\Housing.Interjurisd.Program.MEMO.Edmonds.doc
Packet Page 99 of 216
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
MAY 4, 2010
Snohomish County Tomorrow
Interjurisdictional
Housing Program
Packet Page 100 of 216
1.GENERAL BACKGROUND
2.SCT STUDY & PROPOSAL
3.OPTIONS & NEXT STEPS
Order of Tonight’s Presentation
Packet Page 101 of 216
SCT
INTERJURISDICTIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM
General Background
Packet Page 102 of 216
Housing has many issues
For example:
Types & choices to meet
diverse needs
Adequacy & safety
Sustainability
Balance with jobs
Proximity to jobs and
services
Affordability for all
income levels
Packet Page 103 of 216
Affordable housing is more than a structure.
Housing is affordable if a
household can live in it
without sacrificing food,
health care, and other
essentials.
Housing ―cost-burdened‖ –
household earning less
than the median county
income and paying more
than 30% of their income
on housing (SCT and
national standard)
5
What is “affordable housing?”Packet Page 104 of 216
Many whose work serves us or our children cannot
afford to live near those workplaces.
•Sandra has three
kids and earns
$41,000 per year
as a teacher.
•Maximum
monthly rent she
can afford with
her salary is
$1,025
•Average rent, 3-br
apartment where
she teaches =
$1,395.
6
Who needs affordable housing?Packet Page 105 of 216
Thousands of working families live
in Snohomish County.
7
Average Pay:
More than $20,000 but
Less Than $35,000
School Bus Drivers
Retail Sales People
Child Care Workers
Waiters, Waitresses
Home Health Aides
23,800 households (74%)
in this income bracket are
cost-burdened.
Who needs affordable housing?
More Than $35,000 but
Less Than $50,000
Most Teachers
Construction Laborers
Bus Drivers (Transit)
Dental Assistants
Licensed Nurses
17,100 households (51%) in
this income bracket are
cost-burdened.
More than $50,000 but
Less Than $65,000
(Median Income)
Fire Fighters
Patrol Officers
15,800 households (44%)
in this income bracket are
cost-burdened.
Packet Page 106 of 216
8
Affordable housing needed is
everywhere in Snohomish County.
Unmet Housing Need: 55,400 Cost-Burdened Households in 2000
Arlington 1,217 Marysville 2,481
Bothell 896 Mill Creek 949
Brier 365 Monroe 1,099
Darrington 144 Mountlake Terrace 2,227
Edmonds 3,951 Mukilteo 1,256
Everett 12,239 Snohomish 831
Gold Bar 199 Stanwood 412
Granite Falls 249 Sultan 360
Index 9 Woodway 40
Lake Stevens 1,933 Unincorp. Urban 14,969
Lynnwood 3,836 Unincorp. Rural 6,791
Who needs affordable housing?Packet Page 107 of 216
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PRESENTED TO
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOMORROW
JUNE, 2009
Inter-Jurisdictional Affordable
Housing Program Feasibility Study
Packet Page 108 of 216
“WHAT KIND OF INTER -JURISDICTIONAL
PROGRAM, FOR EXPANDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WOULD BE
“FEASIBLE” (I.E. SUCCESSFUL AND
WORTH DOING)?”
Aim of the Study
Packet Page 109 of 216
Key Findings
Need growing everywhere in Snohomish Co., faster
than expected.
Some officials interested in creating an inter-
jurisdictional program.
Handful of successful models that provide:
Creation of new capital resources (e.g., trust fund)
Collaborative planning and technical assistance (―TA‖).
Packet Page 110 of 216
More Key Findings
New local trust fund not workable at this time, but
collaborative planning and TA could be useful.
New, dedicated staff capacity needed for
meaningful collaboration.
Business community sees need for diverse housing
mix, though not a high priority.
Packet Page 111 of 216
Puget Sound Example
ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing)
Created in early 1990s by ―Citizens Affordable Housing
Task Force‖
A voluntary organization, which began with just 3 cities +
King County
Has now grown to include 15 cities + King County
Since 1993, provided technical assistance to members
and funded $27 million in projects
http://www.archhousing.org/
Packet Page 112 of 216
BASIS OF ―ARCH‖ in King County
Growing need for affordable housing.
Current delivery system has many gaps.
Increased local government support compliments
efforts of private sector housing developers.
Local governments that work together can be more
effective.
Packet Page 113 of 216
A NEW, VOLUNTARY INTER-
JURISDICTIONAL PROGRAM COULD BE
EFFECTIVE IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY IF
FOUR THRESHOLD CRITERIA ARE MET:
•―Critical mass‖ of participating jurisdictions.
•Funding commitments for 24 months of staff support.
•Host agency for administrative support.
•Agreement on who the program will serve and how it
will be governed.
Conclusion
Packet Page 114 of 216
Proposed Governance
Voluntary, inter-local agreement.
Semi-independent governing body, appointed by
participating jurisdictions
Advisory board(s) as needed.
Packet Page 115 of 216
Proposed Outcomes
Achieve affordable housing goals of participating
jurisdictions, focused on:
Expanding affordable housing opportunities:
Home ownership for households <=median income.
Rental housing for households <=50% median income.
Where greatest need exists and provides adequate access
to employment, education, shopping, services, amenities,
and transit.
Supporting safe neighborhoods and stable property
values.
Locally-identified needs.
Packet Page 116 of 216
Proposed Resources
One full-time staff person
…depending on number, size, and resources of
jurisdictions.
Operating funds from participating jurisdictions and
grants/state appropriations.
Long-range objective: new local funding source for
projects.
Packet Page 117 of 216
Proposed Activities
Focus on variety of technical assistance, education,
and planning activities, such as:
Comprehensive plan housing elements.
Regulatory or incentive strategies.
Funding development.
Knowledge base of public, local officials, and staff.
Share information across jurisdictions.
Monitor results.
Packet Page 118 of 216
1.ACCEPT REPORT AND
2.AGREE TO CO-CONVENE AN
IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE
SCT
Steering Committee Actions
Packet Page 119 of 216
Implementation Task Force
SCT and Housing Consortium co-convene.
Include reps of interested jurisdictions, along with
other public and private stakeholders.
Resolve 4 conditions for success.
Critical mass.
Operating funds for 24 months.
Host agency.
Define common purpose and governance structure.
Use program proposal as discussion draft.
May take a full year.
Packet Page 120 of 216
Interim Task Force Recommendations
Get cities support –who will join
Funding –(See scenarios) Representative Llias
committed to helping group obtain state seed
money-2011 budgeting
Housing Authority of Snohomish County offered
back office support
Initial jurisdictions set up program –6-8 months
(bylaws, goals, governing structure, etc.) –Arm of
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
Packet Page 121 of 216
Packet Page 122 of 216
AS OF SPRING, 2010
City’s Options & Next Steps
Packet Page 123 of 216
Options
A.Do not participate in Interjurisdictional Housing
Program
B.Be only an observer.
C.Move forward carefully to participate in & help
define the program through Snohomish County
Tomorrow
Packet Page 124 of 216
Status of Other Cities Deciding to Participate
Decided to participate:
Lake Stevens
Mukilteo
Mountlake Terrace
Marysville
Snohomish
Under consideration:
Other Snohomish County
cities & the County
Packet Page 125 of 216
Next Steps
Tonight – City Council may provide direction on City’s
participation in establishing program thru SCT
March-June –SCT member jurisdictions to make
commitment decision
June-December –Participating SCT members to begin
working together to define & set up program
2011 –Members seek program funding through available
resources (state, local, etc.)
2012 –If adequate funding, program to begin operation
Packet Page 126 of 216
Options
A.Do not participate in Interjurisdictional Housing
Program
B.Do not participate financially—be only an observer
C.Move forward carefully to participate in the
program through Snohomish County Tomorrow *
A.* Option C –recommended
Packet Page 127 of 216
Recommendation of SCT Committee
The City Council may support Option C by the
following motion:
Move to provide direction that the City participate in the
Snohomish County Tomorrow process to establish the
Interjurisdictional Housing Program and that a
recommendation on financial participation be brought
back for consideration later.
Packet Page 128 of 216
Council’s Direction on
Options?
Questions?
Discussion?
Packet Page 129 of 216
5
Executive Summary
The shortage of safe, affordable housing1 affects an increasing number of families throughout each jurisdiction in Snohomish County. Existing private, nonprofit, and public efforts are struggling to keep pace with the growing needs in the community. Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) undertook this feasibility study to explore options for creating a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions to work together to expand affordable housing opportunities. Through this study, SCT further seeks to fulfill its Countywide Planning Policies, including HO-3: “strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county.” The feasibility study was led by the Housing Subcommittee of the SCT Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The study included an assessment of all relevant existing local plans; research on the best practices for inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs across the country; two rounds of interviews with public and private stakeholders in the community; and discussions with the SCT Steering Committee, PAC, and Managers and Administrators Group. This report summarizes the key findings of the study and recommends next steps for moving forward.
Key Findings
The need for additional affordable housing throughout Snohomish County continues to grow. Snohomish County estimates that 80,000 households lived in unaffordable housing in 2007, or more than 63 percent of the 126,000 households earning less than the median income countywide (up from 53 percent in 2000). Moreover, evidence shows considerable need for affordable housing persists in virtually every community of the county.
Private and public stakeholders agree that local governments play an important role in helping to create affordable housing in their communities, and might accomplish more in this regard by collaborating across jurisdictional boundaries.
Some elected and appointed officials in Snohomish County believe that a new inter-jurisdictional program focused on creating and preserving affordable housing has potential advantages, but that interest is not uniform across all jurisdictions or even within jurisdictions. 1 The term “affordable housing” is used in different ways and can have different meanings in a variety of settings. For the purposes of this report, housing is considered affordable if a household can live in it without sacrificing essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. Therefore, affordable housing includes not just subsidized or income-restricted housing units, but all private and public housing units that are affordable for low- and moderate-income families.
Packet Page 130 of 216
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
6
There is general consensus among stakeholders interviewed for this study that jurisdictions should support the creation of new home-ownership opportunities for households earning up to 100 percent of the county’s median income, as well as affordable rental housing targeting those earning up to 50 percent of the county’s median income. Many of those interviewed expressed a preference for creating more home ownership opportunities.
Elected officials consulted for this study agree that location is an important factor for new affordable housing and that those needing affordable housing should have adequate access to employment, education, shopping, services, and amenities. Considerable disagreement persists, however, on policy regarding the most feasible and appropriate locations for new affordable housing.
Only a handful of successful inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs exist in the U.S.. Some focus on creating new local capital resources for housing development, while others focus on a combination of incentives, technical assistance, and other planning activities to encourage affordable housing development. A few models use both planning activities and creation of new capital resources.
Given current economic conditions, this is not seen as a time when a new local capital funding source can be shifted or created to support development of affordable housing. Instead, those who support the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program believe that a new collaborative program should be focused on a variety of technical assistance, educational, and planning activities. A new program may be eligible for new or existing state and federal funding sources in the future to support capital funding for housing.
The research into other models around the country suggests that creation of a new program requires one (or more) champion to play a leadership role in promoting the new program and recruiting others to participate, or providing funding or in-kind services. To date, no jurisdiction or individual in Snohomish County has expressed an interest in stepping forward to champion a new initiative.
Other national models have created dedicated staff capacity to support a meaningful multi-jurisdictional collaboration focused on affordable housing. This has required funding resources to support the appropriate level of staffing.
Research on other national affordable housing models suggests that new governance structures have been developed to focus on the implementation and management of the inter-jurisdictional program, but existing organizations have been utilized to provide administrative support.
Packet Page 131 of 216
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
7
Conclusions
Given the affordable housing needs within the county, and the level of interest in this idea expressed by those interviewed for the study, this study concludes that a new inter-jurisdictional program with the goal of creating more affordable housing in Snohomish County can be successful if four threshold conditions are met: Condition 1: A “critical mass” of jurisdictions elects to participate as founding members. Condition 2: Sufficient funding is secured to support the program for at least 24 months. Condition 3: A host agency is identified to provide back-office administrative support, such as payroll, accounting, and IT services. Condition 4: The participating jurisdictions reach agreement on certain fundamental questions in an inter-local agreement, including the program’s purpose and governance structure.
Recommendations
The project team recommends that Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County co-convene an Implementation Task Force that would work to resolve the four conditions described above. The Task Force would include public, private, and nonprofit advocates, actively invited and recruited by the convening agencies. The role of the Task Force would be to determine the most effective way to move this proposal (or an alternative) toward implementation. In particular, the Task Force would need to work with potential member jurisdictions to determine the founding participants and their common goals. In addition, the Task Force would work with potential funders to secure funding support for the program, and have discussions with potential “host” agencies to find an organization willing to provide administrative support. In light of the current economic climate, the Task Force should plan on taking approximately a year to secure the necessary commitments for the new program. The project team suggests that the Implementation Task Force use the following program framework as its starting point. The Task Force and any potential participants in the new initiative would, of course, be free to diverge from any or all parts of the framework.
• Participating jurisdictions would establish the program through a formal inter-local agreement (ILA), which defines roles and responsibilities and secures commitments from the jurisdictions, and must be adopted by each local governing body to be valid. Based on stakeholder input, the ILA should provide a means whereby other jurisdictions can join later, at mutually beneficial times.
Packet Page 132 of 216
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
8
• Membership in the inter-jurisdictional program would be voluntary and open to all county, city and tribal governments in Snohomish County. Because of the different levels of local support for this program concept, membership may be phased in over time. The “critical mass” of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program could be as few as three, but may require four or more, depending on the resources and objectives of the jurisdictions that choose to join.
• The primary purpose of the program would be to achieve the housing objectives of the participating jurisdictions. Member jurisdictions may discover that through the collaboration, they can achieve objectives that cross municipal boundaries. The ultimate impact, hopefully, would be that many more Snohomish County households obtain affordable housing; but the program would focus on meeting the needs defined by its members.
• Given the consensus among stakeholders regarding program outcomes and parameters, the project team drafted the following outcome policy statements:
“The program exists to help participating jurisdictions meet their affordable housing objectives, especially:”
o “More affordable housing in all participating communities, especially where the need is greatest and where there is good transportation and access to employment opportunities, amenities, and services.”
“More affordable rental housing opportunities for households making up to 50 percent of the county’s median household income, especially seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, families with children, and people who work in our communities (such as service workers and laborers).”
“More affordable home ownership opportunities for households making less than the county’s median household income, especially first-time homebuyers and people working in our communities (such as teachers and public safety workers).”
o “Neighborhoods with affordable housing supported by the program are safe and have stable property values.”
• The program would begin with commitments for at least two years of operating resources, funded by a combination of monetary contributions and in-kind support of participating jurisdictions, grant funds, and other sponsorships. During the current economic climate, local government resources for affordable housing will remain about the same as today, but over the long run, participating jurisdictions would contribute additional resources.
Packet Page 133 of 216
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
9
• Governance of the new program would be provided by the participating members through a semi-independent board. This board, having representatives appointed by and from among the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions, would set policies for the program supplemental to those of the jurisdictions. The board would also hire its own staff, make decisions regarding budgets and work plans, and take input from the public and advisory boards as they see fit. The board would not, of course, take any statutory powers away from the local governments that they are not authorized to delegate. An outline of an MOU that could be used to establish the governance model is included in the Appendix 1 as a template.
Potential Work Plan Activities for Program Staff
Unless and until funding for other programming (e.g. a housing trust fund) becomes available, a new inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program should focus on a set of technical assistance, education, and planning activities that would assist member jurisdictions to meet their affordable housing goals. A dedicated staff position (1 FTE) would be able to achieve significant progress for a number of jurisdictions, provided staff has clear direction and an adequate level of back office support. The following list of activities serves as a “menu” of potential work plan items for the new program. Final decisions about the work plan for the new inter-jurisdictional program should be determined in conjunction with members, based on their affordable housing needs. The following list is not in any priority order:
• Identify strategies and goals to address identified affordable housing needs that are specific to each participating jurisdiction.
• Assist in preparing affordable housing components of comprehensive plans, as required by the State Growth Management Act.
• Develop regulatory or incentive strategies to encourage development of affordable housing.
• Serve as a liaison with non-profit and for-profit developers of affordable housing.
• Write grant applications and other forms of fundraising to support affordable housing.
• Develop means of sharing information among jurisdictions.
• Conduct educational outreach for elected and appointed officials and the public.
• Monitor affordability conditions/restrictions for affordable housing units created through local incentive programs of member jurisdictions.
• Explore the feasibility and timing of securing potential resources to create a local housing trust fund, which could be particularly helpful as economic conditions improve. Pursue opportunities as they arise.
Packet Page 134 of 216
Packet Page 135 of 216
AM-3005 5.
Public Comment Regarding Possible Purchase of Skipper's Property
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman 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 City Council will take public comment regarding the possible purchase of 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 04/27/2010 04:12 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/27/2010 05:01 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/16/2010 09:04
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/28/2010
Packet Page 136 of 216
AM-3036 7.
2009 Budget Review
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
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 for 4-27-2010
Link: Email 1
Link: Email 2
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 09:08 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 12:42 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/28/2010 05:27
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 137 of 216
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 138 of 216
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 139 of 216
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 140 of 216
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 141 of 216
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 142 of 216
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 143 of 216
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 144 of 216
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 145 of 216
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 146 of 216
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 147 of 216
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 148 of 216
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 149 of 216
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 150 of 216
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 151 of 216
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 152 of 216
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 153 of 216
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 154 of 216
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 155 of 216
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 156 of 216
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 157 of 216
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 158 of 216
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 159 of 216
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 160 of 216
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 161 of 216
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 162 of 216
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 163 of 216
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 164 of 216
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 165 of 216
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 166 of 216
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 167 of 216
Packet Page 168 of 216
Packet Page 169 of 216
Packet Page 170 of 216
Packet Page 171 of 216
Packet Page 172 of 216
Packet Page 173 of 216
Packet Page 174 of 216
AM-3045 8.
First Quarter 2010 Budget Update
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
First Quarter 2010 Budget Update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
An agenda memo was not prepared for this agenda item.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Sandy Chase 04/30/2010 11:54 AM CREATED
1 City Clerk NEW
2 Mayor
3 Final Approval
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/30/2010 11:54 AM
Packet Page 175 of 216
AM-2963 9.
Council Review of Levy Options
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Time:45 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Council review and decision concerning Primary Election ballot resolution for 8/17/10 levy.
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
Link: Agenda Memo re Resolution and Final action on the 2009 Levy
Link: Ballot measure and Voters' Pamphlet Deadlines
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 09:05 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 12:42 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/06/2010 01:53
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 176 of 216
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 342 of 930Packet Page 177 of 216
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 343 of 930Packet Page 178 of 216
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 344 of 930Packet Page 179 of 216
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
34
5
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
0
of
21
6
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
34
6
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
1
of
21
6
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
34
7
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
2
of
21
6
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
34
8
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
3
of
21
6
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
34
9
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
4
of
21
6
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
35
0
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
5
of
21
6
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
35
1
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
6
of
21
6
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
35
2
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
7
of
21
6
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
35
3
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
8
of
21
6
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
35
4
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
9
of
21
6
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
35
5
of
93
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
19
0
of
21
6
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 356 of 930Packet Page 191 of 216
Packet Page 357 of 930Packet Page 192 of 216
Packet Page 358 of 930Packet Page 193 of 216
Packet Page 359 of 930Packet Page 194 of 216
Packet Page 360 of 930Packet Page 195 of 216
Packet Page 361 of 930Packet Page 196 of 216
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 197 of 216
Packet Page 198 of 216
Packet Page 199 of 216
Packet Page 200 of 216
Packet Page 201 of 216
Packet Page 202 of 216
AM-3024 10.
Council-Manager Form of Government
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilman Michael Plunkett Time:20 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding Council-Manager form of government.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Born out of the turn-of-the-century reform movement, the council-manager system of local
government started in Staunton, Virginia in 1908. Since its establishment, the council-manager
form has become the most popular form of government in the United States. For more than 85
years, council-manager governments have responded to the changing needs of citizens and their
communities. Currently, 3,625 cities operate under this form. They vary greatly in size and
characteristics, including independent cities, center cities, suburbs, and counties. More than 75.5
million people are within this form of government. Out of 199 cities with greater than 100,000
citizens, 112 use this form of government. Some examples are Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas,
Cincinnati, San Antonio, Kansas City, Missouri, and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Edmonds will still have a mayor who would be elected by the council from among the council
members. The mayor would continue to preside at council meetings, serve as a spokesperson for
the community, facilitate communication and understanding between elected and appointed
officials, assist the council in setting goals, advocate policy and serve as a promoter and defender
of the community. However, the day-to-day running of the City of Edmonds would be
administered by a professional manager. There would be a transition.
The manager is hired to serve the council and the community and to bring to local government the
benefits of training and experience in administering local government projects and programs on
behalf of the governing body. The manager prepares a budget for the council’s consideration;
recruits, hires, and supervises the staff; serves as the council chief adviser; and carries out the
council’s policies. Council members and citizens count on the manager to provide complete and
objective information, pros and cons of alternatives, and long-term consequences. Most of the
business of a city is just that, business. Whether it is keeping traffic signals operating, police cars
maintained, employees productive or just paying the bills on time. It is the nuts and bolts of city
operation that is done with a neutral city manager professional.
Packet Page 203 of 216
Council members are elected to be leaders to focus on policy issues that are responsive to citizens’
needs and wishes. This leaves a city manager, appointed by council, free to carry out and manage
policy. The council focuses on the community’s goals, major projects, and such long-term
considerations as community public safety, land use, capital improvement plans, financing, and
strategic planning. The council hires a professional manager to carry out the administrative
responsibilities and then supervises that manager’s performance.
There is a professionally established code of ethics for city managers.
The Code specifies 12 ethical principles of personal and professional conduct, including
dedication to the cause of good government. In 1914, a group of appointed managers formed a
professional association, eventually known as the International City/County Management
Association (ICMA), to share their expertise and experiences in local government management.
Since that time, ICMA has been the professional organization for appointed chief management
executives in local government. The purposes of ICMA are to enhance the quality of local
government through professional management and to support and assist professional local
government administrators internationally. To that end, the Association provides technical
assistance and publications to better assure that we have the best administrator to run our city.
Who do you really think is going to be more accountable to you and to your neighbor? ICMA
members believe in the effectiveness of representative democracy and the value of government
services provided equitably to citizens within a community. ICMA members also are committed to
standards of honesty and integrity more vigorous than those required by the law. Contact ICMA
for a copy of the Code of Ethics.
Council would need to vote to put the issue on the ballot. If enacted by the people of Edmonds a
Council-manager form of government would be immediately upon certification of the election.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Plunkett\CITY MANAGER AM ATTACHMENTS
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 09:08 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 12:42 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/23/2010 09:48
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 204 of 216
Packet Page 205 of 216
Packet Page 206 of 216
Packet Page 207 of 216
Packet Page 208 of 216
Packet Page 209 of 216
Packet Page 210 of 216
Packet Page 211 of 216
Packet Page 212 of 216
Packet Page 213 of 216
Packet Page 214 of 216
Packet Page 215 of 216
AM-2964 11.
Long Range Plans for Future Real Estate Acquisitions
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/04/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Long range plans for future real estate acquisitions.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Council President Bernheim scheduled this item to begin discussions of long-range planning for
other possible real estate acquisitions, including Civic Playfield.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2010 06:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2010 09:08 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2010 12:42 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/06/2010 01:55
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2010
Packet Page 216 of 216