2010.10.19 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
OCTOBER 19, 2010
5:00 p.m. - Interview applicants for City Council Budget Analyst.
6:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding threatened litigation and labor negotiation strategy.
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-3451 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2010.
C. AM-3433 Approval of claim checks #121604 through #121730 dated October 7, 2010 for
$553,178.24, and claim checks #121731 through #121844 dated October 14, 2010 for
$208,454.39. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49850 through #49885 for
the period September 16, 2010 through September 30, 2010 for $649,462.10.
D. AM-3449 Acceptance of September 2010 Washington State Liquor Control Board renewal log.
E. AM-3454 Authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement
Fund (Fund #112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
F. AM-3453 Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor.
G. AM-3452 Adopt Ordinance relating to public records; amending Edmonds City Code 1.20.020 to
make the Code consistent with 2010 legislation.
3. (5 Minutes) Introduction of new Student Representative.
Packet Page 1 of 201
3. (5 Minutes)
AM-3450
Introduction of new Student Representative.
4. (5 Minutes)
AM-3366
Proclamation declaring October 17th-23rd "Friends of the Edmonds Library
Week."
5. (5 Minutes)
AM-3456
Closed record appeal of a Hearing Examiner decision to deny a “Type III-B”
variance to allow the pitch of the roof on two multi-family buildings to remain as
constructed with less than a 4/12 slope. The buildings were constructed under the
30’ height limit, but the pitch was reduced between the 25’ and 30’ mark inconsistent
with ECDC 16.30.030(A) footnote #1. The site is located at 23709 and 23711 84th
Ave W. and is zoned RM1-5. Applicant: Mitch Soros / File No. PLN20100040 and
APL20100003
Note: The applicant made a request to withdraw the appeal on 10-13-10. The withdrawal
will be entered in the record at the meeting.
6. (30 Minutes)
AM-3458
Public hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding proposed
update to the Comprehensive Plan purpose, effect and context statements, and
Hearing Examiner Comprehensive Plan review requirements.
7. (20 Minutes)
AM-3457
Public hearing on 2011 Budget and revenue sources.
8.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
9. (15 Minutes)
AM-3444
Discussion of Complete Streets Program.
10. (15 Minutes)
AM-3455
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of October 12, 2010.
11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 201
AM-3451 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 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.
Attachments
10-05-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:07 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/13/2010 05:00 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 3 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
October 5, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council President Bernheim in
the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Rob English, City Engineer
Bio Park, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Bernheim requested Item 10 be moved to Item 2B.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #121433 THROUGH #121603 DATED SEPTEMBER
30, 2010 FOR $188,383.31.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DONNA L. BRESKE
($9,563.76) AND EILEEN JOHNSON HAUGLIE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
E. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR OLD WOODWAY PARK
PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
F. ORDINANCE NO. 3808 – AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.75.010(B) IN
ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWELVE (12) MONTHS.
Packet Page 4 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 2
G. PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS
MONTH.
2B. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE DR. PALMER HOUSE
LOCATED AT 820 MAPLE STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE
EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION.
Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained the Dr. Palmer House at 820 Maple Street has been nominated
for consideration for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and the property owner has
signed the authorization form. Mr. Lien reviewed the effects of listing on the Register:
• Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds.
• Prior to commencing any work on a registered property (excluding repair and maintenance),
owner must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission.
• The property owner may be eligible for special tax valuation on any rehabilitation.
He provided an aerial map of the neighborhood and identified the subject property. In order for a property
to be listed, it must meet certain designation criteria:
• Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural
heritage of Edmonds – the house is associated with its owner, Dr. Palmer, an Edmonds dentist
who constructed the house in 1895. It is well known as a historic house due in part to its visibility
and prominent location on a steeply sloped hill overlooking downtown.
• Has integrity – the house is a largely intact example of Queen Anne style.
• At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old – the house was
constructed in 1895.
• Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A – K – this house meets two
of the designation categories, 1) the Queen Anne style embodies a distinctive architectural
characteristic or type and 2) it exemplifies or reflects special elements in the City’s history.
Because of its early date of construction, it is generally associated with the City’s late 19th century
development.
Mr. Lien described significant features on the exterior of the building: The house is 2½ stories in a
rectangular form, with a steeply pitched roof with broadly flared eaves. The roof is steeply pitched side
gable style. The second story contains a large pedimented, gabled dormer containing a bay window. The
porch is sheltered by the wide bell on the main side-gabled roof, which is supported by three classic
columns.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) held a public hearing on August 12, 2010 and concluded
the site is eligible for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Staff’s recommendation is to
approve the ordinance as recommended by the HPC.
Council President Bernheim opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no
members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Council President Bernheim closed
the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3811 – DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE
KNOWN AS THE DR. PALMER HOUSE LOCATED AT 820 MAPLE STREET, EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES,
AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 5 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 3
3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE 2009-2010 MID-YEAR
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE 2009-2010 MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT AS
PRESENTED.
Councilmember Plunkett assumed Councilmember Petso was satisfied with the information provided
during her meeting with Finance Director Lorenzo Hines. Councilmember Petso responded she was not
entirely satisfied; she was convinced that staff will at some point be able to provide a breakdown of the
511 Fund and of the Fire District 1 transaction. She was told by insisting on all answers now she would be
delaying a grant opportunity for the Senior Center which she did not want to do. She emphasized the
problems are significant, envisioning if a citizen transferred $400,000 from their checking account to their
savings account and the bank provided a receipt showing the money leaving the checking account but not
arriving in the savings account, the citizen would be concerned. This is essentially what happened when
the B Fund contribution was transferred into the 511 Fund; $400,000 left the General Fund but nothing
showed up in the 511 Fund. The 511 Fund is not reported on quarterly budget reports and it is addressed
only in a summary manner in the CAFR. She planned to support the motion as well as the efforts of
Councilmembers to improve the clarity of the City’s financial reporting.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she sent the Council and Mayor Cooper an example of how an
amendment should be read to ensure it is labeled properly in the future.
Mayor Cooper advised a budget amendment requires a majority of the Council plus one to pass.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: ADOPT-A-DOG
Charles Greenberg, representing Old Dog Haven, explained Adopt-a-Dog is an effort to increase
adoptions of older dogs and reduce the level of euthanasia of older, adoptable dogs. He introduced
Archie, a 10-12 year old Cocker Spaniel found as a stray in Seattle. His health issues include eye issues,
tumors, skin allergies, and ear infections but all are controllable. Archie is housebroken, knows several
commands, is very lovable and does not bark much. He invited anyone interested in adopting Archie or
another dog to call him at 425-774-0138.
5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE –
HALLOWEEN EVENT
David Arista, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Board Member and Member of the Downtown
Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA), invited the Council and the community to the downtown
Edmonds Halloween Trick-or-Treat event sponsored by the Chamber and merchants on Sunday, October
31 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. on Main Street between 5th and 6th and on 5th between Bell and Walnut. The
City closes those streets creating a safe area for families to trick-or-treat. An estimated 6,000 people visit
the City for trick-or-treat. Businesses receive exposure and create goodwill and everyone has a great time.
He invited Councilmembers to set up their own booth downtown and hand out treats. This year’s key
sponsors are the Journal Newspapers, Elemental Massage, Purcell & Adams and Dewar Meeks and
Ekrem Accounting.
6. SUSTAINABLE EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR POWER PROPOSAL
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained City staff members were approached in the
summer by a group of interested citizens representing Sustainable Edmonds regarding the possibility of
Packet Page 6 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 4
locating an "Edmonds Community Solar Project" on a public building or community space. Due to its
good exposure and low elevation (12' - 16' sections) the roof of the southwest wing of the Anderson
Center appears to be an excellent location for such an installation.
The City's interest derives from Council resolutions and adopted policies contained in the Community
Sustainability Element, including:
• Community Health Goal Policy E.2: Reduce energy consumption and maximize energy
efficiency by promoting programs and educational initiatives aimed at a goal to “reduce, re-use,
and recycle” at an individual and community-wide level.
• Sustainability Goal D: Develop utility policies, programs, and maintenance measures designed to
support and promote sustainability. Maintain existing utility systems while seeking to expand the
use of alternative energy and sustainable maintenance and building practices in city facilities.
• Council Resolution 1170: The City of Edmonds commits to the following policy goals:
o To become an environmental standard bearer for...reduction of green house gas emissions...
o 4) d. Encouraging both public and private demonstration projects that illustrate how
sustainable and "green" development can be accomplished in both retrofit and new
development situations.
At this time there are very good solar incentives in the form of grants and favorable rates for community
based projects.
Mark Mays, Sustainable Edmonds, described his background. He also described Sustainable Edmonds’
role in the project:
• The project meets Sustainable Edmonds’ mission of local actions for global sustainability
challenges
• Will act as the project facilitator and offer feasibility assistance
• Will provide assistance finding a local ownership group
• Project handoff to owners and administrator
• Document project successes/issues as template for the next solar project
Chris Herman, Sustainable Edmonds, described his background in solar design. He explained
community solar incentives were passed two years ago. However, due to problems identified with the
rules, they were not effective until September 5. He reviewed the requirements for a community solar
project:
• Located only on government and utility owned property
• Ownership group must reside locally
• Details as defined by WA State Bill SB 6658
o 75kW or less ( equiv. 5 residential homes)
o Production incentives up to $1.08 kWh thru 2020 (purchasing the voltage inverter from an
instate manufacture provides $0.36 kWh, purchasing panels from an instate manufacture
provides $0.72 kWh, purchasing both provides $1.08 kWh)
o Paid through the local utility from the State Utility Tax
Mr. Hermann identified the proposed location on the roof of the southwest wing of the Frances Anderson
Center. The area has a fairly new roof and there should be enough space for 75 kW (7,500 square feet)
which will produce approximately 75,000 kW per year. This area of the Frances Anderson Center also
had a new electrical system installed recently. There will be no penetrations into the roof and installation
of the panels will not impact the warranty on the roof system. Ballast trays are installed on concrete paver
or gravel and the racks/modules that are part of the ballast systems are rated up to 125 mph winds.
Mr. Mays described how the program would work:
Packet Page 7 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 5
• City agrees to lease roof space (Frances Anderson Center)
• Possible compensation could include the City receiving the net metering credit $6,000/yr. This
would be negotiated with the ownership group.
• Other City benefits include
o Directly reducing carbon footprint
o Serves as demonstration model for more solar projects
o Local ownership that support the local economy
o Possible acquisition of system after 2020, or continue to receive green power at reduced rates
o Site kiosk for educational purposes
Mr. Mays reviewed next steps:
1. City gives their approval of the project
2. Locate project owner(s)
o Must be known to each other
o Local Company to initiate project
3) Ownership group implements project
o Project engineering and equipment acquisition
o Installation and commission
o Ongoing project administration handled by the ownership group
Mr. Mays explained there is some urgency to this action because the ability to convert the 30% tax credit
to a grant expires at the end of 2010. There is legislation pending in Congress to extend it into 2011 but it
has not yet been passed. A group would need to spend 5% of the capital funds (approximately $30,000)
this year to qualify for a grant in lieu of tax credit.
With regard to risks for the City, Mr. Mays explained:
• Is the City liable for the equipment? No, the owners are, the City only leases the space.
• What if the equipment damages the building? Insurance from the ownership group covers it.
• Will it cost the City money? No, the City will only receive revenue from the net metering credit.
• Will the equipment block any views? No, and the blue non-reflective panels are more attractive
than the existing torch down roof
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this had ever been done before. Mr. Hermann answered not in
Washington; it has been done in Colorado and two systems in the State have received certification from
the Department of Revenue but have not yet been installed. Ellensburg has a community solar project, a
ground-mounted system owned by the Ellensburg government which also owns the municipal utility.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the City could utilize the cost savings from the solar panels.
Mr. Herman answered there are three groups of community solar projects: private companies which
include co-ops and LLCs, mutual corporations and government owned, and utility owned. Utility owned
projects are limited to 25% of the total program, company owned are limited to 5% and the other 70%
could be government owned.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many houses the panels would power. Mr. Mays answered the
panels would produce 75 kW, the equivalent of 5 residential homes. Mr. Hermann advised that was 5 all
electric homes; it could provide power for 20 efficient homes.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many people would be in the group and how the group would be
selected. Mr. Hermann answered ideally it would be less than 20 but could be up to 100. Mr. Mays
advised the maximum any one person can receive is $5,000. The ideal number would be approximately
16 to cover the cost of the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she needs further information regarding the numbers, how many
people would be involved, what the cost would be, the lease amount, etc. Mr. Mays explained sharing
Packet Page 8 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 6
feasibility numbers could be construed as offering securities; they must be careful to present it only as
feasibility. He commented it was possible the City would receive the net metering credit of approximately
$6,000/year and potentially own the system after 10 years. He summarized there were a variety of things
that could be negotiated with the ownership group. Mr. Herman commented he would personally put
$10,000 into the system himself; it is that good a deal. He emphasized the need to move forward in order
to spend 5% of the system costs by the end of the year.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how members would be selected if there were 100 desiring to
participate. Mr. Herman suggested first come, first served. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if
participants would need further information regarding the numbers. Mr. Herman replied yes, but the first
step is identifying a host site. The request tonight is if the City would be willing to lease the space.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the lease amount for the roof. Mr. Mays advised that would be
negotiated with the ownership group. He explained the ownership group could be an existing company,
LLC, etc. They must be careful about providing information to avoid being perceived as offering a
security. This is a financial feasibility study that appears to pencil out. It is up to the City to determine the
amount of the lease; it would seem fair and reasonable for the City to at least receive the net metering
credit or approximately $6,000 year, increasing approximately 5% per year.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out staff’s recommendation was to instruct the City Attorney and staff
to develop the lease. He was excited about the prospect of this project. He asked the cost of the project.
Mr. Herman answered the project ranged from $640,000 to $720,000.
Council President Bernheim expressed his support in principle.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO ENDORSE IN PRINCIPLE THE IDEA OF LETTING PEOPLE USE CITY
ROOFTOPS WITH SOLAR EXPOSURE FOR SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATION
INSTALLATIONS.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the proposal was 7,000 square feet of equipment on the Anderson
Center roof. Mr. Herman replied it was. Solar Dog, who makes the ballast systems, relayed they have
never had a problem with a roof structure in the 1,200+ systems they have installed the last 5 years.
Councilmember Plunkett assumed the agreement with the ownership group would include sufficient
insurance to repair any damage. He asked whether the agreement should also include language regarding
removal of the equipment in the event the system was not successful. City Attorney Bio Park advised any
lease agreement the City enters into contains a very tight indemnification agreement for any damage.
With regard to an unsuccessful system, he advised there were several options, 1) require the ownership
group to remove the equipment, 2) the City take possession of the equipment, or 3) require a bond for
removal of the equipment. Councilmember Plunkett commented a bond appeared to be the safest for the
City. Mr. Park pointed out another consideration is leasehold excise tax for lease of the roof.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. MAYOR'S BUDGET PRESENTATION
City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed the 2011 Preliminary Budget to the City Council.
Mayor Cooper explained the budget would be available on the City’s website by the conclusion of
tonight’s meeting. He also noted that a hard copy is available at the City Clerk’s office. He provided the
following budget message:
Packet Page 9 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 7
“When I took the oath of office on July 23 I made a commitment to the people of Edmonds that I would
deliver a budget that is balanced, that reflects proactive belt tightening and is focused on continuing to
deliver the high quality of service that our residents deserve. It is a privilege for me to bring you a budget
this evening that preserves programs and jobs.
Our nation is facing challenging economic times and local governments all across the region are making
difficult decisions, making drastic cuts to services, and laying off hundreds of dedicated public
employees. I feel fortunate as your mayor that the city councils and mayor preceding me have exercised
fiscal restraint since 1999, when the voters passed an initiative limiting revenue for local government.
Responsible choices achieve results that keep us ahead!
Since 2000 Edmonds has reduced employees, eliminated jobs, cut travel, and as recently as 2009,
employees took 9 furlough days which saved the City $430,000 and our city management team has taken
wage freezes. In addition, we contracted the fire department to Fire District #1 which saves the City $1.8
million each year.
In the last decade, Edmonds has eliminated two dozen jobs including 4 positions in finance, 4 police
support positions, and 1.5 positions in Human Resources. We also eliminated the Economic Development
Director by combining that with another position. In addition to these cuts, the council has made
decisions to modestly increase taxes and fees as well as creating a Transportation Benefit District.
So what are today’s challenges? As we approach 2011 our city is at a crossroads. The budget I bring you
tonight was balanced carefully, but not without thinking outside of the box. The county has projected our
assessed property value will decrease by 7.3% in 2011 and our sales tax continues to remain flat. For us to
provide the community with the services they deserve, I am recommending that we transfer the needed
contributions for fire hydrant maintenance from the Public Safety Reserve Fund, which is the fund that
holds the proceeds from the Fire District #1 transaction. This is a logical transfer given that fire hydrants
are a public safety requirement.
I am also recommending that we suspend the general fund contribution to the vehicle replacement fund
(511 B Fund) during 2011. We are in a position to make all of the 2011 expenditures from the fund
including the new police cars and computers for the police vehicles and still have a fund balance of $3.8
million at the end of 2011. In this economic climate and given the health of this fund, this just makes
sense.
Making these changes, we still preserve our reserves at healthy levels by the end of 2011; with $1.08
million in the Public Safety Reserve Fund, $1.9 million in the Emergency Reserve, and $2.6 million
ending cash balance in the General Fund. If the projections for 2010 are correct, the cash balance could
grow to $3 million by the end of 2011. The increase in ending cash balance will be a critical factor for the
city to hedge against the potential loss of $500,000 annually if voter passed the initiatives involving the
Liquor Control Board in the State of Washington.
As council is aware the burden on our staff from public records requests continues to escalate. In 2010
our City Clerks office was required to spend an additional $10,000 on temporary employees over and
above their regular employees just to take care of public records requests. I am recommending to the
council tonight that we fill a vacant position in the Clerk’s office solely dedicated to processing public
records requests. The state legislature recently gave local government the ability to respond to public
records requests through the use of electronic media. Having this employee in place will enable us to
begin processing requests more efficiently by using the latest available technology.
So how do we plan for tomorrow? While I have delivered a delicately balanced budget, it is important to
note that in order to sustain our current level of service into the future, the city will need at some point
additional revenue. We have a legacy of proactive decisions in this city that have kept us from economic
Packet Page 10 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 8
disaster. If we are to continue our commitment to public safety, our flower program, senior center,
swimming pool, and all the city jewels, we must act now in preparation for our future economic needs.
The first and most important step to achieve needed revenue is for all of us to make a commitment to
economic development. Having a vibrant economy will increase sales tax and reduce the tax burden on
home owners.
The past couple of years have brought us some success stories attracting a new festival and numerous new
businesses. Integration of cultural arts has been a key factor of our economic development effort. The
First Edmonds International Film Festival being held later this month is an example of our efforts.
In 2009 council and the community were warned that if new revenue was not generated by 2012 then
drastic reductions in service may be needed. While the council chose not to move a measure to the voters
for approval last year, it is critical that a decision be made in time to collect new revenue in 2013. That
2009 warning is as true today as it was then.
While a voter approved operating levy is one solution, I would recommend that the council place every
possible revenue source on the table for consideration. We simply must look for ways to limit the
property tax burden on homeowners. For example, our bond counsel has advised us that we can save
roughly $62,000/year by refinancing some of the city’s bonds, which I am recommending we do.
As we look to 2011 and beyond, it is important for us to not lose sight of the community’s expectations
and priorities. It is my honor to present to you my first budget as your mayor. I want to thank all of the
council members and residents who made suggestions through e-mails and responded to the customer
satisfaction survey. I would especially like to thank the directors and members of city staff who worked
many hours to assist me in building this budget. City staff and I look forward to having the opportunity to
participate in your budget discussions and being able to answer your questions at future meetings.”
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE FOR 2011-
2016 TO CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE CITY'S
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONS, UPGRADES OR
EXTENSIONS OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, PARKS AND
STORMWATER ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; INCORPORATES PROJECTS FROM THE
RECENTLY UPDATED STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; AND ADDS
ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH EXTEND BEYOND 2016.
City Engineer Rob English explained the Council packet contained the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and
the Six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Mr. English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and
components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CFP includes capital projects that are identified to meet
the City’s projected growth. The CIP includes those projects as well as maintenance and preservation
projects.
He provided a comparison of the CIP and CFP:
CIP CFP
Mandate? None GMA
Reason? Budget GMA
Time Frame? 6 year 6 year
20 year
Must include Capital? Yes Yes
Must include Maintenance? Yes No
Packet Page 11 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 9
Mr. English provided a list of fund numbers, projects within the funds and the managing department:
Fund Description Department
112 Transportation Public Works
113 Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
116 Buildings Maintenance Public Works
125 REET-2 Transportation Public Works
125 REET-2 Parks
Improvement
Parks & Recreation
126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation
132 Parks- Construction (Grant
Funding)
Parks & Recreation
412-100 Water Projects Public Works
412-200 Storm Projects Public Works
412-300 Sewer Projects Public Works
414 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works
This year’s CIP has been updated to reflect the two plans the council approved earlier this year, the 2010
Water Plan and the 2010 Storm and Surface Water Plan. He reviewed the CFP schedule:
September 8, 2010 Introduction to Planning Board
September 14, 2010 Community Services/Development Services Council Committee
September 22, 2010 Planning Board public hearing
September 28, 2010 Introduction to City Council
October 5, 2010 Public hearing at City Council
December 2010 Adoption with Comprehensive Plan Update
Councilmember Petso referred to a citizen’s email she forwarded to staff questioning the approximately
$2 million annual expenditure from the 113 Fund. Community Services/Economic Development Director
Stephen Clifton advised he received the email from Natalie Shippen and would respond in writing with
specifics to Ms. Shippen and Councilmember Petso tomorrow. Councilmember Petso asked in general
what the $2 million/year was for, whose money it was and who receives it. Mr. Clifton answered the
money is targeted for City of Edmonds expenditures. The City is not spending any money on Edmonds
Crossing. The $2 million in Fund 113 is simply a placeholder in order to process grants related to
potential expenditures and charges from Washington State Ferries (WSF). WSF states next year they will
spend very little if any on Edmonds Crossing. On an annual basis a few million dollars are inserted in
Fund 113 in the event WSF expends any money, the City has the authorization to submit the forms to the
federal and/or state government to process the grant and reimburse WSF. Councilmember Petso
summarized if WSF does not spend any money, the $2 million is not spent. Mr. Clifton agreed, explaining
the $2 million is all federal and state money.
Councilmember Petso referred to right-of-way acquisition in Fund 113 and asked what right-of-way
would be acquired. Mr. Clifton answered the state and Unocal entered into a purchase and sale agreement
in 2005 for the Unocal yard east of the railroad track. Within that purchase and sale agreement are terms
and conditions which when met will mean WSF can take title to the Unocal property. If WSF were to ever
secure the funding and fully design and move forward on construction of Edmonds Crossing, they would
need to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement for a small strip along the southern edge of the Port of
Edmonds where the Edmonds Crossing pier crosses. The $200,000 every other year within the CFP is
targeted for the Unocal lower yard acquisition. WSF is paying money to Unocal (or their successor
Chevron) when they accomplish certain cleanup measures.
Packet Page 12 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Petso referred to Legislative Reports regarding a private/public partnership with WSF.
She asked whether that was part of the multimodal project or the Main Street terminal. Mr. Clifton
answered it was primarily connected with the Main Street terminal. Discussions have occurred for some
time regarding the potential for a public/private partnership related to the Edmonds ferry terminal. One
example is the request for qualifications (RFQ) that was issued earlier this year by WSDOT to solicit
proposals for a private entity to construct a pedestrian overpass over Railroad Avenue and the railroad
tracks in exchange for WSDOT transferring title of the WSDOT parking lot south of the Skippers
property to the private entity. There would need to be enough value in the land to finance construction of
a pedestrian crossing. WSDOT did not receive any responses/proposals from the private sector.
Councilmember Petso asked if the City was obligated to plan for the overpass in its planning documents.
Mr. Clifton answered the City could; there have been discussions regarding an overpass between Dayton
and Main Street for several years; however, there is no financing for such a project. The public/private
partnership for an overpass would have been a creative way of financing the pedestrian overpass.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 51 and asked whether the debt service on approved capital
projects such as Marina Beach, library roof, City Hall, etc. would need to be recalculated if the City
refinanced bonds. Mr. Clifton advised Mr. Hines would need to respond to that question. She asked
whether the Council could approve the CFP if the debt structure would change. Mayor Cooper explained
bond counsel did not recommend refinancing all the City’s bonds. The Council will not provide final
approval of the CFP until it approves all the Comprehensive Plan changes in December. Once staff learns
which bonds will be refinanced, the spreadsheets can be recalculated.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Council’s approval tonight would simply be a preliminary
approval subject to further revision with final adoption in December. He asked whether the CFP reflected
the funds the Council approved for traffic calming at a previous meeting. Mr. English advised those funds
had not been included in the CFP and could be added at the Council’s request. Councilmember Wilson
recalled the Council previously approved funding from the General Fund for traffic calming projects. Mr.
English advised the funds for traffic calming would be included in the CFP for the December approval.
Councilmember Wilson requested staff remind him in December to check whether those funds had been
included. Mayor Cooper advised the $50,000 for traffic calming was also not included in the 2011
preliminary budget. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that the Council amended the 2011 CFP
to include funds for traffic calming but that expense was not included in the CFP or the budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the 9th Avenue traffic signals on page 17 of the CFP, recalling
those projects were replaced with restriping. Mr. English advised a $10,000 interim solution was included
for the intersection of 9th and Main and for Walnut & 9th in 2014 funded via TBD. Page 17 includes the
traffic signal projects as it is anticipated the interim striping solution will be inadequate to accommodate
future levels of service.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the $1 million cost of the traffic signal at 9th & Caspers,
suggesting the problem could be solved by changing the alignment of the entering street on 9th Avenue to
blend with oncoming traffic for a cost of $5,000-$10,000. He also expressed concern with $2,536,000 in
the CFP for a roundabout at Five Corners. He referred to the traffic signal proposed at Puget Drive & 88th,
recalling there were plans to acquire right-of-way to improve sight distance. He anticipated the State
would not approve a signal in that location. He urged the City to be realistic in its planning. Next, he
questioned the cost for the City to manage the Edmonds Crossing project. He suggested the easiest and
most practical location for a pedestrian walkway and emergency vehicle railroad crossing was at the
Packet Page 13 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 11
bottom of Bell Street. He summarized there were many questionable projects in the CFP/CIP and he did
not have enough time to describe them all.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the City’s population fluctuated as people move in and out of
Edmonds.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
With regard to the roundabout at Five Corners, Council President Bernheim acknowledged it was a high
priority on the TBD project list. He asked whether the study being conducted of Five Corners by the
University of Washington students would relate to the economic development potential of Five Corners
with the benefits of a roundabout. He referred to roundabouts in Anacortes and LaConner, commenting
there were few in urbanized, multi-use business development centers. Mr. English responded he was not
aware of any economic development associated with the traffic circle/roundabout. There are roundabouts
on Bainbridge Island and there is one in Woodinville; it is not uncommon to construct roundabouts in an
urban area. They are frequently constructed in urban areas in Europe.
Council President Bernheim inquired about the spray park in City Park. Parks & Recreation Director
McIntosh advised that is a new project; staff believes a funding source has been identified for next year.
Councilmember Wilson explained in December 2007 the Council received a study on the 88th/196th Street
intersection. Mr. English explained a warrant analysis was conducted of that intersection and it did not
meet the warrants. Councilmember Wilson recalled the State informed the City that because 196th is a
State highway and the intersection did not meet the warrants, a traffic signal could not be installed. He
recalled traffic realignments could be made to improve the intersection for a cost of approximately
$80,000 such as right turn only for northbound traffic on 88th. He suggested scheduling Council review of
that intersection. Council President Bernheim suggested it be scheduled on the Community
Services/Development Services Committee agenda. Councilmember Peterson agreed to add it to next
week’s Committee agenda.
Councilmember Wilson reiterated his concern that the funds for traffic calming were not included in the
CFP/CIP. He asked in the future that Council approved projects be included.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2011-2016) AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2011-2016).
Councilmember Plunkett was also disappointed the funds for traffic calming were not included. He
complimented Mr. English and Mr. Williams for a great presentation. In the past there was a lot of
discussion regarding the difference between the CFP and the CIP. The differences are now very clear. He
did not support approval of the CFP or CIP, explaining he would never support a traffic signal at 9th &
Main, especially when a light would only make an approximately 50 second difference. He also had
concerns with the Five Corners roundabout, the traffic signal at 9th & Caspers, as well as the water and
sewer rates.
Councilmember Wilson echoed Councilmember Plunkett’s comment regarding the clarity of the CFP and
CIP. He reiterated his concern that the CFP did not include money for any building/facility projects in the
next six years. He preferred to delay approval of the CFP until the outcome of the TBD vote was known,
until the scrivener’s errors were corrected and until the TBD vote was concluded. The stormwater section
was acceptable.
Packet Page 14 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Petso commented it was her understanding the CFP and CIP did not need to be approved
tonight as final approval was not given until December. City Attorney Bio Parks agreed, explaining it
would be included as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Council approval tonight would signal
staff to stop working on it and that it was ready for approval in December. If the Council did not approve
the Plans, that action would inform staff that further work was necessary.
Council President Bernheim commented there were several projects funded in the next three years
including transportation projects such as 228th & Hwy. 99 intersection, the interurban trail connection,
downtown improvements, walkways, the Shell Valley emergency road as well as several park
improvements. He referred to the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor project that included in the Plan, noting he
lives on 4th Avenue. He summarized this was a lean CFP. He did not like the $1 million for a signal at 9th
& Main but was willing to approve the Plan and vote against the project if it were ever proposed.
Councilmember Peterson echoed Council President Bernheim’s comments, noting this was a plan not a
final decision. It was important to identify projects to address increased downtown traffic. He was hopeful
the Council would pass the CFP and that staff would not be required to rework the Plan.
Councilmember Petso suggested the CFP be revised to include the traffic calming that the Council
previously approved. Mayor Cooper acknowledged the Council amended the document to add a traffic
calming project but the CFP was not changed because it was printed before the amendment was made.
When final adoption takes place, the CFP will reflect that change.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there are only 32 projects in the transportation section of the CFP
totally $50 million versus the 36 projects and $61 million presented to the TBD Board. Mr. English
answered how the TBD Board decides to fund projects will determine which projects will be constructed.
The 36 projects presented to the TBD Board could not be funded in a six year period covered by the CIP.
If voters approve the increased TBD fee, the Plan could be updated to reflect the TBD Board’s decisions
with regard to funding.
MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STORMWATER ELEMENT.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council previously passed stormwater utility rate increases to
comply with Environmental Protection Agency mandates. The stormwater element contains a plan with
funding that the community wants to do and is required to do and the Council approved a rate increase to
fund those projects. That is how he preferred to see the City operate.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Mr. English clarified the CFP will be presented to the Council for approval in December as part of the
Comprehensive Plan amendments. He asked whether a public hearing was required at that time. Mr. Park
advised another public hearing was not required. He clarified the CFP Stormwater element will still need
to be approved with the Comprehensive Plan in December. The existing Stormwater Plan remains in
effect until the new Plan is approved.
Councilmember Wilson encouraged staff to reach out to Councilmembers who have questions prior to the
December approval. Mr. English suggested one option would be to update the CFP to add the traffic
calming and schedule it on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Wilson answered the traffic calming
project is one of his concerns; Councilmember Buckshnis has concerns with the 36 projects on the TBD
list versus the 32 projects in the CFP.
Packet Page 15 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 13
Councilmember Peterson suggested scheduling the CFP on a committee agenda and have Mr. English
respond to questions the Council has raised. Council President Bernheim advised it could be scheduled on
the Community Services/Development Services Committee’s November agenda. He suggested
Councilmembers submit their concerns to Mr. English prior to that meeting and the Council could then
take action on the CFP at the November 23 or December 7 Council meeting.
Councilmember Wilson explained his concern with the building portion of the CFP is the Council has not
prioritized the projects. For example a great deal of time and money has been spent analyzing an aquatics
center and little to no time on analyzing an Arts Center, yet they have equivalent priority in the Plan.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Park advised there would be a public hearing in December on final
adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EDMONDS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FRANCES ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER) LOCATED AT 700
MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION.
Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained the Edmonds Elementary School, now the Frances Anderson
Cultural Center located at 700 Main Street, has been nominated for consideration for placement on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places and former Mayor Haakenson signed the authorization form while
he was mayor. Mr. Lien reviewed the effects of listing the property on the Register:
• Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds
• Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner
must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission
• The property owner may be eligible for special tax valuation on any rehabilitation
In order for a property to be listed, it must meet certain designation criteria:
• Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural
heritage of Edmonds – The Frances Anderson Center, formerly the Edmonds Elementary School,
is associated with the City of Edmonds’ expansion of the early public school system.
• Has integrity – The original Edmonds Elementary School building and site has changed in
appearance and layout considerably since 1928, particularly with the 1947 and 1952 additions.
However, the portion of the Frances Anderson Center still visible above the 1947 and 1952
additions remains intact. The original windows were replaced with newer metal windows that
simulate the original window pattern and the size of the openings have been preserved. The 1947
and 1952 additions retain their original appearance. Taken as a whole, the site has integrity.
• At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old – The original
structure was built in 1928 with additions in 1947 and 1952.
• Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A – K – The Frances Anderson
Center meets several of the designation categories:
a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
national, state or local history – The Frances Anderson Cultural Center, formerly the
Edmonds Elementary School, is associated with the City of Edmonds’ expansion of the early
public school system. Intended to serve the community of Edmonds early elementary
education needs, the school served as an important educational facility in the community for
more than 50 years. Constructed between the world wars after the public library and the
Edmonds High School were constructed, the building represents the community’s
commitment to early education. The Center also represents the growth in the City and rapid
Packet Page 16 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 14
facility expansion in the post war boom of the 1940’s and 1950’s. The building tripled in size
after the construction of the 1947 and 1952 additions
d. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history – Constructed to serve the
community of Edmonds’ early elementary education needs, the school served as an important
educational facility in the community for more than 50 years. Following the closure of the
school in 1972 due to declining enrollment, the school was re-dedicated in 1979 as the
Frances Anderson Cultural Center, a public facility for arts and cultural activities operated by
the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. The Center still
plays an important role in the community and the former school now houses several tenants
with various activities such as tae-kwon-do, clay sculpture, and ballet.
e. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history – The
building is significant for its association with long time principal, teacher, and civic volunteer
Frances Anderson. Ms. Anderson was a central figure in the development of the youth and
education system in Edmonds. She began her work in the community in 1909 when she
became secretary for the local lodge of the Independent Order of Good Templars, was elected
the first president of the Edmonds Improvement Club in 1910 and became leader of a group
of Junior Camp Fire Girls in 1918. She attended the University of Washington before
transferring to the University of Wisconsin and graduating in 1917. She returned to Edmonds
and taught second grade until 1924 when she was asked to take the position as principal. Ms.
Anderson held this position for 25 years before returning to teaching in 1949, and retired
from teaching altogether in 1959. After the school was closed due to lack of attendance, the
building was rehabilitated into a community center and named after Frances Anderson.
Mr. Lien described significant features on the exterior of the building: The original 1928 school structure
had many design characteristics of the Spanish Mission Revival style in its exterior including exterior
light stucco finishes, pent tile roof, multi-pane windows, symmetrical layout, inset panels, broad round
arches, and curvilinear parapets. The 1947 and 1952 additions are examples of the Streamlined Modern
style with layered horizontal and vertical bands, glass block windows, and light colored stucco finishes.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) held a public hearing on August 12, 2010 and concluded
the site is eligible for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Staff’s recommendation is to
approve the ordinance as recommended by the HPC.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed support for placing the Frances Anderson Center on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, noting it was long overdue. He pointed out the possibility of the building
being removed in the future.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett did not anticipate the Frances Anderson Center would be removed in his
lifetime but explained placing a structure on the Register of Historic Places did not prevent it from being
removed. He thanked Mr. Lien for his thorough presentation.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3810, DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FRANCES ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER)
LOCATED AT 700 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE
EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 17 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 15
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jack Bevan, Edmonds, commented he attends Port Commission meetings because he watches over the
Port’s expenditures. He noted only a portion of Edmonds was in the Port District as the district was
formed prior to annexations. He expressed concern with the proposed expenditure of $24,000 - $34,000 to
hire a “Budget Czar.” He pointed out the danger of the public thinking the Councilmembers were
economic illiterates if they needed a Budget Analyst to assist them. He summarized such a position was
not needed at this time; Councilmembers Petso and Plunkett have done budgets quite satisfactorily in the
past and Councilmember Buckshnis is a banker. If a Councilmember is unable to provide a budget, he/she
should not be on the Council.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported insurance companies were eliminating policies as well as increasing
premiums. Next, he referred to an article in the Everett Herald in which District 1 Representative Al
O’Brien expressed support for the initiatives that would privatize liquor sales.
Donna Breske, Edmonds, explained at the September 21 Council meeting she was directed to provide
information regarding her questions to the City Council and the Mayor. She reiterated her questions. Is it
standard policy to require fees be paid to have answers to code interpretations and City storm drainage
infrastructure questions? A minimum of $655 was requested in order to meet with engineering staff to
discuss her questions in the context of a pre-application meeting. After the expiration of her first building
permit to obtain a single family home at 9330 218th Place SW, she and her husband asked to meet with
staff to discuss several unanswered questions. Specifically, how could the City require as a condition of
building permit issuance that their lot be required to be the stormwater repository at that time for a
surrounding 2.5 acre basin including stormwater drainage from the public roads. She questioned whether
this was a taking of private land for public use and inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. She
also inquired why the storm drainage installed by Public Works in 2002 that was capable of draining
water from the plat of Westgate Village and their lot was not used. She also inquired about the City’s
grandfather date of July 1977 and why they were required to accept and manage storm runoff from
rooftops and pavement created in 1961. Ms. Breske stated that Mr. Gebert responded they did not have an
active building permit and staff could not meet with them to answer those questions. They applied for a
second building permit in April 2008 and paid duplicate application fees in the hope of meeting with staff
to arrive at an amicable solution. They have offered to pay mitigation funds for restoration of Shell Creek
in lieu of becoming the mandated stormwater repository. A meeting set for May 16, 2008 was later
cancelled and staff would not discuss the matter outside an appeal to the Hearing Examiner. She
expressed concern with the requirement to pay fees to obtain answers to questions.
Mattie Lewis, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Cooper for activating an online citizen survey. As she missed
filling out the survey, she suggested he reactivate it monthly. With regard to the Sustainable Edmonds
Community Solar Power Proposal, she asked 1) how it compared materially to the Ellensburg project, 2)
the earthquake safety and the actual weight of the solar panels, and 3) whether it would ever be the source
of a public utility tax.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented solar panels on a residential home are ugly and the cost of
installation is very expensive. He acknowledged the government and utilities issue grants but in the end it
is taxpayers’ money. He questioned the cost/benefit of the solar panels that would provide enough power
for only five houses. For the estimated cost per house of $140,000, he preferred to build treadmills and
hire the unemployed to pedal them to create power. He was concerned with a private company installing
equipment on a public building. He remarked the sun in Ellensburg would create solar power much more
effectively than solar panels in Edmonds. He also questioned how solar panels could be installed on a
historic building. With regard to electric cars, he cited a Barron study that found the voltage for an electric
car requires burning approximately four pounds of coal per hour.
Packet Page 18 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 16
12. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS CITY CODE 10.90, COMPOSITION OF THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is part of the land use
process with regard to historic preservation and any change to the Commission must be adopted in the
City’s Code. Over the years there has been more than one Councilmember asking to participate on the
Commission. He suggested adding language to the ordinance allowing one or two Councilmembers to
serve on the Commission. He advised this had no material impact on the Commission because
Councilmembers are ex-offico and unable to vote.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
THE COMPOSITION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND RETURN IT
TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
PROCEDURES.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was referred to the Planning Board because it is in Title 20
which requires Planning Board review. The proposal is to update the civil enforcement procedures to
track with the State Supreme Court case that requires separate notice of violations. Until now, there was
one notice with a public hearing opportunity. The Court appeared to require a separate notice for each
violation. Staff’s recommendation is to schedule the item for public hearing.
City Attorney Bio Park advised the amendments are the same as the versions the Council has adopted
twice before as an interim ordinance. The only addition is the second section which allows 21 days for an
appeal of the code enforcement action issued by the Hearing Examiner to the Superior Court to be
consistent with state law. It was previously a 10 day period.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Planning Board Member Reed’s recommendation in the Planning
Board minutes that the third and fourth whereas clauses on page 2 of the ordinance regarding the Planning
Board were no longer accurate and should be removed. Mr. Park advised when the ordinance is provided
at the public hearing, the whereas clauses will be removed and reference to Mayor Cooper will be added.
Councilmember Wilson asked about the practice of flexible enforcement, recalling the City’s current civil
enforcement practices allow the Development Services Director some discretion regarding when to
enforce fines. He asked if removing that flexibility provided better protection for staff. Mr. Chave recalled
former Development Services Director Duane Bowman saying the number one goal of enforcement was
to get compliance. In his experience, compliance often takes time and once hard deadlines or automatic
dates are established, flexibility is reduced as well as potentially the ability to get compliance in the most
efficient manner. It is potentially more difficult to run code compliance through this fine of a process
because it takes substantial time and trouble to visit the site each day to post and provide opportunity for
appeal, etc. He summarized the importance of give and take in the enforcement process.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Development Services staff think through ways to make it an easier
process for them and for citizens. Mr. Chave explained Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies is very
concerned with the ramifications of updating the enforcement procedures to reflect state law. He
suggested Mr. Thies present the pros and cons from his perspective at the public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a public hearing.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a Hearing Examiner has been issued.
Human Resources staff is preparing the RFQ for the City Attorney and will issue it soon. He advised
there is no public statement regarding why the existing Hearing Examiner resigned other than the reason
Packet Page 19 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 17
they included in their letter to the Council which is they do not wish to bid to be the City’s Hearing
Examiner in the future. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director position has been
advertised.
Mayor Cooper reported Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson and he attended a very lively candidate
forum in the Council Chambers on Monday, October 4. The room was filled to capacity with people also
standing outside.
Mayor Cooper reported the State of Washington gave women the right to vote before the nation did. The
100th anniversary of women in Washington State having the right to vote will occur in November. One of
the leaders in women’s right to vote was the owner of the first newspaper in Edmonds, Missouri Hanna.
She lived in the Edmonds residential neighborhood, Hanna Park. He summarized once again Edmonds
and Snohomish County were leaders in women having the right to vote.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Bertrand Hauss, Phil Williams and Stephen Clifton for their
presentations at the SeaShore forum and answering questions about the Transportation Benefit District.
She relayed compliments she received from other jurisdictions.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Council President Bernheim’s comment at the last Council
meeting that the deadline for placing a levy on the February ballot was in December. She explained the
Citizens Levy Committee is awaiting current financials as well as answers to their questions. She is not
pressuring the Committee to complete their work by December.
Councilmember Petso commented she was very hesitant to engage in conversations with people who have
claims and/or lawsuits against the City. She asked the City Attorney to provide some guidance. She was
frustrated having a citizen repeatedly speak to the Council without knowing if she was permitted to
discuss their concerns. City Attorney Bio Park asked if she wanted a procedural opinion regarding the
ability to discuss a lawsuit publically or with a claimant or a summary of a substantive nature.
Councilmember Petso asked to be informed if there were citizens she should not talk with, otherwise she
planned to initiate discussion.
Councilmember Petso referred to an email she received this week regarding relocation of the Edmonds
Post Office and location suggestions. She urged interested citizens to provide comments/concerns about
the post office’s future location. Mayor Cooper reported Mr. Clifton and he plan to meet next week to
discuss the locations and the next step in the process.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Park to identify whether Ms. Breske was talking about issues that
were within or outside the confines of the lawsuit. He was unclear why someone involved in a lawsuit
with the City was providing comment to the City Council and expecting Councilmembers to respond to
questions. Mr. Park answered it was his understanding there had been direct communication between the
claimant, the City Council and the Mayor. The City Attorney was not copied on the communications. The
City Attorney plans to review the communications once they are provided. He suggested scheduling an
executive session next week to discuss the matter and establish limits with regard to what
Councilmembers can and cannot discuss.
Councilmember Wilson requested the executive session include an update on the Reidy matter and the
Meiers matter.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the loss of revenue should Initiatives 1100 or 1105 pass. Mayor
Cooper responded it depends on which of the two initiatives pass; one eliminates both the tax and the
Packet Page 20 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 5, 2010
Page 18
profits, the other only eliminates one. Worst case scenario if the initiative passes that eliminates both the
tax and the profits, the City would lose $500,000/year and be responsible for enforcement because the
initiative dismantles the State enforcement agency. If the other initiative passes, the loss to the City is
approximately $200,000/year. Councilmember Wilson summarized the passage of those initiatives could
have a considerable impact on the City’s budget.
Councilmember Wilson thanked Mr. Bevan for his concern about the Council spending money on a
budget analyst. In the Council’s defense, he explained the idea first came from staff and has been
supported by the Mayor and most Councilmembers, not because the Councilmembers are financial
illiterates but due to the tremendous communication problem. The Finance Department has been reduced
by two employees and is unable to provide the Council accurate and appropriately labeled financial
information. There are salary savings as a result of those two positions and the funds for the budget
analyst will utilize a portion of that savings.
Councilmember Wilson reported on Thursday, October 7 at Edmonds Community College he is
moderating a debate between two heavyweights in State Initiative 1098, the high earner’s income tax, Bill
Gates, Sr. and former Senator Slade Gorton. The debate is cosponsored by MyEdmondsnews.com and
MLTnews.com.
Councilmember Peterson echoed Mayor Cooper’s comments regarding the Candidate forum, commenting
Edmonds is unique in that it has three legislative districts, Districts 1, 21 and 32. Monday’s night’s
candidate forum will be aired on channels 21 and 39 beginning tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. and daily until the
election.
Councilmember Peterson reported he played his first game of pétanque, a French type of lawn bowling,
recently at the Civic Playfields. A small group of citizens who had played pétanque and had seen
pétanque courts in other areas contacted Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh to inquire about
installing a pétanque court at the Civic Playfields. Staff installed a pétanque court and people are now
coming from surrounding communities to play. One of the City’s local businesses has pétanque rules
players can borrow. He looked forward to establishing a competitive pétanque league in Edmonds. He
commended the Parks Department for being responsive to citizens.
Council President Bernheim reported Councilmember Peterson, Rob Chave, and Steve Fisher will be
visiting the Cedar Grove Compost facility tomorrow to investigate the current compostable food
packaging technology in preparation for Council review of the compostable food packaging ordinance.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
Packet Page 21 of 201
AM-3433 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Committee:Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #121604 through #121730 dated October 7, 2010 for $553,178.24, and claim
checks #121731 through #121844 dated October 14, 2010 for $208,454.39. Approval of payroll direct
deposit and checks #49850 through #49885 for the period September 16, 2010 through September 30,
2010 for $649,462.10.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010 Revenue:Expenditure:1,411,094.73
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $761,632.63
Payroll $649,462.10
Attachments
Claim Checks for 10-07-10
Claim Checks for 10-14-10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 10/14/2010 12:55 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 01:35 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:07 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/07/2010 09:58 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 22 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121604 10/4/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Oct 2010 Standard OCTOBER 2010 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS
October 2010 standard insurance premiums
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,681.12
Total :13,681.12
121605 10/4/2010 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST October 2010 OCTOBER 2010 AWC PREMIUMS
10/10 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,197.55
10/10 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 27,322.73
10/10 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 268,012.99
Total :299,533.27
121606 10/7/2010 072627 911 ETC INC 171310 SEP-10 911 DATABASE MAINT
Sep-10 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 101.50
Total :101.50
121607 10/7/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 285913 PEST CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL285938
CITY WIDE RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :175.20
121608 10/7/2010 065568 ALLWATER INC 092310038 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 30.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 2.93
Total :33.73
121609 10/7/2010 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 035353-100801 Membership for Rob Chave 1/11-12/31/11.
1Page:
Packet Page 23 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121609 10/7/2010 (Continued)001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
Membership for Rob Chave 1/11-12/31/11.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 535.00
Planning Advisory Service, Zoning040706-100801
Planning Advisory Service, Zoning
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 1,035.00
Membership for Gina Coccia 1/11thru162458-100801
Membership for Gina Coccia 1/11thru
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 230.00
Total :1,800.00
121610 10/7/2010 067736 AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS 178273314 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES REPORT
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES FOR THE CITY OF
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 25.00
Total :25.00
121611 10/7/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5146360 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 35.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.40
Total :39.24
121612 10/7/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5134461 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.38
21580001655-5146365
UNIFORM SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.38
Total :147.12
121613 10/7/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4996481 PW MATS
2Page:
Packet Page 24 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121613 10/7/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-4996482
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 SVC655-4996484
3Page:
Packet Page 25 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121613 10/7/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
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
PW MATS655-5020288
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5020289
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 7.62
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 7.61
4Page:
Packet Page 26 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121613 10/7/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.72
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5020291
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
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5126936
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 9.87
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 9.86
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.94
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.93
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5126938
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 SVC655-5134457
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 MATS655-5138976
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
5Page:
Packet Page 27 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121613 10/7/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5138979
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 SVC655-5146361
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 43.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 4.09
Total :217.47
121614 10/7/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 57189 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 32.54
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 32.54
6Page:
Packet Page 28 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121614 10/7/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 33.51
UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 109.20
UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 109.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.19
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS57259
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 149.54
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 149.54
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 154.06
UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 478.47
UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 478.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 14.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 14.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 14.63
Total :1,779.49
121615 10/7/2010 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 15439 BURIAL SUPPLIES
BURIAL SUPPLIES: LEKANOF
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES15450
7Page:
Packet Page 29 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121615 10/7/2010 (Continued)001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
BURIAL SUPPLIES: EALKE
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
Total :776.00
121616 10/7/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 556 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
Total :100.00
121617 10/7/2010 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0910 Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 85.00
Total :85.00
121618 10/7/2010 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEYS12905 TAEKWONDO CLASSES
TOT TAEKWON DO #12905
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 96.20
TOT TAEKWON DO #12909
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 92.76
TAEKWON DO #12898
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 308.00
TAEKWON DO #12894
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 766.50
Total :1,263.46
121619 10/7/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011648459 COPIER RENTAL
CIPIER RENTAL
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 154.40
Total :154.40
121620 10/7/2010 073438 BENITEZ, FILIBERTA BENITEZ1004 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 300.00
Total :300.00
121621 10/7/2010 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 359 Change Fire Inspection phone number on
8Page:
Packet Page 30 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121621 10/7/2010 (Continued)070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC
Change Fire Inspection phone number on
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 36.25
Total :36.25
121622 10/7/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 808182 INV#808182 - EDMONDS PD - MACK
SAVVY BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 850.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 80.75
INV#829600-01 - EDMONDS PD - STRONG829600-01
NAVY T-SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.79
INV#829647 - EDMONDS PD - STOCK829647
COLLAR BRASS, E.P. LETTERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 101.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.66
Total :1,085.80
121623 10/7/2010 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE12935 PRENATAL YOGA
PRENATAL YOGA #12935
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 246.40
WOMEN'S WALKING, WEIGHTS & YOGABRUNETTE13095
WOMEN'S WALKING, WEIGHTS & YOGA #13095
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 114.10
Total :360.50
121624 10/7/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN09101034 GYMNASTICS HELIUM
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 8.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 0.79
Total :9.09
9Page:
Packet Page 31 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121625 10/7/2010 070792 CH2O 186577 PS - Inhibiter (55 Gal)
PS - Inhibiter (55 Gal)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,086.27
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 107.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 113.39
Total :1,306.97
121626 10/7/2010 071389 COASTAL WEAR PRODUCTS INC 1908 Unit 138 - Tube Broom, GutterBrooms
Unit 138 - Tube Broom, GutterBrooms
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,819.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.00
8.9% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 164.12
Total :2,008.12
121627 10/7/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2237228 Fac Maint - Towels, Bleach, Cleaner,
Fac Maint - Towels, Bleach, Cleaner,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 494.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.94
Total :541.05
121628 10/7/2010 073292 COBURN, KAI COBURN093010 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT @ EDMONDS CC
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
121629 10/7/2010 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 33609-1 Unit 775 - Exterior Damage Repairs
Unit 775 - Exterior Damage Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,193.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 113.36
Total :1,306.58
10Page:
Packet Page 32 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121630 10/7/2010 070323 COMCAST 0721433/1010 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
BUNDLED SERVICES FOR EDMONDS MEMORIAL
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 113.42
Total :113.42
121631 10/7/2010 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 5374044 092310 INV#5374044 092310-29897715374044 EDMOND
HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.67
Total :7.67
121632 10/7/2010 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS September 2010 DRS SEPTEMBER 2010 DRS
September 2010 DRS contributions
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 137,217.59
Total :137,217.59
121633 10/7/2010 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 00806256-1 ORGANIZATION NUMBER 0255
J Westfall Employers portion of
001.000.510.522.300.230.00 42.13
Total :42.13
121634 10/7/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3138 MINUTE TAKING
09/28 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 321.00
Total :321.00
121635 10/7/2010 064712 DINGUS, MARITA DINGUS1010 ART INSTALLATION
FACILITATE ARTS PROJECT @ ARTWORKS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
121636 10/7/2010 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 9 State Lobbyist for September, 2010
State Lobbyist for September, 2010
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,585.00
Total :2,585.00
11Page:
Packet Page 33 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121637 10/7/2010 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 10-1763.1 E0FB.SERVICES THRU 9/26/10
E0FB.Services thru 9/26/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 214.00
Total :214.00
121638 10/7/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001240/1 FAC MAINT
FAC - Mender Hose
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.19
FAC MAINT001244/1
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Insulated Hot Water
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.71
FAC MAINT001245/1
City Hall - Screws
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.53
FAC MAINT001246/1
Fac Maint - Supplies - Clamps
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.85
FAC MAINT1194/1
Fac Maint - Decking Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.73
FAC MAINT1208/1
Seaview Park - Vandalism Repair
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 29.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 2.80
FAC MAINT1237/1
12Page:
Packet Page 34 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121638 10/7/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
City Park Bldg - Bee Control Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.49
Fishing Pier - Light Control Disk
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.38
FAC MAINT1242/1
Fac Maint - Bee Control Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.00
FAC MAINT1243/1
City Hall - Spray Paint
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.23
Total :131.49
121639 10/7/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 27515 OIL
10/30 OIL
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 35.88
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.41
Total :39.29
121640 10/7/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 27237 2000
CASTROL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 29.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.79
Total :32.13
121641 10/7/2010 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 187803 INV#187803 - CLIENT #308 - EDMONDS PD
MEDICINE - RIMADYL - ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 37.25
13Page:
Packet Page 35 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121641 10/7/2010 (Continued)008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
MEDICINE - TRAMADOL - ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 13.35
EXAM/RENAL PROFILE- ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 85.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 4.66
INV#187886 - CLIENT #308/EDMONDS PD187886
HOSP/SURGERY - ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 834.90
E-COLLAR, CLEAR
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 17.50
MEDICINE - ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 18.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 3.37
Total :1,014.19
121642 10/7/2010 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 058751 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 34.44
Total :34.44
121643 10/7/2010 069117 EMERALD SERVICES INC 605210 Fleet Recycle Fees
Fleet Recycle Fees
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 95.50
Total :95.50
121644 10/7/2010 068261 ENERGY SAVING PRODUCTS INC 0017906-IN PW - Filter Cartidges w/Gaskets
PW - Filter Cartidges w/Gaskets
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 128.88
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.86
14Page:
Packet Page 36 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :148.2412164410/7/2010 068261 068261 ENERGY SAVING PRODUCTS INC
121645 10/7/2010 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG12902 BEGINNING TAEKWON-DO
BEGINNING TAEKWON DO #12902
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 155.40
Total :155.40
121646 10/7/2010 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 458495 EDMCI
STEEL PLATE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 105.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.98
Total :115.08
121647 10/7/2010 073439 FAGALDE LICK, SUSAN LICK1010 WOTS CONTEST WINNER
2ND PLACE: POETRY, 2010 WOTS CONTEST
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 75.00
Total :75.00
121648 10/7/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU21101 Sewer - Quick Link
Sewer - Quick Link
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.26
Total :2.98
121649 10/7/2010 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 93010 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 10,550.00
Total :10,550.00
121650 10/7/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0268123 Sewer - PVC with Shearing
Sewer - PVC with Shearing
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 122.86
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.84
9.5% Sales Tax
15Page:
Packet Page 37 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121650 10/7/2010 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.60
Sewer - Supplies0268411
Sewer - Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 195.75
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.58
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 19.99
Sewer - Inside Griper Mech Plugs0269186
Sewer - Inside Griper Mech Plugs
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 31.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.01
Sewer - 8x8 RC Coup Cncrt0269356
Sewer - 8x8 RC Coup Cncrt
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 152.73
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 15.89
Sewer - Inside Gripper Mech Plugs0269904
Sewer - Inside Gripper Mech Plugs
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 183.39
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 18.53
Total :806.94
121651 10/7/2010 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 163094 September 2010 Section 125 & 132 plan
September 2010 Section 125 & 132 plan
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 78.30
Total :78.30
121652 10/7/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
16Page:
Packet Page 38 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121652 10/7/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 40.96
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 62.51
Total :103.47
121653 10/7/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425 712-0423 AFTER HOURS PHONE
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.53
Total :56.53
121654 10/7/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9347717762 City Hall - Rocker Switch
City Hall - Rocker Switch
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.20
Fac Maint - Tool Pouch9347717770
Fac Maint - Tool Pouch
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.45
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.26
Total :41.04
121655 10/7/2010 073437 GRATING PACIFIC LLC 0095080-IN Sewer Lift St 7 - Fibergrate Fiberglass
Sewer Lift St 7 - Fibergrate Fiberglass
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 523.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 49.69
Total :572.69
121656 10/7/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6911271 112830
LAB SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 854.34
Freight
17Page:
Packet Page 39 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121656 10/7/2010 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 36.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 84.67
Total :975.96
121657 10/7/2010 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 111254 Unit 650 - Window Switch
Unit 650 - Window Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.14
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.05
Unit 337 - Bearing Assemblies, Seals,111347
Unit 337 - Bearing Assemblies, Seals,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 295.04
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.03
Unit 337 - Rear Axel Oil111377
Unit 337 - Rear Axel Oil
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 88.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.44
Unit 48 - Key111616
Unit 48 - Key
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.80
Total :522.25
121658 10/7/2010 073434 HARRIS, KYLE 2010 Boot Allowance 2010 Boot Allowance - Storm - K Harris
2010 Boot Allowance - Storm - K Harris
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 183.00
Total :183.00
121659 10/7/2010 072184 HAUSS, BERTRAND CT Grant Aug & Sep CT GRANT.SMART COMMUTER AUG & SEP
CT Grant.Smart Commuter August &
001.000.390.517.900.490.00 880.00
18Page:
Packet Page 40 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :880.0012165910/7/2010 072184 072184 HAUSS, BERTRAND
121660 10/7/2010 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2769957 Water Inventory - W-MTRLIDDI-02-010
Water Inventory - W-MTRLIDDI-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,243.92
Water - Ball Corp Stops, Meter Box
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 2,124.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 319.99
Water - Supplies - Plastic Meter Boxes,I2800689
Water - Supplies - Plastic Meter Boxes,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,374.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 130.58
Total :5,193.39
121661 10/7/2010 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 21541 E8GC.SERVICES THRU 9/25/10
E8GC.Services thru 9/25/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 16.67
E8GC.Services thru 9/25/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 16.67
E8GC.Services thru 9/25/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 16.66
Total :50.00
121662 10/7/2010 070042 IKON 83310169 COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 25.93
Total :25.93
121663 10/7/2010 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 913176 Unit 24 - Limit Switch Roller Crank
Unit 24 - Limit Switch Roller Crank
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 66.62
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.12
9.5% Sales Tax
19Page:
Packet Page 41 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121663 10/7/2010 (Continued)061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.63
Total :76.37
121664 10/7/2010 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2930976 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
121665 10/7/2010 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13045559-00 Fac Maint - Protreat Jars
Fac Maint - Protreat Jars
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 187.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.83
Total :205.53
121666 10/7/2010 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3432132 INV#3432132 - EDMONDS PD
PURELL HAND SANITIZER 4 OZ
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 36.84
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 19.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.87
PURELL HAND SANITIZER 8 OZ
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.50
Total :98.34
121667 10/7/2010 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0910-108246 E8GC.SERVICES THRU 8/31/10
E8GC.Services thru 8/31/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 103.48
E8GC.Services thru 8/31/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 103.48
E8GC.Services thru 8/31/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 103.48
Total :310.44
121668 10/7/2010 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1100923128 KPLU radio advertising - week of 8/30/10
20Page:
Packet Page 42 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121668 10/7/2010 (Continued)070285 KPLU-FM
KPLU radio advertising - week of 8/30/10
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 950.00
Total :950.00
121669 10/7/2010 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARDEN KRUCKEBERG13159 BOTANIC GARDEN TOUR
GARDEN TOUR #13159
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 22.50
Total :22.50
121670 10/7/2010 017060 L & O DISTRIBUTING CO 84201 City Park Bldg - Gasket Set
City Park Bldg - Gasket Set
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.21
Total :13.93
121671 10/7/2010 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1016137033 INV#1016137033 - EDMONDS PD
EYESALINE SOLUTION BOTTLES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 28.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 12.62
Total :41.12
121672 10/7/2010 073440 LAUDERDALE, MARGARET LAUDERDALE1010 WOTS CONTEST WINNER
1ST PLACE: POETRY, 2010 WOTS CONTEST
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00
Total :100.00
121673 10/7/2010 073433 LEGENDS ROOFING CO INC BLD20100697 Property outside city limits.
Property outside city limits.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 80.00
Total :80.00
121674 10/7/2010 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20100930 INV # 1201641-20100930 EDMONDS PD
SEARCHES & REPORTS 09/10
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 76.10
21Page:
Packet Page 43 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121674 10/7/2010 (Continued)069634 LEXISNEXIS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 7.23
Total :83.33
121675 10/7/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105069 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 397.27
SUPPLIES105083
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 145.89
SUPPLIES105110
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 38.31
Total :581.47
121676 10/7/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105091 EDMCTY
COPIER PAPER/INK CARTRIDGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 132.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 12.63
Total :145.59
121677 10/7/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105081 Misc. office supplies including black
Misc. office supplies including black
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 463.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 44.02
2 back ordered cartridges.105089
2 back ordered cartridges.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 83.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 7.98
Misc. office supplies including door105107
Misc. office supplies including door
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 438.15
22Page:
Packet Page 44 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121677 10/7/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 41.62
Green card stock.105119
Green card stock.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 14.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.42
Misc. office supplies including HOD3640105120
Misc. office supplies including HOD3640
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 23.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.28
Back ordered refill calendar E417-50.105122
Back ordered refill calendar E417-50.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 18.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.80
Back ordered HOD3640 Wall Calendar.105130
Back ordered HOD3640 Wall Calendar.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 11.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.14
Total :1,155.73
121678 10/7/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1141 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1145
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1146
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1147
INTERPRETER FEES
23Page:
Packet Page 45 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121678 10/7/2010 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1148
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1149
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1150
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1151
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1152
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1153
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
Total :875.00
121679 10/7/2010 073442 MCCLUNG, KATHLEEN MCCLUNG1010 WOTS CONTEST WINNER
1ST PLACE, NON-FICTION, WOTS WRITING
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00
Total :100.00
121680 10/7/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 65730547 123106800
RUBBER GLOVES/HANGING SCALE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 296.64
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.45
12310680066011046
SAW BLADES/STEEL PIPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 337.38
Freight
24Page:
Packet Page 46 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121680 10/7/2010 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.80
12310680066146917
TUBE FITTINGS/CARRIAGE SCREW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 229.74
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.16
Total :912.17
121681 10/7/2010 020905 MILLIMAN INC 003FPL060 ACTUARIAL SERVICES
Actuarial Services for FF Pension Fund
617.000.510.522.200.410.00 284.05
Actuarial Services for FF Pension Fund
009.000.390.517.370.410.00 1,210.95
Total :1,495.00
121682 10/7/2010 072492 MOLINA, NILDA MOLINA12927 ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #12927
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 1,081.50
Total :1,081.50
121683 10/7/2010 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-239243 101690-01
BALL BEARINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 73.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.00
Total :80.71
121684 10/7/2010 072908 NANO MARKETING GROUP LLC, NANNETTE DARBOUSDARBOUS0927 REFUND
WRITE ON THE SOUND REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 62.00
Total :62.00
121685 10/7/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0280582-IN Sewer - LEL Sensor GX2001
Sewer - LEL Sensor GX2001
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 110.00
Freight
25Page:
Packet Page 47 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121685 10/7/2010 (Continued)064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.21
Total :129.27
121686 10/7/2010 067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO.PSW00087428 0071490
ANNUAL LOAD TEST
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 5,255.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 499.24
Total :5,754.42
121687 10/7/2010 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3598775.001 2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 207.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 19.72
Total :227.32
121688 10/7/2010 068663 NORTHERN ENERGY PROPANE 667635 Roadway - Propane fees
Roadway - Propane fees
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 281.25
Total :281.25
121689 10/7/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-191406 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 305.16
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-191607
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: YOST PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 222.89
Total :528.05
121690 10/7/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 164 Planning Board Minutes on 9/22/10.
Planning Board Minutes on 9/22/10.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 272.00
26Page:
Packet Page 48 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :272.0012169010/7/2010 025690 025690 NOYES, KARIN
121691 10/7/2010 070704 NW AQUATIC & MARINE ED, MEMBERSHIP CHAIRLIDER2010 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: SALLY LIDER
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 25.00
Total :25.00
121692 10/7/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 175417 INV#175417 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
PARTITION ADDITIONS CLIPS
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 19.65
CDR DISCS
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 17.97
MINI DVC CASSETTE TAPES
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 12.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 4.76
INV#195859 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD195859
DRY ERASE MARKERS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.78
DRY ERASE MARKERS
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 3.78
TONER CARTRIDGE C4127X
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 134.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 12.80
Total :210.66
121693 10/7/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 166830 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 140.93
Total :140.93
27Page:
Packet Page 49 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121694 10/7/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 176913 INK CARTRIDGE
BLACK INK CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 34.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.29
NAME BADGES, ETC.202365
MASKING TAPE, CHALK
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 28.08
NAME BADGES FOR WOTS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 27.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.67
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.62
PAPER & SUPPLIES219672
COPY PAPER, INKJET CARTRIDGE, POST IT
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 275.18
PAPER
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 35.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 26.15
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 3.41
TONER, CALENDARS220585
TONER, CALENDARS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 133.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 12.64
HP TONER247949
HP CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 124.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 11.80
Total :721.13
121695 10/7/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 055006 OFFICE SUPPLIES
28Page:
Packet Page 50 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121695 10/7/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 109.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 10.37
OFFICE SUPPLIES165421
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 -22.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 -2.13
Total :95.02
121696 10/7/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 085161 PW Office Supplies - Mech Pencils
PW Office Supplies - Mech Pencils
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 19.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.82
PW - Calendars for 2011106867
PW - Calendars for 2011
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 72.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 6.89
PW - Office Supplies - Binder clips125837
PW - Office Supplies - Binder clips
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 32.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.08
Total :136.00
121697 10/7/2010 073431 OLYMPIC HEATING INC BLD20100693 Checked gas piping in error.
Checked gas piping in error.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
121698 10/7/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 23700 104TH AVE W
23700 104TH AVE W/HICKMAN PARK
29Page:
Packet Page 51 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121698 10/7/2010 (Continued)026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 4,766.42
23700 104TH AVE W0060860
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 79.62
Total :4,846.04
121699 10/7/2010 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00056422 Fleet Returns 5/18/10
Fleet Returns 5/18/10
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1,092.31
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -103.77
Unit 106 - Service and Repairs00057403
Unit 106 - Service and Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 288.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 27.40
Unit 55 - Pillow Bearing00057745
Unit 55 - Pillow Bearing
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 566.90
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.83
Unit 138 - PSI Switch00057747
Unit 138 - PSI Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 143.63
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.82
Unit 31 - 2 Check Valves, ORings00057761
Unit 31 - 2 Check Valves, ORings
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 657.94
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.03
30Page:
Packet Page 52 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121699 10/7/2010 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.03
Unit 55 - Pillow Bearing, WLDT Impeller00057786
Unit 55 - Pillow Bearing, WLDT Impeller
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4,257.62
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.62
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 418.22
Unit 55 - 2 Cover Kits00057796
Unit 55 - 2 Cover Kits
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 724.18
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 70.04
Fleet Returns 9/7/1000057797
Fleet Returns 9/7/10
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -362.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -34.40
Unit 31 - Gaskets00057864
Unit 31 - Gaskets
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.20
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.12
Unit 106 -00057915
Unit 106 -
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,032.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 98.08
Total :7,058.31
31Page:
Packet Page 53 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121700 10/7/2010 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS NWFLOAT13153 WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP
FALL WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP #13153
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 112.52
Total :112.52
121701 10/7/2010 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 011648457 COPIER CONTRACT
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 13.45
Total :158.67
121702 10/7/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.967759 Yost Park - Paint Supplies
Yost Park - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.12
Total :35.93
121703 10/7/2010 069663 PETERSON, JOANNE PETERSON1010 WOTS CONTEST WINNER
1ST PLACE: POETRY, 2010 WOTS CONTEST
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00
Total :100.00
121704 10/7/2010 072933 PETERSON, THOMAS PETERSON1010 WOTS SET UP AND CLEAN UP ASSISTANCE
WRITE ON THE SOUND FACILITY SET UP AND
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 90.00
Total :90.00
121705 10/7/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 187210 2000
UPS CDM
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 45.44
Total :45.44
121706 10/7/2010 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 95096 INV#95096 - EDMONDS PD
TRAINING CARTRIDGES-BLUE
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 995.00
32Page:
Packet Page 54 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121706 10/7/2010 (Continued)071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 9.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 95.47
INV#95181 - EDMONDS PD95181
TASERS
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 7,019.55
TASER CARTRIDGES
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 597.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 36.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 727.13
Total :9,481.55
121707 10/7/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63 47.57
Total :47.57
121708 10/7/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 5254926008 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 132.91
Fire Station # 165322323139
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 138.72
SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.85
Total :304.48
121709 10/7/2010 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 10-605 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,528.75
Total :2,528.75
33Page:
Packet Page 55 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121710 10/7/2010 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 64016 INV#64016 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING CADILLAC ESC. #168MIE
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
121711 10/7/2010 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1-712924-1 Unit 24 - Supplies
Unit 24 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.90
Unit 55 - Motor Repairs1-712940
Unit 55 - Motor Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 212.50
Unit 80 - 12V1-724729
Unit 80 - 12V
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 307.44
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.00
Fleet - Return CorrectionOA119082
Fleet - Return Correction
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -308.29
Total :224.55
121712 10/7/2010 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7483 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 800.00
Total :800.00
121713 10/7/2010 073435 SCHMIDT, DONNA SCHMIDT0930 REFUND
REFUND FOR WOTS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 106.00
Total :106.00
121714 10/7/2010 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-051449 Unit 134 - Pads
Unit 134 - Pads
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 46.72
34Page:
Packet Page 56 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121714 10/7/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.44
Unit 337 - Water Pump Assembly03-060111
Unit 337 - Water Pump Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.62
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.04
Unit 90 - Water Pump Kit, Supplies03-060647
Unit 90 - Water Pump Kit, Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.76
Unit 12 - Water Pump Kit, Belts03-061818
Unit 12 - Water Pump Kit, Belts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 81.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.78
Unit 775 - Battery03-063593
Unit 775 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 75.43
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.17
Unit 2 - Spark Plugs03-064478
Unit 2 - Spark Plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.20
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.72
Unit 81 - Battery03-065129
Unit 81 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.01
Unit 36 - Front Disc Pad Set03-065591
Unit 36 - Front Disc Pad Set
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.92
35Page:
Packet Page 57 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121714 10/7/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.98
Unit 650 - Motor and Fan03-066712
Unit 650 - Motor and Fan
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 205.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.49
Unit 86 - RR BR Cyl03-068695
Unit 86 - RR BR Cyl
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.14
Unit 649 - Water Pump Assembly03-070205
Unit 649 - Water Pump Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.17
Unit 83 - Fuel Pump Assembly, Fuel03-070529
Unit 83 - Fuel Pump Assembly, Fuel
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 103.73
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.85
Unit 104 - Sensor03-070599
Unit 104 - Sensor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.57
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.00
Unit 104 - Fuel Filter Assembly, Screen03-070655
Unit 104 - Fuel Filter Assembly, Screen
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.81
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.26
Unit 51 - Battery03-071431
Unit 51 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 88.27
36Page:
Packet Page 58 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121714 10/7/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.39
Unit 40 - Battery03-071480
Unit 40 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.32
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.29
Unit 51 - Fuel Filter Assembly03-071547
Unit 51 - Fuel Filter Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.95
Lift St 10 - Battery03-071809
Lift St 10 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.07
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.47
LS 1 - Battery03-071997
LS 1 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.07
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.47
Unit 38 - Alternator Assembly03-072578
Unit 38 - Alternator Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.28
Unit 43 - Pads03-072954
Unit 43 - Pads
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.27
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.30
Auto Trans Core Return Fee05-351657
Auto Trans Core Return Fee
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -600.00
37Page:
Packet Page 59 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121714 10/7/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -57.00
Battery Core Fee Refund05-351669
Battery Core Fee Refund
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.76
Fleet Returns05-356645
Fleet Returns
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -38.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.70
Fleet Returns05-357782
Fleet Returnsg
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -35.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.37
Total :831.17
121715 10/7/2010 073441 SHEFFIELD, ELIZABETH SHEFFIELD1010 WOTS CONTEST WINNER
2ND PLACE: NON-FICTION, 2010 WOTS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 75.00
Total :75.00
121716 10/7/2010 073436 SIEFKEN, KAY SIEFKEN0927 REFUND
REFUND - MEDICAL
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 46.00
Total :46.00
121717 10/7/2010 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1101897 INV#1101897, ACCT#CEDM - EDMONDS PD
3,000 DOG LICENSE RENEWAL FORMS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 279.03
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 19.11
9.5% Sales Tax
38Page:
Packet Page 60 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121717 10/7/2010 (Continued)036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 28.32
Total :326.46
121718 10/7/2010 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0114664-IN Unit 338 - Elec SC I/O Liberty
Unit 338 - Elec SC I/O Liberty
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 735.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
Total :748.75
121719 10/7/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2013-2711-1 610 PINE ST
610 PINE ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.02
750 15TH ST SW2015-5730-3
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 70.34
750 15TH ST SW2016-1027-6
750 15TH ST SW / CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 15.64
750 15TH ST SW2021-6153-5
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 373.36
Total :489.36
121720 10/7/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200124873 SIGNAL LIGHT 9933 100TH W
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 47.57
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER200422418
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,779.70
4 WAY LIGHT 599 MAIN ST201283892
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.74
SIGNAL LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY201563434
SIGNAL LIGHT
39Page:
Packet Page 61 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121720 10/7/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 47.72
DECO LIGHT 413 MAIN ST201656907
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 411.38
23190 100TH W SCHOOL CROSSWALK LITE201703758
23190 100th W School Crosswalk Lite
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 44.87
LOG CABIN202421582
LOG CABIN
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 95.27
Total :3,479.25
121721 10/7/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587/1010 WASTE DISPOSAL
PARK MAINTENANCE WASTE DISPOSAL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 670.49
Total :670.49
121722 10/7/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO SEP-10 ASH DISPOSAL
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 2,496.15
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 217.66
Total :2,713.81
121723 10/7/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.68
garbage & recycle for FAC103585
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
garbage & recycle for Library103586
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23
garbage & recycle-City Hall103588
garbage & recycle-City Hall
40Page:
Packet Page 62 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121723 10/7/2010 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 459.89
Total :2,240.27
121724 10/7/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18915826 FAC - Scews
FAC - Scews
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.99
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 96.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.39
Total :119.76
121725 10/7/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101415 NEWSPAPER ADS
City Council-Plan Brd Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,846.39
NEWSPAPER ADS1711160
10/05 Hearing (820 Maple)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 62.16
NEWSPAPER ADS1711161
10/05 Hearing (700 Main)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 63.84
NEWSPAPER ADS1711223
10/5 Hearing (Homeless)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 55.44
NEWSPAPER ADS1711224
10/5 Hearing (Shelters)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 55.44
NEWSPAPER ADS1711725
10/05 Public Hearing-CFP
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 75.88
NEWSPAPER ADS1712022
Ordinance 3807
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 30.52
Total :2,189.67
41Page:
Packet Page 63 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121726 10/7/2010 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 235472 Sewer - Root-X
Sewer - Root-X
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 674.16
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 56.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 69.44
Sewer - Root-X240388
Sewer - Root-X
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 125.88
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 16.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.50
Total :955.96
121727 10/7/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0908784016 C/A 571242650-0001
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld Dept
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 99.86
Blackberry Cell Phone Service City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 113.70
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.558.800.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 59.54
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 300.15
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Facilities
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 119.26
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR
42Page:
Packet Page 64 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121727 10/7/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 303.69
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor's
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 156.71
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks Dept
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 64.42
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 988.39
Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 530.18
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St Dept
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 63.05
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 59.75
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 50.98
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 50.97
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer Dept
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 101.90
Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 92.23
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Water Dept
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 142.90
Total :3,638.78
121728 10/7/2010 047960 WEAN, GREG 76 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 50.00
Total :50.00
121729 10/7/2010 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 11 C/A 4181-03M
43Page:
Packet Page 65 of 201
10/07/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
9:34:49AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121729 10/7/2010 (Continued)070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS
Sep-10 Conflict Counsel Reidy/Thuesen
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 527.25
Total :527.25
121730 10/7/2010 071631 WILLIAMS, SUE WILLIAMS13203 CROCHET 101
CROCHET 101 #13203
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 81.25
Total :81.25
Bank total :553,178.24127 Vouchers for bank code :front
553,178.24Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report127
44Page:
Packet Page 66 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121731 10/14/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101761945 M5Z34
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.38
Total :27.38
121732 10/14/2010 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001256655 C/A 3-0197-0807658
Services related to Reidy-Thuesen
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 402.92
C/A 3-0197-08076580197-001267699
Services related to Reidy-Thuesen
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 1,002.12
Total :1,405.04
121733 10/14/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 11801 HICKMAN PARK PLAQUE
HICKMAN PARK PLAQUE: DR. HICKMAN
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 586.00
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 9.50
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 56.57
Total :652.07
121734 10/14/2010 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC RL97 NPDES SAMPLING
NPDES SAMPLING
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 130.00
Total :130.00
121735 10/14/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON1010 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 10/10/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 165.00
Total :165.00
121736 10/14/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5158806 21580001
1Page:
Packet Page 67 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121736 10/14/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.38
Total :73.56
121737 10/14/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5158801 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.98
Total :34.32
121738 10/14/2010 071377 ARGUELLES, ERIN ARGUELLES101210 REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WRITE ON THE SOUND
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 63.78
Total :63.78
121739 10/14/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 1124 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEES1125
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 100.00
INTERPRETER FEES1126
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEES1161
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
Total :400.00
121740 10/14/2010 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 438687 Unit 650 - Control and Core Fees
Unit 650 - Control and Core Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 660.67
2Page:
Packet Page 68 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121740 10/14/2010 (Continued)028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 62.76
Fleet Brake Supply Inventory - Brake438715
Fleet Brake Supply Inventory - Brake
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 1,132.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 107.63
Fleet - Core Fee RefundCM438687
Fleet - Core Fee Refund
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -100.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -9.50
Total :1,854.52
121741 10/14/2010 073062 BLUE FLAME BLD20100393 Voided Online Permit - Not in City.
Voided Online Permit - Not in City.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
121742 10/14/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 827283 INV#827283 - EDMONDS PD - MACHADO
SEW CHEVRONS ON GARMENT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50
SGT CHEVRON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50
NAMETAG - D.L. MACHADO
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.50
SEW SHOULDER EMBLEMS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.00
SEW NAME EMBLEM ON GARMENT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.43
INV#829623 - EDMONDS PD - STRONG829623
2ND CHANCE BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 800.00
3Page:
Packet Page 69 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121742 10/14/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 76.00
INV#837156 - EDMONDS PD - LAVELY837156
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 108.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.31
Total :1,011.24
121743 10/14/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN09101035 2954000
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 33.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 3.15
Total :36.35
121744 10/14/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT12952 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #12952
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 103.60
Total :103.60
121745 10/14/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8187 INV#8187 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONES FOR NARCS 09/10
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 52.18
Total :52.18
121746 10/14/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8183 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 13,800.83
Total :13,800.83
121747 10/14/2010 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH
Water Useage for the Month of Sept 2010
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 465.00
Total :465.00
4Page:
Packet Page 70 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121748 10/14/2010 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC OCT-10 C/A CITYOED00001
Oct-10 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20
Total :916.20
121749 10/14/2010 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8078661 WATER PAGER
pagers-water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.29
Total :4.24
121750 10/14/2010 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING SEPT 2010 DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY- SEPT - EDMONDS PD
LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING 09/2010
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 789.90
Total :789.90
121751 10/14/2010 073246 D SQUARE ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC WO-4898 Unit 083 - Sewer Generator Service
Unit 083 - Sewer Generator Service
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 127.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 12.11
Total :139.61
121752 10/14/2010 072189 DATASITE 67055 INV#67055 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 09/23/10-64 GAL TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 40.00
SHREDDING 9/23/10-73 BOXES
001.000.410.521.110.410.00 292.00
Total :332.00
121753 10/14/2010 072189 DATASITE 67021 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
5Page:
Packet Page 71 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :50.0012175310/14/2010 072189 072189 DATASITE
121754 10/14/2010 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2010090113 CUSTOMER ID # D200-0
Scan Services for September 2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 248.34
Adobe Acrobat 9.0 Standard licence - PW
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 139.08
Total :387.42
121755 10/14/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3140 MINUTE TAKING
10/5 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 249.00
Total :249.00
121756 10/14/2010 014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC 44956 NM44253
MOTOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,511.05
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 145.92
Total :1,731.97
121757 10/14/2010 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2010024 Compass Health FPS.
Compass Health FPS.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 467.50
Total :467.50
121758 10/14/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001255/1 BASTER W/MEASURE
BASTER W/MEASURE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.28
Total :3.27
121759 10/14/2010 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 143541 INV#143541 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD
SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #8158
6Page:
Packet Page 72 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121759 10/14/2010 (Continued)069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 97.50
SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #8153
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 97.50
NEUTER CAT - IMPOUND #8184
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 44.75
LEUKEMIA/FIV TEST - IMP #8134
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 8.50
SPAY CAT - IMPOUND #8183
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 78.00
Total :326.25
121760 10/14/2010 008963 ENERCO INC 12985 STREET - FLASHERS FOR SCHOOL LIGHTS AND
STREET - FLASHERS FOR SCHOOL LIGHTS AND
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 207.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 10.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 19.53
Total :236.53
121761 10/14/2010 069042 EVERETT HYDRAULICS INC 0000014673 Unit 106 - Tube Assembly
Unit 106 - Tube Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 85.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 7.82
Unit 91 - Rebuild Hydraulics Motor0000015096
Unit 91 - Rebuild Hydraulics Motor
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 475.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 43.70
Total :611.52
121762 10/14/2010 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 459529 SUPPLIES
TUBING
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 304.00
7Page:
Packet Page 73 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121762 10/14/2010 (Continued)009410 EVERETT STEEL INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.88
Total :332.88
121763 10/14/2010 067042 FINAL TOUCH FINISHING KING12950 ETIQUETTE CLASSES
ETIQUETTE: STARTING POINT #12950
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 245.00
Total :245.00
121764 10/14/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425 NW1 0060 03 0210 1079569413 10
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.47
03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 218.12
03 210 1014522641 07425-771-5553
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 94.73
Total :354.32
121765 10/14/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-640-8169 PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR
Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 36.42
LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978
Lift Station #1
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 50.11
FS # 16425-771-0158
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 163.97
LIFT ST 7425-775-2069
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.65
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 112.97
8Page:
Packet Page 74 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121765 10/14/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.75
Total :458.87
121766 10/14/2010 068265 FRONTIER ONLINE 20102224 WATER - BROADBAND SERVICE
Water- Broadband Service for
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 79.99
Total :79.99
121767 10/14/2010 072515 GOOGLE INC 1698975 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 523.33
Total :523.33
121768 10/14/2010 012233 GRAYBAR 949881538 Water - Pulling Grips
Water - Pulling Grips
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 70.07
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.11
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.43
Water - 2 Pull Grips949933157
Water - 2 Pull Grips
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 140.14
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.29
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.10
Total :248.14
121769 10/14/2010 068142 HARRISON, MARIE Harrison10/10 Misc. expenses for attending the WSAPT
Misc. expenses for attending the WSAPT
001.000.620.524.100.430.00 200.74
Total :200.74
9Page:
Packet Page 75 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121770 10/14/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1113487 6035322500959949
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.03
SAW BLADES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 31.94
603532250095994914965
POLY SHEET/LUMBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 99.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.49
60353225009599491571114
SAKRETE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 30.93
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.94
603532250095994938847
BROOM/DUST PAN/BRUSHES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 38.93
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.70
60353225009599495080721
LUMBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 53.82
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.11
60353225009599495572467
BLADDER/WASHERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 22.77
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.16
60353225009599497561588
LUMBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 31.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.02
60353225009599499015429
10Page:
Packet Page 76 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121770 10/14/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
METAL ANGLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 120.62
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.46
Total :471.60
121771 10/14/2010 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - BigFoldz Towels
Fac Maint - BigFoldz Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 285.83
PW - Unit 48 - Garmin
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 164.24
Total :450.07
121772 10/14/2010 070042 IKON 83332299 Rent on reception copier for billing
Rent on reception copier for billing
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Total :30.66
121773 10/14/2010 065947 INTL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE TIMBROOK2010 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 175.00
Total :175.00
121774 10/14/2010 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3433191 INV#3433191 - EDMONDS PD
MULTI USE PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 233.40
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.17
Total :290.57
121775 10/14/2010 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.50 E2DB.SERVICES THRU MAY 2010
E2DB.Services thru May 2010
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 21,698.46
E2DB.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2010E2DB.51
11Page:
Packet Page 77 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121775 10/14/2010 (Continued)068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
E2DB.Services thru June 2010
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 6,981.28
E2DB.SERVICES THRU JULY 2010E2DB.52
E2DB.Services thru July 2010
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 8,691.18
E2DB.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2010E2DB.53
E2DB.Services thru August 2010
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 5,390.94
Total :42,761.86
121776 10/14/2010 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 365858-001 TRAFFIC COUNT SUPPLIES
Traffic Count Supplies & Ed Spiral
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 44.18
Total :44.18
121777 10/14/2010 072212 LAJAMBE, PATRICIA LAJAMBE0731 REFUND - replaces lost check #106116
REFUND - replaces lost check #106116
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 21.00
Total :21.00
121778 10/14/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG1009 GYM MONITOR FOR DANCE CLASSES
ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR FOR
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00
Total :48.00
121779 10/14/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 10010-128 WALKER BLADE, BACKPACK BLOWER
CEMETERY MOWER SUPPLIES: WALKER 18
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 71.00
REPLACEMENT FOR STOLEN BLOWER & NITRILE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 494.15
Freight
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.71
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.79
9.5% Sales Tax
12Page:
Packet Page 78 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121779 10/14/2010 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 7.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 49.39
CEMETERY MOWER SUPPLIES10010-147
WALKER ENGINE PTO BELT
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 45.45
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.32
CEMETERY MOWER SUPPLIES9010-314
WALKER BLADE, PRIMER BULB, PTO BELT
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 83.39
Freight
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 8.83
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 8.76
Total :801.89
121780 10/14/2010 072059 LEE, NICOLE 1159 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 119.60
Total :119.60
121781 10/14/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105152 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 17.51
SUPPLIES105153
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 278.13
Total :295.64
121782 10/14/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105184I REINFORCED FOLDERS, HANGING FOLDERS
Hanging folders, Reinforced folders
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 34.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 3.28
13Page:
Packet Page 79 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :37.7612178210/14/2010 018760 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
121783 10/14/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105148 BUSINESS CARDS FOR FIN ENG & COURT
Business cards-Denise Burke250-00250
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 16.87
Mark Cockrum250-00250
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 16.87
Mike DeLilla250-00250
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.87
Sherrie Conway (double sided)250-00250
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 41.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 3.99
Total :101.27
121784 10/14/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105108 Misc. office supplies including
Misc. office supplies including
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 169.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.06
Task chair for Pat Lawler including105163
Task chair for Pat Lawler including
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 407.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 38.76
Misc. office supplies including 1105172
Misc. office supplies including 1
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 49.61
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 4.71
14Page:
Packet Page 80 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121784 10/14/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
Misc. office supplies including105174
Misc. office supplies including
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 387.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 36.83
Total :1,110.68
121785 10/14/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105126I EDMCTY
LOG BOOK
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 44.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 4.27
EDMCTY105127I
COPIER PAPER
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 11.49
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 1.09
EDMCTY105131I
LOG BOOK
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 59.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 5.70
Total :127.53
121786 10/14/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1143 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1144
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1154
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEES1155
INTERPRETER FEES
15Page:
Packet Page 81 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121786 10/14/2010 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
Total :350.00
121787 10/14/2010 072771 MARVIN, SUE MARVIN13115 BASKETRY
BASKETRY #13115
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 106.40
Total :106.40
121788 10/14/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 66482358 123106800
LOCTITE QUICK SET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 129.84
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.67
Total :134.51
121789 10/14/2010 073450 MOORE, MARY A MOORE101110 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR MEADOWDALE
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 300.00
Total :300.00
121790 10/14/2010 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 110210460 Unit 106 - Carrier
Unit 106 - Carrier
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 66.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.36
Total :73.34
121791 10/14/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 028167-IN EDM110
SENSOR/TRANSMITTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 799.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 12.08
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 77.06
Total :888.14
16Page:
Packet Page 82 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121792 10/14/2010 063034 NCL 276102 13465
MICROSCOPE SLIDES/SLIDE STORAGE BOX
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 172.41
Total :172.41
121793 10/14/2010 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3611359.001 2092
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 356.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 32.77
Total :389.02
121794 10/14/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-198764 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :189.87
121795 10/14/2010 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL 29956 PW - Fuel Tank Maint
PW - Fuel Tank Maint
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 600.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 57.00
PW Fuel Tank Maint Testing29972
PW Fuel Tank Maint Testing
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 600.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 57.00
Total :1,314.00
121796 10/14/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 231300 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 505.18
SUPPLIES237073
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 82.84
Total :588.02
17Page:
Packet Page 83 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121797 10/14/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 187126 DYMO LABELS, HP CARTRIDGE, BINDER
Dymo address & shipping labels, HP
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 475.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 45.14
Total :520.19
121798 10/14/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 263175 TAPE
INVISIBLE TAPE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.36
Total :4.24
121799 10/14/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 132096 Water - File Cabinet
Water - File Cabinet
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 179.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 17.10
Water - Plastic covers for Inventory151658
Water - Plastic covers for Inventory
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 54.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.20
PW Admin Supplies - Pens219597
PW Admin Supplies - Pens
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 34.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.29
PW Admin - Office Supplies - Pens,233317
PW Admin - Office Supplies - Pens,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 142.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 13.55
Total :451.12
18Page:
Packet Page 84 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121800 10/14/2010 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER September, 2010 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,429.28
PSEA 1 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 27,329.06
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 81.00
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 586.34
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 4,976.73
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 326.62
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,767.51
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 523.97
Total :38,020.51
121801 10/14/2010 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION B30677 B/W copy overage fee (3472 over)
B/W copy overage fee (3472 over)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 17.34
B/W copy overage fee (3472 over)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 17.34
B/W copy overage fee (3472 over)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 17.34
B/W copy overage fee (3472 over)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 17.32
Color copy overage fee (868)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 25.71
Color copy overage fee (868)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 25.71
Color copy overage fee (868)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 25.71
Color copy overage fee (868)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 25.69
19Page:
Packet Page 85 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121801 10/14/2010 (Continued)066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 4.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 4.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 4.09
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 4.09
Total :188.52
121802 10/14/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.971002 PAINTING SUPPLIES
ROLLER COVERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.79
Total :9.07
121803 10/14/2010 073446 PETERSON-YOUNG, KAREN 3-27500 RE: #1302-5005431 UTILITY REFUND
#1302-5005431 Utility Refund
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 61.69
Total :61.69
121804 10/14/2010 008400 PETTY CASH - EPD EPD PETTY CASH 9/10 POLICE ADMIN PETTY CASH JULY-SEPT 2010
PARKING @ SNOHOMISH CO. JAIL
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.00
FOOD HANDLER PERMIT - GANNON
001.000.410.521.300.410.00 10.00
2 REAMS LEGAL PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 19.69
PARKING @ SNO COUNTY 8/3-8/5/10
001.000.410.521.110.490.00 18.00
MUFFINS FOR EPD HOSTED CLASS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 12.98
6 BOX CUTTERS FOR DETECTIVES
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 13.07
20Page:
Packet Page 86 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121804 10/14/2010 (Continued)008400 PETTY CASH - EPD
GAS FOR TRIP TO SELAH, WA 10-2424
001.000.410.521.210.430.00 5.00
WRESTLING SHOES, ACADEMY GEAR
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 97.46
MAIL CASE TO LAS VEGAS, NV 10-1639
001.000.410.521.210.490.00 75.67
Total :257.87
121805 10/14/2010 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH1012 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
SUPPLIES FOR BIRD FEST
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 56.21
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: RIBBON AND CRAFT
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 8.22
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: FABRIC FOR CRAFT
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 2.74
WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 10.90
PARKING FOR SISTER CITY STUDENT TRIPS
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 19.59
CONFERENCE PARKING: DAVE TIMBROOK
001.000.640.576.800.430.00 15.00
WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 79.91
Total :192.57
121806 10/14/2010 065579 QUIKSIGN 58555 E2DB.SIGN INSTALLATION ON 76TH
E2DB.Sign Installation on 76th
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 185.06
Total :185.06
121807 10/14/2010 065579 QUIKSIGN 58582 Jackson/PLN20100049 Sign Installation.
Jackson/PLN20100049 Sign Installation.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 199.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 18.91
21Page:
Packet Page 87 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121807 10/14/2010 (Continued)065579 QUIKSIGN
Moran/PLN20100042 Sign Installation.58640
Moran/PLN20100042 Sign Installation.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 16.06
Columbia Bank/PLN20100053 sign58670
Columbia Bank/PLN20100053 sign
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 16.06
Wash. Fed. Savings/PLN20100065 sign58683
Wash. Fed. Savings/PLN20100065 sign
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 16.06
First Security Bank/PLN20100060 sign58684
First Security Bank/PLN20100060 sign
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 16.06
Ragan/PLN20100059 sign installation.58706
Ragan/PLN20100059 sign installation.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 16.06
Total :1,143.21
121808 10/14/2010 073445 RENT A HOUSE LLC 3-35357 RE: #095389 UTILITY REFUND
#095389 Utility Refund
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 31.00
Total :31.00
121809 10/14/2010 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 52556 E0IA.SERVICES THRU 8/29/10
E0IA.Services thru 08/29/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 3,961.83
22Page:
Packet Page 88 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121809 10/14/2010 (Continued)068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC
E3JC.SERVICES THRU 8/29/1052557
E3JC.Services thru 8/29/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 3,507.96
Total :7,469.79
121810 10/14/2010 073451 ROCILI, CORAZON CORAZON1011 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR EDMONDS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
121811 10/14/2010 073443 ROHDE, DAVID 001 PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,652.00
City Wide GIS
001.000.310.518.880.110.00 105.50
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,386.50
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,504.50
Street
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 59.00
Total :4,707.50
121812 10/14/2010 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 09/27/2010 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD- ANIMAL DISPOSAL
#756103 20 NPC 09/13/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 213.60
Total :213.60
121813 10/14/2010 073454 SANBORN-JOHNSON, RUBIE JOHNSON101210 REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WRITE ON THE SOUND
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 214.65
Total :214.65
121814 10/14/2010 064628 SANDERSON SAFETY SUPPLY CO 6107114-01 EDMC
REMOTE AREA LIGHT
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 1,433.08
23Page:
Packet Page 89 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121814 10/14/2010 (Continued)064628 SANDERSON SAFETY SUPPLY CO
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 136.14
Total :1,569.22
121815 10/14/2010 073452 SEATTLE PARKS & RECREATION ROMERO47032 PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION SEMINAR
RICH ROMERO: 2010 PESTICIDE LICENSE
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 60.00
Total :60.00
121816 10/14/2010 073110 SEATTLE RADIOLOGISTS APC 8/20/10 PRE-HIRE EXAM - STRONG
PRE-EMPLOY EXAM
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 39.00
Total :39.00
121817 10/14/2010 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1101898 INV#1101898, ACCT#CEDM - EDMONDS PD
CONTINUOUS DOG LICENSE FORMS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 380.85
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 7.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 36.93
Total :425.67
121818 10/14/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 288363 FERTILE MULCH
FERTILE MULCH
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 850.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 80.75
FERTILE MULCH288369
FERTILE MULCH
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 360.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 34.20
Total :1,324.95
121819 10/14/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 133520815 2019-9517-2
24Page:
Packet Page 90 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121819 10/14/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
9805 EDMONDS WAY/WESTGATE
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.70
2025-7952-0140082367
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.33
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.44
Total :37.79
121820 10/14/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-2646-0 1000 EDMONDS ST
1000 EDMONDS ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
930 9TH AVE N2022-5063-5
930 9TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
Total :62.08
121821 10/14/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201103561 SIGNAL LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE
SIGNAL LIGHT - 23800 Firdale Ave
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 54.02
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 900 PUGET DR201690849
Traffic Signal - 900 Puget Dr
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 183 LIGHTS201711785
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183 lights
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,429.64
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)202529186
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (400WATTS:13 LITES)202529202
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTING (400WATTS:13
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)202576153
25Page:
Packet Page 91 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121821 10/14/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,807.75
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)202579488
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
Total :18,753.40
121822 10/14/2010 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 10/6/10 INMATE MEDICATION - EDMONDS SEPT 2010
INMATE MEDICATIONS SEPT 2010
001.000.410.523.600.310.00 411.58
Total :411.58
121823 10/14/2010 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000254871 SOLID WASTE CHARGES
SOLID WASTE CHARGES:
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 649.00
Total :649.00
121824 10/14/2010 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2010-470 INV#2010-470 EDMONDS PD
63.67 BOOKINGS - SEPT 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,730.30
480.5 HOUSING DAYS - SEPT 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 30,031.25
5 DAYS WORK RELEASE SEPT 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 210.00
Total :35,971.55
121825 10/14/2010 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER September 2010 Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 770.99
Total :770.99
121826 10/14/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 29.95
Total :29.95
26Page:
Packet Page 92 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121827 10/14/2010 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q3, 2010 Q3, 2010 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY
Q3, 2010 Leasehold Tax Liability
001.000.000.237.220.000.00 4,759.89
Total :4,759.89
121828 10/14/2010 040480 STUSSER ELECTRIC 2338-479392 44-26789
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 146.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 13.87
Total :159.87
121829 10/14/2010 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1214 WINTER CRAZE PHOTO
COVER PHOTO FOR WINTER CRAZE RECREATION
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 157.50
Total :157.50
121830 10/14/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18916352 100323
DRILL/FLAP DISC/PARTS CLEANER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 363.44
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.53
Total :397.97
121831 10/14/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1712065 NEWSPAPER ADS
Filing Prelim 2011 Budget
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 44.24
Total :44.24
121832 10/14/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1708767 Columbia Bank/PLN20100053 Legal Notice.
Columbia Bank/PLN20100053 Legal Notice.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 45.64
Ramsey/PLN20100051 Legal Notice.1710880
Ramsey/PLN20100051 Legal Notice.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 65.52
Street Tree Plan Legal Notice.1712566
Street Tree Plan Legal Notice.
27Page:
Packet Page 93 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121832 10/14/2010 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 23.52
Total :134.68
121833 10/14/2010 073449 THE ESTATE OF DWAN W WILSON 4-08600 RE: #1302-5005289 UTILITY REFUND
#1302-5005289 Utility Refund
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 69.50
Total :69.50
121834 10/14/2010 073453 TIMMCKE, TODD TIMMCKE1012 REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WRITE ON THE SOUND
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 91.79
Total :91.79
121835 10/14/2010 071590 TOWEILL RICE TAYLOR LLC Edmonds-Sept2010 Hearing Examiner September 2010.
Hearing Examiner September 2010.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,600.00
Postage Septemer 2010.Edmonds-Sept2010EXP
Postage Septemer 2010.
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 11.81
Total :3,611.81
121836 10/14/2010 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 10/06/10- THOMPSON - EDMONDS PD
ENGRAVING RADAR GUN/HANDCUFFS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 25.18
INV#3181 10/06/10 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
REG. INTERVIEW-INTER/COMPTON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 205.00
CANON POWERSHOT CAMERAS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 529.75
CANON POWER SHOT CAMERAS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 279.22
REG. FBI NAA/GANNON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 15.00
REG. FBI NAA/LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 15.00
28Page:
Packet Page 94 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121836 10/14/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
REG. PAIN BEHIND BADGE/COMPTON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
REG. PAIN BEHIND BADGE/DREYER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
REG. PAIN BEHINDBADGE/GREENMUN
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
REG. PAIN BEHIND BADGE/HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
REG. PAIN BEHIND BADGE/MACHADO
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
REG. PAIN BEHIND BADGE/ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
REG. PAIN BEHIND BADGE/SHIER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
REG. PAIN BEHIND BADGE/SPEER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
CREDIT FOR CAMERAS RETURNED TO AMAZON3181
CREDIT FOR 3 CANON CAMERAS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 -522.98
INV#3314 10/06/10 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314
FUEL/FBI NAA /LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 33.70
LODGING/FBI NAA/LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 265.52
CHIEF BFT MTG/COMPAAN-LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 30.00
INV#3512 10/06/10-TRAINING - EDMONDS PD3512
FED EX CHG FOR CASE#10-3303
001.000.410.521.210.490.00 29.00
FUEL/WSP K-9/HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 39.53
REG. CHG FOR WSP K-9 /HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 0.49
REG. WSP K-9 / HAWLEY
29Page:
Packet Page 95 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121836 10/14/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 180.00
MEAL/ WSP K-9/HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 9.06
MEAL/WSP K-9/HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 27.66
FUEL/WSP K-9/HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 39.82
MEAL/WSP K-9/HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.78
LODGING/WSP K-9/HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 235.65
MEAL/NACA CONF/DAWSON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 54.17
INV#3520 10/06/10 -TRAINING - EDMONDS PD3520
FUEL/ARMOR COURSE/SMITH-LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 42.69
MEAL/ARMOR COURSE/SMITH-LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 54.49
FUEL/ARMOR COURSE/SMITH-LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 25.05
MEAL/ARMOR COURSE/SMITH-LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 130.61
LODGING/ARMOR COURSE/SMITH
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 192.20
LODGING/ARMOR COURSE/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 192.20
Total :2,734.79
121837 10/14/2010 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT MAILING
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT MAILING
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 66.50
Total :66.50
121838 10/14/2010 062693 US BANK 3470 QUESTIONPRO.COM
QuestionsPro.com Citizen Survey
30Page:
Packet Page 96 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121838 10/14/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 16.00
Total :16.00
121839 10/14/2010 064409 USAG REGION II USAG/2011 2011 REGIONAL TEAM FEES
2011 REGIONAL TEAM FEES: SMALL
001.000.640.575.550.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
121840 10/14/2010 047605 WA ST TREASURER ADD 1ST QTR 2010 EDMONDS FORFEITURES-ADD TO 1ST QTR 2010
ADD TO 1ST QTR 2010-#07-4175
001.000.000.237.240.000.00 41.43
Total :41.43
121841 10/14/2010 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I11002516 INV#I11002516 EDM301
BACKGROUND CHECKS 09/2010
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 134.75
Total :134.75
121842 10/14/2010 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 649487 Unit 109 - Ignition parts
Unit 109 - Ignition parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.69
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.11
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.40
Total :39.20
121843 10/14/2010 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 38942004 PLANTS
INVOICE 38942004 LESS CREDIT MEMO
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.13
Total :24.13
121844 10/14/2010 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 553 UMPIRING
UMPIRING OF LEAGUE GAMES
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,188.00
31Page:
Packet Page 97 of 201
10/14/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:48:43AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,188.0012184410/14/2010 064213 064213 WSSUA TREASURER
Bank total :208,454.39114 Vouchers for bank code :front
208,454.39Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report114
32Page:
Packet Page 98 of 201
AM-3449 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Kim Cole
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acceptance of September 2010 Washington State Liquor Control Board renewal log.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Acceptance of the list of businesses renewing their liquor licenses.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is the most recent list of businesses renewing their licenses with the Washington State Liquor
Control Board.
Attachments
WSLCB 9/2010
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/13/2010 05:02 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:07 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Kim Cole Started On: 10/12/2010 12:01 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 99 of 201
Packet Page 100 of 201
Packet Page 101 of 201
Packet Page 102 of 201
Packet Page 103 of 201
AM-3454 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund
#112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement Fund
(Fund #112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
Previous Council Action
On June 23, 2009, Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids on the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
On August 17, 2009, Council awarded a contract to Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC for the
2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
On October 12, 2010, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on
the consent agenda for approval at the October 19, 2010 Council meeting.
Narrative
In 2009, the City secured a $999,985 federal grant through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) for the City's 2009 overlay project. The grant provided funds to overlay Dayton St. between
SR104 and 5th Ave and 212th St. between 84th Ave and 72nd Ave and replace the decorative crosswalks
at the intersection of Dayton St. and 5th Avenue.
During construction the project experienced increased project costs related to pavement repairs,
installation of curb ramps for ADA compliance and flagging. The additional pavement repairs were
needed on Dayton and 212th Streets because sections of the underlying pavement were found to be in
poor condition after the existing pavement surface was removed. The pavement section on Dayton St.
was severely cracked in many areas and additional excavation, reinforcement fabric and pavement were
added to support the new overlay. Similar conditions were found on 212th St. and pavement
reinforcement fabric was also added to stabilize the existing pavement.
Since this project was funded by a federal grant through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
the original contract plans called for the replacement of 60 sidewalk curb ramps at the intersections of
public streets within the project limits on Dayton and 212th Streets. The existing sidewalk curb ramps
were removed and the new ramps built to comply with the current ADA standards. In consultation with
FHWA and WSDOT during construction, it was determined that 14 additional sidewalk curb ramps
should be added at driveways along 212th St. along with 2 new sidewalk ramps at the intersection of
212th St. and 72nd Ave.
Packet Page 104 of 201
212th St. and 72nd Ave.
Additional flagging hours were required for the additional pavement repairs, replacement of sidewalk
curb ramps and during construction of the pavement overlay. Additional flaggers were stationed on 212th
St. near the high school and on Dayton St. in the downtown area during construction to provide a safe
work zone for both pedestrians and construction workers.
The City completed its review and discussions in September with the contractor, Cemex, and determined
$82,415 is needed in addition to the federal grant funds to help pay for the pavement repairs, additional
sidewalk curb ramps and flagging. Staff recommends this cost be paid from motor vehicle fuel tax from
the Street Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund #112).
The total construction cost for this project was $1,082,400 and the federal grant paid $999,985 leaving a
balance of $82,415 to be paid from local funds.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 10/14/2010 10:33 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 10/14/2010 05:44 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/15/2010 08:16 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/15/2010 11:05 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/15/2010 11:32 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 10/14/2010 10:01 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2010
Packet Page 105 of 201
AM-3453 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize Mayor Cooper to sign the contract.
Previous Council Action
Reviewed by Finance Committee on October 12, 2010. Approved for Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The City presently has a professional services contract with Zachor Thomas, Inc. for prosecution
services. The contract term under the present agreement was from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010,
with a renewal clause for up to two one-year extensions without further action of the parties. The current
monthly retainer per the contract is $11,330.00. Due to the addition of two weekly Edmonds Municipal
Court calendars in April 2010, over and above what was contemplated for obligated services in the
present contract, City staff and Zachor Thomas feel it appropriate to enter into a new professional
services contract, effective November 1, 2010, and running through December 31, 2012, for a fixed
monthly retainer of $13,000.00 during the term of the contract. This new monthly retainer,
accommodating the two additional calendars, is financially advantageous to the City compared to hourly
billing under the current contract for the additional services rendered.
Draft contract has been reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue:Expenditure:$156,000
Fiscal Impact:
Non-Departmental General Fund budget
Attachments
Draft Zachor Thomas Contract 11-1-2010 thru 12-31-2012
Existing Zachor Thomas Contract 4-1-2008 thru 3-31-2010
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 09:31 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:08 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 10/13/2010
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 106 of 201
Packet Page 107 of 201
Page 1
dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY OF EDMONDS PROSECUTOR
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has established its municipal court
under provisions of Chapter 3.50 RCW in the Edmonds City Code and Chapter
2.15; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to contract with a skilled firm with attorneys
familiar with the prosecution of criminal and infraction matters involving
allegations of violation of municipal ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the law firm of Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. (the principals
who are H. James Zachor, Jr. and Melanie S. Thomas Dane) and its attorneys
are licensed to practice law in the State of Washington with experience as
prosecutors within the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds, and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds and Zachor & Thomas, Inc. have a
contract for prosecutorial services that the parties wish to amend because there
has been an increase of two additional calendars by Edmonds Municipal Court
that requires the attendance by Zachor & Thomas, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, additional compensation for said added calendars would
otherwise be calculated on an hourly basis under the existing contract; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits
to be derived, this Contract is entered into on the date specified hereafter
between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation, (hereafter referred to as
the “City”) and Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. (hereafter referred to as the
“Prosecutor”), subject to the terms and conditions set forth below:
1. Duties: The Prosecutor shall provide the following services:
1.1 Review police incident reports for determination of charging;
1.2 Maintain all current cases in an appropriate filing system;
1.3 Review and remain familiar with filed criminal misdemeanor and
gross misdemeanor cases;
1.4 Interview witnesses as necessary in preparation of prosecution of
cases;
1.5 Respond to discovery requests, make sentence recommendations
and prepare legal memoranda, when necessary;
1.6 Prepare cases for trial, including the issuance of witness
subpoenas (for service by the Police Department, when applicable),
conduct evidence retrieval (with the assistance of the Police
Department and other City agencies), and prepare jury instructions,
as necessary;
Packet Page 108 of 201
Page 2
dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc
1.7 To assist the City Attorney, when applicable, in response to Public
Disclosure requests;
1.8 Represent the City at all arraignments, pretrial hearings, motion
hearings, review hearings, in-custody hearings, and trials as
scheduled in 2010;
1.9 Prosecute contested code and traffic infraction violations which are
scheduled on the regular criminal calendar as scheduled in 2010;
1.10 Represent the City in the prosecution of drug, felony, and firearm
forfeitures that are filed by the City in the Edmonds Municipal Court,
Lynnwood Municipal Court, or heard in Mountlake Terrace.
Forfeitures filed in Superior Court or District Court shall be billed at
the hourly rate set forth hereafter. Notice of Intended Forfeitures
and Seizure Hearings shall be set in the Court of jurisdiction within
90 days of receipt of Notice of Demand for Hearing.
1.11 Be available to the Police Department for questions at all times, by
providing appropriate telephone numbers, cell phone numbers, e-
mail addresses, and voice mail access. Calls are to be returned by
the next business day.
At a time and date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties, the
Prosecutor shall conduct yearly training with the Police Department.
The Prosecutor maintains a business office in the City of Edmonds
and Police Officers may meet with the Prosecutor at anytime during
normal business hours, when the Prosecutor is available.
1.12 Consult with the City Attorney, as needed, regarding Edmonds City
Code amendments.
1.13 Services provided under this agreement play an important part in
fostering public confidence in the criminal justice system and are an
important and essential part of law enforcement. All services
provided under this agreement shall be in accord with the Rules of
Professional Responsibility, local court rules and the normal
standard of care among prosecutors in Western Washington.
2. Compensation
2.1 Base Rate. The Prosecutor shall receive a monthly retainer of
THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($13,000.00) per month for
performance of those duties set forth in paragraph 1 above
beginning November 1, 2010.
Packet Page 109 of 201
Page 3
dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc
2.2 Hourly Rate. Services performed outside the scope of the duties
described in paragraph 1 above, or which may be mutually agreed
upon to be added at a later date, shall be in addition to the base
rate set forth in paragraph 2.1. Absent a separate agreement,
those services shall be billed at a rate of ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($100.00) per hour.
Any RALJ case filed in Superior Court shall be billed at the rate of
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) per hour.
Any other cases filed at the Court of Appeals, cases filed at the
Supreme Court, cases filed in the Snohomish County District Court;
forfeiture cases filed in courts other than the Edmonds Municipal
Court, Lynnwood Municipal Court, or heard in Mountlake Terrace,
which require the appearance of the Prosecutor; and such other
activities agreed to by the City and the Prosecutor, shall be billed at
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($125.00) per hour.
The Prosecutor shall obtain written approval from the City prior to
pursuing appeal of any matter beyond the Superior Court.
2.3 Fees Review. The schedule of fees provided for in paragraph 2.1
and 2.2 shall apply for the contract period reflected in Article 4.
Should the court substantially alter the requirements of the
Prosecutor, the Prosecutor shall provide notification to the City.
Changes in fees shall be proposed by the Prosecutor to the Mayor.
Any changes must be mutually agreed to by the Mayor and the
Prosecutor, and then must be approved by City Council. Upon
acceptance by all parties, the changes will be made a part of this
Agreement.
2.4 Costs. The City shall be the sole obligor and shall pay all witness
fees, expert witness fees (including but not limited to Speed
Measuring Device Experts), transcript and document fees for RALJ
appeals cases, and interpreters’ fees determined to be necessary
by the Prosecutor in the preparation and disposition of its cases.
The City shall approve all other anticipated fees, before such
expense is incurred. The City will not unreasonably delay in
granting approval of such expenses. The City further agrees to
hold the Prosecutor harmless from such expenses and costs as set
forth hereinabove.
2.5 Assistant Prosecutors. The City contracts with the Prosecutor for a
monthly fee for prosecution services. Should the Prosecutor be
absent, it shall be the responsibility of the Prosecutor to provide
substitute coverage with a properly licensed State of Washington
Packet Page 110 of 201
Page 4
dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc
attorney, who has been previously approved by the City through its
Police Chief. In the event of a dispute regarding approval of any
individual, the City Council shall be final arbiter. All Prosecutors
(including substitute) must wear city issued identification when in
the Public Safety Building.
If a “Conflict Prosecutor” is required, such “Conflict Prosecutor” shall be
approved by the City through its Police Chief. In the event of a dispute
regarding approval of any individual, the City Council shall be final arbiter.
The Prosecutor is responsible for any costs associated with the “Conflict
Prosecutor.”
3. Term of Contract. The Term of this Contract shall be from the first day of
November 2010 through December 31, 2012. Upon the effective date of
this Contract, all other existing contracts between the parties for
prosecutorial services shall terminate.
4. Termination. The attorney/client relationship is personal and involves the
ability of the parties to communicate and maintain credibility. Therefore,
the Prosecutor and/or the City Council, in its sole legislative discretion,
reserve the right to terminate this Contract upon one hundred twenty (120)
days written notice. This contract may be terminated by either party at
any time for cause. By way of illustration, and not limitation, cause shall
include violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Washington
State Court Rules of law or ordinance or of any term of this contract.
5. Ownership. All City of Edmonds’ files and other documents maintained by
the Prosecutor shall be the files of the City of Edmonds and accessible by
the City through its City Attorney or other duly authorized representative
during normal business hours, subject to the Washington State Bar
Association Rules of Ethics. At the request of the City, any and all files
maintained by the Prosecutor shall be tendered to the City, subject to the
terms and conditions of this Contract and the Washington State Bar
Association Rules of Ethics. All equipment and facilities furnished by the
City shall remain the sole property of the City. Any equipment, facilities
and materials provided by the Prosecutor shall remain the sole property of
the Prosecutor.
6. Independent Contractor. The Prosecutor and its assistants are
professionals and independent contractors, acting without direct
supervision. The Prosecutor waives any claim in the nature of a tax,
charge, cost or employee benefit that would attach if the Prosecutor or its
assistants were held to be employees of the City.
7. Insurance. The Prosecutor shall maintain a policy of professional liability
and malpractice insurance throughout the term of this Contract.
Packet Page 111 of 201
Page 5
dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc
8. Indemnity.
8.1 So long as the Prosecutor is acting within the scope of this Contract
and in accord with its ethical responsibilities under the provisions of
the Rules of Professional Conduct established by the Washington
Supreme Court, it shall be entitled to legal defense and
representation as an official of the City in accord with the provisions
of Chapter 2.06 ECC. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require
defense or indemnity for acts beyond the scope of this Contract,
including, but not limited to, tortuous or wrongful acts committed by
the Prosecutor.
8.2 Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the Prosecutor to
indemnify the City, its officers, agents or employees from loss,
claim or liability arising from the negligent, wrongful or tortuous
conduct of the City, its officers, agents or employees.
8.3 Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the City to indemnify
the Prosecutor, its officers, agents or employees from loss, claim or
liability arising from negligent, wrongful or tortuous conduct of the
Prosecutor, its officers, agents or employees.
9. Sole Contract Between the Parties and Amendment. This Contract is the
sole written Contract between the parties. Any prior written or oral
understanding shall merge with this Contract. It shall be amended only by
the express written consent of the parties hereto.
Packet Page 112 of 201
Page 6
dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc
DATED this ____________ day of ______________, 2010.
CITY OF EDMONDS: PROSECUTOR:
Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S.
BY: ___________________________ BY:________________________
Mayor Gary Haakenson H. James Zachor, Jr., President
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
________________________________
City Clerk, Sandra S. Chase
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
________________________________
W. Scott Snyder
Packet Page 113 of 201
Packet Page 114 of 201
Packet Page 115 of 201
Packet Page 116 of 201
Packet Page 117 of 201
Packet Page 118 of 201
Packet Page 119 of 201
AM-3452 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Finance Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Adopt Ordinance relating to public records; amending Edmonds City Code 1.20.020 to make the Code
consistent with 2010 legislation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance.
Previous Council Action
The proposed Ordinance was reviewed by the Finance Committee on 10-12-10 and was recommended to
be placed on the Consent Agenda for adoption.
Narrative
Under Chapter 69, Laws of 2010, the state legislature amended RCW 42.56.520 to authorize agencies to
respond to public records requests under the Public Records Act by providing online access to requested
records. The City Attorney's Office prepared the attached proposed Ordinance that updates the City Code
to reflect this change and make the Code consistent with the 2010 legislation.
The paragraph that is recommended to be added to the Code in section 1.20.020 is regarding a method of
providing the records and reads as follows:
"Providing an internet address and link on the city's website to the specific records requested, except that
if the requester notifies the city that he or she cannot access the records through the internet, then the city
will provide access to copies or allow the requester to view the records using a city computer."
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:08 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/13/2010 05:05 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 120 of 201
{ASB823546.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
000006.900000
ASB
09/21/2010
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON RELATING TO PUBLIC RECORDS;
AMENDING SECTION 1.20.020 OF THE EDMONDS CITY
CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, under Chapter 69, Laws of 2010, the state legislature amended
RCW 42.56.520 to authorize agencies to respond to public records requests under the Public
Records Act by providing online access to requested records; and
WHEREAS, section 1.20.020 of the Edmonds City Code relating to disclosure of
public records should be revised to make the same consistent with the 2010 legislation; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendment of Section 1.20 ECC. Section 1.20.020 of the Edmonds
City Code is hereby amended as follows:
1.20.020 Response or denial of request.
A. Responses to requests for public records shall be made
promptly and pursuant to guidelines established in Chapter 42.56
RCW. Within five business days of receiving a written public
record request, the city must respond by either:
1. Providing the record; or
2. Providing an internet address and link on the city’s
website to the specific records requested, except that if the
requester notifies the city that he or she cannot access the records
Packet Page 121 of 201
{ASB823546.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
through the internet, then the city will provide access to copies or
allow the requester to view the records using a city computer; or
23. Acknowledging that the city has received the
request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the city
will require to respond to the request; or
34. Denying the public record request. Denials must be
accompanied by a written statement of specific reasons therefor.
B. Public records may be made available on a partial or
installment basis as records that are part of a larger set of requested
records are assembled or made ready for public inspection or
disclosure. Additional time required to respond to a request may be
based on the need to clarify the intent of the request, to locate and
assemble the information request, to notify third persons or
agencies affected by the request, or to determine whether any of
the information requested is exempt and that a denial should be
made as to all or part of the request. The city may ask the requestor
to clarify what information the requestor is seeking. If the
requestor fails to clarify the request, the city need not respond to it.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after
passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 122 of 201
{ASB823546.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 123 of 201
{ASB823546.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }{ASB652555.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
RELATING TO PUBLIC RECORDS; AMENDING SECTION 1.20.020 OF
THE EDMONDS CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 124 of 201
AM-3450 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Introduction of new Student Representative.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Introduction of new Council Student Representative Peter Gibson who attends Edmonds-Woodway High
School.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/13/2010 05:02 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:07 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/13/2010 10:43 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 125 of 201
AM-3366 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Kim Cole
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation declaring October 17th-23rd "Friends of the Edmonds Library Week."
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the proclamation.
Attachments
Friends of the Edmonds Library Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 10:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/24/2010 07:26 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/24/2010 09:21 AM
Form Started By: Kim Cole Started On: 09/10/2010 02:52 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2010
Packet Page 126 of 201
Packet Page 127 of 201
AM-3456 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Gina Coccia
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Closed record appeal of a Hearing Examiner decision to deny a “Type III-B” variance to
allow the pitch of the roof on two multi-family buildings to remain as constructed with less
than a 4/12 slope. The buildings were constructed under the 30’ height limit, but the pitch
was reduced between the 25’ and 30’ mark inconsistent with ECDC 16.30.030(A) footnote
#1. The site is located at 23709 and 23711 84th Ave W. and is zoned RM1-5. Applicant: Mitch
Soros / File No. PLN20100040 and APL20100003
Note: The applicant made a request to withdraw the appeal on 10-13-10. The withdrawal will be entered
in the record at the meeting.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council to make a motion to acknowledge the withdrawal request in the record and close the appeal.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
A closed record appeal of a variance decision was scheduled for review by the Council on October 19th.
The appellant, Mitch Soros, withdrew his appeal via email on October 13th (Attachment 1). The only
action required of the Council is to acknowledge the withdrawal of the appeal in the record and close the
appeal.
Attachments
Withdraw Request
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 10/14/2010 03:44 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 03:49 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/15/2010 11:05 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/15/2010 11:32 AM
Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 10/14/2010 12:49 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2010
Packet Page 128 of 201
From:Coccia, Gina
To:"kelly soros"
Subject:RE: Withdraw appeal
Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:11:32 PM
Hello Mitch,
Per your request, I will pull your appeal from the Council’s agenda (File APL 20100003). I will begin
processing a refund of your appeal fee to the greatest extent possible. Best of luck with resolving the
height issue. I would be happy to meet with you to review any proposed chang es that you come up
with. Please contact me if you have any questions or run into any additional challenges. I will notify
the building department that you will be in touch with them in the near future and are currently working
on a solution.
Sincere best,
Gina Coccia | Associate Planner
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
121 5 th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
P 425.771.0220 x 1778 | F 425.771.0221 | www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
-----Original Message-----
From: kelly soros [mailto:kelsoros@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:01 PM
To: Coccia, Gina
Subject: Withdraw appeal
Hello,
I am sending this letter to withdraw my application for variance appeal for the properties
located at 23709 84 th Ave W & 23711 84 th Ave W. We are currently researching our options to
correct the violation. With that said, I would like to request a refund of the planning appeal fee
that was paid on 9/14/2010 in the amount of $330.00.
Thank you
Mitch Soros
Packet Page 129 of 201
AM-3458 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding proposed update to the
Comprehensive Plan purpose, effect and context statements, and Hearing Examiner
Comprehensive Plan review requirements.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the changes recommended by the Planning Board and direct the City Attorney to include the
amendments in ordinance(s) adopting all of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendments for Council
adoption later this year.
Previous Council Action
Council held a work session on the Planning Board recommendations on September 28, 2010 (see Exhibit
7).
Narrative
This is a public hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Board to include the amendments
outlined in Exhibit 1 as part of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
This year, in addition to updating several specific plans (e.g. water and surface water plans, streetscape
plan), there is a need to update some of the contextual discussion in the city's Comprehensive Plan. There
are several reasons for needing to make this update:
--The region, through PSRC, adopted Vision 2040 in 2008 (updated in 2009), which provided new
guidance and a new framework for planning in the Puget Sound region.
--Snohomish County Tomorrow is in the process of updating countywide planning policies to be
consistent with Vision 2040.
-- The Comprehensive Plan has been updated to include a new Community Sustainability Element which
proivdes a central framework for the plan.
--Some of the discussion in the city's comprehensive plan is out of date, specifically the introductory
sections on Scope, Purpose, Effect of Plan, and State and Regional Context.
As an additional note, the Council preview on September 28, 2010, included discussion of the reasoning
behind some of the changes, supplementing the Planning Board record as reflected in their minutes.
Packet Page 130 of 201
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments
Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 3: Tupper Email Comment
Exhibit 4: Vision 2040 Multicounty Policy Overview
Exhibit 5: Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy
Exhibit 6: Vision 2040 Poster Map
Exhibit 7: City Council Minutes 9/28/2010
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/15/2010 11:05 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/15/2010 11:32 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 10/14/2010
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2010
Packet Page 131 of 201
Purpose & Scope 1
Comprehensive Plan - Purpose and Scope
Scope
The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds consists of all of the elements specifically adopted
as part of this plan, set forth or incorporated in this title, including both text and maps, and those
specific plans adopted by reference (see the section entitled Comprehensive Plan – Elements, page
15).
Purpose
The Comprehensive Plan has the following purposes:
A. To provide a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future
that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way which
“meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.”1
B. To promote the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with the values of the
community.
A.C.To serve as the basis for municipal policy on land use and development and to provide
guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations and programs that
support sustainable development within the city while seeking to conserve, protect, and
enhance the community’s assets and natural resources.
B.To promote the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and the general
welfare and values of the community.
C.To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building
use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural
resources.
D.To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning
and inharmonious subdividing.
E.D.To facilitate adequate the provisions for of sustainable public services —such as
transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks —
that are consistent with the community’s values and needs.
1 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, U.N.
GeneralAssembly Plenary Meeting, December 11, 1987.
Packet Page 132 of 201
Purpose & Scope 2
Effect Ofof Plan
A.Development Regulations.Development regulations adopted by the City of Edmonds
shall be consistent with and implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
B.Development Projects.The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan shall serve as
a guide for all development projects – both public and private – within the city. The
development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall apply to all
public and private development projects.
C.Programs and Implementation.The City shall strive to develop programs and actions
that implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that are reflected in
its short-range, strategic, and long-range decision-making.
A.Private Projects.All private projects requiring city review and approval shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B.Public Projects.No street, park or other public way, ground, place, space, or public
building or structure, or utility [whether publicly or privately owned] shall be abandoned,
constructed or authorized until the Hearing Examiner has reviewed and reported to the
City Council on the location, extent and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Hearing Examiner's report shall be advisory only. Notice of the hearing by the Hearing
Examiner shall be given in the manner specified in each case by the City Council.
C.Street Vacations and Dedications.The Comprehensive Plan shall be consulted as a
preliminary to the establishment, improvement, abandonment, or vacation of any street,
and no dedication of any street or other area for public use shall be accepted by the city
council until the location, character, extent, and effect thereof shall have been considered
by the Hearing Examiner with reference to the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing
Examiner's Report on the same will be at the time and part of his or her action on the
vacation and/or dedication.
Growth Management
A. General. Growth management is intended to provide a long-range strategy guiding how
communities develop and how services are provided. State, regional and local
jurisdictions undertaking growth management planning are adopting plans and
implementation strategies that form a coordinated approach to actively plan for the
future. A community such as Edmonds, with attractive natural features, a pleasant
residential atmosphere and proximity to a large urban center, is subject to constant
growth pressures.
Edmonds’ 2000 population is was 39,515. As part of the cooperative planning process
for the region, Edmonds has established a population planning target of 44,880 for the
Packet Page 133 of 201
Purpose & Scope 3
year 2025. This represents an average annual increase of less than one percent per year
(0.5%), and is similar to the growth rate experienced by the city during the past two
decades. In part, this moderate growth rate reflects Edmonds’ status as a mature
community with a small supply of vacant, developable land. Because current and future
development will increasingly occur as redevelopment or infill, the general philosophy
expressed in the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain the character of the community while
strategically planning for change in specific areas.
It is envisioned that the Comprehensive Plan will be implemented with a broad-based set
of implementation actions. Implementation measures will range from tying plan goals
and policies to budgeting and infrastructure decisions, to making sure that regulations are
coordinated and targeted to achieve expressed policies, to working with both public and
private entities to jointly achieve community goals. However, implementation approaches
must be designed to address not only the differences between neighborhoods in the city,
but also the variation in different situations over time. While general decisions on how
the region will grow are made collaboratively at a regional level, It it is up to the each
community to determine how to implement this vision at the local level.its desired growth
level and up to the government, particularly elected officials, to implement the desired
policies.
A. Goal. Growth management policies should insure that as a residential community,
Edmonds continues to be heralded as “The Gem of Puget Sound,” in accordance with the
following policies:
A.1. Decisions affecting the growth pattern of the community should be made with a
maximum of citizen participation.
A.2. The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation measures should be developed
and maintained in such a manner to guarantee assure that there are sufficient
resources to insure established levels of community services and that ample
provisions are made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation
facilities.
A.3. The role of commercial and industrial enterprises, the attendant tax base and
provision for consumer needs, should be considered as a supporting part of
achieving a sustainable community the residential nature of the area rather than
as the dominant activity of the community.
A.4. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors
the following values:
A.4.a. Light (including direct sunlight)
A.4.b. Privacy
A.4.c.Public Viewsviews, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features.
A.4.d. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution.
A.5. Any residential growth should be designed to accommodate and promote as
much as possible a balanced mixture of income and age groups.
Packet Page 134 of 201
Purpose & Scope 4
A.6. Edmonds should cooperate with surrounding communities to ensure that the
regional growth policy is consistent with the stated local policyhelp ensure a
coordinated implementation of the regional growth strategy.
Packet Page 135 of 201
General Background 5
State and Regional Context
State and regional goals have been adopted to provide a framework for developing local
comprehensive plans and implementation strategies. By addressing these goals, local governments
can be assured that they are also addressing some of the important issues facing the state and other
local governments in the Puget Sound region.
State Goals
A. Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
B. Reduce sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
low-density development.
C. Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
D. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
E. Economic development: Encourage economic development throughout the state that is
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all
citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and
encourage growth in areas experiencing Insufficient economic growth, all within the
capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
F. Property rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected
from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
G. Permits: Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in
a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
H. Natural resource industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource-based Industries,
Including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries Industries. Encourage the
conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage
incompatible uses.
I. Open space and recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of
recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
Packet Page 136 of 201
General Background 6
J. Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,
Including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
K. Citizen participation and coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and encourage coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts.
L. Public facilities and services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards.
M. Historic preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures that have historical or archaeological significance.
N. The goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
Regional Goals
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is a Regional Transportation Planning Organization
under chapter 47.80 RCW. In its major planning document, Vision 2040, the PSRC is described as:
“…an association of cities, towns, counties, ports, and state agencies that serves
as a forum for developing policies and making decisions about regional growth
management, environmental, economic, and transportation issues in the four-
county central Puget Sound region of Washington state.”2
Vision 2040 establishes the regional vision and sets the Regional Growth Strategy for jurisdictions
planning in the Puget Sound region:
“VISION 2040 is a shared strategy for moving the central Puget Sound region
toward a sustainable future. The combined efforts of individuals, governments,
organizations and the private sector are needed to realize this vision. As the
region has continued to grow and change, its residents have stepped up to ensure
that what is most valued about this place remains timeless. Positive centers-
oriented development trends in recent years are a cause for optimism. Yet
VISION 2040 recognizes that "business as usual" will not be enough. As a result,
VISION 2040 is a call for personal and institutional change.
VISION 2040 recognizes that local, state, and federal governments are all
challenged to keep up with the needs of a growing and changing population.
VISION 2040 is designed to guide decisions that help to make wise use of
existing resources – and ensure that future generations will have the resources
they need.”3
2 Vision 2040, page ii. http://psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/vision2040/vision2040_021408.pdf
3 Vision 2040, page 3. http://psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/vision2040/vision2040_021408.pdf
Packet Page 137 of 201
General Background 7
Vision 2040 sets a framework for the region to provide for a sustainable future that:
“…ensures the well-being of all living things, carefully meshing human activities
with larger patterns and systems of the natural world. This translates into
avoiding the depletion of energy, water, and raw natural resources. A sustainable
approach also prevents degradation of land, air, and climate, while creating built
environments that are livable, comfortable, safe and healthy, as well as promote
productivity.”4
To implement this vision, VISION 2040 contains the following Overarching Goals:
Environment. The region will care for the natural environment by protecting and
restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, and addressing potential climate
change impacts. The region acknowledges that the health of all residents is
connected to the health of the environment. Planning at all levels should consider
the impacts of land use, development patterns, and transportation on the
ecosystem.
Development Patterns. The region will focus growth within already urbanized
areas to create walkable, compact, and transit-oriented communities that maintain
unique local character. Centers will continue to be a focus of development. Rural
and natural resource lands will continue to be permanent and vital parts of the
region.
Housing. The region will preserve, improve, and expand its housing stock to
provide a range of affordable, healthy, and safe housing choices to every
resident. The region will continue to promote fair and equal access to housing for
all people.
Economy. The region will have a prospering and sustainable regional economy
by supporting businesses and job creation, investing in all people, sustaining
environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities,
and high quality of life.
Transportation. The region will have a safe, cleaner, integrated, sustainable, and
highly efficient multimodal transportation system that supports the regional
growth strategy, promotes economic and environmental vitality, and contributes
to better public health.
Public Services. The region will support development with adequate public
facilities and services in a coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that
supports local and regional growth planning objectives.
In addition,Vision 2040 includes a Regional Growth Strategy to implement this vision. Components
of the Regional Growth Strategy include:
4 Vision 2040, page 7. http://psrc.org/assets/1735/sustainable.pdf
Packet Page 138 of 201
General Background 8
a. designation of geographic areas for regional growth centers, manufacturing
and industrial centers, as well as other centers such as town centers and activity
hubs in Urban Growth Areas and cities;
b. planning for multi-modal connections and supportive land uses between
centers and activity hubs;
c. promotion of sustainability in all decision-making; and
d. allocation of population and employment growth to regional geographies in
Snohomish County.
Regional goals address the strategy for regional development outlined in the adopted VISION 2020.
These goals form a long-range vision for transportation and land use linkages within the Puget Sound
region.
A.Create a regional system of central places framed by open space.
B.Strategically invest in a variety of mobility options and demand management to support
the regional system of central places.
C.Maintain economic opportunity while managing growth.
D.Conserve environmental resources.
E.Mitigate potential, adverse effects of concentrating development by early action.
F.Refine Vision 2020 based upon collaboration among all agencies in the region to ensure a
common vision. Refinements will recognize parallel planning by other public and private
agencies, including ports and emerging countywide growth management efforts.
Packet Page 139 of 201
General Background 9
Packet Page 140 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND
CONTEXT STATEMENTS, AND HEARING EXAMINER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Chave recalled that the Commission previously discussed the proposed amendments to the introductory sections of the
Comprehensive Plan addressing the plan’s purpose and scope. He said that, as previously noted, the reasons for making the
changes include:
The region, through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), adopted Vision 2040 in 2008. The document was
updated in 2009 to provide new guidance and a framework for planning in the Puget Sound Region.
Snohomish County Tomorrow is in the process of updating the countywide planning policies to be consistent with
Vision 2040.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan has been updated to include a new Community Sustainability Element, which provides a
central framework for the plan.
Some of the discussion in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is out of date, specifically the introductory sections on scope,
purpose, effect of plan and state and regional context.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council directed them to update the various introductory sections (purpose,
effect and context statements). He noted that some of the language can be traced back to the original Comprehensive Plan,
which was adopted as part of the City’s Development Code. When GMA was adopted, the City revised the plan and made it
a separate document. However, some sections were not adequately updated to fit within the context of the GMA. Some of
the language in the Comprehensive Plan talks about code provisions that have been superseded by other processes such as
the Capital Facilities Element. For example, having the Hearing Examiner make legislative decisions is out of date and does
not separate the powers of the legislative authority (City Council) and the quasi-judicial authority (generally the Hearing
Examiner). The intent is to bring these sections up to date with current City practices.
Vice Chair Lovell observed that a lot of language from Vision 2040 was inserted into the draft language. Mr. Chave said
staff’s goal was to provide context and identify the high-level goals and statements from the Vision 2040 Plan so the casual
reader would have some idea of what the regional vision talks about. This is important because local plans must be
consistent with and ultimately implement the regional vision. Vice Chair Lovell said he finds the excerpts from Vision 2040
to be applicable to the City. He specifically referred to the language related to development patterns (Page 7), which
supports the policies called out in the Community Sustainability Element.
Board Member Reed asked staff to respond to the question of whether or not it is appropriate for the Hearing Examiner to
consider consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as part of his/her decision. He recalled that Finis Tupper submitted a
statement regarding this issue, which was read into the record at the Board’s May 12th meeting. Mr. Chave responded that
the Comprehensive Plan is a legislative document that establishes goals and a vision for the City. As required by GMA, the
City has adopted development regulations that are intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan, and these regulations are
used by the Hearing Examiner to review projects. The development regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. He explained that because the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide a balance of goals and policies, it would be
nearly impossible to find that a project is absolutely consistent with each and every one. The appropriate balance for the City
is reflected in their adopted Development Code. The City would essentially be mixing the legislative and quasi-judicial
standards for review if they were to look at the overall Comprehensive Plan policies and goals while reviewing projects for
compliance with the Development Code. He further explained that GMA requires that comprehensive plans set the policies
and guidelines, but the development regulations are intended to implement the goals and policies in comprehensive plans.
Cities must use their development regulations to evaluate projects.
Board Member Cloutier referred to Item A.4.c (Page 3) and explained that the Board previously discussed the proposed
amendment that would change “views” to “public views.” He suggested staff explain why this change is being proposed.
Mr. Chave explained that the City has taken the general approach that the overall height limits and bulk restrictions are the
blunt instruments for dealing with public views, but there are no tools to deal with individual views. The current language
seems to imply that the Development Code includes provisions to protect private views, which is not the case. The City
Packet Page 141 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 10
Council determined that all references to protection of private views should be removed from the Development Code, and
staff felt it would be appropriate to remove the reference from the Comprehensive Plan, as well.
Board Member Stewart noted that the Development Code includes a reference to “retaining view corridors.” Mr. Chave said
this term is used prominently in the shoreline regulations, but it is related to public rather than private views. In addition,
there is some discussion in the Comprehensive Plan related to public views in the downtown/waterfront area from streets,
and the issue is addressed in the Development Code via setbacks, step backs, height limits, etc. Board Member Reed
inquired if “public view” is defined in the Development Code. Mr. Chave answered no. Board Member Reed suggested that
perhaps the proposed change would be unnecessary if the Development Code does not include a definition for the term. He
observed that whatever language is used in the Comprehensive Plan will not change the fact that the Development Code will
not protect private views. Board Member Cloutier agreed that having a vision that public views should be protected will not
change the Development Code now, but it would guide future regulations. He emphasized that the City does not have the
ability to regulate private views, but they can regulate the public’s access to a view. Mr. Chave added that private views are
difficult to regulate in Washington State because property rights are very strong.
Board Member Stewart referred to Item B on Page 1 and asked if community values have been identified. Mr. Chave said
community values can be discerned from the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, but they are not laid out
specifically as the community’s values. Board Member Stewart noted that many municipalities innumerate their values and
adopt vision statements. Mr. Chave summarized that the City’s vision is inferred in the Comprehensive Plan as a whole, but
staff would not want to presume to write a vision statement at this time. He suggested the Board ask the City Council to take
this project on as part of the next Comprehensive Plan update.
Board Member Stewart requested clarification from staff regarding Section A.4.a, which references light. Mr. Chave
explained that one of the purposes of step back requirements is to provide some access for light to reach adjacent properties,
particularly in zones where development is allowed to occur lot-line-to-lot-line. Many of the zoning regulations draw to the
notion of air, light and open space. Board Member Stewart asked if this reference refers to buildings that block light or if it
includes trees, as well. Mr. Chave answered that trees could potentially fit into this category, as well.
Board Member Guenther said that, as an architect, clients come to him with a vague idea of what they want to develop, and
their description usually includes contradictions. It is up to him to balance the contradictions to create a plan that meets his
client’s needs. He said the Comprehensive Plan is also vague, contradictory and open to interpretation. It is intended to be a
tool to guide development regulations. It is the Development Code that leads the City in the right direction.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the proposed amendment on Page 1 that would eliminate reference to piecemeal or
spot zoning. He asked that the Board consider putting this language back in. He agreed with Board Member Stewart that
community values have not been clearly defined. He disagreed with staff’s position that the Comprehensive Plan language is
out of date and needs to be updated. Mr. Hertrich expressed concern about the amendments on Page 2, which would
eliminate the requirement that the Hearing Examiner must review all public projects, street vacations and dedications based
on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and submit an advisory report. As per the proposed language, these projects
would become staff decisions. He encouraged the Board to discuss whether or not the value of the Hearing Examiner still
exists for these processes, or if Hearing Examiner’s role should be eliminated because staff has previously failed to follow
the rules and procedures outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hertrich referred to Item A.4.a on Page 3 and agreed it is
appropriate to regulate to ensure there is adequate light to adjacent properties.
Mr. Hertrich asked if the City Council directed the staff and Board to incorporate the Vision 2040 Plan. He agreed that some
of the language incorporated from the Vision 2040 Plan is good, but he questioned the definition of the term “central places”
in the third paragraph from the bottom on Page 7. He suggested that people can interpret this term in many different ways.
Rather than just incorporating large sections of the Vision 2040 language into the document, he suggested the Board review
each one to determine if they are worded well enough to be part of the code or if they are ambiguous.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, said he grew up in Woodway and moved to Edmonds in the early 1980’s when the City was in the
process of adopting their original Development Code. He participated in the Chapter 15 discussions at that time, and the
adopted language was a grand move for the City. It was through this process that he became acquainted with Roger
Packet Page 142 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 11
Hertrich, Bill Casper, Steve Dwyer, Lloyd Ostrom and other prominent community members who participated in the process.
He said the point of his email, which was entered into the record on May 12th, was to suggested the Board review the
Edmonds Municipal Code as it relates to the duties of the Hearing Examiner. He noted that the City has only had three
Hearing Examiners over the past 30 years. The current Comprehensive Plan requires that the Hearing Examiner review all
street vacations and dedications and submit an advisory report. He said he is opposed to the proposed amendment that would
eliminate this step in the review process. He pointed out that the Hearing Examiner has not participated in the review of
street vacations and dedications in the past, even though it has been a stated requirement in the Comprehensive Plan. These
decisions have been made by City staff. He expressed his belief that City plans, they should be executed rather than ignored.
Mr. Tupper observed that the current Hearing Examiner receives $3,500 per month from the City whether she holds a
hearing or not. In 2009, the fees for the hearings that were conducted were not enough to pay the Hearing Examiner’s salary,
let alone advertisements that were placed in the newspapers or the staff’s time. He felt the Board should be concerned that
the City is paying for a Hearing Examiner service, yet she is not being required to perform the services specified in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner has cancelled numerous hearings in recent months because there are no items
on the agenda, but the City is required to pay her salary regardless. He suggested the City utilize this resource to implement
the plan. The Hearing Examiner has a completely different viewpoint than staff, and she can bring expertise to the table to
help determine whether or not a proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested that the last paragraph on Page 2 be updated to identify the population as of 2009 before
the draft amendments are presented to the City Council. He observed that there is not as much affordable housing available
in Edmonds as in other neighboring communities. He suggested the language be changed in Item A.5 at the bottom of Page
3 to specifically call out affordable housing. Mr. Rutledge advised that he has attended Hearing Examiner hearings for the
past four years, and the Hearing Examiner has set requirements that the lights on sports fields be turned off at 7 p.m. on week
days and 9 p.m. on weekends to address neighborhood concerns. He said the current Hearing Examiner firm does a good
job, but he voiced concern that not very many people attend the hearings to comment.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Chave advised that the language related to “spot zoning” was a hold over from the days when comprehensive plans were
far more general. At the present time, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map are consistent. In order to have
spot zoning, there would need to be a spot Comprehensive Plan designation. He recommended that this language is no
longer necessary.
Mr. Chave agreed with Mr. Tupper that implementation is key, and that is the purpose of the development regulations. He
suggested it makes no sense to have an additional requirement of review contained in the Comprehensive Plan that either
conflicts with or adds to the already established process. For example, the review of street vacations and dedications is
already provided for in the City’s Development Code, and an additional Hearing Examiner review would be redundant and
could create conflicts.
Mr. Chave explained that the excerpts from Vision 2040 Plan are the broadest goal statements, and they are vague if read in
isolation. He suggested Mr. Hertrich review the Vision 2040 Plan, which provides details about what the broad statements
are talking about. He reminded the Board that they made the choice not to reiterate the entire Vision 2040 Plan in the
Comprehensive Plan. Including excerpts will lead people to be curious enough to perhaps read the Vision 2040 Plan. He
emphasized that the City cannot choose whether or not they want to implement the Vision 2040 Plan. It is the regional plan
that the City has signed onto so they need to be consistent and understand what it says.
Board Member Reed asked if affordable housing is addressed in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave
answered that it is addressed extensively in the Housing Element. Mr. Cloutier added that while Item A.5 on Page 3 does not
specifically reference affordable housing, he reads it as an implication that affordable housing is included.
Board Member Cloutier asked staff to explain the mechanism by which the City is required to follow the Vision 2040 Plan.
Mr. Chave answered that the PSRC is a creation of all of the governments in the Puget Sound Region, and the City has
signed on to be a part of the group. The PSRC is the mechanism that ensures cities implement the Vision 2040 Plan.
Packet Page 143 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 12
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE UPDATES TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT STATEMETNS AND HEARING EXAMINER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PROPOSED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Board Member Reed suggested that Mr. Tupper’s memorandum be added as an attachment to the record that is forwarded to
the City Council. The remainder of the Board concurred.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Lovell inquired when the amendments to Title 20 would be brought back to the Board. Mr. Chave said they
would be scheduled as an agenda item in the near future. Staff would also provide updates soon regarding other items on the
Commission’s work program such as wireless facilities.
Vice Chair Lovell announced that the July 14th meeting would include a public hearing on proposed amendments to the civil
enforcement procedures related to notice and fines, an update of the Capital Facilities Plan, a discussion regarding potential
amendments to the Home Occupation Regulations, a discussion of potential amendments to the Street Tree Plan, and a
discussion about the potential annexation of the Meadowdale Beach area.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff has invited a Board Member to
help judge the sand castle contest on August 10th. Board Member Stewart agreed to judge the contest again this year.
Vice Chair Lovell said he received an email from Board Member Bowman announcing that he would resign his position on
the Board, and July 14th will be his last meeting. That means there will be two vacant Board positions. He stressed the
importance of good attendance over the next few months so that a quorum is present at each meeting. He said he reviewed
the Board’s attendance policy and determined that Board Member Clarke’s absences have not crossed the threshold that
would require him to resign his position.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Guenther said he has served on the Board since 2001, and he has reached a point where he feels it is time for
him to resign. He said his decision started last year when work-related responsibilities required him to miss several
meetings. He felt he was unable to contribute to the degree he should. He commented that they have an excellent Board and
all members are well qualified and have good opinions. He said he felt he was leaving at a good time.
Vice Chair Lovell thanked Board Member Guenther for his service on the Board. He said he helped him a lot when he first
joined the Board, and he has been a tremendous asset to the City.
Board Member Stewart thanked Board Member Guenther for his long years of service, and said it has been a pleasure
serving with him. He will be missed. She suggested that when new appointments have been made, the Board should
consider the idea of appointing a student representative to serve on the Board. She expressed her belief that the Board could
use an infusion of young, fresh ideas.
Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board of the decision they made at their retreat to continue their work on sustainability
indicators by starting with the Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan. He reported that he and Board Member
Stewart would meet with Mr. Chave and Public Works staff to discuss the implementation of appropriate indicators. They
would report back to the Board at a future meeting.
Packet Page 144 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 12, 2010 Page 14
priorities. The Board agreed it would make sense to combine the two. Mr. Chave cautioned that neighborhood compatibility
and the process will still be the main issues of concern, but they will not be insurmountable.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if a person who owns two, 20,000 square foot lots would be allowed to subdivide the properties to
increase density. Mr. Chave answered that the density could not be increased. For example, the RS-20 zone would only
allow two lots to be created with a 40,000 square foot lot. However, an RS-6 zone would allow up to six lots. The purpose
of the PRD Ordinance is to allow developers to cluster homes on a property in order to protect trees or a critical area
elsewhere on the site. However, the density would remain the same. Vice Chair Lovell said he would support whatever the
City can do to promote better use of land.
Mr. Chave said the issue staff hears time and time again with subdivision proposals is the surrounding property owners’
desire to protect vegetation. The codes related to existing vegetation are very weak at this time, and staff recommends that
more sensitivity be built into the regulations to encourage and even require tree retention. Instead of subdividing the easy
way, the code could provide tools to approach the issue from the standpoint of arranging the building sites to retain trees.
This would be a win/win situation for everyone. Board Member Cloutier said that rather than increasing density, the City’s
Regulations should focus on smarter density. The code should require the same density, but it is more a matter of locating
the density in the right place. For example, instead of having large yards in front of each house, they could have one
common open space.
Board Member Cloutier said he would support any amendments that eliminates the restrictions on lot size and width. He
would also support amendments that encourage passive measures that save overhead for the City, the developer and the
property owner. They should also mandate, as much as possible, anything that would facilitate solar access. He referred to
Attachment 3, which provides good ideas about setbacks and orientation to encourage better solar access. However, he
observed that if the City is going to encourage tree retention, solar access might not be possible in all locations. Mr.
Clugston agreed that solar access requirements would work well in some locations, but not in others.
Board Member Cloutier observed that requiring subdivisions to provide geothermal energy for the neighborhood would be a
good thing, but he does not know of any city that has been able to accomplish this goal. It must be done in a way that makes
sense and is affordable and effective. Mr. Clugston said he had a conversation with a gentleman in Woodinville about
whether or not it would be feasible to require subdivisions to provide geothermal energy. He responded that the option
might not be possible for small subdivisions, but it could be feasible for larger subdivisions because the payback would be
within five to ten years. He suggested that perhaps geothermal energy should not be mandatory but encouraged for larger
subdivisions.
Mr. Clugston said he would bring back options for the Board to consider at their next meeting, and the Board could discuss
and prioritize the various alternatives. They could also suggested additional options to consider. Mr. Chave said that rather
than providing the Board Members each with a copy of the entire code in draft form, they would offer a series of ideas and
explain how they could be incorporated into the code language. The items could be grouped together based on the outline
provided by Mr. Clugston.
Board Member Johnson said she would like to know more about the history of PUD’s and PRD’s in Edmonds. There is a
PRD in her neighborhood, and she would like to know how many of these developments exist in the City.
Board Member Cloutier questioned how the City could avoid developments such as the one that was recently constructed on
212th (referred to by Ms. Petso). Mr. Clugston said it is all about design standards. The current code allows this type of
development to occur on any multi-family zoned property. Board Member Cloutier encouraged staff to place this item on the
Board’s work list for future consideration. Mr. Chave agreed that the multi-family residential code language is out of sync
with new development types. It is predicated on the old style of large, multi-family buildings.
UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE PAN PURPOSE, EFFECT, AND CONTEXT AMENDMENTS AND HEARING
EXAMINER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Packet Page 145 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 12, 2010 Page 15
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the draft of potential amendments to the introductory sections of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, which address the plan’s purpose and scope. He reminded the Board that the reasons for making the proposed changes
are:
The region, through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), adopted Vision 2040 in 2008, which provided new
guidance and a new framework for planning in the Puget Sound Region.
Snohomish County Tomorrow is in the process of updating countywide planning policies to be consistent with Vision
2040.
The Comprehensive Plan has been updated to include a new Community Sustainability Element, which provides a
central framework for the plan.
Some of the discussion in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is out of date, specifically the introductory sections on scope,
purpose, effect of plan and state and regional context.
As Mr. Hertrich pointed out earlier in the meeting, Mr. Chave said the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted as Title
15 in the Development Code. When the Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted, the City revised the plan and made it
a separate document. When this change was made, some sections were not adequately updated to fit within the context of
the GMA. It is also important to keep in mind that the Development Code has changed a lot since that time. For example,
the processes are described in much more detail. The old language in the Comprehensive Plan points everything towards the
Hearing Examiner, which is in direct conflict with the current processes outlined in the Development Code. He explained
that, as per the current Development Code language, the Hearing Examiner role is to apply the development regulations to
projects, not to interpret and apply Comprehensive Plan policies. It is the Planning Board’s role to look for consistency
between the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan policies.
Mr. Chave advised that the purpose of the proposed language is to clarify the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan
and the Development Code and describe how the processes work. He emphasized that the Growth Management Act is clear
that comprehensive plans are not intended to be looked at for consistency when reviewing development project applications.
Cities are supposed to adopt development regulations that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans. He
emphasized that the Development Code is the decision making point in the process where the City must decide which
Comprehensive Plan policies are preeminent and how they should be regulated. He disagreed with Mr. Tupper’s written
comments suggesting that more process is better. He cautioned that this could create conflict between the Development
Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to the last sentence in the second paragraph on Page 3 of the draft proposal, which states that “It is
up to the community to determine its desired growth level and up to the government, particularly elected officials, to
implement the desired policies. He asked who “community” refers to. Mr. Chave answered that the citizens of Edmonds
would be considered participants in this process. He noted that this language already exists in the current Comprehensive
Plan. Board Member Cloutier explained that the desired growth level gets pushed on the City by the County as a target goal.
Mr. Chave agreed and said the City has more to say about how to accommodate the growth and less to say about how much
growth they must accommodate. He agreed to review the sentence to make sure it accurately reflects the current situation.
Vice Chair Lovell noted that Item A on Page 3 of the draft proposal states that Edmonds continues to be heralded as “The
Gem of the Puget Sound.” He questioned the use of this phrase. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed that it does not
matter whether this phrase is included in the language or not.
Vice Chair Lovell commented that the draft proposal is well done and accomplishes the goals identified by staff, to be
consistent with state, regional, and county goals. He recalled, however, that Mr. Murray raised a concern earlier about the
proposed amendment to change “view” to “public view.” Mr. Chave explained that this change is intended to recognize that
the City cannot protect private views, but they can protect public views. In his mind, it is a recognition of reality.
Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that affordability, low-income housing, and preserving existing housing stock is mentioned at
least twice in the proposed language. He asked if it staff believes the Growth Management Act will place more pressure on
cities to incorporate different types of housing options or convert existing housing to provide more affordable housing. Mr.
Chave said there are currently county and state initiatives to work around these concerns. However, he cautioned that the
Packet Page 146 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 12, 2010 Page 16
issue is not just about affordability, but about changing demographics and future housing needs. He said he would be in
favor of creating inclusionary programs to create more affordable housing into projects, but the City must be able to offer
some incentives to encourage developers to participate. In addition, inclusionary housing requires the support of an agency
to help implement and monitor the program, and the City does not currently have sufficient staff to accomplish this task.
However, Snohomish County has talked about putting together an agency for this purpose, and once it is in place, the City
will have an opportunity to do something more significant to encourage affordable housing. He pointed out that Edmonds
has much more affordable housing than people realize. Most of it is in the form of rental housing, but owner-occupied
affordable housing is more of a challenge.
Board Member Johnson asked about the time frame for completion of the countywide policies. Mr. Chave said he is not sure
of the specific timeline for completion, but he anticipates they will be done by the fall of this year. He noted that the county
is currently working towards a draft document that will allow them to start the hearing process in the near future.
Board Member Johnson asked if the City would be required to revisit their Comprehensive Plan again once again when the
countywide policies have been adopted. Mr. Chave agreed the City would need to review their Comprehensive Plan again to
make sure it is consistent with the countywide policies. However, it is important to keep in mind that as long as the language
acknowledges and pays heed to the regional vision, the consistency issue will be moot when looking at the countywide
material. The countywide plan will be based upon the regional vision.
The Board agreed to schedule a public hearing based on the draft proposal.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave announced that staff is in the process of updating the extended agenda.
Vice Chair Lovell announced that a retreat has been scheduled for June 2nd at 6:00 p.m. in the Fourtner Room of City Hall.
The Board agreed to discuss possible agenda topics at their next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed reported that he attended the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) Land Use
Subcommittee meeting in place of Board Member Johnson. Their goal is to establish a neighborhood planning process that
could be used in various locations throughout the City such as Five Corners, Westgate, etc. Rather than waiting for a private
developer to plan for these areas, which was the case for Firdale Village, the subcommittee was interested in a public process
that is led by the City.
Mr. Chave said he attended the subcommittee meeting, as well, and made the suggestion that they request help from the
Cascade Land Conservancy, which offers 25 complimentary staff hours to help local jurisdictions. The subcommittee met
with the Community/Development Services Committee of the City Council, and received approval to move forward. Mr.
Chave said he intends to work with the Cascade Land Conservancy, the University of Washington, and the Land Use
Subcommittee to put together a process to share with the full CEDC and then forward to the City Council for approval and
funding.
Board Member Reed said he mentioned to the Land Use Subcommittee that the Planning Board has expressed an interest in
talking to them about land use ideas at some point in time, and they were receptive to the idea. Mr. Chave suggested the
project would be a team effort with the staff, the Cascade Land Conservancy, the University of Washington, and
representatives from the CEDC and the Planning Board. He noted that because they are legislative issues, Board Members
can freely participate in the neighborhood planning processes.
Packet Page 147 of 201
Approved
Planning Board Minutes
March 10, 2010 Page 3
are interested in the environment, and many of them are planning activities that would take place on Earth Day (April 22nd).
He suggested it might be possible to hold a public event in association with Earth Day to solicit feedback about what the
community feels are important indicators for sustainability. The event could be advertised to the public and information
could be posted on the City’s website with a request that citizens identify additional indicators they would like the City to
consider.
Chair Bowman asked if it would be possible for the City to conduct a random mailing. He expressed concern that not
everyone in the City would receive adequate notification of the open house and many would not be able to attend. Mr.
Chave cautioned that a survey would be costly. He suggested a better way to make the information assessable to people who
cannot attend the open house would be to post it on the City’s website. People could be invited to vote on line for the
options they prefer.
Mr. Chave summarized that holding an open house in conjunction with Earth Day would be a natural way for the City to
solicit feedback from the public without expending a significant amount of money to create an outreach program from
scratch. However, he noted that the open house must be put together in a short time frame. Board Member Stewart
suggested the Board form a subcommittee to gather ideas for the open house. The Board concurred, and Chair Bowman,
Board Member Cloutier, and Board Member Stewart were appointed to serve on the subcommittee. They further agreed that
the subcommittee would provide an interim report to the Board on March 24th. It was noted that Board Member Cloutier
also serves on the Sustainable Edmonds Committee and the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. Board Members were
invited to forward their questions to Mr. Chave, who would meet with the subcommittee sometime within the next week.
PREVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT
AMENDMENTS
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the PSRC, adopted Vision 2040 in 2008 (updated in 2009), which provided new
guidance and a new framework for planning in the Puget Sound Region. The updated regional goals were incorporated into
the Community Sustainability Element, but the references in the Comprehensive Plan to the regional plan need to be updated
since much has changed. He noted that the Board’s discussion would probably not include the countywide plan because
Snohomish County has not completed their work. However it would be worthwhile to recognize the different direction that
is emerging in the County’s work. At this time, Snohomish County Tomorrow is working to align the countywide planning
policies with Vision 2040, which is the same thing the City is talking about for their local plan. Therefore, it is less
important to deal with specific policy direction from Snohomish County Tomorrow; as long as they focus their update on the
Vision 2040 Plan, they will accomplish both. He cautioned that the City’s update should focus on Edmonds while
acknowledging that they are trying to be consistent with Vision 2040.
Mr. Chave reported that specific issues were raised before the City Council that the introductory sections (scope, purpose,
etc.) were out of date. He explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan used to be contained in Chapter 15 of the
Development Code and was a much shorter document. However, as a result of the Growth Management Act (GMA), the
City adopted a stand-alone Comprehensive Plan, using many of the policies contained in Chapter 15. Unfortunately, they
forgot there were a few unique statements in the old Comprehensive Plan that were no longer applicable. For example,
having the Hearing Examiner rule on the consistency of projects to the Comprehensive Plan is no longer appropriate because
the City Council makes these decisions as part of the budget and capital planning processes. When a new Transportation
Element is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, it identifies all of the projects that are part of the plan. Therefore,
individual projects would automatically be consistent with the plan. Having the Hearing Examiner rule separately on
projects that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan would be redundant. Staff’s goal is to recommend amendments that
would make the Comprehensive Plan language consistent with the City’s current processes.
Board Member Cloutier referred to Item B on Page 3 of the Staff Report, which states “growth management policies should
insure that as a residential community Edmonds continues to be heralded as “The Gem of Puget Sound, . . .” He noted that
this concept has not been discussed by any of the City’s current committees or commissions. Mr. Chave noted that the
language has been part of the Comprehensive Plan for 20 years.
Packet Page 148 of 201
Approved
Planning Board Minutes
March 10, 2010 Page 4
Board Member Johnson asked the significance of italicizing certain language in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave did not
have an answer. He summarized that he does not anticipate the proposed amendments would change the purpose and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. Instead, the changes would make the document consistent with the City’s current practices.
Board Member Reed said there are references to the “Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center” and “Edmonds Crossing”
throughout the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the current focus of the activity center and the Edmonds Crossing Project
has changed. He questioned if it would be appropriate to update the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. If so, he asked who
would be responsible for initiating the changes. Mr. Chave explained that Comprehensive Plan amendments can be initiated
by the staff, the City Council, the Board or a private citizen. However, amendments must be submitted by the end of the year
in order to be considered as part of the docket of amendments for the following year.
Board Member Guenther recalled that when the Board previously reviewed a series of Comprehensive Plan amendments,
they divided into subcommittees to work on specific areas such as the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor and the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. He asked if this would be an appropriate approach for addressing amendments
related to Edmonds Crossing. Mr. Chave said there have been no formal changes that would warrant the City announcing
that it would reexamine the Comprehensive Plan relative to Edmonds Crossing. He said there has been a lot of discussion
and potential work may surface in the near future, but until the City actually receives a proposal, it would be difficult for the
Board to consider unilateral changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He also cautioned that it would not be appropriate for the
Board to initiate a Comprehensive Plan change related to the Edmonds Crossing Project without direction from the City
Council. He summarized that if there are significant changes, perhaps they could be addressed as part of the City’s required
update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. He noted that even if the Legislature decides to push back the deadline until
2014, the City would not be precluded from updating their Comprehensive Plan in 2011 or 2012 to address this issue. Board
Member Reed agreed it would make sense to postpone the City’s review of the Comprehensive Plan related to Edmonds
Crossing until the 2011 update.
Board Member Guenther said he had a telephone conversation with a local developer regarding the process for changing the
Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Hospital/Medical Activity Center. He observed that Swedish Medical has taken over
management of Steven’s Hospital, and they are planning to spend a significant amount of money to improve the facility. The
developer suggested the City should consider the potential of expanding the hospital area at some point in the future. Board
Member Guenther said he suggested the developer approach the City Council with his idea and first gain their support.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave agreed to meet with Chair Bowman and Vice Chair Lovell to complete an extended agenda for the first half of
2010. It would be presented to the Board at their next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Bowman apologized for missing meetings because of work-related responsibilities. He noted that he should be
available for future meetings.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell said it appears from the minutes of the City Council’s retreat that there has been a formalized
suggestion or recommendation to place the aquatics center on the November ballot. Board Member Cloutier indicated that
he attended the City Council retreat. While the suggestion was made to place the aquatics center on the ballot, the City
Council did not take action to do so. There was discussion that if they did have an election in 2010 it would be on lifting the
levy lid. The City Council agreed it would be inappropriate to place both items on the ballot at the same time.
Board Member Lovell noted that at the retreat, Council President Bernheim once again presented a proposal for
redevelopment of the waterfront. Board Member Cloutier agreed that a few presentations were made about different ways to
redevelop the waterfront property to maximize revenue without raising the height limit. No commitment was made on the
Packet Page 149 of 201
From: finis tupper [mailto:finistupper@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 12:09 PM
To: 'John & Gretchen Reed'
Subject: Planning Board.
(Dear John: Would you please read this into the record at the next planning board meeting.)
Purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to establish a long-range plan, looking into the future,
addressing the needs and vision relating to land use, transportation, parks and open space,
community facilities and economic development. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan sets a
foundation for decision-making from a broad and far-reaching policy standpoint for all
governmental action even though the plan itself is not regulatory.
The most important power and duty granted to the City of Edmonds is the authority and
responsibility to regulate land-use for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting public health,
safety and general welfare of current and future citizens.
All private projects requiring city review and approval should be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
All public projects should have Hearing Examiner review and advisory opinion. All public
projects and street vacations must be consistent with and satisfy the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. Having this requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory opinion for all public projects,
capital facilities projects and street vacations provides additional public participation and ensures
the city council has another legal opinion ensuring consistency.
Planning Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Board to make changes to the Effect of Plan is
inconsistent and contrary to the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) and Hearing Examiner duties.
Specifically EMC 10.35(F) requires hearing examiner review, Vacations and Dedications, The
hearing examiner will review the comprehensive plan and report on the same prior to any street
vacation of dedication as provided in ECDC 15.05.020.
ECDC 15.05.020 was the Comprehensive Plan, Effect of Plan prior to the 1997 adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan as a separate stand alone document. The Mayor and City Staff admit their
failure to not act according to the mandatory requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory
opinion prior to Council decision-making in the adoption of the street vacations, capital facilities
and property purchases. This failure is not a good enough reason to make changes to the current
Comprehensive Plan. Saying long ago adopted procedure is forgotten and does not apply does
not make it ripe for wholesale edit and elimination.
The Planning Board should not accept any change to the current Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
that is inconsistent with the Edmonds Municipal Code. Action like this just makes the process
less certain and contentious for those of us who know the code and understand the meaning of
the words.
Packet Page 150 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 29
PART III: Multicounty Planning Policies
The multicounty planning policies provide an integrated
framework for addressing land use, economic
development, transportation, other infrastructure, and
environmental planning. These policies play three key
roles: (1) give direction for implementing the Regional
Growth Strategy, (2) create a common framework for
planning at various levels within the four-county region,
including countywide planning, local plans, transit agency
plans, and others, and (3) provide the policy structure for
the Regional Council’s functional plans (the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan and the Regional Economic Strategy).
Overview
Implementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
The multicounty planning policies call for concentrating
growth within the region’s designated urban growth
area and limiting development in resource and rural
areas. The policies address land use, including urban,
rural, and resource lands, urban growth area designa-
tions, target-setting for population and employment,
and focusing development in centers. They also ad-
dress the important related issues of providing needed
infrastructure and services to manage growth, includ-
ing transportation facilities. Finally, they recognize the
link between development, mobility, the environment,
and the economy, and have been designed to provide
an integrated approach to sustainability, development,
economic prosperity, and the provision of services.
A Common Framework. Under the Growth Man-
agement Act, multicounty planning policies provide
a common regionwide framework for countywide
and local planning in the central Puget Sound region.
The unified structure established by the multicounty
policies has both practical and substantive effects on
city and county comprehensive plans. The multicounty
policies provide a mechanism for achieving consistency
among cities and counties on regional planning mat-
ters. They also guide a number of regional processes,
including the Regional Council’s policy and plan review
process, the evaluation of transportation projects seek-
ing regionally managed funding, and the development
Packet Page 151 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council30
[The Growth Management Act
and Multicounty Planning Policies
The Growth Management Act states that “multicounty
planning policies shall be adopted by two or more
counties, each with a population of 450,000 or more,
with contiguous urban areas and may be adopted by
other counties.” (RCW 36.70A.210 (7))
of criteria for Regional Council programs and projects.
(These and other processes are described in fuller detail
in Part IV, the Implementation section.)
Countywide planning policies complement multicounty
policies and provide a more specific level of detail to
guide county and local comprehensive planning in each
of the four counties. Both multicounty and countywide
planning policies address selected issues in a consistent
manner, while leaving other issues to local discretion.
Much of the implementation of VISION 2040 occurs
through local planning and actions.
Multicounty planning policies also guide various regional
planning programs and serve as the framework for vari-
ous growth management, economic development, and
transportation projects carried out by the Puget Sound
Regional Council and others. Both the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (Destination 2030) and the Regional
Economic Strategy are guided by the multicounty plan-
ning policies in VISION 2040.
VISION 2040 POLICY APPROACH
VISION 2040’s focus on people, prosperity and the
planet challenges the region to develop healthy and safe
communities for all people, to apply an environmental
ethic in business and economic practices, to take steps
to conserve resources, and to enhance natural and built
environments. The policies and provisions in VISION 2040
have been developed with attention to social equity and
environmental justice.
To achieve this end, the multicounty planning policies
are grouped in six overall categories: (1) environment, (2)
development patterns, (3) housing, (4) economy, (5) trans-
portation, and (6) public services. (Note: A small set of
general policies is also included following this overview.)
The policies reflect the commitment in the vision state-
ment “to protect the environment, to create vibrant,
livable, and healthy communities, to offer economic op-
portunities for all, to provide for safe and efficient mobility,
and to use the region’s resources wisely and efficiently.”
GOALS — POLICIES — ACTIONS — MEASURES
The multicounty planning policies are presented in a
four-part framework with: (1) goals, (2) policies, (3) ac-
tions, and (4) measures.
Goals. Goals speak to the desired outcomes for each
of the topics covered in VISION 2040. They set the tone
for the integrated approach and common framework
A Framework
for Regional Planning in Central Puget Sound
VISION 2040 Policy Structure
PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY
TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
HOUSING
Regional
Growth Strategy
Packet Page 152 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 31
for the regional policies. Each policy section of VISION
2040 begins with an overarching goal that provides
the context for the policies and provisions that follow.
Additional goals are then provided for specific policy
topics in each section.
Policies. The multicounty planning policies are de-
signed to be broad. They provide overall guidance and
direction for planning processes and decision-making at
both regional and local levels. Given the strong integra-
tion across the various policy sections in VISION 2040,
the full body of multicounty policies is to be considered
in decision-making for various programs, projects, and
planning processes. The multicounty policies also serve
as planning guidelines and principles as required by state
law to provide a common framework for regional and
local planning, particularly in the area of transportation
planning and its relationship to land use.
Actions. VISION 2040 includes actions that relate to
implementing each policy section. These actions lay out
responsibilities and tasks for implementation. The actions
include a wide range of items — some directed at the
Puget Sound Regional Council, others geared to member
jurisdictions. Recognizing the different capacity of various
municipalities to work on plan-related provisions, the
Regional Council and/or the counties will make efforts to
assist smaller cities and towns in addressing these actions.
The actions are organized according to level of responsi-
bility for implementation. The regional level includes ac-
tions for which the Regional Council would primarily be
responsible. The county level includes actions identified
for each county or its countywide growth management
planning body. Finally, local-level actions are intended for
implementation by individual counties and cities. Each
action includes a brief statement describing the action in
general terms, followed by results or products related to
the action. Information is also provided on the expected
timeframe for carrying out the action. Short-term gener-
ally refers to a one- to three-year time period. Mid-term
refers to a three- to five-year time period. References are
included to specific policies or sets of policies to which
each action relates.
Measures. Finally, measures for assessing how the
region is meeting the goals and provisions of the policies
are included in the Implementation section (Part IV).
The purpose of these measures is to track whether ac-
tions are occurring and whether the region is achieving
desired results. This information will assist policymakers
[Analysis of Fiscal Impact
The Growth Management Act requires that countywide
and multicounty planning policies address an analysis of
fiscal impact. The Central Puget Sound Hearings Board
concluded in City of Snoqualmie versus King County
(1993), that “the purpose of the fiscal impact analysis is
to realistically assess the fiscal costs and constraints of
implementing countywide planning policies and thereby
to contribute to the design of an effective strategy to
overcome those constraints.” The Hearings Board stated
that “this task was imposed on cities and counties because
they are the units of government directly responsible for
creating and implementing the countywide planning
policies, as well as the parties most directly affected fiscally
by implementation of the countywide planning policies.”
Within the central Puget Sound region, analysis of fiscal
impact is deferred to the respective countywide planning
policies for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
Future Amendments to VISION 2040
Amendments to multicounty planning policies require
formal action by the Regional Council’s General Assembly.
However, revisions, changes, or additions to actions
or measures may be made by the Executive Board.
Substantive amendments to VISION 2040 will be made —
as needed — in advance of the regular schedule for major
updates to local comprehensive plans, as required by the
Growth Management Act.
as they assess policies and actions over time.
Regional monitoring is based upon two major compo-
nents: implementation monitoring and performance
monitoring. Implementation monitoring attempts to
answer the question, “Are we doing what we said we
would do?” Performance monitoring addresses, “Are we
achieving the desired results?” Answering these ques-
tions provides the guiding framework for the Regional
Council’s monitoring program.
The measures selected for this program are not intended
to be entirely comprehensive or to provide all of the
answers. Rather, they have been selected to provide the
region’s decision-makers a broad view of the state of the
region, with a high-level perspective about whether key
implementation actions are being accomplished, and if
the region is seeing desired results.
Packet Page 153 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 13
VISION 2040 is a shared strategy for how and where
the central Puget Sound region can grow to a forecast
5 million people and 3 million jobs by the year 2040. The
Regional Growth Strategy looks at how the region can
distribute forecast growth, primarily within the designated
urban growth area. The strategy is a description of a
preferred pattern of urbanization that has been designed
to minimize environmental impacts, support economic
prosperity, promote adequate and affordable housing,
improve mobility, and make efficient use of existing
infrastructure. The strategy provides regional guidance
for counties, cities, and towns to use as they develop new
local population and employment growth targets and
update local comprehensive plans. The Regional Growth
Strategy describes a pattern of vibrant urban areas and
healthy rural and natural resource landscapes that reflects
the region’s commitment to people, prosperity and planet.
The region’s first growth management strategy, adopted
in 1990 as the original VISION 2020, was developed to
better integrate land use and transportation planning.
Following guidance in the state Growth Management
Act, VISION 2020 was updated in 1995 to provide a
regional framework for focusing growth within the
defined urban growth area, especially within compact
urban communities and vibrant centers of activity. The
strategy was also designed to help preserve rural areas
and resource lands, address economic development, and
advance more orderly patterns of development.
VISION 2040 continues to emphasize the important role
of centers and compact urban communities in accom-
modating future population and employment. VISION
2040 envisions a future where:
• The overall natural environment is restored, protected,
and sustained.
• Population and employment growth is focused within
the designated urban growth area.
• Within the urban growth area, growth is focused in cities.
• Within cities, centers serve as concentrations of jobs,
housing, and other activities.
PART II: Regional Growth Strategy
Packet Page 154 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council14
• A better balance of job locations and housing is
achieved, facilitated, and supported by incentives and
investments.
• Rural development is minimized.
• Resource lands are permanently protected, supporting
the continued viability of resource-based industries,
such as forestry and agriculture.
Focusing Growth in the Urban Growth Area and in Centers
receive a significant proportion of future population and
employment growth when compared to the rest of the
urban area. Centers of different sizes and scales — from
the largest centers to the smallest — are envisioned for
all of the region’s cities.
Concentrating growth in centers allows cities and other
urban service providers to maximize the use of existing
infrastructure, make more efficient and less costly invest-
ments in new infrastructure, and minimize the environ-
mental impact of urban growth. Centers create improved
accessibility and mobility for walking, biking, and transit,
and as a result play a key transportation role in the region.
Regional growth centers are envisioned as major focal
points of higher density population and employment,
served with efficient multimodal transportation infra-
structure and services. These regionally designated
places are the primary locations for the arts, civic activity,
commerce, and recreation. The regional growth cen-
ters, with their concentration of people and jobs, form
the backbone of the transportation network for the
four-county region. Linking these centers with a highly
efficient transportation system allows the region to take
actions to reduce the rate of growth in vehicle miles trav-
eled, especially by providing and expanding transporta-
tion choices. Consequently, regionally significant centers
should receive priority in regional and local investments
in the infrastructure and services that are critical for sup-
porting growth.
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The region also
contains a number of manufacturing/industrial centers.
These are existing employment areas with intensive, con-
centrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that can-
not be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/
The Growth Management Act identifies three distinct
landscapes: urban lands, rural lands, and natural resource
lands (i.e., agricultural, forest and mineral lands). The Act
makes clear that the long-term sustainability of rural and
resource lands is dependent on accommodating devel-
opment within the designated urban growth area.
Urban Land. Counties and cities are required to desig-
nate an urban growth area where growth is intended to
be concentrated as a means of controlling urban sprawl.
Since the Growth Management Act’s adoption, the
region’s counties, in consultation with their cities, have
identified and designated an urban growth area with
sufficient capacity to accommodate forecast growth.
Part of the intent of designating the urban growth area
is to help channel investments in infrastructure within
already built-up areas — especially cities — and to dis-
courage growth in rural areas.
Cities and Unincorporated Urban Areas. Within
the designated urban area, there are incorporated cities
and unincorporated urban growth areas. Portions of the
region’s unincorporated urban areas are designated as
potential annexation areas for cities. Since these potential
annexation areas can typically receive urban services
from adjacent cities, they should accommodate a greater
share of growth in unincorporated urban areas than
nonaffiliated areas.
Centers. The emphasis on the development of centers
throughout the region is at the heart of VISION 2040’s
approach to growth management. Centers are locations
characterized by compact, pedestrian-oriented develop-
ment, with a mix of different office, commercial, civic,
entertainment, and residential uses. While relatively small
geographically, centers are strategic places identified to
• Existing infrastructure and new investments are used
more efficiently and effectively, and are prioritized
for areas that are planning for and accommodating
growth.
• Meaningful steps are taken to reduce carbon emis-
sions and minimize the region’s contribution to
climate change.
Packet Page 155 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 15
industrial centers are intended to continue to accommo-
date a significant amount of regional employment.
Manufacturing/industrial centers have a different urban
form and purpose than regional growth centers. They
can be characterized as areas of large contiguous blocks
served by the region’s major transportation infrastructure,
including roads, rail, and port facilities. These centers have
generally developed an urban form suitable for outdoor
storage and facilities, with large spaces for the assembly
of goods. They do not typically contain residential uses.
Protecting these centers from incompatible uses, as well
as providing them with adequate public facilities and
services, requires deliberate and careful planning. Good
access to the region’s transportation system, in particular,
will contribute to their continued success.
Rural Land. The region’s varied rural areas offer a
diverse set of natural amenities. Common elements of
rural areas include small-scale farms, wooded areas, lakes
and streams, and open spaces. Technically, rural lands are
those areas that are not designated for urban growth,
agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. Rural develop-
ment can consist of a variety of uses and residential
patterns that preserve rural character.
Natural Resource Lands. Most of the region’s total
land area is designated as natural resource lands. These
areas include agricultural lands that have long-term sig-
nificance for the commercial production of food or other
agricultural products, forest lands that have long-term
significance for the commercial production of timber,
and mineral lands that have long-term significance for
the extraction of minerals. The vast majority of this land
falls under the forest lands designation, and much of this
is protected under federal, state, and local regulations.
Critical Areas. The Growth Management Act requires
that each city and county identify and protect critical
areas before identifying areas of urban growth. Critical
areas include both hazardous areas, such as floodplains
and steep slopes, and environmentally sensitive areas,
such as wetlands and streams. Critical areas also include
zones that are important for protecting groundwater, fish,
and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, and
geologically hazardous areas. The Act requires that the
best available science be used in the designation and pro-
tection of critical areas. In practice, counties and cities do
allow a certain amount of development in critical areas.
In most jurisdictions, however, development can occur
only under certain circumstances, such as when disrup-
tion to critical areas is minimal. The Endangered Species
Act, a federal statute protecting threatened and endan-
gered species, can override rights to develop by prohibit-
ing activities that might interfere with protected species.
Development, Sustainability and the Climate.
Since the adoption of the Growth Management Act, a
transformational issue has emerged that has the po-
tential to affect nearly every topic addressed by VISION
2040 and the future of the region: global climate change.
Human factors associated with climate change include
not only the methods we employ to create energy, travel,
and manufacture and transport goods, but also the en-
ergy requirements of the very communities and patterns
of development created over the last 50 years.
In response to the central challenge to reduce energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while creat-
ing more sustainable communities, VISION 2040 builds on
the state Growth Management Act framework, as well as
on the regional emphasis of focusing growth into centers.
[Development Patterns and Climate Change
Studies show that the infrastructure requirements, building
operations, and transportation needs associated with
low-density development patterns result in roughly two
and a half times the annual greenhouse gas emissions and
two times the energy used per capita compared to higher
density development patterns.
(“Comparing High and Low Residential Density” in Journal of
Urban Planning and Development — March 2006)
Packet Page 156 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council16
Distributing Growth Using Regional Geographies
A hallmark of VISION 2040 is its Regional Growth Strategy
that provides specific numeric guidance to achieve a
development pattern with fewer environmental impacts
and a more compact urban form. VISION 2040 provides
guidance for the distribution of growth to regional
geographies, which are defined by the idea that different
types of cities and unincorporated areas will play distinct
roles in the region’s future. Cities, towns, and neighbor-
hoods of various sizes and character will continue to
offer a wide choice of living options. The region’s original
growth center concept fits within the regional geog-
raphies framework, with centers of different sizes and
scales envisioned for all cities.
In the Regional Growth Strategy, the region’s landscape
has been divided into seven types of geographies.
Metropolitan Cities (five cities) and Core Cities (14 cities,
including unincorporated Silverdale) have cities with
designated regional growth centers. These two groups
of cities are and will be the most intensely urban places
in the region. The Larger Cities (18 cities) category groups
together the next tier of large cities that have similar
amounts of population and employment.
The Small Cities (46 cities) category is further subdivided
into three types to reflect the wide variety of smaller
cities and towns throughout the region, as well as the
different roles they will likely play in accommodating
forecast growth. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas
capture a wide variety of urban lands, both lightly and
heavily developed. The transformation of these urban
lands will be critical to the region’s future success. Rural
Areas and Natural Resources Lands are categories that
describe the different types of unincorporated areas out-
side the urban growth area, and include very low-density
housing, working landscapes, and open space.
These regional geographies provide a framework for the
distribution of the region’s forecast growth for the year
2040. The use of these geographies provides more speci-
ficity than at the broader county level, yet it does not
get too specific at the individual city level. (However, in
some instances an individual city may stand alone within
a regional geography category.) This framework provides
clearer regional guidance about the roles of different
types of cities in accommodating regional growth.
A Guide for Growth Planning. The Regional Growth
Strategy focuses the majority of the region’s employment
and housing growth into both Metropolitan and Core
Cities, which together contain more than two dozen
designated regional growth centers. The centers in these
cities are intended to attract residents and businesses
because of their proximity to services and jobs, a variety
of housing types, access to regional amenities, high qual-
ity transit service, and other advantages.
Centers in other Larger Cities also play an important and
increased role over time as places that accommodate
growth. These are locations in and around traditional
downtown main streets, town centers, neighborhood
shopping areas, key transit stations, ferry terminals, and
other transportation and service centers. These centers
provide local and regional services and amenities, and
are also locations of redevelopment and increased activ-
ity, becoming more significant secondary job centers.
At a smaller scale, locally identified city and town centers
also serve similar roles for Small Cities, providing services
and housing that support vital and active communi-
ties at intensities appropriate to smaller municipalities.
Growth in the unincorporated urban growth area would
be prioritized in areas that are affiliated for annexation
into incorporated jurisdictions. In the Regional Growth
Strategy, significantly less residential growth would occur
in the region’s rural areas than the trend suggested in
current adopted growth targets and plans.
Future Adjustments. Cities were grouped into their
respective regional geographies based on year 2000
population numbers from the U.S. Census, and PSRC
employment numbers based on estimates derived from
the Washington State Employment Security Department.
The Regional Council recognizes that as cities continue
to grow, both through net increase and through an-
nexation of unincorporated areas, their population and
employment levels may change significantly. To reflect
these changes, it is anticipated that the Regional Coun-
cil’s Executive Board will make a technical amendment to
the Regional Growth Strategy to potentially reclassify cities
before the region’s counties undertake the next round
of Growth Management Act target-setting work. (This is
anticipated to occur in 2011 or earlier.)
Packet Page 157 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 17
The Regional Growth Strategy by the Numbers
The VISION 2040 growth strategy is com-
prised of two parts. First is a growth concept
that builds on the foundation provided in the
Growth Management Act, emphasizing the role
of the urban growth area and urban centers
in accommodating future population and
employment. The second part — the numbers
by regional geographies — contains specific
guidance for the distribution of growth.
The regional geographies framework calls for
focusing growth primarily into different catego-
ries of cities, and recognizes the different roles
of the region’s counties in accommodating
population and employment growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy is intended to
guide and coordinate the region’s cities and
towns as they periodically update local residen-
tial and employment growth targets — based
on population forecasts developed by the state
Office of Financial Management — and amend
their local comprehensive plans.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for different
regional geographies to accommodate dif-
ferent shares of population and employment
growth — within the region as a whole, as well
as within each county. While relative amounts
may differ somewhat between counties, the
roles of regional geographies within each
county are consistent for the region as a whole.
Within each county, the relative distribution of
growth to individual cities will be determined
through countywide target-setting, taking into
account local circumstances.
The distribution of growth in the Regional
Growth Strategy was developed using Regional
Council small area regional population and
employment forecasts for the year 2040. When
looking at the numbers in the tables that fol-
low, the percentages of regional and county
growth may be more useful for local planning
than the specific numbers contained in the
forecasts, as the numbers will change margin-
ally in future rounds of regional forecasts.
Packet Page 158 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council18
Regional Growth Strategy for Central Puget Sound
Packet Page 159 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 19
Population Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000–2040
Employment Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000–2040
Snohomish County
Pierce County
Kitsap County
King County
Total Increase
2000 Base
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Population Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000-2040
(Final Draft Techncial Amendment as of January 8, 2009)
600,000
Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unic’d UGA Rural Total
20% - 90,000 9% - 40,000 19% - 85,000 8% - 37,000 33% - 148,000 10% - 46,000 26% - 446,000
32% - 127,000 20% - 77,000 8% - 32,000 13% - 52,000 21% - 81,000 6% - 24,000 23% - 393,000
26% - 39,000 13% - 19,000 11% - 16,000 8% - 12,000 26% - 39,000 16% - 25,000 9% - 149,000
41% - 294,000 32% - 233,000 15% - 108,000 5% - 35,000 5% - 34,000 3% - 20,000 42% - 724,000
32% - 550,000 22% - 369,000 14% - 240,000 8% - 136,000 18% - 302,000 7% - 115,000 100% - 1,712,000
1,007,000 601,000 403,000 210,000 586,000 470,000 3,276,000
Snohomish County
Pierce County
Kitsap County
King County
Total Increase
2000 Base
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Employment Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000-2040
(Final Draft Techncial Amendment as of January 8, 2009)
600,000
Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unic’d UGA Rural Total
37% - 91,000 14% - 35,000 23% - 56,000 6% - 15,000 14% - 34,000 6% - 14,000 20% - 246,000
46% - 97,000 19% - 41,000 7% - 15,000 14% - 30,000 10% - 22,000 3% - 7,000 17% - 212,000
22% - 14,000 23% - 15,000 8% - 5,000 13% - 9,000 27% - 18,000 7% - 4,000 5% - 65,000
45% - 311,000 38% - 262,000 11% - 74,000 3% - 22,000 3% - 20,000 1% - 5,000 57% - 695,000
42% - 513,000 29% - 354,000 12% - 151,000 6% - 76,000 8% - 94,000 2% - 30,000 100% - 1,218,000
931,000 532,000 161,000 74,000 133,000 60,000 1,892,000
Packet Page 160 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council20
Urban Regional Geographies
Metropolitan Cities. Each of the four counties in the region contains at least one central city that serves as a civic,
cultural, and economic hub. At least one regional growth center — if not more — has been designated within each of
these Metropolitan Cities to serve as a focal point for accommodating both population and employment growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the five Metropolitan Cities to accommodate 32 percent of regional popula-
tion growth and 42 percent of regional employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared
to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 24 percent of regional population growth
and 40 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Metropolitan Cities.) It would be consistent with the spirit
of the Regional Growth Strategy for the region’s Metropolitan Cities to accommodate an even larger share of forecast
regional growth.
Metropolitan Cities (five cities, 222 square miles): Bellevue, Bremerton, Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma.
Metropolitan Cities in King and Pierce counties are expected
to accommodate larger shares of their respective counties’
growth than those in Kitsap and Snohomish counties.
City of Bellevue
Packet Page 161 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 21
Core Cities. The region also contains a number of other major cities with regionally designated growth centers,
which are intended to accommodate a significant share of future growth. These cities are called Core Cities in the
Regional Growth Strategy. These 13 cities (along with the unincorporated community of Silverdale) contain key hubs
for the region’s long-range multimodal transportation system, and are major civic, cultural, and employment centers
within their counties. The Regional Growth Strategy envisions a major role for these cities in accommodating growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 14 Core Cities to accommodate 22 percent of the region’s population growth
and 29 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared to current adopted
targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 17 percent of regional population growth and 26 percent of
regional employment growth to occur in Core Cities.)
Core Cities (14 total —13 cities plus Silverdale, 212 square miles): Auburn, Bothell, Burien, Federal Way, Kent,
Kirkland, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Silverdale, and Tukwila.
King County’s Core Cities are expected to accommodate a
much larger share of King County’s growth than Core City
shares of Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
City of Kent
Packet Page 162 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council22
Larger Cities. The region also contains other Larger Cities that are grouped together because they each have a
combined population and employment total over 22,500. This figure was a natural break among the region’s 82 cities
and towns. Many of these 18 cities are home to important local and regional transit stations, ferry terminals, park-and-
ride facilities, and other transportation connections. Central places within this group of cities are expected to become
more important subregional job, service, cultural, and housing centers over time. The Regional Growth Strategy envi-
sions an expanding role for these cities in accommodating growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 18 Larger Cities to accommodate 14 percent of the region’s population
growth and 12 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared to current
adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 8 percent of regional population growth and 7 percent
of regional employment growth to occur in Larger Cities.)
Larger Cities (18 cities, 167 square miles): Arlington, Bainbridge Island, Des Moines, Edmonds, Fife, Issaquah,
Kenmore, Maple Valley, Marysville, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Monroe, Mukilteo,
Sammamish, Shoreline, University Place, and Woodinville.
The shares of county growth going to Larger Cities are fairly
similar regionwide, with a somewhat lower share in Pierce
County.
City of Edmonds
Packet Page 163 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 23
Small Cities. The region’s 46 smaller cities and towns (see sidebar on the following page) are expected to remain
relatively small for the long term. Their locally designated city or town centers provide local job, service, cultural, and
housing areas for their communities. These central places should be identified in local comprehensive plans, and
become priority areas for future investments and growth at the local level. The Regional Growth Strategy envisions a
moderate role for most of these cities in accommodating growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for 46 Small Cities to accommodate 8 percent of the region’s population growth and
6 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040, which is similar to their current role in accommodating growth.
This compares to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 10 percent of regional popu-
lation growth and 9 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Small Cities.
Small Cities (46 cities, 136 square miles): See sidebar on page 24 for a list of Small Cities.
Small Cities are located throughout the region and represent
nearly two-thirds of the region’s incorporated jurisdictions.
Small Cities in Pierce County are expected to accommodate
the highest share of regional Small City population growth.
City of Sumner
Packet Page 164 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council24
The Region’s Small Cities
The region’s Small Cities typically have a population well under 10,000, markedly smaller than the 31 Metropolitan, Core,
and Larger Cities. Among the region’s Small Cities are traditional suburbs, small residential towns, and cities in the rural area.
The Regional Growth Strategy recognizes these distinctions. The following list show the groupings of various small towns.[City of Port Orchard
City of Skykomish
Town of Hunts Point
• Cities Inside the Contiguous Urban Growth Area:
These cities will likely receive a larger share of Small
City growth due to their proximity to the region’s larger
cities, existing and planned transportation systems,
and other supporting infrastructure. Over time, some of
these cities may become Larger Cities, and assume an
even greater role in accommodating regional growth
and activity. Most, however, will remain relatively small
over the long term.
Algona, Black Diamond, Bonney Lake, Brier, Covington,
DuPont, Edgewood, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Lake Forest
Park, Lake Stevens, Medina, Mill Creek, Milton, Newcastle,
Normandy Park, Orting, Pacific, Port Orchard, Poulsbo,
Ruston, Steilacoom, and Sumner.
• Small Residential Towns:
These very small towns are primarily residential, with
little potential for accommodating a great deal of
growth. They will likely remain quite similar to today,
and receive a lesser share of Small City growth.
Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Woodway, and
Yarrow Point.
• Free-Standing Cities and Towns:
These cities are urban islands surrounded by rural and
resource lands and separated from the contiguous
urban growth area. They should serve as hubs for
relatively higher density housing choices, and as job and
service centers for surrounding rural areas. Due to their
isolation from the rest of the designated urban growth
area, they will likely receive a lesser overall share of Small
City growth, and are not expected to grow as much as
Small Cities within the contiguous urban growth area.
Buckley, Carbonado, Carnation, Darrington, Duvall,
Eatonville, Enumclaw, Gold Bar, Granite Falls, Index,
North Bend, Roy, Skykomish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie,
South Prairie, Stanwood, Sultan, and Wilkeson.
Packet Page 165 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 25
Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas represent the largest amount of
land area for any of the urban regional geography categories. These urban areas are quite diverse, with both lightly
developed fringe areas and neighborhoods that are much more urban and nearly indistinguishable from surrounding
incorporated jurisdictions. County buildable lands analyses suggest that these areas have the potential to accom-
modate significant growth for the long term, and that there will be little need to significantly expand the designated
urban growth area. The process for adjusting the urban growth area is provided in the Growth Management Act.
Approximately 60 percent of the lands within the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area has been identified by cities
as potential annexation areas, or is otherwise “affiliated” with cities for annexation. VISION 2040 envisions that in time
most of the unincorporated area inside the urban growth area will be affiliated with existing cities. It is assumed that
eventually all of this area will be annexed to or incorporated as cities.
Based on information from the region’s counties, approximately 70 percent of the population growth currently identi-
fied for the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area is planned for locations that are already affiliated for annexation with
existing cities and towns. These areas, which are closely related to their adjacent city, are expected to accommodate a
larger share of overall unincorporated urban growth than unaffiliated areas.
Careful planning and development of the unincorporated portions of the urban growth area are vital to ensure that they
assume appropriate urban densities and an urban form that can be efficiently supported by regional and local infrastruc-
ture and services. Planning and permitting that is well-
coordinated between the counties and adjacent cities will
be key to implementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the Unincorporated
Urban Growth Area to accommodate 18 percent of the
region’s population growth and 8 percent of the em-
ployment growth by the year 2040. (This is a somewhat
decreased role in accommodating growth compared to
current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for
approximately 30 percent of regional population growth
and 15 percent of regional employment growth in the
Unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Note that annexa-
tions have also reduced the overall land area of the
UUGA since 2025 targets were adopted.)
Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (260 square
miles): All four counties have designated unincor-
porated urban growth areas, many of which are
affiliated for annexation with incorporated cities
and towns.
The unincorporated urban growth area in Snohomish
County has the highest share of anticipated population
and employment growth, followed by Kitsap, Pierce, and
King counties.
Packet Page 166 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council26
Rural and Natural Resource Regional Geographies
In addition to its focus on urban areas, the Regional Growth Strategy follows Growth Management Act guidance in sup-
porting the long-term use of rural and designated natural resource lands for farming and forestry, recreation, cottage
industries, mining, and limited low-density housing supported by rural levels of service. Cities and towns surrounded
by or adjacent to rural and resource areas should provide the majority of services and jobs for rural residents, as well as
more concentrated and varied housing options. The Regional Growth Strategy provides guidance on levels of residen-
tial growth in rural areas, encourages the transfer of development from rural and resource areas into urban areas, and
seeks to ensure that proposed levels of development are consistent with the character of rural and resource areas.
Rural Areas. Rural lands will not develop urban service levels or characteristics, or accommodate a great deal of
residential or employment growth. These areas are expected to retain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle
opportunities in the region over the long term. VISION 2040 calls for reduced rural population growth rates in all
counties. Rural population and employment growth in the Regional Growth Strategy represents a reduction in the
share of growth compared to current adopted growth targets for the year 2025. If they must identify growth for rural
areas at all, counties should be encouraged to plan for even lower growth — where possible — than contained in the
Regional Growth Strategy.
Rural Areas (1,464 square miles): All four counties have designated rural areas, which represent nearly
25 percent of the region’s land area.
Port Gamble, Kitsap County
Packet Page 167 of 201
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 27
Natural Resource Lands. Lands designated as agriculture, forest, and mineral areas are grouped together as natural
resource areas. Resource lands will be permanently protected from incompatible residential and employment growth
to safeguard them as important economic, cultural, and environmental assets, and to protect the long-term viability of
resource-based industries. Even small amounts of residential growth in these areas can seriously interfere with produc-
tive natural resource harvest and processing. Fragmentation of large, contiguous acreages through subdivision is also
of particular concern. These areas will not accommodate significant future growth, and the Regional Growth Strategy
does not distribute population or employment to them.
Natural Resource Lands (3,863 square miles): Natural resource lands, representing 6o percent of the region’s
land area, have also been designated.
Pierce County
Packet Page 168 of 201
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council28
Conclusion
The Regional Growth Strategy envisions Metropolitan,
Core, and Larger Cities playing a stronger role in accom-
modating forecast growth to help relieve development
pressure on rural and natural resource lands. New targets
will be developed that consider local circumstances and
conditions. Some cities may need to reexamine their
regional and local roles and approaches to accommodat-
ing growth in order to plan for the pattern of growth
presented in the strategy.
The region’s multicounty planning policies, presented in
Part III, are designed to implement the Regional Growth
Strategy. These policies guide countywide planning poli-
cies and local comprehensive plans, helping to ensure
that various planning efforts work together to achieve
the region’s vision for 2040.
(Detailed background information and county-level
detail for the guidance contained in the Regional Growth
Strategy are contained in a technical report: Regional
Growth Strategy Background.)
Packet Page 169 of 201
the Growth Management, Environmental, Economic and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region
How can the four counties of the central Puget Sound region grow to a forecasted
5 million people and over 3 million jobs by the year 2040 while enhancing the region’s
environment and overall quality of life? VISION 2040 answers that question with an
integrated growth management, environmental, economic and transportation strategy.
The Background
The Puget Sound Regional Council adopted VISION 2040 in April 2008. It is the
result of a 3 1/2 year public process undertaken by the region’s elected officials, public
agencies, interest groups, and individuals to establish a common vision for the future.
VISION 2040 consists of:
• An environmental framework
• A regional growth strategy
• Policies to guide growth and development
• Implementation actions
• Measures to track progress
Toward a Sustainable Environment: A Framework for the Future
VISION 2040 contains a new feature for regional planning, an environmental
framework that sets the stage for the document’s growth strategy, policies, actions
and measures to better assure that the region grows in ways that are consistent with
an environment that supports a high quality of life well into the future. It recognizes
that the needs of the region’s people, its economic prosperity, and the planet are tied
together in a mutually supportive and interdependent way.
A Regional Growth Strategy
VISION 2040’s regional growth strategy defines a preferred long-range growth pattern
for the central Puget Sound metropolitan area. It looks at the growth forecasted for
the region from the year 2000 through 2040, and provides guidance for how different
parts of the region can accommodate population and employment growth and fit into
an overall regional strategy. The growth strategy focuses the majority of the region’s
employment and housing growth into the largest cities, which contain more than
two dozen designated regional growth centers. Designated centers in these cities are
intended to attract residents and businesses because of their proximity to services and
jobs, a variety of housing types, access to regional amenities, mass transit service,
and other advantages. This focused strategy is designed to relieve growth pressure on
sensitive environmental, rural and natural resource areas, as well as on smaller cities
that will continue to offer a small-town lifestyle well into the future.
Multicounty Planning Policies
VISION 2040 establishes the region’s multicounty planning policies under the
Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). The region’s growth
management policies are organized into six subjects: Environment, Development
Patterns, Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Public Services. These policies
play three key roles: (1) give official direction for implementing the regional growth
strategy, (2) create a common framework for planning at various levels within the
region, including countywide planning, local plans, transit agency plans, and others,
and (3) provide the comprehensive policy structure for PSRC functional plans (the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Regional Economic Strategy).
Actions and Measures
VISION 2040 includes actions and measures. Actions identify ways to implement the
policies. Measures provide specific indicators and a monitoring and feedback program
to inform decision-makers on the progress being made to implement VISION 2040.
VISION 2040: Recommitment, New Features, and a Fresh Approach
VISION 2040 recommits the region to:
• Focus growth in urban areas, concentrated in centers and compact communities.
• Strengthen linkages between land use and transportation planning.
• Preserve and protect rural and resource lands.
• Address the needs of a diverse population.
New features of VISION 2040
• Moves from a conceptual plan to a clear and specific numeric regional growth
strategy based on forecast population and employment.
• A revised structure for multicounty planning policies that includes goals, policies,
actions, and measures.
• An environmental framework for decision making and integration of growth
management, transportation, and economic development planning.
• An expanded environmental policy section that addresses habitat, water and air
quality, and climate change.
• Transportation policies emphasizing increased safety, more choices and better
mobility through improved transit, ferries and roads, transportation pricing, and
mitigating environmental impacts, particularly greenhouse gas emissions.
• A strengthened economic section focused on business, people, and place based on
the Regional Economic Strategy.
• A new emphasis on housing affordability, supply and jobs/housing balance.
• New policies that address the relationship between the built environment and health.
• Attention to regional design.
For More Information
Please contact the PSRC Information Center at 206-464-7532 or info@psrc.org, or
visit the PSRC website at psrc.org.
V ISION 2040
people – prosperity – planet
Puget Sound
PORT OF
BREMERTON
April 2009
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
psrc.org
VISION 2040
Regional Growth Strategy
Packet Page 170 of 201
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson commented the idea had merit; in practice the funds would be included in the
ending fund balance assuming it was not spent elsewhere. He envisioned City Attorney Scott Snyder
would say the policy did not matter; when the Council appropriated dollars in the budget, the mayor can
spend up to that budgeted amount. Actually limiting the spending of savings from a vacant position would
require the passage of a budget amendment. Mayor Cooper advised he has not nor will he spend salary
savings without the Council’s approval.
Councilmember Peterson agreed it would be difficult in practice, noting when a director’s position was
vacant, there may be additional expenses due to the lack of a director such as hiring a consultant. At the
end of the year, it has been the practice of the City not to spend leftover funds. He summarized it was
worth considering but may be difficult in reality.
Councilmember Petso summarized she would continue her efforts to develop a policy for Council
consideration.
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FRAMEWORK.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the proposed changes were primarily to the introductory section
of the Comprehensive Plan. The update is scheduled for public hearing at a future meeting. He explained
there are several reasons for this update:
• PSRC updated the regional plan via adoption of Vision 2040. The City’s Comprehensive Plan
refers to the previous 2020 plan
• The Comprehensive Plan was updated to include a new Community Sustainability Element which
provides a central framework for the Plan
• Some of the discussion in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is out-of-date
Councilmember Buckshnis advised Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) is in the process of updating the
countywide planning policies. She compared the policies being considered by SCT with the update and
found them very similar. She anticipated additional revisions would be required as SCT completes their
review of the countywide planning policies. Mr. Chave commented SCT’s recommendations and the
Snohomish County Council adoption of new countywide planning policies will set the stage for the more
extensive update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2014. The intent is to reflect the regional plans in the
countywide planning policies.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it would be preferable to make amendments to the document
tonight or at the public hearing. Council President Bernheim advised the public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan framework was scheduled on October 19. He suggested Councilmembers circulate
any amendments as soon as possible and make the amendments on October 19.
Councilmember Plunkett commented many of his questions had been addressed by the Planning Board
and were reflected in their minutes. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Purpose section, and inquired
why the language in paragraph D (To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot
or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing) was proposed to be eliminated. Mr. Chave explained the
question at the Planning Board focused specifically on spot zoning. The language regarding coordinated
development is contained in other paragraphs. Spot zoning can be traced to the early GMA planning
process when the City’s Comprehensive Plan map was very general, containing “bubbles” with general
Comprehensive Plan designations. As a result questions arose over zoning in those areas as well as
concern that an area could be zoned in a manner that was unrelated to its surroundings, a spot zone. There
is now a one-to-one relationship between the Comprehensive Plan map and the Zoning map, leaving little
opportunity for spot zoning.
Packet Page 171 of 201
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the language regarding spot zoning could not be retained in the
Purpose section. Mr. Chave answered since zoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a
spot zoning request/action would require that the Comprehensive Plan provided for a land use that was
inconsistent with its surroundings.
Next, Councilmember Plunkett referred to language proposed to be removed in the Effect of Plan section,
Paragraph A (Private Projects. All private projects requiring city review and approval shall be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan). He commented consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was an
important consideration in quasi judicial decisions. He also expressed concern with the removal of
language in Paragraph B regarding public projects. Mr. Chave answered the GMA did not provide for a
consistency measurement of development projects against the Comprehensive Plan. The GMA requires
development projects be measured against the development regulations and the development regulations
are adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan. In the review of site specific development projects,
consideration typically is given to development regulations, not the Comprehensive Plan.
Similarly the Growth Management Hearings Board does not review development projects. It considers
consistency of development regulations with the Comprehensive Plan and consistency of the
Comprehensive Plan with State goals. The GMA creates a hierarchy; the Comprehensive Plan is the
policy level document, development regulations weigh the Comprehensive Plan policies and that drives
the adoption of development regulations. That same balancing does not occur in site specific reviews; the
project is evaluated against the adopted development regulations. He envisioned inconsistent decision
could result if consistency with the development regulations was considered as well as consistency with
the very broadly worded Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Councilmember Plunkett commented consistency with the Comprehensive Plan had been a consideration
in the recent past. Mr. Chave explained it depended on the development regulations. The Comprehensive
Plan was only considered when required by the development regulation. The language in Paragraphs A
and B introduce consistency with the Comprehensive Plan where it is not necessarily relevant. For
example, rezone criteria in the development code requires consideration of the Comprehensive Plan.
Rezone regulations have a much closer nexus with Comprehensive Plan purpose, intent and land use
patterns than other development regulations. Conversely accessory dwelling units have little to do with
the Comprehensive Plan; there would be little in the Comprehensive Plan policies that could be used to
compare one ADU to another. He summarized it was not appropriate to have a blanket statement that all
projects would be reviewed relative to the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the language would still apply to rezones. Mr. Chave answered
yes because the development code includes a criteria regarding Comprehensive Plan consistency. He
concluded none of the proposed revisions would change that.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to population targets in the Growth Management section, inquiring
whether this was a change in the City’s population targets. Mr. Chave answered it was not.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether staff anticipated the City’s population targets would change in
the future. Mr. Chave answered the next change that will reflect the new planning period and growth
targets will occur in 2014. The Comprehensive Plan was originally required to be updated in 2011; the
legislature extended that deadline due to the economy.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the sentence at the end of the second paragraph on page 3 be revised
to read, “While general decisions on how the region will grow are made collaboratively at a regional
level, it is up to each community, particularly elected officials, to determine how to implement this vision
at the local level.’ He felt community was too broad. Mr. Chave answered it was intended to be broad;
elected officials adopt policies, there was a community process to establish them. He preferred the more
broad reference to community.
Packet Page 172 of 201
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 11
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed change in A.3 on page 3 “The role of commercial and
industrial enterprises, the attendant tax base and provision for consumer needs, should be considered as a
supporting part of achieving a sustainable community the residential nature of the area rather than as the
dominant activity of the community.” He believed that sustainable community meant more multi family
density in urban areas. Mr. Chave disagreed with that conclusion. Councilmember Plunkett suggested
adding “and the residential nature of the area” after “sustainable community.” Mr. Chave explained he did
not think of Edmonds as a residential community; it was a multi-purpose mixed use community. There
are a variety of uses including commercial, single family, mixed use, multi family, etc. He did not agree
with characterizing a sustainable community as being more multi family. The nature of the community
was a decision made as part of land use plans. The key is for the community to be sustainable regardless
of how it is configured.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his belief there was a clear distinction between a sustainable
community and eliminating residential area as a preference. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board
recognized that the City includes much more than residential uses and characterizing the entire Edmonds
community as residential is not appropriate. Councilmember Plunkett responded the citizens believe
Edmonds is a residential community and he did not want that removed from the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the change in A.4.c on page 3 that was revised to read “Public
Views views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features” on page 3. Mr. Chave answered that
change reflected changes the Council has made in recent years in the development code with regard to
unenforceable statement regarding views. The development regulations and City policies support public
views but recognize the difficulty identifying/protecting private views. The proposed change is an attempt
to reflect that direction.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to A.6, page 4, “Edmonds should cooperate with surrounding
communities to ensure that the regional growth policy is consistent with the stated local policy help
ensure a coordinated implementation of the regional growth strategy,” suggesting that “and” be added
before “to” and leave the language that is proposed to be removed. He commented although others were
trying to regionalize things, he wanted to resist it. Mr. Chave responded that decision had been already
been made at the PSRC level.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to language on page 4, “Centers will continue to be a focus of
development,” inquiring what centers meant. Mr. Chave answered it was any urban center discussed in
the regional plan, such as metropolitan centers. Centers are specifically identified in the regional growth
strategy; for example Everett is identified as a growth center and Lynnwood has a regional growth center,
Edmonds does not. In the classification of cities, Edmonds is defined as a large city but not a growth
center.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about language on page 8 that is proposed to be removed, “Create a
regional system of central places framed by open space.” Mr. Chave advised that specific language was
contained in Vision 2020. Pages 6 and 7 are the restatement of the new regional plan which actually
elevates the importance of open spaces and natural areas. He referred to page 7 that indicates environment
is one of the overarching goals in Vision 2040. The regional plan still addresses contiguous open space
areas but it is in the detail of the plan.
Councilmember Petso recommended retaining paragraph B on page 1 (To encourage coordinated
development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing that addresses
coordinated development) in the Comprehensive Plan. She commented on the importance of coordinated
development in sustainability.
Packet Page 173 of 201
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Petso asked why sustainable was added to paragraph D on page 1, “To facilitate adequate
the provisions for of sustainable public services – such as transportation, police and fire protection, water
supply, sewage treatment, and parks – that are consistent with the community’s values and needs. She
remarked when she called the fire department, she cared little for what type of fuel they were burning, she
just wanted them to arrive. Mr. Chave responded sustainability is much broader than climate change or
greenhouse gas reduction, it has to do with overall financing, health of a service, how the service is
provided long term, etc. That is what the Sustainability Element is about, climate change is one aspect of
sustainability and there is a section regarding climate change in the Sustainability Element. Many
governments are discussing what level of service is sustainable long term as budgets decline.
Councilmember Petso referred to the proposal to remove the Hearing Examiner language and a letter
from a citizen stating the code requires Hearing Examiner review. Mr. Chave answered an old
Comprehensive Plan provision required that review. Councilmember Petso pointed out there was an
ECDC citation. Mr. Chave explained the Comprehensive Plan originally was in the ECDC Title 15 and
that section no longer exists. The Hearing Examiner is a quasi judicial body, not a legislative advisor. An
additional requirement for Hearing Examiner review was contained in the Comprehensive Plan but was
superseded by processes the City created over time and contained in specific titles. For example Title 20
contains a specific process for dedications, vacations, etc. The old language also inserted the Hearing
Examiner in capital facilities and capital improvement planning which have nothing to do with the quasi
judicial or Hearing Examiner process. He summarized in some cases it would have no effect but in other
cases it would duplicate the legislative process.
10. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION.
Councilmember Buckshnis, Council liaison to the Economic Development Commission (EDC),
recognized Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Planning Manger Rob
Chave, Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin and Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz who also assist the
EDC. She explained the EDC was originally intended to sunset at the end of 2010. The EDC has great
momentum and would like to extend the sunset date an additional year.
City Clerk Sandy Chase advised an ordinance was required to make a change to an ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO
EXTEND THE SUNSET DATE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR
ONE YEAR.
Councilmember Petso commented the EDC was formed before she joined the Council. She has reviewed
the seven points of emphasis in the resolution and does not feel the EDC is necessary to accomplish some
of the items and she did not support spending money on some of the proposed projects.
With regard to ensuring the Economic Development Director is devoted full-time to economic
development, she pointed out if Mr. Clifton is needed for other tasks, the Mayor will assign/ask him to
perform other functions/duties. The seven points also include ensuring adequate funding for the proposals
which she noted was the Council’s role, not the EDC’s. The seven points include four plans and one
vision; she did not support funding plans that were not used. Another of the seven points is to be
publically involved in the Harbor Square development. She pointed out the 17 EDC members could do
that as individual citizens.
Councilmember Buckshnis urged Councilmember Petso to attend EDC meetings; noting the meetings are
very productive. The EDC began with 17 people with very different ideas; they developed seven
Packet Page 174 of 201
AM-3457 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on 2011 Budget and revenue sources.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
Public hearing on 2011 Budget and revenue sources.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 01:35 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:08 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 10/14/2010 01:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 175 of 201
AM-3444 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilman Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of Complete Streets Program.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
CS/DS Committee discussed the issue on 10/12/10 and forwarded it to the Council for further discussion.
Narrative
There is growing recognition that the streets of our cities and towns have an important impact on the
livability of our communities. Public streets should serve all members of the public – young, old, driver,
bicyclist, walker, wheelchair user, or bus rider. Recognizing that too many streets were designed only for
cars and failed to meet the needs of other users, a national “Complete Streets” movement began.
Attach 1: Complete Streets Memo
Attachments
Attach 1: Complete Streets Memo
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/13/2010 05:02 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/14/2010 03:07 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/11/2010
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2010
Packet Page 176 of 201
Memorandum
To: Edmonds City Council
From: Jeff Aken, Cascade Land Conservancy
Date: September 24, 2010
Subject: Complete Streets Ordinance
Streets designed only for cars – streets without safe places to walk, cross or catch a bus – are
dangerous for other users, particularly children, older adults, and people with disabilities. Public rights-
of-way should be designed to safely accommodate all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists
and transit riders of all ages and abilities.
Issue
There is growing recognition that the streets of our cities and towns have an important impact on the
livability of our communities. Public streets should serve all members of the public – young, old, driver,
bicyclist, walker, wheelchair user, or bus rider. Recognizing that too many streets were designed only
for cars and failed to meet the needs of other users, a national “Complete Streets” movement began.
The movement has gained considerable regional attention through the efforts of advocacy groups such
as the Cascade Land Conservancy, Cascade Bicycle Club, Feet First and Transportation Choices
Coalition. Several regional cities including Kirkland, Seattle, Renton, Tacoma and others have adopted
Complete Streets Ordinances that reflect commitment to safely accommodating all travel modes on
their city streets.
The Complete Streets Movement
Currently, there is widespread citizen support for a Complete Streets Ordinance in the City of
Edmonds. Furthermore, the City of Edmonds has policies and guidance included in goal A.1 of the
Community Sustainability Element in the Comprehensive Plan and goal 2.4 in the Transportation Master
Plan (TMP) that encourages the city to plan and design facilities for all users. In addition to the existing
Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan policies and guidance, the City of Edmonds should adopt a
Complete Streets Ordinance to further clarify and formalize Edmonds’ commitment to constructing
transportation facilities that accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, and all other users. A
Complete Streets Ordinance will codify regulations necessary to implement the policies already adopted
by the City of Edmonds and ensure that transportation planners and engineers consistently design and
operate the entire roadway with all users in mind.
Complete Streets in Edmonds
The Cascade Land Conservancy and Cascade Bicycle Club developed the attached Complete Streets
Ordinance for your consideration based on model ordinances and information provided by the National
Complete Streets Coalition, the National Policy and Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity
(NPLAN), and other national and regional resources.
Proposed Ordinance
Packet Page 177 of 201
AM-3455 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/19/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of October 12, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes:
•10-12-10 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting
•10-12-10 Finance Committee Meeting
Attachments
10-12-10 CSDS Committee Minutes
10-12-10 Finance Committee Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Sandy Chase 10/14/2010 04:12 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/15/2010 11:32 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/14/2010 10:49 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2010
Packet Page 178 of 201
M I N U T E S
Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting
October 12, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Council Member Petso Brian McIntosh, Parks Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
The committee convened at 6:15 p.m.
A. Review of organization and membership of Community Technology Advisory Committee.
Council members Peterson and Petso discussed Council President Bernheim’s proposal for the
Council to adopt simple rules of procedure pursuant to which each council member would appoint one
person to the CTAC, and the members of the CTAC would select the annual chair. Council members
Peterson and Petso asked for additional information about the purpose of the request. CTAC Chair
Plunkett and Council member Bernheim were not available to answer their questions. Mr. Clifton
noted that while the CTAC discussed this issue, the consensus was to allow those who want to
serve on CTAC be allowed to serve and CTAC members questioned the need for the City Council to
appoint CTAC members.
ACTION: The Committee asked that this item be brought placed on the November City Council
CSDS Committee agenda to allow Committee members the ability to discuss this issue with Council
members Plunkett and/or Bernheim.
B. Authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement
Fund (Fund#112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
City Engineer, Rob English, presented an overview of the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project and
reviewed the significant work items that resulted in additional project costs. The additional costs
during construction were due to poor pavement conditions beneath the existing pavement surface,
installation of curb ramps for ADA compliance and flagging. The additional pavement repairs were
needed on both Dayton and 212th streets since sections of the street were severely cracked in many
areas and additional excavation, reinforcement fabric and pavement were added to support the new
overlay. The City completed its review and discussions with the contractor in September and
determined $82,415 is needed in addition to the federal grant funds to help pay for the extra work.
Staff recommends this cost be paid from motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street
Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund #112). The total construction cost for this project was
$1,082,400 and the federal grant paid $999,985 leaving a balance of $82,415 to be paid from local
funds.
Councilmember Petso asked if payment had been made to the Contractor and Mr. English
responded that the last payment was on-hold until the item was approved by Council.
Packet Page 179 of 201
CS/DS Committee Minutes
October 12, 2010
Page 2
2
ACTION: The Committee recommended the item be placed on consent agenda for approval at the
October 19, 2010 Council meeting.
C. Discussion on oversight of the Edmonds Underwater Park and use of buoys.
This discussion centered on the possible proliferation of the buoy system in the Underwater Park as
well as the management and oversight provided to the park. Parks Director Brian McIntosh reviewed
the City’s responsibilities in regard to oversight and particularly the Department of Natural
Resources lease to use this marine property. Mr. McIntosh introduced Bruce Higgins who has been
the lead steward in the park since 1977. Mr. McIntosh explained that the buoys were first and
foremost safety features in the park that provide resting places, hand holds, and guidance into and
out of the park. The priority of the stewardship of the park is safety, security, maintenance and
enhancement of the park. Mr. Higgins further explained that with the renewal of the DNR lease in
2005 a new cautionary zone beyond the existing boundary of the park was established and added 5
buoys. Mr. McIntosh explained that what you see now in the park is the full complement of buoys
including some that had recently been cleaned, retrieved, refloated or replaced. Mr. Higgins added
that the colored buoys delineate the beginner area or the new southern park perimeter further north
and away from the ferry dock. He explained that when in the water there is a whole different
perspective presented from seeing the buoys from the beach or above. To minimize the effect on
views Councilmember Petso questioned if there was another way to provide the same level of safety
in another way. No ideas were forthcoming.
ACTION: Request staff and Park Stewards to be aware of any new technologies or systems
that could replace part or all of the current buoy system and keep the same level of safety.
D. Discussion of Complete Streets Ordinance.
Mr. Skye Schell from Cascade Land Conservancy presented a draft complete street ordinance and
explained the goals of the ordinance.
Councilmember Petso supported the ordinance; however she had concerns about the use of “shall”
in the draft ordinance and how that would affect the City on future projects.
Mr. Phil Williams, Public Works Director, supported the concepts outlined in the draft ordinance, but
expressed concerns on how the ordinance would be administered by staff and the impacts to routine
maintenance and preservation projects. Mr. Williams suggested that staff work with Mr. Schell on the
ordinance.
Councilmember Peterson supported the goals of the ordinance and wanted to have a discussion at
the October 19, 2010 council meeting.
ACTION: The Committee placed the item on the October 19th Council meeting for discussion and
asked staff to work with Mr. Schell on the draft ordinance.
E. Discussion on the 196th Street SW/88th Avenue W Intersection Study.
Mr. Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer, presented information on the 2007 Safety Study at the
intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Av. W. The study was prepared by the professional engineering
Packet Page 180 of 201
CS/DS Committee Minutes
October 12, 2010
Page 3
3
firm of Gray and Osborne. The intersection was studied in 2007 because several citizens expressed
concerns about vehicle and pedestrian safety at the intersection. The consultant reviewed the traffic
count data for all approaches, accident history, level of service, sight distance, and intersection
geometry in order to develop six improvement alternatives.
The final recommendation presented to the City Council in 2007 was to allow right turns only for
northbound vehicles on 88th Ave on the approach to 196th Street. The recommendation included
the installation of a raised traffic island to prevent left turn and through movements for northbound
vehicles. The City Council didn’t support this recommendation and no action was taken.
There were several follow-up questions by both committee members related to traffic volumes,
recent accident history, alternate routes for vehicles, pedestrian usage and the level of service at the
intersection.
ACTION: Council Member Petso offered to discuss this item with Councilmember Wilson since he
asked Council to reconsider and review the findings of the 2007 traffic study. Discussion on the item
may continue at the November CS/DS meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Packet Page 181 of 201
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2010
5:57 PM
V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\FINANCE COMMITTEE 2010\10-12-10 FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES.DOCX
Present: Councilmember Bernheim
Councilmember Buckshnis
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Petso
Staff: Al Compaan, Chief of Police
Brian McIntosh, Director, Parks and Recreation
Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director, Finance and Information Services
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Public: Jan Vance, Executive Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
Ron Clyborne, 1st Vice President, Greater Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce
Don Hall
Bruce Witenberg
Ron Wambolt
Roger Hertrich
Councilmember Buckshnis called the meeting to order at 5:57 PM.
A. Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position
Councilmember Petso presented her concerns with the current authority of the
Administration in regards to this matter. Debi Humann discussed the history and the
supporting ordinance (Ordinance 3680), which gives the Mayor this discretion. The
committee will work with Ms. Humann and the city attorney to revise current law in this
matter to make the authority more specific and limiting.
B. Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126
Councilmember Petso presented her suggestions for reducing the debt service associated
with Fund 126. Her suggestions included paying off bonds earlier, moving debt to Fund
125, or refunding bonds to attain a lower interest rate. Mr. McIntosh provided the history
of the debt currently paid by Fund 126. Mr. Hines indicated that the City has had
discussion with the City’s bond council and that analysis would be forthcoming as
requested by Councilmember Bernheim. The committee will present the item before full
Council for discussion.
C. Edmonds Chamber of Commerce request for funding
Mr. Clyborne and Ms. Vance presented the $5,000 funding request to the committee. Mr.
Clyborne indicated that this would be a one-time request; however, the Chamber would
be open to an ongoing stipend from the City as well. Mr. Clyborne and Ms. Vance
responded to questions from the Committee as well. The Committee will take the issue
before full Council for discussion.
Packet Page 182 of 201
Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
D. Health benefits process and consultant analysis.
Ms Humann discussed the results of the consultant analysis and the findings and
recommendations of the City’s Health Benefit Committee (HBC). As result of the
analysis, the HBC recommends the City remain with its current health benefits carrier
and negotiate suitable plans to replace Plan A and the Group Health plan being
terminated on 01/01/2012. Ms. Humann’s report is attached.
E. Non-Represented Compensation Policy (NRC)
Ms. Humann presented the: 1) 2011 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule reflecting
the annual survey results as per the NRC policy, and 2) requested approval of the updated
Non-Represented Compensation Policy reflecting title changes that have occurred over
the last two years. The committee forwarded the issue to the full Council for discussion.
Ms. Humann’s report is attached.
F. Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor.
Chief Compaan presented the professional services contract with Zachor Thomas, Inc. for
prosecution services for the upcoming term and requested approval for the Mayor to sign
the agreement. The committed forwarded the issue to the consent agenda.
G. Ordinance relating to public records; amending Edmonds City Code 1.20.020 to
make the Code consistent with 2010 legislation.
Ms. Chase presented the issue and responded to questions regarding the issue. The
committed forwarded the issue to the consent agenda.
H. General Fund update for the months ending 2010
Mr. Hines, presented revenue and expenditure trends for the General Fund and current
forecasts for the City’s major revenue sources. For information only, no further action
required.
I. Public Comments (3-minute limit per person)
Roger Hertrich indicated that the City Council should look at the prosecutors’ costs and
what is being presented before them. He stated that many of the infractions are for
suspended licenses. He pointed out that the infraction seems unfair if it is based on if a
person is given a ticket for something like a seat belt violation, and if they don’t pay their
ticket, rather than take it to collections, the City sends it to the Department of Licensing
(DOL). The DOL will then suspend the license and if the person is picked up again, he is
arrested for a suspended license. He stated it is an improper penalty for not paying a
parking ticket or seat belt ticket, etc.
Ron Walmbolt questioned the heath care cost and wanted to know if the staff had
contacted DJ Wilson who has an extensive background in health care. He said that
Councilmember Wilson believes the city should self-insure. He also said that he felt the
AWC in preventing other health care providers to compete seemed like a violation of
anti-trust laws.
Packet Page 183 of 201
Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3
Don Hall then stated that the flip side of that was the City received the best deal on health
coverage.
Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.
Packet Page 184 of 201
Packet Page 185 of 201
Packet Page 186 of 201
Packet Page 187 of 201
Packet Page 188 of 201
Packet Page 189 of 201
Packet Page 190 of 201
Packet Page 191 of 201
Packet Page 192 of 201
Packet Page 193 of 201
Packet Page 194 of 201
Packet Page 195 of 201
Packet Page 196 of 201
Packet Page 197 of 201
Packet Page 198 of 201
Packet Page 199 of 201
Packet Page 200 of 201
Packet Page 201 of 201