2010.11.01 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
Special Monday Meeting
NOVEMBER 1, 2010
6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding labor negotiation strategy, pending and threatened litigation.
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-3494 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2010.
C. AM-3491 Approval of claim checks #121988 through #122135 dated October 28, 2010 for
$203,707.12.
D. AM-3488 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Leslie Chandler ($317.55).
E. AM-3495 Confirmation of Michelle Van Tassell and Matthew Moore to the Sister City
Commission.
3. (30 Minutes)
AM-3489
Discussion and potential action on a proposed Draft City of Edmonds 2011
Legislative Agenda.
4. (20 Minutes)
AM-3492
Public hearing on an ordinance adopting a new Chapter 17.105 ECDC to define
emergency temporary indoor shelters and identify zoning districts where they are
permitted.
5. (30 Minutes)
AM-3493
Public hearing on an ordinance adopting a new Chapter 17.20 relating to temporary
homeless encampment permits and frequency, duration, and conditions.
Packet Page 1 of 251
6. (15 Minutes)
AM-3497
Public hearing on the 2011 Regular Property Tax, Emergency Medical Services
(EMS), and Debt Service Levy: Proposed Ordinance providing for the annual tax
levy by increasing the regular property tax levy by the current 101% levy limit,
thereby levying an estimated regular property tax levy of $9,535,938, EMS levy of
$3,477,741 and levying $877,984 for voted indebtedness for the Public Safety
Complex.
7. (30 Minutes)
AM-3487
Public hearing on the update to the Street Tree Plan.
8. (15 Minutes)
AM-3486
Public hearing on the proposal to allow dogs on leashes at Hutt Park.
9.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
10. (10 Minutes)
AM-3496
Mayor's report on August 24, 2010 Council direction regarding City Attorney
Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 251
AM-3494 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
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 26, 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
10-26-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 01:45 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/28/2010 01:22 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2010
Packet Page 3 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
October 26, 2010
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. to meet with two candidates for the Sister City Commission, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Kris Gillespie, Cultural Services Assistant
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wilson requested Items F and G be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #121845 THROUGH #121987 DATED OCTOBER 21,
2010 FOR $745,372.10. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#49886 THROUGH #49916 FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2010 THROUGH
OCTOBER 15, 2010 FOR $640,417.80.
Packet Page 4 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 2
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DONNA L.
BRESKE ($799.37).
E. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
– OCTOBER, 2010.
H. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE 2011 WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
I. ORDINANCE NO. 3813 – AMENDING ECC 10.90.020 TO PROVIDE FOR UP TO TWO
NONVOTING MEMBERS IN THE EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION.
ITEM F: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
Councilmember Wilson asked why this was being proposed now, why it had not been done in the past
and what is new about the Interlocal Agreement. Monte Marty, Snohomish Conservation District,
explained the reason for the Interlocal Agreement now and why it has not been done in the past is the
Snohomish Conservation District is working with cities throughout the county to enter into Interlocal
Agreements to begin engaging in various natural resource issues such as low impact development,
information/education about natural resources, etc.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the District had been doing that since 1941. Mr. Marty agreed it
had but the District was now reaching out to and working more closely with cities. Councilmember
Wilson asked whether the $5/parcel assessment was new. Mr. Marty advised the County Council
approved that fee last November and it was effective January 2010. The fee is charged on parcels that
were in unincorporated Snohomish County as of 1941. Since that time some cities have elected to join the
Snohomish Conservation District. In some cities, such as Edmonds, part of the city is in the District and
part of the city is outside the District. The downtown core in Edmonds, the City limits as of 1941, is not
inside the District. The Interlocal Agreement would allow the District to provide some services inside that
area. Because the assessment does not include the downtown core, the District could not currently
conduct any activities in that area.
Councilmember Wilson asked what type of conservation services citizens would receive for the $5/parcel
fee, for a total of approximately $7500 from parcels within the City. Mr. Marty advised the District can
partner with the City to provide information/education, engineering services for a variety of projects such
as low impact development, water quality monitoring, and urban forestry assistance. Stormwater
Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster summarized the District provides a skill set that the City
does not have in-house.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the services provided by the District compared to other small
contracts the City has with Sustainable Edmonds, Cascade Land Conservancy, and Climate Solutions. Mr.
Shuster answered he was not involved in those contracts.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Conservation District was a separate municipal corporation
created by Snohomish County. Mr. Marty answered it was a subdivision of State government; there are
47 conservation districts in the State. The Snohomish Conservation District serves Snohomish County
and Camano Island. The District has been funded in the past by the State, via contracts with Department
of Ecology and by Snohomish County.
Packet Page 5 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 3
Councilmember Buckshnis asked where the fee was reflected in the budget. Mr. Shuster answered it is in
the Stormwater Utility budget in Citywide Stormwater Projects.
Council President Bernheim asked if there was a deadline for the Council to approve the Interlocal
Agreement. Mr. Shuster answered there was not.
Councilmember Wilson advised he was willing to support this item if another Councilmember made a
motion. He was interested in further information.
Councilmember Petso pointed out she too had questions regarding this item which was not reviewed by
Council Committee. She preferred non-routine Consent Agenda items first be reviewed by Committee.
It was the consensus of the Council to refer this item to a Council Committee.
ITEMG: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR AN
ENGINEERING STUDY AS PART OF THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK
FORUM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
After conferring with staff, Councilmember Wilson requested this item be rescheduled on next week’s
Consent Agenda. The Council concurred.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE –
TREE LIGHTING.
David Arista, Board Member, Greater Edmonds and Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association
(DEMA), provided a reminder about the downtown Halloween Trick or Treat sponsored by the Greater
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and DEMA on Sunday, October 31 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Arista announced the Tree Lighting Ceremony on Saturday, November 27 at 4:30 p.m. at Centennial
Plaza (5th and Bell). The event will include refreshments, entertainment, and a visit from Santa. Santa
photos will be available after the ceremony at the Edmonds Conference Center.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she and her son had a terrific time at the ceremony last year.
She encouraged the community to attend this family friendly function.
4. PRESENTATION ON WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES (WSF) MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL
TERMINAL.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained WSF and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) are evaluating concepts to replace/relocate the Mukilteo ferry terminal. The
environmental process for this project was reinitiated in February 2010 after being on hold since 2007 due
to funding and constructability issues associated with previously identified alternatives. As referenced in
the July and October 2010 Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Reports, as part of
the National Environmental Policy Act and the State Environmental Policy Act, the City provided
responses on May 26, 2010 regarding two concepts being considered as alternatives to the Mukilteo
multimodal terminal: the existing Edmonds ferry terminal concept at Main Street and the Pt. Edwards
multimodal concept. These concepts which are two of several being considered by WSF were initially
discussed at Mukilteo City Hall on May 5, 2010. At that time the WSF proposed Edmonds ferry terminal
concept assumed that the present single slip ferry terminal would be maintained at the existing Main
Street location in downtown Edmonds and that the slip would continue to maintain service to Kingston.
Packet Page 6 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 4
As part of the process to identify alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
process for the Mukilteo multimodal project, a project team developed concepts to be evaluated through a
two-level screening process. The project team evaluated ten concepts during this process; these concepts
are described in the document “Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions” dated September
2010. The concepts were posted on the WSF website and the City’s homepage.
Five of the concepts under consideration are located within Mukilteo, three concepts are within Edmonds
and a tenth alternative is located in the City of Everett. He displayed aerial photographs of the three
concepts in Edmonds:
1) Existing Main Street terminal that assumes no improvements.
2) Existing Main Street alternative with site improvements
3) Pt. Edwards location
The non-Mukilteo concepts proposed in Edmonds and Everett would add a new route by reassigning the
Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to create either an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route or an Everett-Clinton route.
An October 8, 2010 email with attachments regarding the 10 concepts referenced above was forwarded to
the Council on October 12, 2010. He and Mayor Cooper have significant concerns about the existing
proposed Main Street concept with no improvements as well as the existing Main Street concept with
improvements. The Community Services/Economic Development Quarterly Report references those
concerns.
During the May 5, 2010 meeting in Mukilteo, WSF proposed an Edmonds ferry terminal concept that
assumed the present single slip ferry terminal would be maintained at its existing Main Street location in
downtown Edmonds and that the slip would continue to maintain service to Kingston. The proposed
existing Main Street concept with improvements was not reviewed or discussed during the May 5
meeting. WSF presented this concept and it was reviewed by a project team on September 29, 2010. He
displayed an aerial view of this concept, explaining it adds holding lanes over the water, two ferry slips,
uses the existing Skippers property, WSF parking lot and old Safeway property, utilizes Sunset and Main
and Dayton Streets for access and assumes that Main Street would be closed between Sunset and the
waterfront.
Upon review of both proposed concepts located within Edmonds at the Main Street location, Mayor
Cooper and staff do not support the existing Main Street concept for reasons cited in a May 26, 2010
email which is included in the Council packet. The May 26 email is not an inclusive list; staff plans to
submit comments on behalf of the City before the November 19, 2010 public comment deadline.
Mayor Cooper and staff also do not support the recently proposed existing Main Street concept with
improvements; the reasons are outlined in the Community Services/Economic Development Quarterly
Report and the staff report. Concerns include widening and expanding the existing holding storage area
west of the existing railroad tracks and Railroad Avenue which will have significant adverse
environmental impacts by encroaching into Brackett’s Landing North Park and the Underwater Dive
Park. The construction of a massive overwater storage area between Brackett’s Landing North and South
Parks would include fill into the Underwater Dive Park, create significant lighting impacts, significantly
impact views and aesthetics as well as impacting macro algae and eel grass beds. There are also concerns
with the closure of Main Street south of Sunset to local traffic, loss of access to Brackett’s Landing North
via Main Street, retention of an at-grade crossing at Main Street and increased conflicts between ferry and
train operations particularly with the addition of 17 boats per day, and increased volume in traffic by
reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to the Edmonds terminal. The increase in traffic volume will
also significantly affect travel along SR 104. The creation of massive parking and storage areas between
Dayton and Main Streets would significantly impact residents by the addition of lighting, significant loss
of connectivity between the waterfront and downtown, and questionable traffic flow through this area.
Packet Page 7 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 5
Use of the old Safeway and Skippers properties for vehicle storage and holding would result in a loss of
revenue generating property.
Staff will provide a comprehensive response to WSF’s most recent proposed concepts by the November
19, 2010 public comment deadline. These comments will expanded upon the comments made in the May
26, 2010 email to WSF that ask WSF to address many concerns about the Main Street concepts and the
Pt. Edwards location.
WSF held public scoping meetings in Mukilteo and Whidbey Island on October 12 and 13 and an online
meeting on October 14. At the City’s request, a public meeting will be held in Edmonds on October 27 in
Council Chambers from 5:00 – 6:30 p.m. A link to WSF’s website is posted on the City’s website.
In response to a comment by Roger Hertrich that staff was not keeping the Council informed regarding
this issue, Mr. Clifton assured the Council had been kept up-to-date regarding this project; information
has been provided in the July and October Quarterly Reports and it was at his and Mayor Cooper’s
request that WSF is hosting a meeting in Edmonds.
Councilmember Petso asked whether both the Main Street options included adding another route. Mr.
Clifton answered both assumed the addition of a route. Councilmember Petso commented residents south
of SR 104 often feel cutoff from downtown during ferry traffic which would increase if a second route is
added. She asked whether she could make comments to WSF as an individual or only as a
Councilmember. Mr. Clifton advised comments submitted on May 26 expressed concern with capacity on
SR 104, transportation demand, modal interrelationships, and congestion. City Attorney Scott Snyder
advised because there was no pending quasi judicial action, Councilmembers had both their free speech
rights and rights as a Councilmember to comment.
Councilmember Petso recalled her suggestion to include the concept for a year-round farmers market at
the old Safeway and/or Skippers site in the Comprehensive Plan and staff’s response that research was not
to that point yet. She asked it would be advantageous to include such a project in the Comprehensive Plan
to indicate to WSF that other concepts were being considered for those sites. Mr. Snyder requested an
opportunity to think about the question.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether there was any benefit to Edmonds via either concept. Mr.
Clifton advised Mayor Cooper and he have many more significant concerns with the Main Street location
for either alternative than the Pt. Edwards location.
Council President Bernheim commented most of the problems arise from loading/unloading a large
number of cars. He asked whether there were any plans for passenger-only terminal development.
Nichole Macintosh , WSF, answered there were no plans for passenger-only ferries. The two boats that
currently service the Clinton-Mukilteo route would service Edmonds. It would be an approximately 50-
minute crossing between Clinton and Edmonds which would be a reduction in car service for Whidbey
Island residents.
Student Representative Gibson inquired about the route for traffic exiting the ferry at the Pt. Edwards
location. Mr. Clifton answered the Edmonds Crossing project Final EIS Record of Decision adopted in
2005 includes improving the intersection of Pine Street & SR 104 to a fully signalized intersection. Ferry
traffic on SR 104 would turn west into a new roadway system, turn right at another signalized intersection
and continue through toll booths and holding lanes before crossing the railroad tracks to the ferry slips.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned the reason for destroying Edmonds and Mukilteo by moving the
Mukilteo-Clinton ferry to Edmonds. Ms. Macintosh explained the Mukilteo area is culturally and
Packet Page 8 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 6
historically significant as the site of the signing of the Pt. Elliott Treaty of 1851. For that reason, WSF
was required to expand its consideration of alternatives from Edmonds to Everett to ensure there were no
reasonable alternatives for a new terminal. The alternatives are conceptual; WSF is soliciting input at the
beginning of the EIS process. The comments Edmonds has submitted and the future comments will be
considered in studying the alternatives. She provided a Community Guide to Scoping and the Project
Concepts that describes the ten concepts.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether WSF lost the historic grounds if the ferry stays in Mukilteo. Ms.
Macintosh answered WSF would not lose the grounds; if WSF remains in the Mukilteo area, they must
reach agreement with the Tribes who signed the treaty.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether roads could be constructed over the grounds. Ms. Macintosh
responded it remains to be seen what could be done. The concepts in that area minimize penetrations into
the ground by the use of fill and avoid areas that are significant.
Mayor Cooper advised that Public Works Director Phil Williams, Mr. Clifton and he plan to attend the
October 27 meeting in the Council Chambers and he will speak during public comment. November 19 is
the deadline for submitting public comments to WSF. Information for submitting comments is available
on WSF’s website.
5. DISCUSSION OF BOND PAYMENT FOR EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT/
EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS.
Joe McIalwain, Executive Director, Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA), explained the primary
purpose of his presentation was to request the City’s assistance with the Edmonds Public Facilities
District (EPFD) and ECA meeting an upcoming bond payment due on December 1 as well as update the
Council on the ECA’s activities.
He reviewed ECA programs and services:
• ECA’s Presenting Season
o 25 Artists/Groups from Around the World
o Music, Theatre, Dance, Comedy, Special Attractions
• Partner Organizations
o Cascade Symphony Orchestra
o Olympic Ballet Theatre
o Sno-King Community Chorale
o Edmonds Community College, Black Box Theatre
o City of Edmonds Cultural Services Department
• Education & Outreach Programs
o Student Matinee Program, In-School Workshops
o Focus Primarily on Edmonds School District
Mr. McIalwain reviewed the ECA’s impact
• Quality performing arts events and concerts close to home for South County residents
• Attractive venue for arts organizations from around the region to use for events and performances
• Active year-round with theatre events, sports activities, classes, meetings, etc.
• A resource for local teachers and students as school arts programs suffer budget cuts
• A cultural asset for Edmonds, an important piece of Edmonds history – original Edmonds High
School Campus, former Edmonds Junior High
• 400 events in the theatre to date
Packet Page 9 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 7
• 50,000 people impacted by ECA each year
• 46% from Edmonds and surrounding communities
• 17% from City of Seattle
• 37% from around the Puget Sound region (and beyond)
• 100+ volunteers support ECA annually -board members, ushers, administration, special event
support
• 100% Board commitment to ECA
• ECA Patrons frequent local restaurants before and after performances
• ECA Patrons visit local shops and galleries
• ECA is increasing the region’s awareness of Edmonds as an arts, entertainment and shopping
destination
• Approximately 50% of the audiences ECA attracts say they are attending the theatre for the first
time
• Annual Economic Impact of ECA: $2,895,600
o National economic impact study conducted by Americans for the Arts, the leading arts non-
profit organization estimates the economic impact of non-profit arts organizations
o Based on research findings from 156 communities and regions across America
o Arts & Economic Prosperity
o ECA creates jobs, generates tax revenues in Edmonds and Snohomish County
o Arts tourism contributes to tax revenues on a local, state, and national level
Mr. McIalwain explained the Snohomish County Public Facilities District was established in 2001 for the
purpose of creating and operating public convention and arts centers to build tourism:
• Four Projects: Comcast Arena, Lynnwood Convention Center, Future of Flight Museum,
Edmonds Center for the Arts
• Edmonds PFD is an independent public agency and is the owner and operator of Edmonds Center
for the Arts
• Edmonds PFD / ECA is affiliated with the City of Edmonds through an Interlocal Agreement
o City Council appoints PFD Board Members
o The City of Edmonds guarantees bonds issued in 2002 and in 2008 for the renovation and
operation of the Center
o The City does not currently provide annual financial support to the Center
Next, Mr. McIalwain described ECA operation:
• The ECA’s operating budget is balanced in 2010. This is due to:
o Increase in ticket sales
Ticket sales up 18% in 2009, steady in 2010
o Increase in rental revenues –
Up 15% in 2010
o Increase in contributed revenue
Increase of more than 32% in 2010
1/3 of annual operating revenue comes from contributions
o Decrease in annual operating costs
Down 13% since 2008
He also described ECA’s capital investments
• EPFD retains approximately $10 million in capital debt related to the original renovation project
in 2005-2006
• 2002 Bond Issue - $7 million
o To cover a portion of the cost of the 2005 renovation
Packet Page 10 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 8
o Bonds guaranteed by City of Edmonds
• Private Capital Campaign - $7 million
o Combination donations from individuals, corporations and foundations
• 2008 Bond Issue - $4 million
o To cover the balance of the renovation costs
o Bonded against a new revenue stream (“Tier 2”) from Snohomish County Public Facilities
District
o Bonds guaranteed by City of Edmonds
He reviewed the sales tax revenue streams the ECA receives:
• A) Direct Local-Level Sales Tax Rebate
o Covers a portion of the 2002 Bond Issue
• B) “Tier 1” County-Level Sales Tax Rebate
o Covers the remainder of the 2002 Bond Issue
• C) “Tier 2” County-Level Sales Tax Rebate
o Intended to cover 2008 Bond Issue
o Revenues projected to exceed $200,000 annually
o Economic crisis resulted in a 90% reduction in revenues; the ECA will receive $15,000 from
that source this year
o This unrealized funding source is the cause of the current shortfall
He provided a comparison of projected to actual Tier 2 County PFD revenues for years 2008-2026;
projected revenues totaled $4,882,540; actual revenues will total $529,782. He explained the ECA will
cover more than 80% of its capital bond payments in 2010 through a combination of dedicated sales tax
funding sources and private donations. He compared revenues from direct local sales taxes, Tier 1, Tier 2,
Snohomish County Lodging Tax, and private fundraising to capital bond payments in years 2010, 2011
and 2012. The projected shortfall in 2010 is estimated to be $97,160, $211,788 in 2011 and $210,943 in
2012.
Mr. McIalwain explained because County revenue projections have not been realized, additional funds
are required in 2010 to help cover a portion of EPFD’s bond payment. The projected 2010 requirement is
$100,000. A Contingent Loan Agreement exists between EPFD and the City that provides a mechanism
for the City to help the EPFD meet its debt payment via a loan. He requested the City Council consider a
providing that support as a grant to the EPFD rather than a loan. That would help the ECA meet the short
term challenge and mitigate long term challenges of adding to the ECA’s debt obligation.
Mr. McIalwain reviewed long term solutions:
• The Edmonds PFD Board and Staff are actively pursuing new revenue streams and improving
operating performance to help meet future bond debt obligations. Other potential revenue sources
include:
o Snohomish County Lodging Tax Funds
o Building Sponsorship
o Extension of PFD Legislation and potential refinance of bonds
o Economic Recovery
o Improved Operating Performance – Net revenues to capital
o Annual Support from the City of Edmonds
He requested the Council:
• In 2010, consider a one-time grant of approximately $100,000 (as opposed to a loan) to help
reduce ECA’s future debt burden and encourage its long-term success
Packet Page 11 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 9
• Support the ECA / EPFD Boards and Staff in their efforts to secure a portion of County Lodging
Tax Funds
• Consider the possibility of annual, on-going support for ECA, as it is an important asset and plays
a critical cultural role in Edmonds like the Senior Center, the Wade James Theatre, Yost Pool and
may others do
• Help maintain ECA as a leading performing arts venue in the Puget Sound region and an
economic driver in South Snohomish County
Mr. McIalwain noted when the PFD legislation sunsets, the ECA reverts to a City-owned facility.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the ECA did not receive Snohomish County Lodging Taxes today.
Mr. McIalwain responded the Chair of the Snohomish County Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
(LTAC), Snohomish County Councilmember Brian Sullivan and the Committee made a decision not to
allocate revenue until the County’s Strategic Tourism Plan was updated in order to use the Plan to inform
their decisions regarding allocation. A presentation on the Strategic Tourism Plan update will be provided
on October 28 and the Committee will consider it in their allocation decision. He was hopeful the LTAC
would move quickly in their decision to allocate funds based on the Plan. The ECA will compete in a
process to access that funding.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it was a funding stream that had not previously been allocated.
Mr. McIalwain responded the last allocation 4-5 years ago when a one time allocation was made to a
number of projects. The funds have been accumulating since that time.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged that the City guaranteed the ECA bonds. He anticipated he was
the only current Councilmember to have voted on the 2002 bond issue. He asked whether the Council
voted in 2008 to guarantee the bonds or if that was an extension of the 2002 bonds. Mr. McIalwain
answered it was a new bond issue that the Council voted to support.
With regard to a one-time grant or loan, Councilmember Plunkett observed the ECA’s future plans will
address future payments. If the ECA was able to implement its plans, he asked whether the ECA could
make the payments in the future. Mr. McIalwain agreed that was the goal, referring to long term solutions
such as lodging tax, building sponsorship, etc. He reiterated the Council’s political support may be
needed to realize those solutions. He summarized those revenue streams as well as economic recovery
and operations will minimize or eliminate the need for future support from the City.
Council President Bernheim suggested referring the request to the Council Finance Committee.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested the following documents/information: whether the 2002 bonds can
be refinanced, financial statement for the fiscal year end and historical, actual year-to-date and
projections. She commented the presentation appeared to indicate the City would be required to
contribute support every year from now until 2026.
Councilmember Wilson commended Mr. McIalwain on the work he does for the ECA. He commented the
City will stand by its obligation to the ECA and recognizes the value of the ECA. He asked whether the
facility was completely renovated. Mr. McIalwain answered a second phase of renovations was planned
for the classroom spaces and gymnasium (back-of-house) and a third phase for new construction.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was capital available via the bonds to complete the
renovations. Mr. McIalwain answered the funds raised were dedicated to the previous renovations; there
is no capital available for future renovation for the balance of the facility.
Packet Page 12 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson recalled the PFD intended to use some of the 2008 bond revenues to fund some
of the start-up costs. Mr. McIalwain answered that was considered as well as renovation of the center
classroom which has been completed. Councilmember Wilson recalled that the use of capital funds for
operation was a concern of his that he may not have voiced loudly enough at the time because he was a
new Councilmember. In hindsight capital funds should not have been used for operation. He asked how
the public could be assured that would not happen in the future. Mr. McIalwain responded in order to get
a business up and running, it has to be capitalized with start-up operating funds. When the PFD developed
a budget for the renovation and start-up costs, the capital project included funding a portion of operations.
He agreed as a result of the economic crisis, the PFD was forced to utilize additional funds from capital to
support operations. If the ECA can balance its operating budget in these economic times, he was
confident that the use capital for operation would be avoided to the best of their ability. He explained the
use of capital funds for operating was done via an interfund loan; as operations improve the interfund
loans will be repaid.
Observing that the building will revert back to the City in the future when the PFD legislation sunsets and
the possibility of the City contributing substantially to the debt service, Councilmember Wilson
questioned whether the City should simply take over the facility, keep the staff and change the
governance structure. Mr. McIalwain answered an arts organization is a very unique and specific model,
difficult to operate and very time consuming for board members and staff. Their expertise and
involvement on a daily basis with fundraising and oversight is crucial. There is a non-profit corporation
that works side-by-side with the PFD. There are also legal questions associated with whether the City
would take over the ECA before the PFD legislation sunsets. Councilmember Wilson commented in the
senior center model, the City owns the building and it is operated by a non-profit organization.
Councilmember Peterson advised his wife, Maria Montalvo, is a member of the PFD Board as well as the
ECA Board. Like other board members, she volunteers a great deal of time. He has championed the cause
of the ECA because of the benefits it provides the community and because he knows more about its
operation due to his wife’s and other friends’ involvement.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out the ECA is different than other PFD’s in Snohomish County in that
it is the only PFD that does not receive any financial support from its host city. The Lynnwood
Convention Center receives financial support from Lynnwood and Comcast Arena receives financial
support from Everett. Mr. McIalwain advised the Lynnwood Convention Center and Comcast Arena
receive significant amounts of local level lodging tax. The Future of Flight Museum receives an annual
direct subsidy from the Airport via the County. With regard to other non-profit arts organizations in the
Puget Sound region, the City of Kirkland owns the Kirkland Performance Center building and provides
maintenance and annual financial support. The same is true for the Admiral Theater in Bremerton, Mount
Baker Theater, and Broadway Center in Tacoma. The ECA does not receive annual financial support
from the City. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the City also does not provide maintenance of the
ECA; those functions are performed by ECA staff.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
David Clobes, Edmonds, explained that for the past 16 years he has displayed large political signs in
front of his house on Olympic View Drive. He defended his personal right to political speech on his own
property, remarking his signs do not interfere with the City. Although his signs may offend the Mayor,
that is not a reason to silence him. His observation of the City Council over the past 38 years is that it is a
club and he did not recognize it as the type of government that should be in charge of the City. He
suggested the Council consider merging with Lynnwood. He anticipated changes occurring in the State
over the next 18-24 months may make merging with Lynnwood a possibility. He referred to the
Packet Page 13 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 11
combining of fire stations in south Pierce County to save money, noting businesses often merge to save
money. He anticipated future State actions would reap economic woe on the City.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the Council’s interviews of applicants for the Budget Analyst position,
noting many of the interview questions and the answers from the candidates led him to believe the
Council did not need to hire an Analyst. He noted the 2011 budget is presented in the same format as has
been provided for many years and several Councilmembers have been through the budget process
previously. He anticipated answers could be provided to most Council questions by asking the Mayor. If
questions are related to perceived incomplete or not up-to-date financial data or changing the system, a
Budget Analyst was not the appropriate person to address that issue. He urged the Council to work
through the budget process themselves as the Council was elected to do.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, pointed out WSF’s original proposal was to compare two sites in Edmonds
as alternatives to Mukilteo; the existing site and Pt. Edwards and WSF added a third alternative at the last
minute. All three alternatives include a second slip which may be the answer to her question regarding the
$26 million expenditure in Edmonds in WSF’s long term plan. She recommended Edmonds adopt
policies with regard to ferry operation in Edmonds. The first policy should be that there shall be no
further traffic increase in Edmonds except that allowed by the one slip at the Main Street terminal. WSF
has indicated two ferries and even an additional ferry can operate from one slip at the Main Street
terminal until 2030. Another policy should address the on-grade crossing and coordinated scheduling of
ferries and railroad. Another policy should address waterfront parking to avoid development of the old
Safeway for ferry parking. She recommended the Council hold a public hearing regarding ferry system
operations in Edmonds.
Jack Bevan, Edmonds, expressed concern that the average citizen would have difficulty reviewing the
2011 preliminary budget. Due to the number of transfers in the budget, it becomes “voodoo economics.”
He did not support the Council hiring a Budget Analyst, anticipating by the time he/she got started
reviewing the budget, it would be time for the Council to pass the budget. He suggested the Council work
on developing a budget that the public can read and understand.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on the formation of the EPFD. While on the road for baseball during
that time, he collected information regarding grants and loans provided by cities for performing arts
facilities in Utah and Wyoming. Next, he commented on the Sunset Landing project extension that
expires October 28. He also reminded of the Log Cabin fund raising event on October 30.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation to Mr. Clifton and Mayor Cooper for their
response to WSF regarding the scoping of Mukilteo ferry terminal alternatives. The proposed move
exposes the threat the WSF has been to Edmonds. He recalled when he was on the Council, WSF agreed
to require that alternate sites would be studied if WSF ever wanted to expand a terminal. WSF’s plan at
that time was to widen the existing Main Street dock to add a second slip. The City Council at that time
passed the 4 No’s. He urged the Council to revive the 4 No’s and present them to WSF. Next, Mr.
Hertrich objected to the 20% utility tax on his water bill, noting that increase would dissuade him from
supporting the TBD vehicle license fee or a levy.
7. BUDGET DISCUSSION
Council President Bernheim anticipated another public hearing on the budget would be scheduled
immediately preceding the Council’s adoption of the budget to allow the public to comment on any
amendments that Councilmembers propose. The objective of tonight’s agenda item is for
Councilmembers to ask questions of Directors. He suggested each Councilmember limit their questions to
20 minutes. Budget amendments will be due in November. He envisioned any expenditures that were not
Packet Page 14 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 12
in the budget or added as amendments would not be expended during 2011. Ideally all expenditures
would be incorporated into the budget rather than requesting allocations during the year. He agreed with
Mr. Bevan that the budget is often difficult to decipher. He reviewed the following schedule with regard
to the budget:
• November 9: The Finance Committee will address any remaining unanswered questions
• November 16: Discussion of possible budget amendments
• November 23: Councilmembers provide final written amendments
• December 7: Public hearing, vote on amendments and adoption of the budget
Councilmember Plunkett advised he had several amendments that he would present on November 23.
Councilmember Wilson suggested if Proposition 1 (Annual Additional $40 Vehicle License Renewal)
failed, staff would need to change the allocations for 2011. Council President Bernheim agreed.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the location of the B Fund, the fund used to accumulate funds to
replace motor stock. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines answered the Equipment Rental Fund is on page
169 of the budget. Councilmember Wilson suggested the fund be referred to by a consistent name.
Councilmember Wilson commented the budget was for the most part spot-on with the available funding
and maintaining operations. He was interested in restoring cuts made in the past. He requested Police
Chief Compaan develop a summary of the cuts that have been made in the Police Department since 2003
such as Crime Prevention and reduction in staff. When the number of uniformed officers per 1000
citizens is compared to other cities, Edmonds is well below average and well below the ratio for
surrounding cities. He asked what would be required such as how many more uniformed officers would
be needed to be hired to bring Edmonds to an average level of service.
Councilmember Wilson asked about the $120,000 expenditure for Yost Park and Pool. Parks &
Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded the pool needs to be replastered approximately every 10
years; it has been 11 years since it was replastered. Some underwater areas of the pool had to be coned off
this summer when large chucks of plaster came off.
Councilmember Wilson suggested staff develop a schedule to begin self-funding health benefits in 2013
or 2014 and determine the amount that would need to be set aside per month or quarter for that purpose.
With regard to Councilmember Wilson’s earlier comment regarding the Equipment Rental Fund, Mr.
Hines explained the Equipment Rental fund is divided into the A Fund and B Fund; the A Fund is
primarily for administrative purposes, the B Fund is for the actual dollars used to replace City equipment
and vehicles. A summary is provided on page 169; details regarding the A Fund are on page 170 and
details of the B Fund are on page 171. He recognized the labeling issue and offered to differentiate
between the two funds.
Councilmember Wilson commented during the last budget cycle, he participated on the Budget Review
Committee with then-Councilmember Wambolt and felt he had a strong understanding of the budget.
When then-Mayor Haakenson said Yost Pool needed to be closed because there were insufficient funds
available, he agreed. Shortly thereafter he learned of the B Fund which he was not previously aware of.
He would not have agreed to continue funding the Equipment Rental Fund and close Yost Pool. He
summarized that because of labeling he made a policy choice that he would otherwise not have made. Mr.
Hines suggested labeling the funds as Equipment Rental A and B. He also offered to make the narrative
more descriptive regarding the two separate sub-funds.
Packet Page 15 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 13
Councilmember Petso explained although this was an opportunity to ask questions of staff, she planned to
propose some policy questions to allow the public to comment on whether they should be pursued and to
avoid any hint of an illegal meeting by raising the ideas now. She expressed interest in restoring the
money taken from the Parks Trust Fund for Yost Pool and the Flower Program as well as changing the
language of the fund if necessary to effectuate the original intent in establishing that fund – that the
contributions to the fund would be preserved and only spend the interest earnings that the contributions
generated. She envisioned the City could again generate contributions to Yost Pool, the Flower Program
and Beach Ranger Program if the fund were restored in that manner.
Councilmember Petso did not support the use of Fire District 1 (FD1) proceeds to pay for fire hydrant
maintenance, preferring that that ongoing expenditure be covered by the water utility taxes. She was also
hesitant to use one-time revenue such as proceeds from the FD1 sale for an ongoing expenditure such as
hydrant maintenance.
Councilmember Petso expressed interest in paying off bonds on City Hall. The income in the REET Fund
is currently less than its obligations and will soon require a General Fund subsidy. If the City Hall bonds
were paid off, the fund could be stabilized and there would be no need for a future General Fund subsidy.
Councilmember Petso recalled during his budget presentation, Chief Compaan mentioned there was a
significant subsidy in the police protection provided for the Town of Woodway. She asked whether he
had developed a more appropriate amount to charge Woodway for those services. Chief Compaan
answered the Council directed him to follow-up with the Mayor which he did. He explained it is a policy
decision for the Council. The City does receive remuneration on a per call basis for first responder
activities. Edmonds does not routinely conduct extended investigations; that is handled by Woodway
police officers. He recalled preparing a proposal for Woodway in the past for 24/7 police response; to date
Woodway has not been interested in that offer. The Edmonds Police Department provides a 24/7
insurance policy for Woodway; the value of that to Woodway is difficult to articulate. Mayor Cooper
responded a meeting is being scheduled with Woodway Mayor Nichols and that is one of the subjects he
plans to address.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the City received less than $10,000/year for providing emergency
response to Woodway. Chief Compaan estimated it was approximately $1000/month. Councilmember
Petso commented if the City simply let the contract run out at the end of the year, it would not have a
significant impact on Edmonds. Chief Compaan referred to the situation in southern United States where
a building was allowed to burn because the property owner did not pay their fire assessment, pointing out
the Edmonds Police Department obviously would respond to Woodway or other locations in an
emergency situation. If the contract expired, there would be questions regarding routine responses. The
most common response into Woodway is alarms; most alarms are false but not all.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented Edmonds has a pay for service contract with Woodway as well as
an Interlocal Agreement for emergency response that includes most south County cities. Chief Compaan
clarified that would be Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act rather than an Interlocal Agreement for
emergency services with surrounding cities. For example, Edmonds routinely assists Mountlake Terrace,
Lynnwood, and Shoreline under the Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Edmonds paid 100% of the cost to provide emergency
response to Woodway. She asked the percentage that Woodway reimbursed. Chief Compaan answered it
would depend on how that was calculated. Woodway pays Edmonds approximately $10,000/year.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the cost for the Police Department to respond to Woodway. Chief
Compaan answered staff recently considered the amount of time that responding to Woodway takes
versus the remuneration the City receives. The amount Edmonds charges on a per 15-minute basis is
Packet Page 16 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 14
approximately equivalent to hard costs. The most important consideration is Edmonds provides the entire
infrastructure for law enforcement services to Edmonds and acts as an insurance policy for Woodway. It
is difficult to calculate exactly how much that insurance policy is worth.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there would be any problems for Edmonds if the contract were
allowed to expire and the Shoreline Police Department began providing emergency response. Chief
Compaan answered no. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the City needed to at least charge
what it cost the City to provide the service. She noted Woodway residents pay among the highest property
taxes in the State due to the size and value of the homes. She felt it was fair for Woodway to pay their fair
share.
Councilmember Petso suggested the City either allow the contract to terminate or charge a different
amount. She requested Chief Compaan provide an amount that is greater than the current $7500/year and
that reflected a more equitable charge for the service, particularly the insurance policy Edmonds provides
Woodway. Chief Compaan reiterated it was a policy decision for the Council. The question is to what
extent is the City and City Council interested in cost recovery and charging for that insurance policy. It
was difficult for him to develop hard numbers without further direction. He suggested this be discussed
again after Mayor Cooper has had an opportunity to meet with Woodway Mayor Nichols.
Councilmember Petso offered to discuss this issue further with Chief Compaan tomorrow.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the increase in the Prosecutor’s costs. Chief Compaan answered the
two principles in the Prosecutor’s firm plan to attend the November 9 Finance Committee meeting. He
recommended they address Councilmember Petso’s questions directly.
Councilmember Petso recalled a recent comment that Mr. Hines was looking into savings via refinancing
bonds. She asked which bonds could be refinanced. Mr. Hines advised he did not have the list of bond
issuances with him but could send her the list. He recalled there were three bond issues and much of the
savings would occur in the REET Fund.
Councilmember Petso asked the dollar amount to pay off the City Hall bonds. Mr. Hines offered to
provide Councilmember Petso that information.
Councilmember Petso referred to the comments made by Mr. McIalwain during his presentation that
other cities use their lodging tax to support their PFD. She requested an explanation of the expenditures
from that account listed on page 51 of the budget. Although she served on the LTAC in the past, she did
not recall what professional services, miscellaneous and interfund transfers are. She also questioned the
line item for Interfund Transfer In. Mr. Hines summarized her request for a dollar amount to pay off the
City Hall bonds, details based on his conversations with bond counsel, and a breakdown of professional
services, advertising and interfund transfer amounts on page 51.
Councilmember Wilson commented the City spends approximately $9 million on all police services and
there are approximately 20,000 households in Edmonds or $450 per household. If there are 600 homes in
Woodway; at $450 per home, the annual cost would be $270,000. Edmonds does not provide all those
police services to Woodway so it could be estimated that half that amount was for services Woodway
uses or $135,000 annually. He suggested this would be a good starting point for discussions with
Woodway.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Councilmembers research other cities’ websites. She found the
budgets on Mountlake Terrace, Redmond, Bainbridge Island, Renton and Issaquah’s websites very citizen
friendly. She referred to Exhibit 1 and asked whether the Council would be provided actual numbers for
2009 as well as the budget before it was amended and when would that be provided. Mr. Hines answered
Packet Page 17 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 15
the current forecast document produced last week included 2009 and 2010 actuals. He offered to work
with the Council on any formatting they desired in the final budget. Councilmember Buckshnis requested
summary information using actual numbers for Exhibits 1 and 2 be provided as soon as possible. Mr.
Hines explained the 2009 columns were not included in the budget because he was concerned there would
be confusion when comparing 2009 with 2010 because the City had a Fire Department and 52-54
additional employees in 2009. For comparability, he felt 2010 was a better starting point. He was happy
to add 2009.
Councilmember Buckshnis noted Mr. Hines provided her Exhibit 4A but the beginning cash was not
included on her copy. She also requested Exhibit 4A be provided in a larger format and in landscape
layout. Mr. Hines advised the beginning cash balance for 2010 actuals would be the same as beginning
cash balance in the yearend estimate for 2010, $2.167 million. He did not include the cash balance
because he typically did not include the ending working capital figure until a CAFR is available to back it
up. The beginning working capital figure of $2.167 million has a CAFR to back it up. Councilmember
Buckshnis suggested he simply identify it as unaudited. She noted other cities websites include actuals
through June, July and August. She requested actuals for the Citizens Levy Committee (CLC) to review,
noting the CLC has been asking for that information since July. Mr. Hines explained the 2009 actuals in
Exhibit 4A are yearend actuals, the 2010 actuals are actuals as of July 31 per Councilmember Buckshnis ’
request.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed last year’s Exhibit 5 had a General Fund Revenue Summary that
broke out all the revenues including bond proceeds and transfers in and out. She requested that summary
be provided. Mr. Hines commented a number of exhibits included in last year’s budget were not included
in the 2011 budget, primarily because some of the exhibits from prior years that he has presented under
different circumstances were not meeting the Council’s needs. He suggested the Council review the
exhibits in the 2009-2010 and 2007-2008 budgets and inform him what exhibits they want included in the
2011 budget. He suggested the Council vote on the exhibits they want to see rather than individual
members requesting certain exhibits. He clarified during the past year he has presented documents, budget
amendments, General Fund updates, quarterly reports, etc. which he was told were not meeting the
Council’s needs due to their format. In order to avoid that problem with the exhibits, he decided to
include only the crucial exhibits and allow the Council to indicate what they wanted for the 2011 budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed it is helpful to citizens to see trend analysis and assumptions. She
noted last year’s budget also included summaries for each cost center; she requested staff provide those
for 2011. She referred to page 43 of the budget, non-departmental, inquiring why the budget for elections
was increased to $85,000. Mr. Hines answered when the budget was prepared it was anticipated a levy
would be placed on the ballot during 2011. Councilmember Buckshnis commented projections were
needed in order to make a determination whether a levy would be placed on the ballot in 2011. Mr. Hines
asked what information was not provided in Exhibit 4A; it contains 2009 actuals, actuals through July 31,
2010, and trend percentages for revenues and expenses. Councilmember Buckshnis requested the actual
beginning cash balance for 2010 as of July 31, 2010. She commented it appears using this analysis that a
levy may not be needed until 2014.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the list of transfers on page 43, noting if the TBD ballot measure
does not pass, there is no funding included for the Street Fund from the General Fund; funding in the past
has been approximately $700,000. Mr. Hines answered the funding mechanism was changed so that TBD
money no longer flows through the General Fund. It goes straight from Fund 631 into Fund 111.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out if the TBD ballot measure does not pass, the amount will only be
$580,000 rather than $700,000. She asked whether an additional $120,000 should be included from the
General Fund. Mr. Hines suggested waiting until the next forecast.
Packet Page 18 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 16
Mayor Cooper commented if it was not the intent of the Council to place a levy on the ballot in 2011, the
$85,000 could be amended to a lower amount. Councilmember Buckshnis answered that determination
has not yet been made; the CLC continues to march forward. Mayor Cooper advised the budget reflects
the amount collected by the TBD vehicle license fee, the Council could amend the budget by adding
additional funds.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the 1996/2003 Public Safety Bond Principal increased from
$670,000 in 2010 to $715,000 in 2011. Mr. Hines explained it increased from $640,000 in 2009 to
$670,000 in 2010, to $715,000 in 2011; it may be an escalation in the payment. He offered to research
this.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the different between the two Professional Services, one for $110,037
and another for $55,000. Mr. Hines explained the $110,037 includes the contract amount for the Senior
Center and other miscellaneous amounts. The other Professional Services line, 2010 estimate of $53,000
and 2010 estimate of $55,000 are ambulance billings from FD1. He offered to revise the labeling to make
it clearer.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked for further clarity on the information she provided today regarding the
Parks & Recreation Flower Fund. She asked why Admin Services budget was separated when it was
collapsed two years prior. Mr. Hines explained the Admin Services budget was collapsed into the Finance
budget when the Information Services (IS) and fiber functions were moved to the Mayor’s office. When
he took this position, Mayor Haakenson moved the IS and fiber back to his control. At that point he
realized the salaries for his Executive Assistant and he needed to be separated from IS, Finance and fiber
optics. The increase in Admin coincides with a decrease in Finance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked
whether another FTE was added. Mr. Hines answered no; one of the positions was converted to an
Executive Assistant. Mr. Hines summarized Councilmember Buckshnis’ requests: the 1996/2003 bond
information, Exhibit 4A – include a beginning balance for the actuals for 2010, actual numbers for
Exhibits 1 and 2 and the original 2010 budget and the amended 2010 budget
Councilmember Peterson referred to the description of the Emergency Financial Reserve Fund on page
44, noting the Council changed the language in October 2009.
Councilmember Peterson asked if definitions could be included in the budget such as interfund transfers.
Mr. Hines suggested including a schedule of interfund transfers that shows the transfers in and out of all
funds. He explained interfund transfers are transfers between funds. For example there are transfers
between REET and Fund 132, a project construction fund. Another example is the proposed transfer of
$256,000 from the Public Safety Reserve to cover the fire hydrant liability. Councilmember Peterson
suggested creating a glossary of accounting terms. Mr. Hines agreed.
Council President Bernheim asked for the following information:
• When did the last tax increase occur in Edmonds? Provide a record of property increases over the
past five years.
• What is the current property tax rate?
• What percentage of a citizens’ total property tax that is collected by the City of Edmonds?
• How much does the City earn annually from real estate property taxes?
• What was the amount of utility increases last year?
• How much incremental revenue do those utility increases generate for the City?
Council President Bernheim reiterated the point about 2009 actuals, noting all the departmental tables in
the budget book contain 2009 actuals, but 2009 actuals are not included on Exhibits 1, 2 and 4. He
Packet Page 19 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 17
requested 2009 actuals in Exhibit 1 and 2 similar to Exhibit 3. With regard to potential confusion based
on the sale of the Fire Department in 2009 that skew the numbers, the 2009 actuals on Exhibit 3 are
controlled by the Fire Department sale. The Fire Department is not included in the 2009 actuals so the
problem of presenting 2009 actuals because they include the Fire Department has already been solved
because the 2009 actuals on Exhibit 3 do not include actuals for the Fire Department. He suggested using
the data on Exhibit 3 in Exhibits 1, 2 and 4, the only places where 2009 actuals do not appear.
Mr. Hines clarified he will add the 2009 actual column without the Fire Department amounts and include
a footnote stating the number does not include the Fire Department. He noted this would also impact
revenue because the revenues associated with the Fire Department would also need to be removed.
Council President Bernheim explained his intent was to get this year’s chaotic budget in context with next
year’s orderly budget and to do that he needed to be able to compare past performance. Mr. Hines
recommended showing 2009 without the Fire Department because it would allow an apples-to-apples
comparison.
Councilmember Wilson commented that was appropriate as long as all the Fire Department numbers were
removed. Anywhere there is uncertainty whether the Fire Department is completely removed should be
footnoted and non-departmental funds such as SNOCOM that may have been counted as Fire Department
costs should also be highlighted. He summarized it was nearly impossible to have a purely apples-to-
apples comparison.
Council President Bernheim referred to the Firemen’s Pension Fund on page 27 and questioned the salary
position in 2009 that is removed in 2010 and 2011. Mr. Hines answered he needed to research that but
assumed the amount shown in salaries in 2009 should be in pension payments.
Council President Bernheim requested a third Professional Services item on page 43 be relabeled. He
inquired about the alcoholism intergovernmental services line on page 43. Mr. Hines answered he would
need to research but his limited research today discovered payments have been made from the General
Fund to Snohomish County Human Services using liquor profits. He surmised the City paid a certain
amount of liquor profits to Snohomish County Human Services to support an alcoholism program.
Council President Bernheim referred to Police Administration cost center on page 61 which indicates a
21.4 reduction in salaries but salaries are actually increasing each year from $575,000 in 2009 to
$584,000 in 2010 and $594,000 in 2011. The percentage change that compares 2010 budget to 2011
budget shows a 21.4% decrease, yet a comparison of 2009 actuals to 2010 estimate shows a significant
increase. Chief Compaan explained the 2010 budget contemplated restructuring the command structure of
the department and an FTE was moved into the administrative salary line. That restructure did not occur
and may be one of the budget adjustments. That FTE was paid out of the patrol cost center.
Council President Bernheim referred to the prisoner care cost center on page 87 that increased from
$586,000 in 2009 to $605,000 in 2010 and was projected to be $660,000 in 2011. One of the reasons this
number has been high in the past is due to arrests and incarceration for Driving with License Suspended
and possession of marijuana, a non-violent criminal offense. He questioned the increase from $605,000 in
2010 to $660,000 in 2011. The narrative indicates there are no increases to the booking and daily fee
charged by either the City of Lynnwood or Snohomish County Jail for 2011. Chief Compaan answered he
would need to research that. There had been significant increases due to Snohomish County passing on
costs for prisoners’ prescription drugs and certain medical care.
Council President Bernheim expressed his preference for the police in Edmonds to be given the discretion
not to take a person found smoking marijuana or driving on a suspended license to jail.
Packet Page 20 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 18
Council President Bernheim asked where the revenue from the Woodway police contract was reflected in
the budget. Mr. Hines answered it was included in intergovernmental revenue.
Council President Bernheim inquired where in the budget the cost of gasoline was reflected. Public
Works Director Phil Williams answered it is in the A portion of Fund 511. Fuel was budgeted to be
$499,000 in 2010 and $300,000 in 2011. Council President Bernheim asked where the City’s fuel
expenditures were in the budget. Mr. Williams answered it was in Supplies Purchased for Resale on page
169.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained one of the reasons the Council asked so many questions was
this was not their field of expertise. With regard to prisoner costs, she asked if the City was able to recoup
any of those costs. Chief Compaan there are opportunities for the court to assess certain payments;
however, prisoners are indigent. Generally the costs were not recouped and it is part of the cost of
maintaining public safety.
Councilmember Petso referred to the Decision Package Requests on page 8, and asked for confirmation
that these items were not already included in the budget. Mr. Hines assured they were not yet included in
the budget and were awaiting Council decision. He planned to prepare a schedule that identified decision
package expenditures by fund.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged the importance of the Council reviewing the budget in detail. He
recommended the Council also step back from the detail and ask themselves the broader question about
how to collect more revenue or eliminate more services so that Edmonds can be the type of community
citizens want it to be. That was the reason for his question to Chief Compaan regarding how the City
could reach an average level of service in the Police Department; Edmonds is a number of uniformed
officers away from the median.
Councilmember Wilson explained he voted against placing the TBD vehicle license fee on the ballot
because he felt those services should be paid out of the General Fund. The list of projects in the
community is long, such as purchasing the Civic Playfields, but the Council is not planning for any of
those via the proposed budget. The proposed budget uses the revenue the City receives to fund existing
services. The proposed budget does not address cuts that have been made over the past decade. He
referred to Exhibit 4 on page 6, Current Forecast, that indicates the City slips into a negative reserve
balance in 2014. According to Exhibit 4, the City will be in deficit spending in 2012 – the City will spend
more than it collects in revenue. The 2011 budget does not include the $100,000 to cover the ECA bond
payment and the presentation indicates the City likely will be paying $100,000 every year for the next
several years. He doubted there would be sufficient economic turnaround to change that situation.
Councilmember Wilson explained if the liquor initiatives on the November ballot pass, it will have major
impact on City revenues, upwards of $500,000/year. With $100,000 for the ECA in 2010, 2011 and 2012
and the $500,000/year loss beginning in 2011 if the liquor initiatives pass, that is a cumulative $1.3
million that disappears from the City’s budget, placing the City into deficit spending next year. By the
end of 2012, the City’s reserves will be well below an acceptable level. If the Council waits until 2012 to
place a levy on the ballot, by the time the funds from the levy are collected in 2013, the City will have
paid another $100,000 for the ECA debt as well as lost another $500,000 in liquor profits and excise
taxes, increasing the loss to $1.9 million. The result is a negative reserve balance of $600,000 in 2013. He
summarized the Council could not afford to wait until 2012 to put a levy on the ballot.
Councilmember Buckshnis assured the Citizen Levy Committee is marching forward and moving toward
financial clarity. She referred to information from Mountlake Terrace that outlines every revenue stream.
The Committee is also considering other revenue sources.
Packet Page 21 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 19
Councilmember Wilson commented Councilmember Buckshnis’ response highlighted their fundamental
difference of opinion. Although the CLC is doing good work and should continue its work but it was
nowhere near having a levy proposal ready. It is not the CLC’s responsibility to develop a levy; it is the
Council’s responsibility. In the 4-5 months the CLC has been working, many of the questions
Councilmember Buckshnis has asked have not been answered to her satisfaction. He feared her questions
may not be answered to her satisfaction in the next 4-5 months. Regardless of what the CLC proposes, it
is the Council’s responsibility to lead the community.
Councilmember Wilson summarized although the 2011 budget is a good budget, it does not answer the
most important question. If the Council does not address that, it will be hard for him to support the
budget. He recalled in the 2009-2010 budget the Council added a budget note that committed the Council
to a process. He hoped at a minimum that could be done this year.
Councilmember Peterson referred to the Decision Package Request, explaining the Stormwater
Maintenance Worker and Engineer Technician are paid for. Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Hines and he are
developing a chart that describes the funding source for each decision package. The largest decision
package proposed to be funded from the General Fund is the Strategic Plan. The $83,000 for the GIS
Analysis is funded from the Combined Utility via the stormwater fee increases, the Stormwater
Maintenance Worker is paid from the Combined Utility and the Stormwater Engineer is funded from
Combined Utility- Construction. He offered to email Councilmembers the chart tomorrow morning.
Councilmember Peterson suggested where there are large percentage increases or decreases, staff provide
a footnote to explain the reason. He suggested the Mayor establish a percentage threshold for including a
footnote.
Mayor Cooper advised Directors would answer the questions the Council asked tonight along with the
questions that Councilmembers provided over the last few days. He explained the position proposed for
the City Clerk’s Office is included in the budget. It was a vacant position that is proposed to be filled in
the 2011 budget to handle public records requests. Because the FTE positions on the decision packages
are new positions, they were not included in the budget. Staff will also provide Councilmembers actuals
for the Prosecuting Attorney since 2005 and describe any built-in escalators in the contract that cause it to
increase each year.
Mayor Cooper indicated he has also asked Mr. Hines to prepare projections that, 1) assume the Council
chooses not to use the one-time money, and 2) the Council chooses to make the contribution to Fund 511-
B. If the Council chose to either not use one time money or to make the contribution to Fund 511-B, the
City‘s finances are not in trouble until 2013 with a decision regarding a levy needed in early 2012. If the
liquor initiatives pass, everything changes. If the Council chooses to make the contribution to 511-B and
not use one-time money, the City’s finances are in trouble at the end of 2011. In that scenario the reserves
drops to $2 million in 2012 and $800,000 in 2013.
Mayor Cooper clarified he supported the proposed decision packages; they were not included in the
budget to allow the Council to deliberate each one on their own merits. He offered to confirm whether
any or part of the Health Insurance Brokerage Fee listed in the decision packages will be necessary. Staff
is also developing a spreadsheet to illustrate the City can afford not to make the contribution to Fund 511-
B.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 22 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 20
Council President Bernheim advised the Council’s questions would be answered in two weeks and any
remaining questions will be asked. The following week each Councilmember will be provided an
opportunity to reflect on the budget. Written amendments will be presented at the November 23 meeting.
A public hearing will be held on December 7 followed by amendments and a vote on the budget.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 10:07 p.m.)
8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CITY COUNCIL BUDGET ANALYST.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council interviewed three highly qualified applicants. He did not
feel any of the three applicants were an appropriate fit for the current challenge. After watching the
interviews and reading the applicants’ responses to the RFQ, not spending the money to hire a Budget
Analyst was preferable to hiring one of the applicants.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Wilson. Questions she has had since April have
not been answered; she questioned how a Budget Analyst would be able to get answers for the Council.
Her goal is financial clarity; the reason the CLC is moving slowly is the lack of financial clarity.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he was interested in hiring a Budget Analyst but two of the four
applicants are no longer interested.
Councilmember Wilson anticipated the Council may need to hire a Budget Analyst to get four votes to
approve the budget. If there were three members of the Council who did not envision they could approve
the budget without a Budget Analyst, he would be willing to spend the money to ensure the budget is
passed. The Budget Analyst will not be of assistance in addressing his fundamental concerns with the
budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if she was unable to get answers to questions she has asked since
April, how will a Budget Analyst get the answers? She is still seeking financial clarity with regard to
revenues and expenses and actuals. If a Budget Analyst could provide that information, she would support
hiring one.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT HARRY GATJENS BE HIRED AS THE BUDGET ANALYST FOR THE EDMONDS CITY
COUNCIL.
Councilmember Peterson explained some of the applicants’ responses deterred him from hiring a Budget
Analyst. There is not a clear scope of work and the Council has not given enough direction to get the
work done in the short period of time available. With regard to Mr. Gatjens, he was uncomfortable with
someone who has been intimately involved with the Edmonds budget process. Although he valued Mr.
Gatjens’ knowledge, his work on the City Levy Committee and his efforts to communicate with the
community, he preferred a fresh set of eyes. He did not support hiring a Budget Analyst.
Councilmember Petso commented she has previously supported hiring a Budget Analyst and likely would
support it tonight because she wanted to support Councilmembers who felt a Budget Analyst was
necessary to reach a decision on the budget.
Council President Bernheim explained he objected to hiring a Budget Analyst when it was first proposed
and he continued to object. He preferred to work within the system and not proliferate staff even on a
special projects basis. He was confident the objective, getting a workable realistic budget passed, could be
Packet Page 23 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 21
accomplished based on the data available, regardless of whether answers to all questions are provided. He
agreed with Councilmember Peterson’s comments regarding Mr. Gatjens; he did not want to hire
someone involved in the CLC. If he supported hiring a Budget Analyst, he wanted someone with a more
objective point of view.
Councilmember Wilson echoed Councilmember Peterson and Council President Bernheim’s concerns,
acknowledging Mr. Gatjens’ value as a citizen volunteer. However he has openly expressed interest in
being a Councilmember and running for a Council position next year. He did not support hiring Mr.
Gatjens nor would he support hiring the former Brier Councilmember who he envisioned would be more
of a Councilmember than a staff person. He was open to considering Ash Consulting; the principal would
be great but the other person would be doing the work and she did not answer any of the interview
questions. He reiterated he would support hiring a Budget Analyst unless three Councilmember stated
they could not approve the budget without an Analyst. He recalled Councilmember Plunkett has said that
was the case for him.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified Councilmember Wilson was assuming he could not reach a budget
decision without the Budget Analyst, he had not stated that. He had more confidence in a Budget Analyst
for a number of reasons, many of which he would only share in executive session. Mayor Cooper has
begun to introduce additional scenarios which will raise additional questions. History would not indicate
that starting over with the Finance Department with new questions would be productive. He was not
incapable of reaching a decision on the budget without a Budget Analyst. He would support hiring Mr.
Morgan (the former Brier Councilmember) but not Ash Consulting.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED 3-3, COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this decision was preparatory to an appropriation in a contract and he
recommended Mayor Cooper allow the Council to resolve the matter. Mayor Cooper chose not to break
the tie and to allow the Council to resolve the issue when all seven members are present.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff for their presentations at the SeaShore Transportation
Forum; Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided a presentation on transportation projects
including the interurban trail and medians on 76th and 212. Mr. Clifton and Mr. Williams provided a
presentation on the TBD.
Councilmember Petso reported she attended two Port Commission meetings this month. The Port is also
working on their budget as well as reviewing third quarter financials. The Port Commission will hold one
more public hearing on the budget; information regarding the budget is available on the Port’s website.
Councilmember Wilson reported he served as a judge for the SNOCOM Chili Cook-Off last week. The
SNOCOM Board adopted its final 2011 budget and is moving toward reinstating Fire District 1 to the
Board.
Councilmember Wilson reported membership on the Lake Ballinger Forum now includes Edmonds,
Mountlake Terrace, and Lake Forest Park and likely Snohomish County.
Packet Page 24 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 22
Councilmember Peterson reported on the Disability Board which administers LEOFF 1 pensions. The
City spends approximately $350,000 annually honoring the pensions of police and fire employees hired
prior to 1977.
Councilmember Peterson reported the Edmonds Public Facilities District has been discussing the issues
covered in the presentation provided by Mr. McIalwain.
Council President Bernheim stated he serves as the alternate, non-voting member of the Community
Transit Board. He reported he planned to attend the annual Community Transit Board retreat tomorrow.
Community Transit will announce at the retreat massive cuts made to operators, routes and executives.
Councilmember Wilson relayed Councilmember Petso’s inquiry whether it would be appropriate for an
additional Council to serve as a liaison to the PFD. Councilmember Peterson advised the meetings were
open to the public and another Councilmember was welcome to attend. Councilmember Petso requested
Council President Bernheim add the PFD to her list of committees.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported the application period for the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Arts Director
position closed and staff is in the process of screening applicants. He anticipated the three finalists would
be presented to the Council in December.
With regard to Mr. Clobes’ comments about being silenced by the City, Mayor Cooper explained he was
informed after the fact by Code Enforcement that they had received complaints about the large banners
and had initiated code enforcement on the signs because they exceeded the maximum square footage the
sign code allows. His position as Mayor has been to not interfere with code enforcement action. Although
he disagreed with Mr. Clobes’ signs, it was his free speech and had the signs been smaller, they could still
be displayed. The code enforcement action has nothing to do with his political position.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Peterson reported the Friends of the Library book sale this weekend was very successful.
He called Animal Control today after seeing a sick raccoon while driving on Olympic View Drive.
Animal control informed him there have been a number of sick raccoons in the area and anyone observing
a sick raccoon should call 911.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained Hutt Park has been a non-dog park in the past. The signage is an
effort to encourage the City Council to allow on-leash dogs in Hutt Park. She has also called 911 after
seeing raccoons in the daylight.
Councilmember Petso congratulated the Edmonds-Woodway High School boy’s tennis team who
participated in the district tournament in Stanwood. Two doubles teams advanced to a semi final where
they played each other. One of the teams will now go on to state. The singles player beat the north
district’s #1 player to advance through the winner’s bracket.
Council President Bernheim clarified he did not suggest the bond refinance; it was suggested by Mayor
Cooper in the preliminary budget. He thanked Mr. Hines and Mayor Cooper for developing the
preliminary budget. He thanked the Council for their cooperation in the budget process.
Packet Page 25 of 251
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 26, 2010
Page 23
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
Packet Page 26 of 251
AM-3491 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #121988 through #122135 dated October 28, 2010 for $203,707.12.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:203,707.12
Fiscal Impact:
Claim Checks $203,707.12
Attachments
claim checks 10-28-10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 10/28/2010 11:54 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 11:56 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 01:45 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/28/2010 10:17 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2010
Packet Page 27 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121988 10/28/2010 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND NOV 2010 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 11/10 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 11/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66
Total :2,032.66
121989 10/28/2010 069157 AIONA, CYNDI AIONA13172 HULA CLASSES
ADULT HULA #13172
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 500.50
KIDS HULA #13170
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 224.00
Total :724.50
121990 10/28/2010 065568 ALLWATER INC 102110040 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 34.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 3.31
Total :38.11
121991 10/28/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 11847 BEACH PLAQUE
BEACH PLAQUE FOR MANOLIDES
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 168.40
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 16.39
Total :188.94
121992 10/28/2010 073467 ANDERSON, BRIAN E2DB.TempConst5 E2DB.TEMP CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.ANDERSON
E2DB.Temp Construction Easement.Anderson
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
121993 10/28/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5184015 21580001
UNIFORMS
1Page:
Packet Page 28 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121993 10/28/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 87.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.34
Total :96.14
121994 10/28/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5184010 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.96
Total :34.10
121995 10/28/2010 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH ARNOLD13139 MAKING BUTTON RINGS
MAKING BUTTON RINGS #13139
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 159.60
Total :159.60
121996 10/28/2010 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 113069 MOTOR
MOTOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 516.00
Total :516.00
121997 10/28/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0120710-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 1,665.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 158.21
Total :1,823.51
121998 10/28/2010 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.87
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.10
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.10
2Page:
Packet Page 29 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121998 10/28/2010 (Continued)064343 AT&T
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.10
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.10
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.08
Total :37.35
121999 10/28/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 1162 INTERPERTER FEE
INTERPERTER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE1163
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.00
Total :200.00
122000 10/28/2010 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG13038 TAI CHI
TAI CHI #13038
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 197.40
Total :197.40
122001 10/28/2010 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0003459 E8GA.SERVICES THRU 8/21/10-9/24/10
E8GA.Services thru 8/21/10-9/24/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 3,572.27
Total :3,572.27
122002 10/28/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 839504 INV#839504 - EDMONDS PD - BOWER
ACADIA MEN'S BOOTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 207.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.76
Total :227.71
122003 10/28/2010 070009 BOLA ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 5 Museum - Exterior - Architect Services
Museum - Exterior - Architect Services
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 5,143.27
3Page:
Packet Page 30 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :5,143.2712200310/28/2010 070009 070009 BOLA ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING
122004 10/28/2010 073465 BRENNAN HEATING BLD20100774 Online permit - outside City limits.
Online permit - outside City limits.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
122005 10/28/2010 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14133831 136859
C311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 2,892.00
Total :2,892.00
122006 10/28/2010 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN13106 BACKYARD BIRDS
BACKYARD BIRDS #13106
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 88.20
Total :88.20
122007 10/28/2010 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK13128 ART FOR KIDZ
DOODLE DOTS #13128
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 371.70
Total :371.70
122008 10/28/2010 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL13043 OIL PAINTING CLASSES
OIL PAINTING #13043
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 261.80
OIL PAINTING #13050
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 446.60
Total :708.40
122009 10/28/2010 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON13118 ART FOR KIDZ
ADVENTURES IN DRAWING #13118
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 455.00
Total :455.00
122010 10/28/2010 068484 CEMEX 9420318370 Storm - Dump Fees
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 40.92
4Page:
Packet Page 31 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122010 10/28/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
Roadway - Asphalt9420330463
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 518.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 49.21
Roadway - Asphalt9420330464
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 491.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 46.70
Total :1,146.39
122011 10/28/2010 070792 CH2O 187150 PS - Propylene Glycol 55 Gal
PS - Propylene Glycol 55 Gal
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 855.02
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 97.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 90.53
Total :1,043.40
122012 10/28/2010 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1009 E9GA.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER 2010
E9GA.Services thru September 2010
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 29,965.50
Total :29,965.50
122013 10/28/2010 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 102210-651 Sr Center - ReRoof Permit Fees
Sr Center - ReRoof Permit Fees
116.000.651.519.920.490.00 1,319.50
Total :1,319.50
122014 10/28/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2243675 005302
PAPER TOWELS/Z FOLD TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 200.87
9.5% Sales Tax
5Page:
Packet Page 32 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122014 10/28/2010 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 19.08
Total :219.95
122015 10/28/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS w2244310 Fac Maint - Bleach, Cleaners, TT,
Fac Maint - Bleach, Cleaners, TT,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 306.20
FAC - Waterborn Finish, Recoat Adhesion
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,801.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 200.19
Total :2,307.43
122016 10/28/2010 072848 COPIERS NW INV425202 COPIER MAINT ON FAX MACHINE
COPIER MAINT ON FAX MACHINE
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 14.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 1.37
Total :15.76
122017 10/28/2010 006375 DAY & NITE PLUMBING 120467 Sewer - Drain Cleaning Cables and Parts
Sewer - Drain Cleaning Cables and Parts
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 337.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.02
Total :369.02
122018 10/28/2010 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 42537 Unit 10 - VHF Mobile Unit with
Unit 10 - VHF Mobile Unit with
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 465.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 7.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 44.84
Total :516.84
122019 10/28/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3142 MINUTE TAKING
6Page:
Packet Page 33 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122019 10/28/2010 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE
10/19 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 333.00
Total :333.00
122020 10/28/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3143 Minutetaker for 2010 Citizen Levy
Minutetaker for 2010 Citizen Levy
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 783.00
Total :783.00
122021 10/28/2010 064640 DMCMA 102010 COURT TRAINING FOR LINE STAFF SHERRIS &
COURT TRAINING FOR LINE STAFF SHERRIS &
001.000.230.512.501.490.00 50.00
COURT TRAINING FOR LINE STAFF RENEE,
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 75.00
Total :125.00
122022 10/28/2010 007253 DUNN LUMBER 318523 LUMBER
2 X 6 STUDS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.71
Total :77.36
122023 10/28/2010 071842 EATON ELECTRICAL INC 31622295 208525
SWITCHGEAR MAINT.
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 2,496.00
Total :2,496.00
122024 10/28/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.58
Total :25.58
122025 10/28/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 349.63
7Page:
Packet Page 34 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122025 10/28/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 743.55
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 43.15
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 51.93
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.30
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 60.72
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.17
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 58.52
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 713.71
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 137.57
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 135.38
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
8Page:
Packet Page 35 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122025 10/28/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.11
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 98.05
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 58.52
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 120.01
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 56.32
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 131.53
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 54.13
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 100.24
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 51.83
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.11
Total :3,220.06
122026 10/28/2010 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 059362 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 29.87
Total :29.87
9Page:
Packet Page 36 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122027 10/28/2010 065958 EZ-LINER 51151 Unit 46 - Tank, Hose, Filter, Valve,
Unit 46 - Tank, Hose, Filter, Valve,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 588.30
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.43
Total :602.73
122028 10/28/2010 073466 FEIL, ALEX E2DB.TempConst4 E2DB.TEMP CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.FIEL
E2DB.Temp Construction Easement.Fiel
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
122029 10/28/2010 066590 FELIX LLC, ROBERT W FELIX12889 STOP SMOKING WITH HYPNOSIS
STOP SMOKING WITH HYPNOSIS #12889
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 274.40
Total :274.40
122030 10/28/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0272116 Sewe - 6" Duran Supplies
Sewe - 6" Duran Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 235.90
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.14
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 25.46
Sewer - Galvinized Couplings, Supplies0272513
Sewer - Galvinized Couplings, Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 161.83
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 23.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 17.58
Sewer - PVC Coupling Supplies0272614
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.19
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.33
10Page:
Packet Page 37 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122030 10/28/2010 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Sewer - PVC Coupling Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 58.46
Total :569.07
122031 10/28/2010 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 300853 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Nov-10
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
122032 10/28/2010 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC Flex Plan forfeiture REFUND OF FLEX PLAN FORFEITURE
Resubmit forfeiture money to flex plan
811.000.000.231.590.000.00 336.50
Total :336.50
122033 10/28/2010 071562 FORMA 4483 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR SIGN
4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR SIGN -
125.000.640.576.800.410.00 1,102.76
PRESERVE AMERICA GRANT - FINAL SIGN
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 347.24
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.410.00 104.76
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 32.99
Total :1,587.75
122034 10/28/2010 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 962264 LEGAL FEES FIBER OPTICS UTILITY SYS
Legal fees for Fiber Optics Utility
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
122035 10/28/2010 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH13180 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ #13180
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 286.00
IRISH DANCE 13+ #13176
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 36.56
11Page:
Packet Page 38 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :322.5612203510/28/2010 072932 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY
122036 10/28/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425 AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line 10/16/10 - 11/15/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 417.27
Total :417.27
122037 10/28/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.61
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.60
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.14
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 70.69
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 59.38
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.38
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 79.18
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE FIRE ALARM LINE425-745-4313
Meadowdale Club House Fire Alarm Line
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.41
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.11
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.21
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 112.97
PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
12Page:
Packet Page 39 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122037 10/28/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :764.18
122038 10/28/2010 011480 GAYDOS, KEN 7/21/10 GAYDOS REIMBURSEMENT ICPC CONF 2010
ICPC CONF REGISTRATION - GAYDOS
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 195.00
AIRFARE - SACRAMENTO ICPC CONF
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 205.40
AIRPORT PARKING
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 82.39
TAXI TO SACRAMENTO AIRPORT
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 43.00
7 DAYS LODGING (2 DAYS INSTRUCTOR MTGS,
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 667.87
Total :1,193.66
122039 10/28/2010 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE12946 WATERCOLOR/DRAWING
WATERCOLOR #12946
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 369.60
DRAWING #12942
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 308.00
Total :677.60
122040 10/28/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9362964059 Fac Maint - Utility Pump
13Page:
Packet Page 40 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122040 10/28/2010 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
Fac Maint - Utility Pump
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 156.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.42
Fac Maint - Mag Lens9362964067
Fac Maint - Mag Lens
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.79
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.99
Total :183.03
122041 10/28/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6943675 Water Quality - Clhorine Free Regent
Water Quality - Clhorine Free Regent
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 532.68
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 36.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 54.11
Total :623.74
122042 10/28/2010 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2800690 Water - Non Inventory - Quick Joint
Water - Non Inventory - Quick Joint
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 504.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 47.92
Water - Non Inventory - Mtr Nut BallI2810888
Water - Non Inventory - Mtr Nut Ball
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,779.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 169.04
Total :2,500.76
122043 10/28/2010 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 2024860 Storm - Pipe for Tile Job at 76th & MBR
Storm - Pipe for Tile Job at 76th & MBR
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,348.56
14Page:
Packet Page 41 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122043 10/28/2010 (Continued)071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 128.12
Total :1,476.68
122044 10/28/2010 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 237507-H E4GA.SERVICES THRU 8/29/10-9/25/10
E4GA.Services thru 8/29/10-9/25/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 1,824.42
Total :1,824.42
122045 10/28/2010 073470 HEQUIBAL, JOY HEQUIBAL101810 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 50.00
Total :50.00
122046 10/28/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 23299 E0FD.SERVICES THRU10/01/10
E0FD.Services thru 10/01/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 6,400.59
Total :6,400.59
122047 10/28/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 77 LEOFF 1 reimbursement
LEOFF 1 reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 7.52
Total :7.52
122048 10/28/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 10063 0205
SAKRETE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.13
02052030535
WOOD, WASH, OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.85
02052044195
LAFARGE PORT
15Page:
Packet Page 42 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122048 10/28/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.48
02054085870
COUPLINGS, ADAPTERS, OUTLET BOXES, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.19
02055085460
FOLDING SAWS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 79.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.59
02055284491
STAKES, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.72
02056064265
FELT PACKING, CUTTER, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 58.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.53
Total :328.38
122049 10/28/2010 062899 HUFF, ARIELE HUFF12893 WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE: ONLINE
WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE: ONLINE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.90
Total :67.90
122050 10/28/2010 070042 IKON 83465676 INV#83465676 467070-1005305A3 EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 10/13-11/12/10
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 204.80
16Page:
Packet Page 43 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122050 10/28/2010 (Continued)070042 IKON
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 51.76
Total :596.56
122051 10/28/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5015260393 Meter charges on reception copier for
Meter charges on reception copier for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 7.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 0.69
Total :7.97
122052 10/28/2010 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 521950 Fleet Shop Small Tools - Needle Pliers
Fleet Shop Small Tools - Needle Pliers
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 32.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 3.08
Fleet Shop Small Tools - Socket Set,523474
Fleet Shop Small Tools - Socket Set,
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 79.89
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.44
Total :132.70
122053 10/28/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 021365 FAC - 12V Faston's (2)
FAC - 12V Faston's (2)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 63.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.08
Fleet Shop Supplies - Lamps, Batteries,773790
Fleet Shop Supplies - Lamps, Batteries,
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 107.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 10.21
17Page:
Packet Page 44 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122053 10/28/2010 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
Fleet - Supplies - Butt Conn w/ Heat774078
Fleet - Supplies - Butt Conn w/ Heat
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.80
Unit 106 - SL20X Flashlight774426
Unit 106 - SL20X Flashlight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 131.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.49
Total :375.56
122054 10/28/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 482141 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,171.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 301.28
Total :3,472.62
122055 10/28/2010 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13045938-00 FS 16 - 2 Relays
FS 16 - 2 Relays
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.62
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.68
FS 16 - Returned Relays - Shipping not13046072-00
FS 16 - Returned Relays - Shipping not
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -17.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -1.68
Total :10.58
122056 10/28/2010 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 101010 NEW COURT EMPLOYEE TRAINING FOR CYNTHIA
NEW COURT EMPLOYEE TRAINING FOR CYNTHIA
18Page:
Packet Page 45 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122056 10/28/2010 (Continued)070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 110.00
Total :110.00
122057 10/28/2010 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD13199 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY #13199
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 49.00
Total :49.00
122058 10/28/2010 073469 KIPPER, SANDRA KIPPER12860 NUTURING PATHWAYS CREATIVE MOVEMENT
NUTURING PATHWAYS CREATIVE MOVEMENT
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 327.60
Total :327.60
122059 10/28/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 27366 Gold SFR/7610-162nd St. SW-Professional
Gold SFR/7610-162nd St. SW-Professional
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,123.38
Total :1,123.38
122060 10/28/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT 10202010 MONITOR FOR EDC MEETING 10/21/10
Monitor for 10/21/10 Economic Dev
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
122061 10/28/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105217 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 29.01
SUPPLIES105253
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 278.13
SUPPLIES105274
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 109.48
Total :416.62
122062 10/28/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105219 Copy paper
Copy paper
19Page:
Packet Page 46 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122062 10/28/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 26.66
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 26.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.54
Copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 26.66
Total :87.58
122063 10/28/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105249 EDMCTY
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 41.80
OFFICE CHAIR
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 440.00
Total :481.80
122064 10/28/2010 018900 LYNNWOOD AUTO ELECTRIC 78045 LS 12 -Alternator
LS 12 -Alternator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 86.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.17
Total :94.17
122065 10/28/2010 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 615276 Unit 083 - Hose End, Fitting
Unit 083 - Hose End, Fitting
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.46
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.80
Unit 55 - Supplies615428
Unit 55 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.99
20Page:
Packet Page 47 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122065 10/28/2010 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.23
Unit 40 - Supplies615703
Unit 40 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.32
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.60
Unit 3 - Pipe Connection, UBolt615792
Unit 3 - Pipe Connection, UBolt
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.77
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.83
LS 4 - Air Filter615838
LS 4 - Air Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.09
Unit 400 - Switch615894
Unit 400 - Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.25
Fleet - Return616286
Fleet - Return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -29.23
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.78
Unit 106 - Oil and Fuel Filters616574
Unit 106 - Oil and Fuel Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.64
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.20
Unit 12 - Brk Fld616582
Unit 12 - Brk Fld
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.99
21Page:
Packet Page 48 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122065 10/28/2010 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.56
Unit 106 - Fuel Filters, Serpentine Belt616625
Unit 106 - Fuel Filters, Serpentine Belt
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 61.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.83
Unit 106 - Fuel Filter616626
Unit 106 - Fuel Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.17
Unit 98 - Oil & Fuel Filters616885
Unit 98 - Oil & Fuel Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.88
Total :215.25
122066 10/28/2010 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 722736 CEMETERY SUPPLIES
CEMETERY SUPPLIES
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 19.88
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.89
Total :21.77
122067 10/28/2010 019583 MANPOWER INC 21087539 Reception coverage for 10/5/10.
Reception coverage for 10/5/10.
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 73.04
Total :73.04
122068 10/28/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1156 INTERPERTER FEE
INTERPERTER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPERTER FEE1157
22Page:
Packet Page 49 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122068 10/28/2010 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPERTER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPERTER FEE965
INTERPERTER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPERTER FEE967
INTERPERTER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
Total :350.00
122069 10/28/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0438249-IN Fleet - Returned Oil Analysis Kit C2
Fleet - Returned Oil Analysis Kit C2
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -219.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -20.81
Unit PS - 17 - BIOBOR JF - QT0438400-IN
Unit PS - 17 - BIOBOR JF - QT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.52
Fleet - Returned Oil Filters from0439223-IN
Fleet - Returned Oil Filters from
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 -88.21
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 -8.38
Fleet Oil Inventory - 15-40W (167 Gal)0439348-IN
Fleet Oil Inventory - 15-40W (167 Gal)
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 1,182.61
Fileter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 157.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 112.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 14.94
23Page:
Packet Page 50 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,171.2712206910/28/2010 024302 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
122070 10/28/2010 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB13083 FUN FACTORY
FUN FACTORY #13083
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 397.84
Total :397.84
122071 10/28/2010 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 37470 CITYEDMTRE
PIPE/CLAMPS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.12
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.21
Total :14.33
122072 10/28/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-204963 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: EDMONDS ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :189.87
122073 10/28/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 168 Planning Boards inuts on 10/13/10.
Planning Boards inuts on 10/13/10.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 384.00
Historic Preservation Commission000 00 169
Historic Preservation Commission
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 80.00
Total :464.00
122074 10/28/2010 068117 NPELRA Humann 30702 1/1/11 - 12/31/11 Membership dues (Debi
1/1/11 - 12/31/11 Membership dues (Debi
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 200.00
Total :200.00
122075 10/28/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 328465 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 85.09
SUPPLIES333816
SUPPLIES
24Page:
Packet Page 51 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122075 10/28/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 -55.74
SUPPLIES333831
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 166.49
SUPPLIES337294
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 148.03
Total :343.87
122076 10/28/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 377544 Misc. Office supplies including 3
Misc. Office supplies including 3
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 43.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 4.13
Backordered monthly planner for Russ.425788
Backordered monthly planner for Russ.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 11.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.07
Total :59.93
122077 10/28/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 451399 SISTER CITY BINDERS
SISTER CITY BINDERS
138.200.210.557.210.310.00 47.22
9.5% Sales Tax
138.200.210.557.210.310.00 4.48
Total :51.70
122078 10/28/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 687286 SEP-10 LITIGATION FEES
Sep-10 Litigation Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 22,554.78
SEP-10 RETAINER & LEGAL FEES687298
September 2010 retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 15,250.93
Total :37,805.71
25Page:
Packet Page 52 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122079 10/28/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 687298 Legislative Legal Services for Sept.
Legislative Legal Services for Sept.
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 6,051.20
Total :6,051.20
122080 10/28/2010 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00057803 Fleet - Quick Clamps 8"
Fleet - Quick Clamps 8"
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 115.64
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.39
Total :142.78
122081 10/28/2010 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT13154 FALL COLORS &SLAMON SPAWNING FLOAT TRIP
FALL COLORS & SALMON SPAWNING FLOAT
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 127.12
Total :127.12
122082 10/28/2010 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 11244066 Water - 3V Battery Supplies
Water - 3V Battery Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 46.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.74
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.85
Total :57.59
122083 10/28/2010 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 107495 DUMP FEES
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 80.00
DUMP FEES108059
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 80.00
DUMP FEES108066
DUMP FEES
26Page:
Packet Page 53 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122083 10/28/2010 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 80.00
Total :240.00
122084 10/28/2010 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 2411557 Unit 106- Repairs
Unit 106- Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 999.16
8.3% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 81.93
Total :1,081.09
122085 10/28/2010 065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC 98317 Water - Cured Concrete Blade 18"x .125
Water - Cured Concrete Blade 18"x .125
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 240.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.00
Total :260.00
122086 10/28/2010 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20090060.000-7 E9CA.SERVICES THRU 02/28/10
E9CA.Services thru 02/28/10
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,316.47
E9CA.SERVICES THRU 3/28/1020090060.000-8
E9CA.Services thru 3/28/10
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 85.68
Total :1,402.15
122087 10/28/2010 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 8/12-10/15/10 FAC MAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES - PAINT
FAC MAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES - PAINT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.92
FAC MAINT FIRST AID BANDAGES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.75
BRACKETT RM - FRAME
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.56
STREET -DOT PHYSICAL -B Sanders
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 65.00
STORM DEPT - PITCHERS FOR WATER SAMPLING
27Page:
Packet Page 54 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122087 10/28/2010 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 26.79
STORM DEPT - CAMERA SUPPLIES
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 5.46
STORM DEPT - CDL RENEWAL - K Harris
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 30.00
WATER - CDL RENEWAL~
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 30.00
WATER - WRENCHES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 30.64
FERRIES TO & FROM CROSS C MTG PT
411.000.654.534.800.430.00 36.60
WATER - CROSS CONNECTION 10th ED MANUAL
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 71.74
SEWER TRUCK - CELL PHONE CHARGER
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.44
SEWER - CDL RENEWAL - S Matthews
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 30.00
FLEET - WASP KILLER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.38
Total :382.28
122088 10/28/2010 071983 PICKELBALL STUFF LLC 11852 PICKLEBALL SUPPLIES
PICKLEBALLS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 34.20
Freight
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 6.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 3.90
Total :44.90
122089 10/28/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 04371 UNIT F1 B1 FUEL
Fire Boat - Fuel
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 92.75
Total :92.75
28Page:
Packet Page 55 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122090 10/28/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 48.67
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 48.67
Fire Monitoring F/S 16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 97.50
Total :194.84
122091 10/28/2010 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ13075 FELDENKRAIS
FELDENKRAIS #13075
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 219.80
Total :219.80
122092 10/28/2010 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2010-3507 July - September, 2010 Testing fees (PD)
July - September, 2010 Testing fees (PD)
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 500.00
Total :500.00
122093 10/28/2010 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0044879-IN EDMCITW
EYE WASH
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 175.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 16.70
EDMCITW0045059-IN
EAR PLUGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 329.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 31.32
Total :553.52
122094 10/28/2010 065579 QUIKSIGN 58386 Saffold/PLN20100018 Sign Installation.
Saffold/PLN20100018 Sign Installation.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 16.06
29Page:
Packet Page 56 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122094 10/28/2010 (Continued)065579 QUIKSIGN
WSF/PLN20100024 Sign Installation.58436
WSF/PLN20100024 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 :370.12
122095 10/28/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 112765 MARKER
MARKER: GROVE
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 391.00
MARKER112952
MARKER: WITT
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 209.00
INSCRIPTION112953
INSCRIPTION: SMITH
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
Total :680.00
122096 10/28/2010 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 1010034 TBD GRAPHICS
TBD Graphics
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 1,420.00
Total :1,420.00
122097 10/28/2010 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 52439 E3JC.SERVICES THRU 6/26/10-7/25/10
E3JC.Services thru 6/26/10-7/25/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,299.17
E3JC.SERVICES THRU 8/30/10-9/26/1052823
E3JC.Services thru 8/30/10-9/26/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 2,511.00
E0IA.SERVICES THRU 8/30/10-9/26/1052824
E0IA.Services thru 8/31/10-9/26/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 9,983.80
Total :13,793.97
122098 10/28/2010 067445 RONAN ENGINEERING COMPANY 126287 413087
RESISTOR
30Page:
Packet Page 57 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122098 10/28/2010 (Continued)067445 RONAN ENGINEERING COMPANY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 260.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 37.91
Total :297.91
122099 10/28/2010 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 00446-601269 Unit 891 - Supplies
Unit 891 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 162.36
Total :162.36
122100 10/28/2010 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-073103 Unit 12 - Brk Cylinder
Unit 12 - Brk Cylinder
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.05
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.99
Unit 648 - Oil03-073624
Unit 648 - Oil
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 76.32
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.25
Unit 680 - Shock Absorbers03-073686
Unit 680 - Shock Absorbers
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 141.32
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.43
Unit 872 - Condenser Assembly03-074187
Unit 872 - Condenser Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 209.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.88
Unir 872 - Filter Assembly03-074197
Unir 872 - Filter Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.67
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.73
31Page:
Packet Page 58 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122100 10/28/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Unit 29 - Fuel Filter03-074725
Unit 29 - Fuel Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.01
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.14
Unit 29 - A/TR Filter Kit03-074726
Unit 29 - A/TR Filter Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.52
Unit 83 - Battery03-075216
Unit 83 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.55
Unit 400 - Battery03-075378
Unit 400 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 74.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.03
Unit 720 - Belt03-076186
Unit 720 - Belt
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.77
Unit 70 - Filter03-076321
Unit 70 - Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.05
Unit 70 - Filter03-076337
Unit 70 - Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.86
32Page:
Packet Page 59 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122100 10/28/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Unit Unit WW14 - Fuel Pump03-076415
Unit Unit WW14 - Fuel Pump
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.88
Unit 872 - Return Condenser Assembly05-362666
Unit 872 - Return Condenser Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -209.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -19.88
Total :624.79
122101 10/28/2010 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 10-3898 Sewer - 10" & 12" Grit Catchers with
Sewer - 10" & 12" Grit Catchers with
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 731.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 69.49
Sewer - 8" 40 degree Elbow, 6" x 15'10-3968
Sewer - 8" 40 degree Elbow, 6" x 15'
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 215.24
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 31.89
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 23.47
Total :1,071.56
122102 10/28/2010 066738 SETCOM CORPORATION 4607 Unit 405 - Repairs & Return Shipping
Unit 405 - Repairs & Return Shipping
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 465.67
Total :465.67
122103 10/28/2010 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 194469 INV#194469 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING CHEV CAVALIER 908RVK
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
33Page:
Packet Page 60 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122103 10/28/2010 (Continued)036070 SHANNON TOWING INC
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
122104 10/28/2010 073468 SHELTON, R PAUL E2DB.TempConst3 E2DB.TEMP CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.SHELTON
E2DB.Temp Construciton Easement.Shelton
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 675.00
Total :675.00
122105 10/28/2010 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-223614 Unit 649 - Wheel
Unit 649 - Wheel
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 66.15
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.28
Total :72.43
122106 10/28/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201151412 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW
School Flashing Light 8400 219th St SW
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,985.03
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220TH ST SW201751476
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220th ST SW
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 101.04
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 76.38
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 290.26
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 290.26
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 290.26
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 290.26
34Page:
Packet Page 61 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122106 10/28/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 290.26
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,460.37
CITY HALL202439246
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,334.40
Fire station #16 Light202807632
Fire station #16 Light
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 30.29
FIVE CORNERS WATER TOWER203652151
Five Corners Water Tower~
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 895.61
Total :11,365.46
122107 10/28/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 19827 89TH PL W
19827 89TH PL W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.02
Total :30.02
122108 10/28/2010 073458 SOROS, MITCH APL20100003 Withdrawal of appeal.
Withdrawal of appeal.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 330.00
Total :330.00
122109 10/28/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 10252010 ASH DISPOSAL
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 2,992.05
Total :2,992.05
122110 10/28/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2396895-01 Water/Sewer - Coveralls & Jacket
Water/Sewer - Coveralls & Jacket
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 128.38
Water/Sewer - Coveralls & Jacket
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 128.37
35Page:
Packet Page 62 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122110 10/28/2010 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.63
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.62
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.63
Water/Sewer - Coveralls2396895-02
Water/Sewer - Coveralls
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 47.50
Water/Sewer - Coveralls
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 47.50
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.70
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.87
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.86
Street - T Boch (exchanged work jeans)2398901-01
Street - T Boch (exchanged work jeans)
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.80
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.26
Storm - Overalls - J Ward4173012-01
Storm - Overalls - J Ward
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 89.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 8.55
Street - Overalls - P Rochford4173013-01
Street - Overalls - P Rochford
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 89.95
36Page:
Packet Page 63 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122110 10/28/2010 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 8.55
Storm - Bib Overalls, Overalls - B4173053-01
Storm - Bib Overalls, Overalls - B
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 161.94
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 15.39
Storm - Overalls - J Whatmore4173057-01
Storm - Overalls - J Whatmore
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 89.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 8.55
Total :879.29
122111 10/28/2010 073471 SPEEDO TRANSACTIONS 10810 INTERPRETER FFES
INTERPRETER FFES
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 90.00
Total :90.00
122112 10/28/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO November Standard STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUM NOVEMBER 2010
November 2010 Standard Insurance
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,879.73
Total :13,879.73
122113 10/28/2010 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360000657091 C/A 360000657091
Basic e-commerce hosting 10/2-11-1/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 360000764828360000764828
Oct-2010 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 430001405909430001405909
P&R Directory Listing
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 130.25
Total :200.15
122114 10/28/2010 073444 SUSLOUA, ANGELA 20510 JUROR FEE
37Page:
Packet Page 64 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122114 10/28/2010 (Continued)073444 SUSLOUA, ANGELA
JUROR FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
122115 10/28/2010 065842 SWIFT TOOL CO INC 02118565 CITY OF EDMO
BUSHING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 210.24
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.97
Total :230.21
122116 10/28/2010 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 11865 Sewer - LS 9 - Troubleshootin & Service
Sewer - LS 9 - Troubleshootin & Service
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 461.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 43.82
Total :505.05
122117 10/28/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10066432 Shop Supplies - Grease Fittings
Shop Supplies - Grease Fittings
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 0.33
Total :3.82
122118 10/28/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1712990 E2DB.DOE LEGAL NOTICE
E2DB.DOE Legal Notice
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 67.76
Total :67.76
122119 10/28/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1713063 Gold/PLN20100027 Legal Notice.
Gold/PLN20100027 Legal Notice.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 74.20
City/Monument Signs legal notices.1713947
City/Monument Signs legal notices.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 38.92
38Page:
Packet Page 65 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122119 10/28/2010 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
City/PRD Lot Lines legal notices.1714013
City/PRD Lot Lines legal notices.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 38.92
City/Tree-fines legal notices.1714342
City/Tree-fines legal notices.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 32.20
Total :184.24
122120 10/28/2010 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10015985 1 YR SUBSCRIPTION - PW ADMIN
1 Yr Subscription - PW Admin~
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 174.00
Total :174.00
122121 10/28/2010 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 294722 FS 17 - Hydrant Stem
FS 17 - Hydrant Stem
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 100.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.54
Total :109.99
122122 10/28/2010 071119 THERMO ENVIRONMENTAL INST INC 238987 5257600
CEM PARTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 180.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 58.07
5257600239211
CEM PARTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 892.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 64.75
5257600239481
CEM PARTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,160.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 114.99
39Page:
Packet Page 66 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,469.8112212210/28/2010 071119 071119 THERMO ENVIRONMENTAL INST INC
122123 10/28/2010 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV701509 Fac Maint - Filters
Fac Maint - Filters
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 633.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 60.19
Total :693.79
122124 10/28/2010 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 3931 Museum - Fence Hardware
Museum - Fence Hardware
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 213.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.31
Total :234.01
122125 10/28/2010 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 78 LEOFF 1 reimbursement
LEOFF 1 reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 336.94
Total :336.94
122126 10/28/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8575426 Water - Tap Mate II Hand Ratchet
Water - Tap Mate II Hand Ratchet
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 155.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.73
Total :169.73
122127 10/28/2010 062693 US BANK 3363 Edmonds Ace Hdwr - Unit 53 - Supplies
Edmonds Ace Hdwr - Unit 53 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.08
Fisheries Supplies - Unit 53 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.86
Edmonds Ace Hdwr - Unit 31 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.06
Fisheries Supply- Unit M16 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.39
40Page:
Packet Page 67 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122127 10/28/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Fisheries Supplies - Unit M16 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.12
Fisheries Supplies - Unit 400 -
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.47
D Square Energy - Sewer truck - Sensor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 354.67
Kwick n Kleen - Police Unit 648 - Gas
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 32.00
Kwick n Kleen - Police Unit 424 - Gas
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 39.27
Kwick n Kleen - Police Unit 336 - Gas
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 22.84
Kwick n Kleen - Police Unit - Gas
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 25.15
Fisheries Supply - Fleet Return3363
Fisheries Supply - Fleet Return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -31.39
Total :582.52
122128 10/28/2010 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS T0298897J INV#T0298897J ACCT#0298897-0 EDMONDS PD
PAGERS 10/27-11/26/10
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 163.08
Total :163.08
122129 10/28/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0914230112 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 120.05
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 149.88
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 115.68
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 14.27
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 58.96
41Page:
Packet Page 68 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122129 10/28/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 475.19
Cell Service-Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.54
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 27.03
Cell Service-PW Water/Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.45
Cell Service-PW Water/Sewer
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 40.45
Cell Service-PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.27
Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 39.81
Total :1,148.16
122130 10/28/2010 064649 VERMEER NW SALES INC S10700 Water - Buttone HE Bolts
Water - Buttone HE Bolts
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 60.60
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.54
Total :75.24
122131 10/28/2010 073472 WAPRO 598 PRA BEYOND THE BASICS - THOMPSON
PRA TRAINING & WAPRO MEMBERSHIP
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 150.00
PRA BEYOND THE BASICS - BROMAN642
PRA TRAINING & WAPRO MEMBERSHIP
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 150.00
Total :300.00
42Page:
Packet Page 69 of 251
10/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
10:03:41AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122132 10/28/2010 045912 WASPC 90224 ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVICE
ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVICE
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 120.75
Total :120.75
122133 10/28/2010 047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 0283 WEF MEMBERSHIP/LEIN
WEF MEMBERSHIP/LEIN
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 160.00
Total :160.00
122134 10/28/2010 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 7020 Unit 338 - ProClip Tilt & Swivel
Unit 338 - ProClip Tilt & Swivel
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 227.97
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.43
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.36
Total :257.76
122135 10/28/2010 065357 ZUVELA, CURT 1554 TRAVEL/ZUVELA
TRAVEL/ZUVELA
411.000.656.538.800.430.00 236.74
Total :236.74
Bank total :203,707.12148 Vouchers for bank code :front
203,707.12Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report148
43Page:
Packet Page 70 of 251
AM-3488 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Leslie Chandler ($317.55).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Leslie Chandler
9203 Park Road
Edmonds, WA 98020
($317.55)
Attachments
Chandler Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 01:45 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 10/28/2010 08:16 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2010
Packet Page 71 of 251
Packet Page 72 of 251
Packet Page 73 of 251
Packet Page 74 of 251
AM-3495 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Mike Cooper
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of Michelle Van Tassell and Matthew Moore to the Sister City Commission.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
The Mayor’s office recommends confirmation.
Previous Council Action
Ms. Van Tassell and Mr. Moore were interviewed by the City Council on 10-26-10.
Narrative
Ms. Van Tassell and Mr. Moore have applied to the Sister City Commission. They have been reviewed
by the Sister City Commission, Mayor and interviewed by the City Council. Both of these individuals
will be a welcome addition to the Commission.
Attachments
Michelle Van Tassell Application
Matthew Moore Application
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 05:25 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 08:01 AM
Form Started By: Mike Cooper Started On: 10/28/2010 01:36 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2010
Packet Page 75 of 251
Packet Page 76 of 251
Packet Page 77 of 251
Packet Page 78 of 251
AM-3489 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action on a proposed Draft City of Edmonds 2011 Legislative
Agenda.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City administration recommends the City Council express support for the attached proposed Draft City of
Edmonds 2011 Legislative Agenda.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The attached proposed Draft 2011 legislative agenda outlines prioritized items which, if approved by the
City Council, will serve as a scope of work for Mike Doubleday and staff during the 2011 Washington
State legislative session/year. Mr. Doubleday will attend the November 1, 2010 City Council meeting to
present an overview of the legislative agenda; a question and answer session will follow and Department
Directors will be available to answer questions related to their departments.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 01:19 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 01:45 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 10/28/2010 08:22 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2010
Packet Page 79 of 251
Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda
October 12, 2010
Page 1
DRAFT
Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda
10.12.2010
TOP PRIORITY
1. Edmonds Crossing
Support a continued partnership with the DOT Public Private
Partnership Office to develop a workable safety solution at the
Edmonds waterfront for pedestrian ferry riders.
2. Protect State-Shared and State-Committed Revenues
Protect state-shared and committed revenues such as:
• Liquor profits and taxes,
• The municipal criminal justice account,
• The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF),
• The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program
(WWRP).
3. Local Fiscal Flexibility
Support a package of local fiscal flexibility measures such as:
• Unifying the uses of the first and second quarters of the
local Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), including flexibility
to use the local REET for parks maintenance and
operations,
• Additional flexibility with lodging taxes,
• Reduce matching requirements for state grants,
• Review statutory update schedules for land use and
environmental planning updates, such as GMA, SMA,
water systems and sewer plans, to determine if
streamlining is possible or updates can be delayed.
In addition, oppose temporary suspension of local impact fee
authority.
Packet Page 80 of 251
Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda
October 12, 2010
Page 2
4. Public Records Requests
Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other
governmental agencies from overly burdensome public records
requests.
5. Street Maintenance Utility Authority
Support the Street Maintenance Utility Authority legislation as
both a management tool and a funding source for local
transportation systems.
6. Transportation Revenue Package
Support the advancement of a statewide transportation
revenue package to address infrastructure projects in
Edmonds.
• Edmonds’ highest transportation funding priority is the
228th/SR99 safety project. We recently were selected to
receive grant funding for design and ROW acquisition for
this project.
• Seek support for an engineering pre-design, detailed
traffic study, and ROW plan for a signature, five-legged
round-a-bout at Five Corners. This project will address a
significant but correctable congestion problem on the
primary corridor leading into downtown Edmonds.
7. Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project
Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street
Rebuilding Project (from 5th Avenue North to 6th Avenue
North); this includes incorporating Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques.
8. Phase II Storm Water Funding
• Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they
can continue to meet Phase II storm water requirements.
Packet Page 81 of 251
Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda
October 12, 2010
Page 3
• Seek a delay of further storm water requirements now
scheduled for 2012.
9. LEOFF 1 Medical Costs - Oppose any further expansion of
LEOFF 1 retiree medical benefits without an alternative
funding source. Cities and towns are not in a position to take
on any additional costs. Look for opportunities to fund
ongoing LEOFF 1 retiree health care costs.
SECONDARY PRIORITY
1. Airport Siting
Monitor legislation that seeks to site a new commercial airport
in the Puget Sound region.
2. Aerospace Industry
Support the Washington Aerospace Partnership and other
stakeholder groups in developing a unified strategy (e.g.,
training & education, research & development, Office of
Aerospace and Defense, unemployment insurance tax, worker’s
compensation, transportation infrastructure) to ensure that
Washington State remains the leading location in the world for
aerospace. Led by The Boeing Company, the aerospace
industry within Snohomish County employs as many as 45,000
people, while one out of every three to six Washington State
jobs is supported either directly or indirectly by the aerospace
industry
3. Economic Development
Support “tax-increment financing (TIF)”, a tool used by most
other states to foster economic and community development to
allow cities to proactively implement their comprehensive
Packet Page 82 of 251
Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda
October 12, 2010
Page 4
plans and to ensure local, regional and national
competitiveness.
4. Driving While License Suspended
Monitor legislation that reduces DWLS 3 to an infraction which
will reduce the large number of DWLS 3 cases in municipal
court.
5. Public Safety Authority
Monitor discussion of a Public Safety Authority, a separate
taxing district dedicated to police services in a city or region
that could be governed by the Mayor and City Council.
6. Red Light Cameras
Preserve the authority for cities to implement red light camera
technology.
7. Gang Activity
Support additional tools for combating gang activity including
intervention and prevention activities.
• Support local tools and innovation for gang prevention and
intervention; seek sustainable, ongoing funding for gang
prevention and intervention, graffiti removal programs, and
law enforcement suppression activities.
• Support the creation of new offenses for criminal gang
intimidation and school criminal gang intimidation and
sentence enhancements for gang-related offenses.
• Support new tools for nuisance abatement and protection
orders related to criminal street gang activity.
8. Vehicle Prowling
Support additional penalties for vehicle prowling.
Packet Page 83 of 251
Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda
October 12, 2010
Page 5
9. Business License Streamlining
Monitor the discussion around local government business
license streamlining.
10. Additional Revenue Authority for Transit Agencies
Monitor transit agencies (including Community Transit)
legislation, which likely will request additional revenue
authority in order to avoid large cuts in service.
11. Preserve local government’s current ability to purchase health
care insurance.
Oppose any requirement to mandate participation in state-wide
health insurance pools. Advocate for maintaining current
authority for selecting health insurance programs.
12. Pensions
Support level/stable contribution rates for cities that do not
fluctuate with economic “boom/bust” cycles. In addition,
consider pursuing a deferral of any increase in employer
contributions from July 2011 to January 2012.
13. Lake Ballinger capital funding request ?
Packet Page 84 of 251
AM-3492 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Gina Coccia
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on an ordinance adopting a new Chapter 17.105 ECDC to define emergency
temporary indoor shelters and identify zoning districts where they are permitted.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the attached ordinance creating Chapter 17.105 ECDC (Attachment 1).
Previous Council Action
The Council passed resolution 1213 and interim ordinances 3769 and 3794 to allow the Planning
Board time to develop recommendations addressing the issues related to emergency temporary indoor
shelters (see Attachments 2 and 3).
Narrative
This is a Public Hearing on an ordinance adopting a new chapter 17.105 of the ECDC to define temporary
homeless shelters and identify zoning districts where they are permitted.
The Council discussed this item at the December 15, 2009 meeting and requested that staff and the
Planning Board review the issue. An interim ordinance was passed related to temporary homeless
shelters and it was renewed at the June 1, 2010 Council meeting. The Planning Board held a public
hearing on September 22 and recommended the ordinance for Council.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) would be a new chapter in the ECDC, Chapter 17.105. The
purpose is to provide needed temporary emergency indoor shelters to indigent persons while allowing for
a building compliance permitting process. These would be permitted as a primary or secondary use in all
zoning districts where Churches or any kind of Local Public Facility is a permitted primary use.
Bio Park in the City Attorney’s office drafted the ordinance based on the new House Bill 19.56
(Attachment 3) and incorporated specific language as required by the State. This ordinance would
potentially allow organizations, such as churches, to open their doors to homeless people when the
temperature drops below freezing. Currently, nonconforming churches without fire sprinkler systems are
not allowed to do this. The proposed ordinance would require a building compliance permit, which would
be reviewed by the Fire Marshal and Building Official. This proposed ordinance was recommended
unanimously for approval by the Planning Board and two members of the public spoke at the hearing,
both in support of this item. They expressed appreciation for the Planning Board on reviewing this issue
(Attachment 2).
* Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance 17.105 as recommended for approval by the Planning Board.
* Attachment 2: Meeting minutes for applicable Council and Planning Borad meetings.
Packet Page 85 of 251
* Attachment 2: Meeting minutes for applicable Council and Planning Borad meetings.
* Attachment 3: Background codes, ordinances, and resolutions.
Attachments
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 10/28/2010 01:40 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 05:25 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 08:01 AM
Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 10/28/2010 11:18 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2010
Packet Page 86 of 251
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 ECDC
TO DEFINE EMERGENCY TEMPORARY HOMELESS
SHELTER AND INDENTIFY ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE
THEY ARE PERMITTED, REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS.
3730, 3769 AND 3794 , AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3730 permitting the
temporary change in use of certain buildings to house indigent persons under certain conditions,
and affirming the City Council’s commitment to support public and nonprofit agencies in
providing needed services to indigent persons and to allow for a compliance permitting process
for exemptions to State Building Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted Interim Ordinance No. 3769, which
was further extended by Ordinance No. 3794 , defining certain words as applied to temporary
homeless shelters regulations and identifying zoning districts where temporary homeless shelters
may be sited; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds Planning Board, after holding a public hearing,
recommended adoption of the instant ordinance codifying the above referenced ordinances with
minor revisions and modifications; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adopted. A new Chapter 17.105 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) entitled Emergency Temporary Indoor Shelter is hereby adopted to
read as follows:
{BFP783767.DOC;2\00006.900150\ } - 1 -
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 87 of 251
Chapter 17.105
Emergency Temporary Indoor Shelter
Sections:
17.105.000 Intent.
17.105.010 Definitions.
17.105.020 Temporary change in use.
17.105.030 Zoning districts where permitted.
17.105.000 Intent.
The city is committed to support public and nonprofit agencies to
safely provide needed emergency temporary indoor shelters to
indigent persons and to allow for a compliance permitting process
for exemptions to State Building Code as set forth in RCW
19.27.042, WAC 51-16-030 and ECDC 19.00.040. No provision
in any ordinance adopted by the city shall be applied or interpreted
to prohibit an emergency temporary homeless shelter when the
same or equivalent is specifically allowed under state or federal
law, rule or regulation under similar circumstances, or to impose
any condition to the approval thereof that is specifically prohibited
under the same.
17.105.010 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to this Chapter:
A. “Emergency temporary homeless shelter” shall be defined
as short-term residence for a group of people at a permanent
building’s indoor facility that is organized by a sponsor with
services provided by a sponsor.
B. “Short-term” shall be defined as fourteen days or less
during any consecutive thirty-day period.
C. “Sponsor” shall be defined as a community based
organization that is a public agency or nonprofit corporation /
organization, and that fulfills its mission, in part, by organizing
living accommodations for the homeless.
17.105.020 Temporary change in use.
A. Pursuant to RCW 19.27.042, WAC 51-16-030 and ECDC
19.00.040 the character of use or occupancy of an existing building
located in the City of Edmonds may be temporarily changed in
order to provide emergency temporary homeless shelter for
{BFP783767.DOC;2\00006.900150\ } - 2 -
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 88 of 251
indigent persons without conforming to all of the requirements of
the State Building Code; PROVIDED that the proponent of an
exemption applies and is approved for a compliance permit for the
proposed exemption, and complies with conditions thereto.
B. Compliance permits for exemptions shall be reviewed and
approved by the City’s Building Official (or designee), in
consultation with the City’s Fire Marshal (or designee), as a Type I
action based on the following guidelines:
1. Any code deficiencies to be exempted pose no threat to human
life, health, or safety;
2. The building is owned or administered by a public agency or
nonprofit corporation; and
3. The proposed emergency temporary homeless shelter for
indigent persons is less hazardous than the existing use.
C. The City’s Building Official and Fire Marshal (or
designees) shall consider the requirements and exclusions for
nonconforming religious buildings in ECDC 19.00.040 when
reviewing and approving an application for compliance permits for
exemptions.
D. A compliance permit for an exemption shall be valid for no
more than 180 days, except that the City’s Building Official, in
consultation with the Fire Marshal or his designee, may approve a
renewal based on the same guidelines as the initial permit. As a
condition of approval, a building for which a compliance permit
for exemption is issued shall not be used as an emergency
temporary homeless shelter for more than fourteen days during any
consecutive thirty-day period. Failure to comply with any
condition of approval shall be cause to suspend or revoke the
permit.
17.105.030 Zoning districts where permitted.
Emergency temporary homeless shelters shall be permitted as a
primary or secondary use at all zoning districts where Churches or
any kind of Local Public Facilities are permitted as primary uses.
Section 2. Repealed. The new Chapter 17.105 ECDC is the codification, with
minor revisions and modifications, of Ordinance No. 3730 and Interim Ordinance No. 3769, as
extended by Ordinance No. 3794, and it is intended to replace them. Ordinance No. 3730 and
{BFP783767.DOC;2\00006.900150\ } - 3 -
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 89 of 251
Interim Ordinance No. 3769, as extended by Ordinance No. 3794, are, therefore, hereby
repealed.
Section 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) 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
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.
{BFP783767.DOC;2\00006.900150\ } - 4 -
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 90 of 251
{BFP783767.DOC;2\00006.900150\ } - 5 -
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, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 ECDC
TO DEFINE EMERGENCY TEMPORARY HOMELESS
SHELTER AND INDENTIFY ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE
THEY ARE PERMITTED, REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS.
3730, 3769 AND 3794 , 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
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 91 of 251
APPROVED OCTOBER 13TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 22, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineer Program Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Traffic Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Johnson noted that the term “TBD Tax” was used throughout the September 8th minutes, yet the correct term
is “TBD fee.” She explained that there is a significant difference between a tax and a fee. For example, the City’ receives
gasoline excise tax, but they also have certain fees such as utility fees and a fee to use Yost Pool. It is in that regard that the
Transportation Benefit District (TBD) charge is a fee and not a tax. It is not a requirement, but is based on the number of
vehicles a person owns. She asked that the minutes be changed accordingly.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
REPORT ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT SITES
Ms. Coccia explained that in 1995 the City adopted ECDC 16.60.015, which regulates the location of sexually-oriented
businesses (Adult Entertainment) in the City. As per code, the businesses are only permitted to locate within the General
Commercial (CG) and General Commercial 2 (CG2) zones, which are primarily located along Highway 99. The main
determinate of where these businesses can locate is based on their proximity to specific protected uses. As written, there
must be a 300-foot separation from any residential or public use zone, as well as from parks, libraries, churches, community
centers, museums or hospitals. In addition, a 500-foot separation is required from bars and taverns. She referred to the
following maps provided in the Staff Report:
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 92 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 2
An updated map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated September 2010
A map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated April 2006
An original map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated October 1996
Ms. Coccia reported that after reviewing recent licenses issued by the Washington State Liquor Control Board for properties
along Highway 99, staff found that no new ones have been issued since 2006, which means there has been no decrease in the
area available for adult entertainment uses. She summarized that based on the criteria in ECDC 16.60.015, there were
approximately 20 potential locations for adult entertainment businesses when the ordinance was adopted in 1996. In 2006 it
was estimated there were approximately 19 to 20 potential locations. Since that time, the only change noted was that the
Scott’s Bar and Grill site was incorrectly placed because the address provided by the Washington State Liquor Control Board
was incorrect. When this site is moved to its actual location, the buffer would move approximately 230 feet west. This
would eliminate some of the potential area on the site that currently contains the Campbell Nelson car dealership. Other than
that, there have been no new protected classes from which to buffer so the amount of potential business locations remains the
same. She concluded that staff is not recommending any changes in the zoning regulations at this time. However, the
number of available locations will need to be continually monitored during the coming years.
Vice Chair Reed asked if the commercial zones at Firdale Village and/or Harbor Square would be impacted by ECDC
16.60.015. Ms. Coccia answered that the commercial zones at Firdale Village are actually Mixed-Use (MU). Adult
entertainment uses are only permitted in CG and CG2 zones. Harbor Square is under a contract rezone at this time.
However, if future changes are proposed for Harbor Square zoning, ECDC 16.60.015 should be part of the consideration.
Mr. Chave clarified that the Board is not being asked to take action on this item. The purpose of the discussion is for staff to
report on the status of the ordinance. Periodic checks are done to make sure there are still adequate sites available for this
use to ensure the City is in compliance with State Law.
Chair Lovell pointed out that some of the orange areas, which identify where adult entertainment uses could potentially
locate, are close to the high school. Mr. Chave replied that the orange areas indicate properties where the use would be
allowed based on current code requirements for buffers.
PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INDOOR SHELTERS ORDINANCE
Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for legislative public hearings.
Ms. Coccia reviewed that the City Council first discussed the concept of temporary indoor shelters in 2009 and adopted an
interim ordinance; the Board started working on a permanent ordinance in February of 2010. She explained that the City
Attorney drafted the ordinance based on the new House Bill 19.56 and ECDC 19.00.040, incorporating specific language as
required by the State. The only change the City Attorney made since the last time the Board reviewed the draft language was
inserting the interim ordinance numbers that were previously left blank. She referred to the draft ordinance (Attachment 12),
which would adopt a new Chapter ECDC 17.105 to define emergency temporary homeless shelters and identify zoning
districts where they are permitted. It would repeal Ordinance Numbers 3730, 3769 and 3794, and would potentially allow
organizations such as churches to open their doors to homeless people when the temperature drops below 32 degrees.
Ms. Coccia advised that staff used previous City Council and Planning Board meeting minutes to identify individuals who
have participated in previous discussions about temporary indoor shelters, and notices were sent inviting them to attend the
public hearing. In addition, notices were posted in the normal locations, and in the local newspaper. Staff recommends the
Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Vice Chair Reed referred to Ordinance 3778 (Attachment 3), which added a new Section ECDC 19.00.040 to exclude
churches providing emergency housing for the indigent from certain code requirements. He asked if this ordinance has been
permanently adopted into the ECDC. Ms. Coccia answered affirmatively.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 93 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 3
Board Member Johnson asked if the recommended changes based on the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) were
reflected in the draft ordinance. Ms. Coccia answered that these changes had been incorporated into the language prior to the
Board’s last discussion (See Items 1, 2 and 3 in ECDC 17.105.020.B).
John Rutter, Edmonds, said he is present as a member of a local church group that has been unable to help people who
were in desperate need because their building does not meet certain code requirements. He expressed appreciation to the
staff and Planning Board for considering their need and desire to get people off the streets when it is really cold. He
encouraged the Board to approve the ordinance. He concluded by stating that he is a member of the Social Action/Social
Concern Committee of the Edmonds Unitarian Universal Church.
Merrie Emmons, Edmonds, expressed appreciation to the Board for considering the proposed ordinance and encouraged
them to move it forward for approval. She referenced ECDC 19.00.040, which would require a church to maintain a fire
watch. She asked if this means someone from the church must be awake all night. She noted that this is a difficult
requirement since most church volunteers have to work the next day. Mr. Chave emphasized that the draft ordinance does
not specifically require a fire watch. This must be worked out with the Fire Marshall on a case-by-case basis during the
permit process. Ms. Emmons said it is very important that emergency temporary indoor shelters be allowed in Edmonds.
Board Member Johnson asked how many beds Ms. Emmons’ church provided during the past winter. Ms. Emmons
answered that they have the ability to provide 12 beds, but they were not able to do so last year because their building did not
meet the fire code requirements.
Ms. Coccia referred to ECDC 19.00.040.2.b, which defines the term “fire watch” to mean “the maintenance during all times
when indigent housing services are provided of a watch by paid staff or volunteers who shall, on premises, monitor for fires
or violations of no smoking provisions. At least one fire monitor shall be provided for each eight persons housed.”
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE
ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
REGARDING EMERGENCY TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave explained that the draft ordinance would be moved forward to the City Council for a public hearing and final
approval. Those who received notice of the Planning Board hearing would also receive notice of the City Council hearing.
Others who want to receive notification can add their name to the mailing list by signing up at the back of the room.
PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT ORDINANCE
Ms. Coccia advised that the proposed ordinance would adopt a new chapter 17.20 to the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) related to temporary homeless encampment permits. She noted that, at this time, the City has no regulations
related to temporary homeless encampments. The proposed ordinance would create a permanent process, and control the
frequency, duration and conditions. She advised that, as written, a public hearing would be required, as would buffers from
residential neighborhoods. She explained that the initial draft ordinance was crafted by the City Attorney based on
ordinances adopted by other jurisdictions in the area. The Planning Board held discussions on February 24th and August 25th
and recommended changes, which are reflected in the draft ordinance (Attachment 1) currently before the Board for
consideration. It specifically addresses the following questions that were raised on August 25th:
Does the City have the ability to prohibit weapons in temporary homeless encampments?
What is the appropriate buffer from residential neighborhoods?
Should minors under the age of 18 be allowed if accompanied by a parent or guardian?
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 94 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 4
Ms. Coccia explained that once the Board has formulated their recommendation, the ordinance would be forwarded to the
City Council for a public hearing and final approval. She advised that there is a sign-up sheet available for those interested
in receiving notification of the City Council hearing.
Chair Lovell summarized that it appears all of the Board’s questions and comments have been addressed in the ordinance.
He specifically noted the change in ECDC 17.20.050.A, which alters the permit period from 30 to 45 days. He recalled the
Board felt this was a more reasonable amount of time to allow the public an opportunity to provide comments.
NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE INDICATED A DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEREFORE,
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW
CHAPTER 17.20 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) RELATING TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT PERMITS AND FREQUENCY, DURATION AND CONDITIONS
TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2011 – 2016)
Mr. English noted that no one was present in the audience to participate in the public hearing, and staff provided a lengthy
presentation on the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to the Board on September 8th. He suggested, and the Board agreed, that
staff should dispense with another lengthy presentation and focus on the following questions and issues that were raised
previously by the Board:
As requested by the Board, a PowerPoint presentation was electronically forwarded to each Board Member. The Board
Members indicated they all received the document.
The 100-Year Flood Plain Study of the Edmonds Marsh was incorrectly labeled. Mr. English advised that this has been
corrected in the latest version of the CFP.
Rather than indicating that facilities are reaching the end of their useful life and need to be replaced,” the Board
suggested it would be more appropriate to use the term “are in need of major renovation and replacement.” This would
allow the City to consider all options. Mr. English reported that the change was made for every project, with the
exception of the Senior Center. Staff believes the existing structure is in such poor condition that renovation costs
would far outweigh replacement costs.
Why was funding identified for the Edmonds Crossing Project? Mr. English noted that Mr. Clifton responded via email
to the Board Members, and he did not receive any additional questions as a result of his email.
Is it possible to identify incremental improvements to existing structures (i.e. ADA improvements at the Boys and Girls
Club)? Mr. English explained that the City currently leases the Boys and Girls Club Building from the Edmonds School
District for $1 per year, and the current lease does not expire until 2021. He said the Building Maintenance Supervisor
has observed that, in light of the City’s limited capital improvement funding, it would not be prudent to spend a
significant amount to improve a building that is now owned by the City. Mr. McIntosh added that when the Boys and
Girls Club is replaced or relocated in the future, the fundraising campaign would be under the direction of the Boys and
Girls Club of Snohomish County. The siting of the new facility will fall under their jurisdictions, as well.
Can the arts center be located in a leased building rather than waiting for funding to construct a new building? Mr.
English advised that Ms. Chapin indicated that the City and potential partners have discussed this opportunity and they
believe it is a viable option. However, no decisions would be made until there is funding to move the project forward.
Mr. English referred the Board to the pie charts provided by staff to summarize information contained in the 2009
Transportation Comprehensive Plan regarding project costs and revenue sources. He reviewed each of the anticipated
project category expenditures, which result in a total cost of $105,500,000 through 2025. He also reviewed the anticipated
revenue sources through 2025 as follows:
Unsecured grants ($12 million) – This number was based on the City’s previous track record of securing grant funding.
Secured grants ($1 million) – This number represents grant funding the City currently has in hand.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 95 of 251
APPROVED SEPTEMBER 8TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 25, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Bio Park, Assistant City Attorney
John Westfall, Fire Marshall
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
DISCUSSION OF TENT CITY
Mr. Park advised that since the last time the Board reviewed this Tent City Ordinance, the draft was revised to incorporate
their recommendations, which were primarily related to more flexibility in layout and setback. The Board asked him to
determine if specific setbacks and distance between the tents and structures was a requirement the City had to adopt, and the
answer is no. Any reasonable distance that provides proper safety is sufficient. Therefore, the changes the Board requested
were made to the draft document. In addition, changes were made to the draft ordinance to incorporate the requirements of
House Bill 1975 concerning restrictions on standards and conditions of approval.
As requested by the Board, Mr. Park said he also provided sample codes from other jurisdictions with similar ordinances..
He reported that there have not been any ordinances that have gone before the court. However, the Kirkland and Bellevue
ordinances have been used by tent city organizations. He referred the Board to the sample ordinances from Bellevue, Mercer
Island, Kirkland and Lynnwood. He explained that all the ordinances are similar. They define the tent city use and describe
the process required for approval. They also contain some very general provisions to provide for the health, safety and
welfare of the community. He reminded the Board that the City cannot regulate the behavior and conduct of the tent city
residents, but they can regulate the impacts to the community associated with the use.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 96 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 2
Chair Lovell referred to Section 17.20.080 on Page 10 of the draft ordinance, which states that if the sponsor of a temporary
homeless encampment is a “religious organization,” the indemnification and hold harmless requirements would not apply.
Mr. Park explained that as per recently adopted State Law, the City cannot enforce conditions of approval or requirements
that substantially burden religious organizations who want to sponsor temporary homeless encampments, and this includes
indemnification and insurance requirements. However, the law also includes an amnesty provision for elected officials and
employees of the City for any harm or damage that may be caused from approval of a temporary homeless encampment.
Chair Lovell asked if the law would protect the City legally from all aspects having to do with tent cities that are sponsored
by religious organizations. Mr. Park answered affirmatively and added that no additional language needs to be incorporated
into the proposed language because the issue is clearly addressed by State Law.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that all previous references to fire safety requirements and procedures have been
replaced with a statement that refers to the requirements defined in Chapter 24 of the International Fire Code. He asked if it
would be relatively simple for an applicant to meet the requirements of the Fire Code without hiring a consultant. He also
asked if the fire code provides enough guidance for sponsors to layout the tents properly. Mr. Park answered that there is
good incentive for applicants to approach City staff early in the process to discuss their plans. It is important for applicants
to obtain the required assistance from the City staff or the Fire Marshall before an application has been submitted. He noted
that some sponsoring organizations will have the expertise to lay out the tent cities by themselves, but most will not.
Board Member Cloutier suggested that while it would be appropriate to have a 30-day review period for tent city
applications, the Board should keep in mind that the City may not have this much notice of a future tent city. He suggested
the City provide a “cheat sheet” to help sponsors lay the tents out correctly. This information could also include a short list
of the fire code requirements. Mr. Park advised that regardless of whether a tent city is sponsored by a religious organization
or not, they would not legally be allowed to establish an encampment without going through the permit process.
Fire Marshall Westfall said that as per WAC 51-16-030, RCW 19.27.042 and ECDC 19.00.040, non-conforming religious
structures can be excluded from certain requirements. The law provides for reasonable accommodation and gives the
Building Official and Fire Marshall the ability to exempt religious organizations from any requirement of the State Building
Code that would be triggered by a change in use. For example, it would be reasonable to exempt a religious organization
from the requirement that a sprinkling system be provided if the organization agrees to provide a night fire watch. While
planning is important, he recognized that emergency situations can come up that require the City to accommodate a more
urgent schedule.
Vice Chair Reed referred to the second paragraph on Page 1 and questioned if it is necessary to name all of the nearby cities.
Perhaps they could just say “several nearby jurisdictions.” He also referred to the second sentence in Section 20.030.A on
Page 3, which requires that temporary homeless encampments be located a minimum of 20 feet from any property line. He
suggested the wording be changed to make it clear that the tent city must be at least 20 feet away from adjacent property
lines. Mr. Park agreed the language could be reworded to make the intent more clear. Vice Chair Reed also observed that
the term “reasonably safe distance” is open to interpretation. He suggested it would be better to provide a specific number to
identify what the distance must be. Mr. Park explained that the Hearing Examiner, with a recommendation from staff, would
make this determination after reviewing the total size of the site, the number of tents proposed, and the number of anticipated
residents.
Vice Chair Reed referred to Section 17.20.020 on Page 3 of the draft, and suggested that the last sentence be deleted since
the public hearing requirement is addressed elsewhere in the proposed language. As currently written, this sentence seems to
imply that a second public hearing would be held if a code violation occurs. Mr. Park clarified that only one public hearing
would be held for the initial permit approval. If a violation occurs, the issue would come before the Hearing Examiner again
to make a determination as part of the code enforcement process. He explained that Section 17.20.020 is intended to outline
the process, and the more specific details are provided elsewhere in the chapter. It also sets forth that the permit will be a
Type III-A decision. He expressed his belief that it is important to place this information up front. Vice Chair Reed
recommended that the second sentence be moved to just after the third sentence. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Stewart observed that the Bellevue ordinance does not categorically exclude people under the age of 18 from
being in the encampment. Instead, their ordinance includes a statement that under extreme circumstances, children with
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 97 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 3
parents are allowed. She said it seems exclusionary for the City’s ordinance to flat out prohibit children under the age of 18,
particularly given that the area will likely face more homelessness as time goes on. Mr. Park said that when he reviewed
ordinances from other jurisdictions several months ago, most of them excluded children under the age of 18. However,
Bellevue, Mercer Island, and one other jurisdiction allow children under 18 with adult supervision. He explained that it is
difficult to determine if a person is indeed the child’s parent or guardian, and that is why most jurisdictions have the
limitation. He agreed the Board could change the language to allow children under extreme circumstances if accompanied
by a parent or guardian.
Board Member Stewart suggested the City incorporate the language contained in Section 20.30U.125.9 of Bellevue’s
ordinance, which states, “. . . shall not permit children under the age of 18 to stay overnight in a Temporary Encampment
unless circumstances prevent a more suitable overnight accommodation for the child and parent and guardian.” The
remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Cloutier asked if these same provisions would be used to set up temporary homeless encampments in the
event of a natural disaster. Mr. Park answered that the code includes an exemption for natural disasters or other situations
that require emergency tent cities.
Board Member Stewart noted that Bellevue prohibits weapons in their temporary homeless encampments, and she suggested
the City do the same. She noted that people living in the encampments are not able to lock their doors, and she personally,
would not feel safe if weapons were allowed. Mr. Park said he researched this issue extensively and feels strongly that
prohibiting weapons would be considered “regulating conduct,” which is constitutionally not allowed. He explained that,
although residents would be living in tents, the tents must be considered their homes and the constitution provides them with
certain rights. He pointed out those ordinances from Bellevue and other jurisdictions that specifically call out rules of
conduct use flexible wording that merely outlines the rules and regulations they would like the sponsors to have.
Board Member Stewart referred to Section 20.30U.125.2 of Bellevue’s ordinance, which lists specific elements that should
be included in a code of conduct. She agreed that, as worded, a sponsor would not be required to adopt all of the rules
contained in the section. It simply asks the sponsors to address the items on the list. Again, Mr. Park explained that,
although temporary, the tents are considered places of abode, and it would be very difficult for the City to actually enforce a
prohibition on weapons and prevail if challenged. He further explained that tent city sponsors have their own codes of
conduct that include no weapons, knives, alcohol, etc., and they strictly enforce the rules. Therefore, he felt it would be better
risk management for the City to stay on this side of what the law requires.
Chair Lovell observed that it would be difficult for the City to prohibit someone from caring a concealed weapon in a
temporary homeless encampment if an individual has the required permit. Mr. Park said it is very unlikely that a sponsor
would have no code of conduct in place, which typically prohibits weapons. They have strict enforcement of the rules, and
people do follow them.
Vice Chair Reed noted that Item I in Section 17.20.030 actually requires that sponsors have and enforce a code of conduct.
In addition, Section 17.20.050.A requires that the code of conduct be submitted as part of the permit application. He
suggested that perhaps it would be helpful for the City to provide a sample code of conduct to guide sponsors in development
of their own document. Mr. Park summarized that because a sponsor is required to have and enforce a code of conduct, he
believes it would be best to leave this obligation to the sponsor rather than the City risking legal challenge.
Board Member Johnson asked if Share Wheel, the sponsor of Tent City, has a policy that prohibits children under the age of
18. Mr. Park answered that they did have this policy, but he has not checked in recent months to see if it has changed.
Board Member Stewart referred to Section 17.20.050.A, which requires that applications be submitted a minimum of 30 days
prior to the anticipated start of an encampment. She also referred to Section 17.20.050.C, which states that a notice of
application and public hearing shall be provided within ten days after the City determines the application is complete. It also
says the comment period would begin upon mailing of the notice of application and end after seven days. She expressed
concern that this timeline may be too short. It would only allow adjacent property owners a short period of time to decide
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 98 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 4
how they want to react to a proposal. She noted that Mercer Island has a 75-day process, which is too long. However, she
suggested the timeline be expanded to at least 45 days.
Mr. Park agreed the timeline could be changed. He noted that the code contains provisions that allow the City to speed up
the process to address emergency situations, but the proposed timeline would be the default. A 30-day timeline would offer a
reasonable amount of time for staff to review the application and submit a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner and for
the Hearing Examiner to make a determination. He reminded the Board that temporary homeless encampments tend to move
around a lot and the sponsors do not typically have time to go through a lengthy permit process. In good faith, the City has
an obligation to try to accommodate this use, especially when it is being proposed by a religious organization.
Board Member Johnson observed that while the informational meeting is not part of the City’s decision making process, it
could be a useful meeting for the community. If notice is not sent out to adjacent property owners until seven days before
the meeting, the situation could have already reached a crisis stage. She suggested that a 10 or 14 day notice would be more
appropriate.
Board Member Cloutier said he would support a default timeline of 45 days, but the City should also recognize that tent
cities move around frequently and sometimes they are relocated before the required permits have been obtained.
Vice Chair Reed observed that a public hearing would be conducted before the Hearing Examiner, and the public and
applicant would be invited to testify. He agreed with Board Member Stewart that a 45-day process would make more sense.
He reminded the Board that ECDC 20 was amended to take the applicant out of the notification process for Type III-A
actions. The City is now responsible for providing all notices. He suggested the language in the proposed ordinance be
updated to reflect this change, and the remainder of the Board concurred.
Mr. Park summarized that the Board would like the ordinance to be updated to require a permit application at least 45-days
prior to establishment of an encampment. In addition, notice of the information meeting should be provided 10 days prior.
He said he would modify the rest of the permit timeline as appropriate to fit in with the two proposed changes. In addition,
the language would be modified to make the City responsible for providing notice of the information meeting, as well as the
notice of application.
Mr. Park explained that because temporary homeless shelter permits are completely different than other land use permits, he
felt it was important to put all of the applicable processes and requirements in ECDC 17.20 rather than merely references
Type III-A actions in ECDC 20.
Chair Lovell noted that the proposed ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board on September
22nd.
DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS
Mr. Park referred the Board to Attachment 12 of the Staff Report, which is the draft ordinance setting forth the proposed
application process and conditions of approval for establishing emergency temporary shelters. He summarized that since the
last time the Board reviewed the document, the ordinance was revised to meet the requirements of House Bill 1956, as well
as the conditions, requirements and exemptions adopted by ECDC 19.00.040 for nonconforming religious buildings. The
language provided in Section 17.105.020.B was taken from RCW 19.27.042 and WAC 51.16.030 and provides the following
guidelines for reviewing exemptions:
1. Any code deficiencies to be exempted pose no threat to human life, health or safety.
2. The building is owned or administered by a public agency or non-profit corporation.
3. The proposed emergency temporary homeless shelter for indigent persons is less hazardous than the existing use.
Mr. Westfall explained that the sprinkling requirement, in particular, will often prohibit a religious organization from
changing the use of their building to a temporary homeless shelter to accommodate indigent persons. This provision gives
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 99 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 5
the Building Official and Fire Marshall the authority to exempt a nonconforming religious building based on the guidelines
provided in Section 17.105.020.B.
Chair Lovell referred to Guideline 3 and questioned how the City could determine that a temporary homeless shelter is less
hazardous than the existing use. For example, he expressed his belief that a church that is used as a public gathering place
during the day and seats 250 people would be less hazardous than 25 people living in the basement. Mr. Park said that
having a small number of people stay in the facility overnight with a night fire watch, with no candles, and with clearly
marked exits could be considered less hazardous than a formal ceremony with 200 people in attendance and lit candles are
involved. Mr. Chave noted that the Frances Anderson Center is another example where there are children in the classrooms.
It is easy to imagine that using one of the classrooms for an overnight shelter could be less hazardous that a room full of
children.
Mr. Westfall said the fire code addresses many hazardous situations. He reminded the Board that they are talking about a
temporary shelter and not someone’s actual home where a separate heating system might be in disrepair, people may be
working on vehicles in the garage, and there are independent cooking areas. People staying in the homeless shelters
congregate and share the accommodations that are under one maintenance arrangement. He said that in addition to the code
of conduct agreements that the agencies bring into play, there are built-in safeties; and in many cases, the overall package
would be les hazardous or not any more hazardous than the existing use.
Board Member Johnson noted that Page 1 of Interim Ordinance 3769 (Attachment 2) makes the point that temporary
homeless shelters are a solution for cold temperatures. However, the proposed ordinance (Attachment 12) seems to be more
general in scope. She questioned if the new ordinance is intended to apply to more situations than just cold weather. Mr.
Park explained that the provisions in Section 19.00.040 would only be triggered during cold weather emergencies. These
provisions allow the Building Official and Fire Marshall to exempt certain nonconforming religious buildings from having
sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, etc. However, if a building already meets the more stringent fire code requirements, it
could be used as a temporary shelter during other times, as well. No special limitations would be applied for cold days only,
but special treatment would only be granted if it is very cold outside.
Vice Chair Reed observed that the proposed definition for “emergency” in Section 19.00.040 appears to go further than just
cold weather. He asked the Board’s thoughts on whether the ordinance should extend beyond cold weather situations. Mr.
Park explained that if there is a natural disaster or catastrophe, the City Council has the ability to pass a temporary ordinance
to allow emergency shelters in Edmonds. Board Member Cloutier added that the Development Code includes separate
provisions for natural disasters and other emergency situations. Mr. Park said that in the event of a natural disaster, the rules
could be relaxed, and the City would have the latitude to enforce the requirements broadly based on the conditions present at
the time.
The Board agreed that the ordinance is ready to move forward to a public hearing. However, they noted that Section
17.105.030 should be updated to reference Ordinance 3794 rather than 3769.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON HIGHWAY 99 OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
Mr. Chave referred to the Staff Report, which contains the additional information requested by the Board at their August 11th
meeting. He noted that Mr. Shoup (Attachment 2) is an nationally-known expert on parking policies. In addition, the
recently published American Planning Association paper (Attachment 1) provides worthwhile information for the Board to
consider. He said that Board Member Stewart also provided a link to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth
Pamphlet, which was referenced by Board Member Clarke at their last meeting.
Mr. Chave said staff will continue to develop the following two options, which were discussed at the Board’s last meeting:
No minimum parking standard for those properties that front on Highway 99.
A minimum standard that is applied uniformly across the entire area.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 100 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 1, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #119126 TO #119246 DATED MAY 27, 2010 FOR
$511,626.90.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM VERIZON
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND ERIN GRAAFSTRA ($6,994.26).
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE / 4TH OF JULY EVENTS.
Ron Clyborne referred to a letter provided by the Chamber of Commerce regarding their request for
funding from the City for the 4th of July events. He explained the Chamber’s mission was to organize a
family oriented Independence Day in Edmonds to attract visitors and enhance the small town atmosphere.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 101 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 3
• The supplemental capital budget contains approximately $50 million for one time funding for
cities’ stormwater mandates. The funds will be distributed via a lump sum as well as via an
application process to access approximately $24 million. He estimated the lump sum provided to
Edmonds at $180,000 which would be distributed late summer.
• The Transportation Benefit District statute was amended to clearly state that city projects are an
allowable use of TBD funding.
• Comprehensive Plan updates for cities were pushed back from 2011 to 2014.
• The 911 system was upgraded to allow text messages to work with the system. This will be
funded via an increase in the state tax from $0.50 to $0.70 and the county tax from $0.20 to
$0.25.
• Local campaign contributions must mirror the state’s limit of $800 per election (primary and
general).
He highlighted bills that were not passed this legislative session:
• Limiting the use of automated traffic safety cameras. This bill would have required a 4 second
yellow light and the fine could only be $25.
• The Airport Siting bill did not receive a hearing. This bill would have required a 7 mile zone
around an airport where development would be limited.
He highlighted the following interim issues:
• Possible transportation revenue package in 2011. He invited the City to inform him of projects to
be included in that package.
• Creation of a State transit funding work group to recommend additional transit funding
• Future stormwater funding
• Puget Sound Partnership funding
• Airport siting
• Automated traffic safety cameras
• Lake Ballinger Forum
Mayor Haakenson thanked Mr. Doubleday for his efforts to include $250,000 in the supplemental
transportation budget for the Shell Valley Emergency Road Access project.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the cap-and-trade bill regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions did not advance. Mr. Doubleday answered there was a great deal of effort on that in 2009 but
little in 2010. He anticipated the state was waiting for the federal government to act.
5. PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, RENEWING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
NO. 3769, WHICH DEFINED TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER AND IDENTIFIED
ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE PERMITTED.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this item was the renewal of an interim zoning ordinance to
allow the Planning Board to complete their work. The interim ordinance clarifies that temporary homeless
shelters up to two weeks in length in any month are permitted in the City’s zoning classifications. Passage
of the ordinance renewing the interim zoning ordinance will provide sufficient time for the Planning
Board to complete their review and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained City Attorney Scott Snyder attended a Planning Board meeting
approximately one month ago where Planning Board Members asked several questions. Mr. Rutledge
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 102 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 4
requested Councilmembers respond individually to those questions. He noted the Planning Board had
cancelled their public hearing on this matter.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
In response to Mr. Rutledge, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained staff will be responding to the
Planning Board’s questions at a future meeting. He explained via extension of the interim ordinance,
controls remain in place until a final ordinance is adopted.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3794, RENEWING INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 3769, WHICH DEFINED TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER AND
IDENTIFIED ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE
PERMITTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, RENEWING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3779,
AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.110.040(F), MONETARY PENALTIES,
CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT ON EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board has been briefed on this matter, City
Attorney Scott Snyder will brief them again next week and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled in
July. The interim ordinance amends the civil enforcement procedures to be consistent with state case law.
Mr. Snyder explained his memo referred to a 30-day Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) appeal period; the
appeal period is actually 21 days. He referenced RCW 36.70C.020, and explained since the City enacted
its provisions, LUPA now covers the enforcement by local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the
improvement, development, modification, maintenance or use of real property. He recommended the
interim ordinance include that reference to provide direction to a citizen wishing to appeal.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Snyder cited Section 3 of the ordinance which states the
determination of the Hearing Examiner is final and shall be appealable to Superior Court in accordance
with Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public
participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3795, RENEWING INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 3779, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.110.040(F), MONETARY
PENALTIES, CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT ON EXISTING CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, RENEWING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3780,
ADOPTING CERTAIN PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE ABANDONMENT,
CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF PUBLIC PROJECTS AND STREET
VACATIONS AND DEDICATIONS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is an interim zoning ordinance being reviewed by the
Planning Board. The interim ordinance clarifies that provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that require
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 103 of 251
APPROVED MARCH 10th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 24, 2010
Vice Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
John Reed
Valerie Stewart
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
Kevin Clarke
Cary Guenther
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kiernan Lien, Associated Planner
Gina Coccia, Associated Planner
Bio Park, City Attorney
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2010 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Lora Petso, Edmonds, expressed her belief that the City cannot afford less SEPA review. She recommended the Board not
modify the thresholds in any way that would reduce SEPA. Doing so would be a death blow to the City’s efforts related to
sustainability. She referred to the SEPA Checklist, which includes questions related to sustainability that should be asked
about any development that includes five or more buildings. Allowing a 20-unit condominium to be constructed without
asking these questions would be terrifying.
Ms. Petso asked that she be added as a party of record to the proposed SEPA amendments so that she can receive notification
of any continued meeting regarding the matter. She expressed her belief that the staff’s proposal contradicts the City’s newly
adopted Community Sustainability element, particularly Items A, B, E.2, E.4, E.5 and F. She noted that SEPA changes are
supposed to be supported by local conditions, plans and regulations, and Edmonds’ plans call for more regulation not less.
She observed that undeveloped properties in Edmonds are typically environmentally significant in one or more ways or they
would have already been fully developed and utilized. If the Board recommends approval of the proposed changes, she
asked them to please make sure the designations in the table match what is on the map in the Comprehensive Plan. Board
Member Reed clarified that Ms. Petso referenced the Comprehensive Plan Map rather than the Zoning Map. He noted that
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 104 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 2
the designations are consistent with the Zoning Map. He further noted that Table 1 on Page 3 outlines the proposed changes
to the flexible threshold standards by zone.
Ms. Petso said that as she reviewed the proposed amendments, she became particularly concerned about the idea of allowing
development of up to 20 units on the Harbor Square and Safeway sites without requiring SEPA review, nor would SEPA be
required for a large parking lot to be constructed near the ferry terminal. The Port’s property would be completely exempt
from the SEPA requirement. She noted there are significant drainage issues in that area and removing the SEPA review
requirement would result in undesirable situations. She summarized that, as currently proposed, no SEPA review would be
required for developments of less than 20 units on 212th Street between Highway 99 and the High School, either.
Ms. Petso referred to Page 29 of the proposed amendments, which makes references to the City beginning to lay the ground
work for addressing climate changes through SEPA. She expressed concern that if the SEPA process is eliminated, this goal
would no longer be possible. She suggested no changes be made to the thresholds.
Board Member Reed requested staff provide a map showing where the exception would be applied for developments of 20
units or less. He suggested this would be helpful in clarifying exactly what is being proposed.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, said he attended the last City Council Meeting at which Board Member Clarke presented the
Planning Board’s recommendation for a name for the new park at 162nd Street Southwest and 75th Place West. He said the
City Council accepted the Board’s recommendation with one addition. They agreed it would be appropriate to provide a
plaque listing the names of all the individuals who were nominated for the park name, as well as former City Council
Member Peggy Olsen. Mr. Rutledge referred to Hickman Park, which was just recently named by the City. He suggested
the City install a plaque at this park, as well, to honor the other individuals who were nominated. He indicated that a group
of people would pursue this issue if the Planning Board does not, with the intent of installing an additional plaque at
Hickman Park by September. He asked the staff to share the appropriate process the group should follow for installing the
additional plaque.
PRESENTATION BY BIO PARK, CITY ATTORNEY, ON HOMELESS SHELTERS
Mr. Park reviewed that a few years ago, several churches approached the City of Edmonds with a request to establish
emergency shelters during the winter season for the homeless. At that time, the City did not have code regulations in place to
for this type of use; and they were fortunate that the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) includes a provision that permits
cities to adopt a temporary ordinance allowing non-profit groups and public agencies to change the use of their buildings to
assist indigent persons.
Mr. Park reported that on December 15, 2009, the City Council adopted an ordinance that mirrored the RCW Statute. They
also adopted an interim ordinance providing for zoning districts where such changes in use could occur. The zoning districts
were identified as anywhere churches and/or local public facilities are allowed as permitted uses. He noted that most of the
applications would be attached to churches, whose function and religious activity includes ministering to the poor and
indigent. He said the City Council also adopted a resolution urging the staff to be as flexible as possible to allow the change
in uses. However, the following conditions are required by State statute before a change of use can be approved:
That the change of use does not impose a threat to the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
That the administration of the building is by a non-profit or public agency.
That the change in use is no more hazardous than the existing use.
That the use is temporary in nature.
Mr. Park pointed out that a change of use permit requires the applicant to provide hard wired smoke detectors and a sprinkler
system. However, most churches that apply for the change of use permit will not have these elements as part of the structure.
The ordinance will allow them to propose alternative methods for meeting the requirements, such as a night watch and
limitations on how many persons can stay in the facility at any one time.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 105 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 3
Mr. Park explained that before the interim ordinance can be made permanent, the Board must review the zoning portion of
the ordinance, conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The purpose of this meeting is for
the Board to consider whether or not it would be prudent to adopt a permanent ordinance that allows a change of use for
temporary shelters anywhere churches and local public facilities are allowed as primary uses.
Vice Chair Lovell recalled that prior to the City Council’s adoption of the interim ordinance, the City’s Fire Marshal talked
about equivalencies for getting around the code requirements of hard wired smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, which
most of the church buildings do not have. He also recalled that other guidelines were recommended such as clearly
designating the shelter area and providing accessible egress locations. They also recommended the option of providing a
night fire watch person who has access to emergency numbers, first aid, and other emergency equipment.
Vice Chair Lovell said that he understands how the proposed ordinance would be applied to church-owned properties, but he
is less clear about how it would be applied to public-owned facilities. He noted that the ordinance would require the use to
be sponsored by a local place of worship or other local, community-based non-profit organization, and normally this would
be a church or church organization. However, he questioned if a City-owned facility could be used for a temporary homeless
shelter as long as the use had a sponsor that could meet the criteria.
Mr. Park explained that the reason for including public agencies and other non-profit organizations in the ordinance is to
keep the playing field level. However, it is clear that the vast majority of applications would come from churches. Because
the City is a government entity, they cannot disfavor or favor churches. As long as they provide certain protections for
churches and religious groups to practice their religion, the playing field must be level. As an example, he said the Red
Cross could open a homeless shelter in Edmonds as a non-profit agency, if they owned a building in the City. However, they
would have to meet the building code requirements and/or provide an alternative method for meeting the requirements. He
advised that according to the State Supreme Court and Washington State Law, even if a proposal does not meet the letter of
the code and should be otherwise denied, the applicant can offer alternatives. The City would have the responsibility, as a
governing entity, to determine whether the proposed alternatives would meet the purpose of the law. That does not mean the
City has to approve unsafe conditions and hazardous proposals, but they have to consider the alternatives.
Vice Chair Lovell asked who would be responsible for administering the criteria associated with the change of use. Mr. Park
answered that the City’s Building Official would have the final discretion for approving the permit and determining whether
the structure being proposed for a change in use meets the conditions and requirements. Through the compliance permit
process, the Building Official would conference with the Fire Marshal to review the plan and make sure it meets all of the
requirements.
Mr. Park reminded the Board that the issue currently before them is the proposed zoning designation for where the change of
use would be permitted and whether or not the zoning designation should be restricted. He pointed out that, as currently
proposed, the change of use would be allowed in any zone in the City since any zone in the City also allows churches and
public facilities as primary uses.
Mr. Chave explained that the proposed ordinance is a statement of intent or policy that covers not only zoning, but building
issues. For the Planning Board’s benefit, he suggested it would be helpful for the Board to understand exactly what changes
would occur in the zoning code. The changes would be restricted to the definition in Section 5 of the resolution. The
remainder of the resolution talks about building codes, which are not under the purview of the Planning Board.
Board Member Reed said the resolution references Ordinance 3730, which was not included in the Board’s information.
Apparently, the ordinance addresses some of the code exceptions for temporary shelter arrangements. He questioned if it
would be helpful for the Board to have a copy of the ordinance for review. Mr. Park explained that Ordinance 3730 permits
the City to allow changes in use on a temporary basis to assist indigent persons. It basically adopts the State Statutes (RCW
19.27.042 and WAC 51.16.030), and provides that the City will make use of the permission granted by the State to allow
certain agencies to change use of their buildings to assist indigent persons. He said he has only one copy of the ordinance,
but could provide copies to the Board Members at a later date.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 106 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 4
Mr. Chave summarized that Section 5 sets up temporary homeless shelters as another form of public facility or a secondary
use to a church. Mr. Park clarified that the use must be secondary for whoever applies for the change of use. Homeless
shelters would not be allowed as primary uses. Because churches and local public facilities are allowed in all zones in the
City as primary uses, any church or non-profit public agency with a structure could apply for the temporary change in use
permit in order to provide a shelter for homeless persons.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if the zoning was left as broad as possible to allow flexibility. He recalled a previous discussion
about potentially using the Senior Center as a homeless shelter. Mr. Park said the focus of the regulation should be on
churches since most of the time churches would be the sponsor of a homeless shelter. However, the City could elect to
utilize the Senior Center as a temporary homeless shelter as per the proposed zoning.
Vice Chair Lovell said he hasn’t heard any compelling reason to make the zoning more strict because the approval of a
specific site would depend on the Building Official’s review of the application. Mr. Park agreed it would be the discretion of
the Building Official to determine whether an application meets the conditions or not. Other than the few conditions noted
earlier, the language would be very general.
Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board has been interpreting Section 5 of Ordinance 3769 to be more narrow than it is.
As stated, homeless shelters can be located in any zoning district where a church is permitted as a primary use. That means it
does not have to be in a church. The shelter could be located in any facility in any zone that allows churches as long as the
use has a sponsor that meets the outlined criteria. He summarized that, as currently drafted, the use could be in any facility in
any zone because all zones allow churches as primary uses.
Board Member Reed asked if a church or non-profit organization would be required to apply for a building permit for a
temporary homeless shelter. Vice Chair Lovell noted there is already an application process for temporary homeless shelters.
Mr. Park agreed that the application process is provided for in Ordinance 3730.
Mr. Chave suggested the Board also consider whether or not temporary homeless shelters should be permitted wherever
regional local public facilities are allowed. Mr. Park pointed out that there are no zones in the City where a regional public
facility would be a primary use, but a local public facility would not. Once again, he explained that temporary homeless
shelters would be allowed in any zone that allows either churches or local public facilities as permitted or secondary uses as
long as there is a qualified sponsor.
Mr. Park explained that the interim ordinance that was adopted on December 15, 2009 would expire on June 15, 2010. It
would be desirable for the Board to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the permanent ordinance before
the interim ordinance expires. However, it would not be required. He agreed to draft codified code language for the Board’s
review and public hearing based on feedback provided. Vice Chair Lovell suggested the definition section of the
Development Code be amended to encompass the temporary homeless shelter use. Mr. Chave agreed the provisions outlined
in Section 5 of Ordinance 3769 would be translated into zoning code language.
Board Member Johnson said that when she reviewed Resolution 1213, the City Council’s legislative intent seemed to focus
on the faith community and public and non-profit agencies. The broader interpretation that would allow the uses in any
building in any zone in the City that permits churches is an entirely different tact in her opinion. Board Member Cloutier
pointed out that although a temporary homeless shelter would technically be allowed in any zone in the City, the use would
require a qualified sponsoring agency. Mr. Chave agreed the definition ties the use to churches and community
organizations.
PRESENTATION BY BIO PARK, CITY ATTORNEY, ON TEMPORARY HOMELSS ENCAMPMENTS,
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS “TENT CITIES”
Mr. Park advised that the City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance regulating temporary homeless encampments,
which are commonly referred to as “tent cities.” While there has been no concrete or reliable information that would suggest
anyone is planning to create a homeless encampment in Edmonds, neighboring jurisdictions in King County have
experienced the issue. In anticipation of future requests, some jurisdictions in Snohomish County have adopted ordinances
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 107 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 5
just in case. He noted that requests for homeless encampments usually happen quickly with very little notice. Therefore, it
would be wise for the City of Edmonds to have an ordinance on the books for this type of use. He referred the Board to the
template ordinance he provided for discussion purposes. He invited them to review the document and provide direction for
him to proceed to create code language that would work for Edmonds.
Board Member Reed inquired if the City Council actually adopted an interim ordinance for homeless encampments. Mr.
Park said it was his understanding that the City Council did adopt an interim ordinance. However, the Board concluded that
there is no record that the draft ordinance was ever adopted by the City Council.
The Board and Mr. Park reviewed the draft template section by section and made the following comments:
Section 17.20.010 – Definitions.
Mr. Park advised that Section A provides a definition for “Temporary Homeless Encampments” that was modeled after
“Tent City.” Rather than using the term ‘Tent City,” the proposed ordinance uses “Temporary Homeless Encampments.”
In Section B, the definition of “Sponsor” would be equivalent to a church or community organization that sponsors the
encampment on their premises.
Vice Chair Lovell said that while Federal Law requires the City to allow religious organizations to implement these
services for the people, the ordinance contains statements that seem to conflict and allow churches to set up homeless
encampments on property that does not belong to them. For example, a “sponsor” is defined as a local place of worship
or other local, community-based organization; it does not say it has to be a church. He asked if the intent was to limit the
use to those that are sponsored by churches. Mr. Park explained that the law requires the City to allow churches to use
their land to exercise their religious beliefs and it has been determined that ministering to the poor and needy is
considered religious activity.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the two applicable requirements are that it be operated by a church and located on
church property. Mr. Park clarified that ordinance would not be limited to just these two criteria. It is appropriate for
the City to propose specific standards, but they must provide an option for the applicant to propose different alternatives
for meeting the standards as long as the alternatives would still meet standards for safety, health, and welfare of the
people in the encampment, as well as the neighboring community. He emphasized that the ability to “tweak” the
standards would only be allowed for Churches and not for non-profit organizations who desire to create a temporary
homeless encampment. Vice Chair Lovell expressed concern that, as proposed, a church could get permission from a
private property owner to establish a temporary homeless encampment on property that is not owned by the church. Mr.
Park said that was not the intent of the proposed language. He invited the Board to provide feedback about whether or
not this should be allowed.
Section 17.20.020 – Temporary Homeless Encampment Permit.
Mr. Park explained that the purpose of this section is to establish a new type of permit for temporary homeless
encampments. It would allow these uses to occur as secondary uses in all zoning districts where churches or local public
facilities are permitted as primary uses. As proposed, the permit would be a Type IIIA Permit, which would require a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner would make the final decision. However, he noted
the Board could recommend changing the process so that the issue is decided administratively or by the City Council.
Section 17.20.030 – Standards.
Item A. Board Member Johnson pointed out that the proposed language would require a 20-foot separation between the
tents and any building, parked vehicle, etc. However, it does not address how close the tents can be located to the 6-foot
fence that would be required around the perimeter of the encampment. She suggested that if the purpose of this section is
to prevent fire hazards, they should also address the tents’ proximity to the fence. Mr. Park agreed that “fences” could be
added to the language. He suggested the Board invite the Fire Marshal to review the draft language and comment about
issues related to the fire code. He pointed out that the 20-foot separation came directly from the existing fire code.
Item B. Mr. Park advised that the purpose of this section is to require a 6-foot sight-obscuring fence to screen potential
visual nuisances associated with the encampment from adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 108 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 6
Board Member Johnson pointed out that this section could conflict with ECDC 17.30.010, which also addresses fences.
In the event of a conflict, she asked if the provisions of the new ordinance would control. Mr. Park agreed that the code
language that is more specific to the provision would control regardless of what the other section says (see Section
17.20.100). He noted that ECDC 17.30.010 relates specifically to the application and notification process for temporary
homeless shelters. There are already procedures in ECDC 20 that deal with permit applications and processes in general.
However, a different set of procedures has been proposed for this unique permit because the City must have a process for
reviewing the applications and making decisions in a short time period.
Board Member Johnson advised that ECDC 17.30.010 also requires that fences be placed 30 feet from a corner in order
to provide proper sight distance. Allowing a 6-foot tall fence on a corner lot near the road may create a problem. Mr.
Park agreed that this technical standard must be addressed. He suggested the Board invite the City Engineer to review
the proposed criteria and standards and provide feedback. Perhaps the City Engineer could provide a better solution to
address the concerns.
Items D and E. Mr. Park advised that the Board could change the density to whatever they feel is appropriate, as long as
it does not substantially deter a church from applying for a permit to establish a temporary homeless encampment. Vice
Chair Lovell pointed out that, as proposed, a 100- person encampment would require at least a one-acre parcel.
However, the proposed language does not take into account setback requirements and any structures that already exist on
the site. If these factors are considered, the size of the lot would have to be even larger. Mr. Park agreed it would be
appropriate for the Board to provide direction on whether or not the parcel size would be measured from boundary-line-
to-boundary-line or just the area where tents could actually be located. The Board agreed it would make more sense to
consider the area as the portion of property proposed for the actual encampment, and not include setback requirements,
existing buildings, etc. Mr. Park requested staff assist him with issues such as maximum tent size, setback requirements,
etc.
Board Member Cloutier suggested the best approach for tackling this project would be for the Board to start with sample
ordinances that have been adopted and used successfully by other jurisdictions. He cautioned against creating an
ordinance that is too restrictive on density since this could result in an encampment being scattered throughout the
community. Mr. Chave agreed and particularly questioned the need for the proposed 20-foot separation between the
individual tents. Board Member Cloutier concurred that it might not be necessary to require a 20-foot separation between
each tent, but he recognized there needs to be a 20-foot separation in some areas to provide for fire access. Mr. Park
agreed to obtain examples from other jurisdictions that have implemented and successfully used standards for temporary
homeless encampments.
Board Member Johnson said it would also be helpful for Mr. Park to work with staff to identify how large a parcel would
have to be to accommodate 100 tenants, given the current and proposed restrictions. She said she did some analysis in an
attempt to understand the density issue better. She concluded that the minimum parcel size of 10,000 square feet would
be too restrictive. Once all of the fire codes, parking standards, setbacks, etc. have been applied there would be very little
space left for tents. She estimated that a 10,000 square foot lot would only accommodate three homeless tents. She said
it would be helpful if staff could provide a sketch to help the Board gain a better understanding of what 100 homeless
tents would look like on a proposed site. Board Member Cloutier added that if the City is going to allow this type of use
on short notice, it would be helpful to provide examples of how to set up an encampment of a certain size. This would
make it easy for the City to show how the standards could be applied. Mr. Park reminded the Board that the 10,000
square foot requirement would be the minimum size, not the maximum size. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief
that the code should be as flexible as possible so that temporary homeless encampments could locate successfully on
small lots, as well as large lots.
Items F and G. Mr. Park advised that the proposed language would require one parking site for the host’s permanent use
and five parking stalls dedicated exclusively for the encampment. In addition, on-site parking required for the host site’s
permanent use cannot be displaced by the encampment. Board Member Johnson said that as the City collects information
from other jurisdictions, it might be useful to obtain information about parking, as well. Board Member Cloutier noted
that most of the people who would live in the encampment would not have vehicles.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 109 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 7
Board Member Johnson suggested that parking could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because the situation at each
site could vary. In general, she suggested that if a church is willing to host a homeless shelter, they would also be willing
to share a portion of their parking lot. She cautioned against requiring additional parking to be constructed for a use that
would be temporary in nature. Again, Mr. Park said the intent is that they do not use the parking space that is currently
required for the primary use.
Board Member Johnson suggested it may be appropriate to require a parking plan, which could include other solutions
for addressing the parking concerns. Board Member Cloutier agreed that some flexibility should be allowed for the host
to address the issue by providing parking elsewhere, etc. Mr. Park noted that the proposed language would allow the host
to petition the Hearing Examiner for a deviation from the parking standards.
Item H. Mr. Park advised that while the current language would require that the encampment be located within ½ mile of
transit service, the Board could choose to reduce or increase this requirement.
Item I. Mr. Park said that, as proposed, no children under 18 would be allowed in the encampment. He noted that this is
a typical requirement used by most jurisdictions, but it is not a legal requirement. He also advised that Share Wheel, the
managing agency for “Tent City” does not allow children under 18.
Item J. Mr. Park advised that this language would require the encampment to have a written code of conduct. He
explained that it would be difficult for the City, as a governing agency, to prohibit items such as guns, alcohol, etc., at the
encampment. Once a resident enters the encampment, it would be considered their home, and they would have certain
constitutional rights. However, a private entity (sponsoring agency) could set more restrictions.
Items K and L. Mr. Park explained that this language would require that certain facilities and services be provided within
the encampment such as waste disposal, drinking water, electricity, fire extinguishers, etc. He noted the Board could add
additional criteria in this section, as long as they do not substantially impede the operation.
Items M and N. Mr. Park advised that these two sections would require the managing agency to appoint a member to
serve as a point of contact for the City’s Police Department, and at least one member must be on duty at all times. It
would also require the managing agency to permit inspections by the Snohomish County Health District.
Item O. Mr. Park said this language would require the managing agency to take all reasonable and legal steps to obtain
verifiable identification from prospective residents. He explained that if a resident has a warrant out for his/her arrest, the
managing agency would be required to contact the Police Department so that the person could be taken away. However,
the City would not have the ability to prohibit properly registered sex offenders from the encampment, as long as the
encampment is not located within the buffer areas where sex offenders cannot reside. As long as they comply with the
existing laws, they would be permitted to live in the encampment.
Item T. Board Member Reed felt that requiring the encampment to be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan was a vague statement that should be made more specific. Mr. Park agreed the statement is general
in nature. However, the City currently requires all types of permits to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He
acknowledged that it is difficult to determine whether or not a permit meets all of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive, but it must remain as a standard.
Section 17.20.040 – Frequency and Duration.
Mr. Park explained that most jurisdictions allow the temporary homeless encampments to operate anywhere between two
and three months, but the Board could recommend a time period as short as 45 days. It is also standard practice to allow
the encampment to be located on a site only once in a year. As proposed, the managing agency would be required to
restore the site to its pre-encampment condition within one week.
Section 17.20.050 – Procedural Requirements for Temporary Homeless Encampment Permit Applications.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 110 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 8
Item A. Mr. Park advised that this section requires that an application be submitted at least 30 days prior to the
anticipated start of the encampment. This section contains a list of items that could be required as part of the application.
Board Member Johnson referred to Item 8 on the list and suggested the required site plan also include information about
dimensions, parcel size, and site location. Mr. Park observed that providing examples, as suggested earlier by Board
Member Cloutier, would help the managing agency prepare the required site plan.
Item B. Mr. Park advised that the language in this section came directly from the fire code. Any tents or structures in
excess of 200 square feet would require approval from the Fire Marshal.
Item C. Mr. Park advised that, as proposed, a notice of application and public hearing must be provided within 10 days
after the City has determined the application is complete. At this time, the notice requirements would be the
responsibility of the applicant. However, he has discussed with staff the option of having the City provide notice for
consistency, etc. As written, the applicant would have seven days to send out a notice to the neighboring property
owners, publish a notice in the City’s official newspaper, and post a notice on the subject site with a brief description of
the proposed plan and the conditions that would apply.
Item E. Mr. Park explained that prior to an actual hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the managing agency would be
required to participate in a community information meeting. He noted that many jurisdictions have incorporated this
requirement to allow neighboring property owners and the community an opportunity to learn more about the proposal
and express their concerns and/or support in an informal manner. He emphasized this is not a legal requirement. He
explained that, as proposed, the permit would be a Type IIIA application, which would go straight to the Hearing
Examiner for a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner’s decision would not be subject to an administrative appeal.
There would be no appeal to the City Council, either. The only opportunity for appeal would be to Snohomish County
Superior Court. He noted that some jurisdictions require a Hearing Examiner review, and others allow for an
administrative review with no public hearing.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the permits must be issued within a short time frame, which does not accommodate a
lengthy appeal process. Mr. Park agreed that the applications must be processed within 30 days. If an appeal before the
City Council were allowed, the process would be much longer. He noted that in past history, “Tent City” has moved into
a location prior to resolving issues before the judicial court. They have argued that the process set up by a jurisdiction is
substantially burdensome on their freedom of religious exercise. Board Member Cloutier summarized that the City
would only have 30 days after an application has been submitted to complete the review process and issue a permit or the
encampment might move in anyway. Mr. Park said that if the City has a process that is intended to be completed in 30
days, the burden would be a lot higher for the applicant to demonstrate to the judge that the compact process was
burdensome on their freedom of religious exercise. He summarized that there are no guarantees that this will be a bullet-
proof process that will avoid adjudication in court, but it gives the City a better chance to prevail.
Section 17.20.060 – Requesting Modifications of Standards.
Mr. Park advised that this section provides the applicant with an opportunity to propose different standards to the Hearing
Examiner, as long as they can demonstrate that the proposed modifications would result in a safe encampment.
Section 17.20.070 – Notice of Decision.
Mr. Park noted that this language would allow the Hearing Examiner seven days to issue a final decision. Typically, the
Hearing Examiner is allowed 14 days to issue his/her findings.
Section 17.20.080 – Indemnification and Hold Harmless Requirements.
Mr. Park advised that this requirement is a warning to the sponsor to keep tight control on their residents. Board Member
Reed asked if it would be necessary or possible to require the sponsor or managing agency to provide insurance. Mr.
Park answered that it would great if they offered to provide insurance, but it is not likely they would want to pay this
cost. Vice Chair Lovell observed that a church would likely check with their insurance agent before pursuing a permit
for a temporary homeless shelter on their property. Mr. Park explained that requiring a church to provide insurance
would be considered a type of fee, and as proposed, there would be no fee associated with the permit. He advised that
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 111 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 9
establishing a monetary hurdle for religious organizations could be considered in opposition to their freedom of religious
exercise.
Section 17.20.110 – No Intent to Create Protected/Benefited Class.
Mr. Park explained that this section is intended to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. It further
states that nothing contained in the chapter should be construed to create or establish any particular class or group of
persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the provisions in this chapter.
Board Member Reed suggested the Board appoint a subcommittee to work with Mr. Park and staff to create draft code
language for the Board’s consideration at a future time. Mr. Park explained that his intent was to provide a basic template
for the Board to begin their discussion. His goal was to provide a rough idea of the legal parameters surrounding the issue
and solicit feedback from the Board about how restrictive the ordinance should be. He would also like feedback about the
ability of religious groups to petition the decision maker for possible exceptions to the standards, etc.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that Mr. Park would collect sample ordinances that have been adopted and used successfully
by other jurisdictions. This information could be used as a template to prepare draft code language for the Board’s
consideration in March. Once the code language has been presented to the Board again, they may decide to appoint a
subcommittee to review the document further and report back to the Board. Mr. Park agreed to work with City staff and the
Fire Marshal to address issues related to building and fire code requirements. Mr. Park also agreed to work with staff to
prepare additional information related to logistics, space, size, etc. Board Member Johnson reminded staff of her earlier
request that a drawing be provided to illustrate how the proposed language would be applied to a given site.
The Board discussed that it would be appropriate to forward a joint recommendation to the City Council regarding the
temporary homeless shelters and temporary homeless encampments at the same time. Mr. Park reminded the Board that the
interim ordinance related to temporary homeless shelters was adopted by the City Council on December 15, 2009 and would
expire on June 15, 2010.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A SHORT BREAK AT 9:02 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE
MEETING AT 9:12 P.M.
CODE REWRITE: PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE CITY’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
(SEPA) RULES (ECDC 20.15A) (FILE NO. AMD-2009-6)
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City’s SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.15A, and the original regulations were adopted under Ordinance 1855 in 1976. In 1984, the City adopted Ordinance
2461, which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with the new SEPA rules in the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11 and the Model SEPA Ordinance in WAC 173-806. The SEPA regulations currently
used by the City are essentially the same that were adopted 25 years ago, with only some minor amendments. He reminded
the Board that the SEPA regulations (ECDC 20.15A) are being reviewed as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its
development regulations. Due to changes to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), WAC, and the City’s own code,
ECDC 20.15A is long overdue for an update. He reviewed the issues being considered as part of the review as follows:
Adoption by Reference. ECDC 20.15A adopts significant portions of WAC 197-11 (SEPA rules) by reference.
Sections of WAC 197-11 have been added and/or removed since the City adopted Ordinance 2461 in 1984, particularly
in regards to SEPA and Growth Management Act (GMA) integration. The proposed update would review changes in
WAC 197-11 and the adoption lists in ECDC 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with the State
regulations.
Model Code. ECDC 20.15A is largely based off the model code in WAC 173-806. As with WAC 197-11, there have
been changes since 1984. The update will review WAC 173-806 and make updates to ECDC 20.15A where appropriate
to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with State regulations.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 112 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 15, 2009
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council interviewed the following candidates for the Historic Preservation
Commission and Planning Board: John Dewhirst, Lois Broadway and Todd Cloutier. Mayor Haakenson,
and Councilmembers Plunkett, Bernheim, Orvis and Wambolt were present at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson arrived at 6:50 p.m.
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Wilson requested Item O be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember
Plunkett requested Item R be removed, and Councilmember Wambolt requested Item U be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 2009.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 113 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 4
debate and kid with him. He had enjoyed working with Councilmember Wambolt due to both his spirit
and his work habits.
Councilmember Peterson commented it had been a pleasure to work with Councilmember Wambolt; his
work ethic was without parallel. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s excellent sense of
humor, remarking he would be deeply missed. He looked forward to Councilmember Wambolt’s
continued involvement in the community.
Council President Wilson commented Councilmember Wambolt had been a tremendous resource and
asset to him and he appreciated his wisdom and guidance.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled Councilmember Wambolt’s and his initial contact was on a citizens
group. He looked forward to the role Councilmember Wambolt would continue to play in the
community.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for bringing sanity to the Council, recalling he
challenged the incumbent and his election allowed the Council to keep lower heights downtown.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Wambolt’s willingness to change his
mind on an issue. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s preparation for Council meetings.
Although Councilmember Wambolt and he had not always agreed on issues, he had the utmost respect for
him and would welcome him back on the Council at any time.
Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a brief reception in Councilmember Wambolt’s honor.
4. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND DIRECTION REGARDING
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED ON THIS
MATTER.
Council President Wilson explained at the Community Services/Development Services Committee
meeting Councilmember Orvis and he spoke with staff regarding the lack of a process in the current code
for permitting a temporary homeless shelter, whether a few days in a church or a tent city. They agreed
an interim ordinance would be appropriate to establish a process followed by further review and
discussion by the Planning Board and staff. He explained the intent of the resolution was to provide
direction to staff regarding the Council’s values to assist in developing a permanent process. He
explained the resolution was developed with the assistance of homeless shelter advocates in South
Snohomish County. He summarized the interim ordinance was not perfect but a starting point.
Charlotte Lawson explained she had been volunteering at a homeless shelter for approximately two
years. She explained homeless people exist everywhere and they often arrive at the shelter cold and
without adequate coats, gloves, hats. During the past 11 days when they offered shelter, the Edmonds
Police Department called four times to inform her of people they discovered living in their cars. She
described the importance of providing shelter for the homeless during emergency weather situations. She
commented on how easily people can become homeless through circumstances beyond their control.
Reverend Barry Keating, Maplewood Presbyterian Church, requested the Council allow churches
freedom from the ordinance that requires churches to have a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm
system. He commented groups of 100+ people are at the church each day without a sprinkler or
monitored fire alarm system. As written, the ordinance would not allow him to bring someone inside the
church that he found sleeping in front of the church on a frigid night. During the current economic
climate when it was difficult for government to provide these services, a group of volunteers and warm
buildings were available to provide emergency shelter. The ordinance seemed to indicate it was better for
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 114 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 5
the homeless to remain outside in frigid temperatures than take the risk of being inside a building that
lacked a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm. He assured there were homeless people in the
Edmonds/Lynnwood area, remarking it would have been difficult during last year’s four weeks of frigid
weather to obey the City’s ordinance. He urged the Council to consider waiving the ordinance for
churches.
Reverend Eileen Hanson, Trinity Lutheran Church, explained the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter
Network was a grass-roots coalition. Last year they provided 474 beds over 34 nights; this year they
provided 200 beds during the recent 11 days of cold weather. She commented on the diversity of their
guests; they include veterans, youth and pregnant women. The Shelter Network is a coalition of seven
faith communities with tremendous community involvement from approximately 200 volunteers. She
encouraged Council to look at this issue not from a stereotypical point of view but understanding the
diversity among the homeless and the under-housed (living in RVs and cars).
Catherine Roper, Lynnwood, an elder in the Maplewood Presbyterian Church, thanked Edmonds for
their concern about the safety of people in churches. She commented on the importance of community
shelters to provide safe, warm and dry emergency accommodations. Until communities are able to
provide shelter and/or employment conditions improve making emergency shelters unnecessary, churches
are providing a piecemeal, minimal temporary shelter. Until Edmonds was able to provide shelter, she
requested the temporary ordinance waive the requirement for sprinklers and a monitored fire alarm
system. She planned to also urge the Lynnwood City Council to provide temporary emergency housing.
Bill Ellis, Edmonds, representing Edmonds United Methodist Church and accompanied by two church
elders, commented although many believe Edmonds is a prosperous city, there are various types of low
cost housing and a wide mix of income levels. Snohomish County’s 10% unemployment rate is higher
than the State or national rate. The consequences of high unemployment are evident at the food bank; the
food bank served nearly twice the number of people this year compared to last year. Today they served
425 families which represent approximately 2,000 people; their recent toy shop distributed 1,060 toys.
Homelessness is one aspect of the economic crisis and results from unemployment, loss of insurance, and
severe physical and psychological suffering. He commented the homeless includes the near homeless,
people who are living in a car or van or stay with a neighbor or friend. The temperature that activates the
Emergency Cold Weather Shelter Network is 33 degrees. He summarized although there were not huge
numbers of homeless people in South Snohomish County, there were very few facilities. The coalition of
churches is striving to fill that need.
Brooke Burdick, Edmonds, explained he had became involved with the Cold Weather Shelter as a result
of his son’s Eagle Scout Project to collect food, cash and equipment donations to provide for those in
need this winter. Many of the people he met at the shelter while volunteering were not the stereotypical
person staying at a shelter. His son and he attended last week’s Lynnwood City Council meeting and
were discouraged because they were not interested in participating in a solution. He encouraged the
Edmonds City Council to show leadership in Snohomish County by acting swiftly to help the community
provide shelter for the homeless this winter.
Marilyn Nadeau, Edmonds, requested the Council’s support for the ordinance or any other action to
facilitate a shelter in Edmonds. A co-founder of the South Snohomish County Shelter for the Homeless
that was started at Trinity Lutheran, she enlisted the help of several other churches in the area. Their
criteria is 33 degrees or below for 4 hours or more. They only seek to offer a safe, warm environment for
the homeless who include men, women and children. This year they have been open for 10 nights and
housed approximately 200 people including several women. They expect to continue this somehow,
somewhere. She invited Councilmembers to visit the shelter the next time it is open.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 115 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 6
Council President Wilson explained he learned by talking with homeless advocates that Edmonds has the
stigma of thinking no homeless people exist in Edmonds and if there were any homeless in Edmonds,
they would be promptly sent out of town. He assured that did not reflect the Council or the community’s
values. Although there are legitimate reasons some buildings could not be allowed to house homeless
people such as if they do not meet the State building code that requires sprinklers, there is a federal law
that allows the land use of religious facilities to override the State Building Code. He anticipated this
would be one of the only Council votes that would save lives. The resolution directs staff to be as flexible
and as aggressive as possible in waiving certain requirements to adhere to federal law.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City has taken two steps already, 1) the City for years has had a
reasonable accommodation process that provides for a waiver of any land use provisions to prevent full
use of property by disabled persons and the homeless community contains a large number of disabled
persons, and 2) the City adopted Ordinance 3730 that adopted the exemption process permitted under the
State Building Code. He explained the City was obligated to enforce the State Building Code and could
not amend the substantive provisions of the State Building Code without the State Building Council’s
approval, a process that takes 6-8 months. The provision for sprinklers is in the State Building Code. Via
adoption of Ordinance 3730, the City exempted existing buildings that would be used for indigent
emergency shelter from change in use requirements such as installing sprinklers. The State Statute
requires that code deficiencies that are exempted pose no threat to human health or safety and the
proposed emergency temporary housing must be less hazardous than the existing use.
Passing the interim ordinance will remove all impediments in the City’s zoning code in addition to the
previous adoption of the State’s Building Code provision and the reasonable accommodation process.
The Fire Marshal community’s position is exempting any use from the sprinkler requirement poses a
threat to health and safety. As attorney Bio Park discussed with the Council committee, that raises legal
issues. Washington State Constitution is broader than the Federal Constitution and Federal statutory
provision and requires, 1) the City’s enforcement of building codes and other requirements be flexible,
and 2) consider reasonable alternatives. He recommended continuing to explore what could be done
within the context of the State law and to assess the risks.
Councilmember Wambolt commended all the speakers for their work on this issue. He acknowledged
there was a problem and the citizens involved in that effort need the City’s assistance. He suggested
consideration be given to using the Senior Center for temporary emergency shelter.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked everyone involved in this effort. He described his past involvement
with the food bank and looked forward to the Council’s effort with regard to this matter.
Councilmember Peterson commented this resolution was the most important page in tonight’s 1,036 page
Council packet. He thanked Council President Wilson for bringing this issue to the Council. The
resolution and interim ordinance are important steps toward raising awareness of the problem in South
Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson thanked everyone involved in providing emergency shelter for the homeless.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1213 REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND
DIRECTION REGARDING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND
ENCAMPMENTS
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the intent of the ordinance was to remove all doubt that homeless
shelters were a permitted use in the City’s zones. The interim ordinance will be in effect for six months
while the Planning Board considers the matter and a public hearing is required within 60 days.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 116 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3769 RELATED TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND ENCAMPMENTS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION ON RENAMING KAIREZ DRIVE.
Council President Wilson explained the Vista Del Mar Homeowner’s association President contacted him
with a request to rename Kairez Drive. There are two processes, one that costs thousands of dollars and a
second virtually no cost option where Council can direct staff to rename the street.
Ross Marturano, President, Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association, identified five residents of Vista
Del Mar in the audience. He explained there are nine existing homes in Vista Del Mar, two pending sales
and several undeveloped lots. Of the 15 lots, 13 voted in favor of the name change, 1 abstained and 1
voted no. He explained the name Kairez has negative connotations in the neighborhood particularly with
the Police Department. The street was originally known as 92nd Place West and changed to Kairez; the
plat is known as Vista Del Mar. A vote was taken in accordance with the Vista Del Mar Homeowner
Association’s CC&Rs and they are petitioning the Council to change the name. There is no implication
with the title company other than the City must file the name change with Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson inquired about a private road versus public road. Mr. Marturano replied they
are willing to have the road public or private. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this only initiated the
process and set the public hearing. Staff will provide a response by the public hearing regarding the
public versus private road issue. He requested a copy of the Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association
CC&Rs.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1214 INITIATING THE PROCESS TO RENAME KAIREZ
DRIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS “FIRDALE
VILLAGE” FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS" (BN) TO THE “FIRDALE VILLAGE
MIXED USE” (FVMU) ZONE AND ESTABLISH A TREE RETENTION BUFFER.
Planner Gina Coccia explained Firdale Village is located at 9617 Firdale Avenue, contains 3.2 acres and 8
parcels. The buildings were constructed in 1942, annexed into the City in 1997 and the site is currently
zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). The City received one public comment that is included in Exhibit 1
of Attachment 10. No public testimony was provided at the Planning Board public hearing.
She explained this item included a rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board
recommended approval of both the rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board’s draft
minutes are attached in Exhibit 2. In 2006 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to add goals and
policies for this neighborhood. A code amendment establishing a Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone
(FVMU) and corresponding design standards was approved in October 2009.
Ms. Coccia explained this was two separate actions, 1) a public hearing on the proposed development
agreement and 2) a closed record review of the proposed change in zoning from BN to FVMU. The
application requires compliance with ECDC 20.01 Types of Development, 20.08 Development
Agreements, 20.40 Rezones as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. She explained the development
agreement is a Type V legislative application. The Planning Board conducts an open record public
hearing and forwards a recommendation to the Council for final decision. The City Council may hold its
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 117 of 251
19.27.040 << 19.27.042 >> 19.27.050
(1) Effective January 1, 1992, the legislative authorities of cities and counties may adopt an
ordinance or resolution to exempt from state building code requirements buildings whose
character of use or occupancy has been changed in order to provide housing for indigent
persons. The ordinance or resolution allowing the exemption shall include the following
conditions:
(a) The exemption is limited to existing buildings located in this state;
(b) Any code deficiencies to be exempted pose no threat to human life, health, or safety;
(c) The building or buildings exempted under this section are owned or administered by a
public agency or nonprofit corporation; and
(d) The exemption is authorized for no more than five years on any given building. An
exemption for a building may be renewed if the requirements of this section are met for each
renewal.
(2) By January 1, 1992, the state building code council shall adopt by rule, guidelines for
cities and counties exempting buildings under subsection (1) of this section.
[1991 c 139 § 1.]
Inside the Legislature
Find Your Legislator
Visiting the Legislature
Agendas, Schedules and
Calendars
Bill Information
Laws and Agency Rules
Legislative Committees
Legislative Agencies
Legislative Information
Center
E-mail Notifications
(Listserv)
Students' Page
History of the State
Legislature
Outside the Legislature
Congress - the Other
Washington
TVW
Washington Courts
OFM Fiscal Note Website
RCWs > Title 19 > Chapter 19.27 > Section 19.27.042
RCW 19.27.042
Cities and counties — Emergency exemptions
for housing for indigent persons.
Legislature Home | Senate | House of Representatives | Contact Us | Search | Help
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 118 of 251
51-16-020 << 51-16-030 >> 51-16-080
Cities and counties are permitted the option of adopting exemptions from the state building
code requirements for buildings whose character of use or occupancy has been changed in
order to provide housing for indigent persons. The adoption of an ordinance or resolution by
cities and counties for the purpose to provide for occupancy exemptions for indigent housing
as outlined in this section, shall not be considered a local government residential amendment
requiring approval by the state building code council.
The guideline shall read as follows:
The character of use or occupancy of an existing building located in this state, may be
changed in order to provide housing for indigent persons, without conforming to all of the
requirements of the State Building Code provided that:
1. The building official has reviewed and approved the proposed exemption; and,
2. The proposed housing for indigent persons is less hazardous than the existing use;
and,
3. Any code deficiencies exempted pose no threat to human life, health, or safety; and,
4. The building or buildings exempted are owned or administered by a public agency or
nonprofit corporation; and,
5. The exemption is authorized for no more than five years, subject to renewal of the
exemption by the building official.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.074, chapter 19.27 RCW and 1991 c 139. 92-01-069, § 51-16-030, filed
12/13/91, effective 7/1/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.020 and 19.27.074. 91-01-117, § 51-16-030, filed
12/19/90, effective 7/1/91. Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27, 19.27A and 70.92 RCW, and 1989 c 266. 90-
02-110, § 51-16-030, filed 1/3/90, effective 7/1/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.074. 88-24-018 and 89-11-
081 (Orders 88-11 and 88-11A), § 51-16-030, filed 12/1/88 and 5/23/89, effective 7/1/89. Statutory Authority:
1985 c 360. 85-24-029 (Order 85-13), § 51-16-030, filed 11/26/85, effective 6/11/86.]
Inside the Legislature
Find Your Legislator
Visiting the Legislature
Agendas, Schedules and
Calendars
Bill Information
Laws and Agency Rules
Legislative Committees
Legislative Agencies
Legislative Information
Center
E-mail Notifications
(Listserv)
Students' Page
History of the State
Legislature
Outside the Legislature
Congress - the Other
Washington
TVW
Washington Courts
OFM Fiscal Note Website
WACs > Title 51 > Chapter 51-16 > Section 51-16-030
WAC 51-16-030 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003
Exemptions for indigent housing guidelines.
Legislature Home | Senate | House of Representatives | Contact Us | Search | Help
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 119 of 251
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1956
Chapter 175, Laws of 2010
61st Legislature
2010 Regular Session
HOMELESS PERSONS--SHELTERS--RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
EFFECTIVE DATE: 06/10/10
Passed by the House March 6, 2010
Yeas 57 Nays 38
FRANK CHOPP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Passed by the Senate March 2, 2010
Yeas 40 Nays 5
BRAD OWEN
President of the Senate
CERTIFICATE
I, Barbara Baker, Chief Clerk of
the House of Representatives of
the State of Washington, do hereby
certify that the attached is
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL
1956 as passed by the House of
Representatives and the Senate on
the dates hereon set forth.
BARBARA BAKER
Chief Clerk
Approved March 23, 2010, 2:19 p.m.
CHRISTINE GREGOIRE
Governor of the State of Washington
FILED
March 23, 2010
Secretary of State
State of Washington
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 120 of 251
_____________________________________________
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1956
_____________________________________________
AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE
Passed Legislature - 2010 Regular Session
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2010 Regular Session
By House Local Government & Housing (originally sponsored by
Representatives Williams, Chase, Ormsby, Darneille, Van De Wege,
Dickerson, and Simpson)
READ FIRST TIME 02/20/09.
1 AN ACT Relating to the housing of homeless persons on property
2 owned or controlled by a church; adding a new section to chapter 36.01
3 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to
4 chapter 35A.21 RCW; and creating new sections.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
6 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that there are many
7 homeless persons in our state that are in need of shelter and other
8 services that are not being provided by the state and local
9 governments. The legislature also finds that in many communities,
10 religious organizations play an important role in providing needed
11 services to the homeless, including the provision of shelter upon
12 property owned by the religious organization. By providing such
13 shelter, the religious institutions in our communities perform a
14 valuable public service that, for many, offers a temporary, stop-gap
15 solution to the larger social problem of increasing numbers of homeless
16 persons.
17 This act provides guidance to cities and counties in regulating
18 homeless encampments within the community, but still leaves those
19 entities with broad discretion to protect the health and safety of its
p. 1 ESHB 1956.SLATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 121 of 251
1 citizens. It is the hope of this legislature that local governments
2 and religious organizations can work together and utilize dispute
3 resolution processes without the need for litigation.
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 36.01 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 (1) A religious organization may host temporary encampments for the
7 homeless on property owned or controlled by the religious organization
8 whether within buildings located on the property or elsewhere on the
9 property outside of buildings.
10 (2) A county may not enact an ordinance or regulation or take any
11 other action that:
12 (a) Imposes conditions other than those necessary to protect public
13 health and safety and that do not substantially burden the decisions or
14 actions of a religious organization regarding the location of housing
15 or shelter for homeless persons on property owned by the religious
16 organization;
17 (b) Requires a religious organization to obtain insurance
18 pertaining to the liability of a municipality with respect to homeless
19 persons housed on property owned by a religious organization or
20 otherwise requires the religious organization to indemnify the
21 municipality against such liability; or
22 (c) Imposes permit fees in excess of the actual costs associated
23 with the review and approval of the required permit applications.
24 (3) For the purposes of this section, "religious organization"
25 means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious
26 assembly, school, or institution that owns or controls real property.
27 (4) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or
28 public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability
29 for (a) damages arising from the permitting decisions for a temporary
30 encampment for the homeless as provided in this section and (b) any
31 conduct or unlawful activity that may occur as a result of the
32 temporary encampment for the homeless as provided in this section.
33 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW
34 to read as follows:
35 (1) A religious organization may host temporary encampments for the
ESHB 1956.SL p. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 122 of 251
1 homeless on property owned or controlled by the religious organization
2 whether within buildings located on the property or elsewhere on the
3 property outside of buildings.
4 (2) A city or town may not enact an ordinance or regulation or take
5 any other action that:
6 (a) Imposes conditions other than those necessary to protect public
7 health and safety and that do not substantially burden the decisions or
8 actions of a religious organization regarding the location of housing
9 or shelter for homeless persons on property owned by the religious
10 organization;
11 (b) Requires a religious organization to obtain insurance
12 pertaining to the liability of a municipality with respect to homeless
13 persons housed on property owned by a religious organization or
14 otherwise requires the religious organization to indemnify the
15 municipality against such liability; or
16 (c) Imposes permit fees in excess of the actual costs associated
17 with the review and approval of the required permit applications.
18 (3) For the purposes of this section, "religious organization"
19 means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious
20 assembly, school, or institution that owns or controls real property.
21 (4) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or
22 public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability
23 for (a) damages arising from the permitting decisions for a temporary
24 encampment for the homeless as provided in this section and (b) any
25 conduct or unlawful activity that may occur as a result of the
26 temporary encampment for the homeless as provided in this section.
27 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 35A.21 RCW
28 to read as follows:
29 (1) A religious organization may host temporary encampments for the
30 homeless on property owned or controlled by the religious organization
31 whether within buildings located on the property or elsewhere on the
32 property outside of buildings.
33 (2) A code city may not enact an ordinance or regulation or take
34 any other action that:
35 (a) Imposes conditions other than those necessary to protect public
36 health and safety and that do not substantially burden the decisions or
p. 3 ESHB 1956.SLATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 123 of 251
1 actions of a religious organization regarding the location of housing
2 or shelter for homeless persons on property owned by the religious
3 organization;
4 (b) Requires a religious organization to obtain insurance
5 pertaining to the liability of a municipality with respect to homeless
6 persons housed on property owned by a religious organization or
7 otherwise requires the religious organization to indemnify the
8 municipality against such liability; or
9 (c) Imposes permit fees in excess of the actual costs associated
10 with the review and approval of the required permit applications.
11 (3) For the purposes of this section, "religious organization"
12 means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious
13 assembly, school, or institution that owns or controls real property.
14 (4) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or
15 public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability
16 for (a) damages arising from the permitting decisions for a temporary
17 encampment for the homeless as provided in this section and (b) any
18 conduct or unlawful activity that may occur as a result of the
19 temporary encampment for the homeless as provided in this section.
20 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. Nothing in this act is intended to change
21 applicable law or be interpreted to prohibit a county, city, town, or
22 code city from applying zoning and land use regulations allowable under
23 established law to real property owned by a religious organization,
24 regardless of whether the property owned by the religious organization
25 is used to provide shelter or housing to homeless persons.
26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Nothing in this act supersedes a court
27 ordered consent decree or other negotiated settlement between a public
28 agency and religious organization entered into prior to July 1, 2010,
29 for the purposes of establishing a temporary encampment for the
30 homeless as provided in this act.
Passed by the House March 6, 2010.
Passed by the Senate March 2, 2010.
Approved by the Governor March 23, 2010.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State March 23, 2010.
ESHB 1956.SL p. 4 ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 124 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 125 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 126 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 127 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 128 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 129 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 130 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 131 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 132 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 133 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 134 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 135 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 136 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 137 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 138 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 139 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 140 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 141 of 251
ATTACHMENT 3 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 142 of 251
AM-3493 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Gina Coccia
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on an ordinance adopting a new Chapter 17.20 relating to temporary
homeless encampment permits and frequency, duration, and conditions.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the attached ordinance creating Chapter 17.20 ECDC (Attachment 1).
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
This is a Public Hearing on an ordinance adopting a new Chapter 17.20 ECDC relating to temporary
homeless encampment permits, addressing their frequency, duration, and conditions. The Planning Board
public held a public hearing on September 22 and the proposed ordinance was unanimously
recommended for approval. Currently there is no code in place addressing temporary homeless
encampments.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) would be a new chapter in the ECDC, Chapter 17.20. The
purpose is to establish code provisions so that if a temporary homeless encampment (e.g. Tent City) were
to locate in Edmonds, we would have regulations in place to review the proposal. Bio Park in the City
Attorney’s office extensively researched how other jurisdictions have dealt with this issue and has worked
with the Planning Board on the various requirements that could be applied to this type of use. The
proposed ordinance would create a permit process, and control the frequency, duration, and conditions of
an encampment. A public hearing would be required, as would buffers from residential neighborhoods.
* Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance 17.20 as recommended for approval by the Planning Board.
* Attachment 2: Meeting minutes for applicable Council and Planning Board meetings.
* Attachment 3: ESHB 1956
Attachments
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 10/28/2010 01:45 PM
Packet Page 143 of 251
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 05:25 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 08:01 AM
Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 10/28/2010 11:39 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2010
Packet Page 144 of 251
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.20 ECDC
RELATING TO TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT
PERMITS AND FREQUENCY, DURATION, AND
CONDITIONS THEREFORE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds intends to protect the interests and needs of Edmonds
neighborhoods, while continuing to partner with Snohomish County to address homelessness;
and
WHEREAS, in the last several years, nearby jurisdictions were surprised by the arrival of
homeless encampments on property owned by local churches and/or temples with little or no
notice to the respective jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the absence of regulations that addressed homeless encampments in
neighboring jurisdictions did nothing to deter homeless encampments from establishing
themselves in the aforementioned neighboring jurisdictions, leaving these jurisdictions little time
to prepare an ordinance, give notice and opportunity to comment by neighborhood residents and
negotiate the terms of a permit; and
WHEREAS, there are constitutional and statutory constraints on the City’s ability to
prevent or regulate homeless encampments in Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Constitution does not prohibit government from requiring
religious institutions to go through the permit application process and allows government to
impose reasonable conditions concerning public health, safety and welfare on the use of
church/temple property; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code does not currently have
specific provisions addressing temporary homeless encampments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a need for zoning regulations
for the permitting of homeless encampments; and
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 1
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 145 of 251
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that if the City plans for the possibility of
homeless encampments in Edmonds, it will be better able to (a) avoid unnecessary litigation
costs that might otherwise be incurred due to the absence of an established permitting process;
(b) avoid complaints from neighborhood groups/residents that the homeless encampment was
allowed to ignore due process when it moved in without a permit; and (c) avoid the danger that
regulations adopted after the fact of a homeless encampment establishing itself may appear
arbitrary and capricious; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adopted. A new Chapter 17.20 ECDC entitled Temporary Homeless Encampment is
hereby adopted to read as follows:
Chapter 17.20
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT
17.20.010 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to temporary homeless encampment permits and this
ordinance:
A. “Temporary Homeless Encampment” means a transient or interim gathering or
community residing out of doors on a site with services provided and supervised
by a sponsor or managing agency comprised of temporary enclosures (tents and
other forms of portable shelter that are not permanently attached to the ground),
which may include common areas designed to provide food, living and sanitary
services to occupants of the encampment.
B. “Managing Agency” means an organization that organizes and manages a
homeless encampment. A managing agency may be the same entity as the
sponsor.
C. “Sponsor” means a local place of worship or other local, community-based
organization that has an agreement with the managing agency to provide basic
services and support for the residents of a homeless encampment and liaison with
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 2
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 146 of 251
the surrounding community and joins with the managing agency in an application
for a temporary homeless encampment permit. A “sponsor” may be the same
entity as the managing agency.
D. “Tent” means a temporary structure, enclosure or shelter constructed of fabric or
pliable material supported by any manner except by air or the contents that it
protects.
17.20.020 Temporary Homeless Encampments Permit.
Temporary homeless encampment permit, and regulations on processing the same, are hereby
established. A temporary homeless encampment permit shall be required for temporary
homeless encampment in the city. Temporary homeless encampments shall be permitted as a
secondary use at all zoning districts where Churches or Local Public Facilities are permitted as
primary uses. Public hearing shall be held and a decision on temporary homeless encampment
permit shall be issued by the Hearing Examiner as if it were a Type III-A decision. Establishing
such facilities contrary to the provisions of this ordinance is prohibited. If one is established in
violation of this ordinance, or if after a temporary homeless encampment permit is issued, the
Development Services Director determines that the permit holder has violated this ordinance or
any condition of the permit, the encampment, its sponsor and managing agency may be subject
to code enforcement pursuant applicable city codes.
17.20.030 Standards.
The following standards shall apply for processing applications for and approving temporary
homeless encampment permits:
A. No part of temporary homeless encampments shall encroach on setbacks between properties,
or into a critical areas or critical area buffer. The perimeter of the temporary homeless
encampment shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from any of the host location’s property
line that abuts a neighboring property or right-of-way. Any tent, canopy or membrane
structure, as defined in Chapter 24 of the International Fire Code, must be located a
reasonably safe distance away from any building, parked vehicle, internal combustion
engines or other tent, canopy or membrane structure.
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 3
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 147 of 251
B. A 6-foot high sight-obscuring fence is required around the perimeter of the temporary
homeless encampment unless the Hearing Examiner determines that there is sufficient
vegetation, topographic variation, or other site condition such that fencing would not be
needed.
C. Exterior lighting must be directed downward and contained within the temporary homeless
encampment.
D. The maximum number of occupants within a temporary homeless encampment shall be
determined by taking into consideration the size and conditions of the proposed site,
however, it may not exceed 100 regardless of size or condition.
E. Required minimum on-site parking for the host site’s permanent/other uses shall not be either
displaced by said encampment or used to meet said encampment’s parking requirements,
unless a shared parking agreement is executed with adjacent properties to compensate.
F. A transportation and parking plan is required which shall include provisions for transit
services and a minimum of 5 parking stalls dedicated exclusively for said encampment use.
G. The temporary homeless encampment shall be located within ½ mile of transit service.
H. The managing agency and sponsor shall not permit children under the age of 18 to stay
overnight in the temporary homeless encampment, unless circumstances prevent a more
suitable overnight accommodation for the child and parent or guardian. If a child under the
age of 18, either alone or accompanied by a parent or guardian, attempts to stay overnight,
the managing agency and sponsor shall endeavor to find alternative shelter for the child and
any accompanying parent or guardian. No children under 18 that are not accompanied by a
parent or guardian are allowed in the temporary homeless encampment.
I. The managing agency and sponsor shall provide and enforce within said encampment a
written code of conduct, which not only provides for the health, safety and welfare of the
temporary homeless encampment residents, but also mitigates impacts to neighbors and the
community.
J. The managing agency, sponsor and temporary homeless encampment residents shall ensure
compliance with applicable state statutes and regulations and local ordinances concerning,
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 4
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 148 of 251
but not limited to, drinking water connections, solid waste disposal, human waste, outdoor
fire or burning, electrical systems, and fire resistant materials.
K. The managing agency and sponsor shall provide at said encampment sanitary portable toilets
in the number required to meet capacity guidelines by the manufacturer, self-contained hand
washing stations by the portable toilets and by the areas where food is either dispensed or
consumed communally, sufficient refuse receptacles, communal tents for food dispensing
and consumption, adequate number of fire extinguishers with appropriate rating, security
tent, and adequate source of water for both sanitation and drinking.
L. The managing agency and sponsor shall appoint a member to serve as a point of contact for
the Edmonds Police Department. At least one member must be on duty at all times at said
encampment. The names of the on-duty members shall be posted daily.
M. The managing agency and sponsor shall permit inspections of the temporary homeless
encampment by the Snohomish Health District, and timely implement all directives of the
Health District within the time period specified by the Health District. They shall
immediately report to the Health District suspected food poisoning, unusual prevalence of
fever, diarrhea, sore throat, vomiting, jaundice, productive cough, or when weight loss is a
prominent symptom among occupants.
N. The managing agency and sponsor shall take all reasonable and legal steps to obtain
verifiable identification from prospective temporary homeless encampment residents and use
the identification to obtain sex offender and warrant checks from the appropriate agency. All
legal requirements with respect to prospective residents identified as sex offenders or having
warrants shall be followed.
O. The managing agency and sponsor shall immediately contact the Edmonds Police
Department if someone is rejected or ejected from the temporary homeless encampment
where the reason for rejection or ejection is an active warrant or a match on a sex offender
check, or if, in the reasonable opinion of the on-duty member or on-duty security staff, the
rejected/ejected person is a potential threat to the community.
P. The managing agency and sponsor shall permit reasonable inspections of the temporary
homeless encampment by the city’s code enforcement officers, building officials,
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 5
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 149 of 251
Development Services Director, Fire Marshal or their designee. The managing agency and
sponsor shall implement all directives resulting from such inspections within 48 hours of
notice, unless otherwise noted.
Q. The managing agency and sponsor may not allow in said encampment without first obtaining
a building permit, any structure, other than tents, canopies or other membrane structures that
is greater than 120 square feet or provide shelter for more than 9 persons.
R. Said encampment shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in its vicinity.
S. Said encampment shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.
T. All reasonable measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts, which
said encampment may have on the areas in which it is located.
U. Because each temporary homeless encampment has unique characteristics, including but not
limited to size, duration, uses, number of occupants and composition, the Hearing Examiner
shall have the authority to impose conditions to the issuance of the permit for temporary
homeless encampments to mitigate effects on the community upon finding that said effects
are materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements
in the vicinity. Conditions, if imposed, must relate to findings by the Hearing Examiner, and
must be calculated to minimize nuisance generating features in matters of noise, waste, air
quality, unsightliness, traffic, physical hazards and other similar matters that the temporary
homeless encampment may have on the area in which it is located. In cases where the
application for temporary homeless encampment does not meet the requirements and
standards of this ordinance or adequate mitigation may not be feasible or possible, the
Hearing Examiner shall deny issuance of a temporary homeless encampment permit.
17.20.040 Frequency and Duration.
The City shall not grant a temporary homeless encampment permit for the same location more
frequently than once in every 365-day period. Temporary homeless encampments may be
approved for a period not to exceed 90 days for every 365-day period. The site must be restored
to its pre-encampment conditions within one week after the permit expires.
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 6
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 150 of 251
17.20.050 Procedural Requirements for Temporary Homeless Encampment Permit
Applications.
Notwithstanding any other provision in the Edmonds Community Development Code, the
following procedures shall apply in accepting, noticing, reviewing and otherwise processing
temporary homeless encampment permit applications (minor procedural variations that do not
cause substantial negative impact to the purpose, nature and intent of this ordinance shall not be
the sole cause for denying a temporary homeless encampment permit application):
A. Application for Temporary Homeless Encampment Permit:
A minimum of forty-five (45) days prior to the anticipated start of the encampment, the
sponsor and managing agency shall submit jointly an application for a temporary homeless
encampment permit to the Development Services Department. The completed application
shall contain at a minimum the following information:
1. The date that the temporary homeless encampment will commence.
2. The duration of said encampment.
3. The maximum number of residents proposed.
4. The host location.
5. The names of the managing agency and sponsor.
6. Detailed information on how the temporary homeless encampment will comply with the
requirements of this Chapter and the International Fire Code.
7. Copy of proposed code of conduct.
8. Permit application fee, which shall not exceed the actual cost associated with the review
and approval of said application.
9. Site Plan showing at least the following:
a) Method and Location of required screening.
b) Location of food and security tent.
c) Method and location of potable water.
d) Method and location of waste receptacles.
e) Location of required sanitary stations including toilets and hand washing facility.
f) Location of onsite parking and number of vehicles associated with the
encampment.
g) General location or arrangement of tents.
h) Access routes for emergency vehicles.
B. If the temporary homeless encampment includes tents or membrane structures in excess of
200 square feet, or canopies in excess of 400 square feet, as defined by the International Fire
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 7
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 151 of 251
Code, permit and approval for the tent, canopy or membrane structure shall be obtained from
the Fire Marshal.
C. A notice of application and public hearing shall be provided within ten (10) days after the
City determines that the application is complete. Due to the administrative and temporary
nature of the permit, the comment period shall begin upon mailing of the notice of
application and shall end after ten (10) days. The notice shall contain, at a minimum, the
date of application, project location, proposed duration and operation of the temporary
homeless encampment, number of residents for said encampment, summary of conditions
that will likely be placed on the operation of said encampment and requirements of the
written code of conduct, instructions on submitting comments, and date and location of
public hearing.
D. The form of the application shall be provided by the Planning Department upon request by
the applicant. Within ten (10) days after the City determines that the application is complete,
notice of application and comment period shall be published, mailed and posted as follows:
1. An abbreviated copy of the notice must be published in the official newspaper of
the City.
2. A copy of the notice must be mailed to (1) owners of all real property within 300
feet of any boundary of the proposed temporary homeless encampment site; and
(2) any neighborhood organization in the vicinity of said site whose contact
information is known to or made known to the City.
3. Copies of the notice must be posted on the proposed temporary homeless
encampment site in a manner reasonably calculated to be visible to and readable
by persons traveling on the public right of way contiguous to said site.
E. Informational meeting and notice thereof:
The sponsor and/or managing agency shall participate in a community information meeting
organized by the City. Notice of the community informational meeting shall be mailed at
least ten (10) days before the meeting to those listed in subsection (D)(2) above. The
purpose of the meeting is to provide the surrounding community with information regarding
the proposed duration and operation of the temporary homeless encampment, conditions that
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 8
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 152 of 251
will likely be placed on the operation of said encampment, requirements of the written code
of conduct, and to answer questions regarding the temporary homeless encampment. The
community informational meeting is not intended to be part of the official record of the
application.
F. Notices required in this section shall be provided by the City on behalf of the applicant.
17.20.060 Requesting Modification.
The Hearing Examiner may approve an application for temporary homeless encampment permits
with proposed standards or procedures that differ from those in this Chapter (except for standards
R, S, T, and U in ECDC 17.20.030 , which shall not be modified) only where, in addition to
satisfying all other requirements of this Chapter, the applicant submits a description of the
standard or procedure to be modified and demonstrates that the modifications results in a safe
homeless encampment for its residents, mitigates impacts to neighbors and the community under
the specific circumstances of the application, constitutes an accommodation of protected
religious, humanitarian and or charitable exercise by the applicant and would otherwise
substantially burden its decisions or actions, as a religious organization (as defined in RCW
), regarding the location of housing or shelter for homeless persons on property it owns.
17.20.070 Notice of Decision.
The Hearing Examiner shall issue a final decision on the permit application within seven (7)
days of the hearing. If issued, the permit for the temporary homeless encampment shall be
issued jointly to the Sponsor and Managing agency. A copy of the decision, along with
information for appealing the decision, shall be mailed promptly to applicant and parties of
record. Any appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s final decision shall be made to Snohomish
County Superior Court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.
17.20.080 Indemnification and Hold Harmless Requirements.
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 9
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 153 of 251
The Sponsor and/or Managing Agency shall provide a written indemnification and hold harmless
agreement stating that the City is not responsible for the actions, inactions or omissions of the
Sponsor, Managing Agency or of any resident of the temporary homeless encampment. The
Sponsor and/or Managing Agency shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents and volunteers, past and present, harmless from any and all claims of
liability of any nature whatsoever for the injury to or death of any person or damage to any
property, real or personal, including attorney's fees, arising out of or occasioned in any manner
by reason of the following: (a) the actions, inactions or omissions of the Sponsor and Managing
Agency or any encampment resident; and (b) the City’s lawful entry into the temporary homeless
encampment to enforce this Ordinance. This section, however, shall not apply when the Sponsor
of the temporary homeless encampment is a “religious organization” as defined in RCW
.
17.20.090 Enforcement.
Violations of this Ordinance are punishable under Chapter 20.110 ECDC, Chapter 5.50 ECC and
as otherwise provided by law, and are subject to criminal prosecution, injunctive and other forms
of relief which the City may seek.
17.20.100 Conflict.
In the event that there is a conflict between the provisions of this Ordinance and any other City
ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall control.
17.20.110 No intent to create protected/benefited class.
This Chapter is intended to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Nothing
contained in this Chapter is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or otherwise establish
any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited
by the provisions in this Chapter. This Chapter is not intended to be, nor shall be, construed to
create any basis for liability on the part of the City, its officials, officers, employees or agents for
any injury or damage that an individual, class or group may claim arises from any action or
inaction on the part of the City, its officials, officers, employees or agents. Nothing contained in
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 10
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 154 of 251
this Chapter is intended to, nor shall be construed to, impose upon the City any duty that can
become the basis of a legal action for injury or damage.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance
should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, this
Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development as required by law.
Section 4. Effective Date. The ordinance shall take effect and be in full force ( ) days
after publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
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.
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 11
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 155 of 251
{BFP764885.DOC;4\00006.900150\ } 12
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,
ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.20 ECDC RELATING TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT PERMITS AND
FREQUENCY, DURATION, AND CONDITIONS THEREFORE, 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
ATTACHMENT 1 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 156 of 251
APPROVED OCTOBER 13TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 22, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineer Program Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Traffic Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Johnson noted that the term “TBD Tax” was used throughout the September 8th minutes, yet the correct term
is “TBD fee.” She explained that there is a significant difference between a tax and a fee. For example, the City’ receives
gasoline excise tax, but they also have certain fees such as utility fees and a fee to use Yost Pool. It is in that regard that the
Transportation Benefit District (TBD) charge is a fee and not a tax. It is not a requirement, but is based on the number of
vehicles a person owns. She asked that the minutes be changed accordingly.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
REPORT ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT SITES
Ms. Coccia explained that in 1995 the City adopted ECDC 16.60.015, which regulates the location of sexually-oriented
businesses (Adult Entertainment) in the City. As per code, the businesses are only permitted to locate within the General
Commercial (CG) and General Commercial 2 (CG2) zones, which are primarily located along Highway 99. The main
determinate of where these businesses can locate is based on their proximity to specific protected uses. As written, there
must be a 300-foot separation from any residential or public use zone, as well as from parks, libraries, churches, community
centers, museums or hospitals. In addition, a 500-foot separation is required from bars and taverns. She referred to the
following maps provided in the Staff Report:
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 157 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 2
An updated map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated September 2010
A map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated April 2006
An original map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated October 1996
Ms. Coccia reported that after reviewing recent licenses issued by the Washington State Liquor Control Board for properties
along Highway 99, staff found that no new ones have been issued since 2006, which means there has been no decrease in the
area available for adult entertainment uses. She summarized that based on the criteria in ECDC 16.60.015, there were
approximately 20 potential locations for adult entertainment businesses when the ordinance was adopted in 1996. In 2006 it
was estimated there were approximately 19 to 20 potential locations. Since that time, the only change noted was that the
Scott’s Bar and Grill site was incorrectly placed because the address provided by the Washington State Liquor Control Board
was incorrect. When this site is moved to its actual location, the buffer would move approximately 230 feet west. This
would eliminate some of the potential area on the site that currently contains the Campbell Nelson car dealership. Other than
that, there have been no new protected classes from which to buffer so the amount of potential business locations remains the
same. She concluded that staff is not recommending any changes in the zoning regulations at this time. However, the
number of available locations will need to be continually monitored during the coming years.
Vice Chair Reed asked if the commercial zones at Firdale Village and/or Harbor Square would be impacted by ECDC
16.60.015. Ms. Coccia answered that the commercial zones at Firdale Village are actually Mixed-Use (MU). Adult
entertainment uses are only permitted in CG and CG2 zones. Harbor Square is under a contract rezone at this time.
However, if future changes are proposed for Harbor Square zoning, ECDC 16.60.015 should be part of the consideration.
Mr. Chave clarified that the Board is not being asked to take action on this item. The purpose of the discussion is for staff to
report on the status of the ordinance. Periodic checks are done to make sure there are still adequate sites available for this
use to ensure the City is in compliance with State Law.
Chair Lovell pointed out that some of the orange areas, which identify where adult entertainment uses could potentially
locate, are close to the high school. Mr. Chave replied that the orange areas indicate properties where the use would be
allowed based on current code requirements for buffers.
PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INDOOR SHELTERS ORDINANCE
Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for legislative public hearings.
Ms. Coccia reviewed that the City Council first discussed the concept of temporary indoor shelters in 2009 and adopted an
interim ordinance; the Board started working on a permanent ordinance in February of 2010. She explained that the City
Attorney drafted the ordinance based on the new House Bill 19.56 and ECDC 19.00.040, incorporating specific language as
required by the State. The only change the City Attorney made since the last time the Board reviewed the draft language was
inserting the interim ordinance numbers that were previously left blank. She referred to the draft ordinance (Attachment 12),
which would adopt a new Chapter ECDC 17.105 to define emergency temporary homeless shelters and identify zoning
districts where they are permitted. It would repeal Ordinance Numbers 3730, 3769 and 3794, and would potentially allow
organizations such as churches to open their doors to homeless people when the temperature drops below 32 degrees.
Ms. Coccia advised that staff used previous City Council and Planning Board meeting minutes to identify individuals who
have participated in previous discussions about temporary indoor shelters, and notices were sent inviting them to attend the
public hearing. In addition, notices were posted in the normal locations, and in the local newspaper. Staff recommends the
Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Vice Chair Reed referred to Ordinance 3778 (Attachment 3), which added a new Section ECDC 19.00.040 to exclude
churches providing emergency housing for the indigent from certain code requirements. He asked if this ordinance has been
permanently adopted into the ECDC. Ms. Coccia answered affirmatively.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 158 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 3
Board Member Johnson asked if the recommended changes based on the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) were
reflected in the draft ordinance. Ms. Coccia answered that these changes had been incorporated into the language prior to the
Board’s last discussion (See Items 1, 2 and 3 in ECDC 17.105.020.B).
John Rutter, Edmonds, said he is present as a member of a local church group that has been unable to help people who
were in desperate need because their building does not meet certain code requirements. He expressed appreciation to the
staff and Planning Board for considering their need and desire to get people off the streets when it is really cold. He
encouraged the Board to approve the ordinance. He concluded by stating that he is a member of the Social Action/Social
Concern Committee of the Edmonds Unitarian Universal Church.
Merrie Emmons, Edmonds, expressed appreciation to the Board for considering the proposed ordinance and encouraged
them to move it forward for approval. She referenced ECDC 19.00.040, which would require a church to maintain a fire
watch. She asked if this means someone from the church must be awake all night. She noted that this is a difficult
requirement since most church volunteers have to work the next day. Mr. Chave emphasized that the draft ordinance does
not specifically require a fire watch. This must be worked out with the Fire Marshall on a case-by-case basis during the
permit process. Ms. Emmons said it is very important that emergency temporary indoor shelters be allowed in Edmonds.
Board Member Johnson asked how many beds Ms. Emmons’ church provided during the past winter. Ms. Emmons
answered that they have the ability to provide 12 beds, but they were not able to do so last year because their building did not
meet the fire code requirements.
Ms. Coccia referred to ECDC 19.00.040.2.b, which defines the term “fire watch” to mean “the maintenance during all times
when indigent housing services are provided of a watch by paid staff or volunteers who shall, on premises, monitor for fires
or violations of no smoking provisions. At least one fire monitor shall be provided for each eight persons housed.”
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE
ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
REGARDING EMERGENCY TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave explained that the draft ordinance would be moved forward to the City Council for a public hearing and final
approval. Those who received notice of the Planning Board hearing would also receive notice of the City Council hearing.
Others who want to receive notification can add their name to the mailing list by signing up at the back of the room.
PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT ORDINANCE
Ms. Coccia advised that the proposed ordinance would adopt a new chapter 17.20 to the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) related to temporary homeless encampment permits. She noted that, at this time, the City has no regulations
related to temporary homeless encampments. The proposed ordinance would create a permanent process, and control the
frequency, duration and conditions. She advised that, as written, a public hearing would be required, as would buffers from
residential neighborhoods. She explained that the initial draft ordinance was crafted by the City Attorney based on
ordinances adopted by other jurisdictions in the area. The Planning Board held discussions on February 24th and August 25th
and recommended changes, which are reflected in the draft ordinance (Attachment 1) currently before the Board for
consideration. It specifically addresses the following questions that were raised on August 25th:
Does the City have the ability to prohibit weapons in temporary homeless encampments?
What is the appropriate buffer from residential neighborhoods?
Should minors under the age of 18 be allowed if accompanied by a parent or guardian?
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 159 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 4
Ms. Coccia explained that once the Board has formulated their recommendation, the ordinance would be forwarded to the
City Council for a public hearing and final approval. She advised that there is a sign-up sheet available for those interested
in receiving notification of the City Council hearing.
Chair Lovell summarized that it appears all of the Board’s questions and comments have been addressed in the ordinance.
He specifically noted the change in ECDC 17.20.050.A, which alters the permit period from 30 to 45 days. He recalled the
Board felt this was a more reasonable amount of time to allow the public an opportunity to provide comments.
NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE INDICATED A DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEREFORE,
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW
CHAPTER 17.20 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) RELATING TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT PERMITS AND FREQUENCY, DURATION AND CONDITIONS
TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2011 – 2016)
Mr. English noted that no one was present in the audience to participate in the public hearing, and staff provided a lengthy
presentation on the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to the Board on September 8th. He suggested, and the Board agreed, that
staff should dispense with another lengthy presentation and focus on the following questions and issues that were raised
previously by the Board:
As requested by the Board, a PowerPoint presentation was electronically forwarded to each Board Member. The Board
Members indicated they all received the document.
The 100-Year Flood Plain Study of the Edmonds Marsh was incorrectly labeled. Mr. English advised that this has been
corrected in the latest version of the CFP.
Rather than indicating that facilities are reaching the end of their useful life and need to be replaced,” the Board
suggested it would be more appropriate to use the term “are in need of major renovation and replacement.” This would
allow the City to consider all options. Mr. English reported that the change was made for every project, with the
exception of the Senior Center. Staff believes the existing structure is in such poor condition that renovation costs
would far outweigh replacement costs.
Why was funding identified for the Edmonds Crossing Project? Mr. English noted that Mr. Clifton responded via email
to the Board Members, and he did not receive any additional questions as a result of his email.
Is it possible to identify incremental improvements to existing structures (i.e. ADA improvements at the Boys and Girls
Club)? Mr. English explained that the City currently leases the Boys and Girls Club Building from the Edmonds School
District for $1 per year, and the current lease does not expire until 2021. He said the Building Maintenance Supervisor
has observed that, in light of the City’s limited capital improvement funding, it would not be prudent to spend a
significant amount to improve a building that is now owned by the City. Mr. McIntosh added that when the Boys and
Girls Club is replaced or relocated in the future, the fundraising campaign would be under the direction of the Boys and
Girls Club of Snohomish County. The siting of the new facility will fall under their jurisdictions, as well.
Can the arts center be located in a leased building rather than waiting for funding to construct a new building? Mr.
English advised that Ms. Chapin indicated that the City and potential partners have discussed this opportunity and they
believe it is a viable option. However, no decisions would be made until there is funding to move the project forward.
Mr. English referred the Board to the pie charts provided by staff to summarize information contained in the 2009
Transportation Comprehensive Plan regarding project costs and revenue sources. He reviewed each of the anticipated
project category expenditures, which result in a total cost of $105,500,000 through 2025. He also reviewed the anticipated
revenue sources through 2025 as follows:
Unsecured grants ($12 million) – This number was based on the City’s previous track record of securing grant funding.
Secured grants ($1 million) – This number represents grant funding the City currently has in hand.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 160 of 251
APPROVED SEPTEMBER 8TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 25, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Bio Park, Assistant City Attorney
John Westfall, Fire Marshall
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
DISCUSSION OF TENT CITY
Mr. Park advised that since the last time the Board reviewed this Tent City Ordinance, the draft was revised to incorporate
their recommendations, which were primarily related to more flexibility in layout and setback. The Board asked him to
determine if specific setbacks and distance between the tents and structures was a requirement the City had to adopt, and the
answer is no. Any reasonable distance that provides proper safety is sufficient. Therefore, the changes the Board requested
were made to the draft document. In addition, changes were made to the draft ordinance to incorporate the requirements of
House Bill 1975 concerning restrictions on standards and conditions of approval.
As requested by the Board, Mr. Park said he also provided sample codes from other jurisdictions with similar ordinances..
He reported that there have not been any ordinances that have gone before the court. However, the Kirkland and Bellevue
ordinances have been used by tent city organizations. He referred the Board to the sample ordinances from Bellevue, Mercer
Island, Kirkland and Lynnwood. He explained that all the ordinances are similar. They define the tent city use and describe
the process required for approval. They also contain some very general provisions to provide for the health, safety and
welfare of the community. He reminded the Board that the City cannot regulate the behavior and conduct of the tent city
residents, but they can regulate the impacts to the community associated with the use.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 161 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 2
Chair Lovell referred to Section 17.20.080 on Page 10 of the draft ordinance, which states that if the sponsor of a temporary
homeless encampment is a “religious organization,” the indemnification and hold harmless requirements would not apply.
Mr. Park explained that as per recently adopted State Law, the City cannot enforce conditions of approval or requirements
that substantially burden religious organizations who want to sponsor temporary homeless encampments, and this includes
indemnification and insurance requirements. However, the law also includes an amnesty provision for elected officials and
employees of the City for any harm or damage that may be caused from approval of a temporary homeless encampment.
Chair Lovell asked if the law would protect the City legally from all aspects having to do with tent cities that are sponsored
by religious organizations. Mr. Park answered affirmatively and added that no additional language needs to be incorporated
into the proposed language because the issue is clearly addressed by State Law.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that all previous references to fire safety requirements and procedures have been
replaced with a statement that refers to the requirements defined in Chapter 24 of the International Fire Code. He asked if it
would be relatively simple for an applicant to meet the requirements of the Fire Code without hiring a consultant. He also
asked if the fire code provides enough guidance for sponsors to layout the tents properly. Mr. Park answered that there is
good incentive for applicants to approach City staff early in the process to discuss their plans. It is important for applicants
to obtain the required assistance from the City staff or the Fire Marshall before an application has been submitted. He noted
that some sponsoring organizations will have the expertise to lay out the tent cities by themselves, but most will not.
Board Member Cloutier suggested that while it would be appropriate to have a 30-day review period for tent city
applications, the Board should keep in mind that the City may not have this much notice of a future tent city. He suggested
the City provide a “cheat sheet” to help sponsors lay the tents out correctly. This information could also include a short list
of the fire code requirements. Mr. Park advised that regardless of whether a tent city is sponsored by a religious organization
or not, they would not legally be allowed to establish an encampment without going through the permit process.
Fire Marshall Westfall said that as per WAC 51-16-030, RCW 19.27.042 and ECDC 19.00.040, non-conforming religious
structures can be excluded from certain requirements. The law provides for reasonable accommodation and gives the
Building Official and Fire Marshall the ability to exempt religious organizations from any requirement of the State Building
Code that would be triggered by a change in use. For example, it would be reasonable to exempt a religious organization
from the requirement that a sprinkling system be provided if the organization agrees to provide a night fire watch. While
planning is important, he recognized that emergency situations can come up that require the City to accommodate a more
urgent schedule.
Vice Chair Reed referred to the second paragraph on Page 1 and questioned if it is necessary to name all of the nearby cities.
Perhaps they could just say “several nearby jurisdictions.” He also referred to the second sentence in Section 20.030.A on
Page 3, which requires that temporary homeless encampments be located a minimum of 20 feet from any property line. He
suggested the wording be changed to make it clear that the tent city must be at least 20 feet away from adjacent property
lines. Mr. Park agreed the language could be reworded to make the intent more clear. Vice Chair Reed also observed that
the term “reasonably safe distance” is open to interpretation. He suggested it would be better to provide a specific number to
identify what the distance must be. Mr. Park explained that the Hearing Examiner, with a recommendation from staff, would
make this determination after reviewing the total size of the site, the number of tents proposed, and the number of anticipated
residents.
Vice Chair Reed referred to Section 17.20.020 on Page 3 of the draft, and suggested that the last sentence be deleted since
the public hearing requirement is addressed elsewhere in the proposed language. As currently written, this sentence seems to
imply that a second public hearing would be held if a code violation occurs. Mr. Park clarified that only one public hearing
would be held for the initial permit approval. If a violation occurs, the issue would come before the Hearing Examiner again
to make a determination as part of the code enforcement process. He explained that Section 17.20.020 is intended to outline
the process, and the more specific details are provided elsewhere in the chapter. It also sets forth that the permit will be a
Type III-A decision. He expressed his belief that it is important to place this information up front. Vice Chair Reed
recommended that the second sentence be moved to just after the third sentence. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Stewart observed that the Bellevue ordinance does not categorically exclude people under the age of 18 from
being in the encampment. Instead, their ordinance includes a statement that under extreme circumstances, children with
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 162 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 3
parents are allowed. She said it seems exclusionary for the City’s ordinance to flat out prohibit children under the age of 18,
particularly given that the area will likely face more homelessness as time goes on. Mr. Park said that when he reviewed
ordinances from other jurisdictions several months ago, most of them excluded children under the age of 18. However,
Bellevue, Mercer Island, and one other jurisdiction allow children under 18 with adult supervision. He explained that it is
difficult to determine if a person is indeed the child’s parent or guardian, and that is why most jurisdictions have the
limitation. He agreed the Board could change the language to allow children under extreme circumstances if accompanied
by a parent or guardian.
Board Member Stewart suggested the City incorporate the language contained in Section 20.30U.125.9 of Bellevue’s
ordinance, which states, “. . . shall not permit children under the age of 18 to stay overnight in a Temporary Encampment
unless circumstances prevent a more suitable overnight accommodation for the child and parent and guardian.” The
remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Cloutier asked if these same provisions would be used to set up temporary homeless encampments in the
event of a natural disaster. Mr. Park answered that the code includes an exemption for natural disasters or other situations
that require emergency tent cities.
Board Member Stewart noted that Bellevue prohibits weapons in their temporary homeless encampments, and she suggested
the City do the same. She noted that people living in the encampments are not able to lock their doors, and she personally,
would not feel safe if weapons were allowed. Mr. Park said he researched this issue extensively and feels strongly that
prohibiting weapons would be considered “regulating conduct,” which is constitutionally not allowed. He explained that,
although residents would be living in tents, the tents must be considered their homes and the constitution provides them with
certain rights. He pointed out those ordinances from Bellevue and other jurisdictions that specifically call out rules of
conduct use flexible wording that merely outlines the rules and regulations they would like the sponsors to have.
Board Member Stewart referred to Section 20.30U.125.2 of Bellevue’s ordinance, which lists specific elements that should
be included in a code of conduct. She agreed that, as worded, a sponsor would not be required to adopt all of the rules
contained in the section. It simply asks the sponsors to address the items on the list. Again, Mr. Park explained that,
although temporary, the tents are considered places of abode, and it would be very difficult for the City to actually enforce a
prohibition on weapons and prevail if challenged. He further explained that tent city sponsors have their own codes of
conduct that include no weapons, knives, alcohol, etc., and they strictly enforce the rules. Therefore, he felt it would be better
risk management for the City to stay on this side of what the law requires.
Chair Lovell observed that it would be difficult for the City to prohibit someone from caring a concealed weapon in a
temporary homeless encampment if an individual has the required permit. Mr. Park said it is very unlikely that a sponsor
would have no code of conduct in place, which typically prohibits weapons. They have strict enforcement of the rules, and
people do follow them.
Vice Chair Reed noted that Item I in Section 17.20.030 actually requires that sponsors have and enforce a code of conduct.
In addition, Section 17.20.050.A requires that the code of conduct be submitted as part of the permit application. He
suggested that perhaps it would be helpful for the City to provide a sample code of conduct to guide sponsors in development
of their own document. Mr. Park summarized that because a sponsor is required to have and enforce a code of conduct, he
believes it would be best to leave this obligation to the sponsor rather than the City risking legal challenge.
Board Member Johnson asked if Share Wheel, the sponsor of Tent City, has a policy that prohibits children under the age of
18. Mr. Park answered that they did have this policy, but he has not checked in recent months to see if it has changed.
Board Member Stewart referred to Section 17.20.050.A, which requires that applications be submitted a minimum of 30 days
prior to the anticipated start of an encampment. She also referred to Section 17.20.050.C, which states that a notice of
application and public hearing shall be provided within ten days after the City determines the application is complete. It also
says the comment period would begin upon mailing of the notice of application and end after seven days. She expressed
concern that this timeline may be too short. It would only allow adjacent property owners a short period of time to decide
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 163 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 4
how they want to react to a proposal. She noted that Mercer Island has a 75-day process, which is too long. However, she
suggested the timeline be expanded to at least 45 days.
Mr. Park agreed the timeline could be changed. He noted that the code contains provisions that allow the City to speed up
the process to address emergency situations, but the proposed timeline would be the default. A 30-day timeline would offer a
reasonable amount of time for staff to review the application and submit a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner and for
the Hearing Examiner to make a determination. He reminded the Board that temporary homeless encampments tend to move
around a lot and the sponsors do not typically have time to go through a lengthy permit process. In good faith, the City has
an obligation to try to accommodate this use, especially when it is being proposed by a religious organization.
Board Member Johnson observed that while the informational meeting is not part of the City’s decision making process, it
could be a useful meeting for the community. If notice is not sent out to adjacent property owners until seven days before
the meeting, the situation could have already reached a crisis stage. She suggested that a 10 or 14 day notice would be more
appropriate.
Board Member Cloutier said he would support a default timeline of 45 days, but the City should also recognize that tent
cities move around frequently and sometimes they are relocated before the required permits have been obtained.
Vice Chair Reed observed that a public hearing would be conducted before the Hearing Examiner, and the public and
applicant would be invited to testify. He agreed with Board Member Stewart that a 45-day process would make more sense.
He reminded the Board that ECDC 20 was amended to take the applicant out of the notification process for Type III-A
actions. The City is now responsible for providing all notices. He suggested the language in the proposed ordinance be
updated to reflect this change, and the remainder of the Board concurred.
Mr. Park summarized that the Board would like the ordinance to be updated to require a permit application at least 45-days
prior to establishment of an encampment. In addition, notice of the information meeting should be provided 10 days prior.
He said he would modify the rest of the permit timeline as appropriate to fit in with the two proposed changes. In addition,
the language would be modified to make the City responsible for providing notice of the information meeting, as well as the
notice of application.
Mr. Park explained that because temporary homeless shelter permits are completely different than other land use permits, he
felt it was important to put all of the applicable processes and requirements in ECDC 17.20 rather than merely references
Type III-A actions in ECDC 20.
Chair Lovell noted that the proposed ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board on September
22nd.
DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS
Mr. Park referred the Board to Attachment 12 of the Staff Report, which is the draft ordinance setting forth the proposed
application process and conditions of approval for establishing emergency temporary shelters. He summarized that since the
last time the Board reviewed the document, the ordinance was revised to meet the requirements of House Bill 1956, as well
as the conditions, requirements and exemptions adopted by ECDC 19.00.040 for nonconforming religious buildings. The
language provided in Section 17.105.020.B was taken from RCW 19.27.042 and WAC 51.16.030 and provides the following
guidelines for reviewing exemptions:
1. Any code deficiencies to be exempted pose no threat to human life, health or safety.
2. The building is owned or administered by a public agency or non-profit corporation.
3. The proposed emergency temporary homeless shelter for indigent persons is less hazardous than the existing use.
Mr. Westfall explained that the sprinkling requirement, in particular, will often prohibit a religious organization from
changing the use of their building to a temporary homeless shelter to accommodate indigent persons. This provision gives
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 164 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2010 Page 5
the Building Official and Fire Marshall the authority to exempt a nonconforming religious building based on the guidelines
provided in Section 17.105.020.B.
Chair Lovell referred to Guideline 3 and questioned how the City could determine that a temporary homeless shelter is less
hazardous than the existing use. For example, he expressed his belief that a church that is used as a public gathering place
during the day and seats 250 people would be less hazardous than 25 people living in the basement. Mr. Park said that
having a small number of people stay in the facility overnight with a night fire watch, with no candles, and with clearly
marked exits could be considered less hazardous than a formal ceremony with 200 people in attendance and lit candles are
involved. Mr. Chave noted that the Frances Anderson Center is another example where there are children in the classrooms.
It is easy to imagine that using one of the classrooms for an overnight shelter could be less hazardous that a room full of
children.
Mr. Westfall said the fire code addresses many hazardous situations. He reminded the Board that they are talking about a
temporary shelter and not someone’s actual home where a separate heating system might be in disrepair, people may be
working on vehicles in the garage, and there are independent cooking areas. People staying in the homeless shelters
congregate and share the accommodations that are under one maintenance arrangement. He said that in addition to the code
of conduct agreements that the agencies bring into play, there are built-in safeties; and in many cases, the overall package
would be les hazardous or not any more hazardous than the existing use.
Board Member Johnson noted that Page 1 of Interim Ordinance 3769 (Attachment 2) makes the point that temporary
homeless shelters are a solution for cold temperatures. However, the proposed ordinance (Attachment 12) seems to be more
general in scope. She questioned if the new ordinance is intended to apply to more situations than just cold weather. Mr.
Park explained that the provisions in Section 19.00.040 would only be triggered during cold weather emergencies. These
provisions allow the Building Official and Fire Marshall to exempt certain nonconforming religious buildings from having
sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, etc. However, if a building already meets the more stringent fire code requirements, it
could be used as a temporary shelter during other times, as well. No special limitations would be applied for cold days only,
but special treatment would only be granted if it is very cold outside.
Vice Chair Reed observed that the proposed definition for “emergency” in Section 19.00.040 appears to go further than just
cold weather. He asked the Board’s thoughts on whether the ordinance should extend beyond cold weather situations. Mr.
Park explained that if there is a natural disaster or catastrophe, the City Council has the ability to pass a temporary ordinance
to allow emergency shelters in Edmonds. Board Member Cloutier added that the Development Code includes separate
provisions for natural disasters and other emergency situations. Mr. Park said that in the event of a natural disaster, the rules
could be relaxed, and the City would have the latitude to enforce the requirements broadly based on the conditions present at
the time.
The Board agreed that the ordinance is ready to move forward to a public hearing. However, they noted that Section
17.105.030 should be updated to reference Ordinance 3794 rather than 3769.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON HIGHWAY 99 OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
Mr. Chave referred to the Staff Report, which contains the additional information requested by the Board at their August 11th
meeting. He noted that Mr. Shoup (Attachment 2) is an nationally-known expert on parking policies. In addition, the
recently published American Planning Association paper (Attachment 1) provides worthwhile information for the Board to
consider. He said that Board Member Stewart also provided a link to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth
Pamphlet, which was referenced by Board Member Clarke at their last meeting.
Mr. Chave said staff will continue to develop the following two options, which were discussed at the Board’s last meeting:
No minimum parking standard for those properties that front on Highway 99.
A minimum standard that is applied uniformly across the entire area.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 165 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 1, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #119126 TO #119246 DATED MAY 27, 2010 FOR
$511,626.90.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM VERIZON
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND ERIN GRAAFSTRA ($6,994.26).
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE / 4TH OF JULY EVENTS.
Ron Clyborne referred to a letter provided by the Chamber of Commerce regarding their request for
funding from the City for the 4th of July events. He explained the Chamber’s mission was to organize a
family oriented Independence Day in Edmonds to attract visitors and enhance the small town atmosphere.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 166 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 3
• The supplemental capital budget contains approximately $50 million for one time funding for
cities’ stormwater mandates. The funds will be distributed via a lump sum as well as via an
application process to access approximately $24 million. He estimated the lump sum provided to
Edmonds at $180,000 which would be distributed late summer.
• The Transportation Benefit District statute was amended to clearly state that city projects are an
allowable use of TBD funding.
• Comprehensive Plan updates for cities were pushed back from 2011 to 2014.
• The 911 system was upgraded to allow text messages to work with the system. This will be
funded via an increase in the state tax from $0.50 to $0.70 and the county tax from $0.20 to
$0.25.
• Local campaign contributions must mirror the state’s limit of $800 per election (primary and
general).
He highlighted bills that were not passed this legislative session:
• Limiting the use of automated traffic safety cameras. This bill would have required a 4 second
yellow light and the fine could only be $25.
• The Airport Siting bill did not receive a hearing. This bill would have required a 7 mile zone
around an airport where development would be limited.
He highlighted the following interim issues:
• Possible transportation revenue package in 2011. He invited the City to inform him of projects to
be included in that package.
• Creation of a State transit funding work group to recommend additional transit funding
• Future stormwater funding
• Puget Sound Partnership funding
• Airport siting
• Automated traffic safety cameras
• Lake Ballinger Forum
Mayor Haakenson thanked Mr. Doubleday for his efforts to include $250,000 in the supplemental
transportation budget for the Shell Valley Emergency Road Access project.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the cap-and-trade bill regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions did not advance. Mr. Doubleday answered there was a great deal of effort on that in 2009 but
little in 2010. He anticipated the state was waiting for the federal government to act.
5. PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, RENEWING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
NO. 3769, WHICH DEFINED TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER AND IDENTIFIED
ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE PERMITTED.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this item was the renewal of an interim zoning ordinance to
allow the Planning Board to complete their work. The interim ordinance clarifies that temporary homeless
shelters up to two weeks in length in any month are permitted in the City’s zoning classifications. Passage
of the ordinance renewing the interim zoning ordinance will provide sufficient time for the Planning
Board to complete their review and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained City Attorney Scott Snyder attended a Planning Board meeting
approximately one month ago where Planning Board Members asked several questions. Mr. Rutledge
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 167 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 4
requested Councilmembers respond individually to those questions. He noted the Planning Board had
cancelled their public hearing on this matter.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
In response to Mr. Rutledge, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained staff will be responding to the
Planning Board’s questions at a future meeting. He explained via extension of the interim ordinance,
controls remain in place until a final ordinance is adopted.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3794, RENEWING INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 3769, WHICH DEFINED TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER AND
IDENTIFIED ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE
PERMITTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, RENEWING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3779,
AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.110.040(F), MONETARY PENALTIES,
CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT ON EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board has been briefed on this matter, City
Attorney Scott Snyder will brief them again next week and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled in
July. The interim ordinance amends the civil enforcement procedures to be consistent with state case law.
Mr. Snyder explained his memo referred to a 30-day Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) appeal period; the
appeal period is actually 21 days. He referenced RCW 36.70C.020, and explained since the City enacted
its provisions, LUPA now covers the enforcement by local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the
improvement, development, modification, maintenance or use of real property. He recommended the
interim ordinance include that reference to provide direction to a citizen wishing to appeal.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Snyder cited Section 3 of the ordinance which states the
determination of the Hearing Examiner is final and shall be appealable to Superior Court in accordance
with Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public
participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3795, RENEWING INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 3779, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.110.040(F), MONETARY
PENALTIES, CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT ON EXISTING CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, RENEWING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3780,
ADOPTING CERTAIN PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE ABANDONMENT,
CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF PUBLIC PROJECTS AND STREET
VACATIONS AND DEDICATIONS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is an interim zoning ordinance being reviewed by the
Planning Board. The interim ordinance clarifies that provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that require
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 168 of 251
APPROVED MARCH 10th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 24, 2010
Vice Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
John Reed
Valerie Stewart
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
Kevin Clarke
Cary Guenther
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kiernan Lien, Associated Planner
Gina Coccia, Associated Planner
Bio Park, City Attorney
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2010 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Lora Petso, Edmonds, expressed her belief that the City cannot afford less SEPA review. She recommended the Board not
modify the thresholds in any way that would reduce SEPA. Doing so would be a death blow to the City’s efforts related to
sustainability. She referred to the SEPA Checklist, which includes questions related to sustainability that should be asked
about any development that includes five or more buildings. Allowing a 20-unit condominium to be constructed without
asking these questions would be terrifying.
Ms. Petso asked that she be added as a party of record to the proposed SEPA amendments so that she can receive notification
of any continued meeting regarding the matter. She expressed her belief that the staff’s proposal contradicts the City’s newly
adopted Community Sustainability element, particularly Items A, B, E.2, E.4, E.5 and F. She noted that SEPA changes are
supposed to be supported by local conditions, plans and regulations, and Edmonds’ plans call for more regulation not less.
She observed that undeveloped properties in Edmonds are typically environmentally significant in one or more ways or they
would have already been fully developed and utilized. If the Board recommends approval of the proposed changes, she
asked them to please make sure the designations in the table match what is on the map in the Comprehensive Plan. Board
Member Reed clarified that Ms. Petso referenced the Comprehensive Plan Map rather than the Zoning Map. He noted that
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 169 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 2
the designations are consistent with the Zoning Map. He further noted that Table 1 on Page 3 outlines the proposed changes
to the flexible threshold standards by zone.
Ms. Petso said that as she reviewed the proposed amendments, she became particularly concerned about the idea of allowing
development of up to 20 units on the Harbor Square and Safeway sites without requiring SEPA review, nor would SEPA be
required for a large parking lot to be constructed near the ferry terminal. The Port’s property would be completely exempt
from the SEPA requirement. She noted there are significant drainage issues in that area and removing the SEPA review
requirement would result in undesirable situations. She summarized that, as currently proposed, no SEPA review would be
required for developments of less than 20 units on 212th Street between Highway 99 and the High School, either.
Ms. Petso referred to Page 29 of the proposed amendments, which makes references to the City beginning to lay the ground
work for addressing climate changes through SEPA. She expressed concern that if the SEPA process is eliminated, this goal
would no longer be possible. She suggested no changes be made to the thresholds.
Board Member Reed requested staff provide a map showing where the exception would be applied for developments of 20
units or less. He suggested this would be helpful in clarifying exactly what is being proposed.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, said he attended the last City Council Meeting at which Board Member Clarke presented the
Planning Board’s recommendation for a name for the new park at 162nd Street Southwest and 75th Place West. He said the
City Council accepted the Board’s recommendation with one addition. They agreed it would be appropriate to provide a
plaque listing the names of all the individuals who were nominated for the park name, as well as former City Council
Member Peggy Olsen. Mr. Rutledge referred to Hickman Park, which was just recently named by the City. He suggested
the City install a plaque at this park, as well, to honor the other individuals who were nominated. He indicated that a group
of people would pursue this issue if the Planning Board does not, with the intent of installing an additional plaque at
Hickman Park by September. He asked the staff to share the appropriate process the group should follow for installing the
additional plaque.
PRESENTATION BY BIO PARK, CITY ATTORNEY, ON HOMELESS SHELTERS
Mr. Park reviewed that a few years ago, several churches approached the City of Edmonds with a request to establish
emergency shelters during the winter season for the homeless. At that time, the City did not have code regulations in place to
for this type of use; and they were fortunate that the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) includes a provision that permits
cities to adopt a temporary ordinance allowing non-profit groups and public agencies to change the use of their buildings to
assist indigent persons.
Mr. Park reported that on December 15, 2009, the City Council adopted an ordinance that mirrored the RCW Statute. They
also adopted an interim ordinance providing for zoning districts where such changes in use could occur. The zoning districts
were identified as anywhere churches and/or local public facilities are allowed as permitted uses. He noted that most of the
applications would be attached to churches, whose function and religious activity includes ministering to the poor and
indigent. He said the City Council also adopted a resolution urging the staff to be as flexible as possible to allow the change
in uses. However, the following conditions are required by State statute before a change of use can be approved:
That the change of use does not impose a threat to the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
That the administration of the building is by a non-profit or public agency.
That the change in use is no more hazardous than the existing use.
That the use is temporary in nature.
Mr. Park pointed out that a change of use permit requires the applicant to provide hard wired smoke detectors and a sprinkler
system. However, most churches that apply for the change of use permit will not have these elements as part of the structure.
The ordinance will allow them to propose alternative methods for meeting the requirements, such as a night watch and
limitations on how many persons can stay in the facility at any one time.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 170 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 3
Mr. Park explained that before the interim ordinance can be made permanent, the Board must review the zoning portion of
the ordinance, conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The purpose of this meeting is for
the Board to consider whether or not it would be prudent to adopt a permanent ordinance that allows a change of use for
temporary shelters anywhere churches and local public facilities are allowed as primary uses.
Vice Chair Lovell recalled that prior to the City Council’s adoption of the interim ordinance, the City’s Fire Marshal talked
about equivalencies for getting around the code requirements of hard wired smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, which
most of the church buildings do not have. He also recalled that other guidelines were recommended such as clearly
designating the shelter area and providing accessible egress locations. They also recommended the option of providing a
night fire watch person who has access to emergency numbers, first aid, and other emergency equipment.
Vice Chair Lovell said that he understands how the proposed ordinance would be applied to church-owned properties, but he
is less clear about how it would be applied to public-owned facilities. He noted that the ordinance would require the use to
be sponsored by a local place of worship or other local, community-based non-profit organization, and normally this would
be a church or church organization. However, he questioned if a City-owned facility could be used for a temporary homeless
shelter as long as the use had a sponsor that could meet the criteria.
Mr. Park explained that the reason for including public agencies and other non-profit organizations in the ordinance is to
keep the playing field level. However, it is clear that the vast majority of applications would come from churches. Because
the City is a government entity, they cannot disfavor or favor churches. As long as they provide certain protections for
churches and religious groups to practice their religion, the playing field must be level. As an example, he said the Red
Cross could open a homeless shelter in Edmonds as a non-profit agency, if they owned a building in the City. However, they
would have to meet the building code requirements and/or provide an alternative method for meeting the requirements. He
advised that according to the State Supreme Court and Washington State Law, even if a proposal does not meet the letter of
the code and should be otherwise denied, the applicant can offer alternatives. The City would have the responsibility, as a
governing entity, to determine whether the proposed alternatives would meet the purpose of the law. That does not mean the
City has to approve unsafe conditions and hazardous proposals, but they have to consider the alternatives.
Vice Chair Lovell asked who would be responsible for administering the criteria associated with the change of use. Mr. Park
answered that the City’s Building Official would have the final discretion for approving the permit and determining whether
the structure being proposed for a change in use meets the conditions and requirements. Through the compliance permit
process, the Building Official would conference with the Fire Marshal to review the plan and make sure it meets all of the
requirements.
Mr. Park reminded the Board that the issue currently before them is the proposed zoning designation for where the change of
use would be permitted and whether or not the zoning designation should be restricted. He pointed out that, as currently
proposed, the change of use would be allowed in any zone in the City since any zone in the City also allows churches and
public facilities as primary uses.
Mr. Chave explained that the proposed ordinance is a statement of intent or policy that covers not only zoning, but building
issues. For the Planning Board’s benefit, he suggested it would be helpful for the Board to understand exactly what changes
would occur in the zoning code. The changes would be restricted to the definition in Section 5 of the resolution. The
remainder of the resolution talks about building codes, which are not under the purview of the Planning Board.
Board Member Reed said the resolution references Ordinance 3730, which was not included in the Board’s information.
Apparently, the ordinance addresses some of the code exceptions for temporary shelter arrangements. He questioned if it
would be helpful for the Board to have a copy of the ordinance for review. Mr. Park explained that Ordinance 3730 permits
the City to allow changes in use on a temporary basis to assist indigent persons. It basically adopts the State Statutes (RCW
19.27.042 and WAC 51.16.030), and provides that the City will make use of the permission granted by the State to allow
certain agencies to change use of their buildings to assist indigent persons. He said he has only one copy of the ordinance,
but could provide copies to the Board Members at a later date.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 171 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 4
Mr. Chave summarized that Section 5 sets up temporary homeless shelters as another form of public facility or a secondary
use to a church. Mr. Park clarified that the use must be secondary for whoever applies for the change of use. Homeless
shelters would not be allowed as primary uses. Because churches and local public facilities are allowed in all zones in the
City as primary uses, any church or non-profit public agency with a structure could apply for the temporary change in use
permit in order to provide a shelter for homeless persons.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if the zoning was left as broad as possible to allow flexibility. He recalled a previous discussion
about potentially using the Senior Center as a homeless shelter. Mr. Park said the focus of the regulation should be on
churches since most of the time churches would be the sponsor of a homeless shelter. However, the City could elect to
utilize the Senior Center as a temporary homeless shelter as per the proposed zoning.
Vice Chair Lovell said he hasn’t heard any compelling reason to make the zoning more strict because the approval of a
specific site would depend on the Building Official’s review of the application. Mr. Park agreed it would be the discretion of
the Building Official to determine whether an application meets the conditions or not. Other than the few conditions noted
earlier, the language would be very general.
Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board has been interpreting Section 5 of Ordinance 3769 to be more narrow than it is.
As stated, homeless shelters can be located in any zoning district where a church is permitted as a primary use. That means it
does not have to be in a church. The shelter could be located in any facility in any zone that allows churches as long as the
use has a sponsor that meets the outlined criteria. He summarized that, as currently drafted, the use could be in any facility in
any zone because all zones allow churches as primary uses.
Board Member Reed asked if a church or non-profit organization would be required to apply for a building permit for a
temporary homeless shelter. Vice Chair Lovell noted there is already an application process for temporary homeless shelters.
Mr. Park agreed that the application process is provided for in Ordinance 3730.
Mr. Chave suggested the Board also consider whether or not temporary homeless shelters should be permitted wherever
regional local public facilities are allowed. Mr. Park pointed out that there are no zones in the City where a regional public
facility would be a primary use, but a local public facility would not. Once again, he explained that temporary homeless
shelters would be allowed in any zone that allows either churches or local public facilities as permitted or secondary uses as
long as there is a qualified sponsor.
Mr. Park explained that the interim ordinance that was adopted on December 15, 2009 would expire on June 15, 2010. It
would be desirable for the Board to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the permanent ordinance before
the interim ordinance expires. However, it would not be required. He agreed to draft codified code language for the Board’s
review and public hearing based on feedback provided. Vice Chair Lovell suggested the definition section of the
Development Code be amended to encompass the temporary homeless shelter use. Mr. Chave agreed the provisions outlined
in Section 5 of Ordinance 3769 would be translated into zoning code language.
Board Member Johnson said that when she reviewed Resolution 1213, the City Council’s legislative intent seemed to focus
on the faith community and public and non-profit agencies. The broader interpretation that would allow the uses in any
building in any zone in the City that permits churches is an entirely different tact in her opinion. Board Member Cloutier
pointed out that although a temporary homeless shelter would technically be allowed in any zone in the City, the use would
require a qualified sponsoring agency. Mr. Chave agreed the definition ties the use to churches and community
organizations.
PRESENTATION BY BIO PARK, CITY ATTORNEY, ON TEMPORARY HOMELSS ENCAMPMENTS,
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS “TENT CITIES”
Mr. Park advised that the City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance regulating temporary homeless encampments,
which are commonly referred to as “tent cities.” While there has been no concrete or reliable information that would suggest
anyone is planning to create a homeless encampment in Edmonds, neighboring jurisdictions in King County have
experienced the issue. In anticipation of future requests, some jurisdictions in Snohomish County have adopted ordinances
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 172 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 5
just in case. He noted that requests for homeless encampments usually happen quickly with very little notice. Therefore, it
would be wise for the City of Edmonds to have an ordinance on the books for this type of use. He referred the Board to the
template ordinance he provided for discussion purposes. He invited them to review the document and provide direction for
him to proceed to create code language that would work for Edmonds.
Board Member Reed inquired if the City Council actually adopted an interim ordinance for homeless encampments. Mr.
Park said it was his understanding that the City Council did adopt an interim ordinance. However, the Board concluded that
there is no record that the draft ordinance was ever adopted by the City Council.
The Board and Mr. Park reviewed the draft template section by section and made the following comments:
Section 17.20.010 – Definitions.
Mr. Park advised that Section A provides a definition for “Temporary Homeless Encampments” that was modeled after
“Tent City.” Rather than using the term ‘Tent City,” the proposed ordinance uses “Temporary Homeless Encampments.”
In Section B, the definition of “Sponsor” would be equivalent to a church or community organization that sponsors the
encampment on their premises.
Vice Chair Lovell said that while Federal Law requires the City to allow religious organizations to implement these
services for the people, the ordinance contains statements that seem to conflict and allow churches to set up homeless
encampments on property that does not belong to them. For example, a “sponsor” is defined as a local place of worship
or other local, community-based organization; it does not say it has to be a church. He asked if the intent was to limit the
use to those that are sponsored by churches. Mr. Park explained that the law requires the City to allow churches to use
their land to exercise their religious beliefs and it has been determined that ministering to the poor and needy is
considered religious activity.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the two applicable requirements are that it be operated by a church and located on
church property. Mr. Park clarified that ordinance would not be limited to just these two criteria. It is appropriate for
the City to propose specific standards, but they must provide an option for the applicant to propose different alternatives
for meeting the standards as long as the alternatives would still meet standards for safety, health, and welfare of the
people in the encampment, as well as the neighboring community. He emphasized that the ability to “tweak” the
standards would only be allowed for Churches and not for non-profit organizations who desire to create a temporary
homeless encampment. Vice Chair Lovell expressed concern that, as proposed, a church could get permission from a
private property owner to establish a temporary homeless encampment on property that is not owned by the church. Mr.
Park said that was not the intent of the proposed language. He invited the Board to provide feedback about whether or
not this should be allowed.
Section 17.20.020 – Temporary Homeless Encampment Permit.
Mr. Park explained that the purpose of this section is to establish a new type of permit for temporary homeless
encampments. It would allow these uses to occur as secondary uses in all zoning districts where churches or local public
facilities are permitted as primary uses. As proposed, the permit would be a Type IIIA Permit, which would require a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner would make the final decision. However, he noted
the Board could recommend changing the process so that the issue is decided administratively or by the City Council.
Section 17.20.030 – Standards.
Item A. Board Member Johnson pointed out that the proposed language would require a 20-foot separation between the
tents and any building, parked vehicle, etc. However, it does not address how close the tents can be located to the 6-foot
fence that would be required around the perimeter of the encampment. She suggested that if the purpose of this section is
to prevent fire hazards, they should also address the tents’ proximity to the fence. Mr. Park agreed that “fences” could be
added to the language. He suggested the Board invite the Fire Marshal to review the draft language and comment about
issues related to the fire code. He pointed out that the 20-foot separation came directly from the existing fire code.
Item B. Mr. Park advised that the purpose of this section is to require a 6-foot sight-obscuring fence to screen potential
visual nuisances associated with the encampment from adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 173 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 6
Board Member Johnson pointed out that this section could conflict with ECDC 17.30.010, which also addresses fences.
In the event of a conflict, she asked if the provisions of the new ordinance would control. Mr. Park agreed that the code
language that is more specific to the provision would control regardless of what the other section says (see Section
17.20.100). He noted that ECDC 17.30.010 relates specifically to the application and notification process for temporary
homeless shelters. There are already procedures in ECDC 20 that deal with permit applications and processes in general.
However, a different set of procedures has been proposed for this unique permit because the City must have a process for
reviewing the applications and making decisions in a short time period.
Board Member Johnson advised that ECDC 17.30.010 also requires that fences be placed 30 feet from a corner in order
to provide proper sight distance. Allowing a 6-foot tall fence on a corner lot near the road may create a problem. Mr.
Park agreed that this technical standard must be addressed. He suggested the Board invite the City Engineer to review
the proposed criteria and standards and provide feedback. Perhaps the City Engineer could provide a better solution to
address the concerns.
Items D and E. Mr. Park advised that the Board could change the density to whatever they feel is appropriate, as long as
it does not substantially deter a church from applying for a permit to establish a temporary homeless encampment. Vice
Chair Lovell pointed out that, as proposed, a 100- person encampment would require at least a one-acre parcel.
However, the proposed language does not take into account setback requirements and any structures that already exist on
the site. If these factors are considered, the size of the lot would have to be even larger. Mr. Park agreed it would be
appropriate for the Board to provide direction on whether or not the parcel size would be measured from boundary-line-
to-boundary-line or just the area where tents could actually be located. The Board agreed it would make more sense to
consider the area as the portion of property proposed for the actual encampment, and not include setback requirements,
existing buildings, etc. Mr. Park requested staff assist him with issues such as maximum tent size, setback requirements,
etc.
Board Member Cloutier suggested the best approach for tackling this project would be for the Board to start with sample
ordinances that have been adopted and used successfully by other jurisdictions. He cautioned against creating an
ordinance that is too restrictive on density since this could result in an encampment being scattered throughout the
community. Mr. Chave agreed and particularly questioned the need for the proposed 20-foot separation between the
individual tents. Board Member Cloutier concurred that it might not be necessary to require a 20-foot separation between
each tent, but he recognized there needs to be a 20-foot separation in some areas to provide for fire access. Mr. Park
agreed to obtain examples from other jurisdictions that have implemented and successfully used standards for temporary
homeless encampments.
Board Member Johnson said it would also be helpful for Mr. Park to work with staff to identify how large a parcel would
have to be to accommodate 100 tenants, given the current and proposed restrictions. She said she did some analysis in an
attempt to understand the density issue better. She concluded that the minimum parcel size of 10,000 square feet would
be too restrictive. Once all of the fire codes, parking standards, setbacks, etc. have been applied there would be very little
space left for tents. She estimated that a 10,000 square foot lot would only accommodate three homeless tents. She said
it would be helpful if staff could provide a sketch to help the Board gain a better understanding of what 100 homeless
tents would look like on a proposed site. Board Member Cloutier added that if the City is going to allow this type of use
on short notice, it would be helpful to provide examples of how to set up an encampment of a certain size. This would
make it easy for the City to show how the standards could be applied. Mr. Park reminded the Board that the 10,000
square foot requirement would be the minimum size, not the maximum size. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief
that the code should be as flexible as possible so that temporary homeless encampments could locate successfully on
small lots, as well as large lots.
Items F and G. Mr. Park advised that the proposed language would require one parking site for the host’s permanent use
and five parking stalls dedicated exclusively for the encampment. In addition, on-site parking required for the host site’s
permanent use cannot be displaced by the encampment. Board Member Johnson said that as the City collects information
from other jurisdictions, it might be useful to obtain information about parking, as well. Board Member Cloutier noted
that most of the people who would live in the encampment would not have vehicles.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 174 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 7
Board Member Johnson suggested that parking could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because the situation at each
site could vary. In general, she suggested that if a church is willing to host a homeless shelter, they would also be willing
to share a portion of their parking lot. She cautioned against requiring additional parking to be constructed for a use that
would be temporary in nature. Again, Mr. Park said the intent is that they do not use the parking space that is currently
required for the primary use.
Board Member Johnson suggested it may be appropriate to require a parking plan, which could include other solutions
for addressing the parking concerns. Board Member Cloutier agreed that some flexibility should be allowed for the host
to address the issue by providing parking elsewhere, etc. Mr. Park noted that the proposed language would allow the host
to petition the Hearing Examiner for a deviation from the parking standards.
Item H. Mr. Park advised that while the current language would require that the encampment be located within ½ mile of
transit service, the Board could choose to reduce or increase this requirement.
Item I. Mr. Park said that, as proposed, no children under 18 would be allowed in the encampment. He noted that this is
a typical requirement used by most jurisdictions, but it is not a legal requirement. He also advised that Share Wheel, the
managing agency for “Tent City” does not allow children under 18.
Item J. Mr. Park advised that this language would require the encampment to have a written code of conduct. He
explained that it would be difficult for the City, as a governing agency, to prohibit items such as guns, alcohol, etc., at the
encampment. Once a resident enters the encampment, it would be considered their home, and they would have certain
constitutional rights. However, a private entity (sponsoring agency) could set more restrictions.
Items K and L. Mr. Park explained that this language would require that certain facilities and services be provided within
the encampment such as waste disposal, drinking water, electricity, fire extinguishers, etc. He noted the Board could add
additional criteria in this section, as long as they do not substantially impede the operation.
Items M and N. Mr. Park advised that these two sections would require the managing agency to appoint a member to
serve as a point of contact for the City’s Police Department, and at least one member must be on duty at all times. It
would also require the managing agency to permit inspections by the Snohomish County Health District.
Item O. Mr. Park said this language would require the managing agency to take all reasonable and legal steps to obtain
verifiable identification from prospective residents. He explained that if a resident has a warrant out for his/her arrest, the
managing agency would be required to contact the Police Department so that the person could be taken away. However,
the City would not have the ability to prohibit properly registered sex offenders from the encampment, as long as the
encampment is not located within the buffer areas where sex offenders cannot reside. As long as they comply with the
existing laws, they would be permitted to live in the encampment.
Item T. Board Member Reed felt that requiring the encampment to be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan was a vague statement that should be made more specific. Mr. Park agreed the statement is general
in nature. However, the City currently requires all types of permits to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He
acknowledged that it is difficult to determine whether or not a permit meets all of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive, but it must remain as a standard.
Section 17.20.040 – Frequency and Duration.
Mr. Park explained that most jurisdictions allow the temporary homeless encampments to operate anywhere between two
and three months, but the Board could recommend a time period as short as 45 days. It is also standard practice to allow
the encampment to be located on a site only once in a year. As proposed, the managing agency would be required to
restore the site to its pre-encampment condition within one week.
Section 17.20.050 – Procedural Requirements for Temporary Homeless Encampment Permit Applications.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 175 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 8
Item A. Mr. Park advised that this section requires that an application be submitted at least 30 days prior to the
anticipated start of the encampment. This section contains a list of items that could be required as part of the application.
Board Member Johnson referred to Item 8 on the list and suggested the required site plan also include information about
dimensions, parcel size, and site location. Mr. Park observed that providing examples, as suggested earlier by Board
Member Cloutier, would help the managing agency prepare the required site plan.
Item B. Mr. Park advised that the language in this section came directly from the fire code. Any tents or structures in
excess of 200 square feet would require approval from the Fire Marshal.
Item C. Mr. Park advised that, as proposed, a notice of application and public hearing must be provided within 10 days
after the City has determined the application is complete. At this time, the notice requirements would be the
responsibility of the applicant. However, he has discussed with staff the option of having the City provide notice for
consistency, etc. As written, the applicant would have seven days to send out a notice to the neighboring property
owners, publish a notice in the City’s official newspaper, and post a notice on the subject site with a brief description of
the proposed plan and the conditions that would apply.
Item E. Mr. Park explained that prior to an actual hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the managing agency would be
required to participate in a community information meeting. He noted that many jurisdictions have incorporated this
requirement to allow neighboring property owners and the community an opportunity to learn more about the proposal
and express their concerns and/or support in an informal manner. He emphasized this is not a legal requirement. He
explained that, as proposed, the permit would be a Type IIIA application, which would go straight to the Hearing
Examiner for a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner’s decision would not be subject to an administrative appeal.
There would be no appeal to the City Council, either. The only opportunity for appeal would be to Snohomish County
Superior Court. He noted that some jurisdictions require a Hearing Examiner review, and others allow for an
administrative review with no public hearing.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the permits must be issued within a short time frame, which does not accommodate a
lengthy appeal process. Mr. Park agreed that the applications must be processed within 30 days. If an appeal before the
City Council were allowed, the process would be much longer. He noted that in past history, “Tent City” has moved into
a location prior to resolving issues before the judicial court. They have argued that the process set up by a jurisdiction is
substantially burdensome on their freedom of religious exercise. Board Member Cloutier summarized that the City
would only have 30 days after an application has been submitted to complete the review process and issue a permit or the
encampment might move in anyway. Mr. Park said that if the City has a process that is intended to be completed in 30
days, the burden would be a lot higher for the applicant to demonstrate to the judge that the compact process was
burdensome on their freedom of religious exercise. He summarized that there are no guarantees that this will be a bullet-
proof process that will avoid adjudication in court, but it gives the City a better chance to prevail.
Section 17.20.060 – Requesting Modifications of Standards.
Mr. Park advised that this section provides the applicant with an opportunity to propose different standards to the Hearing
Examiner, as long as they can demonstrate that the proposed modifications would result in a safe encampment.
Section 17.20.070 – Notice of Decision.
Mr. Park noted that this language would allow the Hearing Examiner seven days to issue a final decision. Typically, the
Hearing Examiner is allowed 14 days to issue his/her findings.
Section 17.20.080 – Indemnification and Hold Harmless Requirements.
Mr. Park advised that this requirement is a warning to the sponsor to keep tight control on their residents. Board Member
Reed asked if it would be necessary or possible to require the sponsor or managing agency to provide insurance. Mr.
Park answered that it would great if they offered to provide insurance, but it is not likely they would want to pay this
cost. Vice Chair Lovell observed that a church would likely check with their insurance agent before pursuing a permit
for a temporary homeless shelter on their property. Mr. Park explained that requiring a church to provide insurance
would be considered a type of fee, and as proposed, there would be no fee associated with the permit. He advised that
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 176 of 251
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 9
establishing a monetary hurdle for religious organizations could be considered in opposition to their freedom of religious
exercise.
Section 17.20.110 – No Intent to Create Protected/Benefited Class.
Mr. Park explained that this section is intended to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. It further
states that nothing contained in the chapter should be construed to create or establish any particular class or group of
persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the provisions in this chapter.
Board Member Reed suggested the Board appoint a subcommittee to work with Mr. Park and staff to create draft code
language for the Board’s consideration at a future time. Mr. Park explained that his intent was to provide a basic template
for the Board to begin their discussion. His goal was to provide a rough idea of the legal parameters surrounding the issue
and solicit feedback from the Board about how restrictive the ordinance should be. He would also like feedback about the
ability of religious groups to petition the decision maker for possible exceptions to the standards, etc.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that Mr. Park would collect sample ordinances that have been adopted and used successfully
by other jurisdictions. This information could be used as a template to prepare draft code language for the Board’s
consideration in March. Once the code language has been presented to the Board again, they may decide to appoint a
subcommittee to review the document further and report back to the Board. Mr. Park agreed to work with City staff and the
Fire Marshal to address issues related to building and fire code requirements. Mr. Park also agreed to work with staff to
prepare additional information related to logistics, space, size, etc. Board Member Johnson reminded staff of her earlier
request that a drawing be provided to illustrate how the proposed language would be applied to a given site.
The Board discussed that it would be appropriate to forward a joint recommendation to the City Council regarding the
temporary homeless shelters and temporary homeless encampments at the same time. Mr. Park reminded the Board that the
interim ordinance related to temporary homeless shelters was adopted by the City Council on December 15, 2009 and would
expire on June 15, 2010.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A SHORT BREAK AT 9:02 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE
MEETING AT 9:12 P.M.
CODE REWRITE: PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE CITY’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
(SEPA) RULES (ECDC 20.15A) (FILE NO. AMD-2009-6)
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City’s SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.15A, and the original regulations were adopted under Ordinance 1855 in 1976. In 1984, the City adopted Ordinance
2461, which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with the new SEPA rules in the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11 and the Model SEPA Ordinance in WAC 173-806. The SEPA regulations currently
used by the City are essentially the same that were adopted 25 years ago, with only some minor amendments. He reminded
the Board that the SEPA regulations (ECDC 20.15A) are being reviewed as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its
development regulations. Due to changes to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), WAC, and the City’s own code,
ECDC 20.15A is long overdue for an update. He reviewed the issues being considered as part of the review as follows:
Adoption by Reference. ECDC 20.15A adopts significant portions of WAC 197-11 (SEPA rules) by reference.
Sections of WAC 197-11 have been added and/or removed since the City adopted Ordinance 2461 in 1984, particularly
in regards to SEPA and Growth Management Act (GMA) integration. The proposed update would review changes in
WAC 197-11 and the adoption lists in ECDC 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with the State
regulations.
Model Code. ECDC 20.15A is largely based off the model code in WAC 173-806. As with WAC 197-11, there have
been changes since 1984. The update will review WAC 173-806 and make updates to ECDC 20.15A where appropriate
to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with State regulations.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 177 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 15, 2009
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council interviewed the following candidates for the Historic Preservation
Commission and Planning Board: John Dewhirst, Lois Broadway and Todd Cloutier. Mayor Haakenson,
and Councilmembers Plunkett, Bernheim, Orvis and Wambolt were present at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson arrived at 6:50 p.m.
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Wilson requested Item O be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember
Plunkett requested Item R be removed, and Councilmember Wambolt requested Item U be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 2009.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 178 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 4
debate and kid with him. He had enjoyed working with Councilmember Wambolt due to both his spirit
and his work habits.
Councilmember Peterson commented it had been a pleasure to work with Councilmember Wambolt; his
work ethic was without parallel. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s excellent sense of
humor, remarking he would be deeply missed. He looked forward to Councilmember Wambolt’s
continued involvement in the community.
Council President Wilson commented Councilmember Wambolt had been a tremendous resource and
asset to him and he appreciated his wisdom and guidance.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled Councilmember Wambolt’s and his initial contact was on a citizens
group. He looked forward to the role Councilmember Wambolt would continue to play in the
community.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for bringing sanity to the Council, recalling he
challenged the incumbent and his election allowed the Council to keep lower heights downtown.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Wambolt’s willingness to change his
mind on an issue. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s preparation for Council meetings.
Although Councilmember Wambolt and he had not always agreed on issues, he had the utmost respect for
him and would welcome him back on the Council at any time.
Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a brief reception in Councilmember Wambolt’s honor.
4. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND DIRECTION REGARDING
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED ON THIS
MATTER.
Council President Wilson explained at the Community Services/Development Services Committee
meeting Councilmember Orvis and he spoke with staff regarding the lack of a process in the current code
for permitting a temporary homeless shelter, whether a few days in a church or a tent city. They agreed
an interim ordinance would be appropriate to establish a process followed by further review and
discussion by the Planning Board and staff. He explained the intent of the resolution was to provide
direction to staff regarding the Council’s values to assist in developing a permanent process. He
explained the resolution was developed with the assistance of homeless shelter advocates in South
Snohomish County. He summarized the interim ordinance was not perfect but a starting point.
Charlotte Lawson explained she had been volunteering at a homeless shelter for approximately two
years. She explained homeless people exist everywhere and they often arrive at the shelter cold and
without adequate coats, gloves, hats. During the past 11 days when they offered shelter, the Edmonds
Police Department called four times to inform her of people they discovered living in their cars. She
described the importance of providing shelter for the homeless during emergency weather situations. She
commented on how easily people can become homeless through circumstances beyond their control.
Reverend Barry Keating, Maplewood Presbyterian Church, requested the Council allow churches
freedom from the ordinance that requires churches to have a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm
system. He commented groups of 100+ people are at the church each day without a sprinkler or
monitored fire alarm system. As written, the ordinance would not allow him to bring someone inside the
church that he found sleeping in front of the church on a frigid night. During the current economic
climate when it was difficult for government to provide these services, a group of volunteers and warm
buildings were available to provide emergency shelter. The ordinance seemed to indicate it was better for
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 179 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 5
the homeless to remain outside in frigid temperatures than take the risk of being inside a building that
lacked a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm. He assured there were homeless people in the
Edmonds/Lynnwood area, remarking it would have been difficult during last year’s four weeks of frigid
weather to obey the City’s ordinance. He urged the Council to consider waiving the ordinance for
churches.
Reverend Eileen Hanson, Trinity Lutheran Church, explained the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter
Network was a grass-roots coalition. Last year they provided 474 beds over 34 nights; this year they
provided 200 beds during the recent 11 days of cold weather. She commented on the diversity of their
guests; they include veterans, youth and pregnant women. The Shelter Network is a coalition of seven
faith communities with tremendous community involvement from approximately 200 volunteers. She
encouraged Council to look at this issue not from a stereotypical point of view but understanding the
diversity among the homeless and the under-housed (living in RVs and cars).
Catherine Roper, Lynnwood, an elder in the Maplewood Presbyterian Church, thanked Edmonds for
their concern about the safety of people in churches. She commented on the importance of community
shelters to provide safe, warm and dry emergency accommodations. Until communities are able to
provide shelter and/or employment conditions improve making emergency shelters unnecessary, churches
are providing a piecemeal, minimal temporary shelter. Until Edmonds was able to provide shelter, she
requested the temporary ordinance waive the requirement for sprinklers and a monitored fire alarm
system. She planned to also urge the Lynnwood City Council to provide temporary emergency housing.
Bill Ellis, Edmonds, representing Edmonds United Methodist Church and accompanied by two church
elders, commented although many believe Edmonds is a prosperous city, there are various types of low
cost housing and a wide mix of income levels. Snohomish County’s 10% unemployment rate is higher
than the State or national rate. The consequences of high unemployment are evident at the food bank; the
food bank served nearly twice the number of people this year compared to last year. Today they served
425 families which represent approximately 2,000 people; their recent toy shop distributed 1,060 toys.
Homelessness is one aspect of the economic crisis and results from unemployment, loss of insurance, and
severe physical and psychological suffering. He commented the homeless includes the near homeless,
people who are living in a car or van or stay with a neighbor or friend. The temperature that activates the
Emergency Cold Weather Shelter Network is 33 degrees. He summarized although there were not huge
numbers of homeless people in South Snohomish County, there were very few facilities. The coalition of
churches is striving to fill that need.
Brooke Burdick, Edmonds, explained he had became involved with the Cold Weather Shelter as a result
of his son’s Eagle Scout Project to collect food, cash and equipment donations to provide for those in
need this winter. Many of the people he met at the shelter while volunteering were not the stereotypical
person staying at a shelter. His son and he attended last week’s Lynnwood City Council meeting and
were discouraged because they were not interested in participating in a solution. He encouraged the
Edmonds City Council to show leadership in Snohomish County by acting swiftly to help the community
provide shelter for the homeless this winter.
Marilyn Nadeau, Edmonds, requested the Council’s support for the ordinance or any other action to
facilitate a shelter in Edmonds. A co-founder of the South Snohomish County Shelter for the Homeless
that was started at Trinity Lutheran, she enlisted the help of several other churches in the area. Their
criteria is 33 degrees or below for 4 hours or more. They only seek to offer a safe, warm environment for
the homeless who include men, women and children. This year they have been open for 10 nights and
housed approximately 200 people including several women. They expect to continue this somehow,
somewhere. She invited Councilmembers to visit the shelter the next time it is open.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 180 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 6
Council President Wilson explained he learned by talking with homeless advocates that Edmonds has the
stigma of thinking no homeless people exist in Edmonds and if there were any homeless in Edmonds,
they would be promptly sent out of town. He assured that did not reflect the Council or the community’s
values. Although there are legitimate reasons some buildings could not be allowed to house homeless
people such as if they do not meet the State building code that requires sprinklers, there is a federal law
that allows the land use of religious facilities to override the State Building Code. He anticipated this
would be one of the only Council votes that would save lives. The resolution directs staff to be as flexible
and as aggressive as possible in waiving certain requirements to adhere to federal law.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City has taken two steps already, 1) the City for years has had a
reasonable accommodation process that provides for a waiver of any land use provisions to prevent full
use of property by disabled persons and the homeless community contains a large number of disabled
persons, and 2) the City adopted Ordinance 3730 that adopted the exemption process permitted under the
State Building Code. He explained the City was obligated to enforce the State Building Code and could
not amend the substantive provisions of the State Building Code without the State Building Council’s
approval, a process that takes 6-8 months. The provision for sprinklers is in the State Building Code. Via
adoption of Ordinance 3730, the City exempted existing buildings that would be used for indigent
emergency shelter from change in use requirements such as installing sprinklers. The State Statute
requires that code deficiencies that are exempted pose no threat to human health or safety and the
proposed emergency temporary housing must be less hazardous than the existing use.
Passing the interim ordinance will remove all impediments in the City’s zoning code in addition to the
previous adoption of the State’s Building Code provision and the reasonable accommodation process.
The Fire Marshal community’s position is exempting any use from the sprinkler requirement poses a
threat to health and safety. As attorney Bio Park discussed with the Council committee, that raises legal
issues. Washington State Constitution is broader than the Federal Constitution and Federal statutory
provision and requires, 1) the City’s enforcement of building codes and other requirements be flexible,
and 2) consider reasonable alternatives. He recommended continuing to explore what could be done
within the context of the State law and to assess the risks.
Councilmember Wambolt commended all the speakers for their work on this issue. He acknowledged
there was a problem and the citizens involved in that effort need the City’s assistance. He suggested
consideration be given to using the Senior Center for temporary emergency shelter.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked everyone involved in this effort. He described his past involvement
with the food bank and looked forward to the Council’s effort with regard to this matter.
Councilmember Peterson commented this resolution was the most important page in tonight’s 1,036 page
Council packet. He thanked Council President Wilson for bringing this issue to the Council. The
resolution and interim ordinance are important steps toward raising awareness of the problem in South
Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson thanked everyone involved in providing emergency shelter for the homeless.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1213 REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND
DIRECTION REGARDING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND
ENCAMPMENTS
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the intent of the ordinance was to remove all doubt that homeless
shelters were a permitted use in the City’s zones. The interim ordinance will be in effect for six months
while the Planning Board considers the matter and a public hearing is required within 60 days.
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 181 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3769 RELATED TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND ENCAMPMENTS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION ON RENAMING KAIREZ DRIVE.
Council President Wilson explained the Vista Del Mar Homeowner’s association President contacted him
with a request to rename Kairez Drive. There are two processes, one that costs thousands of dollars and a
second virtually no cost option where Council can direct staff to rename the street.
Ross Marturano, President, Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association, identified five residents of Vista
Del Mar in the audience. He explained there are nine existing homes in Vista Del Mar, two pending sales
and several undeveloped lots. Of the 15 lots, 13 voted in favor of the name change, 1 abstained and 1
voted no. He explained the name Kairez has negative connotations in the neighborhood particularly with
the Police Department. The street was originally known as 92nd Place West and changed to Kairez; the
plat is known as Vista Del Mar. A vote was taken in accordance with the Vista Del Mar Homeowner
Association’s CC&Rs and they are petitioning the Council to change the name. There is no implication
with the title company other than the City must file the name change with Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson inquired about a private road versus public road. Mr. Marturano replied they
are willing to have the road public or private. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this only initiated the
process and set the public hearing. Staff will provide a response by the public hearing regarding the
public versus private road issue. He requested a copy of the Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association
CC&Rs.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1214 INITIATING THE PROCESS TO RENAME KAIREZ
DRIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS “FIRDALE
VILLAGE” FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS" (BN) TO THE “FIRDALE VILLAGE
MIXED USE” (FVMU) ZONE AND ESTABLISH A TREE RETENTION BUFFER.
Planner Gina Coccia explained Firdale Village is located at 9617 Firdale Avenue, contains 3.2 acres and 8
parcels. The buildings were constructed in 1942, annexed into the City in 1997 and the site is currently
zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). The City received one public comment that is included in Exhibit 1
of Attachment 10. No public testimony was provided at the Planning Board public hearing.
She explained this item included a rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board
recommended approval of both the rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board’s draft
minutes are attached in Exhibit 2. In 2006 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to add goals and
policies for this neighborhood. A code amendment establishing a Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone
(FVMU) and corresponding design standards was approved in October 2009.
Ms. Coccia explained this was two separate actions, 1) a public hearing on the proposed development
agreement and 2) a closed record review of the proposed change in zoning from BN to FVMU. The
application requires compliance with ECDC 20.01 Types of Development, 20.08 Development
Agreements, 20.40 Rezones as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. She explained the development
agreement is a Type V legislative application. The Planning Board conducts an open record public
hearing and forwards a recommendation to the Council for final decision. The City Council may hold its
ATTACHMENT 2 | AMD20100003
Packet Page 182 of 251
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1956
Chapter 175, Laws of 2010
61st Legislature
2010 Regular Session
HOMELESS PERSONS--SHELTERS--RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
EFFECTIVE DATE: 06/10/10
Passed by the House March 6, 2010
Yeas 57 Nays 38
FRANK CHOPP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Passed by the Senate March 2, 2010
Yeas 40 Nays 5
BRAD OWEN
President of the Senate
CERTIFICATE
I, Barbara Baker, Chief Clerk of
the House of Representatives of
the State of Washington, do hereby
certify that the attached is
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL
1956 as passed by the House of
Representatives and the Senate on
the dates hereon set forth.
BARBARA BAKER
Chief Clerk
Approved March 23, 2010, 2:19 p.m.
CHRISTINE GREGOIRE
Governor of the State of Washington
FILED
March 23, 2010
Secretary of State
State of Washington
Packet Page 183 of 251
_____________________________________________
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1956
_____________________________________________
AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE
Passed Legislature - 2010 Regular Session
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2010 Regular Session
By House Local Government & Housing (originally sponsored by
Representatives Williams, Chase, Ormsby, Darneille, Van De Wege,
Dickerson, and Simpson)
READ FIRST TIME 02/20/09.
1 AN ACT Relating to the housing of homeless persons on property
2 owned or controlled by a church; adding a new section to chapter 36.01
3 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to
4 chapter 35A.21 RCW; and creating new sections.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
6 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that there are many
7 homeless persons in our state that are in need of shelter and other
8 services that are not being provided by the state and local
9 governments. The legislature also finds that in many communities,
10 religious organizations play an important role in providing needed
11 services to the homeless, including the provision of shelter upon
12 property owned by the religious organization. By providing such
13 shelter, the religious institutions in our communities perform a
14 valuable public service that, for many, offers a temporary, stop-gap
15 solution to the larger social problem of increasing numbers of homeless
16 persons.
17 This act provides guidance to cities and counties in regulating
18 homeless encampments within the community, but still leaves those
19 entities with broad discretion to protect the health and safety of its
p. 1 ESHB 1956.SLPacket Page 184 of 251
1 citizens. It is the hope of this legislature that local governments
2 and religious organizations can work together and utilize dispute
3 resolution processes without the need for litigation.
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 36.01 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 (1) A religious organization may host temporary encampments for the
7 homeless on property owned or controlled by the religious organization
8 whether within buildings located on the property or elsewhere on the
9 property outside of buildings.
10 (2) A county may not enact an ordinance or regulation or take any
11 other action that:
12 (a) Imposes conditions other than those necessary to protect public
13 health and safety and that do not substantially burden the decisions or
14 actions of a religious organization regarding the location of housing
15 or shelter for homeless persons on property owned by the religious
16 organization;
17 (b) Requires a religious organization to obtain insurance
18 pertaining to the liability of a municipality with respect to homeless
19 persons housed on property owned by a religious organization or
20 otherwise requires the religious organization to indemnify the
21 municipality against such liability; or
22 (c) Imposes permit fees in excess of the actual costs associated
23 with the review and approval of the required permit applications.
24 (3) For the purposes of this section, "religious organization"
25 means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious
26 assembly, school, or institution that owns or controls real property.
27 (4) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or
28 public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability
29 for (a) damages arising from the permitting decisions for a temporary
30 encampment for the homeless as provided in this section and (b) any
31 conduct or unlawful activity that may occur as a result of the
32 temporary encampment for the homeless as provided in this section.
33 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW
34 to read as follows:
35 (1) A religious organization may host temporary encampments for the
ESHB 1956.SL p. 2Packet Page 185 of 251
1 homeless on property owned or controlled by the religious organization
2 whether within buildings located on the property or elsewhere on the
3 property outside of buildings.
4 (2) A city or town may not enact an ordinance or regulation or take
5 any other action that:
6 (a) Imposes conditions other than those necessary to protect public
7 health and safety and that do not substantially burden the decisions or
8 actions of a religious organization regarding the location of housing
9 or shelter for homeless persons on property owned by the religious
10 organization;
11 (b) Requires a religious organization to obtain insurance
12 pertaining to the liability of a municipality with respect to homeless
13 persons housed on property owned by a religious organization or
14 otherwise requires the religious organization to indemnify the
15 municipality against such liability; or
16 (c) Imposes permit fees in excess of the actual costs associated
17 with the review and approval of the required permit applications.
18 (3) For the purposes of this section, "religious organization"
19 means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious
20 assembly, school, or institution that owns or controls real property.
21 (4) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or
22 public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability
23 for (a) damages arising from the permitting decisions for a temporary
24 encampment for the homeless as provided in this section and (b) any
25 conduct or unlawful activity that may occur as a result of the
26 temporary encampment for the homeless as provided in this section.
27 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 35A.21 RCW
28 to read as follows:
29 (1) A religious organization may host temporary encampments for the
30 homeless on property owned or controlled by the religious organization
31 whether within buildings located on the property or elsewhere on the
32 property outside of buildings.
33 (2) A code city may not enact an ordinance or regulation or take
34 any other action that:
35 (a) Imposes conditions other than those necessary to protect public
36 health and safety and that do not substantially burden the decisions or
p. 3 ESHB 1956.SLPacket Page 186 of 251
1 actions of a religious organization regarding the location of housing
2 or shelter for homeless persons on property owned by the religious
3 organization;
4 (b) Requires a religious organization to obtain insurance
5 pertaining to the liability of a municipality with respect to homeless
6 persons housed on property owned by a religious organization or
7 otherwise requires the religious organization to indemnify the
8 municipality against such liability; or
9 (c) Imposes permit fees in excess of the actual costs associated
10 with the review and approval of the required permit applications.
11 (3) For the purposes of this section, "religious organization"
12 means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious
13 assembly, school, or institution that owns or controls real property.
14 (4) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or
15 public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability
16 for (a) damages arising from the permitting decisions for a temporary
17 encampment for the homeless as provided in this section and (b) any
18 conduct or unlawful activity that may occur as a result of the
19 temporary encampment for the homeless as provided in this section.
20 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. Nothing in this act is intended to change
21 applicable law or be interpreted to prohibit a county, city, town, or
22 code city from applying zoning and land use regulations allowable under
23 established law to real property owned by a religious organization,
24 regardless of whether the property owned by the religious organization
25 is used to provide shelter or housing to homeless persons.
26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Nothing in this act supersedes a court
27 ordered consent decree or other negotiated settlement between a public
28 agency and religious organization entered into prior to July 1, 2010,
29 for the purposes of establishing a temporary encampment for the
30 homeless as provided in this act.
Passed by the House March 6, 2010.
Passed by the Senate March 2, 2010.
Approved by the Governor March 23, 2010.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State March 23, 2010.
ESHB 1956.SL p. 4Packet Page 187 of 251
AM-3497 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the 2011 Regular Property Tax, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and
Debt Service Levy: Proposed Ordinance providing for the annual tax levy by increasing
the regular property tax levy by the current 101% levy limit, thereby levying an estimated
regular property tax levy of $9,535,938, EMS levy of $3,477,741 and levying $877,984 for
voted indebtedness for the Public Safety Complex.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The following ordinance authorizes a 1% increase in the 2011 levy for regular property tax. It also
authorizes the 2011 Emergency Medical Services levy at the prior year level, and continuation of the
Debt Service Levy. The Levy Certification must be received by the Snohomish County Assessor by
November 30, 2010.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011
Revenue:$13,891,663
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Regular Levy: $9,535,938
Excess Levy: $ 877,984
EMS Levy: $3,477,741
Attachments
2011 Property Tax Ordinance
Memo on Finding of Substantial Need Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 11:10 AM
Mayor Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 12:07 PM
Packet Page 188 of 251
Mayor Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 12:07 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 12:07 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 10/29/2010 10:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2010
Packet Page 189 of 251
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. ------
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY
BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY
BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING
AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF
$9,535,938, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,477,741 AND LEVYING
$877,984 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMPLEX, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Edmonds have properly given
notice of the public hearing held on October 19, 2010, to consider the City's current expense
budget for 2011, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in the course of considering the budget for 2011
have reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and
WHEREAS, the district’s actual levy amount for the previous year was
$9,383,000 for regular property levy, and $3,477,000 for is EMS levy, and $853,084 for debt
service payments, and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines following public hearing that it
is in the best interest of and necessary to meet the expenses and obligations of the City to
increase the regular property levy by 1%; and keep the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy
at the prior year level, and
WHEREAS, the population of this district is greater than 10,000, and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office has requested that all
Snohomish County Taxing Districts submit their levy certifications to the county on the State
Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100; NOW, THEREFORE
Packet Page 190 of 251
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 2 of 5
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year
2011 shall be limited to the 101%, or 100% plus inflation, which ever is lower of the highest
amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985.
Section 2. Regular Property Tax. The 2010 regular property tax levy for
collection in 2011 is the amount levied in 2009 for collection in 2010, plus an increase of
$93,830 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by
one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed
wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have
occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $9,535,938.
Section 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2010
EMS property tax levy for collection in 2011 is the amount levied in 2009 for collection in 2010,
plus an increase of $0 which is a percentage increase of 0%, plus an increase equal to the amount
allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly
constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations
that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,477,741.
Section 4. There shall be and is hereby levied current taxes of $877,984, the
purpose of which is to make debt service payments on voter approved bonds.
Section 5. The levies contained in sections 2 through 4 are subject to amendment
upon receipt of 2010 assessed valuation from Snohomish County.
Section 6. Pursuant to the request by the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office,
the Finance Director is hereby authorized to submit to the Snohomish County Council
Packet Page 191 of 251
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 3 of 5
certification of the hereby approved levies on the State Department of Revenue standardized
form REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. 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 8. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title. It is enacted on a vote of a majority plus one of the City Council.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 192 of 251
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 4 of 5
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. -----
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 1st day of November, 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, PROVIDING FOR THE
ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE
CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,535,938, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,477,741 AND LEVYING
$877,984 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 1st day of November, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 193 of 251
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 5 of 5
Exhibit A – Levy Certification
Levy Certification
Submit this document to the county legislative authority on or before November 30 of the year preceding
the year in which the levy amounts are to be collected and forward a copy to the assessor.
In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Lorenzo Hines Jr., Finance Director, for the City of
Edmonds, do hereby certify to the Snohomish County legislative authority that the Council of
said district requests that the following levy amounts be collected in 2011 as provided in the
district’s budget, which was adopted following a public hearing on October 19, 2010.
Regular Levy: $9,535,938
Excess Levy: $877,984
EMS Levy: $3,477,741
___________________________________________
Signature Date
Packet Page 194 of 251
City of Edmonds Finance and Information Systems
DATE: October 29, 2010
TO: City of Edmonds, City Council
FROM: Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director of Finance and Information Services
SUBJECT: Finding of Substantial Need Resolution is not necessary for 2011
Honorable Members,
Section 1 of the 2011 Property Tax Ordinance reads as follows:
“Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year 2011
shall be limited to the 101%, or 100% plus inflation, which ever is lower of the
highest amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in
any year since 1985.”
The inflation for 2011 taxes is estimated by Snohomish County to be 1.539%
(implicit price deflator). Therefore, the increase in property tax is limited to the lesser
of 101% or 105.39%. As a result, our increase will be 101%.
Because inflation is projected above 101%, we do not need to pass a Finding of
Substantial Need Resolution this year. We only need this resolution when inflation
is estimated to be below 101%.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MIKE COOPER
CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR MAYOR
EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425)771-0240 FAX (425)771-0265 LORENZO HINES JR.
DIRECTOR
FINANCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT
Packet Page 195 of 251
AM-3487 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the update to the Street Tree Plan.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor and Staff recommend that Council review and accept revisions to the Street Tree Plan, Appendix
F, of the adopted 2006 Streetscape Plan, which is part of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Previous Council Action
On May 26, 2009 the Street Tree Plan was reviewed in regard to street trees at 5th & Dayton and Council
voted to amend language in the Plan to better reflect current practices.
Narrative
In response to City Council concerns regarding the removal and replacement of street trees, particularly
in the downtown, City Council requested a review of the Street Tree Plan element of the Streetscape
Plan. This review was conducted May 26, 2009 (minutes attached) and concluded with Council
recommending changes to better reflect current practices in removing and replanting trees, especially the
caliper of replacement trees.
Subsequent to the May 26th meeting the question of replacing or retaining the mature trees at 5th &
Dayton was discussed several times at City Council throughout the late summer and fall. At the
suggestion of the Public Works Director it was agreed to review the entire Street Tree Plan in 2010. The
procedure to accomplish this has been:
- incorporation of Council recommendations
- staff review
- review with the Planning Board
- two public hearings with the Planning Board
- forwarding the recommended plan with amendments to City Council for a public hearing.
While reviewing plan changes please keep in mind the following that will likely have bearing or future
influence on this plan:
1. The city does not have a dedicated City Arborist. However, Parks and Public Works staff have been
and are willing and able to provide assistance to citizens, Planning, Engineering, and the ADB when
needed.
Packet Page 196 of 251
needed.
2. A Citizens Tree Advisory Board is in the process of being formed and issues mentioned such as
incentives for tree preservation, significant & landmark trees, etc., may be appropriate for the new Board
to review.
3. The Streetscape Plan, of which the Street Tree Plan is an appendix, will start its review
(completed every 6 years) in late 2011.
The first two attachments: Street Tree Plan pages 116-129 and pages 130-135 contain all substantive and
caretaking changes in red and blue. The red reflects Council, Staff, and Planning Board recommended
additions and changes. The blue reflects changes from the first Planning Board public hearing. Staff
appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions.
Attachments
Street Tree Plan pages 116-129
Street Tree Plan pages 130-135
Streetscape Plan planting samples
Planning Board DRAFT minutes Oct 13.10
Planning Board minutes Aug 11.10
Council Minutes May 26.09
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:26 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 05:25 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 08:01 AM
Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 10/27/2010 04:46 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2010
Packet Page 197 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 116
Appendix F – Street Tree Plan
City of Edmonds
Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
2002 Street Tree Plan prepared by MacLeod Reckord
Updated by City of Edmonds staff in 2006
Packet Page 198 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 117
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
VISION
ORGANIZATION
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
CONTEXT
EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS
GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
DESIGN
SPECIES SELECTION
MAINTENANCE
REGULATORY
IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
STREET TREE PLAN
Existing trees
View corridors waterfront connections
Retail streets
Overhead wires
Underground utilities
Downtown Plan
Gateways Plans
Key Routes Plan
TREE PLANTING PROCEDURES
STREET TREE MAINTENANCE
Procedures
Responsibility
REGULATORY LINKAGES
Coordination with Existing Plans & Codes
Design Review Procedure
STREET TREE LIST 130
DOWNTOWN STREET TREE DISTRIBUTION MAP 133
STREET TREE PRUNING GUIDELINES 134
STREET TREE PLANTING DETAILS 135
Packet Page 199 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 118
SUMMARY
Vision
The Edmonds Street Tree Plan exists to benefit the local community and business climate through
enhancement of the identity and character of the downtown, gateways, neighborhoods and
primary routes of travel. Street trees provide seasonal interest, summer shade, and a transition
between the street and adjacent buildings and properties as well as the ecological services of
providing habitat for wildlife, storm water management, and cleaning pollution from the air.
Often this is through preservation of mature and significant trees. The plan recommends species
which provide these benefits and are hardy, relatively easy to maintain, and tolerant of urban
conditions. Whenever possible consider the use of native trees and new technologies in tree and
sidewalk restoration and construction such as pervious sidewalks that drain naturally to provide
water for street trees.
Street tree planting or replacement creates opportunities to consider drainage techniques such as
bio swales and other natural storm drainage methods in new corner parks and bulb outs or by
retrofitting existing facilities.
The plan recommends species which provide these benefits and are hardy, relatively easy to
maintain, and tolerant of urban conditions. The City may modify or amend tree species selection
in the future.
The City may modify or amend tree species selection in the future.
Organization
This plan provides a brief overview of the existing physical context and regulatory requirements,
as well as previous planning efforts which relate to street trees. Goals and objectives are
identified relevant to street trees as urban design elements, tree species selection, maintenance,
regulatory guidelines and plan implementation. Suggested actions for the street tree plan are
discussed including these components:
Street tree list
Tree location plan
Planting standards
Maintenance responsibilities
Regulatory linkage with this plan
Packet Page 200 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 119
INTRODUCTION
Context
The City of Edmonds is gifted with a picturesque setting offering magnificent views of Puget
Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Enhancement of these views is an important consideration of
the street tree plan. The City is also a destination for people seeking enjoyment of the strong arts
community, its waterfront, and its small-town character. Edmonds is also a stopping point for
many who commute to Kitsap County via ferry. Edmonds is a certified Community Wildlife
Habitat city and Sstreet trees could should contribute to the Sustainability Element of the City’s
Climate Action Plan. Street Trees also provide a stronger sense of place and city edge definition
and enhance the pedestrian environment.
Existing Regulatory Requirements
The City of Edmonds currently defines acceptable street tree species, planting methods, tree
locations, and planting and maintenance responsibilities through a variety of means. Primarily,
planting and maintenance of street trees in the city has been in response to a mixture of regulatory
requirements, legal proceedings and decisions by City Staff and public utility employees.
Responsibility for planting and maintaining the trees is not clearly defined and sometimes
conflicting.
Edmonds currently relies on the following regulatory guidelines:
Street Tree Plan, revised 2006 and adopted, including a street tree list and recommended
tree locations in the downtown retail core area (subject to future amendment).
Resolution 418, adopted 1978, governing maintenance of trees in public areas.
Ordinance 1952, created in 1977, regulating planting, maintenance and removal of trees
on City owned property.
City of Edmonds Community Development Code (CDC), Chapter 18.85 regulating street
trees.
Some references to street tree planting are also made in the comprehensive plan and the Shoreline
Master Program. The City’s Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviews and approves planting
plans for new development seeking a permit, including street tree planting as part of private
development.
Related Planning Efforts
Several previous and current planning documents identify goals and design recommendations
which directly relate to this street tree plan:
Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy, dated 1999.
City of Edmonds Design Guidelines. Design guidelines for private development except
for single-family zone and projects with up to two residential units.
Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, dated January 1994, revised 2005. Guidelines for
downtown waterfront development.
Edmonds Streetscape Plan core document defines guidelines for streetscape development
within the public right-of-ways for Edmonds gateways (defined in Streetscape Plan), and
key routes of travel.
Packet Page 201 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 120
GOALS
Design
Within the City of Edmonds rights-of-way, location of street trees should make the following
contributions and meet these criteria:
Clarify the edges of the City.
Enhance City gateways at key intersections and retail/commercial centers.
Distinguish key routes of travel through Edmonds.
Define separate street identities within the downtown retail core.
Frame views of Puget Sound and the mountains from key viewpoints and right-of-ways.
Due to narrow street right-of-ways, species on view streets should be somewhat narrow
in form.
Placement of trees shall not obscure or impede vehicular sight distance at intersections.
Reinforce the sense of safety for pedestrians by providing an element of separation
between pedestrians and vehicles.
In retail/commercial areas, plant trees with handicapped accessible tree grates flush with
adjacent pavement to maximize width of "walking zone" on sidewalks. Avoid raised
planters that interfere with the “walking zone”..
Allow walking and window shopping to occur next to retail/commercial frontage and
allow space for weather protection over sidewalk walk zone.
Avoid overhead power lines utilities. The City of Edmonds should recommend
undergrounding power lines in the downtown core and in the smaller retail/commercial
centers.
Avoid blocking visibility of business signage, marquees and window displays.
Wherever practical Consider the largest tree caliper available and appropriate for each
site.
Species Selection
Criteria for the tree species recommended in the Edmonds Street Tree List are listed below:
Wherever possible Consider native species
Resistant to pests and disease
Hardy to local weather conditions
Produces minimal litter
Non-invasive roots
Resistant to breakage
Thornless
Fruitless
Resistant to drought and heat
Does not sucker
Tolerates air and water pollution and provides air/water quality benefits through
absorption of oils and other toxins
Readily available in adequate installation size and branching height
Provides seasonal interest, such as flowers and fall color
Upward branching habit
Appropriate mature size and form for their location
Packet Page 202 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 121
Maintenance
Several suggested maintenance procedures are relevant as well:
Consider and iInstitute planting procedures, new technologies, and tools (such as root
barriers, Silva cell systems, or other underground planting mediums or structures) to
discourage lifting of pavement by tree roots by encouraging roots to grow downward or
into structures.
Use of equipment in the right-of-way other than hand tools will require a City Right-of-
Way permit prior to street tree pruning. Prune to maintain the natural form of the trees.
Avoid leaving branch stubs. Prune to direct branch growth around obstructions. Do not
top trees or pollard trees unless approved by the City. Prune frequently so that cut
branches are not substantial in size. Consider branching pattern in relationship to
potential obstructions when choosing orientation of tree at time of planting.
Contact the City Parks Division for guidelines Street True Pruning Guidelines Handout
(pg 134) on maintenance of street trees or to discuss any pruning issues.
Contact the City Engineering Division to obtain a Right-of-Way permit.
Regulatory
Except where otherwise defined by the City, the adjacent property owner is responsible
for tree planting and maintenance. Contact Park Maintenance Division for guidance.
Require coordination for any work within the City right-of-ways. Work within the City
right-of-ways requires coordination with the City.
Institute appropriate public and private funding mechanisms to achieve goals and
implement recommended actions.
Provide incentives for private property owners to preserve substantial trees.
Implementation
When possible, plant entire blocks or series of blocks at the same time that sidewalks are
reconstructed. This will provide some uniformity in tree size and form. When streets and
sidewalks are built or reconstructed, consider existing trees individually in regard to
health of the tree and suitability for the site. Consider all reasonable preservation
alternatives to removal of the existing trees that do not jeopardize the successful
completion of the project. When possible Plant the largest caliper of appropriate
replacement tree possible. Undergrounding of overhead wire utilities could occur
simultaneously if species compatibility is assessed.
Conform to the City of Edmonds adopted “Standard Details”, for example tree grates and
tree spacing.
Packet Page 203 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 122
ACTIONS
Existing Trees
Preservation of existing trees, particularly landmark trees and specimens of significant size and
age, is encouraged on both public and private properties as long as they are healthy and any
negative impacts on utilities and sidewalks can be reasonably managed.
Trees which do not conform to the street tree plan should be phased out over time. Allow new
trees to reach significant size before culling out unwanted specimens. Installation of new trees at
larger caliper size will quicken this process. Because new planting is may be recommended to
occur over one or several blocks at one time, removal of existing trees would may occur
simultaneously in the same areas. Removal of trees in the "prohibited" category on the street tree
list should take priority over others.
View Corridors and Waterfront Connections
In the downtown retail core area, views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains occur along
streets which are perpendicular to the waterfront and where there are high points and steeper
slopes toward the water.The key downtown streets in this category are: Main St., Dayton St., and
5th Ave. south of Main.
Primary waterfront connections occur along Main Street and Dayton Street; and along Pine Street
(when the ferry terminal is relocated). Other key view corridors in the downtown include
Edmonds and Bell Streets. Trees along these streets should be more narrow in form in order to
frame but not block the views and visual connections to the waterfront.
Retail Streets
Streets with retail and commercial uses along them benefit from clear visibility from vehicles and
sidewalks to store frontage. These frontages can also provide weather protection for pedestrians
in the form of canopies. Parking may also occur directly adjacent to the sidewalk along these
streets. Trees should therefore have branching high enough to avoid awnings and allow visibility
under the canopy. High branching also avoids conflict with tall vehicles.
Overhead Wires Utilities
Some streets or blocks in the downtown, gateway areas and along key routes have overhead
wiresutilities. The street tree plan recommends eventual undergrounding or relocation to
alleyways of all overhead wires utilities in the downtown retail core area. Ideally overhead wires
utilities in the downtown should be undergrounded simultaneously with new street tree planting,
otherwise, unsightly pruning of the trees by utilities may occur to keep branches clear of wires.
Underground Utilities
Tree roots sometimes invade and damage city sewer and storm drainage lines. These underground
utilities occur on at least one side of the street throughout the downtown, gateway areas and along
key routes. For this reason, non-invasive species were chosen for the street list. Installation of
root barriers or other underground structures will help direct roots away from underground
utilities.
Downtown Plan
Specific street tree species are identified for planting on particular stretches of street in the
downtown. A map showing the species locations is shown on the next page. All trees shown on
the map shall be minimum a preferred 3 inch caliper but not less than 2 inch caliper unless
otherwise approved.
Packet Page 204 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 123
Gateways to Edmonds
Gateways to Edmonds are defined in the body of the Streetscape Plan. They are key intersections
or series of intersections, and key retail/commercial nodes. All trees shall be minimum a preferred
3”. inchCaliper but not less than 2 inch caliper, as indicated, unless otherwise approved by the
City. Recommendations for specific street trees at these gateways are as follows:
FIVE CORNERS (212th Street SW at Main Street, Bowdoin Street, and 84th Avenue
West)
A roundabout is recommended in the Streetscape Plan for the center of the 5-way
intersection. If trees are placed in the roundabout, the tree(s) should have large
size and high branching to allow safe sight distance for drivers across the planted
area under the trees. Installation size should be minimum a preferred 3”
caliperbut not less than 2 inch caliper with branching at 10 ft. height. These are
possible good choices:
Quercus rubra / Red Oak
Quercus palustris .Crownright. / Crownright Pin Oak
Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura Tree
Ginko biloba .Autumn Gold. / .A.G.. Maidenhair Tree
Prunus serrulata / Kwansan
Tree plantings along the five streets or spokes which extend out from the
intersection should have the same tree species planted to surround the roundabout
with a unifying element. A good choice for this tree would be Prunus serrulata
Kwansan, which is the same tree used on Main Street in downtown. Eventually
planting of this tree should extend all the way down Main Street from Five
Corners to downtown to accent that important connection.
WESTGATE (Highway 104 or Edmonds Way at 100th Avenue West)
See Appendix C for gateway concept at Westgate. Medians are recommended as
well as planting at the four corners of this intersection. Median planting should
match the tree selection for Highway 104. Planting at the four corners should
accent this as a special intersection. Due to space limitations, if trees are planted,
they should allow for safe vehicular sight distance and visibility of storefronts or
store signage. These trees could be one of the following species:
Prunus serrulata .Amanagawa. / Amanagawa Cherry
Prunus sargentii .Columnaris. / Columnar Sargent Cherry
Acer rubrum ’Bowhall’ / Bowhall Maple
PERRINVILLE (Olympic View Drive at 76th Avenue West)
This intersection has native planting influences as well as retail/commercial
elements. Tree selection at the four corners of this intersection could be one
selected from the following species:
Acer rubrum ’Karpick’ / Karpick Maple
Acer rubrum ’Bowhall’ / Bowhall Maple
Fraxinus pennsylvancia ’Summit’ / Summit Ash
There is also space for a large tree species here which could be:
Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura Tree
Ginkgo biloba ’Autumn Gold’ / ’A.G.’ Maidenhair Tree
Packet Page 205 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 124
HIGHWAY 99 INTERSECTIONS (at 212th Street SW, 220th Street SW, 228th Street
SW, and 236th Street SW)
Tree selection should be the same for these intersections and should match tree
selections for Highway 99 between the intersections. Due to space limitation, if
trees are planted at the intersections, they would need to go on private property in
back of the current limited right-of-way adjoining the sidewalk. Plantings within
the right-of-way would need to consider lighting and bus stop visibility issues
and be coordinated with the State. The species selected should have strong form,
and should not block safe vehicular sight distance and views to signage
identifying businesses. A medium to large columnar tree would work best such
as:
Acer platanoides ’Columnare’ / Columnar Norway Maple
Acer rubrum ’Armstrong’ / Armstrong Maple
Nyssa sylvatica / Tupelo
Key Routes
The Edmonds Streetscape study identifies important key routes through the City. Street trees
could be planted along these corridors as an element of continuity. All trees shall be a preferred 3
inch caliper minimum but not less than 2 inch caliper unless otherwise approved.
Recommendations for specific street trees along these routes are as follows, but may also require
WSDOT approval:
SR 104
Median planting could be groupings of a mixture of small to medium formal type
trees such as:
Acer platanoides ’Globosum’ / Globe Maple
Pyrus calleryana ’Capital’ / Capital Pear
Carpinus betulus ’Fastigiata’ / Pyramidal European Hornbeam
Planting at sides could be larger boulevard type trees such as:
Liriodendron tulipifera / Tulip Tree
Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura Tree
Quercus rubra / Red Oak
HIGHWAY 99
Planting at sides of Highway 99 should have a strong form and should allow
views of business signage. A medium to large narrow tree is recommended
selected from this list:
Acer rubrum ’Armstrong’ / Armstrong Maple
Acer platanoides ’Columnare’ / Columnar Norway Maple
Nyssa sylvatica / Tupelo
Packet Page 206 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 125
220TH STREET SW
Continue planting to match existing Amanagawa Cherry Trees from Highway 99
to 100th Street (9th Ave. S.).
212TH STREET SW / MAIN STREET
Continue planting of Pyrus calleryana .Glens Form. from downtown through Five
Corners to Highway 99.
196TH STREET SW
A medium to large size tree is recommended for this stretch of roadway. The
following would work:
Tilia cordata ’Greenspire’ / Greenspire Linden
Fraxinus pennsylvanica ’Marshalls Seedless’ / Marshall Ash
OTHER ARTERIALS
Check with City for recommendations.
Tree Planting Procedures
Planting procedure recommendations address reducing tree stress, avoiding conflict of roots with
underground utilities and pavement, and minimizing conflict between tree branches and various
obstructions. Street tree planting details are included at the end of this document.. Also refer to
City of Edmonds “Standards”.
In order to survive well in an urban environment trees need an adequate supply of water, nutrients
and air to the roots, as well as good drainage. Street trees are often planted in paved areas with
highly compacted, poorly drained soils. The pavement and soil compaction limits the supply of
water and air to the roots. Tree roots, which typically tend to be located in the top 1 foot of soil,
will often invade utility lines and follow the crushed rock base installed under pavements in order
to get the air and water they need.
Tree grates and tree wells allows some soil surface area to be exposed to air while protecting it
from compaction. Root barriers should be installed to direct roots downward and prevent uplifting
of surrounding pavement. In addition, by installing a few perforated pipes sloping downward into
the soil from each tree pit, and pea gravel drainage trenches under the tree pits, roots will be
encouraged to grow down and the soil around the tree will not become too saturated. An
automatic irrigation system is recommended to supplement water supply. Slow release fertilizer
tablets should be added to the tree pit at installation time to assist with tree establishment. Trees
should be isolated from gas lines as gas is toxic to them.
Sharp transitions between soil types in the plant pit can discourage roots from growing out of the
pit. This can cause the tree to become root bound, thus unstable within the pit. For this reason
native soils should be mixed with planting soil in the pit. Tree pits should be large enough in size
to allow for a minimum of 6" of this soil mixture around the sides and bottom. According to the
American Standard for Nursery Stock, the root ball for a 3" caliper tree should measure 32"
minimum diameter with a depth of approximately 20". The minimum tree pit size for a 3" caliper
tree with standard rootball dimensions should be 44" diameter by 26" deep.
Packet Page 207 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 126
It is recommended that street trees not be planted during the summer or early fall. If trees are
must be planted during the summer or early fall, antidessicants should be used to prevent water
loss through the leaves. Measures should be taken by the installer to protect the tree roots, trunk
and branches from physical damage.
At planting, the tree should be oriented in the best way possible so that branching is not aimed
toward obstructions such as awnings, buildings, signage and overhead wires.
Installation size and branching height should be chosen to maximize the trees survival rate,
resistance to vandalism, vehicle clearance under branches and aesthetic impact. The following
guidelines are suggested:
In retail/commercial and mixed use areas, install minimum preferred 3” but not less than
2 inch caliper street trees with minimum 7 foot branching height unless otherwise
approved by the City. Narrow and columnar trees could have lower branching height as
approved.
In areas zoned by single family and multiple residential use, street trees should be
minimum 2” caliper with minimum 6 foot height branching unless otherwise approved.
Choose large shrubs or City approved small scale trees when planting underneath power
lines.
Guidelines for street tree location, spacing and clearances are defined below:
Spacing: Space trees to allow adequate area for mature crown spread. Space small scale
and narrow trees about 30 to 40 feet on center, medium scale trees about 40 to 50 feet on
center, and large scale trees about 40 to 60 feet on center. In some cases spacing may
need to be increased dependent upon tree species and its branching characteristics in
relation to planned uses adjacent to the planting. In some instances currently within the
City adjacent property owners may overprune to provide better exposure to their
businesses or territorial view from their residence. Contact Parks Maintenance Division
for Guidance and review Street Tree Pruning Guidelines pg.134).
Tree Grates/Tree Wells: In retail/commercial and mixed use area, install trees with a 4
foot square ADA accessible cast iron tree grate per City standards. Larger or smaller 3
foot grates may be used as approved by the City. Tree grates are not required in areas
zoned for single family residential use unless determined to be needed by City staff.
Appropriate sized tree wells are recommended for each newly planted tree (usually 3-6’
in diameter).
Location:
o In the Downtown Activity Center (excluding Sunset Avenue): Center trees 2-1/2
feet back from the face of curb. A larger dimension from the face of curb may be
used with a larger tree grate as approved by the City. Maintain the same setback
from face of curb on each street so that trees will be in a straight line. Do not
plant trees in the .walking zone. of the sidewalk.
o In Commercial/Business/Mixed Use/Medical Use/Public Use/Multiple
Residential zones outside the Downtown Activity Center: If the majority of the
block already has an existing sidewalk and landscape strip, any new development
shall conform to the existing pattern. Otherwise, center trees 2-1/2 feet back
from the face of the curb. A larger dimension from the face of curb may be used
with a larger tree grate as approved by the City. Maintain the same setback from
face of curb on each street so that trees will be in a straight line. Do not plant
trees in the “walking zone” of the sidewalk.
Packet Page 208 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 127
o In Single-Family Residential Zones: Trees shall be installed 2.5 foot back from
the face of the curb within a landscape strip. The maximum size of the landscape
strip shall not exceed four feet unless otherwise approved by the City. A five-
foot sidewalk shall be constructed, behind the designated landscape strip, in
accordance with the current sidewalk policy within the city’s Transportation
Element. If one of the following apply, the sidewalk may be placed adjacent to
the curb:
Right-of-way width is not adequate to allow for both a sidewalk and a
landscape strip;
Topography would require retaining walls to construct the sidewalk;
The majority of the block has already had the sidewalk placed in a
different location (in which case the new should match the existing);
The street has low traffic volume, or has a parking strip between the
sidewalk and the lane of traffic.
Maintain the following minimum clearances:
5 feet from underground utilities unless adequate protection is provided for the tree and
the utility line as approved by the City. Call 1-800-424-5555 to request location of
underground utilities,
10 feet from power poles,
7-1/2 feet from driveways,
20 feet from street lights,
20 feet from other existing trees,
30 feet from street intersections except at intersections with special design treatment
and/or as approved by the City.
Exceptions from the above guidelines may be administratively approved as described below.
To request a different type of tree or different size tree, when the type of tree or required
size of tree is not available, please contact the Parks Department.
To request a location other than as recommended above, when maintaining the minimum
clearances would reduce the number of trees that could be installed, please contact the
Engineering Division.
Packet Page 209 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 128
Street Tree Maintenance
Procedures
Provisions for adequate water and nutrients, proper pruning practices, and reducing competition
from other plants will help the street trees be more resistant to pests and disease.
WATERING
Newly planted trees need supplemental water during the dry summer months
until they are established. During the first 2 years after planting an application of
about 5 gallons per week is recommended during the month of May through
October. This amount may be decreased as the tree matures except during severe
drought. An automatic irrigation system is recommended for street trees in
retail/commercial areas where individual residents/owners would be less likely to
maintain the trees. The resident/owner shall be responsible for the maintenance
of their irrigation system pipe installed in the City right-of-way. Irrigation control
and back flow system shall always remain on private property.
FERTILIZER
Newly planted trees make poor use of fertilizer during the first growing season.
A minimal application of a slow release fertilizer is recommended during the first
one or two years of growth. A moderate application of slow release fertilizer may
be applied after that for a few years. It should be applied according to
manufacturer’s instructions.
PRUNING
All pruning done by private contractors on Edmonds street trees shall conform to
International Society of Arboriculture standards and American Association of
Nurserymen standards. A City issued right-of-way permit should be acquired
when equipment other than hand tools are used in the public right-of-way to
prune street trees. Pruning should maintain the natural form of the tree. Do not
top trees and do not remove more than 4025% of the tree canopy. Exceptions
must be approved by the City of Edmonds. Branches should be pruned when
small to reduce shock to tree, and avoid unnatural branch angles or a hacked off
look. Frequent annual or biannual pruning, especially during the first 5 years of
growth, will allow maintenance of a more natural growth pattern while directing
limbs away from buildings, street lights, overhead wires, vehicular traffic,
awnings and pedestrian walking zones. Prune branches according to the Street
Tree Pruning Guidelines described on page 134. following guidelines:
Avoid pruning when tree is forming or losing its leaves,
Cut the branch directly next to the branch "collar",
Do not make cuts flush with the trunk, or another branch, which remove
the "collar",
Do not leave branch stubs extending out beyond the "collar".
Packet Page 210 of 251
APPENDIX F – Street Tree Plan 129
REDUCE PLANT COMPETITION
Keep competing lawn and weeds away from the tree trunk for the first 3 to 4
years after planting. Provide a 4 to 6 foot diameter clear area or tree well around
the trunk and maintain a 2" to 3" depth of mulch in this clear area. Keeping lawn
away also helps reduce damage to the trunk by lawn mowers.
AVOID DAMAGE
Cuts or nails into tree bark provides place for disease and decay to enter. Nailing
of signs, peeling bark off, carving of initials in the bark and tying of objects such
as bicycles to trees can be harmful and should be discouraged. Tree grates should
be broken out or removed before the trunk grows into them. When a tree is
wounded, use of tar or paint on the wound is not recommended. Instead, clean
the wound and remove rough edges from the bark.
TREAT FOR DISEASE
Use effective and environmentally sensitive IPM (Integrated Pest Management)
principles and approaches in dealing with pest management and disease.
Sometimes it is necessary to apply appropriate sprays to treat insects, fungus and
other problems. First it is important to identify the problem, then to treat the
specific problem in the least toxic way possible such as ladybugs to control
aphids. For more information about pests and possible treatment contact the King
County Extension Service (206) 296-3900 or the Master Gardner Program at
(206) 296-3440. Many chemicals are toxic. Follow manufacturer’s instructions.
Notify neighbors and nearby schools prior to application.
Responsibility
Unless otherwise indicated the adjacent property owner is responsible for maintenance of
street trees and any owner/resident installed irrigation system for those trees.
The City may need to explore various sources of funding to supplement the current
maintenance budget, such as formation of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.), or other
supplemental funding source.
Regulatory Linkages
The Street Tree Plan should be coordinated with existing plans and codes and the current design
review procedure.
Packet Page 211 of 251
Packet Page 212 of 251
Packet Page 213 of 251
Packet Page 214 of 251
Packet Page 215 of 251
Packet Page 216 of 251
Packet Page 217 of 251
Packet Page 218 of 251
Packet Page 219 of 251
Packet Page 220 of 251
Packet Page 221 of 251
Packet Page 222 of 251
Packet Page 223 of 251
Packet Page 224 of 251
Packet Page 225 of 251
Packet Page 226 of 251
Packet Page 227 of 251
Packet Page 228 of 251
Packet Page 229 of 251
Packet Page 230 of 251
Packet Page 231 of 251
Packet Page 232 of 251
Packet Page 233 of 251
Packet Page 234 of 251
Packet Page 235 of 251
Packet Page 236 of 251
Packet Page 237 of 251
AM-3486 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the proposal to allow dogs on leashes at Hutt Park.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
There are two proposed ordinances attached.
Mayor and Staff recommend that dogs on-leash also be allowed at Hutt Park. If Council concurs, the
ordinance amending Section 5.05.060 should be amended naming Hickman, Sunset, Haines, and Hutt
Parks should be enacted.
If it is not agreed that Hutt Park be included as an on-leash park, the first ordinance identifying only
Hickman, Sunset, and Haines should be enacted .
Previous Council Action
On August 10, 2010, the CS/DS Committee recommended that on-leash dogs be allowed at Hutt Park and
for staff to schedule a public hearing.
At an April 20, 2010 Public Hearing City Council recommended amendments to the City Code 5.05.060
allowing dogs on-leash on designated paths at Hickman Park and Haines Wharf Park as well as on the
west side of Sunset Avenue known as the Sunset Overlook.
At the February 9, 2010, CS/DS Committee meeting it was recommendse that this topic be scheduled for
a public hearing at an upcoming City Council meeting.
Narrative
At the April 20, 2010 public hearing in regard to allowing on-leash dogs at Hickman, Haines Wharf, and
Sunset Overlook parks, a member of the public suggested that the 4.7 acre Hutt Park also be considered as
an additional site for an on-leash park. Staff were not opposed but since this was a new suggestion it was
thought that it was necessary to go through the same process as the previously mentioned parks being
considered.
This suggestion was discussed at the CS/DS Committee meeting August 10, 2010 and recommended to a
public hearing.
Staff feels that this is an appropriate amendment given that the Hutt Park trails provide good connectivity
and a great local natural park experience for walkers and their dogs in the neighborhood.
Packet Page 238 of 251
Attachments
Dog on-leash CSDS Committee Aug 10.10
Hutt Park map
Dogs on-leash Hickman.Sunset.Haines
Dogs on-leash Hickman.Sunset.Haines.Hutt
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 11:18 AM
Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 10/28/2010 12:15 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 01:19 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/28/2010 01:45 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/28/2010 02:07 PM
Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 10/27/2010 01:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/28/2010
Packet Page 239 of 251
Packet Page 240 of 251
Packet Page 241 of 251
{WSS832129.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
R:10/28/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE
SECTION 5.05.060, SUBSECTION (B) TO ADD NEW
SUBPARAGRAPHS (9), (10), (11) AND (12) DESIGNATING
THE WALKWAYS WITHIN THE PAVED AND WOODED
PATHS OF HICKMAN PARK, AT THE SUNSET AVENUE
OVERLOOK, HAINES WHARF PARK AND HUTT PARK TO
PERMIT DOGS TO BE WALKED ON LEASH, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, following public hearing, the City Council believes it to be in the
best interests of the citizens to increase the areas in which dogs may be permitted in public parks
by adding the paved and wooded paths of Hickman Park and within the Sunset Park overlook,
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ECDC 5.05.060 (B) is hereby amended by the addition of two new
subsections (9) and (10) authorizing dogs to be taken on leash in the described park areas, to read
as follows:
5.05.060 Dogs on public grounds.
…
B. Notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in subsection (A)
of this Section, dogs accompanied by their owners may be walked
or exercised while on leash in the following areas. The phrase “on
leash” and references to pathways or walkways shall be interpreted
to mean on a leash restricting the dog to an area on or within six
(6) feet of the pathway surface.
Packet Page 242 of 251
{WSS832129.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
…
9. The paved and wooded walkways (approximately 3,500
linear feet) of Hickman Park;
10. The Sunset Avenue overlook, being defined as the City-
owned area west of Sunset Avenue between Bell Street and
Caspers Street;
11. The paved walkways at Haines Wharf Park; and
12. The pathways of Hutt Park.
Section 2. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
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 243 of 251
{WSS832129.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 3 -
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, AMENDING THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 5.05.060, SUBSECTION (B) TO ADD NEW
SUBPARAGRAPHS (9), (10), (11) AND (12) DESIGNATING THE WALKWAYS WITHIN
THE PAVED AND WOODED PATHS OF HICKMAN PARK, AT THE SUNSET AVENUE
OVERLOOK, HAINES WHARF PARK AND HUTT PARK TO PERMIT DOGS TO BE
WALKED ON LEASH, 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 244 of 251
{WSS832129.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
R:10/28/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE
SECTION 5.05.060, SUBSECTION (B) TO ADD NEW
SUBPARAGRAPHS (9), (10), (11) AND (12) DESIGNATING
THE WALKWAYS WITHIN THE PAVED AND WOODED
PATHS OF HICKMAN PARK, AT THE SUNSET AVENUE
OVERLOOK, HAINES WHARF PARK AND HUTT PARK TO
PERMIT DOGS TO BE WALKED ON LEASH, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, following public hearing, the City Council believes it to be in the
best interests of the citizens to increase the areas in which dogs may be permitted in public parks
by adding the paved and wooded paths of Hickman Park and within the Sunset Park overlook,
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ECDC 5.05.060 (B) is hereby amended by the addition of two new
subsections (9) and (10) authorizing dogs to be taken on leash in the described park areas, to read
as follows:
5.05.060 Dogs on public grounds.
…
B. Notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in subsection (A)
of this Section, dogs accompanied by their owners may be walked
or exercised while on leash in the following areas. The phrase “on
leash” and references to pathways or walkways shall be interpreted
to mean on a leash restricting the dog to an area on or within six
(6) feet of the pathway surface.
Packet Page 245 of 251
{WSS832129.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
…
9. The paved and wooded walkways (approximately 3,500
linear feet) of Hickman Park;
10. The Sunset Avenue overlook, being defined as the City-
owned area west of Sunset Avenue between Bell Street and
Caspers Street;
11. The paved walkways at Haines Wharf Park; and
12. The pathways of Hutt Park.
Section 2. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
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 246 of 251
{WSS832129.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 3 -
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, AMENDING THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 5.05.060, SUBSECTION (B) TO ADD NEW
SUBPARAGRAPHS (9), (10), (11) AND (12) DESIGNATING THE WALKWAYS WITHIN
THE PAVED AND WOODED PATHS OF HICKMAN PARK, AT THE SUNSET AVENUE
OVERLOOK, HAINES WHARF PARK AND HUTT PARK TO PERMIT DOGS TO BE
WALKED ON LEASH, 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 247 of 251
AM-3496 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/01/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Mayor's report on August 24, 2010 Council direction regarding City Attorney Request for
Qualifications (RFQ).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Attached is an excerpt from the 08-24-10 City Council Minutes regarding this topic.
Narrative
A report will be provided at the meeting.
Attachments
Excerpt from the 08-24-10 City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 12:07 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2010 12:07 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/29/2010 08:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2010
Packet Page 248 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 11
envisioned it would be less expensive to string cable above ground rather than underground. She wanted
to avoid any view blockage as a result of overhead fiber optic cable.
Council President Bernheim thanked everyone involved in bringing the fiber project to this stage. He
recalled attending a Council meeting as a citizen when the CTAC committee was originally formed. He
was very satisfied with the way this economic development opportunity was progressing.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the resolution limited the City from reviewing other business
models. Councilmember Plunkett answered no, assuring the members of CTAC and EDC wanted to
consider all possibilities whether it was a different model, the existing model, targets of opportunity, etc.
Mr. Hines assured they were open to any and all business models that result in a positive cash flow. The
targets of opportunity currently being considered lend themselves to a cost/benefit model; other targets
may lend themselves to other models. They will be as flexible as is necessary. Councilmember Wilson
responded it was his intent to move forward as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether it was necessary to identify tasks CTAC would undertake and
what tasks EDC would undertake. Councilmember Plunkett responded a collaborative process has
enabled the project to reach this point.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS.
Council President Bernheim suggested as part of the budget process the City ask qualified providers of
legal services to bid on the City’s professional services work. The City’s Hearing Examiner contract
expires at the end of the year and although there have been no issues with the work performance, there
may be opportunities for modest savings. With regard to legal services, Finance Director Lorenzo Hines
provided him a report that indicated legal expenses January 2009 through today are in excess of $1
million.
Councilmember Petso suggested the City also seek bids for actuarial services. Mayor Cooper questioned
whether the City had a contract for actuarial services and whether it was up for renewal. The contracts
Council President Bernheim has proposed the Council seek bids on are due to expire at the end of this
year. The option is to renew the contract or seeks bids. It was his understanding the only contracts
expiring this year are the Public Defender, Hearing Examiner and the City Attorney. Councilmember
Petso offered to research the actuarial contract.
Councilmember Peterson referred to a letter the City received today from Toweill Rice Taylor, the City’s
current Hearing Examiner, advising they would not be seeking renewal of their professional services
agreement. With regard to soliciting requests for proposals (RFP) for legal services, he acknowledged the
City’s legal fees have increased in recent years and he suggested comparing the City’s costs with other
cities’ costs. One of the reasons for increased legal fees is the increase in public records requests which is
epidemic statewide. Before embarking on a time consuming RFP process, he suggested investigating
whether other cities were experiencing increased legal fees. If everyone’s costs are increasing for the
same reasons, it was doubtful the City would realize a significant cost savings. If there were issues
regarding quality of service, that was a different discussion.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Citizen Levy Committee (CLC) has requested information on all
the City’s consultants. Council President Bernheim, Mayor Cooper, Mr. Clifton, Debi Humann and she
attended a seminar this week and talked to a number of cities. Renton recently made a change from a
contract City Attorney to an in-house attorney. She offered to contact Renton regarding a cost
Council President Bernheim suggested as part of the budget process the City ask qualified providers of
legal services to bid on the City’s professional services work. The City’s Hearing Examiner contract
expires at the end of the year and although there have been no issues with the work performance, there
may be opportunities for modest savings. With regard to legal services, Finance Director Lorenzo Hines
provided him a report that indicated legal expenses January 2009 through today are in excess of $1
million.
Packet Page 249 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 12
comparison. She commented another consideration is the longevity that the City’s current City Attorney
Scott Snyder provides. He provided the CLC pros and cons of a contract City attorney and an in-house
attorney. He also provided the CLC information regarding moving emails to the web in response to a new
law that will allow public requests to be directed to a website as long as the website was identified. She
noted this would save paper although it would not save staff time.
Councilmember Wilson advised it was his understanding that actuary services were contracted for on a
project by project basis. Those projects were relatively rare, occurring only once every couple years.
Councilmember Wilson commented Edmonds uses Mr. Snyder far more than other cities use their City
Attorney. As a consultant working with various cities, in his experience cities are typically very
regimented in the use of their City Attorney. Edmonds has a policy of the City Attorney only attending
Council meetings the first and third Tuesdays but he often attends other meetings and is has become a
central resource for the Council. He noted although the Council sees Mr. Snyder, the City gets the benefit
of his entire firm. If the Council replaced Mr. Snyder with one attorney, there would be a significant
reduction in servicing the City’s needs. If the City hired an in-house attorney, it was likely 3-5 additional
support staff would be necessary.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested researching an in-house attorney. Other groups with budgets
similar to the City’s have moved from a contract attorney to an in-house attorney. Advantages of an in-
house attorney include that he/she is present in City Hall and his/her schedule is established in accordance
with the City’s needs. She agreed in addition to an in-house attorney, the City would need to hire a
paralegal and possibly a part-time assistant. The other groups who have changed to an in-house attorney
found it provided better coverage of legal representation.
Mayor Cooper explained the $1 million Council President Bernheim referred to is all the legal costs, not
just Ogden Murphy Wallace. It includes litigation costs that Mr. Weed and other attorneys have charged
the City. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines advised the $1,031,000 was all costs associated with the City
Attorney function, both retainer and litigation fees. It did not include costs for the prosecuting or defense
attorneys.
Mayor Cooper observed there have been two options discussed, 1) a RFP for a City Attorney, and 2)
researching hiring an in-house City Attorney rather than a contract City Attorney. He asked Council
President Bernheim clarify his request. Council President Bernheim responded his request was a RFP for
legal services in the manner in which they are currently provided. He was not interested in restructuring
the way legal services are provided at this time. He was satisfied there were many qualified firms and
lawyers who could provide the same or better quality legal advice for the same or better price.
Councilmember Peterson suggested if there was some uncertainty regarding whether the Council wanted
to have a contract versus an in-house attorney, qualified law firms may not apply to a RFP. He asked the
timeline for a RFP and whether there was time to have a further discussion regarding the City Attorney.
Mayor Cooper answered the Council needed to provide direction on how to proceed at one of their
September meetings in order to provide sufficient time for a RFP, interview and selection process and to
have an attorney under contract by January 1, 2011.
Councilmember Peterson reiterated his request to research cost increases other cities are experiencing to
determine whether Edmonds legal costs were out of whack before directing staff to proceed with a RFP
process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Peterson was interested in a comparison
of fees from cities with in-house and contract attorneys. Councilmember Peterson answered his interest
Packet Page 250 of 251
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 13
was in determining whether other cities’ legal costs have increased whether their attorney services are
provided in-house or via a contract. He anticipated legal costs were increasing due to increased public
records requests regardless of whether a city had an in-house or contract attorney.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in researching what other cities paid for in-house and
contract attorneys.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO,
THAT THE CITY ISSUE AN RFQ FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES AND HEARING
EXAMINER SERVICES WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he had a great deal of faith and trust in Mr. Snyder but in these
economic times he was interested in investigating what other possibilities were available and the cost.
Councilmember Wilson suggested rather than directing staff to do a great deal of work on in-house
counsel versus a contract attorney, consideration be given to hiring a legal staffing consultant to
determine how an in-house attorney’s office would be structured based on the City’s case load. He was
uncertain whether the City’s limited Human Resources staff had the capacity to provide that information.
If the Council was serious about changing the form of its legal services, the City should use a labor
negotiator separate from Ogden Murphy Wallace as he feared it could be complicated if labor
negotiations were not concluded by December 31. He suggested when researching the cost of an in-house
attorney, the City determine the true cost including medical benefits, and union contracts for support staff
now and in the future.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether AWC or Municipal Research Services Center could provide the
information Councilmember Wilson requested. Mayor Cooper advised Human Resources staff has done
some preliminary work on that matter at his request and could provide the information to the Council at a
future meeting.
Councilmember Wilson supported the request to research other cities’ costs. His request was to determine
the cost of an in-house legal department to accomplish Edmonds’ workload. He emphasized other cities
have different work loads; researching other cities costs for in-house staff would be informative but not
necessarily comparable to Edmonds. He reiterated his suggestion to consider hiring a legal staffing
consultant.
Mayor Cooper suggested the Council keep the two items separate. The motion is to seek bids for a City
Attorney. If the Council decides during the budget process or some other time to do a study or consider an
in-house legal department, there will be a transition period and the City likely would need a contract City
Attorney at least through 2011 even if a decision was made to pursue an in-house attorney.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
6. 2010 SECOND QUARTER BUDGET REPORT.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to the 2010 second quarter report, explaining the City’s revenue
position was approximately 55% of budget and expenditures were approximately 48% of budget. The
second quarter budget report contains two pending budget amendments that were included because they
were material and needed to be reflected in the budget. The first was an expenditure authority amendment
regarding a Council action that occurred earlier this year. The Council decided the proceeds from the sale
of fire assets would be moved out of the General Fund into a special reserve fund, the Public Safety
Reserve. Approximately $600,000 was moved into the Public Safety Reserve. The Council also made a
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO,
THAT THE CITY ISSUE AN RFQ FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES AND HEARING
EXAMINER SERVICES WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER
Packet Page 251 of 251