2011.07.05 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
JULY 5, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-4052 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2011.
C. AM-4039 Approval of claim checks #126294 through #126402 dated June 30, 2011 for
$277,751.78.
D. AM-4040 Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed for Old Milltown Courtyard.
E. AM-4044 Police Department Annual Report 2010.
F. AM-4037 Ordinance approving a change in zoning for certain real property located at 9511 and
9513 Edmonds Way from Residential Single Family (RS-8) to Residential Multifamily
(RM-1.5).
G. AM-4038 Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code by repealing and
reenacting the provisions of Chapter 20.50 (Wireless Communications Facilities) and
amending other references and definitions as necessary.
H. AM-4056 Ordinance relating to reducing setback requirements in the BN zone, allowing setbacks in
the Westgate portion of the BN zone to be reduced as long as certain design standards are
met, amending Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.45.020 and
establishing a twelve month sunset period for the ordinance.
Packet Page 1 of 367
3. (5 Minutes)
AM-4045
Community Service Announcement: Walk Back in Time Tour of the Edmonds
Memorial Cemetery.
4. (5 Minutes)
AM-4047
Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Petanque Club.
5. (5 Minutes)
AM-4036
Proclamation for Parks and Recreation Month.
6. (15 Minutes)
AM-4051
Public hearing on the application for a renewal of a Concession Agreement. The
agreement is for the use of the public right-of-way to vend food and beverages. The
site is located at James Street immediately east of the ferry holding lanes and is
adjacent to the SR104 park. (Applicant: Kalani Kahaialii, Angelo Narciso, Cyndi
Aiona Cook / Shorts ‘N Slippas, LLC)
7. (30 Minutes)
AM-4043
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment by Sidney Odgers and Ken & Audrey Darwin for a proposed
change in plan designation from “Single Family Urban 1” to “Edmonds Way
Corridor” for three properties in the Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone.
Location: 8609/8611/8615 – 244th Street SW, Edmonds. (File No. AMD20110001)
8.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
9. (30 Minutes)
AM-4053
Update on medical marijuana dispensaries.
10. (15 Minutes)
AM-4054
Discussion and potential action: Proposed Resolution regarding Council review of
medical benefits.
11. (10 Minutes)
AM-4055
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding for Interjurisdictional Affordable
Housing Program.
12. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
13. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 367
AM-4052 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2011.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
06-28-11 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/30/2011 11:33 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 3 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
June 28, 2011
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 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
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Deb Sharp, Accountant
Sharon Cates, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
MOVE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BEFORE THE LEVY DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Items G and H be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, 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 JUNE 21, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #126143 THROUGH #126293 DATED JUNE 23, 2011
FOR $1,191,146.96. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#50497 THROUGH #50539 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2011
IN THE AMOUNT OF $584,499.76.
Packet Page 4 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 2
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY ALEX
PARLE.
E. ACCEPTANCE OF MAY 2011 WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD
RENEWALS.
F. ORDINANCE NO. 3843 – REVISING REGULATIONS CONCERNING OUTDOOR
BURNING FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.
ITEM G: APPROVAL OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE-CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS LOCAL UNION NO. 763 (REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC
WORKS AND PARKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES), FOR
JANUARY 1, 2011 THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2014.
ITEM H: APPROVAL OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 925, FOR JANUARY 1, 2011 THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31,
2014.
Councilmember Plunkett commented these are both labor contracts; in addition to salaries, the labor
contracts include longevity bonuses and step increases. He asked whether the five year budget projection
includes the longevity bonuses and step increases. Mayor Cooper answered it does; nothing changed
regarding those during contract negotiations and they were already included in the projections.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the percentage that was included in each year. Mayor Cooper responded
the forecast provided to the Council in May and the forecast reflected in the 2011 budget shows a 2% per
year increase in the salary line beginning 2011 and out to the end of the projection. Mr. Tarte agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett commented 2% may be higher than what is projected. Mayor Cooper explained
the amount included in the projections includes step increases and longevity as well as merit increases.
Although the salary ordinance approved by the Council allows 3% merit increases, he only budgeted for
1.5% merit increases.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEMS G AND H.
Councilmember Wilson explained he has always been a strong advocate for placing a levy on the ballot
due to his interest in stabilizing the City’s revenue situation. To him, that was the single biggest issue the
Council faces. The vote on these contracts has been very difficult for him and he has voiced his concerns
over substance and process during executive sessions. As a member of a bargaining team himself,
American Federation of Teachers, he knows the frustration union members can have with a management
team that does not appear to be listening or be willing to negotiate in good faith. As a Councilmember, he
represents parents and taxpayers who are doing more with less as well as City staff who do more with less
than any other city or jurisdiction he has ever experienced.
Although many have disagreed with him regarding the need for a levy, many agreed with forming a Levy
Committee that resulted in a tremendous citizen effort. To fully fund the City’s revenue problem, the City
must hold the line on expenses everywhere it can be in as reasonable a way as possible. He has worked to
reduce the cost of healthcare benefit administration while maintaining existing benefits. As Council
President, he led a process to contract for fire services that saved the City approximately $1 million/year.
During this economy, Councilmember Wilson felt it was important to maintain the status quo as much as
possible with regard to labor agreements. He supported the police contract as an essentially status quo
Packet Page 5 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 3
contract because it was for one year. The contracts under consideration tonight are not status quo
contracts. Where other cities are cutting costs and where the State is laying employees off and cutting
back 3% and reducing payroll, these contracts add. If these were status quo with only the COLA and step
increases, continued to maintain generous benefits and were only for one year, he could support the
contracts. To him, the contracts were not about employee compensation but about getting a levy passed. It
was difficult to advocate on behalf of parents, taxpayers and City employees if he had to defend things
like boot stipend increases, giving 100% of healthcare savings back to the employees, and adding new
paid holidays in exchange for the furlough days that were generously given in years past that he continued
to appreciate. He found it difficult to sell a levy to the voters if he had to defend things that are over and
above the existing contract.
Because his most important issue was to get the City on a stable financial footing so that services could
continue to be provided to parents, continue to do more with less for taxpayers and to solve the most
important issue to City employees – making sure there is enough money in the bank to keep the lights on
– Councilmember Wilson summarized he could not support either contract. He could support a one year
status quo agreement but could not support a 4-year contract that included new benefits and included new
paid holidays.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Council representative to the negotiating committee, agreed it was a
difficult negotiation. She assured benefits were not being maintained, benefits are changing as of January
1. For the staff willing to change earlier, they are giving the cost savings back. With regard to the boot
allowance, she explained the City allowed $85-$90 for boots for 7-8 employees who needed hard weather
boots for outside work. The boot allowance was increased approximately $30. She viewed that as a very
minor increase but something that would help the employees while protecting their safety in the
workplace. In her view, not a whole lot had been given to the staff during this difficult economic time.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Wilson’s comment about giving staff extra
holidays, explaining staff was provided a day back of leave. It did not cost the City anything and the
contract refers to providing a day per year if it costs no overtime, there are no compensation issues, etc.
Employees will not be paid for that day; it is day off, a personal holiday, a low cost/no cost compensation.
Employees were not given raises; they receive nothing this year and next year will receive up to 1.5%.
City staff have given a lot and the contract is a minor cost to the City and well within the budget. She
encouraged citizens not to connect these contracts with the levy and to read the contracts online. In her 30
years’ experience in negotiations, there is give and take during negotiations. She is aware State employees
took a 3% reduction; her husband is a State employee. With that 3% reduction he also gets 6 hours of
annual leave or an extra day/month for the next year.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged citizens not to connect a levy with the contracts. She did not
believe there were any windfalls on either side and it was as close to status quo as was possible in the next
four years. A four year contract is good and brings stability to the City, employees and taxpayers. The
only unknown is medical insurance. The unions are aware the City will be considering different types of
medical insurance during the next 1-2 years in an effort to reduce costs. She summarized no one won or
lost big and she thanked the employees for not assuming there was a windfall of funding coming up. She
assured the City employees work very hard for what they get and these contracts are not out of control.
Mayor Cooper cautioned the Council not to discuss anything that reflected the City’s strategy because if
the contracts are not ratified tonight, the Council will be back in Executive Session to discuss contract
strategy.
Packet Page 6 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 4
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the negotiating team, Rosa Fruehling-Watson and Sharon Cates, City
Attorney’s Office, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, Police
Chief Al Compaan and Public Works Director Phil William. Councilmember Buckshnis commented
Councilmember Petso, Council President Peterson and she attended all the Executive Sessions regarding
labor negotiations. The contracts provide stability for four years and she did not believe the contracts
“give away the farm at all.”
Councilmember Wilson commented on how strongly Councilmember Fraley-Monillas has advocated for
City employees during Executive Sessions. He has had some concern with Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas being the negotiator, fearing she would not be an advocate for the City Council. He agreed the
boot stipend was not very much and that the limit on the COLA was beneficial to the City. However, the
holiday buyback and furlough buyback were not the right message to send to the community. He clarified
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ statement that those are unpaid days, explaining they are floating paid
holidays. To Councilmember Buckshnis, Councilmember Wilson agreed the contracts do not give away
the farm but he wants to get a levy passed and the best way to do that is a status quo budget.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the importance of compromise, explaining in his opinion the City
could not afford to reject this contract after working on it since September/October 2010. He also cited
the importance of retaining the City’s great workforce and continuing the fantastic chain of recent hiring
that has resulted in outstanding directors such as Carrie Hite and Phil Williams. The Council should
examine the contract from the point of view of a responsible employer and mature stewards of their
responsibility and not as needle-nosed penny pinchers. He enthusiastically supported the contracts,
pointing out the importance of unity and the effort during negotiations to reach an agreement that
everyone can live with. He noted the costs of some of the objections are low four figure items. In return
for higher levels of employee satisfaction, the City spends a small level of additional dollars. It is a great
opportunity for everyone to stand together and approve the contracts even though there may be some
items the Council does not like. He too wanted a no increase, one year freeze but he would not oppose the
contracts because that was not provided. In his view opposing the contracts at this point was a very weak
position because it took no responsibility for the consequences. He disagreed that there were no big wins
or big losses, everyone wins big by remaining stable.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the increase in the boot allowance was $13.50 for 7 to 8
employees and she recalled she may have offered to pay for that herself. She recognized Councilmember
Wilson’s comments were his opinion, pointing out he did not know how negotiations went because he
was never in the room. She objected to his characterizing her as an advocate for the employees and not
the citizens when he was never in the room when negotiations occurred. She acted professionally and
clearly and always kept the Council’s directive in mind. She concluded she had nothing to gain or lose as
she was not up for election and had tried to do the best job she could.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
114. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Matt Wood, negotiator for SEIU 925, thanked the Council for ratifying their agreement. He recognized
the contract negotiations have been difficult due to the change in the City Attorney halfway through the
process and the parameters provided. The team worked hard, is aware of the City’s finances and
understands the importance of the contract. The issues covered by the contract are important to the
members and a 4-year agreement also allows time to look at other healthcare options if necessary. The
SEIU members ratified the contract nearly unanimously.
Packet Page 7 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 5
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the labor agreements, commenting under the circumstances, he
doubted the Council could have reached a better agreement because both agreements are identical
although they are for two different unions. He anticipated the unions agree what they will pursue such as
days back for furloughs in 2009, one day per year or a total of 3 days. He suggested benchmarking what
other government organizations have done with regard to furloughs and do no more less or less. In private
industry, employees receive merit pay increases. In these agreements, in addition to merit increases for
some employees, they receive step increases, longevity pay and COLA. In addition 90% of all the
employees’ health benefits are paid. When he was on the City Council, the health benefits were superior
to anything he had during his career with two New York Stock Exchange companies. The employees also
receive a defined benefit pension plan which is virtually a thing of that past. He concluded the Council
likely could not have negotiated a better agreement because may of the issues need to be fixed in Olympia
such as making Washington a Right to Work State which will not happen without a republican governor.
Don Hall, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Plunkett for removing the contracts from the Consent
Agenda to allow Council discussion. The discussion enlightened citizens and informed them that the
contracts are available on the City’s website. He suggested rather than percentages, the actual cost per
year over the 4 years be provided.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the actual amount for wages and medical benefits is in the 2011
budget book as well as the projection. Mayor Cooper commented the actual salary and benefit totals will
also be in the adopted 2012 budget.
3. WORK SESSION REGARDING LEVY OPTIONS.
Council President Peterson recalled May 17 was the last time the Council discussed levy options and no
decisions were made at that meeting. A workshop was discussed and he suggested holding it in the Police
Training Room. The date of the workshop was discussed at the May 24 meeting and he mentioned at last
week’s meeting that it would be a non-televised meeting.
Council President Peterson explained the contracts were ratified by the unions late in the week and it was
necessary to have Council approval before July 1 due to the healthcare rollover. Although there
apparently was some misunderstanding regarding the location of tonight’s meeting and whether it would
be televised, it had been discussed in public on numerous occasions. He felt he was working according to
Council direction to hold an off-camera work session but was happy to have the work session on camera.
Mayor Cooper explained he asked Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte to provide historical information.
There was intentionally not a packet of information provided because the Council has received/discussed
multiple pages of information in the past. He was hopeful the Council would identify areas of agreement
such as whether to place a levy on the ballot in November, the size of a levy, whether the levy is a single
or multiple proposals, and how much of a levy would fund the deficit reduction and how much would
fund other things such as streets. Once the Council identified areas of agreement, they could begin
discussing items they need to reach agreement on. The issue that needs the most discussion is the amount
of a levy that will fund the General Fund deficit reduction and whether it is a single proposition, multiple
proposition or none.
Mr. Tarte displayed a graph comparing General Fund revenue and expenditures 2003 – 2016. He
explained revenues and expenses for the graph were obtained from the City’s audited financial statements
(CAFR) for 2003 - 2010 and from the forecast for 2011 – 2016. He reviewed the following fluctuations in
revenues:
Packet Page 8 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 6
• 2007 to 2008: $1.2 million decrease in revenue due to $800,000 decrease in sales tax collections
as a result of recession, 2007 included $600,000 in debt financing
• 2008 to 2009: $3.4 million increase in revenue due to $1.5 million increase in EMS levy rate,
$1.2 million increase in utility tax rate, $800,000 in transport fees, $500,000 increase in fire
protection service contract with Woodway and Esperance, offset by $500,000 decrease in sales
tax collections
• 2009 to 2010: $800,000 increase in revenue due to $1.5 million sale of Fire Department (without
sales of Fire Department, revenue remains flat 2009-2010), taxes and fees remain flat
• 2011: $2.2 million decrease in revenue due to no sale of assets (compared to previous year sale
of Fire Department)
• 2012 to 2016: Revenues increase $400,000 per year or 1%
Mayor Cooper explained in the forecast, the City’s assessed value was projected to decrease 5% in 2012.
The Snohomish County Assessor’s Office notified the City that the assessed value dropped 10.5% in
2012, from $6.4 billion to $5.9 billion. The result is a loss of $330,000 from the EMS levy in 2012.
For illustrative purposes, Mr. Tarte removed one-time events from the chart such as the $1.5 million sale
of the Fire Department and the $1.5 million transfer to the Public Safety Reserve which reveals that
revenues are trending downward. Mr. Tarte reviewed fluctuations in expenditures:
• 2003 through 2005: expenses increase approximately 6% per year
• 2005 through 2007: expenses increase approximately 2 8% per year. $1.6 million of increase
related to increase in debt service payments
• 2008: expenses increase approximately 3% per year
• 2009: expenses decrease approximately $50,000
• 2010: removing Fire Department information, expenses decrease approximately $200,000
• 2011: removing Fire Department information, expenses increase approximately 1% per year
• 2012 and forward: expenses increase 3% per year.
Mr. Tarte’s conclusion was once the recession hit, expenses began to level out, flatten and decrease. From
2007 and during the next 4-5 years, expenses flattened out, a good success story to communicate to
citizens.
Mayor Cooper recalled early in the legislative session there were several bills proposed to lower the cost
of retirement systems to local government, but none of them were approved. Pension payments to retirees
did not change. The State actuary requires the State recalculate the cost of the pension system every
biennium. The City was notified by the Washington State Department of Retirement System that the
City’s pension contribution as well as the employee’s cost of Public Employee Retirement System
(PERS) effective July 1, 2011 will increase. The impact, not shown in the graph Mr. Tarte displayed, is
$90,000 for the remainder of 2011 and $180,000 in 2012 and beyond. He summarized the increase in the
pension contribution plus the decrease in assessed value totals nearly $500,000 that now needs to be
reflected in the forecast. The 3% expense increase in 2012 and beyond forecast includes increases in
Labor & Industry costs, 2012 healthcare savings, healthcare savings 2013 and beyond, and $200,000/year
for Edmonds Center for the Arts.
Councilmember Wilson explained Councilmember Plunkett, Councilmember Bernheim and he were on
the Council in 2008. When the Council approved the 2009 budget it included a $1 million cut in
expenses. In March 2009 in response to the fourth quarter devastation in the economy, then Mayor
Haakenson identified another $1 million in cuts. He summarized the flattening of expenses did not occur
by accident; it occurred due to $2 million in cuts that included furlough days, holiday buyback, a
Packet Page 9 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 7
$300,000 reduction in the equipment rental fund contribution, and cuts in Parks & Recreation that were
offset by a citizen effort to raise funds to operate Yost Pool. In 2009-2010 expenses were reduced due to
the contract with FD1. He cautioned the community not to think of that as the new normal, that expenses
were flat in this economy. Typically municipal inflation is much higher than inflation at large. Providing
municipal services costs more and the rate of growth is faster than in the average economy. What is
normal is the first 4-6 year period on the graph when expenses increased 3-6%.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comments, that the decrease in expenses
was the result of the administration and Council doing a great deal of good work. The increase in
expenses is the cost of doing municipal business. He summarized the reduction in expenses was the result
of cuts, cuts that could not continue to be made year after year.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Mr. Tarte for presenting the information in a way that citizens and the
Council can understand, noting the Council has not had this type of thoughtful presentation during the
past year. He looked forward to Mr. Tarte remaining through the preparation of the 2012 budget.
Mayor Cooper advised even the 2011 budget reflected careful and thoughtful consideration during the
budgeting process such as negotiating a 0% pay increase for two labor unions in 2011. One of the reasons
for his hiring freeze was to reach the end of the year without using reserves.
Council President Peterson asked whether Mr. Tarte could update the forecast to reflect the decrease in
assessed value and the increase in pension costs. Mr. Tarte answered he will update the forecast in early
July taking into consideration the Council’s ratification of the two contracts, the decrease in property tax
collections due to the decrease in the assessed value and the increase in pension costs.
Council President Peterson asked what it would take to bring the revenue and expense lines together. Mr.
Tarte answered $6 million for a 4-year levy or $1.5 million/year for 2012-2015. Incorporating the new
information, he estimated $1.5 - $1.7 million/year would be needed to cover the revenue shortfall.
Councilmember Plunkett remarked it did not need to balance completely by revenue; there could also be
reductions in expenditures. Mr. Tarte agreed there could be increases in revenue, decreases in expenses or
a combination of the two. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the contracts passed tonight include an
agreement by the unions to reopen discussions regarding medical benefits in June 2012. Medical costs are
the primary reason for increased expenses.
Mayor Cooper advised a $1.5 million/year levy equates to approximately $0.25/$1000 assessed value
based on $5.9 billion assessed value. A rate of $0.25/1000 AV would cost the owner of an average
Edmonds home $93-$94/year. He agreed there were a variety of ways to bring revenue and expense lines
together; increasing property taxes, hoping the economy recovers and sales tax increases, looking for new
revenue sources such as Ms. Hite is doing in Parks & Recreation, and lowering expenses.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed $1.5 million/year was needed to address the General Fund deficit.
She echoed Councilmember Plunkett’s comments regarding reopening discussions regarding medical
benefits in June 2012. She asked Councilmember Wilson whether consideration was still being given to
self-insurance. Councilmember Wilson recalled the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee
worked on that issue for several months and brought a resolution to the Council but did not get a vote.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Tarte to explain what had happened to the General Fund over the
last few years and why. Mr. Tarte explained whenever revenues exceed expenses, the General Fund
balance increases. He reviewed increases and decreases in the General Fund balance in recent years.
Packet Page 10 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 8
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the balance reflects the $1.927 million Emergency Reserve but not
the $1.3 million Public Safety reserve. Mr. Tarte agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the General
Fund balance would increase if the Public Safety reserve were included.
Councilmember Wilson agreed healthcare costs represented the most significant increase. He pointed out
the conversation regarding medical benefits had just occurred with the union and during that conversation
it was decided to give 100% of the savings to the employees. He feared that would establish a precedent
when the issue was reopened next year.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his gratitude for Mr. Tarte’s sensible and comprehensible
presentation. He inquired about the tax burden for Edmonds residents over the past 8-10 years, whether
residents were paying more or less property and utility taxes today compared to the past. Mr. Tarte
suggested he could provide a comparison of taxes for four South Snohomish County cities compared to
Edmonds. Councilmember Bernheim was more interested in a comparison of the tax burden for Edmonds
residents. He agreed the Council had approved relatively large increases in utility tax, a desperate
decision to raise revenue to cover perceived shortfalls. Mr. Tarte answered he could obtain information
regarding property taxes from the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office and provide it in graphic form.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the amount per $1000 is available in the last ten years of budget books.
He recalled ten years ago citizens were paying $2.85/$1000 for the Edmonds portion of their property tax.
Mr. Tarte was uncertain the amount per $1000 that citizens pay now.
For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Tarte explained Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) provides
the City’s property and errors and admissions insurance, a portion of which is based on labor hours. When
the Fire Department was sold, the City’s labor hours decreased 25%. The WCIA premiums paid in 2010
and 2011 do not reflect that decrease. Mayor Cooper and he plan to meet with the WCIA Senior
Executive Director to discuss how the premiums are calculated. The City pays WCIA approximately
$700,000/year, a 25% decrease would be $150,000/year multiplied by 2 years, a significant amount.
Councilmember Petso asked whether an ongoing reduction in the premium would also be expected. Mr.
Tarte explained WCIA indicated the premiums will be reduced by $200,000 in 2012. He was uncertain
whether that was reflected in the forecast. Mayor Cooper advised the full premium was not reflected in
2011 due to the anticipated decrease. The forecast may reflect the $200,000 decrease.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the use of a modified working capital approach, pointing out
the figures Mr. Tarte relayed use a modified working capital approach which is not sanctioned by the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Councilmember Petso, Ms. Sharp and she are
working toward obtaining “real numbers” that reflect all fund balances. Mr. Tarte clarified it was a
different basis of accounting, not “real numbers.”
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the 2010-2011 Citizen Levy Committee (CLC) and the Mayor’s
survey indicate citizens preferred separate levies. The CLC recommended a $1.5 million specialized levy
for streets and blacktop. She asked Public Works Director Phil Williams to explain how many miles that
would pave, what is a street overlay, whether street overlays would address potholes, etc. Mr. Williams
answered there will always be potholes; it is a question of frequency, intensity, size, etc. An active paving
program where surfaces are reestablished on a regular basis and water kept out of the sub-base will result
in far fewer potholes and a much safer pavement surface for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. The City
currently does not have any money budgeted for preservation paving which has resulted in a significant
deficit. He estimated it would require $1.5 million in current dollars to fund a sustainable paving program.
He clarified that would not provide perfect or the best streets in the State but would prevent the street
system from getting worse each year such as it is doing now.
Packet Page 11 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 9
Mr. Williams advised the City has approximately 133 centerline miles of City streets or approximately
200 lane miles. Typically the replacement cycle is 15-18 years for arterial streets and 30-35 years for
residential streets. In between replacement, regular maintenance is required such as repairing cracks,
filling potholes, etc. He assured staff was doing the best they can to keep up with cracks and potholes but
as the street system’s quality continues to deteriorate it becomes a case of chasing ones tail. It is no longer
cost effective to maintain the street surface with crack sealant; a new surface is required eventually.
Staff’s estimate is $1.5 million in today’s dollars on an ongoing basis to have a sustainable street system.
If the voters approved $1.5 million per year for overlays, Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that could
be used as a match for federal funds. Mr. Williams answered no, he knew of no source of federal or state
funding to match local dollars for paving. There are grants, and the City has obtained three in the last
year, for improvements in the transportation system such as new streets, new amenities, safety projects,
etc. Preservation paving is not considered an improvement but major maintenance, taking care of existing
assets. He noted the one exception was in 2009 when the City paved two major portions of Dayton with
funds from the federal stimulus program. That was the first time in his career that federal dollars were
available for preservation paving.
Mayor Cooper commented there was very limited federal and state funding available for anything. For
example, the State recently eliminated large portions of the Public Works Trust Fund Program. Mr.
Williams explained in the past funds were transferred annually from the General Fund to the Street Fund
for overlays which has not been done in recent years. The establishment of the Transportation Benefit
District (TBD) in 2008 and collection of funds beginning in 2009 provided approximately $580,000 for
street maintenance and partially offset what the General Fund provided in the past. Councilmember
Buckshnis observed the TBD funds were used for maintenance and not overlays. Mr. Williams agreed the
TBD funds were used strictly for maintenance.
Councilmember Petso clarified her interest was a $700,000 levy for overlays, not the $1.5 million that
was recommended by the CLC. She explained the Council began ignoring roads during her first term in
2000 and apparently has continued to ignore roads for many years. Although she understood the need, she
was concerned with asking the public for the full recommended amount for roads in this economy. She
preferred to do something to demonstrate the Council wanted to address the problem, but also
understanding that times are tough. She suggested a $700,000 levy for a couple years with no escalator. If
the preservation paving makes an impact, when it is up for renewal, voters may approve the
recommended amount. She summarized she did not plan to make a motion at tonight’s work session; she
was interested in a proposal that could be presented to the Council in the future for an up/down vote with
no amendments or discussion.
Mayor Cooper suggested the Council strive to reach consensus rather than the exercise several weeks ago
where there were motions and several amendments.
Council President Peterson advised a levy discussion was scheduled on next week’s agenda. He suggested
the Council address the size of a levy, the number of ballot proposals, and what the ballot proposals
would fund. He observed $750,000 for roads appeared to have the support of the Council. He asked if the
Council would support a $750,000 standalone levy for roads or include it in a single broader levy.
Councilmember Wilson responded he could not support a roads levy without the context of the package.
He feared the Council would undermine the public’s trust by proposing levies that did not solve the
problem. The City would be no further ahead if the voters approved a $750,000 levy for roads but the
Council then had to close parks or lay off employees because the operating deficit had not been
addressed.
Packet Page 12 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 10
Councilmember Bernheim responded he could support a roads proposal because he believed in offering
voters the opportunity to vote on separate issues. If the voters want to spend $750,000 to fix the City’s
road problems, then they should be given that choice. He supported allowing the voters the opportunity to
impose costs on themselves. He could support a $750,000 - $1 million roads proposal. A $1 million levy
for roads would add approximately $60 per year to the average homeowner’s ($375,000 AV) property
taxes.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support combining proposals into one proposition. He supported
implementing the propositions for a limited time such as 3 years. He supported targeted proposals and he
could support a proposal to address the General Fund deficit. He suggested segregating the fire costs
because the City is paying the expense out of the General Fund and when costs increase in the future, it
may be useful to have a dedicated tax for fire similar to the library. He suggested the Mayor’s budget
committee assist with organizing a group to scrutinize expenses.
Mayor Cooper clarified Councilmember Bernheim would support up to $1 million for streets.
Councilmember Bernheim supported starting with modest options and earning the trust of the voters by
demonstrating success.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Bernheim’s comments. She wanted to be sensitive to
voters’ situations, recognizing there are citizens who are unemployed. Separating the levies allows voters
to determine how much they want to spend and to realize the impact of not supporting a specific levy.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the Mayor’s poll indicated. Mayor Cooper responded in the
survey a high percentage of voters said they would like to vote on separate ballot measures. In response to
another question, respondents said they would support the levy package he proposed. He summarized the
voters stated by a fairly significant margin that they would prefer to vote on separate ballot measures but
when asked a specific question about a packaged $2.2 million proposal, respondents said they would
support it. It is the Council’s decision whether to place separate or a combined levy on the ballot. Also in
the survey, voters said they would like some Council unanimity in what is proposed. He feared placing a
levy or levies on the ballot with a 4-3 vote would result in a situation like the TBD vote that the voters
defeated by 70%. He summarized the most important thing was for the Council to agree with a super
majority on the ballot measures.
Councilmember Plunkett responded the only thing he would support was capital. He was interested in a
$700,000 levy for roads. He pointed out the Council had not ignored roads, funding for roads was reduced
due to voter approval of initiatives. The Council then approved the use of some REET funds for roads but
the downturn in the economy eliminated those funds.
Councilmember Petso requested the City Attorney work on the language for a ballot measure, suggesting
that the term preservation paving may cover both Council intent and the work Mr. Williams needs to do.
She did not want another ordinance that referred to maintenance that would allow funds to be diverted to
salaries. She asked whether including an escalator in a levy made the levy permanent even if the term was
limited. City Attorney Sharon Cates responded she would need to research that. Councilmember Petso
suggested rather than researching it, the ordinance not include an escalator. Mayor Cooper advised City
Attorney Jeff Taraday is working on ordinance language.
With regard to Councilmember Petso’s concern about diverting funds to salaries, Mr. Williams explained
any large program, particularly a new program that the City is currently not doing, will require
management and inspection, development of standards and requirements, ensuring standards are met in
the field, etc. He summarized there is a labor component to that type of capital work. He suggested a
Packet Page 13 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 11
$750,000 levy may result in $700,000 for actual improvements and provide resources to manage the
program.
Council President Peterson recalled in recent discussions the biggest issues were, 1) multiple ballot
measures, and 2) a General Fund deficit levy. He observed Councilmember Petso and Councilmember
Plunkett have indicated they would support a standalone capital roads package but they would be hesitant
to support a second ballot measure to address the General Fund deficit. He supported having a similar
number of Councilmembers supporting each measure to avoid pitting roads against the General Fund. He
commented it was all well and good to fund road improvements, but if there was not the same Council
support for General Fund expenditures, he would have a difficult time supporting a levy that only funded
roads. He was willing to have two ballot measures, one for roads and a second to address the General
Fund deficit. It was not his ideal; he would rather combinedthem. If the Council cannot reach a consensus
on this it may not be worthwhile to continue the discussion.
Mayor Cooper declared a brief recess at 8:00 p.m.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who would do the work if voters approved a $700,000 levy for
overlays. Mr. Williams answered the City does not have the equipment to do significant amounts of
paving and it would be contracted out to the private sector.
Councilmember Wilson asked if a $1.5 million levy would fund overlays of 1/35th of the City’s streets or
repaving all the roads in the City every 35 years. Mr. Williams answered it would be more frequent than
that, approximately 20-25 years because of the different paving frequencies for residential and arterial
streets. Councilmember Wilson observed with a $750,000 levy, that rate would be doubled so that all
roads would be paved every 50 years. If all the City’s 133 centerline miles were paved every 50 years,
every year about 2% of the 133 centerline miles or 3 total miles would be paved. He observed 3 miles per
year for $750,000 seems like a drop in the bucket. He agreed it was better than nothing but the line “go
big or go home” may apply. He noted the $1.5 million would simply maintain the City’s streets but by
doing no overlays in recent years, there is a need to do catch up as well.
Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Williams to quantify the deficit created by not maintaining the City’s
streets. Mr. Williams responded for any program that has a built in deficit, the first money collected will
be used to pave streets that have a zero pavement rating. If the goal is to build the overall pavement rating
the worst streets will be addressed first which will dramatically impact the average pavement rating.
Councilmember Wilson recalled from an earlier presentation that 97% of the 133 centerline miles needed
some repair. Mr. Williams answered the City’s streets are rated severe or poor or good; the severe and
poor streets need attention. Councilmember Wilson asked the cost of rebuilding approximately ½ of the
City’s 133 centerline miles of road. Mr. Williams offered to research that.
Councilmember Wilson commented there are five basic areas in which the City runs in dramatic deficit,
such as a deficit that the City has changed the way it does business, 1) parks – the City does not fix
broken playground equipment, 2) buildings, 3) streets – huge backlog of repairs, 4) General Fund deficit,
and 5) human asset – the City does not have enough staff to provide answers so that the Council can make
a decision or the services that citizens deserve. He acknowledged this was a tricky time financially but
encouraged the Council to think big and address some of these issues. For example, he noted the Council
will not get their questions answered without more Finance staff.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she is getting her questions answered by Finance. Councilmember
Wilson recalled Mr. Tarte informed the Council there needed to be 2-3 more people in Finance to answer
Council questions and provide reports in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for 2-3
Packet Page 14 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 12
targeted levies on the ballot. Mr. Tarte, Mr. Haug, Councilmember Petso, Deb Sharp and she are working
on the financials. She would be willing to include a General Fund levy if the Mayor would commit to
moving forward on the financial issue that was to have been addressed in January. She was hopeful that
good financial clarity could be provided by November.
Council President Peterson asked if Councilmembers were willing to put some sort of General Fund levy
on the ballot in November. If not, this conversation could end now. He added another deficiency to
Councilmember Wilson’s list, public safety. Mayor Cooper encouraged the Council to state whether they
were interested in a levy – General Fund deficit, streets, etc. – or not. If Councilmembers are interested,
there is work to be done over the next six weeks regarding what a levy or levies would look like. If
Councilmembers are not interested in a November levy and are more interested in delaying until spring or
fall 2012, there is much more time to continue massaging numbers, discuss expense reductions, etc.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was uncertain she had all the necessary information to express support
for a levy. She agreed something needed to be done but wanted to hear more specifics. She supported the
TBD fee increase because transportation affects everything in the City including tourism, economic
development, residents’ ability to get around, etc. She does not live in the bowl; there are far more
transportation issues in areas outside the bowl. She supports a transportation levy due to the importance of
transportation to get people around the City whether by bus, bike, to ferries, etc. If nothing is done, she
assumed the roads would continue to deteriorate until they were inaccessible. Mr. Williams explained
roads deteriorate on a fairly predictable curve. There is little change in a recently paved road if cracks and
potholes are addressed; the road surface will last a long time without showing visible signs of
deterioration. As the condition begins to decline, at the mean of the curve, the road deteriorates quite
quickly once the base has been compromised. There are many streets in the city that have reached and are
beyond the mean of the curve and will deteriorate at a more rapid rate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas emphasized the need to address road conditions. If the City does not
maintain its roads, it will begin to lose its tourism base. Having tourists get a flat tire or dented wheel
from roads in poor condition is a problem. Mr. Williams added it is not just that the road condition
deteriorates, the cost of the cure also increase. A road that cost X to repair may cost three times that in 5
years.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed park maintenance was an issue and the City needs to find a way
to fund park maintenance. She suggested including funds for park maintenance/repair in a levy.
Councilmember Bernheim supported putting a General Fund levy on the ballot. He preferred separate
ballot measures and did not think three was too many. He felt voters will support a levy if it is a good
package, well explained and there is enough time to present the information. He favored giving voters an
opportunity to agree to increase the level of self-taxation to maintain and improve the City or if they did
not want to increase taxes, apparently they did not care if the City deteriorated.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that $300,000/year was needed for park
maintenance, playground equipment, etc.
Council President Peterson reiterated his question regarding whether Councilmembers supported placing
a General Fund levy on the November ballot. Mayor Cooper urged the Council to state whether they were
willing to place some type of levy on the November ballot. Staff has been responding to Council
questions and is beginning to feel like squirrels in a squirrel cage. He remarked tonight’s meeting seemed
to be a replay of the meeting held a month ago; productive discussion but no movement toward placing a
levy on the November ballot. Once there was consensus regarding whether or not to have a levy on the
November ballot, the Council could discuss the substance of the levy or levies. The Council has indicated
Packet Page 15 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 13
they are interested in roads and separate ballot measures. A straw poll showed all Councilmembers except
Councilmember Plunkett supported placing some type of levy on the November ballot.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Ms. Hite assured the City’s playground equipment is safe, they are
inspected on a regular basis and are repaired if broken. There is currently $1.4 million dedicated to park
maintenance and a need for $330,000 annually to address deferred maintenance such as playgrounds,
restroom improvements, gateway signs and entrances, turf drainage issues, tree pruning, tennis and
basketball court resurfacing, etc. In addition there is a capital cost of approximately $80,000 to replace the
boiler at Yost Pool.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Williams the annual amount needed for building maintenance. Mr.
Williams answered the term of a levy was an important component. There are several projects that need to
be addressed, the amount needed depends on the length of the levy. He estimated $500,000 for 2-3 years
would address many of the needs.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested bundling parks and building maintenance in an $800,000 -
$900,000 maintenance levy.
Councilmember Petso said she would support a roads levy in a modest amount this November. She was
not interested in a bundled maintenance levy or a General Fund levy at this time. For those
Councilmember interested in pursuing those levies, she suggested making them permanent levies because
they involve staff. She did not want to hire staff and the money to pay them to disappear, forcing layoffs
in the future.
Mayor Cooper suggested Council President Peterson and he work with the City Attorney to draft three
separate levy proposals with numbers for discussion at the next meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned how a number would be determined for a permanent facilities and
park maintenance levy. Councilmember Petso answered it would depend on the staff component. Mayor
Cooper advised staff has numbers regarding the backlog as well as the ongoing costs of parks and
facilities maintenance.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to information provided by Mr. Tarte regarding a $600,000 General
Fund deficit. Mayor Cooper pointed out that does not include the items he informed the Council of
tonight such as the decrease in the assessed value and the increased pension plan contribution.
Councilmember Buckshnis noted she is still waiting to get a good handle on the numbers.
Council President Peterson asked if Councilmembers wanted to wait for the good, accurate numbers
before scheduling a levy discussion on the agenda. Councilmember Petso relayed Mr. Tarte’s indication
that he would have significantly improved numbers after the close of the 2nd quarter and all the
adjustments could be made at that time. Mayor Cooper advised the deadline to place a measure on the
November ballot is August 16. The end of the second quarter is June 30 but it will be the end of the
following month before the numbers are provided. That would only allow 1-2 meetings after July 31 to
discuss a levy. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised there is a Council meeting on August 2, committee
meetings on August 9 and a special Monday meeting on August 15. Mayor Cooper advised good numbers
could potentially be provided by the July committee meeting. In the meantime, Council President
Peterson and he will work with the City Attorney to draft ordinances for Council discussion.
Council President Peterson suggested removing the levy discussion from next week’s agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested staff provide the dollar amount for park and facility capital
improvements, separate from staff hours. Council President Peterson responded a lot of those numbers
Packet Page 16 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 14
have been provided. He suggested Councilmember Buckshnis email staff a request to separate capital
from staffing. For the next meeting he encouraged Councilmembers to identify what they wanted
included in a levy. He remarked the Council was far beyond the point of gathering information. Hoping to
avoid another circular conversation, he tentatively scheduled a levy discussion on the July 19 or 26
meeting agenda.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
No reports provided.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported Ms. Hite and he kicked off the first senior walk sponsored by the Parks &
Recreation Department. Ten people participated. All Councilmembers have been invited to lead a walk.
Mayor Cooper provided a reminder about the upcoming 4th of July celebration, parade, activities in the
park and fireworks, sponsored by Chamber of Commerce. The new Celtic Cowboy BBQ will be at the
New American Brewing Company on the 4th of July with live music. The City has an entry in the parade,
displaying clean energy vehicles purchased with federal grant funds. He invited Councilmembers to ride
in one of the Prius vehicles in the parade.
7. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wilson reported last week he represented the City at the Association of Washington
Cities (AWC) annual conference. He was appointed to the nominating committee and carried the
Edmonds flag in the parade of flags. The AWC conference is an important meeting for the City to attend.
He paid for the travel expenses himself. He reported on some of the breakout sessions he attended
including one by the Lakewood Police Department regarding what they had in place to manage the
murder of four of their police officers and what they wished they had in place as well as the relationships
that occurred between the Chief of Police, City Manager and Mayor. Another session addressed civility
between Councilmembers, between Councilmembers and the Mayor, and between Councilmembers and
staff. The point made by City Managers and Mayors was Councils are only as good as their staff. If they
were not getting the type of information that made them look good, they needed more or different staff.
Another session addressed the importance of planning and budgeting for the three bottom lines: financial,
environmental, and social so that the things that the community and the Council do reflect the values in
those three areas. He encouraged Councilmembers to participate in the conference in the future and to
include funds in the budget so that Councilmembers can attend. He was the only Councilmember who
paid his own way.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed Councilmembers should pay their own way to attend events like the
AWC conference. He expressed concern with scheduling the levy discussions so that there was little time
left before the deadline. He preferred to adopt proposals ahead of schedule to allow more time to support
them. Over the next week he will attempt to develop a proposal using the Citizen Levy Committee
recommendation, observing there is support for separate levies, modest levies, targeted levies, and levies
with specific terms.
Councilmember Buckshnis also provided a reminder that Edmonds has an Adopt-A-Park link on the
Parks & Recreation webpage. She thanked the citizens who assisted her at the dog park recently.
Packet Page 17 of 367
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 15
Council President Peterson thanked the Chamber of Commerce for sponsoring the 4th of July festivities,
their 103rd year.
8. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Packet Page 18 of 367
AM-4039 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #126294 through #126402 dated June 30, 2011 for $277,751.78.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011
Revenue:
Expenditure:277,751.78
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $277,751.78
Attachments
Claim Checks 06-30-11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Jim Tarte 06/29/2011 01:47 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/29/2011 05:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 06/28/2011 10:45 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 19 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126294 6/30/2011 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 22311 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 183.00
Total :183.00
126295 6/30/2011 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 611115 DAYCAMP T-SHIRTS
DAYCAMP STAFF & CAMPERS SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 1,329.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 126.27
Total :1,455.39
126296 6/30/2011 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND JULY 2011 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 07/11 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 07/11
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66
Total :2,032.66
126297 6/30/2011 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000003690 Traffic Control - Bulldog III Black H
Traffic Control - Bulldog III Black H
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 244.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 23.23
Total :267.73
126298 6/30/2011 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-116139 Traffic Control - Blast Beads- 50lbs
Traffic Control - Blast Beads- 50lbs
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 3,926.40
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 373.01
Total :4,299.41
126299 6/30/2011 073692 AMBER SALINAS PHOTOGRAPHY 1276 ASP PHOTO SHOOTS & EDITING SERVICES
Photo shoots & editing services
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
1Page:
Packet Page 20 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126299 6/30/2011 (Continued)073692 AMBER SALINAS PHOTOGRAPHY
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 4.75
Total :54.75
126300 6/30/2011 068857 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC C15926016 PW Vehicle Wash Station - Prof Svc
PW Vehicle Wash Station - Prof Svc
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,109.29
Total :1,109.29
126301 6/30/2011 070976 AMERESCO QUANTUM 1 FAC - Energy Conservation Analysis
FAC - Energy Conservation Analysis
001.000.651.519.920.410.00 19,651.00
Total :19,651.00
126302 6/30/2011 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 13781 HAINES WHARF PARK PLAQUE
HAINES WHARF PARK PLAQUE FOR GERLACH
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 178.40
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6.90
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 17.60
Total :202.90
126303 6/30/2011 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 161846-1151 APA Membership - Machuga 10/11-9/30/12
APA Membership - Machuga 10/11-9/30/12
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 281.00
APA Membership - Lien 10/11 - 9/3/12180853-1151
APA Membership - Lien 10/11 - 9/3/12
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 313.00
Total :594.00
126304 6/30/2011 072799 ANDRES, KAREN ANDRES062311 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISCOVERY
001.000.640.574.350.430.00 98.43
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.640.574.350.240.00 43.79
2Page:
Packet Page 21 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :142.22126304 6/30/2011 072799 072799 ANDRES, KAREN
126305 6/30/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5618398 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 25.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.38
Total :27.40
126306 6/30/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5618399 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
PW MATS655-5622959
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet Page 22 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126306 6/30/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5622960
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5622962
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95
Total :79.25
126307 6/30/2011 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 60581 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area # 400 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 124.25
UB Outsourcing area # 400 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 124.25
UB Outsourcing area # 400 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 128.01
UB Outsourcing area # 400 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 407.08
UB Outsourcing area # 400 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 407.07
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 11.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 11.80
4Page:
Packet Page 23 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126307 6/30/2011 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 12.17
Total :1,226.43
126308 6/30/2011 067571 AWWA-KING CO SUBSECTION 4563 Large Water Meter Class - K Kuhnhausen
Large Water Meter Class - K Kuhnhausen
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 60.00
Total :60.00
126309 6/30/2011 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 6134 SUMMER CAMPS AD
SUMMER CAMPS AD
001.000.640.574.200.440.00 450.00
Total :450.00
126310 6/30/2011 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 3909 E8GA.SERVICES THRU 5/20/11
E8GA.Services thru 5/20/11
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 25,557.51
E8GA.Services thru 5/20/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 8,519.17
Total :34,076.68
126311 6/30/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 871414-01 INV#871414-01 - EDMONDS PD - SERVICE BAR
SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 585.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 55.58
INV#881862 - EDMONDS PD - MORRISON881862
NAME TAGS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 29.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.82
Total :673.10
126312 6/30/2011 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 40247810 LEASE @ MARINA BEACH
LEASE FOR FENCED AREA @ MARINA BEACH
5Page:
Packet Page 24 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126312 6/30/2011 (Continued)003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 1,611.98
Total :1,611.98
126313 6/30/2011 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK14099 ART FOR KIDZ
DOODLE DOTS #14099
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 302.40
Total :302.40
126314 6/30/2011 072717 CALVIN JORDAN ASSOC INC 201018.2 Sr Center - Prof Svcs - Roof Repairs
Sr Center - Prof Svcs - Roof Repairs
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 2,318.00
Total :2,318.00
126315 6/30/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11069005 MAYORS OFFC CANON 3020 CONTRACT
Mayors Office Copier Rental June 2011
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 55.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 5.32
Canon 5150/ 2rd Floor Rental11069011
Canon 5150/ 2rd Floor Rental
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 90.33
Canon 5150/ 2rd Floor Rental
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 90.33
Canon 5150/ 2rd Floor Rental
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 93.08
Total :335.04
126316 6/30/2011 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 31607 PW - Awards Plaque - S Koho
PW - Awards Plaque - S Koho
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 93.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 8.84
Total :101.84
126317 6/30/2011 068484 CEMEX LLC 9421626509 Roadway - Asphalt
6Page:
Packet Page 25 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126317 6/30/2011 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 345.48
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 32.82
Storm/water - Asphalt & Concrete Dump9421644222
Storm/water - Asphalt & Concrete Dump
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 386.60
Storm/Water - Dump fees9421705404
Storm/Water - Dump fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 356.27
Street - Cement9421705406
Street - Cement
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 220.01
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 20.90
Roadway - Asphalt9421713746
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 129.15
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 11.88
Roadway - Asphalt9421713747
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 510.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 48.45
Total :2,061.56
126318 6/30/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY170302 BATTERIES, LENSES
BATTERIES, LENSES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.67
Total :30.78
126319 6/30/2011 073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC 7105 Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director
7Page:
Packet Page 26 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126319 6/30/2011 (Continued)073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC
Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director
001.000.310.514.100.410.00 5,062.50
Total :5,062.50
126320 6/30/2011 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 30328516 INV#30328516 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 266.59
FUEL FOR TRAINING/HARBINSON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 82.80
Total :349.39
126321 6/30/2011 073667 COBURN, LI COBURN0627 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT
OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 6/13 -
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 144.00
Total :144.00
126322 6/30/2011 070300 CODE 4 INC 9355 INV 9355 EDMONDS PD - BULLETPROOF MIND
BULLETPROOF MIND 6/20/11 - PAULSON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
BULLETPROOF MIND 6/20/11 - PLOEGER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
BULLETPROOF MIND 6/20/11 - POFF
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
BULLETPROOF MIND 6/20/11 - RAMSEUR
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
Total :396.00
126323 6/30/2011 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY13983 MINI EXPLORER
MINI EXPLORER: SIGNS OF THE SEASON
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 18.20
Total :18.20
126324 6/30/2011 073693 COURTNAGE, PAMELA 06282011 AWARD FOR PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST CONTEST
Award for art contest for Puget Sound
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 200.00
8Page:
Packet Page 27 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :200.00126324 6/30/2011 073693 073693 COURTNAGE, PAMELA
126325 6/30/2011 063507 COXLEY, BRUCE 06222011 PHOTOGRAPH & RECORD IMAGES FOR WEB
Photograph & record images of Edmonds
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 225.00
Total :225.00
126326 6/30/2011 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER14103 TURTLE TIME
TURTLE TIME #14103
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 145.60
Total :145.60
126327 6/30/2011 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3251116 E1JA.AD FOR BIDS
E1JA.Ad for Bids
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 424.80
Total :424.80
126328 6/30/2011 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 151511 INV#151511 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATION #GHD-15003
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.91
Total :81.91
126329 6/30/2011 073251 DEARN-TARPLEY, SUSAN DEARNTARPLEY0624 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISCOVERY
001.000.640.574.350.430.00 106.08
Total :106.08
126330 6/30/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3207 MINUTE TAKING
Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 489.00
Total :489.00
126331 6/30/2011 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 11-1847.2 E1JE.SERVICES THRU 6/19/11
E1JE.Services thru 6/19/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 29,293.13
9Page:
Packet Page 28 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126331 6/30/2011 (Continued)070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC
E2DB.THRU 6/19/11 TASK ORDER 11-0211-1868.1
E2DB.Services thru 6/19/11 Task Order
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 500.00
Total :29,793.13
126332 6/30/2011 007253 DUNN LUMBER 656471 LUMBER FOR PETANQUE COURTS
LUMBER FOR PETANQUE COURT
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 1,406.60
Freight
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 135.53
Total :1,562.13
126333 6/30/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 36023 FAN BELT
FAN BELT
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 12.09
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.15
Total :13.24
126334 6/30/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 35619 Street - Measuring bottle
Street - Measuring bottle
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 6.49
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 0.62
Total :7.11
126335 6/30/2011 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP CORDOVA0622 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: CORDOVA
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
126336 6/30/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
10Page:
Packet Page 29 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126336 6/30/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 66.65
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 578.47
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.23
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 629.81
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.23
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
11Page:
Packet Page 30 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126336 6/30/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.87
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.87
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 55.86
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)2-25150
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
12Page:
Packet Page 31 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126336 6/30/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.37
820 15TH ST SW7-05276
820 15TH ST SW
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 112.89
Total :2,046.25
126337 6/30/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.99
Total :55.99
126338 6/30/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 065534 EBM SVC AGREEMENT
EBM Svcs. Maintnance 3rd flr. Copier
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 131.47
EBM Svcs. Maintnance 3rd flr. Copier
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 131.47
EBM Svcs. Maintnance 3rd flr. Copier
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 135.46
CANON 5051 SVCS AGRMT065813
EBM Service Agreement 3rd flr. Cannon
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 64.20
EBM Service Agreement 3rd flr. Cannon
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 64.20
EBM Service Agreement 3rd flr. Cannon
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 66.15
Total :592.95
126339 6/30/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 066549 METER READING
Meter Reading 4/30 to 5/30
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 520.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 49.48
METER READING066550
13Page:
Packet Page 32 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126339 6/30/2011 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
Meter Reading 5/30 to 6/30
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 78.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 7.48
Total :656.51
126340 6/30/2011 071009 EYER, ADAM EYER0606 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 80.00
Total :80.00
126341 6/30/2011 063387 FEREBEE, JOAN 52111 TRAVEL COST FOR MANAGERS COURT
TRAVEL COST FOR MANAGERS COURT
001.000.230.512.500.430.00 68.25
Total :68.25
126342 6/30/2011 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 329297 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for July-11
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
126343 6/30/2011 073691 FLAGS A FLYING LLC 40357 CEMETERY FLAG
NYLON FLAG FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 56.80
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 5.23
Total :62.03
126344 6/30/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 411.10
Total :411.10
126345 6/30/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47
14Page:
Packet Page 33 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126345 6/30/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.06
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.38
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 112.78
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.99
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.27
Total :889.45
126346 6/30/2011 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD 42 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,230.00
15Page:
Packet Page 34 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,230.00126346 6/30/2011 068011 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD
126347 6/30/2011 072184 HAUSS, BERTRAND CT Grant June CT GRANT.SMART COMMUTER.JUNE INCENTIVES
CT Grant.Smart Commuter.June Incentives
001.000.390.517.900.490.00 280.00
Total :280.00
126348 6/30/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2041942 0205
AAA BATTERIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.47
02055096917
SPRAY PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.00
02058035448
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 219.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.84
02059037264
WRENCH SETS, WASHERS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 104.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.96
02059090901
WOOD FILLER, TARP, RINGS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 37.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.54
02059182210
LAVENDER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 64.70
9.5% Sales Tax
16Page:
Packet Page 35 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126348 6/30/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.15
Total :495.17
126349 6/30/2011 073539 HORTIN, DOUGLAS D E2DB.TempConst.Pmt 3 E2DB.TEMP CONST EASEMENT PMT 3. HORTIN
E2DB.Temp Construction Easement Final
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 5,300.00
Total :5,300.00
126350 6/30/2011 070042 IKON 85014220 INV#85014220 ACCT#467070-1005305A3
COPIER RENTAL 06/13-07/12/11
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES 5/02-06/02/11
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 344.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 65.02
Total :749.48
126351 6/30/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1897167 RUBBER FINGERTIPS, POST-ITS, RECEIPTROLL
Rubber Fingertips, Post it dispenser
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 134.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 12.76
Total :147.06
126352 6/30/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1897062 Office supplies - DSD
Office supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 22.98
Total :22.98
126353 6/30/2011 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE A14011 WWTP Mgr. ad, #11-20
WWTP Mgr. ad, #11-20
411.000.656.538.800.440.00 262.50
Total :262.50
126354 6/30/2011 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE 3292011 MONITOR SERVICES RFA
Monitor Services for RFA meeting of
17Page:
Packet Page 36 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126354 6/30/2011 (Continued)072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE
001.000.210.513.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
126355 6/30/2011 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE JOHNSON0626 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 6/26/11
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 90.00
Total :90.00
126356 6/30/2011 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KLS13325 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASSES
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13325
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,470.00
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13324
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 646.80
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13321
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,411.20
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13322
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 470.40
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13314
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 470.40
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13311
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 823.20
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13312
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 882.00
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13315
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 470.40
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13316
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 176.40
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #13318
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 940.80
Total :7,761.60
126357 6/30/2011 073695 KILLER WHALE TALES HOGAN0521 PRESENTER @ WATERSHED FUN FAIR
PRESENTER @ 2011 WATERSHED FUN FAIR
001.000.640.574.350.410.00 200.00
18Page:
Packet Page 37 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :200.00126357 6/30/2011 073695 073695 KILLER WHALE TALES
126358 6/30/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0625 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 6/25/11
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
126359 6/30/2011 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK 4/4/11 Tuition Reimbursement - Emergency Mgmt
Tuition Reimbursement - Emergency Mgmt
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 360.36
Total :360.36
126360 6/30/2011 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 6011-437 MOWER SUPPLIES
BELT, FAN, CARBURATOR
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 75.26
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.61
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.25
Total :95.12
126361 6/30/2011 072059 LEE, NICOLE 1050 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 120.39
Total :120.39
126362 6/30/2011 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 750510 SUPPLIES
COLLARS, CAPS, BEARINGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 180.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.18
SUPPLIES750775
PIN, SPRING
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.49
19Page:
Packet Page 38 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :203.65126362 6/30/2011 018980 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA
126363 6/30/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 702 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65
INTERPRETER FEE703
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65
INTERPRETER FEE704
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65
Total :262.95
126364 6/30/2011 073641 MCCLURE, GLENDA MCCLURE0626 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 6/26/11
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 135.00
Total :135.00
126365 6/30/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 128230 Street - Weedeater Supples
Street - Weedeater Supples
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 53.37
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 5.07
Total :58.44
126366 6/30/2011 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 11-1196-5 E1JA.SERVICES THRU 5/31/11
E1JA.Services thru 5/31/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 69,157.58
E1JA.SERVICES THRU 5/31/1111-1199-5
E1JA.Services thru 5/31/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 2,222.50
E1JA.Services thru 5/31/11
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 3,347.50
Total :74,727.58
126367 6/30/2011 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0296052-IN Street - Supplies
Street - Supplies
20Page:
Packet Page 39 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126367 6/30/2011 (Continued)064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 27.20
Freight
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.86
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.71
Street - Supplies0296713-IN
Street - Supplies
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 30.85
Freight
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.86
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 4.07
Street - Retruns0297025-CM
Street - Retruns
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 -27.20
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 -2.58
Total :59.77
126368 6/30/2011 070788 NETRIVER INC 54878 WEB HOST FOR PS BIRD FEST QUARTERLY BILL
Quarterly billing for web hosting Puget
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 35.85
Total :35.85
126369 6/30/2011 073207 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS CORP 009271 INV 009271 CUST SNO1479 EDMONDS-COLLINS
AEGIS 2011 CUSTOMER CONFERENCE FEES
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 945.00
ADDT'L NIGHT LODGING NOT COVERED BY
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 290.71
Total :1,235.71
126370 6/30/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-304513 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HAINES WHARF PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 220.77
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-306150
21Page:
Packet Page 40 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126370 6/30/2011 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 224.19
Total :444.96
126371 6/30/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 222 Planning Board Minutetaker 6/22/11
Planning Board Minutetaker 6/22/11
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 480.00
Total :480.00
126372 6/30/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 414740 INV#414740 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
HP TONER Q2612A - MANDEVILLE
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 140.34
BINDER CLIPS - LARGE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.03
BINDER CLIPS - MEDIUM
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.40
BINDER CLIPS - SMALL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 13.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.62
Total :160.82
126373 6/30/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 481043 PENS
PENS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 38.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.66
INK FOR DAYCAMP PRINTER496630
INK FOR DAYCAMP PRINTER
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 48.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 4.58
22Page:
Packet Page 41 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :94.94126373 6/30/2011 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
126374 6/30/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 378864 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 163.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 15.49
Total :178.57
126375 6/30/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 245053 PW Admin - Printer Ink
PW Admin - Printer Ink
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 105.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 10.00
PW - Office Supplies - Tape, Stapels,246752
PW - Office Supplies - Tape, Stapels,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 48.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.56
PW - Credits from 3/9/11950855
PW - Credits from 3/9/11
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -52.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -5.03
Total :109.91
126376 6/30/2011 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 049025 YOST POOL ADA LIFT
LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO INSTALL YOST
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 13,512.20
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,283.66
YOST POOL SUPPLIES049917
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 691.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 65.69
23Page:
Packet Page 42 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :15,553.10126376 6/30/2011 063750 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
126377 6/30/2011 068316 PACE ENGINEERS INC 46830A E9DA.COMPLETION OF TASK 9
E9DA.Completion of Task 9
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,072.28
E9DA.SERVICES THRU 5/31/1149490
E9DA.Services thru 5/31/11
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 778.29
Total :1,850.57
126378 6/30/2011 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 116006 DUMP FEES
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
DUMP FEES116017
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.50
DUMP FEES116023
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.50
DUMP FEES116264
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 115.50
Total :273.00
126379 6/30/2011 073652 PERRINE, SUSAN PERRINE13873 A STROKE OF GENIUS
A STROKE OF GENIUS #13873
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
126380 6/30/2011 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 27096.00-30 E7CB.SERVICES THRU 5/1/11
E7CB.Services thru 5/1/11
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 8,622.50
E7CB.SERVICES THRU 5/29/1127096.00-31
E7CB.Services thru 5/29/11
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 737.48
Total :9,359.98
24Page:
Packet Page 43 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126381 6/30/2011 007800 PETTY CASH 06/17 Petty Cash REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH 05/05 - 06/17
Mileage for meeting w/ Pace Engineers
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 20.10
Mileage for ITE Conference
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 4.64
Refreshments for U/W 5 Corners &
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 31.52
Key Board
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 65.69
Jury Fee Mileage Reimbursement
001.000.410.521.110.110.00 46.92
Kleenex for DS Department
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.10
Work Boots, AA Batteries for Emergency
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 29.54
Work Boots
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 24.08
Parking at U of W
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 15.00
Travel Expense SCCFOA Meeting
001.000.250.514.300.430.00 39.50
Total :294.09
126382 6/30/2011 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH0628 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PRESCHOOL: BUBBLES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 2.19
LAMINATED ID CARDS/DISCOVERY PROGRAM
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 20.00
GYMNASTICS: FEATHERS FOR CIRCUS PROGRAM
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 9.76
FISHNG LINE FOR YOST POOL FLAGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 47.18
PRESCHOOL: PROJECT SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 4.59
PRESCHOOL: TOYS FOR SENSORY TABLE
25Page:
Packet Page 44 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126382 6/30/2011 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 3.26
SHRIMP TO FEED ANIMALS IN TOUCH TANK
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 3.84
FASTENERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.05
GYMNASTICS: SPRING SHOW SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 7.74
PRESCHOOL: PLASTIC SPOONS
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 2.19
PARKING FOR TRAINING WORKSHOP, FRANCES
117.100.640.573.100.430.00 9.00
PRESCHOOL: ART PROJECT SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 5.25
PRESCHOOL: PROJECT SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 6.55
GYMNASTICS: CARABINER FOR CIRCUS/ACRO
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 10.90
GYMNASTICS: STICKERS FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 6.57
GYMNASTICS: PROPS FOR SHOW
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 4.38
GYMNASTICS: SUPPLIES FOR SPRING SHOW
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 3.46
GYMNASTICS: CLEANING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 8.75
DISCOVERY PROGRAM: ALGAE SCRUBBER FOR
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 3.27
TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT: CORRI
001.000.640.574.350.430.00 38.76
Total :202.69
126383 6/30/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 193259 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.46
26Page:
Packet Page 45 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126383 6/30/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.46
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.46
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.46
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST193430
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST193563
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
Water- Radix Return Postage193580
Water- Radix Return Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 70.34
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST193682
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
27Page:
Packet Page 46 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126383 6/30/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
Total :109.28
126384 6/30/2011 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 4,660.85
Total :4,660.85
126385 6/30/2011 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 103.90
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 123.45
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 360.73
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 192.27
Fire Station # 165322323139
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 143.79
SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 34.48
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 160.19
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 233.02
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
28Page:
Packet Page 47 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126385 6/30/2011 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,262.09
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.49
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 101.26
Total :2,770.67
126386 6/30/2011 068900 PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 06092011 BRACKET ROOM REFUND 6.9.11
Puget Sound Partnership Cancelation of
001.000.000.362.420.000.00 240.00
Total :240.00
126387 6/30/2011 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 272023 LPG Aux Power Gen for Sewer LS 7
LPG Aux Power Gen for Sewer LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 402.63
Meadowdale Storm Drain Crossing273999
Meadowdale Storm Drain Crossing
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 109.81
Total :512.44
126388 6/30/2011 065784 RUDD COMPANY INC INV-100861 Traffic Control - Spray Tips
Traffic Control - Spray Tips
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 143.70
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.66
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 14.38
Total :165.74
126389 6/30/2011 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
23202 EDMONDS WAY2009-4334-8
29Page:
Packet Page 48 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126389 6/30/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
23202 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 116.94
Total :146.96
126390 6/30/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202562 SCHOOL LIGHT 20829 76TH W
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
SIGNAL LIGHT 9730 220TH200748606
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
SIGNAL LIGHT 20408 76TH201192226
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 40.88
STREET LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W201582152
STREET LIGHT 19600 80th Ave W
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 40.86
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH W201611951
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 40.86
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH SW201907862
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.91
FIRE STATION #20202077194
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 832.77
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St202087870
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 374.32
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99202289120
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 99.04
Total :1,529.72
126391 6/30/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 204030498 20719 86th Pl W
20719 86th Pl W
30Page:
Packet Page 49 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126391 6/30/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 126.98
Total :126.98
126392 6/30/2011 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2423202-01 Water / Sewer - Duck Jacket, Duck
Water / Sewer - Duck Jacket, Duck
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 81.00
Water / Sewer - Duck Jacket, Duck
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 81.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 4.45
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 4.45
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 8.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 8.12
Water Sewer - Coverall2423202-02
Water Sewer - Coverall
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 50.00
Water Sewer - Coverall
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 50.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 4.03
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 4.02
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 5.14
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 5.12
Total :305.45
126393 6/30/2011 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 7/1/11 LTD premiums (4/1 - 6/30/11)
LTD premiums (4/1 - 6/30/11)
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 121.50
31Page:
Packet Page 50 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :121.50126393 6/30/2011 060371 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO
126394 6/30/2011 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360003746994 C/A 360000657091
Basic e-commerce hosting
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 36.95
C/A 360000764828360003750547
06/2011 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 430001405909440010899855
P&R Directory Listing
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 132.50
Total :204.40
126395 6/30/2011 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 55853 Sewer - Work T Shirts
Sewer - Work T Shirts
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 29.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 2.78
Total :32.03
126396 6/30/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1738575 Legal notice Schmitz (bld20110059)
Legal notice Schmitz (bld20110059)
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 84.40
Legal notice Ayers PLN201100171739618
Legal notice Ayers PLN20110017
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 48.28
Total :132.68
126397 6/30/2011 062693 US BANK 6078 COLEUSBANK
Batteries; Mayors Office
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 8.20
Total :8.20
126398 6/30/2011 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES BLD20110376 Ref for Dup pmt 5/24/11 BLD20110376
Ref for Dup pmt 5/24/11 BLD20110376
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 65.00
32Page:
Packet Page 51 of 367
06/29/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
12:20:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :65.00126398 6/30/2011 071424 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES
126399 6/30/2011 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON14048 WENATCHEE WHITEWATER RAFTING
WENATCHEE WHITEWATER RAFTING #14048
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 383.53
Total :383.53
126400 6/30/2011 073612 WRIGHT ROOFING INC 3 Pmt #3 Sr Center Roofing Repairs
Pmt #3 Sr Center Roofing Repairs
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 13,043.86
Retainage Pmt #3 Sr Ctr Roofing Repairs
116.000.000.223.400.000.00 -595.61
Total :12,448.25
126401 6/30/2011 073479 WU, THOMAS 1119 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 148.43
Total :148.43
126402 6/30/2011 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 936 JUNE-11 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00
Total :13,000.00
Bank total :277,751.78109 Vouchers for bank code :front
277,751.78Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report109
33Page:
Packet Page 52 of 367
AM-4040 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed for Old Milltown Courtyard.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council accept Quit Claim Deed for Old Milltown Courtyard
Previous Council Action
Council authorized the purchase of Old Milltown Courtyard in March 2009.
Council authorized $40,000 in the 2011 budget process for redevelopment of Old Milltown Courtyard.
Narrative
The renovation of Old Milltown Courtyard is in the design process and is scheduled for construction in
Fall 2011.
The Milltown Courtyard was originally purchased by the City of Edmonds in March, 2009. The purpose
of this Quit Claim Deed is to clarify and expand the terms of the original purchase to include minor
expansion of the easement areas.
According to the original Purchase and Sale agreement, the City only purchased rights to the land 10
inches below the surface. This limits the city’s ability to add any utilities or structural foundations
needed for renovation.
Staff has been working diligently to secure a Quit Claim Deed from Cascade Bank in order to develop
below the 10 inches. Attached is the Deed, and staff is requesting Council’s acceptance so it can be
received and recorded properly.
Attachments
Old Milltown Quit Claim Deed
Old Milltown Quit Claim Deed Exhibit B
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/29/2011 05:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 06/28/2011 03:53 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 53 of 367
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 54 of 367
Packet Page 55 of 367
Packet Page 56 of 367
Packet Page 57 of 367
Packet Page 58 of 367
Packet Page 59 of 367
AM-4044 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Police Department Annual Report 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The Police Department is pleased to offer this report on our Service Efforts and Accomplishments for
calendar year 2010. Our annual report is provided to the Mayor, City Council and to the citizens of
Edmonds to give a snapshot of our activities throughout the year. Questions and comments are welcome.
Attachments
Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2010
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 10:01 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 06/29/2011 06:09 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 60 of 367
City of Edmonds
Police Department
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
Edmonds Police Department
250 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0200
Accessible formats are available upon request.
Packet Page 61 of 367
Table of Contents
1
Letter from Chief Al Compaan........................................................................................................ 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4
Mission ............................................................................................................................... 4
Core Values ....................................................................................................................... 4
Vision ................................................................................................................................. 4
Trends ................................................................................................................................ 4
Employee Recognition .................................................................................................................... 5
Reduction of Crime and the Fear of Crime ................................................................................... 8
Use of Information for Crime Analysis ............................................................................. 9
The “Crime Rate” ................................................................................................ 9
Crimes Against Persons .................................................................................. 11
Crimes Against Property .................................................................................. 13
Domestic Violence Crimes ............................................................................... 15
Automobile/Vehicle Related Crimes ............................................................... 16
Traffic Incident Information .............................................................................. 17
Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement ......................................................... 19
Apprehension of Offenders ............................................................................................ 21
Cases Closed “Cleared by Arrest" .................................................................. 21
Charges and Arrests ........................................................................................ 22
Edmonds Police Foundation .......................................................................................... 23
Departmental Response to Service Requests and Accountability……………………………. 24
Response to Calls ........................................................................................................... 25
Total Agency Incidents ..................................................................................... 25
Response Times ............................................................................................... 26
Departmental Accountability .......................................................................................... 27
Complaints Against Officers ............................................................................ 28
Cost per $1,000 ................................................................................................ 29
Calls for service ................................................................................................ 30
Commissioned Officers per 1,000 Residents ................................................. 31
Police Service Assistants ................................................................................. 32
Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Data Sources ................................................................................................................................. 35
Packet Page 62 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
2
Letter from Chief Al Compaan
Mayor Cooper, Edmonds City Council Members, Citizens of Edmonds:
I am pleased to present our 2010 Service Efforts and Accomplishments
report. Public trust, accountability, and efficient use of our budgetary
resources are extremely important to me and to each member of the
Edmonds Police Department. Our dedicated law enforcement
professionals who deliver 24/7 services to our citizens are absolutely
committed to quality of life and to the safety and security of those who
live, work, and visit our fine city.
We have made every effort to be good stewards of the public’s trust
and resources. In return, we are able to report that many crime trends
are on the decrease. What we have seen in Edmonds is consistent with
what has occurred on a nationwide level. Robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle
theft, vehicle prowl, and larceny are all crime categories that saw a decrease in 2010 compared to
2009. It is interesting to note that this decreasing trend runs counter to what has been experienced
historically during periods of economic distress and higher unemployment.
Violent crime across the United States is at a 40 year low, and this statistic has left many
criminologists perplexed. James Q. Wilson, a leading expert on policing and crime, recently
suggested in an article he wrote for The Wall Street Journal that downward crime trends may be
explained (among reasons cited) by increased incarceration of offenders; “target hardening” by
potential victims (i.e. locks, alarms, better overall security measures being taken); proactive
policing by law enforcement with an eye toward preventing recurrence of crime; drug use trends,
including a decrease in demand for (crack) cocaine; and perhaps even some cultural or medical
explanations intertwined.
Whatever the reasons, and even though many crime trends have been pointing downward, it is not
the time to become complacent and to take our collective eyes off of our public safety mission. We
ask for the continued support and the resources so we can maintain a safe and secure community.
We stand ready to continue to earn the public’s trust, confidence, and support. Please contact me
if you have any questions about our 2010 accomplishments.
Al Compaan
Chief of Police
June 21, 2011
Packet Page 63 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
3
Edmonds Police Department 2010
Packet Page 64 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
4
Executive Summary
Mission
The mission of the Edmonds Police Department is:
Service in partnership with the community – a commitment to excellence.
Core Values
The Edmonds Police are committed to the following core values:
Leadership
Integrity
Service
Teamwork
Vision
• We see our department in cooperation with the citizens of Edmonds, becoming more attuned to, and
responsive to their needs. We intend to do this through improved management techniques, mutual respect
and developing our people’s full potential.
• We will be innovative, using emerging technology to maximum potential.
• We recognize that our growth is dependent on public confidence and support, which we will strive to
accomplish through professionalism.
Trends
The Puget Sound region continues to see a general decrease in crime over the past several years. During 2010, the
“Crime Rate” in Edmonds again decreased, coming in at 22.7, down from 24.8 in 2009. During that same 2009 to
2010 time period, Edmonds saw an in the number of reported rapes (38 to 41) and an increase in arsons (11 to 14). A
decrease was observed in the number of motor vehicle thefts (52 to 48), and larcenies (666 to 616), with further
decreases being observed in the number of aggravated assaults (41 to 36), robberies (27 to 23), burglaries (211 to
183), and thefts from vehicles/vehicle prowls (241 to 200). Edmonds experienced zero murders during 2010, down
from two in 2009.
Traffic collisions were down (655 to 632) while traffic citations/infractions issued were up (5494 to 5778). DUI arrests
were up significantly in 2010 (169) from 2009 (115).
The following report contains information on the service efforts and accomplishments of the Edmonds Police
Department to support its mission, core values and vision, as well as data on the above referenced trends.
Packet Page 65 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
5
Employee Recognition
Each year, the Edmonds Police Department recognizes the outstanding accomplishments of our employees
as well as outstanding contributions of citizens and community members. This event takes place in May of
the following year during National Law Enforcement Memorial Week.
Below is a list of awards bestowed at this year’s (2010) ceremony for accomplishments in 2009:
Citizen Service Citation
Mr. Donald L. Burlingame
Mr. Robert Preston
Mr. Fritz Rivera
Ms. Jenna Ann Zaback
Award of Excellence
Officer Linda Mack
Letter of Commendation
Officer Anthony Collins Officer Linda Mack
Officer Douglas Compton Officer William Nelson
Officer Justin Lee Corporal Damian Smith
Sergeant Karl Roth Officer Stacie Trykar
Firefighter/Paramedic Brian Schleicher Sergeant Jason Valentine – Lynnwood Police
Officer Ryan Speer Officer Daniel Lavely
Officer Nathaniel Rossi Sergeant Donald Anderson
Packet Page 66 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
6
Employee Recognition
Non-Commissioned Employee of the Year
Lynn Mandeville
Packet Page 67 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
7
Chief David N. Stern Memorial Officer of the Year Award
Officer Tim Dreyer
Packet Page 68 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
8
Reduction of Crime and the Fear of Crime
The goal to reduce crime and the fear of crime is a standard goal of law enforcement agencies worldwide.
Efforts to support this goal vary due to differences in laws, limitations and liabilities of law enforcement
agencies, community preferences, socio-economic factors, and available resources.
The means chosen to provide direction for the Edmonds Police Department in support of this goal are to:
• Use information for crime analysis,
• Apprehend offenders,
• Prevent crime, and
• Improve citizens’ feeling of security.
The measures on the following pages report the efforts and accomplishments of the Edmonds Police
Department as reflected in the amount of crime:
• Crime rates and statistics,
• Crime incident case clearance rates,
• Adult and juvenile arrest and charge statistics,
• Workload of crime prevention efforts,
• Public communications activities.
Officer Steve Morrison participating in Family Reading Night at Chase Lake Elementary School
Packet Page 69 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
9
Use of Information for Crime Analysis
The “Crime Rate”
Total Part I Crimes
“Part I Crimes” is a category of crimes established by the U. S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) that consists of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft
and arson. Part I Crimes compared to the population are known as the “Crime Index” or “Crime Rate.” (The Crime
Rate is known as the Modified Crime Index when arson data is included.) Part I crimes are, by definition, felony
crimes.
35
26 25.4 24.8 22.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Part 1 Crimes Per 1,000 Residents
Commonly known as the "Modified Crime Index"
Part 1 Crimes
Packet Page 70 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
10
Below is a two year comparison of the “Modified Crime Index” for neighboring cities that are contiguous with the City
of Edmonds.
“Part II Crimes” consist of all other crimes not included in the Part I Crimes category. Part II Crimes vary in definition
due to differences in local laws. Some examples locally include simple assault, malicious mischief, vehicle prowl,
fraud, forgery, narcotics violations and sex offenses (excluding forcible rape).
Packet Page 71 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
11
Crimes Against Persons
Part I Crimes Against Persons
Part I Crimes include crimes categorized as “violent crimes” or “crimes against persons.” The following are
Edmonds’ Part I Crimes against persons for the last five years.
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Murder
Packet Page 72 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
12
Packet Page 73 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
13
Crimes Against Property
Part I Crimes against Property
The second group of crimes that make up the Part I Crimes are known as “non-violent crimes,” “crimes against
property,” or “property crimes.” The following are Edmonds’ Part I Crimes against property for the last five years.
NOTE: Other burglaries include boats, storage sheds, etc.
Packet Page 74 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
14
Packet Page 75 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
15
Domestic Violence Crimes
In Washington State, “domestic violence crime” refers to any crime that is committed by a spouse, former spouse,
person related by blood or marriage, persons who have a child in common, former/current roommates, persons who
have or had a dating relationship, and/or persons related to the suspect by the parent-child (biological or legal)
relationship. In some cases, the age of the victim or suspect may determine whether or not the legal definition above
is met.
"Domestic violence incidents" include all documented police activity related to domestic violence incidents. This
includes all case reports and citations, as well as possibly containing other related activity such as field interview
reports and assistance to other agencies.
The most frequently occurring types of domestic violence crimes in Edmonds in 2010 were:
Crime Reported Incidents
Assault, fourth degree 142
Violation of court orders 72
All other 3
Assault, ODW 6
Assault, with hands 12
Residential Burglary, forced entry 0
NOTE: There were 0 domestic violence related homicides in Edmonds in 2010. In some cases,
a single reported incident may be categorized under more than one crime classification.
Packet Page 76 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
16
Automobile/Vehicle Related Crimes
Vehicle Thefts
Vehicle thefts include thefts of all vehicles including trucks, buses, boats, recreational vehicles and other non-
licensed off-road vehicles.
Thefts from Vehicles and Attempted Thefts
This category includes thefts of property from a vehicle. This includes any part or accessory item attached to the
vehicle (gasoline, tires, tape decks, antennas, etc.) and personal property left in a vehicle (purses, gifts, tools, etc.).
This category also includes vehicle prowls where no property is successfully taken, but the vehicle was entered by
the suspect(s).
Packet Page 77 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
17
Traffic Incident Information
Collision Data
Collision information includes reports for injury, non-injury and fatality vehicle collisions in the City of Edmonds. Fatal
collision data is included in the overall collision data.
Packet Page 78 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
18
Citation Data
Traffic citations include reports of all moving/hazardous violations (such as all accidents, speeding, and reckless
driving), and non-moving compliance violations (such as defective equipment and parking violations).
DUI Enforcement
Individuals operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol and/or narcotics is a problem that the
Edmonds Police Department takes very seriously. Apprehending these individuals is a high priority for the Traffic
Unit and the Department as a whole. The Edmonds Police Department has two officers assigned as nighttime
traffic units whose primary mission is the apprehension of DUI offenders.
Packet Page 79 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
19
Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement
Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement is responsible for the capture and impounding of sick, injured, deceased
and stray domestic and non-domestic animals, the issuance of animal licenses and the taking of whatever
subsequent enforcement action as needed. In addition, Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement is responsible
for the enforcement of ordinances relating to parking, abandoned vehicles and illegal dumping.
NOTE: Total incidents include those relating to parking, abandoned vehicles and illegal dumping.
Packet Page 80 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
20
Packet Page 81 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
21
Apprehension of Offenders
Part I Cases Closed “Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means”
The tracking of Part I Crimes is very important to law enforcement due to the severity and violence associated with
these crimes. Part I Crimes can be cleared as a result of the filing of criminal charges (arrest) or by exceptional
means. To clear a case as exceptional, the following criteria have to be met: 1) the offender’s identity has been
established, 2) there is enough information to support an arrest, charge, and the turning over of the case to the court
for prosecution, 3) the exact location of the suspect is known so that the individual may be taken into custody and 4)
there is some reason outside of law enforcement control that precludes arresting, charging and prosecuting the
offender. Examples include, but are not limited to, the offender being deceased, the offender being prosecuted by an
outside jurisdiction for the same offense, extradition being denied, or the victim refusing to cooperate in prosecution.
Packet Page 82 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
22
.
Charges and Arrests
The closed cases (Part I & Part II) below are cases known as “cleared by arrest.” Although not in every case is a
suspect “arrested”, each suspect in these cases has been recommended for criminal charges that may eventually
result in an arrest or another form of punitive action (such as a citation). Cases “cleared by arrest” are sent to either
the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office or to the Edmonds City Prosecutor’s Office with the officer’s or detective’s
recommendation to file criminal charges. A prosecuting attorney is solely responsible for the decision to formally file
charges and prosecute defendants. One or more charges can result from a single arrest. The following are the total
number of charges and arrests by adult and juvenile status.
Packet Page 83 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
23
The Edmonds Police Foundation
Citizen Involvement is the Key to Community Safety
The Edmonds Police Foundation was created in 1996 as a community-based organization to assist
the Edmonds Police Department through education, fund raising, and citizen involvement. Their
goal is to make Edmonds a better and safer place to live through programs designed to enhance
public safety using community partnerships and citizen outreach.
Public Safety
Modern public safety demands require that police departments be better trained, better equipped,
and more in touch with the specific needs of their communities than ever before. While these
requirements have increased with concerns such as terrorism and school violence, tax dollars only
provide the basic necessities. The Foundation is dedicated to providing our police force with the
most modern equipment, technology and training.
Citizen Outreach
The foundation seeks to create a culture of opportunities for community members to enhance their
awareness of public safety and crime prevention issues. This is done with outreach programs, public
events and community partnerships.
For more information about the Edmonds Police Foundation, please visit their website at:
http://www.edmondspolicefoundation.org/
The Edmonds Police Foundation is a corporation organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within
the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Packet Page 84 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
24
Departmental Responses to Service Requests and Accountability
The goal "to provide high-quality, cost-effective, and accountable services" is a goal any service industry might strive to
reach. It reflects a concern for the appropriate and effective use of community resources. Efforts to support this goal
are made in partnership with elected officials and police administrators, taking into consideration problem areas,
community concerns for quality of life and available resources.
The means chosen to provide direction for the Edmonds Police Department in support of this goal are:
• Provide responsive services to citizens, and
• Provide cost-effective services to citizens.
The measures on the following pages report the efforts and accomplishments of the Edmonds Police Department
using traditional responsiveness measures such as:
• Response times,
• Complaints, and
• Cost comparisons, shown in ratios of costs by the population, available revenue, staffing, and volume of work.
Packet Page 85 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
25
Response to Calls
Total Agency Incidents and Traffic Stops
Police engage in a variety of activities in a workday. Primarily, police activity is captured in the number of “incidents”
responded to during a day. An incident may be called in by a citizen to the 9-1-1 center (SnoCom) or may be “self
initiated” by the officer responding to a crime they’ve witnessed, by initiating a traffic stop or by addressing chronic
problems in a neighborhood or specific location.
Packet Page 86 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
26
Response Times to High Priority Calls
Call Priorities and Response Times
When calls for police assistance are received by SnoCom, they are entered into the Computer Aided Dispatch
(CAD) system and given a “priority” based on the criteria described below. If the call receiver is in doubt as to the
appropriate priority, the call is assigned the higher of the two priority designators in question.
“Priority 1” designates critical, in progress dispatches. These are incidents that pose an obvious danger to the life
of an officer or citizen. It is used for felony crimes in-progress where the possibility of confrontation between a victim
and suspect exists. Examples include injury traffic accidents, fights, prowlers, shootings, stabbings, robberies or
burglaries.
“Priority 2” designates immediate dispatches. These calls include “Priority 1” calls that are not actually in progress
(just occurred) but still requiring an accelerated police response. Examples include silent alarms, non-injury traffic
accidents, harassment, verbal disputes, suspicious persons/vehicles, trespassing or crimes so recent that the
suspect may still be in the immediate area.
“Priority 3” designates all calls or requests for service not indicated as “Priority 1” or “Priority 2”, unless individual
circumstances dictate a stronger priority. Examples include barking dogs, parking complaints, lost/found property
and public assists.
* The times reflected are from the time the call is dispatched by SnoCom until the
time the officer arrives.
Packet Page 87 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
27
Departmental Accountability
Complaints against Officers
Complaints against police officers can originate from the public or be initiated internally by police department
personnel. When a complaint is made, the respective Assistant Chief of Police, who reports directly to the Chief, will
review the complaint and determine the level of complaint investigation called for depending upon the allegation and
the extent of the information available. Upon completion of the review of the charges in a complaint, utilizing the
preponderance of the evidence standard, the matter shall be classified by the Chief of Police or designee, as
follows:
a. Exonerated – defined as; the conduct or action occurred but it was lawful, within policy, and
proper.
b. Unfounded – defined as; the alleged conduct did not occur.
c. Not Sustained – defined as; insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint.
d. Closed/Incomplete – defined as; the investigation could not be completed due to lack of
cooperation of complainant.
e. Sustained – defined as; the allegation was supported by proper and sufficient evidence and
constituted a violation of policy and/or law.
Note: Complaint reviews may also be withdrawn or suspended due to a withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant or
by the resignation of the officer prior to the complaint review being completed.
The following are the total numbers of internal and external complaints that were formally investigated by the
department involving conduct of Edmonds police officers and their dispositions:
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Number of Complaints * 20 19 16 10 10
Exonerated 6 6 4 1 4
Unfounded 2 0 5 2 1
Not Sustained 2 3 1 5 3
Closed/Incomplete 0 0 0 0 0
Sustained 7 6 7 11 4
Suspended/Withdrawn 3 3 2 0 0
Number of Police Contacts 36,114 30,898 31,840 30,673 30,506
*NOTE – The total number of complaints may not equal the sum of dispositions as one complaint may result in more
than one department member being investigated and/or more than one policy violation finding. One complaint was
still in process and being investigated at year’s end.
Of the four complaints resulting in a finding of “sustained” in 2010, all four resulted in disciplinary action being taken.
The discipline ranged from a written reprimand to suspension with loss of pay. Also of note is that of the ten total
complaints, four were generated internally by our own employees as part of the department’s efforts to ensure a high
level of professionalism and accountability; the remaining six were the result of citizen complaints.
Packet Page 88 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
28
This table represents each year’s total number of investigated complaints per 1000 police contacts under the
heading of “Response to Calls” on page 25.
Packet Page 89 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
29
Cost per $1,000 of Assessed Real Property Value
Cost per $1,000 of assessed real property value reflects the Edmonds Police Department’s annual budget (minus
jail costs) in relationship to the assessed real property values of Edmonds.
*Note – During the years 2005 and 2006, the Edmonds Police Department contracted with Stevens Hospital for
security service. The associated budget expenses for those services are included in the equation.
Packet Page 90 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
30
Calls for Service (Police Incidents) per Field Services Officer
Calls for service per patrol officer gives a picture of the average number of incidents one patrol officer responds to
within a year. The numbers below are for Field Services which include patrol, traffic, animal control/parking
enforcement, patrol corporals and patrol sergeants. Support Services, which includes non-patrol commissioned
officers (such as special duty officers/detectives and administrators), are not included in the equation.
*Note – During the years 2004 through 2006, the Edmonds Police Department contracted with Stevens Hospital for
security service. The associated police incidents handled by the contract security officers are included in those
years. In 2006, the Patrol Division went to a 12-hour work shift, however the total hours worked for the year
remained the same.
Packet Page 91 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
31
Commissioned Officers per 1,000 Residents
“Commissioned officers per 1,000 residents” shows how many commissioned police officers are employed by
Edmonds for every 1,000 residents. This number includes budgeted commissioned officers who work in command,
supervisory or other non-patrol related positions, but does not include professional (i.e. non-sworn) support staff.
One position was left unfilled following a retirement during 2009 as a cost saving measure due to City wide
budgetary issues and an additional two positions remained unfilled for the majority of 2010.
Packet Page 92 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
32
Police Services Assistants
The Edmonds Police Services Assistants are an integral part of the daily operations for the police department. The
Police Services Assistants are non-sworn personnel whose responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the logging
and tracking of all officer generated reports, the issuance of concealed firearms permits, processing of gun transfers,
the issuance of dog/cat licenses, initial counter contacts with the public, the routing of report requests from outside
agencies, phone responses to citizen inquiries, public fingerprinting requests and responding to public disclosure
requests.
In recent years, one of the most time consuming impacts on the Police Services Assistants has been the marked
increase in the number of public disclosure requests. Since tracking began in 2004, the number of public disclosure
requests made of the Edmonds Police Department has doubled and the department now receives on average 9
requests per day. Likewise, the number of firearms related requests (concealed firearms permits, gun transfers) has
nearly doubled since 2005. The volume of requests, coupled with the requisite time commitment to respond to each
one, has required the full-time dedication of one of the department’s five Police Services Assistants to the official public
disclosure function.
Packet Page 93 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
33
Glossary
Cleared by Arrest: Although not in every case is a suspect “arrested,” each suspect in a cleared case has been
recommended for criminal charges that may eventually result in an arrest or another form of punitive action (such as a
citation). Cases “cleared by arrest” are sent to either the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office or to the Edmonds City
Prosecutor’s Office with the officer’s or detective’s recommendation to file criminal charges. A prosecuting attorney is
solely responsible for the decision to formally file charges and prosecute defendants.
.
Citation: Often called a "ticket," a citation is a written document issued to a citizen who commits a crime or violates a law.
The citation describes the crime and/or the law that has been violated and identifies the punishment that has been
standardized by the court system (i.e., the standardized monetary amounts payable for traffic violations). While citations
proscribe a penalty for a crime, they may be challenged through the court system. They usually include instructions for
the cited citizen to appeal the citation.
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD): A computerized communication system used by emergency response agencies for
dispatching and tracking calls for emergency assistance.
Domestic Violence: Domestic violence is a subcategory of other crimes. Virtually any crime can be sub-classified as
domestic violence. In the State of Washington, domestic violence is defined as a crime of violence against the person or
property of a spouse, former spouse, persons related by blood or marriage, persons who have a child in common,
former/current roommates, persons who have or had a dating relationship, and persons related to the suspect by the
parent-child (biological or legal) relationship. In some cases, the age of the victim or suspect may determine whether or
not the legal definition is met.
Felony: Felony crimes are more serious in terms of either harm or loss to persons or property than misdemeanors, and
usually are punished by more restrictive methods (i.e. greater fines and/or incarceration) than citations. Felonies have
subclasses (A, B and C) that are based on the extent of harm to a person or the dollar value of loss or damage to
property.
Call Priorities and Response Times: When calls for police assistance are received by SnoCom, they are entered into
the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and given a “priority” based on the criteria described below. If the call
receiver is in doubt as to the appropriate priority, the call is assigned the higher of the two priority designators in question.
“Priority 1” designates critical, in progress dispatches. These are incidents that pose an obvious danger to the life of an
officer or citizen. It is used for felony crimes in-progress where the possibility of confrontation between a victim and
suspect exists. Examples include injury traffic accidents, fights, prowlers, shootings, stabbings, robberies or
burglaries.
“Priority 2” designates immediate dispatches. These calls include “Priority 1” calls that are not actually in-progress (just
occurred) but still requiring an accelerated police response. Examples include silent alarms, non-injury traffic
accidents, harassment, verbal disputes, suspicious persons/vehicles, trespassing or crimes so recent that the suspect
may still be in the immediate area.
“Priority 3” designates all calls or requests for service not indicated as “Priority 1” or “Priority 2”, unless individual
circumstances dictate a stronger priority. Examples include barking dogs, parking complaints, lost/found property and
public assists.
Misdemeanor: Crimes that inflict harm or loss but to a lesser extent than a felony (e.g., assault fourth degree or simple
assault). Misdemeanors usually are punished through monetary payment via a citation and/or other restrictions (such as
restraining orders or no trespass orders), although the court may impose jail time.
Packet Page 94 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
34
Part I Crimes: This is a category of crimes established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It includes criminal
homicide (which includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter; but excludes deaths by negligence, attempts to kill,
suicides, accidental deaths, justifiable homicide, and traffic fatalities), forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Part I Crimes Against Persons: These crimes are also referred to as "violent crimes." They consist of criminal
homicide (as defined above), forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Murder - The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
Rape - The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will
Robbery - The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or
persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.
Aggravated Assault - An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or
aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to
produce death or great bodily harm.
Part I Crimes Against Property: These are burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Burglary - The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft.
Larceny-theft - The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or
constructive possession of another.
Motor vehicle theft - The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self-propelled and runs on
land surface and not on rails. Motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment are
specifically excluded from this category.
Arson - Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house,
public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.
Part II Crimes: This is a category of crimes consisting of all other crimes not included in the Part I Crimes category. Part
II crimes vary due to differences in local laws, but typically include one or more of the following crimes: all other assaults
(simple), forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement, stolen property (buying, receiving and/or possessing),
vandalism, weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.), prostitution and commercialized vice, sex offenses (including statutory
rape, indecent exposure, etc. but excluding forcible rape, prostitution and commercialized vice), drug violations,
gambling, offenses against families and children, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, liquor violations,
drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and others.
Packet Page 95 of 367
City of Edmonds Police
Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 2010
35
Data Sources
The data compiled in this report was collected from the following sources and, as such, is subject to the data standards
and limitations of the source agency:
• City of Edmonds Police contributed information regarding crime prevention activities, problem solving projects,
public communication and education efforts.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) annual statistical report Crime in the United States
• Washington State Office of Financial Management (demographic information)
• Edmonds Police Department contributed the following:
- Annual Statistical Report: counts for crimes against persons and property, domestic violence incidents,
collisions, adult and juvenile charges and arrests, average response time.
- Records Management System (RMS) system reports: total police contacts, DUI’s, traffic collisions, thefts and
attempted thefts from vehicles.
- Professional Standards Unit: regarding complaints investigated against officers or other police department
employees.
• Snohomish County Tax Assessor's Office (real property values)
• Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency (SnoCom) yearly dispatch statistics
• Edmonds Police Foundation web site
• FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook
Packet Page 96 of 367
AM-4037 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance approving a change in zoning for certain real property located at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds
Way from Residential Single Family (RS-8) to Residential Multifamily (RM-1.5).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the rezone ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
On June 21, 2011, the Council voted to approve the rezone in a closed record review of the Planning
Board's recommendation to approve the request (Exhibit 2).
Narrative
Please refer to the attachments.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Rezone Ordinance
Exhibit 2 - June 21 excerpt minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 06/30/2011 02:02 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 02:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 06/27/2011 11:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 97 of 367
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
AND APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR TWO
PARCELS LOCATED AT 9511 AND 9513 EDMONDS WAY
FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-1.5); AUTHORIZING
AMENDMENT OF THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP;
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning
Board, which after an open-record public hearing on May 11, 2011, is recommending approval
of a rezone of two parcels comprising 25,237 square feet, located at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds
Way from Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Multiple Residential (RM-1.5); and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the minutes of the hearing before the
Planning Board, which were attached to the council agenda memo as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Planning Division Advisory Report,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations dated May 4, 2011, which was attached to the
council agenda memo as Exhibit 2; and
WHEREAS, a closed-record hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation
was held by the City Council on June 21, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the two parcels are designated “Edmonds Way Corridor” in the
Comprehensive Plan; and
Packet Page 98 of 367
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the existing RS-8 zoning is not consistent with the “Edmonds Way
Corridor” designation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed RM-1.5 zoning would be consistent with the “Edmonds
Way Corridor” designation; and
WHEREAS, the properties at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way are legally described
and depicted in a topographic survey dated March 11, 2010, and included as Attachment 3 to the
Planning Division Advisory Report, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations dated May 4,
2011; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council agrees with the Planning Board’s analysis
that the proposed rezone is in the public interest and satisfies all applicable criteria of the
Edmonds Community Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. For its findings and conclusions in support of the rezone effected by
this ordinance, the City Council hereby adopts by reference the findings and conclusions
contained in the Planning Division Advisory Report, Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations dated May 4, 2011 (File No. PLN-2011-0005).
Section 2. The two parcels located at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way, Edmonds,
Washington and legally described on the attached topographic survey dated March 11, 2010
(Exhibit A) are hereby rezoned from Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Multiple Residential
(RM-1.5). Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by this reference as if herein set forth in full.
Packet Page 99 of 367
- 3 -
Section 3. The Community Services Director or his designee is hereby
authorized and directed to make appropriate amendments to the Edmonds Zoning Map in order
to properly designate the rezoned property as RM-1.5 pursuant to Section 2 of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. 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.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 100 of 367
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS AND APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR TWO PARCELS
LOCATED AT 9511 AND 9513 EDMONDS WAY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS-8) TO MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-1.5); AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE
CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 101 of 367
- 5 -
Exhibit A
See attached topographic survey
Packet Page 102 of 367
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
5
o
f
9
5
9
"lJ r» z::::
I ill
1\.)0
O:::r
~3
I CD
O::J 0-ow
U1
~.M "",.
~1
j
MERIDIAN
DEED
GRAPHIC SCALE
-~ • ....LU T
(INILL'J
1 Irod> ~ 20 II.
LEGAL DESCRIPT10N
~ ON""i'~ _ u ------~ "",~"' _ ,_s .. ~-----8'a2~ A r,,,,,,41011c, Qr.-JS& 31
S,r7ri:~&
rl ..... C«c·41~I_ri"'"
r_~'O-OII-09
PARCEL A
OlLOVrttiO O£SCRIB~D TRACY
;T UtiE OF aD FOOT RICHT or
IOMISH CClVtiTT BY OEW
IAISH COUNTY RECOROED N
ro ....... IC.1It<>oa
r:=:~i::
/
/
./
./
./
/
/
./
/
/
/
/
/
./
./
./
0<"
ritJ,·_-
. [~<tJ-.
\ ........ POI'''' B --, , ....... ---',
/
/
/
./
/
./
./
"
./
./
/
./
./
/
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
...-...-,-,-,-
...-...-
...-...-------
PRQPEItT'V CORNERS
Sot T~ r ... lead _/.0(,1. lS 30581
Set RCibel .6:: COP. lS 30581
Set a,taQ wi Toq. lS 305al. (l' 0((110:1
s.t IoIoq w/ Too;!. t.S 30561. t(1 aU,"t
s.t flOPor ~ CQI)., lS:505at
f"out>d 1/2-Clp.co<> P. 1,32' C 011: 0.00' S
-------------------
TREE DESCRIPTIONS
At Ald« (IolrIu,.) C Coder {CO(Iruu} 0 OKidl./QUII
EW 6Co t'C'Of ~Ie {~( IllQl;(Ot)h)ilutn) R jtQ,,1i
tH 0-..,), (P ..... ,. .... C"'·O .... II.) u.. HoII)' {Un aqu!foltuml
Of O<)l,l~OIl. fir (Pseu40I:ilUQO .... 1I,.~1i)
SURVEY IIOTES
INSlRUloiENT Usro: SOI<I<V. SO 5 (01.1
t.I£T\-tOO Usen: flElD'lfl'A'd:fJSL:
WPRQ)clI.l,4lt POINT ~AC,¥:: ±o.05'
SUR'w£'1 "'EETS OR EXC£EOS STA"TE STANOAADS PER WAC
337"_1'0-090.
WONUt.l'NTS; SI-IO\IIN t«;RtOI't '<I£IlE '4$11(0 ON. OCToaEfJ e. :200ll.
TliE INrOR'IoIA TiCX't SHOV!N t.
l.H "'ARIC: PQr-oT !'tAMe: SC::Sl fOl,n'<1 2-Bfa" 016k I,.
1.100 C ..... ±G' S of ,,/t p ..... l '" _lbDU:>d lro ... t .. _ of
92r>d A...: W. Obi< ~ 0.1' Pdc... QOveo lIurlo=. A ... •
hiqh foe COt b<e0l:J S eo-w. 35.9 f(om pt. PP ./
luml .. ofr 000tf/: S "5· (. 32.0 (torn P,t. Ele><: 291.SI"c.
0
III < tf1
5
("')v
oS: c:::m zz -1-1
~oo rn :n
S
Cj m
(f)
-n
rT'1
iJO
0
C;,:)
~ c::> ......,.
---'"'
---
-~
BCOINNINC AT A POINT ON Tl-lt NOffTI-I LiNt or T~C
NORTH HAlr CK THE NORTHEASl OUARTER or THE
NORTHtAST QUARTeR Of stCllON '0. TOV¥N'5i'<iP 27
NOOTH. RANCE 3 C';'ST, .M •• RrCORDS or SNOHOIAISH
COONTY. WASHINCTON. OISlANT NORTH S8'12'27~ EAST
294.17 fECT rROM lHI: NOR111\1it:ST COONER or S,t.J[)
NOA'TH HALf AND RUNNIN(;;
THeNCE SOOTH 2'54'OS~ [AST 139.48 HET 10 THE
NORTHWESTERL'1 MARCIN Of THE COUNT'1 ROAD:
lHtNC£ N(lRTHEASTtRLV. EASTERL'f ,4.ND S(lUTI-I£';'STERlY
.AlONC Ttit S';'IO hi.r.RCIN ON A CURVC 10 THC RIOI-Il
HAVINC A RADIUS or .(40.28 FEET. WHOSE T,t.NCENT AT
T1415 POINT stAAS NORTH 'lT41$"'l~ CAST). OI'$T).Nct
Of "'~.15 fEEl;
TtiCNC£ LeAVlNC SAID RO"D NORTH 2~4'0:)~ 'IIt'ST 93,0
fCCT TO ). POlNl ON lHt NORTH LINt or 5).10 NORTH
HAU', A 015T~1 SOO114 aa"Z·27· 'M:Sf M~CO freT
fROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER or s,t.J[) NOIHH H~r:
THENC£ SOUTH 88'12'2''-WEST 335.00 f[ET TO 1~[
o TO SNCliOIAISH
BY octo ReCORDCD IN
• p,A.Ct 578 UNDER
IRDINO NO. 221HIQO:l
}.lL THAT PORlION OF Ti'l£ NORn-i HALf or lHC
NCR1H£AST OUAA1ER OF THE NOR1HE:ASl OUARTER Of
stellON 36, lO'M'lSHIP 27 NCRn-i. f'JoNCt 3 UST, W.M.,
RECORPS Of SNQt1Oio1ISti COON1Y, WAStlINCTON.
OESCRIBCO ).s rOLLOWS
BCOINNINCl ).T TtlC NOR1H¥lCST CORNCR Of s,o.to
SlIBOI\l1StOti;
TH~C£ N~TH 1StJ'12'27~ tASl ALONe THE NORTH LINE
CF 5).10 'Sl.lQI)I"o'ISION 207 e.g rctl TO 'I)-i( If'1JC POINT
a' eCCiIllNm:
"l14~E CONTINUC ).LONO SI<IO NOl"H UN!: NOIllH
.!I8"2·27~ CASf zso.4t1: rtEl;
139.046 frET, MORC OR
M,A.f~ClN CS THE stA T1L(
_ _ .Y "LONe THE NORTH£Rt.. Y NARCIN
CHWAY TO A f'OIttT Y/tiICH SEARS SOUTH
2'5-4'05~ EAST TO TtlC TRUE POINT Of SrQNNNO:
EXct?T lHAl PORTlON L'flNO SOUlHE",STERL'f OF THE
fOLlO'l'ilNC O(SCRIS£D UNC:
eEClNN~ .... 1 A PooT 40 I'EET t-+ORTHV.t:SlERLY "NO
OPPOSITE H~WAY o.QNEER'S SlATICN (HERDNAflER
RErERRED TO loS H,[.S.) :t26+00 WH~N MeASURED'
RlCHT ANCl£S MiO/OO RAOr}.lLY FRCM THE conc
(F ~ 104, ED~ :)TH A'IIOIUt TO 2.Jdll"l $lRl
sotJ'fl'l'M:ST:
"lHCNCE NOInHEASTCRL.Y PJoRM.L.El. TO A DlSTANCC .....
040 FEET NOOTli'AESTERL Y 'IItlEN NEASUfftD A RIQn
ANCl.r$ ANO/OR' R,lOt,i.1.l 'J FRO ... SAID COflERlINE '10 A
POINT Of'POSI"l( !i.E.S. t26-+9O; ititNC( NOfHHE).ST[RLY
IN A STRAiCHl UN( TO A POINT 50 FlIT
NOO1H'llESTERL Y ,i.ND OPPOSITE tU.s. 12'7+",0 'M'lEN
MEASURED AT RKlHl ANCL£S J.ND/OO RADIALLY fROM
SAO CENTERLINE:
Tli£NCE NORTHEASTERLY PAR,4.U.EL TO ANO A DISTANCE
OF 50 FEn NOOTHW(SlERt 'f 'MiEN N£ASUREO AT FllQIl
NoIOlES I>I>D/Ofl RJoOl"'U.'f fRa..t SJO.jD CCN1CRLINC '10).
POINT OPPOSIT( !i.£,S. 12&+00 AND ltiE £NO or THIS
UNC DCSCRIPTION. AS CCNVEYCO TO THC Sl).Tt: Of'
WASHNGTOf'.l UNDER S/'iQliQ,lI'5H COIJN1Y fI:(CUROING NO.
2186202.
sm.IATt ~ 1H£ ~ty Of SNOH(It-iISI-I. STAlE Of
W!.SliN01OH •
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Land Company. LLC/Ellio\\
9511-9513 Edmonds Wcy
Edmonds. WA 98020
Packet Page 103 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #125807 THROUGH #125979 DATED JUNE 9, 2011
FOR $468,373.55, AND CLAIM CHECKS #125980 THROUGH #126142 DATED JUNE 16,
2011 FOR $416,828.44.
D. AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER
AGENCIES FOR DISPOSAL OF BIOSOLIDS FROM THEIR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS.
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE TO DEVELOP CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, SCOPE AND COSTS FOR PROJECTS
LISTED IN THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK FORUM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
F. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 26, 2011 FOR THE 226TH ST. SW WALKWAY
PROJECT AND AWARD A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,840.00 TO
NORTHEND EXCAVATING, INC.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #9 WITH
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT.
H. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 2, 2011 FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT,
AWARD A CONTRACT TO TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,368,721.50 AND REAUTHORIZE $294,000 OUT OF REET 125 TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECT.
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET ENGINEERING FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL
PROJECT.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN (2) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT (PUD)DOCUMENTS FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT.
K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PITNEY
BOWES FOR POSTAGE METER EQUIPMENT.
L. SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE, 2011-2012 INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT.
M. RESOLUTION NO. 1251 – TO REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR
THE LIFT STATION 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION TO
READVERTISE THE PROJECT.
3. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE A REZONE FOR TWO PARCELS COMPRISING 25,237 SQUARE FEET (0.58
ACRES) FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS-8 TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY
RM-1.5 AT 9511 AND 9513 EDMONDS WAY. (FILE: PLN-2011-0005).
Mayor Cooper opened the closed record hearing and reviewed the procedures. He explained an open
record hearing had already been held before the Planning Board. Because this is a closed record hearing,
consideration will be limited to review of the record created before the Planning Board; only those who
participated in the Planning Board will have an opportunity to speak. Anyone speaking may not introduce
new facts that were not presented to the Planning Board. The City Council will act in a quasi judicial
capacity on this agenda item, acting as judges and not legislators. In order to ensure the hearing is fair in
form and appearance, Councilmembers will be asked to make certain disclosures in response to a series of
questions:
Packet Page 104 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 3
• Do any Councilmembers have an interest in this property or issue? Councilmembers all
responded no.
• Do any Councilmembers stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of
this hearing? Councilmembers all responded no.
• Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? Councilmembers all responded
yes.
• Has any member of the Council engaged in communication outside the hearing with opponents or
proponents on this issue to be heard? Councilmembers all responded no.
Mayor Cooper asked whether any Councilmember planned to recuse themselves from participation on
this issue? Councilmember Petso advised she did not intend to recuse herself but wanted the City
Attorney to respond to a question she asked him yesterday. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed
Councilmember Petso’s Appearance of Fairness question regarding whether she could participate in this
hearing in light of the fact that she participated in a similar rezone application hearing in 2002 that
affected this same property. He advised her that she can participate in this hearing because the application
today is different and the primary difference is there is a different underlying Comprehensive Plan
designation for this property than existed in 2002. One of the most significant aspects of hearing a rezone
application like this is analyzing the rezone application in light of the Comprehensive Plan designation for
the property. Because the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is different than it was in
2002, there is a significantly different set of facts. He advised Councilmember Petso that in his opinion it
was not problematic for her to participate in this proceeding. He noted Councilmember Plunkett may have
also participated in the 2002 hearing. He asked audience members if there were any objections to
Councilmembers Petso’s and/or Plunkett’s participation. There no objections voiced.
Mayor Cooper asked whether there were any objections to his participation as chair or any other
Councilmembers’ participation? There were no objections voiced.
Planner Mike Clugston advised the agenda memo contained four exhibits:
Exhibit 1: May 11, 2011 Planning Board minutes of the public hearing
Exhibit 2: Staff Report for PLN-2011-0005
Exhibit 3: Parties of Record at the Planning Board public hearing
Exhibit 4: Presentation given at the Planning Board public hearing
Mr. Clugston displayed an aerial photograph of the site, identifying the location at the intersection of
Edmonds Way, 95th Place West and 228th Street. The parcels are currently zoned RS8, single family
residential 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. That zoning designation is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site which was changed in 2005 to Edmonds Way Corridor. The
applicant has proposed to rezone the two parcels to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
He reviewed the six criteria to approve a rezone:
• Agreement with the Comprehensive Plan
• Agreement with the zoning ordinance
• Whether it impacts the surrounding area
• Changes in the general area of the rezone
• Suitability of the proposed site
• Relative value of the action
The Planning Board reviewed the six criteria and unanimously concluded all six criteria were met. The
Comprehensive Plan designation, Edmonds Way Corridor, is not compatible with the single family
zoning. Zones that would be compatible include residential multi-family as the applicant has proposed as
Packet Page 105 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 4
well as Business Commercial, Business Plan and Neighborhood Business. The applicant has indicated
residential multi-family would be more appropriate for the site given its location adjacent to single family.
Mr. Clugston reviewed the intent of the RM zoning to preserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing
types and a greater range of densities than are available in the single family residential zone while still
maintaining the residential environment and to provide for those additional uses that compliment and are
compatible with multiple residential areas. The applicant has not indicated what would be developed on
the site; the RM zone generally envisions multi-family dwelling units. With a Conditional Use Permit,
other uses would be allowed such as a retirement home, group home, and office. When a development
application is submitted, it will be reviewed against all applicable codes including the uses in the RM
zone.
Mr. Clugston explained there is an existing Community Transit stop along the site’s southern boundary
on Edmonds Way and it is located east of the Westgate area. Multi-family development in that area is
encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan and makes sense because it is a walkable area with existing
utilities and access.
With regard to changes, there have been changes along SR-104 in the recent past. As a result of a request
in 2007, the two parcels west of the proposed rezone were rezoned on the basis of the 2005
Comprehensive Plan update. Westgate Chapel also recently expanded their parking lot. With regard to
whether the parcel is economically suitable for the change, he indicated it does appear to be suitable due
to good transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities and the Westgate shopping area.
With regard to value, there would likely be increased value to the property owner via additional dwelling
units and the City’s GMA responsibilities indicate changes in zoning in this area are preferred because
infrastructure and services already exist in the area.
Mr. Clugston summarized the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the rezone request.
Councilmember Petso referred to the surrounding area criteria, observing the property immediately across
the street to the north is single family residential. She asked if that would suggest minimum density multi-
family zoning rather than maximum density multi-family zoning. Mr. Clugston responded that would be
an option; there are multiple zoning options based on the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council had that option given the applicant applied for the maximum
density multi-family zoning. Mr. Clugston suggested the Council would need to deny the proposed rezone
request and ask the applicant to return with a lower density rezone request. Councilmember Petso asked
whether the Council could continue the hearing to a future meeting. Because this is a closed record review
of a Planning Board recommendation, Mr. Taraday advised the Council to take action on this proposal
and if denied, the applicant would have the choice to submit a proposal for a lower density multi-family
zoning. He pointed out the bulk standards of all the multi-family zones are identical; the way they differ is
the number of allowed units.
Councilmember Petso observed access to the site would be from 228th, the residential street. Mr. Clugston
answered that was the probable location. There is an existing bus stop on SR-104 to the south. The
applicant will need to work with WSDOT to determine whether access on the south side would be
allowed. He envisioned access would be to the north, from 228th. Councilmember Petso noted the
Comprehensive Plan asks for access to be from SR-104, not the residential neighborhood. Mr. Clugston
answered that is generally correct but also recognizes in some instances access can occur from residential
streets if there is no other way to provide access.
Councilmember Petso asked if the site is served by a park. Mr. Clugston answered Westgate Elementary
is approximately ¼ mile away to the north. He was unsure whether it was served by a park.
Packet Page 106 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 5
Applicant
John Bissell, JBA Consultants, representing the applicant and property owner, explained the
Comprehensive Plan designates this site for a number of possible zones; the current zoning is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. According to GMA, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning must
be consistent. He explained RM 1.5 is the multi-family zoning used on the Edmonds Way Corridor. When
SR-104 enters Snohomish County, there is a similar multi-family zoning. Their request is for the zone
consistent with the other RM zone used in the area. Those zones are also adjacent to single family
residential RS 8 zones; therefore, their proposal is not different than the remainder of the corridor.
Mr. Bissell explained the applicant did not request the BC zone although the map shows a BC zone one
lot away to the west and a commercial zone across the street to the east. Although the commercial zone
appears compliable on the map, on the ground directly across the street from the commercial zone is
Westgate Chapel’s auxiliary parking lot in the RS 8 zone. He summarized they chose multi-family instead
of commercial because it seemed a more compatible use and the multi-family residential they chose is
consistent with multi-family residential across the street and throughout the corridor.
Mr. Bissell agreed with Mr. Clugston’s review of the rezone criteria. In response to Councilmember
Petso’s questions, he explained it was his understanding that although this is a quasi judicial hearing, a
rezone is still a legislative issue. A rezone that originates as an application requires a closed record review
compared to a rezone that is initiated by the City which is purely a legislative issue. Because it is a rezone
rather than a variance that is mandated to have only one open record hearing, he assumed there would be
an option to remand to the Planning Board in addition to approval/denial. The information they submitted
to the Planning Board shows the application complies with all the criteria and brings the zoning of the
parcels into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He preferred the application be approved but that
remand could be an option.
With regard to bulk standards, Mr. Bissell stated in most jurisdictions a higher density residential zoning
also includes an increase in height. That is not the case in Edmonds; the height remains the same. In
Edmonds the difference with a higher density multi-family zoning is the units get smaller and therefore
the visual and bulk impact is approximately the same. The Planning Board asked if more units would
create more traffic. The ITE manual indicates decreasing the size of units also decreases the average trip
generation as there are typically fewer residents per unit. Because Edmonds bulk standards do not change
with increased density and the unit sizes are decreased, the impact to the adjacent land is negligible.
Therefore there is not a substantial difference in the impact between RM 3, RM 2.4 and RM 1.5.
With regard to access location, Mr. Bissell explained a sight distance study has not been conducted. The
Traffic Engineer believes there is probably adequate sight distance at the western end of the property if
access was needed on SR-104. It is possible WSDOT will not grant an access permit for that location
because it is not a great location for access. If access is not possible on SR-104, access will be taken on
the adjacent residential street.
Mr. Bissell asked for clarification regarding Councilmember Petso’s question regarding whether the site
is served by a park. Councilmember Petso noted that discussion was not in the record. Mr. Bissell advised
the SEPA Checklist covers park locations but it was not specifically discussed by the Planning Board.
Mayor Cooper opened the opportunity for comment from parties of record.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled he suggested at the Planning Board public hearing that they approve
the proposed rezone because the area is fairly dense, accomplishes smaller units, and is in close proximity
to shopping and transit. For an area that has never developed due to the odd location, he could not have
envisioned a better proposal.
Packet Page 107 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this item was quasi judicial and legislative as Mr. Bissell suggested.
Mr. Taraday answered it was a hybrid in that any rezone must occur via ordinance and therefore has a
legislative component. However, because it is a site specific rezone it is quasi judicial. The issue of
remand is addressed by the City’s code. He asked whether the applicant was willing to waive in writing
the requirement for a decision within the time period set forward in the RCW; if so, remand is an option.
If the applicant was willing to provide a written waiver, it would be possible to continue the hearing and
defer a final decision until the written waiver was provided and the City Council could remand to the
Planning Board. Mr. Bissell answered if the Council is not in agreement and decides the application is not
what the Council wants, they prefer a remand over denial and will provide a written waiver.
Mayor Cooper asked whether any audience member wished to object to any information provided on the
basis it was new information not in the original record. There were no objections voiced.
Mayor Cooper closed the hearing and remanded to Council for deliberation.
Councilmember Petso commented on the applicant’s observation that if 16 units were approved, it would
not necessarily generate twice as much traffic as 8 units. She was confident on this site the traffic would
end up on the residential street in front of the existing single family residential. For that reason maximum
multi-family residential zoning was not appropriate. She agreed with multi-family zoning due to the
availability of transit but could not approve maximum multi-family density under criteria 3 and 5 for this
site. This site is different than other properties on SR-104 because the other sites access from SR-104 and
not a neighborhood street.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION.
Councilmember Buckshnis appreciated Councilmember Petso’s concerns but felt more density was
appropriate in areas served by transit to attract younger adults and seniors or others interested in smaller,
more affordable housing. She agreed a traffic study would be important.
Council President Peterson echoed Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments, pointing out there is a transit
stop in front of this property. Smaller units would attract younger people and seniors who are more likely
to take advantage of transit. That would mitigate traffic concerns as well as address goals in the
Comprehensive Plan related to sustainability. Encouraging people to use public transportation is great for
the neighborhood and the environment.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to ECDC 20.40 that provides 5 tests that must be met for an applicant
to be adjudicated as a determinant of non-significance. Neither young people nor sustainability is
addressed by those five standards. The Council has been told the access will probably be from the
residential street. Because the request is for maximum density, it fails to meet the surrounding area test
and the Comprehensive Plan test due to access from a residential street. The location of the property
adjacent to single family residential suggests maximum density zoning fails to meet the standards. He
preferred to remand so the applicant could propose a density that would meet the tests.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roy Chapel, Edmonds, requested the Council’s support of the Complete Streets ordinance. The
ordinance describes well where Edmonds wants to go as a city and does a great deal for Edmonds. First
and foremost the Complete Streets ordinance is about safety, safety for pedestrians, runners, bicyclists,
and children traveling to and from school and other destinations. Second, the ordinance helps Edmonds
citizens stay fit; walking, running and biking to schools, stores and work become more reasonable if
Packet Page 108 of 367
AM-4038 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code by repealing and reenacting the
provisions of Chapter 20.50 (Wireless Communications Facilities) and amending other references and
definitions as necessary.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the attached ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
After holding a public hearing, the City Council voted 7-0 to approve the code changes on June 7, 2011
(Exhibit 2).
Narrative
This is an ordinance implementing the Council's action of June 7, 2011, to amend the Edmonds
Community Development Code to enact an update of the city's wireless regulations.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Wireless Ordinance
Exhibit 2 - June 7 excerpt Council minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 06/30/2011 02:04 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 02:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 06/27/2011 12:00 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 109 of 367
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES, REPEALING AND READOPTING CHAPTER
20.50 ECDC, AMENDING AND REPEALING
CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS AND REFERENCES
ELSEWHERE IN THE ECDC, PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, beginning in April 2010, the Planning Board began to examine the existing
siting and appearance requirements for wireless communications facilities in Edmonds as
requested by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, initially, it was felt that minor changes to the existing code language in
ECDC 18.05 (Utility Wires) and ECDC 20.50 (Wireless Communications Facilities) would be
sufficient to provide the additional clarification and protection that the Council was looking for
regarding siting and visual impact; and
WHEREAS, it quickly became clear that the City’s existing wireless regulations were
largely outdated and therefore needed to be re-evaluated in a more comprehensive way; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board’s work included extensive reading and discussion about
the technology used by the wireless industry, how other jurisdictions regulate wireless facilities,
and a driving tour of the wireless sites in the City to become better acquainted with the
technology currently in place in Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board’s work led to the creation of an updated proposed
wireless communications facility regulation which integrated newly learned information, as well
as pertinent code from chapter 18.05 ECDC, into proposed chapter 20.50 ECDC; and
WHEREAS, the proposed permitting framework brings chapter 20.50 ECDC in line with
the recently approved changes to land use permitting in Title 20; and
WHEREAS, the proposed wireless communication facility regulations were also
reviewed by the Architectural Design Board; and
Packet Page 110 of 367
2
WHEREAS, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Board, the City
Council held a public hearing on the proposed wireless communication facility regulations on
June 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed wireless communication facility
regulations will protect the public interest to the extent allowed by federal law; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repealer. Chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is
hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. Re-adoption of Regulations for Wireless Communication Facilities. A
new chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby adopted to read as
set forth in Attachment A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as
if set forth in full.
Section 3. ECDC 18.05.000, entitled “Scope,” is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline, deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
18.05.000 Scope.
A. This chapter shall be interpreted to require all new, or extended utilities to be
underground, except when exempted by this section.
1. “Utilities” shall mean all equipment used to deliver services by a utility such as
electricity, telephone or cable television.
2. “Common utilities” shall mean utilities which serve more than one lot or commercial
development.
3. “Private utility services” shall mean the utilities which connect a lot or commercial
development with common utilities.
4. “Utility” shall mean the person, agency, corporation or other organization providing
utility service.
Packet Page 111 of 367
3
5. “Existing utility use” shall mean the existing utility service as judged in three
categories: number of poles, number of lines and height of poles within the project area for
which the permit is sought.
6. “New or extended utilities” shall mean only utilities which are being built or extended
to serve a new commercial, industrial, or multifamily residential development which has not had
that type of utility service, or to serve a new single-family residential subdivision.
a. This definition shall not include:
i. Temporary extensions of service for construction purposes;
ii. Additions to any existing aboveground utility system where such additions are not for
the purpose of serving new commercial development or a single-family residential subdivision;
nor
iii. Rebuilding or replacing existing common utilities; provided, that the rebuilt or
replaced structures do not expand the existing utility’s use within the project area by 10 percent,
except as provided in chapter 20.50 ECDC 18.05.030(B)(3) for wireless facilities. “Expansion”
shall include the number and height of poles, as well as the number of wires or cable carried
thereon.
b. All utility services sought to be constructed as temporary services, additions or rebuilt
or replaced service shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a permit by the community services
director. Any utility service found to be a “new or extended” service or an “expanded” service
shall be reviewed as herein provided.
7. “Multifamily residential” shall mean development intended for use as apartments,
duplexes, condominiums, or planned residential development.
8. “Project area” shall mean the actual area in which the project is proposed and shall
include all structures or facilities actually, physically impacted by the improvement as well as
any necessary appurtenant or accessory structures.
B. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the underground requirement of ECDC
18.05.010, but are still subject to the design standards of ECDC 18.05.030.
Packet Page 112 of 367
4
1. Electric utility substations, padmounted transformers and switching facilities;
2. Electrical utilities of more than 55 kilovolts;
3. Communication utilities not located on or along a public street right-of-way or private
access easement;
4. Street light poles;
5. Telephone pedestals and similar devices;
6. Police and fire sirens, traffic-control devices and other similar municipal equipment;
7. Communication antennas which meet current FCC requirements, if any.
Section 4. ECDC 18.05.030 is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in
underline, deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
18.05.030 Design standards.
A. Underground Utilities.
1. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with all applicable national, state and city
standards.
2. Where different utilities are planned or required in the same corridor, each utility shall
make every effort to locate all the utilities in common joint trenches.
B. Aboveground Utilities.
1. The architectural design board shall review and make recommendations on all plans of
aboveground utilities before a building permit or other construction permit is issued. The review
of the board shall be limited to the following criteria:
a. All aboveground utilities except poles, appurtenances, and overhead pole lines shall be
enclosed within a building or shall be completely screened year round with a combination of
landscaping or walls, fences, etc.; provided that adequate access for use and maintenance through
said screening may be reserved by the utility.
Packet Page 113 of 367
5
a. Landscape screening shall be visually solid, and at least as high as the equipment to be
screened, within five years of the installation of the equipment.
b. The owner of the property on which the aboveground utilities are located or the owner
of the property abutting the right-of-way in which the aboveground utilities are located, shall
install and permanently maintain the enclosure and screening. Aboveground facilities needed for
underground utilities serving one single-family dwelling and low profile mini-pad transformers
are exempt from this screening requirement.
bc. Space frames and structures and conductors holding aboveground utilities shall have a
neat and uncluttered appearance.
2. Where the construction of any common or private utility service shall require a
variance from some other provision of the Edmonds Community Development Code, the
architectural design board shall note the need for a variance and shall defer any decision or
recommendation to the hearing examiner.
3. A PUD transmission pole may be extended or replaced with a new pole that is
increased in height to allow one wireless carrier to mount antennas on an existing structure. The
new pole height may be increased by no more than the sum of the height of the wireless antennas
plus 15 feet of vertical separation from the power lines. The 15-foot vertical separation is
intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between
their transmission line and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility
must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. PUD transmission
poles are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines.
4. No metal pole or tower shall be utilized in a single-family residential zone unless
required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of
height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be utilized
unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless
facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole.
5. At least 10 days prior to installation of a wireless facility on or atop a pole in a
residential neighborhood, either the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless
facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole.
Packet Page 114 of 367
6
Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business
days prior to the informational meeting. Failure to provide the notice and/or host the
informational meeting shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250.00.
Section 5. ECDC 16.20.040 is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in
underline, deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
16.20.040 Site development exceptions.
A. Average Front Setback. If a block has residential buildings on more than one-half of
the lots on the same side of the block, the owner of a lot on that block may use the average of all
the setbacks of the existing residential buildings on the same side of the street as the minimum
required front setback for the lot. Detached structures such as garages; carports; and uncovered
porches, decks, steps and patios less than 30 inches in height, and other uncovered structures less
than 30 inches in height shall not be included in the “average front setback” determination.
An applicant for such a determination shall provide a drawing which locates the street
property line for the entire block, as well as the existing street setbacks of all buildings required
to be used for the purpose of calculating the “average front setback.” The drawing shall be
prepared and stamped by a land surveyor registered in the state of Washington.
B. Eaves and Chimneys. Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not
more than 30 inches.
C. Porches and Decks. Uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may
project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet,
whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above ground level at any
point.
D. [reserved]Setback Adjustments. Chapter 20.50 ECDC contains a procedure for
adjusting distances and locations in special situations.
Packet Page 115 of 367
7
E. Corner Lots. Corner lots have no rear setback; all setbacks other than the street
setbacks shall be side setbacks.
F. Docks, Piers, Floats.
1. Height. The height of a residential dock or pier shall not exceed five feet above the
ordinary high water mark. The height of attendant pilings shall not exceed five feet above the
ordinary high water mark or that height necessary to provide for temporary emergency protection
of floating docks.
2. Length. The length of any residential dock or pier shall not exceed the lesser of 35 feet
or the average length of existing docks or piers within 300 feet of the subject dock or pier.
3. Width. The width of any residential dock or pier shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot
width when measured parallel to the shoreline.
4. Setbacks. All residential docks or piers shall observe a minimum 10-foot side yard
setback from a property line or a storm drainage outfall. Joint use docks or piers may be located
on the side property line; provided, that the abutting waterfront property owners shall file a joint
use maintenance agreement with the Snohomish County auditor in conjunction with, and as a
condition of, the issuance of a building permit. Joint use docks or piers shall observe all other
regulations of this subsection.
5. Number. No lot shall have more than one dock or pier or portion thereof located on the
lot.
6. Size. No residential dock or pier shall exceed 400 square feet.
7. Floats. Offshore recreational floats are prohibited.
8. Covered Buildings. No covered building shall be allowed on any residential dock or
pier.
Packet Page 116 of 367
8
Section 6. Subsection ECDC 19.00.025.R, which makes local amendments to Section
3108.1.1 to the International Building Code, is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is
shown in underline, deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
R. Section 3108.1.1, Radio, television and cellular communication related equipment and
devices, is added and reads:
A permit shall be required for the installation or relocation of commercial radio,
television or cellular tower support structures including monopoles, guyed or
lattice towers, whip antennas, panel antennas, parabolic antennas and related
accessory equipment, and accessory equipment shelters (regardless of size)
including roof mounted equipment shelters.
Section 7. The following sections of Title 21 ECDC, which contain various definitions
related to wireless communications facilities, are hereby repealed:
ECDC 21.05.035. Antenna.
ECDC 21.05.055. Attached wireless communication facility.
ECDC 21.15.035. Co-location.
ECDC 21.35.040. Guyed tower.
ECDC 21.55.005. Lattice tower.
ECDC 21.60.002. Macro facility.
ECDC 21.60.004. Micro facility.
ECDC 21.60.006. Mini facility.
ECDC 21.60.045. Monopole I.
ECDC 21.60.046. Monopole II.
ECDC 21.100.080. Transmission tower.
ECDC 21.115.022. Wireless communication facility.
ECDC 21.115.024. Wireless communication support structure.
Packet Page 117 of 367
9
Section 8. 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 9. 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.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 118 of 367
10
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, REPEALING AND READOPTING
CHAPTER 20.50 ECDC, AMENDING AND REPEALING
CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS AND REFERENCES
ELSEWHERE IN THE ECDC, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4829-3622-5033, v. 1
Packet Page 119 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 1 of 18
Chapter 20.50
Wireless Communications Facilities
20.50.010 Purpose.
20.50.020 Applicability.
20.50.030 Exemption.
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
20.50.050 General siting criteria and design considerations.
20.50.060 Permit requirements.
20.50.070 Application requirements.
20.50.080 Review timeframes.
20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards.
20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards.
20.50.110 Monopole facility standards.
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
20.50.130 Modification.
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
20.50.150 Maintenance.
20.50.160 Definitions.
20.50.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of
wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless
telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter may be achieved
through adherence to the following objectives:
1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless
communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on
aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight
corridors, and health and safety of persons and property;
2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless
telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with Federal and State
laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers;
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the extent
possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal;
4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and
allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary, to meet
functional requirements of the telecommunications industry as defined by the Federal
Communications Commission;
5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas;
6. Encourage and where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors and,
as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable
Packet Page 120 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 2 of 18
structures to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact
on the City;
7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the
adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through
careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging
techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future
available locations, innovative siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City;
8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the City to
use City property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other
public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the City;
9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such
services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned
or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a
mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be
removed as necessary, to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger;
11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through strict
compliance with State building and electrical codes; and
12. Provide a means for public input on wireless communication facility placement,
construction and modification.
B. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the zoning code,
existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location
of communication towers and antennas.
C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect
property values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of
enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply
with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to
and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless
services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate
between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services.
D. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other
City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed
consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City.
E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities,
the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly
filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an
application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written
record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in
accordance with Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), this
Chapter, the adopted Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and
regulations.
Packet Page 121 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 3 of 18
20.50.020 Applicability.
A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communications facilities shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede
all other review process, setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code.
B. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to ECDC 20.15A unless categorically exempt
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800.
20.50.030 Exemptions.
The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter:
A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation.
B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers.
C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC
16.20.050.D.
D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC
16.20.050.E.
E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone.
F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and
commercial zones.
G. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment,
transmission structure, or transmission equipment enclosures; provided, that the equipment,
structure or enclosures maintain compliance with the standards of this chapter. If the cost of
repair of a legally nonconforming equipment, structure and/or enclosure exceeds 50% of the
fair market value of the equipment, structure and/or enclosure, the repair shall be conducted
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
H. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit
application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until five
business days after the completion of such emergency activity.
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
A. The following wireless communications facilities are prohibited in Edmonds.
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations:
1. All residential zones [single family (SF) and multifamily (MF)];
2. Downtown Waterfront Activity Center;
3. Public (P) and Open Space (OS) zoned parcels; and
4. Within the City rights-of-way.
Packet Page 122 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 4 of 18
20.50.050 General Siting Criteria and Design Considerations.
A. The City of Edmonds encourages wireless communications providers to use existing sites or
more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of
taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred
locations for wireless communication facilities:
1. Co-location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon
which the facility would be located;
2. Co-location, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or
structure;
3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one;
4. A new pole or structure altogether.
B. Co-location shall be encouraged for all wireless communications facility applications and is
implemented through less complex permit procedures.
1. To the greatest extent technically feasible, applicants for new monopole facilities shall be
required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier.
2. Any Wireless Communication Facility that requires an conditional use permit (CUP)
under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from
any other facility requiring an CUP, unless the submitted engineering information clearly
indicates that the requested site is needed in order to provide coverage for the particular
provider and other siting options have been analyzed and proven infeasible.
C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible
beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Edmonds City Code
(ECC) Chapter 5.30, “Noise Abatement and Control”. A noise report, prepared by an
acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a
wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may
require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant.
D. Business license requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless
communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by
the City. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is
required to obtain a business license on an annual basis.
E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may
be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on
wireless communication facilities.
F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for
regular maintenance of the proposed facility.
G. Finish. A monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any
applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual
obtrusiveness.
H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors,
textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and
built environment.
I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than
monopoles shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color
Packet Page 123 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 5 of 18
of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually
unobtrusive as possible.
J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or
other government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting
options are permitted, the City shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design
that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type
is permitted on any monopole. If FAA guidelines would require a strobe, the location shall
be denied unless no other site or combination of sites would provide adequate coverage in
accord with FCC requirements.
K. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any
ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure.
L. Equipment enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to
contain the required equipment and a reserve for required co-location.
M. Radio frequency emissions compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will
not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC standards, including FCC
Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC
Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended.
Additionally, if the Director determines the wireless communications facility, as constructed,
may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications
Commission uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering
Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human
Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the
general population, the Director may require post-installation testing to determine whether to
require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and
mitigation shall be borne by the applicant.
N. Landscaping and screening.
1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and softened
through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole, facility
equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the antenna is
mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other
equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required. The Director
or his designee may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless
communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing
vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same
degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of
the facility would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots not capable
of subdivision and natural growth around the property perimeter provide a sufficient
buffer.
2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with ECDC 20.13.
Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be
used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The
following requirements apply:
a. Type I landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet
enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without
landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure.
Packet Page 124 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 6 of 18
b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width around the perimeter of the
enclosure.
c. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant.
d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts
with other surrounding utilities.
3. When landscaping is used, the applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to
ECDC 20.13.040.
4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or
wood fencing materials are preferred.
20.50.060 Permit Requirements.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility
subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this
Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in
addition to the applicable requirements of ECDC Title 20 and ECDC Title 18.
B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities
requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type
of project permit review, as shown in Table 20.50.060.B(1). In the event of uncertainty on
the type of a wireless facility, the Director shall have the authority to determine what permits
are required for the proposed facility. The Conditional Use Permit types referenced are
described in ECDC Chapter 20.01.
Table 20.50.060.B(1) – Permit Requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities
Permits Required
Type of Wireless Communications Facility
Building
Permit
Conditional
Use Permit
(CUP)
Right-of-
Way Permit
Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing monopole
X
Structure-mounted facilities (excluding co-location on existing monopole) X
(as
applicable)
X
(Type II)
X
(as
applicable)
Monopole facilities (structure complies with height requirement of the
underlying zone in ECDC Title 16)
X
Monopole facilities (structure exceeds maximum height of zone in ECDC Title
16)
X
X
(Type III-B)
Packet Page 125 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 7 of 18
C. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private
property, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director, or his designee. The Director of
Public Works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities
that are located partially or fully within the City rights-of-way. Regardless of whether the
Director or the Director of Public Works or their respective designees, are reviewing the
application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter.
D. All applications for wireless communications facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with
the applicable design standards by the Director or his designee.
E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate
governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,
Federal Aviation Administration, etc.).
F. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless
communication facility which minimize parking, landscaping or other site development
standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code.
G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible
for variances under ECDC chapter 20.85. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be
based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter.
H. Third party review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including
geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of
the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as
expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that
affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the
engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its
discretion require third party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting
process. The costs of the technical third party review shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the City. The third party
expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-
specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless
communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment
used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an
applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the
proposal. The third party review shall address the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant;
and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City.
J. Any decision by the Director or the Director of Public Works shall be given substantial
deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions,
or deny any application for a wireless communication facility.
K. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public
Works, or Hearing Examiner without the approval of the City.
Packet Page 126 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 8 of 18
L. Co-location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered
to increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase
to the height of a nonconforming monopole is allowed.
20.50.070 Application Requirements.
In addition to the requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, and those associated with the permit types
referenced in Section 20.50.060, the following information must be submitted as part of a
complete application for a wireless communications facility permit in the City of Edmonds:
A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co-location
analysis indicating the alternative locations and technologies considered;
B. Existing wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s
existing facilities and wireless coverage in the area;
C. Proposed wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s
wireless coverage with the proposed facility;
D. Site information on scaled plans, including;
1. Site plan
2. Elevation drawings
3. Undergrounding details, as applicable
4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in accordance
with ECDC 20.13), as appropriate
E. Photos and photo-simulations showing the existing appearance of the site and appearance of
the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints;
F. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050.C), if applicable;
G. Radio frequency emissions report for the proposed facility, which shall not be reviewed
further by the City;
H. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the Director in order to issue a decision.
20.50.080 Review Timeframes.
A. Co-located facilities (building- and structure mounted).
1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a
building or engineering permit, the City shall issue a final decision on the project within
90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The City shall have 30
days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed
incomplete, the City shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to
make the application complete. The City shall have 14 days from the receipt of the
additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information
as appropriate. Such decision shall be final and appealable only to Superior Court under
the Land Use Permit Act.
2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of
the City and the applicant if circumstances warrant.
3. For purposes of this section, “co-located facilities” includes any of the following types of
facilities:
Packet Page 127 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 9 of 18
a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing monopole, building or structure
for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for
communications purposes; or
b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a monopole. For
purposes of this section, “substantial increase in the size of a monopole” means:
1) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the monopole would increase the
existing height of the monopole by more than 10% or by the height of one
additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to
exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, provided, however, that the mounting of
the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if
necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas;
2) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than
the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not
to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter;
3) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to
the body of the monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more
than twenty feet, or more than the width of the monopole at the level of the
appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed
antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to
shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the
monopole via cable; or
4) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the
current monopole site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned
property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently
related to the site; or
c. Facilities that are a part of a Distributed Antenna System, provided that the
Distributed Antenna System connects to an existing tower or antenna. A Distributed
Antenna System, for the purposes of this section, is a network of spatially separated
antenna sites connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a
discrete geographic area or structure.
B. New monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use
permit shall meet the requirements of ECDC 20.05.
20.50.090 Building-Mounted Wireless Communication Facility Standards.
A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the
building shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the
building design, placed toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from
residential building views and from public views using radio frequency-transparent panels.
Building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with non-reflective
colors to match the existing surface where the antennas are mounted.
B. Height. The following requirements shall apply:
1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (as identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone,
antennas shall be flush-mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the
Packet Page 128 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 10 of 18
building on which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be
built to the maximum height of the zone provided they are screened consistent with the
existing building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Flush-mounted
antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the City right-of-way if a right-of-
way use agreement is established with the City. Antennas shall not project into the right-
of-way by more than two feet and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet
over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building-
mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine (9) feet above the top of the roof
on which the facility is located. This standard applies to all buildings regardless of
whether they are at or above the maximum height of the underlying zone. Such antennas
must be well integrated with the existing structure or designed to look like common
rooftop structures such as chimneys, vents and stovepipes.
C. Equipment enclosure. Equipment enclosures for building-mounted wireless communication
facilities shall first be located within the building on which the facility is located. If an
equipment enclosure within the building is reasonably unavailable then an equipment
enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height
requirement for the zone. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below
existing parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the
screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style
and material. Finally, if there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the
ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the
setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N.
D. Feed lines and coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of
the rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables are visible from a public right of way or
adjacent property, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building.
Acceptable Building Mounted WCF Unacceptable Building Mounted WCF
Packet Page 129 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 11 of 18
20.50.100 Structure-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards.
A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such
as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks shall be designed to blend
with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner.
1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned City rights-of-
way adjacent to single family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following
requirement:
a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-
family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of
the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the
surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State
Electrical Code.
2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with non-
reflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure.
B. Height.
1. The maximum height of structure-mounted wireless communication facilities shall not
exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights-of way
are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six (6) feet
above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed.
This includes installation of facilities on structures built at or above the maximum height
allowed in a specific zone, so long as the diameter of any portion of a wireless
communication facility in excess of the allowed height does not exceed the shortest
diameter of the structure at the point of attachment. The height and diameter of the
existing structure prior to replacement or enhancement for the purposes of supporting
wireless communication facilities shall be used to determine compliance with this
subsection.
2. Only one extension is permitted per structure.
3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical
separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any
pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended to
allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility’s requirements for separation
between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas.
C. Equipment enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the
enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other
feasible option but to locate the equipment enclosure above ground on private property, the
equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the
underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N.
D. Feed lines and coaxial cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the
color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas.
E. Only wireless communication providers with a valid right-of-way use agreement shall be
eligible to apply for a right-of-way construction permit, which shall be required prior to
installation of facilities within the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits
specified in this chapter.
Packet Page 130 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 12 of 18
20.50.110 Monopole Facility Standards.
A. New monopoles are not permitted within the City unless the applicant has demonstrated that:
1. Coverage objective – There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless
communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and
2. Alternatives – No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other
alternative technologies not requiring a new monopole in the City, can accommodate the
applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and
Acceptable Structure Mounted WCF Unacceptable Structure Mounted WCF
Packet Page 131 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 13 of 18
3. Least intrusive – The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and
located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values,
objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, ECDC Title 20, and the
Comprehensive Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area.
B. All monopole facilities shall conform to the following site development standards:
1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees,
existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities.
2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to
help conceal the facility.
3. Equipment enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located
underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be
underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the
ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the
setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N.
4. Feed lines, coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the
color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas.
C. Review criteria. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a new monopole
exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per
ECDC 20.05), and shall determine whether or not each of the above standards are met.
Examples of evidence demonstrating the Type III-B conditional use permit requirements
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage
objective;
Acceptable Monopole WCF
(Possible co-location
opportunity)
Acceptable Monopole WCF
Packet Page 132 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 14 of 18
2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the
geographic area that meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage
objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City);
3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly
be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to
meet its coverage objective;
4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support
the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities;
5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with
antennas on the existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures
would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna;
6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is
unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna
development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and
7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and
structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and
technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional
engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required.
D. Zoning setback exceptions.
1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet
setbacks identified in ECDC Title 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing
modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this section of concealing such
facilities from view.
2. The Director or Hearing Examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve
modifications to be made to setbacks when:
a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the
facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic
considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or
b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or
c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a
greater distance from residentially-zoned properties.
3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required
under the State Building Code or Fire Code.
4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is
submitted.
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
A. The installation of a “cell on wheels” or COWs and the installation site shall comply with all
applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, codes, including, but not limited to
the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code.
B. COWs may only be used in the immediate aftermath of declared emergencies in the City of
Edmonds in order to provide temporary wireless service. All COWs and related
Packet Page 133 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 15 of 18
appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site within thirty (30) days
of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the Mayor.
20.50.130 Modification.
The applicant and/or co-applicant may apply to alter the terms of a conditional use permit (CUP)
by modifying specific features of the wireless communication facility. If any of the following
changes are proposed or occur, such modifications must be submitted to the City as a new CUP
application. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of a wireless communication
facility (WCF), as described in ECDC 20.50.030.G
20.50.140 Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use.
A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless
communication facility, such carrier will notify the Director by certified U.S. mail of the
proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given
no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations.
B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication
facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of
operations.
C. Within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall
physically remove the wireless communication facility. “Physically remove” shall include,
but not be limited to:
1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening, cabling and
the like from the subject property.
2. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the City.
3. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre-permit condition, except
that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility operator may
remain in place.
4. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this
section, the City shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically
remove the facility. Costs for removal of the wireless communication facility shall be
charged to the wireless communication facility owner or operator in the event the City
removes the facility.
20.50.150 Maintenance.
A. The applicant shall maintain the WCF to standards that may be imposed by the City at the
time of granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting,
structural integrity, and landscaping.
B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the City of Edmonds may undertake
enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations.
Packet Page 134 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 16 of 18
20.50.160 Definitions.
A. Antenna.
A device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio-frequency signal.
Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: omni-directional (or “whip”),
directional (or “panel”), parabolic (or “dish”), and ancillary antennas (antennas not directly used
to provide wireless communication services).
B. Cell-on-wheels (COW).
Cell-on-wheels (COW). COWs are used to provide temporary service, usually for special
events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies.
C. Co-location.
Collocation means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or
structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for
communications purposes
D. Distributed Antenna System (DAS).
Distributed Antenna System (DAS). DAS is a network of spatially separated antenna sites
connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or
structure.
E. Guyed tower.
Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by
diagonal cables.
F. Lattice tower.
Lattice tower is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed
strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
G. Licensed carrier.
Licensed carrier is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build
and operate a commercial mobile radio services system.
H. Monopole.
Monopole. A freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the
ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities. Antenna(s) may be externally
mounted (visible antenna) or internally mounted (no visible antennae).
I. Satellite Earth Station Antenna.
A satellite earth station antenna which includes any antenna in any zoning district that:
1. Is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite
services, and that is one meter or less in diameter;
2. Is two meters or less in diameter in areas where commercial or industrial uses are
generally permitted;
Packet Page 135 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 17 of 18
3. Is designed to receive programming services by means of multi-point distribution
services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi-point distribution
services, that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and
4. Is designed to receive television broadcast signals.
J. Unlicensed Wireless Services.
Unlicensed Wireless Services. The offering of telecommunications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct-to-home satellite services..
K. Wireless communication facility.
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF). An unstaffed facility for the transmission and
reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides
services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile radio
services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the following
components:
1. Antenna;
2. Mount;
3. Equipment enclosure;
4. Security barrier.
L. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted.
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless communication facility
mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those antennas mounted on existing
monopoles.
M. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Camouflaged.
Wireless Communication Facility, Camouflaged. A wireless communication facility that is
disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed, or
lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure.
N. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Equipment Enclosure.
Wireless Communication Facility, Equipment Enclosure. A small structure, shelter, cabinet, or
vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless
communications signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency
generators.
O. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Monopole.
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Monopole. Wireless communication facility not
attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.010.
Does not include co-location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag
pole.
Packet Page 136 of 367
l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 18 of 18
P. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Related Equipment.
Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as
coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors.
Q. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted.
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless communication facility
located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles,
transformers, and/or tanks.
R. Wireless Communications Services.
Wireless Communications Services. Any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless telecommunications
services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized
mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and
similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future.
Packet Page 137 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2011
Page 3
She commented on the Reading with Rover program that encourages children to read by reading to a dog.
The library also has a teen area and offers after-hours gaming nights with electronic games and food. The
library has an area with books for sale by the Friends of the Edmonds Library; the funds provide money
for programs at the library. She commented on the ability to place a hold on items in the library’s
collection for pick up at the Edmonds Library.
Ms. Kaplan provided several photographs of the library including a puppet theater in the children’s area,
the view from the library, and comfortable chairs. The Library has been focusing services this year to do
the best for the demographic and recently changed their hours, opening at 9:00 a.m. Monday – Saturday,
closing at 8:00 p.m. Monday – Thursday, 6:00 p.m. Friday and 5:00 p.m. Saturday. Sunday hours are 1:00
– 5:00 p.m. She summarized a broad base of information was available at the library and she encouraged
everyone to visit the library.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the library is always busy when she visits to water the plants for
the Floretum Garden Club; it is a wonderful resource.
Ms. Kaplan reminded of the library renaming ceremony on Tuesday, June 21 at 5:00 p.m. to honor Peggy
Pritchard Olson. Mayor Cooper will cut the ribbon, and Sno-Isle Library Director Jonalyn Woolf-Ivory
and former Mayor Haakenson will speak.
4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND
PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (FILE NO.
AMD-2010-0004).
Associate Planner Michael Clugston explained the Council asked the Planning Board to consider wireless
regulations in early 2010. The Planning Board spent approximately one year reviewing the existing code
in Chapter 18.05 regarding unzoned right-of-way as well as Chapter 20.50 regarding wireless on zoned
parcels. After a number of meetings, it became clear a new framework was needed to integrate the codes
and include a number of updates identified during the review process. He provided the new framework
for the proposed regulation that includes new siting standards, new permitting requirements, review
timeframes, and divides wireless facilities into three categories, 1) building-mounted facilities, 2)
structure-mounted facilities and 3) ground-mounted facilities.
Mr. Clugston reviewed proposed prohibitions:
• Guyed or lattice towers in the City
• Monopoles in
o Residential zones
o Rights-of-way
o Public and Open Space zones
o Downtown Waterfront Activity Center as identified in the Comprehensive Plan
Additional design standards were added regarding:
• Co-location
• Noise
• Business license
• Signage
• Temporary parking
• Finish
• Design
• Color
Packet Page 138 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2011
Page 4
• Lighting
• Advertising
• Equipment enclosure
• RF compliance
• Landscaping and screening
Mr. Clugston reviewed wireless location preferences, advising wireless providers must demonstrate
during the application process how a location meets their needs and if co-location is not proposed, why
not:
1. Co-location of wireless antennas at existing wireless sites without an increase of height
2. Co-location at an existing site where additional height is necessary over existing
3. Placing antennas on a replacement pole or structure
4. Placing antennas on a new pole or structure altogether
He provided photographs of existing building-mounted facilities and described regulations for building-
mounted facilities:
• Downtown Waterfront Activity Center
o No extra height allowed
o Antennas flush-mounted to building
o Existing over-height buildings allowed
• All other locations
o 9-feet extra allowed
o Integrate antenna appearance
• Equipment cabinet and cabling must be screened or painted to match
Mr. Clugston displayed photographs of existing structure-mounted facilities and described regulations for
structure-mounted facilities:
• Includes utility pole retrofit language from ECDC 18.05: 15 foot separation distance, wood poles
required
• Allow extra 6 feet for antennas
• Equipment cabinet, antennas and cabling must be screened or painted to match
Mr. Clugston displayed photographs of monopole facilities. Regulations regarding monopoles include:
• Least preferred alternative
• Location restricted
• Equipment cabinet and cabling must be screened or painted to match
• Conditional Use Permit (Type III-B) required if height proposed is in excess of underlying zone
• Must meet setbacks of underlying zone; exception possible if new location retains existing trees
and open space, provides better screening, or moves facility further from residentially-zoned
property
Mr. Clugston reviewed proposed permitting for wireless facilities:
• Specific application requirements
• Type of permit depends on type of facility
o Building permit – co-location
o Engineering right-of-way permit – retrofits
o Conditional Use Permit (Type II for utility pole retrofits, Type II-B for monopole exceeding
height requirement of underlying zone
• Specific timeframes identified
• Design review with every application
Packet Page 139 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2011
Page 5
• SEPA, as required by RCW
• Co-location encouraged through simpler permit process
When this issue was presented previously at the May 3 meeting, the Council inquired about parking and
providing additional screening for monopole facilities. With regard to parking, Mr. Clugston explained
the applicant will be required to identify parking. With regard to using tree-like camouflage to obscure
monopole installations, he explained monopoles are the least preferred alternative and providers must
attempt to co-locate first. The proposed code identifies the finish of the pole, stating the monopole shall
either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be
painted a neutral color to reduce its visual intrusiveness. The definition of monopole allows antennas to
be internally or externally mounted. He envisioned in a well treed area, a green or brown pole would
blend better. He explained there are companies that provide camouflage to disguise monopoles as trees.
The agenda memo included links to several companies who provide that option. He was not aware of any
projects in Washington. He suggested the Council consider whether all monopoles should be required to
provide tree camouflage, only in certain areas or not at all.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his preference for a monopole that looked like a tree. He asked
whether the Council was voting on the amendments to the code now. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
responded this presentation is to obtain public and Council feedback and staff will ultimately present an
ordinance to the Council for action.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Plunkett’s suggestion to have monopoles
camouflaged as trees.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Richard Busch, Attorney, President, NW Wireless Association, explained the Association works with
local jurisdictions to develop new land use codes for wireless communication facilities. He provided a
series of “bold” statements: 1) I think these things (cell phones) are going to catch on, 2) Today’s users
want to make and receive calls where they live, work, play and commute, 3) Need antennas in order to
make and receive calls, and 4) Antennas (or screening ) must be visible. The wireless industry tries to
work with local jurisdictions on the best way to deploy these facilities in communities to provide
coverage. He provided a list of factors to be considered in the design of cell sites including coverage
objectives. He expressed support for public policy that encourages well integrated sites; sites that have
little negative reaction. They have worked with the Planning Board over the past year to incorporate that
objective. He also supported a less burdensome review and approval process for sites with little negative
reaction in order to encourage carriers to propose that type of facility. He provided several photographs of
well integrated sites. The industry agrees monopines should be an option but not required in all instances.
A monopine in a park is appropriate but on Hwy. 99 it would not be appropriate.
Ron Meckler, Consultant to the wireless industry, disclosed he has an application under consideration
by the City. The proposed amendments will allow new facilities to meet customers’ needs and freedom to
better integrate with the current landscape and cityscape. He referred to a reference in the code to lease of
City property for wireless facilities, agreeing that was an option for locating facilities. He expressed
support for 20.50.030 that allows an exemption for maintenance, advising facilities are being modernized
and antennas replaced to include and enhance data. He suggested the Council consider deleting the
prohibiting of monopoles on public and open space properties. A monopine could work well and integrate
into the landscape in a heavily treed area. He pointed out as the landlord, the City can negotiate the lease
and require a monopine and/or specific location.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, did not support allowing lease of City property for wireless facilities due to
potential liability.
Packet Page 140 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2011
Page 6
Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Petso relayed her concern with parking at wireless facilities. She asked whether a pole
could be prohibited if there is no parking available at the proposed site.
Mr. Taraday responded the proposed regulations state any application must demonstrate there is sufficient
space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. Implicit in that statement is
that if sufficient space cannot be demonstrated, the application will not be approved. He asked whether
Councilmember Petso’s interest was for temporary parking to be more clearly defined as on-site and off
the right-of-way.
Councilmember Petso did not want parking in a person’s landscaping or the traffic lane to be considered
sufficient temporary parking.
Mr. Taraday was uncertain how vehicles that stop in the right-of-way for a short period of time are
regulated currently. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained vehicles currently access public and
private utilities in the right-of-way. They do not have designated parking for their vehicles which he
acknowledged can be awkward at times. Utilities are required to submit a traffic control plan for work on
arterials. In residential areas, the street is available for parking and vehicles can park there without special
provisions. In some areas, the right-of-way may extend close to a resident’s property and they may view it
as their own property and landscape it. The utility vehicle may be aware of the right-of-way line and park
in the landscaped area of the right-of-way although that is not preferred. The proposed amendment
requires a provider to identify parking whether it is via an arrangement with a private property owner, in
an unimproved section of right-of-way, or on the street where on-street parking is available. If their intent
is to park in the travel lane, they will be required to submit a traffic control plan.
Council President Peterson pointed out monopoles are not allowed in single family residential zones
which may alleviate Councilmember Petso’s concerns regarding parking on landscaping.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION, DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
THE ORDINANCE WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Plunkett was supportive of monopoles where appropriate such as on Hwy. 99 as well as
the opportunity for monopines when appropriate.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ALLOW MONOPOLES AND/OR MONOPINES WHEN NECESSARY AND
APPROPRIATE AS DETERMINED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to language in the proposed regulations that the City Council may
consider additional locations for monopoles. She asked whether monopoles/monopines would require
review by the City Council. Mr. Clugston answered monopoles are location restricted and not allowed in
public/open space zones or residential zones. A monopole would require a conditional use permit (CUP)
which is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Councilmember Plunkett’s intent was to have Council review
first. Councilmember Plunkett answered that was his intent; if a monopine is allowed in certain locations,
there will be some judgment required regarding where a monopole or monopine could be located and he
preferred that judgment be made by the Council. Mr. Taraday explained under the proposed regulations,
Packet Page 141 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2011
Page 7
monopoles would not be allowed in parks. A monopine could potentially be a requirement for a park-like
setting on private property. He asked if it was Councilmember Plunkett’s intent to allow monopines in
public parks but not allow monopoles in parks. Councilmember Plunkett answered that was his intent. He
preferred to allow the Council to have a say regarding a monopine because he did not know what it would
look like or if the Council would like the appearance. Planner Rob Chave suggested adding criteria to the
Hearing Examiner process that for a monopole located in a wooded setting, a monopine may be
appropriate. With regard to parks and open space, the Council would be the proprietor and the Council
could make that decision as the landowner.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged a monopole may be appropriate in some areas. He preferred the
Council have the option to review any monopines. He was uncertain whether he wanted to vest that
subjective opinion with the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Chave commented on the difficulty of providing
guidance to an applicant without criteria. Mr. Taraday emphasized the need to provide enough guidance
to an applicant regarding the regulation; without sufficient guidance, the regulation can be void for
vagueness. He suggested providing pictures or some idea of what a monopine should look like. The
regulation cannot state monopines would be allowed if the Council likes how they look.
Council President Peterson suggested separating public/open spaces. He agreed a monopine may be
appropriate in a wooded area. The question then is what is considered a wooded area. Mr. Clugston
responded there is no definition of wooded area. Most such areas would be zoned public or open space.
Council President Peterson asked whether a CUP process would allow staff or the Hearing Examiner to
consider whether the location was in a wooded area.
Mr. Taraday suggested a definition be developed for a wooded area such as if the site plan reflects the
monopole will be surrounded on three sides by mature trees, the City will require the monopole be
painted green or brown to blend with the surroundings. Mr. Clugston agreed the regulation needed to be
specific enough so that the provider had an idea of what to expect. His research did not find any good
examples of monopines and some municipalities actually prohibit them. He was unable to find any design
standards in the municipalities that allow monopines.
Council President Peterson asked if Council review would be problematic due to FCC mandates. Mr.
Taraday suggested posing that question to Mike Bradley, a member of their legal team. As long as there
are sufficiently definite standards to guide discretionary decision-making, it does not matter whether the
discretionary decision is made by the Hearing Examiner or the City Council. The key is sufficiently
definite standards to guide that decision making to avoid a case-by-case determination.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a Council decision based on decision criteria would be a quasi
judicial process. Mr. Taraday answered yes.
Councilmember Wilson observed monopoles cannot be sited in open space or parks. He agreed with the
intent of Councilmember Plunkett’s amendment but was uncertain regarding its application. Edmonds is
nearly built out and if monopoles are not allowed in parks, there were few other heavily wooded areas in
Edmonds. He summarized it was a good principle but likely would not be applicable in many cases. Mr.
Clugston responded the Planning Board envisioned monopoles would disappear over time as technology
changes.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his amendment was a solution looking for a problem.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 142 of 367
AM-4056 Item #: 2. H.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance relating to reducing setback requirements in the BN zone, allowing setbacks in the Westgate
portion of the BN zone to be reduced as long as certain design standards are met, amending Edmonds
Community Development Code Section 16.45.020 and establishing a twelve month sunset period for the
ordinance.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
City Council held a public hearing and after additional deliberation, approved the proposed ordinance on
June 21, 2011.
Narrative
The attached ordinance (see Exhibit 1) has been drafted to implement the City Council's action taken on
June 21, 2011.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit 2: City Council minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 03:26 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:45 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 06/30/2011 02:58 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 143 of 367
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REDUCING SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS IN THE BN ZONE, ALLOWING
SETBACKS IN THE WESTGATE PORTION OF THE BN
ZONE TO BE REDUCED AS LONG AS CERTAIN DESIGN
STANDARDS ARE MET, AMENDING EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.45.020
AND ESTABLISHING A TWELVE MONTH SUNSET PERIOD
FOR THE ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is in the midst of developing a special district plan for
the Westgate neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the schedule for this planning effort calls for development of a form-based
code over the next twelve months; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that part of that special district plan will be to encourage the
development of pedestrian-friendly structures and storefronts in the Westgate neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the current development regulations in the BN zone would hinder the
implementation of such a plan by requiring structures to be setback twenty feet from the property
line, encouraging parking spaces to be placed between the building and the sidewalk; and
WHEREAS, there is a potential to frustrate the long-term planning effort for Westgate by
allowing new projects to be constructed pursuant to the twenty-foot setback; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the development regulations in the Westgate area
to allow reduced setbacks in the BN zone as long as certain design standards are met; and
WHEREAS, this effort necessitates an amendment to Edmonds Community
Development Code section 16.45.020; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that over the next twelve months, a complete package of
development regulations will be adopted to replace the existing regulations in the Westgate area;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 144 of 367
2
Section 1. Setback Amendment. ECDC 16.45.020, entitled “Site development
standards,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is
shown in strike-through):
16.45.020 Site development standards.
A. Table.
Minimum
Lot Area
Minimum
Lot
Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side
Setback
Minimum
Rear
Setback
Maximu
m
Height
Maximum
Floor
Area
BN None None 202None1 None1 253 sq. ft. per sq. ft.
of lot area
1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R zoned property.
2 For BN-zoned properties located within the Westgate Community Center identified in the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan minimum street setbacks may be reduced to 8 feet for frontages along SR-104 and to 5 feet
for frontages along 100th Avenue West. Site layout and building design shall be consistent with the Design
Objectives for Site Design and Building Form contained in the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
paying special attention to locating buildings near the street front and locating at least one building entry facing the
street.
B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.60 and 20.10 ECDC.
C. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently land-
scaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BN lot. A
six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the
setback.
D. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050, and
reviewed by the architectural design board.
Section 2. Sunset. One year after the effective date of this Ordinance, this Ordinance
shall automatically be repealed and shall have no further effect.
Section 3. 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.
Packet Page 145 of 367
3
Section 4. 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.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 146 of 367
4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO REDUCING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE BN
ZONE, ALLOWING SETBACKS IN THE WESTGATE PORTION OF
THE BN ZONE TO BE REDUCED AS LONG AS CERTAIN DESIGN
STANDARDS ARE MET, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.45.020 AND ESTABLISHING A
TWELVE MONTH SUNSET PERIOD FOR THE ORDINANCE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4839-0733-5433, v. 1
Packet Page 147 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 15
Councilmember Petso asked if the process included a market study. Mr. Chave stated a market analysis
was conducted and factored into the plan. For example the market study indicated underground parking
probably would not pencil out in these locations. That dictated more surface and tuck-under parking.
Councilmember Petso asked if the market analysis commented on the feasibility of mixed use. She noted
the Unocal mixed use development has only residential and mixed use downtown is condominiums over
empty space. Mr. Chave stated the market analysis indicated mixed use was very viable at both locations.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the motion, relaying his interest in creativity in City
planning which in his opinion has not occurred in the four years he has been on the Council. The
downtown stepback has not generated any development. Before he was on the City Council, he actively
promoted student involvement in City planning. He recalled the designs developed by the students at
Edmonds-Woodway High School for the Skippers and Antique Mall properties provided very valuable
information. Five Corners and Westgate were identified as centers where development could occur. This
has been an exciting and vibrant process for the residents and the public meetings have been well
attended. He was eager for the Planning Board to begin their review.
MOTION CARRIED 5-1, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 16.45.020 TO REDUCE
THE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN THE BN ZONE FOR THE WESTGATE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTER FROM TWENTY (20) TO EIGHT (8) FEET ALONG
SR-104 AND FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIVE (5) FEET ALONG 100TH AVENUE WEST.
THE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED TO SUNSET ONE YEAR AFTER ADOPTION.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the current BN zoning requires buildings be setback a minimum
of 20 feet from the street front which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the current
direction being developed for Westgate and Five Corners. The current BN setback pushes buildings into
the site and encourages placement of parking or drive aisles between buildings and the street. It is hoped
that reducing the minimum setback will push buildings closer to the street and allow improvement of the
street front and pedestrian amenities provided on private property adjacent to the street front. The
proposed change would apply only to the Westgate area. He displayed an aerial photograph of Westgate
that shows buildings are typically set well back inside property lines.
Mr. Chave provided photographs of the Bartell/Starbucks development. On the 100th side, the businesses
are setback from the street with a landscape strip between the sidewalk and parking between the sidewalk
and building; the traditional design encouraged by the existing BN zoning requirement. As a result,
anyone walking in that area must cross the parking/drive aisle to reach the building front. On the SR-104
side of that development, the building is approximately 9 feet from the existing right-of-way. Placing the
building closer to the right-of-way allows the parking to be moved to the side and the street front to be
enhanced with walkways and landscaping. The SR-104 side of that building is what the setback as
recommended by the Planning Board would provide opportunity for. He explained under the existing BN
zone, the SR-104 side is non-conforming.
Mr. Chave explained the recommendation is only for the BN zone for the Westgate area. There is ample
policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Westgate Community Center with regard to
accommodating transit and pedestrian access and providing pedestrian walkways. The design objectives
in the Comprehensive Plan speak to buildings oriented to the street front with pedestrian access. The UW
plan contains setbacks similar to those recommended by the Planning Board.
Mr. Chave relayed the Planning Board’s recommendation:
• Reduced street setback only applies to Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in
Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 148 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 16
• Minimum 8-foot street setback along SR-104
• Minimum 5-foot street setback along 100th Avenue West
• One year sunset (assumes UW planning process complete)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Chave to respond to Ms. Johnson’s concerns. Mr. Chave
answered Ms. Johnson wanted more time to examine the right-of-way, needs, etc. He pointed out setbacks
are what occur on private property. It does not change what occurs in the public right-of-way. The
reduced setbacks allow enhancement of what occurs in the public right-of-way. There is typically 10 feet
from the property line to the public lane; 10 feet does not provide much space for plantings, sidewalk, etc.
Providing an additional 8 feet along SR-104 will provide space on the private property to compliment
what is done in the existing right-of-way. When a 20-foot setback is required, the result is a minimal
landscape area, no enhancement of the sidewalk and the buildings do not relate to the street front. If
buildings are pushed closer and additional setback provided, it provides more space adjacent to the right-
of-way.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Chave explained in the existing right-of-way there is typically
not enough space for a 5-foot landscape strip and a 5-8 foot sidewalk. The idea with the 8-foot/5-foot
setback is an additional area available for amenities adjacent to the right-of-way.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the SR-104 side of the Starbucks building and asked the
width of the sidewalk. Mr. Chave answered it was approximately 7 feet with 9 feet of landscaping.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why that could not be done on the 100th Street side. Mr. Chave
answered when the building is required to be set back into the site, in order to accommodate parking, the
parking is placed in front. If the buildings on the 100th side were allowed to be closer to the street, he
would expect the SR-104 treatment on that side of the building. The result would be more parking in the
back. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there would still be a 7-foot sidewalk. Mr. Chave
answered it would depend on what frontage improvements are required.
Councilmember Petso provided a series of photographs she took comparing buildings fronting on the
street to the current strip mall type design. She displayed a photograph of a bank in Shoreline, noting she
was unsure whether the building was initially at the street front or was located there due to insufficient
right-of-way. She compared the bank in Shoreline to the 100th side of the Bartell/Starbucks building,
noting the Bartell/Starbucks building provided a green presentation. The street presence of the bank in
Shoreline is a narrow corridor with a sidewalk and a tiny bit of landscaping between the sidewalk and
building. At the Bartell in Edmonds, there is beautiful landscaping, a much more green presence. She was
willing to walk across the parking lot to Bartell to enjoy the green street presence. She displayed a
photograph of a blank wall on the north side of the bank in Shoreline which is much less attractive than
the Bartell/Starbucks development in Edmonds. She summarized allowing the setback space to be used
for landscaping is great. To the extent the bank is so close to the roadway may reflect Ms. Johnson’s
desire to measure the right-of-way before changing the setbacks.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City’s Transportation Plan was inaccurate or inadequate, recalling
Ms. Johnson’s reference to 5-7 foot sidewalks, 5-foot planting strip and 5-foot bike lane in each direction
on a principle arterial. Mr. Chave answered much of the right-of-way on SR-104 was built long ago and
does not meet what would be required today. There is some flexibility but generally the landscape strip is
between the sidewalk and the travel lane. The opposite occurs today in the Westgate area.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked when that could be upgraded. Mr. Chave answered when development
occurs and street improvements are required. For example if someone purchases the existing Shell station
and changes what occurs on the property, they will be required to make improvements along both rights-
of-way that conform to the new standards. The proposed reduced setback would provide more area for
those improvements between the building and the right-of-way.
Packet Page 149 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 17
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how often the Transportation Plan was updated. Mr. Chave answered it
was a 6-year update cycle. The next update will occur in 2015.
Council President Peterson referred to the photograph Councilmember Petso provided of the bank in
Shoreline, pointing out it argues for the proposed change because that bank is clearly located right at the
right-of-way with only a minimal sidewalk. The proposed setback adds additional space between the
right-of-way and the building. The tiny strip of green adjacent to the bank in Shoreline would be an 8 or
5-foot strip in Edmonds with the proposed change. The photograph of the bank in Shoreline is a perfect
example of what is not wanted in Edmonds but also not what is being proposed. The proposed
amendment is not to push building up to the right-of-way; the proposal is an 8 or 5-foot setback from the
right-of-way. Mr. Chave agreed Councilmember Petso’s photograph was a good example of what was not
wanted and the reason the setbacks are proposed, to provide additional space between the sidewalk and
the building. The larger setbacks push the building back into the site and developers do not want to make
improvements by the street front. He pointed out there is also reference in the proposed code amendment
to design objectives regarding blank walls.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether footnote 2 in the site development standards was the suggested
change. Mr. Chave answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION (APPROVE THE PLANNING
BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION [CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 1 AND DESCRIBED IN THE
MOTION ON PAGE 8 OF THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 5/11/2011, EXHIBIT 2] AND
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION
ON ITS NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA).
Councilmember Petso observed the current setback is 20 feet that can be landscaping or whatever and the
proposed amendment is to reduce it to 5 feet on 100th and 8 feet on SR-104. Mr. Chave answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE SETBACK TO 10 FEET AND 10 FEET.
Council President Peterson asked whether parking could fit into a 10 foot setback. Mr. Chave answered
no, advising these are minimum setbacks. The issue then becomes on a given site if there is enough space
outside the 10 foot setback for everything else that must happen on the site. If the rest of the site does not
work with the setback, the developer will automatically push the building into the site. The Planning
Board recommended the minimum setback they felt was reasonable.
Council President Peterson advised he would vote against the amendment because he anticipated a
developer would move the building back on the site and put the parking in front. He agreed 10 feet would
be better than 8 feet for green space but he was concerned a building would not pencil and be pushed back
onto the site.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment. She did not think 2 feet and 5 feet
on one side of a building would create an issue for parking, particularly on that corner. With the one year
sunset, staff will need to return to the Council to extend the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave relayed the
Planning Board’s hope that the UW process would be through the Planning Board and adopted by the
City Council in one year.
Councilmember Plunkett indicated he would not support the amendment because he believed the
Planning Board wants an aesthetically pleasing development. Unless the maker of the amendment could
show that they had done some analysis to determine why 10 feet was selected, he would assume it was
arbitrarily determined. He assumed the Planning Board had made a more intraspecific decision.
Packet Page 150 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 18
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she suggested 10 feet because of the indication the sidewalk was
not in compliance with the 5-7 foot standard. She wanted to ensure there were pedestrian friendly
sidewalks and felt 10 feet would be a good compromise.
Council President Peterson observed if development is proposed and new sidewalks required, the
sidewalks must meet the City’s standards. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained when
redevelopment occurs, staff seeks to get the frontage improvements that meet the current standards. With
regard to the cross section of a principle arterial in the Transportation Plan versus what exists and what
the UW study proposes, those are each different things. There is only 80 feet of total right-of-way on SR-
104. Everything in the ideal principle arterial cross section totals 89-93 feet. He acknowledged there is
tension between the Plan and the real world. He doubted the ability for the City to acquire an additional
10 feet of right-of-way on this major arterial in a commercial center.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS
PETSO, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-1); COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING
NO.
7. EDMONDS STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS UPDATE - INCLUDES INFORMATION
RELATED TO TOP TWO CONSULTANT TEAMS AND RECOMMENDATION OF
PREFERRED CONSULTANT.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this was a collaborative
effort between the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board that began in early
2010. In March 2010, the Council approved Resolution 1224, expressing support for six of the EDC’s
high priority recommendations, one of which is the strategic planning effort. In December 2010 the
Council appropriated $100,000 to conduct a strategic planning effort. In April 2010 the Council
authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prepare a strategic plan.
Mr. Clifton provided a chronology of actions once the Council authorized issuance of the RFP:
• April 20, 2011 – The City issued a RFP for a Strategic Plan. Notice was published in the Everett
Herald and Daily Journal of Commerce newspapers and posted on the City’s website.
Additionally, consulting firms which expressed an interest in the City’s Strategic Planning
process in the past were also notified. Proposals were to be received by the City no later than 4
p.m. on May 12, 2011.
• April 27, 2011 – A pre-submittal conference was held for consultants to ask questions about the
strategic planning process.
• May 12, 2011 – Thirteen firms submitted proposals. Each Strategic Planning Review/Interview
Committee member was provided all submitted materials in hard copy and/or electronic form.
• May 18, 2011 – The Review/Interview Committee met on May 18, 2011 to discuss submittals
and select the top five consultants to interview.
• May 20, 2011 – Proposals from the five consultant teams were provided to the Edmonds City
Council for their review.
• May 24 and 25, 2011 – The top five consultant teams participated in a presentation/interview
process. The Review/Interview Committee asked each consulting team to prepare a presentation
in response to several questions initially proposed by the committee. In addition, the
Review/Interview Committee asked an additional list of questions, and allowed time for a
question and answer period.
• May 26, 2011 – The Review/Interview Committee met to discuss and select the final two
consulting teams, Beckwith Consulting Group and ECONorthwest.
Packet Page 151 of 367
AM-4045 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement: Walk Back in Time Tour of the Edmonds Memorial
Cemetery.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Community Service Announcement: Walk Back in Time Tour of the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 10:01 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 06/30/2011 09:58 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 152 of 367
AM-4047 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Petanque Club.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Petanque Club.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 11:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 06/30/2011 10:00 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 153 of 367
AM-4036 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation for Parks and Recreation Month.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the declaration of proclamation for July as Parks and Recreation Month.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Please refer to attached proclamation.
Attachments
Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 11:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:25 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 06/24/2011 09:55 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 154 of 367
Proclamation Designating July as Park and Recreation Month
WHEREAS parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities
throughout this country, including the City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS July marks the summer season in Edmonds with a host of parks and
recreation opportunities for all ages and interests including camps and aquatics, flowers
and picnics, running and riding, outdoor concerts and cinemas under the stars, sand
sculptures and classes, a new Senior walking program, and walk s in the park or strolls
on the beach; and
WHEREAS our parks and recreation are vitally important to establishing and maintaining
the quality of life in our communities, ensuring the health of all citizens, and contributing
to the economic and environmental well-being of a community and region; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in
the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic recreation services for those who
are mentally or physically disabled, and also improve the mental and emotional health of
all citizens; and
WHEREAS the City of Edmonds has officially joined Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move
campaign, encouraging communities across the nation to raise a healthier generation of
kids; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation programs increase a community’s economic prosperity
through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, increased tourism,
the attraction and retention of businesses, and crime reduction; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation areas are fundamental to the environmental awareness
and well-being of our community; and
WHEREAS parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect
groundwater, prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide
vegetative buffers to development, and produce habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our
community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and
recreate outdoors; and
WHEREAS the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and
Recreation Month; and
WHEREAS Edmonds recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation
resources
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Edmonds City Council that July is
recognized as Park and Recreation Month in the City of Edmonds.
________________________________________
Mike Cooper, Mayor July 5, 2011
Packet Page 155 of 367
AM-4051 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the application for a renewal of a Concession Agreement. The agreement
is for the use of the public right-of-way to vend food and beverages. The site is located at
James Street immediately east of the ferry holding lanes and is adjacent to the SR104 park.
(Applicant: Kalani Kahaialii, Angelo Narciso, Cyndi Aiona Cook / Shorts ‘N Slippas, LLC)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Concession Agreement.
Previous Council Action
On June 17, 2008, the City Council approved a one-year Concession Agreement with Shorts 'N
Slippas.
On July 7, 2009, the City Council approved an additional one-year Concession Agreement with
Shorts 'N Slippas.
On June 10, 2010, the City Council approved an additional one-year Concession Agreement with
Shorts 'N Slippas.
Narrative
Attached as Exhibit 1 is the application submitted by Shorts 'N Slippas to renew the Concession
Agreement for the use of the public right-of-way located at the end of James Street. The
applicant has a trailer placed on the site for the vending of food and beverages. The business is
also known as "Da Hula Hut." They have been in business at this site since July 2008.
Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.04, Concession Agreements, states that Concession Agreements
may be granted at the sole discretion of the City Council. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the
Code.
The City Attorney has approved the proposed new Concession Agreement (Exhibit 3). No
changes have been made to the previously approved agreement. The monthly lease amount is
$103.00 plus leasehold excise tax in the amount of $13.23 for a total of $116.23. An increase in
the monthly lease amount was not proposed by staff due to the slow growth in the economy.
Exhibit 4 is the exhibit referenced in the Concession Agreement.
Packet Page 156 of 367
Attachments
Exhibit 1: 2011 Application for Concession Agreement
Exhibit 2: City Code Chapter 4.04
Exhibit 3: 2011-2012 Concession Agreement
Exhibit 4: Aerial View of the Site (Exhibit A to the Concession Agreement)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/30/2011
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 157 of 367
Packet Page 158 of 367
Packet Page 159 of 367
Packet Page 160 of 367
Packet Page 161 of 367
Packet Page 162 of 367
Packet Page 163 of 367
Packet Page 164 of 367
Packet Page 165 of 367
Packet Page 166 of 367
Packet Page 167 of 367
Packet Page 168 of 367
Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.04
CONCESSION AGREEMENTS
Sections:
4.04.010 Concession agreements.
4.04.020 Concession agreements on public property.
4.04.030 Leases of public right-of-way.
4.04.040 Exemptions.
4.04.010 Concession agreements.
A concession agreement is a lease of public property or city right-of-way. Decisions to
lease city property or public right-of-way are legislative decisions to be granted at the
sole discretion of the city council.
By way of illustration and not limitation, a concession agreement may provide for the
lease of public property or right-of-way for private use to vend food or beverages, rent
bicycles, roller skates, fishing equipment or other uses which the city council, in its sole
discretion, believes are consistent with the public's full use and enjoyment of park, public
property or right-of-way, or enhance the general atmosphere of the community. [Ord.
3604 § 1, 2006].
4.04.020 Concession agreements on public property.
A. “Public property” shall mean any property in fee by the city of Edmonds.
B. Concession agreements may be granted at the sole discretion of the city council from
time to time as it deems appropriate. The revenue from the lease of public property shall
accrue to the general fund; provided, however, that concession agreements for lease of
property owned, purchased or utilized by a utility or other special purpose fund shall
accrue to that fund.
C. Such agreements shall be approved by the city council in a form created and approved
by the city attorney. The lessee shall provide proof of insurance in a minimum of
$1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate and shall fully indemnify and
hold harmless the city, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
D. A concession agreement relating to park property shall comply in all respects a park
plan adopted as a part of the city's comprehensive plan. No concession agreement shall be
approved for park property until approved in the applicable portion of the comprehensive
plan, parks element.
Packet Page 169 of 367
E. Concession agreements relating to park property shall be approved only after a public
hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be posted at least at three locations at the
perimeter of the park property and at the site sought for lease by a concessionaire. [Ord.
3604 § 1, 2006].
4.04.030 Leases of public right-of-way.
A. “Public right-of-way” shall mean property held for street or alley purposes and shall
typically be limited to unopened city right-of-way. The lease of public right-of-way
developed for street purposes shall incorporate applicable terms from the street use
provisions of Chapter 18.70 ECDC.
B. Any concession agreement for the lease of unopened street right-of-way shall confer
no vested right on the lessee. Any concession or lease agreement drafted by the city
attorney shall provide that it may be terminable at the will of the city council with or
without cause. On termination, a pro-rated portion of the lease payment shall be
returnable to the concessionaire or lessee.
C. The lessee shall provide proof of insurance in a minimum of $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate and shall fully indemnify and hold harmless
the city, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. [Ord. 3607 § 1, 2006; Ord. 3604
§ 1, 2006].
4.04.040 Exemptions.
Persons leasing property from the city through a concession agreement shall obtain a city
business license. The use of property leased under a concession agreement shall be
consistent with the uses permitted in the adjacent zone. “Adjacent zone” means that
zoning, other than public zoning or right-of-way designation, which is closest to the area
leased. In the event that differing zones are equidistant from the leased property, the more
restrictive use provisions of an adjacent zone shall be applied. [Ord. 3604 § 1, 2006].
Packet Page 170 of 367
{WSS695776.DOC;1\00006.900000\}
1
CONCESSION AGREEMENT
COMES NOW, the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
“City”) and Shorts ‘n Slippas, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company (hereinafter
“Concessionaire”) under the terms and conditions set forth herein:
1. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this Concession Agreement is to authorize
the temporary use as described herein of the unopened right of way of James Street immediately
east of the ferry holding lanes and adjacent to the SR 104 park. This Concession Agreement is a
legislative action of the Council, and as provided herein, may be terminated by the Council at
any time. The Concessionaire is authorized to use the location to sell food and beverages other
than alcoholic beverages. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to relieve the Concessionaire of
obtaining the approval of any necessary state or local entity, including requirements to obtain
business and street use permits as referenced in this Agreement.
2. Premises. This Concession Agreement authorizes the use of certain unopened
street right of way shown on the attached Exhibit A to the Concessionaire (hereinafter the
“Premises”). The unopened right of way of James Street, is shown on the attached Exhibit A
incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Nothing herein shall be construed to
authorize the Concessionaire to enter into the ferry holding lanes without the permission of the
Washington State Department of Transportation nor to vend its products in any location other
than the Premises.
3. Undertakings of Concessionaire. In consideration of the benefits of this
Agreement, the Concessionaire promises and agrees to:
3.1 Utilize the leased premises for the maintenance of a temporary structure.
The temporary structure is a trailer as shown on the attached Exhibits B and C, incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth. This temporary structure (hereinafter “Trailer”) shall
comply in respects with the State Building Code and the requirements of the Snohomish County
Health Department.
3.2 Pay to the City the sum of $116.23 per month comprised of a base rent
amount of $103.00 plus leasehold excise tax (12.84%) in the amount of $13.23. Such sum shall
be paid on or before the first day of each month. Any payment not received by the fifth business
day of each and every month shall be subject to a $25 service charge. Failure to remit the lease
payment and service charge by the 15th day of each month shall be grounds for immediate
termination of these provisions. In addition, an additional service charge of $25 shall be added
for every period of five (5) business days thereafter.
3.3 Obtain a business license from the City for this location in accordance
with the Edmonds City Code.
3.4 The Concessionaire shall provide as a part of the street use permit process
a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional named insured. The policy shall
Packet Page 171 of 367
{WSS695776.DOC;1\00006.900000\}
2
provide public liability protection in the minimum amount of $1 million per occurrence and
$5 million in aggregate. The insurance policy shall be primary as to any other policy of
insurance. It shall provide that the policy may not be cancelled except upon the provision of
thirty (30) days written notice to the City. The trailer to be installed is a temporary structure
which does not require architectural design review in accordance with the provisions of ECDC
18.70.030.
3.5 No sales of retail goods or services other than the selling of food or beverages
shall be permitted. By way of illustration and not limitation, no sale of alcoholic beverages shall
be permitted from this location.
3.6 Promise to indemnify and hold harmless, on behalf of Shorts ‘n Slippas, including
the undersigned owner, as well as its successors, heirs and assigns, the City of Edmonds, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss or liability of any kind or nature arising from
or out of the use of the Premises and/or the terms and conditions of this Agreement. To the
extent necessary to enforce this promise, the Concessionaire as a part of the negotiation of the
provisions of this Agreement, waives the immunities of Title 51 RCW to, but only to, the limited
extent necessary to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees.
3.7 Concessionaire may terminate this Agreement on the provision of thirty (30) days
written notice.
3.8 In the event of termination, Concessionaire shall restore the site to its original
condition and remove all structures, temporary or permanent by the date of termination. The
City may, at its option, seize any personal property, temporary structure or other object or item
left on the site and sell it in the event that it is not removed by the date of termination set in the
notice from Concessionaire. The City may, at its option, restore the site and bill Concessionaire
for the reasonable cost or restoration of the site to its original condition. If Concessionaire fails
to pay the sum within thirty (30) days, the parties agree that the City may forward the sum to a
collection agency for recovery. Concessionaire shall be responsible for any costs associated with
such recovery including reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and the charges of the collection
agency.
4. Obligations of the City. The City shall:
4.1 Make available the unopened street right of way of James Street to the
Concessionaire for to vend food and beverage, provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
interpreted to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages from the site.
4.2 The City Council, in its sole legislative discretion, reserves the right under
this Agreement to terminate its provisions at any time upon the provision of forty-eight (48)
hours written notice. In addition, the City Council reserves the right to seek proposals for the
leased premises or any other property or unopened right of way of the City for competitive bids
from other vendors at such time and through such a process as in its sole discretion shall
determine appropriate. The Concessionaire shall be provided an opportunity in any such future
process to make a proposal on the same terms as other proposals, but shall have no competitive
Packet Page 172 of 367
{WSS695776.DOC;1\00006.900000\}
3
advantage in the process. The lease payments provided in paragraph 3.2 above are specifically
set at a lower rate than market rates to acknowledge that this Concession Agreement is
terminable at will. In the event of termination by the City, the City shall return a pro-rata portion
of any prepaid rent.
5. No Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned without the express
approval of the Edmonds City Council, which may be withheld for any lawful reason or purpose.
6. Term. This Agreement, unless earlier terminated as herein provided, shall expire
on June 30, 2012. The City may allow a holdover period to permit processing an application for
renewal where, due to no fault of the applicant, the City is unable to complete its review,
including a required public hearing before the expiration date.
7. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. It shall not
be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the parties hereto.
DONE this _______ day of _____________, 2011.
SHORTS ‘N SLIPPAS, LLC
By:
Its:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _________________________ is the
person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument,
on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the
____________________ of SHORTS ‘N SLIPPAS, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such
party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED: ___________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Printed Name:
My appointment expires:
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor Mike Cooper
Packet Page 173 of 367
{WSS695776.DOC;1\00006.900000\}
4
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
Packet Page 174 of 367
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 175 of 367
AM-4043 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Gina Coccia
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by Sidney Odgers and Ken & Audrey Darwin for a proposed change in plan
designation from “Single Family Urban 1” to “Edmonds Way Corridor” for three
properties in the Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone. Location: 8609/8611/8615 – 244th
Street SW, Edmonds. (File No. AMD20110001)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Adopt the Planning Board recommendation to approve a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for the
subject properties from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Multi Family - Medium Density" and direct the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the change.
Previous Council Action
None. The Planning Board held a public hearing on April 27th and forwarded a recommendation to the
City Council that the Comprehensive Plan designation be changed from "Single Family Urban 1" to
"Multi Family - Medium Density" (EXHIBIT - 2).
Narrative
The owners of three parcels in south Edmonds desire to develop their properties with multiple dwelling
units. These properties are located at 8609/8611/8615 244th Street SW totaling 0.88 acres. Under the
current Single Family Residential (RS-8) zoning designation, they are allowed one house per lot. They
reside in a transitional neighborhood between Highway 99 and Firdale Village and are bordered by a
Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone to the east and single family zoned properties to the north and west.
In order to apply for a rezone, they must first obtain a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation from
“Single Family Urban 1” to a designation that would allow for a future proposal to change the zoning to
an RM zone. They chose to seek the designation “Edmonds Way Corridor” because it is the designation
adjacent to the east. However, two other “Multi Family” designations would also allow for a future
change in zoning to RM.
After holding a public hearing and deliberating on the request, the Planning Board voted to deny the
request to change the designation of three parcels at 8609, 5611 and 8615 – 244TH Street Southwest from
“Single Family Urban 1” to “Edmonds Way Corridor” on the Comprehensive Plan Map. However, based
on the findings of fact, conclusions and attachments in the staff report, the Planning Board voted to
forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to change the designation from “Single
Family Urban 1” to "Multi Family – Medium Density”.
Attachments
Packet Page 176 of 367
EXHIBIT - 1 (Staff Report & Attachments)
EXHIBIT - 2 (Meeting Minutes)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 06/30/2011 02:15 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 02:20 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 06/29/2011 04:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 177 of 367
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
8
o
f
3
6
7
II. FINDINGS
A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), found in Chapter 43.21C RCW, is a state law that
requires the City to conduct an environmental impact review of any action that might have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. The review includes the completion of an
environmental checklist by the City. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on April 13, 2011 (Attachment H). The appeal
period expires on April 27, 2011. If no appeals are filed by this date, the SEPA determination is
final.
B. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
This application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division, Fire District, Public Works
Department, and the Building Division. No comments were received and no issues were raised
by the reviewers.
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
To date, no public comments have been received.
D. PUBLIC NOTICE
Pursuant to Section 20.03 of the ECDC, a notice of the public hearing was posted at the Library,
City Hall, and Public Safety Complex – as well as published in the Everett Herald, posted on site,
and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. All legal requirements for public notice
have been satisfied.
E. SETTING
1. Proposed designation and development of the site.
The proposed designation is “Edmonds Way Corridor” so as to be consistent with the
adjacent development’s designation to the east. However, another designation that also
supports a multiple residential zone is “Multi Family” (both “High Density” and “Medium
Density”). If the application at hand were to be approved, the owners have stated that they
would later seek a rezone in order to have the site developed with multi-family residences
(Attachment B). The “Edmonds Way Corridor” designation is compatible with both
commercial and multiple residential zones, but the “Multi Family” designations are only
compatible with RM zones.
2. Current designation and development of the site.
The site is currently designated “Single Family Urban 1” (Attachment F), as are the
properties to the west. The site is currently developed with single family homes that were
constructed in 1962 and 1955 (Attachment D).
3. Designation and development in the vicinity.
The neighborhood is mainly developed with single family homes, with a more intense zoning
and development pattern east of this site ranging from multi-family to commercial as you
travel east towards Highway 99. The properties to the east are developed as apartments and
are zoned RM-1.5 (Attachments F and D). The neighborhood is conveniently located near
Highway 99, Interstate 5, and public transit available along 244th Street SW and a park and
ride is nearby at the Aurora Village shopping center.
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 179 of 367
4. Previous proposals in the vicinity.
No similar previous proposals in the immediate vicinity have been found in the City’s permit
tracking system. However, a similar situation is shown on the Comprehensive Plan map
(Attachment F) where an area of “Multi Family – Medium Density” is situated between the
“Edmonds Way Corridor” and “Single Family Urban 1” along 238th Street SW near Edmonds
Way. In this case, three parcels underwent a Comprehensive Plan designation and rezone
from RS-8 to RM-3.1
F. ZONING COMPLIANCE
The current zoning designation for these three parcels is single family residential (RS-8). The
current use of the site is single family residential. At this time, there is no proposed change to the
zoning designation. However, if the proposed amendment is approved, the owners would be able
to then seek a rezone their properties to something compatible to the new designation. There are
two Comprehensive Plan designations consistent with RM zoning: “Multi Family – High
Density” and “Multi Family – Medium Density.” The high density designation could allow for a
rezone to RM-1.5 or RM-2.4. The medium density designation could allow for a rezone to RM-
2.4 or RM-3.0. Density is the main difference between these designations and zones (the
setbacks are virtually the same). The maximum 2
• RM-1.5 zone: 1,500 lot area per dwelling unit = 26 units maximum.
density is calculated by determining the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit based on the following table from ECDC 16.30.030.A. If the
site is approximately 130’x300’, then it is roughly 39,000 square feet in area and the following
calculations would apply:
• RM-2.4 zone: 2,400 lot area per dwelling unit = 16 units maximum.
• RM-3.0 zone: 3,000 lot area per dwelling unit = 13 units maximum.
The adjacent RM-1.5 zoned property is comprised of three buildings, each with six units with a
total of 18 dwelling units. They were constructed in 1977 and the whole neighborhood was
annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1995.
G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter
36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may only be adopted if the
following findings are made:
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public
interest?
The Comprehensive Plan outlines goals and policies for multi-family developments and states
“RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets,” and generally encourages any
new multi-family development to blend into the surrounding neighborhood while preserving
the natural features of the site.3 Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor are also discussed in
the Comprehensive Plan.4
1 File Number PLN199800008
However, the area of this designation is established as “portions
of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99.” Clearly, this
site does not front on Edmonds Way – but it is fairly close in proximity (Attachment F). The
2 Note that the maximum density is not a realistic figure because other variables, such as parking requirements, height limits,
landscaping, and building setbacks further reduce the number of actual dwelling units feasible for a given project. 3 Policies on Multiple Development: 2010 Comprehensive Plan, pages 72-73. 4 Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor: 2010 Comprehensive Plan, page 77.
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 180 of 367
description goes on to say that this area “provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate
5.” A primary focus of the goals here is to permit small scale multi-family or commercial
land uses that do not contribute significantly to traffic congestion. Because the properties are
situated along 244th Street SW, which is a “Minor Arterial,” any future small scale
development should be able to be designed so as not to interfere with congestion along this
road. If the owner’s goal is the be able to apply for a rezone to one of the multi-family (RM)
zones, then changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to either “Edmonds Way
Corridor,” “Multi Family – High Density,” or “Multi Family – Medium Density” would suit
their needs.
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of
the city?
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental. At this time, nothing is proposed other
than a change in designation. If it were approved, then we could expect the owners to apply
for a rezone to propose a change in zoning from Single Family Residential (RS-8) Multiple
Residential (RM-1.5), which would then be consistent with the adjacent zoning. A rezone
application would analyze the relationship between the proposed zoning change to the
existing land uses and zoning of nearby property; whether there has been sufficient change in
the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone;
whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the
existing and proposed zoning; and, the relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare
when compared to the potential increase/decrease in value to the property owners.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the
city?
The Edmonds Way Corridor makes up 0.6% of the city’s land, while Single Family Urban
makes up 40.5%.5 A shift of a cumulative 0.88 acres from Single Family Urban to Edmonds
Way Corridor will not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the city. Further, the
Comprehensive Plan explains that 54.8% of the existing land use in the City is single family
(3,142 acres), while only 4.8% is multi-family (274 acres) and 4.6% is commercial (261
acres).6
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the
anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of
utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints?
An eventual shift (through a future rezone) of less than one acre from single family
to either multi-family or commercial will also not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses
within the city.
The subject parcels are physically suitable for the proposed designation change. The area is
flat and the intensity of development increases as you travel east along 244th Street SW
towards Highway 99 and Interstate 5. These parcels are adjacent to the border of the more
intense corridor designation, so the adjoining land uses are both single family (to the north
and west) and multi-family to the east.
5 Figure 8: General Use Categories by % of City Land Area: 2010 Comprehensive Plan, page 38. 6 Figure 1: Existing Land Use: 2010 Comprehensive Plan, page 9.
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 181 of 367
III. CONCLUSIONS
A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest, in that it
could potentially (through a future rezone) create additional dwelling units that could
accommodate the influx of population into the city.
B. The instant proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of
the city.
C. The proposal would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city.
D. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the
anticipated land use development (a future rezone to an RM zone), including access, provision of
utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints.
E. Because the subject property is situated between both single family and multi-family
developments, it is not appropriate to change the designation to “Edmonds Way Corridor” which
could allow a future rezone to a commercial zone. Multiple Residential (RM) zoning is an
appropriate transition between the RS-8 zone to the north and west and the RM-1.5 zone to the
east.
F. The Planning Board should consider a Comprehensive Plan designation change to a more intense
use of the land. Because this site is in a transitional neighborhood, a “Multi Family” designation
is more appropriate than the “Edmonds Way Corridor” designation. “Multi Family – High
Density” is adjacent to the east while a neighborhood in the vicinity has obtained a designation
change to “Multi Family – Medium Density.” The “Medium Density” designation would provide
for a smoother transition between the single family and “High Density” properties adjacent to this
site.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that
the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to DENY the request to change
the designation of three parcels at 8609, 8611, and 8615 244th Street SW from “Single Family
Urban 1” to “Edmonds Way Corridor” on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
B. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that
the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE a change in
designation from “Single Family Urban 1” to “Multi Family – Medium Density” because it would
be an appropriate transition between the more intense corridor designation and the single family
residential designation.
V. PARTIES OF RECORD
A. Sidney Odgers | 8615 244th Street SW, Edmonds WA 98026
B. Ken & Audrey Darwin | 8611 244th Street SW, Edmonds WA 98026
C. City of Edmonds
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 182 of 367
VI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Land Use Applications
B. Narrative
C. Site Plan
D. Structure Plan and Photos
E. Zoning/Vicinity Map
F. Comprehensive Plan Map
G. Comprehensive Plan Excerpts
H. SEPA Checklist and DNS
I. Public Notice
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 183 of 367
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
A
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
4
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
A
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
5
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
B
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
6
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
B
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
7
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
C
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
8
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
D
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
9
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
D
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
0
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
D
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
1
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
D
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
2
o
f
3
6
7
8515
8517
24004
23922
84218809
8725
24118
24110
8616
8620
8622 8520
8710
8714
8721
86
1
1
24104
24127
84
1
4
88
0
5
24211
24217
24223
24231
24125
24117
24111
24103
8806
8706
87
0
4
8704 85
1
0
85
0
6
8425
8431
8509
860586038601
8515
85
1
2
8604
87
1
8
87268728
8730
8732
86
0
9
8625
8621
87
1
1
243
2
5
24317243092430
5
243
0
6
24314
24320
24326
2430
5
2
4
3
0
6
243
1
5
2
4
3
1
6
2432
5
24
3
2
6
89
0
5
24315
243072430
5
24230
24222
24216
2421024207
24215
2422
1
24227
8924
8920
89
1
6
88
3
0
88
2
0
2
4
1
0
6
241
0
5
24111
24117
24125
24104
24112
24118
24126
24028
87
3
1
8700
88
0
4
24105
24111
24119
86
2
3
2
4
1
0
1
86
1
7
24108
24118
8605
24027
24019
8700 8610 24
0
0
7
8629881588
3
1
8624
8606
8610
8614
8630
8704
8706
86
1
5
86
2
3
86
2
7
8418
87
T
H
A
V
E
W
8 8 T H P L W
240TH ST S W
8 9 T H P L W
8 9 T H P L W
8 7 T H P L W
244TH ST SW /205T H ST NW
8 9 T H P L W
]Odgers Comprehensive Plan Amendment8615/8611/8609 244th Street SWFile AMD20110001 | 1:2400 Scale0300150Feet
SITE
Zoning Map
City ofShoreline
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
9
9
City ofEdmonds
RM-2.4
RM-1.5RS-8
CG
ATTACHMENT - EEXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 193 of 367
2372523721
8515
8517
24004
90
5
3
8705
8702
86
2
9
87
2
3
8719
87
1
3
87
0
4
86
2
6
8624
23922 23920
8421 23926
23912
23904
2411
0
23725
900990119015
90179019 90
0
3
9105
23824 23828
8801
8805
8809
8725
24118
24110
9016
90
0
8
901
0
9012
9105
90
0
4
90
0
29026
9024
9022
9008 23622
91
0
6
24220
2371323715
24
2
2
4
24229
24217
8616
8620
8622 8520
8710
8714
24
3
1
7
8717
8721
8725
23
8
0
2
238
3
0
24313
24
3
1
0
86
1
1
24104
24127
9125 9109
9112
23
7
1
0
87
3
0
8410
84
1
4
23904
88
0
5
24211
24217
24223
24231
24125
24117
24111
24103
8806
8706
87
0
4
8704
8814
9114
85
1
0
85
0
6
2
4
3
2
9
9009
9009
23930
23901
23809
8425
8431
8509
860586038601
8515
85
1
2
8604
87
1
8
87268728
8730
8732
86
0
9
8625
8621
87
1
1
2432
5
24317243092430
5
243
0
6
24314
24320
24326
2430
5
2
4
3
0
6
243
1
5
2
4
3
1
6
2432
5
24
3
2
6
89
0
5
89
1
7
24315
2430724305
2
4
3
0
6
24308
24316
24230
24222
24216
2421024207
24215
2422
1
2422724228
24214
24206
91
1
5
24303 24305
24315
9033
24306
24316
91
0
1
90
0
6
90
1
8
9016
90579102
90
3
2
90
2
8
9104
9110
911424209
89
2
8
89
3
0
89
3
2
8924
8920
89
1
6
88
3
0
88
2
0
90
0
5
9015
9109
91
1
1
91
1
5
9125
24115
24109
8923
24116
2411
0
24
1
0
6
2410
5
24111
24117
24125
24104
24112
24118
24126
24028
87
3
1
8700
88
0
4
24105
24111
24119
86
2
3
2
4
1
0
1
86
1
7
24108
24118
8605
24027
24019
8700 8610 24
0
0
7
240
2
4
23
9
1
5
23828
23820
23814
23808
84
2
2
84
3
0
85068606
23822
23828
2
3
8
2
9
238
2
3
23815
23805
86
1
4
871
0
238
1
5
8628
8629
239
0
1
23
9
0
9
87298823
8819
881588
3
1
8829
8923
8
9
2
7
8
9
3
1
88288912
8826
89
3
0
23
8
0
8
2381
6
23
8
2
3
238
1
5
900
4
91
1
6
9130
90
0
1
237
1
7
23703
90
0
5
9029
23
7
0
2
237
2
0
23
7
2
89117
237
1
9
8624
8606
8610
8614
8630
8704
8706
86
1
5
86
2
3
86
2
7
8418
23705
237
0
4
23
7
1
6
23
7
2
6
23
6
2
7
23621
8529 8521
8517
8425
8427
8429
84
2
1
84
1
5
23
7
2
8
23720
23706
2362
6236228506
8504 2361823621
236
2
9
23
7
0
3
23704
23630
23622
87
3
2
8729
23521
2351
9
8713
87
2
0
87
1
6
23
5
1
8
2351
6 23514
23522
23504
8423
84158423
23520
23512
8505
23425
88
0
6
23419
23506
85
1
5
85
2
1
85
3
1
8511
86
0
9
86
2
1
8611861986
1
3
86
1
5
86
1
7
87
0
7
87
2
5
87
0
1
86
2
5
86
1
9
86
0
9
86
0
1
85
2
7
85
1
3
85
0
7
84
3
1
84
2
3
84
1
5
23
4
0
4
84
3
0
84
2
2
84
1
4
23
3
2
8
87
2
4
87
0
8
86
3
2
86
2
4
86
1
4
86
1
0
86
0
2
85
2
8
85
2
0
85
1
2
85
0
4
8615
24020
23619
90109016
91
0
2
8909 23713
23700
23
6
0
1
23
6
3
1
8
7
2
4
87
1
8
8608
8805
2352
0
2351
6
8
8
1
9
8
8
2
1
8
8
1
7
8923
23523
23509
23429
2
3
4
3
1
23
5
0
1
2350
2
23424
234162341723419
23415
23410
2340423409
23403
2340
5
88
1
0
87
1
4
8622
86
2
0
86
0
4
23605
2361523614
8532
84
3
2
84
2
6
84
2
0
84
1
4
84
0
8
9205
23516
9020
9016
90
0
6
91
2
0
901691
1
4
9025
23515
23507
23429
23423
23415
9011
9013
9015 8705
87
0
3
87
1
0
87
0
4
86
2
4
86
1
4
86
0
8
86
0
0
85
2
6
85
1
4
85
0
8
85
0
6
84
2
4
84
1
6
23
4
2
6
87
1
5
87
0
7
9017
9107
9111
9115
23411
23405
91
1
8
910
8
24104
92
2
9
9
2
2
2
92
2
1
24006
92
2
4
9226
92
2
8
24020
9221 92
1
5
92
0
7
24314
92
2
8
92
1
4
24
2
1
2
92
1
3
92
0
5
24
2
2
2
2421
6
92
2
0
24304
24
2
2
0
93
1
5
23517
2
3
4
3
1
23529
23515
2350723510
93
0
1
93
0
9
23425
23421
23411
9330
23508
23430
23422
23414
234062340
5
23417
23425
23431
93
1
0
93
0
4
23414
23420
23426
]Odgers Comprehensive Plan Amendment8609/8611/8615 244th Street SWFile AMD20110001| 1:4800 Scale0600300Feet
ComprehensivePlan Map
Corridor Development
Single Family Urban 1
Multi Family - High Density
Corridor Development
Edmonds Way Corridor
Multi Family - Medium Density
ATTACHMENT - FEXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 194 of 367
Land Use Element
Scope
Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown
on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows:
Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning
Classifications
Density
Units/Acre
Activity Center Mix of uses; refer to specific
plan designations within activity
center
See appropriate category below; also
refer to specific activity center
discussion in plan
Corridor Development Mixed use development
corridor; refer to specific plan
designations within corridor
See appropriate category below; also
refer to specific corridor discussion
in plan
Designated Park or School Site Public Facility P-zone or appropriate R-zone
compatible with neighborhood.
Single Family, Resource
Single Family, Urban 3
Single Family, Urban 2
Single Family, Urban 1
Single family RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20
RS-10
RS-8
RS-6, RS-8
< 4
< 4.4
< 5.5
5-8
Multi Family - High Density
Multi Family – Medium Density
Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4
RM-2.4, RM-3.0
18-30
< 18
Mixed Use Commercial
Community Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Highway 99 Corridor
Edmonds Way Corridor
Westgate Corridor (Planned
Business)
Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture
of zones
BC, BN, or equivalent
BN or equivalent based on
neighborhood plan
CG, CG2; transitional zones as
appropriate
BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial
zone; RM zones
BP, BN
Hospital / Medical Special Use District Hospital or Medical zone
Master Plan Development Master Plan Master Plan Overlay or equivalent
classification
Public Use or Park/Open Space Public or Parks P, OS, or equivalent classification
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 195 of 367
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control
of other types of development and expansion based upon the following
principles:
B.5.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local
government.
B.5.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be
discouraged.
B.5.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land
use encroachments.
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts
of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a
choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the
following policies:
C.1. Planned Residential Development. Provide options for planned residential
development solutions for residential subdivisions.
C.1.a. Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where
significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees,
view, open space, etc.).
C.1.b. Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown
and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple-family zoning.
C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and
building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees,
topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit
residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided.
C.2.a. Location Policies.
C.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets.
C.2.b. Compatibility Policies.
C.2.b.i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of
surrounding buildings, wherever feasible.
C.2.b.ii. The height of RM buildings that abut single family
residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height
permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing
vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially
screen one use from another.
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 196 of 367
C.2.b.iii. The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones
should be similar to the design idiom of the single family
residence.
C.2.c. General Design Policies.
C.2.c.i. The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks,
lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements,
materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to
carry out a unified design concept.
C.2.c.ii. Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the
natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site
rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed
plan.
C.3. Mobile Homes. Update design standards to ensure quality parks heavily
landscaped both for screening exterior and for appearance of interior.
Commercial Land Use
A. General. Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been
oriented primarily to serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a
unique array of personalized and specialty type shopping opportunities for the public. In
the downtown area, the Milltown shopping arcade is an excellent example of this type of
development. It is essential that future commercial developments continue to harmonize
and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citizens so strongly
desire to retain. By the same token, the City should develop a partnership with business,
citizens and residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various
requirements of the City's codes and policies.
The Highway 99 arterial has been recognized historically as a commercial district which
adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is important to
Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be
encouraged to its maximum potential.
The following sections describe the general goals and policies for all commercial areas,
followed by the additional goals and policies that specific commercial areas must also
meet.
B. Goals for Commercial Development: Commercial development in Edmonds shall be
located to take advantage of its unique locational opportunities while being consistent
and compatible with the character of its surrounding neighborhood. All commercial
development should be designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate
a business and provide goods and services to Edmonds residents and tourists in a safe,
convenient and attractive manner, in accordance with the following policies:
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 197 of 367
E.2. Permit uses in planned business areas that are primarily intended to serve the
local neighborhood while not contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
E.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
E.4. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access
points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic
in a safe and efficient manner. Site access shall not be provided from residential
streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
E.5. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched
roofs, stepped-down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to
provide designs compatible with single family development.
F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions
of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This
corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between
Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor.
An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the
corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major
concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not
interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established
communities.
F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that
are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
F.3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access
points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic
in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from
residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched
roofs, stepped-down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to
provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural
topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible.
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 198 of 367
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
9
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
0
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
1
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
2
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
3
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
4
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
5
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
6
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
7
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
8
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
9
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
0
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
1
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
2
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
3
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
4
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
5
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
6
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
7
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
8
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
9
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
0
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
1
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
2
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
3
o
f
3
6
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
-
H
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
4
o
f
3
6
7
Notice of Pending
Land Use Application
Any person has the right to comment on this application during the
public comment period, receive notice, participate in any hearings,
and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may
accept public comments at any time prior to closing of the record
or prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record
as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate
an administrative appeal.
Information on this development application can be viewed or
obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Division between the hours
of 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM Monday through Friday or online through the
City’s website. Visit www.ci.edmonds.wa.us, navigate to “Permits
Online” and then “Search for Permit.”
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Project Planner: Gina Coccia
coccia@ci.edmonds.wa.us
425.771.0220 x 1778
www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
Odgers/Darwin Comprehensive Plan Amendment
File # AMD20110001
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Public Hearings are held in the Council Chambers at the Public Safety Complex
located at 250 5th Avenue North across the street from City Hall. This public hearing is scheduled before the Planning
Board on WEDNESDAY APRIL 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM. This notice was mailed to owners within 300 feet of the site,
posted on site, posted at the Public Safety Complex, Library, and at City Hall. It was also published in the Everett
Herald. WARNING: The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of posted notices before the removal date
is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment.
NAME OF APPLICANT: Sidney Odgers + Ken & Audrey Darwin.
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: March 22, 2011.
PROJECT LOCATION: 8609/8611/8615 — 244th Street SW, Edmonds.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Notice of Application and Public Hearing for a “Type V” Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for a proposed change in plan designation from “Single Family Urban 1”
to “Edmonds Way Corridor” for three properties in the Single Family Residential (RS-8)
zone. The application was submitted on January 3, 2011 and determined to be
complete on January 31, 2011. Please contact the Project Planner if you have any
questions or would like to comment on this application. Comments are due by the
close of the public hearing.
EXHIBIT - 1
Packet Page 225 of 367
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
6
o
f
3
6
7
APPROVED MAY 11TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 27, 2011
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, Chair
Kevin Clarke
Bill Ellis
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
Neil Tibbott
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Gina Coccia, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2011 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY SIDNEY ODGERS AND
KEN AND AUDREY DARWIN TO CHANGE THE PLAN DESIGNATION AT 8609/8611/8615 – 244TH STREET
SOUTHWEST FROM “SINGLE-FAMILY URBAN 1” TO “EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR” (AMD20110001)
Ms. Coccia noted that no one was present in the audience to speak on this item except the applicants, so her presentation
would be brief. She referred the Board to the Staff Report and its accompanying attachments. She particularly referred to
Attachment F (Comprehensive Plan Map) and Attachment B (Zoning Map) and noted that the subject properties are currently
designated as Single-Family Urban 1. The applicants are requesting to change the designation to Edmonds Way Corridor to
be consistent with the adjacent designation to the east. Their intent is to then apply for a rezone from Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) to Multiple-Family (RM). She reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map must
be consistent. Therefore, in order to apply for a rezone, they must first obtain a change in the Comprehensive plan to a
designation that allows RM zoning.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 227 of 367
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 27, 2011 Page 2
Ms. Coccia reported that a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review was done, and a Determination of Non-
Significance was issued. The City did not receive any written public comments regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment and no SEPA appeals were filed.
Ms. Coccia then summarized that staff believes the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, because
they are located within a transition neighborhood between Highway 99 and Interstate 5, staff believes that Comprehensive
Plan change to Multi-Family Medium Density would be more appropriate and would allow development that is consistent
with the applicants’ stated desire. Multi-Family Medium Density would provide for a better transition and maintain the
appropriate balance of land uses in the City.
Based on the findings, conclusions, and attachments in the Staff Report, Ms. Coccia recommended the Board make a
recommendation to deny the request to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the three properties from
Single-Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor. She further recommended that the Board recommend approval of a
change in the designation from Single-Family Urban 1 to Multi Family – Medium Density because it would be an
appropriate transition between the more intense corridor designation and the single-family residential designation.
Chair Lovell said he didn’t have an opportunity to drive by the subject properties before the meeting, but based on the
investigation and review that was done by staff, their recommendation appears straightforward. He agreed with staff’s
recommendation that medium density would be more appropriate than the higher density to provide a greater transition for
the residential properties to the north. He asked Ms. Coccia to explain why a two-step process is necessary in order to rezone
the property. Ms. Coccia explained that the Board could not approve an application to rezone the subject properties to multi-
family because the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation is single-family. It is necessary to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation to something that allows multi-family development before a proposal to change the zoning
to multi-family could be considered.
Ms. Coccia explained the difference between medium and high-density multi-family zoning. The size of the subject
properties is approximately 39,000 square feet. An RM-1.5 (high-density) zoning designation would allow a maximum of 26
units to be constructed on the site. An RM-2.4 (medium-density) zoning designation would allow a maximum of 16 units,
and an RM-3 (medium-density) zoning designation would allow up to 13 units. She noted that the property to the east of the
subject property (approximately the same size) was developed into 18 units.
Chair Lovell noted that there is no Item 10 in the packet of pictures that were included as part of the Staff Report. Ms.
Coccia noted that these pictures were submitted by the applicant to illustrate how the subject properties are currently
developed. She suggested the Board invite the applicant to respond to questions related to their submittal.
Board Member Stewart noted there are several large fir and maple trees located on the subject properties, yet they were not
addressed in the Environmental Checklist. Stormwater mitigation was not addressed in the checklist, either. She said she
hopes the applicants are willing to consider the functional value of the current landscaping and native vegetation when
addressing stormwater runoff. Using the existing vegetation can reduce the cost of providing infrastructure to handle
stormwater. She said she also hopes they consider the potential impact to wildlife. She assumed the Board that Edmonds is
a Backyard Wildlife Habitat Community and animals depend on the vegetation that exists on the property. She hopes that
these issues would be addressed as part of the environmental review. She emphasized that the SEPA process should be used
as intended to apply more scrutiny. She reminded the Board and the applicants that any future development of the property
as multi-family would require Architectural Design Board review, and landscaping would be one component of their review.
Preservation of existing trees would be encouraged, as well.
Board Member Clarke expressed specific concern about the existing traffic in the area given the location of the existing street
infrastructure and the way traffic patterns have changed over time. As a result, 244th Street has become a major commuter
corridor. There is significant traffic congestion during commute times, particularly in the afternoon, and on weekends. The
two westbound lanes cross over Highway 99 and then the right lane diminishes. There is also a grade change, and
congestion occurs when people try to turn into the restaurants from 244th Street. He said there are near miss T-bone
accidents on a weekly basis at the La Chateau Condominiums because of the hill and the high traffic speeds. People coming
from the restaurants often try to turn left across the double yellow lines, and this also creates a safety issue. He expressed
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 228 of 367
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 27, 2011 Page 3
concern about allowing higher-density development on the north side of the street on the brow of the hill. He questioned
why the Staff Report did not address traffic safety. Ms. Coccia agreed with Board Member Clarke’s concern about the safety
issues at the top of the hill. However, she emphasized that a traffic impact analysis is not required as part of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment application. She explained that traffic safety and mitigation would be addressed as part of
a future rezone application if and when the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved. A SEPA checklist would be
required for the rezone application, which would allow the City to address issues that are not covered by the Development
Code standards.
Board Member Clarke expressed concern that if proposed amendment is approved, the applicant would be allowed to apply
for any rezone that is consistent with the land use designation. Ms. Coccia clarified that staff is not recommending approval
of the Edmonds Way Corridor designation. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that no commercial zoning should be
allowed on the subject properties. He expressed his belief that maintaining the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and
zoning would keep the area developed as low-density. Approving the change could result in additional applications to
change the zoning to the east and west based on the logic that adjacent properties are zoned medium density. A low-density
residential designation would allow the properties to be developed as duplex units and would be a true transition that stops
density creep from occurring. He suggested that traffic should be considered as part of any land use designation change
rather than waiting until a rezone application has been submitted. Mr. Chave explained that there is not a one-to-one
relationship between the Zoning Map and the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-family zones are only allowed in areas designated
in the Comprehensive Plan as either high or medium-density residential. A medium-density residential land-use designation
would allow for either RM-2.4 or RM-3 zoning. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, the applicant
would likely follow up with an application for implementing zoning, and that is the point where decisions would be made
about what zoning designation is appropriate. He said the purpose of the two-step process is for the applicant to gain some
assurance that the City would support a potential rezone before they spend a substantial amount of time and money. He said
traffic issues would be addressed as part of the rezone application review. In addition, the design review process would
consider the actual site configuration, as well as circulation and access.
Mr. Chave advised that when staff spoke with the applicants at the time of application submittal, they provided a narrative of
exactly what they wanted to do with their properties. They would like the ability to redevelop the properties as multi-family
residential to offer more density in the City. He said he is not concerned that approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and subsequent rezone would set precedence for similar applications in the future. He noted that the neighborhood is well
established. Based on the property lines and how the properties gain access from 244th, it is not likely this would be the case.
Ms. Coccia said that when staff discussed the Comprehensive Plan Map designation with the applicant, they did not have a
strong feeling one way or the other whether it should be Edmonds Way Corridor or Medium Density Multi-Family. They
simply desire to redevelop the properties with more than one dwelling unit per site. She suggested the Board ask the
applicants how they feel about the staff’s recommendation.
Board Member Johnson said she visited the subject properties and noted there is a hedge row of evergreen trees that could be
retained along the east side of the property. Immediately to the east there is a one-story carport and a single access in and out
to the three-story condominium.
Sid Odgers, Edmonds, indicated he is one of the applicants for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and has lived
at 8615 Edmonds Way for 33 years. He said he was planning to sell his property in three to five years because his kids will
be in college and he felt it would be time for his family to move on. The Darwins asked him about the possibility of putting
the properties together and selling them to a developer. He agreed that was a possibility, and they approached City staff to
find out what the process would be. Staff informed them that they would have to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation and then request a rezone in order to redevelop the properties as multi-family residential. He noted that the
subject properties are currently developed as one-story single-family residential homes, yet the surrounding development is
two and three stories high. The current development does not fit in. He said they were told they could probably get up to 27
units on the property, but he felt that would be too many. As a construction worker, he felt it would be more appropriate to
construct four multi-family residential buildings that look more like single-family homes. However, he emphasized that they
have not decided anything yet. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is the first step.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 229 of 367
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 27, 2011 Page 4
Mr. Odgers referred to Board Member Clarke’s concern about traffic and agreed that 244th Street does get busy during rush
hour, particularly when King’s Garden School starts and ends each day. In addition, traffic can become congested further
down 205th where the roadway meets SR-104 as a result of ferry traffic. There will always be people who take chances
crossing the street, but he hasn’t ever had a problem gaining access to and from his property. He pointed out that a center
turn lane is located near the subject properties. He also pointed out that there are no driveways on the south side of the street.
The properties on the south side are accessed from a different street. Mr. Odgers summarized that he is interested in
redeveloping the properties into something that improves the community. If he sells his property and the proposed
amendment is denied, it will likely remain as a one-story house that looks out of place.
NO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AS PART OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING. THEREFORE, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Board Member Tibbott said he likes the idea of allowing the property to redevelop as medium density, particularly given that
design review would be required at a later phase. He said he believes the subject properties are the appropriate place to add
density.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that the subject properties have an interesting geography. They are located at the crest
of the hill and are bordered on the north and west sides by single-family development. The property to the south is located in
the City of Shoreline and is completely fenced off without any access from 244th Street. The property clearly has potential
for redevelopment, and it seems the better choice would be single-family residential. However, she said she certainly
understands why the property owners want to rezone the property so it can be sold and redeveloped as multi-family
residential. If the Board were to recommend approval of a change, she would support redevelopment of one to two-story
duplexes, which would be a more appropriate transition. She noted that a land use designation of medium-density residential
would accommodate this type of low-density multi-family residential development.
Board Member Johnson expressed concern about the lack of internal circulation on the subject property, as well as the
property to the west. While she recognized the Board cannot address this issue as part of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, it should be a considered as part of any redevelopment proposal.
Board Member Johnson noted that as you ascend the hill, there is a climbing lane that provides a third lane. However, this
lane disappears right in front of the condominium complex. In front of the subject property there is a two-way turn lane for
the development that is located within the City of Edmonds. She observed that while there is a significant amount of traffic
during peak times, it is manageable for those who are familiar with the area.
Board Member Clarke said he appreciates the applicants’ hard work in preparing the application packet, as well as Mr.
Odger’s comments. He said he had forgotten about the fence along the Shoreline side of the road. He said he has traveled
this route for almost 50 years, and he worked on the La Chateau Condominium development when it was constructed in the
1970’s. He said the two-way left turn lane is a positive, as long as people are cautious going in and out of the development.
Based on the applicant’s testimony, as well as Board Member Johnson’s comments, he said he is confident the traffic issues
can be addressed as part of a future rezone application and development proposal. While he said he still does not believe that
an Edmonds Way Corridor land use designation would be appropriate, he would support staff’s recommendation to change
the land use designation to Medium Density Multi Family, which would allow the applicant to request a rezone to either RM-
2.4 or RM-3.
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATION FOR FILE NUMBER AMD20110001 TO DENY THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATION OF THREE PARCELS AT 8609, 5611 AND 8615 – 244TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM
“SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1” TO “EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR” ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP.
HE FURTHER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS
IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM “SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1” TO MULTI
FAMILY – MEDIUM DENSITY” BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 230 of 367
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 27, 2011 Page 5
MORE INTENSE CORRIDOR DESIGNATION AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.
BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION.
The Board discussed whether it would be appropriate to address the issue of density as part of the motion. Board Member
Clarke pointed out that the Board’s discussion would be part of the record that goes before the City Council for final
consideration. Mr. Chave clarified that if the Board’s recommendation is approved by the City Council, the applicant would
likely follow up with a rezone application for either RM-3 or RM-2.4 zoning. The rezone application would come before the
Board for a public hearing and a recommendation to the City Council.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave said staff would notify the applicant of the date in which the proposed amendment would be presented to the City
Council for a public hearing and final decision.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS
AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCF)
(AMD20010004)
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Planning Board has held numerous meetings on this topic since April 2010, most recently in
March 2011. The entirety of their work led to the creation of a revised draft regulation that is the subject of the public
hearing. He briefly reviewed the timeline of the Planning Board’s work, and added that the Architectural Design Board also
reviewed the draft regulations and provided comments relevant to aesthetic concerns and design standards. He reminded the
Board that the issue came up when citizens inquired about a utility pole retrofit on 96th Avenue West. The City Council
referred the matter to the Planning Board, directing them to “be as restrictive as possible with regard to new poles without
limiting coverage.” He noted that adopting the draft regulations is a Type V Legislative Action, which means the Planning
Board conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would make the
final decision.
Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that Federal regulations prohibit local municipalities from excluding WCF’s. It also
prohibits local municipalities from regulating WCF’s on the basis of health impacts if they meet federal criteria for radio
frequency emissions. However, Edmonds can regulate the location of different types of facilities as well as their appearance
through design standards. He explained that because Edmonds is largely residential and hilly, locating WCF’s is more
challenging. The City Council has indicated their desire that no monopoles be allowed in residential zones. Instead, they
would like to use existing taller structures where possible, such as utility poles and buildings. They also expressed a desire
to encourage co-location.
Mr. Clugston noted that the existing City regulations related to WCF’s are found in Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) 18.05 and ECDC 20.50. ECDC 18.05 addresses utility wires that are placed in unzoned rights-of-way. It was
updated in 2006 and again in 2008 to specify wireless antenna separation distance for mounting on utility poles. The updates
also required the use of wooden poles and initiated a public notice process for WCF’s. The Board is currently considering
amendments that would add additional design standards. ECDC 20.50 regulates WCF’s on zoned parcels in the City. It
currently contains design standards for certain types of wireless antennas and facilities and is interrelated with ECDC 18.05.
It was last updated in 1996.
Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, WCF’s are regulated based on the type of facility. While the current regulations work
well enough, the City Council felt they could be improved. The Board initially thought that minor changes to the existing
code language would be sufficient to provide the additional clarification and protection the City Council requested regarding
the siting and visual impact of WCFs. However, after public testimony from citizens and representatives from the wireless
communications industry, it quickly became clear that the existing wireless regulations were largely outdated and needed to
be reevaluated in a more comprehensive way. While this was a lot more work for the Board, it resulted in a more
comprehensive approach.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 231 of 367
AM-4053 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:City Attorney Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Update on medical marijuana dispensaries.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No action is required (in which case the moratorium expires on July 28, 2011).
However, Special Counsel Susan Drummond of the City Attorney's office has provided three options for
the Council to consider:
(1) No Action. Allow the moratorium to expire as state and federal law prohibit medical
marijuana dispensaries, so they cannot be sited within the City anyway.
(2) Business Licenses. Address the use through City business license requirements.
(3) Zoning. Specify in the zoning code where dispensaries can be located.
After consultation with the City Attorney's office, staff supports option (1) or (2) at this point in time.
Previous Council Action
The City Council adopted interim zoning ordinance #3833 (see Exhibit 1) establishing a moratorium on
the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in January, 2011. The ordinance is due to expire on
July 28, 2011.
Narrative
This is an update on the issue of marijuana dispensaries, given that the city's adopted moratorium on
establishing these dispensaries is due to expire on July 28, 2011. Since adoption of Ordinance #3833, the
state has taken little action to resolve the issues around medical marijuana. A memo from Special Counsel
Susan Drummond of the City Attorney's office explains the current state of affairs and discusses the
options available to the city (see Exhibit 2). Given the state and federal status of these dispensaries, staff
believes that pursuing zoning regulations on medical marijuana dispensaries is not advised; it would be
more appropriate to simply take no further action or specifically address the facilities through the city's
licensing rules.
Additional information is provided in the attached exhibits.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Interim Zoning Ordinance #3833
Packet Page 232 of 367
Exhibit 2: Susan Drummond Memo
Exhibit 3: WCIA Bulletin #46
Exhibit 4: US Attorney Letter
Exhibit 5: Governor Veto Message
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 03:26 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 06/30/2011 02:19 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 233 of 367
Packet Page 234 of 367
Packet Page 235 of 367
Packet Page 236 of 367
Packet Page 237 of 367
Packet Page 238 of 367
Packet Page 239 of 367
MEMORANDUM
TO: Edmonds City Council
FROM: Lighthouse Law Group, PLLC
Susan Elizabeth Drummond, Special Counsel
SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana Dispensary Moratorium - Ordinance No. 3833
Options for Addressing July 28 Expiration
DATE: June 12, 2011
_____________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
The City of Edmonds bars medical marijuana dispensaries through a moratorium, which
expires July 28.1 Given the expiration date, the City has requested a memo outlining its options
for addressing the issue. This memo describes three alternatives:
(1) No Action. Allow the moratorium to expire as state and federal law prohibit medical
marijuana dispensaries, so they cannot be sited within the City anyway.
(2) Business Licenses. Address the use through City business license requirements.
(3) Zoning. Specify in the zoning code where dispensaries can be located.
Because the Governor vetoed the state licensing process the legislature enacted this past
session, medical marijuana dispensaries are illegal under both state and federal law. So, no
further action is necessary. However, should the City wish to address the issue anyway, the code
governing business licenses could be amended to deny licenses for activities which violate
federal law. Addressing the issue through the zoning code is problematic as the activity is
currently illegal under both federal and state law.
1 Ordinance No. 3833, effective January 28, 2011.
Attorney-Client
Privileged Communication
Packet Page 240 of 367
2. Legislative Background
2.1 State Law
Over a decade ago, Washington citizens voted for Initiative 692, now codified at Ch.
69.51A RCW. The statute allows “health care professionals” to authorize the use of marijuana
by “qualifying patients.”2 However, the legislation does not authorize dispensaries.
This past legislative session, the legislature drafted and passed a bill creating a state licensing
system for medical marijuana dispensaries. However, when Governor Gregoire partially
approved Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 on April 29th, she vetoed the state
licensing process. In her veto message, she noted her concerns over state employees facing
federal liability, given dispensaries are illegal under federal law. The portion of the legislation
not vetoed establishes parameters on medical marijuana use, such as:
Medical cannabis cannot be displayed or used in a place visible to the general public.3
Up to ten qualifying patients may create collective gardens, with no more than 45 plants.4
15 days must elapse before a qualified provider switches from providing one qualifying
patient to providing another qualifying patient.5
Medical marijuana use need not be accommodated on school grounds, a school bus, or by
an employer at the place of employment.6
Local government officials are indemnified for actions taken to enforce the laws
regarding medical cannabis if made in good faith.7
Also, cities may adopt legislation governing zoning, business licenses, health and safety issues,
and business taxes, as long as “such requirements do not preclude the possibility of siting
licensed dispensers within the jurisdiction.”8 The Governor’s veto message explains the non-
preclusion language is “without meaning in light of the vetoes of sections providing for such
licensed dispensers.”9
2 See e.g. RCW 69.51A.005; State v. Hanson, 138 Wn. App. 322, 157 P.3d 438 (2007).
3 E2ndSSB 5073, § 501.
4 E2ndSSB 5073, § 403.
5 E2ndSSB 5073, § 404.
6 E2ndSSB 5073, § 501.
7 E2ndSSB 5073, § 1101.
8 E2ndSSB 5073, § 1102.
9 E2ndSSB 5073, Veto Message, p. 43. The Governor’s veto includes the “licensed dispenser” definition E2ndSSB
5073, § 201, and Veto Message, pgs. 43-44.
Packet Page 241 of 367
2.2 Federal Law
The federal Controlled Substances Act “designates Schedule I drugs [including marijuana] as
having no currently-accepted medical use and there are criminal penalties associated with
production, distribution, and possession of these drugs.”10 However, where medical marijuana
use is permissible under state law, the U.S. Department of Justice is unlikely to devote federal
resources to prosecuting individuals using marijuana to treat serious illnesses:
[P]rosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as
part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those
caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide
such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal
resources.11
Nevertheless, compliance with state law is not “a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled
Substances Act.”12 Simply because an activity is legal under state law, does not mean it is legal
under federal law.13
3. Options for Addressing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
3.1 No Action
It is not necessary to take action. Moratorium expiration on July 28 will not alter the
status quo, as dispensaries are prohibited by both state and federal law. Should the state
legislature take up the issue again, the City may elect to revisit this issue. This is the simplest
approach.
3.2 Amend Business License Provisions
The City’s current business license requirements prohibit license issuance for any
business activity which would violate city or state law.14 Some jurisdictions also prohibit
issuance for activities federal law prohibits. If there are concerns about the issue arising in
future, the City could consider adopting similar language. If the City were to amend these
provisions, it may wish to consider incorporating an administrative appeal process. Also, the
code should be clarified to ensure all dispensaries are covered, as discussed below.
10 VHA Directive 2011-004, Department of Veterans Affairs, Access to Clinical Programs for Veterans Participating
in State-Approved Marijuana Programs (January 31, 2011), p. 1; see also 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I(c)(10) and 21
U.S.C. § 841(a),
11 U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum For Selected United States Attorneys (October 19, 2009), p. 2.
12 Id.
13 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 121 S.Ct. 1711 (2001).
14 ECC § 4.72.050.
Packet Page 242 of 367
The City Code’s definition of “business” is broadly defined to include “all services and
activities engaged in with the objective of pecuniary gain, benefit or advantage to the
person, or to any other person or class, directly or indirectly….”15 However, the Code does
exempt “nonbusiness activities carried on by a religious, charitable, benevolent, fraternal or
social organization.”16 Dispensaries are typically structured to accept established “donation”
amounts in exchange for a specific amount of marijuana, which may be a “business activity” as
the code defines it. If the business license requirements are amended, this should be clarified.
3.3 Zoning
Medical marijuana dispensaries are permissible in a number of commercially zoned areas
within the City. Consequently, before the Governor’s veto of the state siting process, some
jurisdictions considered zoning as a way to regulate the location of medical marijuana
dispensaries. But, with no state certification process, and given dispensaries are illegal under
state and federal law, dealing with the issue through zoning is both unnecessary and problematic.
Also, this approach can be expected to be time consumptive and susceptible to litigation.
4. Conclusion
The City of Edmonds has three options.
One, the City could take no action, and allow the moratorium to expire on July 28.
Because state and federal law prohibit the use, it is not allowed anyway.
Two, if there are concerns the issue will arise again, the City could amend its business
license provisions to prohibit license issuance for federally prohibited activities.
Three, the City could address this issue through the zoning code. Of the three options,
this is the most problematic, given the use is illegal under federal and state law.
15 ECC §4.72.010(B), emphasis added.
16 Id.
Packet Page 243 of 367
Risk Management Bulletin
Administration #46
June, 2011
Medical Marijuana Law: Post 2011 Washington Legislative Session
By Mark R. Bucklin, WCIA General Counsel
Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc. P.S.
A WCIA Risk Management Bulletin was issued 12/28/2010 addressing the then existing state of
the law regarding medical marijuana in Washington and the rise of business license applications
for medical marijuana “Dispensaries” across the state. In short, the Bulletin concluded that such
“dispensaries” were not legal under the law at that time as they inevitably involved the
possession and sale of marijuana not allowed by law. It was recommended that business license
applications for dispensaries be denied or revoked. The Bulletin predicted that the topic would
be addressed in the 2011 Washington State Legislative Session and changes could occur. The
topic did arise, legislation was passed and then the legislation was partially vetoed by the
Governor. This Bulletin Supplement will address the law as it now exists, post 2011 Legislative
Session.
In April 2011, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill
5073 through both houses amending Initiative 692 and sent it on to the Governor for signature
into law. The bill, as passed, offered sweeping changes to the medical marijuana law in
Washington and would have put in place a regulatory licensing scheme for the growth and
distribution of medical marijuana through licensed dispensaries to “qualified patients” who had
been designated as such by their “health care professionals.” The production and sale of medical
cannabis and the dispensing standards would have been under regulation by the State
Department of Health. Dispensers could sell seeds, plants, usable cannabis, and cannabis
products directly to qualifying patients. The bill also provided for optional “collective gardens”
where individuals who were qualified patients, or their individual providers, could grow for their
own use medical marijuana collectively so long as the participants did not exceed 10 in number
or more that 15 plants per person and up to 45 plants total.
Before the Governor could sign the bill, the U.S. Attorney’s in Seattle and Spokane sent the
Governor an advisory letter, (which she had solicited) approved by U.S. Attorney General
Holder, warning and advising the Governor that substantial portions of the bill approved by the
Legislature was in direct conflict with Federal Drug Laws and that state employees could be at
risk of federal prosecution for aiding and abetting illegal drug possession and sale if they
processed licenses for production and sale of medical cannabis under the proposed new bill. The
letter of April 14, 2011 to Governor Gregoire signed by U.S Attorney Jenny Durkin and U.S.
Attorney Michael Ormsby stated, in part:
“The Washington legislative proposals will create a licensing scheme that permits large-
scale marijuana cultivation and distribution. This would authorize conduct contrary to
federal law and thus, would undermine the federal government’s efforts to regulate the
possession, manufacturing and trafficking of controlled substance. Accordingly, the
Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up
Packet Page 244 of 367
marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries as they will be doing so in violation of federal
law. Others who knowingly facilitate the action of the licensees, including property owners,
landlords, and financier should also know that their conduct violates federal law. In
addition, state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative
proposals would not be immune from liability under the CSA (controlled substances act).”
(emphasis added). 1
Citing this letter, Governor Gregoire issued a partial veto of ESSSB 5073 on April 29, 2011.
The Governor vetoed all the new sections dealing with the state licensing of production and
licensed dispensing of medical marijuana.2 The portions of the bill not vetoed and signed by
Governor Gregoire amend the original medical marijuana Initiative 692 passed by the people.
So, the question becomes: What is left of ESSSB 5073 after the line item veto of the Governor?
What Are the Significant Changes in the Law Under ESSSB 5073 as Signed?
1. New stronger protections to qualified medical marijuana users and providers from
criminal arrest, prosecution and conviction.
Previously qualified users and providers were given an affirmative defense to assert at
trial if they were charged with a marijuana crime. Now, sec. 401 of the new act provides:
“Sec. 401 The medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this chapter does not constitute a crime and a qualifying patient or designated
provider in compliance with the terms and conditions of this chapter may not be
arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil
consequences, for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with
intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, or have real or
personal property seized or forfeited …”
Section 102 of the new act states:
“(a) Qualifying patients with terminal or debilitating ((illnesses)) medical conditions
who, in the judgment of their health care professionals, may benefit from the medical
use of ((marijuana)) cannabis, shall not be ((found guilty of a crime under state
law for their possession and limited use of marijuana)) arrested, prosecuted, or
subject to other criminal sanctions or civil consequences under state law based
solely on their medical use of cannabis, notwithstanding any other provision of law;
(b) Persons who act as designated providers to such patients shall also not be ((found
guilty of a crime under state law for)) arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other
criminal sanctions or civil consequences under state law, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, based solely on their assisting with the medical use of ((marijuana))
cannabis;…”
1 Letter attached
2 Partial veto letter attached
-2-
Packet Page 245 of 367
Author’s Supplemental Note: Did the act, as partially vetoed, really make medical
marijuana possession and use exempt from arrest and prosecution? It has been
pointed out that section 401 may have been intended to only relate to those qualified
users who obtained registry cards provided in Sec. 401(2) and Sec. 901. The
Governor vetoed Sec. 901 which would have created the State Registry system. Does
the Sec. 102’s similar language stand alone and reach the same result? If not, then the
language of Sec. 402(1) and (2) which provides an affirmative defense to criminal
arrest and charges for qualified patients who do not have registry cards may be the
operative law. Court decisions may have to clarify this issue.
2. Health Care Professionals are given greater protection but with greater restrictions
regarding issuing “valid documentation” to qualifying patients authorizing medical
use of cannabis.
a. Health Care Professionals have been given the same protections as qualifying
patients and providers as noted above. (Sec 301(1))
b. The new act states:
“Sec. 301(2)(a) A health care professional may only provide a patient with valid
documentation authorizing the medical use of cannabis or register the patient with
the registry established in section 901 of this act if he or she has a newly initiated
or existing documented relationship with the patient, as a primary care provider or
a specialist, relating to the diagnosis and ongoing treatment or monitoring of the
patient's terminal or debilitating medical condition, and only after:
(i) Completing a physical examination of the patient as appropriate, based on
the patient's condition and age;
(ii) Documenting the terminal or debilitating medical condition of the patient
in the patient's medical record and that the patient may benefit from treatment
of this condition or its symptoms with medical use of cannabis;
(iii) Informing the patient of other options for treating the terminal or
debilitating medical condition; and
(iv) Documenting other measures attempted to treat the terminal or
debilitating medical condition that do not involve the medical use of cannabis.
(b) A health care professional shall not:
(i) Accept, solicit, or offer any form of pecuniary remuneration from or to a
licensed dispenser, licensed producer, or licensed processor of cannabis
products;
(ii) Offer a discount or any other thing of value to a qualifying patient who is a
customer of, or agrees to be a customer of, a particular licensed dispenser,
licensed producer, or licensed processor of cannabis products;
(iii) Examine or offer to examine a patient for purposes of diagnosing a
terminal or debilitating medical condition at a location where cannabis is
produced, processed, or dispensed;
(iv) Have a business or practice which consists solely of authorizing the
medical use of cannabis;
-3-
Packet Page 246 of 367
(v) Include any statement or reference, visual or otherwise, on the
medical use of cannabis in any advertisement for his or her business or
practice; or
(vi) Hold an economic interest in an enterprise that produces, processes,
or dispenses cannabis if the health care professional authorizes the
medical use of cannabis.
(3) A violation of any provision of subsection (2) of this section constitutes
unprofessional conduct under chapter 18.130 RCW.”
3. Use of medical cannabis at work or in jails requires no accommodation and may be
prohibited. Drug free work places may be continued. Medical insurance is not
required to cover medical cannabis. Medical cannabis may not be smoked in public
but it is now an infraction, not a crime. Persons under supervised probation or
parole may be prohibited from the use medical cannabis. The use of medical
cannabis is not a defense to Driving Under the Influence.
“Sec. 501. RCW 69.51A.060 and 2010 c 284 s 4 are each amended to read as
follows:
(1) It shall be a ((misdemeanor)) class 3 civil infraction to use or display
medical ((marijuana)) cannabis in a manner or place which is open to the
view of the general public.
(2) Nothing in this chapter ((requires any health insurance provider)) establishes a
right of care as a covered benefit or requires any state purchased health care as
defined in RCW 41.05.011 or other health carrier or health plan as defined in Title
48 RCW to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of
((marijuana)) cannabis. Such entities may enact coverage or noncoverage criteria
or related policies for payment or nonpayment of medical cannabis in their sole
discretion.
(3) Nothing in this chapter requires any health care professional to authorize the
medical use of ((medical marijuana)) cannabis for a patient.
(4) Nothing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any on- site medical
use of ((marijuana)) cannabis in any place of employment, in any school bus or on
any school grounds, in any youth center, in any correctional facility, or smoking
((medical marijuana)) cannabis in any public place ((as that term is defined in
RCW 70.160.020)) or hotel or motel.
(5) Nothing in this chapter authorizes the use of medical cannabis by any person
who is subject to the Washington code of military justice in chapter 38.38 RCW.
(6) Employers may establish drug-free work policies. Nothing in this chapter
requires an accommodation for the medical use of cannabis if an employer has a
drug-free work place.”
“Sec. 1105. (1)(a) The arrest and prosecution protections established in section
401 of this act may not be asserted in a supervision revocation or violation
hearing by a person who is supervised by a corrections agency or department,
including local governments or jails, that has determined that the terms of this
section are inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision.
-4-
Packet Page 247 of 367
(b) The affirmative defenses established in sections 402, 405, 406, and 407 of this
act may not be asserted in a supervision revocation or violation hearing by a
person who is supervised by a corrections agency or department, including local
governments or jails, that has determined that the terms of this section are
inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision.
(2) The provisions of RCW 69.51A.040 and sections 403 and 413 of this act do
not apply to a person who is supervised for a criminal conviction by a corrections
agency or department, including local governments or jails, that has determined
that the terms of this chapter are inconsistent with and contrary to his or her
supervision.
(3) A person may not be licensed as a licensed producer, licensed processor of
cannabis products, or a licensed dispenser under section 601, 602, or 701 of this
act if he or she is supervised for a criminal conviction by a corrections agency or
department, including local governments or jails, that has determined that
licensure is inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision.”
“Sec. 501(8) (8) No person shall be entitled to claim the ((affirmative defense
provided in RCW 69.51A.040)) protection from arrest and prosecution under
RCW 69.51A.040 or the affirmative defense under section 402 of this act for
engaging in the medical use of ((marijuana)) cannabis in a way that endangers the
health or well-being of any person through the use of a motorized vehicle on a
street, road, or highway, including violations of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504, or
equivalent local ordinances.”
4. A “designated provider” who has been terminated by a “qualified patient” cannot
become a designated provider for another qualified patient until 15 days have
elapsed.
“Sec. 404. (1) A qualifying patient may revoke his or her designation of a specific
provider and designate a different provider at any time. A revocation of
designation must be in writing, signed and dated. The protections of this chapter
cease to apply to a person who has served as a designated provider to a qualifying
patient seventy-two hours after receipt of that patient's revocation of his or her
designation.
(2) A person may stop serving as a designated provider to a given qualifying
patient at any time. However, that person may not begin serving as a
designated provider to a different qualifying patient until fifteen days have
elapsed from the date the last qualifying patient designated him or her to
serve as a provider.”
5. Qualifying patients may, under restrictions, create “collective gardens” to produce
medical cannabis.
“Sec. 403. (1) Qualifying patients may create and participate in collective
gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting, and delivering
cannabis for medical use subject to the following conditions:
-5-
Packet Page 248 of 367
(a) No more than ten qualifying patients may participate in a single
collective garden at any time;
(b) A collective garden may contain no more than fifteen plants per patient
up to a total of forty-five plants;
(c) A collective garden may contain no more than twenty-four ounces of
useable cannabis per patient up to a total of seventy-two ounces of
useable cannabis;
(d) A copy of each qualifying patient's valid documentation or proof of
registration with the registry established in section 901 of this act, including a
copy of the patient's proof of identity, must be available at all times on
the premises of the collective garden; and
(e) No useable cannabis from the collective garden is delivered to anyone
other than one of the qualifying patients participating in the collective garden.
(2) For purposes of this section, the creation of a "collective garden" means
qualifying patients sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the
resources required to produce and process cannabis for medical use such as, for
example, a location for a collective garden; equipment, supplies, and labor
necessary to plant, grow, and harvest cannabis; cannabis plants, seeds, and
cuttings; and equipment, supplies, and labor necessary for proper construction,
plumbing, wiring, and ventilation of a garden of cannabis plants.
(3) A person who knowingly violates a provision of subsection (1) of this section
is not entitled to the protections of this chapter.”
(Author’s Note: Sec 501(1) makes the public display of medical cannabis a
civil infraction and this would presumably apply to the display of medical
cannabis in a collective garden hence some sort of screening from public view
seems to be built into the act.)
6. Cities and Counties may, but are not required to, zone, license, regulate and tax the
production, processing and dispensing of cannabis. This would appear to be now
limited to collective gardens since that is the only new activity allowed under the act
and individual single production of medical cannabis by a qualified user or
provider.
“Sec. 1102. (1) Cities and towns may adopt and enforce any of the following
pertaining to the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis
products within their jurisdiction: Zoning requirements, business licensing
requirements, health and safety requirements, and business taxes. Nothing in this
act is intended to limit the authority of cities and towns to impose zoning
requirements or other conditions upon licensed dispensers, so long as such
requirements do not preclude the possibility of siting licensed dispensers within
the jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction has no commercial zones, the jurisdiction is not
required to adopt zoning to accommodate licensed dispensers.
(2) Counties may adopt and enforce any of the following pertaining to the
production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within
their jurisdiction in locations outside of the corporate limits of any city or town:
-6-
Packet Page 249 of 367
Zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, and health and safety
requirements. Nothing in this act is intended to limit the authority of counties to
impose zoning requirements or other conditions upon licensed dispensers, so long
as such requirements do not preclude the possibility of siting licensed dispensers
within the jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction has no commercial zones, the
jurisdiction is not required to adopt zoning to accommodate licensed dispensers.”
(Author’s Note: The Governor vetoed all other sections of the act that would
have created legal licensed dispensers of medical cannabis so presumably the
language in this section addressing the zoning of licensed dispensers is null
and void.)
7. Police and local jurisdictions are given limited immunity under the act for good
faith actions.
“Sec. 1101. (1) No civil or criminal liability may be imposed by any court on the
state or its officers and employees for actions taken in good faith under this
chapter and within the scope of their assigned duties.
(2) No civil or criminal liability may be imposed by any court on cities, towns,
and counties or other municipalities and their officers and employees for actions
taken in good faith under this chapter and within the scope of their assigned
duties.”
Challenges and Issues for Local Government Under the New Act
1. What to do with existing medical marijuana/cannabis dispensaries and business
license applications for the same?
As previously noted, the Governor’s line item veto took out all provisions of the
law that would have made dispensaries licensed and legal. Hence the law remains
the same as before and there is no credible argument that medical cannabis
dispensaries that sell cannabis are legal under state or federal law. (See prior
WCIA Bulletin of 12/28 /2010-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries-Are They
Legal?). The sale of marijuana in the State of Washington remains illegal
and subject to criminal prosecution. (RCW 69.50.401 & 410.) Nothing in the
new act makes the sale of medical marijuana/cannabis legal.
Existing dispensaries that are selling marijuana/cannabis are subject to police
investigation, arrest and prosecution. Priority of enforcement is up to the local
jurisdictions and decisions on resource allocation.
Pending or new applications for business licenses dispensaries of medical
cannabis should be denied as illegal businesses if there is any evidence that the
sale of cannabis is part of the operational scheme or business plan.
2. Should local governmental entities do zoning or zoning moratoriums regarding
medical marijuana/cannabis dispensaries?
-7-
Packet Page 250 of 367
There does not appear to be any current urgency to do so as the legislation that
would have allowed legal dispensaries starting in 2012 has been vetoed.
However, the political backers of ESSSB 5073 have vowed they will come back
with a new proposal in the next legislative session. Preemptive zoning in
anticipation that someday dispensaries may become legal under state law is a
consideration for local jurisdictions that may be concerned about a future
applicant becoming vested to a site that is inconsistent with the overall zoning
scheme of the jurisdiction.
3. Should local jurisdictions get involved in the zoning, regulation or licensing of
“collective gardens”?
This is a difficult issue. The new act does not require any local action but does
allow it under Sec. 1102. The possession of marijuana for any reason under
federal law may be a crime and the federal law does not recognize exceptions for
medical use of cannabis and marijuana except in authorized clinical situations.
Hence, an argument can be made that if local jurisdictions specifically allow,
license and regulate collective marijuana gardens they and the employees
executing the laws could run a fowl of the U.S. Attorney warnings expressed in
letter of April 14, 201 delivered to Governor Gregoire. They could be viewed as
aiding and abetting a violation of the federal controlled substances act. Some may
argue the threat is remote but no one can say it is impossible.
The other side of the argument is that unregulated and uncontrolled collective
gardens could become a public safety threat and therefore regulation and licensing
is a means of reducing the threat. Under the new law collective gardens may be
planted and marijuana grown by qualified patients of up to ten in number. There
are no provisions in the state law as to where in a local jurisdiction such gardens
may be started nor is there any provisions for fencing, screening, security or
safety. It is easy to envision that such collective gardens could become the locus
of thefts of marijuana plants and finished product and potentially violent
confrontations could occur. Collective gardens could be started next to schools
and churches. Some citizens may not appreciate relatively large scale open
marijuana cultivation next to their back yards, businesses, churches or schools.
There could be political pressure on local elected officials to regulate and license
cannabis production via “collective gardens.” They may demand regulation and
licensing under the authority of Sec. 1102 – “Cities and towns may adopt and
enforce any of the following pertaining to the production, processing, or
dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdiction: Zoning
requirements, business licensing requirements, health and safety
requirements, and business taxes.”
(Author’s Note: Business taxes on collective gardens is likely not legal as
“sales” of medical cannabis is not authorized by the partially vetoed act.)
-8-
Packet Page 251 of 367
Local police authorities may feel that zoning, licensing and regulation of
collective gardens would assist them in tracking and distinguishing legal grow
operations from illegal ones.
There does not appear to be any express authority or provision in the new act
that would allow the outright banning of collective gardens by local
jurisdictions. Sec. 401 of the act directly empowers qualified users to start and
maintain collective gardens. This would appear to preempt local authorities from
doing outright bans on collective gardens on private property. Likewise, local
jurisdictions could not ban individual qualified patients or their providers from
cultivation of medical marijuana/cannabis on private property or at their homes so
long as they have the proper documentation and limit their possession to 15 plants
or 24 ounces of useable cannabis.
If the decision is made to zone, license and regulate collective gardens by the
local jurisdiction care will be need to make sure that an appropriate legislative
history is developed to document the negative impacts of unregulated collective
gardens and to narrowly fashion regulations tailored to address those negative
impacts. Failure to do so could lead to challenges that the regulations or zoning
violated substantive due process protections under the Constitution. Members are
advised to work closely with their legal counsel on these issues.
If Members think that zoning regulation and licensing of collective gardens is in
their best interest they may wish to quickly impose a moratorium prohibiting their
establishment for a brief period of time to develop the necessary legislative
history and to adopt appropriate ordinances for zoning, licensing and
regulating collective gardens.
WCIA strongly advises against Members allowing use of public property or
public “pea patches” for use as “collective gardens” where medical
marijuana/cannabis is grown. It would expose the jurisdiction to
unnecessary liability claims as a landlord under premises liability law if
other legal users of the public lands were injured due to criminal
activity/thefts potentially associated with the production of the cannabis
products.
Conclusion
The truncated and partially vetoed version of ESSSB 5073 signed into law by Governor Gregoire
becomes effective on July 22, 2011. Medical marijuana/cannabis dispensaries that sell cannabis
products remain illegal. The fact that the Legislature went to great lengths to try and make them
legal and then failed by virtue of the Governor’s veto; re-enforces the argument that they were
never legal. Nevertheless, proponents of medical cannabis will continue to argue to the contrary
and will continue to urge novel schemes and models for the distribution of medical cannabis to
local jurisdictions in hopes of obtaining business licenses and therefore apparent legitimacy. It is
suggested that any such new model be closely analyzed to determine where the profit may be
-9-
Packet Page 252 of 367
-10-
made in the business model. If it ultimately involves a sale of marijuana or cannabis products it
is likely illegal under both state and federal law.
The political battle promises to be carried on in the future. Governor Gregoire’s signing letter
partially vetoing ESSSB 5073 states she remains open to legislation that would exempt
qualifying patients and their providers from criminal penalties when they join a cooperative to
distribute medical marijuana. The proponents of ESSSB 5073 promise to return in the next
legislative session to have another go at it. It is not clear how any future effort will have success
as long as the federal law remains intact and continues to criminalize possession and sale of
marijuana regardless of its designation as for medical treatment. Future case law may also
clarify or further obscure the picture. It appears the only certainty is more uncertainty as to what
future law in this area may develop.
Packet Page 253 of 367
Packet Page 254 of 367
Packet Page 255 of 367
Packet Page 256 of 367
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
P.O. Box 40002 · Olympia, Washington 98504-0002 · (360) 902-4111 · www.governor.wa.gov
April 29, 2011
To the Honorable President and Members,
The Senate of the State of Washington
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Sections 101, 201, 407, 410, 411, 412, 601,
602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804,
805, 806, 807, 901, 902, 1104, 1201, 1202, 1203 and 1206, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate
Bill 5073 entitled:
“AN ACT Relating to medical use of cannabis.”
In 1998, Washington voters made the compassionate choice to remove the fear of state criminal
prosecution for patients who use medical marijuana for debilitating or terminal conditions. The
voters also provided patients’ physicians and caregivers with defenses to state law prosecutions.
I fully support the purpose of Initiative 692, and in 2007, I signed legislation that expanded the
ability of a patient to receive assistance from a designated provider in the medical use of
marijuana, and added conditions and diseases for which medical marijuana could be used.
Today, I have signed sections of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 that retain the
provisions of Initiative 692 and provide additional state law protections. Qualifying patients or
their designated providers may grow cannabis for the patient’s use or participate in a collective
garden without fear of state law criminal prosecutions. Qualifying patients or their designated
providers are also protected from certain state civil law consequences.
Our state legislature may remove state criminal and civil penalties for activities that assist
persons suffering from debilitating or terminal conditions. While such activities may violate the
federal Controlled Substances Act, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute
people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. However, absent congressional
action, state laws will not protect an individual from legal action by the federal government.
Qualifying patients and designated providers can evaluate the risk of federal prosecution and
make choices for themselves on whether to use or assist another in using medical marijuana.
The United States Department of Justice has made the wise decision not to use federal resources
to prosecute seriously ill patients who use medical marijuana.
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Governor
Packet Page 257 of 367
April 29, 2011
Page 2
However, the sections in Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate
Bill 5073 would direct employees of the state departments of Health and Agriculture to authorize
and license commercial businesses that produce, process or dispense cannabis. These sections
would open public employees to federal prosecution, and the United States Attorneys have made
it clear that state law would not provide these individuals safe harbor from federal prosecution.
No state employee should be required to violate federal criminal law in order to fulfill duties
under state law. For these reasons, I have vetoed Sections 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607,
608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806 and 807 of Engrossed
Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
In addition, there are a number of sections of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 that
are associated with or dependent upon these licensing sections. Section 201 sets forth definitions
of terms. Section 412 adds protections for licensed producers, processors and dispensers.
Section 901 requires the Department of Health to develop a secure registration system for
licensed producers, processors and dispensers. Section 1104 would require a review of the
necessity of the cannabis production and dispensing system if the federal government were to
authorize the use of cannabis for medical purposes. Section 1201 applies to dispensaries in
current operation in the interim before licensure, and Section 1202 exempts documents filed
under Section 1201 from disclosure. Section 1203 requires the department of health to report
certain information related to implementation of the vetoed sections. Because I have vetoed the
licensing provisions, I have also vetoed Sections 201, 412, 901, 1104, 1201, 1202 and 1203 of
Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
Section 410 would require owners of housing to allow the use of medical cannabis on their
property, putting them in potential conflict with federal law. For this reason, I have vetoed
Section 410 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
Section 407 would permit a nonresident to engage in the medical use of cannabis using
documentation or authorization issued under other state or territorial laws. This section would
not require these other state or territorial laws to meet the same standards for health care
professional authorization as required by Washington law. For this reason, I have vetoed Section
407 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
Section 411 would provide that a court may permit the medical use of cannabis by an offender,
and exclude it as a ground for finding that the offender has violated the conditions or
requirements of the sentence, deferred prosecution, stipulated order of continuance, deferred
disposition or dispositional order. The correction agency or department responsible for the
person’s supervision is in the best position to evaluate an individual’s circumstances and medical
use of cannabis. For this reason, I have vetoed Section 411 of Engrossed Second Substitute
Senate Bill 5073.
I am approving Section 1002, which authorizes studies and medical guidelines on the appropriate
administration and use of cannabis. Section 1206 would make Section 1002 effective January 1,
2013. I have vetoed Section 1206 to provide the discretion to begin efforts at an earlier date.
Packet Page 258 of 367
April 29, 2011
Page 3
Section 1102 sets forth local governments’ authority pertaining to the production, processing or
dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdictions. The provisions in Section
1102 that local governments’ zoning requirements cannot “preclude the possibility of siting
licensed dispensers within the jurisdiction” are without meaning in light of the vetoes of sections
providing for such licensed dispensers. It is with this understanding that I approve Section 1102.
I have been open, and remain open, to legislation to exempt qualifying patients and their
designated providers from state criminal penalties when they join in nonprofit cooperative
organizations to share responsibility for producing, processing and dispensing cannabis for
medical use. Such exemption from state criminal penalties should be conditioned on compliance
with local government location and health and safety specifications.
I am also open to legislation that establishes a secure and confidential registration system to
provide arrest and seizure protections under state law to qualifying patients and those who assist
them. Unfortunately, the provisions of Section 901 that would provide a registry for qualifying
patients and designated providers beginning in January 2013 are intertwined with requirements
for registration of licensed commercial producers, processors and dispensers of cannabis.
Consequently, I have vetoed section 901 as noted above. Section 101 sets forth the purpose of
the registry, and Section 902 is contingent on the registry. Without a registry, these sections are
not meaningful. For this reason, I have vetoed Sections 101 and 902 of Engrossed Second
Substitute Senate Bill 5073. I am not vetoing Sections 402 or 406, which establish affirmative
defenses for a qualifying patient or designated provider who is not registered with the registry
established in section 901. Because these sections govern those who have not registered, this
section is meaningful even though section 901 has been vetoed.
With the exception of Sections 101, 201, 407, 410, 411, 412, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607,
608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 901, 902, 1104,
1201, 1202, 1203 and 1206, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 is approved.
Sincerely,
/s/
Christine O. Gregoire
Governor
Packet Page 259 of 367
Packet Page 260 of 367
Packet Page 261 of 367
Packet Page 262 of 367
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
P.O. Box 40002 · Olympia, Washington 98504-0002 · (360) 902-4111 · www.governor.wa.gov
April 29, 2011
To the Honorable President and Members,
The Senate of the State of Washington
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Sections 101, 201, 407, 410, 411, 412, 601,
602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804,
805, 806, 807, 901, 902, 1104, 1201, 1202, 1203 and 1206, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate
Bill 5073 entitled:
“AN ACT Relating to medical use of cannabis.”
In 1998, Washington voters made the compassionate choice to remove the fear of state criminal
prosecution for patients who use medical marijuana for debilitating or terminal conditions. The
voters also provided patients’ physicians and caregivers with defenses to state law prosecutions.
I fully support the purpose of Initiative 692, and in 2007, I signed legislation that expanded the
ability of a patient to receive assistance from a designated provider in the medical use of
marijuana, and added conditions and diseases for which medical marijuana could be used.
Today, I have signed sections of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 that retain the
provisions of Initiative 692 and provide additional state law protections. Qualifying patients or
their designated providers may grow cannabis for the patient’s use or participate in a collective
garden without fear of state law criminal prosecutions. Qualifying patients or their designated
providers are also protected from certain state civil law consequences.
Our state legislature may remove state criminal and civil penalties for activities that assist
persons suffering from debilitating or terminal conditions. While such activities may violate the
federal Controlled Substances Act, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute
people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. However, absent congressional
action, state laws will not protect an individual from legal action by the federal government.
Qualifying patients and designated providers can evaluate the risk of federal prosecution and
make choices for themselves on whether to use or assist another in using medical marijuana.
The United States Department of Justice has made the wise decision not to use federal resources
to prosecute seriously ill patients who use medical marijuana.
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Governor
Packet Page 263 of 367
April 29, 2011
Page 2
However, the sections in Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate
Bill 5073 would direct employees of the state departments of Health and Agriculture to authorize
and license commercial businesses that produce, process or dispense cannabis. These sections
would open public employees to federal prosecution, and the United States Attorneys have made
it clear that state law would not provide these individuals safe harbor from federal prosecution.
No state employee should be required to violate federal criminal law in order to fulfill duties
under state law. For these reasons, I have vetoed Sections 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607,
608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806 and 807 of Engrossed
Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
In addition, there are a number of sections of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 that
are associated with or dependent upon these licensing sections. Section 201 sets forth definitions
of terms. Section 412 adds protections for licensed producers, processors and dispensers.
Section 901 requires the Department of Health to develop a secure registration system for
licensed producers, processors and dispensers. Section 1104 would require a review of the
necessity of the cannabis production and dispensing system if the federal government were to
authorize the use of cannabis for medical purposes. Section 1201 applies to dispensaries in
current operation in the interim before licensure, and Section 1202 exempts documents filed
under Section 1201 from disclosure. Section 1203 requires the department of health to report
certain information related to implementation of the vetoed sections. Because I have vetoed the
licensing provisions, I have also vetoed Sections 201, 412, 901, 1104, 1201, 1202 and 1203 of
Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
Section 410 would require owners of housing to allow the use of medical cannabis on their
property, putting them in potential conflict with federal law. For this reason, I have vetoed
Section 410 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
Section 407 would permit a nonresident to engage in the medical use of cannabis using
documentation or authorization issued under other state or territorial laws. This section would
not require these other state or territorial laws to meet the same standards for health care
professional authorization as required by Washington law. For this reason, I have vetoed Section
407 of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073.
Section 411 would provide that a court may permit the medical use of cannabis by an offender,
and exclude it as a ground for finding that the offender has violated the conditions or
requirements of the sentence, deferred prosecution, stipulated order of continuance, deferred
disposition or dispositional order. The correction agency or department responsible for the
person’s supervision is in the best position to evaluate an individual’s circumstances and medical
use of cannabis. For this reason, I have vetoed Section 411 of Engrossed Second Substitute
Senate Bill 5073.
I am approving Section 1002, which authorizes studies and medical guidelines on the appropriate
administration and use of cannabis. Section 1206 would make Section 1002 effective January 1,
2013. I have vetoed Section 1206 to provide the discretion to begin efforts at an earlier date.
Packet Page 264 of 367
April 29, 2011
Page 3
Section 1102 sets forth local governments’ authority pertaining to the production, processing or
dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdictions. The provisions in Section
1102 that local governments’ zoning requirements cannot “preclude the possibility of siting
licensed dispensers within the jurisdiction” are without meaning in light of the vetoes of sections
providing for such licensed dispensers. It is with this understanding that I approve Section 1102.
I have been open, and remain open, to legislation to exempt qualifying patients and their
designated providers from state criminal penalties when they join in nonprofit cooperative
organizations to share responsibility for producing, processing and dispensing cannabis for
medical use. Such exemption from state criminal penalties should be conditioned on compliance
with local government location and health and safety specifications.
I am also open to legislation that establishes a secure and confidential registration system to
provide arrest and seizure protections under state law to qualifying patients and those who assist
them. Unfortunately, the provisions of Section 901 that would provide a registry for qualifying
patients and designated providers beginning in January 2013 are intertwined with requirements
for registration of licensed commercial producers, processors and dispensers of cannabis.
Consequently, I have vetoed section 901 as noted above. Section 101 sets forth the purpose of
the registry, and Section 902 is contingent on the registry. Without a registry, these sections are
not meaningful. For this reason, I have vetoed Sections 101 and 902 of Engrossed Second
Substitute Senate Bill 5073. I am not vetoing Sections 402 or 406, which establish affirmative
defenses for a qualifying patient or designated provider who is not registered with the registry
established in section 901. Because these sections govern those who have not registered, this
section is meaningful even though section 901 has been vetoed.
With the exception of Sections 101, 201, 407, 410, 411, 412, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607,
608, 609, 610, 611, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 901, 902, 1104,
1201, 1202, 1203 and 1206, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 is approved.
Sincerely,
/s/
Christine O. Gregoire
Governor
Packet Page 265 of 367
AM-4054 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action: Proposed Resolution regarding Council review of medical
benefits.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
The attached Resolution regarding Council review of medical benefits was initially discussed at the May
17, 2011 City Council Meeting.
Narrative
Please refer to the attached Resolution and City Council Minutes.
Attachments
Resolution Regarding Council Review of Medical Benefits
05-17-11 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/30/2011 02:28 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 266 of 367
Resolution Regarding Council Review of Medical Benefits
Whereas the Council directed the Public Safety and Human Resources Committee to review strategies
and previous work regarding controlling the growth of inflation of employee medical benefits,
and
Whereas the Committee has reviewed the work of an administration committee, composed of citizen
volunteers, employee labor leaders, and the HR Director, and which was established for the
same purpose and which concluded in December 2010, and
Whereas the Committee has taken considerable feedback from city employees and continues to try to
work as closely with participating employees and labor representatives as possible;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council appreciates the work done by the committee to
date, and directs it to take additional steps necessary to provide Council with the information
needed to allow for a more complete policy deliberation. Such steps may include approaching
the third party administrator and/or broker marketplace to test the proposed financial model,
working with the city attorney to consider legal action as may be needed to acquire claims
data of City employees for the purposes of pricing self-insured models, etc.
Packet Page 267 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 17, 2011
Page 9
• Contingent Loan Agreement between EPFD and the City provides a mechanism for the City
to help the EPFD meet debt payments via loan support
• City’s 2011 budget includes $100,000 for this purpose. No City Council action required at
this time.
Possible long term solutions include extension of the PFD legislation (possible refinance), naming rights,
economic recovery and improved operating performance. Another potential funding source is Snohomish
County Lodging Tax. The EPFD has been told there may not be an opportunity to secure those funds at
this time but they have not yet been allocated. Staff will continue to work with Snohomish County to
access those funds.
Mr. McIalwain thanked the members of the community who spoke on the ECA’s behalf during Audience
Comments. Their comments illustrate how important the ECA has become to the community in a short
period of time.
Mayor Cooper suggested the citizens speak to the Snohomish County Council, commenting it was
important for the County Council to hear the message from the people who use the ECA. The Snohomish
County Council will ultimately make the decision regarding the allocation of Lodging Taxes based on the
recommendation of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. McIalwain for meeting with her today. She pointed out the
ECA’s total income is up 41% this year and net income is up 25%. She was hopeful the $300,000 would
not be the end result. She requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday comment on the use of Real Estate Excise
Tax (REET) funds for ECA debt. Mr. Taraday explained he was asked to research whether the City could
use REET, specifically REET 1 revenue, to help pay the debt service. There are certain conditions under
which the City could do so. The facility does not necessarily need to be owned by the City. If the facility
is in the City’s Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and characterized as a recreational facility in the Plan, the
City should be able to use REET revenue to pay ECA debt service. Councilmember Buckshnis observed
the CFP would need to be revised to facilitate that. Mr. Taraday agreed amendments would be in order.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the comparison of revenues and expenses and Mr. McIalwain
clarified the comparison was four months of 2010 compared to four months of 2011 and the 2011 budget.
She asked the total labor cost in 2010, noting the 2011 is $521,800. Mr. McIalwain responded it was
approximately $500,000 in 2010. That includes 5 FTEs and 10 part-time personnel, sometimes more
depending on needs in the theater. The ECA has 80-90 volunteers who support the front of house
operations, special events, and administration.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation to Mr. McIalwain and Mr. Rinehart and the entire
EPFD and ECA Boards for their efforts particularly in the last couple months. In his opinion the
ECA/EPFD was doing a great job operationally as well as stewarding the facility through a very
challenging time.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING SELF-FUNDED MEDICAL INSURANCE.
Councilmember Wilson explained this is a report from the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee.
The purpose is to update the Council and determine the Council’s interest in the Committee continuing to
research self-funded medical insurance.
Councilmember Wilson provided the history:
• Tried self-insurance in the late 1990’s
• Failed, primarily because was not established appropriately:
Packet Page 268 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 17, 2011
Page 10
o No reserves in place
o Unsure about level of stop-loss coverage (which protects the City’s downside)
o New benefits were added without any analysis on impacts to cost
• Left a sour taste in the mouth of many employees
He reviewed recent research:
• Administration set up a committee to review options for employee benefits:
o Genesis of idea to move to HealthFirst
o Saves the City about $300,000 annually
• Tasked with finding a new benefit option with no additional cost:
o This immediately made self-funding very difficult
o Not because of increased costs, but cash flow challenges
• A broker was retained to “Go To Market”
o AWC with whom the City partners for medical benefit coverage would not provide claim
data
• Two kinds of vendors
o Big insurance companies that also do self-insurance administration
o Small firms that only do self-insurance administration
He reviewed components of different concepts:
• Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)
o Amount of premium dollar spent, or “lost,” to paying for health care
o Nationwide, that number 65-70%
About 30 cents on every $1 of insurance premium goes somewhere other than patient
care
30% goes to profit, reserves, admin, taxes
If the City can figure out a self-funding model that works, funds will not go toward profit,
reserves to the same degree, or taxes
Admin: financial management (primary driver for premiums), marketing, reporting,
claims processing, and in some cases utilization management
Can the City do administration and claims processing better?
• Risk Pool
o The more distributed the risk, the less likely spikes in cost will occur
o Our pool is municipal employees who are typically a little older
o Our risks likely look about the same as other cities:
If our employees are sicker than others, then it is less likely we will be able to save
money
If our employees are of average health, or healthier, (compared to the risk pool, not
society), then we are more likely to save money
Councilmember Wilson commented on the issue of claims history:
• How much will we need to cover our employee costs?
o Set based upon the previous 3 years of medical claims history
o If you don’t have that number, you’re taking a guess – and it’s a big one
o AWC has previously not been willing to release this information
May take some legal effort
Also may take legislative work
Councilmember Wilson commented on the role of reserves in the transition:
Packet Page 269 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 17, 2011
Page 11
• Currently, we pay reserves every year, but they accrue to AWC/Regence
• Moving forward, we can:
o Pay a little more each month
This recreates the problem of the late ‘90s
Don’t confuse monthly allocation of premiums with reserves
o Pay a lot up front: $1.3million (revenue from sale of assets to Fire District 1) or some other
number
Councilmember Wilson reviewed the current cost structure for the City’s current health plans:
Total employees 207
Total lives 499
Total monthly cost $226,485.87
Total annual cost $2,717,830.44
Cost per employee $13,129.62
Cost per covered life $5,446.55
He noted the cost per covered life was not excessive; it is possible this process will reveal the plans
provided through AWC are preferable. He noted the $2.7 million annual cost includes profit, reserves,
taxes and administration, things the City may not have to pay or could do cheaper.
Councilmember Wilson provided a chart illustrating medical care inflation versus total inflation 1970-
2007. He pointed out the slight slowing of medical inflation in the mid-late ‘90s is related to very strong
returns in the stock market.
Applying the MLR to the City’s current situation:
• Remember that 30-35% extra that goes to overhead?
• Let’s assume that AWC/Regence only takes 25%
o Our current premium for 2011 is $2,717,830
o That makes our cost for care $2,038,372
• Overhead: Processing Claims
o The job of insurance companies: paying ‘claims’ from doctors and hospitals
At heart, they are paper pushers
Two types in self-funding world
• ASOs: manage the big guys, like Boeing or MSFT
• TPAs: Work with small to medium sized firms typically
o Costs range from $35-$50 per employee
Does all of the admin work we ask of it
For 207 employees, $87,000 to $124,000
• Overhead: Stop Loss Coverage
o Limits our downside
Protects our aggregate expenditures
Protects us against any one event
o Comparable company in size, benefit structure
Quote at $280,000 per year
$40,000 limit
This number is very subjective
Really need to see what the market would tell us
Councilmember Wilson reviewed a one year pro forma:
Packet Page 270 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 17, 2011
Page 12
Option 1 – Do Nothing Option 2 – Self Insure
Total Annual Cost for Edmonds Medical Benefits $2,717,830.44
MLR at 75% $2,038,372.83
Cost of TPA at $50 per member $124, 200.00
Subtotal $2,162,572.83
Cost of Stop-Loss ($40k stop loss from comparable
Client data $280,000.00
Total $2,717.830.44 $2,442,572.83
Annual Savings $275,257.61
Councilmember Wilson explained the City needed to go to market again to get better and more complete
data and address the issue of AWC’s unwillingness to provide claims data which may require a letter
from the City Attorney or the Legislative to force it.
Councilmember Wilson reviewed a six year pro forma, acknowledging it includes several assumptions
and the numbers are subject to change:
Plan 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
#1 AWC
Assumes 13%
growth
$2,717,830 $3,071,148 $3,470,397 $3,921,549 $4,431,350 5,007,426 $5,658,391
#2 Premium
(minus
carryover from
year prior)
$4,606,722 $4,376,386 $4,157,567 $3,958,387 $4,442,978 $5,054,465
#2 Offset
from Year
Prior
($1,863,361) ($1,276,388) ($654,569)
#2 City
Annual
Contribution
$4,606,722 $2,513,025 $2,881,178 $3,303,818 $4,472,978 $5,054,465
#2 Actual $2,743,361 $3,099,998 $3,502,998 $3,958,387 $4,472,978 $5,054,465
#2 Carry over $1,863,361 $1,276,388 $654,569
Annual
Savings $(1,535,574) $957,372 $1,040,370 $1,127,532 $534,448 $603,926
Cumulative
Savings ($1,535,574) ($578,201) $462,168 $1,589,700 $2,124,149 $2,728,075
Practical questions include:
• What is the claims experience of our employees?
o How can we find that out?
Legal
Legislative
• Is there any interest on the part of Council for us to continue exploring this?
Policy questions include:
• Are we willing to set aside sufficient reserves to not repeat our past failure?
o Building up reserves over time is risky
o Tendency to confuse base premium with reserve
• Are we going to become financially stable enough to pursue this?
o Erosion of employees undermines this model
o If we want to implement this in July 2012, we need to get a levy passed before then
Packet Page 271 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 17, 2011
Page 13
He summarized this research was the result of Council direction to the Public Safety & Human Resources
Committee at the retreat.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Councilmember Wilson explained the $4.6 million #2 Premium in 2012
has two components, 1) all the money that would have been paid to AWC to cover City employees,
approximately $3 million, and 2) 1.5 times that amount, or approximately $1.5 million, as a reserve. That
amount is not a cost; if it is not spent in year one, it accrues to next year. The cost would be the
employees’ medical expenses plus $35-$50 per employee for claims processing plus stop loss insurance.
The amount in #2 Premium goes down as the required reserve amount is reduced based on experience.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised Puyallup is going to self-funded medical, and Kirkland, Redmond and
Renton have self-funded medical insurance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in firmer numbers regarding the cost. She asked
whether the cost of stop loss insurance was $280,000/year. Councilmember Wilson answered that is the
best guess; the actual amount is unknown until the City goes to market. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
observed the claims history from AWC was needed to go to market. Councilmember Wilson agreed that
would make it much easier.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented an older population of employees is ill more frequently. A
$40,000 limit would have covered about 1/3 – 1/2 of her hospital stay, requiring the stop loss carrier to
pay the remainder. She estimated Mayor Cooper and her illnesses would have easily exceeded the
$280,000 in one year. She was interested in the concept but was concerned the numbers may be too low
considering the age of the City’s employees and the number of employees. She asked whether 200
employees was the minimum for self-insurance. Councilmember Wilson answered it was more
complicated than that. He acknowledged the City may reach the end of this process and determine self-
funded medical insurance does not make sense but he did not have enough data yet to make that decision.
Councilmember Wilson explained Regence prices the City’s insurance based on the older staff
population. The City and everyone else in the risk pool is already paying for its older staff population.
Because the City has rich benefits compared to the rest of society, the City pays for all those benefits
regardless of whether an employee uses them. If the City self-insures, the City only pays for benefits used
and the savings accrue with the City. The City can continue to have very rich benefits because most
employees go to the hospital only four times, when they are born, when they die, when their kids are born
and once for an emergency.
Councilmember Wilson referred to a New York Times article on Saturday that reported this is the third
year of record profits in health insurance companies. One of the reasons they have been doing so well in
the last few years is because people are not going to the doctor because of their own price sensitivity. Yet
the City and others continue to pay for benefits their employees do not receive even though their
employees are not going to the doctor. He preferred the City accrue those savings rather than a health
insurance company.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Committee’s research is free and she sees no downside to
continuing to research self-funded medical insurance. The intent is to optimize the use of revenue and this
would be one way to do that. She asked whether there was a cost of going to market. Councilmember
Wilson answered would depend on how it was structured.
Council President Peterson supported continued research but had concerns with the cost of staff time. He
asked whether the research would interfere with other priorities/needs in the Human Resources
Department or whether Councilmembers Buckshnis and Wilson could handle the additional research.
Packet Page 272 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 17, 2011
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson recognized it was a challenge for the two employees in the Human Resources
department to assist. Human Resources Director Debi Humann has been invaluable to the Committee and
he wanted to continue to rely on her assistance. It was their intent to be as respectful of the Human
Resources Department’s time as possible. Council President Peterson suggested contacting Kirkland who
recently changed to self-insurance.
Mayor Cooper advised that Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite was on the committee in Kirkland
before she came to Edmonds. There was a four year collaborative effort in Kirkland between City
employees and City Council before a decision was made to change to self-funded medical insurance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested one of the most importance components was getting claims
information from AWC. The claims information will be a large part of a decision whether the City can
afford self-funded medical insurance. She supported the City Attorney sending a letter to AWC
requesting that information.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the cost of approaching a TPA. Councilmember Wilson answered a
lot of data is available for free but there may be costs associated with obtaining the claims data from the
insurance carrier, which is 3 years of the aggregated anonymous employee data that shows how often
medical care was utilized. He anticipated they would seek approval from the Council for any substantial
expenditures.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1251, REGARDING COUNCIL REVIEW OF MEDICAL
BENEFITS.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled he originally encouraged Councilmember Wilson to research self-
funded medical insurance. However, tonight’s packet does not mention taking a vote. He noted that he
received the resolution via email yesterday or the day before, and he received a 6-year pro forma tonight.
He will abstain from the vote due to the extemporaneous way it was presented to the Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested gathering more data and discussing it again next week. She
wanted some guarantees that it would not take a substantial amount of staff time. She suggested adding a
spending limit to the resolution such as $5,000 and that it would not take staff away from the current
priority, negotiations. Councilmember Wilson explained the Public Safety & Human Resources
Committee has been working on self-funded insurance at the direction of the Council at the retreat. If this
is not a Council priority, he would appreciate the Council providing that direction. To Councilmember
Plunkett’s comment that he just received the resolution, Councilmember Wilson explained his day job
prevented him from drafting it sooner.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO NEXT WEEK’S MEETING. MOTION CARRIED
(5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he will not be at the May 24 Council meeting. Mayor Cooper pointed
out both Councilmembers Plunkett and Bernheim will be absent next week. He suggested the discussion
be postponed to a different date certain.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Council President Peterson explained he will attempt to schedule it the first week of June and if not, will
not schedule discussion regarding self-funded insurance on the Public Safety & Human Resources
Committee June 14 agenda.
Packet Page 273 of 367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 17, 2011
Page 15
Councilmember Wilson disclosed he has worked as a consultant to many healthcare organizations. He
will not receive any financial benefit as a result of self-insurance. His wife works for a third party
administrator but they do not work with public entities. He noted there are City employees in the audience
who attended last night’s Public Safety & Human Resources Committee meeting and previous meetings.
He assured this is a good faith attempt and an open dialogue to address one of the primary concerns of the
Council and the public, managing healthcare inflation costs. This effort is being done with the full
participation of City employees who are trying to be responsive to the concerns as well.
Council President Peterson explained one of the reasons this item was scheduled on this agenda was
because investigating ways to reduce insurance costs is an integral part of levy discussions. He assured
the public that the Council was actively engaged in saving money, not just asking taxpayers for more
money.
Mayor Cooper advised he will work with City Attorney Jeff Taraday on communication to AWC and
perhaps request an opinion from the Office of the Insurance Commission about whether AWC can
withhold claims information.
Mayor Cooper declared a brief recess.
9. DISCUSSION OF LEVY OPTIONS (PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED)
Public Comment
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, referred to the statement that the City does not have an expense problem, it has a
revenue problem. She has also heard that the City’s operations are lean with no room for cuts in the
budget, the justification the Mayor and some Councilmembers have used in promoting a levy. She
pointed out the City has both a revenue and expense problem. She referred to March 31, 2011 Seattle
Times article that stated Seattle eliminated about 300 positions, reduced hours at community centers, cut
park maintenance, raised some fees and won wage concessions from unions in order to close a $67
million shortfall in their $895 million budget. An April 1, 2011 Seattle Times article stated ferry workers
after forfeiting $18.3 million in raises the past 2 years, will accept a 3% pay cut for the next 2 years as
well as paid less for overtime and travel time. She cited these as examples of concessions being made by
public employees in response to budget crises facing the state and nation. By comparison, all Edmonds
employees received a COLA increase in 2009 of 5.8% and it was her understanding employees also
received COLA increases in 2010 and 2011. As of 2007, the average salary of the 45 non-represented
employees was $87,500/year compared to the $55,000/year average Edmonds household income. She
estimated the average pay for those 45 employees was now over $90,000/year. With regard to staffing
levels, she relayed that the Development Services Department processed 188 land use applications in
2002, compared to 56 in 2009, less than 1/3 of those processed in 2002. The Development Services
Department continues to be staffed at 2002 levels despite the dramatic decrease in land use applications.
She urged the Council to immediately stop trying to determine how to manipulate citizens into voting for
a levy and instead focus their attention on these issues. Until compensation and staffing levels are
addressed, she will vote no on any levy.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented funding for park improvements was not the answer; funds are
needed to stabilize the City’s finances. Next, he recommended a decision regarding a levy be unanimous
or at least supported by 5 or 6 Councilmembers instead of a 4-3 vote. With regard to Lake Ballinger, he
noted MLT has 3 homes on the lake and Edmonds has 52. MLT is conducting a study and meeting with
residents on the lake. He recommended Lake Ballinger be funded via the Parks & Recreation budget.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, observed the Council is unable to reach agreement on a levy and suggested
they focus on the budget and labor negotiations. He anticipated the Council would not bargain as
Packet Page 274 of 367
AM-4055 Item #: 11.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/05/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding for Interjurisdictional Affordable Housing
Program.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
Previous Council Action
The Council's Community Services / Development Services Committee discussed this item on June 14,
2011, and forwarded it to the full Council for consideration without a recommendation.
Narrative
In June, 2009, Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) approved a feasibility study designed to explore
options for creating a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions to work together to expand
affordable housing opportunities in the county. Following that effort, a multi-jurisdictional work group
began working to develop a mechanism to implement the study's recommendations, with the intent of
establishing an interjurisdictional partnership designed to address the requirements of the Growth
Management Act (GMA) to provide for existing and future housing needs for all economic segments of
the community. The recognition is that no single jurisdiction can address housing challenges, since
housing needs and issues are not unique or necessarily isolatable to specific jurisdictions; a
multi-jurisdictional approach will have more chance of success.
The proposal before the City Council is to sign on to a Memorandum of Understanding (see Exhibit 2)
expressing support for the process. Once support is indicated, the working group will proceed to flesh out
the program and develop a funding mechanism to support it. Note that while signing the MOU expresses
the city's support, this does not constitute a final commitment to sign any resultant Interlocal Agreement
establishing the program, nor does it commit the city to participating financially in the program.
However, signing the MOU does mean that the city sees potential benefits in participating and is
committed to exploring the possibilities.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Letter to jurisdictions
Exhibit 2: Memorandum of Understanding
Exhibit 3: Program Mission and Goals
Exhibit 4: 2009 Feasibility Study
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/30/2011 03:26 PM
Packet Page 275 of 367
Mayor Mike Cooper 06/30/2011 07:45 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/01/2011 08:26 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 06/30/2011
Final Approval Date: 07/01/2011
Packet Page 276 of 367
Packet Page 277 of 367
Packet Page 278 of 367
Snohomish County Interjurisdictional Housing Committee
Page 1
Memorandum of Understanding
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is being executed by the undersigned
this _ __ day of ____ _ , 2011 by and between the City of Mukilteo, organized under
the laws of the State of Washington and the other signatories of this MOU for the
purposes of articulating a shared intention to continue and expand an inter‐
jurisdictional partnership to educate staff and electeds, to share staffing resources,
to seek strategies to implement housing policies, and to help address affordable
housing needs in Snohomish County.
1. RECITALS
Section 1.1. Whereas, the Snohomish County Council and several communities
within the county support the formation of an inter‐jurisdictional group to consider
the housing needs within the county as a whole and within the urban growth areas.
Section 1.2. Whereas, after over a year of exploring options for jurisdictions to
participate in a partnership, it was determined that a model similar to ARCH on the
eastside of King County would be the most appropriate partnership model.
Section 1.3. Whereas, the elected officials of the respective jurisdictions believe it
would be beneficial to join together, on a voluntary basis, to address the issue of
affordability and housing supply, as cities are not responsible for creating housing,
but can work cooperatively to help the private, non‐profit and public sectors that
have traditionally been responsible for production of housing throughout
Snohomish County.
Section 1.4. Whereas, the signers of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) plan
for local housing in their jurisdictions within Snohomish County and they find it in
their mutual interest to address affordable housing issues on a countywide and
regional basis and to cooperatively work, where possible, to increase the supply of
affordable housing, without committing financial resources at this time, but with an
expectation of some staff or in‐kind resources being provided.
Section 1.5. Whereas, in order to further the goals of the program, other non‐profit
housing groups/entities may become a part of this MOU to assist with the program
development.
Section 1.6 Whereas, the communities and entities that have expressed an initial
interest in developing this new concept of cooperation in addressing affordable
housing issues are:
Edmonds
Everett
Lake Stevens
Lynnwood
Marysville
Mill Creek
Mountlake Terrace
Packet Page 279 of 367
Page 3
Mukilteo
Snohomish
Woodway
Snohomish County
Section 1.7. Whereas, the jurisdictions have an interest in working together to
increase the amount of affordable housing units, thus the signers of this MOU desire
to develop an interlocal agreement for consideration.
Now, therefore, the undersigned agree to the following:
2. AGREEMENT
The parties agree to the following terms of this Memorandum of Understanding.
2.1. Purpose. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to
acknowledge the commitment on the part of each of the respective parties to
cooperate during 2011 and possibly a subsequent period to:
2.1.1 Identify and create a governance structure for the long‐term cooperative
effort related to affordable housing.
2.1.2. Develop a work plan and yearly program efforts that considers short‐term,
mid‐term and long‐term needs related to affordable housing.
2.1.3. Develop and submit for consideration an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for
2012 and 2013 budget years that funds staffing and administrative expenses to
carryout this cooperative effort related to affordable housing. However, nothing in
this agreement commits any jurisdiction or entity to enter into an ILA or funding
obligations at any time in the future. The parties also understand that there may be
interim measures necessary to implement all or portions of the program and that no
future obligations to sign an interlocal agreement are implied as part of this MOU.
2.2. Membership under this MOU.
2.2.1 Initial Members. Those entities and others that sign this MOU by November
30, 2011 are the initial members.
2.2.2 New Members. The process for other entities to participate is open. An
additional entity may join upon signature of this MOU while the MOU and specified
actions are active.
2.3. Governance. The governance will be provided by elected Co‐Chairs that are
chosen at the first official meeting after the MOU takes affect. All jurisdictions may
participate in meetings without having signed the MOU. Once the majority of the
jurisdictions have signed the MOU, then those that have not signed will not have a
Packet Page 280 of 367
Page 3
vote on decision action items on the agenda. All other items will be accepted by
consensus of those attending, where possible.
2.4. Future Agreement(s). The parties, by executing this Memorandum of
Understanding, are committing to develop an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the
purposes of continuing to cooperatively participate in an inter‐jurisdictional
affordable housing effort for future consideration. The ILA will identify the
respective rights, obligations and duties of any party that is a signatory to the ILA.
No obligations to enter into an ILA are implied as established in 2.1.3 of this MOU.
2.5. Amendment(s). This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended at any
time in writing, by mutual agreement of the parties.
2.6. Termination. This Memorandum of Understanding for any respective
signatory may be terminated by any party by withdrawing from the MOU before an
ILA is signed, by notifying in writing to the Co‐Chairs at least sixty (60) days in
advance of such termination, based upon their respective governing bodies’
approval of termination.
This MOU will be considered terminated in full, if either one of the following two
actions occur:
A. All signatories to the MOU terminate their cooperation.
B. An Interlocal agreement is signed by enough jurisdictions and thereby replaces
this MOU on a permanent basis.
2.7. Severability. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion thereof shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of
this MOU.
2.8. Counterparts. This MOU may be signed in counterparts, and if so signed, shall
be deemed to be one integrated MOU.
2.9. Effective Date. The effective date shall be the date following the signatures of
the first five jurisdictions.
DATED this ____day of _____, 2011 (when the fifth jurisdiction signed the agreement).
WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the dates set
forth below.
Packet Page 281 of 367
Page __
Signatories:
DATED this _ __day of June, 2011.
City of Edmonds___
Jurisdiction/Entity
By: Mike Cooper
Name
Its: Mayor, City of Edmonds
Title
Packet Page 282 of 367
Exhibit 3
March 30, 2011
IHP Committee
Interjurisdictional Housing Program
Mission and Goals
Mission:
To help increase the supply of attainable* and sustainable* housing near jobs, transit,
and services through an interjurisdictional approach
Goals:
1. Create a venue for interjurisdictional cooperation and education to meet housing
needs.
2. Provide housing information to assist local elected officials
3. Provide technical assistance among members to develop and implement local
housing policies, programs, and regulations
4. Advocate for housing issues and resources, consistent with participating
jurisdictions’ objectives
5. Attract additional public resources, private resources, and not-for profit
investment into attainable housing (by coordinating, leveraging, or contributing
local resources, as appropriate)
6. Facilitate retention of existing sustainable housing.
7. Administer any specific housing programs as approved by the membership.
8. Facilitate the building of attainable housing (without being the builder)
* “Attainable housing” refers to housing that is safe and affordable to low- or
moderate- income households
* “Sustainable housing” refers to housing that meets economic, environmental, and
social needs of the community. This includes housing that is energy-efficient, safe,
and of appropriate materials and construction to assure the housing’s longevity
Packet Page 283 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
Snohomish County Tomorrow
As submitted to the Steering Committee June 17, 2009
Final deliverable by the City of Lake Stevens to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development in fulfillment of Contract C08-63200-423.
Packet Page 284 of 367
A report of Snohomish County Tomorrow Final deliverable by the City of Lake Stevens to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development in fulfillment of Contract C08-63200-423.
Packet Page 285 of 367
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................... 4 Introduction............................................................................................................ 10 Landscape of Affordable Housing in Snohomish County............................................... 13 Housing Needs in Snohomish County..................................................................... 13 Existing Affordable Housing in Snohomish County ................................................... 16 Existing Funding Mechanisms in Snohomish County................................................ 21 Existing Housing Plans and Policies....................................................................... 24 Review of Best Practices.......................................................................................... 29 Overviews of Other Regional/Inter-jurisdictional Affordable Housing Programs............. 32 Critical Success Factors........................................................................................ 40 Stakeholder Advice.................................................................................................. 44 Phase One Stakeholder Interviews......................................................................... 45 Phase Two Stakeholder Interviews......................................................................... 49 Essential Program Outcomes and Program Limitations................................................ 54 Essential Program Outcomes:................................................................................ 55 Program Design Features:..................................................................................... 56 Summary of Findings............................................................................................... 57 Conclusions and Program Proposal ........................................................................... 60 Conditions for Proceeding with New Inter-Jurisdictional Program: ............................. 61 Alternatives Analysis............................................................................................ 62 Program Recommendations.................................................................................. 73
Appendices
Appendix 1: Draft Memorandum of Understanding ..................................................... 85 Appendix 2: Logic Model of Proposed Interjurisdictional Housing Program..................... 97 Appendix 3: Affordable Housing 101 Presentation.................................................... 101 Appendix 4: Annotated Bibliography of Relevant Plans, Policies, and Data Reports ...... 109 Appendix 5: List of Stakeholder Interviews............................................................... 115 Appendix 6: List of PAC Housing Subcommittee participants ..................................... 117
Packet Page 286 of 367
“ Most of the smaller jurisdictions are running as fast as they can to keep up with current obligations… Working together allows them to learn about affordable housing strategies at a relatively low cost. An inter-jurisdictional approach would bring together jurisdictions of like minds to work on this issue. --Local stakeholder interviewed for this report ”“
Packet Page 287 of 367
5
Executive Summary
The shortage of safe, affordable housing1 affects an increasing number of families throughout each jurisdiction in Snohomish County. Existing private, nonprofit, and public efforts are struggling to keep pace with the growing needs in the community. Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) undertook this feasibility study to explore options for creating a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions to work together to expand affordable housing opportunities. Through this study, SCT further seeks to fulfill its Countywide Planning Policies, including HO-3: “strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county.” The feasibility study was led by the Housing Subcommittee of the SCT Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The study included an assessment of all relevant existing local plans; research on the best practices for inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs across the country; two rounds of interviews with public and private stakeholders in the community; and discussions with the SCT Steering Committee, PAC, and Managers and Administrators Group. This report summarizes the key findings of the study and recommends next steps for moving forward.
Key Findings
The need for additional affordable housing throughout Snohomish County continues to grow. Snohomish County estimates that 80,000 households lived in unaffordable housing in 2007, or more than 63 percent of the 126,000 households earning less than the median income countywide (up from 53 percent in 2000). Moreover, evidence shows considerable need for affordable housing persists in virtually every community of the county.
Private and public stakeholders agree that local governments play an important role in helping to create affordable housing in their communities, and might accomplish more in this regard by collaborating across jurisdictional boundaries.
Some elected and appointed officials in Snohomish County believe that a new inter-jurisdictional program focused on creating and preserving affordable housing has potential advantages, but that interest is not uniform across all jurisdictions or even within jurisdictions. 1 The term “affordable housing” is used in different ways and can have different meanings in a variety of settings. For the purposes of this report, housing is considered affordable if a household can live in it without sacrificing essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. Therefore, affordable housing includes not just subsidized or income-restricted housing units, but all private and public housing units that are affordable for low- and moderate-income families.
Packet Page 288 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
6
There is general consensus among stakeholders interviewed for this study that jurisdictions should support the creation of new home-ownership opportunities for households earning up to 100 percent of the county’s median income, as well as affordable rental housing targeting those earning up to 50 percent of the county’s median income. Many of those interviewed expressed a preference for creating more home ownership opportunities.
Elected officials consulted for this study agree that location is an important factor for new affordable housing and that those needing affordable housing should have adequate access to employment, education, shopping, services, and amenities. Considerable disagreement persists, however, on policy regarding the most feasible and appropriate locations for new affordable housing.
Only a handful of successful inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs exist in the U.S.. Some focus on creating new local capital resources for housing development, while others focus on a combination of incentives, technical assistance, and other planning activities to encourage affordable housing development. A few models use both planning activities and creation of new capital resources.
Given current economic conditions, this is not seen as a time when a new local capital funding source can be shifted or created to support development of affordable housing. Instead, those who support the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program believe that a new collaborative program should be focused on a variety of technical assistance, educational, and planning activities. A new program may be eligible for new or existing state and federal funding sources in the future to support capital funding for housing.
The research into other models around the country suggests that creation of a new program requires one (or more) champion to play a leadership role in promoting the new program and recruiting others to participate, or providing funding or in-kind services. To date, no jurisdiction or individual in Snohomish County has expressed an interest in stepping forward to champion a new initiative.
Other national models have created dedicated staff capacity to support a meaningful multi-jurisdictional collaboration focused on affordable housing. This has required funding resources to support the appropriate level of staffing.
Research on other national affordable housing models suggests that new governance structures have been developed to focus on the implementation and management of the inter-jurisdictional program, but existing organizations have been utilized to provide administrative support.
Packet Page 289 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
7
Conclusions
Given the affordable housing needs within the county, and the level of interest in this idea expressed by those interviewed for the study, this study concludes that a new inter-jurisdictional program with the goal of creating more affordable housing in Snohomish County can be successful if four threshold conditions are met: Condition 1: A “critical mass” of jurisdictions elects to participate as founding members. Condition 2: Sufficient funding is secured to support the program for at least 24 months. Condition 3: A host agency is identified to provide back-office administrative support, such as payroll, accounting, and IT services. Condition 4: The participating jurisdictions reach agreement on certain fundamental questions in an inter-local agreement, including the program’s purpose and governance structure.
Recommendations
The project team recommends that Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County co-convene an Implementation Task Force that would work to resolve the four conditions described above. The Task Force would include public, private, and nonprofit advocates, actively invited and recruited by the convening agencies. The role of the Task Force would be to determine the most effective way to move this proposal (or an alternative) toward implementation. In particular, the Task Force would need to work with potential member jurisdictions to determine the founding participants and their common goals. In addition, the Task Force would work with potential funders to secure funding support for the program, and have discussions with potential “host” agencies to find an organization willing to provide administrative support. In light of the current economic climate, the Task Force should plan on taking approximately a year to secure the necessary commitments for the new program. The project team suggests that the Implementation Task Force use the following program framework as its starting point. The Task Force and any potential participants in the new initiative would, of course, be free to diverge from any or all parts of the framework.
• Participating jurisdictions would establish the program through a formal inter-local agreement (ILA), which defines roles and responsibilities and secures commitments from the jurisdictions, and must be adopted by each local governing body to be valid. Based on stakeholder input, the ILA should provide a means whereby other jurisdictions can join later, at mutually beneficial times.
Packet Page 290 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
8
• Membership in the inter-jurisdictional program would be voluntary and open to all county, city and tribal governments in Snohomish County. Because of the different levels of local support for this program concept, membership may be phased in over time. The “critical mass” of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program could be as few as three, but may require four or more, depending on the resources and objectives of the jurisdictions that choose to join.
• The primary purpose of the program would be to achieve the housing objectives of the participating jurisdictions. Member jurisdictions may discover that through the collaboration, they can achieve objectives that cross municipal boundaries. The ultimate impact, hopefully, would be that many more Snohomish County households obtain affordable housing; but the program would focus on meeting the needs defined by its members.
• Given the consensus among stakeholders regarding program outcomes and parameters, the project team drafted the following outcome policy statements:
“The program exists to help participating jurisdictions meet their affordable housing objectives, especially:”
o “More affordable housing in all participating communities, especially where the need is greatest and where there is good transportation and access to employment opportunities, amenities, and services.”
“More affordable rental housing opportunities for households making up to 50 percent of the county’s median household income, especially seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, families with children, and people who work in our communities (such as service workers and laborers).”
“More affordable home ownership opportunities for households making less than the county’s median household income, especially first-time homebuyers and people working in our communities (such as teachers and public safety workers).”
o “Neighborhoods with affordable housing supported by the program are safe and have stable property values.”
• The program would begin with commitments for at least two years of operating resources, funded by a combination of monetary contributions and in-kind support of participating jurisdictions, grant funds, and other sponsorships. During the current economic climate, local government resources for affordable housing will remain about the same as today, but over the long run, participating jurisdictions would contribute additional resources.
Packet Page 291 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
9
• Governance of the new program would be provided by the participating members through a semi-independent board. This board, having representatives appointed by and from among the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions, would set policies for the program supplemental to those of the jurisdictions. The board would also hire its own staff, make decisions regarding budgets and work plans, and take input from the public and advisory boards as they see fit. The board would not, of course, take any statutory powers away from the local governments that they are not authorized to delegate. An outline of an MOU that could be used to establish the governance model is included in the Appendix 1 as a template.
Potential Work Plan Activities for Program Staff
Unless and until funding for other programming (e.g. a housing trust fund) becomes available, a new inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program should focus on a set of technical assistance, education, and planning activities that would assist member jurisdictions to meet their affordable housing goals. A dedicated staff position (1 FTE) would be able to achieve significant progress for a number of jurisdictions, provided staff has clear direction and an adequate level of back office support. The following list of activities serves as a “menu” of potential work plan items for the new program. Final decisions about the work plan for the new inter-jurisdictional program should be determined in conjunction with members, based on their affordable housing needs. The following list is not in any priority order:
• Identify strategies and goals to address identified affordable housing needs that are specific to each participating jurisdiction.
• Assist in preparing affordable housing components of comprehensive plans, as required by the State Growth Management Act.
• Develop regulatory or incentive strategies to encourage development of affordable housing.
• Serve as a liaison with non-profit and for-profit developers of affordable housing.
• Write grant applications and other forms of fundraising to support affordable housing.
• Develop means of sharing information among jurisdictions.
• Conduct educational outreach for elected and appointed officials and the public.
• Monitor affordability conditions/restrictions for affordable housing units created through local incentive programs of member jurisdictions.
• Explore the feasibility and timing of securing potential resources to create a local housing trust fund, which could be particularly helpful as economic conditions improve. Pursue opportunities as they arise.
Packet Page 292 of 367
“ Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county. --Countywide Planning Policy HO-2, as adopted by Snohomish County Tomorrow ”
Packet Page 293 of 367
11
Introduction
In 2007, Snohomish County Tomorrow, an inter-jurisdictional forum consisting of representatives from the County and each of the cities as well as from the Tulalip Tribes, successfully applied for a competitive Growth Management Act (GMA) planning grant from the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. The City of Lake Stevens is the fiscal administrator for the grant, which is managed by Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. The purpose of the study is to analyze the potential to increase the supply of affordable housing in Snohomish County through intergovernmental collaboration. This report summarizes the findings and analysis of the study and proposes a program model that responds to the local conditions and preferences in Snohomish County. Snohomish County Tomorrow members can use this report to make informed decisions on potential inter-jurisdictional programs and opportunities. The feasibility study was motivated by recognition that a shortage of safe, affordable housing affects an increasing number of families throughout each jurisdiction in Snohomish County. Existing private, nonprofit, and public efforts are struggling to keep pace with the growing needs in the community. In particular, SCT jurisdictions want to make better progress toward achieving the Fair Share Housing Allocation objectives they set for themselves in 1995 and again in 2005. Furthermore, SCT seeks to fulfill Countywide Planning Policy HO-3: “Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county.” This feasibility study is guided by the Housing Subcommittee of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Council (PAC). The Housing Subcommittee includes representatives from the planning departments of several Snohomish cities, one Mayor, County staff, and a representative from the nonprofit Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. The complete subcommittee roster can be found in Appendix 6. In June 2008, the Housing Subcommittee selected the consultant team of Building Changes and Cedar River Group to carry out the feasibility study under its direction, and provide this final report that summarizes the study’s findings and the consultants’ recommendations. The PAC will use the findings in this report to develop recommendations for Snohomish County Tomorrow. This study included a review of relevant regional plans and policies related to housing; two rounds of interviews with key stakeholders in the county; research on best practices for inter-jurisdictional housing programs around the country; and direct feedback from the Snohomish County Tomorrow PAC and Steering Committee. More information on these components of the study follows in the sections below.
Packet Page 294 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
Based on the input from stakeholders and Snohomish County Tomorrow members, research on successful inter-jurisdictional collaborations, and local conditions in Snohomish County, the consultants developed a recommended program proposal and an outline of a Memorandum of Understanding that municipalities could use in developing such a collaboration.
Packet Page 295 of 367
13
Landscape of Affordable Housing in Snohomish County
Housing Needs in Snohomish County
The term “affordable housing” is used in different ways and can have different meanings in a variety of settings. For the purposes of this report, housing is considered affordable if a household can live in it without sacrificing essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. Therefore, affordable housing includes not just subsidized or income-restricted housing units, but all private and public housing units that are affordable for low- and moderate-income families. Snohomish County Tomorrow recognizes the national standard for housing affordability as described by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): “The generally accepted definition of housing affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.”2 Families who earn less than the county median income (approximately $65,000 in 2008 for a family of four) and who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered “cost-burdened” and may have difficulty affording basic necessities. The need for affordable housing is growing rapidly in Snohomish County. In 2000, more than 49,000 households were cost-burdened, which represented more than half (53 percent) of the 93,000 households earning incomes below the county median income. By 2007, 80,000 households were cost-burdened, representing 63% of the 126,000 total households earning less than the median income. There are cost-burdened families in every jurisdiction in Snohomish County.3
2 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 3 Snohomish County PDS data presented at SCT Steering Committee on January 28, 2009.
Packet Page 296 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
14
Figure 1 shows that over the past several years, an increasing percentage of low- and moderate-income households need affordable housing opportunities. Figure 1:
Housing needs are different across a range of incomes. Households earning between 80 and 100 percent of the median income are more likely able to find affordable rental units, but many first-time homebuyers in this income range cannot afford homeownership. Households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the median income are unlikely able to afford home ownership or recently built rental units, but may be able to afford the limited supply of older rental housing stock, which typically has lower rents. At the lowest end of the income spectrum, Snohomish County Tomorrow recently reported that “virtually no market-rate housing is affordable to those making 30 percent of the county’s median household income or less.”4 Although the housing prices in Snohomish County have declined a bit since reaching their peak in late 2007, the need for affordable housing remains very real. The long-term trend continues to show home appreciation rising much faster than incomes, and that disparity between what people earn and what type of home they can afford continues in the current economic climate. In fact, the lack of affordability may be exacerbated by rising
4 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009).
Packet Page 297 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
15
unemployment and lower income growth during the current economic conditions. In addition, fallout from the mortgage lending crisis has resulted in credit standards tightening such that only people with unblemished credit histories are able to get home loans. The impacts on the rental market have likewise not improved the affordability of housing. The overwhelming majority of building permits issued in the county during the past decade have been for single family homes, and the small amount of new multifamily rental buildings have primarily focused on luxury apartments. Even though home prices are falling, they remain out of reach for the vast majority of families earning less than the median income, so there has in fact been an increase in demand for rental housing that is not met by the current supply.5 The lack of affordable housing contributes to the challenges facing homeless families and individuals in Snohomish County. The 2009 Snohomish County point-in-time count of homeless persons identified 2,202 homeless people. This total includes a point-in-time count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless people on one night in January 2009, but does not capture the whole population of people who experience homelessness at some point during the year.6 Respondents to a survey of homeless persons in 2007 identified affordable housing as their number-one service need.7 Turn-away data from homeless shelters suggest that more than 70 percent of homeless people are members of homeless families with children.8
5 Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Committee, Real Estate Research Report, Fall 2008, v.59 n.2 p.46-47. 6 Snohomish County Executive’s Office. Available online: http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Executive/News/NR_HomelessCount_1.30.09.pdf (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 7 Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development. 2007 Point in Time Count. http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/ (Accessed: December 21, 2007). 8 Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. “Housing within Reach.” Available online: http://www.housingsnohomish.org/advocacy.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009).
Profile: A Typical Family that needs Affordable Housing Sandra is a single mother with three children, and she works as an elementary school teacher in Snohomish County. She earns $41,000 per year, or less than 50 percent of the county median income for a family of four. The average rent in the city where she teaches is $1,395 for a three-bedroom apartment, but the maximum rent she can afford is $1,025. Her family cannot afford to pay rent and utilities, as well as the basic necessities of food, clothing, health care, and school supplies. Sandra and her family must choose between sacrificing the basic necessities, living in unsafe or substandard housing, or commuting great distances between her job and more affordable housing that is available in another part of the county or even outside the county. (Notes: This profile is not an actual family, but is based on many families in need of housing in Snohomish County. Sandra’s income is based on entry-level salaries at Everett Public Schools, and her rent is based on the Fair Market Rents established by HUD for 2009.)
Packet Page 298 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
16
Note on the Fair Share Housing Allocation Several discussions during the stakeholder input process—in particular, at the SCT Steering Committee—raised the question of whether the Fair Share Housing Allocation would or should be addressed in an inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program. While both the Fair Share Housing Allocation report and any future inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program address the issue of affordable housing, it is important to realize that these reports/programs are separate and distinct from each other and have different purposes. SCT develops the Fair Share Housing Allocation Report to estimate the affordable housing needs countywide over the next twenty years and each community’s fair share toward meeting that need. The report was last adopted in 2005 and is scheduled to be updated by SCT during the 2013-2015 period. Both the 2005 report and its predecessor (in 1995) urged the county’s jurisdictions to collaborate with resources and other efforts. As noted above, this feasibility study has grown, in part, out of that suggestion, as well as recognition that previous efforts have not achieved sufficient gains toward Fair Share objectives. The inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program discussed in this report may be one means by which participating communities address fair share issues. Choosing to participate (or not) in a multi-jurisdictional program will not affect a jurisdiction’s responsibility for meeting its fair share of affordable housing needs. For this reason, it is not appropriate for this report to serve as the forum for discussing the fair share allocation itself.
As described further in the section below on “Existing Housing Plans and Reports,” there are several recent plans and reports that identify housing needs countywide and set targets for meeting an increasing amount of those families in need. For example, the 2008 Housing within Reach plan projected that 73,400 households countywide would be cost-burdened by 2017, and set a goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing opportunities from 14,000 to 32,630 households over the next ten years. The Fair Share Housing Allocation Report also describes the number of cost-burdened households in each jurisdiction, and sets goals for each jurisdiction to meet those growing needs over the next twenty years. Based on interviews and discussions with stakeholders and Snohomish County Tomorrow members, it is clear specific housing targets for a new inter-jurisdictional program should be developed by the jurisdictions that choose to participate in the program. The participating programs may choose to create housing goals that incorporate a portion of the targets set by other plans and reports in the county, and that relate specifically to the activities of the new program.
Existing Affordable Housing in Snohomish County
Affordable housing comes in a variety of shapes and sizes, from studio rental apartments up to single family homes. Some of these homes are provided through the private market, while others have been created by nonprofit agencies or housing authorities and dedicated for low- and moderate-income families.
Housing provided by the private market The private market provides the vast majority of the housing supply, but in Snohomish County, the need for homes that are available at affordable rents or purchase prices greatly outweighs the supply for families below the median income. One of the main reasons that
Packet Page 299 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
17
the number of cost-burdened families has increased over the past several years is that the new housing being built in the county is much less affordable than the older, existing housing stock. This can be seen in both the rental and for-sale housing markets. According to data from Dupre+Scott, the average monthly rent for two-bedroom apartments built from 2000 to 2007 was $1,200 in 2007; or more than $300 higher than the average rent for two-bedroom units built before 2000. Families earning less than 50 percent of the median income ($32,000) can afford rents of about $800 per month. While the older housing stock of rental units does provide some affordable opportunities, new private market apartments are not adding a significant number of affordable units to the community, and the older housing stock is decreasing due to condo conversions and unit replacements. Data from the home sales market show an even starker lack of affordable home ownership opportunities in Snohomish County. Of all new homes sold from 2005 to 2006, only 200 homes (just two percent of nearly 10,000 new home sales) were affordable to households earning the median income.9 From 2000 to 2008, the median home price increased by 77 percent in Snohomish County, while the median income increased by only 20 percent. Homeownership is increasingly out of the reach of moderate-income families and first-time homebuyers in Snohomish County.10 11
Housing provided by nonprofit agencies and public housing authorities Nonprofit agencies and public housing authorities provide a range of housing assistance, including rental subsidies, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency home repair, emergency shelter, weatherization services, and the development and management of new affordable housing units. Housing provided by nonprofits and housing authorities are dedicated for low- and moderate-income families, and frequently have affordability requirements through the sources of funding (particularly federal and state housing funds). The total number of low- and moderate-income households served by nonprofits and housing authorities is 14,000 households countywide. The inventory of existing assisted housing for low-income households includes dedicated housing units (often called “project-based” assistance), and assistance made to households that then must find rental housing in the private market (often called “tenant-based,” or “voucher” programs). Snohomish County Tomorrow estimates that as of February 2008, there are 8,869 units of project-based housing dedicated to people with low incomes (this includes both nonprofit- and housing authority-owned units), and 5,131 tenant-based vouchers. The vouchers principally include the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, a federally-funded
9 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 10 Washington Center for Real Estate Research. Available online: http://www.wcrer.wsu.edu/WSHM/WSHM.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 11 Office of Financial Management. Available online: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/pugetsound.pdf (Accessed: April 19, 2008).
Packet Page 300 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
18
program that is administered in Snohomish County by the two public housing authorities, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA).12
12 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009).
Packet Page 301 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
19
Table 1 summarizes the 14,000 dedicated affordable units in the county. The site-specific assisted housing units are listed by jurisdiction and broken down by the type of housing unit. The tenant-based vouchers are available for use throughout the county and can rent a range of unit sizes based on household size and composition. Table 1: Distribution of Dedicated Affordable Units by Jurisdiction and Housing Unit Type, as of February 2008
Jurisdiction Units for Seniors Units for Families Units for Individuals Total Units
Arlington 320 180 7 507 Darrington 20 – – 20 Edmonds 178 120 31 329 Everett 744 1,484 437 2,665 Granite Falls 30 – – 30 Lake Stevens 112 55 – 167 Lynnwood 485 753 21 1,259 Marysville 338 470 176 984 Mill Creek 45 277 – 322 Monroe 124 52 3 179 Mountlake Terrace – 113 2 115 Mukilteo – – 61 61 Snohomish City 144 96 14 254 Stanwood 144 46 32 222 Sultan 26 7 7 40 Non-SW Unincorporated UGA – 109 6 115 Rural Unincorporated 68 128 – 196 SW Unincorporated UGA 326 774 27 1,127 Unidentified Location – 257 20 277 Totals for Project-Based Units 3,104 4,921 844 8,869 Countywide Total Number of Tenant-Based Rental Subsidies 5,131 Countywide Total of Project-Based and Tenant-Based Units 14,000
Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow. “2007 Housing Evaluation Report.”
Packet Page 302 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
20
Table 2 summarizes the distribution of both project-based assisted housing units and tenant-based vouchers by jurisdiction in Snohomish County, as of February 2008. Since tenant-based vouchers may be used across jurisdictions, this table shows only a point-in-time distribution of the use of these rental vouchers. Table 2: Distribution of Dedicated Affordable Units by Jurisdiction, including Vouchers
Jurisdiction Total Units Arlington 625 Bothell (Snohomish Co. portion) 17 Brier 1 Darrington 29 Edmonds 337 Everett 4,291 Gold Bar 5 Granite Falls 61 Index 2 Lake Stevens 267 Lynnwood 1,822 Marysville 1,324 Mill Creek 457 Monroe 236 Mountlake Terrace 236 Mukilteo 121 Snohomish City 334 Stanwood 268 Sultan 69 Woodway 1 Unincorporated County (Urban) 2,718 Unincorporated County (Rural) 871 Unidentified location 492 Total 14,000
Source: Snohomish County PDS data presented at SCT Steering Committee on January 28, 2009. The unmet need for housing assistance can be seen in the high demand for existing resources. HASCO maintains a wait list that includes over 4,000 households, with estimated waits as long as five years, while EHA has closed its wait list and is not currently accepting applications.
Packet Page 303 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
21
While there is a network of capable, experienced affordable housing providers in Snohomish County, the production of new affordable housing opportunities has not kept pace with the growing need. Since 2002, nonprofits and housing authorities have added 2,019 affordable housing units in Snohomish County, which is a substantial amount relative to the private market, which produced just 2,023 apartments in same period at all income levels. However, this production cannot keep pace with the more than 4,000 additional households that become cost-burdened each year, according to Snohomish County Tomorrow estimates.13 The Snohomish County Consolidated Plan identifies three main barriers to creating affordable housing in the county: increasing housing demand due to fast population growth, high costs of housing and land, and limited funding for affordable housing.14 The first two barriers apply to the private market as well as to dedicated affordable housing. The third factor, limited funding for affordable housing, is a particularly serious challenge for nonprofits and housing authorities. The creation of new, dedicated affordable housing most often requires a complex financing package that includes many sources of public funding and private investment. Most housing developments require several successful applications through competitive federal, state, and local funding processes, each with compliance requirements lasting as long as 50 years.
Existing Funding Mechanisms in Snohomish County
The majority of funding for affordable housing in Snohomish County comes from federal, state, and private sources, including federal Section 8 vouchers, the state Housing Trust Fund, and private equity investment in projects receiving federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Local funding for affordable housing in Snohomish County usually provides a modest portion of the overall funding for affordable housing development (less than 10 percent of the total)15, and the primary sources for locally-administered funding are federal and state pass-through funding for housing programs. The principal local funding processes in Snohomish County include the inter-jurisdictional Urban County Consortium, the City of Everett’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME allocation, and the County’s administration of state Homeless Housing Assistance Act funding.
Urban County Consortium The Snohomish County Urban County Consortium is a partnership between the County and 19 of the cities and towns within Snohomish County. The Urban County Consortium administers federal and state pass-through funding for housing, support services, and non-housing capital projects. On behalf of the Urban County Consortium, Snohomish County
13 Snohomish County PDS data presented at SCT Steering Committee on January 28, 2009. 14 Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development. Consolidated Plan. Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/Consolidated_Plan/ (Accessed: March 27, 2008). 15 Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. “Housing within Reach.” Available online: http://www.housingsnohomish.org/advocacy.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009).
Packet Page 304 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
22
receives entitlement formula funds from HUD and through the Washington State SHB 2060 document recording fee. The HUD funding sources include the HOME, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) programs. For CDBG and ESG funds, the Consortium includes the unincorporated areas of the county and all the cities and towns except for the City of Bothell (which partners with King County) and the City of Everett (which receives its CDBG directly from HUD and its share of ESG from the balance of state funds administered by the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED)). For HOME, ADDI, and 2060 funds, the Consortium includes the City of Everett as well as the same 18 cities and towns, and unincorporated areas as for the CDBG and ESG funds. Through the inter-local agreement, Everett receives a 21 percent set-aside of the Consortium’s HOME, ADDI, and 2060 funds, and conducts its own project selection process. Besides the set-asides for Everett, the remaining funds are allocated through the Urban County Consortium’s application processes. Funding applications are reviewed in three stages, first by the Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development (OHHCD), then by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and finally by the Policy Advisory Board (PAB). OHHCD provides staffing for the Urban County Consortium, manages the application processes, and is responsible for contracting with grantees, monitoring funded programs, and compliance and reporting procedures. OHHCD releases the Notice of Funding Availability and reviews applications for consistency with the county’s Consolidated Plan and with the requirements of the grant sources. The TAC is comprised of 29 members, including one representative from each member city and town, two selected by the County Executive, one representative from HASCO, and seven citizens that are selected by the PAB to represent low-income households, including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, minority persons, and homeless or formerly homeless households. The TAC reviews project proposals and makes recommendations on project selection to the PAB. The PAB includes three members of the County Council, a representative of the County Executive, representatives of four of the participating cities, and a ninth member that is selected “at-large” by the other eight members and only votes in cases of ties. The PAB reviews the recommended projects and makes funding recommendations to the County Council, which makes the final approval.
Packet Page 305 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
23
Figure 2 shows the sequence of review and approval of funding decisions by participating jurisdictions and citizen members. Figure 2: Urban County Consortium Process for Funding Decisions
The Urban County Consortium is expected to award about $6 million of federal and state “pass through” funds for fiscal year 2009, of which about $3 million will be available for affordable housing programs, including housing development, preservation, and support services. From 2000 to 2008, CDBG funding awards were made for public facilities or infrastructure in 14 of the 18 member cities (not including Everett); and housing developments were funded in 12 of the 19 participating cities.
Other local funding mechanisms Through inter-local agreement, the City of Everett receives a 21 percent set aside of HOME funds from OHHCD to allocate to eligible housing activities within the city limits. Everett is also a CDBG entitlement community and receives a direct allocation from HUD. Everett allocates funding for housing and public facilities separately from other jurisdictions in the county. In 2005, the Washington State Legislature passed ESSHB 2163, the Homeless and Housing Assistance Act, which established an ongoing funding source collected through a document recording fee (primarily on mortgage documents). Counties are required to use these funds to support activities that prevent and reduce homelessness, as described in each county’s 10-Year Plan to end homelessness. Snohomish County OHHCD administers the 2163 funds through its Ending Homelessness Program, which expects to allocate between $1.5 million and $2 million annually (revenue projections are being revised due to the slow down in the economy and in home sales). OHHCD currently uses this funding source to support operating and services activities, and not new capital housing projects.
Packet Page 306 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
24
Existing Housing Plans and Policies
This feasibility study seeks to align with existing affordable housing plans and policies in Snohomish County, including reports produced by Snohomish County Tomorrow, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, Snohomish County, the Homeless Policy Task Force, and Puget Sound Regional Council.
Snohomish County Tomorrow Housing Planning Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) is responsible for developing and updating the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), which provide a guiding framework for the comprehensive plans of the County and cities. CPPs are designed to ensure that city and County comprehensive plans are consistent and fulfill the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The CPPs currently include 21 policies specifically related to housing. Most of these policies would be relevant to the activities and objectives of an inter-jurisdictional housing collaboration, and five policies in particular are essential to the creation and implementation of such a program. These CPPs clearly demonstrate the commitment of cities and the County to seek ways to increase the supply of affordable housing, and to work inter-jurisdictionally on meeting these goals: HO-2: Make adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the county. HO-3: Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county. HO-4: Adopt and implement a fair share distribution of low-income and special needs housing so as to prevent further concentration of such housing into only a few areas. HO-5: Each jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan housing element will include strategies to attain the jurisdiction’s fair share housing objectives. HO-6: Production of an adequate supply of low and moderate income housing will be encouraged by exploring the establishment of inter-jurisdictional private/public financing programs which involve local lenders and foster cooperative efforts with non-profit housing developers.16 The intent of the CPPs is that each jurisdiction incorporates these policies into their comprehensive plans. For example, the County Comprehensive Plan includes several strategies related to the provision of affordable housing, including encouraging building the 16 Snohomish County Tomorrow. Countywide Planning Policies. Available online: http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Council/Agendas/CURRENTCountywidePlanningPolicies.pdf (Accessed: February 12, 2009).
Packet Page 307 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
25
capacity of nonprofit housing developers; analyzing alternative funding for low-income housing, such as bond levies and partnerships with housing authorities and providers; and revising density and zoning regulations to increase land capacity. The County Comprehensive Plan also includes the objective to, “Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county.” In order to meet this objective, the County recommends this policy: “Snohomish County in cooperation with cities, public housing agencies, and other public, non-profit and private housing developers shall continue to strive to meet its fair-share housing allocations based on recommendations in the most recent Housing Evaluation Report as provided in the 2025 Fair Share Housing Allocation Report and Documentation.”17 An inter-jurisdictional program to increase the provision of affordable housing across a range of income levels is encouraged by the CPPs and therefore should align with the comprehensive plans of participating member jurisdictions. Based on CPP HO-4, SCT is also responsible for developing the Fair Share Housing Allocation report. The object of this report is to inform all jurisdictions of their “fair share” of housing for the number of low- and moderate-income households who are projected to be cost-burdened by 2025. In other words, the model describes the "fair share" of housing need for which each jurisdiction should plan, and includes both existing and projected housing needs.18 SCT also produces the Housing Evaluation Report, which analyzes the efforts made to achieve countywide and local housing goals, as set forth in the Countywide Planning Policies. The 2007 Housing Evaluation Report describes tools and strategies that each jurisdiction has implemented to support affordable housing. However, the report found that: “Our CPPs also call for inter-jurisdictional effort to achieve affordable housing goals and objectives. Unfortunately, little of this nature has occurred. Likewise, little action has been taken on the ‘recommendations for working together’ of the 2002 Housing Evaluation Report.” 19
17 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. Comprehensive Plan. Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Projects_Programs/Comprehensive_Plan/General_Policy_Plan.htm (Accessed: February 12, 2009). 18 Snohomish County Tomorrow. Fair Share Housing Allocation. http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/FSHousing.htm (Accessed: February 13, 2009). 19 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009).
Packet Page 308 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
26
Both of these reports would be extremely relevant to a new inter-jurisdictional housing program, which should seek to implement recommendations from both reports when appropriate.
Housing within Reach Report In 2008, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County developed a report that included strategies to more than triple the rate of housing production and double the number of affordable housing opportunities in Snohomish County by 2017. The Housing within Reach plan was sponsored in part by Snohomish County and the City of Everett, and was led by a committee of public, private, and nonprofit leaders. The plan includes several recommendations for ways that jurisdictions could support housing by working together. The following recommendations for action present possible opportunities for collaboration among cities and/or the County:
• Urban Mixed-use Demonstration Project: recruit a nonprofit and a for-profit developer to collaborate on a demonstration project that includes both affordable and market-rate housing
• Incentive Zoning in Urban Areas: develop incentives to incorporate affordable housing within designated Urban Centers throughout the county
• Preservation of Manufactured Housing Communities: explore strategies to preserve manufactured housing that is at risk of closure or sale
• Waiver of Construction Sales Tax: advocate the State legislature to waive the State portion of sales tax for affordable housing20
• New Dedicated Local Revenue Sources: create new local funding for affordable housing, such as through a levy, bonds, or combination of public and private sources
• Homeless Initiative Partnerships: partner with new and existing State and philanthropic initiatives to end homelessness The Housing within Reach plan estimated that the total costs of meeting its goal of serving over 32,000 households would be about $1.03 billion over ten years, including both existing (55 percent) and new (45 percent) resources. The proposed new resources include new sources of direct public financial assistance; increased leveraging of state, federal, and private loans and investment; and the value of development incentives for new affordable housing. The implementation of a new inter-jurisdictional housing program could potentially overlap with some of the Housing within Reach strategies. The participating jurisdictions can use the financial modeling in the plan to inform the development of the program’s strategies and goals. The Housing within Reach plan specifically includes the following recommendation:
20 Efforts to pass state legislation in 2009 were not successful; there may be efforts to pass similar legislation in future sessions.
Packet Page 309 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
27
“Challenge each municipal jurisdiction in Snohomish County to generate a plan that will contribute $5 per capita of new value annually toward affordable housing solutions from fee waivers/discounts, surplus land donations/discounts, cash contributions (levy, bonds, or other new sources), land use designations, and policy changes. One way of implementing this would be for the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee to adopt a list of "ways and means" that would qualify, and later to evaluate and report each jurisdiction’s contributions. In addition, a template and other technical assistance tools for implementing affordable housing production policies should be developed and disseminated. Snohomish County Tomorrow should study this recommendation as part of the current feasibility study of inter-jurisdictional programs to promote affordable housing.” 21 More information on the housing goals and financial estimates from this report is found in the annotated bibliography in Appendix 5, as well as in the Housing within Reach report itself, especially in the sections on “Strategies to Support Housing Stability” and “Funding Projections.”
Other Housing and Homelessness Planning in Snohomish County In 2007, the Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development (OHHCD) developed its Affordable Housing Production Plan. That plan set a housing goal of ensuring housing affordability for 6,025 additional households from 2007-2017, through a variety of types of housing assistance, using existing housing resources. The recommendations of the AHPP provided the foundation for the Housing within Reach report. As described in the funding mechanism section, the Snohomish County Consolidated Plan describes the housing conditions in Snohomish County and provides funding priorities for the federal HOME and CDBG funds administered by the Urban County Consortium. If it is decided that a portion the Urban County Consortium funding processes are integrated into a new inter-jurisdictional housing program, the program will incorporate the funding priorities in the Consolidated Plan.22 In Snohomish County and Washington State, the issues of affordable housing and homelessness have significant overlap. In 2006, the Snohomish County Homeless Policy Task Force led the development of Everyone at Home Now, the countywide 10-year plan to end homelessness. That plan focuses on addressing both the housing and services needs for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, with a goal to increase homeless housing by at least 2,500 units over ten years.
21 Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. Housing within Reach. Available online: http://www.housingsnohomish.org/advocacy.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 22 Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development. Consolidated Plan. Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/Consolidated_Plan/ (Accessed: March 27, 2008).
Packet Page 310 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
28
In January 2008, Executive Aaron Reardon convened the Housing and Homelessness Policy Oversight Committee to focus on strategies for increasing affordable housing and ending homelessness. The Oversight Committee will review the recommendations and progress on the Housing within Reach plan in spring 2009, and develop recommendations by this summer. In early 2009, a new initiative to improve housing and services for homeless families – tentatively called “Investing in Families” -- will be led by the County, the Workforce Development Council, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Building Changes. These planning efforts may influence an inter-jurisdictional housing program, particularly if the member cities prioritize housing for homeless populations or households earning below 50 percent of the median income.
Packet Page 311 of 367
29
Review of Best Practices
A central component of the feasibility study of inter-jurisdictional programs for Snohomish County is the identification and analysis of national and local best practices for inter-local collaborations. The consultant team worked with the PAC Housing Subcommittee to identify seven existing inter-jurisdictional programs as promising case studies, and conducted research on the histories of these programs, what they do, how they work, and what have been their outcomes. The seven regional approaches were chosen through the consultants’ review of literature, discussions with leaders in the field, and suggestions from the PAC subcommittee members. It should also be noted that there are a very limited number of examples of multi-jurisdictional efforts focused on affordable housing around the country. The criteria used to select locations to study best practices were: a) inter-jurisdictional programs that resulted in the creation or preservation of additional housing units; b) programs that had longevity and a track record of continued support from local jurisdictions; c) local jurisdictions voluntarily joined the collaboration; and d) at least one example of a program that was not successful. Some programs are focused on pooling capital resources to fund new housing opportunities, some focus on providing planning support to the member jurisdictions, and two programs include both features. It is important to note that for many of these models, the activities evolve over time and the program may take on new functions as it gains experience, visibility, and credibility in the community.
Packet Page 312 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
30
The following sections provide an overview of each of the seven programs, followed by a list of success factors that have been identified as best practices for inter-local programs. The seven programs profiled (also mapped in Figure 3) in this review of national best practices include:
• HEART: Housing Endowment and Regional Trust, San Mateo County, CA
• HTSCC: Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, CA
• WAHP: Washington Area Housing Partnership, DC-MD-VA
• REACH: Regional Employer-Assisted Collaboration for Housing, which includes suburbs of Chicago, IL
• LCA: Livable Communities Act programs in Minneapolis-St. Paul region, MN
• ARCH: A Regional Coalition for Housing in East King County, WA
• SKC: previous inter-jurisdictional efforts in South King County, WA Figure 3 Geographical Locations of Profiled Programs
Packet Page 313 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
31
Table 3 provides a summary of the roles that these programs play in promoting the development of affordable housing opportunities in their communities. Table 3: Activities Performed by Inter-jurisdictional Collaborations
Program Capital Funding Planning Activities Other
HEART
Public-private housing trust fund that provides revolving predevelopment loans for new affordable rental housing; and First-time homeowner downpayment program
none
Host educational forums for elected officials and general public
HTSCC
Public-private housing trust fund that provides grants and loans for new affordable rental housing; and First-time homeowner downpayment program
none none
WAHP none Information clearinghouse of best practices in housing planning and incentives
Education and peer learning between cities and elected officials
REACH none Joint planning on employer-assisted housing issues between cities
Education and peer learning between cities and elected officials
LCA Competitive state funding for member jurisdictions to support housing goals
Assistance with developing housing goals and strategies for participating jurisdictions none
ARCH
Housing trust fund that provides loans, grants, and land donations for affordable housing; and First-time homeowner downpayment program
Development of land-use incentives for member cities; and GMA planning
Housing 101 for elected officials and general public
SKC none Planning support (but lacking sufficient development expertise) none
Packet Page 314 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
32
Overviews of Other Regional/Inter-jurisdictional Affordable Housing Programs
HEART: Housing Endowment and Regional Trust, San Mateo County, CA
The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) brings together the County of San Mateo and every incorporated city and town, as well as private businesses, to address affordable housing. HEART operates two main programs: a revolving loan fund and a homebuyer assistance program. The creation of HEART was a largely grassroots effort that had a broad base of support in the community. Local advocacy led to a working group in 2002 of local public, nonprofit, and business leaders to recommend strategies for improving housing affordability in San Mateo County. In 2003, HEART was established as a new Joint Powers Authority and originally included the County and several cities. Municipalities were especially motivated to join because of state funding that had become available specifically for local housing trust funds. In this case, a combination of broad-based advocacy and state incentives were vital to starting an inter-jurisdictional program. HEART is governed by a 20-member Board of Directors which includes nine municipalities, two County Supervisors, and nine members of the private sector. All budgetary decisions must also be approved by a separate Member Committee that includes all the cities and the County. Since its establishment, HEART has gradually added cities as members until August 2008, when the final remaining city joined. HEART has been able to recruit members by demonstrating that it adds value to member jurisdictions and is responsive to their needs. For example, the homebuyer assistance program was created largely in response to the interests of member cities, and since only member cities could participate in the homebuyer assistance, that incentivized other cities to join and become dues-paying members. The nonprofit Housing Leadership Council serves as the managing agent and provides administrative staffing for HEART, which includes slightly less than 2 FTE through a large portion of the Executive Director’s time and an administrative support specialist dedicated to HEART. The San Mateo County Office of Housing provides program management services, including reviewing funding requests and recommending funding allocations. The County also provides legal services through the Counsel’s Office. These cost-sharing measures keep overhead relatively low for the program. Program expenses were approximately $275,000 per year from 2006 to 2007. From 2003 to 2008, HEART has raised about $10 million from local, state, and private sources. Of that, $3 million was granted by San Mateo County and $3.5 million by the State of California. Over five years, membership dues from the 20 participating jurisdictions have totaled about $900,000. The remainder of the $10 million comes from private fundraising. HEART has leveraged over $22 of external funding for each dollar it has invested.
Packet Page 315 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
33
The revolving loan fund provides short-term loans for affordable multi-family housing development. About 400 rental units have been funded through these loans. The homebuyer assistance program provides downpayment assistance and reduced interest rates for households earning less than $150,000, through a partnership with a private lender. In the pilot for the homebuyer assistance program, 100 households received assistance. The units supported by HEART accounted for approximately 11 percent of all housing produced in San Mateo County over the last five years. HEART also works with HLC to provide educational forums for elected officials and the general public on affordable housing needs.
HTSCC: Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, CA One of the most prolific inter-jurisdictional collaborations in the country has been the Housing Trust in Santa Clara County, California. The Housing Trust is a partnership between local business and the cities and County, and leverages millions of dollars of private and public money for homeownership programs, new rental housing, and homeless housing. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), a membership organization of nearly 300 companies in the Silicon Valley area, has played a crucial leadership role in establishing and raising funds for the Housing Trust. Without the support of business leaders, the Housing Trust would not have gotten off the ground. During an annual survey of member CEOs, SVLG found that the lack of affordable housing for working families was the number one identified need. In the mid-1990s, SVLG became involved with the Housing Action Coalition and was a vocal advocate for affordable housing, including appearing in support of dozens of proposed new developments at council and planning commission hearings. Between 1999 to 2001, SVLG raised $20 million for a Housing Trust in Santa Clara County, with about two-thirds of the funding from private sources and one-third from the county and 15 cities and towns. The Housing Trust is a 501c(3) nonprofit with a volunteer Board of Directors, which includes two County supervisors, council members and mayors from nine of the 15 cities and towns in the county, and leaders from 13 local businesses. The Board sets funding guidelines and oversees a relatively lean staff of five full-time employees, whose workplans are dedicated to the objectives of the Housing Trust. The governance structure is responsive to the needs of the member jurisdictions and accommodates participation by cities of different sizes. The Housing Trust operates two core programs: homeownership assistance for first time buyers, and loans and grants for affordable rental housing. For first time home buyers in Santa Clara County earning between 60 percent and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), the Housing Trust provides downpayment or mortgage assistance. For developers of multi-family or homeless rental housing, the Housing Trust can provide acquisition financing, gap financing, construction loans, or permanent financing, up to a maximum of $15,000 per affordable unit. All multi-family rental units must be affordable to 80 percent of AMI, with a portion reserved for families earning below 30 percent of AMI.
Packet Page 316 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
34
As of 2008, the Housing Trust had received a total of $37 million in contributions, granted $29 million, and leveraged $1.3 billion in outside investment, to create over 7,000 housing opportunities. The Housing Trust benefited from a state matching incentive, which provided $2 million for the fund.
WAHP: Washington Area Housing Partnership, DC-MD-VA The Washington Area Housing Partnership is a regional public-private partnership affiliated with, and located within, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). The mission of WAHP is to expand affordable housing opportunities within the metropolitan Washington region. The Partnership serves as an information clearinghouse, developing reports on various aspects of the region’s housing market and developing ways for member jurisdictions to share information on housing policies and programs. The Partnership functions as a semi-independent unit within the administrative framework of the COG. Partnership members pay dues separately from the COG, and may include private as well as public members. The Partnership is governed by a Board of Directors that is separate from the COG. The Partnership Board develops its workplan annually, and works with the COG to dedicate a portion of staffing time from COG planning staff. COG staff support the Partnership through the development and publication of a Toolkit of policies and programs that are best practices in the region and nation, and also the Annual Regional Housing Report, an assessment of the region’s rental housing stock. Elected and appointed officials from the Partnership members play an active role in publicizing the tools that are available and sharing information with peer councils and officials. The active participation of elected officials has been key to creating and sustaining the Partnership, which does not benefit from external incentives or funding, such as state or philanthropic grants, beyond modest contributions for operations.
REACH: Regional Employer-Assisted Collaboration for Housing, IL Two groups of communities in Illinois are currently working to develop inter-jurisdictional programs to promote affordable housing. These collaborations are using employer-assisted housing (EAH) as a starting point for cooperation. A regional nonprofit, the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), plays a lead role with both groups as facilitator and technical advisor. The history for these inter-jurisdictional efforts begins with leadership by the State of Illinois to create incentives for EAH. The Regional Employer-Assisted Collaboration for Housing (REACH) was established in 2000 as a pilot project that linked a suburban employer with a local housing provider and MPC. The employer provided downpayment assistance and paid for pre-purchase counseling to employees, provided by the nonprofit housing provider. The design and facilitation of the partnership by MPC was funded through foundation support. Building on the success of the REACH pilot, Illinois enacted a tax credit for businesses participating in EAH programs in 2002. Since then, the REACH program has broadened to include more than a dozen housing providers, which work with the MPC to support
Packet Page 317 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
35
businesses engaged in EAH. With the help of REACH partners, over 1,300 employees statewide have purchased homes through EAH programs. MPC’s funding for these coordinative efforts comes from local foundations, banks, the State development authority, and the City of Chicago Department of Housing. Currently, there are two groups of five suburban cities that are independently developing inter-jurisdictional agreements. One is in the northern suburbs of Chicago, and includes adjacent jurisdictions from two counties with populations ranging from about 5,000 to about 35,000. The second group consists of five adjacent suburbs in northwest Cook County with populations between 25,000 and 80,000. All ten communities are considered relatively prosperous, yet they employ tens of thousands of workers who are unable to afford the median home price. MPC began working with these groups in 2007. Some of the jurisdictions had already implemented proactive housing policies, such as incentive zoning programs and housing trust funds, but it was clear that were real limits to the impact that a small- or medium-sized city could have in these expensive housing markets. Previously, most of the cities had not worked well together, but they seemed to see the value in combining their efforts to get a group of employers in the same room, talking about housing. They saw value in pooling their efforts to make the case to area employers that making it affordable for employees to buy a home close to where they work would be a win for everyone. These ten municipalities see EAH programs as an easy first step to greater collaboration, both because it builds on an existing statewide framework of technical assistance and tax incentives, and because it requires no initial direct outlays by the cities. The cities are currently developing the organizational structure for their collaborations, with longer-term goals of using the collaboration to coordinate public resources, technical expertise, and data. The five cities in the northern suburbs have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that states: “Looking forward, we intend to join together to create an inter-jurisdictional housing organization, which will pool resources (financial, administrative and land-based) to create and preserve workforce housing opportunities in our sub-region, defined as the incorporated land of Deerfield, Highland Park, Highwood, Lake Forest, and Northbrook.” Collaboration on EAH is seen as the first step towards deepening the commitment to affordable housing by local governments. As Robin Snyderman, the MPC lead for REACH, explains, “In Illinois, employer-assisted housing has catalyzed a broader dialogue about the links between housing and economic development, which has led to public policy change.” The REACH program envisions a gradual, phased approach for their collaborations. The recent announcement of the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) has also created incentives for inter-jurisdictional collaboration in Illinois, which has indicated that there will be a funding preference for multi-jurisdictional proposals. An additional group of
Packet Page 318 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
36
cities in suburban Chicago has issued a hiring announcement for an inter-jurisdictional staff position that will coordinate the five cities’ NSP participation and provide other planning functions across the jurisdictions.
LCA: Livable Communities Act programs in Minneapolis-St. Paul region, MN The Livable Communities Act (LCA) offers a voluntary, incentive-based approach that encourages jurisdictions in the Twin Cities area to develop and implement affordable housing plans. LCA programs are administered by the Metropolitan Council, a multi-jurisdictional collaboration serving communities in the greater Twin Cities area. Over 100 jurisdictions participate in LCA programs through the Metropolitan Council. In 1995, the Minnesota legislature passed the LCA, which created incentives for communities in the seven-county Twin Cities area to plan for affordable housing. Communities that wanted to participate in the incentive programs were given six months to negotiate their housing goals with the Metropolitan Council, and 95 municipalities signed up right away. Before the creation of LCA, the Metropolitan Council already had deep ties and credibility in the region, which was an important reason why communities were comfortable working with the Council on the new LCA programs. The Council already included several other areas of inter-jurisdictional collaboration including transportation, long-range planning, and environmental activities. It is governed by a 17-member board representing geographic districts in the seven-county area, and it includes the Metro Housing and Redevelopment Authority, which administers over 6,000 Section 8 vouchers over four counties. Any municipality in the seven-county area is eligible to engage in the LCA programs, after they complete the participation requirements. The first requirement is that the city must work with the Metropolitan Council to negotiate acceptable affordable and life-cycle housing goals; the original goals were over fifteen years, and cities will be required to update their goals in 2010. Then, the city must prepare a Housing Action Plan to identify how it will address its established goals. After this plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council, the city is finally required to make a minimum annual investment of local discretionary expenditures or contributions to assist the development or preservation of affordable housing. This minimum amount for each city is determined by a formula and includes ownership opportunities that are affordable to households earning below 80 percent of AMI, as well as rental housing that is affordable to households earning below 50 percent of AMI. As long as the city is current on its required contributions, it is eligible to apply for funding from three competitive LCA programs. The Livable Communities Demonstration Account currently provides up to $8 million annually for innovative development projects that demonstrate efficient use of land and infrastructure, and prioritize mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Funding may be used for public infrastructure, land acquisition, and site
Packet Page 319 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
37
preparation. The Tax Base Revitalization Account currently provides about $5 million annually for communities to clean up polluted land for redevelopment, which may include affordable housing. Both these LCA programs are funded through a levy on the seven counties that was created by the state legislature. The source of funding for the third program, the Local Housing Incentives Account, is through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). MHFA reserves $1.5 million of its available funding specifically for LCA-participating cities. These funds may be used toward the preservation or development of affordable housing in LCA-participating cities. In the case of LCA, relatively modest state investment (on a per capita basis) has been a critical factor in incentivizing the large majority of municipalities in the region to create housing goals and strategies to meet those goals. Over the first eight years of LCA, the state awarded $127 million in grants, which leveraged over $6 billion in private and public funding to create 25,000 housing units.
ARCH: A Regional Coalition for Housing in East King County, WA ARCH is an inter-jurisdictional agency that brings together 15 East King County cities and King County to help preserve and develop affordable housing opportunities. ARCH plays several roles by helping its member jurisdictions to pool funding and resources for housing developments; to develop incentives for the creation of affordable housing; and to provide information, research, and education to officials and the broader community. Three Eastside cities and King County created ARCH in 1992 through an inter-local agreement, funded through contributions by the four members, with substantial start-up funding provided by the City of Bellevue. The support and leadership of Bellevue as a champion city was an important factor in the establishment and growth of ARCH. The founding program director for ARCH remains a City of Bellevue employee who dedicates his complete work plan to ARCH and the member jurisdictions. Since its inception, ARCH has grown to include 15 cities and the County. ARCH is governed by an Executive Board, which consists of either a City Manager or Mayor from each jurisdiction. The Executive Board submits the work programs, budgets, and funding recommendations to the individual City Councils for their final approval and action. ARCH also receives advice on its work program activities and funding recommendations through a Citizen Advisory Board. ARCH is currently served by five FTE staff that report directly to the Executive Board. ARCH staff are dedicated to the program, which has allowed them to respond to the needs of the member jurisdictions. Member cities cite this as very important to the value they receive from participating in ARCH. In addition, the City of Bellevue provides some staff capacity on loan for administrative purposes, including website development, human resources, and finance and accounting.
Packet Page 320 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
38
This in-kind support has helped keep ARCH’s costs low, which is important to keeping member dues reasonably low. ARCH staff administer funding through the housing trust fund, work with communities to develop policies and incentives to enable the development of affordable housing, provide education and information, and provide monitoring and research on affordable housing issues and trends in the region. The ARCH housing trust fund brings together funding from all the members to pool resources and provide affordable housing that is distributed across the region. From 1993 to 2007, members contributed a total of $22.5 million through the housing trust fund, leading to the creation of over 2,600 units. Housing trust fund projects include rental housing, homeownership assistance programs, and manufactured housing communities. ARCH also partners with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission to provide down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers with incomes below 80 percent of AMI. This program, called House Key Plus ARCH, provides up to $30,000 in a down payment assistance loan at a below-market interest rate. These loans do not have to be repaid until the home is sold or refinanced. In addition to direct financial assistance, ARCH helps jurisdictions to provide land use incentives to developers of low-income housing, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and density bonuses. ARCH also helps cities to develop the land use and housing elements of Comprehensive Plans. Between 1993 and 2005, over 800 units of affordable housing were created in ARCH jurisdictions because of land use incentives. Virtually all of these served households with incomes up to 80 percent of AMI, with only one unit being affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI. One example of the land-use incentives developed with help from ARCH is the Mercer Island ADU program. ARCH worked with the City to create a program allowing homeowners to develop a second housing unit on their property that fit the City’s regulations. Between 1995 and 2002, the ADU program created 167 ADUs on Mercer Island. In comparison, 56 units were created on Mercer Island through direct financial assistance from 1993 to 2005, and only 10 affordable units were created by the private market.
Packet Page 321 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
39
Table 4 summarizes the number of affordable housing units created through direct financial assistance through the ARCH housing trust fund or land donations, the number of units created by land use incentives by ARCH members, and the number of affordable units created by the private market. Table 4: Units of Affordable Housing Created in East King County, 1993-2005
Income Target Direct Financial Assistance Land Use Incentives Market Subtotal for Income Target Up to 50% AMI 1,576 1 51 1,628 50 to 80% AMI 1,051 824 1,963 3,838 TOTALS 2,627 825 2,014 5,466 In addition to the trust fund and land use incentives, ARCH provides information and education regarding housing for the general public and for city leaders. In 2007, ARCH developed a Housing 101 curriculum that provides background on who is eligible for affordable housing, how housing is created in East King County, and what each city in East King County has done to help produce housing over the past 15 years. ARCH provides both general education and specific briefings to elected officials.
SKC: previous efforts in South King County, WA During the 1990s, several cities in the South King County area attempted to create an inter-jurisdictional housing program, inspired by ARCH in East King County. The Housing Development Consortium of King County played an instrumental role in bringing cities together in what was called the South King County housing forum, which focused on developing awareness of affordable housing issues in the region. From that forum developed a short-lived attempt to create a new inter-jurisdictional program. Only two cities signed on initially for the program and their financial contributions could not afford the level of staffing required to add value to the cities and encourage other jurisdictions to join. The proposed collaboration folded after about a year because of two main factors: the lack of a clear mandate and workplan for the staff position, and the lack of expertise that position could provide. The program did not have a broad base of support, external support such as state incentives, or a workplan that added value for cities in the region. Recently in 2008, several communities have resumed discussions about creating an inter-local program for affordable housing. There is substantial political will to create a program among elected and appointed officials, but there are two barriers that need to be addressed. The first challenge is finding funding in the current economic climate. The second challenge is developing a structure that functions effectively for the diversity of cities in the region, including those with strong Mayors and those with City Council and City Manager structures.
Packet Page 322 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
40
Critical Success Factors
Based on the review of seven programs that were jointly identified as promising by the PAC Housing Subcommittee and the consultant team, there are several important success factors that are shared by many or all of the collaborations. The following success factors have been identified as best practices for inter-local programs. A. The collaboration is led by an enthusiastic champion, especially in the early stages of design and implementation
• HTSCC: the Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group was a very vocal and well-connected advocate for the housing trust fund, and led both private and public fundraising efforts
• REACH: the owner of a manufacturing business worked closely with a suburban mayor to implement a pilot program for his employees, and then promoted the effort aggressively to other CEOs and mayors; also early buy-in from City of Chicago and key nonprofits and foundations
• ARCH: City of Bellevue played a key role in founding and supporting ARCH
• SKC: original efforts (1990s) lacked a key champion that could influence other cities to participate, which was a contributing factor to the program’s failure B. Counties (or the State) are invested in the program and are active participants
• (this is the case in all collaborations studied)
• HEART: counties provide staff and administrative support
• HTSCC and HEART: counties made a substantial investment of resources
• LCA: state authorized program and provided source of revenue C. The support of elected officials and/or key business leaders is instrumental in developing and sustaining credibility for the collaboration
• ARCH: elected officials serve on the ARCH Executive Board and have direct involvement in creation of staff workplan and funding decisions
• REACH: the sub-regional collaborations between suburban cities have been spearheaded by mayors that meet together, and with businesses in their communities; participating businesses have been vocal spokespeople
• WAHP: elected officials play a key role in educating peer councils on the strategies used by local jurisdictions
• HTSCC: deep support from Silicon Valley Leadership Group members
Packet Page 323 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
41
D. In the absence of “top-down” incentives from the State, a broad base of support is critical
• HEART: major impetus was a housing forum of 200 advocates for affordable housing that wanted to see greater regional investment in housing
• ARCH: major impetus for creation was based on citizen’s task force that identified affordable housing needs in Bellevue and East King County
• REACH: early pilots were the results of collaboration between advocates, businesses, local elected officials, and foundations E. In the absence of widespread political will, momentum, and resources, a gradual and phased approach to collaboration can be successful
• ARCH: only four initial member jurisdictions, but gradually grew to 16
• HEART: started with about half the cities, but has grown to include all 20
• REACH: two parallel sub-regional efforts underway with five cities each F. In the absence of external funding resources, an initial modest workplan can successfully evolve and add roles and activities over time
• REACH: member jurisdictions have vision of deep collaboration across multiple activities, but are starting with employer-assisted housing as the “low-hanging fruit” for collaboration
• ARCH: workplan has grown as more cities are added and members commit increasing resources G. In the absence of substantial funding sources, member communities play a larger role in supporting the collaboration through peer and public education, and developing incentives for housing development
• ARCH: staff pursue strategies that help member cities support housing in non-monetary ways, such as ADUs, density bonuses, and public land
• WAHP: limited funding for staff time, so elected and appointed officials play a larger role in peer and public education and information regarding incentive programs H. Staff are dedicated to the collaboration, so that their workplans and goals are based on the objectives of the collaboration and directly serve the members
• All collaborations dedicate specific full-time staff to initiatives
• ARCH: several full-time staff, including director, are solely dedicated to ARCH
• HEART: Executive Director of HEART also serves as E.D. of local nonprofit agency, and supervises full-time staff dedicated solely to HEART
Packet Page 324 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
42
I. The collaboration minimizes overhead and administrative costs given local circumstances, often by co-locating at an existing agency; this “host” agency provides infrastructure support (such as accounting, office space, human resources) but does not govern or supervise collaboration staff
• HEART: co-located with existing nonprofit dedicated to public education and advocacy for affordable housing
• ARCH: City of Bellevue provides administrative support for HR, website, finance, and accounting, but not programmatic dependence
• LCA: staffed by existing Metropolitan Council, the seven-county regional planning body
• WAHP: staffed by council of governments J. The administrative “host” agency for the collaboration is trusted in the community and has experience and expertise in housing planning
• LCA: Metropolitan Council has extensive planning experience across the seven-county region and was well-known by member cities
• HEART: local nonprofit was well-known for its housing leadership and advocacy, and utilizes County staffing expertise
• ARCH: The City of Bellevue provides administrative support but does not play a disproportionate role in development of policies or priorities
• SKC: staff position was not sufficiently funded to provide expertise of value to jurisdictions K. The collaboration creates a separate governance structure so that member jurisdictions have control over decisions regarding staff work plans and the use of any resources dedicated to the program
• HTSCC: volunteer Board of Directors includes two County supervisors, council members and mayors from nine of the 15 cities and towns in the county, and leaders from 13 local businesses; the Board sets funding guidelines and oversees a staff of five full-time employees
• ARCH: Executive Board, which includes either a City Manager or Mayor from each jurisdiction, submits the work programs, budgets, and funding recommendations to the individual City Councils for their final approval; ARCH also receives guidance on its work plan and funding via a Citizen Advisory Board L. The collaboration’s structure involves shared decision-making responsibilities and allows for participation of cities of different sizes
• ARCH: the Executive Board includes every member city, and decisions are sent to each city council for approval
Packet Page 325 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
43
• HEART: all cities and the County serve on Member Committee, and several cities of different sizes and the County are on the Board of Directors
• LCA: cities of varying sizes negotiate housing targets with Metropolitan Council that fit their circumstances M. The collaboration is responsive to member jurisdictions
• ARCH: ARCH staff serve as affordable housing staff support for each of the member jurisdictions, including assisting in the development of both policies and regulations, and providing education and information for member city councils
• HEART: designed a homeownership program that has been of sufficient value to cities that a substantial number have become members to have access to the homeownership program The following matrix summarizes the degree to which the case study programs have demonstrated success with these 13 success factors. A full-shaded box indicates a high level of success, a partially shaded box shows a moderate degree of success, and a blank box indicates that the program does not include or has had no success with that success factor.
Inter-jurisdictional Collaborations Critical Success Factors HEART HTSCC WAHP REACH LCA ARCH SKC A. Led by Champion B. County/State Participation C. Elected/Business Support D. Broad-Based Support E. Phased Approach F. Incremental Work Program G. Education/Incentives H. Staffing I. Minimized Overhead J. Trust in Host Agency K. Governance Structure L. Shared Decision Making M. Responsive to Members
Packet Page 326 of 367
“ Any city doing an objective and comprehensive job of planning will play a role in meeting housing needs --Local stakeholder interviewed for this report ”
Packet Page 327 of 367
45
Stakeholder Advice
Phase One Stakeholder Interviews
In order to evaluate the feasibility of inter-jurisdictional collaboration in Snohomish County to assess the climate for housing in the region, this study included two phases of stakeholder interviews. For the first phase, the PAC Housing Subcommittee identified a list of key stakeholders that were knowledgeable and interested in affordable housing and local government issues in Snohomish County. The goal for these interviews was to better understand the needs for housing, the roles that local governments play, the prospects for greater collaboration, and the potential leaders for such collaboration in the county. The consultants interviewed 23 individuals between August and December 2008, including two County Councilmembers, two members of the County Executive’s staff, seven city elected officials and three city administrative staff (Bothell, Everett, Gold Bar, Lynnwood, Marysville, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, Stanwood, Sultan), a representative of Tulalip Tribes, two nonprofit developers, two housing authorities, the executive director of the Puget Sound Regional Council, and three representatives from the private sector. Each interviewee received a short background document and guiding questions in advance. Summary of Phase One Interview Responses
1. How serious is the affordable housing need in your community? What populations, if any, are having difficulty finding affordable housing and need additional assistance?
• Most described the needs for affordable housing as serious.
• At least four local elected and appointed officials said the need in their communities was not serious because there was ample supply of a range of housing types, but the need countywide was serious.
• Many felt the needs were most acute for lower incomes (less than 30% and less than 60% of area median income), but that households up to 120% were experiencing affordability challenges.
• The specific populations mentioned most frequently were those on fixed incomes (seniors, disabled, veterans), first time home buyers (young parents), single-parent households, and mobile home park residents. 2. Do you think that cities and the county should play a role in addressing affordable housing issues? If so, what roles should they play? What roles should local jurisdictions not play?
• Almost everyone interviewed believes that local government should play an important role.
Packet Page 328 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
46
• Creating development incentives and appropriate zoning regulations for higher densities were often mentioned, including tools that allow municipalities to meet GMA targets.
• The housing developers felt strongly that governments must become partners – some good examples, but more needed.
• Cities and county should work with developers to avoid over-concentration of affordable housing.
• Most believe that local jurisdictions should not develop or manage housing.
• Most said local funding was not likely. 3. If you think that local municipalities should play a role in supporting affordable housing, what types of housing should be prioritized? Should your community focus on more attainable homeownership opportunities, or on affordable rental units?
• Most felt there is a need for both more ownership and more rental housing opportunities.
• The elected officials tended to place a greater focus on ownership; private developers are also more interested in ownership in general, with a range of densities.
• “Cities are generally interested in affordability for the next generation.” 4. How does your jurisdiction currently support affordable housing, if applicable?
• Several cities said they have or are working on incentive programs, and either creating more higher density or mixed use zoning where affordable housing could be located.
• Several said they work closely with HASCO and non-profit developers.
• Few city officials know what other cities are doing with respect to affordable housing.
• Several elected officials observed that although they are interested, affordable housing is not a priority for their council.
• Several rural cities said that their housing stock was already more affordable relative to most of the county. 5. Are you familiar with effective examples of jurisdictions working together to address important public policy issues, either in Snohomish County, regionally, or nationwide? What are the characteristics that have made that collaboration successful?
• There was no single example that was mentioned often by participants. Those examples cited included Sound Transit, PSRC, Sno-Isle Library system, and the Evergreen Crescent (an economic development collaboration between Snohomish Valley cities).
• Several mentioned Snohomish County Tomorrow as a model, and one suggested that SCT should develop an affordable housing program. However, another participant cautioned, “SCT is a good place to have a discussion, but not to get things done.”
• Most felt that a successful collaboration would have to have several components: 1) some type of sub-regional element so that cities in close proximity could work together, 2) decision making should be done in a fair manner, and 3) the county should be a
Packet Page 329 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
47
participant but not in control of the effort. “There is a lot of contention in county government right now.”
• Some believed that leadership from an energetic advocate would be critical to getting a program started.
• Several cities mentioned their participation in the Urban County Consortium process for allocating federal and state pass-through money, through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Board (PAB). While some felt that the TAC and PAB provided a good means of getting input on specific projects, cities said that there was a need for a more general forum for municipalities to come together and talk about housing issues and priorities, including “equitable distribution” of affordable housing. 6. What is your assessment of the prospects for establishing a program in which multiple jurisdictions pool resources to address affordable housing in Snohomish County? What are the potential challenges that a new program may have to overcome in order to be effective?
• A majority felt the prospects are good. “The prospects are good if the county can commit some funding to empower cities.” “Elected officials are getting it more.”
• Several said they weren’t certain if the political will exists to create such a collaboration. “I have not seen the critical mass of elected officials that have an interest in this issue.”
• Challenges included the following: overcoming concerns about over-concentration of affordable housing, creating affordable housing that has high quality design, and securing funding to support such an initiative. “It’s hard to get elected officials to think beyond their immediate boundaries.” 7. What would interest your government or organization in participating in such a program?
• Education of city officials and citizens was mentioned by many participants.
• Staffing, technical assistance, and research to help cities work on incentive programs, zoning for higher densities, design regulations, meeting the housing requirements within GMA, and credit enhancements.
• Most of the city officials and non-profit developers interviewed said they would like to be involved.
• The nonprofit developers said they have the expertise to form partnerships with cities.
• Both nonprofit and for-profit developers are interested in municipalities making development easier, such as expediting applications for permits or waiving fees.
• The program would need to be flexible to tailor ideas to specific needs of each city; present a “menu” of options for cities to implement.
• Several cities were interested in establishing a forum for talking about housing policies and priorities, including learning what other cities are doing and evaluating existing affordable and market-rate housing stock in each city.
Packet Page 330 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
48
8. Under what circumstances, if any, would new local funding resources be desirable? Under what circumstances, if any, should voluntary incentives for developers be used across multiple jurisdictions to encourage new affordable housing?
• Creating a new local funding source at this time was not seen as likely/possible.
• Most participants felt incentives are an important tool for creating affordable housing.
• Several suggested that cities and county should work together to lobby for additional federal and state funding.
• Interest from developers in linking new infrastructure funding with housing. 9. If a multi-jurisdictional program were implemented using a phased approach, what might be some initial steps for implementation and developing momentum?
• Several participants suggested the first phase should be an analysis to find out what cities need, and then set measurable, concrete goals for a work plan.
• Several said that education for elected officials and the public is needed to show the importance of housing, how affordable housing works, and whom it serves in the community.
• Several suggested creating a structure with a sub-regional component so neighboring cities can work together.
• Several participants had specific suggestions for the types of technical assistance that would be useful, including: study use of city and county surplus property; implement a transfer of development rights (TDR) program in mixed use zones; focus on zoning for lands just outside city boundaries; and analyze the relationship between job creation and the need for affordable housing.
• Several suggested that the county could create an incentive for sub-regional cooperation on affordable housing by letting local jurisdictions make decisions about the using of federal and state housing funds (CDBG, HOME, and 2060). “If the county is really interested in this approach they will have to allocate resources.” 10. Are there specific jurisdictions in Snohomish County that you believe would be particularly interested in participating in a multi-city affordable housing program? Are there cities that may be leaders on this subject in the county?
• The cities mentioned most frequently were Everett, Monroe, Marysville, Arlington, Stanwood, and Lynnwood. One elected official cautioned, “The issue isn’t on the radar of most cities.” 11. Who are the likely advocates and leaders in the community, including elected and appointed officials, business leaders, and other community members?
• Individuals mentioned by several participants included: Ed Petersen (E.D. Housing Hope), Tony Balk (Monroe Council Member), Lyle Ryan (Frontier Bank and Board
Packet Page 331 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
49
member of Everett Housing Authority), Dennis Kendall (Marysville Mayor), Mark Smith (Lynnwood City Council), and Carl Zapora (President of United Way).
• Several mentioned the importance of leadership coming from the private sector.
Phase Two Stakeholder Interviews
For the second phase, the list of key stakeholders included some individuals who were interviewed in the first round, and others who were not. The list of interviewees was determined by the input from the first round of interviews, and feedback from the Housing Subcommittee. The goal for the Phase Two interviews was to test the essential program outcomes and program design features, discuss the interest of local governments in participating in a potential program, and solicit ideas for next steps in developing such a collaboration. The consultants interviewed 18 individuals between February and April 2009, including five elected officials from cities, a County Councilmember, two state representatives, five city management and planning staff, a representative from County Executive’s office, the directors of Snohomish County Human Services and Planning and Development Services, the director of the Economic Development Council, and one representative from a nonprofit housing agency. Each interviewee received a short background document and guiding questions in advance. Phase One interviewees were also given the opportunity to respond to the interview questions from Phase Two using an online survey, and seven individuals completed the online survey, including three representatives from cities, one from a nonprofit housing agency, one from a housing authority, and two from the private sector. The summary below of the Phase Two interviews includes both the 18 in-person interviews and the seven online survey responses.
Summary of Phase Two Interview Responses 1. Do the “Essential Program Outcomes” (listed on pages 1 & 2) correspond to the affordable housing goals in your community and countywide?
• In general there was support for the proposed program outcomes. “We should want to create a ladder of housing opportunities.”
• There is support for locating affordable housing where it is accessible to employment, services, amenities, and transportation. Some reacted positively to language stating that affordable housing should be located where there is the greatest lack of housing. Others felt the statement should emphasize the location of housing where there is the greatest need.
• Several jurisdictions felt they have more than their fair share of affordable housing.
Packet Page 332 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
50
• “It’s important to spread housing around. A program should be geared toward distribution of affordable housing.”
• “With regard to the desire to avoid over concentration of affordable housing, no city is meeting all the affordable housing needs of their citizens. Some cities are doing better than others and they don’t think it is fair that some cities don’t provide enough affordable housing.”
• Several cited concerns in their community regarding affordable housing locations being perceived as high crime areas – particularly privately owned and managed rental housing. “What comes along with affordable housing is more crime.” 2. What outcomes in particular interest you? What outcomes offer little or no value to your community? Would you add or modify any outcomes to benefit your community or the county at large?
• There was a mixture of reactions about priorities. Some would prefer a focus on rental housing for low income, others would prefer a focus on home ownership opportunities, others see need for both.
• In general, there was more support for creating new home ownership opportunities. “Home ownership is where we need to be. There are enough non-profits focused on creating more rental housing.”
• There was some interest in a broader continuum of housing choices – up to 120 % of median income. “We would like housing opportunities for home ownership for teachers, fire fighters, and others who may be above 100% of area median income. Maybe we need to raise the income level to 120% of median income.” 3. Do the “Program Design Features” (listed on pages 2 & 3) provide sufficient direction and limitations on the activities of an inter-jurisdictional program that are realistic for Snohomish County? Would you add or modify any of these elements?
• Most said the minimum number of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program depends on which jurisdictions they are. Many felt the County needs to be a participant
• There was support for the idea that decision making should not be controlled by the County or any one city
• Educational efforts are important – both for the public and elected officials
• The program should be voluntary, but not so easy to withdraw that jurisdictions can come and go with every new election
• The private sector needs to be encouraged. The solutions to affordable housing issues will not be found solely through government actions.
• A distinction was made between creating a new organizational structure to govern a new program, and creating a bureaucracy to administer a new program
• The selection of staff will be key to the success of a new program
Packet Page 333 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
51
• If a new program is created housing developers should participate in some fashion
• Several suggested that local governments should not be prohibited from owning or managing affordable housing units if they felt it was in their best interest to do so. 4. Do local governments have a responsibility to create and preserve affordable housing? If so, what is the role of local governments? (This question was asked in the first round of interviews, so it was not included for those individuals interviewed earlier.)
• All agreed that local governments play several roles in creating and preserving affordable housing, including creating zoning regulations, housing and building codes, and facilitating the use of public and private resources. “Local government’s role and duty is to create opportunities for affordable housing.”
• Many said that Growth Management Act (GMA) requires local governments to include a housing element in their Comprehensive Plans. “Any city doing an objective and comprehensive job of planning will play a role in meeting housing needs.”
• However, at least one said the housing elements of most Plans are weak, and used to avoid doing any substantive work on affordable housing issues. 5. Is a local government’s role in creating or preserving affordable housing enhanced by collaborating with multiple jurisdictions? Why, or why not?
• Most of those interviewed said that the region’s ability to create more affordable housing would be enhanced through an inter-jurisdictional collaboration.
• “Absolutely. It’s good to know what others are doing and good for them to know what we’re doing.”
• “Increasingly, finding solutions to issues related to jobs, housing and transportation cross boundaries.”
• “Most of the smaller jurisdictions are running as fast as they can to keep up with current obligations. They don’t have time or resources to work on affordable housing. Working together allows them to learn about affordable housing strategies at a relatively low cost. An inter-jurisdictional approach would bring together jurisdictions of like minds to work on this issue.” 6. Would your jurisdiction be interested in collaborating with other jurisdictions to achieve the outcomes described? If so, what do you think could be accomplished? If not, why not?
• Most of those interviewed expressed interest in participating, although they made it clear that they could not commit on behalf of their councils, and several said that funding a new program would be a substantial challenge.
• “We are interested in collaboration, but not if we have to make a financial contribution at this time.”
Packet Page 334 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
52
• Affordable housing is not a “top tier” issue for the Snohomish County business community, although some realize that county needs broad spectrum of housing options to support a healthy economy. 7. Would your jurisdiction be interested in participating in the program outlined in the “Initial Program Ideas” (listed on pages 3 & 4)? Which program elements would you or your jurisdiction find most useful, and which might dissuade you from participation?
• There was support for the list of eight potential work plan elements. “This looks like what we need to do.”
• Several interviewees said that most small to mid-sized communities do not have expertise on affordable housing issues. It was suggested that a new program could be useful in providing technical assistance to those jurisdictions.
• The education of local officials and the public about affordable housing issues was mentioned by many as a useful potential work plan element. “Neither electeds nor planners have a real good understanding of affordable housing issues or the resources available for affordable housing.”
• At least one participant said they would strongly favor creation of a new local trust fund to build new units of affordable housing.
• Several of those interviewed questioned whether any additional planning work needs to be accomplished. They stated a preference for providing technical assistance to jurisdictions on housing and zoning proposals. 8. For those portions of the Initial Program Ideas that suggest options (H. Supporting organizations and J. Funding) do you have a preferred approach? Why? Would you suggest other options?
• Everyone interviewed acknowledged that finding funding for this program will be a challenge. However, many suggested that it will likely be easier to secure CDBG funds for the program than local government general funds. Several mentioned the potential use of new CDBG funds included in the stimulus package, although it was also noted that competition for new CDBG funds will be intense.
• There was no consensus about which organization should serve as the “host” to provide administrative support for the program. Several mentioned that neither the County nor SCT would be preferable because the program should not be perceived as being controlled by the County. Several suggested that the Snohomish County Economic Development Council (EDC) or one of the two housing authorities might serve as hosts. 9. If you support the program outcomes, but have concerns about the initial program ideas, are there suggestions for structuring a program that could make meaningful progress toward the outcomes?
Packet Page 335 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
53
• Several of those interviewed suggested that members of the Snohomish County building and development community should be involved in the new structure in some way. “What’s really missing is a focus on the private sector.” 10. Can you think of potential leaders or “champions” that may be willing to play a leadership role in creating such a program?
• There was general agreement that no one individual or organization is currently playing a leadership role to promote this idea. “No one has stepped forward to propose this idea.”
• A number of individuals and organizations were mentioned as having potential to play a leadership role in creating an inter-jurisdictional collaboration. Those included the following: Bob Drewel (*), Marysville Mayor Kendall (*), Gary Weikel, Sam Anderson and/or Greg Tisdale (from the Master Builders), Gail Larsen (former CEO of Providence Medical Center), Anne Steves (Edmonds resident and owner of transitional housing units), Gary Oakley (CEO Boeing Employee Credit Union), John Caulfield (* City Administrator for Mountlake Terrace), The Housing Consortium (*), County Executive Aaron Reardon, the County Council, Everett Councilmember Brenda Stonecipher, Stanwood Mayor Diane White, Monroe Mayor Donnetta Waker , Sultan Mayor Carolyn Eslick (*), Bob Davis (HASCO Executive Director), Bud Alkire (Everett Housing Authority Executive Director), Lynnwood Councilmember Mark Smith, Lynnwood Councilmember Stephanie Wright. (*) Mentioned by more than one individual 11. What do you see as possible next steps for bringing jurisdictions together on affordable housing issues?
• Many interviewees supported the creation of an implementation group to pursue the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program during the coming year. Several said they would be willing to participate.
• “It will be important to keep the dialogue going and create a more visible forum.”
• “A steering committee is a good next step.”
• One participant suggested that a focus group of supporters should be organized, and the group should be asked, “How can this idea best be moved forward?”
• “The only way cities and the County will get more involved in this issue is through political pressure. The Housing Consortium is key to that effort.”
• It was suggested that it may be possible to work with the legislature next year (a supplemental budget year) to secure some funding support for a pilot project.
Packet Page 336 of 367
“ There will be a measurable increase in the number of affordable housing units throughout Snohomish County available for lower income households. --Program goal ”
Packet Page 337 of 367
55
Essential Program Outcomes and Program Limitations
Based on the consultants’ research on national and regional best practices, and the feedback from the stakeholder interviews and the PAC Housing Subcommittee, a proposed set of principles was developed to guide future collaborations on affordable housing. The Essential Program Outcomes describe the core long-term goals of a potential inter-jurisdictional collaboration, and the Program Design Features reflect both desired elements of a potential new program and elements that would not be acceptable for a new inter-jurisdictional program focused on affordable housing.
Essential Program Outcomes:
I. There will be a measurable increase in the number of affordable housing units23 throughout Snohomish County available for lower income households. IA. More affordable rental housing opportunities for low-income households (those making up to 50% of county median income), especially for seniors, those with disabilities, veterans, families with children, and those working in the service industry and as laborers. IB. More affordable home sales opportunities for moderate-income home buyers (those making less than county median income), especially first-time homebuyers and people who work in our communities, such as teachers and public safety workers. II. More affordable housing (both rental and ownership opportunities) in all participating communities, especially where there is the greatest need for and/or lack of affordable housing, and where there is good transportation and access to employment opportunities, amenities, and services. III. Over the long run, in order to have the greatest impact on the creation of new affordable units, local governments should contribute additional resources toward meeting affordable housing needs in Snohomish County. Resources may include direct financial contributions, fee waivers, donations of land, in-kind contributions, or other forms of support. During the current economic conditions, however, local government resources used for affordable housing purposes will remain about the same.
23 Affordable housing is not necessarily subsidized housing, but includes all types of housing that can be rented or owned by families at a range of income levels without paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing.
Packet Page 338 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
56
Program Design Features:
1. In difficult economic times, the program does not place undo financial burden on participating jurisdictions.
2. The initial collaboration will involve at least three jurisdictions.
3. It should not be difficult for other jurisdictions to join later (i.e. the program could begin with several jurisdictions, with others joining over time).
4. The program does not preclude sub-regional activities and can grow to a countywide or regional program, if desired over time.
5. Activities do not contribute to a disproportionate concentration of affordable housing in a given area.
6. The activities of the program do not duplicate or compete with private or non-profit agencies in managing or developing housing
7. Decision-making is shared by member jurisdictions and is not controlled by the County or any single city.
8. The program must be able to withstand changes in administrative, political, or economic conditions over time.
9. The program should not create a new bureaucracy for administrative and back-office support, but instead should use an existing agency.
10. The program operates with an annual work plan with measurable objectives based on a sound needs analysis. The work plan must meet the needs of member jurisdictions.
11. The program does not allow housing providers to profit disproportionately to the housing benefits gained in the community.
12. The activities must show progress toward achieving goals within two years.
Packet Page 339 of 367
57
Summary of Findings
There are a number of important implications that can be drawn from the two rounds of interviews, the research on other national models, and the discussions with the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee, Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), and the PAC Housing Sub-Committee. These “findings” are described below.
What the Study Found
A. The need for additional affordable housing throughout Snohomish County has been well documented. In 2005, Snohomish County Tomorrow estimated that 55,000 lower-income households lived in unaffordable housing in 2000, and that this number would increase to 83,000 by 2025. By 2007, however, the figure had already reached 80,000 households.
B. The adopted Countywide Planning Policies call upon Snohomish County local governments to strengthen their collaborations to ensure adequate supplies of affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. SCT’s recent Housing Evaluation Report noted that few cases of this kind of collaboration have occurred in Snohomish County.
C. There appears to be a wide range of knowledge and understanding about affordable housing needs, issues, and terminology among government officials and community leaders. A number of those interviewed suggested that increasing the depth of knowledge about affordable housing among elected and appointed officials, and the public would be very useful.
D. Several interviewees described a perceived strong correlation between high-crime locations in their community and affordable housing sites, particularly in properties owned and managed privately rather than by non-profit agencies or public housing authorities.
E. Some representatives of jurisdictions believe there is a geographic imbalance in the supply of affordable housing. They believe that their cities are providing a disproportionate share of affordable housing (both private and public) compared to other jurisdictions.
F. Some members of the business community understand the need to maintain a balanced mix of housing choices for Snohomish County’s work force. However, affordable housing does not appear to be a high priority concern for the Snohomish County business community at this time.
G. Some elected and appointed officials in Snohomish County have interest in creating a new inter-jurisdictional program focused on creating and preserving affordable housing. However, that interest is not uniform across all jurisdictions or even within jurisdictions.
Packet Page 340 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
58
H. All those interviewed for this study believe that local governments play an important role in helping to create affordable housing in their communities. Some see government’s role as providing a zoning and regulatory framework that encourages development of affordable housing by private and non-profit developers. Others see local government’s role as providing education for their residents about the affordable housing needs in their communities and setting goals for meeting those needs.
I. Among those interviewed, support exists for certain “Essential Program Outcomes” described in the previous chapter. However, there appears to be a broader level of support for the creation of new home-ownership opportunities for households earning up to 100 percent of the county’s median income, than there is for the creation of rental housing targeting those earning 50 percent of the county’s median income or less.
J. Among those interviewed, support exists for the draft “Program Design Features”, described in the preceding chapter. These elements provide useful parameters for a program recommendation.
K. Those supportive of creating an inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program cited several potential functions they believe would be valuable. They suggest that a new program could:
1) Provide a vehicle for cities and the County to focus attention on affordable housing issues; 2) Enable participating jurisdictions to share information about successful policies and programs that help create affordable housing; 3) Provide the staff expertise in affordable housing planning, design and implementation that most small and mid-sized jurisdictions do not have; 4) Educate local elected officials, government staff, and the public about affordable housing issues; and 5) Help to identify and secure additional federal, state, local and private resources for affordable housing development.
L. Only a handful of successful inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs exist in the U.S. Some focus on creating new local capital resources for housing development, while others focus on a combination of regulations, incentives, and other planning activities to promote, encourage, or require affordable housing development. A few engage in both planning activities and the creation of new capital resources.
M. Given current economic conditions, this is not seen by most interviewees as a time when a new local capital funding source can be shifted or created to support development of affordable housing. Instead, those who support the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program believe that a new collaborative program should be focused on a variety of technical assistance, educational, and planning activities. A new program may be eligible for new or existing state and federal funding sources, but considerable
Packet Page 341 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
59
competition for these dollars suggests that there is no easy answer regarding the potential source of funds for new staff, capital improvements, or other expenditures.
N. Research into other models around the country suggests that the creation of a new program requires at least one champion to play a leadership role. That leadership could take the form of promoting the new program and recruiting others to participate, or providing funding or in-kind services. To date, no jurisdiction or individual has expressed an interest in stepping forward to champion a new initiative.
O. If an inter-jurisdictional structure is created, both the research on other national models and the reactions from those interviewed suggest that for-profit and non-profit housing developers should be involved in the new program in some fashion.
P. Other national models have created dedicated staff capacity to support a meaningful multi-jurisdictional collaboration focused on affordable housing. This has required funding resources to support the appropriate level of staffing and some administrative services, if those services are not provided in-kind by an existing organization.
Q. Research on other national affordable housing models suggests that new governance structures have been developed to focus on the implementation and management of the program, but existing organizations have been utilized to provide administrative support.
Packet Page 342 of 367
“ A new inter-jurisdictional program with the goal of creating more affordable housing in Snohomish County can be successful if four threshold conditions are met. --Report conclusion ”
Packet Page 343 of 367
61
Conclusions and Program Proposal
Conditions for Proceeding with New Inter-Jurisdictional Program: Threshold Recommendation
Mindful of the findings that were based on the stakeholder interviews, research on other regional programs, and existing plans and policies, the project team concludes that creation of a new voluntary inter-jurisdictional program to build or create more affordable housing in Snohomish County is feasible and could be an effective tool for jurisdictions looking for new strategies to meet their affordable housing goals. It is recommended that a new inter-jurisdictional program should be created once four threshold conditions are met: Condition 1: A “critical mass” of jurisdictions elects to participate as founding members. Condition 2: Sufficient funding is secured to support the program for at least 24 months. Condition 3: A host agency is identified to provide back-office administrative support, such as payroll, accounting, and IT services. Condition 4: The participating jurisdictions have reached agreement on who the program will serve and how it will be governed.
Packet Page 344 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
62
Alternatives Analysis
A number of alternatives were considered for organizational models (or governance structure), staffing, funding, and administrative support, prior to developing more detailed program recommendations. These alternatives were identified based on research of other national models and reactions to the “Initial Program Ideas” that were tested in the second round of interviews with local officials and community leaders. The following provides a brief description of some of the key alternatives, and a listing of the relative pros and cons.
Organizational Model (or Governance) Alternatives Several different organizational structures were considered as ways to enable multiple jurisdictions to work together to create additional affordable housing in Snohomish County. The following alternatives consider utilizing existing structures already in place, and the potential creation of a new structure, as ways in which jurisdictions could govern a new program. Based on the research of other national programs, the success of a particular organizational model depends on the strength of support for that structure from participating jurisdictions, whether the jurisdictions feel that they have sufficient control over the decisions made about the direction of the program and the use of resources, and the level of resources (for staffing and/or capital funding) devoted to support the organizational structure. No one organizational model appears to determine success. (It is important to note that the governance structure does not necessarily have to be the same as the structure used for administrative support – see below.) Interested Jurisdictions Agree to Work Together Informally – Any Snohomish County jurisdiction (individual cities, the County, and tribes) could agree to collaborate with one another to share information about affordable housing strategies, pool resources to pay for staff or consultant services, or develop joint plans. This collaboration could be accomplished without any formal agreement. Member jurisdictions could agree to meet regularly to review progress on the work plan. Pros
o Like-minded jurisdictions would be motivated to pursue additional planning activities together to create affordable housing
o Would not require creation of a new structure
o Cost would be minimal; pooling of staff or funding could stretch limited resources further Cons
o Difficult to maintain an informal collaboration over time; turnover among elected officials and staff could affect strength of collaboration
o Most small and mid-sized jurisdictions do not currently have sufficient resources to devote to affordable housing issues
o Opportunity exists now for this type of collaboration and it has not occurred Utilize an Existing Inter-Jurisdictional Forum Provided by Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) – Representatives from all jurisdictions within Snohomish County meet monthly at SCT
Packet Page 345 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
63
meetings. SCT’s mission is to “adopt a publicly shared vision, including goals and policies, to guide effective growth management”. Their primary function is to oversee the Countywide Planning Policies, of which affordable housing is one component. The forum serves as an opportunity for participating jurisdictions to share information. There are separate meetings for elected officials (the Steering Committee), city managers (the City Managers Group), and planning staff (the Planning Advisory Committee) from member jurisdictions. Pros
o SCT provides an existing forum for elected officials and planning staff to discuss issues of common interest and concern; all jurisdictions would be familiar with this organizational model
o Affordable housing issues have been discussed at the SCT forums for elected officials and planning staff
o County provides administrative support for SCT Cons
o SCT meeting agendas include a wide variety of topics; it could be difficult to provide a consistent focus on affordable housing issues
o SCT membership includes all cities, the County, and local tribes; based on this study’s Findings not all Snohomish County jurisdictions will want to participate in an affordable housing collaboration
o A focus on one topic (affordable housing), just for member jurisdictions (assuming that not all jurisdictions would join) would be a departure for their current role.
o SCT is not a decision-making forum; the organizational model must allow for a governance structure that can make decisions about the direction of the collaboration
o May not be perceived as a “neutral” forum by participants because it is staffed by the County Utilize an Existing Non-Profit Structure, such as the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County – The mission of the Consortium is to “provide strategic leadership in crafting policy and program solutions to affordable housing challenges in Snohomish County.” The organization serves as an association for its members: non-profit developers and housing service providers. It also has non-voting associate members who represent businesses and organizations concerned about affordable housing. And there are four non-voting governmental members. Pros
o The mission and goals of the Consortium are consistent with the purpose of creating an inter-jurisdictional collaboration around affordable housing
o It serves as a forum where two cities, the County, and tribes can interact with housing developers and other advocates of affordable housing
o It is a trusted non-profit organization; seen as a leader advocating for affordable housing issues
o Utilization of a private non-profit structure would allow the program to be eligible for private foundation grants Cons
o The Consortium’s primary focus is on the interests of their non-profit members
Packet Page 346 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
64
o Few cities are members of the Consortium, and government entities are non-voting members of the organization
o The Consortium is an advocacy group; this would require a major shift in the work of the Consortium Create a New Organizational Structure Focused on Affordable Housing – This model would establish a new organizational structure for the sole purpose of allowing multiple jurisdictions to collaborate on the creation of more affordable housing. It would be established by creating a formal inter-local agreement, or memorandum of understanding, to define roles, responsibilities, and secure commitments from the volunteer participants. State law (RCW Chapter 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act) authorizes such agreements and describes the terms that must be included in the agreement. Each participating jurisdiction would need to secure legislative approval before signing the agreement. Pros
o Single-purpose nature of this model would provide a strong focus on affordable housing
o Only jurisdictions wanting to collaborate would participate; all participants would be motivated to succeed Cons
o Will take significant time and energy to create a new organizational structure
o Could be some confusion about relationship with Snohomish County Tomorrow, the Housing Consortium and other regional forums
o Not clear if there is sufficient interest on the part of Snohomish County jurisdictions to take the steps necessary to create a new structure
Program Staffing Alternatives If an inter-jurisdictional collaboration is created that focuses on planning activities, staff resources will be required to carry out that work. There are several approaches that can be considered for establishing the initial staff capacity to implement the new program. The selection of the preferred staffing model will be influenced by the agreed upon work plan for the program. Loaned Executive – Some organizations are able to negotiate agreements with private companies or large government agencies, to utilize the services of a “loaned” executive to provide staff support for a project. Typically, the company or agency loaning the executive pays all, or a portion, of the cost of the salary and benefits for the employee. These arrangements usually last for one or two years. For example, the Boeing Company has a long history of offering loaned executives for different types of community service activities. Pros
o A loaned executive should have the skill set and expertise to work well with local government officials and community leaders
o A short-term staffing arrangement may allow the program to develop over one or two years, at which point there will be better information or more stable funding for creating a permanent staffing plan
Packet Page 347 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
65
o If the loaned executive’s sole responsibility is the inter-jurisdictional program they will be able to focus all of their attention on the affordable housing work plan
o If a donation of a staff resource can be secured it would significantly reduce the start-up cost for a new program Cons
o May be difficult to find a candidate with experience and expertise in affordable housing planning and development
o Could result in turn over of key staff at critical time in the development of the new program; would not provide a stable funding base for continuation of the program
o In this economic climate it may be difficult to find a private company or public agency that would loan staff for an extended period of time, and pay for all, or a portion of, the costs.
o There are no obvious organizational candidates for this approach Utilize Existing Staff – Staff already working on affordable housing issues for municipal, county, or non-profit agencies could be asked to accept additional responsibilities to conduct planning activities for members of a new inter-jurisdictional program. Pros
o Would employ the talents and experience of staff who are currently working on similar issues in Snohomish County jurisdictions
o May be a cost-savings by using existing staff capacity rather than hiring new staff Cons
o Would be difficult for staff to manage existing duties and provide quality staff support to multiple jurisdictions
o Recent budget constraints, and staff reductions, have severely limited the capacity of existing staff to take on new responsibilities
o It is likely that only a larger government entity could potentially offer existing staff resources
o May be difficult for staff in one jurisdiction to provide much support to other jurisdictions
o Would not provide stable funding base for continuation of program
o There are no obvious organizational candidates for this approach Create a New Dedicated Staff Position(s) – One or more new positions could be created to provide the staff support needed to conduct a variety of planning activities for those jurisdictions that join an inter-jurisdictional collaboration. The staff would have lead responsibility on affordable housing issues for all member jurisdictions, working closely with the Councils and planning staffs of all members. Pros
o Allows staff to be focused solely on the affordable housing work plan for the inter-jurisdictional program
o Should be able to hire staff with strong expertise in affordable housing issues
o Staff should have a high level of responsiveness to requests for assistance from participating jurisdictions, since they will not have competing work requirements
Packet Page 348 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
66
o Would be beneficial for those jurisdictions that do not currently have staff to work on affordable housing issues
o This could free up the time of some existing city or county planning staff currently working on affordable housing issues Cons
o Will require funding to create new dedicated staff capacity; the current economic climate creates challenges for finding available funds
o There could be overlap with the work of existing planning staff among cities or the county working on affordable housing issues; avoiding that overlap would require coordination of work plans
o Staff member with strong understanding of housing issues may not have understanding of local conditions among all member communities Hire Consultant(s) – Staff support would be provided by one or more consultants with experience in affordable housing planning and development. This could be structured as a fee-for-service arrangement, with the consultant paid for services rendered to participating jurisdictions, or as a flat rate, with the consultant team available for a certain number of hours per month/week to work on the program. Pros
o Allows the program to hire specific expertise related to the work plan priorities identified by member jurisdictions
o Consultants would be focused solely on the affordable housing work plan for the inter-jurisdictional program
o Consultants may be well suited for helping to design and implement the program, and then transition it over to dedicated full-time staff
o Would be beneficial for those jurisdictions that do not currently have staff to work on affordable housing issues
o This could free up the time of some existing city or county planning staff currently working on affordable housing issues Cons
o If focus of consultant work is to help design and implement program then more permanent staff capacity will be needed after program is up and running; it may be difficult to create program continuity with staff changes during first several years
o Will require funding to support this alternative; the current economic climate creates challenges for finding available funds
o May be difficult to find consultant that could devote sufficient time to meet the needs of all member jurisdictions
Administrative Support Alternatives In addition to the governance structure and staff support needed to carry out the work plan for an inter-jurisdictional program, there will be a need for administrative support for a new program. The administrative support could include use of an administrative assistant’s time, IT and technical support, use of space and equipment, human resource services, contracting, and accounting and payroll services. An entity that provides these administrative support
Packet Page 349 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
67
services could be considered the “host agency”. Several of the national inter-jurisdictional models have used existing organizations as the host agency, rather than creating new entities. The administrative support services could either be paid for by member jurisdictions, or provided as an in-kind contribution (at least in the initial years) by the host agency. (It is important to note that the administrative support structure does not necessarily have to be the same as the governance structure.) None of the seven options for potential host agency have been approached specifically about their willingness to provide administrative support services on either an in-kind or fee for service basis. Those discussions will be an important part of the implementation of an inter-jurisdictional program (see section below on implementation). Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) – Administrative support for SCT is provided by Snohomish County, with dues paid by all member jurisdictions. The dues are assessed on a per-capita basis, based on the population of each participating jurisdiction. Pros
o Already provides administrative support to the various SCT forums; it is a model that jurisdictions are familiar with
o There is a dues payment structure in place, although it would have to be modified if some jurisdictions participated in the new program (and others did not), and payments were made to the County to support administrative services (as opposed to those services being provided on an in-kind basis) Cons
o Could place a burden on existing staff support services
o If payment were required for services, it would be challenging to raise dues in the current economic climate to increase the level of SCT administrative support for a new program
o SCT is perceived by some cities as being controlled by the County because it is staffed by the County and recommendations from the SCT Steering Committee are made to the County Council Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) – The Housing Authority owns and manages more than 2000 subsidized affordable housing units throughout Snohomish County. They are well regarded by those interviewed for this study. HASCO has a staff of sixty-four individuals. Pros
o Trusted partner that was frequently mentioned by cities in the stakeholder interviews as having good relationships with cities and the County
o Has full range of administrative support services, and has excellent knowledge of affordable housing issues county-wide
o Could be perceived as “neutral” entity Cons
o Mission focused on housing development and management, as opposed to creation of regulatory and/or zoning recommendations
o Could place a burden on existing staff support
Packet Page 350 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
68
Everett Housing Authority (EHA) – The Housing Authority owns and manages subsidized affordable housing units in the City of Everett. The EHA has been in existence for more than sixty years. It has a staff of approximately sixty individuals. Pros
o Has a long and successful track record as an organization that provides affordable housing opportunities for the citizens of Everett
o Has full range of administrative support services, and has excellent knowledge of affordable housing issues county-wide Cons
o Mission focused on housing development and management, as opposed to creation of regulatory and/or zoning recommendations
o Their work is primarily within the City of Everett; most other jurisdictions do not have a working relationship with the Everett Housing Authority; may not be perceived as “neutral”
o Could place a burden on existing staff support Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County – Serves as the supporting organization for a coalition of non-profit housing developers and service providers, and others concerned about affordable housing. Has been in existence for seven years. The Housing Consortium has a small staff of two full-time employees. Pros
o Excellent knowledge of affordable housing issues county-wide
o It is a trusted non-profit organization; seen as a leader advocating for affordable housing issues
o Utilization of a private non-profit structure would allow the program to be eligible for private foundation grants Cons
o Would be a departure from their current role
o Very limited staff capacity currently
o Could place a burden on existing staff support Snohomish County Economic Development Council (EDC) – The EDC “is a private, nonprofit organization that collaborates with businesses, citizens, and government to support and develop the County as a strong and vibrant economic force.” They currently have ten staff members. A precedent for this type of connection between housing and economic development was established recently when the Snohomish County Work Force Development Council agreed to serve as the host agency to support the development of a family homelessness business plan for the county. Pros
o Excellent knowledge of all of the jurisdictions within the county
o It is a trusted non-profit organization; seen as a leader advocating for the interests of Snohomish County
o Utilization of a private non-profit structure would allow the program to be eligible for private foundation grants
Packet Page 351 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
69
o A recent precedent was established for this type of role with the Work Force Development Council providing administrative support for the county family homelessness initiative Cons
o Would be a departure from their current role; they have limited knowledge of affordable housing issues, and housing is not a primary focus of the organization
o Limited staff capacity currently
o Could place a burden on existing staff support Snohomish County – County government is a large, general purpose government. It provides a variety of administrative support services for county programs. Pros
o The County currently works with cities throughout the county
o The County’s Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development (OHHCD) already administers inter-jurisdictional housing program through the Urban County Consortium
o The scale of county government could provide an opportunity to utilize existing staff to provide administrative support for a new program
o The County may have a stronger commitment to the program goals if they serve as the host agency Cons
o Recent reductions in county staff could make it challenging for staff to take on additional responsibilities; could place a burden on existing staff support
o County provision of support services could create perception that County would control program decision-making A large or mid-sized city – A city with a sizeable general purpose government could provide the administrative support services for a new program. The larger the city, the greater the likelihood that they would have sufficient staff resources. Pros
o Larger cities have a full range of administrative support services
o Other participating cities may have more trust in a city as a host agency
o There may be stronger commitment to the program goals from the host agency Cons
o Recent reductions in municipal staffs could make it challenging for cities to take on additional responsibilities; could place a burden on existing staff support
o One municipality serving as a host agency could be perceived as having control over the program
Funding Alternatives If new staff capacity is created to support the work plan for an inter-jurisdictional program, and if payment is required to a host agency to provide administrative staff support, a source of funds will be required to pay for those services. In the current economic climate it will be a challenge to find new fund sources for this purpose.
Packet Page 352 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
70
General Fund Contributions from Participating Jurisdictions – Members of the new inter-jurisdictional program could contribute general fund dollars. This source of funds from participating jurisdictions (cities and the county) could support a portion or all of the program costs. Although local general funds do not traditionally support housing programs, there is precedence for this type of expenditure. Some cities currently contribute general fund resources to support social service programs (which are typically funded by state and federal programs). Pros
o Would serve as an indication of the level of commitment and buy-in from participating jurisdictions
o Does not take resources directly away from other housing programs
o Even small contributions establish a precedent that can be built on in better economic conditions
o Funds can be used for supporting staff and administrative expenses of a new program Cons
o During the current economic conditions, general fund resources are very scarce for the majority of cities and the county; most jurisdictions have had to make significant reductions in general fund expenses
o Many cities in Snohomish County have modest commercial or industrial development, and therefore limited tax bases; this limits some cities ability to contribute general fund resources
o General fund contributions may vary over time as they are subject to fluctuations in tax revenues Grant Funding from Private or State Sources – Grant funds could be used to start a new program. Typically, grant funds are not available for ongoing administrative or staff support. However, they are available for program start-up, and as a match for other funding sources. If a portion of the housing to be created were prioritized for households experiencing or imminently at risk of homelessness, it might be possible to secure education, advocacy, planning and/or operating funds from philanthropic and business leaders who are committed to ending homelessness. Pros
o Can be very attractive for jurisdictions to join a program that brings outside money to the table
o There could be some attraction to help start a program that could be replicated in other parts of the state or region
o Funds are generally more flexible than other local government sources Cons
o The challenging economic climate is affecting State government and private philanthropies in the same way it is affecting local government revenues; there is generally a scarcity of private and state funding for new housing programs
o A one-time grant will not sustain the program over time; an ongoing source of funds will be necessary to implement the program
Packet Page 353 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
71
o Snohomish County does not have the same scale of private business-driven philanthropy as some communities that have created similar programs (i.e. Silicon Valley or suburban Chicago area); affordable housing issues do not currently appear to be a high priority for the Snohomish County business community
o Typically private foundations will not fund local government initiatives, they provide grants to private non-profit organizations. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – Both Snohomish County and the City of Everett receive federal CDBG funds. Typically CDBG funds are used for affordable housing capital projects and programs, public facilities and infrastructure, and public services. The City of Everett allocates approximately $900,000 in CDBG funds annually, while Snohomish County allocates approximately $3 million each year. Both Snohomish County and Everett will receive some additional CDBG funds as part of the federal stimulus package. Snohomish County will receive approximately $825,000 and Everett will receive approximately $250,000. Allocation decisions for Snohomish County CDBG funds are made through the Urban County Consortium, which involves the cities in Snohomish County. Use of CDBG funds are divided into two broad categories: program and administrative expenses. Jurisdictions that administer CDBG funds are allowed a modest percentage of their total allocation for administrative expenses. Additional research will be required to determine if the funding for a new inter-jurisdictional program would be considered a program or administrative expense. If CDBG funds are used to support the program, officials for the two jurisdictions that receive these federal funds will need to determine if funds should be allocated from the program or administrative categories. In previous years, members of the ARCH program in East King County have used CDBG funds for program expenses to make their member contributions to that program. Pros
o Local jurisdictions collectively have control over this source of funding and it is reasonably predictable over time
o CDBG funds are meant to be used for affordable housing purposes
o Potential to use creative funding allocation process, such as stipulation that a percentage of increases in CDBG funding over current levels can be dedicated for inter-jurisdictional program costs
o County and cities have existing inter-local agreement for CDBG funding that could be modified
o Additional funds will be available through the federal stimulus package Cons
o There have been recent funding reductions in the federal CDBG program (prior to approval of the federal stimulus package)
o Although additional CDBG funds will be available through the federal stimulus package, there will be greater demand for CDBG funds because of reductions in other revenue sources
o Using CDBG funds for program activities (i.e. to support planning activities to increase affordable housing) would reduce the available funds for affordable housing capital projects
Packet Page 354 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
72
o Using CDBG administrative funds would reduce the funds available to support staff that administer the CDBG program
o Jurisdictions not interested in participating in the program start-up may not support use of CDBG funds for this new program Other Governmental Housing Funds – The Snohomish County Urban Consortium administers affordable housing funds from other sources that may be eligible for an inter-jurisdictional program. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (a federal pass-through program), the Snohomish County Affordable Housing Trust Fund (which takes its revenue from recording fees), and “2163” funds (another recording fee, for housing the homeless and homelessness prevention). Of these, only 2163 funds would be eligible for operating expenses, and only to the extent that the program addresses homelessness. The others could only be used to pay for new housing or housing maintenance. Washington State has a Housing Trust Fund that, like HOME funds, could provide funds for capital investment. Finally, new funding sources related to federal economic stimulus programs may also apply, but detailed information was not available to the project team in time for this report, and in any case, may expire before an inter-jurisdictional program is ready to launch. Pros
o Finding other fund sources will ensure that no one fund source bears the burden of creating the new program
o To the extent the program work plan is focused on activities that address the reduction of homelessness, some of the funds known as 2163 funds could be used to support the operations of the new program
o The County and cities have an existing inter-local agreement and process for making funding decisions that could be utilized Cons
o Most government housing fund sources are for capital projects and do not provide flexibility for funding program staff with a focus on planning, technical assistance, and education, as recommended for the new program.
o Using government housing funds for program activities would reduce the availability of funds for affordable housing capital projects
o Jurisdictions not interested in participating in the program start-up may not support use of housing funds for this new program
Packet Page 355 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
73
Program Recommendations
There is a significant need for new affordable housing opportunities in Snohomish County. In 2007, as described in the Landscape section, more than sixty percent of all households earning less than the county median income were considered “cost burdened” because they were spending a high percentage of their income on housing expenses. When the regional economy slows, as it has in the past year, families spending too much for housing may not be able to afford other basic necessities, like food or health care. The difference between a stable family living situation and an unstable one can be very fragile for cost-burdened households. This study was designed to explore the potential creation of a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions in Snohomish County to work together to create more affordable housing opportunities throughout the county. Given the affordable housing needs within the county, and the level of interest in this idea expressed by those interviewed for the study, it is recommended that interested jurisdictions work together to create a new inter-jurisdictional program with the goal of creating more affordable housing in Snohomish County. As mentioned in the Threshold Recommendation section above, four conditions must be met before a new program can be formed. Achieving a “critical mass” of jurisdictions to become the initial members will create the political support and funding resources needed to sustain a new program for at least two years. It is understood that funding commitments from local governments can only be made on an annual budget cycle, but founding member jurisdictions should agree to participate for at least two years. Before the new program can be created there must be agreement among the founding members about who the program will serve. Every city will have different affordable housing goals, but there should be unanimous agreement that the program will develop strategies to meet the affordable housing objectives for each participating jurisdiction. In addition to the four threshold conditions, there are several other principles drawn from the interviews and analysis of other national models that shape the program recommendations that follow:
• The governance and administrative structure for the new program must be streamlined and efficient. This is particularly important in light of the need to create dedicated staff capacity for the program and stakeholders’ strong desire to not create a new bureaucracy. The governance structure should be created in a manner that does not increase decision-making difficulty and delay.
• Given the uneven levels of knowledge and understanding about affordable housing needs, issues, and terminology, an important objective should be to increase the depth of knowledge about these matters.
• Fear of crime and declining property values cannot be adequately addressed through education alone. An inter-jurisdictional program should ensure that any housing, or the
Packet Page 356 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
74
households it supports, raises the quality of life for all residents, including low-income households and existing neighbors.
• An interim strategy will be required to take the initial program concept to implementation. That strategy is described in the “Implementation” section below.
Expected Program Outcomes During the second phase of the study’s community outreach, all stakeholders interviewed were asked about their reactions to the draft “essential program outcomes. The outcomes are meant to provide general direction for a potential program, and establish expectations for what the program would seek to accomplish. The draft outcomes were developed based on the conclusions of previous planning documents that assessed the affordable housing needs in Snohomish County, the first round of interviews for this study, and discussions with members of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee, Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), and the PAC Housing Sub-Committee. There was wide-spread support for the following statements that described the desired outcomes for a new program:
• There will be a measurable increase in the number of affordable units throughout Snohomish County, including:
More affordable rental housing opportunities for households making up to 50% of county median income, especially for seniors, those with disabilities, veterans, families with children, and those working in the service industry and as laborers
More affordable home sales opportunities for home buyers making less than the county median income, especially first-time home buyers and those working in Snohomish County communities who cannot afford to buy a home (e.g. teachers and public safety workers)
• More affordable housing (both rental and ownership opportunities) in all participating communities, especially where there is a need for more housing and a lack of affordable housing. Affordable housing should be located where there is good transportation and access to employment opportunities, amenities, and services.
• Over the long run local governments should contribute additional resources toward meeting affordable housing needs in Snohomish County. Resources may include direct financial contributions, fee waivers, donations of land, in-kind contributions, or other forms of support. During the current economic climate, however, local government resources used for affordable housing will remain about the same.24 While these program outcomes provide broad guidance for a new program, more specific targets and strategies will be identified by the participating members of the new program. The lessons learned from other national programs suggest that it is important for a new structure to be responsive to the needs and goals of its members. 24 For further description of current local contributions to affordable housing, see sections above on housing need and funding mechanisms.
Packet Page 357 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
75
More on Grant Writing
Dedicated inter-jurisdictional staff would be available to respond to opportunities for affordable housing funding as they become available, such as through new federal, state, or philanthropic sources. These funding announcements usually require timely responses and are difficult to coordinate across multiple jurisdictions in time frames as short as just two months. In the past several months, for example, the federal government has announced new funding opportunities for the Second Chance Act Reentry Demonstration Project Grants for local or state governments; capital grants for new transitional housing for homeless veterans; the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the Neighborhood Stabilization Program; and supportive housing grants through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Most of these funding opportunities are competitive, or require jurisdictions to develop allocation and administration plans with short timelines. Inter-jurisdictional staff can be available to identify and assess appropriate funding opportunities and work with member communities to pursue these grants.
Initial Program Focus and Work Plan Activities Those who support the creation of a new inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program believe the new program should be focused on a set of technical assistance, education and planning activities that would assist member jurisdictions better meet their affordable housing goals. The program’s work plan must be perceived as adding value to the public policy decisions made by local governments, or jurisdictions will not participate. Other national inter-jurisdictional programs have created local housing trust funds by securing contributions from State fund sources, local governments, and/or private sector contributions. As mentioned above, one of the anticipated outcomes for a Snohomish County program would be to create such a local fund. Member jurisdictions will need to determine when and how they would attempt to raise new local capital funds for housing development. This study tested a number of work plan ideas during the stakeholder interviews to determine the value of different technical assistance and planning activities to potential member jurisdictions. These ideas are consistent with the work conducted by other regional models that support the creation of affordable housing. Based on the discussions with key stakeholders, the following list of activities serves as a “menu” of potential work plan items for the new program. The following list is not in any priority order:
• Identify strategies and goals to address identified affordable housing needs that are specific to each participating jurisdiction
• Assist in preparing affordable housing components of comprehensive plans, as required by the State Growth Management Act
Packet Page 358 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
76
More on Regulatory and Incentive Strategies
Dedicated inter-jurisdictional staff would assist the planning staff of member jurisdictions to develop or modify policies, regulations and planning guidelines that encourage the creation of affordable housing. These regulatory and incentive strategies could include density bonuses, fee waivers, expedited permitting, accessory dwelling units, use of public lands for housing development, modifications to design or zoning guidelines, mixed-use development, or cottage housing. According to the Housing Evaluation Report produced by SCT, nearly every jurisdiction includes some of these strategies, but the majority of the incentives are not utilized by developers. During the stakeholder interviews several officials expressed interest in learning from other cities experiences and having greater staff capacity to pursue these strategies. Inter-jurisdictional staff would assist the cities in making existing regulations more effective, drafting new regulatory measures, sharing what works between communities, and using their expertise to help develop new tools to support affordable housing goals.
• Develop regulatory or incentive strategies to encourage development of affordable housing (see sidebar)
• Liaison with non-profit and for-profit developers of affordable housing
• Write grant applications and other forms of fundraising to support affordable housing (see sidebar)
• Develop means of sharing information among jurisdictions about effective affordable housing strategies, as well as potential pitfalls in designing or implementing strategies
• Conduct research on regional and national best practices
• Conduct educational outreach on affordable housing needs and solutions for elected and appointed officials and the public
• Monitor affordability conditions/restrictions for affordable housing units created through local incentive programs of member jurisdictions
• Explore the feasibility and timing of securing potential resources (from local, state, federal and private sources) to create a local housing trust fund, which could be particularly helpful as economic conditions improve; pursue opportunities as they arise As with the “Expected Program Outcomes” above, final decisions about the work plan for the new inter-jurisdictional program should be determined by members, based on their affordable housing needs and resources. It is anticipated that each member jurisdiction will identify their priority activities. The Governing Board will then make decisions about the work plans for the program staff, with some activities likely to benefit multiple jurisdictions, and other activities benefiting only a single member jurisdiction.
Packet Page 359 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
77
Governance and Membership Governance of the new program should be provided by the participating members through the creation of a Governing Board representing all member jurisdictions. One of the critical success factors of other national models is that effective collaborations have created shared decision making regarding the direction of the program and use of resources. The Governing Board should make decisions regarding annual work plans and use of staff resources dedicated to the program. This is particularly important in the early stages of the program when jurisdictions want to be sure that funding resources are used wisely and that the program is meeting their unique needs. Program staff would be accountable to the board. During the course of the stakeholder interviews and the discussions with the SCT Steering Committee, many of those who participated in the study said they did not want to see a new bureaucracy created. They wanted to avoid creating a costly administrative structure, and they did not want to create a cumbersome decision-making process that might further complicate decisions regarding the use of current housing resources. Minimizing the cost of the administrative structure is discussed below. With regard to the governance structure, it is envisioned that the governing board would operate efficiently, focused primarily on setting policy direction, monitoring the progress of staff in achieving program goals, and setting clear expectations for the board’s relationship with staff. The Housing Subcommittee of the Planning Advisory Council discussed alternative approaches to establishing a governance model and reviewed a draft Policy Manual that outlines one method of defining the relationship between the board and staff. That material will be provided as background information to this report under separate cover. Because it is anticipated that a relatively small number of jurisdictions will join initially, it is recommended that a governance structure separate from existing inter-jurisdictional forums be created. Other Forums, such as Snohomish County Tomorrow, include all jurisdictions within the county. The governance structure should be designed to meet the intent of one of the initial Program Design Features – that decision making is not controlled by the County or any single city. This is particularly important for the small and mid-sized cities, which may be concerned that the work planning and resource decisions may be controlled by the larger jurisdictions. It is suggested that each participating member have one seat on the Governing Board. A jurisdiction’s representative should be selected by the Council for that member jurisdiction. A memorandum of understanding (MOU), or inter-local agreement, should be created to describe the roles, responsibilities and rules for each jurisdiction’s participation in the new governance structure. An outline of an MOU that could be used to establish the governance model is included in Appendix 1. Two types of membership were considered: those who should participate in a governance structure and those who may participate in an advisory capacity.
Packet Page 360 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
78
Membership in a governance structure would be open to all county, city and tribal governments in Snohomish County that choose to join the new program. Because of the different levels of local support for this program concept, membership should be voluntary and phased in over time. Based on stakeholder responses, and the experience of other national models, it should be expected that initial membership may start with as few as three jurisdictions. It is well documented among other national models that initial membership often starts with a handful of jurisdictions participating, and as the program achieves success other jurisdictions join in later years. The legal structure of the new program should easily allow for additional jurisdictions to join over time. The number of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program could be as few as three, but may require four or more, depending on which jurisdictions choose to join. During the stakeholder interviews, a number of individuals felt that the minimum number of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program will depend on which jurisdictions choose to participate. For example, if two mid-sized or larger cities joined with the County to create the proposed program there may be sufficient critical mass to secure funding support and the administrative resources needed for program startup. However, if three small cities were the initial members, they may not be able to secure sufficient resources for start-up. Some of the smaller and mid-sized jurisdictions feel that it would be more useful to them if similar-sized municipalities participated. For several reasons, it may be advantageous for the County to participate as one of the initial members: 1) As the biggest local government their participation will serve as a signal of the importance of this work; 2) There is a great deal of land in unincorporated Snohomish County, within the urban growth boundary, where affordable housing could be developed and which may be part of future annexations; and 3) As the largest jurisdiction they have access to resources that smaller jurisdictions do not. The initial member jurisdictions should be asked to make a two–year commitment to participate in the program. This will provide enough time for the program to demonstrate its value. In addition, it is recommended that the program create an Advisory Board that includes representatives involved in the affordable housing field – developers, lenders, philanthropy, affordable housing advocates, state or federal officials, etc. During the stakeholder interviews it was suggested that representatives from both private and non-profit housing developers should be included in this new program. In addition, local government jurisdictions that do not join the program as members may choose to participate on the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board would serve as a meaningful way to involve the development community. It would be a valuable sounding board on a variety of policy and programmatic issues. It would likely meet less often than the governance committees, perhaps quarterly. Advisory Board members should be appointed by the Governing Board members.
Packet Page 361 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
79
Program Resources A variety of resources will be required to initiate a new program. The following provides recommendations on three types of resources: staffing, administrative support, and funding. Alternatives for each were examined earlier in this chapter. Staffing – Each of the national models researched for this study included dedicated staff capacity for the affordable housing program. Based on an assumption that the program will begin with a small number of initial members (i.e. three to five), it is recommended that a new staff position should be created to conduct the work described above. This is a challenging time to create new staff positions, as many jurisdictions are reducing staff capacity. However, a dedicated staff position with affordable housing expertise is needed to create a focus on affordable housing issues, and to provide support to multiple jurisdictions. Initially the program should create one FTE to serve as the lead staff on affordable housing issues for all participating jurisdictions. The program staff would function like city or county staff, but would split time providing staff support for multiple jurisdictions. The staff would meet with city councils, planning staffs, and commissions on a variety of affordable housing topics. The program staff member would work closely with the planning or housing staff of member jurisdictions. In some cases they would support the work of municipal or county staff, and in other cases they may take the lead in providing recommendations to appointed and elected officials regarding affordable housing issues. If the program grows over time and additional jurisdictions join, additional program staff will be required to remain responsive to all participating members. Selection of the program staff will go a long way in determining the success of the program in the initial years. The individual should possess several qualities to enhance the chances for success:
• Extensive knowledge about affordable housing development, programs, and issues
• Experience with and knowledge about local government, and skills in working collaboratively with city, county, and tribal planning staff
• Experience working with elected officials and community groups
• Grant-writing expertise Administrative Support – Based on comments from stakeholders and members of Snohomish County Tomorrow, one of the initial “program design features” was that the new program should not create a new bureaucracy. There was considerable support for this suggestion. As mentioned earlier in this report, a new program will need a variety of administrative supports, including access to administrative assistant time, IT and technical support, use of space and equipment, human resource services, contracting, and accounting and payroll services.
Packet Page 362 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
80
To accomplish this desired program feature, an existing organization could serve as a “host” for the program, providing administrative support, space, and generally reducing overhead costs for the program. The alternatives analysis earlier in the chapter identified seven potential options including: Snohomish County Tomorrow, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, a housing authority (Everett or Snohomish County), the Snohomish County Economic Development Council, a large or mid-sized city, or the County. The organization will need to be large enough to have the kind of administrative support services needed by the new program. At this time it is unclear which of these organizations, if any, would be willing to provide administrative support. It is also unclear whether any of the organizations would be willing to provide support services on an in-kind or fee-for-service basis. The Implementation Task Force described below in the Implementation section should pursue discussions with several of the organizations mentioned in the alternatives section to determine which would provide the administrative services, and at what cost. Funding – Funding resources will be required to support the new staff position recommended for this work. As mentioned throughout this report, this is a challenging time to find resources to create a new program. Review of national models suggests that there are a variety of fund sources used to support this kind of work. The project team’s analysis identified several potential local options, including: general fund contributions from participating jurisdictions, federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), other governmental housing funds, or grant funding from private or state sources. A modest initial investment to support one FTE, and associated administrative support services, is recommended. In this economic climate there is no easily identifiable source of funds. The most likely funding package will draw from multiple sources. It is suggested that all four sources identified in the alternatives analysis could be used. Although competition for CDBG funds will be intense in 2009 and 2010, the County and the City of Everett are receiving additional CDBG funds as part of the federal stimulus package. With the recent changes in the national and regional economy, charitable contributions from corporations and private philanthropies are down. At present, few local philanthropies have prioritized the creation of affordable housing in their investing strategies. However, to the extent that a portion of the housing to be created is prioritized for households experiencing or imminently at risk of homelessness, it might be possible to secure education, advocacy, planning and/or operating funds from philanthropic and business leaders who are committed to ending homelessness. It is also suggested that one of the requirements of membership be that local jurisdictions make very modest contributions to the new program as an indication of local commitment to the program. Lastly, during the interviews conducted for the study, a local legislator expressed a willingness to work with local leaders prior to next year’s legislative session to try and secure some state funding to support the implementation of a new program in Snohomish County as a pilot project.
Packet Page 363 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
81
The Implementation Task Force should work with local leaders to attempt to put together a funding package that would support the first two years of operation.
Implementation – Recommendations for Moving Forward It is recommended that an Implementation Task Force be created to address - and resolve - the four conditions described in the Threshold Recommendation section above. During the course of the stakeholder interview process several individuals expressed an interest in supporting the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program to work on affordable housing issues. There seems to be sufficient support for the idea that those most interested should be invited to join an Implementation Task Force. The Task Force would meet regularly until the four conditions are met, and the founding jurisdictions enact the MOU or inter-local agreement establishing the new program. Implementation Task Force – The Implementation Task Force should include public, private, and nonprofit advocates for the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program, and Task Force members should be actively invited and recruited by the convening agencies. The role of the Task Force would be to determine the most effective way to move this proposal toward implementation. In particular, the Task Force would need to work with potential member jurisdictions to determine who the initial participants would be. In addition, the Task Force would need to have discussions with potential funders to secure funding support for the program. And the Task Force would need to have discussions with potential “host” agencies to find an organization that would be willing to provide the types and level of administrative support needed. It is recommended that Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) and the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County serve as co-conveners of the Implementation Task Force. The co-conveners are well positioned to perform this role. SCT provides a forum for all cities, tribes, and the county to discuss their potential interest in the inter-jurisdictional program. The Housing Consortium is a well respected advocate for affordable housing. They also provide a forum for non-profit housing developers and managers to discuss issues related to affordable housing with governmental representatives. The role of the conveners would be to invite and recruit interested parties to meet on a regular basis during the next year to plan for the creation of a new program. The Chairs of the two convening organizations should seek to create a Task Force that is strongly committed to creating this new program. However, all members of SCT and the Consortium can be invited to participate. Other individuals or organizations, such as the Master Builders Association, or a supportive elected official, could also play a leadership role in helping to convene the Task Force. Staff support for the Implementation Task Force could be provided by the Housing Consortium, the County, or Snohomish County Tomorrow. However, successful implementation of a new program will require members of the Implementation Task Force to take a leadership role to secure the necessary commitments from the initial members, funders, and a “host” agency.
Packet Page 364 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
82
In light of the current economic climate, the Implementation Task Force should plan on taking approximately one year to secure the necessary commitments for the new program. After the four threshold conditions have been met, the founding member jurisdictions will need to develop an MOU or inter-local agreement that will presumably build on the outline MOU in Appendix 1. Once the initial members have been identified and Council actions are taken to join the new program, the Implementation Task Force will have completed its work and will sunset. Some jurisdictions represented on the Task Force may choose to become initial members, but others may not. As mentioned above, the participating jurisdictions will each identify their representatives on the Governing Board that will oversee program staff and work plan. The diagram on the following page displays the two phases of implementation: the work of the Implementation Task Force to meet the four threshold conditions, and the establishment of the working program by the founding jurisdictions. After the first two years of operation, the inter-jurisdictional program should report back to the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee and the Housing Consortium Board of Directors on the progress of the new program. The report should include a summary of all work conducted with and for participating jurisdictions, the number of affordable housing units constructed or planned as a result of the work of the new program, a list of any additional jurisdictions that have expressed interest in joining, and recommended plans for the future of the program.
Packet Page 365 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
83
Recommendations’ Consistency with Critical Success Factors from National Research
Table 5: Consistency with Critical Success Factors
Critical Success Factor Consistency of Recommendation A. The program is led by an enthusiastic champion Create an Implementation Task Force to provide leadership
B. Counties (or State) are invested in the program and active participants Advantageous for the County to be an initial member if possible; work with area legislators to attempt to secure State funding C. The support of elected officials and/or key business leaders is instrumental in developing and sustaining the collaboration
Some elected officials have expressed interest; to date the local business community has not been engaged
D. The collaboration minimizes overhead and administrative costs Find a “host” agency that can provide administrative support services E. In the absence of “top down” incentives from the State, a broad base of support is critical An Implementation Task Force, with support from the Housing Consortium could help create a broad base of support F. In the absence of widespread political will, a gradual and phased approach to collaboration can be successful
A phased approach is recommended, with a minimum threshold of three jurisdictions suggested
G. In the absence of external funding resources, an initial modest work plan can successfully evolve and add roles and activities over time
Program to begin with one FTE, and could be expanded over time; program outcomes state that long term goal is to develop new local capital resources for development of housing H. The collaboration is responsive to member jurisdictions An initial work plan is suggested, but member jurisdictions will make decisions about work plan and use of resources I. In the absence of substantial funding sources, member communities play a larger role in supporting the collaboration through peer and public education, and developing incentives for housing development
Initial suggested work plan includes creation of public education activities and regulatory and zoning strategies, such as incentives to encourage development of affordable housing
J. The administrative agency for the collaboration is trusted in the community and has experience and expertise in housing planning
Several administrative host agencies are suggested. Several, but not all, have housing expertise
K. Staff are dedicated to the collaboration, so that their work plans and goals are based on the objectives of the collaboration and directly serve the members
Creation of a new staff position dedicated to the program is recommended
L. The collaboration structure involves shared decision-making responsibilities and allows for participation of cities of different sizes
All members of the new program (small or large jurisdictions) participate in the governance structure (with representatives from private and non-profit sectors)
Packet Page 366 of 367
Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County
84
Recommendations’ Consistency with Initial Program Features
Table 6: Consistency with Initial Program Features
Program Design Features Consistency of Recommendation
1. In difficult economic times, the program does not place undo financial burden on participating jurisdictions
Primary sources of funding to implement program should be CDBG and State or private grant, with only modest local funding contributions suggested 2. The initial collaboration will involve at least three jurisdictions No fewer than three jurisdictions recommended, but may require more depending on initial membership 3. It should not be difficult for other jurisdictions to join later Phased program membership is anticipated, with more jurisdictions joining as program achieves success 4. The program does not preclude sub-regional activities, and can grow to a countywide or regional program if desired over time
Initial program membership may be too small for sub-regional planning activities, but could be accommodated if several cities from one sub-region join 5. Activities do not contribute to a disproportionate concentration of affordable housing Addressed in suggested program outcome
6. Does not include local government management or development of housing (not including housing authorities)
Program focused on planning for affordable housing
7. Decision-making is not controlled by the County or any single jurisdiction Creation of a governance structure that precludes control by any single jurisdiction 8. The program must be able to withstand changes in administrative, political, or economic conditions over time
MOU will attempt to secure multi-year (two-year) commitments from participating members
9. Does not create a new administrative bureaucracy Utilize an existing “host” agency to provide administrative support services 10. Does not operate without a work plan with measurable objectives based on sound needs analysis; the work plan must meet the needs of member jurisdictions
An initial work plan is suggested, but the annual work plan must be approved by the members
11. The program does not allow housing providers to profit disproportionately to the housing benefits gained in the community
If development incentives were drafted by program staff, they would have to be approved by each local jurisdiction
12. The activities must show progress toward achieving goals within two years May be a challenge within current economic climate, but member jurisdictions must perceive that services provided by the new program add value to their communities
Packet Page 367 of 367