2011.07.26 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
JULY 26, 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-4104 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2011.
C. AM-4101 Approval of claim checks #126709 through #126842 dated July 21, 2011 for $625,928.49.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #50599 through #50651 for the period July
1, 2011 through July 15, 2011 in the amount of $666,623.49.
D. AM-4102 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages submitted by Margaret Squire (amount
undetermined).
E. AM-4105 Community Services/Economic Development Department Quarterly Report - July, 2011
F. AM-4108 Authorization to advertise RFQ for artists to create interpretive elements for the
Downtown Edmonds Cultural Heritage Tour project.
G. AM-4100 Appointment of Marla Miller to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board.
3. (60 Minutes)
AM-4110
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding potential
amendments to downtown BD zones. The amendments focus on uses permitted in
designated street fronts in BD zones, commercial depth requirements, reducing
mandatory step-backs, and providing for Development Agreements to achieve
specified city goals.
Packet Page 1 of 197
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
5. (60 Minutes)
AM-4106
Action regarding Levy.
6. (15 Minutes) Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
7. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
8. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 197
AM-4104 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
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 July 19, 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
07-19-11 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/21/2011 11:08 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 3 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
July 19, 2011
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 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
Lora Petso, Council President Pro Tem
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 7:07 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Strom Peterson, Council President
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
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
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
PETSO, TO REMOVE ITEM 2E FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACE IT ON THE
AGENDA AS ITEM 3B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not
present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved
are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 5, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #126403 THROUGH #126538 DATED JULY 7, 2011 FOR
$292,102.32, AND CLAIM CHECKS #126539 THROUGH #126708 DATED JULY 14, 2011
FOR $1,959,465.50. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50540
THROUGH #50598 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $757,298.91.
Packet Page 4 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 2
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY SCOTT
PHILIPS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
F. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TRAINING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 5 WITH BHC
CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR LIFT STATION 2 REHABILITATION PROJECT.
H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A STORMWATER UTILITY EASEMENT FOR
THE 12TH AVE N STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
I. REPORT ON SMALL WORKS ROSTER SOLICITATION FOR THE 12TH AVE N
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD CONTRACT TO
TRENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES L.L.C. IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,935.
J. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 6, 2011 FOR THE 2011 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT
PROJECT, AWARD CONTRACT TO KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,799,052.54 AND APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $300,000 TO THE 412-
100 WATER UTILITY FUND TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT.
K. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 12, 2011 FOR THE LIFT STATION 2 REPLACEMENT
PROJECT AND AWARD CONTRACT TO TRICO CONTRACTING INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $668,979.30.
L. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 29, 2011 FOR THE SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY
ACCESS ROAD PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$309,302.96 TO KAMINS CONSTRUCTION.
M. EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER ROOF REPAIRS PROJECT ACCEPTANCE.
3A. STATE LEGISLATIVE REPORT FROM MIKE DOUBLEDAY.
Mike Doubleday reviewed the 2011 State Legislative Session Wrap-Up:
• Washington State Ferries
There were no efforts to expand the Edmonds ferry terminal and no efforts to reassign the
Mukilteo/Clinton ferry route to Edmonds
• Protect State-shared and State-committed revenues
o State shared liquor profits and taxes and the municipal criminal justice account were cut to cities
by 3.4% in the 2011-13 operating budget
o The Public Works Board adopted list was fully funded at $325 million in the 2011-13 operating
budget
o WWRP was reduced to $42 million in the 2011-13 operating budget
• Local Government Fiscal Flexibility (ESHB 1478)
o GMA and Shoreline Master Plan updates moved to every 8 years from every 7 years.
o NPDES (stormwater) permits issued in 2007 are extended for 1 year; new permits issued July 1,
2012, effective August 1, 2013.
o Extends the date for cities to meet 100% electric or biofuel fleet requirement from 2015 to 2018.
o Extends the number of years for impact fee use from 6 to 10 years.
o Allows cities to skip reporting pavement rating criteria to TIB until the 2013-15 biennium.
• Real Estate Excise Tax Flexibility (HB 1953)
HB 1953 passed in 2011 after cities, counties and the Realtors agreed to the bill. The bill:
o Allows cities (and counties) to use the first and second quarter REET for operations and
maintenance purposes for all eligible categories in statute; cities and counties may use the greater
of $100,000 or 35% of available funds but not to exceed $1 million per year.
Packet Page 5 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 3
o Allows the second quarter to be used for debt services.
o Sunsets December 31, 2016.
• Public Records Requests
o The cost recovery bill and the “meet and confer” bills did not pass. An interim effort to find
common ground with stakeholders is expected.
o SHB 1899 allows the court discretion to charge no per day penalty for violation of the Public
Records Act; therefore, the new penalty range is $0 up to a maximum of $100/day.
• Medical Marijuana
E2SSB 5073 was passed and largely vetoed by the Governor.
o Collective gardens: qualifying patients and their designated providers may form collective
gardens to produce cannabis for medical use. Collective gardens are limited to ten qualifying
patients and a total of 45 plants and 72 ounces of useable cannabis.
o Designated providers: may only serve one patient at a time, and if no longer serving a patient,
they must wait 15 days before serving another patient.
o Patient protections: qualifying patients may assert an affirmative defense if the patient possesses
no more than a permissible level of cannabis and the investigating officer does not possess
evidence of an illegal cannabis operation or frequent visits consistent with commercial activity.
o Local Governments: cities and counties may adopt zoning requirements, business licensing
requirements, health and safety requirements, and business taxes pertaining to the production,
processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis producers within their jurisdictions.
• Other Issues
o Phase II Storm Water Funding: $30 million provided in grants to local government to construct
or retrofit: 25% match required.
o Transit Agency Revenue Authority: King County Metro provided $20 vehicle license fee with a
public vote or by 2/3’s vote of County Council; two years duration. Community Transit not
included in the bill.
o Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund: $15 million for the 2011-13 biennium
o Intrastate Mutual Aid System: provides mutual assistance in an emergency among political
subdivisions that choose to participate in the system.
o Shell Valley Emergency Road Project: re-appropriated at $250,000
o Complete Streets: Adopted but not funded.
o PERS I Contribution Rates: rates reduced for local governments effective July 1, 2011; fiscal
note lists $389 million in savings to local governments in 2011-13.
o Main Street Project: Did not get funding for this project.
Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification regarding the changes to pension contributions and impacts to
cities. Mayor Cooper asked whether the PERS I contribution rates were reduced via a bill, which would be
permanent, or a budget proviso which would only apply to this biennium. Mr. Doubleday answered it was
via a reduction in the COLA. Mayor Cooper clarified COLA for retirees were canceled. He noted the City
was already notified by the State that an increase in the PERS rate will raise the City’s contribution by
$180,000 in 2012. He assured the changes made by the legislature did not save the City any money.
Mr. Doubleday reported further information was available in the report regarding:
• A mandated 12-hour impound hold on motor vehicles used by persons arrested for DUI if the driver
is the registered owner. Under current law there is no legal requirement for police to impound a
vehicle driven by a person arrested for DUI.
• Local Infrastructure Study by the Public Works Board to reform the State system for local
government.
• Authorizing the use of Hearing Examiner for street vacation hearings.
• Tax Increment Financing bill brought by Cascade Land Conservancy related to transfer of
development rights (TDR).
Packet Page 6 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 4
• Underground Utilities (“Dig Law”)
Mr. Doubleday reported on initiatives that have been submitted to the Secretary of State but not yet certified:
• Liquor Privatization (I-1183)
o Retail stores must have 10,000 square feet of space in a single structure to sell liquor
o Liquor tax would remain, profits to state end
o Requires retailers to pay 17% of gross revenues to state
• Tolling (I-1125)
o Prohibits use of gas tax and vehicle toll revenue for non-transportation purposes
o Shifts responsibility of setting toll rates from Transportation Commission to Legislature
o Requires tolls to be dedicated to the project they’re paying for, ending such tolls when the
project is completed
o Gas-tax-funded or toll-revenue-funded lanes on state highways cannot be transferred or used for
non-highway purposes
Councilmember Wilson recalled I-722 was found unconstitutional because it included more than one issue
and the Supreme Court repealed it because an initiative can only address one issue. He asked if there was a
similar issue with I-1125. Mayor Cooper advised an initiative cannot be challenged on its constitutional merit
until it is approved by voters and enacted.
Council President Pro Tem Petso inquired about the bill to extend PFD legislation and asked whether the
City was working with Spokane and/or had a strategy mapped out. Mr. Doubleday answered the City was
working with Spokane. The Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Hunter
(Medina), does not like special purpose districts. There is a good coalition supporting the bill and there will
be an effort to broaden the coalition.
Mayor Cooper inquired about bills regarding the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Mr. Doubleday recalled
both bills passed. He offered to research and report to Mayor Cooper.
3B. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES
(previously Consent Agenda Item 2E).
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained he requested this item be
removed from the Consent Agenda to, 1) introduce Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, and 2)
describe a proposed change in the schedule for the Strategic Plan, Exhibit A.1. After discussing the original
schedule with Council President Peterson, the Finance Committee, Department Directors and Mayor Cooper,
it was agreed it would be preferable to shift the timeline to begin after Labor Day to avoid conflicts with
vacations. Mr. Beckwith agreed with the reasoning and prepared a revised Exhibit A.1.
Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, introduced himself and explained he established Beckwith
Consulting in 1983 after working for 12 years working for firms across the United States. He has assembled
a team with a great deal of experience in strategic planning and economic development. They view the
Edmonds project as very important, interesting and fun.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained Beckwith Consulting Group proposes to put in 852 hours which is
approximately $117/hour. They plan six monthly meetings with the Economic Development Commission
(EDC), Planning Board and City Council. The process will be citizen driven with surveys, etc. She was very
pleased with the selection of Beckwith Consulting Group.
Councilmember Wilson commented one of the primary liabilities is a disconnect between the Council’s
actions and level of stakeholder buy-in. He feared no matter the outcome of the feedback tools, the Council
Packet Page 7 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 5
was likely to have different opinions. Although he appreciated the retreats with the EDC, Planning Board and
City Council, he encouraged Mr. Beckwith to engage the City Council separately. Mr. Beckwith advised the
retreats with the EDC, Planning Board and City Council are scheduled to occur before and after key events in
the process. The intent of the retreat before is to gather information and guidance before engaging the public
on certain issues and the retreat after is to share what they learned from the public. Although there are six
program sessions, he assured they would do whatever is necessary throughout the process to ensure good
communication with the Council and the public.
Councilmember Wilson commented the level of buy-in is critical. For generations the Council has done a
phenomenal job of having studies produced that have not been implemented. He implored Mr. Beckwith to
help ensure this is not an effort that does not go anywhere. Mr. Beckwith responded they are not interested in
doing a study; they want to do an action plan.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented after spending many hours reviewing proposals and
interviewing consultants, Beckwith Consulting Group was always her first choice. She appreciated Beckwith
Consulting Group’s civic engagement with citizens and focus groups and keeping the Council engaged. She
was confident this process would help Edmonds move forward in a very positive manner.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the timeline and the date of the first retreat. Mr. Beckwith advised
in the revised Exhibit A.1 the first retreat is scheduled on September 14. The timeline anticipates the plan
would be adopted on April 24, 2012. He agreed with the proposal to begin the process after the school year
begins.
Mr. Clifton referred to Councilmember Wilson’s comment about engaging the City Council, advising Task 1,
retreat with the City Council, Planning Board and EDC, will be an opportunity to refine the schedule, work
on strategies and identify participants. He suggested if there was interest in a meeting between Beckwith
Consulting Group and the City Council, that would be the time to insert it into the schedule.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING
CONSULTING SERVICES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(2012-2017).
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided an introduction to the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP):
• Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP prior to adoption of the
budget.
• Document must contain all regionally significant transportation projects that a city plans to undertake
in the next six years.
• Data is then used to create a statewide TIP Database.
• City of Edmonds policy: TIP is financially constrained in the first three years.
• Cities are not eligible for state or federal grant funding unless a project is identified on the TIP.
• Federal and state grants as well as local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects.
Mr. Hauss reviewed projects under construction:
• Interurban Trail: July 2011 to April 2012, could be completed by October 2011
• Shell Valley (emergency access from Main Street): August 2011 to December 2011
• 226th Street SW Walkway (200 foot sidewalk from SR104 to 105th Place W): August 2011 to
October 2011
Packet Page 8 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 6
Mr. Hauss reviewed projects in design:
• Five Corners Intersection Improvements / Roundabout
Currently 5-way stop controlled intersection
o Project Description - installation of a single lane roundabout
• Intersection delay improvement from F to B (during PM peak hours)
• non-motorized transportation safety
o Status / Schedule
• Approve consultant contract (Design and ROW): July ’11
• Design / ROW: July ’11 – March ’13
• Construction: 2015 (pending additional grant)
o Funding
• Federal grant secured ($290,000 for Design and $173,000 for ROW)
• Estimated Total Project Cost: $2,536,000
• Design: $ 336,000
• ROW: $ 200,000
• Construction: $2,000,000
• 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
o Project Description
• Critical east-west connection
– Restrict unsafe southbound left turn (from Hwy. 99 onto 76th Avenue W)
– Install traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 228th Street SW
» Provide safe left turn for the southbound movement from Hwy. 99 to 76th Avenue W
» Create additional safe pedestrian crossing on Hwy. 99 between 238th and 224th
• Recommended as #1 project in Hwy. 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study
o Status
• 15% design completed in 2009
• Approve consultant contract (Design and ROW): July/August 2011
• Design / ROW: July / August 2011 – April 2013
• Construction: 2015 (pending additional grant)
o Funding
• Federal grant secured ($307,000 for design and $229,000 for ROW)
• Estimated Total Project Cost: $4,010,000
• Design: $350,000
• ROW: $260,000
• Construction: $3,400,000
• Main St. Improvements (5th Avenue to 6th Avenue)
o Project Description
• New 12-foot sidewalk on both sides of Main Street
• Landscaping
– Remove European Hornbeam trees and plant Crimson Maple trees
– Install benches and bike racks
• 11 LED pedestrian lights
• 2-inch overlay
• Charging station
• New watermain (funded via Water Fund)
• Optional elements
– Mid-block crossing
– Expanded LID features
– Conversion of overhead utilities
Packet Page 9 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 7
o Status
• Design: April 2011 – June 2012
• Construction: 2012
o Funding
• Federal grant secured ($129,000 for design and $596,000 for construction)
• Fund 412: $129,000
• Estimated Total project cost: $854,000
• Design: $129,000
• Construction: $725,000
• 76th Avenue W @ 212th Street SW Intersection Improvements
Design phase originally programmed for 2014, high likelihood will secure grant
o Project Description
• Add left turn lane for both approaches of 76th Avenue W and right turn lane for westbound
movement of 212th Street SW
• Improve LOS (in 2015) from F to D
o Tentative schedule
• Design / ROW: October 2011 – December 2013
• Construction: 2014 (pending additional grant)
o Funding
• Federal Grant secured ($294,000 for design and $646,000 for right-of-way)
• Estimated Total project cost: $2,385,000
• Design: $ 340,000
• ROW: $ 745,000
• Construction: $1,300,000
Mr. Hauss highlighted transportation grants secured over the last 12 months:
Project Name Grant
Type
Design
Phase
ROW
Phase
Construction
Phase
Total
Main Street Improvements Federal $ 129,000 $596,000 $ 725,000
Five Corners/Roundabout Federal $ 290,000 $ 173,000 $ 463,000
228th Street SW Corridor
Improvements
Federal $ 307,000 $ 229,000 $ 536,000
212th Street SW @ 76th Ave Federal $ 294,000 $ 646,000 $ 940,000
Total $1,020,000 $1,048,000 $596,000 $2,664,000
Mr. Hauss continued his review of the TIP:
• Other projects
o From 2012-2014
• 100th @ 238th signal upgrade (Interim solution)
• 4th Avenue N Corridor Enhancement
• Hwy. 99 Enhancement
• Transportation Plan Update
• 9th Avenue S from Main Street to Walnut Street (interim solution)
o From 2015-2017
• Annual Street Overlay ($1,500,000/year)
• Intersection Improvements:
– 196th Street SW @ 88th Avenue W
– 76th Avenue W @ 220th Street SW
• Signal Upgrades
– Main Street @ 3rd Avenue
Packet Page 10 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 8
– Puget Drive @ Olympic View Drive
– 100th @ 238th Signal Upgrades
Mr. Hauss reviewed non-motorized transportation projects:
• Sunset Avenue project from Bell Street to Caspers Street
o Project Description
• Install sidewalk/bike path on west side of Sunset Avenue from Bell Street to Caspers Street
to provide more scenic non-motorized transportation route
• Parking stalls may need to be reconfigured
o Status
• Preliminary concepts/survey: on-going
• Design phase: 2014
• Construction phase: 2015
o Funding
• Total planning level project cost: $867,000
• Pending grant funding for design and construction phases
• Nine walkway projects (stretches identified in 2009 Transportation Plan)
• ADA Curb Ramp Improvements
• Bicycle route signing (3 bike loops / identified in 2009 Transportation Plan)
• Traffic Calming Program
Mr. Hauss relayed staff’s recommendation that the City Council approve the TIP.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the policy that the TIP be financially constrained during the first
three years. Public Works Director Phil Williams responded all jurisdictions typically approach the TIP in
the same manner, financially constrained in the first three years and include projects for which funding is
available or there is a reasonable expectation that funding will be available. Projects without an identified
funding source are typically not in the first three years of the TIP.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to funding for preservation and maintenance projects that increases from
$5,000 in the 2012 to $2 million in 2015. She asked what happened if the Council approved the TIP and then
voters approved a levy to fund some of the projects in the later years on the TIP. Mr. Williams answered the
TIP can be revised. Since the City does not currently have any funds dedicated to preservation paving, the
TIP does not reflect any funding for that project in the first three years. He pointed out there is $1.5 million
for preservation paving in the last three years of the TIP in hopes that a funding source will be identified by
then. If funding becomes available sooner, the TIP can be revised.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the cost of TIP projects increases to $20 million by 2015. The City
needs to begin planning to identify those funds such as a specified levy, or other funding mechanism. Mr.
Williams agreed, pointing out the TIP is a plan and in order to qualify for grant funds, projects must be
included on the TIP. Therefore all desirable projects are included on the TIP even if funding is not identified
in the event grant funds become available. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if all walkway projects near
schools were included in the TIP. Mr. Williams answered yes.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the phrase, federal grants unsecured. Mr. Williams explained that
phrase is used if the project is a good candidate for federal funding and meets the criteria of one or more
programs, but the grant has not yet been applied for.
Councilmember Wilson complimented staff for the $2.7 million they had secured in federal grants versus
City expenditures of $428,000, pointing out federal grants are 7 times what the City is spending.
Packet Page 11 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson referred to the Main Street Improvement project and asked how many parking
spaces will be lost. Mr. Hauss answered with the mid-block crossing two parking spaces will be eliminated.
Councilmember Wilson commented that is not too high a cost for this project. He viewed the Main Street
Improvement project as an economic development project as it will create more foot traffic and a better retail
experience. He inquired about the trees that will be removed as part of that project. Mr. Hauss responded all
the trees will be removed. Mr. Williams explained the installation of a 12-foot sidewalk will require removal
of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk. It would be very inefficient to not also replace the trees at the same
time. In addition, the European Hornbeam is not a good choice for a street tree and they have reached a high
degree of maturity. The trees will be replaced with Crimson Century Maple species which is more modest in
height, columnar to avoid blocking views of the retail storefronts, and is an attractive reddish color. The plan
is to accent the Crimson Century Maples with a larger green maple tree at the intersection of 6th, similar to
the design at 5th & Main.
Councilmember Wilson commented it was a shame the trees would be removed but he understood the logic.
He asked how these tree choices compared with the previous tree choices, recalling the Council was told the
trees at 5th & Dayton and along Dayton between 5th and 4th were poor street trees. Staff at that time referred
the Council to the trees on Main as examples of good street trees. Mr. Williams answered the trees on Dayton
between 4th and 5th, particularly on the north, are not a good street tree; they are old, they are a flowering fruit
species that gets very brittle, and they do not grow in a good pattern. He agreed those trees could be removed
and replaced with a more suitable street tree. He referred to the streetscape plan for downtown and the Tree
Board’s, staff’s, and the Council’s desire to revisit that plan. The streetscape plan identifies a variety of street
trees, many of which are flowering fruit trees that are attractive for a few weeks a year when they bloom but
they are temperamental, are not robust, and get very large and brittle. He commented on the importance of an
end of life strategy rather than waiting for the trees to fall over or break because replacing the trees one-by-
one results in a disparate looking streetscape.
Mr. Williams explained the Main Street project will likely kill most of the trees. Saving the trees and
working around them would result in significantly increased costs. He recommended replacing the trees as
part of the project. Councilmember Wilson relayed concern with the lack of a policy regarding street trees.
Mr. Williams agreed it was time to revisit the street tree species portion of the streetscape plan.
Councilmember Wilson described an amendment he planned to propose to the TIP with regard to $50,000 in
local funds in 2012 for the 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement Walkway project. He viewed the 4th Avenue
Corridor project as nice-to-have but it did not address a major shortfall. Conversely traffic calming has been
a Council and citizen priority and last year the Council budgeted $50,000 for that project. He noted there is
no funding for the Sunset Avenue project in the first three years and it only needs $11,000 in local funds in
2015. He suggested moving $11,000 from the $50,000 allocated to the 4th Avenue Corridor project and add it
to the Sunset Avenue project.
Council President Pro Tem Petso asked how traffic volumes at the intersection of SR 104 & 76th are
addressed if not in the TIP, noting that intersection is often completely jammed on a Saturday. Mr. Hauss
answered that is a Shoreline intersection. That intersection is identified in the Edmonds’ Transportation Plan
but not in the TIP. Council President Pro Tem Petso asked if not including the project in the TIP would
prevent the City from obtaining funding. Mr. Hauss reiterated it is identified in the City’s Transportation
Plan. The projects on the TIP are priority projects. Council President Pro Tem Petso clarified as long as a
project is in the Transportation Plan, the City can still get grant funds. Mr. Hauss agreed. Council President
Pro Tem Petso asked whether those projects could be evaluated in connection with the Pt. Wells
development. Mr. Hauss answered yes.
Council President Pro Tem Petso referred to the roundabout project and asked the dollar amount for the
design work that is funded by the federal grant versus local funds. Mr. Hauss answered the grant requires a
13.5% local match, $46,000 for the design and $27,000 for the right-of-way.
Packet Page 12 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 10
Council President Pro Tem Petso asked if the City would be required to repay the grant for design and right-
of-way acquisition if a decision was made not to proceed with construction. Mr. Williams answered there is
little worry about repaying a grant as long as the City acts in good faith. If it could be established the City
accepted funds for design and then totally opted not to proceed or not redesign a different project, it is
arguable the state or federal could ask that the grant be repaid. He had only seen that occur a couple times.
Council President Pro Tem Petso observed tonight’s decision was not with regard to a yes or no on the
roundabout. Mr. Williams answered the first commitment of City funds is the design contract for the Five
Corners roundabout, agenda item 9.
Council President Pro Tem Petso asked whether a public hearing had been held regarding the roundabout.
Mr. Williams answered there has not been a public hearing where the roundabout was the only topic. The
roundabout has been included in the TIP for several years and a public hearing is held on the TIP each year.
With regard to Mr. Hauss’ answer regarding the TIP versus the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the TIP and Transportation Element must be
consistent but the TIP can be viewed as a subset of the Transportation Element. Everything in the TIP is in
the Transportation Element but not everything in the Transportation Element is in the TIP. The TIP is
typically the highest priority, current projects. A project that is not on the TIP is deemed a lower priority.
For Council President Pro Tem Petso, Mr. Hauss referred to map with Level of Services (LOS) for all
signalized intersections throughout the City; the priority intersections are not on state routes. For example the
intersections of Highway 99 @ 220th and Highway 99 @ 212th are LOS E. The LOS service standard on
Highway 99 is different than the City’s LOS. As a highway of statewide significance, SR 104 is not subject
to local LOS standards. The LOS in 2015 based on modeling for the intersection of SR104 & 76th is LOS E
and SR 104 & 100th is LOS D.
Mayor Cooper asked Mr. Hauss to comment on intersections that can be considered for possible mitigation in
the permitting process for Pt. Wells. Mr. Hauss answered signalized intersections that are anticipated to be
impacted by development at Pt. Wells include Highway 99 @ 244th, SR 104 @ 100th, and SR 104 @ 226th.
Mayor Cooper advised those intersections were identified in the City’s comments to Snohomish County on
the EIS and permitting process for the Pt. Wells project.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, complimented Council President Pro Tem Petso for her observations regarding
problem intersections in the City. He referred to a traffic backup he experienced today at eastbound SR 104
& 100th, a delay of three traffic signal cycles. He anticipated drivers would not frequent the businesses in that
area because entrances are blocked by traffic. He pointed out the reduced setbacks that the Council recently
approved limit the ability to widen the roadway to add a right-turn only lane to improve traffic flow. He was
concerned that the Council’s approval of the contract with David Evans and Associates committed the City
to spending over $60,000 on the design as well as possible condemnation and/or taking of private property.
He anticipated the acquisition of right-of-way would result in the closure of some businesses and because the
Council has not held a public hearing, some property owners may be unaware of that possibility. He
summarized the roundabout was an anti-business project for the sake of saving a few seconds of vehicle
idling. He recommended the Council have a public hearing on the design before proceeding with right-of-
way acquisition.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented Edmonds’ greatest asset is the stunning location of the bowl; the
bowl defines Edmonds. The bowl has become increasingly blighted visually by power poles and overhead
wiring. She encouraged the Council to consider undergrounding the wiring as part of the Main Street project.
It was her understanding that opening the trench was the largest expense; in the case of the Main Street
Packet Page 13 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 11
project, the street will already be torn up. Unlike other capital projects that create maintenance issues, once
the wires are underground, PUD continues to maintain the wires.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on businesses moving to the Ballinger/SR 104 area that will increase
traffic volumes. He was surprised the TIP did not include improvements to the Highway 99 @ 220th
intersection because a number of accidents have occurred at that intersection. He was supportive of the TIP
but feared the federal funds the plan anticipated would not be available. He recommended the City identify
other sources of funding or make budget cuts to provide funding for the projects on the TIP.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
In response to Ms. Shippen’s suggestion, Mr. Williams advised undergrounding of the wiring on the south
side of the street is included in the scope for the Main Street project. The cost to underground the wires may
be prohibitive; another option is to move the aerial wires to the alley where they will be less visible.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to comments regarding the intersections of SR 104 & 76th which is
in her neighborhood and SR104 & 100th, pointing out ferry traffic is a major deterrent to citizens’ ability to
move around the City, particularly on SR 104. She recalled traffic in the area increased when Costco and
other stores located at Aurora Village. She recognized the City did not have much control since SR 104 is a
state route.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the TBD funds were reflected in the TIP. Mr. Williams answered TBD
funds are used for maintenance and therefore not included as funding for capital projects. If the TBD ballot
measure had been successful, those funds would have been used for capital projects. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked the source of local traffic impact fees. Mr. Williams answered a development is charged a
traffic impact fee based on their level of impact. Those funds can then be used as a match for state and
federal grants to complete capital projects.
Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned with the need for a substantial amount of money in the last three
years of the TIP. She suggested discussions begin regarding a specialized levy to fund capital projects as
some citizens may want projects done sooner. Mr. Williams explained there are certain funding sources the
City can apply for and each has specific criteria. Staff tries to determine which projects will score well for
each of those funding sources. There are no funding sources for some of the City’s biggest needs. He agreed
it would be preferable to address the highest priorities first but that is not how the money flows.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the strategic planning process may be helpful in that regard.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1254, APPROVING THE 2012-2017
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND DIRECTING FILING OF THE
ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
Councilmember Bernheim recognized there were gaps in funding but viewed the TIP as a list of projects for
which a need has been identified and it was not intended to be an action plan.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, noting he voted against the CIP last year
because of the lack of funding. He asked whether Fund 125 (REET 2) can be used for park acquisition and
maintenance and street maintenance per Council policy. Mr. Williams answered yes, up to certain limits.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the legislature’s action with regard to REET. Parks & Recreation
Director Carrie Hite explained by Council policy, REET revenue up to $700,000 is used for parks; REET
revenue in excess of $700,000 is allocated to streets. The $50,000 in the 2011 budget for the 4th Avenue
Corridor is REET money. The legislature’s action regarding REET would not impact the City. If the Council
Packet Page 14 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 12
chose to change the REET policy, the funds could be used for M&O for parks up to $100,000 or 35% of the
current allocation. Councilmember Wilson asked whether REET could also be used for street M&O. Ms.
Hite answered she believed so.
Councilmember Wilson commented if the Council’s priority is to address an under-utilized asset, the Sunset
Avenue project likely is a higher priority than the 4th Avenue Corridor project.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO MOVE $50,000 IN 2012 ALLOCATED TO THE 4TH AVENUE
CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT WALKWAY TO THE SUNSET AVENUE FROM BELL STREET TO
CASPERS STREET PROJECT.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked staff whether the 4th Avenue Corridor project was a priority and why
and how moving the funds would impact the 4th Avenue Corridor and the Sunset Avenue projects. Ms. Hite
clarified the 4th Avenue Corridor is currently in REET as a parks project, not Public Works. If the Council
moved the funds from REET in 2012 to the Sunset Avenue project, the funds would be used for that project
and not the 4th Avenue Corridor project. The City received a Preserve America grant, approximately $24,000
of the $50,000 is grant money. Without a local match, that grant funding will be lost.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his intent in seconding the motion was not to eliminate the 4th Avenue
Corridor project. He asked if the 4th Avenue Corridor project would be dead if the money were moved to the
Sunset Avenue project. Ms. Hite answered she would not consider it dead. Via the budget process, staff
would prepare an updated CIP for REET park improvement projects. The Council could then prioritize the
projects. The 4th Avenue Corridor project would be weighed with many other CIP projects. She explained
there are projects adopted in the 2011 REET; some of those projects will be delayed and funding
reauthorized for 2012 such as the Dayton Street Plaza and part of the 4th Avenue Corridor. The 2012 budget
would include the Sunset Avenue project, 4th Avenue Corridor, Dayton Street Plaza as well as a few
additional projects to leverage grant funds. Councilmember Plunkett summarized the 4th Avenue Corridor
projects could stay in the plan. Ms. Hite agreed, noting the prioritization process occurs during the budget
process.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the motion. He did not agree with Councilmember Buckshnis
that the projects were not prioritized; Council action over the years is what created the list. To a large extent,
the projects on the TIP are staff and the Council’s priorities. Providing funds for the Sunset Avenue project
creates flexibility for that project that does not currently exist. Because Sunset is located on the water, there
may be funding sources for that project that would not be available for the 4th Avenue Corridor project. He
noted the 4th Avenue Corridor project had been around quite a while with very little progress.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the $50,000 for the 4th Avenue Corridor is funded via REET. She
asked if money for that project could be moved out of REET to the Sunset Avenue project. Mr. Taraday
responded Council action on the TIP prioritizes transportation projects over the next six years. The Council
can make a policy decision to prioritize Sunset Avenue project higher than 4th Avenue Corridor and reflect
that in the TIP. The numbers in the TIP are incorporated into the budget during the budget process; the act of
reprioritizing projects tonight does not actually move money but gives staff policy direction regarding the
priority of transportation projects in the TIP. Ms. Hite explained the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan
calls for pedestrian and bike connection. There are several projects identified in REET park improvement
projects that are coordinated with the Transportation Department including the Sunset Avenue and 4th
Avenue Corridor projects. The funds will remain in REET because both are park projects and satisfy the
Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan because they improve pedestrian and bicycle connections.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Sunset Avenue project will provide a sidewalk on the water
side from Bell Street to Caspers Street. Currently there is a sidewalk on the east side of Sunset all the way up
Packet Page 15 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 13
the road. She asked whether a bike path would be added along with the sidewalk on the west side of Sunset.
Mr. Williams explained the Sunset Avenue project includes a 12.5 foot wide sidewalk and an adjacent 5-foot
wide bicycle facility; the existing sidewalk on the east side is 4-5 feet wide. Non-motorized uses will be
given priority in the Sunset Avenue right-of-way to take advantage of the views. He commented on the
amazing amount of use the area currently gets with very little improvement. The angle and parallel parking is
heavily used by people eating their lunch and people without the mobility to leave their car. Maintaining as
much parking as possible and mimicking what currently exists is an important aspect of the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out part of the property on the west side of Sunset is owned by BNSF.
Mr. Williams explained a small contract will be issued this week with a surveyor to determine right-of-way
owned by BNSF. He pointed out there is some space waterward of the walkway on Sunset that is currently
maintained by Parks which can be used for additional benches, picnic tables, etc. as well as utility property
on the north where amenities can be added.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Williams advised $50,000 would not be enough to completely design
the Sunset Avenue project. It would be enough for the environmental phase and discussions with BNSF.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether construction would be moved up to 2013 if the Council moved
funds to the Sunset Avenue project. Mr. Williams answered there are no funds available to construct the
Sunset Avenue project. He anticipated it was the type of project that could attract grant dollars from a variety
of funding sources. He noted some traffic calming funds can be used for the Sunset Avenue project as it will
also provide some traffic calming benefits.
Councilmember Wilson commented there had been a lot of staff work done on the Sunset Avenue project.
Councilmember Bernheim, Councilmember Plunkett and he have talked with Public Works regarding the
project and citizens have been asking for the project. He agreed the 4th Avenue Corridor is a good project but
has yet to take off. He recognized both Sunset and 4th Avenue Corridor were assets but Sunset was unique in
many ways and once design is complete, will be a very compelling project for grant funds. He encouraged
the Council to support increasing the priority of the Sunset Avenue project.
Council President Pro Tem Petso did not support the amendment, primarily because there was no lead time
and she did not want to tell Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin what the Council had done without
telling her and that the grant would be lost. She agreed with increasing the priority of the Sunset Avenue
project and would support it during the budget process after she had an opportunity to discuss the
implications with Ms. Chapin.
Student Representative Gibson asked whether the project was funded via a grant. Mr. Williams answered
grant funding was anticipated in the future to complete the design, any right-of-way acquisition and
construction. Most projects require some initial start-up funds before staff can apply for grants.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2-3-1), COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT AND WILSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM ABSTAINED.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the priority of projects would be changed. Mayor Cooper
answered the Council could provide funding for the Sunset Avenue project during the budget process. Mr.
Taraday agreed and pointed out the statute regarding the TIP states the program may be revised by a majority
of the legislative body at any time after a public hearing. Given the discussion tonight regarding support for
the Sunset Avenue project, Mayor Cooper commented another option would be for staff and him to provide
funding for the Sunset Avenue project as part of the 2012 budget.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 16 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 14
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported Woodway’s Mayor and Councilmember left the meeting when they
learned the City’s police contract with Woodway was not on tonight’s agenda. Next he reported the revisions
to legislative district boundaries will be complete by October. He also reported Robert Novak, a longtime
resident of Edmonds who ran for mayor in the past, passed away recently.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commended the Council for their dialogue regarding the TIP before it was
approved. He asked whether Ogden Murphy Wallace was the City of Monroe’s attorney, noting Monroe was
suing its citizens regarding red light cameras. He thanked the Council for replacing Ogden Murphy Wallace
as the City’s attorney. He recalled while Ogden Murphy Wallace was the City Attorney, Edmonds sued a
group of citizens who filed an initiative regarding the transport fee. He complimented the current City
Council for the things they have accomplished.
6. JULY BUDGET AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3831 AS A
RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS.
Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte referred to the 2011 budget amendment in the Council packet, advising
another budget amendment would be presented in September. The budget amendment is comprised of four
parts. The first part of the budget amendment adjusts the 2011 beginning budget amounts to the 2010 actual
ending modified working capital balance for all the funds. The second part of the budget amendment
includes items that were approved by Council in 2010 but expenditures were delayed till 2011. The third part
of the amendment includes expenditure increases that are offset by grant revenue. The fourth part of the
amendment includes new items. The budget amendment was presented to the Finance Committee last week.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is the most comprehensive budget amendment the Council has
seen in the past 1½-2 years. The beginning balances were previously titled as beginning cash and are now
titled beginning modified working capital because it is not actually a cash figure. The members of the
Finance Committee, Council President Pro Tem Petso and she, support the amendment because the “train is
on the right track.”
Councilmember Wilson asked six weeks ago under the prior reporting methodology, how many times a year
the General Fund goes into the red on a cash flow basis. Mr. Tarte answered twice a year; at the end of April
awaiting receipt of the first half of property taxes and again at the end of October awaiting the second half of
property taxes. Councilmember Wilson summarized twice a year the General Fund is in the red and must
borrow from other funds to cover the shortfall. Councilmember Wilson asked how many times a year the
General Fund goes into the red with this new accounting methodology. Mr. Tarte answered there is not a new
accounting method; the method is the same one the City has always used. The General Fund still goes into
the red twice a year. Councilmember Wilson summarized regardless of the reporting structure, the General
Fund goes into the red twice a year. The City’s financial situation and the importance of a levy are
unchanged by the reports; the City is still in financial dire straits and needs to pass a levy. He agreed
transparency was important but should not be a reason for not placing a levy on the ballot.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether other cities’ General Funds went into the red in April and October.
Mr. Tarte agreed they did, relaying Redmond Finance Director’s comment that they borrow from other funds
for a short period of time until property tax collections are received. Councilmember Buckshnis commented
the reports have not changed, only the verbiage changed and there is still $1.3 million in the Public Safety
Reserve and $1.927 in the Emergency Reserve and $2 million in operating.
Council President Pro Tem Petso commented there are alternative accounting methods and she thought the
budget amendment provided an excellent opportunity to change to a new accounting method. One of the
other accounting methods would show the ending cash balance/working capital not at $2.7 million but close
Packet Page 17 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 15
to $5 million. Because staff needs to have the amendment approved to move forward with developing the
2012 budget, she agreed to vote in favor of the amendment knowing that discussions regarding the
accounting methodology will continue in the future. She noted cash flow is not a problem because there is $4
million in the Equipment Rental/B Fund that is available to meet cash flow needs twice a year and the
beginning General Fund cash balance was at least $5.761 million. Receivables were $2.2 million and
payables were $1.1 million. That does not include the $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve. Because two
Councilmembers have had an opportunity to discuss this with staff but the remaining members have not, she
suggested scheduling a short presentation to the Council regarding the balance sheet prior to next week’s
levy discussion.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for a presentation as part of the levy discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3487, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3831 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. UPDATE ON OLD MILLTOWN COURTYARD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained several Councilmembers mentioned the need to move this
project forward and citizens have expressed their concern with the process and the design. She formed a 20-
member ad hoc committee with representatives from the Economic Development Commission (EDC),
downtown businesses, Floretum Garden Club, Edmonds in Bloom, Chamber of Commerce, and two
horticulturists from the Parks Department. The committee went through a design process and developed a
final design.
During a design vision process, several members expressed a desire for Old Milltown to be a gateway to
downtown, a gathering place and connect to the City’s identity. Committee members recognized as a
gateway, the Old Milltown courtyard would be an economic driver for the City. She displayed photographs
of Old Milltown’s history, relaying the committee’s desire to connect to some of the history in the design.
Old Milltown was previously a mill, an auto corporation, and a motor company. The building façade was
added in 1973.
She displayed an aerial map, identifying the downtown retail corridor and gateways into downtown including
Old Milltown. She displayed a Google SketchUp model of the existing Old Milltown courtyard and
photographs of existing courtyard elements. She pointed out the northern end of the courtyard is still owned
by the bank. The bank wants to retain that area to allow it to be used as a courtyard/seating/eating area for a
possible restaurant lease in the future. The City worked with the bank to obtain a quit claim deed on the top
10 inches of soil to be able to pull utilities and do foundation work for the courtyard. The committee also
worked with the bank to create a contiguous design into their property. Old Milltown courtyard will include
the bank property until the bank sells or leases the property. The final design does not include any
infrastructure in that portion of the property, only furnishings to create a seating area.
Ms. Hite displayed the original design created by the Floretum Garden Club that utilizes the original
infrastructure, adds a gazebo and bandstand, and retains the trees and some plantings. That design did not
include anything in the bank-owned portion of the property. Some of the concerns with this original design
were with utilities, drainage, connection to Old Milltown, historic features of Old Milltown, artistic elements
and that the design did not consider elements identified in the Streetscape Plan and Cultural Plan.
She displayed site analysis drawings that identify AM and PM sun angles, street to storefront sightlines,
pedestrian circulation, gathering places, etc. She provided a summary of the input from the first public
meeting that expressed a desire for a garden feel, public art, a water feature so that the garden could be
Packet Page 18 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 16
certified as a backyard wildlife habitat, multi-functional uses, and performance stage. From that input, the
landscape architect worked with staff and a subcommittee to create three designs. She reviewed the
committee’s input regarding the three options:
Option 1: the committee liked the flow but felt it did not have enough garden space
Option 2: too formal, no one on the committee liked this design
Option 3: liked the circular traffic flow but still not enough gardens
Ms. Hite displayed a drawing of the preferred alternative, identifying seating areas at the north and on the
bank owned property, additional garden elements, boardwalk to tie into Old Milltown, water feature in the
middle, and raised bed gardens with seating areas surrounding the gardens. The preferred alternative includes
a street tree and umbrellas on the north to provide shading, a drinking fountain, artistic elements via the
hardscape structure, artistic railing on the south to frame the park, sculpture in the center with trickling water,
and artistic or living south wall to frame the stage area.
Ms. Hite explained Parks horticulturists and arborist evaluated the existing trees in the Old Milltown
courtyard; the north tree is infested nearly 90% with beetle, the roots area is infested with bamboo and it will
die soon. The south tree has the same problems, although it is not in as poor condition and has approximately
a 3-5 year life. The committee recommends removing the trees and starting with a blank slate. The trees
cannot be rehabbed and designing around the south tree only to remove it in 3-5 years would leave a hole in
the design. The committee wanted to save the Red Maple and some of the existing plantings; the
horticulturists will uproot and clean the roots. The committee is working with the Floretum Garden Club on
plant selection. The Garden Club and the committee want to create an educational garden with interpretive
signs, etc.
The Floretum Garden Club and Edmonds in Bloom committed funds to the project and there are funds in the
REET fund. Applications will also be submitted to the Hubbard Foundation and the Hazel Miller Foundation
for this project. She explained some details such as the artistic pieces, the living wall, fountain in the center,
inlay, metal railing, etc. have yet to be completed. The committee also wants to incorporate elements of
history in the design; some old parts in the Parks Maintenance shed that came from Old Milltown that may
be included. If funds are not secured from the Hubbard Foundation and the Hazel Miller Foundation, a
simpler design will be considered to stay on budget. Construction is anticipated to occur this fall.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed that the Floretum Garden Club likes the design even though it does not
include a gazebo. She inquired about the amount the Garden Club plans to contribute. Ms. Hite answered the
Floretum Garden Club will contributed $10,000 and Edmonds in Bloom has committed to providing $4,000.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the budget for the project. Ms. Hite provided a rough budget:
Demolition: $15,000 - $20,000
Hardscape (including cement and pour of raised bed gardens): $50,000
Irrigation, planting, restoration: $8,000 - $10,000
Utilities (electrical and water): (staff labor) parts: $20,000
Furnishings/art/fountain: $20,000
Total preliminary budget: $120,000
Secured Funds: $ 60,000
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Ms. Hite contact the Edmonds Art Foundation and the Edmonds Art
Festival who have artists that may be able to provide ironwork at a more reasonable rate. Councilmember
Buckshnis inquired about shade. Ms. Hite answered five umbrellas will be put out seasonally. The committee
recognized there is an overhang on Old Milltown and benches under the overhang. Councilmember
Buckshnis inquired about public restrooms. Ms. Hite answered restrooms were not included in the design and
would add significantly to the cost. Public restrooms could be included in plans for future development on
Packet Page 19 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 17
the site. There are restrooms in Old Milltown that are in poor condition and are designed to be used by the
businesses.
Councilmember Wilson asked if there were any parents with young children on the ad hoc committee. Ms.
Hite advised there were parents on the committee. The committee discussed including a fun element in the
courtyard. One of the designs included a sand pit and it was agreed it would be too difficult to maintain.
There are large boulders in the design that provide an opportunity for children to climb and explore. The
space is too small to include any traditional playground equipment.
Councilmember Wilson asked when gardens became paramount for the committee. Ms. Hite answered it was
her understanding that garden space was the original intent of the courtyard when it was purchased by the
City. Councilmember Wilson recalled that was the Floretum Garden Club’s hope but the Council’s purpose,
after making the decision to purchase the property under some criticism, was a meeting space with vegetation
for the downtown community, not a garden space. He liked the idea of a sandbox and doubted that sand
would be harder to maintain than umbrellas. He anticipated the sand would be protected like the sand at
Anthony’s and Hamburger Harry’s. He could not support a garden space downtown at the expense of
meeting space. Part of the vibrancy of the community is young families visiting downtown businesses and
space that is open to children adds energy. He agreed a playground would not be appropriate but he would
support a sandbox. He suggested moving the stage to the opposite end where the acoustics may be better. He
recalled the Council was also not interested in providing outdoor seating that spilled out from the adjacent
restaurants.
Ms. Hite explained the preferred alternative has a great deal more hardscape and seating area than the design
developed by the Floretum Garden Club which was all gardens and a gazebo. The committee felt
demonstration/educational gardens for children, hardscape, seating areas and a performance platform was a
happy medium. The performance platform is located at the south end because the north end of the courtyard
is owned by the bank. The committee was not supportive of the sandbox because, 1) there is already one in
the community, and 2) maintenance issues. She pointed out maintenance is not just sweeping the sand back
into the box; public health standards require contaminated sand be replaced every few months.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the City care enough about the sandbox and give it as much attention as
the Flower Program; the two full-time Flower Program employees could clean the sandbox when needed.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out of the 17 members of the EDC, only one has children at home. He was
not surprised those groups would suggest big boulders as toys but he did not find it adequate. He suggested
the water feature be interactive such as the water features at the Seattle Center or University Village. Ms.
Hite advised the committee also included representatives from a few downtown businesses, the Arts
Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, the Floretum Garden Club, Edmonds in Bloom. Councilmember
Wilson noted none of the Chamber Board Members or Edmonds in Bloom Board Members have children.
Council President Pro Tem Petso suggested making the water feature an attraction for children without being
hazardous. She suggested children could also climb on a historical element that was cleaned up and polished.
She agreed it would be nice to sit in the courtyard with children.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out sandboxes attract cats. Within a mile there are three waterfront
parks, City Park and the Frances Anderson Center that all have child-related activities. Not every park needs
to be child-related and it may be nice to have an area that is not focused toward children. She would like to
be able to sit, drink a cup of coffee and read a book in an area where there may not be children running
around. She disagreed that this needed to be a children’s play area.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the design was well put together. He agreed with Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas that there were a number of parks nearby with child-related activities. He suggested
including bike racks and an electric car plug. Ms. Hite advised when the electrical is pulled, consideration
Packet Page 20 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 18
can be given to allowing for an electric car plug. Councilmember Bernheim found it admirable how the
community was pulled together on the design although it is becoming a larger, more complex project than
the Council originally intended. Whatever can be done to accommodate different users will increase support
for the design.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there were plans to have a public hearing related to the adoption of
the design. Ms. Hite answered that was not planned. The Council authorized the property purchase and funds
allocated in the budget for redevelopment. The purpose of the committee was to provide a public process.
Councilmember Plunkett stated someday people will wonder why the Council’s decision to purchase the
courtyard was so controversial and how the project was constructed for this amount. The intent of purchasing
the property was to provide open space/meeting space and he felt that was provided by this design.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the next steps. Ms. Hite responded applications for funding will be
submitted, a financial package assembled, a subcommittee will work on the plan details and consider
comments made by the Council with regard to the water feature and other interactive features. If grant
funding is provided she would like to proceed with building the park. She can return to the Council again but
was confident that the committee could find a happy medium and design a nice park in Old Milltown. If
funding is not provided by the Hubbard and/or Hazel Miller Foundations, staff would return to Council with
a minimized design or the Council could allocate additional funds for the project. Councilmember Wilson
responded that approach circumvents the Council’s authority to approve the design. He was uncomfortable
with the committee making changes to the plan without Council approval and applying for funds for a design
that had not yet been approved by the Council. He suggested 10-20% of the park have features that could be
enjoyed by children and he offered to work with Ms. Hite.
Councilmember Bernheim did not want to delay construction of the park but agreed the Council typically
approved park design. He asked how staff could proceed consistent with past practice. Ms. Hite responded
the Council approved construction of Old Milltown courtyard and she was not aware that the Council wanted
to approve the final design. The deadline to apply for Hazel Miller Foundation funds is Friday, July 22. She
suggested proceeding with a preliminary design and return to Council for final approval. The committee can
consider Councilmember Wilson’s and Council President Pro Tem Petso’s comments to incorporate a play
feature in the design and return to the Council in August. The cost of the project does not require a bid
process; a contractor for the hardscape will be selected from the Small Works Roster and much of the work
will be done in-house.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the preferred alternative with the addition of sculpture
features or other unbreakable features that children can crawl on or an interactive water feature. He
envisioned the space as suitable for all ages.
Council President Pro Tem Petso asked if the Council would like to hold a public hearing on the design and
whether August 15 was an acceptable date. Observing there are strict notice requirements for a public
hearing, Mayor Cooper asked if the Council wanted to hold a public hearing or take public comment prior to
approving the final design. Council President Pro Tem Petso responded the goal was public participation.
She suggested scheduling approval of the park design and that public comment will be taken.
Councilmember Wilson asked that the Council only take public comment if they are willing to make changes
to the design as a result of public comment. Recognizing the deadline to apply for grant funds, he pointed out
funds from the Hazel Miller Foundation can be applied for in the future. Because this will be such a central,
definitional place for Edmonds, it should not be rushed.
Councilmember Bernheim encouraged the public to submit comments prior to the August 15 Council
meeting.
Packet Page 21 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 19
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested seeking input from the committee members regarding their
selections.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING BUSINESS IN PARKS
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this was first discussed at the CS/DS Committee who
directed it be presented to the full Council for exploration. Business in parks was discussed by the Planning
Board last week; the Board was very supportive of some of the ideas. Business in parks is a priority in the
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Her counterparts in the National Recreation and Parks Association
and Washington Recreation and Parks Association are having similar discussions because of budget
difficulties. Parks are not mandated services and there is an effort to continue service levels to citizens
without new taxes. She highlighted ideas outlined in her memo and invited the Council to provide feedback
with regard to their interest in further exploration:
• Non-resident fees for recreation programs – the City currently charges the same rate for residents
and non-residents. 20-25% of program participants are not residents of Edmonds. Non-resident fees
are very common. The goal is to recover the cost of recreation programs but there are some subsidies
which are funded via the General Fund, thus a justification for differential pricing for non-residents
who participate in programs. A common differential is 20%, either via a discount of resident fees or
increase in non-resident fees. Given current registration rates for 2010, the additional revenue from a
20% additional fee is estimated to be $90,000 - $100,000/year or $70,000 - $75,000/year with
attrition.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented on how amazing Ms. Hite and her department are and she
appreciated their suggestions for increased revenue.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented all the ideas in Ms. Hite’s memo were great, innovative and outside
the box. She commended Ms. Hite for providing ways to enhance the revenue stream. She suggested if a
parking fee were implemented, citizens be allowed to purchase a less expensive yearly pass. She noted
during the Waterfront Festival, dog park users paid $10 to park and use the dog park.
Council President Pro Tem Petso was not as excited about many of the revenue enhancing ideas as some
other Councilmembers. She asked if neighboring jurisdictions charged a non-resident fee. Ms. Hite answered
they do but Edmonds currently does not. Council President Pro Tem Petso was more receptive to the non-
resident fee than some of the other ideas. She suggested food vendors be restricted to community parks and
not allowed in neighborhood parks. She was not interested in citizens paying for parks and then being asked
to pay for parking. She suggested charging non-residents and providing residents a free parking pass. She
encouraged staff to allow for a great deal of public input on the concepts and not invest a lot of staff time
until they received feedback from the Council and the Planning Board. She was also not interested in raising
field rental fees beyond what it costs to maintain and provide the fields. She did not want to sacrifice
participation for revenue.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the CS/DS Committee considered all the ideas. She anticipated
food vendors, particularly in Yost Park and City Park, would attract tourism and encouraged people to visit
Edmonds and stay all day. She cited her experience with training people with disabilities to vend food at
Juanita Beach and Matthews Beach during the summer. Vendors would either have their own facility or
possibly if it was successful enough, the City could provide space. There was no intent to have food vending
in the smaller parks in the City. With regard to the dive permits, she pointed out Edmonds’s Dive Park, the
Packet Page 22 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 20
only saltwater dive park on Puget Sound, attracts a lot of divers from out of town and is a great potential
source of revenue. She was uncertain whether a fee for parking is feasible and it needs further discussion and
public input. If a levy does not pass and the choice is fencing parks, a parking fee may be the only choice.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support a parking fee. A dive permit or dive park parking is an
opportunity to make a lot of money. The dive park attracts people from out of town and is a unique
experience. He was also interested in food venders in places such as the dog park and Marina Beach that are
located far from restaurants and other services.
With regard to a dive permit, Ms. Hite explained there are some inherent risks with charging an entrance fee
or permit for diving. The City has immunity when providing parks for recreation without charging a fee.
There are other ways to institute a fee such as a parking permit. She explained staff would like to consider
not only food concessions but also recreation concessions; an individual recently approached the City about
renting standing paddleboards at Marina Beach Park. The existing code allows concessions in a park with the
posting of three public notices at the entrance of the park and a public hearing. She suggested staff return to
Council with code amendments that make concessions in parks a less staff intensive process.
Councilmembers indicated their interest in staff providing code amendments.
Planner Kernen Lien explained every year there are inquiries from mobile food vendors interested in locating
in the City. There is one mobile food vender operating in the City now but there is conflicting language in the
code. ECC 4.12 provides a framework for licensing peddlers and solicitors. Mobile food vendors fit those
definitions somewhat in that they are a solicitor and can move around. ECC 4.12 also provides a framework
for street vendors. There is a definition for a mobile vending unit but that is pushed and not motorized.
Mr. Lien explained there are conflicts in the zoning code. Several of the business zones have operating
restrictions such as all uses shall be carried out entirely within a completely enclosed building. The definition
of building does not include vehicles. Therefore a mobile food vendor could obtain a solicitors license but
due to the operating restrictions, they could only operate in residential, public and planned business zones.
He invited the Council to provide feedback regarding their interest in clarifying the code. Questions the
Council would need to consider include what zones mobile food vendors should be allowed in, whether they
should be required to park in a parking lot or would be allowed in the right-of-way, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented mobile food vendors are a great idea; Anything that attracts people to
Edmonds is a good thing. She asked whether the City collected any money from mobile food vendors. Mr.
Lien answered they would be required to pay for a solicitors license which City Clerk Sandy Chase indicated
is a modest cost.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about mobile food vendors in other cities, recalling Portland has parking
lots with several street food vendors. Mr. Lien was uncertain about Portland’s licensing requirements.
Regulations vary by city; some do not allow mobile food venders in the right-of-way and require they be
located on private property. Seattle recently passed regulations regarding distance from a restaurant. Mayor
Cooper relayed in the past Seattle required mobile food vendors be located on private property and have the
permission of the property owner. The Seattle City Council passed a new ordinance yesterday that allows
food vendors to park on the street and pay the same parking fee a vehicle pays. Mobile food vendors cannot
be located within 50 feet of a restaurant in a building.
Council President Pro Tem Petso commented staff will need to look into the issue regardless of Council
direction due to the discrepancies in the code and existing food vendors. She commented on a person in her
area selling produce from a vehicle who locates on both private property and the right-of-way.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to questions posed in Mr. Lien’s memo such as whether permits should be
required for temporary structures. He asked whether the mobile unit would be considered a temporary
Packet Page 23 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 21
structure. Mr. Lien answered when this issue was discussed last year, then-City Attorney Scott Snyder
suggested considering them temporary structures because they may park overnight in a parking lot.
Councilmember Plunkett provided responses to other questions in Mr. Lien’s memo:
• What zones are appropriate for this type of use? Business zones
• Should access to restrooms be required? No
• Allowed to park overnight? No
• Should the site where the vendor is parked be verified for compliance with the required number of
parking stalls? Yes
• Temporary structure? Does not apply
• Design review required? No.
Ms. Hite advised staff will bring information back to the Council including code changes. She would like to
implement the concessions by next summer. She will also provide the Council a proposal for non-resident
fees. She encouraged the Council to provide other park-related revenue ideas for staff to explore.
Councilmember Plunkett encouraged staff to return with code language.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the suggestion regarding business partnerships in Ms. Hite’s memo. He
asked if that was naming rights. Ms. Hite answered it could include naming rights, sponsorships, etc.; it is a
policy that allows public-private partnerships within the City that does not involve a gift of public funds.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to parks and fields in Medford, Oregon, that are all named after large
companies.
Mayor Cooper advised the Council could expect some of the revenue options to be reflected in his budget
message for consideration in the 2012 budget.
9. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY STANDARD CONSULTANT
AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this agenda item is a proposed consulting contract with
David Evans and Associates to complete the design for the Five Corners roundabout. The contract is for
$310,000 and staff requests the Council also authorize a $15,000 management reserve for unanticipated
issues in the design. He provided information on the Five Corners roundabout project:
• Existing conditions
o All-way stop controlled intersection
• Creates driver confusion
o Existing level of service (LOS) F with 110 second intersection delay and 204 second delay in
2025 (during PM peak hours)
o Pedestrian/bicycle transportation safety concerns
• Proposed Improvements
o Modern landscaped roundabout
o LOS B with 12 second intersection delay and 14 seconds in 2025 (during PM peak hours)
• Additional Benefits
o Non-motorized transportation
• Pedestrians
– Refuge island
– High pedestrian activity
» Proximity of two schools and commercial area
• Cyclists
– Bike lanes
Packet Page 24 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 22
– Average speed in roundabout 15 mph
o Air quality benefits
• Fuel consumption reduction
• $460,000 federal grant provided as a result of calculated air quality benefits
o Stormwater improvements/sustainability/Low Impact Design (LID) elements
o Aesthetic improvements in conjunction with Five Corners Redevelopment
o Roundabout compared to traffic signal
• 75% fewer injury accidents
• Accidents much less severe (low speeds)
• LOS B vs LOS D
• No traffic signal maintenance or electrical costs
• Schedule
o Design/Right-of-way phases: July 2011 – March 2013
• Consultant: David Evans & Associates
o Construction phase: 2015 (pending additional grant funding)
• Funding
o Estimated total cost: $2,536,000
Design: $ 336,000
ROW: $ 200,000
Construction: $ 2,000,000
o Federal grant secured:
Design Phase: $ 290,000
ROW Phases: $ 173,000
With a 13.5% local match
Council President Pro Tem Petso asked if the City would be required to provide $300,000 as a local match
for the $2,000,000 construction cost. Mr. Williams answered the local match is 13.5% of the cost. That
match could be provided over several years. Council President Pro Tem Petso summarized the roundabout is
not free; the cost of the roundabout to the City is approximately $400,000 over the project life. Mr. Williams
agreed it is not free; the City would provide a match of 13.5%. Council President Pro Tem Petso asked
whether the project would be delayed if federal grant funds are not obtained. Mr. Williams agreed the project
would wait until those funds were available.
Council President Pro Tem Petso asked if there were any concurrency issues for development if federal grant
funds are not available and the LOS remains F. Mr. Williams answered it is a huge step to get through the
design and right-of-way phase. It was very encouraging that a federal grant had been provided for design and
right-of-way, anticipating the project would be very competitive for construction funds.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a roundabout would enhance local businesses and livability. Mr.
Williams answered he did. He anticipated after this project is constructed, people would wonder why it was
controversial during the development phase.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when she was on the SeaShore Transportation Forum, Woodinville raved
about their roundabouts. She grew up in Portland where there are roundabouts and is very supportive of
roundabouts. She summarized roundabouts enhance livability, reduce carbon emissions, and result in
increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic. She expressed her support for the roundabout project.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the roundabout has stop signs. Mr. Williams answered a roundabout
does not have stop signs. Councilmember Plunkett questioned how a pedestrian would cross the roundabout
if there were no stop signs. Mr. Williams explained the space to cross is very modest and traffic comes from
only one direction. Pedestrians look, consider whether there is time to cross, cross to the refuge and then
make another decision to cross again. Without stop signs, Councilmember Plunkett anticipated a pedestrian
Packet Page 25 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 23
trying to cross the roundabout at 4:00 p.m. would have difficulty finding an opening to cross. Mr. Williams
agreed during the PM peak the opportunities for pedestrians to cross will be fewer but they will exist.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the roundabouts he was familiar with that did not have stop signs were
not in residential areas. There are also plans to increase density in this neighborhood. He questioned how a
pedestrian could cross the roundabout when the high school got out or during the AM or PM peak. Mr.
Williams stated the existing intersection has significant delays and the distance to cross is substantial. When
a pedestrian crosses today, all drivers must wait for the pedestrian to cross. With the roundabout, vehicles
will stop as necessary to allow a pedestrian to cross. The wait time is less because the crossing distance is
less. He agreed during the busiest times of the day, a pedestrian will have more decisions to make and
possibly more delay but it will not be as bad as the current situation.
Councilmember Plunkett commented most pedestrians were present during the busiest drive times. He asked
if by approving this contract the roundabout will be designed without stop signs or could the Council approve
it with stop signs. Mr. Williams answered a roundabout does not have stop signs. He explained pedestrians
cross prior to where cars enter the roundabout. The pedestrian has the right-of-way; as the vehicle
approaches, they slow to make the turning movement and are required to stop and give the pedestrian the
right to cross. Councilmember Plunkett expressed disappointment in himself that he was only now realizing
the roundabout would not have stop signs.
Councilmember Wilson observed some people will have difficulty driving in the roundabout. When he was
growing up in Bend, Oregon, his father was the City Engineer and the architect of the roundabouts in Bend.
The first roundabout became a galvanizing issue for Council elections; everyone who supported it was voted
out of office the next year. The roundabout was funded and after it was constructed, anyone who opposed the
roundabout lost reelection. Once the roundabout was constructed, people liked it and roundabouts were
constructed throughout Bend. He agreed it will take pedestrians some time to learn how to cross the
roundabout. In Dupont Circle in Washington DC there are lighted crosswalks that help stop traffic. He
suggested the design team be asked to ensure there are ample safeguards for pedestrians.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the contract, observing vehicles move at slower speeds,
there are crosswalks in the roundabout, the pedestrian only has to look in one direction to cross one lane of
traffic at a time and there are short crossing distances.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH DAVID EVANS AND
ASSOCIATES.
Councilmember Bernheim was torn about the roundabout because he felt the intersection worked admirably
under the current configuration. He was unsure whether something more valuable could be done with the
money that would be spent on the roundabout. His concern was lessened because most of the funding was via
federal grants but he was still reluctant to spend it. He anticipated the roundabout will improve safety and
contribute to attractive development in that area.
Council President Pro Tem Petso expressed concern that a project of this magnitude was imbedded in the
Transportation Plan without ever having a public hearing. She would have preferred the project be included
in the TIP where citizens could provide comment during the TIP public hearing as well as hold a separate
public hearing on the Five Corners roundabout. She was not aware there was strong public support for the
project.
Packet Page 26 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 24
In talking to 20-30 people this weekend Councilmember Wilson relayed 70% were opposed to the
roundabout because they felt it was generally not a high enough priority. When he informed them that most
of the funding was from grants, 90% supported the roundabout. He anticipated citizens would look back on
the roundabout as a good decision and it incentivizes smart economic development.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 12, 2011.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported all the items discussed by the committee were approved on the
Consent Agenda with the exception of authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with David Evans and
Associates which the Council just approved. Public Works plans to provide the Council a quarterly Public
Works project report.
Public Safety and Human Resources Committee
Councilmember Bernheim reported the only item the committee discussed was an amendment to the police
training Interlocal Agreement with the City of Everett.
Finance Committee
Council President Pro Tem Petso reported in addition to the items approved on the Consent Agenda, the
committee discussed the police contract with Woodway and requested it be presented to the full Council for
discussion in the near future. The committee was provided a General Fund update; revenue receipts are as
expected, expenditures are slightly less than 50%. The committee is seeking the assistance of the Finance
Department in developing an appropriate reserve policy which will be presented to the Council in the next
couple months.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported a new advertisement for a Finance Director was placed on July 15. The previous
process did not result in an acceptable candidate. He was pleased with the quality of the early applications.
Mayor Cooper reported he sent a letter to Fire District 1 asking them to assume ownership of Marine 16, the
fire rescue/police boat. FD1 would still need to operate the boat in a manner that met all the provisions of the
federal Homeland Security grant used to purchase the boat. Approximately 90% of the boat’s operation is
fire related and only 10% police related, yet Edmonds owns the vessel and is responsible for all maintenance.
The proposal is on the Fire Commission’s agenda tonight. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Police
Chief and he will likely recommend taking the boat out of service for financial reasons. He may also ask the
Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office to take over operation of the boat because the Homeland Security grant
used to purchase the boat was provided to Edmonds via Snohomish County.
Mayor Cooper reported Evergreen Speedway is sponsoring a Mayor’s NASCAR race on July 30. He will be
racing other Snohomish County mayors in Hornet Class cars.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she had an opportunity to lead a 3½ mile walk sponsored by
Brighton Court, the City’s Parks & Recreation and the Edmonds Senior Center. She commended Francine
Cohen who they saw picking up garbage in the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the reason the City has some good applicants for Finance Director
may be because the City’s financial train is on the right track.
Packet Page 27 of 197
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 25
Councilmember Wilson reported the Regional Fire Authority Level of Service Committee will not be
providing a recommended plan by November which was the original timeline. The staff supporting that
committee is very limited; no written materials were provided for the last meeting.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the confidence in the City’s finances may lead the Council to decide a
levy is not needed yet or at all. He supported allowing the public an opportunity to vote on levies. With the
restrictions on tax increases, it is the duty of the voters to put tax increases in place when they are warranted.
There is nothing wrong with offering the voters an opportunity to vote on a tax increase and the Council can
learn a great deal from the results of a vote. Next week during the levy discussion he plans to propose a roads
levy, a General Fund levy, a maintenance/capital improvement levy, and a parks upgrade levy that range in
cost from $15 – $80/year each. Even if a Councilmember did not support the levy or thinks citizens will not
support them, the votes provide valuable information.
Council President Pro Tem Petso reported her longtime volunteer activity at Sherwood Elementary conflicts
with participating on the Parking Committee. She asked if another Councilmember would volunteer to serve
on the Parking Committee. Councilmember Bernheim volunteered.
Councilmember Wilson reported he had been appointed to the EDC but had a conflict with their Wednesday
meeting. He asked if another Councilmember would volunteer. Councilmember Buckshnis answered it was
not necessary; Council President Peterson attends occasionally.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m.
Packet Page 28 of 197
AM-4101 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
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 #126709 through #126842 dated July 21, 2011 for $625,928.49. Approval of
payroll direct deposit and checks #50599 through #50651 for the period July 1, 2011 through July 15,
2011 in the amount of $666,623.49.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit & 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:1,292,551.98
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $625,928.49
Payroll $666,623.49
Attachments
Claim Checks 7-21-11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Jim Tarte 07/21/2011 09:34 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 11:07 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 07/21/2011 09:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 29 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126709 7/21/2011 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 711128 TENNIS TEAM T-SHIRTS
TENNIS TEAM T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 212.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 20.16
DAY CAMP SHIRTS711140
DAY CAMP ORDER #2/CAMPER SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 76.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 7.24
Total :315.86
126710 7/21/2011 073725 ADRIATIC PLUMBING INC bld20110548 Void, online duplicate permit.
Void, online duplicate permit.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 115.00
Total :115.00
126711 7/21/2011 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9022 Monthly Wholesale Charges for june 2011
Monthly Wholesale Charges for june 2011
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 118,538.41
Total :118,538.41
126712 7/21/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5654775 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
126713 7/21/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5654781 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 71.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.79
1Page:
Packet Page 30 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :78.26126713 7/21/2011 069751 069751 ARAMARK
126714 7/21/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5654776 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PW MATS655-5659335
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Total :55.05
126715 7/21/2011 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0204284-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
2Page:
Packet Page 31 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126715 7/21/2011 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 5,052.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 480.03
Total :5,532.98
126716 7/21/2011 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.07
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.85
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.85
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.85
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.84
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.85
Total :41.31
126717 7/21/2011 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST August 2011 AWC AUGUST 2011 AWC PREMIUMS
August 2011 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 264,343.25
August 2011 Fire Pension Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 3,613.80
August 2011 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 28,112.55
Total :296,069.60
126718 7/21/2011 002100 BARNARD, EARL 48 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 212.68
Total :212.68
126719 7/21/2011 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP13931 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY
3Page:
Packet Page 32 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126719 7/21/2011 (Continued)072319 BEACH CAMP LLC
BEACH CAMP #13931
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 7,200.00
Total :7,200.00
126720 7/21/2011 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 443 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE
Web Site Maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 390.00
Total :390.00
126721 7/21/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 862299 INV#862299 - EDMONDS PD - ANDERSON
EXT. OUTER VEST COVER
001.000.410.521.100.240.00 175.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.240.00 16.63
INV#875763-02 - EDMONDS PD - MCCLURE875763-02
CORPORAL CHEVRONS
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 0.24
INV#883082-01 - EDMONDS PD - ROTH883082-01
SGT CHEVRON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50
REMOVE GOLD BARS-COG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
NAMETAG - ROTH
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.95
SEW NAMETAG ON SHIRT (COG)
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 217.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 22.04
INV#887329 - EDMONDS PD - TRANSPORT HOOD887329
TRANSPORT HOODS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 238.80
4Page:
Packet Page 33 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126721 7/21/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 22.69
INV#887531 - EDMONDS PD - DRUG KITS887531
TEST "U" NIK KITS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 99.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 9.48
INV#887532 - EDMONDS PD - PEN REFILLS887532
FISHER PEN REFILLS (A/C)
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 1.90
Total :841.03
126722 7/21/2011 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1027159 E1JA/E8GA/E7CB.POSTING OF SPECS & PLANS
E1JA/E8GA/E7CB.POSTING OF SPECS & PLANS
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 94.00
E1JA/E8GA/E7CB.POSTING OF SPECS & PLANS
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 99.38
E1JA/E8GA/E7CB.POSTING OF SPECS & PLANS
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 33.12
E1JA/E8GA/E7CB.POSTING OF SPECS & PLANS
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 88.75
Total :315.25
126723 7/21/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11140935 INV#11140935 CUST# 572105 - EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL (4)
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60
COPY CHARGES FOR 4 TO 6/30/11
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 241.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 78.22
Total :901.56
126724 7/21/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11140938 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-004
5Page:
Packet Page 34 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126724 7/21/2011 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 23.75
Total :273.74
126725 7/21/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11140939 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 273.74
Total :273.74
126726 7/21/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11140936 COPIER LEASE
Clerk's Office copier
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 466.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 44.36
Total :511.33
126727 7/21/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11140930 Contact/Lease for Council Office Printer
Contact/Lease for Council Office Printer
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 30.65
Total :30.65
126728 7/21/2011 068484 CEMEX LLC 9421742528 Storm/Water - Dump Fees
Storm/Water - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 64.00
Street - Roadway - Asphalt9421750104
Street - Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 630.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 59.85
Storm- Dump Fees9421765919
Storm- Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 138.89
Street - Asphalt9421794557
6Page:
Packet Page 35 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126728 7/21/2011 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC
Street - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 180.01
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 17.10
Street roadway - Asphalt9421832524
Street roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 765.48
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 72.73
Roadway - Asphalt9421860336
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 175.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 16.63
Storm water - Concrete dumping fee9421867248
Storm water - Concrete dumping fee
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 100.70
Street - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 604.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 55.57
Total :2,879.96
126729 7/21/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 170947 OXYGEN
OXYGEN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.81
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICSRN06111047
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BALLOONS
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 11.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 1.05
Total :32.93
7Page:
Packet Page 36 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126730 7/21/2011 073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC 7198 Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director
Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director
001.000.310.514.100.410.00 5,156.25
Total :5,156.25
126731 7/21/2011 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451101-1106 OUTFALL PIPE REPAIR
OUTFALL PIPE REPAIR
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 2,427.69
Total :2,427.69
126732 7/21/2011 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E2DB.ROW Permit E2DB.ROW PERMIT
E2DB.ROW Permit
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 260.00
E9DA.ROW PERMITE9DA.ROW Permit
E9DA.ROW Permit
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 260.00
Total :520.00
126733 7/21/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8748 INV#8748 CUST#45 - EDMONDS PD
NEXTEL PHONES - NARCS 6/2011
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 57.30
INV#8749 CUST #1430 - EDMONDS PD8749
VERIZON PHONES-NARCS 6/2011
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 50.71
Total :108.01
126734 7/21/2011 068116 CLIFTON, STEPHEN 06302011 MILEAGE AND PARKING REIMBURSEMENT
Mileage expen for Director Economic
001.000.240.513.110.430.00 137.70
Parking expense for Director Economic
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 3.00
Mileage expense for Director Community
001.000.610.519.700.430.00 137.70
Parking expense for Director Community
001.000.610.519.700.490.00 20.00
Total :298.40
8Page:
Packet Page 37 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126735 7/21/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2327830-1 Fac. Maint. - Hospital grade filter
Fac. Maint. - Hospital grade filter
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 109.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.37
Total :119.58
126736 7/21/2011 073728 CORNISH COLLEGE OF THE ARTS HOLLENHORST0711 ARTS COMMISSION SCHOLARSHIP
EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION SCHOLARSHIP FOR
117.300.640.573.100.490.00 1,250.00
Total :1,250.00
126737 7/21/2011 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3250982 E7CB.INVITATION TO BID AD
E7CB.Invitation to Bid Ad
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 331.20
Total :331.20
126738 7/21/2011 073371 DENALI ADVANCED INTEGRATION 0152251-IN HP COMPAQ 6200 PRO SFF & STANDS
HP Compaq 6200 Pro SFF - 2 each~
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1,594.00
HP Integrated Work Center Stand
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 208.98
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 38.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 171.28
HP INT WORK CENTER ALL0152807-IN
HP Int Work Center All
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 68.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 6.46
HP COMPAQ 6200 PRO & WORK CENTER STAND0154127-CM
HP Compaq 6200 Pro SFF SN# SMXL1210SJW
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 -1,594.00
HP Integrated Work Center Station
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 -208.98
9Page:
Packet Page 38 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126738 7/21/2011 (Continued)073371 DENALI ADVANCED INTEGRATION
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 -171.28
Total :112.46
126739 7/21/2011 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 7/13/11 - 7/20/11 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 369.00
Total :369.00
126740 7/21/2011 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS 3387935 Storm water - Ductile iron 2 slot
Storm water - Ductile iron 2 slot
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 2,472.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 234.86
Storm water - Sather 12x123390008
Storm water - Sather 12x12
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 39.86
8.6% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 3.43
Total :2,750.27
126741 7/21/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 36592 CEMETERY MOWER SUPPLIES
V-BELT
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 12.14
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.15
SUPPLIES36756
BATTERY SUPPLIES
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 13.91
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.32
SUPPLIES36791
CREEPER, BATTERY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 146.94
9.5% Sales Tax
10Page:
Packet Page 39 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126741 7/21/2011 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.96
SUPPLIES36922
BREAKER BAR, HEX BIT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 40.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.82
Total :233.50
126742 7/21/2011 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R23191 Sewer - (1000) Manhole Inventory Cards
Sewer - (1000) Manhole Inventory Cards
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 120.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.40
Total :131.40
126743 7/21/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 115.37
WWTP WATER6-01130
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 25.63
WWTP WATER6-01140
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 1,080.97
Total :1,221.97
126744 7/21/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,306.55
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE6-02736
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE6-02737
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 217.74
11Page:
Packet Page 40 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126744 7/21/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 297.24
LIBRARY & SPRINKLER6-02825
LIBRARY & SPRINKLER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,056.98
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)6-02875
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 25.63
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER6-02925
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,529.21
Fire Station #166-04127
Fire Station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 594.21
fire sprinkler-FS #166-04128
fire sprinkler-FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65
Public Works Bldg6-05155
Public Works Bldg
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 99.39
Public Works Bldg
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 377.67
Public Works Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 377.67
Public Works Bldg
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 377.67
Public Works Bldg
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 377.67
Public Works Bldg
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 377.65
Public Works Fire Detector6-05156
Public Works Fire Detector
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 1.83
12Page:
Packet Page 41 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126744 7/21/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Public Works Fire Detector
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 6.94
Total :8,081.15
126745 7/21/2011 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 000 Q2-2011 ES REF # 94513310 7
2Q-11 Unemployment Insurance
001.000.390.517.780.230.00 2,341.40
2Q-11 Unemployment Insurance
411.000.652.542.900.231.00 1,115.70
2Q-11 Unemployment Insurance
411.000.654.534.800.231.00 1,120.00
Total :4,577.10
126746 7/21/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU23525 Street roadway - Gas Cans
Street roadway - Gas Cans
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 266.27
Freight
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 23.35
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 27.51
Total :317.13
126747 7/21/2011 073727 FINLON, DONNA FINLON071911 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
13Page:
Packet Page 42 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126748 7/21/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.27
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.61
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER425-775-1344
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 54.53
YOST POOL425-775-2645
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 117.24
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 110.51
Total :366.16
126749 7/21/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425 712 0423 03 0260 1032797562 07
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.76
Total :56.76
126750 7/21/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.86
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.85
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.21
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.04
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 59.67
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.67
14Page:
Packet Page 43 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126750 7/21/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 79.56
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE FIRE ALARM LINE425-745-4313
Meadowdale Club House Fire Alarm Line
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 101.29
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.52
LS 7425-776-2742
LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56
PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Total :627.73
126751 7/21/2011 011800 GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION 1698799 Repair of binding machine
Repair of binding machine
001.000.620.558.800.480.00 210.00
Total :210.00
126752 7/21/2011 073729 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY KING0711 ARTS COMMISSION SCHOLARSHIP
EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION SCHOLARSHIP FOR
117.300.640.573.100.490.00 1,250.00
15Page:
Packet Page 44 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,250.00126752 7/21/2011 073729 073729 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
126753 7/21/2011 072515 GOOGLE INC 2869025 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee -
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 523.33
Total :523.33
126754 7/21/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9578055700 STRIPING PAINT
STRIPING PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.62
Total :41.72
126755 7/21/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9584693551 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 169.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.09
Total :185.34
126756 7/21/2011 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 1212 JUNE-11 WEB DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Web Development Services 6/1/11 -
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 5,592.00
Total :5,592.00
126757 7/21/2011 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2943886 Water - Meter Boxes and Lids
Water - Meter Boxes and Lids
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7,626.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 724.53
Total :8,351.17
126758 7/21/2011 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 22252 E0JA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 25, 2011
E0JA.Services thru June 25, 2011
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 122.00
16Page:
Packet Page 45 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :122.00126758 7/21/2011 060165 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
126759 7/21/2011 070042 IKON 85127247 Lease/Eng Ricoh - MPC6000
Lease/Eng Ricoh - MPC6000
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Lease/DSD R907EX Copier85127250
Lease/DSD R907EX Copier
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,270.48
126760 7/21/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1909620 Office Supplies for Dev Serv Dept
Office Supplies for Dev Serv Dept
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 484.95
Total :484.95
126761 7/21/2011 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 8527295 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,788.93
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 2.50
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 0.90
Total :1,792.33
126762 7/21/2011 070526 INTERNATIONAL TACTICAL 7-14-11 5 DAY SWAT SCHOOL - EDMONDS SHARE
1/4 SHARE OF SWAT SCHOOL
001.000.410.521.230.490.00 4,750.00
Total :4,750.00
126763 7/21/2011 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 513369 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,444.02
Total :3,444.02
126764 7/21/2011 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE A16007 Finance Director ad, #11-22
Finance Director ad, #11-22
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 262.50
17Page:
Packet Page 46 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :262.50126764 7/21/2011 015233 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE
126765 7/21/2011 073720 KARNES, SHIRLEY 4-01775 RE:8408 200TH ST SW UTILITY REFUND
RE:8408 200TH ST SW UTILITY REFUND
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 49.27
Total :49.27
126766 7/21/2011 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.57 E2DB.SERVICES THRU 5/31/11
E2DB.SERVICES THRU 5/31/11
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 27,381.35
Total :27,381.35
126767 7/21/2011 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07122011-01 INV#07122011-01 EDMONDS PD
34 CAR WASHES @$5.03 - 06/11
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 171.02
QUARTS OF OIL FOR VEHICLE
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.16
INV#07122011-03 - EDMONDS PD07122011-03
1 CAR WASH @ $5.03 06/2011
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 5.03
Total :178.21
126768 7/21/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0717 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/17/11
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 135.00
Total :135.00
126769 7/21/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT Lang, Robert City Hall Monitor for Tree Brd Mtg
City Hall Monitor for Tree Brd Mtg
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
126770 7/21/2011 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 242780 INV#242780 CUST#980012 - EDMONDS PD
BOTTLES OF SUPER GLUE
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 11.90
Freight
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 5.00
18Page:
Packet Page 47 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126770 7/21/2011 (Continued)068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 1.61
Total :18.51
126771 7/21/2011 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 752335 SUPPLIES
ELEMENT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.62
SUPPLIES752874
SEAL, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 60.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.79
Total :73.94
126772 7/21/2011 073721 LYONS, LIZANNE LYONS0713 REFUND
REFUND/CUSTOMER CHARGED NON-RESIDENT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 60.00
Total :60.00
126773 7/21/2011 071140 MAD SCIENCE OF KING COUNTY MADSCIENCE13778 MAD SCIENCE CAMP
MAD SCIENCE CAMP #13778
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,417.00
Total :1,417.00
126774 7/21/2011 019583 MANPOWER INC 22562647 Temp for 2nd floor Receptionist
Temp for 2nd floor Receptionist
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 370.58
Total :370.58
126775 7/21/2011 061900 MARC 0446338-IN 00-0902224
CLEANER
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 72.00
Freight
19Page:
Packet Page 48 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126775 7/21/2011 (Continued)061900 MARC
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 8.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 7.66
Total :88.23
126776 7/21/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 4624 INV#4624 - EDMONDS POLICE
TRANSLATION A1 & A2 #10-0981
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 80.00
INV#4625 - EDMONDS POLICE4625
TRANSLATION B1 & B2 #10-0981
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 80.00
Total :160.00
126777 7/21/2011 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 57543 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 194.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.44
Total :212.58
126778 7/21/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 81698449 123106800
GLUE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 44.98
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.72
Total :49.70
126779 7/21/2011 063773 MICROFLEX 00020100 06-11 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 56.29
Total :56.29
126780 7/21/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 129693 Sewer - Starter Rope
Sewer - Starter Rope
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.70
20Page:
Packet Page 49 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126780 7/21/2011 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.11
Sewer - Backpack Sprayer130637
Sewer - Backpack Sprayer
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 119.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.40
Total :167.16
126781 7/21/2011 073722 NAPPEN, CHRISTOPHER NAPPEN0714 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 25.00
Total :25.00
126782 7/21/2011 068025 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION 106033092 PENS FOR WRITERS CONFERENCE
PENS FOR WRITERS CONFERENCE
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 210.95
Freight
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 23.95
Total :234.90
126783 7/21/2011 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S4056500.001 2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 54.46
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.00
Total :69.12
126784 7/21/2011 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 22622 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 466.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 44.36
21Page:
Packet Page 50 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :511.26126784 7/21/2011 066391 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
126785 7/21/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-313788 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HUMMINGBIRD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 172.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-314401
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MADRONA ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 102.50
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-316796
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 1,126.79
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-316799
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 191.17
Total :1,592.81
126786 7/21/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 607252 INV#607252 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
STAPLES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.08
HANGING FILE FOLDERS-LETTER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.83
POST IT NOTES 1.5x2
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.31
POST IT NOTES 3x3
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 24.22
MEMO BOOKS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.09
HANGING FILE FOLDERS-LEGAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 21.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.57
INV#607376 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD607376
GLOSSY LASER PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 13.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.30
22Page:
Packet Page 51 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :102.21126786 7/21/2011 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
126787 7/21/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 505694 Office Supplies - HR
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 126.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 11.99
Office Supplies - HR512576
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 53.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 5.06
Office supplies return - HR525963
Office supplies return - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -39.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -3.80
Total :152.84
126788 7/21/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 717406 SUPPLIES/CEMETERY
CHAIR MAT/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 34.99
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.31
OFFICE SUPPLIES746948
FIRST AID SUPPLIES, TAPE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 25.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.39
Total :65.83
126789 7/21/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 631538 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 224.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 21.32
23Page:
Packet Page 52 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :245.74126789 7/21/2011 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
126790 7/21/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 607966 Water - Folder Hangers
Water - Folder Hangers
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 88.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.41
Water - HP Ink613908
Water - HP Ink
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 65.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.19
Public Works - Reader Universal Card632790
Public Works - Reader Universal Card
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 34.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.26
Total :205.62
126791 7/21/2011 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER June, 2011 JUN-11 COURT/BLDG CODE/JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 2,120.83
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 135.00
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 792.14
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 7,335.57
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 614.26
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 807.16
PSEA 1 & 2 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 37,352.99
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 4,205.92
24Page:
Packet Page 53 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :53,363.87126791 7/21/2011 070166 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
126792 7/21/2011 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 692608 06-11 LEGAL FEES
June-11 Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 115.15
Total :115.15
126793 7/21/2011 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 11-008 E9DA.OVWSD WATER METER
E9DA.OVWSD WATER METER
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 4,421.00
Total :4,421.00
126794 7/21/2011 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 193.95
Total :193.95
126795 7/21/2011 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 050079 YOST POOL PLASTERING
YOST POOL PLASTERING PROJECT/BID BOND
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,131.00
YOST POOL SUPPLIES050235
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 325.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 30.91
YOST POOL SUPPLIES050383
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 252.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 23.98
Total :1,763.64
126796 7/21/2011 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3685-199790 Unit 94 - Supplies
Unit 94 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 71.41
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.78
25Page:
Packet Page 54 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126796 7/21/2011 (Continued)072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS
Unit 125 - Mirror Package3685-217715
Unit 125 - Mirror Package
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 329.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.26
Total :438.45
126797 7/21/2011 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACIFICNW14210 WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP
WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP #14210
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 254.24
Total :254.24
126798 7/21/2011 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION D56047 B/W copy overage fee
B/W copy overage fee
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 30.76
B/W copy overage fee
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 30.76
B/W copy overage fee
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 30.76
B/W copy overage fee
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 30.73
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 2.93
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 2.93
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 2.93
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 2.90
Total :134.70
126799 7/21/2011 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 117299 Storm water topsoil
Storm water topsoil
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 105.00
7.7% sales tax
26Page:
Packet Page 55 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126799 7/21/2011 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 8.09
Storm Water Dump brush993912
Storm Water Dump brush
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 105.00
Total :218.09
126800 7/21/2011 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0719 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT #2 FOR DAYCAMP
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 88.14
Total :88.14
126801 7/21/2011 073652 PERRINE, SUSAN PERRINE13780 PAINTING CLASS
PAINT & BRUSH UP WITH THE MASTERS
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 207.00
Total :207.00
126802 7/21/2011 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 27096.000-32 E7CB.SERVICES THRU JUNE 26, 2011
E7CB.Servcies thru June 26, 2011
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,903.12
Total :1,903.12
126803 7/21/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 194028 H2O
UPS NORTH COAST ELECTRIC
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 19.17
Total :19.17
126804 7/21/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 193833 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST
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 POST193928
27Page:
Packet Page 56 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126804 7/21/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
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 POST194054
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 4.85
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 4.85
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 4.85
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.85
Total :38.80
126805 7/21/2011 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Pier StormWater Rent for
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,153.25
UNIT F1 B1 FUEL04371
Fire Boat - Fuel
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 191.88
Total :2,345.13
126806 7/21/2011 065784 RUDD COMPANY INC INV-101434 Street Traffic - Spray Tips
Street Traffic - Spray Tips
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 150.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.66
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 14.98
28Page:
Packet Page 57 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :172.64126806 7/21/2011 065784 065784 RUDD COMPANY INC
126807 7/21/2011 073723 RUGG, KATIE RUGG0712 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 46.00
Total :46.00
126808 7/21/2011 073724 SAMGUIROVA, ZIANGOUGH SAMGUIROVA0714 REFUND
REFUND/TRANSFER
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
126809 7/21/2011 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 598222 INC#598222 CUST#0001733 - EDMONDS PD
40 S&W 180GR GOLD AMMO
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1,395.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 132.53
Total :1,527.57
126811 7/21/2011 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-105989 truck 24 - element asy
truck 24 - element asy
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.05
truck 105 - battery03-107690
truck 105 - battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 69.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.63
truck 129 - element asy03-107904
truck 129 - element asy
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.65
truck 96 - switch03-108420
truck 96 - switch
29Page:
Packet Page 58 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126811 7/21/2011 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.43
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.61
Truck 2 - Pad03-108592
Truck 2 - Pad
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.54
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.90
Truck 125 - Idle aid Contro.03-108846
Truck 125 - Idle aid Contro.
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 57.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.46
Truck 126 - Battery03-108853
Truck 126 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 69.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.63
Truck 495 - Manifold set & Thermostat03-109125
Truck 495 - Manifold set & Thermostat
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 70.97
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.74
Truck 495 - Sensor03-109166
Truck 495 - Sensor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.02
Truck 495 - Spark plug, rotor, cap,03-109300
Truck 495 - Spark plug, rotor, cap,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 58.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.55
Truck 136 - Battery03-110128
30Page:
Packet Page 59 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126811 7/21/2011 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Truck 136 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 78.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.45
Truck 338 - Rotor asy.03-110911
Truck 338 - Rotor asy.
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 103.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.79
Truck 338 - Oil seal, cylindrical03-110932
Truck 338 - Oil seal, cylindrical
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.86
Truck 19 - Battery03-111648
Truck 19 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.55
Truck 338 - Transmission Fluid03-112030
Truck 338 - Transmission Fluid
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.05
truck 99 raybestos03-113763
truck 99 raybestos
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.06
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.23
Truck 99 - Rotor03-113793
Truck 99 - Rotor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.21
31Page:
Packet Page 60 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126811 7/21/2011 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Truck 55 - Battery03-116130
Truck 55 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 84.46
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.02
truck 680 regulator03-116237
truck 680 regulator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 57.04
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.42
Truck 680 - Regulator03-116419
Truck 680 - Regulator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.65
Truck 424 - transmission fluid03-116651
Truck 424 - transmission fluid
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.05
Truck 38 - Starter Motor03-117638
Truck 38 - Starter Motor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 90.56
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.60
Truck 19 Switch asy.03-117793
Truck 19 Switch asy.
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 60.68
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.76
Truck 424 - Spark plugs03-118230
Truck 424 - Spark plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.04
9.5% Sales Tax
32Page:
Packet Page 61 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126811 7/21/2011 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.00
Fleet Inventory Rotor Asy03-118656
Fleet Inventory Rotor Asy
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 206.16
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 19.59
Fleet inventory rotor asy.03-118657
Fleet inventory rotor asy.
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 206.16
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 19.59
truck 649 - V-Belt03-118676
truck 649 - V-Belt
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.72
Truck 338 - Fluid Transmission03-118750
Truck 338 - Fluid Transmission
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 137.82
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.09
truck 42 - Starter motor03-119429
truck 42 - Starter motor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 90.56
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.60
Truck 134 - Pad & Rotor Asy.03-119515
Truck 134 - Pad & Rotor Asy.
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 211.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.08
truck 413 - Rotor Asm. Pad Set03-119720
truck 413 - Rotor Asm. Pad Set
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 103.73
33Page:
Packet Page 62 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126811 7/21/2011 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.85
Truck 413 - Pump Kit03-119754
Truck 413 - Pump Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 132.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.56
Truck 42 - Switch Asy03-120263
Truck 42 - Switch Asy
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.65
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.77
truck 96 - alternator and switch return05-384812
truck 96 - alternator and switch return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -6.43
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.61
truck 99 raybestos return05-388057
truck 99 raybestos returng
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -55.06
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -5.23
truck 680 regulator return05-389684
truck 680 regulator return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -57.04
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -5.42
switch asy return05-390365
switch asy return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -121.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -11.53
Total :2,477.54
126812 7/21/2011 071159 SEATTLE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY WOODENO0724 PARK PERFORMANCE
34Page:
Packet Page 63 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126812 7/21/2011 (Continued)071159 SEATTLE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY
PARK PERFORMANCE: THE COMEDY OF ERRORS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 1,700.00
Total :1,700.00
126813 7/21/2011 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 195875 INV#195875 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 97 MERCEDES #508VBR/EVID
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
INV#196001 - EDMONDS PD196001
TOW 97 MERCEDES #508VBR/TO EPD
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :346.02
126814 7/21/2011 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0124198-IN Unit EQ80PO - Link Flashers
Unit EQ80PO - Link Flashers
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 399.96
Unit EQ80PO - Parts0125350-IN
Unit EQ80PO - Parts
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 177.60
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 16.04
Total :593.60
126815 7/21/2011 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-235845 Unit 55 - Supplies
Unit 55 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 86.20
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.19
Total :94.39
126816 7/21/2011 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS13761 SKYHAWKS SUMMER CAMPS
CAMP #13761
35Page:
Packet Page 64 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126816 7/21/2011 (Continued)065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,164.00
CAMP #13749
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 632.00
Total :1,796.00
126817 7/21/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2007-1403-8 18500 82ND AVE W
18500 82ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.93
23700 104TH AVE W2011-8453-8
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 132.98
8030 185TH ST SW2011-9708-4
8030 185TH ST SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 149.87
IRRIGATION SYSTEM202250627
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.55
Total :399.33
126818 7/21/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 100036089 2019-2991-6
23219 74 AVE W BALLINGER
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 31.04
2025-7952-0120354373
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.77
Total :38.81
126819 7/21/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200563385 LIFT STATION #2 912 CARY RD
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 48.63
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH W200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 31.55
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
36Page:
Packet Page 65 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126819 7/21/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,867.67
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 66.03
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 250.91
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 250.91
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 250.91
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 250.91
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 250.88
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,981.12
20719 86th PL W204030498
20719 86th PL W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 113.92
Total :7,363.44
126820 7/21/2011 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I000276299 LEGAL/ADMIN FOR FIBER AGREEMENT
Legal/Admin costs for SERS/Fiber
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 1,510.92
Total :1,510.92
126821 7/21/2011 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER June 2011 Jun-11 Crime Victims Court Remittance
Jun-11 Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 1,050.99
Total :1,050.99
126822 7/21/2011 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC I110702-4 E8GA.REVIEW OF SPECS AND DRAWINGS
E8GA.Review of Specs and Drawings
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 360.00
37Page:
Packet Page 66 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126822 7/21/2011 (Continued)069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC
E9GA.REVIEW OF DRAWINGS AND SPECSI110702-5
E9GA.Review of Drawings and Specs
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 720.00
Total :1,080.00
126823 7/21/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103585 DISPOSAL SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 674.47
Total :674.47
126824 7/21/2011 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3046129 Water/ Sewer - Upside down Blue and
Water/ Sewer - Upside down Blue and
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 54.90
Water/ Sewer - Upside down Blue and
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 54.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.21
Water Sewer - Safety Glasses3050737
Water Sewer - Safety Glasses
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 15.30
Water Sewer - Safety Glasses
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.45
Water Sewer - Blue and Green Paint3052373
Water Sewer - Blue and Green Paint
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 164.70
Water Sewer - Blue and Green Paint
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 164.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.66
38Page:
Packet Page 67 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126824 7/21/2011 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 15.64
LS 7&8 - Supplies3054314
LS 7&8 - Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.72
Sewer - Rags, Hand Cleaner, Sanitizers3055161
Sewer - Rags, Hand Cleaner, Sanitizers
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 190.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 18.14
Water Sewer - Plastic Coolers3056833
Water Sewer - Plastic Coolers
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 47.93
Water Sewer - Plastic Coolers
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 47.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.56
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.55
Total :859.89
126825 7/21/2011 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIO314082 KINDERMUSIK PRINCESS CAMP
KINDERMUSIK PRINCESS CAMP #14082
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 420.00
Total :420.00
126826 7/21/2011 060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE 1406-003004 ACC Sewer - Tank Rent
Sewer - Tank Rent
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 5.70
Sewer - Equipment Rental1406-003004 ACC
Sewer - Equipment Rental
39Page:
Packet Page 68 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126826 7/21/2011 (Continued)060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 5.70
Total :131.40
126827 7/21/2011 072555 SYSTEMS DESIGN WEST LLC ED0711 JUNE-11 POSTAGE FOR EMS TRANSPORT SVCS
EMS Billing Services-Postage Private
001.000.390.526.100.420.00 0.88
Total :0.88
126828 7/21/2011 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18940301 Water - Drill
Water - Drill
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 43.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.10
Total :47.28
126829 7/21/2011 071025 TEAM WATKINS 71611-ED EDMONDS VISITOR GUIDE GRAPHICS/COPYWRITI
Copywriting and graphics for Edmonds
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 600.00
Total :600.00
126830 7/21/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01740234-06132011 E7CB.INVITATION TO BID AD
E7CB.Invitation to Bid Ad
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 266.00
Total :266.00
126831 7/21/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1742557 NEWSPAPER ADS
7/19 Hearing (TIP)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 82.60
NEWSPAPER ADS1742613
7/19 Hearing (BD Zones)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 107.80
NEWSPAPER ADS1742760
Ordinance 3843
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 29.36
40Page:
Packet Page 69 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126831 7/21/2011 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
NEWSPAPER ADS1743184
Ordinance 3845
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 36.24
NEWSPAPER ADS1743185
Ordinance 3844
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 36.24
NEWSPAPER ADS1743285
Ordinance 3846
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 37.96
NEWSPAPER ADS1743332
07/26 Hearing (BD Zones)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 68.92
Total :399.12
126832 7/21/2011 043935 UPS 327F51281 PARK SHIPPING CHARGES
SHIPPING CHARGES
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 53.39
Total :53.39
126833 7/21/2011 062693 US BANK 2143 HP PRINTER, DOMAIN NAME REG, BATTERY
HP Photosmart Printer for R Steinike -
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 97.48
BulkRegister domain name registration -
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 12.95
Apple iTunes application - iAnnotate PDF
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 10.94
Provantage RBC55 Battery
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 287.39
CDW Government - Samsung SE-S084F
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 153.07
BulkRegister domain name registration -
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 25.90
Apple iTunes application - Documents To
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 18.60
BulkRegister domain name registration -
41Page:
Packet Page 70 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126833 7/21/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 99.00
iJoomla registration
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 79.99
Total :785.32
126834 7/21/2011 062693 US BANK 4675 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
PRODUCT RETURN
001.000.640.574.200.420.00 9.91
BATTERIES/POOL
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 15.10
POSTAGE FOR PACKAGE TO OLYMPIA TO KARL
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 10.95
VELCRO FOR CAMP GOODTIME
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 32.76
SHOVELS FOR SAND CASTLE CONTEST
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 6.57
PEDOMETERS
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 262.72
ARTS COMMISSION/SIGN
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 92.56
SISTER CITY FRAMING
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 10.94
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 633.94
TENNIS BALLS
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 113.84
GOURMET KITCHEN FOR GOODTIME PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 98.54
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 39.67
SPORT BALLOONS
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 13.10
MAGNETIC SHEETS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 85.64
42Page:
Packet Page 71 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126834 7/21/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
ASTRO TURF
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 22.66
FORTUNE COOKES FOR WOTS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 67.00
SHIPMENT TO JAPAN
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 111.23
CREDIT FOR VELCRO4675
CREDIT FOR VELCRO
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 -26.99
CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS6254
SUPPLIES FOR MILLTOWN DESIGN MEETING @
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 46.28
UNIFORM SHIRT FOR RANGER-NATURALIST
001.000.640.574.350.240.00 19.95
Total :1,666.37
126835 7/21/2011 062693 US BANK 3306 HUB/SCREW
HUB/SCREW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 172.98
DISHWASHER
411.000.656.538.800.350.00 1,351.38
TRAINING/ZUVELA/VAUGHAN/SEBERS
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 1,047.00
Total :2,571.36
126836 7/21/2011 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 213.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 372.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 372.00
Total :957.00
126837 7/21/2011 062693 US BANK 3405 Old PW Security
43Page:
Packet Page 72 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
126837 7/21/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Old PW Security
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
FMA Annual Dues - J Stevens
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 326.00
Old PW Security
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
Sentry Safe - Combination software -3546
Sentry Safe - Combination software -
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 50.00
Complete Hydraulic Svc - Balance of
511.000.657.594.480.640.00 2,000.00
PW - Computer Accessories - P Williams8305
PW - Computer Accessories - P Williams
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 155.14
Total :2,641.14
126838 7/21/2011 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for Council Meetings
Refreshments for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 19.19
Total :19.19
126839 7/21/2011 062693 US BANK 6045 Supplies for 4th of July Parade -
Supplies for 4th of July Parade -
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 32.53
USB Car Charger for Planning
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.36
MRSC Directory of WA City & Town
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 20.00
Reg for Coccia for Sign Code Success
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 25.00
Supplies for Apple IP - Planning
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 75.39
Office translator for IP - auto billed.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 18.60
44Page:
Packet Page 73 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :187.88126839 7/21/2011 062693 062693 US BANK
126840 7/21/2011 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 46212136 1066294
THERMOMETER LAB SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 637.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 60.58
Total :698.36
126841 7/21/2011 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 27 C/A 4181-01M
Reidy/Thuesen conflict matter
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 814.00
Total :814.00
126842 7/21/2011 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0149241 Street - Blanks 30x36 .080 Alum. for
Street - Blanks 30x36 .080 Alum. for
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 104.25
Freight
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 14.51
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 11.28
Street - Blank 3036 80 - blanks 30x360149242
Street - Blank 3036 80 - blanks 30x36
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 139.00
9.5% Sales Tax
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 13.21
Total :282.25
Bank total :625,928.49133 Vouchers for bank code :front
625,928.49Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report133
45Page:
Packet Page 74 of 197
07/21/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
8:37:14AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
46Page:
Packet Page 75 of 197
AM-4102 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages submitted by Margaret Squire (amount undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Margaret Squire
200 James Street
Suite 408
Edmonds, WA 98020
(Amount undetermined)
Attachments
Squire Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 07/21/2011 09:46 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 76 of 197
Packet Page 77 of 197
Packet Page 78 of 197
AM-4105 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Community Services/Economic Development Department Quarterly Report - July, 2011
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
As requested by the City Council, this report provides an update on major projects currently worked on
by staff of the Community Services and Economic Development Departments.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Community Services/Economic Development Department Quarterly Report - July, 2011
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 11:22 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 07/21/2011 11:11 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 79 of 197
Date: July 21, 2011
To: Mayor Cooper and City Council members
From: Stephen Clifton, AICP
Community Services and Economic Development Director
Subject: Community Services and Economic Development
Quarterly Report – July, 2011
As requested by the City Council, this report provides an update on major projects currently
worked on by staff of the Community Services and Economic Development Departments.
Community Services
I. EDMONDS CROSSING
Project Description
Edmonds Crossing is a regional project intended to provide a long-term solution to current
operational and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic in
downtown Edmonds and along State Route 104. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) (including Washington State Ferries [WSF]), and City of Edmonds
propose to relocate the existing state ferry terminal from Main Street, in downtown
Edmonds, to Pt. Edwards, south of the downtown core. In the process, a multimodal center
would be established that would integrate ferry, rail, and transit services into a single
complex. A realigned SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street would provide
access. The new complex would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the
operational requirements for accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail
station designed to meet intercity passenger (Amtrak) and commuter rail (Sounder) service;
a transit center that would meet local bus system and regional transit system loading
requirements; facilities that allow both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers to
utilize various transportation modes; parking, drop-off areas, retail/ concessionaire space,
waiting areas; and a system linking these facilities to allow for the safe movement of users.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – No significant activities.
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Economic Development Department
Packet Page 80 of 197
II. SOUND TRANSIT (PHASE 1, AKA SOUND MOVE)
Project Description
During the past several years, Sound Transit has been implementing what is called the
Sound Move Plan. One element calls for commuter rail services, otherwise known as
Sounder. Commuter rail will eventually link Everett in the north with Seattle, Tacoma and
Lakewood in the South, a total of 82 miles through three counties. Sounder is being
implemented in three phases, one of which includes Everett to Seattle or the North
Commuter Rail corridor. Three commuter rail stations exist along this corridor, i.e., Everett,
Mukilteo and Edmonds.
Everett-Seattle Sounder, at full operation, now calls for 8 trains per day, i.e., four round
trips, and will include reverse trips. This is a reduction of two round trips from the originally
proposed operational plan. The first roundtrip train run began in December, 2003.
Edmonds Station is currently located between Main and Dayton Streets along both sides of
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. The station area is also co-located with
Amtrak’s Edmonds Passenger Station. The Sounder commuter rail station, once completed
will include ADA accessible rail platforms, shelters, signage, lighting fixtures, hanging flower
baskets, ticket vending machines, on-site parking, and Community Transit bus station.
In an attempt to enhance Willow Creek and the Edmonds Marsh, a culvert is currently
installed near the Marina Beach property beneath both BNSF Railroad tracks, concurrent with
the construction of a second BNSF rail line. This will allow for the eventual daylighting of
Willow Creek, if and/or when funding is available.
Significant Activities since April 21, 2011
• July 18, 2011 – Sound Transit hosted a dedication ceremony for the Edmonds Commuter
Rail Station. Edmonds Station is now more welcoming, attractive and pedestrian-
friendly for both commuters and area residents. Amenities include a new….train
platform and larger passenger loading area; new transit shelters, paved parking lots and
secure bike lockers; and upgraded lighting (forthcoming), signage (forthcoming) and
landscaping. At the north end of the station, a new transit center for Community
Transit buses will open later this summer improving connections between buses, trains
and ferries. Find more information at: www.soundtransit.org/edmondsstation
Packet Page 81 of 197
III. SOUND TRANSIT 2
Expanding the regional mass transit system
On Nov. 4, 2008, voters of the Central Puget Sound region approved a Sound Transit 2
ballot measure. The plan adds regional express bus and commuter rail service while building
36 additional miles of light rail to form a 55-mile regional system. For additional information,
visit http://soundtransit.org/.
Significant Activities since January 20, 2010
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – None at this time. The next Sound Transit North
Corridor High Capacity Transit Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and Interagency
Technical Working Group (ITWG) meeting takes place on July 28.
IV. UNOCAL AKA CHEVRON SITE CLEANUP
Project Description
The UNOCAL property currently consists of a lower yard which currently contains petroleum
contamination resulting from more than 60 years of operation. Chevron, which acquired
UNOCAL, is now the entity responsible for cleaning up the site. Cleanup work at the lower
yard, which began in 2007, was a continuation of remediation work that has been ongoing
at the site since 2001. Chevron conducted the following work from summer 2007 through fall
2008 and has since been monitoring the site since.
• Excavated soil with metals contamination exceeding Washington State Department of
Ecology standards in order to protect against direct contact with the soil (such as
ingestion) and impacts to the groundwater.
• Excavated soil with petroleum contamination exceeding safe levels for direct contact.
Excavation of this soil was for protection of groundwater and surface water.
• Excavated contaminated sediment in Willow Creek, on the northern edge of the site.
The primary excavation work at the lower yard (including the Willow Creek area) was
completed in September 2008. Over 140,000 tons of contaminated soil and 9,000 gallons of
petroleum product have been removed from the site. The lower yard site has been re-
graded and reseeded. The Willow Creek area has been re-planted with native vegetation.
Significant Activities since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – The following was provided to the City of Edmonds by
the Department of Ecology on April 19, 2011.
Significant progress has been made at the Unocal Edmonds site, but more remains to be
done. Excavation efforts have removed much of the contamination.
Ground water monitoring was conducted from October 2008 to October 2010 to assess
whether excavation has successfully removed the floating product from the site and
reduced petroleum concentrations in ground water to below cleanup levels.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. There is a floating product in one compliance well
Packet Page 82 of 197
that is generally only about a tenth of an inch thick, but has been as thick as an inch
and a half. In addition, several point of compliance wells have petroleum concentrations
above the cleanup level. The cleanup level is 506 μg/L for the eastern part of the site
and 706 μg/L for the western part of the site.
The Department of Ecology (DOE), Washington State Ferries, and the Edmonds Citizens
Awareness Committee are currently reviewing the ground water monitoring results and
will be meeting on May 25, 2011 to discuss. The next step in the process is to prepare a
feasibility study to assess how to remove the remaining contamination. Chevron is also
planning to conduct some tests to assess groundwater hydraulics of the site after all the
excavation and backfilling; a feasibility study work plan will then be prepared and
conducted.
In summary, very significant progress has been made, but work remains to be done.
The DOE does not have a schedule yet, beyond developing the feasibility study work
plan in the next few months. DOE would probably be hoping to do construction in the
2012 construction season, but 2013 may be more realistic given the length of time a
feasibility study may take to prepare.
V. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
Overview
The City Council, pursuant to state law, approved the formation of the Public Facilities
District (PFD) at its April 24, 2001 meeting. A PFD is a separate municipal corporation that
has authority to undertake the design, construction, operation, promotion and financing of a
Regional Center in the city. The Public Facilities District board consists of five members
originally appointed by the City Council on June 19, 2001. Phase 1A renovation of the
original Edmonds High School Auditorium into a first class Edmonds Center for the Arts
(ECA) and multipurpose facility was completed in September of 2006.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• July, 2011 – Edmonds Center for the Arts 2011-2011 season tickets go on sale. For
information, see http://ec4arts.org/index.
VI. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE FIELD
Overview
On July 14, 2004, a Mead & Hunt Inc. Business Travel Survey was issued which focused on
the market potential and options for Paine Field. On August 20, 2004, a Snohomish County
Citizen Cabinet issued an Economic Development Final Report -Blueprint for the Economic
Future of Snohomish County. Both reports put Paine Field in the regional spotlight as they
highlight the possibility of using Paine Field for commercial aircraft operations, thus changing
its general aviation status.
Packet Page 83 of 197
Although Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon and some County Council members
have said they do not support commercial air service at Paine Field, federal law obligates the
county to accommodate commercial service. Federal law does not allow the county to
prohibit or limit scheduled passenger air service. Instead, it requires that the county
negotiate with the airlines in good faith to accommodate their proposed service.
Horizon Airlines has indicated it wants to operate four times a day to Portland and twice per
day to Spokane, using 75-seat Bombardier Q400 turboprop airplanes on both routes.
Allegiant has said it plans to operate twice a week to Las Vegas, using 150-seat MD83 jet
aircraft.
Before airlines may begin commercial service, the FAA must amend the county’s operating
certificate for Paine Field as well as the airlines’ operating specifications. The county was
required to prepare an environmental assessment for FAA approval before those
amendments can occur.
Key points of the draft environmental assessment include:
1. Considering all current aircraft operations (take offs and landings) at Paine Field.
2. Traffic mitigation.
3. Emissions affecting air quality.
The draft environmental assessment is available for review at the airport office, on the Paine
Field Web site http://www.painefield.com/airserviceea.html, at
www.snoco.org/departments/airport and also in local public libraries.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• June, 20 2011 – The Federal Aviation Administration is taking more time to prepare a
response to the 900 comments it received regarding an environmental study done in
2009. As such, it will likely be at least a few more months, and possibly until the end of
the year, before anyone knows if airlines will be able to fly from Paine Field. A decision
on whether to certify Paine Field for passenger flights will be part of that response. The
extension is the latest of many announced by the agency since the public comment
period on the study ended in February 2010.
VII. RAILROAD QUIET ZONE
Overview
As discussed in the past, there is an expressed desire of the City Council and Port of
Edmonds to establish a full or partial quite zone along the City's shoreline. A quiet zone is a
section of rail line that contains one or more consecutive public crossings at which
locomotive horns are not routinely sounded.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – No new information at this time.
Packet Page 84 of 197
VIII. CITY OF EDMONDS / COMCAST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
Overview
With a record of successfully negotiating Verizon franchise agreements, several members of
the North Puget Sound Consortium formed a Consortium for the purposes of negotiating
franchise agreements with Comcast. Jurisdictions invited to participate include: Snohomish
County, the Cities of Bothell, Carnation, Edmonds, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Mercer
Island, Shoreline, Woodinville, and the Town of Woodway. Benefits of a coordinated effort
include: ensuring that the public receives the maximum rights and benefits from their
respective franchise agreements; better coordination of negotiations with Comcast; sharing
the costs of negotiations including hiring a national consultant and attorneys to assure the
citizens of each jurisdiction that their franchise is competitive, both locally and nationally;
and creating a common template and negotiation strategy through the assistance of a
national consultant and attorneys to maximize leverage during the negotiations.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – The North Puget Sound Consortium agreement
template was completed in 2010 and Ogden Murphy Wallace (OMW) was reviewing the
agreement with their clients (includes the City of Edmonds). As referenced in past
correspondence, the Comcast Franchise expired on April 26, 2011. Although I was
prepared to meet with OMW and Comcast as needed to finalize renewal of the
franchise, a change in legal counsel for the City altered the timetable for completing the
review in a timely manner. Jeff Tarraday and I are now working with Michael R.
Bradley, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC (a Lighthouse Law Group subcontractor), to finalize a
draft franchise agreement tailored to meet the needs of Edmonds. NOTE: It’s possible
to have the franchise agreement expire but still have a franchisee continue paying
revenue to a City while operating. Comcast is still paying franchise fees to the City of
Edmonds in the absence of a renewed franchise agreement.
Economic Development
I. PARTNERSHIPS
Goal 1, Policy 1a of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan is to promote a results-
oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review timelines, eliminates
unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – The Development Services Planning Manager and
Building Official have been meeting with me to discuss potential changes in
operations to improve development review efficiencies.
Packet Page 85 of 197
Goal 1 of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: ”foster a healthy business
community that provides employment and other economic opportunities.”
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – Economic Development staff continue recruiting
businesses to the City of Edmonds.
Economic Development Commission Overview
On June 2, 2009 – The City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which creates a new
Citizens Economic Development Commission (EDC) in order to determine new strategies
for economic development within the City and identify new sources of revenues. In
conjunction with the Planning Board, the new commission is to review and consider
strategies designed to improve commercial viability, tourism development, and activity.
The ED Commission consists of 17 members appointed by Mayor Gary Haakenson and the
City Council. The commission is staffed by the City’s Economic Development Director.
The Commission will make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, as well as to
other City boards or commissions as appropriate, regarding economic development
strategies. The commission will provide an annual report to the Council in December of
every year. The commission is scheduled to end on December 31, 2010. Minutes from
monthly meetings (once approved by the Edmonds EDC) can be found at
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/EconDevMinutes.stm.
As noted in past Quarterly reports, the Economic Development Commission agreed that
the six higher priority recommendations presented to the City Council in January, 2009
would fall within four categories called Strategic Planning and Visioning; Technology;
Land Use; and Tourism; A subgroup was formed for each category.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• May 12, 2011 – The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a joint
meeting with the Planning Board in the Brackett Meeting Room. The Strategic
Planning and Visioning; Technology; Land Use; and Tourism sub groups all
presented updates. Additional topics of discussion included a Port of Edmonds
update on the Harbor Square Master Planning process; presentation of Five
Corners/Westgate Special District Study concepts and discussion of code related
items with an end goal to have the EDC select a preferred alternative that would be
provided to the City Council; and an update on proposed amendments to the BD and
BN (Westgate only) zones.
• June 15, 2011 – The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a joint
meeting with the Planning Board in the Brackett Meeting Room. The Strategic
Planning and Visioning; Technology; Land Use; and Tourism sub groups all
presented updates. An additional topic of discussion included a presentation of
updated concepts related to Five Corners/Westgate Special District Study. The
Edmonds EDC expressed unanimous support for concepts which were then
forwarded to the Edmonds City Council.
Packet Page 86 of 197
• June 21, 2011 – The City Council voted to refer the University of Washington/Cascade
Land Conservancy work to the Planning Board to begin formal review of the
proposals. With acceptance by the Council, the next phase will include more formal,
detailed review of the conceptual "illustrative plans" by the Planning Board, as well
as development of accompanying form-based zoning designed to implement these
plans. Presented Information has been posted to the Five Corners/Westgate Special
District Study webpage http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/uwstudies.stm.
• June 21, 2011 – I presented information related to steps taken by the Strategic
Planning Review/Interview Committee for recommending a preferred consultant to
the City Council. The information included a chronology of actions taken following
the City Council’s authorized issuance of the Request For Proposal. The City Council
voted to approve entering into a professional services agreement with Beckwith
Consulting Group.
• July 19, 2011 – The City Council voted to authorize the Mayor to sign a professional
services agreement (with an amended Exhibit A.1) with Beckwith Consulting Group.
Goal 1, Policy 1f of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: ”Continue to
partner with business and economic development organizations, and address feedback from
the business community.”
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – I continue attending monthly Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce Economic Development Committee meetings and Downtown Edmonds
Merchants Association (DEMA) meetings in order to share information about City
issues and hear about Chamber and DEMA issues/concerns.
II. BUSINESS EXPANSION, RETENTION, AND DIVERSIFICATION OF TAX
BASE
Goal 1, Policy 1c of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Encourage and
expand business expansion and retention programs. Goal 3 calls for diversifying the tax
base and increasing revenues to support local services.”
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – I continue working with property and business
owners in attempts to help find leasable space and relocate existing businesses, in
addition to discussing potential leasing and redevelopment of buildings and land.
Efforts have included finding property for relocating a Kruger Clinic and working with
Swedish Edmonds to facilitate development .
Goal 2, Policy 2i of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Create synergy for
commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a “retail core” area in
the downtown.”
Packet Page 87 of 197
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – The Planning Board discussed potential amendments
to the downtown BD zones during meetings on March 9, March 23 , April 13, April
27, and June 8, 2011. During the June 8, 2011 Planning Board meeting, the Board
voted 7-0 (with amendments) to forward a recommendation to approve the
proposed amendments to the City Council. For additional information, see the
Planning Board agenda webpage which contains a staff memorandum (see
attached), draft code language, and June 8, 2011 Planning Board minutes.
• See comments in Section III below about a proposed Downtown Business
Improvement District.
III. IMPROVING BUSINESS CLIMATE
Goal 2, Policy 2e of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “explore options
such as Business Improvement Districts/Areas (special assessment districts) as a way to help
shopping areas fund marketing and beautification in a sustainable fashion.
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – Representatives from the City of Edmonds and
Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association
(DEMA) continued to meet and discuss the possible establishment a Downtown
Edmonds Business Improvement District (BID).
Goal 2, Policy 2h of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Work to identify
and “brand” distinct business districts, where there is a natural synergy, such as the
Highway 99 International District, the Stevens Hospital Medical Corridor, and the 4th Avenue
Arts Corridor.”
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – Highway 99 Enhancement Project: includes adding
street lighting fixtures and artwork along the portion of Highway 99 passing through
the International District.
Modification of project – The project, which is funded by the federal highway
enhancements program, was scheduled to go out for bids in late 2010. The City had
originally applied for funding earlier in 2010 to add lighting elements to the original
project area between approximately 224th and 238th. In late 2010, the City was
informed that a grant of $289,000 would be added to the original funding of
$373,000 to provide for additional light poles. For efficiency purposes, a decision has
been made to delay construction until the project could be completed all at one time.
The budget now totals $662,000 in federal funding.
The paperwork has been submitted to WSDOT to obligate the funds and is pending
approval. Permission has also been obtained by WSDOT to contract with the same
firm who did the original electrical design and a contract has been negotiated.
Design work and bid documents should be completed by mid fall. City staff
Packet Page 88 of 197
anticipate advertising the project in early 2012 with a completion date of
approximately June 2012.
The main project components include the following:
• Replace 6 cobra head light poles with decorative poles that have attached artist
made pedestrian level light lanterns and banner signage – east side.
• Replace 7 cobra head light poles with decorative poles that have attached
standard pedestrian level lights and banner signage – east side both north and
south of original 6.
• Add at least 3 new pedestrian level lights on west side near an island at 76th
Avenue.
• Resurface island at 76th Avenue, add new ADA curb ramps, and install sculptural
lantern artwork with solar panel.
• Replace service cabinet.
The goal is to create a visual gateway and identity for the Edmonds International
District while enhancing the pedestrian experience and safety.
IV. TECHNOLOGY
Goal 3, Policy 3b of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Leverage technology
assets, such as existing fiber connections, to pursue new revenue streams.”
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – The Economic Development and Community Services
staff continue to meet monthly with the City’s Community Technology Advisory
Committee (CTAC) regarding existing technology assets, e.g., fiber and communications
equipment.
• July 5, 2011 – City Fiber Optic system. Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals
affirmed the authority of cities to offer broadband telecommunication services to
individuals and private businesses when they have broadband capacity that is in excess
of the City’s own needs. Because there is no express statutory authority in Washington
for a city to provide telecommunication services (as there is, for example, to provide
water, sewer and electricity services), Edmonds brought a declaratory judgment action
to test the authority to do so. The court affirmed that authority in Snohomish County
Superior Court and has now prevailed on appeal.
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer for the City of
Edmonds continues to work with Judd Boyer Designs on a draft website template prior
to moving forward on refinement of a new City website. City staff are currently
reviewing nearly complete draft web-ages to identify items which need to be
deleted/revised/reformatted, etc., prior to launching.
Packet Page 89 of 197
• July 12, 2011 – As requested by the City Council, Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer
for the City of Edmonds prepared a quarterly update for the City Community Technology
Advisory Committee activities for the July 12, 2011. Discussion of this item was
deferred by the City Council Finance Committee until the August Finance Committee
meeting.
V. TOURISM
Goal 3, Policy 3g of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Expand tourism
efforts to take advantage of regional trends, such as nature tourism.”
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – The Economic Development Commission Tourism
Subgroup has been meeting to discuss tourism development.
• June 9 and July 14, 2011 – I attend Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area (TPA)
meetings to work on bylaws, application procedures, etc. The TPA is working towards
reviewing applications for the eventual disbursement of funds in 2012.
Items of Interest
Energy Efficiency / Sustainability
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• July 1, 2011 – The City launched a new website called EdmondsEnergy.org which
is dedicated to the subject of energy within the Edmonds community, e.g., how is
energy used in Edmonds? What can we do to conserve and reduce energy use...
and reduce what we pay on a daily basis? EdmondsEnergy.org is the place to find
information on: the City’s energy meter program, energy planning in Edmonds,
energy saving ideas, community solar project, hybrid and electric vehicles, bring
your own bag campaign, and how to calculate your energy use.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
In March of 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced plans to invest $3.2 billion
in energy efficiency and conservation projects in U.S. cities, counties, states,
territories, and Native American tribes. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grant (EECBG) program, funded by President Obama’s American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, will provide formula grants for projects that reduce total energy use
and fossil fuel emissions, and improve energy efficiency nationwide. The City of
Edmonds received notification that it is eligible for a $160,200 block grant under the
EECBG program. The City has until June 25, 2009 to submit an application, i.e., "claim"
the grant amount, and 18 months to obligate and three years to expend the funds.
This is an entitlement grant for cities over 35,000 in population, rather than a
competitive grant. On September 22, 2009, the City was notified that the Department of
Packet Page 90 of 197
Energy has awarded an Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant to the City of
Edmonds. The award is the full amount referenced in the March 2009 eligibility
announcement ($160,200). The funds will be used for the following six different
projects. Announcement of the EECBG opportunity was shared with, and the attached
proposed project list was also reviewed by, the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee.
Project 1 - PC Energy Management (federal funds)
Project 2 - Network Server Energy Upgrades – (federal funds)
Project 3 - Residential & Commercial Energy Meters (federal and local non-federal
funds)
Project 4 - Heating System Design and Feasibility Study for Frances Anderson
Center (federal funds)
Project 5 - Purchase Hybrid and Electriz Vehicles – (federal and local non-federal
funds)
Project 6 - Low-Energy Lighting Retrofit – (federal funds)
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• July, 2011 – Project 5: To date, four Toyota Prius’ and two Nissan Leafs have been
purchased. Despite the earthquake in Japan, the Nissan LEAFs have been
produced and are on their sea voyage heading our way. The estimated time of
arrival to the dealership is mid-August.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe – Installation of Second Rail Line
As a part of the Sound Transit’s Sound Move, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) will
be installing a second rail line alongside the existing rail line between the areas north of
Downtown Edmonds and south of Marina Beach Park.
Based on BNSF engineering plans and field stakes, there will be impacts to Admiral Way
and Marina Beach Park. As mentioned within 2010 Community Services and Economic
Development Quarterly Reports, the City secured the services of an engineering firm in
order to fully determine the impact and possibly design a new Admiral Way alignment
that will maintain access to Marina Beach Park, Port of Edmonds and existing parking
areas.
Regarding a timeline related to the installation of a BNSF second rail line, BNSF has
begun grading south of Dayton Street and the installation and relocation of the existing
and second rail lines respectively, could begin sometime in 2011 and 2012 or later. This
being said, I am trying to obtain a definitive date as to when installation of the second
rail line.
Packet Page 91 of 197
Significant Activities Since April 21, 2011
• April, May, June and July, 2011 – BNSF has been installing culverts beneath the
existing rail line and grading for a future second rail line near Marina Beach Park
and off leash area. The culverts, financed by Sound Transit, will allow for the
eventual daylighting of Willow Creek.
Federal Grants
July, 2011 – The City of Edmonds has been quite successful recently in securing
federal grants. The following highlights funding and projects.
1. Downtown Edmonds - Preserve America Grant to match local dollars for
implementing way-finding/interpretive signage = $24,000.
2. 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement - Surface Transportation Program (STP)
grant for design, environmental, and ROW phases = $536,000
3. Main Street Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements (between 5th and
6th Streets) – FHWA Enhancements Grant for design/construction phases =
$725,000
4. Five Corners Roundabout – Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Grant for design,
environmental work and ROW acquisition = $463,000
5. SR International District Illumination Enhancements (Phase 2) - FHWA
Enhancements Grant for design and installation= $289,000 (see related
Section III, Goal 2, Policy 2h above).
6. 76th Avenue W and 212th SW Street Intersection – Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality Grant for design, environmental work and acquisition of right of way =
$940,397.
TOTAL = $2,977,000
Packet Page 92 of 197
AM-4108 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Frances Chapin
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to advertise RFQ for artists to create interpretive elements for the Downtown Edmonds
Cultural Heritage Tour project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval to advertise.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In 2010 the City applied for a Preserve America matching grant to create a Downtown Cultural Heritage
Tour and in early 2011 the funding was approved. Edmonds is one of 22 communities across the nation
to receive a grant in this program. The project is to create a walking tour of downtown Edmonds focused
on a loop along Main Street, north on 4th Avenue up to the Edmonds Center for the Arts and back on
5th. Project elements include artist made interpretive markers for at least 15 sites, a map with historic
information, and website pages with additional information. The goal is to strengthen local identity with
community history and to support economic vitality with a tourism attraction in our walkable downtown.
The project will engage visitors and residents of all ages through combining the historic nature of the
downtown and the community focus on arts in artist designed interpretive elements which highlight
community history and personal stories associated with sites on the walking tour. This project to develop
interpretive elements and way-finding signage was one of the recommendations from the 4th Avenue
Cultural Corridor Plan completed in 2009 which was also funded in part by a Preserve America
grant. Project elements will be designed to be removed and reinstalled when the 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor Plan is implemented in the future.
The total Downtown Cultural Heritage Tour project budget is $48,000 in the 2011 City budget. The
federal grant is $24,000. The City match includes $5000 from REET, $5000 from Economic
Development, $5000 from Lodging Tax, $3000 from Arts Commission 117 fund, a $4000 grant from the
Hubbard Foundation and $2000 from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. The project budget
specifies $38,000 for the artist made interpretive elements.
In accordance with the City public art process administered by the Edmonds Arts Commission the call
for artists was approved by the Edmonds Arts Commission on July 11, 2011 and recommended for
approval at City Council. The artist(s) will be selected through the public art selection process. and a
member of City Council will serve on the selection jury.
Project partners include the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Arts Commission, Historic Preservation
Commission, Edmonds Historical Museum, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds Arts
Packet Page 93 of 197
Festival Foundation, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, and Edmonds Community College.
Attachments
EAC minutes
RFQ artist
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 01:23 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 07/21/2011 11:48 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 94 of 197
DRAFT
MINUTES July 11, 2011
The Edmonds Arts Commission: dedicated to the arts, an integral part of community life.
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department
PRESENT:
Samantha Saether, Chair Joanne Otness STAFF AUDIENCE
Pam Harold Lois Rathvon Frances Chapin
Suzy Maloney Todd Timmcke Kris Gillespie
ABSENT: Mary Monfort, Excused for travel
The meeting was called to order at 6:07 PM by Samantha Saether, Chair.
MINUTES
Timmcke MOVED, Rathvon SECONDED the June 6, 2011 minutes be approved as sent. MOTION
CARRIED.
PROGRAM REPORTS
Creative Programming – Program
1. Public Art – Project Updates –
Chapin distributed a draft “Call for Artists” for the Cultural Heritage Tour interpretive
elements. The artist or artist team will be asked to design, create, and install 15-18 markers ranging
from small signs to larger sculptural or functional pieces along the route. Chapin explained the per
City public art process the City Council approves the call for artists for projects of this budget size
before it is advertised. Otness MOVED approval of the Call for Artists with refinements and
recommended it for approval to by City Council. Harold SECONDED, MOTION CARRIED.
The “Call for Artists” for Temporary Sculpture at the SR104 Mini Park was distributed.
Chapin has talked with the City attorney about the contract and has an approved version.
Mona Smiley-Fairbanks plans to install large sheet metal flowers for her “On the Fence” project
on the fence that belongs to the City at the south end of the Artworks parking lot this weekend. A
call for submissions will be ongoing for this project. Artwork will remain on the fence for 2-6
months.
A list of estimates for Public Art Maintenance was distributed. Chapin suggests that Locals,
Beach Launch, and Sunning Cormorant be cleaned and waxed this summer by Artech ($2,555).
Steve Jensen’s Friendship Tree needs to be cleaned and resealed, but Jensen will need to take it to
his studio to allow it to dry out for several months before he can do the work ($2,500). Another
piece that is in need of attention is Noon Mark, the sundial at the Public Safety Complex. The
terrazzo piece and concrete around it need to be pressure washed, and the piece sanded and sealed
with a tinted sealer. Maintenance crews can do the pressure washing (at a time to be determined),
and Artech will do the sanding and sealing ($2,600). It is a very visible piece and needs to be done as
Packet Page 95 of 197
RFQ for Art Elements to Identify Sites of Historic Interest
Budget $38,000
The City of Edmonds Arts Commission is seeking an artist or artist team to create interpretive ele-
ments for a downtown cultural heritage walking tour. The project will engage visitors and residents of
all ages through combining the historic nature of the core downtown and the community focus on arts
in artist designed interpretive elements which highlight community history and personal stories associ-
ated with sites on the walking tour of the downtown. The artist is invited to create 15-18 unique ele-
ments, from small signage to larger sculptural or functional pieces, which inform the viewer about Ed-
monds’ past while engaging their interest in personal stories and images. The City is working with the
Edmonds Museum and other partners to collect information (oral histories and photographs, etc.)
about life in downtown since the turn of the century. A consultant in historic preservation will be part
of the team as a resource for the artist and to ensure accuracy of the material presented.
The elements may vary considerably in terms of size, materials and content. Designs should take into
consideration the following:
Materials that holds up in a variety of weather conditions including sun, rain and wind; and be
suitable for an outdoor urban setting with pedestrian, skateboard and bicycle traffic;
Meet public safety and accessibility requirements and historic standards for installation where
necessary;
Demonstrate structural soundness, safety and stability for an unsupervised general audience;
Provide both visual interest and historic content to engage viewers of all ages.
ELIGIBILITY-
The commission is open to professional artists or artist teams living or working in the northwest.
COMPENSATION-
The budget is $38,000 for design, fabrication and installation of 15-18 elements. The City of Edmonds
will negotiate easements where necessary, provide a walking tour map with descriptive materials and
artist recognition, and a website with additional information about the pieces and the artist(s). Funding
is in part through a federal Preserve America grant from the National Park Service.
ARTIST SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA-
All applications must include one copy of the following:
Letter of interest in the project, including some general concepts or directions of interest
Current resume for each artist
Visual documentation in digital format of representative work. Up to twelve (12) images will be
CALL TO ARTISTS
Edmonds Heritage Walking Tour
Packet Page 96 of 197
accepted. All images should be clearly annotated. Images should be jpgs 1920 pixels on the
longest side and approximately 300 dpi.
Applications may be submitted by mail to:
Edmonds Arts Commission
700 Main Street
Edmonds WA 98020
Or emailed to:
chapin@ci.edmonds.wa.us
(Emails should not exceed 10 MB)
SELECTION CRITERIA INCLUDE:
Artistic excellence and technical competency
Artist interest in historic materials and creative interpretation
Understanding of the variety of sites and opportunities they present
Familiarity with diverse materials, and durability, maintenance and safety concerns.
Selection will be made through a juried evaluation process facilitated by the City of Edmonds
Arts Commission.
SUBMISSION DEADLINE—September 29, 2011
SELECTION—October 2011
INSTALLATION—Complete by August 2012
City of Edmonds Arts Commission: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/ArtsCommission
Community Cultural Plan: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/ArtsCommission/2008CommunityCulturalPlan.pdf
Packet Page 97 of 197
AM-4100 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:On behalf of Edmonds PFD Submitted By:Cindi Cruz
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Appointment of Marla Miller to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
On June 19, 2001, the Edmonds City Council approved the appointment of a five-member Public
Facilities District (PFD) board. Ordinance No. 3358 states that all board members are to serve four-year
staggered terms. On June 19, 2007 the City Council appointed Maria Montalvo to serve the remainder of
the term originally held by Jan Connor. Ms. Montalvo was appointed for a four-year term on August 24,
2010. Ms. Montalvo submitted her resignation effective May 31, 2011.
Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.57.010, a PFD shall be governed by a board of
directors consisting of five (5) members selected as follows: (a)(i) Two members appointed by the
legislative authority of the City or Town; and (a)(ii) Three members appointed by the legislative authority
based on recommendations from local organizations that may include, but are not limited to, the local
chamber of commerce, local economic development council, and local labor council, etc. The position
held by Ms. Montalvo must be filled by someone recommended by the entities referenced under
subsection (a)(ii).
On June 6, 2011, a press release was issued soliciting for individuals interested in serving on the PFD
Board for the remainder of the term previously held by Maria Montalvo. One resume was received and
after review the Edmonds PFD Board recommends Marla Miller for appointment to the vacant position.
Ms. Miller is the Executive Director of Business & Operations for Edmonds School District, with 32
years of experience in public education and administration. Ms. Miller is a member of the Rotary Club of
Edmonds Daybreakers, the Dale Turner YMCA Strategic Planning Committee, Seattle Milk Fund,
Washington Association of School Administrators and the University of Washington Advisory Board for
Educational Leadership. Ms. Miller has received a recommendation for this appointment from the
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce. If Ms. Miller is appointed to the Edmonds Public Facilities District
Board by the City Council, her term will expire on June 30, 2014.
Attachments
Edmonds PFD Memo
Application
Chamber of Commerce Recommendation
Packet Page 98 of 197
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 11:22 AM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 07/21/2011 11:31 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 11:35 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 07/21/2011 08:50 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 99 of 197
Memorandum
To: Edmonds City Council
Cc: Mayor Mike Cooper
Fr: Edmonds Public Facilities District
Da: July 19, 2011
Re: Recommending Marla Miller for Appointment to the Edmonds Public Facilities
District Board
Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District and the City of
Edmonds, approval of Edmonds City Council is required for appointment to the Edmonds
PFD Board, and/or renewal of Board terms.
On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, the Board of Directors of Edmonds Public Facilities District
(EPFD) voted unanimously to recommend Marla Miller for appointment to the EPFD
Board for a standard four-year term. Ms. Miller will fill the position most recently held
by Maria Montalvo, who resigned on May 31, 2011.
Ms. Miller’s resume and credentials are provided as an attachment to this memorandum.
In addition, and according to the Charter of Edmonds Public Facilities District, a required
letter of support from a local civic organization is also provided as an attachment to this
memorandum.
The Members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors
respectfully request that the Edmonds City Council appoint Marla Miller to the
EPFD Board, Position #1, and that the appointment be effective August 1, 2011.
The current term for Position #1 is scheduled to expire June 30, 2014.
The additional members of the Edmonds PFD Board currently include:
Mr. John McGibbon- President
Mr. Mike Popke
Mr. Bob Rinehart - Vice President / Secretary
Mr. Terry Vehrs
Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director, City of Edmonds – Ex Officio – Treasurer*
We wish to thank the Edmonds City Council for your continued support of Edmonds
Public Facilities District and Edmonds Center for the Arts.
*Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District and the City
of Edmonds, the City’s Finance Director, by virtue of his/her position, serves as an Ex-
Officio Member and Treasurer of the EPFD Board.
Packet Page 100 of 197
Packet Page 101 of 197
Packet Page 102 of 197
Packet Page 103 of 197
AM-4110 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding potential amendments to
downtown BD zones. The amendments focus on uses permitted in designated street fronts in
BD zones, commercial depth requirements, reducing mandatory step-backs, and providing
for Development Agreements to achieve specified city goals.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the Planning Board's recommendation
(Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
Council's CSDS Committee discussed several staff-initiated issues pertaining to downtown BD zones and
asked the Planning Board to review BD zoning issues (see Exhibit 7).
Narrative
After a number of months of discussion and work, the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 8,
2011, on proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43, code requirements pertaining to the downtown BD
zones. The Planning Board’s recommended amendments resulting from that public hearing are contained
in Exhibit 1, which shows a markup version displaying changes from the existing code. A staff summary
of the proposed changes is contained in Exhibit 2, and the Planning Board minutes are in Exhibit 3.
An earlier staff memo describing some of the issues involved is contained in Exhibit 4, with the hearing
draft of the amendments that was considered by the Planning Board contained in Exhibit 5. A map of the
existing downtown BD zones can be found in Exhibit 6.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: PB draft code amendments
Exhibit 2: Staff summary of PB recommendations
Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes
Exhibit 4: Staff memo from 6/8/2011 PB hearing
Exhibit 5: Draft amendments from 6/8/2011 PB hearing
Exhibit 6: Map of BD zones
Exhibit 7: CSDS minutes of 8/11/2010
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 104 of 197
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 04:41 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/21/2011 03:25 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 105 of 197
1
Chapter 16.43
BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
Sections:
16.43.000 Purposes.
16.43.010 Subdistricts.
16.43.020 Uses.
16.43.030 Site development standards.
16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone.
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
16.43.000
Purposes.
The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity.
C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s
focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the
area surrounding this retail core area.
D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.010
Subdistricts.
The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to
implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as
described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are:
BD1 – Downtown Retail Core;
BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial;
BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial;
BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential;
BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 106 of 197
2
16.43.020
Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A
Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A
Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A
Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage
areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a
new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
storage, sales or services
X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and
on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant
or food service establishment that also provides an on-site
retail outlet open to the public
A A A A A
Automobile sales and service X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only
nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents
C A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C
Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an
outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the
Edmonds City Code
A A A A A
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling A A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters A A A A A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R)
A A A A A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.050
C C C A C
Packet Page 107 of 197
3
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community
parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility
otherwise permitted in this zone
B B B B X
Commercial parking lots C C C C X
Wholesale uses X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C
Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X
Laboratories X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as
a permitted use
X X C X X
Day-care centers C C C A C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes,
sanitariums
X C C A X
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined
in ECDC 21.85.033
A A A A A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in
ECDC 21.85.033
C C C C A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for
current alcoholics and drug abusers
X C C A X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D
Notes:
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front
Packet Page 108 of 197
4
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets
the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria
are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular
access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it
shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and
designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street
and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height
along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice
pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use
shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 109 of 197
5
16.43.030
Site development standards.
A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards,
unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of
ECDC 16.43.050.
Table 16.43-2.
Sub
District
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side
Setback1
Minimum
Rear
Setback1
Maximum
Height2
Minimum
Height of
Ground Floor
within the
Designated
Street Front4
BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15'
BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the
surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C).
3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor
consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed
building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then
the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details.
4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the
successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC
16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the
ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including
coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and
concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling
height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone.
Packet Page 110 of 197
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones
Packet Page 111 of 197
Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030
Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
Packet Page 112 of 197
8
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent
sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the
floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation
to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in
ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is
defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot
fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is
established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way,
excluding alleys.
3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum
height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground
floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section.
4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use
is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of
this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of
the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location.
Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply
with the access requirements specified in this section.
5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both
the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within
seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section,
the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be
designed so that either:
a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the
commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven
inches of the grade level of the entry; or
b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground
floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining
where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the
primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary
entry shall always be on 4th Avenue.
Packet Page 113 of 197
16.43.030
6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within
the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the
ground floor outside of the designated street front.
8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a
building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same
requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a
second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the
commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building
setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required,
the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over
four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice
pattern.
9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space,
meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section.
When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then
development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements:
a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean
that:
i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue.
ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details
and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian
(i.e., ground floor) level.
iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be
located between the building and the street front.
b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is
required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site.
i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall
incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building
occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work
space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing
activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the
commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household.
The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation
use can be established within the space.
Packet Page 114 of 197
10
Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development
Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street.
Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the
street.
10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in
subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi-
cations:
a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is
allowed as a permitted secondary use.
b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-
family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property.
c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing
height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or
remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25
percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the
ground floor requirements for height.
d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first
30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be
located within that 30 45 feet).
e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth
measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property,
even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall
the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30
feet.
Packet Page 115 of 197
11
f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as
measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary
uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial
uses.
g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4).
h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the
designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk.
C. Building Height Regulations.
1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030).
2. Within the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height –
increasing the overall building height to a maximum of 30 feet – may be obtained if the building
meets the ground floor requirements for the zone as enumerated in ECDC 16.43.030(B). Step-
Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any
building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples).
a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to
exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following
conditions:
i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-
foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property
line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC
21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building
located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to
provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the
secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth
Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street.
ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front.
Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade
or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a
15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required
from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back
requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets.
iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line,
may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a
five-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot
step-back requirement.
b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to
provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is
measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030.
Packet Page 116 of 197
12
Note: the diagrams on this page are
deleted in the Planning Board
recommendation.
Packet Page 117 of 197
13
3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building
meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the
public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building
design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building
through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms.
a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch
of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as
dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments.
b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection
(C)(3)(a) of this section, the building shall meet the same requirements step-backs shall be
required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described detailed in subsection (C)(2) of this section.
4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the
following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this
chapter:
a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may
extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral
architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural
element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building.
b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height
limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided,
that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example
meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels.
D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply
specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this
chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations,
the provisions of this chapter shall apply.
1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street.
2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within
the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones.
3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of
less than 4,800 square feet.
E. Open Space Requirements.
1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width
of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot
area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing
buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall
be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any
combination of:
a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for
restaurants or food service establishments);
b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public;
c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public.
2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story.
Packet Page 118 of 197
14
3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent
of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to
the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line).
F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings.
1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation
commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may
modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the
expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as
a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section.
b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section.
2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving
building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC
17.50.070(C).
Packet Page 119 of 197
15
3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is
retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on
the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be
recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring
that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the
additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall
continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold.
G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units.
H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and
ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum
height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that
portion of the BD zone that is in residential use.
I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign
standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone.
J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal
Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter
shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009;
Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.035
Design standards – BD1 zone.
Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1,
2008].
16.43.040
Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040;
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord.
3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 120 of 197
16
16.43.050
Development agreements.
A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for
development agreements in ECDC 20.08.
B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may
vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 subject to
the following limitation:
1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35.
C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development
approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver
or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two
of the following criteria:
1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green
building certification;
2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the
city’s economic development goals:
a. a hotel;
b. a post office;
c. a farmers market;
d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists.
3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Without limiting the
scope of enhanced public space and amenities, examples include such features as public
restrooms, additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering
space and/or combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the
sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site
design.
Packet Page 121 of 197
Summary of Planning Board Recommended Changes to BD Zones
1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth
requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded map
covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and the 60‐foot
requirement elsewhere. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is expanded in the code to include
all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify where the primary pedestrian areas are
throughout the downtown BD zones.
2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions to the
Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are allowed, office or
professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot 'designated street front.' In
addition, drive‐in or drive‐through businesses are prohibited in the BD1 zone. Existing non‐
conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code... i.e. they
would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In addition, other
kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e. behind the first 45 feet)
or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the emphasis would be on pedestrian‐
oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone.
3. Step‐back requirements. Step‐backs are no longer required in downtown buildings (currently,
they are not required in the BD1 zone, while a 15‐foot step‐back is required above 25 feet in
other BD zones). The Planning Board concluded that the current step‐backs built into the code
end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be feasible to enforce, and the
design of buildings is determined more by overall height and design standards.
4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the proposed
amendments (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in ECDC 16.43.050 includes
sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. Approval
hinges on meeting at least two of three criteria, generally including (1) attaining at least a LEED
Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; (2) the development incorporates one or
more uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals (such as a hotel, post
office, farmers market, or space for artists); (3) the development includes enhanced public
space and amenities. Development agreements are authorized as an alternative development
approval process, requiring public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council, with
final approval by the Council. Notwithstanding the other criteria, a development agreement
cannot increase the height of a building to be more than 35 feet.
2011.07.15
Packet Page 122 of 197
APPROVED JUNE 22nd
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 8, 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
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
Neil Tibbott
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
John Reed, Vice Chair (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT (BD) ZONES
(FILE NUMBER AMD20110003)
Mr. Chave reviewed each of the proposed amendments as follows:
Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements:
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed map of Designated Street Fronts for BD Zones (Map 16.43-1), which has been
expanded to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. The purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian
areas and commercial uses are intended to be oriented within the BD Zones. He explained that ground floor of properties
along designated street fronts would be required to meet the commercial height and depth requirements. At this time, the
commercial height requirement for the ground floor space of properties along the designated street fronts is 12 feet. The
Packet Page 123 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 2
proposed language identifies a consistent commercial depth requirement of 45 feet, which replaces the 30-foot requirement
in the BD1 zone and the 60-foot requirement elsewhere in the BD zones. Staff believes the 30-foot standard is too small to
ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater standard of 60 feet outside the retail
core (BD1). He reminded the Board that multi-family residential and professional offices would be allowed to locate on the
portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated street front areas and on the upper floors of all buildings in
the BD Zones.
Mr. Chave said the Board is specifically seeking feedback from the public about the proposed amendment to the commercial
depth requirement, as well as the proposed Designated Street Front Map. He advised that staff measured a large number of
commercial spaces in the BD zones in 2005 and 2006, with particular focus on the BD1 zone. They found that the vast
majority of the commercial spaces had a depth of at least 60 feet. Therefore, they believe that a 45-foot commercial depth
requirement would be reasonable to ensure an adequate amount of ground floor commercial space. Again, he emphasized
that this requirement would only apply to properties located along designated street fronts.
Step-Back Requirement:
Mr. Chave explained that, currently, there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone, but there is a 15-foot step-back
requirement in all other BD zones. In order to increase the height of a building from 25 to 30 feet, a 15-foot step-back is
required for the portion of the structure above 25 feet. This requirement results in a significant loss in the amount of
developable area and ends up prohibiting buildings from actually being constructed within the established downtown height
limits. He said the proposed language provided for the hearing identifies a reduced step-back requirement from 15 feet to 5
feet. However, the Board is also considering the option for removing the step-back requirement entirely from all BD zones.
The logic is that if the 30-foot height limit is adequate in the BD1 zone, it should be adequate for all BD zones. In addition,
the step-back requirement does not really add any additional protection that is not already addressed by the existing Design
Guidelines for the BD zones. He said the Board is seeking feedback on whether or not the step-back requirement should be
reduced or eliminated.
Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone:
Mr. Chave explained that the area one to two blocks radiating out from the fountain is known as the downtown retail core or
BD1 zone. Members of the Planning Board surveyed the existing uses in this area and found that it is predominately retail
and restaurant uses, with a fair amount of service uses that are generally compatible with retail uses. However, there are
some uses that are not compatible, such as medical offices and/or other types of offices that do not have walk-in customers.
These uses tend to want to wall off their businesses from the street front, which discourages pedestrian activity. If more of
these types of uses are located in the retail core, they could undermine the viability of the existing retail uses. He particularly
noted that medical uses are required to provide privacy to their patients. Because they have not been allowed to close off
their front windows, they have used privacy screens inside, which have had the same affect.
Mr. Chave said the Board has discussed the idea of prohibiting certain types of uses that are incompatible with the retail core.
As per the proposed amendment in Table 16.43.020, retail, restaurant and service businesses would be allowed, but office
and/or professional office uses would only be located outside the 45-foot designated street front. Another option being
considered by the Board would be even more restrictive to prohibit office and service uses in the designated street front areas
in the BD zone. Only retail and restaurant uses would be allowed. He emphasized that the BD1 zone occupies only a small
portion of the downtown, and the use restrictions would only apply to the designated street front areas. Office uses would
still be allowed elsewhere in the building behind the front retail-oriented uses or on the upper floors of the building. He
noted that if the proposed language is adopted, existing nonconforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules
in the zoning code. They would be allowed to continue as the same type of use so long as they remain occupied.
Development Agreements:
Mr. Chave explained that a development agreement is similar to the “contract rezone” concept, which is no longer used by
the City. As proposed, the development agreement concept would allow flexibility for a developer to propose modifications
to the development standards in exchange for providing a public benefit. He referred to the proposed code language in
Packet Page 124 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 3
Section 16.43.050, which includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. The
Board is seeking specific feedback about whether the criterion is appropriate and whether development agreements should be
available in all BD zones. They would also like feedback about whether specific conditions should be attached to
development agreements, as well as what development standards could be varied, and to what extent.
Mr. Chave said that, as proposed in Section A, development agreements would be reviewed by the Planning Board as part of
a public hearing process. The Board would forward a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council would
conduct another public hearing before making a final decision. The Board’s recommendation and the City Council’s final
decision would be based on whether or not a proposal is consistent with the City’s economic development and
Comprehensive Plan goals and the downtown Design Guidelines.
Mr. Chave reviewed that Section B outlines what can be approved as part of a development agreement. The language
includes two options. One would allow a development agreement to vary any of the site development standards contained in
ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040. An alternative would be to allow a development agreement to vary any of the site
development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 except building height limits would only be allowed to
increase to 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. He recalled that the Board specifically discussed the concept of
using “stories” to address height. He explained that the topography in downtown Edmonds makes this approach difficult.
Because of topographical changes, development on a single lot could accommodate up to three stories on one side, but four
on another. He said the Board is particularly interested in hearing public feedback regarding this concept.
Mr. Chave referred to the criteria for approval of development agreements, which is outlined in the proposed language for
Item C. As proposed, in addition to attaining at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification, a
development would be required to meet at least two of the following three criteria:
1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification.
2. The development incorporates one or more of the follow uses designed to further the City’s economic development
goals: a hotel, a post office, a farmer’s market, and/or studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists.
3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities.
Mr. Chave observed that, typically, sidewalks in the downtown are narrow and buildings are constructed right to the
sidewalk. A developer could propose an expanded sidewalk or plaza area to enhance the pedestrian space, which would meet
one of the criteria for a development agreement. He reminded the Board that a development agreement must be consistent
with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the downtown Design Guidelines.
Chair Lovell referred to the proposed Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) and recalled the Board previously
discussed that a portion of the street front on 5th Avenue between Howell Way and Erben Drive has a steep topography and
is not really an ideal location for retail uses. It was suggested that this area should not be designated as commercial street
front. Mr. Chave recalled this was discussed by the Board and the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) at
a joint meeting. He said staff recommends that the designated street front extend all the way up 5th Avenue to the end of the
BD3 zone. Otherwise, the area would be made available for other types of uses that are not compatible with retail and/or
commercial uses.
Chair Lovell pointed out that Footnote 3 on Page 5 should be amended to identify a 45-foot commercial depth requirement in
rather than a 60-foot requirement.
Board Member Ellis requested further information about how nonconforming uses would be addressed. While he
understands the uses would be allowed to continue for a time after the amendments are approved, he asked when they would
lose their nonconforming status. Board Member Johnson answered that the businesses would be allowed to continue as
nonconforming uses as defined in ECDC 17.40. However, they would not be allowed to expand in any way, including the
number of employees, equipment and/or hours of operation, except as provided in ECDC 17.40.050. If a nonconforming
uses ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use
would be required to conform to the zoning ordinance. In laymen’s terms, the property could be rented to another similar
Packet Page 125 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 4
business or to a permitted use. However, if the building is vacant for six months, it may only be used for conforming uses in
the code.
Board Member Clarke suggested that the Designated Street Front Map does not accurately represent how the City is legally
platted into lots. Rather, it represents ownership. Mr. Chave explained that the map is divided into tax parcels, which are
different than legal lots. In some cases, multiple lots are combined into a single tax parcel. As an example, Board Member
Clarke specifically referred to the properties on the south side of Main Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues South. The
property to the west of the alley is divided into three lots, and the same size of property to the east of the alley is identified as
a single lot because it is under the same ownership. Board Member Clarke pointed out that requiring a 15-foot step-back on
narrow lots for portions of a building above 25 feet makes development challenging, if not impossible. The stepped-back
portion of the buildings would be nonfunctional. Mr. Chave explained that the step-back requirement is particularly onerous
for properties that have two street fronts (the main street front and the alley). These buildings are required to step back 15
feet on each side. Board Member Clarke referred to the property located just west of 3rd Avenue South at the northwest
corner of the alley and questioned if it is legally possible to redevelop just one of the lots based on the current step-back
requirement. Mr. Chave agreed that redeveloping just one of the lots would be very challenging.
Doug Spee, Woodway, said he has an office on Bell Street. He expressed his belief that the proposed code amendments are
well written and would benefit all property owners in the BD zones. They do not favor any particular land owner. He said
that while the step-back concept works well for high-rise development in downtown Seattle, the Board should keep in mind
that development in downtown Edmonds is limited to three stories. Asking a developer to step back the top floor can kill the
design and make a project unfeasible. He expressed his belief that a step-back requirement is the wrong choice to prequalify
a developer for the additional 5 feet in height. Another option would be to allow the additional 5 feet in height if a building
is modulated. He pointed out that the Architectural Design Board has the ability to effectively control whether a proposed
building provides enough modulation to warrant the additional 5 feet in height. A step back should not be the only way a
developer can obtain the additional height.
Mr. Spee referred to the proposed development agreement language (ECDC 16.43.050) and noted that the alternative
language for Item B could be interpreted to allow building heights much greater than 35 feet if a developer proposes a 3-
story building with tall ceiling heights on each floor. He suggested the language be clarified or that the reference to the
number of stories be eliminated altogether.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, thanked the Board for the time and effort they have spent to work through the proposed
amendments. He said he hopes that when they are presented to the City Council, they will be in a good frame of mind to
support the Board’s recommendation. He said he supports most of the changes as proposed. He specifically said he believes
development agreements would stimulate economic development in downtown Edmonds. He noted there has been no new
development in downtown Edmonds since the BD zoning was implemented in early 2006. While the economy is partially to
blame, he believes the other cause is the rigid BD development standards. Currently, the only flexibility allowed in the BD
zones is through a variance, which requires a developer to meet six criteria. While the variance concept is well intended, it
generally curbs the granting of any variance. He said he believes the development agreement provision would open new
opportunities for controlled flexibility. Developers would have more flexibility, but the flexibility would be controlled by
the City Council. It sets up the opportunity for a win-win situation where the developer has to give something in order to get
something in return. He said he hopes the Board can reach a unanimous decision and forward their recommendation to the
City Council as soon as possible.
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, referred to the Planning Board’s minutes of
April 13th, which incorrectly quoted him as stating that “the step-back requirement should be applied in all BD zones.” His
intent was to suggest that he did not see the logic of applying a 15-foot step back in any of the BD zones.
Karen Wiggens, Edmonds, said she supports the Board’s proposal to prohibit office uses in the BD1 zone. It is important
for the retail area to be pedestrian friendly. However, she is not sure she supports the idea of prohibiting service uses, as
well. Many people who visit the nail and hair salons walk to their destinations. She said she also supports the proposal to
change the commercial depth requirement to 45 feet for all BD zones and to eliminate the step-back requirement. She
explained that she owns a building on 2nd Avenue South and James Street, and they are currently negotiating a 10-year lease
Packet Page 126 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 5
with Landau Associates, which will be good for her and for the City. Part of the reason she can negotiate the new lease is
because she can offer additional space on the third floor, which can be expanded on the east side of the building. There is no
reason for a 15-foot step back on her building. If she was not allowed to expand her building to the street front, the City
would lose a good business, and she is not the only property owner in this type of situation. She said that while she supports
the development agreement concept, she cautioned that the proposed language appears to address one specific property,
which can be a dangerous approach.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chair Lovell requested clarification of Mr. Spee’s comment related to the proposed language in Alternative B in ECDC
16.43.050 (height versus stories). He said he does not interpret the language to allow a 3-story building that is greater than
35 feet in height. Mr. Spee said he supports the concept of limiting building height to 35 feet. However, his interpretation of
Alternative B is that a 3-story building could actually be much greater than 35 feet if each of the floors had a 16-foot ceiling
height. He said he does not believe the language, as currently drafted, defines the maximum building height allowed.
Board Member Clarke observed that Ms. Spee is a successful developer in other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area. He
asked him explain how a developer could construct a 4-story building when the height is limited to 35 feet, particularly given
the height required to provide a 12-foot ground floor commercial space, as well as space to locate the mechanical equipment.
Mr. Spee answered that if a lot is sloped, it may be possible to construct four stories on one side. He said that if the proposed
Designated Street Front Map is approved as presented, his property would qualify for four stories because a portion of the
development would be outside the designated street front area. Therefore, he would not be required to provide 12-foot
ceiling heights for the ground floor space. He briefly explained how a 4-story development could be accomplished on his
particular lot.
Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that the objective of development agreements is to enhance flexibility. The
development standards do not take lot size and topography into consideration, and applying a one-size-fits-all approach does
not allow flexibility for developers to explore other options that would enhance overall development without creating a
monstrous development that the community does not want. He recalled that the purpose of the height limit is to avoid
massive buildings. Mr. Spee pointed out that a 30-foot high building could not be considered large. He suggested that one
aspect that is missing from the conversation is that topography creates a stadium setting as you approach the downtown. The
one-size-fits-all approach does not acknowledge that a slightly taller building on 4th Avenue South and Main Street would
not look different from uphill. Development agreements would offer flexibility for the City to allow slightly taller buildings
that do not block view from uphill. They also allow developers an opportunity to try and sell something that makes better
sense to the public and the City Council. He said he has spent several months trying to offer ideas for how his development
could provide more benefits to the community, but the current code language does not allow flexibility to implement any of
the ideas.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that Mr. Spee also owns property in Redmond near their town center, which has potential
for redevelopment. Mr. Spee said he purchased the property in July of 2008 and the permits to construct an 85-foot tall
building were obtained in December of 2010. He said that while Redmond’s development standards are different, they are
not necessarily any better. However, they do not have a building height requirement for their town center zone.
The Board reviewed each of the proposed amendments and took action as follows:
Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone:
CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED TABLE IN
ECDC 16.43.020 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Chave referred to the proposed table and noted that the only term currently defined in the code is “office,” which means
“a building or separate defined space within a building used for a business which does not include on-premises sales of
goods or commodities.” He noted that this definition is not particularly helpful, and that is why staff provided more
descriptive language for office and service uses. He advised that the Board would review all the use classifications after the
Packet Page 127 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 6
University of Washington Team has worked out their proposal for form-based zoning for the Westgate and Five Corners
commercial areas. He referred to the handout that matches the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes to the
1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which identifies very different kinds of service categories.
He recalled the Board has talked about allowing personal service uses in the BD1 zone. He summarized that while they must
deal with use definitions at some point in the future, the proposed amendment is workable because it includes terms that are
used throughout the Development Code.
Board Member Ellis recalled the Board previously discussed the option of prohibiting both office and service uses in the
BD1 zone. However, the motion currently on the floor would only restrict office uses from being located in the designated
street front areas within the BD1 zone.
Board Member Stewart reviewed the updated results of the survey she and Board Member Johnson conducted to identify the
current uses in the BD1 zone. They found that 35% of the designated street fronts were retail uses, 5% were art, and 23%
were restaurant and food services. That means a total of 63% of the uses were retail and/or food related. In addition, 25% of
the space was occupied by beauty and wellness uses, finance, insurance and real estate uses, and professional offices. Other
uses occupied 4% of the space, and 8% of the space was vacant. Mr. Chave observed that professional offices occupy only a
small percentage of the designated street front space in the BD1 zone. However, adopting the proposed language would
eliminate the possibility of more of these uses locating in these critical retail areas.
Board Member Cloutier recalled the Board’s previous discussion about what options a land owner would have if they are
unable to rent their space for a retail use. If a space cannot be rented within a 6-month time period, he suggested it would be
better to allow the space to be rented for a professional office use rather than remain vacant. He questioned how this need
could be addressed. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment would offer no option for other types of uses, and a
development agreement would not be allowed to modify the allowed uses, either. Board Member Stewart suggested the
purpose of the proposed amendment is to serve a greater City need. Landowners have the option of adjusting their rent
and/or terms to attract retail tenants. Mr. Chave recalled an experience shared earlier by Mr. Clifton in which he encouraged
a property owner to think more carefully about the types of businesses he/she was trying to recruit. The property owner
assumed the space was more suitable for office use, but he was able to convince him/her that a retail food business would be
a better choice. The property owner was able to successfully recruit this type of use. Board Member Stewart emphasized
that getting more retail uses in the BD1 zone will be positive for the landowners, too.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that changing the uses allowed in the BD1 zone would not require a successful office
use to terminate now. However, she felt the proposed amendment would be appropriate if the City’s intent is to have retail
uses in the BD1 zone. She agreed that service uses such as nail and hair salons could be part of the retail mix. She would
even support allowing all service uses, but medical and other professional office uses should be prohibited.
Board Member Cloutier agreed the City’s goal is to have retail uses in the BD1 zone. However, he cautioned against
limiting the property owners’ ability to rent their space too much. There should be some provision that allows
nonconforming uses if that is the only type of use interested in the space. Allowing a nonconforming use would be better
than an empty store front. Mr. Chave pointed out that the hardship to property owners would be mitigated by the fact that
the use restrictions would only apply to the portions of buildings located within the designated street front. The limited use
would apply to just a very small portion of the downtown area, and he would advocate holding firm on the areas that matter
(BD1 zone).
Board Member Clarke said it appears that the vacant properties in the BD1 zone are designed for retail rather than
professional office uses. Mr. Chave added that much of the vacant space is in space that has never been occupied but was
constructed for retail uses. Board Member Clarke said he cannot foresee a situation in which the proposed amendment
would place a hardship on a property owner. He expressed his belief that the proposed amendment represents the best
interest of the public and provides a fair balance between the needs of the landowners and the current economic conditions.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that, as proposed, drive-through businesses would no longer be allowed in the BD1
zone. The Board has generally agreed with this approach. However, as she reviewed the table of permitted uses, her
attention was drawn to hotel and motel uses, both of which are permitted primary uses in the BD1 zone. She explained that a
Packet Page 128 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 7
motel is designed for auto travelers, and a hotel is defined in Chapter 21 as containing five or more separately-occupied
rooms. A boarding house is a use that contains not more than four rooms for lodgers and boarders. She expressed her belief
that hotel and boarding house uses seem to be more consistent for the BD1 zone, but perhaps motels should be excluded.
Motels require an additional driveway access, which is similar to a drive-through business. If one is permitted and the other
is not, it appears to be contrary to the desired pedestrian environment in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave acknowledged that, at
one time, the terms “hotel” and “motel” were defined differently, but now there is much less distinction. He reminded the
Board that the BD1 development standards prohibit additional curb cuts, which would address issues related to access.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that the definitions she provided came directly from the existing ECDC. Mr. Chave
agreed but said the definitions are old and need to be reviewed and updated at some point in the near future. Board Member
Clarke explained that the term “drive-through” references the fact that a user is maintaining their auto in the rendering of the
service such as a coffee stand, a fast-food restaurant, etc. People are served while they remain in their cars. On the other
hand, people who visit motels are required to park their cars to access their rooms. In the transient lodging world, which
covers hotels, motels, etc., there is no such thing as a drive-through motel. Therefore, he suggested that motels are unrelated
to drive-through uses. He summarized his belief that the City should not prohibit transient lodging facilities in the BD1
zone.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements:
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO ECDC 16.43.030 TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL DEPTH REQUIREMENT TO 45 FEET
IN ALL BD ZONES AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH THE CORRECTION TO FOOTNOTE 3 (CHANGE 60
FEET TO 45 FEET). HE FURTHER MOVED THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNATED
STREET FRONT FOR BD ZONES MAP AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER STEWART
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Step-Back Requirements:
CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE STEP-BACK REQUIREMENT BE
ELIMINATED IN ALL BD ZONES. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Lovell said the logic behind his motion is that the Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines provide that building
design shall include façade articulation and/or modulation. Using changes in textures, materials and articulation can achieve
the same aesthetic result as requiring a step back. He expressed his belief that even a 5-foot step back would be too much
when multiplied by the entire width of the lot.
Board Member Clarke observed that there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. Similar to how the commercial
depth requirement was changed to be consistent for all BD zones, he said he would support a consistent step-back
requirement. He said the existing architecture in the BD zones reflects the uniformity of no step-back requirement since no
new development has occurred since the step-back requirement was implemented. As examples, he noted the Windermere
Building, City Hall, the Harbor Building, and the condominiums built in downtown. He concluded that the step-back
provision has not proven to be a valuable contribution to the building code. For uniformity and to be consistent with how the
City is currently developed, he recommended the step-back requirement be eliminated.
Board Member Ellis said he supports the motion to eliminate the step-back requirement for the same reasons that were stated
by Board Member Clarke and Chair Lovell. He said he does not see why they should have a different step-back requirement
for any of the BD zones. The current requirement is too blunt an instrument to accomplish its goal.
Chair Lovell referred to written comments submitted by Vice Chair Reed, which state, “I think the step-back change is good,
though upper floor step-backs are a good design feature that I would hope is still used. Otherwise, we could end up with
shoe boxes for the sake of maximizing square footage.”
Packet Page 129 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 8
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 130 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 9
Development Agreements:
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR
ECDC 16.43.050 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, USING ALTERNATIVE B. CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Board Member Cloutier referred to Mr. Spee’s earlier concern that using the term “story” could result in building that are
significantly taller than 35 feet if a developer chooses to construct three stories that are each 16 feet tall. He reminded the
Board that the additional height would only be allowed via an approved development agreement, which would be reviewed
by both the Planning Board and the City Council. If the proposed height of a development is unreasonable, the City would
not be obligated to approve the development agreement. A developer would have to make a strong case to support why each
story would have to be so tall, and each request would be weighed against the Downtown Design Guidelines and the
Comprehensive Plan policies.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that one Board Member expressed concern that if all provisions in ECDC 16.43.030 and
16.43.040 can be altered with the exception of height, these two code sections would be meaningless. He reminded the
Board that any code diversion would have to be approved by the City Council as part of a development agreement. Mr.
Chave added that a developer would have to make a case to support his request to modify a development standard. Board
Member Cloutier said a Board Member also raised the question of what would happen if a developer chooses not to meet one
of the requirements of ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 after a development agreement has been approved. Mr. Chave
answered that the developer would be required to either amend the development agreement or request an entirely new
development agreement, both of which would require a public process and final approval by the City Council. These
inconsistencies should be caught during the development permit review, and no development permit would be issued for a
project that does not meet all of the code requirements as outlined in the development agreement.
While he actually recommended including the reference to “stories” in Alternative B, Board Member Clarke questioned if it
is needed if the goal is to create flexibility. He asked if the 35-foot maximum height limit would provide enough safeguard
that someone would not be able to build a taller structure. If so, then reference to “stories” is irrelevant. Mr. Chave agreed
and noted that height has traditionally been regulated based on a specific height and not stories. The language related to
stories was added at the request of the Board. It is not really necessary. Board Member Clarke said it is possible for a
development that is 35-feet high to include a taller first floor to accommodate the mechanical equipment and a taller third
story to provide a greater ceiling height for residential units. This would allow for development that is architecturally unique
and different than a standard box. He noted that other municipalities are allowing flexibility in their codes for this type of
development. He said he would support the motion, but he would like to amend it to delete the reference to “three stories.”
Board Member Ellis suggested it would make more sense to change Alternative B to read, “A development agreement for a
development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040
except building height may only be increased to 35 feet.” Board Member Chave agreed that would be appropriate and would
not alter the intent of the proposed language.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO DELETE THE WORDS “OR
THREE STORIES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER” FROM ITEM B.1. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED
THE MOTION.
Board Member Clarke said he appreciates that the City Council takes the time to read the Board’s minutes because they have
spent a lot of time on this issue. That is one of the reasons he has taken the time to have the discussion about building
heights versus stories and the combination of the two. This discussion helps to lay the foundation so the City Council can
see the complexity of the problem they face in the BD zones and offer a solution that meets the Design Guidelines and
Comprehensive Plan Policies to encourage positive economic development and suitability to the community in long-term
investments with the anticipation of providing economic benefits for all stakeholders in the community. Board Member
Clarke said it is important for the City Council and the public to have a clear understanding of the concept of highest and
best use of the development of real estate. He explained that there are four criteria for evaluating the highest and best use of
a piece of property:
Packet Page 131 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 10
1. Potential Development. The potential development must be physically possible based on current construction
standards and standards associated with the site.
2. Legally Permissible. This falls directly under the zoning code and development standards to create the elasticity on
legally permissibility. Flexibility in the code enables the highest and best use to expand and adapt to different
market conditions, which is critical in the development arena.
3. Financially Feasible. This is a key concept for the community to consider. For example, if the cost of land and the
cost of construction are both high, these costs must be covered by the economic feasibility of the proposed project.
This is one reason why the step-back requirement is onerous. It reduces a developer’s opportunity to spread the
financial viability over a larger footprint. The Board has enhanced the concept of highest and best use by
recommending that the step-back requirement be eliminated and by establishing a uniform commercial depth
requirement of 45 feet. Both of these amendments allow for more flexibility for the types of land uses that can be
put in the BD zones. It also enhances the arena for financial feasibility.
4. Maximum Productivity. Maximum productivity is based on opportunity costs. If a developer has two alternatives,
they must determine which one produces the maximum productivity of the asset. The zoning code helps the
developer be able to choose the best of all the land uses based on economics at the time of development.
Board Member Clarke summarized that if all four criteria can be met, there is a high probability that the project will be
sustainable over the long term and improve the return to all stakeholders through increased tax revenues and enhanced use of
the property by the community. He said the Board has worked hard to create an environment that meets and exceeds the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the economic sustainability of the community. Developers will be able to
speak to all four points with more flexibility, and there will be more opportunities for return to the community.
Chair Lovell referred to Vice Chair Reed’s written concern about changes that occur after a development agreement has been
approved. Mr. Chave clarified that the staff cannot unilaterally change a development agreement. Changes would have to
go back to the City Council for approval.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed amendment incentivizes the City’s goal of being sustainable by
requiring Silver and/or Gold LEED or equivalent for all development agreements. It is also important to consider the
concept of adaptive reuse so that the uses of buildings can be altered as the market changes without requiring substantial
redevelopment. In addition, new construction should use local materials and other sustainable resources, be energy efficient,
maximize day lighting to reduce electricity requirements, and safeguard the indoor environmental quality by eliminating the
use of toxic materials. She summarized that return on investment is not just about construction costs, it also includes
reducing operating costs over the life of a building. These measures will help improve the economic and social sustainability
of the City.
Board Member Ellis questioned how the Board came up with the four uses outlined in Item C.2. Mr. Chave said these uses
were identified in discussions with the Planning Board and CEDC as priorities for promoting tourism in the downtown.
Board Member Ellis asked if this list is intended to be exclusive of the things that are desirable or if additional uses could be
added. Mr. Chave agreed that the four items may not be the only important and desirable uses, but they represent those that
have been identified thus far. Board Member Ellis questioned if specifically identifying these uses would preclude other
desirable uses in the future. Mr. Chave pointed out that the language could be amended in the future if more uses are
identified. Board Member Ellis suggested that a better option would be to identify the four uses as potential examples, but
not all inclusive. Mr. Chave cautioned against leaving the language so extremely open ended.
Board Member Clarke suggested another option would be to add “or characteristics” after “uses,” and then include a
provision that allows the Planning Board to make recommendations to the City Council for uses or other characteristics that
may be considered in the future. This would allow the document to be more flexible rather than restricted to just those four
uses. Mr. Chave pointed out that this process would really be no less time consuming than a development code amendment
to add another use.
Board Member Clarke said it is important for the City Council to see that this concept was considered by the Board and their
intent is that it not be limited to the four uses identified in Item C.2. Neither is the language intended to apply to the needs of
Packet Page 132 of 197
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 11
just one property owner. Mr. Chave said the items on the list have been pursued and talked about at various levels for quite
some time. He said the list is intended to represent the uses that have been identified to this point. He noted that the City
Council would also have the ability to add additional uses to the list prior to their final approval.
Board Member Johnson reminded the Board that in previous discussions with the CEDC, public restrooms were identified as
a desired public amenity. She suggested that the words “public restrooms” be inserted into Item C.3 as an example of a
potential public amenity.
Board Member Ellis requested clarification of how Criteria C.3 would be applied. Mr. Chave clarified that art features
would only be required if the applicant chooses to utilize Criteria C.3, which calls for enhanced public space and amenities.
Board Member Ellis suggested that the words “without limiting the scope of enhanced public space and amenities,” be added
at the beginning of the second sentence to make it clear that developers can propose public space and amenities that are not
included on the list of examples.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO CHANGE ITEM C.3 TO
READ, “THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES. WITHOUT
LIMITING THE SCOPE OF ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES, EXAMPLES INCLUDE SUCH
FEATURES AS PUBLIC RESTROOMS, ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS WHICH PROVIDE EXPANDED
PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR GATHERING SPACE, AND/OR COMBINED WITH EATING OR FOOD RETAIL
SPACES WHICH INCLUDE OPEN AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK. ART FEATURES VISIBLE TO
THE PUBLIC SHALL ALSO BE INCORPORATED INTO BUILDING AND/OR SITE DESIGN.” BOARD
MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MAIN MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ECDC 16.43.050
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave announced that the Board Members have been invited to attend the CEDC’s June 15th meeting, at which the
University of Washington/Cascade Land Conservancy Team will provide a final update on their work with the Five Corners
and Westgate Commercial Centers before presenting their findings to the City Council. The Board would be invited guests
of the CEDC and would not be voting on the item. He explained that after their presentation to the City Council, the Team
would ask the City Council for authorization to begin the formal review of the Development Code and then the item will
come before the Planning Board for review.
Mr. Chave advised that Mr. Lien would be present at the Board’s June 22nd meeting to discuss the Shoreline Master Program
Update.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart announced that the City of Bellingham is sponsoring their 9th Annual Imagine This! Home and
Landscape Tour on June 25th and 26th from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She said she would not be able to attend the event. She
encouraged Board members to visit http://sustainableconnections.org/events/9th-annual-home-and-landscape-tour for more
information. She felt the event would be of interest to the Board given the City’s goal of implementing green initiatives in
Edmonds. She would like ideas for promotional events to show off green projects that have occurred in the City.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Packet Page 133 of 197
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
5
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
6
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
7
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
8
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
9
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
0
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
1
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
2
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
3
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
4
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
5
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
6
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
7
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
8
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
9
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
0
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
1
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
2
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
3
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
4
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
5
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
6
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
7
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
8
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
9
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
0
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
1
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
2
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
3
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
4
o
f
1
9
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
5
o
f
1
9
7
Item #__6a_
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Meeting Date: June 8, 2011
Agenda Subject: Public Hearing on draft amendments to downtown BD zones.
Staff Lead /
Author:
Rob Chave
Initiated By: City Council Planning Board City Staff
Citizen Request Other:
The Planning Board had discussions on potential amendments to the downtown BD
zones during its meetings on March 9th, March 23rd , April 13th, and April 27th of this
year. The draft amendment language prepared for the public hearing show what the BD
zoning chapter would look like if the following features were included:
1. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions
to the Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are
allowed, office or professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot
'designated street front.' Presumably if these rules are adopted, existing non‐
conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code...
i.e. they would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In
addition, other kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e.
behind the first 45 feet) or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the
emphasis would be on pedestrian‐oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along
commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone. Another option being considered by the
Planning Board is to be even more restrictive, i.e. prohibiting office, professional office,
and service uses in the ‘designated street front’ of the BD1 zone. Only retail and
restaurant uses would be allowed along the street front.
2. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth
requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded
map covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and
the 60‐foot requirement elsewhere. Staff believes the 30‐foot standard is too small to
ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater
Edmonds Planning Board
Agenda Memo
Packet Page 166 of 197
standard (i.e. 60 feet) outside the retail core. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is
expanded in the code to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify
where the primary pedestrian areas are throughout the downtown BD zones.
3. Step‐back requirements. The issue here is that it appears that the current step‐backs
built into the code end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be
feasible to enforce. This in turn ends up prohibiting a building from actually being built
within the established downtown height limits. In the sample draft provided for the
hearing, step‐backs are reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet. As another option, the Board is
also considering removing the requirement entirely. Currently, there is no step‐back
requirement in the BD1 zone, but a 15‐foot step‐back is required in other BD zones.
4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the current
draft code amendment language (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in
ECDC 16.43.050 includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a
development agreement. The Planning Board has been discussing whether these are the
right criteria, and whether development agreements should be available in all BD zones.
For example, the Board has discussed not allowing these types of development
agreements in the BD5 zone (the Fourth Avenue Arts Corridor).
Packet Page 167 of 197
1
Chapter 16.43
BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
Sections:
16.43.000 Purposes.
16.43.010 Subdistricts.
16.43.020 Uses.
16.43.030 Site development standards.
16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone.
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
16.43.000
Purposes.
The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity.
C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s
focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the
area surrounding this retail core area.
D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.010
Subdistricts.
The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to
implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as
described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are:
BD1 – Downtown Retail Core;
BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial;
BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial;
BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential;
BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 168 of 197
2
16.43.020
Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A
Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A
Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A
Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage
areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a
new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
storage, sales or services
X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and
on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant
or food service establishment that also provides an on-site
retail outlet open to the public
A A A A A
Automobile sales and service X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only
nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents
C A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C
Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an
outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the
Edmonds City Code
A A A A A
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling A A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters A A A A A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R)
A A A A A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.050
C C C A C
Packet Page 169 of 197
3
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community
parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility
otherwise permitted in this zone
B B B B X
Commercial parking lots C C C C X
Wholesale uses X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C
Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X
Laboratories X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as
a permitted use
X X C X X
Day-care centers C C C A C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes,
sanitariums
X C C A X
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined
in ECDC 21.85.033
A A A A A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in
ECDC 21.85.033
C C C C A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for
current alcoholics and drug abusers
X C C A X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D
Notes:
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front
Packet Page 170 of 197
4
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets
the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria
are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular
access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it
shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and
designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street
and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height
along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice
pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use
shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 171 of 197
5
16.43.030
Site development standards.
A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards,
unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of
ECDC 16.43.050.
Table 16.43-2.
Sub
District
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side
Setback1
Minimum
Rear
Setback1
Maximum
Height2
Minimum
Height of
Ground Floor
within the
Designated
Street Front4
BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15'
BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the
surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C).
3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor
consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed
building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then
the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details.
4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the
successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC
16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the
ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including
coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and
concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling
height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone.
Packet Page 172 of 197
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones
Packet Page 173 of 197
Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030
Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
Packet Page 174 of 197
8
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent
sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the
floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation
to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in
ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is
defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot
fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is
established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way,
excluding alleys.
3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum
height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground
floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section.
4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use
is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of
this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of
the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location.
Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply
with the access requirements specified in this section.
5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both
the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within
seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section,
the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be
designed so that either:
a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the
commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven
inches of the grade level of the entry; or
b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground
floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining
where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the
primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary
entry shall always be on 4th Avenue.
Packet Page 175 of 197
16.43.030
6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within
the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the
ground floor outside of the designated street front.
8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a
building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same
requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a
second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the
commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building
setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required,
the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over
four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice
pattern.
9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space,
meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section.
When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then
development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements:
a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean
that:
i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue.
ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details
and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian
(i.e., ground floor) level.
iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be
located between the building and the street front.
b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is
required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site.
i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall
incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building
occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work
space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing
activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the
commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household.
The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation
use can be established within the space.
Packet Page 176 of 197
10
Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development
Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street.
Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the
street.
10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in
subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi-
cations:
a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is
allowed as a permitted secondary use.
b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-
family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property.
c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing
height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or
remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25
percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the
ground floor requirements for height.
d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first
30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be
located within that 30 45 feet).
e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth
measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property,
even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall
the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30
feet.
Packet Page 177 of 197
11
f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as
measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary
uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial
uses.
g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4).
h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the
designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk.
C. Building Height Regulations.
1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030).
2. Step-Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building
height for any building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated
examples).
a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to
exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following
conditions:
i. A building step-back is provided within 15 5 feet of any street front. Within the
155-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the
property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined
in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 155-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a
building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to
enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be
waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs
required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street.
ii. A 155-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front.
Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade
or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a
155-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 155-foot step-back
required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-
back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets.
iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line,
may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a
fivetwo-foot building setback can be combined with a 103-foot building step-back to meet the
155-foot step-back requirement.
b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to
provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is
measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030.
Packet Page 178 of 197
12
Note: the diagrams on this page must
be changed to match any changes to
required the step-back (e.g. 0 or 5 ft)
Packet Page 179 of 197
13
3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building
meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the
public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building
design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building
through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms.
a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch
of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as
dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments.
b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection
(C)(3)(a) of this section, step-backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described
in subsection (C)(2) of this section.
4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the
following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this
chapter:
a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may
extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral
architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural
element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building.
b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height
limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided,
that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example
meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels.
D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply
specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this
chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations,
the provisions of this chapter shall apply.
1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street.
2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within
the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones.
3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of
less than 4,800 square feet.
E. Open Space Requirements.
1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width
of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot
area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing
buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall
be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any
combination of:
a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for
restaurants or food service establishments);
b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public;
c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public.
2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story.
Packet Page 180 of 197
14
3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent
of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to
the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line).
F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings.
1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation
commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may
modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the
expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as
a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section.
b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section.
2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving
building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC
17.50.070(C).
Packet Page 181 of 197
15
3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is
retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on
the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be
recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring
that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the
additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall
continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold.
G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units.
H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and
ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum
height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that
portion of the BD zone that is in residential use.
I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign
standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone.
J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal
Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter
shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009;
Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.035
Design standards – BD1 zone.
Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1,
2008].
16.43.040
Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040;
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord.
3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 182 of 197
16
16.43.050
Development agreements.
A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for
development agreements in ECDC 20.08.
B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may
vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040.
{The following Alternative to “B” is also being considered}
B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone
may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or
16.43.040 subject to the following limitation:
1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35 feet or three
stories, whichever is greater.
C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development
approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver
or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two
of the following criteria:
1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green
building certification;
2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the
city’s economic development goals:
a. a hotel;
b. a post office;
c. a farmers market;
d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists.
3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Examples include such
features as additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering
space, combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the
sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site
design.
Packet Page 183 of 197
(((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
!!
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
(((((((((((((
((((((((((((
((((
((((
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
(((
(((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((
((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((
((((((((
((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
((((((((((((((
((
((((((((((
(((((((((((
((((
((((((
(((((
(((((((
(((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((
((((((((((
((
((
(((
((((((((((
((
!
!
((((
((((((((((((
(((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
((((
((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
((((
(((((((((((
!
!
!
!!
((((((((
((((
!
((
!
!
((((((((((((((((
((((((((
((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
(((((
(((((
(((((
(((((
((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
(
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
Br
a
c
k
e
t
t
'
s
La
n
d
i
n
g
No
r
t
h
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
B
e
a
c
h
Br
a
c
k
e
t
t
'
s
La
n
d
i
n
g
So
u
t
h
Civic
Pl
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
s
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Ma
r
s
h
[e
[e
[e
[e[e
[e
[e
[e
[e
[e RS
-
6
P
PP
P
OS
M P1
MP
2
CG
W
CW
BC
RS
-
6
RS
-
6
RM
-
2
.
4
BD
3
BD
1
RM-1.5
BD
5
BD
4
RM
-
1
.
5
RS-6 RS-6
RM
-
1
.
5
RM
-
3
BD
2
BD
2
BD2
BD
2
OR
R-
1
9
7
9
-
4
R-
1
9
9
5
-
1
7
7
R -19
9
8
-20
7
R-
2
0
0
2
-
1
0
1
PRD 2002-102 M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
N
M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST
4
T
H
A
V
E
N
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
J A M E S S T
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
5
T
H
A
V
E
N
H E M L O C K
W A Y
H O W E L L
W A Y
S
U
N
S
E
T
A
V
E
S
H E M L O C K S T
P I N E S T
H O L L Y
D R
L A U R E L S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
N
B E L L S T
M A I N S T
6
T
H
A
V
E
N
D A Y T O N
S T
H O M E L A N D
D R
W D A Y T O N S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
D
M
O
N
D
S
W
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVEN
W A
L N U T
S T
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y
S E A M O N T
L N
E R B E
N
D R
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
S
T
DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
E D M O N D S S T
8THAVESBELLST
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
A L D E R
S T
S P R U C E S T
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
8THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
S P R A G U E S T
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
8THAVEN
M
O
N
D
S
W
A
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
N
M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST
4
T
H
A
V
E
N
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
J A M E S S T
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
5
T
H
A
V
E
N
H E M L O C K
W A Y
H O W E L L
W A Y
S
U
N
S
E
T
A
V
E
S
H E M L O C K S T
P I N E S T
H O L L Y
D R
L A U R E L S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
N
B E L L S T
M A I N S T
6
T
H
A
V
E
N
D A Y T O N
S T
H O M E L A N D
D R
W D A Y T O N S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
D
M
O
N
D
S
W
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVEN
W A
L N U T
S T
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y
S E A M O N T
L N
E R B E
N
D R
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
S
T
DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
E D M O N D S S T
8THAVESBELLST
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
A L D E R
S T
S P R U C E S T
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
8THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
S P R A G U E S T
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
8THAVEN
M
O
N
D
S
W
A
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
4
of
19
7
D R A F T M I N U T E S
Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting
August 11, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Council Member Petso Brian McIntosh, Parks Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Stephen Clifton, CS/Econ Dev Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
The committee convened at 6:17 p.m.
A. Continued discussion regarding a proposed “Tree Board.”
Barbara Tipton, Rich Senderoff, and Ann Heckman participated in the discussion, explaining that the
benefits and purpose of establishing a tree board are outlined in the draft ordinance. A major
purpose is to move the city toward obtaining the Tree City USA designation, since having a tree
board is a necessary requirement for obtaining that status. The ordinance does not introduce any
new regulations or requirements beyond what the city is already doing, but the designation would
enable the city to seek funding to help in researching and promoting the benefits of trees in the
community. The tree board could also serve as a resource the city could draw on.
The Committee also briefly discussed existing penalties for tree cutting, and agreed to discuss this
subject further at the September meeting.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the draft ordinance to the City Attorney to put in final
form for consideration for adoption by the full Council.
B. Removing leashed dog restrictions in Hutt Park and the asphalt areas of Brackett's
Landing north and south of the ferry terminal.
Brian McIntosh explained that the proposal to extend provisions to allow dogs to be on-leash in Hutt
Park came about at the April 20, 2010 public hearing in regard to a similar discussion for five other
park areas in the City. Three of those parks were recommended to become on-leash (with
restrictions) and Council decided not to extend that recommendation to Brackett’s Landing North &
South. As Hutt Park was not part of the public hearing, it was decided to take this to Council
Committee as the next step.
Council President Bernheim tonight spoke in favor of extending the on-leash areas to both Brackett’s
Landing North & South Parks adjacent to the ferry terminal. Consensus of the Committee was to
move forward with the proposal for Hutt Park but deny the request to extend on-leash provisions to
the Brackett’s Landing parks.
ACTION: As this action would result in a code change, the Committee agreed that it should
be forwarded to full Council as a public hearing at a future date.
Packet Page 185 of 197
CS/DS Committee Minutes
April 14, 2009
Page 2
2
C. Discussion on possible 'green' initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business
zones.
Rob Chave introduced the discussion by explaining that there are several items staff wishes to
initiate to clean up in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial
uses, the zoning requirements along the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the
commercial street frontages are outside of the BD1 zone. In addition, Stephen Clifton reported that
staff has been fielding inquiries from major private interests on zoning requirements related to
downtown; these interests range from individual property owners to developers of hotels and other
projects. In all cases, concern has been expressed about working within existing code requirements.
In light of the city’s adoption of its sustainability element, staff considers it a good time to see
whether Council would be receptive to including incentives in the code that would promote features
such as green building projects (LEED Gold being an example), expanded open space and sidewalk
areas, or other amenities that would improve downtown streetscape and design. Additional height
was noted as being something developers have asked about, and that small, carefully situated
height bonuses implemented as part of a project-specific negotiated development agreement
approved by Council, could be something that staff and the Council could develop within the code.
Council Member Peterson noted that this could be something that fits well with the city’s economic
development goals, as well as showing leadership in sustainability and green development. Council
Member Petso expressed support for including green development standards within the code as a
basic requirement, but said she did not support trading environmental benefits for any increases in
height or other incentives.
The Committee discussed the approach of asking the full Council to discuss the issue, or allow the
Economic Development Commission to work with the Climate Committee and/or Planning Board to
develop some ideas that could be brought back to the Committee for further discussion.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the staff recommended minor BD zone updates
(review of the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor zoning and street frontage mapping) to the Planning
Board for review. The Committee also forwarded the commercial depth requirements to the
Planning Board, asking the Board to review the existing depth for the BD1 zone along with
the other BD zones; the Committee expressed doubt that the existing 30-foot depth in the
BD1 zone is adequate to encourage sustainable commercial use.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the issue of code incentives and/or requirements
for sustainable development downtown to the EDC and Climate Committee to develop
further, with ideas brought back to the Committee for further review and discussion.
D. Proposed 8th Ave South pathway south of Alder Street.
Rob English (City Engineer) presented Mr. Adams’ proposal to build a pathway between 802 and
724 Alder St. in the unimproved 8th Ave right of way. The pathway would begin at Alder St and
continue to the existing path on the south half of the 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut
Streets. Mr. Adams has offered to hire and pay a contractor to construct the path. The conceptual
drawing submitted by Mr. Adams was shown to the committee.
The history on previous City Council action related to the possible vacation of 8th Ave and the
pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets was discussed. In November 2005, the City Council
decided not to pursue the vacation of 8th Ave and in February 2006, the City Council directed staff
to build only the south half of the pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets.
Packet Page 186 of 197
CS/DS Committee Minutes
April 14, 2009
Page 3
3
The Committee recognized and asked for comments from Mr. and Mrs. Martin who own 724 Alder
St. The Martins explained their observations of how the path is used by citizens and how they
believe a new pathway is not necessary. They also expressed that Mr. Adams is one of four
property owners adjacent to the unopened 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut Streets
and he is the only owner in favor of constructing the proposed pathway.
ACTION: The Committee voted to not proceed with Mr. Adams’ request to construct the
proposed pathway.
Packet Page 187 of 197
AM-4106 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 07/26/2011
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Action regarding Levy.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Attached are three separate Ordinances prepared by the City Attorney for City Council discussion and
consideration.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Levy Lid Lift Ordinance for General Fund
Exhibit 2: Levy Lid Lift Ordinance for Street Overlay
Exhibit 3: Levy Lid Lift Ordinance for Parks and Building Maintenance.pdf
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 11:22 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 07/21/2011 05:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/21/2011 05:27 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 07/21/2011 11:15 AM
Final Approval Date: 07/21/2011
Packet Page 188 of 197
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES;
PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF
THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A
PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW FOR GENERAL FUND PURPOSES;
SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING
THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION
ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.050 provides for the levy of regular property taxes in an amount exceeding
the limitations specified in chapter 84.55 RCW if such increased levy is authorized by a ballot
proposition approved by a majority of the voters at an election held within the taxing district (a “levy
lid lift”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its
residents to submit a levy lid lift proposition under RCW 84.55.050(1) to the voters for their
approval or rejection;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to ask the voters whether they are willing to fund
$__________ for the general fund through a levy lid lift for each of the years 2012, 2013, and 2014;
and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office estimates that the City’s 2012 assessed value
will be approximately $5.795 billion; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Levy Lid Lift Election Called For. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, the Edmonds City
Council hereby calls for submission of a proposition to the qualified electors of the City asking
whether the City shall levy regular property taxes in excess of the limitation established in RCW
84.55.010. The Snohomish County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish
County, is hereby requested to call and conduct the election referenced herein in the City of
Edmonds on November 8, 2011. The proposition to be submitted to the qualified voters of the
City for their approval or rejection is to authorize increasing the City’s regular property tax levy by
$0.__ per $1,000 of assessed valuation, to a total levy rate of $___ per one thousand dollars of
assessed valuation (if only this proposition passes), for collection beginning in 2012. If this
proposition is approved, the City Council will be authorized to adopt, in accordance with its regular
budget process, an increased regular property tax as described herein.
Packet Page 189 of 197
Section 2. Purpose of Levy and Description of Ballot Proposition. For the purposes identified
below, the City Council seeks voter approval under RCW 84.55.050 for a levy lid lift, as follows:
(a) Purpose. The amounts collected pursuant to the increase authorized by the Proposition may
be used for any government purpose.
(b) Increase Authorized Beginning in 2012. The Proposition authorizes a maximum increase in
the City’s total levy rate to the maximum rate otherwise allowed for collection in 2012 under
chapter 84.55 RCW plus not to exceed $0.__ per $1,000 of assessed value. The total regular
property tax rate produced is estimated to be approximately $___ per $1,000 of assessed
value (if only this proposition passes), based on estimated 2012 assessed values.
(c) Increase Authorized for Future Years through 2014. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(4), the
dollar amount of the maximum authorized levy under chapter 84.55 RCW for collection in
2012 shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies in
2013 and 2014 provided for under chapter 84.55 RCW, and such funds shall be limited to
the purposes described in Section 2(a), above.
Section 3. Ballot Proposition. The City Clerk is here by authorized and directed, not later than
August __, 2011, to certify a copy of this ordinance and a proposition to the Auditor of Snohomish
County, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections in Snohomish County Washington, in substantially the
following form:
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROPOSITION NO. __
Levy for General Fund
The Edmonds City Council has passed Ordinance No. _____ to place before the
voters property taxes to enhance the general fund. This proposition would authorize
an increase in the regular property tax rate for collection in 2012 of $0.__ per $1,000
of assessed valuation, for a total rate (if only this proposition passes) of $___ per
$1,000 of assessed valuation. Use of the additional $0.__ per $1,000 of assessed
valuation would be unrestricted. The 2012 levy amount would become the basis
upon which levy increases would be computed for 2013 and 2014. Should this
proposition be approved?
YES ___________ NO ___________
Section 4. Changes. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such minor adjustments
to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the Snohomish County Auditor, as
long as the intent of the proposition remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Ordinance
as approved by the City Council.
Packet Page 190 of 197
Section 5. Notices Relating to Ballot Proposition. For purposes of receiving notice of the exact
language of the ballot proposition required by RCW 29A.36.080, the City Council hereby designates
the City Clerk.
Section 6. Severability. The recitals stated above (i.e., the “Whereas” clauses) constitute specific
findings by the City Council in support of passage of this ordinance. If any provision of this
ordinance is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then such provision shall
be null and void and shall be separable from the remaining provisions of this ordinance, and shall in
no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this ordinance or of any other ordinance or
resolution, or of the levy or collection of the taxes authorized herein.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after publication
as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds at a
regular open public meeting thereof this _____ day of July, 2011.
CITY OF EDMONDS
_______________________
Mayor Mike Cooper
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
4845-8302-2346, v. 1
Packet Page 191 of 197
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES;
PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF
THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A
PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW FOR THE PURPOSES OF STREET
MAINTENANCE AND PAVEMENT OVERLAYS; SETTING FORTH THE
BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8,
2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.050 provides for the levy of regular property taxes in an amount exceeding
the limitations specified in chapter 84.55 RCW if such increased levy is authorized by a ballot
proposition approved by a majority of the voters at an election held within the taxing district (a “levy
lid lift”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its
residents to submit a levy lid lift proposition under RCW 84.55.050(1) to the voters for their
approval or rejection;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to ask the voters whether they are willing to fund
$__________ in street maintenance and pavement overlays through a levy lid lift for each of the
years 2012, 2013, and 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office estimates that the City’s 2012 assessed value
will be approximately $5.795 billion; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Levy Lid Lift Election Called For. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, the Edmonds City
Council hereby calls for submission of a proposition to the qualified electors of the City asking
whether the City shall levy regular property taxes in excess of the limitation established in RCW
84.55.010. The Snohomish County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish
County, is hereby requested to call and conduct the election referenced herein in the City of
Edmonds on November 8, 2011. The proposition to be submitted to the qualified voters of the
City for their approval or rejection is to authorize increasing the City’s regular property tax levy by
$0.__ per $1,000 of assessed valuation, to a total levy rate of $___ per one thousand dollars of
assessed valuation (if only this proposition passes), for collection beginning in 2012. If this
Packet Page 192 of 197
proposition is approved, the City Council will be authorized to adopt, in accordance with its regular
budget process, an increased regular property tax as described herein.
Section 2. Purpose of Levy and Description of Ballot Proposition. For the purposes identified
below, the City Council seeks voter approval under RCW 84.55.050 for a levy lid lift, as follows:
(a) Purpose. The amounts collected pursuant to the increase authorized by the Proposition
shall be used to pay for street maintenance and pavement overlays.
(b) Increase Authorized Beginning in 2012. The Proposition authorizes a maximum increase in
the City’s total levy rate to the maximum rate otherwise allowed for collection in 2012 under
chapter 84.55 RCW plus not to exceed $0.__ per $1,000 of assessed value. The total regular
property tax rate produced is estimated to be approximately $___ per $1,000 of assessed
value (if only this proposition passes), based on estimated 2012 assessed values.
(c) Increase Authorized for Future Years through 2014. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(4), the
dollar amount of the maximum authorized levy under chapter 84.55 RCW for collection in
2012 shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies in
2013 and 2014 provided for under chapter 84.55 RCW, and such funds shall be limited to
the purposes described in Section 2(a), above.
Section 3. Ballot Proposition. The City Clerk is here by authorized and directed, not later than
August __, 2011, to certify a copy of this ordinance and a proposition to the Auditor of Snohomish
County, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections in Snohomish County Washington, in substantially the
following form:
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROPOSITION NO. __
Levy for Street Maintenance and Pavement Overlays
The Edmonds City Council has passed Ordinance No. _____ to place before the
voters property taxes to fund street maintenance and pavement overlays. This
proposition would authorize an increase in the regular property tax rate for collection
in 2012 of $0.__ per $1,000 of assessed valuation, for a total rate (if only this
proposition passes) of $___ per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Use of the additional
$0.__ per $1,000 of assessed valuation would be restricted to street maintenance and
pavement overlays. The 2012 levy amount would become the basis upon which levy
increases would be computed for 2013 and 2014. Should this proposition be
approved?
YES ___________ NO ___________
Packet Page 193 of 197
Section 4. Changes. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such minor adjustments
to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the Snohomish County Auditor, as
long as the intent of the proposition remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Ordinance
as approved by the City Council.
Section 5. Notices Relating to Ballot Proposition. For purposes of receiving notice of the exact
language of the ballot proposition required by RCW 29A.36.080, the City Council hereby designates
the City Clerk.
Section 6. Severability. The recitals stated above (i.e., the “Whereas” clauses) constitute specific
findings by the City Council in support of passage of this ordinance. If any provision of this
ordinance is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then such provision shall
be null and void and shall be separable from the remaining provisions of this ordinance, and shall in
no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this ordinance or of any other ordinance or
resolution, or of the levy or collection of the taxes authorized herein.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after publication
as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds at a
regular open public meeting thereof this _____ day of July, 2011.
CITY OF EDMONDS
_______________________
Mayor Mike Cooper
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
4840-0945-1274, v. 1
Packet Page 194 of 197
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES;
PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF
THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A
PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUILDING
MAINTENANCE AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS; SETTING FORTH THE
BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8,
2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.050 provides for the levy of regular property taxes in an amount exceeding
the limitations specified in chapter 84.55 RCW if such increased levy is authorized by a ballot
proposition approved by a majority of the voters at an election held within the taxing district (a “levy
lid lift”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its
residents to submit a levy lid lift proposition under RCW 84.55.050(1) to the voters for their
approval or rejection;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to ask the voters whether they are willing to fund
$__________ in building maintenance and park improvements through a levy lid lift for each of the
years 2012, 2013, and 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office estimates that the City’s 2012 assessed value
will be approximately $5.795 billion; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Levy Lid Lift Election Called For. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, the Edmonds City
Council hereby calls for submission of a proposition to the qualified electors of the City asking
whether the City shall levy regular property taxes in excess of the limitation established in RCW
84.55.010. The Snohomish County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish
County, is hereby requested to call and conduct the election referenced herein in the City of
Edmonds on November 8, 2011. The proposition to be submitted to the qualified voters of the
City for their approval or rejection is to authorize increasing the City’s regular property tax levy by
$0.__ per $1,000 of assessed valuation, to a total levy rate of $___ per one thousand dollars of
assessed valuation (if only this proposition passes), for collection beginning in 2012. If this
Packet Page 195 of 197
proposition is approved, the City Council will be authorized to adopt, in accordance with its regular
budget process, an increased regular property tax as described herein.
Section 2. Purpose of Levy and Description of Ballot Proposition. For the purposes identified
below, the City Council seeks voter approval under RCW 84.55.050 for a levy lid lift, as follows:
(a) Purpose. The amounts collected pursuant to the increase authorized by the Proposition
shall be used to pay for building maintenance and park improvements.
(b) Increase Authorized Beginning in 2012. The Proposition authorizes a maximum increase in
the City’s total levy rate to the maximum rate otherwise allowed for collection in 2012 under
chapter 84.55 RCW plus not to exceed $0.__ per $1,000 of assessed value. The total regular
property tax rate produced is estimated to be approximately $___ per $1,000 of assessed
value (if only this proposition passes), based on estimated 2012 assessed values.
(c) Increase Authorized for Future Years through 2014. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(4), the
dollar amount of the maximum authorized levy under chapter 84.55 RCW for collection in
2012 shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies in
2013 and 2014 provided for under chapter 84.55 RCW, and such funds shall be limited to
the purposes described in Section 2(a), above.
Section 3. Ballot Proposition. The City Clerk is here by authorized and directed, not later than
August __, 2011, to certify a copy of this ordinance and a proposition to the Auditor of Snohomish
County, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections in Snohomish County Washington, in substantially the
following form:
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROPOSITION NO. __
Levy for Building Maintenance and Park Improvements
The Edmonds City Council has passed Ordinance No. _____ to place before the
voters property taxes to fund building maintenance and park improvements. This
proposition would authorize an increase in the regular property tax rate for collection
in 2012 of $0.__ per $1,000 of assessed valuation, for a total rate (if only this
proposition passes) of $___ per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Use of the additional
$0.__ per $1,000 of assessed valuation would be restricted to building maintenance
and park improvements. The 2012 levy amount would become the basis upon
which levy increases would be computed for 2013 and 2014. Should this proposition
be approved?
YES ___________ NO ___________
Packet Page 196 of 197
Section 4. Changes. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such minor adjustments
to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the Snohomish County Auditor, as
long as the intent of the proposition remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Ordinance
as approved by the City Council.
Section 5. Notices Relating to Ballot Proposition. For purposes of receiving notice of the exact
language of the ballot proposition required by RCW 29A.36.080, the City Council hereby designates
the City Clerk.
Section 6. Severability. The recitals stated above (i.e., the “Whereas” clauses) constitute specific
findings by the City Council in support of passage of this ordinance. If any provision of this
ordinance is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then such provision shall
be null and void and shall be separable from the remaining provisions of this ordinance, and shall in
no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this ordinance or of any other ordinance or
resolution, or of the levy or collection of the taxes authorized herein.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after publication
as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds at a
regular open public meeting thereof this _____ day of July, 2011.
CITY OF EDMONDS
_______________________
Mayor Mike Cooper
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
4848-8488-1162, v. 1
Packet Page 197 of 197