2011.08.09 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
________________________________________________
AUGUST 9, 2011
6:00 p.m.
City Council Committee Meetings
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not
public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
1.Community/Development Services Committee
Meeting Room: Council Chambers
A. (5 Minutes)Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and acceptance of project.
B. (5 Minutes)Report on Small Works Roster Solicitation for the Dayton St. CIPP Storm Pipe Rehabilitation Project and
award contract to Michels Corporation in the amount of $64,020.00.
C. (5 Minutes)Ordinance Amending the Edmonds City Code, Adding 4-Hour Parking Limitations to Brackett’s Landing North
Parking Lot.
D. (5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction
2011-2015.
E. (5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to install waterline as part of
Lynnwood's 76th Ave W Sewer Improvement Project.
F. (20 Minutes) Potential amendments to downtown BD zones.
(PLEASE NOTE: this item contains all of the material from the July 26th public hearing; the material is
repeated here for reference. The "recommendation" below is specifically geared for the Committee
discussion, however.)
G. (10 Minutes)Public Comments
(3-minute limit per person)
2.Finance Committee
Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room
A. (10 Minutes)Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities.
Packet Page 1 of 202
B. (5 Minutes)Park Trust Fund Ordinance amending City Code 3.16.020.
C. (15 Minutes)Old Milltown Courtyard budget review, project timing.
D. (5 Minutes)Review of minor chages by SNOCOM legal to the "Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet Access" that was
approved for Mayor's signature on 11-16-2010
E. (10 Minutes)Update on financial policies and reporting - Finance Reserve Policy Examples
F. (10 Minutes)Public Comments
(3-minute limit per person)
3.Public Safety Committee
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
A. (10 Minutes)ILA with Okanogan County for Jail Services
Packet Page 2 of 202
AM-4125 Item #: 1. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and acceptance of project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 15, 2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On March 15, 2011, the Council authorized approval of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and staff to dispense with
competitive bidding requirements to allow for an emergency repair on the stormwater pipe in Dayton Street.
Narrative
The City became aware of a sink hole in Dayton Street between the BNSF railroad tracks and Admiral Way on February 25,
2011. Upon excavation and dewatering, the City found a hole in the existing 24-inch diameter stormwater pipe that resulted in
the undermining of soil beneath Dayton Street. The City determined that a permanent repair was needed as soon as possible
since the pipeline had to continue to convey stormwater runoff to Puget Sound.
The construction work was completed by Interwest Construction Inc. and inspected by City Staff. A summary of
the construction costs are listed below. At the request of the City, the initial contract of $67,500 with Interwest Construction
was increased by $945 so the contractor could provide a performance and payment bond for the duration of the project. The
project costs were paid by the 412-200 Stormwater Utility Fund.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Contractor – Interwest Construction Inc.$68,445
Testing – HWA Geosciences $1,087
Staff Time $6,326
TOTAL $75,858
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 08/03/2011 04:04 PM
Public Works Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:30 PM
Finance Jim Tarte 08/05/2011 12:31 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:33 PM
Mayor Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:25 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:27 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/03/2011 01:34 PM
Final Approval Date: 08/05/2011
Packet Page 3 of 202
AM-4123 Item #: 1. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike De Lilla Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on Small Works Roster Solicitation for the Dayton St. CIPP Storm Pipe Rehabilitation Project and award contract to
Michels Corporation in the amount of $64,020.00.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 15, 2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
In February 2011, the City became aware of a sinkhole in Dayton Street between the BNSF railroad tracks and Admiral Way.
As part of the investigation to determine why the sinkhole formed, the City completed a video inspection of the stormwater
pipe from the east side of the railroad tracks west to where the sinkhole was found. The video inspection showed
that approximately 280 feet of 24-inch diameter stormwater pipe was in poor condition. A hole in the pipe was also found
at the sinkhole location in Dayton Street.
An emergency repair contract was executed in March of this year to fix the sinkhole and replace 65 feet of pipe between two
existing manholes. The remaining 215 feet of pipe was not included in the emergency repair since it was determined that a
cured in place pipe (CIPP) would be the best approach to repair the remaining section of pipeline. The CIPP method also
provides the benefit of repairing the pipe section beneath the existing BNSF railroad tracks without disrupting track
operations.
The Engineer’s estimate for this work was under $80,000. On June 21, 2011, per the City of Edmonds Purchasing Policy, the
Municipal Research and Service Center (MRSC) roster was used to solicit bids from all qualified firms, with bids due on July
1, 2011.
On July 1, 2011, the City received one quotation for the Dayton St. CIPP Storm Pipe Rehabilitation project in the amount of
$146,155. Upon reviewing the bid, the project was repackaged so that it would be brought under budget. On July 13, 2011, per
the City of Edmonds Purchasing Policy, the Municipal Research and Service Center (MRSC) roster was again used to solicit
bids from all qualified firms, with bids due on July 26, 2011.
On July 26, 2011, the City received one quotation for the Dayton St. CIPP Storm Pipe Rehabilitation Project. The bid was
$64,020.00. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Michels Corporation submitted the low responsive bid in the
amount of $64,020.00. The engineer’s estimate was $60,732.00. Staff completed a review of the low bidder’s record and
references and found them to be acceptable.
Fiscal Impact
This project will be funded by the 412-200 Stormwater Utility fund.
Attachments
Exhibit 1-Bid Tab
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 08/04/2011 10:05 AM
Public Works Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:30 PM
Packet Page 4 of 202
Public Works Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:30 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:31 PM
Mayor Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:25 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:27 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/03/2011 08:21 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/05/2011
Packet Page 5 of 202
It
e
m
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Un
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
1
1
L
S
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
/
D
e
m
o
b
9,
6
4
0
.
0
0
$
9,
6
4
0
.
0
0
$
16
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
16,400.00 $
2
1
L
S
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
2,
4
1
0
.
0
0
$
2,
4
1
0
.
0
0
$
3,
0
8
0
.
0
0
$
3,080.00 $
3
1
L
S
T
E
S
C
48
2
.
0
0
$
48
2
.
0
0
$
65
0
.
0
0
$
650.00 $
4
2
1
5
L
F
2
4
"
S
D
R
e
h
a
b
u
s
i
n
g
C
I
P
P
L
i
n
i
n
g
18
0
.
0
0
$
38
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
18
5
.
0
0
$
39,775.00 $
5
1
L
S
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
B
y
p
a
s
s
&
P
u
m
p
i
n
g
7,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1,
6
1
5
.
0
0
$
1,615.00 $
6
1
L
S
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t
s
50
0
.
0
0
$
50
0
.
0
0
$
50
0
.
0
0
$
500.00 $
7
1
L
S
M
i
n
o
r
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
F
o
r
c
e
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2,000.00 $
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
60
,
7
3
2
.
0
0
$
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
6
4
,
0
2
0
.
0
0
$
9.
5
%
T
a
x
N/
A
9.
5
%
T
a
x
N
/
A
TO
T
A
L
60
,
7
3
2
.
0
0
$
64,020.00 $
Mi
c
h
e
l
s
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
r
m
P
i
p
e
C
I
P
P
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
E1
F
I
/
c
3
5
1
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
6
of
20
2
AM-4121 Item #: 1. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance Amending the Edmonds City Code, Adding 4-Hour Parking Limitations to Brackett’s Landing North Parking Lot.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 15, 2011 Council Meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The Downtown Parking Committee composed of City Council, the Police Department, the Engineering Division and Edmonds
Citizens reviews requests and makes recommendations on parking changes. At the July 2011 meeting, the Police Department
addressed parking issues at the Brackett’s Landing north parking lot. Visitors are parking at this location for extended periods
of time beyond the posted 4 hour limitation. However, this parking limitation is not enforceable because it is not identified in
Section 8.64.065 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC). The proposed ordinance would change this section of the ECC to correct
the problem. The ordinance has been reviewed and approved by the City attorney’s office.
The Downtown Parking Committee recommends the following ECC revision (underlined in the table below):
8.64.065 Schedule VI-A – Parking time limited for certain periods of time on certain streets.
In accordance with ECC 8.48.155 and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall stop, stand or park a
vehicle for a period of time longer than the number of hours set forth below, or between the hours set forth below:
Name of Street or Road Hours – Stopped, Standing
or Parking Prohibited
7. Bracket’s Landing
parking lot
Four hours maximum at
any one time
Attachments
Attachment 1-Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 08/04/2011 10:27 AM
Public Works Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:30 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:31 PM
Mayor Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:25 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:27 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/01/2011 02:22 PM
Final Approval Date: 08/05/2011
Packet Page 7 of 202
{BFP708555.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
8.64.065 BY ADDING 4-HOUR PARKING LIMITATIONS TO
BRACKETT’S LANDING NORTH PARKING LOT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, many beach-goers are parking for long periods of time in the
Brackett’s Landing North parking lot (North of Ferry Terminal);
WHEREAS, signs are in-place at that location, limiting to 4-hour parking at any
one time;
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Code doesn’t include any section regarding
4-hour parking limitations in this area;
WHEREAS, the Police Department can’t enforce this parking restriction;
WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Downtown Parking Committee, the
City Council finds that the 4-hour parking restriction should be added to the Edmonds City Code,
in order to make this enforceable; and
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOW
Section 1. Section 8.64.065 of the ECC Schedule VI-A - Parking time limited
for certain periods of time on certain streets is hereby amended to read as follows (new language
is underlined):
Packet Page 8 of 202
{BFP708555.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
8.64.065 Schedule VI-A – Parking time limited for certain periods of time on
certain streets.
In accordance with ECC 8.48.155 and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall stop,
stand or park a vehicle for a period of time longer than the number of hours set forth below, or between
the hours set forth below:
Name of Street or
Road
Hours – Stopped,
Standing or Parking
Prohibited
1. Sunset Beach
access way and
Sunset Beach Park
Four hours maximum at
any one time.
2. West side of Sunset
Avenue from Edmonds
Street to Caspers
Street.
Four-hour parking 8:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No
parking from 10:00 p.m. to
8:00 a.m.; provided,
however, the City Council
may adjust the four-hour
parking time and the no
parking time set forth in this
subsection by appropriate
motion and upon erection
of appropriate signs.
3. West side of
Admiral Way from
Dayton Street to a
point 260 feet
southerly.
Two-hour parking from 6:00
p.m. on Friday to midnight
on Sunday, and from 6:00
p.m. on those days
immediately preceding
public holidays to midnight
on said public holidays.
4. Both sides of the
portion of 75th Place
west, north of North
Meadowdale Road.
Four-hour parking, 8:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No
parking from 10:00 p.m. to
8:00 a.m.
5. Five parking spaces
designated by city
engineer and located
at the terminus and
Two hours maximum
between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and dusk.* No parking
between dusk and 8:00
Packet Page 9 of 202
{BFP708555.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
southerly end of
Ocean Avenue.
a.m.
6. Both sides of
Admiral Way from its
intersection with
Dayton Street and
south thereof to the
end of the public right-
of-way (approximately
2,300 feet).
Three hours maximum at
any one time.
7. Bracket’s Landing
parking lot
Four hours maximum at
any one time
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Packet Page 10 of 202
{BFP708555.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 -
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 11 of 202
{BFP708555.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 5 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
8.64.065 BY ADDING 4-HOUR PARKING LIMITATIONS TO
BRACKETT’S LANDING NORTH PARKING LOT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 12 of 202
AM-4120 Item #: 1. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2011-2015.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 15, 2011, Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On October 27, 2007, City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction
2007-2011.
Narrative
The CTR Interlocal Agreements are the mechanism through which State money flows to local jurisdictions to cover the
expenses of administering CTR programs. In Snohomish County, the jurisdictions have historically agreed to take half of that
money and give it to Community Transit (CT) to provide the employer outreach and CTR marketing for all worksites (defined
as employers with 100 or more employees) in Snohomish County. The other half was allocated to the jurisdictions
proportionally based on the number of worksites. The main tasks associated with administering CTR programs are writing and
amending ordinances, reviewing employer annual reports and program descriptions, and coordinating with other jurisdictions.
This year Edmonds, along with seven other cities and Snohomish County, has opted to again have CT as the lead agency
responsible for implementing and administering the County’s and Cities’ CTR plans and programs. The funds received from
the Washington State Department of Transportation to support the CTR base plans and programs for all participating
jurisdictions will be provided to and managed by CT. The County and cities will assist CT through the enforcement of their
respective CTR ordinances. The proposed Interlocal Agreement, Exhibit 1, is a four-year agreement for the period September
1, 2011 to June 30, 2015. The agreement is the same as the one previously approved by Council for 2007-2011. This proposed
agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Proposed Interlocal Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 08/04/2011 10:44 AM
Public Works Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:29 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:31 PM
Mayor Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:25 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:27 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/01/2011 11:32 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/05/2011
Packet Page 13 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 1 of 10
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTERING
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLANS AND PROGRAMS
This AGREEMENT, entered into by and between Snohomish County Public Transit
Benefit Area (hereinafter referred to as COMMUNITY TRANSIT), and City of
Arlington, City of Bothell, City of Edmonds, City of Lynnwood, City of Marysville, City
of Mukilteo, City of Monroe, City of Mountlake Terrace, (hereinafter referred to as the
CITIES), and Snohomish County (hereinafter referred to as COUNTY), hereinafter
collectively referred to as the PARTIES, WITNESS THAT:
WHEREAS, RCW 70.94.527 requires counties containing urban growth areas
and cities and towns with “major employers,” that are located within urban
growth areas with a state highway segment exceeding the threshold of one
hundred person hours of delay to develop ordinances, plans and programs to
reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV)
commute trips, and thereby reduce vehicle-related air pollution, traffic congestion
and energy use, and
WHEREAS, COMMUNITY TRANSIT worked in partnership with the
COUNTY and the CITIES to develop a common CTR plan and ordinance that has
been adopted into law by the COUNTY and CITIES; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES believe that it is more efficient and effective to
implement the plans and programs in a common manner and to designate
COMMUNITY TRANSIT as the lead agency responsible for coordinating the
development and implementation of the CTR plans and programs for the
COUNTY and CITIES; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that the COUNTY and CITIES will assist
COMMUNITY TRANSIT through the enforcement of their respective CTR
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITIES have determined that the funds to support
the CTR base plans and programs for the COUNTY and CITIES from the
Washington State Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as
WSDOT) will be provided to and managed by COMMUNITY TRANSIT to
support the implementation and administration of the CTR plans and programs
within the COUNTY and CITIES; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITIES determine that it is within the best
interest of the public to enter into an interlocal agreement with COMMUNITY
TRANSIT, whereby COMMUNITY TRANSIT will be the lead agency
responsible for implementing and administering the COUNTY'S and CITIES'
CTR plans and programs; and
Packet Page 14 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 2 of 10
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances and
promises hereinafter contained, the PARTIES hereto agree as follows:
1. RECITALS: The recitals set forth above, constituting a basis of the agreement of
the PARTIES, are incorporated herein by references as if fully set forth.
2. SERVICE PROVISIONS: THE PARTIES shall perform the services specified in
the "STATEMENT of WORK" attached as Exhibit A, which is made a part of
this AGREEMENT by this reference.
3. FUNDING: COMMUNITY TRANSIT shall receive all funds provided by the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) allocated for the
COUNTY and CITIES to support the administration of the CTR base plans and
programs.
4. CHANGE IN FUNDING: This AGREEMENT is contingent upon
COMMUNITY TRANSIT's receipt of funds from the WSDOT. If the WSDOT
funds for CTR are reduced or eliminated, the PARTIES shall review this
AGREEMENT to determine the course of future CTR activities in Snohomish
County and any amendments to this AGREEMENT that may be required.
5. AGREEMENT PERIOD: This AGREEMENT is effective for COMMUNITY
TRANSIT and each individual PARTY as of the date signed by COMMUNITY
TRANSIT and each individual PARTY irregardless of the signatures of the other
parties to the agreement. The term of this AGREEMENT shall be from the
effective date until June 30, 2015.
6. TERMINATION: The COUNTY, CITIES and/or COMMUNITY TRANSIT
may terminate this AGREEMENT by providing written notice of such
termination, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to
such date. Reimbursement for services performed by COMMUNITY TRANSIT,
and not otherwise paid for by WSDOT prior to the effective date of such
termination shall be paid as a pro rate portion of the applicable WSDOT
allocation amount by WSDOT.
7. SEVERABILITY: The COUNTY or one or more CITIES may withdraw from
this AGREEMENT by providing written notice of such intent, specifying the
effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. Such a
withdrawal shall not affect other terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT
between the remaining PARTIES. To this end, a withdrawal by a City from this
AGREEMENT is declared severable.
8. AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS: Any party may request changes to this
AGREEMENT. Any such changes that are mutually agreed upon shall be
incorporated herein by written amendment of this AGREEMENT. No variation
Packet Page 15 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 3 of 10
or alteration of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in
writing and signed by the PARTIES hereto.
9. NONDISCRIMINATION: The PARTIES, in performance of this
AGREEMENT, shall comply with all applicable local, state, and/or federal laws
and ordinances, and agree that they shall not discriminate against any person who
is paid, for work completed, by funds indicated in this AGREEMENT or against
any applicant for such employment on the grounds of race, color, religion,
national origin, age, veteran status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or
physical disability. The PARTIES shall make reasonable accommodations to the
sensory, mental, or physical disabilities of applicants and employees throughout
the personnel process. In determining the extent of reasonable accommodation,
the following factors will be considered: the safe and efficient operation of the
organization; feasible financial costs and expenses; and the overall type and size
of the organization's operation.
10. INDEMNIFICATION:
A. COMMUNITY TRANSIT shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and
defend, at its own expense, the COUNTY and CITIES and their elected and
appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for
damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of Community
Transit of this Agreement, including claims by the state, COMMUNITY
TRANSIT's employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by
the negligence or willful misconduct of the COUNTY or CITIES or their elected
and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents.
The COUNTY and CITIES shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend,
at their own expense, COMMUNITY TRANSIT, its elected and appointed
officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of
any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of the indemnifying party,
City and/or County of this Agreement, including claims by the state, the
COUNTY's or CITIES’ employees or third parties, except for those damages
solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of COMMUNITY
TRANSIT, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents.
B. It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT is solely for the benefit of
the PARTIES hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or
partnership is formed as a result of this AGREEMENT.
C. This indemnification clause shall also apply to any and all causes of action
arising out of performance of work activities under this AGREEMENT. Each
contract for services or activities utilizing funds provided in whole or in part by
this AGREEMENT shall include a provision that the PARTIES are not liable for
damages or claims for damages arising from any subcontractor's performance or
activities under the terms of the contracts.
Packet Page 16 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 4 of 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Snohomish County, City of Arlington, City of Bothell, City
of Edmonds, City of Lynnwood, City of Marysville, City of Mukilteo, City of Monroe,
City of Mountlake Terrace and Community Transit have executed this AGREEMENT as
of the date and year written below.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMMUNITY TRANSIT
__________________________ ________________________
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Name Joyce Olson Eleanor
Title Chief Executive Officer
__________________________ __________________________
Date Date
CITY OF ARLINGTON CITY OF EDMONDS
__________________________ ________________________
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Name Name
Title Title
__________________________ __________________________
Date Date
CITY OF LYNNWOOD CITY OF MARYSVILLE
__________________________ ________________________
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Name Name
Title Title
__________________________ __________________________
Date Date
CITY OF MUKILTEO CITY OF MONROE
__________________________ ________________________
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Name Name
Title Title
__________________________ __________________________
Date Date
Packet Page 17 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 5 of 10
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE CITY OF BOTHELL
__________________________ ________________________
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Name Name
Title Title
__________________________ __________________________
Date Date
Packet Page 18 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
Statement of Work
ADMINISTERING COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PLANS
1. INTRODUCTION
Snohomish County (COUNTY) and the Cities of Arlington, Bothell, Edmonds,
Lynnwood, Marysville, Mukilteo, Monroe and Mountlake Terrace (CITIES) have
all adopted a similar CTR ordinance.
This STATEMENT OF WORK is incorporated into the Interlocal Agreement
titled "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTERING COMMUTE
TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLANS” and outlines the tasks and responsibilities
for each of the PARTIES.
COMMUNITY TRANSIT TASKS
2. GENERAL TASKS
2.1 Maintain and administer the COUNTY'S and CITIES' CTR Plans and
programs according to the provisions of RCW 70.94.521-551.
2.2 Provide Washington State Department of Transit (WSDOT) with a public
hearing notice and copies of any proposed amendments to the COUNTY'S
and/or CITIES' CTR ordinance, plan, and/or administrative guidelines
within the first week of the public review period, and final copies of such
action within one (1) month of adoption.
2.3 Establish and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and
accounting procedures and practices, sufficient to reflect properly all
direct and indirect costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred
and anticipated to be incurred solely for the performance of this
AGREEMENT. To facilitate the administration of the work described in
this AGREEMENT, separate accounts shall be established and maintained
within COMMUNITY TRANSIT'S existing accounting system or set up
independently. Such accounts are referred to herein collectively as the
"CTR Account". All costs charged to the CTR Account, including any
approved services contributed by the COUNTY or the CITIES shall be
supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts,
vouchers, or products evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety
of the charges.
Packet Page 19 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 7 of 10
3. SERVICES PROVIDED TO EMPLOYERS
Provide affected employers with access to information and services, which will enable
them to plan, implement, and manage Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) programs in a
way that implements the County and Cities’ CTR plans and ordinances and meets
individual employer goals.
3.1 Organize the content and format of a comprehensive CTR educational
program for employers and jurisdictions.
3.2 Ensure that the comprehensive CTR educational program in Snohomish
County is consistent with that developed by the Washington State
Technical Assistance Team.
3.3 The COUNTY and each of the CITY ordinances require employers to
appoint an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) who will
coordinate the CTR program at that employment site. Personalized
assistance to and on-site presentations will be provided to ETCs, managers
and employees.
3.4 Offer free to affected employers complete ETC training at least once every
six months with priority given to designated ETCs.
3.5 Provide opportunities for ETCs to network with the ETCs of other
affected employers.
3.6 Continue to provide outreach assistance to affected employers, new
affected employers, and potential affected employers.
3.7 Provide information and technical assistance to affected employers in
preparing and revising individual trip reduction programs. Explain legal
requirements and assist with initial survey and plan development.
3.8 Work with County and Cities to develop new transportation demand
management (TDM) programs to implement CTR Plans such as Telework,
Alternative Work Hours, Subsidy/Incentives, and Parking Management.
3.9 Coordinate and facilitate employer networking, employer peer
reinforcement and employer recognition programs.
3.10 Produce two annual rideshare campaigns and distribute campaign
materials.
3.11 Plan, promote and implement employer transportation events, including
customized worksite carpool and vanpool events, and provide event
prizes.
3.12 Design and distribute CTR marketing materials, including new employee
orientation materials, which employers may use or copy to implement,
promote and manage CTR programs.
3.13 Provide employers with access to information, materials and programs that
will enable them to adequately promote CTR programs. Produce
customized marketing materials for employees upon request.
Packet Page 20 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 8 of 10
3.14 Be available to attend at least one rideshare fair or employer promotion
per year for each affected employer. Encourage employers to work
together and hold joint events.
3.15 Support CTR programs by offering supplemental services including a
regional ride matching program, vanpool program and Guaranteed Ride
Home program.
3.16 Take the lead in coordinating the survey process for employers. Provide
survey workshops to employers during measurement years. Distribute and
collect the state “CTR Employee Questionnaires” (survey forms). Work
with the appropriate agencies to coordinate the processing of the employer
surveys. Ensure that employers timely receive their survey results. Offer
survey follow-up meetings to all employers. Return processed surveys to
employers.
3.17 Send or deliver employer surveys for processing as instructed by WSDOT.
Prior to sending or delivering any surveys, notify WSDOT of the name of
the worksite(s) and the employer identification code(s) for any surveys
being submitted for processing. The notification should be submitted via
electronic mail, fax, or U.S. Postal Services.
4. ANNUAL EMPLOYER REPORTING & PROGRAM REVIEW
4.1 Notification of Newly Affected Sites as defined by COUNTY or CITY
ordinance
4.1.1 Identify list of potential new sites and contact person and send
notification inquiry to determine if affected.
4.1.2 Confirm status and secure state ID code.
4.1.3 Create timeline and legal file.
4.2 Site Analysis and Program Review
4.2.1 Notify affected employers when annual program reports are due
and provide affected employers with limited direct assistance in
preparing written program submissions.
4.2.2 Review program reports for completeness for new sites and for
sites that made progress toward goal.
4.2.3 For sites that didn’t make progress, review survey results and
recent programs and evaluate the potential for progress toward
single occupant vehicle (SOV)/vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
reduction.
4.2.4 Make recommendations to COUNTY and/or CITIES for program
improvements for sites that did not make progress.
4.2.5 Generate approval/non-approval letter for COUNTY and/or
CITIES signature.
Packet Page 21 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 9 of 10
4.2.6 Follow up with employers whose programs have not been
approved and assist in modifying CTR program.
4.3 Exemptions & Modification
4.3.1 Receive employer requests for exemptions or modifications and
send copy of request to COUNTY and/or CITIES.
4.3.2 Copy request to WSDOT for comment.
4.3.3 Review and analyze request and provide comments to COUNTY
and/or CITIES; COUNTY and/or CITIES reviews analysis and
provides directions to COMMUNITY TRANSIT.
4.3.4 Generate and send response if directed so by COUNTY and/or
CITIES.
4.4 Records Maintenance
4.4.1 Maintain database and master file records on all affected worksites.
4.4.2 Provide WSDOT with electronic or hard copy of each employer
program report approved within the quarter.
5. COORDINATION
5.1 Serve as a liaison between WSDOT and the COUNTY and CITIES for the
purposes of RCW 70.94.521-551.
5.2. Coordinate CTR outreach and marketing efforts with the COUNTY,
CITIES, and other transit agencies (including Metro CTR and Metro
Rideshare) in order to create a comprehensive CTR program.
5.3 Collaborate directly with the CTR planning coordinators from the
COUNTY and CITIES in working with affected employers to facilitate the
timely development, submission, implementation, and revision of affected
employer programs.
5.4 Coordinate and facilitate CTR coordinator’s group meetings consisting of
the CTR planning coordinators from COUNTY and CITIES on a quarterly
basis. This group functions as an information, coordination, and
collaboration group for CTR activities.
5.5 Attend jurisdiction and regional meetings representing COUNTY’s and
CITIES’ issues.
5.6 Work with COUNTY and CITIES to develop and fund new TDM
programs to implement CTR Plans such as Telework, Alternative Work
Hours, Subsidy/Incentives, and Parking Management.
5.7 Help jurisdictions monitor the progress of affected employers after CTR
programs are implemented.
5.8 Meet at least annually with the COUNTY and each CITY to discuss
employer CTR programs in each jurisdiction.
Packet Page 22 of 202
Interlocal Agreement for Administering CTR Plans and Programs (2011-2015) Page 10 of 10
6. REPORTING
6.1 With an invoice voucher, submit to WSDOT quarterly progress reports in
a format approved by WSDOT, that adequately and accurately assess the
progress made by the COUNTY and CITIES in implementing RCW
70.94.521-551. These quarterly reports shall be submitted within forty-
five (45) days of the end of each quarter for the first seven (7) quarters and
within fifteen (15) days of the end of the final quarter.
6.2 Provide at least quarterly to WSDOT, updated employer information in
the electronic format provided by WSDOT to satisfy the jurisdictions’
reporting requirement.
6.3 Provide the COUNTY and CITIES with quarterly progress reports
including narrative summary of tasks performed.
COUNTY AND CITIES TASKS
7. GENERAL TASKS
7.1 Provide COMMUNITY TRANSIT with copies of any proposed
amendments to the CTR Plan and Ordinance.
7.2 Notify COMMUNITY TRANSIT of potential CTR-affected sites. Send
notification letter to new sites. COMMUNITY TRANSIT will generate
letter for COUNTY and CITIES signature.
7.3 Review business license procedure for ways that the COUNTY or CITIES
can more effectively and efficiently provide Community Transit with
information on potential newly affected employers.
7.4 Attend CTR coordinator group meetings at least twice annually.
7.5 Meet with COMMUNITY TRANSIT at least annually to discuss
employer CTR programs.
7.6 Sign annual employer report approval/disapproval letters.
7.7 Attend mediation meetings with employers during program review process
if necessary.
7.8 Review employer exemption/modification requests from analysis
submitted by COMMUNITY TRANSIT. Provide direction to
COMMUNITY TRANSIT draft response to employer (if desired by
COUNTY and/or CITIES).
7.9 Report to COMMUNITY TRANSIT, at least annually, all activities made
to implement the CTR Plan or Ordinance with an estimation of costs.
Packet Page 23 of 202
AM-4124 Item #: 1. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike De Lilla Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to install waterline as part of Lynnwood's
76th Ave W Sewer Improvement Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 15, 2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The City of Lynnwood is in the process of designing a new sewer trunk main in 76th Ave W to increase flow capacity in their
existing sewer trunk main. The City of Edmonds owns an existing 6” cast iron watermain under 76th Ave W that per the 2010
Comprehensive Water System Plan is in need of replacement and upsizing. Since Lynnwood's new sewer pipe will require that
this portion of 76th Ave W be repaved, the City has coordinated this Interlocal Agreement, Exhibit 1, so the waterline can be
designed and constructed as part of the City of Lynnwood’s project. This will result in overall project cost savings and
minimize the City’s future impacts on the repaved portion of 76th Ave W.
This project will be funded as part of the 2012 Waterline Replacement Program. The total budget for this project is $520,000.
Attachments
Exhibit 1-Interlocal Agreement with City of Lynnwood
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 08/04/2011 02:58 PM
Public Works Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:30 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 12:31 PM
Mayor Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:25 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 02:27 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/03/2011 09:00 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/05/2011
Packet Page 24 of 202
76TH AVENUE WEST WATER MAIN INSTALLATION DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION
between
THE CITY OF EDMONDS
and
THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter, “the Agreement”) is entered
into under the authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, between
the City of Edmonds (hereinafter “EDMONDS”), a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Washington, and the City of Lynnwood (hereinafter
“LYNNWOOD”), a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Washington (collectively “the Parties”), to provide for the design and construction of the
EDMONDS 76th Avenue West Water Main Installation project in conjunction with the
design and construction of the LYNNWOOD 76th Avenue West Sewer Trunkline
Improvement project, and to define the Parties’ respective rights, obligations, costs and
liabilities regarding this undertaking.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes two or more political subdivisions or
units of local government of the State of Washington to cooperate on a basis of mutual
advantage to provide for services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the EDMONDS 2010 Water Comprehensive Plan identifies a project
to install 8-inch ductile iron pipe water main, fire hydrants, and appurtenances on 76th
Avenue West from Braemar Drive to 176th Street SW, and
WHEREAS, there is a 6-inch Cast Iron pipe watermain, fire hydrants, and
appurtenances in EDMONDS on 76th Avenue W from 176th Street SW to 180th Street SW
that will also need to be replaced and upsized to 8-inch ductile iron pipe, along with fire
hydrants, and appurtenances, due to pipe age, and
WHEREAS, the 76th Avenue West Sewer Trunkline Replacement is identified in
the LYNNWOOD 2010 Utility Rate Study and LYNNWOOD Capital Facilities Plan as
part of the Sewer Line Replacement Program (project #SE2006053A); and
WHEREAS, LYNNWOOD is presently designing their 76th Sewer Trunkline
Improvement project to increase the capacity of section of the existing 24” sewer trunk
main to the Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant at 76th Avenue West between 175th
Street SW and approximately 183rd PL SW; and
WHEREAS, integrating EDMONDS’ new water main installation into
LYNNWOOD’s construction process for the 76th Avenue West Sewer Trunkline
Improvements project would be more expedient, less expensive, and less disruptive to the
public than undertaking the projects separately; and
WHEREAS, the Parties mutually desire to establish a formal arrangement under
which EDMONDS will pay LYNNWOOD a specified sum in exchange for
LYNNWOOD’s design and construction of the EDMONDS water main conduit; and
Packet Page 25 of 202
WHEREAS, LYNNWOOD has selected a qualified design consultant through a
competitive process for their sewer improvements, and it therefore becomes more
expedient, less expensive, and more efficient for EDMONDS to to use the same qualified
design consultant currently under contract with LYNNWOOD for their water main
improvements, and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of
defining their respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this
undertaking; and
WHEREAS, the City Councils of the City of Edmonds and the City of Lynnwood
have taken appropriate action to approve their respective City’s entry into this
Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants
contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
TERMS
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a formal
arrangement under which EDMONDS will pay LYNNWOOD to design and construct
the EDMONDS 76th Avenue West water main installation in conjunction with
LYNNWOOD’s design and construction of the proposed LYNNWOOD 76th Avenue
West Sewer Trunkline Improvements (collectively, “the Project”). The terms, conditions,
and covenants of this Agreement shall accordingly be interpreted to advance the new
76th Avenue West water main installation purpose. This Agreement further seeks to
allocate and define the Parties’ respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities
concerning the establishment, operation and maintenance of this undertaking.
Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the
Parties hereto. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, this Agreement shall
remain effective until the sooner of the following events: (a) EDMONDS’ written
acceptance of all infrastructure provided pursuant hereto, or (b) December 31, 2014,
when it shall expire automatically. The Parties may at their option renew and/or amend
this Agreement for a mutually agreed upon term by a writing signed by both Parties.
Section 3. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or
without cause by providing the other Party with 30 days written notice of its intent to
terminate. Termination or expiration shall not alter the EDMONDS payment obligations
under Section 6 for services already rendered and shall not alter the Parties’ respective
obligations under Section 9 and Section 13 of this Agreement.
Section 4. Obligations of EDMONDS. EDMONDS agrees to:
A. Provide periodic payments to LYNNWOOD to reimburse LYNNWOOD
for its costs in design and construction of the EDMONDS 76th Avenue
West water main pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement.
Packet Page 26 of 202
B. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by LYNNWOOD or
its agents regarding the new water main.
C. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by the consultant
for the water main installation. Approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
D. Provide (apply for and obtain) City of Edmonds permits for water main
work within the City of Edmonds at no cost to LYNNWOOD. Provided,
that nothing herein shall be construed as waiving or otherwise abridging
the City of Edmonds regulatory authority for work within the City of
Edmonds.
E. Provide timely review of utility designs prepared by LYNNWOOD’s
consultant, and complete final design approval by the timelines established
by LYNNWOOD to meet their construction bidding schedule.
F. Obtain Bid Award concurrence from the EDMONDS City Council in
accordance with section 7 within 45 days of the bid opening. If
EDMONDS City Council fails to act within the 45 day time period,
LYNNWOOD has the option to eliminate the EDMONDS work schedules
from the contract.
Section 5. Obligations of LYNNWOOD. LYNNWOOD agrees to:
A. Provide and incorporate the EDMONDS 76th Avenue West water main
design into the LYNNWOOD design for sewer trunkline improvements.
B. Assume responsibility for constructing the new 76th Avenue West water
main in accordance with the design plans approved by EDMONDS
(including but not limited to securing all necessary consultants,
contractors, and subcontractors). All construction contracts shall be
procured through a formal competitive bidding process consistent with
applicable State law. LYNNWOOD shall be solely and exclusively
responsible for ensuring the compliance of said bidding process with all
applicable procedures required under state and local regulations.
C. Submit to EDMONDS written invoices for payment in accordance with
Section 6. Include copies of invoices from consultants and contractors,
clearly indicating the EDMONDS portion of the invoices. Provide
EDMONDS a brief written progress report with each invoice, describing
in reasonable detail all work performed on the new water main during the
period covered by the invoice.
D. Assume lead agency status and sole responsibility for applying for and
obtaining any and all regulatory permits necessary to complete the new
Packet Page 27 of 202
water main in conjunction with the LYNNWOOD 76th Avenue West
Sewer Trunkline Improvement Project, including but not limited to SEPA
and building permits.
E. Provide EDMONDS personnel reasonable access to the Project’s
construction area for purposes of monitoring the progress of work
performed on the new water main.
F. Respond reasonably to information requests submitted by EDMONDS or
its agents regarding the Project.
Section 6. Payment Schedule. The Parties agree to the following billing and
payment schedule:
A. For each outside construction contract expense incurred by LYNNWOOD
regarding the Project, LYNNWOOD shall, within 30 days of the date
LYNNWOOD is billed or invoiced for any undisputed charge by its
consultants, contractors and subcontractors, submit an invoice to
EDMONDS for the EDMONDS share of said expense for the new water
main. Said invoice shall contain a reasonably detailed explanation of the
methodology utilized by LYNNWOOD in calculating the EDMONDS
share of each expense. Contracts for construction shall provide for
separate bid schedules, or other means to clearly identify the EDMONDS
portion of the Project cost for the new water main. Contracts for design
shall identify all tasks and work performed associated with EDMONDS
portion of the design on invoices, fee estimates and project status reports.
Time is of the essence and LYNNWOOD shall not unreasonably delay
submittal of EDMONDS share of expenses.
B. Within 30 days of receiving any invoice pursuant to subsection 6.A,
EDMONDS shall tender payment to LYNNWOOD in the form of a check,
money order or other certified funds for the invoiced amount; PROVIDED
THAT:
(1) The total payment by EDMONDS for invoices submitted by
LYNNWOOD shall not exceed the actual cost of the fee estimate, bid
response and/or change order for the water main (plus 8.5% of actual
direct design and/or construction contract cost for project management,
construction management and administration per Section 6.C) without
prior written approval by EDMONDS for each expense incurred in excess
of said amount;
(2) If LYNNWOOD fails to submit an expense invoice in a timely
manner, the time for EDMONDS’ payment shall be extended as is
reasonably necessary to comply with budget and state auditor guidelines
as may be applicable;
Packet Page 28 of 202
(3) LYNNWOOD shall inform EDMONDS in writing in advance if
expenditures necessary to complete the water main design and installation
are expected to exceed these amounts.
C. Recognizing that LYNNWOOD shall be reimbursed for their costs of
incorporating the EDMONDS utilities work into the design and
construction contracts for the LYNNWOOD 76th Avenue West Sewer
Trunkline Improvement project, EDMONDS agrees to pay LYNNWOOD
an amount equal to 8.5% of the actual design and construction contract
cost for the EDMONDS utilities work for all in-house administrative costs
incurred by LYNNWOOD to accomplish the design and construction of
the new water main in conjunction with the LYNNWOOD 76th Avenue
West Sewer Trunkline Improvement project. This amount will be
invoiced by LYNNWOOD and paid by EDMONDS as a 8.5% markup on
applicable consultant and/or contractor invoices submitted to EDMONDS
for payment in accordance with Section 6B above.
D. In the event that the Parties disagree regarding the EDMONDS share of
any expense incurred by LYNNWOOD regarding the Project, the Parties
may agree to submit the question for resolution by a mediator or arbitrator
acceptable to both Parties.
Section 7. Construction Bid Acceptance. Upon opening of construction bids,
LYNNWOOD shall obtain concurrence from EDMONDS prior to award of the water
main portion of the construction contract. Within 15 days after bid opening and prior to
acceptance of the bid and award of a contract, LYNNWOOD shall inform EDMONDS of
its financial responsibility. Concurrence with bid award by EDMONDS shall be within
forty-five (45) days of receipt of notice of the bid amounts and EDMONDS financial
responsibility. EDMONDS agrees to, if contract award is authorized in a bid amount
acceptable to their City Council, to authorize an additional 10% of the contract award
amount for the EDMONDS utilities work as a construction contingency, subject to the
change order authorization limitations in Section 8. The EDMONDS Public Works
Director is authorized to determine the water main bid items/schedules, or combinations
thereof, for which a contract will be awarded, provided that the total cost does not exceed
the limits established in Section 6.
Section 8. Construction Change Orders. The following change order
authorizations are hereby established for schedules and items of work to be paid by
EDMONDS:
A. The LYNNWOOD resident engineer may authorize change order requests
up to $2,000 per change order and shall immediately provide a copy of the
change order authorization to the EDMONDS City Engineer.
Packet Page 29 of 202
B. The LYNNWOOD Deputy Public Works Director / City Engineer, with
the prior written concurrence of the EDMONDS City Engineer, may
authorize change order requests up to $10,000 per change order.
C. The Mayor of LYNNWOOD, with the prior written concurrence of the
Mayor of EDMONDS, may authorize change order requests up to $50,000
per change order.
D. Change order requests exceeding $50,000 per change order will be
reviewed by the respective City Councils of LYNNWOOD and
EDMONDS for approval or denial, and any such approval shall require
the concurrence of both City Councils.
Change orders involving a change in scope shall have the scope change
authorized in writing by EDMONDS, and be subject to the 8.5%
LYNNWOOD construction management and administration fee in Section
6.C.
Section 9 Construction Claims and Disputes. In the event construction claims
for additional payment are made by the construction contractor and/or disputes result,
LYNNWOOD will endeavor to resolve the claims/disputes and obtain EDMONDS
approval prior to finalizing resolution. EDMONDS will assist in resolving
claims/disputes as necessary. Financial responsibility for legitimate construction
claims/disputes arising from water main construction for EDMONDS shall be the sole
responsibility of EDMONDS. In the event such claims exceed the financial parameters
established in Section 6, EDMONDS will authorize additional funding to cover the cost
of the claim/dispute.
Section 10. Construction Project Acceptance. Upon satisfactory completion of
the water main work, resolution of all claims for additional payment, completion of all
contract closeout documents and agreement between LYNNWOOD and the contractor
regarding the final contract quantities for the water main portions of the project,
LYNNWOOD shall recommend final acceptance to the EDMONDS City Engineer.
Approval by the EDMONDS City Council shall be the responsibility of EDMONDS
staff.
Section 11. Ownership and Disposition of Property. The new water main, and
all appurtenances thereof, constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall become and
remain the exclusive property of EDMONDS upon completion. The 76th Avenue West
Sewer Trunkline improvements constructed shall become and remain the exclusive
property of LYNNWOOD upon completion.
Section 12. Administration; No Separate Entity Created. Pursuant to RCW
39.34.030, the parties hereby appoint a Contract Administrator who will be responsible
for administering this Agreement, and at the direction of the parties, this Contract
Administrator shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that this Agreement is
Packet Page 30 of 202
implemented in accordance with its terms. The parties hereby designate the
LYNNWOOD Public Works Director, or his designee, as the Contract Administrator for
this Agreement. No separate legal entity is formed by this Agreement.
Section 13. Release, Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. Each
Party to this Agreement shall be responsible for its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or
omissions, and those of its own agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors, to
the fullest extent required by laws of the State of Washington. Each Party agrees to
protect, indemnify and save the other Party harmless from and against any and all such
liability for injury or damage to the other party or the other Party’s property, and also
from and against all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character
arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out
of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by its own fault or that of its agents,
employees, representatives or subcontractors.
Each party specifically promises to indemnify the other party against claims or
suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its own employees, contractors, or subcontractors,
and waives any immunity that each party may have under that title with respect to, but
only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify the other party. This waiver has been
mutually negotiated by the parties. Each party shall also indemnify and hold the other
party harmless from any wage, overtime or benefit claim of any of the first party's
employees, agents, representatives, contractors or subcontractors performing services
under this Agreement. Each party further agrees to fully indemnify the other party from
and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the
other party is held harmless therefrom.
Section 14. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be
brought in Snohomish County Superior Court.
Section 15. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that
nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship
between EDMONDS and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of
LYNNWOOD, or between LYNNWOOD and any employee, agent, representative or
contractor of EDMONDS.
Section 16. Notices. Notices to EDMONDS shall be sent to the following
address:
City of Edmonds
City Engineer
121 Fifth Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Notices to LYNNWOOD shall be sent to the following address:
City of Lynnwood
Deputy Public Works Director / City Engineer
Packet Page 31 of 202
19100 44th Avenue W., P.O. Box 5008
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008
Section 17. Duty to File Agreement With County Auditor. EDMONDS shall,
after this Agreement is executed by both Parties, file this Agreement with the Snohomish
County Auditor.
Section 18. Integration. This document constitutes the entire embodiment of the
Agreement between the Parties, and, unless modified in writing by an amendment to this
Interlocal Agreement signed by the Parties hereto, shall be implemented as described
above.
Section 19. Non-Waiver. Waiver by any Party of any of the provisions contained
within this Agreement, including but not limited to any performance deadline, shall not
be construed as a waiver of any other provisions.
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY OF LYNNWOOD
By: By:
Mike Cooper, Mayor Don Gough, Mayor
Date: Date:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ _________________________
Sharon Cates, City Attorney Rosemary Larson, City Attorney
Packet Page 32 of 202
AM-4126 Item #: 1. F.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Potential amendments to downtown BD zones.
(PLEASE NOTE: this item contains all of the material from the July 26th public hearing; the material is repeated here
for reference. The "recommendation" below is specifically geared for the Committee discussion, however.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Review for further Council consideration and action.
In order to move forward, the Council could elect to act on a subset of the Planning Board's recommendations (e.g. the first
three areas) and take more time to review and develop a consensus proposal for the Board's recommendations regarding
"development agreements."
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
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 08/05/2011 08:05 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 08:15 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2011 09:35 AM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 10:09 AM
Packet Page 33 of 202
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/04/2011
Final Approval Date: 08/05/2011
Packet Page 34 of 202
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 35 of 202
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 36 of 202
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 37 of 202
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 38 of 202
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 39 of 202
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones
Packet Page 40 of 202
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 41 of 202
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 42 of 202
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 43 of 202
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 44 of 202
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 45 of 202
12
Note: the diagrams on this page are
deleted in the Planning Board
recommendation.
Packet Page 46 of 202
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 47 of 202
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 48 of 202
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 49 of 202
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 50 of 202
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 51 of 202
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 52 of 202
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 53 of 202
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 54 of 202
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 55 of 202
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 56 of 202
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 57 of 202
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 58 of 202
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 8
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 59 of 202
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 60 of 202
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 61 of 202
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 62 of 202
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
3
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
4
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
5
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
6
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
7
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
8
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
9
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
0
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
1
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
2
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
3
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
4
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
5
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
9
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
0
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
1
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
2
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
3
o
f
2
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
4
o
f
2
0
2
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 95 of 202
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 96 of 202
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 97 of 202
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 98 of 202
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 99 of 202
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 100 of 202
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 101 of 202
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones
Packet Page 102 of 202
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 103 of 202
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 104 of 202
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 105 of 202
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 106 of 202
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 107 of 202
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 108 of 202
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 109 of 202
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 110 of 202
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 111 of 202
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 112 of 202
(((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
!!
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
(((((((((((((
((((((((((((
((((
((((
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
(((
(((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((
((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((
((((((((
((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
((((((((((((((
((
((((((((((
(((((((((((
((((
((((((
(((((
(((((((
(((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((
((((((((((
((
((
(((
((((((((((
((
!
!
((((
((((((((((((
(((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
((((
((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
((((
(((((((((((
!
!
!
!!
((((((((
((((
!
((
!
!
((((((((((((((((
((((((((
((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
(((((
(((((
(((((
(((((
((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
(
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
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
11
3
of
20
2
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 114 of 202
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 115 of 202
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 116 of 202
AM-4128 Item #: 2. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Carl Nelson
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For Information
Previous Council Action
Resolution 1234 - Support of Continued Development of Fiber Optic Opportunities as a Source of City Revenue.
The Finance Committee reviewed the quarterly report on 04-12-11 and recommended placing the report on the City Council
Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The August 24, 2010 presentation of "Edmonds Fiber Optic Broadband Initiative - Background and Update" resulted in
Resolution 1234 - setting the policy to review Fiber Optic "opportunity that serves the interest of the citizenry of Edmonds"
and requiring quarterly reports to the Finance Committee.
Progress has been made and local private businesses, the Edmonds Center for the Arts, and the Port of Edmonds are
considering using City of Edmonds fiber for a portion of their business needs. SNOCOM has been presented with a contract
for provision of internet services and we are awaiting their response. Attachment 1 shows a June 30th 2011 snapshot of
expenditures to date (minor changes may occur due to month end postings) and, using these numbers, Attachment 2 shows the
estimated break even date of April 2015 remains reasonable.
It should be noted that either the SNOCOM service provision or the other potential local business partners will move up the
estimated break even date.
Washington State Courts of Appeals on July 5th affirmed the Snohomish County Superior Court ruling the City has the ability
to sell excess capacity to residents and businesses: “...we conclude the City has the statutory and constitutional authority to
issue the bonds, and affirm.” Attached is a copy of their ruling and a summary article from the attorney.
Thanks to all CTAC members over the years for their support and effort to make this possible.
The City of Seattle's support of the appeal effort to date has reimbursed $24,249.08 of legal fees (thus reducing the City's
Professional Services expenditures). About $4,000 of the legal fees since the beginning of the year are not reimbursable.
Overall, expenditures for the 2011 Fiber Optic Budget have been proceeding as expected. The bulk of that amount will cover
ISP charges (approx $13,200), equipment maintenance ($2,500), lease/rental of network software and PUD poles ($4,000).
Due to legal fees, the $5,000 that has been set aside for Professional Services for specialized network configuration will not be
available should the need arise in 2011, but can be drawn from Repairs should it be needed.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Fiber Project Costs
Attachment 2: Fiber Project Costs
Attachment 3: Appeal Summary - Foster Pepper
Attachment 4: Appeals Court Decision
Packet Page 117 of 202
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 01:03 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/04/2011 02:07 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 05:05 PM
Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 08/04/2011
Final Approval Date: 08/04/2011
Packet Page 118 of 202
20
0
6
2
0
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
0
20
1
1
2011 (as of Jun 30)
Ti
t
l
e
/
O
b
j
e
c
t
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
B
u
d
g
e
t
e
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
P
r
e
l
i
m
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
31
0
S
U
P
P
L
I
E
S
-
$
-
$
-
$
7
,
8
8
8
.
9
9
$
-
$
7,
8
8
8
.
9
9
$
1,
0
0
0
.
0
0
-$ 7,888.99 $
35
0
S
M
A
L
L
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
-
-
-
1
7
,
3
3
6
.
1
7
1,
4
6
3
.
6
2
1,
0
0
0
.
0
0
18
,
7
9
9
.
7
9
0.
0
0
- 18,799.79 $
41
0
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
7,
7
9
5
.
6
8
34
,
8
8
6
.
8
7
76
,
3
7
0
.
3
9
93
,
1
1
6
.
0
2
46
,
8
2
6
.
3
6
54
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
25
8
,
9
9
5
.
3
2
5,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4,289.39 263,284.71 $
42
0
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
-
3
4
,
1
8
6
.
0
6
43
,
9
3
2
.
9
5
21
,
1
0
9
.
4
4
25
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
99
,
2
2
8
.
4
5
13
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
5,497.20 104,725.65 $
45
0
R
E
N
T
A
L
/
L
E
A
S
E
-
-
-
4
,
5
5
2
.
9
3
3,
9
4
8
.
0
0
-
8,
5
0
0
.
9
3
4,
0
0
0
.
0
0
- 8,500.93 $
48
0
R
E
P
A
I
R
S
&
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
-
-
-
2
,
4
5
6
.
3
9
11
4
.
4
6
3,
6
0
0
.
0
0
2,
5
7
0
.
8
5
2,
5
0
0
.
0
0
750.01 3,320.86 $
49
0
M
I
S
C
E
L
L
A
N
E
O
U
S
-
-
6.
0
5
60
0
.
0
0
2,
7
7
2
.
4
7
-
3,
3
7
8
.
5
2
0.
0
0
- 3,378.52 $
64
0
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
-
1
2
6
,
2
4
8
.
0
0
-
-
-
-
1
2
6
,
2
4
8
.
0
0
0.
0
0
- 126,248.00 $
To
t
a
l
7,
7
9
5
.
6
8
16
1
,
1
3
4
.
8
7
11
0
,
5
6
2
.
5
0
16
9
,
8
8
3
.
4
5
76
,
2
3
4
.
3
5
10,536.60 $ 536,147.45 $
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
(
a
)
(
2
0
,
8
7
4
.
0
8
)
(2
0
,
8
7
4
.
0
8
)
‐33
7
5
Est:(24,249.08)
55
,
3
6
0
.
2
7
50
4
,
7
3
6
.
7
7
511,898.37
Fi
b
e
r
O
p
t
i
c
B
u
d
g
e
t
(
P
a
g
e
3
1
o
f
2
0
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
B
u
d
g
e
t
)
29
2
,
0
6
2
.
0
0
1
9
7
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
3
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
8
3
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
25
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
(1
8
1
,
4
9
9
.
5
0
)
$
(2
7
,
3
1
6
.
5
5
)
$
(5
8
,
2
3
9
.
7
3
)
$
(2
8
,
2
3
9
.
7
3
)
$
(2
3
7
,
0
5
5
.
7
8
)
$
(15,163.40)$ (252,219.18)$
(2
6
7
,
0
5
5
.
7
8
)
$
af
t
e
r
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
d
j
a)
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
Total as of 6/30/2011
20
1
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
fi
g
u
r
e
s
ta
k
e
in
t
o
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
by
pr
o
j
e
c
t
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
t
a
l
i
n
g
$2
0
,
8
7
4
.
0
8
th
r
o
u
g
h
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Fi
b
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
FY
2
0
0
6
-
2
0
1
0
To
t
a
l
a
s
o
f
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
9
of
20
2
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
2
Co
s
t
s
in
cu
r
r
e
d
to
da
t
e
:
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
0
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
1
$7
,
8
8
8
.
9
9
$
7,
8
8
8
.
9
9
$7,888.99
Sm
a
l
l
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
Sm
a
l
l
sc
a
l
e
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
fo
r
sw
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
an
d
ro
u
t
i
n
g
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
)
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
ne
t
w
o
r
k
s
ab
i
l
i
t
y
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
.
$1
7
,
3
3
6
.
1
7
18
,
7
9
9
.
7
9
$18,799.79
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Sv
c
:
Co
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
fo
r
Co
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
De
s
i
g
n
,
In
s
t
a
l
l
,
Le
g
a
l
fe
e
s
an
d
co
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
fe
e
s
fo
r
th
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
.
(J
u
l
y
22
n
d
MO
U
wi
t
h
Ci
t
y
of
Se
a
t
t
l
e
wi
l
l
re
d
u
c
e
th
i
s
by
$2
0
,
2
4
5
.
3
8
)
$2
3
6
,
4
3
9
.
1
1
$
23
8
,
1
2
1
.
2
4
$
239,035.63
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
Fe
e
s
pa
i
d
to
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
fi
b
e
r
co
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
fo
r
sh
a
r
e
d
co
s
t
s
of
ce
r
t
a
i
n
as
s
e
t
s
an
d
fe
e
s
pa
i
d
fo
r
In
t
e
r
n
e
t
ac
c
e
s
s
.
$9
2
,
9
0
2
.
8
2
99
,
2
2
8
.
4
5
$104,725.65
Re
n
t
a
l
& Le
a
s
e
:
Po
l
e
re
n
t
a
l
$8
,
0
0
7
.
4
3
8,
5
0
0
.
9
3
$8,500.93
Re
p
a
i
r
& Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
:
Fe
e
s
pa
i
d
to
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
fi
b
e
r
co
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
fo
r
sh
a
r
e
d
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
of
ce
r
t
a
i
n
as
s
e
t
s
as
we
l
l
as
re
p
a
i
r
s
to
wh
o
l
l
y
ow
n
e
d
fi
b
e
r
as
s
e
t
s
.
$2
,
5
7
0
.
8
5
2,
5
7
0
.
8
5
$3,320.86
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
$6
2
8
.
5
2
3,
3
7
8
.
5
2
$3,378.52
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
Fi
b
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
& Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
co
s
t
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
ne
w
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
th
e
ne
t
w
o
r
k
.
$1
2
6
,
2
4
8
.
0
0
$
12
6
,
2
4
8
.
0
0
$ 126,248.00
TO
T
A
L
Co
s
t
s
to
Da
t
e
$4
9
2
,
0
2
1
.
8
9
$5
0
4
,
7
3
6
.
7
7
$511,898.37
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
On
g
o
i
n
g
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
:
Pe
r
Mo
n
t
h
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
1
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
1
On
g
o
i
n
g
co
s
t
s
of
$1
9
6
/
m
o
n
t
h
fo
r
po
l
e
re
n
t
a
l
an
d
co
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
du
e
s
$1
9
6
$2
,
3
5
2
$3
,
3
3
2
$1,176
In
t
e
r
n
e
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
$1
,
0
0
0
$1
2
,
0
0
0
$1
7
,
0
0
0
$6,000
Ci
s
c
o
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
$2
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
TO
T
A
L
S
$1
6
,
3
5
2
$2
2
,
3
3
2
$7,176
Re
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
sa
v
i
n
g
s
or
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
:
It
e
m
To
t
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Pe
r
Mo
n
t
h
7
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
0
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
1
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
(2
)
T ‐1'
s
to
Ci
t
y
Of
f
i
c
e
s
Be
g
a
n
1/
2
0
0
7
$1
,
1
0
0
$3
4
,
1
0
0
$3
9
,
6
0
0
$46,200
Vi
d
e
o
Ar
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
‐
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
(F
e
b
20
1
0
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
$2
,
7
5
0
$1
6
,
5
0
0
$3
0
,
2
5
0
$46,750
Vi
d
e
o
Ar
r
a
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
– re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
in
Ja
i
l
Da
y
s
$2
,
7
6
9
$1
6
,
6
1
4
$3
0
,
4
5
9
$47,073
TO
T
A
L
SA
V
I
N
G
S
$
6
,
6
1
9
$
6
7
,
2
1
4
$
1
0
0
,
3
0
9
$
1
4
0
,
0
2
3
Ne
t
R
i
v
e
r
(s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
Ja
n
20
0
7
,
in
c
r
e
a
$4
8
,
5
0
0
$1
,
5
0
0
$4
8
,
5
0
0
$5
6
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
,
0
0
0
TO
T
A
L
BE
N
E
F
I
T
TO
CI
T
Y
$4
8
,
5
0
0
$8
,
1
1
9
$
1
1
5
,
7
1
4
$
1
5
6
,
3
0
9
$
2
0
5
,
0
2
3
BA
L
A
N
C
E
($
3
7
6
,
3
0
7
.
8
9
)
(
$
3
4
8
,
4
2
7
.
7
7
)
(
$
3
0
6
,
8
7
5
.
3
7
)
Ye
a
r
to
pa
y
of
f
:
4.
6
4.
3
3.8
Li
k
e
l
y
pa
y
of
f
da
t
e
:
3
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
5
1
0
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
5
4
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
/
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
as
of
Co
s
t
s
as
of
:
It
e
m
It
e
m
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
:
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
pu
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
of
pl
a
n
s
,
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
dr
a
w
i
n
g
s
in
su
p
p
o
r
t
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
ma
j
o
r
di
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
Ye
a
r
l
y
an
d
"T
o
da
t
e
"
Co
s
t
s
as
of
:
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
12
0
of
20
2
From: Foster Pepper News <fpnews@foster.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Foster Pepper News
Subject: Foster Pepper News: Cities’ Authority to Offer Broadband Telecommunication Services to
the Public is Upheld
L EGAL N EWS B ULLETIN
Cities’ Authority to Offer Broadband
Telecommunication Services to the Public is
Upheld
July 5, 2011
Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals today 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. In Re Limited Tax General
Obligation Bonds of the City of Edmonds
The City of Edmonds brought this declaratory judgment action to
validate bonds the City had authorized (but not yet issued) to complete
the fourth leg of its fiber optic telecommunication system. The City’s
fiber optic system was built to allow remote metering of water meters as
well as to provide other internal City communication, such as
broadband communication with the City’s emergency responders. But,
even with the City’s own use, there is substantial excess capacity
available to provide broadband connections to individuals and
businesses in the City at speeds far higher than are currently available
from existing telephone and cable providers.
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. Edmonds
affirmed that authority in Snohomish County Superior Court and has
now prevailed on appeal.
The Court of Appeals pointed out that code cities such as Edmonds are
vested with broad legislative powers limited only by the restriction that a
local enactment cannot contravene the constitution or directly conflict
with a statute. Here, there is no statute nor constitutional provision
prohibiting the City from offering telecommunication services. Indeed
the Court pointed out that in the analogous case of City of Issaquah v.
Teleprompter, Inc. 93 Wn.2d 567, 611 P.2d 741 (1980), the Washington
Supreme Court upheld Issaquah’s ownership and operation of a cable
TV network, even though there is no express statutory authority for a
city to own or operate a cable TV system.
The record here, the Court noted, showed that Edmonds first built the
fiber optic system for its own use, and only then made plans to make
excess capacity available to the public. Upholding that plan, the Court
of Appeals also relied on a Washington Supreme Court case decided
For more information, please contact Will Patton in
Foster Pepper’s Municipal Practice Group.
Learn about other important legal bulletins in the
Foster Pepper newsroom.
If you do not wish to receive e-mail announcements
from Foster Pepper, please send a message to
news@foster.com.
Foster Pepper PLLC
Seattle | Spokane
Subscribe to Foster Pepper’s News RSS Feed
http://www.foster.com/RSS/FP_News.aspx
Follow us on Twitter @FosterPepper
http://www.twitter.com/fosterpepper
Packet Page 121 of 202
nearly one hundred years ago. Chandler v. City of Seattle, 80 Wash.
154, 141 P. 331 (1914). In Chandler, the Supreme Court upheld the
authority of the City of Seattle to offset the costs of providing electricity
to itself by selling excess electricity and surplus steam power to the
public through what then became Seattle City Light. The expenditure of
public funds is authorized as long as the “bona fide intention” is for a
public purpose.
The contents of this communication are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
Packet Page 122 of 202
RICHARD D.JOHNSON,
(‘nnrt 4rhiin,~vIw,tc,r/P1pr1r
July 5,2011
The Court ofAppeals
of the
State of Washington
Seattle
DIVISION I
OneUnion~Square
600University
Street
98101-4170
(206)464-7750
TOD: (206)587-
William Howard Patton
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 3rd Ave Ste 3400
Seattle,WA,98101-3299
pattw@foster.corn
Hugh Davidson Spitzer
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 3rd Ave Ste 3400
Seattle,WA,98101-3299
pattw@foster.corn
Steven James Peiffle
Attorney at Law
P0 Box 188
Arlington,WA,98223-01 88
steve@snolaw.com
CASE #:64492-1-I
In Re Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds of the City of Edmonds
Snohomish County,Cause No.08-2-00023-9
Counsel:
Enclosed is a copy of the opinion filed in the above-referenced appeal which states in part:
“...we conclude the City has the statutory and constitutional authority to issue the
bonds,and affirm.”
Counsel may file a motion for reconsideration within 20 days of filing this opinion pursuant to RAP
12.4(b).If counsel does not wish to file a motion for reconsideration but does wish to seek review by
the Supreme Court,RAP 13.4(a)provides that if no motion for reconsideration is made,a petition for
review must be filed in this court within 30 days.The Supreme Court has determined that a filing fee of
$200 is required.
In accordance with RAP 14.4(a),a claim for costs by the prevailing party must be supported by a cost
bill filed and served within ten days after the filing of this opinion,or claim for costs will be deemed
waived.
Sincerely,
Richard D.Johnson
Court Administrator/Clerk
ssd
Enclosure
c:The Honorable Larry McKeeman
Packet Page 123 of 202
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
IN THE MATTER OF THE LIMITED )No.64492-1-I
TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS )
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,)—~
r
ROWENA ROHRBACH,Public )
Representative,)PUBLISHED OPINION
~
/-~Appellant,)Z~t~”
v.)
)
CITY OF EDMONDS,)
)
Respondent.)FILED:July 5,2011
SCHINDLER,J.—The City of Edmonds (City)authorized the issuance of $4.2
million in taxpayer bonds to extend and complete its fiber optic network in order to
convert to a wireless water meter system,as well as provide broadband access to
police,fire,and other public institutions.Because the issuance of the bonds is primarily
for a public purpose,the City has the authority to allow private individuals and
nongovernmental organizations to use the current excess capacity of its high-speed
broadband network.We hold that the City’s decision to issue the taxpayer bonds does
not violate article VII,section 1 of the Washington State Constitution and is not an
unconstitutional gift of funds or lending of credit in violation of article VIII,section 7.
FACTS
The facts are not in dispute.In November 2004,the Edmonds City Council
Packet Page 124 of 202
No.64492-1-1/2
formed a Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC).The “Edmonds CTAC
Charter”defines the objective of the committee as follows:
Within the framework of this charter, the CTAC seeks to advance the
City’s interests by identifying and recommending viable technologies that
will:
—Stimulate economic activity within the City and help attract the
types of businesses that will add to the City’s economic vitality and
stabilize the operating revenues of City Government.
—Allow City services to be offered in a way that optimizes the
efficiency of the City Worker while improving the quality of service
delivered to Edmonds Citizens.
—Improve Public Safety functions by enabling seamless inter-
jurisdictional communication and enabling more efficient
deployment of Public Safety resources.
—Help stabilize /recover Utility Tax and Franchise fee revenue.
In March 2005,the CTAC issued a “Municipal WiFi Issue Paper”analyzing the need to
create a City-owned high-speed broadband network.
In June 2005,the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
requested expedited approval of permits and use of City-owned right-of-way to install 36
strands of fiber optic cable to link the Edmonds Ferry Terminal to the existing WSDOT
fiber optic cable that runs along Interstate 5.The fiber optic link to the Edmonds Ferry
Terminal was part of an infrastructure security initiative funded by the Department of
Homeland Security.
In exchange for the City’s agreement to expedite approval and the use of its
right-of-way,WSDOT gave the City access to 24 of the 36 strands of fiber optic cable.
WSDOT also agreed to allow the City to determine placement and installation of the
fiber optic cable.The City requested installation and termination of the 24 strands at the
Public Works Administration Building.The Public Works building is located near the
Public Safety Building in downtown Edmonds.
2
Packet Page 125 of 202
No.64492-1-1/3
In late 2005,the City joined a consortium that owns and operates a 256-strand
fiber optic cable that runs underground “from downtown Seattle to the King/Snohomish
County Line along the centerline of Hwy 99.” The consortium includes the city of
Seattle,King County,and the University of Washington.As a member of the
consortium,the City was able to use six unallocated strands of fiber optic cable.
In December 2006,the City completed construction of a link connecting the 24
fiber strands at the Public Works Administration Building to the six strands located at the
county line under Highway 99,providing:
[A]direct link to the regional internet connection hub at the Westin building
in downtown Seattle and the fibers it had previously acquired from
WSDOT running from the ferry terminal to the City’s Public Works
Administration building off 212th Street in Edmonds.
Completion of this link allowed the City to provide broadband internet service to other
public institutions in the City,such as the Edmonds School District,Stevens Hospital,
and Edmonds Community College,as well as other broadband users.By using its own
broadband fiber optic network,the City obtained significant cost savings and
performance improvements.
The overall transmission capacity,or bandwidth,of a fiber optic network is
defined by the smallest segment.Each strand of the City’s fiber optic network
simultaneously transmits and receives up to 10 Giga (billion)bits per second (Gbps),or
10,000 Mega (million)bits per second (Mbps).Using the smallest segment of the City’s
current fiber optic network,the six-strand link from the City to downtown Seattle, the
current capacity is 60 Gbps. The bandwidth of the segment connecting the Edmonds
Ferry Terminal to the Public Works Administration Building is 240 Gbps.It is anticipated
3
Packet Page 126 of 202
No.64492-1-1/4
that in the near future,it may be possible to expand the bandwidth of each strand to 100
Gbps.
On April 16,2008,fiber optic network consultant Rick Jenness issued the
“Edmonds Fiber Network”report addressing the City’s use of the fiber optic network as
well as use by “other governmental,educational and not-for profit institutions.” The
“Introduction”to the Report states that the City had been working for several years to
establish a fiber optic network “to reduce municipal telecommunications costs while
increasing telecommunications functionality.”In addition,the Introduction also states
that the City had “examined two other uses for this network:providing high speed
broadband access to other local governmental and not-for-profit entities,and expanding
the network to provide . . .services for residents and businesses.”
The Report recommends the City move ahead with “the development of the
Edmond’s Fiber Network (EFN)for internal and intergovernmental uses.”The Report
points out that future excess capacity would allow the City to offer access to the network
to residents and businesses.However, based on estimates of the cost to provide a
connection to each home,the Report recommends against expanding the network to
provide service to all residential and commercial users.
The Report recommends proceeding with a proposed project to extend the fiber
network geographically in order to replace the water meters throughout the City with a
wireless system. According to the Report,utility savings would offset the costs of
replacing the water meters.The Report describes the proposed wireless water meter
reading project as follows:
By extending the EFN northward to the Seaview area, and southward
towards Esperance area,the City can provide a wireless communications
4
Packet Page 127 of 202
No.64492-1-I/S
infrastructure capable of remotely reading every water meter in the City
without the need for employees of the Water Department to drive to each
location and manually capture the meter value.Currently 37%of the
City’s meters are over 20 years old,and a full 66%are over ten years old.
As meters get older,their accuracy degrades causing lost revenue to the
City.
To read meters centrally,several radio reception points are needed to be
located in various parts of the City.These reception points would be
connected to the central office via an expansion of the City’s fiber optic
backbone.The base cost of meter replacement (necessary in any event)
is estimated at just under $2.0 million.Moving to smart meters adds just
over $2.0 million.
The Report sets forth the following costs for the project:
ITEM BASE METER
REPLACEMENT
SMART
METER COSTS
TOTAL COST
Replacement Water
Meters
$1,776,299 $1,776,299
Meter Radios 1,254,875 1,254,875
Base Station 180,700 180,700
Tower and Base 50,000 50,000
Fiber Extensions 100,000 100,000
Switching Equipment 75,000 75,000
WiFi Communications 300,000 300,000
Sales Tax 135,887 149,984 285,857
Grand Total $1,912,186 $2,110,559 $4,022,731
The City conducted a study of the wireless meter reading project analyzing the
costs and benefits.The study estimates that the cost savings from a wireless water
5
Packet Page 128 of 202
No.64492-1-1/6
meter system are significant and that the costs incurred in converting to a wireless
system would be offset in eight years.
In July 2008,the City issued the “Edmonds Broadband Initiative Confidential
Executive Summary.”The City recommended extending “the existing WSDOT
backbone to connect other public sector partners who require high volume internet
capacity,”and creating “a fiber optic ring that would connect the 5 major zones of the
City”to allow “[e]lectronic [m]eter reading”1 and access by police officers,fire fighters,
fire marshals,inspectors, and public works employees “while working in the field.”
According to the Executive Summary,“[b]ecause of the large capacity of the fiber optic
technology,”consideration should also be given to leasing “some of this excess capacity
to commercial and residential users within the City thus accelerating the payback time
of the investment.”
On December 16,the City Council adopted”Ordinance No.3721.” Ordinance
No.3721 authorizes issuing $4.2 million in general tax obligation bonds to install 24
strands of cable to connect the City’s existing fiber optic network backbone to radio
towers in order to “construct a wireless water meter system and extend and improve the
City’s fiber optic network both to support that system and for other municipal and public
purposes.” Ordinance No.3721 states that completion of the network will allow the City
to convert “all of the City’s water meters over to wireless meters that are read from
centralized receivers connected to the fiber backbone”and provide “police,fire and
other City employees”in the field with “wireless broadband connectivity.” Ordinance
No.3721 also states that installation of 24 strands is “the most economical size to install
(Boldface omitted.)
6
Packet Page 129 of 202
No.64492-1-1/7
due to its increased durability,wide availability and commodity like pricing.”Installing
24 strands results in significant current excess capacity of approximately 239,980 Mbps,
or 99.99 16 percent in available capacity.
Ordinance No.3721, Section 1 sets forth the City Council’s findings:
1.1 The City desires to construct,own and operate a wireless
water meter system to replace its existing water meter system.
1.2 The City currently owns and operates a high capacity
telecommunications fiber optic network that serves the City’s utility
operations,public safety operations and other City services,and desires
to extend and improve that system in order to support the new wireless
water meter system and to enhance other utility operations, public safety
operations,and other public services.
1.3 The extension and improvement of the City’s existing fiber
optic network creates excess capacity that may be used to provide access
to ultra high capacity internet and other telecommunications services;
capacity for accommodating expanding technologies and demand;
intergovernmental coordination and services (including educational and
health institutions);and more and faster service to members of the public
who are in need of those services.
1.4 The City is in need of financing a wireless water meter
system and the extension and improvement of the City’s fiber optic
network (the “Project,” as defined in Section 3,below),the estimated total
cost of which is more than $4,200,000, and the City does not have
available sufficient funds to pay the cost.
1.5 To pay costs of the Project,the City Council finds it
necessary and advisable that the City issue and sell its limited tax general
obligation bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed $4,200,000 (the
“Bonds”).
Based on the findings,the ordinance authorizes issuance of the bonds,
describing the public purpose,as well as the intent to contract for use of the excess
capacity with private individuals and entities.Ordinance No.3721,Seótion 3 provides:
The City shall borrow money on the credit of the City and issue negotiable
limited tax general obligation bonds evidencing that indebtedness as
described in Section 4,for general City purposes to provide part of the
7
Packet Page 130 of 202
No.64492-1-1/8
funds with which to design and construct a wireless water meter system
and extend and improve the City’s fiber optic network both to support that
system and for other municipal and public purposes (the “Project”)(a)to
enable timely,efficient and cost-effect [sic]water meter reading;(b)for
use by City departments in order to enhance other utility operations, public
safety operations,and other City services,(c)for use by other
governmental, educational and health institutions pursuant to interlocal
agreements and other contractual arrangements,and (d)to the extent
capacity is available,for use under contract by private persons and
entities that need access to high capacity internet and other high capacity
telecommunications services,and to pay the costs of issuance and sale of
the bonds (the “costs of issuance”).The general indebtedness to be
incurred shall~be within the limit of up to 11/2 %of the value of the taxable
property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a
vote of the qualified voters therein.
On December 23,the City filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the
validity of Ordinance No.3721 and the decision to issue taxpayer bonds to expand the
fiber optic network.The complaint describes the history of the current fiber optic
network and states that the purpose of the bonds is to extend and improve the fiber
optic network in order to provide funding to design and construct a wireless water meter
system and use the network for other governmental purposes.The complaint describes
the anticipated use of the network for “public safety and public works operations,”as
well as providing “high capacity bandwidth communication to numerous other
government entities.” Paragraph 22 of the complaint identifies a “fourth use”as the
ability “to provide high bandwidth communication to individuals and non-government
organizations that need access to high capacity internet connections.”
The trial court designated Rowena Rohrbach as the taxpayer representative for
the declaratory judgment action,and appointed counsel to represent Rohrbach and the
taxpayers.Rohrbach’s answer admits all allegations in the complaint except paragraph
22.As to paragraph 22,the answer asserts that as a matter of law,the City is not
8
Packet Page 131 of 202
No.64492-1-1/9
authorized to “create public bonded indebtedness in part for the purpose of providing
high band-width communications facilities for private use,”and state law does not
authorize the City to provided telecommunication services.
The City filed a motion for summaryjudgment. The City argued that as a matter
of law,it has the authority to issue tax obligation bonds to extend the fiber optic network
for public purposes,as well as allow the public to use the currently existing excess
capacity.In support,the City submitted a number of declarations from a number of
business owners interested in using the City’s network,including Dewar,Meeks &
Ekrem,CPA and Europe Through the Back Door.In opposition,Rohrbach argued that
the City was not authorized to issue taxpayer obligation bonds for a project that also
benefits individuals and businesses,and the City has no authority to provide
telecommunications services.
The trial court granted the City’s motion for summaryjudgment. The court ruled
that the City was authorized to issue taxpayer bonds,and to the extent available,the
City had the authority to allow businesses and private individuals to use the current
excess capacity of its fiber optic network.The court’s order states,in pertinent part:
1.The City of Edmonds’Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED.
2.The use of excess capacity on the City of Edmonds’high
speed fiber optic communication system by private individuals and non-
governmental businesses and organizations that need access to ultra high
bandwidth communication is DECLARED to be a lawful public purpose of
the City of Edmonds under its general “home rule”powers as a code city
organized under Title 35A RCW and under the express statutory authority
to engage in economic development programs under RCW 35.21.703.
3.The bonds authorized by Edmonds Ordinance No.3721 are
DECLARED valid in all respects,including the use of the bonds for
enhancement of the City’s high speed fiber optic communication system
a.to enable timely,efficient and cost-effective water meter
reading;
9
Packet Page 132 of 202
No.64492-1-1/10
b.for use by City departments in order to enhance other utility
operations, public safety operations,and other City services;
c.for use by other governmental,educational and health
institutions pursuant to interlocal agreements and other
contractual arrangements;
d.to the extent capacity is available,for use under contract by
private persons and entities that need access to high
capacity internet and other high capacity
telecommunications services;and
e.to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds.
Rohrbach appeals.
ANALYSIS
Rohrbach contends that the City does not have the statutory authority to issue
taxpayer obligation bonds to expand the fiber optic network for both a public purpose
and the stated intent to allow private individuals and businesses to use the available
current excess capacity.
The City filed this declaratory judgment action under RCW 7.25 to determine the
validity of Ordinance No.3721 and the issuance of taxpayer obligation bonds. RCW
7.25.010 provides,in pertinent part:
Whenever the legislative or governing body of.. .any county,city,school
district,other municipal corporation,taxing district,or any agency,
instrumentality, or public corporation thereof shall desire to issue bonds of
any kind and shall have passed an ordinance or resolution authorizing the
same, the validity of such proposed bond issue may be tested and
determined in the manner provided in this chapter.
In King County v.Taxpayers of King County,133 Wn.2d 584,594-95,949 P.2d
1260 (1997),the Washington State Supreme Court adopted a three-part test to use in
determining the validity of the issuance of taxpayer bonds in a declaratory judgment
action under RCW 7.25.010:
1.Is there legislative or constitutional authority delegated to the
municipality to issue the bonds for the particular purpose?
10
Packet Page 133 of 202
No.64492-1-I/Il
2.Was the statute authorizing the bond issue constitutionally
enacted?If not constitutionally enacted or if unconstitutional for any other
reason,the issue is void and recitals are of no effect.
3.Is the purpose for which the bonds are issued,a public and
corporate purpose,as distinguished from a private purpose?
The City has the burden of establishing the validity of the ordinance authorizing
issuance of the bonds under RCW 7.25.010.King County,133 Wn.2d at 595.
Legislative And Constitutional Authority To Issue Taxpayer Bonds
Citing to RCW 35A.40.080,Rohrbach claims the City does not have the express
authority to issue taxpayer bonds as authorized by Ordinance No.3721.We disagree.
Article XI,section 11 of the Washington State Constitution gives code cities the
authority to “make and enforce within [their]limits all such local police,sanitary and
other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.”
The City of Edmonds was incorporated under the Optional Municipal Code,
chapter 35A RCW.Optional Municipal Code cities are vested with broad legislative
powers limited only by the restriction that an enactment cannot contravene the
constitution or directly conflict with a statute.RCW 35A.11.020;Heinsma v.City of
Vancouver,144 Wn.2d 556,560,29 P.3d 709 (2001);Winkenwerderv.City of Yakima,
52 Wn.2d 617, 622,328 P.2d 873 (1958).
As a code city,the City of Edmonds is authorized to incur debt or borrow
money for “strictly municipal purposes”without a vote of the taxpayers for “the
amount of indebtedness authorized by chapter 39.36 RCW.”RCW 35.37.040;
see also RCW 39.36.020(4)(requiring strictly municipal purpose for
11
Packet Page 134 of 202
No.64492-1-1/12
indebtedness under chapter 39.36 RCW).2
Nonetheless,Rohrbach argues that under RCW 35A.40.080,the City does not
have express authority to issue taxpayer bonds to expand the fiber optic network.The
plain language of RCW 35A.40.080 does not support Rohrbach’s argument.RCW
35A.40.080 unambiguously allows a code city to issue taxpayer bonds as authorized by
other statutes,including RCW 35.37.040 and RCW 39.36.020. RCW 35A.40.080
provides:
In addition to any other authority granted by law,a code city shall have
authority to ratify and fund indebtedness as provided by chapter 35.40
RCW;to issue revenue bonds,coupons and warrants as authorized by
chapter 35.41 RCW;to authorize and issue local improvement bonds and
warrants,installment notes and interest certificates as authorized by
chapter 35.45 RCW;to fund indebtedness and to issue other bonds as
authorized by chapters 39.44, 39.48,39.52 RCW,RCW 39.56.020, and
39.56.030 in accordance with the procedures and subject to the limitations
therein providedJ31
Rohrbach also asserts the City does not have the authority to operate a
fiber optic network and provide private individuals and businesses with access to
the network.But Rohrbach cites no authority expressly prohibiting the City from
operating a fiber optic network and allowing access to its network.And in an
analogous case,City of Issaguah v.Teleprompter Corp.,93 Wn.2d 567,572-75,
2 RCW 35.37.040 provides,in pertinent part:
Every city and town,may,without a vote of the people,contract indebtedness or borrow
money for strictly municipal purposes on the credit of the city or town and issue
negotiable bonds therefor in an amount which when added to its existing nonvoter
approved indebtedness will not exceed the amount of indebtedness authorized by
chapter 39.36 ROW,as now or hereafter amended,to be incurred without the assent of
the voters.
Under ROW 39.36.020(2)(a)(ii),a code city may incur indebtedness of less than 1.5 percent of the assessed
value of property in the city without a vote of the taxpayers.King County,133 Wn.2d at 608-09.Rohrbach
does not argue that Ordinance No.3721 exceeds the City’s debt threshold.
~(Emphasis added.)
12
Packet Page 135 of 202
No.64492-1-1/13
611 P.2d 741 (1980),the Washington State Supreme Court held that absent an
express legislative enactment to the contrary,the city of Issaquah was not
prohibited from owning, operating,and providing cable television services.4
Issuance Of Taxpayer Bonds For A Public Purpose
Rohrbach also contends that Ordinance No.3721 violates article VII,section 1 of
the Washington State Constitution and RCW 35.37.040 because the City is not issuing
taxpayer bonds strictly for public purposes. Rohrbach concedes that the bonds are
being issued for a public purpose but asserts that because the City’s current use is only
0.0014 percent of the available bandwidth,the network primarily benefits private
individuals and businesses.
Article VII,section 1 of the Washington State Constitution provides,in pertinent
part:“All taxes . . .shall be levied and collected for public purposes only.”Public funds
cannot be used “to benefit private interests where the public interest is not primarily
served.”Japan Line, Ltd.v.McCaffree,88 Wn.2d 93,98,558 P.2d 211 (1977).
Accordingly,the expenditure of public funds by the municipality must further public
purposes.CLEAN v.State,130 Wn.2d 782,792-93,928 P.2d 1054 (1996).
What constitutes a “public municipal purpose is not susceptible of precise
definition,since it changes to meet new developments and conditions of times.”United
States v.Town of N.Bonneville,94 Wn.2d 827, 833,621 P.2d 127 (1980) (quoting
4We note that courts in other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion as to
telecommunication services.See In re Application of Lincoln Elec. Sys.,265 Neb.70,80-87,655 N.W.2d
363 (2003),overruled on other grounds;Nixon v.Mo.Mun.League,541 U.S. 125,124 S.Ct.1555,158 L.
Ed.2d 291 (2004)(holding that a “home rule”city has the legal authority to provide telecommunication
services incidental to other public purposes);GTE Nw.Inc.v.Or.Pub.Util.Comm’n,179 Or.Ct.App.46,39
P.3d 201 (2002)(holding that a county with ‘statutory home rule”powers has the authority to provide
telecommunication services).
13
Packet Page 136 of 202
No.64492-1-1/14
McQuillin Mun.Corp.§39.19,at 32 (3d ed.1970)).In CLEAN,our Supreme Court
concluded that “[a]n expenditure is for a public purpose when it confers a benefit of
reasonably general character to a significant part of the public.”CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at
793 (quoting In re Marriage of Johnson,96 Wn.2d 255, 258,634 P.2d 877 (1981)).
In CLEAN,the Court rejected the argument that the county’s issuance of
taxpayer bonds violated article VII,section 1 if private individuals or businesses also
benefit.In CLEAN, the Court addressed the question of whether the county’s decision
to issue taxpayer bonds to construct a baseball stadium violated Washington
Constitution article VII,section 1.CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at 792.The Court deferred to
“the judgment of the Legislature”and held that issuance of the taxpayer bonds further
public purposes even though the privately owned baseball club would also benefit from
the expenditure of public funds. CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at 792-97,821.
Likewise,in Chandler v.City of Seattle,8OWn.154,155-57,141 P.331 (1914),the
Court upheld issuance of bonds to expand the municipal electricity plant.The planned
expansion increased available electricity and reduced the cost of electricity.To further
offset the cost,the city planned to sell excess electricity and surplus steam power to
private parties. Chandler,80 Wn.at 156-57.The Court held that where a project has both
public and private purposes,the expenditure of public funds is authorized as long as the
“bona fide intention”5 is for a public purpose.Chandler,80 Wn.at 159.
Rohrbach also argues the City must establish that the fiber optic network is
necessary for “the continued economic and social viability”of the City.Bonneville,94
Wn.2d at 834.In an attempt to ~narrowlydefine a public purpose,Rohrbach misstates
~(italics omitted.)
14
Packet Page 137 of 202
No.64492-1-1/15
the holding in Bonneville.In Bonneville, the Court held that the city had authority to
enter into land transactions with the government because the agreement directly
benefited a significant number of the city’s residents and would allow the city to grow.
Bonneville,94 Wn.2d at 834.The Court states that the fact that private ends are
incidentally advanced is immaterial to the determination of whether legislation furthers a
public purpose.Bonneville,94 Wn.2d at 834.Likewise,in CLEAN, the Court stated
that “[w]here it is debatable as to whether or not an expenditureis for a public purpose,
we will defer to the judgment of the legislature.”CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at 793 (quoting
Anderson v.O’Brien,84 Wn.2d 64, 70,524 P.2d 390 (1974)).While the Court
concluded that because the question of whether the construction of the baseball
stadium would have an economic benefit was “debatable,”the Court deferred to the
legislative findings that the new stadium would result in additional jobs,entertainment,
and tourism. CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at 796-97.
Here,as in CLEAN and Chandler, the record supports the determination that the
City’s issuance of bonds to expand the fiber optic network furthers public purposes.
Ordinance No.3721 expressly states that the primary purpose of issuing the taxpayer
bonds is to expand the City’s fiber optic network in order to convert to a wireless water
meter system. The City already has excess bandwidth capacity.Ordinance No.3721
authorizes extension of the geographic reach of the City’s fiber network throughout the
entire City.The undisputed record also shows that the vast majority of the revenue
generated by the bonds will be used to replace the existing water meters and install
meter radios.Of the $4.2 million in taxpayer bonds,approximately $1.8 million will be
spent on replacing water meters,and approximately $1.3 million on meter radios.By
15
Packet Page 138 of 202
No.64492-1-1/16
contrast,only $100,000 is needed to install the cable necessary to geographically
extend the fiber optic network for the wireless water meter project.There is also no
dispute that the wireless water meter project and use of the network for public safety
purposes will improve services for the residents and save money.The City’s plan to
allow additional public sector and intergovernmental agencies,and private individuals
and businesses to use the current network “to the extent capacity is available”does not
violate article VII,section I.
Rohrbach also asserts that issuing bonds to expand the fiber optic network
violates article VIII,section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.Washington
Constitution article VIII,section 7 provides:
No county,city,town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give
any money,or property,or loan its money,or credit to or in aid of any
individual, association,company or corporation,except for the necessary
support of the poor and infirm,or become directly or indirectly the owner of
any stock in or bonds of any association,company or corporation.
“The manifest purpose of [article VIII,section 7]. . .is to prevent state funds
from being used to benefit private interests where the public interest is not primarily
served.”CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at 797 (quoting McCaffree,88 Wn.2d at 98).In
determining whether an expenditure of public funds violates article VIII,section 7 we
look at consideration and donative intent. Gen. Tel.Co.of the Nw.,Inc.v.City of
Bothell,105 Wn.2d 579, 588,716 P.2d 879 (1986).Courts do not inquire into the
adequacy of consideration unless there is proof of donative intent or a grossly
inadequate return.Adams v.Univ.of Wash.,106 Wn.2d 312, 327,722 P.2d 74 (1986).
Rohrbach’s reliance on Lassila v.City of Wenatchee,89 Wn.2d 804,576 P.2d 54
(1978)is unpersuasive.In Lassila,the Washington Supreme Court held that the city’s
16
Packet Page 139 of 202
No.64492-1-1/17
decision to purchase property with the intent to resell it to a private party violates
Washington Constitution article VIII,section 7 even if the city received a fair price and
the sale furthered the city’s development efforts.Lassila, 89 Wn.2d at 811-12.
In CLEAN, the Court distinguished Lassila in holding that the issuance of
taxpayer bonds to construct a sports stadium was not an unconstitutional gift of public
funds to the private tenant because the county remained the owner of the stadium and
the private tenant had to pay reasonable rent.CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at 798-99.
Again,the situation we faced in Lassila is not analogous to the present
case.There, the City of Wenatchee was essentially acting as a middle
person for a private enterprise.Wenatchee received nothing of value for
its expenditure of public money and no public purposewas served by the
expenditure.Here,unlike the situation in Lassila,we can discern no intent
on the part of the Legislature to have the stadium sold to the Mariners, the
Stadium Act providing that ownership of the facility is to remain in the
hands of the public facilities district.
CLEAN,130 Wn.2d at 799.
Here,as in CLEAN,there is no question that the City will own the fiber optic
network and plans to charge private individuals or businesses to use the available
current excess capacity.
CONCLUSION
Because issuance of the taxpayer bonds as authorized by Ordinance No.3721 is
for the primary purpose of expanding the fiber optic network in order to replace water
meters with a wireless water meter system,as well as to provide public safety officers
17
Packet Page 140 of 202
No.64492-1-1/18
access to the network, we conclude the City has the statutory and constitutional
authority to issue the bonds,and affirm.
WE CONCUR:
18
Packet Page 141 of 202
AM-4107 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee:Finance Type:
Information
Subject Title
Park Trust Fund Ordinance amending City Code 3.16.020.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward to full Council for approval.
Previous Council Action
March 27, 2003 Council passed Ordinance No. 3466, establishing ECC Chapter 3.16, the Parks Trust Fund.
December 2010: Council voted to transfer $36,500 from the general fund back into the Parks Trust Fund to address concerns
of funds being used to carry out the intent of the donor.
Narrative
The City Council established ther Parks Trust fund in March, 2003. Since that time, citizens have donated money to the city in
order to help support Yost Pool, the Beautification program, and the Beach Ranger program.
We received a warning in the 2009 audit about the code and use of the parks trust fund being inconsistent with the RCW
35.21.100. The RCW requires that funds be used to carry out the intent of the donor.
In 2009-10 budget years, the city utilized some of the Parks Trust Fund to help general fund operations. This was a concern of
the City Council. Council took action in December 2010 to transfer $36,500 from the general fund back into the Parks Trust
Fund.
This ordinance amends the code to create consisitency of the city code with the RCW, protecting the intent of the donor.
Attachments
Parks Trust Fund code amendment
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 01:03 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/04/2011 02:07 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 05:05 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 07/21/2011 11:45 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/04/2011
Packet Page 142 of 202
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PARKS TRUST FUND
ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.16.020;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.21.100 authorizes every city and town by ordinance to
accept any money or property donated, devised or bequeathed to it and to carry out the terms of
the donation, devise or bequest if within the powers granted by law;
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds by ordinance created a Parks Trust Fund, set
forth in Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.16, for the purpose of receiving donations from the City’s
citizens for, or in aid of, the cost of operating, maintaining and improving the City’s parks and
other related beautification, aquatic and environmental protection programs; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to clarify the intended use of donations to the
Parks Trust Fund; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ECC 3.16.020 Administration of the Fund is hereby amended to read
as follows (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike-through
3.16.020 Administration of the fund.
):
The council shall endeavor to utilize the interest earned by the fund in accord with the donors's
wishes for the flower beautification, aquatics, environmental protection and other parks related
programs, within the powers granted by law. The council shall use its best efforts not to invade
the principal of the fund unless called upon by unforeseen budgetary needs. In the event that the
principal of the fund is invaded, the council shall first attempt to utilize the principal for the costs
of operating, maintaining and improving the flower beautification, aquatics, environmental
protection and other parks related programs other similar programs such as programs for the arts,
community beautification, parks acquisition or similar purposes. Ultimately, however, the
Packet Page 143 of 202
- 2 -
council shall maintain its absolute legislative discretion to use all available funds in the best
interest of its citizens in accordance with the council's powers and duties pursuant to state law.
Section 2. Severability
Section 3.
. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 144 of 202
- 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PARKS TRUST FUND
ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.16.020;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 145 of 202
AM-4109 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee:Finance Type:
Information
Subject Title
Old Milltown Courtyard budget review, project timing.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Discuss Old Milltown Courtyard budget and timing of grant funding. In order to complete construction of Old Milltown this
Fall, additional city funds may need to be allocated pending grant funding from a local foundation.
Previous Council Action
Council authorized $40,000 for the construction of Old Milltown in the 2011 budget.
Council received an update of Old Milltown, and have requested public comment and opportunity to approve final design in
August.
Narrative
We will be applying for Hazel Miller funds as soon as we have a Council adopted plan. Unfortunately, we missed the July
deadline. The next deadline for submittal and review will be September 23, 2011, with decisions expected in the beginning of
October. This pushes construction back by a month this fall, and will be subject to the weather window in November. The
purpose of this discussion is to determine if Council is interested in completing the project this fall and would allocate
additional REET funds in order to begin the project in September. Once we apply for funds, and pending approval, we would
then be able to use these funds for construction and not impact the REET.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 01:03 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/04/2011 02:07 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 05:05 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 07/21/2011 12:08 PM
Final Approval Date: 08/04/2011
Packet Page 146 of 202
AM-4129 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Carl Nelson
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Review of minor chages by SNOCOM legal to the "Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet Access" that was approved
for Mayor's signature on 11-16-2010
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City Council authorize Mayor to sign interlocal Interlocal Agreement with SNOCOM.
Previous Council Action
The Finance Committee reviewed this agreement on 11-09-10, and on 11-16-10 recommended for signature by Mayor.
The Council has previously reviewed and approved two other interlocals (Edmonds Community College and Stevens
Hospital) for the City to provide Internet services. This would be the third.
Narrative
In reviewing the agreement for signature, SNOCOM clarified the arbitration section 14.1.3. They have signed.
After review of change City Attorney agrees to form. Due to change it is appropriate for council to review before authorizing
Mayor to sign.
To review the intent of the agreement:
SNOCOM and the City are connected by fiber that provides Police and the Fire Marshals access to SNOCOM information and
dispatch services. The City has offered to provide Internet Access to SNOCOM over the fiber connection. The attached
interlocal provdes the terms, conditions, and rates for that service.
SNOCOM has expressed an initial interest for the City to provide service at the 20Megabit level which would result in
monthly revenue to the City of $600.
Given our current fiber connection to SNOCOM there are no additional expenses anticipated to provide this service.
Attachments
SNOCOM signed Interlocal
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 01:03 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/04/2011 02:07 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 05:05 PM
Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 08/04/2011
Final Approval Date: 08/04/2011
Packet Page 147 of 202
Packet Page 148 of 202
Packet Page 149 of 202
Packet Page 150 of 202
Packet Page 151 of 202
Packet Page 152 of 202
Packet Page 153 of 202
Packet Page 154 of 202
Packet Page 155 of 202
Packet Page 156 of 202
Packet Page 157 of 202
Packet Page 158 of 202
Packet Page 159 of 202
Packet Page 160 of 202
AM-4127 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Update on financial policies and reporting - Finance Reserve Policy Examples
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Financial Ordinance 3789 passed unanimously by City Council April 2010 and Resolution 1226 also was unanimously passed
the same night.
Attachment A: Ord. 3789
Attachment B: Resolution 1226
Narrative
The City of Edmonds has $1.97 “act of God” reserve and a $1.3 million as well as, a one month’s expense reserve that is
targeted for General Reserves.
Research has shown that Redmond, Lynnwood, Renton, and Shoreline utilized a one month reserve and Mukilteo is the only
city that I could find that maintains two months.
The discussion tonight will be targeted to develop a reserve resolution and determine if we want to change the “Act of God”
reserve back to a reserve for both economic downturn as well as an “act of God”. Also, we need to look at all reserves that the
City has set aside and look at the percentage of reserves. From my review of Edmonds, the $1.9MM which represents 19% is
in line with other cities I have reviewed. Of course, this does not include the $2.2 General Fund reserves set aside for general
operating.
Attach 1 - Lynnwood Financial Policy
Attach 2 - Mukilteo Financial Policy Attach
Attach 3 - Redmond Financial Policy
Attach 4 - GFOA Unreserved Fund Ba
Attach 5 - General Fund Resolution
Attachments
Attach A - Ord. 3789
Attach B - Reso 1226
Attach 1 - Lynnwood Financial Policy
Attach 2 - Mukilteo Financial Policy
Attach 3 - Redmond Financial Policy
Attach 4 - GFOA Unreserved Fund Ba
Attach 5 -GENERAL FUND RRESOLUTION
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Jim Tarte 08/04/2011 01:08 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 01:09 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/04/2011 02:07 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 05:05 PM
Packet Page 161 of 202
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 05:05 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/04/2011 08:52 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/04/2011
Packet Page 162 of 202
Packet Page 163 of 202
Packet Page 164 of 202
Packet Page 165 of 202
Packet Page 166 of 202
Packet Page 167 of 202
Packet Page 168 of 202
Packet Page 169 of 202
Packet Page 170 of 202
City of Lynnwood, Washington 1
Resolution No. 2005- 04 2
A RESOLUTION REVISING FINANCIAL POLICIES FOR THE CITY. 3
4
Whereas the Lynnwood City Council adopted Resolution 2000-03 defining 5
recommended budget practices, including Secion 2.1 which recommend the development 6
of a series of financial policies; and 7
8
Whereas Resolution 2000-12 of the Lynnwood City Council adopted “Financial 9
Policies” for the City; and 10
11
Whereas it is intended that these policies would be reviewed and revised periodically; 12
and 13
14
Whereas the Lynnwood City Council has reviewed and deliberated on the recommended 15
revisions to the financial policies and finds that it is in the best interest of the city to 16
revise its financial policies; 17
Now, Therefore, the City Council of the City of Lynnwood does resolve that the 18
“Financial Management Policies” dated April 14, 2000 and adopted by Resolution 2000-19
12 are hereby amended as indicated in “Attachment A” and further directs the Mayor to 20
utilize such policies in preperation of city budgets. The city budget shall include 21
reference to, and the extent to which the preliminary budget complies with, the policies 22
23
EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage 24
thereof. 25
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lynnwood, Washington, at its regular 26
meeting head the 14th Date of April, 2005. 27
SIGNED AND APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Lynnwood, Washington, this 28
_____ day of __________, 2005. 29
30
MMiikkee MMccKKiinnnnoonn,, MMaayyoorr 31
Attested to by: 32
33
MMiicchhaaeell EE.. BBaaiilleeyy,, FFiinnaannccee DDiirreeccttoorr 34
Approved as to Form: 35
36
GGrreegg RRuubbsstteelllloo,, CCiittyy AAttttoorrnneeyy 37
38
Packet Page 171 of 202
City of Lynnwood Financial Policies
2
1
Financial Management Policies 2
Adopted August 14, 2000 (Resolution 2000- 12) 3
Last Revised April 11, 2005 (Resolution 2005-04) 4
5
The safekeeping, proper use and management of the City resources are a very serious responsibility. This 6
task shall be conducted within the City of Lynnwood in such a way that the City shall be fully accountable 7
to the public for its fiscal activities. A spirit of openness and transparency shall be the context of the City’s 8
financial management program policies. 9
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss PPaaggee 10
AApppplliiccaattiioonn aanndd UUssee ooff FFiinnaanncciiaall MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPoolliicciieess ..............................................................................................................22 11
RReesseerrvvee FFuunndd PPoolliicciieess ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 12
RReesseerrvvee FFuunnddss ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 13
DDeevveellooppmmeenntt FFuunnddss::....................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 14
GGeenneerraall RReevveennuuee PPoolliicciieess ............................................................................................................................................................................................................33 15
FFeeeess ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................44 16
UUttiilliittyy RRaatteess ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................44 17
EExxppeennddiittuurree PPoolliicciieess ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................55 18
DDeebbtt MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPoolliicciieess ........................................................................................................................................................................................................55 19
FFiinnaanncciiaall MMaannaaggeemmeenntt//SSttrraatteeggiicc FFoorreeccaassttiinngg PPoolliicciieess ....................................................................................................................66 20
BBaallaanncciinngg tthhee OOppeerraattiinngg BBuuddggeett ................................................................................................................................................................................66 21
LLoonngg RRaannggee PPllaannnniinngg ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................77 22
CCaappiittaall AAsssseett AAccqquuiissiittiioonn,, MMaaiinntteennaannccee,, RReeppllaacceemmeenntt aanndd RReettiirreemmeenntt ..............................................................77 23
IInnvveessttmmeenntt PPoolliiccyy......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................88 24
PPuurrcchhaassiinngg PPoolliiccyy......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................88 25
EEqquuiippmmeenntt RReeppllaacceemmeenntt RReesseerrvvee FFuunndd PPoolliiccyy ............................................................................................................................................88 26
Application and Use of Financial Management Policies 27
It is the intent of the City Council to utilize and reference these policies in decisions and other actions with 28
financial ramifications for the City. This section outlines examples of when and how these policies will be 29
specifically utilized. 30
a. Review of Financial Management Policies: 31
1) A Mid-Year Financial Review will be held each year in accordance with LMC 2.72.050. 32
2) The Financial Management Policies shall be reviewed as part of the Mid-Year Financial Review. 33
This review shall provide for any recommended changes to the policies by the Mayor or members 34
of the Lynnwood City Council. 35
b. Preliminary Budget to include reference to Financial Management Policies 36
1) The City shall prepare a Preliminary Budget in accordance with LMC 2.72.110. 37
2) The Preliminary Budget shall include an assessment of it conformance to the Financial Management 38
Policies and an explanation if there are areas of non-conformance. 39
3) The budget message shall include references as to how the Financial Management Policies were used 40
to develop recommendations for balancing the budget. 41
Reserve Fund Policies 42
Adequate reserve levels are a necessary component of the City’s overall financial management strategy and 43
key factor in external agencies’ measurement of the City’s financial strength. The City’s available reserves 44
are made up of an amount which is not expected to be expended (reserve funds) and an amount that is 45
intended to be invested for the betterment of the community (development funds). 46
Packet Page 172 of 202
City of Lynnwood Financial Policies
3
Reserve Funds 1
1) It is the policy of the City to maintain general reserves in an amount totaling 20% of revenues (20% 2
of the annual revenues or 10% of biennial budget revenue). 3
i) The reserve fund amounts shall be made up of two components; the Revenue Stabilization 4
Fund and the General Fund Unencumbered Fund Balance. 5
ii) Revenue Stabilization Fund 6
(1) It will be the policy of the City to maintain a Revenue Stabilization Fund at a level of at 7
least $2,000,000 in accordance with LMC 3.53. 8
iii) General Fund Unencumbered Fund Balance: 9
The City’s General Fund shall maintain an unencumbered fund balance of at least $4,000,000 10
(with a goal of $5,000,000) in order to provide for adequate operating cash. 11
(a) The City will review the unrestricted General Fund balance amount each July 12
pursuant to Reserve Fund Policy b.3 below. To the extent that the City’s audited 13
financial statements identify a General Fund balance in excess of the target, the 14
excess shall be allocated by the City Council. 15
Development Funds: 16
2) The City shall maintain a Program Development Fund as defined in LMC 3.51. The use of any funds 17
within the Program Development Fund shall be as defined by the Lynnwood Municipal Code. 18
3) The City will maintain a Capital Development Fund to provide funding for the six year Capital 19
Facilities Plan, less proprietary fund projects as defined by LMC 3.50. The use of any funds 20
within the Capital Development Fund shall be as defined by the Lynnwood Municipal Code. 21
4) Contributions to development funds will be made from available funds as identified in the “Mid-Year 22
Financial Review” pursuant to LMC 2.72.050, or during the budget process. The Finance Director 23
shall make a recommendation to the Council with regard to transfers to reserve funds as a part of 24
that report. The Council, by motion (and amending the budget by ordinance as necessary) shall 25
authorize the transfers as the Council shall determine to be appropriate at that time. 26
b. In accordance with RCW 41.16.050, the City shall maintain a Firemen’s Pension Fund to record all 27
monies received from taxes on fire insurance premiums received from the state, contributions made by 28
firefighters (before the inception of LEOFF I) and interest earned on the investment of these funds. 29
These funds are used to cover benefits payable to members (or to their survivors) who retired prior to 30
March 1, 1970 or who were active on that date. 31
c. All expenditures drawn from reserve accounts shall require prior Council approval unless previously 32
specifically authorized by the City Council for expenditure in the annual budget. 33
General Revenue Policies 34
a. To the extent possible, a diversified and stable revenue system will be maintained to shelter public 35
services from short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source. Trends analyzing the dependence on 36
distinct revenue sources shall be included in the budget documents for consideration by the Council. 37
b. Revenue forecasts for major revenues (those which represent at least 10% of the General Fund) will 38
present “conservative”, “optimistic” and “best estimates” forecasts and the rationale for each. The 39
forecasts shall be based on the best information available at the time and references to the sources of 40
information used in the estimates will be made available. 41
c. Revenue forecasts will assess the full spectrum of resources that can be allocated for public services. 42
Each year the Council shall review potential sources of revenue as part of the annual budget process. 43
d. Short-term (anticipated less than one year) economic downturns and temporary gaps in cash flow: 44
Expenditure reductions or restrictions may be imposed. Council may approve a contribution from the 45
Packet Page 173 of 202
City of Lynnwood Financial Policies
4
Revenue Stabilization Fund or interfund loans to address temporary downturns in City revenues. 1
Interfund loans may be utilized to cover temporary gaps in cash flow. 2
e. Long-term (greater than one year) revenue downturns: Deficit financing and borrowing to support on-3
going operations is not the policy of the City as a response to long-term revenue shortfalls. Revenue 4
forecasts will be revised. Expenses will be reduced to conform to the revised long-term revenue 5
forecast or revenue increases will be considered. 6
f. All potential grants shall be carefully examined for matching requirements. Some grants may not be 7
accepted if the local matching funds cannot be justified. Grants may also be rejected if programs must 8
be continued with local resources after grant funds are exhausted. 9
Fees 10
g. The City shall develop and maintain a comprehensive list of all fees and charges. 11
1) The fees and charges should be thoroughly reviewed utilizing a rate analysis approach in connection 12
with each biennial budget. 13
2) Fees shall be reviewed by general type as described below: 14
i) Development related fees (land use, building and property, fire marshall’s office and 15
engineering fees) shall be governed by separate ordinance; adjusted for inflation and 16
periodically subjected to a comprehensive rate analysis. 17
ii) Regulatory Fees (such as those related to Title 5 of the LMC) shall be governed by ordinance 18
and reviewed with each biennial budget process and when appropriate as the regulatory 19
conditions change. 20
iii) Recreation and parks use fees shall be set within a range by the Director of Parks, Recreation 21
and Cultural Arts as provided for by ordinance. A review of the fee ranges shall be conducted 22
with the biennial budget. 23
iv) General fees (such as rental rates, copy charges, and other miscellaneous fees) shall be 24
reviewed each biennial budget. 25
Utility Rates 26
v) Utility Fund Revenue and Rates 27
(1) The City will conduct an annual review of revenues in the city utilities as part of the Mid-28
Year Financial Review under LMC 2.72.050 29
(2) The revenues of the utilities should provide adequate resources to provide for the proper 30
operation of the related programs, servicing of related debt at prescribed levels, 31
maintenance of the capital plant, and adequate reserves. 32
(3) Utility rates shall be set utilizing the following guidelines: 33
Packet Page 174 of 202
City of Lynnwood Financial Policies
5
(a) The rate structure should encourage consumers to conserve natural resources while 1
providing a stable and predictable revenue base for the proper management of the 2
utility. 3
(b) The rates shall strive to be equitable among the classes (general types) of ratepayers. 4
(c) The revenue target of the utility rates should maintain a minimum of 1.5 times the 5
debt service payments for the utility in each ensuing year. 6
(d) Rates should be set using an assumption of 95% of the average water consumption 7
for the five previous years. 8
(e) A complete rate analysis shall be included with the proposed preliminary biennial 9
budget. 10
Expenditure Policies 11
a. The City will only propose operating expenditures that can be supported from on-going operating 12
revenues. Before the City undertakes any agreements that would create fixed on-going expenses, the 13
cost implications of such agreements will be fully determined for current and future years with the aid 14
of strategic financial planning models. Capital expenditures may be funded from one-time revenues, 15
but the operating budget expenditure impacts of capital expenditures will be reviewed for compliance 16
with this policy provision. 17
b. Department heads are responsible for managing their budgets within the total appropriation for their 18
department. 19
c. The City will maintain expenditure categories according to state statute and administrative regulation. 20
d. The City will assess funds for services provided internally by other funds. The estimated direct and 21
indirect costs of service will be budgeted and charged to the fund performing the service. Interfund 22
service fees charged to recover these costs will be recognized as revenue to the providing fund. A 23
review of the method for determining the amount of the interfund assessment will be reviewed at least 24
every 3 years. 25
e. Emphasis is placed on improving individual and work group productivity rather than adding to the 26
work force. The City will invest in technology and other efficiency tools to maximize productivity. 27
The City will hire additional staff only after the need of such positions has been demonstrated and 28
documented. 29
f. All compensation planning and collective bargaining will focus on the total cost of compensation which 30
includes direct salary, health care benefits, pension contributions, training allowance, and other benefits 31
of a non-salary nature which are a cost to the City. 32
33
Debt Management Policies 34
The City shall adopt policies to guide the issuance and management of debt. 35
a. The City may issue interfund loans consistent with LMC 3.90. 36
Packet Page 175 of 202
City of Lynnwood Financial Policies
6
b. All professional service providers (underwriters, financial advisors, bond insurer’s, etc.) selected in 1
connection with the City’s debt issues will be selected in accordance with the City’s procurement 2
policies. In most cases this will require a request for proposal process. 3
c. The term of long-term debt issued will not exceed the life of the projects financed. Current operations 4
will not be financed with long-term debt. 5
d. The City shall maintain an open line of communication with the rating agencies (Moody’s and Standard 6
and Poors), informing them of major financial events in the City as they occur. The Comprehensive 7
Annual Report (CAFR) shall be distributed to the rating agencies and The National Recognized 8
Municipal Information Repository Securities (NRMIRS) no later than July 31st of the following year of 9
the CAFR. The CAFR shall include all secondary market disclosure required by the SEC. 10
i) The City shall strive to maintain current credit ratings in the future. The current credit ratings 11
are: General Obligation - A1 with Moodys Investor’s Service and AA- with Standard and 12
Poors. Revenue Bonds are A with Moodys Investor’s Service and A+ with Standard and 13
Poors. City bond ratings are found each year in the notes to the financial statements in the 14
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 15
e. As part of the debt policy, the City will use debt ratios based on debt per assessed value, debt per 16
capita, and debt per capita as a percentage of per capita income as guides. These ratios will assist in 17
guiding amounts that the City will permit in debt issuance. 18
f. Assessment bonds will be issued in place of general obligation bonds, where possible, to assure the 19
greatest degree of public equity and flexibility for City finances. 20
g. The City will comply with all statutory debt limitations imposed by the Revised Code of Washington 21
(RCW). The City of Lynnwood debt will not exceed an aggregated total of 7.5% of the assessed 22
valuation of the taxable property within the City. Compliance with state law and this policy shall be 23
documented each year in the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 24
The following individual percentages (as defined in state law) shall not be exceeded in any specific 25
debt category: 26
27
General Debt 2.5% of assessed valuation 28
Utility Debt 2.5% of assessed valuation 29
Open Space and Park facilities 2.5% of assessed valuation 30
31
h. No debt shall be issued for which the City is not confident that a sufficient, specifically identified 32
revenue source is available for repayment. The Finance Director shall prepare an analytical review for 33
this purpose prior to the issuance of any debt. 34
i. Credit enhancements shall be considered with a cost/benefit analysis for each long term bond issue. 35
j. Reserve accounts shall be maintained as required by bond ordinances and where deemed advisable by 36
the City Council. The city shall structure such debt service reserves so that they do not violate IRS 37
arbitrage regulations. 38
Financial Management/Strategic Forecasting Policies 39
Balancing the Operating Budget 40
It is the policy of the City of Lynnwood to adopt structurally balanced budgets. 41
a. A structurally balanced budget shall mean: 42
1) On-going expenditures shall be provided for by anticipated on-going revenue. 43
i) On-going expenditures do not include 44
(1) “One-time” items such as capital outlay, projects or studies 45
Packet Page 176 of 202
City of Lynnwood Financial Policies
7
(2) Allocations to other funds dependent on general revenues sufficient to balance dependent 1
budgets (ie: Street Fund, Solid Waste Fund). 2
ii) Anticipated on-going revenues may include: 3
(1) Recurring revenue such as taxes, fees, etc. 4
(2) A reasonable amount of resources remaining unspent from the previous year’s budget 5
based on historical experience and an assessment of the current budget. 6
(3) A portion of the unencumbered fund balance above the minimum levels established by 7
this policy. 8
b. The Mayor shall submit a balanced Preliminary Budget proposal as provided for in LMC 2.72.110. 9
1) The Mayor’s budget proposal shall balance all city funds. 10
2) The transfers between funds shall be clearly illustrated. 11
3) The use any proposed new revenues from proposed new fees or taxes should be clearly illustrated. 12
c. The anticipated amounts of city reserves (as described in this policy) should be clearly illustrated for 13
each fund. 14
1) The reserve estimates shall be provided for the beginning and the end of the Preliminary Budget 15
period (beginning and ending fund balances). 16
Long Range Planning 17
a. All decisions shall be within the context of long-range plans (Capital Facilities Plan / Strategic 18
Financial Plan). Staff shall provide a review of the implications of budgetary proposals on long-range 19
plans. Staff shall include a “fiscal note”, in a format to be provided by the Finance Director and 20
approved by the Council, with each action item on the council agenda. If no note is deemed necessary, 21
the agenda cover sheet shall so state. 22
b. The annual budget shall be developed consistent with state law and in a manner which encourages early 23
involvement with the public and City Council as provided for in LMC 2.72.030. A calendar of events 24
related to budget development shall be presented to the City Council in the 1st quarter of each year. 25
c. The annual budget will integrate into Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)/Strategic Financial Plan (SFP). The 26
annual budget shall be consistent with the current year of the CFP and SFP. Budget planning activities 27
shall be based on the next year of the SFP. 28
d. Assumptions used in the CFP and SFP will be noted and defined. 29
e. Basis of long-range planning will be results oriented. In accordance with LMC 2.72 and LMC 2.70 and 30
Resolution 2000-03, the City shall strive to illustrate the output from CFP and SFP expenditures. 31
Capital Asset Acquisition, Maintenance, Replacement and Retirement 32
a. The City shall develop a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) as defined and required by RCW 36.70A.070 33
which is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan annually at a time established by the City 34
Council. 35
b. Such plan shall include all projects to maintain public capital facilities required to maintain service 36
levels at standards established by the City Council. 37
c. The proposed CFP may include for consideration such other projects as requested by the City Council, 38
or Mayor. 39
Packet Page 177 of 202
City of Lynnwood Financial Policies
8
d. Funding for capital projects shall be classified as to source (general government, enterprise or other) 1
within the plan. 2
1) The extent to which funds exist for each project shall be described in the plan. 3
2) The plan shall integrate with the Proposed Preliminary Budget (LMC 2.72.110) in that funds 4
required for the projects recommended for the ensuing budget period shall be identified in the 5
Preliminary Budget. 6
3) The CFP shall include a recommended level of funding from general revenues in order to provide for 7
“on-going” projects (as defined in the CFP). 8
e. The plan shall be for a period of six years. 9
f. With the exception of “on-going projects”, each project shall be described such that development 10
phases are delineated as separate stages of the project. Examples include land acquisition, design and 11
construction. “On-going projects” represent annual capital programs such as street overlay, sidewalk 12
expansion or traffic signal rebuild. 13
g. An estimate for the operating budget impact of each proposed project shall be identified and 14
incorporated into the City Strategic Financial Plan. 15
h. The CFP shall be approved by ordinance annually. 16
17
The approving ordinance shall constitute a plan of action wherein no final approval to proceed with 18
specific projects is made, but requires specific authorization and appropriation by the Council in a 19
manner as the Council shall determine. 20
i. The adopted CFP shall constitute the City’s long-range financial plan for capital expenditures and shall 21
be consistent with the City Strategic Financial Plan. 22
Investment Policy 23
Refer to Resolution No. 2000-04, adopted February 14, 2000. 24
25
Purchasing Policy 26
Refer to LMC 2.92, adopted August 12, 1996. 27
28
Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund Policy 29
Refer to Resolution No. 2000-20, adopted December 11, 2000. 30
Packet Page 178 of 202
City of Mukilteo
CITY OF MUKILTEO
11930 Cyrus Way, Mukilteo, WA 98275
Fund Balance Reserve
Policy
September 1, 2009
Packet Page 179 of 202
City of Mukilteo
Fund Balance Policy
3
RESERVE AND CONTINGENCY FUND POLICIES
Adequate fund balance and reserve levels are a necessary component of the City’s overall
financial management strategy and a key factor in external agencies’ measurement of the City’s
financial strength.
Maintenance of fund balance for each accounting fund assures adequate resources for cash flow
and to mitigate short-term effects of revenue shortages. Reserve funds are necessary to enable
the City to deal with unforeseen emergencies or changes in condition.
A. General Policy
The City shall maintain reserves required by law, ordinance and/or bond covenants.
All expenditures drawn from reserve accounts shall require prior Council approval unless
previously authorized by the City Council for expenditure within the City’s annual
budget.
If reserves and/or fund balances fall below required levels as set by this policy, the City
shall include within its annual budget a plan to restore reserves and/or fund balance to the
required levels.
All reserves will be presented in the City’s annual budget.
B. Contingency Fund
The City will maintain a Contingency Fund and shall maintain a reserve equal to
$1,000,000 to provide a financial cushion to cover revenue shortfalls resulting from
unexpected economic changes or recessionary periods or to provide funds in the event of
major unplanned expenditures the City could face as a result of landslides, earthquake or
other natural disaster.
C. General Fund Operating Reserves
The City will maintain a General Fund Operating Reserve to provide for adequate cash
flow, budget contingencies, and insurance reserves. The General Fund Operating
Reserves will be determined as follows:
1. Cash Flow Reserve: The City will maintain a cash flow reserve within the General
Fund in an amount equal to two months of budgeted operating expenditures. The
City will review annually the required cash flow reserve level that is necessary to
meet the City’s cash flow needs. If it is determined that the two months of operating
expenditure reserves is not adequate, the Finance Director shall propose an
amendment to these policies.
D. Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Reserves
The City will maintain a Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Reserve of allocating grants to fund
tourism promotional opportunities within the City. The City will maintain a cash flow
reserve within the Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Fund in an amount equal to one prior
complete year’s revenues in ending fund balance. For example, the 2010 budgeted
expenditures cannot exceed the 2008 actual revenues receipted into the fund.
Packet Page 180 of 202
City of Mukilteo
Fund Balance Policy
3
E. Technology Replacement Reserves
The City will maintain a Technology Replacement Reserve for replacement of entity-
wide computer hardware, software, or telephone equipment identified in the City’s
Technology Replacement listing. The required level of reserve will equal each year’s
scheduled replacement costs. For example, if the 2010 equipment replacement costs are
budgeted at $100,000, the fund reserve balance must equal or exceed $100,000.
Contributions will be made through assessments to the using funds and maintained on a
per asset basis.
F. Health Self-Insured Administration Reserves
The City will maintain a Health Self-Insured Administration Reserve to provide
Washington State mandated reserves for the City’s self-insured dental and vision benefits
for City Employees. Reserves will be determined as follows:
1. The City will maintain a reserve in an amount equal to 16 weeks of budgeted expense
as required by Washington State’s Office of Financial Management. The City will
review annually the required reserve level that is necessary to meet the State’s
requirements (Washington Administrative Code, WAC 82.60).
G. Equipment and Vehicle Replacement Reserves
The City will maintain fully funded reserve for the replacement of vehicles and
equipment identified on the City’s equipment replacement listing. The required level of
reserve will equal each year’s scheduled replacement costs. For example, if the 2010
equipment replacement costs are budgeted at $100,000, the fund reserve balance must
equal or exceed $100,000. Contributions will be made through assessments to the using
funds and maintained on a per asset basis.
H. Surface Water Utility Fund Reserve
The City shall maintain an operating reserve within the Surface Water Utility Fund an
amount equal to no less than 20% of budgeted operating revenues.
Packet Page 181 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
FISCAL POLICY
CITY OF REDMOND, WASHINGTON
1. General Financial Goals
a. To provide a financial base sufficient to sustain municipal services to maintain the social
well being and physical conditions of the City.
b. To be able to withstand local and regional economic trauma, to adjust to changes in the
service requirements of the community, and to respond to other changes as they affect the
City's residents.
c. To maintain a good credit rating in the financial community and assure taxpayers that
Redmond city government is well managed financially and maintained in sound fiscal
condition.
2. Operating Budget Policies
a. The base operating budget is the City’s comprehensive two-year financial plan which
provides for the desired level of city services as defined by the City’s goals, priorities,
and objectives. A new base budget will be adopted every two years as a result of a
comprehensive process incorporating any newly-approved programs, inflationary
increases, and other expenses. The analysis and review of new programs must be
initiated prior to inception of the Council’s budget review process. No “one-time”
expenses will be carried forward into subsequent budgets without specific authority.
b. Revenues and expenditures for the General Fund and all operating funds shall be
projected for the ensuing biennium.
c. Biennial operating budgets should provide for acceptable design, construction,
maintenance and replacement of the City’s capital, plant, and equipment consistent with
the Capital Facilities Plan.
d. The City will maintain all its assets at an acceptable level to protect the City's capital
investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs.
e. The City will develop an equipment replacement and maintenance needs analysis for the
next several years and will update this projection every two years. From this projection a
maintenance and replacement schedule will be developed and followed. (It is anticipated
that this would occur on odd number years.)
Packet Page 182 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
f. All general government current operating expenditures will be paid from current
revenues and cash carried over from the prior biennium. Current revenues and operating
expenditures will be reviewed quarterly during the year. The city will avoid budgetary
and accounting procedures which balance the current budget at the expense of future
budgets. All budgetary procedures will conform to existing state and local regulations.
The City of Redmond defines a balanced budget as operating revenues and beginning
balances specifically designated within the budget as being carried into the next operating
budget being at least equal to budgeted expenditures. It is the policy of the City to
attempt to utilize beginning balances and other one-time revenues for one-time/non-
recurring expenditures only.
g. All supplemental appropriations for programs (appropriations requested after the original
budget is adopted) will only be approved after consideration of the availability of
revenues.
3. Revenue Policies
a. The City will strive to maintain a diversified and stable revenue system to shelter it from
short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source. The revenue mix should combine
elastic and inelastic revenue sources to minimize the effect of an economic downturn.
b. Because revenues, especially those of the General Fund, are sensitive to both local and
regional economic activities, revenue estimates provided to the City Council shall be
conservative.
c. The City will estimate its biennial revenues by an objective, analytical process using best
practices as defined by the Government Finance Officers Association.
d. The City will project revenues for the next six years and will update this projection
annually. The Finance Department will annually review and make available to the
Finance Committee an analysis of each potential major revenue source.
e. The City will establish all user charges at a level related to the cost of providing the
service and within policy parameters established by the City Council.
f. In each odd numbered year, the City will review user fees to adjust for the effects of
inflation and other factors as appropriate. The City will set fees for user activities, such
as recreational services, at a level to support the direct and appropriate indirect costs of
the activity in accordance with council policy with regard to cost recovery unless
specifically exempted by the City Council.
g. The City will set fees and user charges for each enterprise fund, such as
Water/Wastewater and Stormwater, at a level that fully supports the total direct and
indirect cost of the activity. Indirect costs include the cost of annual depreciation of
Packet Page 183 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
capital assets. Additionally, for analysis and rate modeling purposes, the proposed rates
shall also take into account debt service coverage commitments made by the City of 1.2
times annual debt service.
4. Expenditure Policies
a. The City budget will provide for a sustainable level of service for the well being and
safety of the community.
b. The City’s operating budget will not use one-time revenues to support ongoing
expenditures.
c. The City will maintain expenditure categories according to state statute and
administrative regulation. Capital expenditures shall meet the requirements of generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
d. Services will parallel and adjust to the City's inelastic revenue sources in order to
maintain the highest level of service. During periods of economic upturn, long-term
expansion of core services will be limited to the anticipated increase of those sources.
e. The City will forecast its General Fund expenditures annually for the next six years. The
drivers and assumptions used in the forecast will be described.
f. A cost allocation plan will be developed and incorporated into the City budget. The cost
allocation plan will be the basis for distribution of general government costs to other
funds or capital projects.
5. Capital Investment Budget Policies
a. The City will make capital improvements in accordance with an adopted capital
investment program.
b. The capital investment program and the base operating budget will be reviewed at the
same time to ensure that the City’s capital and operating needs are balanced with each
other.
c. The City will develop a six-year plan for capital improvements including operations and
maintenance costs and update it every biennium. Capital expenditures will be forecasted
taking into account changes in population, changes in real estate development, or changes
in relevant economic condition of the City and the region.
Packet Page 184 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
d. The City will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each capital
project proposal before it is submitted to Council for approval. The City will use
intergovernmental assistance and other outside resources whenever possible.
e. The City will determine the least costly financing method for all new projects.
6. Short-Term Debt Policies
a. Short-term debt covers a period of three years or less.
b. The City may use short-term debt to cover temporary cash flow shortages, which may be
caused by a delay in receipting tax revenues or issuing long-term debt.
c. The City may issue interfund loans rather than outside debt instruments to meet short-
term cash flow needs. Interfund loans will be permitted only if an analysis of the affected
fund indicates excess funds are available and the use of these funds will not impact the
fund's current operations. All short-term borrowing will be subject to Council approval
by ordinance or resolution and will bear interest based upon prevailing rates.
7. Long-Term Debt Policies
Long Term debt is that debt which exceeds three years.
a. The City will utilize long-term borrowing for capital improvements that cannot be
financed on a pay-as-you-go basis from anticipated cash flows.
b. Acceptable uses of bond proceeds are items which can be capitalized and depreciated.
Refunding bond issues designed to restructure currently outstanding debt is also an
acceptable use of bond proceeds provided that the net present value (NPV) of savings is
at least 4%.
c. The City will determine whether self supporting bonds (such as special assessment
improvement district bonds) are in the City’s best interest when planning to incur debt to
finance capital improvements.
d. The City will not use long-term debt for current operations.
e. The City will maintain good communications with bond rating agencies about its
financial condition. The City will follow a policy of full disclosure on every financial
report and bond prospectus including proactive compliance with disclosure to the
secondary market.
Packet Page 185 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
f. General Obligation Bond Policy
1) Every project proposed for financing through general obligation debt shall be
accompanied by a full analysis of the future operating and maintenance costs
associated with the project.
2) Before general obligation bond propositions are placed before the voters, the
capital project under consideration should have been included in the Capital
Improvement Program. The source of funds should describe the intended use of
bond financing.
3) Bonds cannot be issued for a longer maturity schedule than a conservative
estimate of the useful life of the asset to be financed.
g. Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Policies
1) As a precondition to the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds,
alternative methods of financing should also be examined.
2) Limited tax general obligation bonds should only be issued under certain
conditions:
• A project requires monies not available from alternative sources;
• Matching fund monies are available which may be lost if not applied for in a
timely manner; or
• Catastrophic conditions.
h. Financing of Lease Purchases
Under Washington State law, the public may vote to approve bond issues for general
government purposes in an amount not to exceed 2.5% of assessed valuation. Within the
2.5% limit, the Redmond City Council may approve bond issues and/or lease purchases
up to 1.5% of the city's total assessed value. In addition, state law provides for an
additional 2.5% of assessed valuation for parks and open space purposes with a vote of
the public.
8. Reserve Fund Policies
a. The City will maintain General Operating Reserves at a level equal to at least 8.5% of the
total General Fund budgeted revenue, excluding the beginning fund balance,
development review revenue, and any significant one-time revenue. A separate reserve
shall be established for development review services.
Packet Page 186 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
These reserves shall be created and maintained to:
1) Provide sufficient cash flow to meet daily financial needs.
2) Sustain City services in the event of a catastrophic event such as a
natural/manmade disaster (e.g. earthquake, windstorm, flood, terrorist attack) or a
major downturn in the economy.
In general, the City shall endeavor to support ongoing operations with ongoing revenues,
but may use reserves on a one-time basis to support City services pending the
development of a longer term financial solution. However, in no event shall reserves be
used longer than one biennium to support City operations. If reserves are used, the City
will begin to replenish these reserves at the end of the biennium if a surplus exists, but no
later than the biennium following their use.
b. Biennium surpluses in the General Fund will be used to fund one-time operations and
capital expenditures, dedicated to the Capital Improvement Program or placed in an
economic contingency account if:
1) There are surplus balances remaining after all current expenditure obligations and
reserve requirements are met.
2) The City has made a determination that revenues for the ensuing biennium are
sufficient to support budgeted General Fund operations.
c. A surplus is defined as the difference between the actual beginning fund balance and the
budgeted beginning fund balance. It consists of underexpenditures and excess revenues
over and above the amounts included in the following biennial budget.
d. The City may also maintain, at its discretion, an Economic Contingency to serve as a
hedge against economic fluctuations, fund future one-time operational and capital needs
or support City services on a one-time basis pending the development of a longer term
financial solution. The source of funding for this reserve is the biennium surplus as
outlined in sections 8b and 8c above. Restoration of this reserve is at the City’s
discretion.
e. The City will maintain a building permit reserve in the Operating Reserves Fund to
provide for completion of building permit responsibilities in the event of a decline in
development activity. This reserve will be equal to 25% of the annual building
inspection and review costs.
f. The City will maintain operating reserves in the following funds: 15% (55 days) for the
Water/Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Funds, not including Metro Wastewater
Treatment expenses, which shall have a reserve requirement of 2%, 5% for the
Packet Page 187 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
Stormwater Management Fund and 12% for the Solid Waste/Recycling Fund. This
operating reserve shall be created and maintained to provide sufficient cash flow to meet
daily financial needs and will be based upon total operating expenses. For budgeting
purposes, operating expenses will be calculated upon the funds’ total expense budgets
excluding ending fund balances, capital purchases, and the current year’s portion of
principal paid on outstanding debt.
g. A depreciation reserve shall be established to replace utility capital, plant, and equipment
in the following funds: Water/Wastewater Operations and Maintenance and Stormwater
Management. This reserve will be adjusted biennially by the most current year’s
depreciation expense less bond reserves, principal paid on outstanding debt, and
purchases of replacement capital.
h. Bond reserves shall be created and maintained by the Water/Wastewater and Stormwater
Utilities in accordance with the provisions set forth in the bond covenants. These shall be
in addition to the reserves described above.
i. The City shall additionally maintain the following Equipment Replacement Reserve
Funds:
1) Fleet Maintenance Reserve;
2) Fire Equipment Reserve; and
3) Capital Equipment Reserve for general asset replacement.
The Equipment Reserve Funds will be maintained at a level sufficient to meet scheduled
equipment replacement so as to sustain an acceptable level of municipal services and
prevent a physical deterioration of City assets.
j. The City shall also maintain Reserve Funds as follows:
1) All statutorily required reserve funds to guarantee debt service; and
2) A vacation accrual reserve.
No reserve shall be established for sick leave. One-fourth of accrued sick leave is
payable only upon retirement and is not considered material.
9. Investment Policies
The Finance & Information Services Director will annually submit an investment policy to
the City Council for review.
Packet Page 188 of 202
(Adopted by Council on October 7, 2008)
10. Special Revenue Policies
a. The City will establish and maintain Special Revenue Funds which will be used to
account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources to finance specified activities which
are required by statute, ordinance, resolution, or executive order.
b. Special Revenue Funds having biennial operating budgets will be reviewed by the City
during the budget process.
11. Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting Policies
a. The City will establish and maintain a high standard of accounting practices.
b. The accounting system will maintain records on a basis consistent with accepted
standards for local government accounting and the State of Washington Budgeting,
Accounting, and Reporting Systems.
c. Regular monthly and annual financial reports will present a summary of financial activity
by major types of funds. Such reports will be available via the City’s website
(www.redmond.gov)
d. A fixed asset system will be maintained to identify all City assets, their location, and their
condition.
e. The City will ensure that City records are audited annually and which will result in the
issuance of a financial opinion.
12. Budget Calendar
a. In order to facilitate and implement the budget process, the Mayor will propose a biennial
budget calendar at the first regular Council meeting in March in every even year.
b. The calendar will generally provide for a process that resembles the Recommended
Practices as published by the Government Finance Officers Association.
Packet Page 189 of 202
Appropriate Level of Unreserved Fund Balance in the General Fund (2002)
Background. Accountants employ the term fund balance to describe the net assets of governmental funds calculated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Budget professionals commonly use this same term
to describe the net assets of governmental funds calculated on a government’s budgetary basis.1 In both cases, fund
balance is intended to serve as a measure of the financial resources available in a governmental fund.
Accountants distinguish reserved fund balance from unreserved fund balance. Typically, only the latter is available for
spending. Accountants also sometimes report a designated portion of unreserved fund balance to indicate that the
governing body or management have tentative plans concerning the use of all or a portion of unreserved fund balance.
It is essential that governments maintain adequate levels of fund balance to mitigate current and future risks (e.g.,
revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures) and to ensure stable tax rates. Fund balance levels are a crucial
consideration, too, in long-term financial planning.
In most cases, discussions of fund balance will properly focus on a government’s general fund. Nonetheless, financial
resources available in other funds should also be considered in assessing the adequacy of unreserved fund balance in the
general fund.
Credit rating agencies carefully monitor levels of fund balance and unreserved fund balance in a government’s general
fund to evaluate a government’s continued creditworthiness. Likewise, laws and regulations often govern appropriate
levels of fund balance and unreserved fund balance for state and local governments.
Those interested primarily in a government’s creditworthiness or economic condition (e.g., rating agencies) are likely to
favor increased levels of fund balance. Opposing pressures often come from unions, taxpayers and citizens’ groups,
which may view high levels of fund balance as “excessive.”
Recommendation. GFOA recommends that governments establish a formal policy on the level of unreserved fund
balance that should be maintained in the general fund.2 GFOA also encourages the adoption of similar policies for other
types of governmental funds. Such a guideline should be set by the appropriate policy body and should provide both a
temporal framework and specific plans for increasing or decreasing the level of unreserved fund balance, if it is
inconsistent with that policy. 3
The adequacy of unreserved fund balance in the general fund should be assessed based upon a government’s own
specific circumstances. Nevertheless, GFOA recommends, at a minimum, that general-purpose governments, regardless
of size, maintain unreserved fund balance in their general fund of no less than five to 15 percent of regular general fund
operating revenues, or of no less than one to two months of regular general fund operating expenditures.4 A
government’s particular situation may require levels of unreserved fund balance in the general fund significantly in
excess of these recommended minimum levels.5 Furthermore, such measures should be applied within the context of
1 For the sake of clarity, this recommended practice uses the terms GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance to distinguish
these two different uses of the same term.
2 Sometimes reserved fund balance includes resources available to finance items that typically would require the use of unreserved
fund balance (e.g., a contingency reserve). In that case, such amounts should be included as part of unreserved fund balance for
purposes of analysis.
3 See Recommended Practice 4.1 of the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting governments on the need to
“maintain a prudent level of financial resources to protect against reducing service levels or raising taxes and fees because of
temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted one-time expenditures” (Recommended Practice 4.1).
4The choice of revenues or expenditures as a basis of comparison may be dictated by what is more predictable in a government’s
particular circumstances. In either case, unusual items that would distort trends (e.g., one-time revenues and expenditures) should be
excluded, whereas recurring transfers should be included. Once the decision has been made to compare unreserved fund balance to
either revenues or expenditures, that decision should be followed consistently from period to period.
5 In practice, levels of fund balance, (expressed as a percentage of revenues/expenditures or as a multiple of monthly expenditures),
typically are less for larger governments than for smaller governments because of the magnitude of the amounts involved and because
the diversification of their revenues and expenditures often results in lower degrees of volatility.
Packet Page 190 of 202
long-term forecasting, thereby avoiding the risk of placing too much emphasis upon the level of unreserved fund balance
in the general fund at any one time.
In establishing a policy governing the level of unreserved fund balance in the general fund, a government should
consider a variety of factors, including:
• The predictability of it revenues and the volatility of its expenditures (i.e., higher levels of unreserved fund balance
may be needed if significant revenue sources are subject to unpredictable fluctuations or if operating expenditures
are highly volatile).
• The availability of resources in other funds as well as the potential drain upon general fund resources from other
funds (i.e., the availability of resources in other funds may reduce the amount of unreserved fund balance needed in
the general fund, just as deficits in other funds may require that a higher level of unreserved fund balance be
maintained in the general fund).
• Liquidity (i.e., a disparity between when financial resources actually become available to make payments and the
average maturity of related liabilities may require that a higher level of resources be maintained).
• Designations (i.e., governments may wish to maintain higher levels of unreserved fund balance to compensate for
any portion of unreserved fund balance already designated for a specific purpose).
Naturally, any policy addressing desirable levels of unreserved fund balance in the general fund should be in conformity
with all applicable legal and regulatory constraints. In this case in particular, it is essential that differences between
GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance be fully appreciated by all interested parties.
Approved by the Committee on Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting and the Committee on
Governmental Budgeting and Management, January 30, 2002
Approved by the Executive Board, February 15, 2002.
Packet Page 191 of 202
RESOLUTION NO ___
RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
TO CREATE A GENERAL RESERVE FUND
WHEREAS, it is sound budgetary policy to have a one month expenditure as a reserve to the City’s general
fund, and
WHEREAS, the recent economic situation has illustrated the importance of having such a reserve fund, and
WHEREAS, the reserve fund would have a positive effect on the City’s bond ratings, and
WHEREAS, it is important to have transparency in call matters of financial disclosure in the City government,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance creating a
specific General Fund Reserve, separate from the General Fund and the Emergency Finance
Reserve Fund, to be funded at a level of one month expenditure.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this newly created General Reserve Fund is exclusive of the
Emergency Finance Reserve Fund (natural calamity) and would be a financial emergency plan.
This reserve would be a required contingency plan for sudden or severe decreases in locally
collected revenue or intergovernmental aid and unexpected major capital maintenance
requirement.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any funds spent are to be restored beginning no later than
six months after their first use in order to maintain the integrity of the fund.
RESOLVED this day ____ of ______________________,____________.
APPROVED:
______________________
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
_____________________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO:
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 192 of 202
AM-4130 Item #: 3. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 08/09/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon
Department:Police Department
Committee:Public Safety Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
ILA with Okanogan County for Jail Services
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommendation from the Staff is for the Public Safety/Human Resource Committee approve for consent agenda at the
Council Meeting on August 15, 2011.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The police department currently is in contract with two jail facilities, Snohomish County and Lynnwood jails. Snohomish
County charges the department a one time $90 booking fee and $62.50 for daily fees for each inmate. Lynnwood charges the
department a one time booking fee of $10 and charges $65 a day for each inmate. Okanogan County Jail will house our long
term commitment at a rate of $51.00 a day for each inmate without a booking fee. In addition, Okanogan County Jail will
transport the inmate without any additional costs to the department. By entering into this agreement with Okanogan County the
City will save money on long term jail commitments.
The City Attorney as reviewed the the attached ILA and has approved the document as to form.
Attachments
Okanogan Jail Contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/04/2011 05:05 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2011 09:35 AM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/05/2011 10:09 AM
Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 08/04/2011 01:07 PM
Final Approval Date: 08/05/2011
Packet Page 193 of 202
1
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OKANOGAN COUNTY,
WASHINGTON AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, FOR THE HOUSING OF INMATES IN
THE OKANOGAN COUNTY JAIL
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this day of _______ 2011 by and
between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as "the City", and the Board of County
Commissioners of Okanogan County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as "Okanogan
County", each party having been duly organized and now existing under the laws of the State of
Washington.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Okanogan County is authorized by law to operate a jail and the City is
authorized by law to operate a jail; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to designate the Okanogan County jail as a place of
confinement for the incarceration of one or more inmates lawfully committed to the City's
custody; and
WHEREAS, the Director of the Corrections Facility of Okanogan County is desirous of
accepting and keeping in his/her custody such inmate(s) in the Okanogan County jail for a rate of
compensation mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto; and
WHEREAS, RCW 39.34.080 and other Washington law, as amended, authorizes any
county to contract with any city to perform any governmental service, activity or undertaking
which each contracting jurisdiction is authorized by law to perform; and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of each of the parties hereto have determined to enter
into this Agreement as authorized and provided for by RCW 39.34.080 and other Washington
law, as amended,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and foregoing recitals, the payments
to be made, the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Packet Page 194 of 202
2
Section 1. GOVERNING LAW
The parties hereto agree that, except where expressly otherwise provided, the laws and
administrative rules and regulations of the State of Washington shall govern in any matter
relating to inmate confinement pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 2. DURATION
This Agreement shall remain full force and effect from the effective date hereto until December
31, 2012, subject to earlier termination as provided by Section 3 herein. This Agreement may be
renewed for like successive periods by written addendum under such terms and conditions as the
parties may determine. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to make it necessary for the
City to have inmates housed in Okanogan County continuously.
Section 3. TERMINATION
(a) By either party
(b)
. This Agreement may be terminated by written notice from
either party to the other party and to the State Office of Financial Management as required by
RCW 70.48.090, stating the grounds for said termination and specifying plans for
accommodating the affected City Inmates, delivered by regular mail to the contact person
identified herein, provided that termination shall become effective ninety (90) days after receipt
of such notice. Within said ninety (90) days, the City agrees to remove its inmate(s) from the
Okanogan County jail.
By the City due to lack of funding
(c)
. The obligation of the City to pay
Okanogan County under the provision of this Agreement beyond the current fiscal year is
expressly made contingent upon the appropriation, budgeting, and availability of sufficient funds
by and from the City of Edmonds. In the event that such funds are not budgeted, appropriated or
otherwise made available for the purpose of payment under this Agreement at any time after the
current fiscal year, then the City shall have the option of terminating the Agreement upon written
notice to Okanogan County, except that all services provided to that point shall be compensated
at the agreed rate. The termination of this Agreement for this reason will not cause any penalty to
be charged to the City.
Compensation Due for Services Rendered
Section 4. MAILING ADDRESSES
. In the event of termination of
this Agreement for any reason, the City shall compensate Okanogan County in the same manner,
and at the same rates, as if this Agreement had not been terminated, should any City inmates
remain housed by Okanogan County after notice of such termination.
(a) All notices, reports, and correspondence to the respective parties of this
Agreement shall be sent to the attention of the following people, except as set forth in (b) below:
Okanogan County
Okanogan County Corrections
:
Street 149 4th Ave N
Packet Page 195 of 202
3
City Okanogan, WA 98840
Contact Person: Noah Stewart
City of Edmonds
Chief of Police Al Compaan
:
250 5th
Edmonds, WA 98020
Avenue
(b) Contact Person: Notification related to the Medical, Removal, Escape, or
Death clauses herein shall be given by facsimile with a follow up telephone call to:
The City of Edmonds Chief of Police shall serve as administrator or responsible official for this
Agreement. PHONE NUMBER CONTACT
Section 5. COMPENSATION
(a) Rates
(b)
. Except as provided in subsection (b), Okanogan County agrees to
transport City inmates at no transport cost to the City, between the Okanogan County
Corrections Facility and the City Jail or such other location as designated by the City in order to
transport inmates to and from the City, and to house the City inmates for compensation per day
per inmate, at the rate of fifty-one dollars ($51.00) per day. Annual cost of living increase 100%
of the June to June Seattle, Tacoma, and Bremerton CPI-W.
Billing and payment
Section 6. RIGHT OF INSPECTION
. Okanogan County agrees to provide the City with
an itemized bill listing all names of inmates who are housed, the case or citation number, the
number of days housed including the date and time booked into Okanogan County’s jail and the
date and time released from Okanogan County’s jail, and the dollar amount due for each.
Okanogan County agrees to provide said bill on or about the 10th of each month. The City agrees
to make payment to Okanogan County on or about thirty (30) days from the date the bill is
received.
The City shall have the right, but not the duty, to inspect at all reasonable times, all Okanogan
County jails in which inmates of the City are confined in order to determine if such jail maintains
standards of confinement acceptable to the City and if such inmates therein are treated equally
regardless of race, religion, color, creed or national origin. Okanogan County shall be obligated
to manage, maintain, and operate its facilities consistent with all applicable federal, state and
local laws and regulations.
Section 7. INMATE ACCOUNTS
Okanogan County shall establish and maintain an account for each inmate received from the City
and shall credit to such account all money which is received and shall make disbursements,
debiting such account in accurate amounts for the inmate's personal needs. Disbursements shall
be made in limited amounts as are reasonably necessary for personal maintenance. Okanogan
County shall be accountable to the City for such inmate funds. At either the termination of this
Packet Page 196 of 202
4
Agreement, the inmate's death, release from incarceration or return to either the City or indefinite
release to the court, the inmate's money shall be transferred to the inmate's account in care of the
City. If requested by the City, Okanogan County Corrections will return said inmate
reimbursement to the City in the form of a check in the name of each inmate eligible for said
reimbursement.
Section 8. RESPONSIBILITY FOR INMATE'S CUSTODY
(a) It shall be the responsibility of Okanogan County to confine the inmate or
inmates; to provide treatment, including the furnishing of subsistence and all necessary medical
and hospital services and supplies; to provide for the inmates' physical needs; to make available
to them programs and/or treatment consistent with their individual needs; to retain them in said
custody; to supervise them; to maintain proper discipline and control; to make certain that they
receive no special privileges and that the sentence and orders of the committing court in the State
are faithfully executed; provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require
Okanogan County, or any of its agents, to provide treatment, facilities or programs for any
inmates confined pursuant to this Agreement, which it does not provide for similar inmates not
confined pursuant to this Agreement.
(b) Except as provided in Section 12, it is expressly understood that Okanogan
County shall not be authorized to transfer custody of any inmate confined pursuant to this
Agreement to any party other than the City, or to release any inmate from custody without
written authorization from the committing court.
Section 9. MEDICAL SERVICES
(a) Inmates from the City shall receive such medical, psychiatric and dental
treatment as may be necessary to safeguard their health while housed in the Okanogan County
jail. Okanogan County shall provide or arrange for the providing of such medical, psychiatric,
and dental services. The City shall pay directly or reimburse Okanogan County for all costs
associated with the delivery of medical services, or any emergency and/or major medical service,
provided to the City inmates.
(b) Okanogan County shall keep an adequate record of all such services. The
City will be able to review at its request any medical or dental services of major consequence, in
accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to HIPPA. Okanogan County will
report to the City any medical or dental services of a major consequence as soon as is practical.
(c) Should medical or dental services require hospitalization, the City agrees
to compensate Okanogan County dollar for dollar any amount expended or cost incurred in
providing the same; provided that, except in emergencies, the City will be notified either by
phone or fax prior to the inmate's transfer to a hospital and nothing herein shall preclude the City
from retaking the ill or injured inmates.
Section 10. DISCIPLINE
Okanogan County shall have physical control over and power to execute disciplinary authority
over all inmates of the City. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize
Packet Page 197 of 202
5
or permit the imposition of a type of discipline prohibited by state or federal law or the
imposition of a type of discipline that would not be imposed on an inmate who is not confined
pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 11. RECORDS AND REPORTS
(a) Before or at the time of delivery of each inmate, the City shall forward to
Okanogan County a copy of all inmate records pertaining to the inmate's present incarceration at
the City of Lynnwood or Snohomish County Jail. If additional information is requested
regarding a particular inmate, the parties shall mutually cooperate to provide any additional
information.
(b) Okanogan County shall keep all necessary and pertinent records
concerning such inmates in the manner mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. During an
inmate's confinement in Okanogan County, the City shall, upon request, be entitled to receive
and be furnished with copies of any report or record associated with said inmate’s incarceration.
Section 12. REMOVAL FROM THE JAIL
Except for eligible inmates for correctional work details and under the direct supervision of a
corrections officer, an inmate of the City legally confined in Okanogan County shall not be
removed therefrom by any person without written authorization from the City or by order of any
court having jurisdiction. Okanogan County agrees that no early releases or alternatives to
incarceration, including furloughs, passes, home detention, or Work Release shall be granted to
any inmate housed pursuant to this Agreement without written authorization by the committing
court. This paragraph shall not apply to an emergency necessitating the immediate removal of
the inmate for medical, dental, psychiatric treatment or other catastrophic condition presenting an
imminent danger to the safety of the inmate or to the inmates or personnel of Okanogan County.
In the event of any such emergency removal, Okanogan County shall inform the City of the
whereabouts of the inmate or inmates so removed, at the earliest practicable time, and shall
exercise all reasonable care for the safe keeping and custody of such inmate or inmates.
Section 13. ESCAPES
In the event any City inmate shall escape from Okanogan County's custody, Okanogan County
will use all reasonable means to recapture the inmate. The escape shall be reported immediately
to the City. Okanogan County shall have the primary responsibility for and authority to direct the
pursuit and retaking of the inmate or inmates within its own territory. Any cost in connection
therewith shall be chargeable to and borne by Okanogan County; however, Okanogan County
shall not be required to expend unreasonable amounts to pursue and return inmates from other
states or other counties.
Section 14. DEATH OF AN INMATE
(a) In the event of the death of a City inmate, the Okanogan County coroner
shall be notified. The City shall receive copies of any records made at or in connection with such
Packet Page 198 of 202
6
notification. Okanogan County will investigate any death within its facility and will allow the
City to join in on the investigation.
(b) Okanogan County shall immediately notify the City of the death of a City
inmate, furnish information as requested and, subject to the authority of the Okanogan County
coroner, follow the instructions of the City with regard to the disposition of the body. Written
notice shall be provided within three calendar days of receipt by the City of notice of such death.
All expenses relative to any necessary preparation of the body and shipment charges shall be
paid by the City. With the City's consent, Okanogan County may arrange for burial and all
matters related or incidental thereto, and all such expenses shall be paid by the City. The
provisions of this paragraph shall govern only the relations between or among the parties hereto
and shall not affect the liability of any relative or other person for the disposition of the deceased
or for any expenses connected therewith.
(c) The City shall receive a certified copy of the death certificate for any of its
inmates who have died while in Okanogan County custody.
Section 15. RETAKING OF INMATES
In the event the confinement of any City inmate is terminated for any reason by either party,
retaking of inmates shall be coordinated in the same manner and at the same rates as if this
Agreement had not been terminated, or in a manner as agreed in writing by the parties.
Section 16. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION
(a) The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Okanogan County, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, cost, judgment or damages, including attorneys'
fees, arising from any City action or proceeding involving the confinement of any inmates from
the City in Okanogan County: provided that this subsection shall not apply to any such claim,
cost, judgment or damage that arises out of or in any way results from any allegations of any
intentional, willful or negligent act or omission on the part of Okanogan County or any officer,
agent or employee thereof.
(b) Okanogan County shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, cost, judgments or damages, including attorneys'
fees, including third party claims, arising out of any action or omission of Okanogan County, its
officers, agents, independent contractors, or employees while City inmates are in the custody of
Okanogan County, or for any wrongful release of inmates placed in their custody, or for any
claim by its employees, agents or independent contractors that may be asserted against the City
in performing this Agreement.
(c) An inmate shall become the responsibility of Okanogan County at the
point that the inmate(s) is booked into Okanogan County jail or when the inmate(s) has been
released to the care, custody and control of Okanogan County, including without limitation the
point at which Okanogan County, or its agents, picks up inmates or transports inmates as in
Section 5, whichever occurs first. Okanogan County shall hold the City harmless under the
terms of this section for all claims arising out of the detention of the inmate(s). Accordingly,
Packet Page 199 of 202
7
Okanogan County shall be held harmless by the City under the terms of this Agreement, for
claims arising out of the arrest of the inmate(s), or arising out of any situation occurring prior to
the time that Okanogan County assumes responsibility for the inmate(s).
(d) The County and City hereby waive, as to each other only, their immunity
from suit under industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity was
mutually negotiated by the parties hereto.
(e) The provisions of this section shall survive any termination or expiration
of this Agreement.
Section 17. INSURANCE
(a) Each party agrees to provide the other with evidence of insurance
coverage, in the form of a certificate of insurance from a solvent insurance provider and/or a
letter confirming coverage from a solvent self insurance pool, which is sufficient to address the
insurance and indemnification obligations set forth in this Agreement.
(b) Each party shall obtain and maintain coverage in minimum liability limits
of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) in the
aggregate for its liability exposures, including comprehensive general liability, errors and
omissions, auto liability and police professional liability. The insurance policy shall provide
coverage for those events that occur during the term of the policy, despite when the claim is
made. For the purpose of this paragraph, membership in a self insurance risk pool that provides
coverage with limits that are no less than the policy and limits identified above shall satisfy the
requirements of this section.
Section 18. RIGHT TO REFUSE INMATE(S)
(a) Okanogan County shall have the right to refuse to accept any inmate from
the City when, in the opinion of Okanogan County, its inmate census is at capacity or so near
capacity that there is a substantial risk that, through usual operation of the jail, the reasonable
operational capacity limits of the jail might be reached or exceeded.
(b) Okanogan County shall further have the right to refuse to accept any
inmate from the City who, in the judgment of Okanogan County, has a current illness or injury
which may adversely affect the operations of the Okanogan County jail, has a history of serious
medical problems, presents a substantial risk of escape, or presents a substantial risk of injury to
other persons or property.
Section 19. MISCELLANEOUS
In providing services under this Agreement, Okanogan County is an independent contractor and
neither it nor its officers, agents or employees are employees of the City for any purpose,
including responsibility for any federal or state tax, industrial insurance or Social Security
liability. Neither shall the provision of services under this contract give rise to any claim of
Packet Page 200 of 202
8
career service or civil service rights, which may accrue to an employee of the City under any
applicable law, rule or regulation.
Section 20. FINANCING
There shall be no financing of any joint or cooperative undertaking pursuant to this Interlocal
Agreement. There shall be no budget maintained for any joint or cooperative undertaking
pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 21. PROPERTY
This Interlocal Agreement does not provide for the acquisition, holding or disposal of real or
personal property.
Section 22. JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD
No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this Agreement. To the extent necessary,
this Interlocal Agreement shall be administered by the City Clerk for the City of Edmonds, or
his/her designee, and the Chairman of the Okanogan County Board of Commissioners, or his/her
designee.
Section 23. SEVERABILITY
Any provision of this Agreement that is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or
invalidate any other provision.
Section 24. MODIFICATIONS
No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such
change or addition be in writing and executed by both parties.
Section 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
Unless otherwise agreed in writing executed by both parties, on and after ________, and so long
as this Agreement remains in effect, this document constitutes the entire Agreement between the
City and Okanogan County under which the County houses City inmates, and no other oral or
written agreements between the parties shall affect this Agreement.
Section 26. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement, or any interest herein, or claim hereunder, shall not be assigned or transferred in
whole or in part by the County to any other person or entity without the prior written consent of
the City. In the event that such prior written consent to an assignment is granted, then the
assignee shall assume all duties, obligations, and liabilities of Okanogan County stated herein.
Packet Page 201 of 202
9
DATED at Okanogan, Washington this _____ day of _____________ 2011.
CITY OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OKANOGAN, WASHINGTON
By: __________________________ __________________________________
Mike Cooper, Mayor Andrew Lampe, Chairman
__________________________________
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Jim DeTro, Vice-Chair
By: __________________________ __________________________________
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk Don Hover, Member
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ __________________________________
Office of the City Attorney Lalena Johns, Clerk of the Board
OKANOGAN COUNTY SHERIFF
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ______________________________
___________________________ Frank Rogers, Sheriff
Steve Bozarth, Civil Deputy
Packet Page 202 of 202