The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.08.15 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds SPECIAL MONDAY MEETING AUGUST 15, 2011 6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding potential litigation. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.Roll Call B. AM-4147 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011. C. AM-4137 Approval of claim checks #126969 through #127096 dated August 4, 2011 for $459,322.72, and claim checks #127097 through #127227 dated August 11, 2011 for $308,455.96. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #50652 through #50708 for the period July 16, 2011 through July 31, 2011 in the amount of $734,924.24. D. AM-4134 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages submitted by Soeun Mangkornkeo ($3,200). E. AM-4135 Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Okanogan County for Jail Services. F. AM-4139 Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and acceptance of project. G. AM-4140 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. Packet Page 1 of 220 H. AM-4141 Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code, adding 4-hour parking limitations to Brackett’s Landing North parking lot. I. AM-4146 Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2011-2015. J. AM-4142 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. 3. (15 Minutes) AM-4143 Swearing in ceremony for Corporal Michael B. Richardson. 4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 5. (15 Minutes) AM-4136 Appointment of Pro and Con Committees for General Election propositions. 6. (15 Minutes) AM-4138 Discussion regarding New Energy Cities contract. 7. (10 Minutes) AM-4145 Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities. 8. (15 Minutes) AM-4144 Report on City Council Committee Meetings of August 9, 2011. 9. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Minutes) Council Comments ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 220 AM-4147 Item #: 2. B. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2011. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 08-02-11 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/11/2011 04:55 PM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 3 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 2, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Steve Bernheim, Councilmember D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Peter Gibson, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director Carl Nelson, CIO Rob English, City Engineer Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2011 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #126843 THROUGH #126968 DATED JULY 28, 2011 FOR $494,038.74 D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY STANDARD CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. SOUND TRANSIT UPDATE Matt Sheldon, North Corridor Program Manager, Sound Transit, explained the North Link Project is the extension of light rail from Northgate to Lynnwood, one of the projects approved as part of the ST2 package the voters approved in 2008. He described Sound Transit accomplishments: Packet Page 4 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 2 • Link light rail o Service from Seattle to SeaTac - 2009 o First Hill Street Car – 2014 • Sounder commuter rail o 4 round-trip trains, Everett to Seattle – 2003 o Special weekend Mariners/Seahawks service o New Edmonds Station – July 2011 • Sound Transit Express regional bus service o Fast, all-day buses – 1999 o ST Express 510, 511, 522 serve NE 145th • Transit Facilities o Ash Way Park & Ride – 1999 o Lynnwood/SR 99 Transit Lanes – 2003 o Lynnwood TC & HOV direct access – 2004 o Ash Way HOV direct access project – 2005 o Mountlake Terrace freeway station – 2011 He highlighted Sound Transit’s biggest challenge: long term revenues are down 25% compared to projections prior to the recession and at the time the ST2 package was approved. The North Link project is on track and moving toward implementation in the next decade. Mr. Sheldon described Sound Transit projects: • University Link: Downtown Seattle to UW o 3.2 miles o 2 stations Capitol Hill UW o Under construction o Opens 2016 • North Link: UW to Northgate o 4.3 miles o 3 stations Brooklyn (U District) Roosevelt Northgate o Starting final design o Opens in 2021 • South Link: Airport to South 200th o Board recently approved accelerating delivery of this project by several years o 1.6 miles o 1 station – South 200th Street Station o Design-build project o Opens in 2016 • East Link Preferred Alternative o 14 miles o 12 stations o PE complete o Still in negotiations with Bellevue regarding tunnel alignment o Open to Overlake ~ 2022/2023 Packet Page 5 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Sheldon explained although the North Corridor is not anticipated to open until the end of the Sound Transit program in 2023, the process is beginning now due to, 1) the revenue situation and the need to determine the cost of the project as early as possible to provide as much flexibility in moving the project forward, and 2) plans to seek a sizable federal grant. Both the initial segment to the airport and the UW link project have major federal contributions, $500 million for the airport segment and $813 million for the UW link. The New Starts grant program is a competitive grant and requires a formal alternatives analysis (AA). Although voters indicated in 2008 they wanted Sound Transit to extend light rail from Northgate to Lynnwood, the AA rules require an unbiased look at all methods from improving transit in the corridor, not just light rail but also bus-based solutions. He provided a schedule for the complete North Corridor project: • 2010-11: Alternatives analysis • 2012-13: Draft EIS & conceptual engineering • 2013-14: Final EIS & preliminary engineering • 2015-17: Final design; request New Starts grant • 2017-19: Permitting & ROW acquisition • 2018: Sign New Starts grant agreement • 2019-23: Construction • 2023: Testing & start of service The AA process began last October and draft results have been shared with the FTA. In September the formal results will be presented to the public. He displayed maps of the initial North Corridor bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail alternatives, the product of an early public scoping process in October 2010. Three basic ways to connect high capacity transit, I-5, SR 99 and the 15th Avenue corridor in King County, were considered in the AA. He described the three level AA screening process, explaining considerations include ridership potential, cost, land use and economic development potential, and an initial environmental screen. The level 2 evaluation has been completed and the results will be shared with the public this fall as well as beginning the scoping process for the EIS. Mr. Sheldon explained the two most promising alternatives are both are light rail. It was determined BRT was not adequate to serve long term demand in the corridor and did not have the ability to eventually extend the system north of Lynnwood. Sound Transit’s plans as well as PSRC’s regional transportation plan call for extending the system eventually to Everett. He reviewed the two most promising light rail alternatives, identifying sections that are envisioned to be elevated and on the ground likely in a dedicated guideway: • I-5 Light Rail o Same alignment as the ST2 planning process o Originally assumed all elevated system, now 40% on the ground o Follow I-5 right-of-way on the east side to Mountlake Terrace, then I-5 median to Lynnwood and crossing back to reach Lynnwood transit center • SR 99 Light Rail elevated o West across 110th in North Seattle to reach Aurora Avenue o West side of Aurora to county line with stations at Bitter Lake, Shoreline Park & Ride and Aurora Square, return to I-5 corridor to serve Mountlake Terrace transit center and on to Lynnwood o Alternatives that stayed on SR 99 were considered but did not perform as well in terms of ridership or impact He provided a performance comparison of the SR 99 all-elevated LRT and I-5 at-grade/elevated LRT: Measure SR 99 All-Elevated LRT I-5 At-Grade/Elevated LRT Packet Page 6 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 4 Length/Stations 10.2 miles/5 8.5 miles/4 Frequency Vehicles required 4/10 mines peak/off-peak 42 4/10 mines peak/off-peak 32 Travel Time Lynnwood-Northgate 18 miles 14 minutes 2030 daily riders 48,000 per day 52,000 per day 2030 new riders/hours saved 3.9 M/3.8 M per year 4.5/4.6 M per year TOD & economic development Potential Weaker in V2040 centers Stronger along the line Stronger in V2040 center Weaker along the lines Property impacts High commercial Low residential Low commercial Moderate residential Traffic impacts Minor impacts Minor improvements Construction impacts Moderate; long duration Low-moderate; long duration Environmental impacts Moderate (noise, visual, wetlands) Moderate (noise, visual, wetlands) Mr. Sheldon noted the travel time and new rider measures and cost are particularly important in the New Starts grant process. He noted one of the goals of the I-5 route is to make as much use of existing transportation right-of-way as possible. He provided a cost comparison of the SR 99 all-elevated LRT and I-5 at-grade/elevated LRT: Measure SR 99 All-Elevated LRT I-5 At-Grade/Elevated LRT Capital Cost $2,010 - $2,310 M $1,420 - $1,640 M Difference v. I-5 LRT $590-$670 M --- Difference v. ST Financial Plan* $470 M over to $770 M over $120 M under to $100 M over Cost per new passenger in 2030 $41-$46 $25-$29 * 2011 TIP estimate funded in ST Financial Plan = $1,540 M (mid 2010 $s) Mr. Sheldon summarized the above table, explaining Sound Transit’s financial plan contains approximately $1,540 M for this project, $600 M is assumed to come from the federal government. If the SR 99 route is selected, additional funding will be necessary. The fall scoping process will include asking citizens whether they want Sound Transit to take a closer look at the SR 99 route in the EIS process or limit examination to the I-5 route. He briefly reviewed next steps: • August: FTA reviews draft AA results • September: finalize AA and release results; publish EIS Notice of Intent • October: EIS scoping • November: share scoping results • December Sound Transit Board approves alternatives to evaluate in DEIS • January: Begin DEIS Councilmember Buckshnis relayed complaints from citizens trying to reach Edmonds from the airport via Sounder. She asked whether more frequent Sounder service could be implemented to assist residents in reaching Edmonds from downtown Seattle. Mr. Sheldon answered the Sounder service provided today, four round-trips per day between Everett and Seattle with stops in Edmonds and Mukilteo, was part of the Sound Move program that voters approved in 1996. As part of ST2 program development, there was discussion regarding whether to include funding for more service in the north corridor. The Sound Transit Board ultimately decided not to ask voters to fund expansion of that service because, 1) ridership is not as high as the south corridor, approximately 800-1000 riders/day, and there is little additional market in west Snohomish County, and 2) the cost. To implement more service on Sounder North would require purchasing time from BNSF and there is enough freight traffic that additional Sounder service would Packet Page 7 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 5 require double or triple tracking major segments of the corridor. He summarized the service today on Sounder North is what will exist for a while. Council President Peterson referred to parking issues at the Edmonds station. Patrice Harding, Government Relations, Sound Transit, acknowledged they have heard concerns from Edmonds residents regarding parking at the newly opened commuter rail station. Since the station opened, they have been considering ways to resolve/alleviate the parking situation via, 1) eliminating overnight parking via enforcement, 2) re-negotiating set aside spaces with partners such as eliminating security parking and changing Amtrak parking, and eliminating motorcycle parking and 30-minute parking, and 3) working with the City regarding the use of on-street parking on Railroad Avenue and James Street now that the station can accommodate Community Transit buses. They are also considering leased parking. She explained the property leased for parking during construction was part of construction mitigation and did not have to meet the same requirements that permanent parking must meet. If the same property were leased for permanent parking, it would need to be repaved, restriped, made ADA and pedestrian accessible with signalization, and light stanchions installed. The cost to make those improvements is approximately $14,000 per space which is not in the current budget. Council President Peterson inquired about the original plan for a permanent parking structure. Ms. Harding explained the permanent parking structure was part of the Edmonds Crossing project. When those funds became unavailable from the State, that project was put on hold. Councilmember Wilson recognized the Port of Edmonds Executive Director in the audience and suggested Sound Transit speak to the Port about more cost effective parking on Port property. Councilmember Wilson commented parking on Railroad Avenue was unlikely to be desirable for the community. He noted parking at the Antique Mall property may also be an option. He noted the daily Sounder did not meet a service threshold that made it useful for him, a common complaint among Edmonds residents. He does use the Sounder service to Seahawk games; however, there are no seats available when it reaches Edmonds. Anyone desiring a seat must board the train at Everett. He suggested consideration be given to additional service on those specific days. Of the two light rail alternatives, Councilmember Wilson suggested the SR 99 route would be more useful for Edmonds users as it would allow them to use existing Community Transit bus service on SR 104 to Aurora Village transit center. He recognized this may require moving the Shoreline Park & Ride stop to Aurora Village. The I-5 light rail route would require Edmonds residents to transfer to another Community Transit bus to reach Mountlake Terrace. He appreciated the cost differential, pointing out the issues raised by Bellevue. He did not want cost to become an issue in the north end subarea when other subareas have a different understanding of cost. Student Representative Gibson asked when Community Transit will be operating out of the new facility. Ms. Harding answered September. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she may be too old to use the service to the airport by the time it is available but it will be useful for future generations. She referred to concerns expressed by businesses and residents on the SR 99 corridor. Mayor Cooper relayed his frustration with what appears to be a lack of communication between Community Transit, Metro and Sound Transit. There is already BRT infrastructure from the Aurora Village transit center to the Everett station. He asked why Sound Transit may not be interested in running Sound Transit BRT buses in cooperation with Community Transit to the stops where there is already infrastructure. Mr. Sheldon explained the BRT alternatives that were considered would have done that, taken advantage and leveraged the Community Transit’s investments in their Swift BRT system and that King County Metro will make on Aurora Avenue in the future via their Metro Rapid Ride system. The Packet Page 8 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 6 concept was to provide a connection from Lynnwood to the Northgate rail head and access to the rest of the regional transit system. To the question of why light rail is needed on SR 99 when there is already BRT, Mr. Sheldon commented the services are not duplicative, they are complementary. One of the reasons the Shoreline Park & Ride was selected as a potential station rather than Aurora Village, it provides the opportunity for a multimodal center where Swift and Rapid Ride could come together with a light rail station. Co-locating BRT and light rail is a consideration when choosing where to make the light rail investment. Mayor Cooper commented Edmonds residents and the surrounding communities would benefit sooner if BRT infrastructure was put in and changed from 10 minutes between departures to 5 minutes as well as transport more passengers. Mr. Sheldon advised the results of the AA including the performance of BRT will be available in September during the scoping process. He encouraged the City to consider whether Sound Transit should take BRT further in the EIS. With regard to a multimodal facility at the Shoreline Park & Ride, Councilmember Wilson commented it would be easier for Edmonds residents to walk 100 yards from the Aurora Transit Center to BRT on SR 99 than to make a bus connection through a different agency. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he has participated on two levy committees in the past seven years. He referred to the need to put a levy on the ballot and described plans to ensure passage of a levy. He proposed that current and former Councilmembers and candidates for Council to contact their constituents to ask for the vote. He also suggested forming a committee of people who are enthusiastic about passing a levy to contact registered voters. He offered his office on Wednesday evenings. Mayor Cooper cautioned Mr. Page about discussing campaign strategy during a Council meeting. He suggested Mr. Page contact Councilmembers individually outside the Council meeting. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the public is aware the City is short of funds but when voting will have to pick between the three proposals. He expressed his support for public safety and police, noting funding of public safety comprises the majority of the City’s budget. Observing that public safety is most residents’ top issue, he encouraged the Council to place a separate public safety levy on the ballot. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his question regarding cost overruns on two projects. He thanked Public Works Director Phil Williams for calling him to discuss the projects, one he was able to discuss and the other he was not. He informed Mr. Williams that he did not need a special report; if the Council was satisfied with the answers, he was satisfied. Next he referred to the discussion at last week’s Council meeting regarding expenses exceeding revenues. If the City’s finances are clear and the City is able to pay all its bills today, he asked what caused expenses to exceed revenues in future years and whether it was something other than labor. It was his understanding that labor costs had the greatest impact expenditure increases. He suggested managing labor costs in a way so that expenses do not exceed revenues. He pointed out the State reduced salaries by 3%; Edmonds included escalators in its contracts and has indicated the cost of medical insurance will decrease. 5. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THREE ORDINANCES PLACING PROPOSITIONS ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION A. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO HELP MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF Packet Page 9 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 7 SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE B. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND STREET PAVEMENT OVERLAYS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE C. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE Councilmember Plunkett inquired about an ordinance that was distributed to the Council tonight. Mayor Cooper advised the new ordinance was a potential amendment to one of the ordinances in the packet. Mayor Cooper referred to the ordinances in the Council packet, A) General Fund levy; based on Council conversations at the July 26 meeting, the purpose was narrowed to public safety, parks and other city services; B) road overlays with reference to maintenance removed; and C) parks. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the whereas in all three ordinances are significant different than the ordinances proposed at the July 26 meeting because he clarified how the levy rate was determined in the proposed ballot title such as how changes in assessed value impacted the levy rate, what could be done in the absence of voter approval and the rate required to raise the additional revenue. Mayor Cooper asked Mr. Taraday to explain why the total levy amount (i.e. $1 million) or an amount per $1000 of assessed value was not used in the ballot title. Mr. Taraday explained there is nothing that strictly prohibits the inclusion of an absolute dollar amount in the ballot title. His review of levies in other cities found that was not done in regular levy lift resolutions or ordinances. An absolute dollar amount is frequently included in the ballot title for a bond because there is a fixed amount of money to be raised by the bond and property taxes will be collected until that amount is paid off. With regard to including language in the ballot title regarding the effect the levy would have on an average home, Mr. Taraday explained that was more appropriate to include in an explanatory statement than the ballot title. The City Attorney drafts the explanatory statement and submits it to the County Auditor by August 16, the same time the certified ordinances are submitted. The amount intended to be raised by each levy will be included in the explanatory statement; $1 million for the General Fund, $1 million for overlays and $500,000 for parks. Mayor Cooper asked staff to explain why the amount per $1000 of assessed value changed and how it relates to the change in the City’s assessed value. Mr. Taraday answered Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte provided information from the Snohomish County Auditor regarding the City’s 2012 assessed Packet Page 10 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 8 value, a decrease of approximately 11% from 2011 assessed values. When the assessed valuation decreases, the millage rate must increase. There is a significant difference between the 2011 rate and the proposed ordinances due to the significant decrease in assessed valuation. Council President Peterson thanked staff and the Council for the healthy, though lengthy, deliberative process. He felt the proposed ordinances were compromises; none of the Council got exactly what they wanted. Ordinance A: Help Maintain Current Levels of Service in Public Safety, Parks and Other City Services COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM A, ORDINANCE NO. 3848, A GENERAL FUND ORDINANCE TO MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS AND OTHER CITY SERVICES. Mr. Taraday suggested it may be more accurate to refer to this ordinance as the City Services ordinance as it is technical no longer a General Fund ordinance. Due to the changes made, if the levy passed, the City would not have unlimited use of the funds; the funds must be used for public safety, parks or other city services. Council President Peterson explained this ordinance will help retain basic City services. There are no plans to add building or departments; it provides “a few gulps of air” while the economy hopefully recovers and other possibilities are considered such as the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Because the ordinance is for a levy to fund basic City services, he had concerns with it being a 3-year levy. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE THIS A PERMANENT LEVY AND REMOVE THE 3- YEAR LANGUAGE. Mayor Cooper advised this amendment was reflected in the ordinance that was distributed to the Council tonight. Councilmember Wilson explained this ordinance gives the Council permanent authority to raise the tax rate. If the economy turns around, the Council can reduce the tax rate although admittedly government rarely does that. The Council learned last week that over the next 5 year period, the City needs $1.75 million to cover existing City services. The 3-year levy does not solve the problem, $1.75 million over the next 5 years. The amendment gets the City part of the way. With a 3-year levy, when the levy terminates in 3 years, there will be a $2.75 million shortfall in 1 year. When that happens 8% of the City’s staff will need to be laid off and an 8% cut in City’s services in addition to the 2 police officers that have been cut previously, cuts make to parks, etc. He preferred to place a levy on the ballot that solved the problem; $1 million/year for 3 years will not solve the problem. To illustrate his willingness to compromise, he pointed out he has submitted a number of proposals over the last two years, has given away his advocacy for public safety, and set aside his interest in buying back cuts. If the Council will support making this $1 million levy permanent, he will support the other two levies. The other two levies are great “nice-to- haves” but he cannot ask voters for nice-to-haves without funding the basic problem in the General Fund. He urged Councilmembers to support the proposed amendment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was unable to support a permanent levy. She felt three years was enough to ask the citizens for; if the basic problems cannot be solved within those three years via economic development and other efforts, the taxpayers should be asked again. Packet Page 11 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 9 Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Tarte to display the projections with the change to a modified accrual accounting that is used by many other cities. Mayor Cooper urged Councilmember Buckshnis to focus her remarks on the levy and not the accounting method. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a new forecast shows that in 2015, with $4 million as the fund balance and adding the accruals and removing the payables, the City is in much better shape. For that reason she could not support a permanent levy but would support a 3-year levy with funding dedicated to fire service. Councilmember Wilson clarified what staff presented last week was Mayor Cooper’s forecast. He asked whether there was a new forecast. Mayor Cooper answered he did not have a new forecast and neither the City Council nor the Mayor’s office have adopted a new accounting method. Councilmember Wilson recommended that until the Council decided to book accounts receivable differently, the Council should stick with the forecasts that staff and the Mayor provided last week. Mr. Tarte explained last week he provided a what-if scenario if the Mayor and Council approved a different accounting method, fund balance versus working capital. He explained that one-time change did not fix the problem of expenditures exceeding revenues. Expenses exceed revenues because of the recession, sales tax revenues have declined and assessed values have decreased. The sooner the Council and citizens recognize the shortfall, the easier it will be to mitigate. If the Council waits 2-3 years and proposes a $3 million General Fund levy, it will require a 40-50% increase in taxes in one year. Councilmember Petso expressed support for the amendment to a permanent levy because she was not comfortable with the number of staff positions that would be connected to the $1 million levy. She commented this was different than roads; at the end of a 3-year road levy, no staff would be laid off, paving could just be stopped as has been done in the past. The idea of funding $1 million in staff positions with a levy that may last only 3 years concerned her. Council President Peterson pointed out the Council was not voting for a tax increase tonight; they were asking the voters to make informed decisions. The information provided by staff and the Mayor and the Council’s deliberations over the last months highlighted that the City does not collect enough money. The citizens understand that and will be willing to support a levy. With a permanent levy if the economy improves in 3 years, sports tourism and other economic development is generating money, the Council could decide to reduce the levy rate. With a 3-year levy if the economy does not improve, the concerns will be compounded exponentially. He felt a 3-year levy was a significant gamble. He was willing to support a 3-year option but did not feel it was the fiscally wise or conservative choice to maintain existing City services and staff. Council President Peterson referred to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comment last week, that she wished a levy had been passed two years ago, pointing out three years passes very quickly and he did not want to have this discussion again at that time. He summarized the $1 million City services ordinance would not fully support all existing services and the other funding sources the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and others are working on will be needed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas felt it was a bigger gamble to ask citizens for a permanent increase in taxes when citizens losing their homes and their jobs, unable to afford their medical insurance and food, etc. She did not think the voters would pass a permanent levy and felt it was smarter to ask for a shorter term, particularly if people were banking on the economy improving. She preferred to seek other funding sources rather than permanently tax property owners. Councilmember Bernheim asked the proponents of the amendments the consequence of a permanent levy failing. His support of a 3-year levy was a step-by-step, baby-step, earn the voters trust approach; going to the voters with a discrete project and illustrate how the money will be spent over a specific time period. If successful, that success can be leveraged into continued levy requests. He summarized his two questions Packet Page 12 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 10 were: 1) the consequence of a permanent levy failing, and 2) whether there was enough voter trust to convince them to support a permanent levy. Councilmember Plunkett did not support subsidizing the General Fund. He referred to Mr. Tarte’s comment that the source of the City’s problems was the economy. Councilmember Plunkett anticipated improvement in the economy was years away. For those who support the City Services ordinance and the amendment he questioned how they reconciled the Finance Director stating the problem was the economy with a permanent levy. Councilmember Petso was uncertain how she would vote on the ultimate levy proposal. Her decision tonight will not be whether the City has made its case for any of the proposals but whether the proposal is close enough that she can allow the citizens to vote. As a result she did not feel a temporary levy was safe to propose to the voters. She recognized a 3-year levy was more likely to pass although she did not envision either a 3-year or a permanent levy would pass. With regard to Councilmember Bernheim’s question regarding the consequences of failure, the consequences are either the City gets good news or cuts another $300,000 from the 2012 budget and places another levy on the ballot in the future. When another levy is placed on the ballot, the City will have completed a Strategic Plan, hopefully completed union negotiations and have an idea of the reduction in medical benefit costs. She summarized the consequence of failure was not the end of the world; if the levy fails, the City will adapt and make do. With regard to the baby steps theory, Councilmember Petso explained placing a levy on the ballot that everyone can support in an effort to build public support went “out the window” when the theory of Council unanimity on a proposal was abandoned. She recalled the only proposal the Council unanimously supported was $700,000-$750,000 for roads. Several Councilmembers have managed to compromise. Councilmember Wilson referred to Councilmember Plunkett’s view of this levy as General Fund subsidy; he viewed it as paying for services that citizens ask for. Councilmember Wilson explained since he was elected 3 ½ years ago he has cut $3 million from the budget; the budget today is smaller than when he was elected 3½ years ago. The City realigned how it provides fire service via the FD1 contract and has made changes in public safety and parks. That is how the Council builds trust. When citizens were asked via the survey what they wanted to see, they wanted the Council to speak with as much consensus as possible. When the TBD was placed on the ballot, the Council said they would learn from the vote. What the Council learned is citizens expect the Council to speak with some consensus. If this amendment is approved, there may be six votes for final approval of the City Services ordinance. He will be unable to support the other two levies if the basic General Fund problem is not solved first. He urged Councilmembers to compromise a little bit, noting these levy proposals are approximately the vision provided by the Citizen Levy Committee led by Councilmember Buckshnis. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas stated she will stand behind the levy because she believes the City needs a levy. She does not support a permanent levy to fund City services. She referred to Councilmember Petso’s statement that if a City services levy does not pass, the City will adapt and make do, commenting that conflicted with asking voters to pass a permanent levy. She wanted a levy to pass and she agreed unanimity would be desirable but she would not support a levy longer than three years. Mayor Cooper explained the 2012 budget he will present at the first meeting in October will not reflect the levy. It will be a balanced budget that reflects the $300,000-$350,000 shortfall. Student Representative Gibson asked if there was really any difference in the 3-year levy passing and then the voters being asked again to pass another levy. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested tying the 3-year City Services levy to first service because the contract with FD1 is up for renewal in 3 years. She did not support a permanent levy because assessed Packet Page 13 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 11 values will eventually increase and if the City joins an RFA, the $6.4 million expense for fire service will be removed from the General Fund, thereby eliminating the problem. Council President Peterson commented the individual levies for roads and parks provide an opportunity to demonstrate improvements. The problem with the baby steps approach to the City Services levy is it “keeps us just from going under water, it’s not very exciting.” The intent of the City Services levy is that citizens do not notice the difference and quality services are maintained. He hoped the services that the City Services levy funds are invisible other than citizens saying they are happy with the Police Department or thanking the City for maintaining parks. The roads and parks levies provide an opportunity to make improvements that have been ignored for the last decade due to previous cuts. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND WILSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BERNHEIM, PLUNKETT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SPECIFY THAT THE LEVY FUND FIRE SERVICES. Mayor Cooper clarified the ballot title currently states, “public safety, parks and other City services;” Councilmember Buckshnis’ amendment is to change that language to “current levels of fire services.” COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3848, CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, BUCKSHNIS, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WILSON AND PETSO VOTING NO. Ordinance B: To Fund Street Pavement Overlays COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM B, ORDINANCE NO. 3849, $1 MILLION TO FUND STREET PAVEMENT OVERLAYS. Councilmember Wilson commented it was bad policy to ask the voters for nice-to-have items. He acknowledged fixing the City’s streets and parks was very important but if the General Fund levy fails, there will be no staff to fix the streets or make park improvements because staff will have to be laid off. Even if the General Fund passes, the City is still $750,000 short of its expenditures. The most ridiculous embarrassing position for him as a Councilmember would be if the street or park levies passes and the General Fund levy fails and he has to tell the voters that either staff will be laid off or money from the street or parks levy will be moved around in the General Fund. He did not support the motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Wilson did not support this ordinance because of the limited time frame approved for the General Fund levy. Councilmember Wilson answered he did not support this ordinance because he did not want to ask the voters to fund a levy that did not address the City’s basic problem. The basic problem is the City does not have enough money to pay for the services it offers. This levy provides an additional service that is important but it does not fund existing services. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the General Fund levy and for this levy. She anticipated the voters will approve a General Fund levy; if not, the budget has historically been 3-5% over during the past 4-5 years, approximately $990,000 which will cover the 2012 shortfall. Packet Page 14 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 12 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the ordinance. Whether a General Fund levy passes is irrelevant; if the City’s streets are in poor condition, there will not be economic development or people moving to Edmonds and residents will not have the ability to travel around Edmonds. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3849 CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. Ordinance C: To Fund Building Maintenance and Park Improvements COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM C, ORDINANCE NO. 3850. Council President Peterson commented he was the least excited about this ordinance due to potential conflicts if the General Fund levy failed and the roads levy and this levy passed. He was hopeful all three levies would be approved by the voters. He will support the motion although somewhat reluctantly. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the ordinance. With regard to whether there will be staff remaining if this levy passes and the General Fund levy does not, he pointed out the City’s reserves can be used to address the shortfall at some point. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the motion, noting building maintenance and parks are very important to Edmonds residents. Buildings falling down and poorly maintained parks affect quality of life. Councilmember Wilson reminded twice a year when the General Fund budget goes into the red, funds are transferred to cover it. This motion does nothing to solve the basic problem and therefore he cannot support it. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3850 CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper commented this has been a long process and many have been subject to verbal criticism for the length of time it has taken. Although he would have preferred a closer vote than 4-3 on the first ordinance, he thanked the Council for working so deliberatively over the past several months to find a solution. The Citizen Levy Committee’s recommendation, the proposal from the Mayor’s office, and the three ordinances the Council approved for the ballot tonight all had a similar approach. His proposal was one proposition; the Levy Committee recommended three propositions but the funding was similar. He thanked the Council for their deliberative and professional approach to the levy. Mr. Taraday reminded the Council needed to appoint pro and con committees for each of the three propositions. Mayor Cooper recalled the Council Presidents calls for and makes those appointments. Mr. Taraday advised the Snohomish County Auditor’s Voters Pamphlet states the legislative authority makes the appointments. If not tonight, the Council could make those appointments at the August 15 meeting. Council President Peterson invited citizens and Councilmembers interested in participating on the pro and con committees to contact him via email at Peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Taraday will write the explanatory statement. Mr. Taraday advised the pro and con statements are due on August 30. Packet Page 15 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 13 6. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DIVERSITY COMMISSION Councilmember Wilson explained Edmonds has an increasingly diverse population. According to the 2010 Census 9.9% of residents are foreign born and 11.6% speak a language other than English at home. Diversity includes age as evidenced by strollers on City streets and the active Senior Center; economic with Edmonds having some of the most affluent residents and some of the most disadvantaged populations; an active LGBT community at the high school; and an openly gay member of the legislature who serves the 21st Legislative District. A group of citizens asked to present the idea of a Diversity Commission to the Council. He will offer a resolution that gives a stamp of approval for citizens, staff and him to create an outlines of a Commission or Commissions focused on diversity. Carol Schillios, Edmonds, explained this presentation is to, 1) open a conversation about diversity, 2) describe what might be meant by diversity, and 3) to explore the possibility and ask for the Council’s support for a forum for conversations about diversity. The 2010 Census indicates there is social, demographic and economic diversity. Of the nearly 40,000 Edmonds residents, 18,700 are male and 20,816 are female. There are 13,000 people 62 years of age and older and 9,000 kids enrolled in school of which 6,000 are elementary and high school. Approximately 3,000 or 6% of the Edmonds population are Asian and over 1,500 or 4% are Latino. The goal of a diversity commission is to explore how they are represented, not to say they are not represented but to open community relationships and explore the diversity, whether by bringing different age groups together, bringing different ethnicities together, or learning about different culture. A diversity commission would enrich the community, open communication as well as have a direct effect on public safety. She cited an example of someone afraid of a group of young people with purple hair. That discomfort can be bridged by helping people understand each other, bringing different age groups together and creating forums for learning about different cultures. In the last 10 years, nearly 11% foreign born citizens have moved into Edmonds. Over 6,000 people in the census reported they are disabled. The commission could explore how those people are served. Over 2,000 women reported in the census they are widowed. She relayed a woman who visited her shop who had not been out in public for months because she did not know what services were available. In 1999 there were over 300 families below the poverty level. There are two Section 8 housing complexes in the Edmonds bowl; the diversity commission could consider the needs of the low income residents. She clarified they were not asking the City for money; they want a forum to engage people in an effort to enrich the community. Other communities have been exploring diversity commissions and a variety of issues. The structure of the commission is unknown but she was certain there are unheard voices in the city and a diversity commission can enhance public safety and inform decision-making. There is a fair percentage of residents who speak limit English; she questioned how the City communicates with that population. She encouraged the Council to support the creation of a forum to honor and celebrate diversity. Rey Gardea, Edmonds, incoming junior at Edmonds-Woodway High School, accompanied by her friend and classmate, Taylor Minor, commented that in addition to diversity, youth are a very important part of the community. She viewed Edmonds as a diverse community encompassing multiple age groups, races and lifestyles. There is huge potential in the City, both economically and socially, and as future citizens of Edmonds, they would like to open dialogue regarding an ethnic diversity commission. She summarized they do not want youth to be feared in Edmonds. Youth are the future and have a huge economic presence in the City that is often unrecognized. She envisioned events that would unite age groups socially. She was also interested in political education for youth, pointing out a more educated youth will result in a more successful future. Packet Page 16 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 14 Per the 2010 census younger people are moving to Edmonds bringing new social and economic problems and challenges. A youth commission could address those issues from the youth perspective as well provide ideas regarding economic development from their perspective. A youth commission will provide a voice for the future of the City as well as a way to educate potential future leaders. Stacy Gardea, Edmonds, explained as a Hispanic woman, she wants to open the doors to allow exploration. She met with Edmonds-Woodway High School’s Principal and Vice Principal today and they were excited about a youth commission. She encouraged the Council to allow a dialogue to be opened, to determine what is needed. She envisioned the two commissions addressing issues and evolving over time. Councilmember Plunkett was uncertain what was meant by diverse cultures not being heard and youth not being recognized. He asked why certain cultures’ voices were not heard and what the City did that closed doors and did not recognize or hear. Ms. Schillios explained the goal is to explore what needs exists. Some of the young people who visit downtown are seeking educational things; perhaps a larger service learning program to learn about different cultures could be explored. She noted the high schools in the area have clubs for different minority groups to assist them explore their needs. There is a huge Russian population in the area; serving at the food bank recently, she found many of them speak very little English. Ms. Gardea wanted a voice for different ethnicities and youth. She recalled a meeting with a group of IB students to discuss the national budget and most did not know how the City’s Police Department was paid. She wanted an opportunity to bring City government to the youth. There are not always activities in the City that attract and promote youth; the kids need things to do. The Economic Development Committee has a lot of ideas but they are often for older citizens. For example, there could be paddle boats on the waterfront. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her background is State employment where there is a very diverse population. She thanked Ms. Schillios for the work she does. She lives in a diverse family where English is not the first language and understood the cultural issues in a diverse family. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Gardea advised there is interest in forming two commissions, a diversity commission and a youth commission. Ms. Schillios acknowledged the definition of the commissions has not been defined. They are seeking the City’s support to explore it. It may be one forum with subgroups to explore different issues. Direction from the Council will be important with regard to the structure of the commission(s). Although the structure is uncertain, the goal is enrichment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested including people with disabilities and intellectual disabilities in the forum. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested using the EDC as a venue. Ms. Gardea responded that was a possibility in the future, the EDC has been considering some very large issues recently. There is a group of energetic young people interested in being involved; a youth commission will give them a voice. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested creating a youth subgroup of the EDC. She pointed out Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite is exploring opportunity for recreational concessions on the waterfront. Councilmember Bernheim commented the questions they have raised have outlets and means of success in far more areas than a formal government setting. These issues will not be solved by only a Council commission. Everyone shares in the effort to help their fellow men, women and children who are unable to cope as effectively as others. He was supportive of any group of people that wanted to get together to help improve the community. Ms. Gardea assured the intent was not for the Council to make a decision tonight; the intent was to open a dialogue for future discussion. Councilmember Bernheim preferred to refer the issue to the Public Safety/Human Resources or Community Service/Development Services Committee. Packet Page 17 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 15 Mayor Cooper opened the opportunity for public input. There were no members of the public present who wished to comment. Councilmember Wilson advised the resolution was intended to get Council approval to move forward. He was happy to do it himself and bring it back to a committee or to full Council. He preferred to work with staff and citizens and return to the full Council for consideration. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1255, SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF AN ORDINANCE(S) FOR THE PURPOSES OF FUTURE DELIBERATION REGARDING THE CREATION OF COMMISSION STRUCTURES RELATED TO OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the statement on the agenda that public comment will be received, questioning whether notification was required when public comment was taken. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there is no legal requirement for public hearing or public comment on a resolution. It is at the Council’s discretion to invite public input. Mayor Cooper explained the Council President can agree to allow public comment on any agenda item. A public hearing requires specific notice. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council adopted the agenda; if there was a question about public comment on a specific agenda item, it could have been raised at that time. He looked forward to work being done regarding diversity. He preferred to have citizens work on it and return to the Council. He was uncomfortable with the wording in the resolution, that the Council supports the creation of an ordinance, as he was uncertain whether an ordinance was needed. He suggested a resolution and/or ordinance return to the Council after further work has been done. Councilmember Bernheim preferred to have the matter considered by a Council committee. He preferred to adopt a resolution in support of a commission, not regarding future adoption. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO REFER THE RESOLUTION TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE. Councilmember Wilson questioned referring a resolution that committed the Council to do nothing to a committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her intent was to have the group that presented to the Council discuss their vision for the forum with the committee. Mayor Cooper suggested if the Council was uncomfortable with the resolution, they pass a motion of support and allow the Council President to determine how to proceed. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE MOTION. Council President Peterson advised before Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ motion, he had added discussion regarding a diversity commission/youth commission to the CS/DS Committee’s September 13 agenda. He expressed support for the resolution. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO REFER THE RESOLUTION TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. Packet Page 18 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 16 Mayor Cooper expressed his strong support for this effort. He encouraged the Council not to get bogged down in the committee structure. The Council will need to discuss staff support for a diversity/youth commission. He suggested it may be preferable to utilize the energy of the people in the community who want to work on this and allow it to proceed as an ad hoc group. If the CS/DS committee decided to allow the community members to proceed with creating something more tangible, Councilmember Plunkett asked whether they could proceed without returning to the Council. Council President Peterson preferred to have it return to the Council. Councilmember Wilson advised the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee will be discussing this at their meeting next week. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper reported he participated as a judge in the sand sculpture contest at Marina Beach on August 1. He commented on the amazing creativity and artistic abilities. He commended the Parks & Recreation staff, Tammy Rankins in particular, and Namas Candy who sponsored the event. He relayed a call from the media after the event who said they were unable to find a parking place to take photographs of the event. He concluded the sculpture contest was another example of how hard the Parks & Recreation staff works. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Petso reported the audit has commenced. It was mentioned at the entrance interview that it is less expensive and questions/concerns are more likely to be considered if they are raised now rather than later. Councilmember Petso announced the Edmonds Center for the Arts fundraising auction in September. She encouraged anyone interested in contributing to the auction to contact Jamie Herlich at the ECA. Councilmember Buckshnis reported on Step Out Edmonds, the Senior Center walking program. She announced the Edmonds Senior Center is also holding its annual auction in September. She encouraged Councilmembers and/or the Mayor to donate lunch for four as well as other items for the auction. Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support for the diversity groups. To the comment that the commission does not need any staff, he explained the commission cannot be under the city’s framework and not spend City money due to the need for staff to be assigned to the commission, reports, etc. That is yet another example of the need for a levy. Government tasks are not increasing because of new buildings but the increase in the day-to-day activities. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she helped with the introduction of Reilly & Maloney at Concerts in the Park on Sunday. She encouraged the public to attend the free concerts 3:00 -4:00 p.m. at City Park on Sundays through the end of August. Councilmember Wilson relayed there has been a shortage of participation at Yost Pool this summer. His children attend swim classes daily but if not enough people go to family and/or recreation swim time, it will be part of the budget conversation. He encouraged the public to swim at Yost Pool. He also reminded citizens of the outdoor movies at Frances Anderson Center on Friday evenings. This Friday’s feature is Ghost Busters. Council President Peterson reported Bellingham and Portland recently passed their version of the plastic bag ban. Edmonds is a trend setter and leader in environmental issues and keeping Puget Sound clean. Packet Page 19 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 17 9. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Packet Page 20 of 220 AM-4137 Item #: 2. C. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #126969 through #127096 dated August 4, 2011 for $459,322.72, and claim checks #127097 through #127227 dated August 11, 2011 for $308,455.96. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #50652 through #50708 for the period July 16, 2011 through July 31, 2011 in the amount of $734,924.24. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit & checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue: Expenditure:1,502,702.92 Fiscal Impact: Claims $767,778.68 Payroll $734,924.24 Attachments Claim Checks 8-4-11 Claim Checks 8-11-11 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Jim Tarte 08/11/2011 09:12 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 11:37 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/11/2011 08:34 AM Packet Page 21 of 220 Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 22 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126969 8/4/2011 071324 3-D ROOFING SYSTEMS LLC 4125 Wade James Theater - Roof Repairs Wade James Theater - Roof Repairs 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 4,680.00 Permit Fees 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 80.00 9.5% Sales Tax 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 444.60 Total :5,204.60 126970 8/4/2011 041695 3M XAM3522 TP01931 2011 Watermain Replacement Const. Signs 2011 Watermain Replacement Const. Signs 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 240.00 1 Roll Black 30"x50Yd 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 183.75 9.5% Sales Tax 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 40.25 Total :464.00 126971 8/4/2011 072627 911 ETC INC 16776 JULY-11 911 DATABASE MAINT July-11 911 database maint 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 101.50 Total :101.50 126972 8/4/2011 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 7112751 YOST STAFF SHIRTS YOST POOL STAFF SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 9.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 0.86 DAY CAMP SHIRTS7112752 DAY CAMP T-SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 105.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 10.00 Total :125.17 1Page: Packet Page 23 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126973 8/4/2011 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 11-393 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 Total :334.00 126974 8/4/2011 065568 ALLWATER INC 072811031 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 32.85 Total :32.85 126975 8/4/2011 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 13852 HAINES WHARF PARK BENCH PLAQUE CAST BRONZE PLAQUE: ROSS 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 143.40 Freight 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6.90 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 14.28 Total :164.58 126976 8/4/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5678980 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 71.47 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.79 Total :78.26 126977 8/4/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5659336 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC Street Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00 Street Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5671367 2Page: Packet Page 24 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126977 8/4/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Street Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00 Street Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5678975 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86 PW MATS655-5683599 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37 3Page: Packet Page 25 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126977 8/4/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34 PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5683600 Street Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00 Street Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47 Total :87.90 126978 8/4/2011 073740 ARTHUR, AMY ARTHUR0807 CITY PARK PRESENTER PRESENTER @ CITY PARK CONCERT 8/7/11 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 500.00 Total :500.00 126979 8/4/2011 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC 050686 Public Safety - VAV TUX controller 3va Public Safety - VAV TUX controller 3va 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 337.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.06 alerton system-PW050737 alerton system-PW 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 2,550.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 242.25 Total :3,161.81 126980 8/4/2011 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEY13906 TAEKWON DO CLASSES BEGINNING TAEKWON DO #13906 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 661.50 4Page: Packet Page 26 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126980 8/4/2011 (Continued)061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON CONTINUING TAEKWON DO #13910 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 822.50 TAEKWON DO CLASSESBAILEYS13914 TAEKWON DO #13914 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 288.60 TAEKWON DO #13918 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 81.90 Total :1,854.50 126981 8/4/2011 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP13933 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #13933 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 7,200.00 Total :7,200.00 126982 8/4/2011 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG14003 TAI CHI TAI CHI #14003 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 244.65 Total :244.65 126983 8/4/2011 073326 BERKEY, DAVID F 20110727PSBF PRINTING OF 500 POSTERS FOR BIRD FEST Printing of 500 posters for Puget Sound 120.000.310.575.420.490.00 325.00 9.5% Sales Tax 120.000.310.575.420.490.00 30.88 Total :355.88 126984 8/4/2011 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 462186 Fleet Brake Supply Inventory Fleet Brake Supply Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 549.51 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 52.20 Fleet Brake Supply Inventory462186-1 Fleet Brake Supply Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 547.47 9.5% Sales Tax 5Page: Packet Page 27 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126984 8/4/2011 (Continued)028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 52.01 Fleet Brake Supply Inventory465909 Fleet Brake Supply Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 184.53 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 17.53 Fleet Brake Supply Inventory465909-1 Fleet Brake Supply Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 123.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 11.69 Total :1,537.96 126985 8/4/2011 073062 BLUE FLAME BLD20110590 Online permit voided - outside city Online permit voided - outside city 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00 Total :75.00 126986 8/4/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 886491 INV#886491 - EDMONDS PD - SMITH, RT SWITCH/SEW NAMETAGS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50 NAMETAGS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.28 Total :14.78 126987 8/4/2011 071047 BRUCE, CINDY BRUCE14057 FIVE BOOKS IN FIVE DAYS FIVE BOOKS IN FIVE DAYS #14057 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 357.50 Total :357.50 126988 8/4/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11140940 RECEPTIONIST COPIER LEASE Recept. desk copier 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 40.22 6Page: Packet Page 28 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126988 8/4/2011 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 3.82 Total :44.04 126989 8/4/2011 068484 CEMEX LLC 9421885186 Storm-Water Dump Fees Storm-Water Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 44.45 Street - Asphalt9421906782 Street - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 370.01 9.2% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 34.04 Total :448.50 126990 8/4/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY171035 Water Dept - Tank Fill Water Dept - Tank Fill 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 42.21 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.01 Total :46.22 126991 8/4/2011 073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC 7254 Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director 001.000.310.514.100.410.00 5,406.25 Total :5,406.25 126992 8/4/2011 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT14130 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #14130 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 42.00 Total :42.00 126993 8/4/2011 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E9GA.Bld Permit E9GA.BUILDING PERMIT FEES E9GA.Building Permit Fees 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 377.50 Total :377.50 7Page: Packet Page 29 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126994 8/4/2011 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS BLD20010601 PERMIT FEES FOR WADE JAMES THEATER Wade James Theater Permit Fees 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 310.50 Total :310.50 126995 8/4/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8773 INV#8773 CUST#1655 - EDMONDS PD VERIZON INTERNET-NARCS 06/11 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 43.01 Total :43.01 126996 8/4/2011 073737 CITY OF SEATTLE DMT00172 FR022-FIBER MAINTENANCE FR022-Fiber Maintenance 001.000.310.518.870.480.00 1.93 Total :1.93 126997 8/4/2011 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE77161301 Fac. Maint. - ASSA E65673TZ Cylinder Fac. Maint. - ASSA E65673TZ Cylinder 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 316.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.08 Total :346.70 126998 8/4/2011 073387 COLELLA, CAROL COLELLA0729 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 400.00 Total :400.00 126999 8/4/2011 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8396789 INVOICE #8396789 pagers-water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 4.24 Total :4.24 127000 8/4/2011 063507 COXLEY, BRUCE 072311 7/4-7/20/11 4TH OF JULY PARADE,FLEET 7/4 - 7/20/11 Photography & Material 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 140.00 Total :140.00 8Page: Packet Page 30 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127001 8/4/2011 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 198106 Storm-Water - supplies Storm-Water - supplies 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,778.81 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 168.99 Total :1,947.80 127002 8/4/2011 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 151910 INV#151910 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATION #GHD-03836 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.79 INV#151912 - EDMONDS PD151912 CALIBRATION #GHD-03890 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.79 INV#151913 - EDMONDS PD151913 CALIBRATION #GVPD-08527 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.79 INV#151914 - EDMONDS PD151914 CALIBRATION #GHS-08722 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.79 INV#151915 - EDMONDS PD151915 9Page: Packet Page 31 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127002 8/4/2011 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 CALIBRATION #GHS-08723 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.79 INV#151917 - EDMONDS PD151917 CALIBRATION #GHD-12646 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.79 INV#151918 - EDMONDS PD151918 CALIBRATION #GHD-12654 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.79 Total :628.53 127003 8/4/2011 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 151553 FLEET - RADIO REPAIRS Fleet - Radio Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 151.25 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 13.91 Total :165.16 127004 8/4/2011 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS July 2011 DRS JULY 2011 DRS CONTRIBUTIONS July 2011 DRS 811.000.000.231.540.000.00 155,078.61 Total :155,078.61 127005 8/4/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3215 MINUTE TAKING 10Page: Packet Page 32 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127005 8/4/2011 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE Council Mtg 7/26 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 357.00 Total :357.00 127006 8/4/2011 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 07312011 STATE LOBBYIST JULY 2011 State lobbyist charges for July 2011 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,391.25 Total :2,391.25 127007 8/4/2011 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2010028 Jantz Office FPS. Jantz Office FPS. 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 425.00 Olympic Vew Water & Sewer District/2011016 Olympic Vew Water & Sewer District/ 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 3,595.75 Total :4,020.75 127008 8/4/2011 071596 EBORALL, STEVE EBORALL14030 ART CLUB ART CLUB #14030 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 196.00 Total :196.00 127009 8/4/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 37623 SPARK PLUGS, OIL SPARK PLUGS, OIL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.96 OIL FILTERS/CEMETERY37662 OIL FILTERS 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 23.20 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.20 SUPPLIES FOR CEMETERY MOWER37663 OIL FOR CEMETERY WALKER MOWER 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 37.98 11Page: Packet Page 33 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127009 8/4/2011 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.61 Total :112.61 127010 8/4/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 37617 Fac. Maint. Unit 5 supplies Fac. Maint. Unit 5 supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.66 Total :7.65 127011 8/4/2011 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 07282011 TOURISM AD IN 2011/2012 ECA SEASON BROCH Tourism promotional advertisement in 120.000.310.575.420.440.00 10,000.00 Total :10,000.00 127012 8/4/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 067509 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER Meter charges 6/30/11 - 7/30/11 B&W, 001.000.310.514.230.480.00 41.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.480.00 3.90 Total :44.90 127013 8/4/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 067595 METER READING 7/30 to 8/30 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 279.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 26.52 Total :305.68 127014 8/4/2011 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG13922 TAE KWON DO CLASSES BEGINNING TAEKWON DO #13922 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 88.20 Total :88.20 127015 8/4/2011 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO 73772 SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES 12Page: Packet Page 34 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127015 8/4/2011 (Continued)069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 995.00 Total :995.00 127016 8/4/2011 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 48735 Unit 133 - Valve stem Unit 133 - Valve stem 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.48 Unit 8 - Tire Tube48873 Unit 8 - Tire Tube 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.85 Total :38.33 127017 8/4/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU23535 Fleet Shop Tools Fleet Shop Tools 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 203.96 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 5.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 19.87 Unit 138 - SuppliesWAMOU23597 Unit 138 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.19 Total :231.18 127018 8/4/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU23595 Street - Bodyguard Yellow Smth Cap Street - Bodyguard Yellow Smth Cap 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 87.92 Freight 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 4.80 13Page: Packet Page 35 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127018 8/4/2011 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 8.81 Total :101.53 127019 8/4/2011 065427 FCS GROUP 1893-21107054 E1JC.SERVICES THRU 7/22/11 E1JC.Services thru 7/22/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 3,236.67 E1JC.Services thru 7/22/11 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 3,236.67 E1JC.Services thru 7/22/11 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 3,236.66 Total :9,710.00 127020 8/4/2011 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 07312011 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE Public Defender Fee 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 10,420.00 Total :10,420.00 127021 8/4/2011 066590 FELIX LLC, ROBERT W FELIX13866 WEIGHT LOSS/STOP SMOKING PROGRAMS WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS #13866 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 436.10 STOP SMOKING WITH HYPNOSIS #13867 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 343.00 Total :779.10 127022 8/4/2011 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0301443 Fire Hydrant - Supplies Fire Hydrant - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 53.03 Water Inventory - 40' Copper Tube #336 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 788.04 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,435.72 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.28 Freight 14Page: Packet Page 36 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127022 8/4/2011 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 4.19 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.64 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 75.26 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 137.11 Total :2,506.34 127023 8/4/2011 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 180159 Section 132 plan fees - July 2011 Section 132 plan fees - July 2011 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 50.00 Section 132 plan fees - August 2011180207 Section 132 plan fees - August 2011 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 25.00 Total :75.00 127024 8/4/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58 15Page: Packet Page 37 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127024 8/4/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.08 FS # 16425-771-0158 FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 165.22 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.96 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.20 Total :890.43 127025 8/4/2011 073736 GOLDSTREET DESIGNS 00000757 FOG BROCHURE/PRE TREATMENT FOG BROCHURE/PRE TREATMENT 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 1,147.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 108.97 Total :1,255.97 127026 8/4/2011 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 100709 unit 99-POL 205/65R15 Tires unit 99-POL 205/65R15 Tires 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 137.28 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.04 Inventory P235/55R17 Tires100885 Inventory P235/55R17 Tires 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 2,009.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 190.93 Unit 083 LT245/75R16101018 Unit 083 LT245/75R16 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 439.60 16Page: Packet Page 38 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127026 8/4/2011 (Continued)063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.76 units 99 & 83 tire disposal charge101302 units 99 & 83 tire disposal charge 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.83 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.01 Total :2,913.25 127027 8/4/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9587269508 Senior Center - supplies Senior Center - supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 69.98 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.42 fac. maint. - supplies9587269516 fac. maint. - supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.09 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.66 fac. maint. supplies9589020180 fac. maint. supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.98 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.74 FAC - Seal Bearing Assembly9589020198 FAC - Seal Bearing Assembly 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 261.68 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.08 Total :402.63 127028 8/4/2011 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 117932 Unit 338 Control Unit 338 Control 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 555.34 9.5% Sales Tax 17Page: Packet Page 39 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127028 8/4/2011 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.76 Unit 424 Plug - oil drain118198 Unit 424 Plug - oil drain 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.16 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.91 Unit 424 Control118248 Unit 424 Control 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 555.34 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.76 Unit 132 Instrument clutch118369 Unit 132 Instrument clutch 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 356.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.84 Unit 134 supplies118558 Unit 134 supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 134.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.75 Unit 16 Kit118711 Unit 16 Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 77.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.40 Unit 19 Window Handle118751 Unit 19 Window Handle 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.28 Unit K94 Rivet118804 Unit K94 Rivet 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.40 18Page: Packet Page 40 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127028 8/4/2011 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.37 Unit 19 Bushing118992 Unit 19 Bushing 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.62 Unit 42 Jewls Warning119040 Unit 42 Jewls Warning 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.13 Unit 42 Bushing, Gear, Actuator Asy.119241-1 Unit 42 Bushing, Gear, Actuator Asy. 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.29 Unit 42 Lock set119298 Unit 42 Lock set 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.70 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.43 Unit 42 Indicator Asy. & lockset119329 Unit 42 Indicator Asy. & lockset 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 90.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.58 unit 42 H67119399 unit 42 H67 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.71 unit 651 - instrument clutch119617 unit 651 - instrument clutch 19Page: Packet Page 41 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127028 8/4/2011 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 278.75 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.48 unit 649 Run Asy - Glass119730 unit 649 Run Asy - Glass 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 435.14 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.34 unit 680 nut hex.119859 unit 680 nut hex. 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.52 unit 337 core returnCM117932 unit 337 core return 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -100.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -9.50 PO5 Core returnCM118248 PO5 Core return 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -100.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -9.50 Unit 649 wheel alignment serviceFOCS295272 Unit 649 wheel alignment service 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 89.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 8.55 Unit 680 Misc. serviceFOCS296444 Unit 680 Misc. service 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 989.58 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 94.01 Total :3,984.94 20Page: Packet Page 42 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127029 8/4/2011 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2955053 Water Inventory - w-mtrliddi-02-010 Water Inventory - w-mtrliddi-02-010 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 488.82 Water Supplies - Meter Boxes, Meter Lids 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4,209.42 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 46.44 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 399.90 Total :5,144.58 127030 8/4/2011 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 537863 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 117.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.12 Unit 55 - Work Lamps538455 Unit 55 - Work Lamps 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 169.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.14 Total :314.16 127031 8/4/2011 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E1FE.Pmt 1.FINAL E1FE.PMT 1.FINAL E1FE.Pmt 1.Final 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 68,445.00 Total :68,445.00 127032 8/4/2011 073735 JC & SUE A FRANCIS FAMILYTRUST 1-28010 RE:#4221-1724107 UTILITY REFUND RE: #4221-1724107 Utility Refund 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 20.00 Total :20.00 127033 8/4/2011 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE JOHNSON0731 ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR 7/31/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 96.00 21Page: Packet Page 43 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :96.00127033 8/4/2011 072146 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE 127034 8/4/2011 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD13955 BASIC PHOTOSHOP BASIC PHOTOSHOP #13955 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 73.50 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHYULVESTAD13996 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY # 13996 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 323.40 Total :396.90 127035 8/4/2011 063265 KAST, CAROLYNNE KAST13975 ZUMBA GOLD ZUMBA GOLD #13975 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 53.30 AQUA ZUMBA INSTRUCTOR 7/5 - 7/28/11 001.000.640.575.510.410.00 98.70 Total :152.00 127036 8/4/2011 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3493269 INV#3493269 - EDMONDS PD PURELL HAND SANITIZER 4 OZ 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.07 PURELL HAND SANITIZER 8 OZ 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 32.64 HANDLING FEE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.43 Total :92.07 127037 8/4/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0730 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/30/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00 Total :105.00 127038 8/4/2011 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 7011-432 RAZOR SAW/MACHETE PRUNING RAZOR SAW, MACHETE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.44 22Page: Packet Page 44 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127038 8/4/2011 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.22 NITRILE GLOVES7011-433 ATLAS NITRILE TOUGH BLACK GLOVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 49.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.75 FIBERGLASS RAKE7011-434 FIBERGLASS RAKE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.90 Total :125.25 127039 8/4/2011 073429 MALLOY, GLORIA MALLOY14197 ZUMBA CLASSES ZUMBA #14197 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 79.95 ZUMBA #14191 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 61.10 Total :141.05 127040 8/4/2011 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 363441-00 Parks - Park Maint Supplies 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.08 Parks - Park Maint Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 85.00 Total :93.08 127041 8/4/2011 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 363064-00 Fac. Maint - supplies Fac. Maint - supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.99 Total :34.48 23Page: Packet Page 45 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127042 8/4/2011 019583 MANPOWER INC 22631366 Receptionist coverage from 7/18 thru Receptionist coverage from 7/18 thru 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 403.52 Total :403.52 127043 8/4/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 91265839 123106800 COUPLING/ADAPTER/TUBE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 198.96 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.45 Total :205.41 127044 8/4/2011 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC P-11071322 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE FOR WEIGHT 001.000.640.575.540.480.00 177.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.540.480.00 16.82 Total :193.82 127045 8/4/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 131078 Street - Supplies Street - Supplies 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 93.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 8.88 Street Air Filter131134 Street Air Filter 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 10.25 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 0.97 Street - Supplies131219 Street - Supplies 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 37.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 3.60 Total :155.10 24Page: Packet Page 46 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127046 8/4/2011 073726 MOBILE MINI INC 120228421 Water/Sewer - 20' Storage Container Water/Sewer - 20' Storage Container 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 2,210.00 Water/Sewer - 20' Storage Container 411.000.655.535.800.350.00 2,210.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 69.00 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.350.00 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 216.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.350.00 216.50 Total :4,991.01 127047 8/4/2011 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 1-10232645 Unit 106 - Switch Unit 106 - Switch 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 76.87 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.51 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.95 Total :94.33 127048 8/4/2011 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 11-1199-7 E1JA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 30, 2011 E1JA.Services thru 7/25/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,866.50 E1JA.Services thru 7/25/11 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,607.50 Total :3,474.00 127049 8/4/2011 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0300618-IN Water - Vests, Gloves Water - Vests, Gloves 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 71.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.77 25Page: Packet Page 47 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :78.02127049 8/4/2011 064570 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 127050 8/4/2011 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0456429-IN Unit 91 - Filters Unit 91 - Filters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.94 Unit 35 - Filter0456441-IN Unit 35 - Filter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.85 Total :43.59 127051 8/4/2011 068663 NORTHERN ENERGY PROPANE 311046 Traffic Control - Propane Traffic Control - Propane 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 242.42 Total :242.42 127052 8/4/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-320707 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL ON CALL UNIT/CIVIC/PER RICH LINDSAY 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 140.00 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-323214 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HICKMAN PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 310.99 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-323265 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 228.72 Total :679.71 127053 8/4/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 859504 INV#859504 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD WHITE ADDRESS LABELS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 36.40 HP TONER C4127X (SGT RM) 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 114.06 9.5% Sales Tax 26Page: Packet Page 48 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127053 8/4/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 14.29 Total :164.75 127054 8/4/2011 065518 OMEGA CONTRACTOR INC E0IA.Pmt 2 E0IA.PMT 2 THRU 07/22/11 E0IA.Pmt 2 thru 7/22/11 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 104,600.90 E0IA.Ret Pmt 2 412.100.000.213.400.000.00 -4,776.30 Total :99,824.60 127055 8/4/2011 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00061082 Unit 138 - Bearings Unit 138 - Bearings 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 228.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.69 Freight00061083 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.90 Unit 55 - Bearings00061166 Unit 55 - Bearings 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.94 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.66 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.86 Total :293.45 127056 8/4/2011 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 119288 Storm/Water Dump Fees Storm/Water Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 84.00 Storm/Water - Dump fees119303 Storm/Water - Dump fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 84.00 27Page: Packet Page 49 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :168.00127056 8/4/2011 027060 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 127057 8/4/2011 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0803 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT DAYCAMP SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 122.76 DAYCAMP CRAFT FEE 001.000.640.575.530.490.00 6.52 Total :129.28 127058 8/4/2011 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK13928 BIRTHDAY BASH LITTLE KIDDIES BIRTHDAY BASH #13928 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 52.50 Total :52.50 127059 8/4/2011 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 3424050 Unit 42 - Radiator Unit 42 - Radiator 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.26 Total :141.26 127060 8/4/2011 073652 PERRINE, SUSAN PERRINE13874 STROKE OF GENIUS A STROKE OF GENIUS #13874 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 127061 8/4/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 194312 H20 UPS/L & I SAFETY & VIDEO 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 9.70 Total :9.70 127062 8/4/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 194326 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 28Page: Packet Page 50 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127062 8/4/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41 Total :9.70 127063 8/4/2011 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ13969 FELDENKRAIS FELDENKRAIS #13969 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 404.60 Total :404.60 127064 8/4/2011 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,826.00 Total :3,826.00 127065 8/4/2011 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 PUGET SOUND ENERGY PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 43.68 Total :43.68 127066 8/4/2011 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 48.37 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 48.37 LIFT STATION #71916766007 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 296.78 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 51.85 29Page: Packet Page 51 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127066 8/4/2011 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 152.62 Fire Station # 165322323139 Fire Station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 115.42 SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 34.48 FLEET5903085008 Fleet 7110 210th St SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 60.00 FIRE STATION 17 PUBLIC SAFETY6439566008 FIRE STATION 17 PUBLIC SAFETY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 146.81 ANDERSON CENTER6490327001 ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 599.17 LIFT STATION #88851908007 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94 FIRE STATION #209919661109 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 68.15 Total :1,710.77 127067 8/4/2011 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 002571 Storm -Sweep Dump Fees Storm -Sweep Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1,238.02 Total :1,238.02 127068 8/4/2011 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0124417-IN Unit eq71po, 72po,73po,75po - Mounting Unit eq71po, 72po,73po,75po - Mounting 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 215.80 Freight 30Page: Packet Page 52 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127068 8/4/2011 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 9.79 Unit 36 - Amb0125918-IN Unit 36 - Amb 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 270.00 Total :495.59 127069 8/4/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 133625163 2019-9517-2 9805 EDMONDS WAY 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 31.55 Total :31.55 127070 8/4/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200124873 SIGNAL LIGHT 9933 100TH W SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 48.71 SIGNAL LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE201103561 SIGNAL LIGHT - 23800 Firdale Ave 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 54.72 SIGNAL LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY201563434 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 49.53 23190 100TH W SCHOOL CROSSWALK LITE201703758 23190 100th W School Crosswalk Lite 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 43.52 Total :196.48 127071 8/4/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DISPOSAL SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 790.66 Total :790.66 127072 8/4/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 RECYCLE RECYCLE 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 29.95 Total :29.95 127073 8/4/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 garbage & recycle for PS 31Page: Packet Page 53 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127073 8/4/2011 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO garbage & recycle for PS 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.68 garbage & recycle for FAC103585 garbage & recycle for FAC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47 garbage & recycle for Library103586 garbage & recycle for Library 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23 Total :1,780.38 127074 8/4/2011 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4186425-01 Fac Maint - Bib Overalls - L LaFave Fac Maint - Bib Overalls - L LaFave 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 49.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 4.68 Total :53.93 127075 8/4/2011 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3059516 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 79.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.55 Sewer - Street Brooms, Supplies3059517 Sewer - Street Brooms, Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 283.56 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.94 Total :397.56 127076 8/4/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2556814 City Hall Lamps City Hall Lamps 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 139.85 Vehicle Charging Stations - supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 76.59 9.5% Sales Tax 32Page: Packet Page 54 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127076 8/4/2011 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.56 Vehicle Charging Stations - Supplies2561436 Vehicle Charging Stations - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 102.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.75 Total :349.38 127077 8/4/2011 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIOMUSIC14062 KINDERMUSIK CLASSES KINDERMUSIK #14062 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 315.00 KINDERMUSIK #14065 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 280.00 KINDERMUSIK #14059 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 276.50 Total :871.50 127078 8/4/2011 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 52157 Investigative services - Ferebee Investigative services - Ferebee 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 472.50 Total :472.50 127079 8/4/2011 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI TANIMURA14201 KENDO CLASSES KENDO #14201 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 56.55 Total :56.55 127080 8/4/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1744779 NEWSPAPER ADS Ordinance 3847 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 182.44 Total :182.44 127081 8/4/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1743770 Weiss/Holmberg PLN20110008 - legal Weiss/Holmberg PLN20110008 - legal 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 63.64 33Page: Packet Page 55 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :63.64127081 8/4/2011 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 127082 8/4/2011 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 939772 MUSEUM monthly elevator maint-museum 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 199.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 19.00 FAC939773 monthly elevator maint-FAC service 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 882.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 83.81 MONTHLY ELEVATOR MAINT-LIBRARY939774 Monthly elevator maint-Library 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 874.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 83.06 PUBLIC SAFETY939775 quarterly elevator maint-PS service 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 751.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 71.40 MONITORING-PS939776 monitoring-PS service period 8/1/11 to 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 44.29 MONTHLY ELEVATOR MONITORING-LIBRARY939777 Monthly elevator monitoring-Library for 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 67.80 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE945620 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 163.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 15.56 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING945621 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING FOR 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 13.33 34Page: Packet Page 56 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :3,270.07127082 8/4/2011 038315 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 127083 8/4/2011 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV798461 fac. maint. - supplies fac. maint. - supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 699.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 66.40 Total :765.40 127084 8/4/2011 061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER 328376 Unit83 - Strip Unit83 - Strip 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 124.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.78 Total :135.78 127085 8/4/2011 072652 TOWN OF WOODWAY 9290 E1JE.ROW PERMIT FEE E1JE.ROW Permit Fee 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 300.00 Total :300.00 127086 8/4/2011 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY E1JA.Truax 1 E1JA.NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DOOR MONITOR E1JA.Neighborhood Meeting Door Monitor 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 36.00 Total :36.00 127087 8/4/2011 062693 US BANK 3439 Muck Truck - Sewer -Max Dumper Muck Truck - Sewer -Max Dumper 411.000.655.535.800.350.00 2,800.00 Total :2,800.00 127088 8/4/2011 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS U0298897G INV#U0298897G - EDMONDS PD PAGER SERVICE 07/27 TO 08/26/11 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 47.52 Total :47.52 127089 8/4/2011 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0997770725 C/A 571242650-0001 35Page: Packet Page 57 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127089 8/4/2011 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld Dept 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 100.04 Blackberry Cell Phone Service City Clerk 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 77.05 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court 001.000.230.512.500.420.00 142.42 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 77.05 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ 001.000.610.519.700.420.00 77.05 Blackberry Cell Phone Service 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 302.47 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Facilities 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.06 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance 001.000.310.514.230.420.00 57.03 Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR 001.000.220.516.100.420.00 57.03 Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 356.12 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor's 001.000.210.513.100.420.00 157.07 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks Dept 001.000.640.574.100.420.00 59.07 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,096.18 Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 834.96 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 77.05 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St Dept 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 72.10 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Fleet 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 59.10 36Page: Packet Page 58 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127089 8/4/2011 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/ 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.39 Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/ 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 52.38 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer Dept 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 102.37 Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 115.22 Blackberry Cell Phone Service Water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 143.62 Total :4,181.83 127090 8/4/2011 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 25435876 Miranda Peers - clerical services (w/e Miranda Peers - clerical services (w/e 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 832.00 Total :832.00 127091 8/4/2011 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-8532 Cedar Trees Removal - 15220 75th Pl W Cedar Trees Removal - 15220 75th Pl W 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 280.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 26.60 Maple Tree Removal - 15220 75th Pl W06-8533 Maple Tree Removal - 15220 75th Pl W 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 260.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 24.70 Total :591.30 127092 8/4/2011 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 7295 INV#7295 - EDMONDS PD BATTERIES 7.5V/3800 AHN NI-MH 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 448.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 13.98 9.5% Sales Tax 37Page: Packet Page 59 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127092 8/4/2011 (Continued)068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 43.89 Total :505.87 127093 8/4/2011 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 37306 E9DA.SERVICES THRU JULY 10, 2011 E9DA.Services thru July 10, 2011 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,498.82 Total :2,498.82 127094 8/4/2011 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON0731 SKAGIT WHITEWATER RAFTING SKAGIT WHITEWATER RAFTING #14051 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 219.16 Total :219.16 127095 8/4/2011 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 623 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL FEES JULY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL FEES 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 3,531.00 Total :3,531.00 127096 8/4/2011 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0149444 Signs for Watermain Replacement - Signs for Watermain Replacement - 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 660.25 Freight 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 65.12 9.5% Sales Tax 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 68.91 Shell Valley Emergency Access Signs -0149445 Shell Valley Emergency Access Signs - 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 69.50 9.5% Sales Tax 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 6.60 Total :870.38 Bank total :459,322.72128 Vouchers for bank code :front 459,322.72Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report128 38Page: Packet Page 60 of 220 08/04/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 7:42:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 39Page: Packet Page 61 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127097 8/11/2011 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC APRIL/MAY INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 1,974.58 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 464.97 INTERPRETER FEEJUNE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 1,746.61 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 146.32 Total :4,332.48 127098 8/11/2011 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001369270 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 127.65 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY0197-001369350 Public Works Facility 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 25.80 Public Works Facility 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 98.03 Public Works Facility 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 98.03 Public Works Facility 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 98.03 Public Works Facility 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 98.03 Public Works Facility 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 98.05 FIRE DEPARTMENT 160197-001369415 garbage for F/S #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 132.81 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE0197-001370177 garbage for MCC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 60.02 1Page: Packet Page 62 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :836.45127098 8/11/2011 061540 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 127099 8/11/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5690960 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.74 Total :31.55 127100 8/11/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5690966 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 71.47 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.79 Total :78.26 127101 8/11/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5695554 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 2Page: Packet Page 63 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127101 8/11/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37 Total :22.12 127102 8/11/2011 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 1095 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00 INTERPRETER FEE1100 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00 Total :200.00 127103 8/11/2011 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0711 Background check services Background check services 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 100.00 Sister City host family background 138.200.210.557.210.490.00 125.00 Total :225.00 127104 8/11/2011 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP13934 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #13934 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 6,900.00 Total :6,900.00 127105 8/11/2011 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 8984 Finance Director, #11-22 ad, Executive Finance Director, #11-22 ad, Executive 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 40.30 Total :40.30 127106 8/11/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 879348 INV#879348 - EDMONDS PD - RAMSEUR PATROL JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 395.00 3Page: Packet Page 64 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127106 8/11/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP NAME TAGS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.90 SEW NAME EMBLEM ON JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 APPLY HEAT STAMP TO JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.00 SEW BADGE EMBLEM ON JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 CORP CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 41.51 INV#879348-80 CREDIT RAMSEUR'S JACKET879348-80 PATROL JACKET- CREDIT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -395.00 NAME TAGS - CREDITG 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -13.90 CR FOR SEWING NAME ON GARMENT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -5.00 CR FOR APPLY HEAT STAMP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -13.00 CR FOR SEWING BADGE ON JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -5.00 CORP CHEVRONS - CREDIT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -41.51 INV#885985 - EDMONDS PD - FRAUSTO885985 L/S TRU SHIRT 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 87.90 BLACK TRU PANTS 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 87.90 TRU CONVERSION KITS 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 19.90 4Page: Packet Page 65 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127106 8/11/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP EMBROIDER NAME ON 4 ITEMS 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 32.00 SEW VELCRO ON 7 ITEMS 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 24.96 INV#887347 - EDMONDS PD - RICHARDSON887347 S/S UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 131.32 NAME TAGS FOR S/S SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90 CORP CHEVRONS FOR S/S SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 89.87 CORP CHEVRON FOR SHIRT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50 L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 89.87 NAME TAG FOR L/S SHIRT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.95 CORP CHEVRONS FOR SHIRT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 217.00 5 IN 1 JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 229.00 NAME TAGS FOR JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.00 APPLY HEAT STAMP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 REFLECTIVE PANEL-POLICE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.00 CORP CHEVRONS FOR JACKET 5Page: Packet Page 66 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127106 8/11/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 EXTRA NAME TAGS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 77.98 Total :1,186.45 127107 8/11/2011 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IM47891 Unit 91 switch, filter Unit 91 switch, filter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 128.57 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.16 Unit 91 partsIM48067 Unit 91 parts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.59 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.52 Total :180.74 127108 8/11/2011 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN14213 YOGA CLASSES YOGA #14213 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 408.80 PILATES YOGA FUSION #14241 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 402.36 YOGA #14221 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 450.80 YOGA #14703 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 16.80 YOGA #14216 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 354.20 YOGA #14218 6Page: Packet Page 67 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127108 8/11/2011 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 690.20 YOGA #14224 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 609.32 Total :2,932.48 127109 8/11/2011 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 293073 MARINA BEACH GRAVEL GRAVEL FOR MARINA BEACH 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 654.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 62.13 MARINA BEACH GRAVEL294506 MARINA BEACH GRAVEL 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,218.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 115.71 Total :2,049.84 127110 8/11/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN07111044 2954000 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 36.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 3.47 Total :39.97 127111 8/11/2011 073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC 7323 Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director 001.000.310.514.100.410.00 5,156.25 Total :5,156.25 127112 8/11/2011 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT14131 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #14131 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 64.40 Total :64.40 127113 8/11/2011 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E2DB.BLD20110559 E2DB.BLD20110559.BUILDING PERMIT FEES 7Page: Packet Page 68 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127113 8/11/2011 (Continued)069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E2DB.BLD20110559.Building Permit Fees 132.000.640.594.760.410.00 280.00 E2DB.BLD20110560.BUILDING PERMIT FEESE2DB.BLD20110560 E2DB.BLD20110560.Building Permit Fees 132.000.640.594.760.410.00 280.00 E2DB.BLD20110561.BUILDING PERMIT FEESE2DB.BLD20110561 E2DB.BLD20110561.Building Permit Fees 132.000.640.594.760.410.00 280.00 Total :840.00 127114 8/11/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8775 INV#8775 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD INMATE R&B - JUNE 2011 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 1,769.17 INV#8792 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS PD8792 VERIZON PHONES - NARCS 07/11 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 50.91 INV#8803 CUST#45 - EDMONDS PD8803 NEXTEL PHONES - NARCS 07/2011 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 57.21 Total :1,877.29 127115 8/11/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8790 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS 411.000.655.535.800.472.00 27,602.00 Total :27,602.00 127116 8/11/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2339799 Fac. Maint. - supplies Fac. Maint. - supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 420.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.95 Total :460.44 127117 8/11/2011 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 4-B010 Unit EQ69EN - 2011 Nissa SL-E Leaf EV Unit EQ69EN - 2011 Nissa SL-E Leaf EV 8Page: Packet Page 69 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127117 8/11/2011 (Continued)069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 34,240.00 Unit EQ82EN - 2011 Nissa SL-E Leaf EV4-B043 Unit EQ82EN - 2011 Nissa SL-E Leaf EV 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 34,240.00 Total :68,480.00 127118 8/11/2011 004867 COOPER, JACK F 54 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 150.00 Total :150.00 127119 8/11/2011 072848 COPIERS NW INV555182 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 24.35 Total :24.35 127120 8/11/2011 073743 CRUIKSHANK, CHARLES CRUIKSHANK0808 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR CANCELLED 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total :500.00 127121 8/11/2011 005965 CUES INC 344816 Freight Freight 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.78 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 5.21 Sewer -TV Truck Supplies345607 Sewer -TV Truck Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 176.92 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.77 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 17.74 Sewer Truck Camera Supplies347473 Sewer Truck Camera Supplies 9Page: Packet Page 70 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127121 8/11/2011 (Continued)005965 CUES INC 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 68.23 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 23.71 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.73 Sewer - Retrieval Pole Assemblies348780 Sewer - Retrieval Pole Assemblies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 380.52 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.14 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 37.40 Total :796.15 127122 8/11/2011 072189 DATASITE 70159 SHREDDED COURT FILES SHREDDED COURT FILES 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 25.00 Total :25.00 127123 8/11/2011 072189 DATASITE 70452 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS Doc Shred Services City Clerk 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00 Doc Shred Services Finance 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00 Total :50.00 127124 8/11/2011 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 151998 Units EQ71,72,73,75,76,77,78,79,80PO - Units EQ71,72,73,75,76,77,78,79,80PO - 511.000.657.594.480.640.00 1,616.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.594.480.640.00 197.38 Units EQ71,72,73,75,76,77,78,79,80PO - 511.000.657.594.480.640.00 461.26 Total :2,275.12 10Page: Packet Page 71 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127125 8/11/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3217 MINUTE TAKING Council Mtg 8/2 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 276.00 Total :276.00 127126 8/11/2011 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS DRIFTWOOD0808 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT 123.000.640.573.100.410.00 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 127127 8/11/2011 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 157269 INV#157269 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD NEUTER DOG - IMPOUND #8428 001.000.410.521.700.490.01 85.00 Total :85.00 127128 8/11/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 066786 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 8.21 COPIER MAINT067585 COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 110.00 COPIER MAINT067705 COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.501.480.00 11.27 Total :129.48 127129 8/11/2011 064733 ENVIROSORB COMPANY 11667 Storm - 10' Booms, 20' Booms, Bale of Storm - 10' Booms, 20' Booms, Bale of 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 640.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 60.80 Total :700.80 127130 8/11/2011 073745 FARMER, WILLIAM FARMER0814 PARK PERFORMER PERFORMER FOR CITY PARK CONCERT ON 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 700.00 11Page: Packet Page 72 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :700.00127130 8/11/2011 073745 073745 FARMER, WILLIAM 127131 8/11/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425 771-5553 03 0210 1014522641 07 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 94.47 03 0210 1079569413 1425 NW1-0060 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.47 03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 218.12 Total :354.06 127132 8/11/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 110.80 1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530 1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.75 Total :151.55 127133 8/11/2011 068265 FRONTIER ONLINE 37229838 WATER - BROADBAND SERVICE Water- Broadband Service for 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 79.99 Total :79.99 127134 8/11/2011 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 101596 Unit 537 - 4 Tires Unit 537 - 4 Tires 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 535.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.90 Total :586.70 127135 8/11/2011 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 26547 Unit 203 - Parts Unit 203 - Parts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 249.53 9.5% Sales Tax 12Page: Packet Page 73 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127135 8/11/2011 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.70 Total :273.23 127136 8/11/2011 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007C5529 Water - Yost /Seaview Pumps - Tube Water - Yost /Seaview Pumps - Tube 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 100.60 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.19 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.34 Total :119.13 127137 8/11/2011 073741 HARRISON EQUIPMENT CO INC IVC03165 SELF DUMPING HOOPERS SELF DUMPING HOOPERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6,438.25 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2,114.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 812.47 Total :9,364.72 127138 8/11/2011 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 53 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 21.76 Total :21.76 127139 8/11/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5092960 6035 3225 0095 9949 CLR CLEANER 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 143.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 13.61 6035 3225 0095 99499091862 PAINT SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 75.15 9.5% Sales Tax 13Page: Packet Page 74 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127139 8/11/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.14 Total :239.12 127141 8/11/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2037867 Public Safety - Ant Spray Public Safety - Ant Spray 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.85 Parks - Civic Field Supplies2045323 Parks - Civic Field Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 54.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.20 Sewer - Parts Kit2081019 Sewer - Parts Kit 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.57 Fac. maint. - unit 26 supplies2263918 Fac. maint. - unit 26 supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.35 Street - Simple Green, Gromets for2590759 Street - Simple Green, Gromets for 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 29.57 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2.81 FAC - Mens RR Supplies3042881 FAC - Mens RR Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.75 Fac. Maint - Unit 5 suppllies3045176 Fac. Maint - Unit 5 suppllies 14Page: Packet Page 75 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127141 8/11/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 6.56 Public Safety - Pest Granule3583255 Public Safety - Pest Granule 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.33 Street - Respirator3592040 Street - Respirator 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 19.97 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.310.00 1.90 FAC - Mens 2nd floor RR Supplies4042611 FAC - Mens 2nd floor RR Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 145.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.79 FAC - expansion tank supplies4047196 FAC - expansion tank supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.75 Parks - Supplies4574504 Parks - Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 22.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.14 Meadowdale Club House - Supplies4582545 Meadowdale Club House - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 93.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.93 City Hall - Plungers4596606 15Page: Packet Page 76 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127141 8/11/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES City Hall - Plungers 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.14 Sewer - 100 pc Base for Steve M truck5039447 Sewer - 100 pc Base for Steve M truck 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 49.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.75 Street - Staples5042242 Street - Staples 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 10.76 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1.02 Library - Sink Supplies5042330 Library - Sink Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 73.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.97 Library - Sink Supplies5042414 Library - Sink Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.27 Public Works - supplies to secure5046740 Public Works - supplies to secure 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.67 fac. maint - shop supplies5046746 fac. maint - shop supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.66 16Page: Packet Page 77 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127141 8/11/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FAC - Plastic Bags561309 FAC - Plastic Bags 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.28 Public Works - Pest granule, liquid573136 Public Works - Pest granule, liquid 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.74 Library - Plaza Flashing leaks6037203 Library - Plaza Flashing leaks 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.35 Fac. Maint - Unit 5 Paint Supplies6039251 Fac. Maint - Unit 5 Paint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.51 Fac. Maint. - Paint Thinner6042152 Fac. Maint. - Paint Thinner 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.95 Sewer - Air Pump for TV truck6046542 Sewer - Air Pump for TV truck 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.98 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.23 Water - Supplies6071997 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.87 9.5% Sales Tax 17Page: Packet Page 78 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127141 8/11/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.89 fac. maint - unit 5 wall repair7044174 fac. maint - unit 5 wall repair 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.80 Water - Supplies7085499 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 95.15 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.04 Fac. Maint - Stock Supplies7584229 Fac. Maint - Stock Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.79 Fac. Maint Unit 26 supplies8048274 Fac. Maint Unit 26 supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.75 Fac. Maint. - Unit 5 Grease Gun8048380 Fac. Maint. - Unit 5 Grease Gun 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.95 Library - Supplies8073497 Library - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.37 CIty Hall - Masonary Repair Kit8085158 CIty Hall - Masonary Repair Kit 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.75 18Page: Packet Page 79 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127141 8/11/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.55 FAC - RR supplies9043677 FAC - RR supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.98 Street - 5 gallon mixer9046087 Street - 5 gallon mixer 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5.99 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.57 FAC - Door handle - Kwiksteel9082181 FAC - Door handle - Kwiksteel 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.55 Total :1,149.05 127142 8/11/2011 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 22304 Meiers Residence Peer Review. Meiers Residence Peer Review. 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 235.00 Total :235.00 127143 8/11/2011 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 489053-1 Shop Tools Shop Tools 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 97.73 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.16 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.06 Total :115.95 127144 8/11/2011 070042 IKON 85263709 Rent on reception copier for billing Rent on reception copier for billing 19Page: Packet Page 80 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127144 8/11/2011 (Continued)070042 IKON 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66 Total :30.66 127145 8/11/2011 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5019647551 Meter charges for large copier for Meter charges for large copier for 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 83.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 7.91 Meter charges for Engineering copier5019647552 Meter charges for Engineering copier 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 353.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 33.57 Total :478.08 127146 8/11/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1904203 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 112.77 SUPPLIES1904636 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 47.63 SUPPLIES1910547 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 56.89 SUPPLIES1910612 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 118.23 SUPPLIES1913540 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 225.55 SUPPLIES1916646 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 31.83 Total :592.90 20Page: Packet Page 81 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127147 8/11/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1921288 Bankers boxes for engineering dept. Bankers boxes for engineering dept. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 103.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 9.88 Total :113.86 127148 8/11/2011 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 515917 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,455.63 Total :3,455.63 127149 8/11/2011 073744 JOHNSON PARTNERSHIP 11113 Historical resource services. Historical resource services. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 6,750.00 Total :6,750.00 127150 8/11/2011 069760 JOHNSON, KRIS E1JA.Johnson E1JA.JOHNSON.WATER SERVICE LINE E1JA.Johnson.Water Service Line 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 6,000.00 Total :6,000.00 127151 8/11/2011 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13049331-00 Plaza Room - thermometers Plaza Room - thermometers 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.08 Total :12.54 127152 8/11/2011 063923 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 403-00000124779 Hydrant Maint - Materials Hydrant Maint - Materials 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 42.98 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.08 Fac Maint - Floor Poles403-00000124992 Fac Maint - Floor Poles 21Page: Packet Page 82 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127152 8/11/2011 (Continued)063923 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.33 Total :50.89 127153 8/11/2011 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 08082011-01 INV#08082011-01 EDMONDS PD 48 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 - 07/11 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 241.44 Total :241.44 127154 8/11/2011 070120 L E A D S.ONLINE INC 219327 INV#219327 CUST#EDWAPD - EDMONDS PD 1 YR SEARCH SERVICE PKG-RENEW 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 1,428.00 Total :1,428.00 127155 8/11/2011 072059 LEE, NICOLE 761 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 123.96 INTERPRETER FEE829 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 123.96 Total :247.92 127156 8/11/2011 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20110731 INV 1201641-20110731 SEARCHES & REPORTS JULY 2011 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 63.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 6.01 Total :69.26 127157 8/11/2011 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 637093 Unit 128 - Wheel seal Unit 128 - Wheel seal 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.18 Unit 55 - Oil filters637249 22Page: Packet Page 83 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127157 8/11/2011 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC Unit 55 - Oil filters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.08 Unit36 - Brake Fluid637362 Unit36 - Brake Fluid 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.69 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.20 Shop - funnel637697 Shop - funnel 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 1.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 0.13 Unit 648 POL - cigarette lighter638140 Unit 648 POL - cigarette lighter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.52 Unit 473 parts638179 Unit 473 parts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.35 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.46 Unit 537 - belt tensioner638231 Unit 537 - belt tensioner 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.70 Unit CS-1 Battery638260 Unit CS-1 Battery 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.03 23Page: Packet Page 84 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127157 8/11/2011 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC Battery core deposit638286 Battery core deposit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.14 Total :209.30 127158 8/11/2011 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 755528 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES FOR CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 20.94 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.99 HONDA MOWER755529 NEW HONDA MOWER 001.000.640.576.800.350.00 1,090.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.350.00 103.55 SUPPLIES755532 WHEEL, SEALS, WASHERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 129.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.32 Total :1,358.46 127159 8/11/2011 019583 MANPOWER INC 22670169 Receptionist coverage July 25 & 26,2011. Receptionist coverage July 25 & 26,2011. 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 156.47 Total :156.47 127160 8/11/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 706 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65 INTERPRETER FEE707 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65 24Page: Packet Page 85 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127160 8/11/2011 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA INTERPRETER FEE790 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65 Total :262.95 127161 8/11/2011 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 52 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 5,631.72 Total :5,631.72 127162 8/11/2011 073641 MCCLURE, GLENDA MCCLURE0805 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 8/5 & 8/6/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 145.00 Total :145.00 127163 8/11/2011 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC c59718 Fac. Maint. - plywood 4x8x3/4 Fac. Maint. - plywood 4x8x3/4 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 60.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.70 Total :65.70 127164 8/11/2011 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0457444-IN Fleet Bulk Oil Inventory Fleet Bulk Oil Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 1,874.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 178.06 Fleet Filter return0457456-IN Fleet Filter return 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.85 Fleet Filter Inventory0457457-IN Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 75.17 25Page: Packet Page 86 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127164 8/11/2011 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 7.15 Total :2,124.98 127165 8/11/2011 062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 1025407 Unit 11 - Puchase 2 Hazard Locks Unit 11 - Puchase 2 Hazard Locks 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 109.00 Install Labor costs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 100.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 9.50 Total :228.86 127166 8/11/2011 073568 NEW ART PROJECTS CO INC 1110 FINAL PAYMENT: FLOWER POLE SCULPTURES PAYMENT #3: FINAL PAYMENT - FLOWER 117.200.640.575.500.410.00 1,320.00 Total :1,320.00 127167 8/11/2011 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB13860 FUN FACTORY FUN FACTORY #13860 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 678.30 FUN FACTORY #13862 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 571.20 Total :1,249.50 127168 8/11/2011 071635 NORTHWEST NATIONALS SOCCER NWNATIONALS0805 REFUND REFUND FOR UNUSED FIELDS 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 405.00 Total :405.00 127169 8/11/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 229 Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 80.00 26Page: Packet Page 87 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :80.00127169 8/11/2011 025690 025690 NOYES, KARIN 127170 8/11/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 663928 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 351.18 Total :351.18 127171 8/11/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 843777 PW Admin - Office Supplies - Whiteout, PW Admin - Office Supplies - Whiteout, 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 77.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 7.37 PW Admin - Envelopes911154 PW Admin - Envelopes 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 27.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.66 PW Admin - Surge Protectors914667 PW Admin - Surge Protectors 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 43.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.16 Total :163.41 127172 8/11/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 939660 Wireless keyboard/mouse for Megan. Wireless keyboard/mouse for Megan. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 55.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 5.32 Total :61.31 127173 8/11/2011 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER July, 2011 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,457.74 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.000.237.130.000.00 27,450.61 27Page: Packet Page 88 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127173 8/11/2011 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Building Code Fee Account 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 153.00 State Patrol Death Investigations 001.000.000.237.170.000.00 591.55 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.000.237.180.000.00 5,081.56 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.000.237.200.000.00 328.32 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,877.58 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.000.237.260.000.00 550.21 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.000.237.290.000.00 55.55 Multi-Model Transportation 001.000.000.237.300.000.00 55.55 Total :38,601.67 127174 8/11/2011 068709 OFFICETEAM 33646783 TEMPORARY HELP Temp Help in Clerk's Office 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 723.60 TEMPORARY HELP33686362 Temp help in City Clerk's Office 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 723.60 Total :1,447.20 127175 8/11/2011 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00061240 Unit 31 - Ball Valves Unit 31 - Ball Valves 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 149.30 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.45 Unit 55 - Tachometer00061261 Unit 55 - Tachometer 28Page: Packet Page 89 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127175 8/11/2011 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 414.42 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.13 Total :652.11 127176 8/11/2011 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION D82984 B/W copy overage fee 1811 copies B/W copy overage fee 1811 copies 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 9.95 B/W copy overage fee 1811 copies 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 9.95 B/W copy overage fee 1811 copies 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 9.95 B/W copy overage fee 1811 copies 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 9.94 Color copy overage fee 965 copies 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 31.44 Color copy overage fee 965 copies 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 31.44 Color copy overage fee 965 copies 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 31.44 Color copy overage fee 965 copies 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 31.43 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 3.93 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 3.93 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 3.93 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 3.94 Total :181.27 127177 8/11/2011 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 14-77885 E1DA.SERVICES THRU 7/2/11 29Page: Packet Page 90 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127177 8/11/2011 (Continued)065051 PARAMETRIX INC E1DA.Services thru 7/2/11 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 3,479.40 Total :3,479.40 127178 8/11/2011 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.023019004 PAINT SUPPLIES PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.17 Total :13.52 127179 8/11/2011 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 9971348 City Hall - Elect Supplies City Hall - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.34 Total :15.49 127180 8/11/2011 072838 PNSCTA 0283 CONFERENCE/LEIN CONFERENCE/LEIN 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 200.00 Total :200.00 127181 8/11/2011 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL 24 hour Alarm Monitoring-City Hall - 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 39.74 Total :39.74 127182 8/11/2011 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 11-457 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,252.50 COURT SECURITY11-500 COURT SECURITY 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 170.00 Total :2,422.50 30Page: Packet Page 91 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127183 8/11/2011 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1-776228 Unit 80 - ISK STR 12V 3.1K Unit 80 - ISK STR 12V 3.1K 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 317.00 Unit 55 - Supplies1-782188 Unit 55 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 135.46 Total :452.46 127184 8/11/2011 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7610 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,800.00 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE7629 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,200.00 Total :3,000.00 127185 8/11/2011 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY JULY 2011 INVOICE 7/30/11 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD 727303 - 20 NPC 7-5-11 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 213.60 224572 - 5 NPC 7-25-11 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 53.40 Total :267.00 127186 8/11/2011 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 01804-329151 Unit K93 - Repairs Unit K93 - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 142.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 13.55 Total :156.19 127187 8/11/2011 065708 SCCIT 12552 SCCIT.MEMBERSHIP DUES SCCIT.Membership Dues 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 350.00 Total :350.00 127188 8/11/2011 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 11-3030 Unit 31 - Ball Valves 31Page: Packet Page 92 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127188 8/11/2011 (Continued)067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO Unit 31 - Ball Valves 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 250.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.98 Total :287.86 127189 8/11/2011 071776 SHULL, ERIN SHULL13896 JUMP IT UP CAMP JUMP IT UP CAMP #13896 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,365.00 Total :1,365.00 127190 8/11/2011 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0125951-IN Unit EQ79PO - Panasonic CF30 Interface Unit EQ79PO - Panasonic CF30 Interface 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 647.40 Freight 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 26.51 Total :673.91 127191 8/11/2011 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-237309 Shop Tools Shop Tools 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 190.15 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 18.06 Total :208.21 127192 8/11/2011 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS13751 SUMMER SPORTS CAMPS SKYHAWKS #13751 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 688.00 SKYHAWKS #13742 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,046.00 Total :1,734.00 127193 8/11/2011 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 51 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 32Page: Packet Page 93 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127193 8/11/2011 (Continued)036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 920.00 Total :920.00 127194 8/11/2011 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000281880 2Q-11 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES 2Q-11 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes 001.000.390.567.000.510.00 2,573.42 Total :2,573.42 127195 8/11/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 130319077 2025-7952-0 VARIOUS LOCATION 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 8.01 Total :8.01 127196 8/11/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201690849 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 900 PUGET DR Traffic Signal - 900 Puget Dr 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02 STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 183 LIGHTS201711785 Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183 lights 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,429.64 TELEMETRY SYSTEM201790003 TELEMETRY SYSTEM 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 30.02 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)202529186 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (400WATTS:13 LITES)202529202 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTING (400WATTS:13 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)202576153 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,780.53 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)202579488 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97 33Page: Packet Page 94 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :18,701.16127196 8/11/2011 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 127197 8/11/2011 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE JULY 11 INMATE MEDS INMATE MEDICAL - JULY 2011 - EDMONDS PD INMATE HOSPITALIZATION - MAY 2011 001.000.410.523.600.310.00 576.66 INMATE MEDS - JULY 2011 001.000.410.523.600.310.00 174.87 CREDIT ON 8/3/11 INVOICE FOR INMATE MEDSJULY INMATE MEDS CREDIT FOR 6/20/11 INMATE MEDS 001.000.410.523.600.310.00 -49.18 Total :702.35 127198 8/11/2011 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2011-752 INV#2011-752 JULY 2011 EDMONDS PD 72.58 BOOKINGS - JULY 2011 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 6,532.20 546.92 HOUSING DAYS - JULY 2011 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 34,182.50 62 WORK RELEASE DAYS 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 2,604.00 INV#2011-752 REFUND DISPUTED CHGS & WR2011-752 BOOKING- BARAJAS 06/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -90.00 BOOKING - MILLER 06/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -90.00 BOOKING - WRIGHT 06/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -90.00 12 HOUSING DAYS - BARAJAS 06/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -750.00 1 HOUSING DAY - MILLER 06/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -62.50 15.5 HOUSING DAYS - NIX 06/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -968.75 1 HOUSING DAY - WRIGHT 06/11S 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -62.50 31 WORK RELEASE DAYS - CHOI 07/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -620.00 34Page: Packet Page 95 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127198 8/11/2011 (Continued)064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 17 WORK RELEASE DAYS - SURYAN 07/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -340.00 Total :40,244.95 127199 8/11/2011 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER July 2011 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.000.237.140.000.00 789.30 Total :789.30 127200 8/11/2011 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM Street Storm HEP A/B Vaccines Street Storm HEP A/B Vaccines 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 119.00 Street Storm HEP A/B Vaccines 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 119.00 Total :238.00 127201 8/11/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103588 garbage & recycle-City Hall garbage & recycle-City Hall 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 503.55 Total :503.55 127202 8/11/2011 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3001505352 INV#3001505352 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD MINIMUM MONTHLY SVC CHG 06/11 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.00 MINIMUM MONTHLY SVC CHG 07/11 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 0.72 Total :20.72 127203 8/11/2011 068593 STEVE JENSEN STUDIOS JENSEN0808 METAL ART ELEMENTS PAYMENT #1 & #2 FOR METAL ART ELEMENTS 117.200.640.575.500.410.00 1,980.00 Total :1,980.00 127204 8/11/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2564587 City Hall - Elect Supplies 35Page: Packet Page 96 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127204 8/11/2011 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY City Hall - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.90 Total :33.41 127205 8/11/2011 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIOMUSIC14081 KINDERMUSIK PIRATE CAMP PIRATE CAMP #14081 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 420.00 Total :420.00 127206 8/11/2011 071827 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC RG 1594322 MOVIE LICENSE FEES MOVIE LICENSE FEES FOR OUTDOOR MOVIE 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 400.00 Freight 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 21.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 40.00 Total :461.00 127207 8/11/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-7/31/2011 Finance Director ad, #11-23 Finance Director ad, #11-23 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 394.79 Total :394.79 127208 8/11/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 07312011 NEWSPAPER ADS Council & Plan Brd Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,610.05 Total :1,610.05 127209 8/11/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1745121 Lea/APL20110002 and 0003 legal notices. Lea/APL20110002 and 0003 legal notices. 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 51.72 Total :51.72 127210 8/11/2011 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 042483000 Finance Director, #11-22 ad (two 36Page: Packet Page 97 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127210 8/11/2011 (Continued)066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES Finance Director, #11-22 ad (two 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 889.46 Total :889.46 127211 8/11/2011 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 035706016 YOST POOL BANNER ADS YOST POOL BANNER ADS 001.000.640.574.200.440.00 277.00 Total :277.00 127212 8/11/2011 071018 THEATRE PUGET SOUND 07-1721 ARTS CRUSH PARTICIPATION FEE ARTS CRUSH PARTICIPATION FEE 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 50.00 Total :50.00 127213 8/11/2011 064643 TOWEY, KAREN TOWEY14025 ART EXPLORATION ART EXPLORATION: UNDER THE SEA #14025 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 477.75 Total :477.75 127214 8/11/2011 061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER 330065 Unit 277 - Wash Nozzle, Retainer Unit 277 - Wash Nozzle, Retainer 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.32 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.97 Total :57.29 127215 8/11/2011 042260 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 944827 Hydrant - Pavement Markers Hydrant - Pavement Markers 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 190.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.19 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.40 Total :223.59 127216 8/11/2011 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY TRUAX0807 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 37Page: Packet Page 98 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127216 8/11/2011 (Continued)073581 TRUAX, KAILEY PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 8/7/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 225.00 Total :225.00 127217 8/11/2011 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8648760 Credit Correction Used 2x See Attached Credit Correction Used 2x See Attached 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 912.53 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 86.69 Total :999.22 127218 8/11/2011 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 447753 Water Supplies Water Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 276.65 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.44 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 28.13 Sewer - Fiberglass Poles w/Pool Style451807 Sewer - Fiberglass Poles w/Pool Style 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 395.80 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 42.14 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 41.60 Total :803.76 127219 8/11/2011 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 1070119 UTILITY LOCATES JULY 2011 utility locates July 2011 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 45.66 utility locates July 2011 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 45.66 utility locates July 2011 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 47.03 38Page: Packet Page 99 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :138.35127219 8/11/2011 044960 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 127220 8/11/2011 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 25476317 Miranda Peers - clerical services w/e Miranda Peers - clerical services w/e 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 665.60 Total :665.60 127221 8/11/2011 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2011-1445 INV 2011-1445 COURSE 0201-9 YAMANE COLLISION INV - BASIC - YAMANE 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 50.00 Total :50.00 127222 8/11/2011 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH DRAN.FX.00056126 INV#DRAN.FX.00056126 EDMONDS PD-DAWSON ANNUAL PENTOBARBITAL PERMIT 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 40.00 Total :40.00 127223 8/11/2011 073742 WALLACE, LACIE WALLACE0811 REFUND OF MONITOR FEES REFUND OF MONITOR FEE FOR CANCELLED EPR 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 180.00 Total :180.00 127224 8/11/2011 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I12000764 INV#I12000764 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD BACKGROUND CHECKS JULY 2011 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 308.00 Total :308.00 127225 8/11/2011 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 28 C/A 4181-01M Reidy/Theusen conflict matter 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 92.50 Total :92.50 127226 8/11/2011 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5190 SUPLLIES SUPLLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 258.42 Total :258.42 39Page: Packet Page 100 of 220 08/11/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 7:56:16AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 127227 8/11/2011 073479 WU, THOMAS 1110 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 148.43 INTERPRETER FEE1111 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 148.43 Total :296.86 Bank total :308,455.96130 Vouchers for bank code :front 308,455.96Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report130 40Page: Packet Page 101 of 220 AM-4134 Item #: 2. D. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages submitted by Soeun Mangkornkeo ($3,200). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Soeun Mangkornkeo 14827 80th Ave. S.E. Snohomish, WA 98296 ($3,200) Attachments Mangkornkeo Claim Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 08/09/2011 11:03 AM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 102 of 220 Packet Page 103 of 220 Packet Page 104 of 220 AM-4135 Item #: 2. E. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Committee:Public Safety Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Okanogan County for Jail Services. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Recommendation from the Staff is for the full Council to approve the interlocal agreement. Previous Council Action On August 9, the Public Safety/Human Resource Committee approved the agenda item for the August 15, 2011, consent agenda. 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 attached ILA and has approved the document as to form. Attachments Okanogan Jail Contract Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 11:37 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 08/10/2011 Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 105 of 220 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 106 of 220 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 107 of 220 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 108 of 220 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 109 of 220 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 110 of 220 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 111 of 220 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 112 of 220 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 113 of 220 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 114 of 220 AM-4139 Item #: 2. F. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent 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 Accept project completion. 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. On August 9, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and forwarded to full Council for approval. 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 $68,445 - Contractor – Interwest Construction Inc. 1,087 - Testing – HWA Geosciences 6,326 - Staff Time $75,858 - TOTAL Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 115 of 220 Engineering Robert English 08/11/2011 03:46 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/12/2011 07:43 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 08:24 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/12/2011 09:42 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 10:04 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/11/2011 Final Approval Date: 08/12/2011 Packet Page 116 of 220 AM-4140 Item #: 2. G. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent 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 Approve award of contract to Michels Corporation. Previous Council Action On August 9, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and forwarded it to full Council for approval. 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. Packet Page 117 of 220 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 08/11/2011 03:47 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/12/2011 07:43 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 08:24 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/12/2011 09:42 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 10:04 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/11/2011 Final Approval Date: 08/12/2011 Packet Page 118 of 220 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 11 9 of 22 0 AM-4141 Item #: 2. H. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent 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 Approve Ordinance. Previous Council Action On August 9, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. 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 Packet Page 120 of 220 Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/11/2011 03:56 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/12/2011 07:44 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 08:24 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/12/2011 09:42 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 10:04 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/11/2011 Final Approval Date: 08/12/2011 Packet Page 121 of 220 {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 122 of 220 {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 123 of 220 {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 124 of 220 {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 125 of 220 {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 126 of 220 AM-4146 Item #: 2. I. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent 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 Authorize Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit. Previous Council Action On October 27, 2007, City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2007-2011. On August 9, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The Commute Trip Reduction (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 agreed to give all CTR funding 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 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 08/11/2011 04:00 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/12/2011 07:44 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 08:24 AM Packet Page 127 of 220 Mayor Mike Cooper 08/12/2011 09:42 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 10:04 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/11/2011 Final Approval Date: 08/12/2011 Packet Page 128 of 220 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 129 of 220 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 130 of 220 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 131 of 220 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 132 of 220 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 133 of 220 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 134 of 220 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 135 of 220 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 136 of 220 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 137 of 220 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 138 of 220 AM-4142 Item #: 2. J. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:Consent 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 Authorize Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood. Previous Council Action On August 9, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. 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 08/11/2011 04:30 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/12/2011 07:44 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 08:24 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/12/2011 09:42 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 10:04 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/11/2011 Final Approval Date: 08/12/2011 Packet Page 139 of 220 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 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 140 of 220 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 141 of 220 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 142 of 220 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 the 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 the 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 2.0% of actual design costs for project management and administration related to design and 8.5% of actual construction contract cost for construction management and administration related to construction 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 Packet Page 143 of 220 reasonably necessary to comply with budget and state auditor guidelines as may be applicable; (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 2.0% of the actual design and 8.5% of the actual construction contract cost for the EDMONDS utilities work for all in- house management and 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 2.0% markup for design and a 8.5% markup for construction 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, 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: Packet Page 144 of 220 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. 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. E. Change orders involving a change in scope shall have the scope change authorized in writing by EDMONDS, and be subject to the 2.0% LYNNWOOD project management and administration fee for design and 8.5% LYNNWOOD construction management and administration fee for construction per 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. Packet Page 145 of 220 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 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. Packet Page 146 of 220 Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to LYNNWOOD shall be sent to the following address: City of Lynnwood Deputy Public Works Director / City Engineer 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, Office of the City Attorney Rosemary Larson, City Attorney Packet Page 147 of 220 AM-4143 Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Swearing in ceremony for Corporal Michael B. Richardson. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Swearing in ceremony for Corporal Michael B. Richardson. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/11/2011 12:03 PM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 148 of 220 AM-4136 Item #: 5. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Appointment of Pro and Con Committees for General Election propositions. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action On August 2, 2011, Edmonds City Council passed three levy ordinances to be placed on the November, 2011 ballot. Attachment: 8/15/2011 Draft Council Minutes Narrative The following information applies to the appointment/formation of pro/con levy committees: G. Ballot Measure Argument (Pro/Con) Committees (RCW 29A.32.280): The legislative authority of a jurisdiction submitting a measure has the responsibility of appointing members to a committee that will write the statement for the measure and to a committee that will write the statement against the measure. Each committee is allowed up to 3 members, but can ask the advice of any number of individuals. The Auditor's Office requests that all pro/con committee appointments be submitted by the deadline to submit measures and resolutions. State law requires that appointments be made no later than 45 days prior to the publication of the local voters' pamphlet. Each committee shall identify a chair who will serve as the primary contact for the County Auditor's Office. In the event a jurisdiction does not submit a pro and/or a con committee for any ballot measure, the County Auditor's Office will make a good faith effort to identify interested individuals and appoint them to a committee. H. Ballot Measure Arguments: A ballot measure argument is written to support or oppose a ballot measure. Each argument statement in support (Pro) or against (Con) a measure can be no more than 250 words and must be prepared by the committee formed pursuant to RCW 29A.32 .080. Arguments will be shared by the Auditor's Office with the opposing committee once both arguments have been received. Each committee has an opportunity to formulate a rebuttal statement containing no more than 75 words. Rebuttal statements may only address the issues raised in the opposing statement without introducing new issues not previously addressed in either statement. Argument and rebuttal statements must be signed by all members of the committee. Once submitted, argument and rebuttal statements cannot be withdrawn or changed. The deadlines for each committee to submit their argument and rebuttal will be established by the Auditor's Office at least 30 days in advance of the filing deadlines. Packet Page 149 of 220 As of Thursday, August 11, 2011 the following people have agreed to participate: Pro City Services: Strom Peterson, Dave Page, Kelly Schwarting Con City Services: DJ Wilson, Harry Gatjens Pro Roads: Walter Peale, Graham Marmion, Darrol Haug Con Roads: DJ Wilson Pro Parks/Building Maintenance: Steve Bernheim, William Keppler, Daniel McMillin Con Parks/Building Maintenance: DJ Wilson Attachments Attachment: 8-2-2011 Draft Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 11:37 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/11/2011 08:20 AM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 150 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 6 Village transit center to the Everett station. He asked why Sound Transit may not be interested in running Sound Transit BRT buses in cooperation with Community Transit to the stops where there is already infrastructure. Mr. Sheldon explained the BRT alternatives that were considered would have done that, taken advantage and leveraged the Community Transit’s investments in their Swift BRT system and that King County Metro will make on Aurora Avenue in the future via their Metro Rapid Ride system. The concept was to provide a connection from Lynnwood to the Northgate rail head and access to the rest of the regional transit system. To the question of why light rail is needed on SR 99 when there is already BRT, Mr. Sheldon commented the services are not duplicative, they are complementary. One of the reasons the Shoreline Park & Ride was selected as a potential station rather than Aurora Village, it provides the opportunity for a multimodal center where Swift and Rapid Ride could come together with a light rail station. Co-locating BRT and light rail is a consideration when choosing where to make the light rail investment. Mayor Cooper commented Edmonds residents and the surrounding communities would benefit sooner if BRT infrastructure was put in and changed from 10 minutes between departures to 5 minutes as well as transport more passengers. Mr. Sheldon advised the results of the AA including the performance of BRT will be available in September during the scoping process. He encouraged the City to consider whether Sound Transit should take BRT further in the EIS. With regard to a multimodal facility at the Shoreline Park & Ride, Councilmember Wilson commented it would be easier for Edmonds residents to walk 100 yards from the Aurora Transit Center to BRT on SR 99 than to make a bus connection through a different agency. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he has participated on two levy committees in the past seven years. He referred to the need to put a levy on the ballot and described plans to ensure passage of a levy. He proposed that current and former Councilmembers and candidates for Council to contact their constituents to ask for the vote. He also suggested forming a committee of people who are enthusiastic about passing a levy to contact registered voters. He offered his office on Wednesday evenings. Mayor Cooper cautioned Mr. Page about discussing campaign strategy during a Council meeting. He suggested Mr. Page contact Councilmembers individually outside the Council meeting. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the public is aware the City is short of funds but when voting will have to pick between the three proposals. He expressed his support for public safety and police, noting funding of public safety comprises the majority of the City’s budget. Observing that public safety is most residents’ top issue, he encouraged the Council to place a separate public safety levy on the ballot. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his question regarding cost overruns on two projects. He thanked Public Works Director Phil Williams for calling him to discuss the projects, one he was able to discuss and the other he was not. He informed Mr. Williams that he did not need a special report; if the Council was satisfied with the answers, he was satisfied. Next he referred to the discussion at last week’s Council meeting regarding expenses exceeding revenues. If the City’s finances are clear and the City is able to pay all its bills today, he asked what caused expenses to exceed revenues in future years and whether it was something other than labor. It was his understanding that labor costs had the greatest impact expenditure increases. He suggested managing labor costs in a way so that expenses do not exceed revenues. He pointed out the State reduced salaries by 3%; Edmonds included escalators in its contracts and has indicated the cost of medical insurance will decrease. 5. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THREE ORDINANCES PLACING PROPOSITIONS ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION Packet Page 151 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 7 A. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO HELP MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE B. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND STREET PAVEMENT OVERLAYS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE C. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE Councilmember Plunkett inquired about an ordinance that was distributed to the Council tonight. Mayor Cooper advised the new ordinance was a potential amendment to one of the ordinances in the packet. Mayor Cooper referred to the ordinances in the Council packet, A) General Fund levy; based on Council conversations at the July 26 meeting, the purpose was narrowed to public safety, parks and other city services; B) road overlays with reference to maintenance removed; and C) parks. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the whereas in all three ordinances are significant different than the ordinances proposed at the July 26 meeting because he clarified how the levy rate was determined in the proposed ballot title such as how changes in assessed value impacted the levy rate, what could be done in the absence of voter approval and the rate required to raise the additional revenue. Mayor Cooper asked Mr. Taraday to explain why the total levy amount (i.e. $1 million) or an amount per $1000 of assessed value was not used in the ballot title. Mr. Taraday explained there is nothing that strictly prohibits the inclusion of an absolute dollar amount in the ballot title. His review of levies in other cities found that was not done in regular levy lift resolutions or ordinances. An absolute dollar amount is frequently included in the ballot title for a bond because there is a fixed amount of money to be raised by the bond and property taxes will be collected until that amount is paid off. With regard to including language in the ballot title regarding the effect the levy would have on an average home, Mr. Taraday explained that was more appropriate to include in an explanatory statement than the ballot title. The City Attorney drafts the explanatory statement and submits it to the County Auditor by August 16, the same time the certified ordinances are submitted. The amount intended to be Packet Page 152 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 8 raised by each levy will be included in the explanatory statement; $1 million for the General Fund, $1 million for overlays and $500,000 for parks. Mayor Cooper asked staff to explain why the amount per $1000 of assessed value changed and how it relates to the change in the City’s assessed value. Mr. Taraday answered Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte provided information from the Snohomish County Auditor regarding the City’s 2012 assessed value, a decrease of approximately 11% from 2011 assessed values. When the assessed valuation decreases, the millage rate must increase. There is a significant difference between the 2011 rate and the proposed ordinances due to the significant decrease in assessed valuation. Council President Peterson thanked staff and the Council for the healthy, though lengthy, deliberative process. He felt the proposed ordinances were compromises; none of the Council got exactly what they wanted. Ordinance A: Help Maintain Current Levels of Service in Public Safety, Parks and Other City Services COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM A, ORDINANCE NO. 3848, A GENERAL FUND ORDINANCE TO MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS AND OTHER CITY SERVICES. Mr. Taraday suggested it may be more accurate to refer to this ordinance as the City Services ordinance as it is technical no longer a General Fund ordinance. Due to the changes made, if the levy passed, the City would not have unlimited use of the funds; the funds must be used for public safety, parks or other city services. Council President Peterson explained this ordinance will help retain basic City services. There are no plans to add building or departments; it provides “a few gulps of air” while the economy hopefully recovers and other possibilities are considered such as the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Because the ordinance is for a levy to fund basic City services, he had concerns with it being a 3-year levy. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE THIS A PERMANENT LEVY AND REMOVE THE 3- YEAR LANGUAGE. Mayor Cooper advised this amendment was reflected in the ordinance that was distributed to the Council tonight. Councilmember Wilson explained this ordinance gives the Council permanent authority to raise the tax rate. If the economy turns around, the Council can reduce the tax rate although admittedly government rarely does that. The Council learned last week that over the next 5 year period, the City needs $1.75 million to cover existing City services. The 3-year levy does not solve the problem, $1.75 million over the next 5 years. The amendment gets the City part of the way. With a 3-year levy, when the levy terminates in 3 years, there will be a $2.75 million shortfall in 1 year. When that happens 8% of the City’s staff will need to be laid off and an 8% cut in City’s services in addition to the 2 police officers that have been cut previously, cuts make to parks, etc. He preferred to place a levy on the ballot that solved the problem; $1 million/year for 3 years will not solve the problem. To illustrate his willingness to compromise, he pointed out he has submitted a number of proposals over the last two years, has given away his advocacy for public safety, and set aside his interest in buying back cuts. If the Council will support making this $1 million levy permanent, he will support the other two levies. The other two levies are great “nice-to- haves” but he cannot ask voters for nice-to-haves without funding the basic problem in the General Fund. He urged Councilmembers to support the proposed amendment. Packet Page 153 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 9 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was unable to support a permanent levy. She felt three years was enough to ask the citizens for; if the basic problems cannot be solved within those three years via economic development and other efforts, the taxpayers should be asked again. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Tarte to display the projections with the change to a modified accrual accounting that is used by many other cities. Mayor Cooper urged Councilmember Buckshnis to focus her remarks on the levy and not the accounting method. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a new forecast shows that in 2015, with $4 million as the fund balance and adding the accruals and removing the payables, the City is in much better shape. For that reason she could not support a permanent levy but would support a 3-year levy with funding dedicated to fire service. Councilmember Wilson clarified what staff presented last week was Mayor Cooper’s forecast. He asked whether there was a new forecast. Mayor Cooper answered he did not have a new forecast and neither the City Council nor the Mayor’s office have adopted a new accounting method. Councilmember Wilson recommended that until the Council decided to book accounts receivable differently, the Council should stick with the forecasts that staff and the Mayor provided last week. Mr. Tarte explained last week he provided a what-if scenario if the Mayor and Council approved a different accounting method, fund balance versus working capital. He explained that one-time change did not fix the problem of expenditures exceeding revenues. Expenses exceed revenues because of the recession, sales tax revenues have declined and assessed values have decreased. The sooner the Council and citizens recognize the shortfall, the easier it will be to mitigate. If the Council waits 2-3 years and proposes a $3 million General Fund levy, it will require a 40-50% increase in taxes in one year. Councilmember Petso expressed support for the amendment to a permanent levy because she was not comfortable with the number of staff positions that would be connected to the $1 million levy. She commented this was different than roads; at the end of a 3-year road levy, no staff would be laid off, paving could just be stopped as has been done in the past. The idea of funding $1 million in staff positions with a levy that may last only 3 years concerned her. Council President Peterson pointed out the Council was not voting for a tax increase tonight; they were asking the voters to make informed decisions. The information provided by staff and the Mayor and the Council’s deliberations over the last months highlighted that the City does not collect enough money. The citizens understand that and will be willing to support a levy. With a permanent levy if the economy improves in 3 years, sports tourism and other economic development is generating money, the Council could decide to reduce the levy rate. With a 3-year levy if the economy does not improve, the concerns will be compounded exponentially. He felt a 3-year levy was a significant gamble. He was willing to support a 3-year option but did not feel it was the fiscally wise or conservative choice to maintain existing City services and staff. Council President Peterson referred to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comment last week, that she wished a levy had been passed two years ago, pointing out three years passes very quickly and he did not want to have this discussion again at that time. He summarized the $1 million City services ordinance would not fully support all existing services and the other funding sources the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and others are working on will be needed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas felt it was a bigger gamble to ask citizens for a permanent increase in taxes when citizens losing their homes and their jobs, unable to afford their medical insurance and food, etc. She did not think the voters would pass a permanent levy and felt it was smarter to ask for a shorter Packet Page 154 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 10 term, particularly if people were banking on the economy improving. She preferred to seek other funding sources rather than permanently tax property owners. Councilmember Bernheim asked the proponents of the amendments the consequence of a permanent levy failing. His support of a 3-year levy was a step-by-step, baby-step, earn the voters trust approach; going to the voters with a discrete project and illustrate how the money will be spent over a specific time period. If successful, that success can be leveraged into continued levy requests. He summarized his two questions were: 1) the consequence of a permanent levy failing, and 2) whether there was enough voter trust to convince them to support a permanent levy. Councilmember Plunkett did not support subsidizing the General Fund. He referred to Mr. Tarte’s comment that the source of the City’s problems was the economy. Councilmember Plunkett anticipated improvement in the economy was years away. For those who support the City Services ordinance and the amendment he questioned how they reconciled the Finance Director stating the problem was the economy with a permanent levy. Councilmember Petso was uncertain how she would vote on the ultimate levy proposal. Her decision tonight will not be whether the City has made its case for any of the proposals but whether the proposal is close enough that she can allow the citizens to vote. As a result she did not feel a temporary levy was safe to propose to the voters. She recognized a 3-year levy was more likely to pass although she did not envision either a 3-year or a permanent levy would pass. With regard to Councilmember Bernheim’s question regarding the consequences of failure, the consequences are either the City gets good news or cuts another $300,000 from the 2012 budget and places another levy on the ballot in the future. When another levy is placed on the ballot, the City will have completed a Strategic Plan, hopefully completed union negotiations and have an idea of the reduction in medical benefit costs. She summarized the consequence of failure was not the end of the world; if the levy fails, the City will adapt and make do. With regard to the baby steps theory, Councilmember Petso explained placing a levy on the ballot that everyone can support in an effort to build public support went “out the window” when the theory of Council unanimity on a proposal was abandoned. She recalled the only proposal the Council unanimously supported was $700,000-$750,000 for roads. Several Councilmembers have managed to compromise. Councilmember Wilson referred to Councilmember Plunkett’s view of this levy as General Fund subsidy; he viewed it as paying for services that citizens ask for. Councilmember Wilson explained since he was elected 3 ½ years ago he has cut $3 million from the budget; the budget today is smaller than when he was elected 3½ years ago. The City realigned how it provides fire service via the FD1 contract and has made changes in public safety and parks. That is how the Council builds trust. When citizens were asked via the survey what they wanted to see, they wanted the Council to speak with as much consensus as possible. When the TBD was placed on the ballot, the Council said they would learn from the vote. What the Council learned is citizens expect the Council to speak with some consensus. If this amendment is approved, there may be six votes for final approval of the City Services ordinance. He will be unable to support the other two levies if the basic General Fund problem is not solved first. He urged Councilmembers to compromise a little bit, noting these levy proposals are approximately the vision provided by the Citizen Levy Committee led by Councilmember Buckshnis. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas stated she will stand behind the levy because she believes the City needs a levy. She does not support a permanent levy to fund City services. She referred to Councilmember Petso’s statement that if a City services levy does not pass, the City will adapt and make do, commenting that conflicted with asking voters to pass a permanent levy. She wanted a levy to pass and she agreed unanimity would be desirable but she would not support a levy longer than three years. Packet Page 155 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 11 Mayor Cooper explained the 2012 budget he will present at the first meeting in October will not reflect the levy. It will be a balanced budget that reflects the $300,000-$350,000 shortfall. Student Representative Gibson asked if there was really any difference in the 3-year levy passing and then the voters being asked again to pass another levy. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested tying the 3-year City Services levy to first service because the contract with FD1 is up for renewal in 3 years. She did not support a permanent levy because assessed values will eventually increase and if the City joins an RFA, the $6.4 million expense for fire service will be removed from the General Fund, thereby eliminating the problem. Council President Peterson commented the individual levies for roads and parks provide an opportunity to demonstrate improvements. The problem with the baby steps approach to the City Services levy is it “keeps us just from going under water, it’s not very exciting.” The intent of the City Services levy is that citizens do not notice the difference and quality services are maintained. He hoped the services that the City Services levy funds are invisible other than citizens saying they are happy with the Police Department or thanking the City for maintaining parks. The roads and parks levies provide an opportunity to make improvements that have been ignored for the last decade due to previous cuts. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND WILSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BERNHEIM, PLUNKETT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SPECIFY THAT THE LEVY FUND FIRE SERVICES. Mayor Cooper clarified the ballot title currently states, “public safety, parks and other City services;” Councilmember Buckshnis’ amendment is to change that language to “current levels of fire services.” COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3848, CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, BUCKSHNIS, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WILSON AND PETSO VOTING NO. Ordinance B: To Fund Street Pavement Overlays COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM B, ORDINANCE NO. 3849, $1 MILLION TO FUND STREET PAVEMENT OVERLAYS. Councilmember Wilson commented it was bad policy to ask the voters for nice-to-have items. He acknowledged fixing the City’s streets and parks was very important but if the General Fund levy fails, there will be no staff to fix the streets or make park improvements because staff will have to be laid off. Even if the General Fund passes, the City is still $750,000 short of its expenditures. The most ridiculous embarrassing position for him as a Councilmember would be if the street or park levies passes and the General Fund levy fails and he has to tell the voters that either staff will be laid off or money from the street or parks levy will be moved around in the General Fund. He did not support the motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Wilson did not support this ordinance because of the limited time frame approved for the General Fund levy. Councilmember Wilson answered Packet Page 156 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 12 he did not support this ordinance because he did not want to ask the voters to fund a levy that did not address the City’s basic problem. The basic problem is the City does not have enough money to pay for the services it offers. This levy provides an additional service that is important but it does not fund existing services. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the General Fund levy and for this levy. She anticipated the voters will approve a General Fund levy; if not, the budget has historically been 3-5% over during the past 4-5 years, approximately $990,000 which will cover the 2012 shortfall. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the ordinance. Whether a General Fund levy passes is irrelevant; if the City’s streets are in poor condition, there will not be economic development or people moving to Edmonds and residents will not have the ability to travel around Edmonds. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3849 CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. Ordinance C: To Fund Building Maintenance and Park Improvements COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM C, ORDINANCE NO. 3850. Council President Peterson commented he was the least excited about this ordinance due to potential conflicts if the General Fund levy failed and the roads levy and this levy passed. He was hopeful all three levies would be approved by the voters. He will support the motion although somewhat reluctantly. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the ordinance. With regard to whether there will be staff remaining if this levy passes and the General Fund levy does not, he pointed out the City’s reserves can be used to address the shortfall at some point. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the motion, noting building maintenance and parks are very important to Edmonds residents. Buildings falling down and poorly maintained parks affect quality of life. Councilmember Wilson reminded twice a year when the General Fund budget goes into the red, funds are transferred to cover it. This motion does nothing to solve the basic problem and therefore he cannot support it. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3850 CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper commented this has been a long process and many have been subject to verbal criticism for the length of time it has taken. Although he would have preferred a closer vote than 4-3 on the first ordinance, he thanked the Council for working so deliberatively over the past several months to find a solution. The Citizen Levy Committee’s recommendation, the proposal from the Mayor’s office, and the three ordinances the Council approved for the ballot tonight all had a similar approach. His proposal was one proposition; the Levy Committee recommended three propositions but the funding was similar. He thanked the Council for their deliberative and professional approach to the levy. Mr. Taraday reminded the Council needed to appoint pro and con committees for each of the three propositions. Mayor Cooper recalled the Council Presidents calls for and makes those appointments. Mr. Taraday advised the Snohomish County Auditor’s Voters Pamphlet states the legislative authority makes the appointments. If not tonight, the Council could make those appointments at the August 15 meeting. Packet Page 157 of 220 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 2, 2011 Page 13 Council President Peterson invited citizens and Councilmembers interested in participating on the pro and con committees to contact him via email at Peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Taraday will write the explanatory statement. Mr. Taraday advised the pro and con statements are due on August 30. 6. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DIVERSITY COMMISSION Councilmember Wilson explained Edmonds has an increasingly diverse population. According to the 2010 Census 9.9% of residents are foreign born and 11.6% speak a language other than English at home. Diversity includes age as evidenced by strollers on City streets and the active Senior Center; economic with Edmonds having some of the most affluent residents and some of the most disadvantaged populations; an active LGBT community at the high school; and an openly gay member of the legislature who serves the 21st Legislative District. A group of citizens asked to present the idea of a Diversity Commission to the Council. He will offer a resolution that gives a stamp of approval for citizens, staff and him to create an outlines of a Commission or Commissions focused on diversity. Carol Schillios, Edmonds, explained this presentation is to, 1) open a conversation about diversity, 2) describe what might be meant by diversity, and 3) to explore the possibility and ask for the Council’s support for a forum for conversations about diversity. The 2010 Census indicates there is social, demographic and economic diversity. Of the nearly 40,000 Edmonds residents, 18,700 are male and 20,816 are female. There are 13,000 people 62 years of age and older and 9,000 kids enrolled in school of which 6,000 are elementary and high school. Approximately 3,000 or 6% of the Edmonds population are Asian and over 1,500 or 4% are Latino. The goal of a diversity commission is to explore how they are represented, not to say they are not represented but to open community relationships and explore the diversity, whether by bringing different age groups together, bringing different ethnicities together, or learning about different culture. A diversity commission would enrich the community, open communication as well as have a direct effect on public safety. She cited an example of someone afraid of a group of young people with purple hair. That discomfort can be bridged by helping people understand each other, bringing different age groups together and creating forums for learning about different cultures. In the last 10 years, nearly 11% foreign born citizens have moved into Edmonds. Over 6,000 people in the census reported they are disabled. The commission could explore how those people are served. Over 2,000 women reported in the census they are widowed. She relayed a woman who visited her shop who had not been out in public for months because she did not know what services were available. In 1999 there were over 300 families below the poverty level. There are two Section 8 housing complexes in the Edmonds bowl; the diversity commission could consider the needs of the low income residents. She clarified they were not asking the City for money; they want a forum to engage people in an effort to enrich the community. Other communities have been exploring diversity commissions and a variety of issues. The structure of the commission is unknown but she was certain there are unheard voices in the city and a diversity commission can enhance public safety and inform decision-making. There is a fair percentage of residents who speak limit English; she questioned how the City communicates with that population. She encouraged the Council to support the creation of a forum to honor and celebrate diversity. Rey Gardea, Edmonds, incoming junior at Edmonds-Woodway High School, accompanied by her friend and classmate, Taylor Minor, commented that in addition to diversity, youth are a very important part of the community. She viewed Edmonds as a diverse community encompassing multiple age groups, races and lifestyles. There is huge potential in the City, both economically and socially, and as future citizens of Packet Page 158 of 220 AM-4138 Item #: 6. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Mike Cooper Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding New Energy Cities contract. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff This is an information item. No action is required Previous Council Action Narrative The Council previously received the New Energy City Action Plan. The Mayor and Council President Peterson will update the Council on work being done by staff and the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee to implement sections of the plan. The attached memo from the Mayor outlines the progress. Attachments Memo from Mayor Residential retrofit scope of work New Energy City Action Plan Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2011 09:40 AM Form Started By: Mike Cooper Started On: 08/11/2011 10:27 AM Final Approval Date: 08/12/2011 Packet Page 159 of 220 Date: August 10, 2011 To: Council President Peterson From: Mike Cooper, Mayor Subject: New Energy City Action Plan Update Since the completion of the New Energy Cities Act and the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee has met set the plan into motion. Our primary focus was to prioritize actions that could easily be accomplished in the first year of the plan. priorities for Year 1; Community Outreach and Involvement Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Municipal Building Analysis Residential Retrofit Here is a summary of our demonstrated Community Outreach and Involvement Our web site www.edmondsenergy.org for the public. Please take some time to visit the site and note the brand. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure We have received our all electric Nissan Leafs to vehicles will save us nearly $7,000/year in fuel costs. As a reminder we received federal grants to assist in paying for these vehicles so the cost to the city powered replacement vehicles. The i stations has begun and is near completion. Municipal Building Analysis and Our analysis of city facilities is under way by our consulting team w the coming months. This was an item included in the 2011 budget. Residential Retrofit This is our planned next step. We are currently Climate Solutions for the attached scope of work. plan will enable us to provide the re of information that would include how to get an audit, where to find a contractor and how to get financing. When these items are complete we will be well on our way to reducing city energy costs and helping our residents reduce CITY OF EDMONDS CITY HALL • THIRD FLOOR EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425)771 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City / Hekinan, Japan Peterson, City Council members New Energy City Action Plan Update e New Energy Cities Action Plan, my office along with c rotection Committee has met several times to set priorities and an into motion. Our primary focus was to prioritize actions that could easily be accomplished in the first year of the plan. We focused on the following areas as our Outreach and Involvement – Branding c Vehicle Infrastructure – Municipal and Public nalysis and Retrofit demonstrated success and planned next steps. Outreach and Involvement – Branding www.edmondsenergy.org is live and has a great deal of helpful information for the public. Please take some time to visit the site and note the “Edmonds Energy c Vehicle Infrastructure – Municipal and Public have received our all electric Nissan Leafs to supplement or hybrid vehicles. These vehicles will save us nearly $7,000/year in fuel costs. As a reminder we received federal grants to assist in paying for these vehicles so the cost to the city is the same as gas powered replacement vehicles. The installation of our six public electric vehicle charging stations has begun and is near completion. and Retrofit Our analysis of city facilities is under way by our consulting team with a full report due in was an item included in the 2011 budget. This is our planned next step. We are currently completing contract negotiations attached scope of work. Completing this analysis and action us to provide the residents of our community a comprehensive package of information that would include how to get an audit, where to find a contractor and When these items are complete we will be well on our way to reducing city energy costs and helping our residents reduce their energy costs by 20% in the next decade. CITY OF EDMONDS THIRD FLOOR (425)771-0246 • FAX (425)771-0252 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ion Plan, my office along with city staff several times to set priorities and an into motion. Our primary focus was to prioritize actions that could easily be the following areas as our is live and has a great deal of helpful information Edmonds Energy” or hybrid vehicles. These vehicles will save us nearly $7,000/year in fuel costs. As a reminder we received federal is the same as gas lectric vehicle charging ith a full report due in completing contract negotiations with Completing this analysis and action our community a comprehensive package of information that would include how to get an audit, where to find a contractor and When these items are complete we will be well on our way to reducing city energy costs energy costs by 20% in the next decade. Mike Cooper MAYOR Packet Page 160 of 220 Climate Solutions Agreement with City of Edmonds, WA For: Phase 1 Implementation June 13, 2011 Contact: Eileen V. Quigley eileen@climatesolutions.org 206.443.9570 x 34 (o) 206.579.9644 (m) Packet Page 161 of 220 Climate Solutions New Energy Cities Contract Page - 2 - AGREEMENT THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated as of the [ ] ____day of ____June___, in the year _2011____, by and between the City of Edmonds, WA (hereinafter “CLIENT”), and CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, an Olympia, WA-based nonprofit organization (hereinafter “CONTRACTOR”). CLIENT and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Article 1. WORK CONTRACTOR shall complete all WORK as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents referenced and incorporated in, including but not limited to Exhibit A (Climate Solutions Scope of Work and Deliverables). The WORK is generally described as follows:  Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the Sustainable Works residential retrofit pilot program to develop a project that can scale, perhaps through the Snohomish County Loan program and with additional incentives from Snohomish PUD and/or a voluntary carbon reduction fund as described in the Scope of Services and Deliverables in attachment Exhibit A. Article 2. CONTRACT TIME The WORK shall be conducted between and including the dates of June 21, 2011-August 31, 2011. Article 3. CONRACT PRICE CLIENT shall pay FEES for performance of the WORK as described in Exhibit A. Article 4. PAYMENT TERMS Upon completion of the WORK, CONTRACTOR shall submit invoice for Payment of completed services as set forth in Exhibit A. Article 5. INTEREST Should the CONTRACTOR request that an interest-bearing account be set up prior to the start of WORK, all monies not paid when due hereunder shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law at the place of WORK. Packet Page 162 of 220 Climate Solutions New Energy Cities Contract Page - 3 - Article 6. CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 CONTRACTOR has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, WORK, site, locality, and all local conditions and Laws and Regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance, or furnishing the WORK. 6.2 CONTRACTOR has given the CLIENT written notice of all conflicts, errors, or discrepancies that it has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written resolution thereof by the CLIENT is acceptable to CONTRACTOR. Article 7. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 7.1 The Contract Documents that comprise the entire agreement between CLIENT and CONTRACTOR are attached to this Agreement, made a part hereof and incorporated herein, and consist of the following:  This Service Agreement  Exhibit A: Scope of Services and Deliverables 7.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in Article 7. The Contract Documents may only be altered, amended, or repealed by means of an Amendment, which both the CLIENT and CONTRACTOR must agree in a written letter signed by both. Article 8. MISCELLANEOUS 8.1 Terms used in this Agreement that are defined in the General Conditions or Supplemental Conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A shall have the meanings indicated in the General Conditions or Supplemental Conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8.2 No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically by, without limitation, monies that may become due and monies, which are due, may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. Packet Page 163 of 220 Climate Solutions New Energy Cities Contract Page - 4 - 8.3 CLIENT and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, executors, administrators, successors, heirs, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. Article 9. OTHER PROVISIONS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement in duplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to CLIENT and CONTRACTOR. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by CLIENT and CONTRACTOR. THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON [ ] CLIENT: City of Edmonds ATTEST: BY: NAME: TITLE: ITS ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR: ATTEST: BY: NAME: TITLE: ITS ADDRESS: Packet Page 164 of 220 Climate Solutions New Energy Cities Contract Page - 5 - EXHIBIT A Climate Solutions Scope of Services and Deliverables City of Edmonds Scope of Work Climate Solutions’ New Energy Cities team will assist the City of Edmonds in analyzing the residential retrofit program to determine lessons learned and how to build a follow-on residential energy efficiency program as follows: Energy Efficiency: Single Family Retrofits  White Paper: Quantitative and qualitative research on the Sustainable Works residential retrofit pilot project, the deliverable for which is a White Paper on the project that would examine lessons learned for the purpose of scaling the program.  Utility Assessment: Research PSE and SnoPUD incentives for the purpose of integrating with an ongoing single family retrofit program; learn from the ARRA-funded project to negotiate a better deal with SnoPUD to get 12 month over 12 month energy usage; run algorithm to quantify the hearing degree days to normalize energy usage; assess opportunities with demand generation.  Snohomish County Loan Program: Research Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union and connect this loan program to the City of Edmonds expansion of the Sustainable Works program  Europe through the Backdoor: Explore creating a voluntary carbon reduction fund with Europe through the Backdoor to offset the carbon emissions of their customers. Total Labor Labor Cost Energy Efficiency: Single Family Retrofits 1 Qualitative & quantitative research on SW residential retrofit pilot 5 500 2 Write White Paper analysis 28 2,800 3 Research PSE & SnoPUD incentives 6 600 4 Assess incentives in ARRA-funded program 6 600 5 Negotiate deal with SnoPUD for ongoing residential EE program 6 600 6 Research Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union 3 300 7 Create loan program model to expand SW residential retrofit pilot 36 3,600 8 Analyze potential for voluntary carbon reduction fund 10 1,000 Total 100 10,000 Packet Page 165 of 220 New Energy Cities Pioneering the Clean Energy Economy in Northwest Communities New Energy Cities Action Plan City of Edmonds, Washington MAY 2011 ©2011 Climate Solutions New Energy Cities Pioneering the Clean Energy Economy in Northwest Communities Packet Page 166 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 2 | P a g e Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Phase I: Getting Started–First Six Months ...................................................................................... 5 Community and Public Engagement ........................................................................................... 6 Catalytic Project Development .................................................................................................... 9 Building Energy Efficiency ....................................................................................................... 9 Distributed Generation ......................................................................................................... 12 Main Street Project ............................................................................................................... 13 Financing ................................................................................................................................... 14 Policy Initiatives ........................................................................................................................ 16 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Phase II: Implementation—6-12 Months ..................................................................................... 19 Phase III: Refine and Scale Up-18 Months .................................................................................... 19 A Long-Term High Performance Building Strategy ............................................................... 20 A Long-Term Financing Approach ......................................................................................... 20 Distributed Renewable Energy Generation ........................................................................... 20 Smart Grid Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 20 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Deployment ................................................................... 20 Ongoing Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A: Edmonds Energy Map .............................................................................................. 22 Packet Page 167 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 3 | P a g e Introduction The world stands on the cusp of a profound transition in how we produce, distribute, and utilize energy from an inefficient system dominated by a few centralized and polluting technologies to a much cleaner, smarter, diversified, and efficient system. The drivers are many: from volatile costs for traditional fuels, to instability in the Middle East, to serious health and environmental threats on the “push” side; to the startling scale -up of capital flows into new energy companies, and the stampede of skilled entrepreneurs, engineers, and business strategists migrating to the sector on the “pull” side. Energy is essential to our economy and our way of life, globally and at the community level. While fortunes will be made and lost in the global race to commercialize new energy technologies and businesses models, communities have much to gain by taking charge of their energy future and driving sustained investment into the local built environment and energy infrastructure. In communities across America, local residents, businesses, and public agencies spend millions of dollars each year to buy energy—often dirty energy—from outside the community. By using energy more efficiently and by producing more energy locally, communities can reduce the outflow of energy dollars, keeping more dollars circulating at all sorts of local businesses close to home. In addition, when communities harness millions of dollars for energy efficiency retrofit work and new energy infrastructure projects, they directly create good, family-wage local jobs in the trades. Most communities will follow paths well-trodden; a handful will pioneer the new energy future and create the playbook for the rest to adopt. The City of Edmonds is stepping forward to become a pioneering community for the new energy future. But if this level of leadership were easy, hundreds of others would have done it already. The purpose of this Action Plan is to guide the collaborative work of regional public, private, and civic leaders in the City of Edmonds to create a model for new energy leadership so successful that it inspires others to follow. It offers a sequence of prioritized actions for the 6- month, 18-month, and 36-month time horizons designed to put the pieces in place, build the capacity, and establish the trajectory to accomplish the ambitious, long-term goals of the community. Packet Page 168 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 4 | P a g e Background Climate Solutions, a Northwest-based nonprofit organization whose mission is to accelerate practical and profitable solutions to global warming, launched the New Energy Cities program in 2009 to assist a diverse handful of pioneering small- and medium- sized communities to embrace a new energy future. The program focuses on a comprehensive systems approach that integrates energy efficiency; smart power grids; green intelligent buildings; plug-in electric vehicles; energy storage; and renewable power sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Maximizing local investment and economic development is a key goal of the New Energy Cities program. Climate Solutions asks the pioneering cities, counties, and the communities in the New Energy Cities Program to create a 20-year clean energy strategy with concrete steps to take in the first three years that can be financed with patient capital. Our goal is to work with a variety of cities to create different models that can be replicated with similar success elsewhere throughout the Northwest region and the country. Ultimately, New Energy Cities aims to inspire hundreds of communities to replicate and adapt successful models of city-led energy transformation, and to remove the key policy barriers that stand in their way. The New Energy Cities Program was first introduced in Edmonds in January 2010, when the Sustainable Edmonds volunteer civic group held a public meeting on new approaches to local clean, renewable energy systems, at which the manager of New Energy Cities program was a speaker. Soon after that meeting the City of Edmonds first approached Climate Solutions in early 2010 about the possibility of becoming a New Energy City. The City signed a contract to conduct a day and a half New Energy Cities Workshop with community stakeholders on January 27-28, 2011. During the Workshop, the New Energy Cities team provided participants with a comprehensive view of community energy systems, and identified clean energy and energy efficiency opportunities to consider when creating a new energy future for the City of Edmonds. The team presented an Edmonds Energy Map (Appendix A) to illustrate the sources and uses of energy in the city and the corresponding carbon footprint profile. Participants also began the development of a Roadmap for the City based on input of Workshop participants, which Climate Solutions then fleshed out to draft this Action Plan and is attached in a separate document. Packet Page 169 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 5 | P a g e Framework This Action Plan provides the City of Edmonds and its key stakeholders with suggested actions in a phased approach to allow the community to connect discrete initiatives to a larger vision and engagement strategy; leverage current assets; create a pathway to additional resources over time; and get started on a 20-year program to create a new energy system for the City of Edmonds. To position Edmonds for early success, this Action Plan is organized into the following sections: I. Putting the Pieces in Motion – the first six months – addressing key capacity needs, building alignment and support for actions, determining governance structure, and setting things in motion. II. Catalytic Projects, Policies, and Programs – months six through 18 – rapid implementation of catalytic projects, linked to key strategies, substantial policy and resource development through extensive community engagement. III. Setting the Strategy – months 18 through 36 – refined and focused long-term strategic plan for a new energy system, reflecting experience gained from the earlier catalytic projects and new policies created as a result of lessons learned in the first 18 months of the project. The underlying premise of this Action Plan is that the City of Edmonds is in a position to offer cutting-edge leadership on energy systems because its political leaders are focused and motivated; its citizens and business community are engaged and supportive; and its two utilities, Snohomish County Public Utility (SnoPUD) and Puget Sound Energy (PSE), are willing to collaborate on new energy solutions. This Action Plan is designed to build upon the excellent work that is already in place and foster decisions for and accelerate implementation of an aggressive and comprehensive strategy that will move the City of Edmonds into the forefront in the Northwest in clean energy leadership. Phase I: Getting Started–First Six Months For the first six months—April through September, 2011—we recommend that the City of Edmonds focus on narrowing the choices among the action areas listed below. In each Packet Page 170 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 6 | P a g e action area, the city could proceed by developing a workplan, determining responsibility, assigning tasks, and determining funding for successful implementation. The New Energy Cities team strongly recommends establishing a governance structure for the effort. Consistent leadership focusing on meeting performance metrics is paramount for a successful New Energy Cities action plan. Action Areas 1. Community and Public Engagement 2. Project Development a. Energy Efficiency in Buildings b. Distributed Generation c. Main Street Project 3. Financing Options 4. Policy Initiatives Community and Public Engagement New Energy Cities must engage the people and businesses in their communities. An informed and active community is vital to creating catalytic projects, and to embracing the policy and program decisions necessary for success. A robust, sustained outreach and education effort has to receive priority attention for any city aspiring to become a New Energy City. A consistent theme of the Edmonds New Energy Cities Workshop was the need for broad community engagement and mobilization. Workshop participants emphasized the importance of developing a “brand” for the Edmonds New Energy efforts, one that reflected the values of the community and could be utilized to inspire individual action. There was quite a robust discussion about how to “game-i-fy” carbon reduction and energy efficiency projects. In addition, workshop participants talked about the value of using known networks and communities as hubs of communication that could be used to expand knowledge and community buy-in about widespread transformation in the way energy is used in Edmonds. Community and Public Engagement (CPE) Action 1—Education and Networking These four ideas for networking and marketing emerged as the ones with strong potential for success:  Create Energy Block captains and throw Energy Block Parties to raise awareness and help neighbors educate neighbors about energy efficiency (people who know each other). Use the voices of successful users of energy retrofits to recruit others. Appeal to people’s values. Packet Page 171 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 7 | P a g e  Create a program that organizes the influencers in Edmonds who will go out into the community and be spokespeople to build a grassroots movement of support that will bolster the Council’s actions. Look at the Imagine Chicago program as a model.  Advertise at the Taste of Edmonds; high school sporting events; Shoreline Community College Solar Fair in July.  At the “Welcome to Edmonds” sign, indicate goals for reducing the City’s carbon footprint and energy savings and update. Market Edmonds’ Energy Awareness as a community value and asset. Community and Public Engagement (CPE) Action 2—Better Building Challenge An essential element in Edmonds 20-year energy plan is to reduce the energy usage in its built environment. While the tools available in each building sector may vary, there is a community-wide imperative for action. On February 3, 2011, President Obama announced a nationwide “Better Building Challenge” to reach 20% energy efficiency improvement in the commercial and university sectors by 2020. This may be a constructive framework for Edmonds to use. The City of Edmonds is poised to become a pioneer city in implementing this challenge, given the work it has already done and the focus that committing to the New Energy Cities program has brought to its community leaders around energy efficiency. New Energy Cities Team Recommendation after the Workshop 2A. Establish Edmonds’ Better Building Challenge by Council Resolution. President Obama’s Better Building Challenge to achieve 20% energy efficiency by 2020 can provide a framework for community mobilization, education, and engagement. A Council Resolution could establish a work plan for energy efficiency initiatives by building sector. 2B. Game-i-fy Edmonds’ Better Building Challenge. The Better Building Challenge can be organized according to specific geographic units as a way to create an energy efficiency challenge between neighborhoods. Elementary schools are one potential for local districts. There are six elementary schools, two K-8 schools, and one high school within the City of Edmonds. The City and SnoPUD could offer a solar installation as a prize.  Develop the business case for utility involvement and funding based on SnoPUD’s 10% Energy Challenge results.  Partner with SnoPUD and PSE to aggregate energy usage by district and create 2010 baseline. Create baseline report for each geographic district.  Partner with SnoPUD’s Planet Power program to identify resources for a solar demonstration project as a reward for the neighborhood that wins the Better Building Challenge.  Partner with community businesses to solicit other prizes. Packet Page 172 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 8 | P a g e Community and Public Engagement (CPE) Action 3—Electric Vehicles Another essential element in Edmonds’ 20-year energy plan is to electrify the transportation system, most notably focused on light-duty vehicles that people use on a daily basis. With automakers moving quickly to introduce commercially available vehicles, some early steps to facilitate their entry into the local market would be an important step in signaling the promise of electric vehicles. These early steps should include high-visibility actions such as:  Create an electric vehicle parade down Main Street.  Create the Mayor’s Electric Vehicle Consortium to provide a forum for promoting electrical vehicle use and policy suggestions. Given the high profile attention being given to electric vehicles, these relatively simple steps are a way to further engage the community around the New Energy Cities Action Plan and Edmonds’ commitment to a different energy future. Community and Public Engagement (CPE) Action 4—Branding The process of building a highly informed and engaged community will take several years, and should be based on the establishment of an easily-recognized program brand that reflects community values. Workshop participants called for a focused effort on branding to create a coherent theme for the new energy work that the community will undertake.  Create a committee to engage community leaders and experts in communications to develop a brand for the Edmonds new energy plan and program. The work that the New Energy Cities team has done to date in other communities serves to emphasize just how important focused community engagement is to building support for the changes that would help communities to truly change their energy usage. We urge the City of Edmonds to give equal attention and resources to developing the communications strategy as it does to the projects, financing, and policy. Packet Page 173 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 9 | P a g e Catalytic Project Development The New Energy Cities approach emphasizes using aggressive pilot projects to test initiatives and encourage innovation. These pilot projects are designed to address existing barriers to transforming the energy system of a community and their success is measured by how effectively they accomplish this. Such pilot projects are catalysts for action, and serve to inform longer-term strategies, build an understanding of economic benefits and attract additional investment capital. Early pilot projects should be designed with the following characteristics:  Quick implementation timeline – First pilot projects could get started quickly, which means any required construction work could begin in 201 1.  Applicable – Pilot project results and experiences transfer to and inform subsequent projects.  Financially viable – Because longer term financing tools will take time to build, the early projects may need to need to test a variety of tools so can learn which will be the most successful  Engaging – Provide opportunities to engage the community and stakeholders actively and visibly to enhance their understanding of project development, its link to the vision and its potential for broad benefits.  Measurable – Early actions should be relatively simple to measure, at least to some degree, so that the results can be reported and used to inform subsequent actions. During the Workshop, participants identified several catalytic projects for Edmonds’ transition to a clean energy future, listed below under the following categories: Building Energy Efficiency, Distributed Generation, and the Main Street Project. Building Energy Efficiency Research for the New Energy Cities Workshop indicated that opportunities exist in both the residential and commercial sectors for substantial improvements in energy efficiency. In the residential sector, over 9,000 housing units built before 1980 provide a large target for home retrofits. The New Energy Cities team estimates that a pace of 500 retrofits per year would be required to reach the City’s 2035 goal for energy savings. This section considers a range of actions that encompass the various building sectors. As part of this effort, the City should begin engaging building contractors around the opportunities that will emerge from a greatly expanded energy efficiency initiative. Contractors stand to see substantial business growth, and should be considered early partners. This engagement should Packet Page 174 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 10 | P a g e build support for the use of specific tools, such as energy performance scores, concierge service packages and neighborhood targeting. Real estate professionals, including appraisers, should also be engaged early in the process of developing and implementing new projects. Once this level of engagement has been established, opportunities exist to begin enhancing the economic motivations that can increase participation. One idea brought up in the workshop would involve creating a fee-bate structure that would reward building owners who discloser energy performance and achieve energy performance standards. Building Energy Efficiency (BEE) Action 1—Municipal Retrofits Municipal operations comprise the largest component of the community’s electricity usage, with over 14,000,000 kWhs per year. As such, an overall strategy by Edmonds should focus on municipal operations at all levels, to identify and prioritize to reduce energy use among City buildings, facilities, or other operations beyond the significant investments the City of Edmonds has already made in its building operations and its wastewater treatment facility. With the potential access to Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs), however, additional retrofit opportunities should be explored. 1A. Determine a municipal efficiency target that would lead to substantial energy savings and serve as a leadership step for the rest of the community.  Solicit and engage and energy efficiency services organization to conduct municipal retrofit review.  Analyze energy efficiency opportunities at Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Conduct review of Francis Anderson Center energy audit. 1B. Work with Snohomish PUD to implement streetlight efficiency pilot project. 1C. Identify energy efficiency opportunities with the Edmonds School District. Building Energy Efficiency (BEE) Action 2—Single Family Retrofits Sustainable Works and Sustainable Edmonds have partnered to launch a 120-160 home retrofit pilot project. A large percentage of these retrofits will be completed by May 2011. The key financial components for this pilot include SnoPUD incentives, PSE incentives, and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding through Snohomish County and the State of Washington. In addition, Snohomish County is launching a residential loan program for energy efficiency retrofits. This program will offer loans up to $20,000 for 10- to 15-year terms at a discounted interest rate. In this instance, Edmonds is already moving forward on a pilot project, and this effort should be supported and well understood so that key questions related to increasing building retrofit activities are identified and addressed. New ways to financing energy performance retrofits Packet Page 175 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 11 | P a g e need to be tested, as do means of increasing the number of buildings that enter the program as it matures. A careful review of the results of the Sustainable Works/Edmonds pilot should help to assess how to move forward after this initial work at a larger scale. 2A. In conjunction with Sustainable Works, conduct a review of the residential retrofit pilot. Outcomes of the review should include:  Number of home energy assessments conducted  Number of retrofits completed  Number of loans  Average and total energy savings  Average and total utility incentives  Carbon emissions eliminated  Case studies for promotional materials  Identification of barriers that prevented homeowners from initiating a retrofit A critical component of energy efficiency retrofit programs, in addition to direct financing options, is a service that facilitates the retrofit process for homeowners. Sometimes referred to as an energy concierge service, this facilitation works with property owners through the process of energy assessment to bid to financing to retrofit and can help overcome several small barriers to participation. Any review of the residential retrofit pilot should explore how this service impacts homeowners’ willingness to participate in the retrofit process. 2B. Engage SnoPUD and PSE to review utility incentive programs and operations. Several aspects of existing utility incentive programs should be included in the review of the retrofit pilot:  Uptake rates of residential incentive programs in pilot  Utility incentive metrics  On-bill financing options for loan program 2C. Leverage Snohomish County residential energy efficiency loan program. Snohomish County made a preliminary award of $650,000 in credit enhancement funds (loan loss reserve and interest rate buy-down) to a local lender. This Snohomish County program will be available for use by residents undergoing home retrofit projects and will provide between $6.5 and $13 million in financing for countywide retrofits. Building Energy Efficiency (BEE) Action 3—Commercial Retrofits Commercial buildings use 28% of the overall building energy consumed in Edmonds, and the top 20 commercials customers use 48% of the sector’s electric energy. An effort to target those large customers is a simple and effective way to gain some early momentum in terms of increasing building efficiency. Packet Page 176 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 12 | P a g e 3A. Convene grocery store owners to define energy efficiency goals for sector . The six grocery stores in Edmonds consume over 12,000,000 kWhs of electricity per year, nearly as much as the entire municipal operations. Through the Better Building Challenge, Edmonds can bring together grocery store decision-makers to:  Establish a sector goal, consistent with the Better Building Challenge  Identify best practices and products for energy efficiency improvements  Establish 2010 baseline and develop a monitoring methodology A concerted effort here should produce substantial gains in efficiency, and a small amount of research and analysis could help create a high-impact program that will product strong benefits. 3B. Engage Swedish Medical Center (Stevens) to define energy efficiency goals for the facility. The Swedish Medical campus in Edmonds consumes over 7,700,000 kWhs of electricity. As with the grocery stores, the City should engage executive-level decision- makers at Swedish to:  Establish an energy efficiency goal, consistent with Better Building Challenge  Establish 2010 baseline and develop a monitoring methodology 3C. Secure engagement of other commercial building owners and operators. Retail, restaurant, and office buildings consume over 5,000,000 kWhs of electricity in Edmonds. Under the coordinated communication strategy of CPE 2A, secure the participation of (X number of buildings, % of buildings) for energy efficiency improvements. Building Energy Efficiency (BEE) Action 4—Nonprofit Retrofits 4A. Convene community nonprofit leaders to define energy efficiency goals for the sector, including a variety of organizations such as churches . Community facilities account for nearly 3,000,000 kWhs of electricity usage in Edmonds. The Housing Finance Commission has a loan program available for nonprofit organizations. Under the coordinated communication strategy of CPE 2A, secure the participation of (X number of buildings, % of buildings) for energy efficiency improvements. Distributed Generation The electrical energy sources for the City of Edmonds emit relatively low levels of greenhouse gases. SnoPUD’s fuel mix is predominately hydroelectric generation from the Bonneville Power Administration, in conjunction with some other low- carbon sources. Overall population growth in the BPA service region is likely to create a need to develop more clean sources in order to maintain that standard, and policy pressures may push even further in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. Edmonds has several opportunities to begin to explore new, distributed sources of clean, renewable energy. Packet Page 177 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 13 | P a g e Distributed Generation (DG) Action 1—Edmonds Community Solar Project Sustainable Edmonds and Tangerine Power have developed a community solar project to be implemented in the City of Edmonds. The current plan for the 75 kW project is to locate it on roof space at the Frances Anderson Center. The project is seeking City support in the form of a lease for the roof. 1A. Complete community solar analysis to guide city decision-making.  New Energy Cities team provided an analysis of the Edmonds Community Solar project in time for the City Council vote on March 22, 2011 1B. City of Edmonds partners with Solar Edmonds to complete community solar project.  Based on the results of 1A above and the City Council decision, the City should pursue a community solar project as a catalyst for community interest in solar photovoltaic electricity production Distributed Generation (DG) Action 2—Waste Heat Recovery The Edmonds Wastewater Treatment facility uses a sizable amount of natural gas to incinerate residual biosolids. Some of the heat produced in this process is used for the building’s thermal load. Much of it, however, is not captured for other thermal uses and is lost as waste heat. With potential development areas located just to the west of the facility, there is potential to utilize this waste heat as a thermal energy source for existing or future development. Main Street Project The City of Edmonds was awarded funding for street-front improvements on Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues. This project has the potential to become a catalytic public infrastructure demonstration. Incorporating smart grid infrastructure and electric vehicle charging stations could provide a case study for a “Sustainable Makeover – Main Street.” Main Street Project (MAIN) Action 1—Electric Vehicle Charging Station In order to support the transition to electric vehicles, cities will need to provide the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. 1A. Solicit a charging station from EcoTality and the EV Project for Main Street. 1B. Consider the establishment of a Business Improvement District to cover the cost of charging. 1C. Develop public engagement strategy around EVs in Edmonds. Packet Page 178 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 14 | P a g e Main Street Project (MAIN) Action 2—Smart Grid Fiber Fiber optic cable connectivity is a key component for the development of a smart grid network. 2A. Work with SnoPUD’s smart grid project to identify opportunities to install smart grid infrastructure in conjunction with Main Street Project. Main Street Project (MAIN) Action 3—Energy Efficient Streetlights The streetlights along Main Street are historic. Their conversion to energy efficient illumination is challenging. 3A. Work with SnoPUD and (historic preservation group) to retrofit Main Street lamps with energy efficient bulbs. Financing Financing for clean energy is changing rapidly as communities, utilities, and the financial sector explore new business models and capital structures to accelerate deployment of both efficiency and clean energy projects. This effort requires innovative financing tools to construct a strong business case for individual projects. The most promising financing tools will be those that facilitate the development of specific projects such as those identified above. During the Workshop, participants identified a myriad of existing and developing financing tools for project development as follows: Commercial Retrofits Residential Retrofits Distributed Generation Off-book lease structure (e.g. Seattle Steam) On-bill, 3rd party financing Community Solar model Non-profit low interest loans from Housing Finance Commission Revolving loan fund (e.g. Wedgewood neighborhood based program) Solar Express through SnoPUD Revolving loan fund (ShoreBank Cascadia partner) Existing SnoPUD program (2.9% interest, but no incentives) QECB – low interest bonds Existing SnoPUD incentive programs Existing PSE programs State alternative energy production incentives Existing PSE incentive programs Snohomish County EECBG funds QECB – low interest bonds QECB – low interest bonds On-bill, 3rd party financing Snohomish County and PSE program Commercial PACE Sustainable Works Carbon Reduction Fund Carbon Reduction Fund Business Improvement Association Packet Page 179 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 15 | P a g e The most promising financing tools will be those that facilitate the development of projects identified above. Finance (FNC) Action 1—Building Energy Efficiency Tools As building owners consider energy efficiency investments in their properties, they will need access to financing tools that recover upfront capital costs with long-term annual operational savings. 1A. Utilize existing residential loan programs that are backed by a loan loss reserve.  Aggressively pursue residential loan funds from Snohomish County program.  Utilize current Sustainable Works financing program through Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union. 1B. Develop a strategy to enhance current residential loan programs.  Identify additional sources of capital for loan loss reserves.  Explore using philanthropic funds. 1C. Work with SnoPUD and PSE to enhance current energy efficiency incentive programs.  Prepare a white paper on the aggregation potential of energy efficiency retrofits.  Engage SnoPUD and PSE in evaluation of current incentive program. 1D. Utilize Washington’s Housing Finance Commission loan pool for non -profit organizations.  Aggressively pursue nonprofit loan funds from Housing Finance Commission. 1E. Explore the use of Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds for projects.  Retrofits of publicly owned buildings that achieve 20% energy efficiency.  Green community programs.  Distributed generation. Finance (FNC) Action 2—Distributed Generation Small-scale wind, solar, and other distributed generation projects will benefit from financing tools that allow property owners to realize net positive cash flows from their alternative energy production. Similarly, aggregating projects to a community-scale will require patient capital sources for cost recovery scenarios. 2A. Facilitate financing options for development of community solar project.  Identify most promising location, structure.  Evaluate financing sources. Finance (FNC) Action 3—Main Street Project Packet Page 180 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 16 | P a g e The Edmonds Main Street Project has already received a $750,000 grant for street front and lighting improvements. Additional financing tools may provide the resources necessary to implement a “Main Street Sustainable Makeover” project. 3A. Smart Grid pilot funding 3B. Local Improvement District 3C. Business Improvement District Policy Initiatives The transition to a clean energy economy requires a supportive local policy environment. Workshop participants identified numerous policy options for decision-maker consideration. New Energy Cities suggests the following action items for potential policy initiatives. Policy Initiative (POL) Action 1—Building Energy Use Having accurate information about a building’s energy usage is a key component for defining an energy efficiency retrofit strategy. Just like an MPG rating informs a vehicle owner about a car’s efficiency, a building energy score can do the same for building owners. 1A. Commercial Building Energy Disclosure. The City may require or incentivize commercial building owners to submit their energy usage information into EPA’s Portfolio Manager system. A statewide law is now in effect that requires building owners to provide a Portfolio Manager score upon request from a prospective tenant or purchaser. The City may choose to require an annual report. 1B. Commercial Building Energy Performance Requirement. The City may require or incentivize commercial building owners to reach a minimum score for energy efficiency through the Portfolio Manager systems. 1C. Home Energy Assessment Requirement at the Time of Sale. The City may require or incentivize home energy assessment at the time of a residential sale. This requirement would provide energy efficiency information to customers at a moment of opportunity for retrofit investments. 1D. Building Energy Assessment Requirement at the Time of Permit. The City may require or incentivize building energy assessments as an element of the permit process. Packet Page 181 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 17 | P a g e 1E. Improve Permitting Process to Incentivize Building Retrofits. The City could enhance opportunities for building retrofits during “intervention points” in the permitting process.  Require energy assessments with utilities early in the permitting process.  Include greenhouse gas emissions analysis in SEPA documents.  Institute “fee-bate” provisions, whereby building permit applicants who plan more efficient remodels or new construction can earn a discount on permit fees.  Priority permitting for projects planning to achieve greater energy efficiency. Policy Initiative (POL) Action 2—Water Conservation The City sets utility rates for water and wastewater services. At this point, rates are based on a per-unit charge. A tiered rate for consumption would send an appropriate price signal for enhanced conservation. 2A. Utility Pricing. The City may consider setting graduated rates for water and wastewater in order to encourage conservation. Policy Initiative (POL) Action 3—Transportation Alternatives The use of fossil fuels for transportation is the single largest component of Edmonds’ carbon footprint. Two fundamental strategies can reduce this impact —fewer trips and cleaner trips. 3A. Zoning. Land use is the primary driver for transportation options in a community. Alternatives to single occupant vehicle usage are more productive and therefore, more feasible in dense urban environments. The City should establish zoning parameters to enhance transit and alternative transportation-friendly neighborhoods. 3B. Complete Streets. City staff should evaluate each road project to determine if the infrastructure meets the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, as well as vehicles. 3C. Electrification of the Transportation System. Shifting the transportation fuel source from fossil to clean electricity is one of the most effective carbon reduction strategies in the Puget Sound region. The City should evaluate its building codes to determine if there are policies that would enhance the charging station infrastructure.  Charging station mandates for multifamily construction.  Partnership with Washington State Ferries on electrical charging station for ferry holding.  PHEV or EV preference for new city-owned vehicles. The public transportation system provides another major opportunity for Edmonds to build on its New Energy Cities program. Numerous Community Transit and Metro Bus lines have their final destinations in Edmonds. If these buses are converted to hybrid or full electric engines, Packet Page 182 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 18 | P a g e then Edmonds should work with Community Transit and Metro to provide whatever facilities are required for the conversion. Next Steps The New Energy Cities team and the City of Edmonds Workshop Planning review this document to refine and complete the Phase I process for prioritization, resource allocation, timelines, and responsibilities. Top of the list is to address the question of project direction going forward. After the team is in place that will guide the City of Edmonds New Energy Cities initiatives, decisions need to be made about which catalytic projects to start with and how they should be scoped and financed. Next attention will need to shift to public engagements strategies. When the projects, policy, financing, and engagement next steps are identified, the region will move on to Phase II implementation. Overextending early in the process would undermine the overall success of the Action Plan, and so clear focus areas are needed in the beginning. We recommend that the City of Edmonds focus on narrowing the choices among the action areas listed in this action plan. In each action area, the region could proceed by developing a workplan, determining responsibility, assigning tasks, and determining funding for successful implementation. Packet Page 183 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 19 | P a g e New Energy Cities Pioneering the Clean Energy Economy in Northwest Communities Phase II: Implementation—6-12 Months The second phase of this Action Plan centers on getting catalytic projects started, while building the critical relationships and resources needed to deliver these projects successfully and use them to inform future efforts. Phase II is focused on getting early projects implemented, so that the results of these projects can help shape longer-term policies and reinforce the emerging approach to community engagement: 1. Carry out the set of projects that will produce success stories to build upon, as well as data to inform future projects. 2. Roll out a communications strategy, developed in Phase I, with ongoing resources to ensure a consistent message and collaboration with community partners. 3. Refine the potential financing options for future projects, with an orientation toward testing and exploring priority options in order to resolve questions on legal structures, accounting and tax considerations, and risk analysis. The transition from Phase I to II can be challenging and will reflect the City of Edmonds’ ability to mobilize people and resources to prioritize the projects and goals that have been articulated and flesh out the desired projects’ scope, scale, and financing. Phase II should serve as the planning cycle for developing the Phase III timeline, preparing the community for an extension of the pilot projects across the community, refining the financing strategies and models for ongoing, long-term implementation. In addition, this process would create the capacity to monitor progress, measure impacts, assess costs and benefits, and inform adjustments and new directions. Phase III: Refine and Scale Up-18 Months In Phase III, the City of Edmonds will get feedback on the impacts of the early pilot projects, and, presuming success, will have extensive political support due to partnership development and engagement with the community. Phase III becomes a threshol d step, in which the community moves beyond pilot projects and into an ongoing, consistent implementation program of defined projects over a set period of time. Phase III provides an 18-month period during which the community could strive to solidify the policy foundation for the next 20 years of project implementation. Packet Page 184 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 20 | P a g e 1. Create and seed the community’s finance and investment vehicles, with a strategy for ongoing funding or re-capitalization. 2. Develop a basket of incentives and requirements to effectively gain universal participation in efficiency, renewable energy, and infrastructure programs. 3. Forge lasting partnerships that ensure that progress is measured, results are communicated broadly, and the program is subject to routine review and analysis for improvements. 4. Invest in human resources to manage implementation of the array of activities, and institutionalize that capacity with stable funding and succession planning. In Phase III, the City of Edmonds should consider developing a strategy of widespread deployment of energy efficiency, distributed renewable energy, electric vehicle infrastructure, and smart grid technologies that could include the following components. Phase III is too far out to be specific about what might be embraced at this stage of its New Energy City plan, but we feel it is useful to highlight some of the directions that could be explored: A Long-Term High Performance Building Strategy A future of very efficient buildings that produce their own energy and are part of an intelligent energy network will require aggressive and consistent efforts over time. Efforts should be made to put building codes in place that would allow for more green building branding, and that development standards and the county’s comprehensive plan need to be revised with energy in mind. A Long-Term Financing Approach Local jurisdictions that develop innovative policies to reduce the risks associated with investment and add certainty to potential investors should be expected to gain access to long-term, patient sources of capital. Distributed Renewable Energy Generation A significant element of distributed generation could be addressed within a high- performance building strategy. However, substantial additional opportunities exist for communities to accelerate and deepen the role that distributed renewable sources could play in their overall approach. Smart Grid Infrastructure The City of Edmonds should integrate closely with SnoPUD and its smart grid technology deployment. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Deployment The City of Edmonds should integrate closely with SnoPUD and EcoTality and its electric vehicle deployment plans. Packet Page 185 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 21 | P a g e Ongoing Recommendations Throughout all Phases of the City of Edmonds New Energy Cities Action Plan, it is important to keep the following three ongoing requirements in mind at all times: Engagement – A consistent, sustained commitment by elected leadership to invest in engaging the community to fully understand the path and collective benefits to this New Energy System, and to support the needed policies, programs, and investment resources is crucial. This level of collaboration with the community is a significant step beyond traditional engagement efforts, and is critical to success. Experimentation with New Policies and Programs – New policies and programs are needed, some of which will exceed expectations while others may fall short. The need to experiment and refine our approaches is a fundamental component of the leadership challenge and a defining element of a New Energy City. Such an approach means that elected officials will have to communicate effectively about the process for trying new ideas and refining them over time. Institutional Capacity – Ongoing resources and training will be needed to support the City of Edmonds’ new energy efforts. The community and key partners, from utilities to nonprofits to businesses, all need a focal point for collaboration, and need to be supported by this focal point in order for their efforts to consistently contribute to progress and support all of the innovations in clean energy that the City of Edmonds has such a strong appetite to explore. Conclusion Climate Solutions’ New Energy Cities program works with innovative city and county leaders that wish to be early adopters of the integrated clean energy system that will bring economic development to their communities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and leverage public investment with large-scale private investment. The New Energy Cities Team believes that the City of Edmonds has considerable potential to be a successful Pioneer City that fundamentally transforms the way it uses and produces energy and that will serve as a model for other cities in the Northwest and throughout the country. We thank you very much for the opportunity to walk with you down the road to a new energy future for the City of Edmonds and its community and look forward to finalizing this Action Plan and moving into the Implementation Phase. Packet Page 186 of 220 City of Edmonds Action Plan NewEnergyCities.org 22 | P a g e Appendix A: Edmonds Energy Map Packet Page 187 of 220 AM-4145 Item #: 7. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 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 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 08-09-11. 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 returned a signed interlocal agreement for the City to provide internet services. It is on this week's (Aug 15th 2011) consent agenda. Attachment 1 shows a June 30th 2011 snapshot of expenditures to date (minor changes may have occured due to month end postings). 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. The City of Seattle's support of the appeal effort to date has reimbursed $24,249.08 of legal fees (thus reducing the Fiber Project Professional Services expenditures). About $4,000 of the legal fees since the beginning of the year are not reimbursable. This effort has been worthwhile, 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. Attachment 2, which uses the numbers from Attachemnt 1, shows the estimated break even date of April Packet Page 188 of 220 2015 remains reasonable. It should be noted that the SNOCOM service provision or, for that matter other potential local business partners, will move up the estimated break even date. Attachments Attachment 1: Fiber Project Costs Attachment 2: Fiber Project Costs Attachment 3: Appeal Summary - Foster Pepper Attachment 4: Appeals Court Decision Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 03:50 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 08/11/2011 Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 189 of 220 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 19 0 of 22 0 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 19 1 of 22 0 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 192 of 220 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 193 of 220 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 194 of 220 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 195 of 220 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 196 of 220 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 197 of 220 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 198 of 220 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 199 of 220 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 200 of 220 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 201 of 220 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 202 of 220 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 203 of 220 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 204 of 220 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 205 of 220 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 206 of 220 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 207 of 220 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 208 of 220 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 209 of 220 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 210 of 220 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 211 of 220 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 212 of 220 AM-4144 Item #: 8. City Council Meeting Date: 08/15/2011 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of August 9, 2011. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached are copies of the following committee meeting minutes: •08-09-11 Community Services/Development Services Committee •08-09-11 Finance Committee •08-09-11 Public Safety and Human Resources Committee Attachments 08-09-11 CS/DS Committee Minutes 08-09-11 Finance Committee Minutes 08-09-11 PS/HR Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 08/11/2011 05:27 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/11/2011 05:34 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/11/2011 12:05 PM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2011 Packet Page 213 of 220 M I N U T E S Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting August 9, 2011 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Chair Phil Williams, Public Works Director Council Member Michael Plunkett Rob English, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Managaer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Stephen Clifton, Community Services and Economic Development Director The committee convened at 6:00 p.m. A. Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and acceptance of project. Mr. English reviewed the scope and limits of the emergency repair and how agenda items A and B are related since both projects were on the storm pipeline in Dayton Street between the BNSF railroad and Admiral Way. The emergency repair was completed by Interwest Construction and the final costs including staff time and testing was $75,858. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. B. 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. The scope of the project was reviewed and an explanation was provided on the cured in place pipe (CIPP) method that will be used to repair 215 feet of existing 24-inch stormline in Dayton Street. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. C. Ordinance Amending the Edmonds City Code, Adding 4-Hour Parking Limitations to Brackett’s Landing North Parking Lot. The Parking Committee recommends a proposed ordinance to add a four hour parking restriction for Brackett’s Landing north parking lot in Section 8.64.065 of the Edmonds City Code. The parking lot currently has a posted four hour parking limitation and this change will allow the Police Department to enforce the restriction. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. Packet Page 214 of 220 CS/DS Committee Minutes August 9, 2011 Page 2 2 D. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2011-2015. The proposed Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit would continue the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program in Edmonds. The purpose of the CTR program is to reduce the Vehicle Miles Traveled and Single Occupant Vehicle commute trips and reduce vehicle related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. E. 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 The City of Lynnwood is designing a new sewer main for 76th Ave W to increase the capacity of their sewer sytem. The City of Edmonds has identified a watermain replacement project that falls within Lynnwood’s project limits. This agreement will provide for the coordination and combination of both projects into one to reduce costs and minimize the disruption to residents during construction. Mr. English reviewed a minor change to Section 6, “Payment Schedule” that reduced Lynnwood’s 8.5% administration charge to 2% during the project’s design phase. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. F. Potential amendment to downtown BD zones. The Committee initiated the discussion by identifying the development agreements provisions as the most complex and potentially controversial aspect of the amendments. Staff concurred, and agreed that the Council could elect to act on the other three items (designated street fronts and 45-foot commercial depth, uses in the BD1 zone, and step-back requirements). The Committee reviewed each of the three items in turn, with staff summarizing the Planning Board/EDC recommendations. The 45-foot commercial depth would help standardize the requirements among the BD zones. In regard to BD1 uses, it was pointed out that the Planning Board and EDC desired to do more work to review and refine the definition of service uses, but approving the current amendments to not allow office uses in critical storefront spaces would be a desirable first step. The concern over step-back requirements was that it was counter-productive in obtaining desirable building designs, particularly given historical downtown commercial building forms. City Attorney Jeff Taraday participated in the discussion of development agreements. He pointed out that the mechanism was authorized by state law and was already in the city’s code. Most observers believe that the state legislature’s intent was to replace contract rezones with the development agreement option, but this wasn’t made explicitly clear. Regardless, how development agreements are configured within the code can determine how open-ended or ‘tight’ the provisions are, and will ultimately determine how they are used to further the city’s expressed goals. He noted that staff believes more work needs to be done to provide guidance and clearer standards within the provisions so that the city can be assured that “we get what we want.” The Committee discussed forwarding the development agreement to the Council to schedule for a full Council work session, to be accompanied by a background memorandum from the City Attorney. This discussion did not have to be on the same night as the other BD zone amendments; it could be scheduled separately by the Council President when the City Packet Page 215 of 220 CS/DS Committee Minutes August 9, 2011 Page 3 3 Attorney was ready. Councilmember Plunkett noted his opposition to any provision that would provide a way to increase building heights. Councilmember Plunkett stated that he wanted the record to show he continues to believe the taller building clause in the proposed development agreement for downtown should be removed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed. ACTION: 1. The committee agreed to forward the first 3 amendments to the Council for further action, without a recommendation from the committee. 2. The committee agreed that the development agreement provisions should be scheduled by the Council President for further discussion by the full council, when the City Attorney’s information is ready. G. Public Comments Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, spoke in favor of retaining existing height limits and in opposition to proposed Planning Board recommended development agreement. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, suggested making sure the Planning Board recommended development agreement be very specific. Mr. Adams of Seattle spoke in favor of Planning Board recommended development agreements. The meeting adjourned at _____ p.m. Packet Page 216 of 220 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2011 Present: Councilmember Petso Councilmember Buckshnis Staff: Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director Deb Sharp, Accountant Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Carl Nelson, CIO Public: Darrol Haug, CTAC Member Joan Bloom Roger Hertrich Councilmember Petso called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. She moved Item D up to follow Item A. A. Quarterly Report regarding Fiber Optics CIO Carl Nelson reported there had been no major changes since last quarter and no major unexpected costs. The date for payback is still April 2015. The State Court of Appeals confirmed the City’s right to sell its excess capacity. Seattle paid a portion of the appeal costs. Bellevue chose not to participate in the appeal. Efforts will now focus on pursuing “low hanging fruit.” Mr. Nelson reported Edmonds Center for the Arts is a potential customer. The availability of a high speed live feed will allow presenters to do live video streaming from the facility, a potential new revenue and economic strategy for the ECA. Mr. Clifton reported the Port is interested in fiber at the Port as well as Harbor Square. There are also buildings downtown that are interested in connecting to fiber. Mr. Nelson commented on the economic advantage of hook- up and cost justifying the build-out. For example the $25,000-$40,000/mile cost to extend fiber to a new building located a mile from the fiber is an insignificant cost to a developer if tenants need high speed bandwidth. Mr. Clifton advised the medical community is another cluster/opportunity for fiber. A brief discussion followed regarding how customer charges are determined, leasing dark fiber verses selling bytes of capacity, potential future customers, and marketing. Recommended Action: 5 minute presentation to full Council. D. Review of Minor Changes by SNOCOM Legal to the “Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet Access” That Was Approved for Mayor’s Signature on 11-16-2010 Mr. Nelson explained the Interlocal Agreement with SNOCOM for bandwidth commitment was originally presented to Council in November 2011. SNOCOM requested minor changes and has now signed the agreement. The agreement is being presented to Council for reauthorization with the changes proposed by SNOCOM. Mr. Nelson briefly reviewed the pricing matrix. Recommended Action: Schedule on consent agenda next week. B. Park Trust Fund Ordinance Amending City Code 3.16.020 Ms. Hite explained this is a housekeeping item to make the ordinance consistent with the code. Recommended Action: Schedule on consent agenda next week. Packet Page 217 of 220 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 C. Old Milltown Courtyard Budget Review, Project Timing Ms. Hite explained this is scheduled on the August 23 agenda for public comment. The next deadline to submit an application to the Hazel Miller Foundation is September 23 with decisions made early October. If construction is delayed until after the grant decision, the project will not begin this fall. She asked whether the Council was interested in allocating additional REET funds to construct the project this year, advising the foundation grant is not guaranteed. If the foundation grant is approved, the funds would be used to replenish the REET fund. The budget for the project is $120,000; funding is comprised of $60,000 from the Hazel Miller Foundation, a $40,000 allocation in the budget, $10,000 from the Floretum Garden Club $4,000 from Edmonds in Bloom and the City has applied for $6,000 from the Hubbard Foundation. The project is based on the preferred alternative presented to the Council in July. A brief discussion followed regarding including kid-friendly features in the design. Recommended Action: Schedule request for allocation of an additional $60,000 in REET funds to begin construction this fall. REET funds to be replenished if the City receives the Hazel Miller Foundation grant. E. Update on Financial Policies and Reporting – Finance Reserve Policy Examples Councilmember Buckshnis referred to three cities’ reserve policies, GFOA standards, and a resolution regarding a reserve policy attached to the packet. She recommended the City establish one reserve that can be used for a catastrophic event or downturn in the economy as well as determine a percentage for the reserve. Councilmember Petso agreed with clarifying the City’s reserve policy. Councilmember Petso inquired about establishing a separate Council Contingency Fund. Mr. Tarte explained creating a separate fund would be more complicated. The Council Contingency Fund is not a separate fund; it is a segregated balance within the General Fund. The current balance is $68,000. The Council budgets $25,000/year from that balance that can be spent on miscellaneous items. The balance decreases as money is spent. If Council spends over $25,000 in a year, a budget amendment is required. A simple solution would be to eliminate the $68,000 balance and establish a Council contingency line item in an amount the Council establishes each year. Recommended Action: Staff presentation to full Council with a suggestion to discontinue using the phrase “Council Contingency Fund” and to establish a Council contingency line item in the budget in an amount that the Council establishes each year. The Finance Committee will discuss the reserve policy again next month. Councilmember Petso asked several questions about Actuarial Funds. Committee members and staff discussed funds in the Animal Reserve and the original intent of this reserve, other cities’ reserve policies, GFOA’s recommendation for a two month reserve, bond refinancing and establishing a policy regarding the spending of reserves. F. Public Comments Darrol Haug, Edmonds, asked whether the latest forecast includes the 1% annual property tax increase. Mr. Tarte responded it did. Mr. Haug asked when that is approved by Council. Ms. Sharp answered it is adopted by ordinance during the budget process. Mr. Haug summarized this is an unusual year because the budget will be prepared before the outcome of the levy is known. Citizens need to be aware that the 1% property tax increase is included in the forecast. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, inquired about the budget format, recalling in the past the budget included salary and benefit costs for each department. He suggested the City return to that format. Next, he inquired about the FD1 contract. Councilmember Buckshnis advised it is a 5 year contract so Packet Page 218 of 220 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3 it can be adjusted in 3 years. Mr. Hertrich suggested the Council consider what would be necessary for the City to establish its own Fire Department again. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, inquired about the Mayor’s plans to form a budget committee. Mr. Haug explained he received an email from the Mayor inviting him to participate in a committee that will meet four times between now and when the budget is prepared to provide input and analysis of the budget. The email did not indicate the number of participants or who else was invited to participate. He offered to forward Ms. Bloom the email. Ms. Bloom was not opposed to the committee, but was concerned it was not common knowledge and Councilmembers were not informed. Next, Ms. Bloom inquired about the 2009 Ogden Murphy Wallace billings. Mr. Tarte advised the 2009/2010 Ogden Murphy Wallace billings are available on the Finance Department page of the City’s website. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Packet Page 219 of 220 Public Safety & Human Resources Committee August 9, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Minutes Public Safety and Human Resources Committee Meeting August 9, 2011 Elected Officials Present: Council member Stephen Bernheim Council member D. J. Wilson Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. A. Interlocal Agreement with Okanogan County for Jail Services ACOP Gannon explained the proposed interlocal agreement with Okanogan County would cut the cost of long term jail confinements. He explained that the City pays Snohomish County $62.50 per day and a $90 booking fee. Lynnwood fees are $65 per day and a $10 booking fee. Okanogan County would charge the department $51 per day with no booking fees and Okanogan would transport the prisoner without cost. Councilmember Bernheim asked ACOP Gannon how this would affect the inmate’s family ties or the effect it would have on recidivism rates of an inmate. ACOP Gannon said he didn’t have any information on how the distance from the community would affect recidivism. He agreed that with an inmate in Okanogan County it would be more difficult for visitation. Councilmember DJ Wilson asked what is considered long term confinement. ACOP Gannon responded that a long term confinement is anywhere from 30 to 364 days. The judge and the probation department also determine the best location for the commitment. ACOP Gannon told the Council members that sentencing to a long term commitment depends on the crime and the defendant’s past criminal history. Action: Forward to August 15, 2011 City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. The meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m. Packet Page 220 of 220