The URL can be used to link to this page

2012.02.07 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds FEBRUARY 7, 2012 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-4521 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2012. C. AM-4522 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 24, 2012. D. AM-4534 Approval of claim checks #130090 through #130232 dated January 26, 2012 for $228,462.56, replacement claim checks #130233 through #130234 dated January 27, 2012 for $561.00, and claim checks #130235 through #130331 dated February 2, 2012 for $1,520,676.53. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #51165 through #51191 for the period January 16, 2012 through January 31, 2012 for $645,989.02. E. AM-4515 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Bernard Morris ($1,238.93) and Frontier (amount undetermined). F. AM-4510 Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities. G. AM-4516 Renewal of Uniform Contracts H. AM-4538 Ordinance revising outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and addition of a definition of "outdoor dining area" to ECDC 21.75. (File No. AMD20110005) I. AM-4544 Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.65; designating the City Clerk as the Packet Page 1 of 218 I. AM-4544 Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.65; designating the City Clerk as the Public Records Officer for the Transportation Benefit District. 3.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 4. (15 Minutes) AM-4526 A. Ordinance approving an amendment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Charter; changing the semi-monthly regular meeting schedule of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board to a monthly regular meeting schedule. B. Ordinance approving an amendment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Charter; establishing board term limits for members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. 5. (30 Minutes) AM-4508 Discussion regarding retail only zone in BD1. 6. (15 Minutes) AM-4525 Naming of Old Milltown Park Site 7. (30 Minutes) AM-4536 Discussion regarding transport fees and insurance. 8. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Minutes) Council Comments ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 218 AM-4521 Item #: 2. B. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time: 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 January 23, 2012. 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 01-23-12 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 01/31/2012 09:18 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 09:23 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 01/30/2012 04:43 PM Final Approval Date: 01/31/2012 Packet Page 3 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 23, 2012 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember (arrived 8:35 p.m.) Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Alex Springer, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jen Machuga, Planner Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would convene in executive session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) and labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Plunkett, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sharon Cates, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Finance Director Shawn Hunstock, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Police Chief Al Compaan, Executive Assistant Caroline Thompson, Human Resources Consultant Tara Adams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:56 p.m., Ms. Chase announced to those present in the Council Chambers that the executive session would be extended for 20 minutes. The executive session concluded at 7:20 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:25 p.m. and led the flag salute. Announcement Regarding Strategic Plan Surveys Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton asked for citizens’ assistance with completing the strategic planning and visioning adult, young adult, employee, customer and business owner surveys. Responses to the surveys have increased as a result of 11,000 emails sent out yesterday, press releases and notices posted on My Edmonds News, Edmonds Patch, and KOMO 4. The intent of the Packet Page 4 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 2 surveys is to help understand residents’ needs, priorities, and vision for the community. The adult, young adult and employee surveys are available on the City’s website, Edmondswa.gov. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2012. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2012. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #129744 THROUGH 129870 DATED JANUARY 5, 2012 FOR $1,569,393.03, AND CLAIM CHECKS #129871 THROUGH #130016 DATED JANUARY 12, 2012 FOR $831,006.46. E. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #51106 THROUGH 51139 FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16, 2011 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011 FOR $679,486.49. F. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LORALEE OSWALD ($694.58), SHARON L. ROMA ($305.32), AND SIMON ZIRIANS ($1,324.75). G. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, DECEMBER 2011. H. PURCHASING POLICY UPDATE I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ARTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CONTRACTS FOR TOURISM PROMOTION FUNDING FOR LOCAL CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS. J. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR 2012-2013. K. INVESTMENT POLICY L. MEMBERSHIP IN ECONOMIC ALLIANCE SNOHOMISH COUNTY. M. REAPPOINTMENT OF LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR 2012. Packet Page 5 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 3 N. REAPPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL MESTRES AND BRUCE "MICK" O'NEIL TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR ANOTHER TERM. O. REAPPOINTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER LARRY VOGEL. 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DRAFT REVISIONS TO THE OUTDOOR DINING REGULATIONS OF ECDC 17.75 AND ADDITION OF A DEFINITION OF OUTDOOR DINING TO ECDC 21.75. (FILE NO. AMD20110005) Planner Jen Machuga explained the City’s current regulations allow outdoor dining outright as a secondary use for an additional 10% of the existing interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is greater. If the restaurant wishes to have more than 10% of the interior seats or 8 seats, a Type III-A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. The cost of a CUP is approximately $1500 and is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. The current process is cost prohibitive especially for small businesses who want to add a few seats over the limit. Ms. Machuga reviewed a timeline for the code revision process: • May 25, 2011 – Planning Board discussion • July 13, 2011 – Planning Board hearing • August 10, 2011 – Planning Board continued hearing • December 13, 2011 – CS/DS Council Committee discussion • January 23, 2012 – City Council hearing Ms. Machuga reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendation: • Outdoor dining permitted outright if one of the following criteria are met: 1. Site is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties; or 2. Site complies with landscaping requirements along property lines adjacent to residentially- zoned properties; or 3. Dining area is screened from residential properties by a building and/or 4-foot wall, hedge, or fence; or 4. Dining area contains no more than 10% of interior seating or 12 seats, whichever is greater. • If site is adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the dining area shall be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM • Requires a Type III-A CUP if requesting exemption from the four criteria or the hours of operation. • Updated the definition of outdoor dining in the code Ms. Machuga displayed drawings illustrating what the proposed code language would allow with regard to screening for a restaurant with outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property. She noted if a restaurant wanted outdoor dining and did not provide landscaping/screening, they could seek a CUP. She provided several photographs to illustrate how existing outdoor dining areas are screened. Mayor Earling complimented Ms. Machuga’s presentation and also requested staff footnote acronyms in their presentations in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the zoning where Rory’s is located allows them to have outdoor dining later than 10:00 p.m. Ms. Machuga answered Rory’s is in the Downtown Business (BD) zone and does not have the limitation on hours in the outdoor dining code because it is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Any outdoor dining area is subject to the City’s noise ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Rory’s could have outdoor dining until 2:00 a.m. Ms. Machuga answered yes. She recalled Rory’s had a CUP in 2004 for a potential additional/remodel that eventually did not occur which limited their hours. Packet Page 6 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 4 Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $1500 fee applied only to the CUP. Ms. Machuga agreed it did. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was any fee associated with applying for outdoor dining. Ms. Machuga answered a permit would not be required if the restaurant was adding seats to an existing area but there may be fees associated with the creation of a new outdoor dining area that requires design review. Those fees are much less expensive compared to a CUP. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Pam Stuller, Richmond Beach, owner of Walnut Street Coffee, expressed her support for the proposed change to the code language. She anticipated the change would encourage a more lively and interactive downtown which is beneficial to small businesses as well as residents. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned the purpose of the 4-foot fence, commenting a fence in a residential area was required to be 5-feet. He pointed out most of the examples staff provided buffered the outdoor dining area from the street and none of them illustrated an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned property. He questioned whether consideration had been given to outdoor dining in buildings downtown where there is residential on the second floor. He questioned whether there was a difference between dining and drinking in outdoor dining areas. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the fence for an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned property was only required to be 4 feet in height. Ms. Machuga answered that was the Planning Board’s recommendation for one of the four criteria; the 4-foot fence would not be required if the outdoor dining area met the landscaping requirement or have less than 10% of the number of interior seats or 12 seats whichever is greater. Councilmember Plunkett summarized if the outdoor dining area did not meet the other criteria, they would be required to have a fence and if the outdoor dining area were adjacent to a residentially-zoned property, the fence would only be 4-feet in height. Ms. Machuga agreed. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Planning Board or staff discussed the concept of 6-foot fences in residential areas. Ms. Machuga responded a fence is not required to be 6 feet in height in a residential neighborhood; that is the maximum height. The Planning Board originally discussed a 6-foot height but felt more architectural interest could be provided by allowing a 4-foot fence and the business owner could add a trellis. As one of the examples illustrated, if a 6-foot fence were required, it was feared it would be a solid plain cedar fence rather than a 4-foot fence with a decorative trellis, flower boxes, etc. The Planning Board also discussed that the height of people seated in an outdoor dining area is closer to the 4-foot height. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out it was not required to add a trellis or other architectural feature above the 4-foot fence adjacent to a house. Ms. Machuga agreed a 4-foot fence with nothing above could be provided. Councilmember Petso referred to the four criteria, observing that under the proposed language a restaurant with 11 outdoor seats adjacent to a house would not require a fence, screening or CUP. Ms. Machuga agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned property must close at 10:00 p.m. Ms. Machuga answered yes, unless they applied for and received a CUP. The CUP is a Type III-A process before the Hearing Examiner that includes public notice, public hearing, etc. With regard to adjacent to residentially-zoned property, she clarified that meant a shared property line. There are few commercial properties downtown directly adjacent to residential properties; there is either a street or alley separating them. In those cases, the restaurant would meet the first criteria, not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Packet Page 7 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE HOURS FOR SITES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT THE DINING AREA BE CLOSED BETWEEN 9:00 P.M. AND 8:00 A.M. Councilmember Petso explained the hours she proposed were consistent with the hours in the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Petso explained the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance regulates home-based businesses in residential areas. Those businesses are required to be closed between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Because outdoor dining areas would be permitted immediately adjacent to a residential area, she proposed changing the hours to match the hours in the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Bloom asked if that requirement was related to noise. Councilmember Petso responded yes. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote). Councilmember Petso suggested requiring that outright permitted outdoor dining meet both criteria 1 and 4 and either criteria 2 or 3. Student Representative Springer questioned the requirement to meet both criteria 1 and 4 and the reasoning for changing the hours if a site was not adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Councilmember Petso explained her intent was if a site is adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the outdoor dining area would not be permitted outright unless screening was provided. Student Representative Springer asked if an establishment could apply for a CUP if their outdoor dining was not outright permitted. Ms. Machuga answered yes. Councilmember Petso suggested if an applicant did not meet criteria 1 and 4, they be required to apply for a CUP. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were any outdoor dining establishments adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Ms. Machuga could not think of any. Ms. Machuga clarified under Councilmember Petso’s proposal, for an outdoor dining area to be allowed outright, it could not be directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, there would be a limit on the number of seats and screening would be required either by landscaping or a fence. She summarized that was just as restrictive as the existing regulations. Councilmember Petso commented her proposal would apply to Five Bistro which is adjacent to single family residential and potential redevelopment in Firdale Village and Five Corners where outdoor dining could be immediately adjacent to someone’s yard. Ms. Machuga explained there is a single family house next door to Five Bisto that is on the same Neighborhood Business (BN) zoned lot. Using that as an example, under the Planning Board’s proposal, outdoor dining would be allowed outright because it would not be directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property. With regard to examples of outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property, Ms. Machuga referred to examples of CUP granted for Five Bistro, Scott’s Bar & Grill and Penara; none of those are directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties. Under the Planning Board’s proposal, they would have been outright permitted without a CUP. Under Councilmember Petso’s proposal a CUP would be required due to the number of seats. Packet Page 8 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 6 Student Representative Springer questioned the reason for requiring criteria 4, limiting outdoor dining to 10% of interior seating or 12 seats whichever is greater, if the site is not directly adjacent to residentially- zoned property. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING TO BE PERMITTED OUTRIGHT ONLY IF IT MEETS CRITERIA 1 AND ONE OF THE OTHER THREE CRITERIA. Councilmember Plunkett advised he would support the amendment as the ordinance would come back to the Council for approval. Ms. Machuga asked if Councilmember Petso’s intent was outdoor dining would be permitted outright as a secondary use if the site is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, and it meets one of criteria 2-4, and outdoor dining directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property would require a CUP regardless of the number of seats. Councilmember Petso responded that was her intent. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed his understanding of the amendment was any application for outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property would require a CUP no matter what. If the application for outdoor dining was for a property that was not adjacent to residentially-zoned property, it might not need a CUP as long as one of criteria 2, 3 or 4 is met. Student Representative Springer commented it was unfair toward businesses adjacent to residentially zoned property because it forced them to pay the $1500 fee for a CUP. He pointed out the hours for outdoor dining had already been limited which was sufficient for outdoor dining adjacent to residentially- zoned property. Councilmember Plunkett commented it was imminently fair because a business that is next to a residence should be held to a higher standard. Council President Peterson agreed with Student Representative Springer. The Planning Board’s proposal with the change in hours was restrictive enough. The point of the Planning Board’s recommendation was to create business opportunities; making the regulations more restrictive defeats that purpose. He did not support the proposed amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote). Mr. Taraday explained Mayor Earling was unable to vote to break the tie because this ultimately would come back to the Council as an ordinance. Student Representative Springer supported limiting the dining hours to 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., pointing out during Daylight Savings Time, the sun sets later and limiting dining hours to 9:00 p.m. would require patrons to be seated by 8:00 p.m. He concluded the 9:00 p.m. time limit reduced access to the outdoor seating area particularly during the longer summer days. Councilmember Petso recalled the Home Occupation Ordinance that was adopted in the name of economic development and the ensuing public outcry about what could occur in a single family neighborhood. The Council subsequently limited the hours. If someone sited a restaurant off her back fence and was allowed to have outdoor dining until 10:00 p.m. she would likely have to move as she would find that highly unsatisfactory. Packet Page 9 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 7 THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote). 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Laura Spehar, Edmonds, shared a story about a friend who is gay that was a victim of a hit-and-run accident and whose 20-year partner was not allowed into the emergency room or given information about her condition because she was not recognized as a relative or spouse. The victim also had no medical insurance at the time of the accident; her partner worked for the State but was not allowed to include her partner on her medical insurance policy. She and her husband felt it an unjustified privilege to obtain medical insurance, rights, marriage certificate, and acceptance when they married only because they are a non-gay couple. She urged the Council to remember her friends’ story when voting on the resolution in support of marriage equality and adding marriage equality to the 2012 legislative agenda. She viewed her friends’ 20-year relationship as a partnership that should be recognized. Unfortunately due to various beliefs, misinformation, lack of education, the United States is still behind in addressing this issue. Christopher Querubin, Edmonds, explained he met his spouse in 2007, they became domestic partners in 2010 and they were married in Connecticut in 2011. He asked for the Council support for the resolution in support of marriage equality. He has requested a meeting with Senator Paull Shin on Friday. He supported marriage equality at the state and federal level. His husband is a business owner based in Edmonds and they hire veterans. Royce Napolitano, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the resolution in support of marriage equality, noting there are many families that need this. Although the votes at the state level are promising, he urged Council to take a stand to demonstrate support from grassroots and not just an overall populous. Dave Page, Edmonds, spoke regarding the resolution in support of marriage equality. He pointed out the Council was non-partisan but marriage equality was a partisan issue. He noted various churches in Edmonds that do not support marriage equality. Observing that the vast majority of the Council’s constituency was conservative, if the Council did not pass the resolution, the liberals in the community would call the Council right-wing nuts; if the Council passes the resolution and declare their partisanship, the right-wing nuts will think the Council are crazy left-leaning liberals. He concluded right or wrong was not the issue, the legislature will pass marriage equality legislation and there is no need for the Council to commit on this topic. He requested Council pull this item from the agenda. Don Hall, Edmonds, expressed concern with the process related to Agenda Items 6 and 10. With regard to Item 6, he pointed out it was on the Consent Agenda on the Tuesday, January 17 meeting that was canceled due to snow. He supported the change to place it on the agenda for tonight’s meeting because when the charge of a commission is being changed, the public should know which Councilmembers want the changes and why. He questioned whether those in favor of the changes had attended any of the Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) meetings or discussed their concerns with the commission. Scheduling such a change on the Consent Agenda was a poor example of open government. With regard to Agenda Item 10, he commented this is another poor example of open government because the public was given very little notice this issue would be on the Council agenda, giving no opportunity for the local newspaper to publish articles and it was not listed as a public hearing. The public has not had an opportunity to express their opinion unless they did so to the legislature. He concluded Agenda Item 10 was rushed for political reasons, a poor example of open government. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Page and Mr. Hall with regard to Agenda Item 10. He pointed out the Seattle City Council passed a resolution in support of marriage equality and questioned whether Edmonds wanted to use Seattle as its standard of excellence. With regard to the roundabout, he explained a preponderance of citizens have expressed opposition to the project. Their opposition is not Packet Page 10 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 8 due to ignorance of roundabouts; it is because the roundabout is not needed and is a make-work project. He questioned the $2 million estimate to construct the roundabout when only 10% of design had been completed. Observing the estimated design cost is $500,000 or 25% of the construction cost, he anticipated the construction cost would be more than $2 million. He requested one of the three Councilmembers who voted in favor of the roundabout, Councilmembers Buckshnis, Fraley-Monillas and Peterson, propose a motion for reconsideration and to hold another public hearing. Jeff Coe, Edmonds, spoke with regard to the resolution in support of marriage equality, and objected to the use of religion against marriage equality. As a person of faith, he knew the repercussions of using religion against marriage equality and that religion in and of itself was not able to change his core value as a person. He was thankful the state was considering the issue of marriage equality as it was not right or just that he as a gay man did not have the same rights as everyone else. The constitution states everyone is created equal; he is not equal. He read a statement from Senator Haugen who stated she has strong Christian beliefs and it is not her role to judge others regardless of her personal beliefs. It was about representing others including people who may believe differently than she and ensuring everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that she enjoys. Mr. Coe urged the Council to take a stand, anticipating in 20-50 years the public would see the right side and like so many things the Church once believed and held true, they no long believe and hold true. Jim Wilkinson, Edmonds, commented he emailed Senator Shin last week stating that in his 30-year real estate career he has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes and asking why he, a gay man, should not have the same benefits as others. Many of the arguments are from Christian beliefs and he has studied theology. He suggested the Council ask themselves what Jesus would think about the money being spent on this issue when children are going hungry. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated this is the wrong place to take up the issue of marriage equality; the state is addressing it. He did not elect the Council to make that type of decision or forward a resolution on the topic to the legislature. He urged Councilmembers to abstain and allow those who are supporting the resolution to vote on it. His personal opinion was marriage was different than a civil union and civil unions gave people all the rights of marriage. With regard to Agenda Item 6, he referred to the first recommendation Resolution 1224 passed in January 2010 that the City needed a full-time Economic Development Director. If the Council was not considering a full-time Economic Development Director, he suggested that recommendations be removed from the list. He also suggested a better description be provided of the business centers plans that are mentioned in Resolution 1224. He preferred the EDC pursue the marketing plan for tourism development that is mentioned in Resolution 1224. Mark Moffitt, Edmonds, urged Council to vote in favor of the resolution supporting marriage equality. Edmonds has shown it can be progressive on issues such as the environment; the City is now in a position to make a statement to the community that they support the basic human right for one adult to marry another adult regardless of gender. Even though the news reports the House and the Senate will pass the bills, he wanted Edmonds to show they are on the leading edge of positive and progressive change. 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2) TO READ, "IDENTIFY NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL." COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3869, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, TITLE 10.75.030 RELATED TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff to address Mr. Hertrich’s question regarding a full-time Economic Development Director. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained Packet Page 11 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 9 he has been functioning as the Economic Development Director since November 2007. With the number of hours he puts in, he considered himself a full-time Economic Development Director. He also serves as the Community Services Director and receives a full-time salary to perform those two capacities. With regard to the scheduling of this item on the agenda, Council President Peterson explained the Council originally discussed and approved the proposed language change on December 20. It is the Council’s practice to schedule ordinances on matters the Council has previously approved on the Consent Agenda. It was rescheduled on the agenda at the request of a Councilmember to allow discussion. Although he initially voted in favor of the language change, he no longer supported the change due to his concern it was too restrictive to allow the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to proceed with a number of projects they have been discussing. He preferred to leave that discussion for the retreat as well as hear more from EDC members about the proposed language change. The EDC and next steps will be an agenda item on the Council’s February 2 and 3 retreat. Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the proposed language change which directs the EDC to identify new sources of revenue as a direct result of economic development. He recalled Councilmember Wilson agreed this was the intent of the EDC, to concentrate on economic development. The Council will discuss economic development and appointments to the EDC at the retreat. He intended to appoint a person already serving on the EDC as he did not want a wholesale change. The proposed language simply clarifies the intent of the Council with regard to the EDC. Councilmember Yamamoto, former Chair of the EDC, questioned why this change was being made now when the EDC has been in place since June 2009. As Council President Peterson stated, the proposed language limits the EDC’s creativity. The EDC needs to be creative and think outside the box. The purpose of economic development is to create new revenues which is difficult to do without thinking outside the box. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas arrived at the meeting at 8:35 p.m.) Councilmember Bloom expressed similar concerns as those expressed by Council President Peterson and Councilmember Yamamoto, questioning the need to change the language. She preferred to have further discussion before voting and will vote no at this time. Councilmember Petso explained her understanding was the language change was in part brought about because the EDC was proposing new taxes and fees rather than focusing on economic development. Councilmember Bloom asked for more specifics regarding taxes and fees. Councilmember Plunkett responded the EDC was put in place for economic development. The EDC recently made a proposal to tax or charge a person or their insurance company if they called 911. To him, that was not economic development. The EDC, according to the Councilmember who proposed the commission, was to focus on economic development, expanding possibilities. He recognized Councilmember Bloom’s interest in promoting tourism, commenting the EDC has not said much about that recently. The EDC has made a proposal for taller buildings under certain conditions and generate revenue via a pass along to insurance companies; neither of which he viewed as economic development. The EDC has not addressed how to enhance and improve the arts, the parks, the walkways, the beaches, or how to bring more people into town to shop and generate more taxes. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council appropriated $100,000 to the EDC for economic development and that is what they should concentrate on. The proposed language simply ensures the EDC’s ideas address economic development. He summarized he could develop a lot of ways to tax residents such as casinos, parking meters, a B&O tax, or a charge for calling 911, all without a $100,000 Packet Page 12 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 10 appropriation to the EDC. He wanted the EDC to develop out of the box, expansive economic development ideas. He supported having further discussion regarding economic development at the retreat. If the EDC does not talk about economic development and economic development only, their charge is too broad. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for having an open dialogue at the Council retreat. Councilmember Yamamoto commented there may be a misunderstanding about what economic development is. Economic development includes fundraising and generating new revenue and creating new revenues streams. He agreed with having further discussion at the retreat. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with having further discussion at the retreat as well as approving the proposed ordinance. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Mayor Earling explained because the vote is in regard to an ordinance, he cannot vote to break the tie. Councilmember Plunkett voiced a point of order, stating the only reason Councilmember Fraley-Monillas had to abstain was lack of knowledge. This ordinance was in the Council packet and had been a topic of discussion in December. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded she was not present for the Council’s entire discussion regarding this item. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the motion was to change the language to “identify new source of revenue that are a direct result of economic development projects for consideration of the City Council.” Council President Peterson suggested including a discussion regarding the language change on the retreat agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she did not feel she had enough information to vote on the motion. She preferred to discuss it further at the Council retreat. Mayor Earling suggested this item be scheduled for action on a future agenda following discussion at the retreat. 7. PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING OVERVIEW OF LAWS RELATING TO COUNCILMEMBERS. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the purpose of this presentation was to assist Councilmembers with identifying issues in their role. He advised there were several informative publications regarding municipal law available on the Municipal Research Services Center website. With regard to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (AFD), Mr. Taraday explained the AFD arises for Councilmembers in Edmonds more often than in other cities because Edmonds Councilmembers have more opportunity to touch the land use process than Councilmembers in other cities. The purpose of the AFD is that land use processes be fair and appear to be fair. Most of the time Councilmembers act as legislators when addressing policy and budget issues and can be lobbied by their constituents on those matters and need not disclose that lobbying before voting on an ordinance. The AFD recognizes that Councilmembers are occasionally required to act as judges. As a quasi-judge, it is important for Packet Page 13 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 11 Councilmembers to remember to be impartial and hear both sides of the story before making a decision on a land use matter. Mr. Taraday clarified not all land use matters have the potential to come to the Council. He referenced a table in ECDC 20.01.003(B) that identifies the procedures for development project permit application and the City Council’s potential role in those applications. Type III-B permits, which include essential public facilities, shoreline permits, variances, preliminary formal plat, and preliminary Planned Residential Developments, have the potential to come before the Council on a closed record appeal. The Council has the potential to sit as appellate judges when the Hearing Examiner has already made a decision on a land use application and someone files an appeal. As an appellate judge, the Council cannot take new evidence and must make their decision based on the record created by the Hearing Examiner after hearing arguments from the parties. For example if a person began talking to a Councilmember about a variance coming before the Hearing Examiner, a Councilmember must remember that it has the potential to come to the Council on appeal. He suggested whenever a Councilmember was not certain, they check whether the permit could come to the Council on appeal. With regard to Type IV-A permit applications which include final formal plat and final Planned Residential Developments, there is a staff presentation to Council and a vote. No hearing is held because it is not a discretionary decision at that point; the discretion has occurred during the preliminary plat process. The final plat process is simply to ensure that the preliminary plat has been complied with. Type IV-B permit applications which include site specific rezones are also closed record hearings before the Council but unlike the closed record appeal hearing described above, these are closed record pre- decision hearings. In this case Councilmembers are sitting as judges, no decision has been made and the Planning Board has provided a recommendation. Again, the Council cannot take new evidence. He clarified if anyone tried to talk to a Councilmember about a site specific rezone, those always come to the Council and a Councilmember should not discuss it outside the hearing. The constituent interested in talking to a Councilmember will have an opportunity to do so at the hearing. He referred to a potential exception in the AFD contained in RCW 42.36.070 with regard to site specific rezone applications. The statute states participation by a member of a decision-making body in earlier proceedings that result in an advisory recommendation to a decision-making body shall not disqualify that person from participating in any subsequent quasi judicial proceeding. The language appears to suggest a Councilmember could participate in an open record hearing at the Planning Board on a site specific rezone application. As the City Attorney he did not recommend that as the AFD is intended to ensure proceedings are fair and appear to be fair. He urged the Council to use caution as there is no case law interpreting the statute. Councilmember Petso asked whether Robin Hood Lanes was an action that potentially could come before the Council. Mr. Taraday answered he was not certain what project was being proposed for that property. Councilmember Petso responded her understanding was Walgreens and a bank. Mr. Taraday clarified he was uncertain what land use application they will apply for. If hypothetically she received an email, Councilmember Petso asked how the email should be treated. Mr. Taraday answered an email cannot be unreceived. He suggested Councilmembers keep such emails because they may need to be disclosed in the future. He explained a Councilmember should not have ex parte contact with a proponent or opponent of a land use application. If that happens, he suggested the Councilmember make a note of the contact, who it was with, when it occurred and the substance and at the time of the AFD disclosure process, Councilmembers who have had inadvertent ex parte contact can disclose them. Placing the substance of the communication on the record allows the other parties to rebut the substance of the communication. Type V permit applications are not quasi judicial, they are purely legislative. These include area-wide rezones, zoning text amendments, development regulations, Comprehensive Plan amendments, etc. Councilmembers are free to talk to anyone they wish about those matters. He explained if a rezone is Packet Page 14 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 12 proposed for only one site, it is probably a site-specific rezone regardless of the amount of land associated with the rezone. If the Council is considering changing the zoning in a significant area, that would be an area-wide rezone. Mr. Taraday recommended Councilmembers avoid as much as possible having contact with proponents and opponents of a project. If a Councilmember is approached by a person regarding a matter that could come before the Council, the Councilmember should explain that although they want to be responsive to their concerns, the person will have an opportunity to describe their concerns at the public hearing. Also with regard to the AFD, a Councilmember must disclose any personal interest in a land use application. Personal interest can include financial gain, property ownership, employment by an interested person, prospective employment by an interested person, association or membership ties, and family or social relationship. Prejudgment is an issue associated with AFD. It is important when sitting as a judge that Councilmembers be as honestly open minded about an application as possible. If a Councilmember feels they cannot be open minded and have already made up their mind before the hearing, they should recuse themselves. Bias is similar to prejudgment; Councilmembers should ask themselves whether a fair-minded person observing the proceedings would be able to conclude that everyone who should be heard had been heard and the decision-makers gave reasonable faith and credit to all matters presented according to the weight and force that they were reasonably entitled to receive. With regard to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), Councilmember Petso explained she has tried to restrict her communication via email to only two Councilmembers. Other Councilmembers have been told they can blind carbon copy (bcc) each other to talk to everyone at once. Mr. Taraday explained a meeting is not necessarily a meeting in the Council Chambers. An illegal Council meeting can occur if a quorum of the Council is transacting the official business of City which can include a discussion. Councilmember Petso asked why a bcc is okay but an email conversation without the bcc is not. Mr. Taraday answered it will depend on how the bcc is used. The purpose of a bcc is to ensure that email communication is one way. It is permissible to passively receive information outside a Council meeting via email, mail, etc. under the OPMA. As soon as passive receipt of information morphs into discussion, it is a meeting and if that meeting involves a quorum, it is an illegal meeting under the OPMA. For example when he emails the Council, he bccs the Council to prevent an accidental violation of the OPMA via a Reply All response to all Councilmembers. Councilmember Plunkett provided another example: she was exchanging emails with two Councilmembers regarding an agenda topic and a fourth Councilmember offered to join the discussion. She asked if she could have a discussion with the fourth Councilmember outside a public meeting. Mr. Taraday answered it may depend on how Councilmember Petso talked to the fourth Councilmember. It would not be acceptable for her to forward the emails she had exchanged with the two Councilmembers to the fourth Councilmember because the fourth Councilmember would then see the discussion between the other three Councilmembers. Conversely it may not constitute a violation of the OPMA if Councilmember Petso were to talk to the fourth Councilmember about the same issue. The OPMA anticipates there will be some one-on-one communication between Councilmembers, for example the Council President communicating one-on-one with Councilmembers regarding the retreat agenda. Councilmember Petso summarized she could talk to the fourth Councilmember about the topic as long as she did not reference the discussion she had with the other two Councilmembers. Mr. Taraday responded it would be problematic if Councilmember Petso were to say to the fourth Councilmember that she had just talked to the two Councilmembers and she had their votes on an issue and needed his vote. Councilmember Petso could lobby the fourth Councilmember for his vote but could not relay the discussion with other two Councilmembers. Packet Page 15 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 13 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she attended a function yesterday where four Councilmembers from another city were in attendance. When she pointed out they had a quorum, they disagreed it was a quorum because they were not talking about city business. Mr. Taraday agreed if they were not transacting official business. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas restated four Councilmembers could be at a function as long as they were not discussing city business. Mr. Taraday responded there is some legal authority to support that position; as long as the Councilmembers are not transacting the official business of the city, four Councilmembers could attend a social event, a sporting event, etc. He cautioned against that because although technically allowed, constituents may not believe that Councilmembers are not discussing city business. He concluded much of it is perception. The time allotted for this item expired. Council President Peterson advised there will be time at the retreat for questions regarding this topic. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A TWO YEAR (2012-2013) INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM AND AUTHORIZE $1,600 PER YEAR FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City had an interlocal agreement (ILA) with a number of local jurisdictions since 2008. The primary participants have been Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest Park and Edmonds; Snohomish County, Shoreline and Lynnwood also participated in the previous ILA. Those three entities have not been active partners and Shoreline and Lynnwood have chosen not to participate in the proposed ILA; Snohomish County is considering participating. Lake Forest Park and Mountlake Terrace are participating and staff recommends Edmonds also participate. This is a two year ILA; the City expected financial participation is up to $1600/year which provides funds for Mountlake Terrace to fund clerical/administrative support for the forum meetings. The previous ILA was $2400/year. The purpose of the ILA is to identify and implement projects and programs that will assist the entire watershed, both the upper watershed that Edmonds is most interested in that extends from the I-5 culvert, up McAleer Creek to the weir, all of Lake Ballinger and the upstream drainage for Lake Ballinger. Lake Forest Park is more interested in the lower reaches of McAleer Creek. The coalition was formed to identify projects to allow Lake Ballinger to recover, stop flooding and improve water quality as well as identify funding sources. The previous ILA also included a $10,000 contribution toward hiring a local lobbyist who along with representatives from three cities went to Washington D.C. to lobby the federal congressional delegation seeking funds via a Water Resource and Development Act update. That was unsuccessful and those efforts may continue this year. Councilmember Petso is taking Councilmember Wilson’s place on the forum and could propose that the City participate in providing funds to hire a lobbyist in the future. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A TWO YEAR (2012-2013) INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM AND AUTHORIZE $1,600 PER YEAR FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. CONCESSIONS IN PARKS, EDMONDS CITY CODE CHANGES. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the proposal is to amend Edmonds City Code 4.04 to allow concessions in City parks. She previously briefed the Council, Planning Board and CS/DS Committee regarding the proposed amendments. Given the economy and the budget, this is opportunity to enter into concession agreements with businesses to provide revenue as well as maintain service levels. The proposed changes give the authority to the Mayor to enter into concession agreements that are, 1) consistent with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, 2) located in regional and community parks, 3) granted seasonally and reviewed and renewed annually, and 4) take into consideration the impact on Packet Page 16 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 14 the park, impact on neighbors, amenities and conveniences added to the park, liability issues, and cost benefit. She requested the Council consider the changes and grant the Mayor the authority to enter into concession agreements. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if concession agreements could be reviewed by the City Council rather than authorizing the Mayor to enter into concession agreements. Ms. Hite answered the current code allows for concessions in parks via a process of posting signs, holding a public hearing, and approval from the Council. The proposed changes simplify and accelerate the process. Bringing an item to Council requires two months due to the requirement to first bring it to a committee meeting and then to the full Council. The proposal is to have an opening for concessions January through June as concessionaires express interest and as they fit within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and to be able to expedite that process. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a situation where there are two competing concessions will be handled. Ms. Hite explained concessionaires will be interviewed with regard to how they meet the criteria. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if favoritism could occur. Ms. Hite answered that was possible but she anticipated a committee similar to what was used to hire staff where applicants were objectively evaluated. The committee will review the evaluation criteria and forward a recommendation to the Mayor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the CS/DS Committee, comprised of Councilmember Petso and her, discussed the proposed change at their January meeting. The City has a concession agreement with the Hula Hut near the ferry holding lanes. The CS/DS Committee suggested doing this for a year and making changes if problems arise. Councilmember Petso asked if the Taste of Edmonds or Edmonds Arts Festival were seasonal concessions or would Council still approve those contracts. Ms. Hite answered those were special events that the Council approves. Councilmember Yamamoto asked what type and size concessioners would be considered. Ms. Hite answered the current code does not limit the type or size; consideration will be given to the footprint they would occupy, the impact on the park, the liability and risk, etc. For example the City would not bring in bouncy houses, jet skis, etc. because they were higher risk and the City’s insurance, WCIA, did not allow them. Concessionaires that would be considered include both food and recreational amenities. For example someone approached the city in June 2011 interested in renting paddle boats at Marina Park. There was not enough time in the season to pursue this due to the length of time to present the proposal to Council committee and the Council. There are private day camps and boot camps that currently operate in City parks; they do not pay for use of the parks although they do have an impact on the parks. The concession agreement allows the City to, 1) be compensated for the use of public land, and 2) ensure the people operating in public parks also carry liability insurance. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3869, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 4.04 TO ALLOW FOR EXPANDED USES AND SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN SEASONAL CONCESSION AGREEMENTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND ADDING MARRIAGE EQUALITY TO THE 2012 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Council President Peterson expressed his appreciation for the comments and emails for and against the resolution and questioning the process. He agreed the issue arose quickly because there is a short legislative timeframe and Councilmember Plunkett and he felt it was important if the resolution passes to forward it to the City’s elected representatives to show the City Council’s support of SB 6239 and HB Packet Page 17 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 15 2516. This issue was not on too many peoples’ radar until the Governor expressed her support early this year, otherwise the Council may have had a more in-depth discussion in December as part of the 2012 legislative agenda. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the process if the Council approved the resolution. Mayor Earling explained if the Council approved the resolution, Councilmembers who support the resolution will sign it and the resolution will be forwarded to the state legislature. Councilmember Bloom commented she has thought about this a lot. She wholeheartedly supports marriage equality as a private citizen but did not believe the citizens of Edmonds have given her the authority to speak on their behalf to the state legislature. She indicated she will abstain from the vote on the resolution. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Councilmember Bloom and also planned to abstain from the vote. He did not feel this was the proper venue or appropriate to make a Councilmember vote on a controversial issue regardless of their own views. The Council is charged with making policy and spending the taxpayers’ money wisely. The resolution regarding marriage equality does not affect the City’s daily operations and he was uncertain how the citizens of Edmonds felt about the issue. He feared the Council taking a position on this may open the door to requests for the Council to take a position on similar issues which raises the question who decides when and on what issues it was appropriate for the Council to take a position. Councilmember Petso indicated she would also abstain from the vote. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this issue is not outside the City’s business. She supported the Council standing up for the equitability of all people no matter who they love. She supported the resolution wholeheartedly; sending the resolution to the legislature states the City Council supports people and who they love. She has received public comment from both sides of the issue in making her decision. Senator Haugen supports the bill. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who emailed, called and spoke tonight. She recalled one person who said it should not be a human rights issue and that the Council should not be involved in issues such as this. She recalled in 2009 the Council passed Resolution 1202 that allowed Snohomish County to create a Citizens Human Rights Commission. She commented on her 70-year old gay aunt who has been with the same partner for 50 years and her partner now has Alzheimer’s. Her two conservative, Christian, Republican brothers both accept that situation. She expressed support for the resolution and suggested everyone just let it go and not make it an issue. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1271, A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Councilmember Plunkett commented it is up to the Council to decide whether to take up issues such as this. The Council recently voted to oppose coal trains traveling through Edmonds although there is nothing the Council can do about it. In the past the Council has expressed their support for the Kyoto treaties and forming a Human Rights Commission, issues that are not before the legislature. The City pays a lobbyist to lobby for the City; this will be added to the 2012 legislative agenda. He concluded this has more to do with City business than many of the other resolutions the City Council has passed. Councilmember Plunkett commented government does not give people their rights; their rights come from nature and the God of nature. Most governments oppress or take rights. In the Western culture Packet Page 18 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 16 government supports human rights. One of those rights is the right of association; individuals have a right to associate with whomever they want, association in general and personal relationships. Councilmember Plunkett and Council President Peterson read the proposed resolution: A Resolution of Support for Marriage Equality Whereas, marriage equality is a basic civil right, and; Whereas, marriage equality provides legal and economic protections including access to health care, parenting rights, and property rights, and; Whereas, marriage equality protects children and families, and; Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has said, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” and; Whereas, civil unions and domestic partnerships represent significant advances toward recognition of same-sex relationships, but they are not a substitute for full and equal marriage, and; Whereas, marriage equality is about civil marriage, not religious marriage, and; Whereas marriage is a powerful and important affirmation of love and commitment, a source of social support and recognition, and the legal protections which are invaluable to the safety and security of every family; therefore Be it resolved that the Edmonds City Council fully supports Marriage Equality in the State of Washington, and; Be it further resolved that support of Marriage Equality be added to the Edmonds 2012 Legislative Agenda, and; Be it further resolved that this Resolution be sent to all of our State representatives. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4-0-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, PETSO AND YAMAMOTO ABSTAINING. Mayor Earling asked whether a signature line for the Councilmembers who abstained and himself should appear on the resolution. City Attorney Taraday responded the four who voted in favor of the resolution could sign the resolution and Mayor Earling could choose whether to sign. The three Councilmembers who abstained requested their name with a blank signature line not appear on the resolution. Mayor Earling commented the core mission in the City is to ensure the day-to-day operations are met with regard to public safety, infrastructure, long term planning and land use issues. The resolution addresses a state issue that is currently under discussion and which now appears to have the needed votes to pass both the State House and Senate and apparently the Governor is ready and willing to sign the legislation. If he were in the legislature, he would probably support the legislation; he has a history of supporting this type of issue including support for domestic partnership legislation. Because he is not a member of the legislature but rather an elected representative of the City of Edmonds, he has a different core mission. For that reason he will not sign the resolution. 11. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 30, 2011 AND JANUARY 10,2012 Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported at their December 30 meeting, the Committee discussed two amendments to the Seattle Fiber Partners Agreement that was approved on the Consent Agenda. At their January 10 meeting the Committee discussed the City joining the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County; authorization was approved on the Consent Agenda. Staff reviewed an update to the purchasing policy, a quarterly update on fiber optic opportunities and the investment policy; all of which were approved on the Consent Agenda. Staff also provided the Committee a General Fund update. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Petso reported the Committee discussed the Recycling Grant Agreement between Edmonds and the Washington State Department of Ecology for 2012-2013, the Interlocal Agreement for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum and Concessions in Parks which were all approved on tonight’s agenda. The Committee also discussed allowing bed and breakfast establishments in single family neighborhoods. The Committee recommended further study by the Planning Board. Packet Page 19 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 17 Public Safety & Human Resources Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported staff briefed the Committee on reclassification of six SEIU union positions, four reclassifications (non-represented) and two classification in the SEIU union. If it is determined that the two positions will be subject to union membership, it will be a topic for an executive session. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported there will be an executive session prior to tomorrow’s Council meeting beginning at 5:45 p.m. The regular meeting will begin at 6:15 p.m. Mayor Earling thanked staff, particularly Public Works, Public Safety and Parks for the magnificent job they did last week during the snow, literally working 24 hours a day to stay ahead of an incessant snowfall. Mayor Earling suggested the public may want to watch the Governor’s proposed transportation package. Two bills, HB 2660 and SB 6455, provide an extensive transportation improvement plan crafted by the Governor. The primary increase comes from a $1.50 tax on oil. Most of the funds generated would be used for preservation and maintenance of the State’s current transportation system. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Plunkett requested the agenda for the retreat and possibly tomorrow’s Council meeting include discussion regarding ending the Economic Development Commission. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Public Works for their efforts during the snow. She also commended Finance Director Shawn Hunstock for his efforts that include answering citizens’ inquires, saving $50,000 on insurance, and refinancing the bonds. Mr. Hunstock is the current President of the Puget Sound Finance Officers Association. She looked forward to working with him to improve the transparency of the City’s finances. Council President Peterson commended Public Works as well as the IT Department for the tweets from Public Works staff and information on the City’s website that kept citizens updated during the snow. With regard to Agenda Item 10, Council President Peterson understood and appreciated that some Councilmembers and citizens feel that this was not what the Council should be discussing. He pointed out the importance of quality of life Edmonds; marriage equity is a quality of life issue and the resolution sends a message to families of all types that Edmonds is a welcoming community that wants everyone to feel safe and secure. That is one of his most important duties as an elected official. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was proud the City Council took a stand that needed to be taken. She was also excited about concessions in parks, recalling when she introduced Music in the Parks this summer, people often commented there was no place to get food or drinks. Concessions will be good for the City and for the citizens. Mayor Earling recognized City Engineer Rob English who was elected the new Cities' Co-Chair for the Snohomish County Infrastructure Coordinating Committee 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Packet Page 20 of 218 AM-4522 Item #: 2. C. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time: 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 January 24, 2012. 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 01-24-12 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 01/31/2012 09:06 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 09:12 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 01/30/2012 04:46 PM Final Approval Date: 01/31/2012 Packet Page 21 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 24, 2012 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 5:45 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:18 p.m. Ms. Chase announced to those present that the executive session would be extended for 15 minutes. The executive session concluded at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:32 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL Packet Page 22 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 2 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #130017 THROUGH #130089 DATED JANUARY 19, 2012 FOR $605,835.57. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51140 THROUGH #51164 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2012 FOR $638,360.50. C. ORDINANCE NO. 3870 – EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CODE AMENDMENT. 4. REPORT ON REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY Millie Judge, Fire District 1 (FD1) Commissioner, introduced Brad Reading, Assistant Fire Chief, FD1. Commissioner Judge explained the purpose of this presentation was a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) 101. All the participating jurisdictions have been asked to review this presentation to assist Councilmembers and the public in understanding the process of creating an RFA, why create an RFA and what an RFA will look like if one is formed. Commissioner Judge explained there are currently nine jurisdictions in south Snohomish County exploring the possibility of creating an RFA. An RFA is a special purpose district created by a vote of the people. The vision statement is: The RFA Planning Committee will create a plan to deliver the highest quality fire protection and emergency medical services to the communities of south Snohomish County in the most efficient and effective manner. The vision statement focuses on better effective service, maintaining and enhancing existing services levels and looking for efficiencies. The following cities are currently participating in the Planning Committee: • Brier • Edmonds • Lynnwood • Mill Creek • Mountlake Terrace • Mukilteo • Woodway • Snohomish County Fire District 1 • Snohomish County Fire District 7 Commissioner Judge identified the boundaries of the nine jurisdictions participating in the RFA Planning Committee, commenting if all nine jurisdictions form an RFA it will be one of the largest fire departments in the state, spanning 115 square miles and serving more than 350,000 residents. Commissioner Judge described how fire service is currently provided in south Snohomish County: • Two city fire departments o Lynnwood Fire Department o Mukilteo Fire Department • Two fire districts o Snohomish County FD1: serving unincorporated areas plus Brier, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and Woodway o Snohomish County FD7: serving unincorporated areas plus the city of Mill Creek # Residents Served Employees Fire Stations Incidents in 2010 Edmonds 39,800 Served by FD1 3 5,174 FD1 228,513 236 12 19,112 Lynnwood 36,160 57 2 6,351 Mukilteo 20,150 29.5 2 1,888 FD7 68,000 113 7 4,773 Packet Page 23 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 3 Under an RFA, the fire departments and districts would be consolidated to form one fire department to serve the region: 352,823 citizens, 115 square miles, 6 cities, 1 township and unincorporated areas of south Snohomish County. Assistant Chief Reading explained in south Snohomish County fire departments and fire districts already have automatic aid agreements to back-up each other on emergency calls. When the public calls 9-1-1, the dispatcher will automatically send the closest firefighters, even if those firefighters might be from a neighboring agency. To the question of why form an RFA, the automatic aid agreements could go away at any time if a City Council or Fire District Board chose. Firefighters from south Snohomish County fire agencies frequently train together and have many common policies and procedures. Agencies also do fire prevention together; investigators assist each other at fire scenes and if necessary, assist with inspections. Fire departments participate in regional teams to provide specialized services that would be cost- prohibitive for each agency to provide on its own such as hazardous materials teams and rescue teams. He concluded the agencies work seamlessly together on many functions. Commissioner Judge reviewed reasons to explore regionalization: • Enhance and sustain service delivery • Remove duplication • Provide economies of scale • Seamless service Commissioner Judge described how an RFA is created: • Process to form an RFA is established by state law • First step: Create the RFA Planning Committee o Done: March 2010. o Comprised of 3 elected officials from each participating jurisdiction • Subcommittees formed to work on finance, level of service and communication • City Council and Fire District Boards decide if they want to put RFA Work Plan on the ballot for a vote of the people • Election occurs, and if voters approve, an RFA is formed Commissioner Judge clarified the majority vote in the region will prevail. Until a City Council or Fire District Board decides to commit to the RFA, the entity is not committed to anything. Key issues being considered by the subcommittees include: • Sustainable service levels for fire, EMS and all hazard response • Staffing and facilities plans • Financing • Collective bargaining agreements • Organization structure and governance • Naming of the new organization Commissioner Judge reviewed the timeline/key dates: • March 2012 Finance and Level of Service Plans adopted by RFA Planning Committee • May 2012 City Councils and Fire District Boards vote on Finance and Level of Service Plans • Nov 2012 Organization chart addressed • Dec 2012 Naming of new organization addressed • Jan 2013 RFA Governance Plan addressed • Feb 2013 RFA Work Plan approved by Planning Committee • March 2013 Collective bargaining agreements addressed Packet Page 24 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 4 • May 2013 City Council and Fire District Boards approve RFA Work Plan and pass ballot resolutions • August 2013 ELECTION • Jan 1 2014 RFA implemented if approved by voters Commissioner Judge clarified the RFA would be a separate taxing entity. To the extent the City has expenses today from its budget for fire service, that would no longer occur. Further information regarding the RFA is available at their website: www.RFA-planning.org. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the item on the timeline, collective bargaining agreements addressed, and asked if the RFA could proceed if the unions were not supportive. Commissioner Judge answered yes; the hope was that a collective bargaining agreement would be in place before subsequent steps take place. She anticipated if there was disagreement in the collective bargaining process, there would be mediation and ultimately arbitration. All indications are that the locals are very supportive of this joint entity due to the long term stability it provides. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the process was concluding sooner than expected. Commissioner Judge answered no; it was anticipated to be a two-year process. It began last year and will conclude in 2013. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there would be a vote of the people in each city/district. Commissioner Judge answered yes. Councilmember Bloom inquired about a majority vote. Commissioner Judge explained a larger group of voters could overrule a small group of voters; that is one of the risks of putting the RFA to a vote. For example if voters in Edmonds voted yes and voters in Lynnwood voted no but Edmonds had more voters and those two entities were the only two voting, Edmonds voters would prevail. The vote is determined by the majority of all citizens in the boundary. Councilmember Plunkett hypothesized Edmonds voters could say no and if there were enough voters in the remainder of the geographical area that said yes, regardless of how Edmonds voted, they would be part of the RFA. Commissioner Judge agreed. The legislation that created the RFA established that policy. Council President Peterson asked if there had been any discussion by the legislature regarding a change to the RFA language. Commissioner Judge answered not this year; last year the legislature established a process for latecomers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the map of the entities participating in the RFA Planning Committee and asked what happened if cities in the middle voted not to participate and cities on opposite sites vote to participate. Commissioner Judge answered it is purely majority rules. Assistant Fire Chief Reading explained if a City Council or Board decided not to continue with the RFA process, their citizens would not vote and would not be part of the RFA and the other entities could continue. Once the RFA goes to the ballot, majority rules. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a city or fire district could get out of the process after the vote. Commissioner Judge answered no, once a City Council/Fire District Board agrees to participate, they are in the RFA and the majority votes decides. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented the Citizens Economic Development Commission (EDC), a group of dedicated, hardworking volunteers, was treated shabbily by a couple Councilmembers at last night’s meeting. Councilmember Plunkett stated he felt the Commission diluted their mission of economic development by spending their time to develop a recommendation for a citizen charge for EMS Packet Page 25 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 5 transportation when EMS personnel are called to a home but find there is no need for transportation. Mr. Wambolt pointed out the EMS proposal took only a minuscule amount of the EDC’s time and virtually all the work on that proposal was done by Commissioner Darrol Haug. Rather than criticizing the EDC, he suggested they be commended for identifying a viable source of revenue that no one else has conceived. He expressed disappointment in Councilmember Buckshnis’ vote to support the unneeded ordinance charges, pointing out that as Council’s representative on the EDC who has attended their meetings, she could have explained the situation at last night’s meeting. He hoped at the retreat the Council will extend the EDC indefinitely similar to other volunteer groups like the Highway 99 Task Force and Citizen Technology Advisory Committee as there likely will always be a need for economic development. 6. CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION – EDMONDS STRATEGIC PLAN & VISIONING RETREAT #2 In addition to the City Council and staff listed above, the following were present for this item: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS Paul Anderson Bruce Faires Don Hall Darrol Haug Beatrice O’Rourke Evan Pierce Kerry St. Clair Ayers Bruce Witenberg Marianne Zagorski PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John Reed (Vice Chair) Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart Todd Cloutier Mayor Earling recognized Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz for their efforts on the Strategic Plan. Mr. Clifton welcomed everyone to the Strategic Planning and Visioning Retreat #2. He explained the City Council, with the assistance of the EDC and Planning Board, initiated a process last year to develop a strategic plan and vision for the city. With the help of community input, the strategic plan will identify short and mid-term community based priorities, goals and objectives, in addition to outlining specific methods to achieve them. A plan adopted by the City Council will also identify performance measures to ensure that the strategic plan’s goals will be realized and identify those who will be responsible for implementing the plan. An adopted plan can also be used as a decision making tool by the City Council for focusing financial resources on key priorities. Mr. Clifton recalled in fall 2011 City staff requested the overall timeline be adjusted in order to create a more effective process that would take place after the November, 2011 elections, completion of the 2012 budget process, the holidays, and to more fully involve newly elected officials. As such, the October, 2011 Retreat #2 was rescheduled to tonight. Mr. Clifton provided an overview of what has taken place between Retreat #1 and tonight’s Retreat #2. Public opinions and priorities are an important part of the strategic planning process. Consequently, the process calls for the consultant team to conduct a series of interviews and surveys to obtain the opinions of citizens, business owners, employees, retail customers, young adults, and government officials. These surveys/interviews provide opportunities for the public to contribute ideas and share their priorities, thus helping influence the City’s future accordingly. The following has occurred to date: Packet Page 26 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 6 1. Tom Beckwith and Steve Price, Beckwith Consulting Group, have conducted one-on-one interviews with the City’s last and current mayors, six current City Councilmembers, and with each Department Director. 2. On December 5, 2011, the City launched Strategic Planning and Visioning Surveys. Links to internet based surveys have been posted on the front page of the City’s website, EdmondsWA.gov, and include adult, youth and employee surveys. Customer surveys have been provided for businesses to hand out and the customer survey is also posted on the City website. In order to notify or inform the public that surveys are available, a press release was issued in December, a notice aired on the City’s government channel, images or links were posted on the front pages of on-line newspapers such as MyEdmondsNews, EdmondsPatch, EdmondsKomo4News, and EdmondsBeacon, and lastly, the City sent out thousands of e-mails to City residents. As of today, the number of people who have taken the resident adult survey is up to 419, up from 390 yesterday. Surveys are still underway and adults, young adults, employees and customers are encouraged to take the surveys. 3. Hard copy business surveys were inserted in over 1,800 business license renewal notices mailed in December, 2011. The survey letter included an invitation for all employees to take an internet employee survey. 4. Eighteen stakeholder focus group meetings were also scheduled for last week. Only a few were held due to snow and most have been rescheduled to January 30, February 1, 2 and 3. Examples of focus groups include the Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, arts groups, young adults and education, environment, businesses, transportation, individuals, etc. Mr. Clifton introduced Tom Beckwith, Eric Hovee and Steve Price, Beckwith Consulting Group, to present information for Retreat #2. Mr. Beckwith provided an overview of data to be presented: • Results of 2010 Census data on demographics • Result of American Community Survey (ACS) – statistical sampling done by the Census Bureau which includes more detailed economic and demographic data than what is currently available from the 2010 Census • ESRI data compiled from Census, retail sales, and geographical distribution • Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Economic and Demographic long range projections 1970- 2040 • Startup Strategic Plan public outreach activities – early returns • Future Strategic Plan public outreach activities The next retreat will include the remainder of the survey data as well as significant information on financial data. EDMONDS US CENSUS 2010 Mr. Beckwith displayed and reviewed a chart of population age group distribution: 2010 US compared to Edmonds. He also provided percentages from the 2010 Census: United States Washington Puget Sound Snohomish County Edmonds Households in families 66% 64% 63% 68% 62% Non-family households 34% 41% 37% 32% 38% Married Couples 73% 76% 76% 77% 79% Median Age 37.2 37.3 37 37.1 46.3 Average household size 2.58 2.51 2.49 2.62 2.26 Owner occupied units 65% 64% 62% 67% 69% Packet Page 27 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 7 EDMONDS AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICE 2005-2009 Mr. Beckwith explained instead of doing a full count every five years, the ACS does an annual statistical sample. The following data is a combination of samples done in years 2005-2009: United States Washington Puget Sound Snohomish County Edmonds Civilian employees in civilian labor force 60% 61% 64% 65% 64% Employed in services 79% 79% 80% 74% 83% Mean travel time to work (in minutes) 25.2 25.4 27.8 29.8 28.2 No vehicles available to household 6% 7% 5% 4% Resided in same house 1 year ago 84% 81% 81% 82% 85% Percent in detached single family units 62% 63% 60% 63% 60% Owner occupied 67% 65% 63% 68% 70% Median house value $185,400 $277,600 $348,287 $330,400 $411,100 Renter occupied housing units 33% 35% 37% 32% 30% Median rent $817 $853 $939 $960 $905 Workers – private wage and salary 79% 77% 79% 81% 77% Workers self-employed in own business 7% 7% 6% 6% 8% Median family income $62,363 $68,457 $78,670 $75,955 $89,601 Median per capita income $27,041 $29,320 $33,559 $30,483 $43,049 Percent of population in poverty 13.5% 11.8% 9.8% 8.2% 6.3% Total families in poverty in 1999 9.9% 7.9% 6.3% 5.6% 2.9% Language other than English 20% 17% 18% 16% 12% Hispanic or Latino of any race 15% 10% 7% 7% 4% EDMONDS ESRI 2005-2015 Mr. Hovee explained ESRI is a geographic information systems (GIS) company and one of two national data firms that do self-data on a proprietary basis. One of the advantages they have, especially with the delay in Census data, is they provide annual estimates and will also customize it to different geography, and provide some estimates such as retail sales, etc. Mr. Beckwith reviewed the following data : Edmonds Puget Sound Washington Educational Attainment 2010 Graduate/Professional degree 14.3% 12.5% 10.9% Bachelor’s Degree 26.4% 23.2% 19.8% HS graduate through associate degree 54.2% 55.6% 58.5% No HS diploma 5.1% 8.6% 10.7% Employment by occupation Blue Collar 14.0% 17.3% 19.5% Services 13.2% 16.4% 17.7% Packet Page 28 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 8 White Collar 72.8% 66.3% 62.8% Employment by Industry (2010) Public Administration 3.2% 4.4% 5.2% Services 51.8% 50.1% 49.9% Finances/Insurance/Real Estate 9.5% 6.9% 6.0% Information 2.8% 3.5% 2% Transportation/Utilities 3.9% 5.0% 4.9% Retail Trade 11.2% 10.5% 10.3% Wholesale Trade 3.0% 3.3% 3.3% Manufacturing 6.8% 9.4% 8.6% Construction 6.7% 6.5% 6.6% Agriculture/Mining 0% 0% 2.0% Median household income percent change (2000-2010) 25% 33% 32% Median home value percent change (2000-2010) 64% 61% 62% Mr. Beckwith described how the retail sales leakage figures are determined by ESRI; ESRI compares the income profile within the community to larger areas such as the State, Seattle metropolitan area or Puget Sound and develops an expenditure profile to fit that income. Leakage is determined by comparing that to sales tax data recorded by Washington State Department of Revenue. Mr. Beckwith reviewed Edmonds retail sales and leakage (2010) and leakage by Edmonds industry subsectors with regard to dining, nonstore retailers, miscellaneous, general merchandise, sporting goods/books/music, apparel, gasoline, health and personal care, grocery, building and supply, electronics/appliance, home furnishings, motor vehicles and parts. Mr. Beckwith explained one of the questions for the future will be whether some of this leakage can be recaptured and if so how much, in what categories and is it worth it. Some of the areas may not be options given the developed character of Edmonds. PSRC ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST 1970-2040 Mr. Beckwith reviewed PSRC forecasts for 1970 – 2040 with regard to the following, pointing out these are pre-recession forecasts: • Puget Sound household population • Puget Sound average household size • Puget Sound percentage of population age 0-4 • Puget Sound population over age 65+ • Population per employee • Percent of housing multifamily • Employment by base and service sectors • Government employment as percentage of total employment STARTUP STRATEGIC PLAN PUBLIC OUTREACH ACTIVITIES – EARLY RETURNS Mr. Beckwith explained initial outreach events include focus groups, business surveys, employee surveys, customer surveys, adult resident internet surveys and young adult resident internet survey. He reviewed the early results of the adult resident internet survey with regard to the following questions: • How would you rate Edmonds city governance? • How would you rate existing employment conditions in Edmonds? • How would you rate existing safety and security measures in Edmonds? • How would you rate existing educational services and opportunities in the local Edmonds area? Packet Page 29 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 9 • How would you rate transportation conditions, facilities and services in Edmonds? • How would you rate housing market options in Edmonds? • How would you rate existing park neighborhood recreational facilities and opportunities in Edmonds? • How would you rate existing arts and cultural programs in Edmonds? • How would you rate existing special events in Edmonds? • How would you rate existing design conditions and appearances in Edmonds? • How would you rate the level of existing development in Edmonds? • How would you rate existing sustainability conditions in Edmonds? • Rate the short term priorities for Edmonds (list provided). • How important is it to attract types of households (list provided) to live in Edmonds? • How would you rate maintenance conditions (list provided) overall in Edmonds? • To what extend do sources (list provided) provide you information about the City government? FUTURE STRATEGIC PLAN PUBLIC OUTREACH ACTIVITIES Mr. Beckwith explained at Retreat #3, before the charrette/brainstorming session, the remainder of the survey results will be provided as well as financial trends emerging in other cities. He encouraged everyone to attend Retreat #3 as it will include a more interactive discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how people were prevented from taking the survey multiple times. Mr. Beckwith answered in their experience it takes a dedicated person to take the survey more than once because of length. A survey instrument identifies the location where the survey was completed. It is rare in a comprehensive survey for someone to take it more than once. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how individuals who do not use a computer could take the survey. Mr. Beckwith answered there were hard copies available at the library, Francis Anderson Center, etc. Customer surveys are available via a handout as well as on the internet. Mr. Clifton suggested anyone interested in completing a hardcopy survey call 771-0220, ask for Community Services Department and staff will mail them a hardcopy of the survey. Mr. Beckwith emphasized that although they presented early survey return results tonight, surveying will continue until they are no longer receiving responses. Commissioner St. Clair-Aires observed the PSRC data for households in poverty was from 1999. Mr. Beckwith answered that data is only collected every 10 years; the data from the 2010 census is not yet available. Commissioner Zagorski asked when the consultant will begin using the data to develop conclusions and determine an action plan. Mr. Beckwith answered the data begins to identify topics. Those topics will be presented at the charrette. Attendees at retreats that follow the charrette will be involved in developing a plan. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether stakeholder focus groups were open to the public. Mr. Beckwith answered some focus group have 6-8, some have 12-15 or more participants. Anyone can observe; in order to have enough time, only those who are invited can participate. There are two focus groups entitled individuals; he encouraged anyone interested in attending to contact Ms. Cruz. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether legislators, administrators or the mayor were discouraged from attending focus groups as participants may not speak as freely. Mr. Beckwith answered it can be more informative for elected officials to observe rather than participate including at the charrette. Packet Page 30 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 24, 2012 Page 10 Mr. Clifton reminded Retreat #3 is scheduled for February 28 at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. During the City Council’s retreat on February 2 at 11:30 a.m., Mike Bailey, Finance Director, Redmond, will speak on Redmond’s use of budgeting by priorities/budgeting for outcomes for the past 3-4 years. Mr. Clifton thanked the citizens, Councilmembers, Planning Board Members and Economic Development Commissioners who attended and encouraged them to continue to participate in the process. He encouraged residents, customers, businesses and employees to take the surveys. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Packet Page 31 of 218 AM-4534 Item #: 2. D. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:Consent Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #130090 through #130232 dated January 26, 2012 for $228,462.56, replacement claim checks #130233 through #130234 dated January 27, 2012 for $561.00, and claim checks #130235 through #130331 dated February 2, 2012 for $1,520,676.53. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #51165 through #51191 for the period January 16, 2012 through January 31, 2012 for $645,989.02. 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:2012 Revenue: Expenditure:2,395,128.11 Fiscal Impact: Claims $1,749,139.09 Payroll $645,989.09 Replacement claim checks $561.00 Attachments claim cks 1-26-12 claim cks 02-02-12 replacement cks 1-27-12 Project Numbers 2-2-12 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 32 of 218 Finance Shawn Hunstock 02/02/2012 09:45 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/02/2012 09:49 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/03/2012 08:34 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/03/2012 08:36 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/02/2012 08:29 AM Final Approval Date: 02/03/2012 Packet Page 33 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130090 1/26/2012 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC CI112003476 POLE FIBERGLASS POLE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 95.97 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.99 Total :107.96 130091 1/26/2012 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 36145 86658 FILTER ASSEMBLY/FLOAT DRAIN/ORING KIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 818.80 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 24.75 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 80.14 8668836160 SERVICE CALL ON AIR SYSTEM 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 180.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 17.10 Total :1,120.79 130092 1/26/2012 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101690527 M5Z34 CAL GAS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 27.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.61 M5Z34101700267 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 96.93 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 9.21 Total :136.25 130093 1/26/2012 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001421840 3-0197-0807770 RECYCLE ROLLOFF 1Page: Packet Page 34 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130093 1/26/2012 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 10.64 Total :10.64 130094 1/26/2012 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 14736 PLATES FOR FIR TREE MEMORIALS SMALL PLATES FOR FIR TREE MEMORIALS 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 77.70 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 7.38 Total :85.08 130095 1/26/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-5968849 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 UNIFORM SERVICES655-5980771 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 :63.10 130096 1/26/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-5968850 FACILITIES UNIFORM SERVICES FACILITIES UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86 PUBLIC WORKS MATS655-5973414 PUBLIC WORKS MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01 PUBLIC WORKS MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS MATS 2Page: Packet Page 35 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130096 1/26/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SERVICES655-5973415 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SERVICES 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SERVICES 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47 FLEET UNIFORM SERVICES655-5973416 FLEET UNIFORM SERVICES 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95 FACILITIES UNIFORMS655-5980772 FACILITIES UNIFORMS 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07 3Page: Packet Page 36 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130096 1/26/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86 PUBLIC WORKS MATS655-5985286 PUBLIC WORKS LOBBY MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01 PUBLIC WORKS LOBBY MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS LOBBY MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS LOBBY MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS LOBBY MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 PUBLIC WORKS LOBBY MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS655-5985287 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48 4Page: Packet Page 37 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130096 1/26/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47 FLEET UNIFORMS655-5985288 FLEET UNIFORMS 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 11.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.09 Total :155.54 130097 1/26/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-5956610 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 70.04 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.65 Total :76.69 130098 1/26/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0259534-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 4,406.74 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 418.64 Total :4,825.38 130099 1/26/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0259609-IN Fleet - Premium - 10,002 Gal Fleet - Premium - 10,002 Gal 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 28,451.69 St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 3,976.89 WA State Svc Fees 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 4.75 Total :32,483.33 130100 1/26/2012 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 Public Works Fax Lines 5Page: Packet Page 38 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130100 1/26/2012 (Continued)064343 AT&T Public Works Fax Lines 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.13 Public Works Fax Lines 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 8.09 Public Works Fax Lines 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 8.09 Public Works Fax Lines 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 8.09 Public Works Fax Lines 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 8.09 Public Works Fax Lines 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 8.08 Total :42.57 130101 1/26/2012 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 78089 City Hall -Change names on City Hall City Hall -Change names on City Hall 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 216.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 20.52 Total :236.52 130102 1/26/2012 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 63096 UTILITY BILLING (CYCLE 500) UTILITY BILLING (CYCLE 500) 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 37.18 UTILITY BILLING (CYCLE 500) 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 37.18 POSTAGE (CYCLE 500) 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 120.29 POSTAGE (CYCLE 500) 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 120.29 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.53 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.53 9.5% Sales Tax 6Page: Packet Page 39 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130102 1/26/2012 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.54 UTILITY BILLING (CYCLE 500) 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 37.19 Total :362.73 130103 1/26/2012 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2011-160 INV 2011-160 EDMONDS PD 01-16-12 PRE EMPLOY SCREENING 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00 INV 2011-162 EDMONDS PD2011-162 PRE-EMPLOY SCREEN 01-23-12 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00 Total :300.00 130104 1/26/2012 002170 BARTON, RONALD 5 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,285.60 Total :1,285.60 130105 1/26/2012 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0004311 11-10255.00 C-367 OUTFALL DIFFUSER PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.410.10 8,196.50 Total :8,196.50 130106 1/26/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 907950 INV 907950 PAULSON JACKET PATROL JACKET W/FLEECE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 395.00 NAMETAGS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 38.47 INV 916364 EDMONDS PD - SPEER916364 WOOL UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 108.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.31 7Page: Packet Page 40 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130106 1/26/2012 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP INV 916512 EDMONDS PD - ROSSI916512 L/S BDU SHIRT 001.000.410.521.210.240.00 29.95 "POLICE" THERMAL LETTERING 001.000.410.521.210.240.00 6.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.240.00 3.42 Total :601.55 130107 1/26/2012 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 19609 ADVERTISEMENT INSTRUMENT TECH POSITION ADVERTISEMENT INSTRUMENT TECH POSITION 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 200.00 Total :200.00 130108 1/26/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11582249 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 23.75 Total :273.74 130109 1/26/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11582250 COPIER LEASE RECREATION OFFICE COPIER MACHINE LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 273.74 COPIER LEASE11582254 COPER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 30.65 Total :304.39 130110 1/26/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11582244 3RD FLOOR COPIER RENTAL January contract charge 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 9.35 January contract charge 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 9.33 January contract charge 8Page: Packet Page 41 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130110 1/26/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 9.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.88 Total :30.65 130111 1/26/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11582248 LEASE CLERK'S OFFICE COPIER Lease City Clerk's copier 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 44.36 RECEIPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE11582251 Recpt desk copier lease 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 20.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.91 Total :533.35 130112 1/26/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11582243 Lease Council Office/Printer-Copier Lease Council Office/Printer-Copier 001.000.110.511.100.450.00 30.65 Total :30.65 130113 1/26/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11582252 Planning Copier Printer Lease Planning Copier Printer Lease 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 36.16 Lease-Bld Div Printer/copier11582253 Lease-Bld Div Printer/copier 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 36.16 Total :72.32 130114 1/26/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11582247 INV 11582247 CUST 572105 EDMONDS PD 9Page: Packet Page 42 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130114 1/26/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES MACHINE USEAGE THRU 12/31/11 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 205.94 RENTAL 4 COPIERS 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 74.82 Total :862.36 130115 1/26/2012 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 332B TELEMETRY TELEMETRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 138.52 Total :138.52 130116 1/26/2012 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT14869 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #14869 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.40 Total :67.40 130117 1/26/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9107 LYNNDALE SKATE PARK EDMONDS CONTRIBUTION FOR MAINTENANCE 001.000.640.576.800.510.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 130118 1/26/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9106 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATION SEWER COSTS MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS 411.000.655.535.800.472.00 27,602.00 Total :27,602.00 130119 1/26/2012 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE79246201 PS - Elect Strike PS - Elect Strike 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 206.80 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.49 10Page: Packet Page 43 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :236.16130119 1/26/2012 073573 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 130120 1/26/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2391118 Fac Maint - Disinfectant, Floor Finish, Fac Maint - Disinfectant, Floor Finish, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 365.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 34.75 Fac Maint - Floor Finish, Liners,BrushW2391118-1 Fac Maint - Floor Finish, Liners,Brush 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 101.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.69 Fac Maint - LinersW2391118-2 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.27 Fac Maint - Liners 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 97.55 Fac Maint - Cleaner, Ice Melt, TT,W2392982 Fac Maint - Cleaner, Ice Melt, TT, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 272.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.85 Total :916.93 130121 1/26/2012 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC JAN-12 C/A CITYOFED00001 Jan-12 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20 Total :916.20 130122 1/26/2012 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8553587 EMERGENCY PAGER PAGERS-WW 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.30 Total :4.25 11Page: Packet Page 44 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130123 1/26/2012 073371 DENALI ADVANCED INTEGRATION 0161311-IN VEHICLE MOUNT PORT REPLICATOR Vehicle mount port replicator - Qty 4 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 1,744.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 165.68 Total :1,909.68 130124 1/26/2012 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 132820 FAC - Annual Fees FAC - Annual Fees 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 120.20 Library - Annual Fees 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 109.40 Museum - Annual Fees 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 109.40 City Hall - Annual Fees132824 City Hall - Annual Fees 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 131.00 PW - Annual Fees132825 PW - Annual Fees 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 109.40 Total :579.40 130125 1/26/2012 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 12/22/11-01/25/12 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSE State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 612.00 Total :612.00 130126 1/26/2012 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1037784 MILLTOWN PROJECT SUPPLIES LUMBER FOR MILLTOWN PROJECT 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 69.50 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 6.61 Total :76.11 130127 1/26/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 42862 2005 SPARK PLUG/STARTER FLUID 12Page: Packet Page 45 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130127 1/26/2012 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.88 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.84 Total :9.72 130128 1/26/2012 073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP 4th Quarter 2011 FAC - Solar Elect System Production FAC - Solar Elect System Production 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 32.45 Total :32.45 130129 1/26/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 16113 75TH PL W 16113 75TH PL W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 60.19 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57 470 ADMIRAL WAY6-00025 470 ADMIRAL WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 113.86 200 W DAYTON ST6-00200 200 W DAYTON ST 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 249.02 100 RAILROAD AVE6-00410 100 RAILROAD AVE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 230.30 131 SUNSET AVE6-00475 131 SUNSET AVE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 496.92 600 3RD AVE S6-01250 600 3RD AVE S 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 111.32 600 3RD AVE S6-01275 600 3RD AVE S 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 842.16 610 PINE ST6-02125 13Page: Packet Page 46 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130129 1/26/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 610 PINE ST 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 192.75 310 6TH AVE N6-02727 310 6TH AVE N 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 169.72 300 6TH AVE N6-02730 300 6TH AVE N 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 169.72 716 MAIN ST6-02900 716 MAIN ST 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 169.72 300 6TH AVE N6-03000 300 6TH AVE N 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 323.36 1000 EDMONDS ST6-03275 1000 EDMONDS ST 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 111.32 19800 MAPLEWOOD DR6-03575 19800 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 202.30 18500 82ND AVE W6-04400 18500 82ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 169.72 8100 185TH PL SW6-04425 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 344.82 19020 82ND AVE W6-04450 19020 82ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 248.96 24100 78TH PL W6-07775 24100 78TH PL W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 216.94 9537 BOWDOIN WAY6-08500 9537 BOWDOIN WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 808.46 14Page: Packet Page 47 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130129 1/26/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 9535 BOWDOIN WAY6-08525 9535 BOWDOIN WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 182.18 Total :5,443.31 130130 1/26/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 6807 157TH PL SW (LS11) 6807 157TH PL SW (LS11) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.11 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 252.28 16100 75TH AVE W (LS12)3-07525 16100 75TH AVE W (LS12) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.19 7701 168TH ST SW (LS15)3-07709 7701 168TH ST SW (LS15) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57 8313 TALBOT RD (LS4)3-09350 8313 TALBOT RD (LS4) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.19 17612 TALBOT RD (LS10)3-09800 17612 TALBOT RD (LS10) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57 8001 SIERRA DR (LS9)3-29875 8001 SIERRA DR (LS9) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX6-02735 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,383.44 275 6TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX6-02736 275 6TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65 275 6TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX6-02737 275 6TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 225.06 15Page: Packet Page 48 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130130 1/26/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION6-02738 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 169.72 650 MAIN ST (LIBRARY &SPRINKLER6-02825 650 MAIN ST (LIBRARY &SPRINKLER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,141.29 700 MAIN ST (FAC FIRE DETECTOR6-02875 700 MAIN ST (FAC FIRE DETECTOR 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 25.63 700 MAIN ST (FAC)6-02925 700 MAIN ST (FAC) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,289.36 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16)6-04127 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 607.13 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16/SPRINKLER6-04128 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16/SPRINKLER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65 7110 210TH ST SW (PW/OMC)6-05155 7110 210TH ST SW (PW/OMC) 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 112.98 7110 210TH ST SW (PW/OMC) 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 429.29 7110 210TH ST SW (PW/OMC) 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 429.29 7110 210TH ST SW (PW/OMC) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 429.29 7110 210TH ST SW (PW/OMC) 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 429.29 7110 210TH ST SW (PW/OMC) 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 429.27 7110 210TH ST SW (OMC/SPRINKLER6-05156 7110 210TH ST SW (OMC/SPRINKLER 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 1.83 16Page: Packet Page 49 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130130 1/26/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 7110 210TH ST SW (OMC/SPRINKLER 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 6.95 7110 210TH ST SW (OMC/SPRINKLER 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 6.95 7110 210TH ST SW (OMC/SPRINKLER 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 6.95 7110 210TH ST SW (OMC/SPRINKLER 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 6.95 7110 210TH ST SW (OMC/SPRINKLER 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 6.94 Total :7,660.39 130131 1/26/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 111.32 WWTP WATER6-01130 WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 25.63 WWTP WATER6-01140 WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 1,018.71 Total :1,155.66 130132 1/26/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 072351 COPIER LEASE PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 7.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 0.73 Total :8.39 130133 1/26/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 072630 METER READING Recp.desk copier 9/21 to 10/21 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 19.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.85 17Page: Packet Page 50 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :21.33130133 1/26/2012 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 130134 1/26/2012 073908 ENVIROCOATING INNOVATIONS INC,DBA RHINO LININGS3706 Unit 16 - Spray in bedlining Unit 16 - Spray in bedlining 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 425.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 40.37 Total :465.37 130135 1/26/2012 073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA 20326 2012 Annual Mbr Dues 2012 Annual Mbr Dues 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 600.00 Total :600.00 130136 1/26/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU24913 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.52 Total :6.01 130137 1/26/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU24844 Library - Supplies Library - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 53.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.12 Total :59.02 130138 1/26/2012 009880 FEDEX 7-707-48705 Fed Ex services -Court legal document Fed Ex services -Court legal document 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 56.89 Total :56.89 130139 1/26/2012 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0321361 Hyd - 4 1/2' Hyd Hyd - 4 1/2' Hyd 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,057.98 Hyd - 4 1/2' Hyd 18Page: Packet Page 51 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130139 1/26/2012 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 2,057.98 Hyd- 5' Hyd's 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,104.72 Hyd- 5' Hyd's 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 2,104.72 Hyd - 4" Stortzs 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 612.69 Hyd - 4" Stortzs 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 204.23 Megalugs 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 424.14 Megalugs 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 141.38 Valve Box Bottoms - Non Inventory 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 321.36 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 493.96 9.5% Sales Tax 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 428.30 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 30.52 Main St Proj - Stortz adaptors0322759-1 Main St Proj - Stortz adaptors 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 220.34 Main St Proj - Stortz adaptors 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 220.34 9.5% Sales Tax 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 20.94 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.92 Hyd - Mega Lugs0324701 Hyd - Mega Lugs 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 416.16 9.5% Sales Tax 19Page: Packet Page 52 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130139 1/26/2012 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 39.54 Return StortzCM081342 Return Stortz 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -612.70 Return Stortz 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 -204.23 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -58.20 9.5% Sales Tax 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 -19.40 Mega Lugs ReturnedCM081682 Mega Lugs Returned 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -424.14 Mega Lugs Returned 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 -141.38 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -40.29 9.5% Sales Tax 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 -13.43 Svc ChargesSC19443 Svc Charges 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 222.87 Svc FeesSC19702 Svc Fees 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 168.04 Total :10,797.36 130140 1/26/2012 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 FEB-12 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Feb- 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total :300.00 130141 1/26/2012 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 8 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 44.67 20Page: Packet Page 53 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130141 1/26/2012 (Continued)010660 FOSTER, MARLO LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 6,810.00 Total :6,854.67 130142 1/26/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER STATION PHONE @ BEACH RANGER STATION 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 54.76 YOST POOL PHONE CHARGES425-775-2645 PHONE CHARGES - YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.420.00 59.86 Total :114.62 130143 1/26/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-197-0932 TELEMETRY WATER &LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY WATER &LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 261.87 TELEMETRY WATER &LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 261.87 TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.15 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.14 PW FIRE ALARM, FAX, 2 MISC LINEA425-712-8251 PW FIRE ALARM, FAX, 2 MISC LINES 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.20 PW FIRE ALARM, FAX, 2 MISC LINES 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.03 PW FIRE ALARM, FAX, 2 MISC LINES 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 59.67 PW FIRE ALARM, FAX, 2 MISC LINES 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.67 PW FIRE ALARM, FAX, 2 MISC LINES 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 79.55 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE (FIRE ALARM425-745-4313 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE (FIRE ALARM 21Page: Packet Page 54 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130143 1/26/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.49 SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031 SEWER - PW TELEMETRY 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.93 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX FIRE ALARM425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.60 RADIO LINE BETWEEN PUBLIC WORKS425-775-7865 RADIO LINE BETWEEN PUBLIC WORKS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 54.12 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 41.96 LS 7425-776-2742 LS 7 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE ALARM425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 112.00 1ST &PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530 1ST &PINE CIRCUIT LINE FOR PT EDWARDS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.75 PUBLIC WORKS CONNECTION TO 911425-RTO-9133 PUBLIC WORKS CONNECTION TO 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 PUBLIC WORKS CONNECTION TO 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS CONNECTION TO 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS CONNECTION TO 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS CONNECTION TO 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS CONNECTION TO 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 22Page: Packet Page 55 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,445.06130143 1/26/2012 011900 011900 FRONTIER 130144 1/26/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07 AFTER HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 57.02 Total :57.02 130145 1/26/2012 068265 FRONTIER ONLINE 0104850035518 BROADBAND FOR WATER BROADBAND FOR WATER 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 81.49 Total :81.49 130146 1/26/2012 011480 GAYDOS, KEN GAYDOS 1-12-12 REIMBURSEMENT FOR ICPC CONFERENCE ICPC REGIONAL CONF REGISTRATION 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 150.00 FOOD/LODGING 01/09-01/11/12 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 198.00 FUEL FOR 447 MILE TRIP TO CANNON BEACH 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 54.34 Total :402.34 130147 1/26/2012 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 103956 Unit 535 - 4 Tires Unit 535 - 4 Tires 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 278.80 Fleet Inventory - 20 Tires 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 2,009.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 190.93 Total :2,506.02 130148 1/26/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9727546294 MILLTOWN PROJECT SUPPLIES POWER OUTLETS FOR MILLTOWN PROJECT 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 360.50 9.5% Sales Tax 23Page: Packet Page 56 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130148 1/26/2012 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 34.24 MILLTOWN PROJECT SUPPLIES9727661192 SUPPLIES FOR MILLTOWN PROJECT 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 134.46 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 12.78 SUPPLIES9731736451 EAR MUFFS, EAR PLUGS, DUCT,ETC 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 172.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.43 Total :731.31 130149 1/26/2012 012560 HACH COMPANY 7563186 112830 WIMS BASIC SUPPORT & MAINT. 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 2,844.00 Total :2,844.00 130150 1/26/2012 013007 HASNER, EZRA J 7 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,512.93 Total :1,512.93 130151 1/26/2012 064721 HATZENBUHLER, HAROLD 3 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 1,353.30 Total :1,353.30 130152 1/26/2012 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC C265983 Returns Ball Stops Returns Ball Stops 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -189.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -18.05 Water Inventory - w-mtrlid-02-040I3027359 Water Inventory - w-mtrlid-02-040 24Page: Packet Page 57 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130152 1/26/2012 (Continued)010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 318.14 Water Supplies -Quick Joint Adapters 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,700.69 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 30.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 256.56 Water Supplies - Ball Valves, MeterI3039284 Water Supplies - Ball Valves, Meter 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 826.39 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 78.51 Water Inventory - W-CPLGCI-10-020I3063262 Water Inventory - W-CPLGCI-10-020 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 137.42 Water Supplies - Valve Boxes,sleeves 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4,585.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 13.06 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 435.65 Water Inventory - W-VALVBR-02-020I3063263 Water Inventory - W-VALVBR-02-020 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 334.48 Water Supplies - Brass Bushings 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 68.42 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 31.78 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.50 Total :9,615.62 130153 1/26/2012 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1-17-12 MCINTYRE, EDMONDS 1-17-12 DIVE TEAM PHYSICAL - MCINTYRE 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 335.00 25Page: Packet Page 58 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :335.00130153 1/26/2012 069332 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 130154 1/26/2012 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 4 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,182.00 Total :1,182.00 130155 1/26/2012 013315 HIATT, CHUCK 2012 BOOTS Street - 2012 Boot Allowance -C Hiatt Street - 2012 Boot Allowance -C Hiatt 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 186.00 Total :186.00 130156 1/26/2012 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 9 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 19.00 Total :19.00 130157 1/26/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 4011150 0205 TEES, ELS, BUSHINGS, ADAPTER, 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 35.68 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 3.07 02054032867 WASHERS, ETC. 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 63.42 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 6.02 02054072261 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.10 02055032730 PVC CEMENT, PRIMER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.67 9.5% Sales Tax 26Page: Packet Page 59 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130157 1/26/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.96 02056264285 TOTES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.12 02057030037 ELLS, ADAPTERS, BUSHINGS,ETC 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 49.71 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 4.72 02058034081 CEMETERY SUPPLIES 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 33.24 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.16 02058043486 CEDAR SHIMS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.88 02059033705 ELBOWS, TEES, COUPLINGS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.89 02059033719 CLAMPS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.38 Total :375.79 130158 1/26/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2045089 6035322500959949 MAP PRO/SEAL 27Page: Packet Page 60 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130158 1/26/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 73.56 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.99 60353225009599493090588 SOIL SWEET/POLY SHEET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 395.44 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.57 Total :513.56 130159 1/26/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1040763 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 49.93 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.74 FAC - Door Stops2083157 FAC - Door Stops 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.04 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies2263601 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 49.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.69 PW - Supplies3044810 PW - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 138.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.20 Wade James - Supplies3044835 Wade James - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.72 28Page: Packet Page 61 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130159 1/26/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FAC - Supplies3080257 FAC - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.77 Wade James - Supplies4035021 Wade James - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.07 FAC - Supplies4035025 FAC - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.12 Library - Gutter Supplies4041624 Library - Gutter Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 100.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.54 Wade James - Gutter Supplies4044669 Wade James - Gutter Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 85.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.16 Council Chamber Signs Stain Supplies4044675 Council Chamber Signs Stain Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.44 Shop Supplies43575 Shop Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 135.31 Shop Vac Acc 29Page: Packet Page 62 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130159 1/26/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 56.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 5.41 PS - Supplies5030492 PS - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.22 FAC - Door Stop5030574 FAC - Door Stop 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.52 Storm - Flashlights5092087 Storm - Flashlights 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 29.82 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 2.83 FAC Restrooms - Supplies5263446 FAC Restrooms - Supplies 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 62.74 Rm 304 - Paint 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.91 Yost - Moss Roof 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 52.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 5.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.66 Grand Stands - Supplies6096280 Grand Stands - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.20 30Page: Packet Page 63 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130159 1/26/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.35 Parks - Supplies6263362 Parks - Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 49.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.72 Shop - Supplies6283819 Shop - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.32 Fac Maint - Supplies7040043 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.99 Sewer - Supplies7091684 Sewer - Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.24 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.50 Sewer LS 17 - Supplies8036000 Sewer LS 17 - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 63.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.06 FAC - Sealent8045759 FAC - Sealent 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.21 FAC Rm 304 - Primer8045826 FAC Rm 304 - Primer 31Page: Packet Page 64 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130159 1/26/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.13 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Truck Tools9035792 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Truck Tools 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 89.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 8.53 Shop - Sheet Sander9043779 Shop - Sheet Sander 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 49.97 Shop - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 80.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 4.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.67 PW - Mens Rm Supplies9045590 PW - Mens Rm Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.08 Street - Hose for Sweeper Cleanout9077533 Street - Hose for Sweeper Cleanout 111.000.653.542.710.350.00 27.97 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.350.00 2.66 Total :1,462.75 130160 1/26/2012 073911 HOMICIDETRAINING.COM YAMANE 3-26-12 YAMANE EDMONDS PD 3-26-12 DEATH INV CLAS 3-26-12 DEATH &HOMICIDE INV CLASS 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 195.00 Total :195.00 130161 1/26/2012 070042 IKON 86185838 COPIER LEASE 32Page: Packet Page 65 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130161 1/26/2012 (Continued)070042 IKON PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE AGREEMENT 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 23.00 Total :23.00 130162 1/26/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2012187 226961 TRIPOD EASEL/CEM RIBBON/LAMINATING 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 950.85 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 90.33 Total :1,041.18 130163 1/26/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2014761 Misc.office supplies including Smead Misc.office supplies including Smead 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 384.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 36.50 Total :420.88 130164 1/26/2012 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 9220188 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,913.26 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 1.63 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 1.70 Total :1,916.59 130165 1/26/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905799000314 INV 1905799000314 EDMONDS PD 3V LITHIUM CR123A BATTERIES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.68 Total :65.48 130166 1/26/2012 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 534184 54278825 33Page: Packet Page 66 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130166 1/26/2012 (Continued)015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,098.04 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 292.26 Total :3,390.30 130167 1/26/2012 015280 JONES, KENTON 12 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 4,350.77 Total :4,350.77 130168 1/26/2012 073892 KIM, CHONG IL TBD 010612 TBD Refund C I Kim TBD Refund C I Kim 001.000.000.344.900.000.00 20.00 Total :20.00 130169 1/26/2012 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC I602061-1283 E9DA.SERVICES THRU 9/30/11 E9DA.Services thru 9/30/11 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,033.00 Total :2,033.00 130170 1/26/2012 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 647432 Unit 136 - Lic Kit Unit 136 - Lic Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.37 Unit 16 - Oil Filter647748 Unit 16 - Oil Filter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.32 Unit 83 - Switch647762 Unit 83 - Switch 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.12 9.5% Sales Tax 34Page: Packet Page 67 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130170 1/26/2012 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.25 Fleet - Prestone Spray647909 Fleet - Prestone Spray 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.76 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.55 Unit 57 - Oil Filter648037 Unit 57 - Oil Filter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.19 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.49 Unit 680 - Defogger Repair648085 Unit 680 - Defogger Repair 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.86 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.32 Fleet - Tool - Installer648215 Fleet - Tool - Installer 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.19 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.97 Unit 80 & 124 - 2 Fuel Filters648351 Unit 80 & 124 - 2 Fuel Filters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.24 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.59 Unit 124 - Lic Kit648516 Unit 124 - Lic Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.47 Unit 891 - Supplies648744 Unit 891 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.99 35Page: Packet Page 68 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130170 1/26/2012 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.28 Unit 643 - Oil Filter648943 Unit 643 - Oil Filter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.33 Unit 130 - Filters649021 Unit 130 - Filters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.72 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.49 Total :143.24 130171 1/26/2012 019583 MANPOWER INC 23451680 Receptionist coverage Jan. 4-6,2011 Receptionist coverage Jan. 4-6,2011 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 199.44 Total :199.44 130172 1/26/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 14035678 123106800 VALVE/PIPE FITTING/TUBE CUTTER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 172.25 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.55 12310680014390117 RESIN RECTANGULAR BAR 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 437.34 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.93 12310680014411388 TUBE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 73.98 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.65 12310680014432960 36Page: Packet Page 69 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130172 1/26/2012 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO LED PANEL MOUNT LIGHT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 236.55 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.09 Total :952.34 130173 1/26/2012 063773 MICROFLEX 00020469 2012 SALES TAX CONVERSIONS 2012 Sales Tax data conversions 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 300.00 Total :300.00 130174 1/26/2012 067800 MICROFLEX CORP #774353 IN1251143 Fleet - Diamond Grips Fleet - Diamond Grips 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 209.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 19.93 Total :229.73 130175 1/26/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 140466 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES CONCRETE VIBRATORS 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 88.00 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 8.36 Total :96.36 130176 1/26/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 140440 Water Sewer - 2 cycle Oil Water Sewer - 2 cycle Oil 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 61.02 Water Sewer - 2 cycle Oil 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 61.02 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.79 37Page: Packet Page 70 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :133.63130176 1/26/2012 020900 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 130177 1/26/2012 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 11-1196-11 E1JA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/11 E1JA.Services thru 12/31/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 308.50 E0JA.WATER MODELING SRVCS THRU11-1264-3 E0JA.Water Modeling Services thru 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,560.00 Total :1,868.50 130178 1/26/2012 024001 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO PSCS0452269 Unit 1 - Filters Unit 1 - Filters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.62 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.03 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.77 Unit 9 - KeysSECS0536123 Unit 9 - Keys 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.80 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.93 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.62 Total :119.77 130179 1/26/2012 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0467423-IN Fleet Inventory - Filters Fleet Inventory - Filters 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 40.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 3.80 Total :43.86 130180 1/26/2012 024600 NEUERT, L L 2 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 68.00 38Page: Packet Page 71 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :68.00130180 1/26/2012 024600 024600 NEUERT, L L 130181 1/26/2012 024910 NORMED 24808-625107 INV 24808-625107 EDMONDS PD ASPIRIN 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.82 PROPRINAL 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.37 CETAFEN EXTRA 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.70 CETAFEN, NON ASPIRIN 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.88 CETAFEN COUGH & COLD 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.49 NUTRALOX, MINT 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.02 RELIEF-PE COLD CAPLETS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 34.36 FINGERTIP BANDAGES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.04 FLEXIBLE BANDAGES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.44 SHEER BANDAGES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.82 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 9.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 9.81 Total :113.08 130182 1/26/2012 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S4306576.001 2091 REPAIR AC DRIVE 4 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 8,556.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 812.82 2091S4306576.003 REPAIR AC DRIVE 4 39Page: Packet Page 72 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130182 1/26/2012 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 6,486.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 616.17 2091S4333700.003 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 45.72 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.34 Total :16,521.05 130183 1/26/2012 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 44405 CITYEDMTRE HOSES/BRASS FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 602.31 9.2% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 55.41 Total :657.72 130184 1/26/2012 064006 NORTH WEST INSTRUMENT SERVICES 11555 SCALE CERTIFICATION SCALE CERTIFICATION 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 190.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 18.05 Total :208.05 130185 1/26/2012 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 27803 260 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,542.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 146.57 Total :1,689.37 130186 1/26/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-407929 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:MARINA BEACH 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 617.96 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-409381 40Page: Packet Page 73 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130186 1/26/2012 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:CIVIC CENTER 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62 Total :812.58 130187 1/26/2012 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 266 Planning Board Minutetaker 1/11/12 Planning Board Minutetaker 1/11/12 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 256.00 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes000 00 267 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 128.00 Total :384.00 130188 1/26/2012 070306 OBERG, WILLIAM 11 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 171.40 Total :171.40 130189 1/26/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 021626 PAPER, TAPE BLUE PAPER, INVISIBLE TAPE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 23.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.28 CEMETERY SUPPLIES/BINDERS072886 BINDERS FOR CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 11.38 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.08 OFFICE SUPPLIES098759 PARK MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 32.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.06 ASSORTED PAPER SUPPLIES146226 LEGAL COPY PAPER,COLORED COPY PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 101.49 41Page: Packet Page 74 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130189 1/26/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 9.64 Total :185.06 130190 1/26/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 913851 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 149.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 14.24 Total :164.05 130191 1/26/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 080176 PW Admin Supplies PW Admin Supplies 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 84.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 8.06 PW Admin Supplies927845 PW Admin Supplies 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 23.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.22 PW Admin Supplies928006 PW Admin Supplies 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 13.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.27 Total :133.16 130192 1/26/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 075211 INV 075211 ACCT 520437 250POL EDMONDS PD x-9 11x17 paper 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 52.28 SMALL BINDER CLIPS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.30 MEDIUM BINDER CLIPS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.10 42Page: Packet Page 75 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130192 1/26/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.38 Total :62.06 130193 1/26/2012 066833 PACIFIC NW PUBLIC FLEET MGRS 456 Annual Mbr Fees 2012 - D Sittauer Annual Mbr Fees 2012 - D Sittauer 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 100.00 Total :100.00 130194 1/26/2012 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 11262430 Fleet - Lithium Pk Fleet - Lithium Pk 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.70 Total :55.81 130195 1/26/2012 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6326178-00 Unit 14 - Repairs Unit 14 - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 448.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 42.61 Total :491.11 130196 1/26/2012 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.023024334 PAINT SUPPLIES PAINT, BRUSHES, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 37.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.53 Total :40.68 130197 1/26/2012 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.023024306 Fac Maint - Paint Supplies Fac Maint - Paint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 50.86 43Page: Packet Page 76 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130197 1/26/2012 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.83 City Hall - Paint Supplies954023018988 City Hall - Paint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.71 Svc Fee 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.30 Total :71.61 130198 1/26/2012 071983 PICKELBALL STUFF LLC 13780 PICKLE BALLS FOR WINTER/SPRING PICKLE BALLS FOR WINTER/SPRING 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 36.00 Freight 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 6.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 4.07 Total :46.92 130199 1/26/2012 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730JA12 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE Lease 12/30 to 01/30 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 68.26 Total :786.86 130200 1/26/2012 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 1232012 REPLINSH BULK MAIL Replenish bulk mail acct. 1036250-00277 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 130201 1/26/2012 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER PIER STORWATER RENT FOR 1/12 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,153.25 44Page: Packet Page 77 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,153.25130201 1/26/2012 029117 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 130202 1/26/2012 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 130203 1/26/2012 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ14778 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP #14778 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 140.00 Total :140.00 130204 1/26/2012 073915 PUGET SOUND FIN OFFICERS ASSOC 2012MembershipDues 2012 MEMBERSHIP DUES -S HUNSTOCK 2012 Membership Dues 001.000.310.514.100.490.00 100.00 Total :100.00 130205 1/26/2012 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 123903 MARKER MARKER: BRIGHTMAN 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 530.00 MARKER124080 MARKER: ROY 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 477.00 INSCRIPTION124081 MARKER INSCRIPTION: SNOW 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 Total :1,087.00 130206 1/26/2012 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 73010 Unit 337 - Towing Unit 337 - Towing 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 15.01 Total :173.01 130207 1/26/2012 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 9260-1 PAINT SUPPLIES PAINT SUPPLIES 45Page: Packet Page 78 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130207 1/26/2012 (Continued)063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 291.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.70 Total :319.26 130208 1/26/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2007-1403-8 18500 82ND AVE W 18500 82ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 96.76 8030 185TH ST SW2011-9708-4 8030 185TH ST SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 286.09 100 DAYTON ST2012-3682-5 100 DAYTON ST 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,130.81 1341 9TH AVE N2022-5062-7 1341 9TH AVE N 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.56 Total :1,546.22 130209 1/26/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-6859-3 8311 TALBOT RD (LS4) 8311 TALBOT RD (LS4) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 574.69 17526 TALBOT RD (LS10)2004-9683-4 17526 TALBOT RD (LS10) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 151.35 912 CARY RD (LS2)2005-6338-5 912 CARY RD (LS2) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 59.28 101 9TH AVE S (4-WAY SIGNAL)2005-9295-4 101 9TH AVE S (4-WAY SIGNAL) 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.56 200 DAYTON ST (OLD PW)2006-3860-9 200 DAYTON ST (OLD PW) 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 1,303.21 200 3RD AVE S (SIGNAL LIGHT)2006-7801-9 46Page: Packet Page 79 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130209 1/26/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200 3RD AVE S (SIGNAL LIGHT) 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 58.85 18520 90TH AVE W (SEAVIEW RESERVOIR2007-3984-5 18520 90TH AVE W (SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 32.90 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (SCHOOL LIGHT2014-3123-6 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (SCHOOL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 33.58 650 MAIN ST(LIBRARY)2015-5174-4 650 MAIN ST(LIBRARY) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,891.42 117 3RD AVE S (SIGNAL LIGHT)2015-7289-8 117 3RD AVE S (SIGNAL LIGHT) 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 221.16 901 WALNUT ST (4-WAY SIGNAL)2017-8264-6 901 WALNUT ST (4-WAY SIGNAL) 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 60.38 7110 210TH ST SW (PW OMC)2019-4248-9 7110 210TH ST SW (PW OMC) 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 96.54 7110 210TH ST SW (PW OMC) 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 366.84 7110 210TH ST SW (PW OMC) 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 366.84 7110 210TH ST SW (PW OMC) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 366.84 7110 210TH ST SW (PW OMC) 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 366.84 7110 210TH ST SW (PW OMC) 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 366.82 275 6TH AVE N (FIRE)2022-9166-2 275 6TH AVE N (FIRE) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,715.70 7601 RIDGE WAY (SIGNAL LIGHT)2023-8937-5 47Page: Packet Page 80 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130209 1/26/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 7601 RIDGE WAY (SIGNAL LIGHT) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.96 121 5TH AVE N (CITY HALL)2024-3924-6 121 5TH AVE N (CITY HALL) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,573.00 Total :16,655.76 130210 1/26/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 127059669 2025-7952-0 VARIOUS LOCATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 8.07 Total :8.07 130211 1/26/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 RECYCLING RECYCLING 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 29.95 Total :29.95 130212 1/26/2012 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4195484-01 Sewer - 5 Jeans - T Harris Sewer - 5 Jeans - T Harris 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 158.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 15.06 Total :173.56 130213 1/26/2012 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON 4Q-11 4Q-11 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY ( 4Q-11 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY ( 001.000.000.237.220.000.00 3,286.95 Total :3,286.95 130214 1/26/2012 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3094078 Sewer / Water -Heavy Duty Road Rake Sewer / Water -Heavy Duty Road Rake 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 28.13 Sewer / Water -Heavy Duty Road Rake 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.12 9.5% Sales Tax 48Page: Packet Page 81 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130214 1/26/2012 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.67 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.67 Sewer - Sawzall3105286 Sewer - Sawzall 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 144.72 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.75 Total :220.06 130215 1/26/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100080109.001 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES SUPPLIES FOR MILLTOWN COURTYARD PROJECT 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 19.94 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 1.89 SUPPLIES FOR PARKS CHEMICAL SHEDS100083453.001 WIRE FOR PARKS CHEMICAL SHED 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 354.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.66 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIESS100084832.001 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 181.10 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 17.20 Total :608.09 130216 1/26/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100086657.001 Yost Park - Elect Supplies Yost Park - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 521.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 49.57 Total :571.39 130217 1/26/2012 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 32921862-001 MANLIFT RENTAL FOR PLAZA TREE LIGHTS 49Page: Packet Page 82 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130217 1/26/2012 (Continued)070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC MANLIFT RENTAL FOR REMOVAL OF TREE 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 945.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 89.85 Total :1,035.65 130218 1/26/2012 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 58581 GYMNASTICS T-SHIRTS GYMNASTICS YOUTH T-SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 188.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 17.90 Total :206.30 130219 1/26/2012 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 131413 CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 972.03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 92.34 PUBLIC SAFETY ELEVATOR TELEPHONE MONITOR131414 PUBLIC SAFETY ELEVATOR TELEPHONE 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 46.73 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER138346 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 172.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 16.42 Total :1,300.34 130220 1/26/2012 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 6 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,326.00 Total :1,326.00 130221 1/26/2012 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY TRUAX0122 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR 50Page: Packet Page 83 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130221 1/26/2012 (Continued)073581 TRUAX, KAILEY 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00 Total :48.00 130222 1/26/2012 062693 US BANK 3686 MEETING LUNCHEONS Mazatlan - Mayor's meeting 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 13.54 Chanterelle -- Mayor's Meeting w/Rick 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 45.23 Total :58.77 130223 1/26/2012 062693 US BANK 3363 Top Foods - Unit 775 - Air Effects Top Foods - Unit 775 - Air Effects 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.37 Rite Aide - Shop - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.40 Valley Truck Unit 21 - Parts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 748.48 Good To Go - Unit 15 - Passes 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 82.56 Harley - Unit 203 -Speedometer supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.76 Livors - Unit M16 - Fuel Lever 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 88.43 The Truck Shop - Unit 138 - Switch 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 92.64 Costco - Units 301 and 133 - Backup 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 416.08 EC Co - Unit 130? - LWL Sensor 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 66.83 National Prod - Unit 650 -Vinyl Roller 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.80 Office Depot - Shop - Expanding File 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.61 Base Gear - Fac Maint - Supplies3405 Base Gear - Fac Maint - Supplies 51Page: Packet Page 84 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130223 1/26/2012 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 29.83 Lowers - Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.97 Medtronics - Yost Park - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 212.00 Guardian Security - Old PW 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00 Total :1,869.76 130224 1/26/2012 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 570793 Sewer - Manhole Nets Sewer - Manhole Nets 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 197.60 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 17.53 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 20.44 Total :235.57 130225 1/26/2012 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1047757137 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 97.83 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 161.55 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 100.82 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.47 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 60.80 Cell Service-PD 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 489.03 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 27.20 Cell Service-PW Storm 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 16.30 52Page: Packet Page 85 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130225 1/26/2012 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 74.15 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 74.14 Cell Service-PW Water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 141.09 Cell Service-PW Sewer 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 51.26 Cell Service-WWTP 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.73 Total :1,348.37 130226 1/26/2012 048100 WEINZ, JACK D 10 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 1,158.00 Total :1,158.00 130227 1/26/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5372 #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES FINANCE DEPT #10 window envelopes for Finance Dept 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 362.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 34.47 Total :397.27 130228 1/26/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5385 WINDOW ENVELOPES PARKS AND RECREATION WINDOW ENVELOPES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 100.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 9.56 Total :110.21 130229 1/26/2012 069811 WHIA WHIA 4-16-12 BARKER & HAWLEY,EDMONDS PD PRACTICAL HOMICIDE INV -BARKER 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 525.00 PRACTICAL HOMICIDE INV -HAWLEY 53Page: Packet Page 86 of 218 01/26/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 54 11:29:02AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130229 1/26/2012 (Continued)069811 WHIA 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 525.00 Total :1,050.00 130230 1/26/2012 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 116627 GARDENING SUPPLIES CROSSBOW, CASORON,ROUND UP 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 922.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 87.67 Total :1,010.65 130231 1/26/2012 064170 WSRA 2012 Dues Annual Dues - S Fisher Annual Dues - S Fisher 411.000.654.537.900.490.00 150.00 Total :150.00 130232 1/26/2012 068180 ZERO WASTE WASHINGTON 2012 Dues 2011 Mbr Dues - S Fisher 2011 Mbr Dues - S Fisher 411.000.654.537.900.490.00 75.00 Total :75.00 Bank total :228,462.56143Vouchers for bank code :front 228,462.56Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report143 54Page: Packet Page 87 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130235 1/31/2012 026510 WCIA 1034 2012 LIABILITY/PROPERTY PROGRAM 2012 Liability/Property Program 001.000.390.519.900.460.00 420,109.00 2012 Liability/Property Program 111.000.653.542.900.460.00 93,305.00 2012 Liability/Property Program 411.000.652.542.900.460.00 8,889.00 2012 Liability/Property Program 411.000.654.534.800.460.00 70,440.00 2012 Liability/Property Program 411.000.655.535.800.460.00 94,658.00 2012 Liability/Property Program 411.000.656.538.800.460.00 67,539.00 2012 Liability/Property Program 511.000.657.548.680.460.00 30,833.00 Total :785,773.00 130236 1/31/2012 026510 WCIA 1035 2012 TBD LIABILITY ASSESSMENT 2012 TBS liability assessment 631.000.653.542.310.460.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 130237 2/2/2012 072627 911 ETC INC 18362 JAN-12 911 DATABASE MAINT Jan-12 911 database maint 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 100.00 Total :100.00 130238 2/2/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 302903 RODENT CONTROL RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12 Total :82.12 130239 2/2/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 302725 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00 1Page: Packet Page 88 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130239 2/2/2012 (Continued)065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56 Total :75.56 130240 2/2/2012 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND FEBRUARY 2012 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 2/12 EDMONDS AC ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 02/12 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,097.71 Total :2,097.71 130241 2/2/2012 073923 ALL STAR TRANSFER Ref000236570 LI Refund Cst #00005310 LI Refund Cst #00005310 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 25.00 Total :25.00 130242 2/2/2012 065568 ALLWATER INC 011212063 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 22.85 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67 Total :23.52 130243 2/2/2012 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 7155 BRANCH REMOVAL BRANCH REMOVAL:SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 7.13 Total :82.13 130244 2/2/2012 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 14726 BENCH PLAQUE BENCH PLAQUE: BAKER 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 2Page: Packet Page 89 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :164.58130244 2/2/2012 069667 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 130245 2/2/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-5992788 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 130246 2/2/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-5997996 LOBBY MATS LOBBY MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01 LOBBY MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84 LOBBY MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84 LOBBY MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 LOBBY MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 LOBBY MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS655-5997997 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS 3Page: Packet Page 90 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130246 2/2/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47 FLEET UNIFORMS655-5997998 FLEET UNIFORMS 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95 Total :44.02 130247 2/2/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-5968856 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 70.04 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.65 Total :76.69 130248 2/2/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0265258-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 6,238.35 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 592.64 Total :6,830.99 130249 2/2/2012 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST February 2012 AWC FEBRUARY 2012 AWC PREMIUMS February 2012 Fire Pension Premiums 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,011.32 February 2012 Retirees Pension Premiums 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 30,553.81 February 2012 AWC Premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 272,276.37 4Page: Packet Page 91 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :306,841.50130249 2/2/2012 001702 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST 130250 2/2/2012 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 7606 DISPLAY AD/CEMETERY DISPLAY AD/EDMONDS BEACON 130.000.640.536.200.440.00 108.00 Total :108.00 130251 2/2/2012 071421 BIO CLEAN INC 4166 INV#4166 - EDMONDS PD DECONTAMINATE CAR #P04 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 275.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 26.13 Total :301.13 130252 2/2/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 912961 INV#912961 - EDMONDS PD -DAWSON L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 53.98 CORP. CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 2.50 CLOTH NAMETAG "D J DAWSON" 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 4.95 SHORTEN SHIRT TAILS 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 6.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 6.41 INV#913144 - EDMONDS PD -CAMERON913144 511 JACKET 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 229.00 CLOTH NAMETAGS "J R CAMERON 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90 HEAT STAMP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 REFLECTIVE POLICE PANEL 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.00 SGT. CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 5Page: Packet Page 92 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130252 2/2/2012 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 24.41 Total :355.15 130253 2/2/2012 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14162274 141041 INFLUENT CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 732.62 14104114162275 C-385 SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE 414.000.656.594.320.410.10 10,042.75 Total :10,775.37 130254 2/2/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11598192 # 001-0572105-003 C/A 572105 3rd Floor copier contract charge Feb-12 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 83.32 3rd Floor copier contract charge Feb-12 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 83.32 3rd Floor copier contract charge Feb-12 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 83.35 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 7.92 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 7.92 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 7.91 Total :273.74 130255 2/2/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11598193 572105 COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 84.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 1.52 Total :85.80 130256 2/2/2012 003360 CENTENNIAL GLASS 21409 CLEAR SETTING BLOCKS 6Page: Packet Page 93 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130256 2/2/2012 (Continued)003360 CENTENNIAL GLASS CLEAR SETTING BLOCKS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 52.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.00 Total :57.65 130257 2/2/2012 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT14871 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #14871 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 130258 2/2/2012 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 32915374 INV#32915374 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 91.94 Total :91.94 130259 2/2/2012 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E2DB.ENG20120032 E2DB.ENG20120032 WATER METER E2DB.ENG20120032 Water Meter Permit for 132.000.640.594.760.410.00 550.00 Total :550.00 130260 2/2/2012 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2267 E2FD.BALLINGER WATERSHED FORUM E2FD.Lake Ballinger Watershed Forum 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,800.00 Total :2,800.00 130261 2/2/2012 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE G00130 1-218359-279832 2203 N 205TH ST 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 18.46 Total :18.46 130262 2/2/2012 073667 COBURN, LI COBURN0112 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT FOR JANUARY 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 70.00 Total :70.00 7Page: Packet Page 94 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130263 2/2/2012 070300 CODE 4 INC 10144 INV 10144 EDMONDS PD -SACKVILLE SACKVILLE -READING BODY LANGUAGE 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00 Total :99.00 130264 2/2/2012 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY0110 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 40.00 Total :40.00 130265 2/2/2012 063507 COXLEY, BRUCE 11272011 WEB SITE PHOTOGRAPHY &MATERIAL COST Photograph &record images for new web 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 176.00 Total :176.00 130266 2/2/2012 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 5627 NORDQUIST WW OPERATOR CERTF NORDQUIST WW OPERATOR CERTF 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 30.00 Total :30.00 130267 2/2/2012 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS January 2012 DRS JANUARY 2012 DRS January 2012 DRS 811.000.000.231.540.000.00 159,941.84 Total :159,941.84 130268 2/2/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3254 MINUTE TAKING Jan 3, 10, 23 & 24 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 585.00 Total :585.00 130269 2/2/2012 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 01312012 STATE LOBBYIST FOR JAN 2012 State lobbyist charges for January 2012 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,135.00 Total :4,135.00 130270 2/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 072606 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE Maintenance for printers 01/21/12 - 8Page: Packet Page 95 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130270 2/2/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 312.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 29.64 Total :341.64 130271 2/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 072696 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 34.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 3.29 Total :37.87 130272 2/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 072907 C5051 GQM52321 3rd floor bw/color copies period 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 171.76 3rd floor bw/color copies period 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 171.76 3rd floor bw/color copies period 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 176.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 16.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 16.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 16.81 Total :569.94 130273 2/2/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 072561 A6898 COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 46.88 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 4.45 Total :51.33 130274 2/2/2012 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 000 Q4-2011 ES REF # 94513310 7 9Page: Packet Page 96 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130274 2/2/2012 (Continued)047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 4Q-11 Unemployment Insurance 411.000.654.534.800.231.00 9,868.00 4Q-11 Unemployment Insurance 001.000.390.517.780.230.00 13,724.56 Total :23,592.56 130275 2/2/2012 069848 ERICKSON, KATHERINE ERICKSON15096 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #15096 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 112.50 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #15095 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 80.00 Total :192.50 130276 2/2/2012 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH14944 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+ #14944 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 100.00 IRISH DANCE 13+ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 357.50 Total :457.50 130277 2/2/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 372.04 Total :372.04 130278 2/2/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 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 10Page: Packet Page 97 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130278 2/2/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY ELEVATOR425-712-8347 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY ELEVATOR 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.66 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16)425-771-0158 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16) 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 166.99 200 DAYTON ST (OLD PW)425-778-3297 200 DAYTON ST (OLD PW) 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 19.17 200 DAYTON ST (OLD PW) 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.59 Total :893.38 130279 2/2/2012 073766 FROST ENGINEERING 65195 CITY OF ED ADAPTER INLINE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 300.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 22.65 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 30.65 Total :353.30 130280 2/2/2012 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA GAVIOLA14719 TAEKWON DO CLASSES TAEKWON DO #14719 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 154.64 TAEKWON DO #14715 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 163.66 11Page: Packet Page 98 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :318.30130280 2/2/2012 073922 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 130281 2/2/2012 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007D0149 036570 SOLVENT/CAP/BUSHING/PVE PIPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 292.97 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 29.74 Total :342.71 130282 2/2/2012 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 15 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,162.00 Total :1,162.00 130283 2/2/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2021392 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 62.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 5.98 Total :68.97 130284 2/2/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2010870 226961 ROUND TABLE 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 199.99 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 19.00 2269612011540 HANGING FILES/INKJET 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 148.61 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 14.13 Total :381.73 130285 2/2/2012 063419 INTOXIMETERS INC 352546 INV#352546 CUST#WAEDMO EDMONDS PD 12Page: Packet Page 99 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130285 2/2/2012 (Continued)063419 INTOXIMETERS INC ONE WAY PBT MOUTH PIECES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 72.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.45 Total :97.40 130286 2/2/2012 066032 J BOZEAT & ASSOCIATES LLC J3094A1 ROTORK IMPUT CONTROLLER ROTORK IMPUT CONTROLLER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3,798.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 130.54 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 373.22 Total :4,301.76 130287 2/2/2012 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 535677 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,044.90 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 310.58 Total :3,355.48 130288 2/2/2012 070145 JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS 49138 DISPLAY AD QUARTER PAGE DISPLAY AD IN 2012 130.000.640.536.200.440.00 345.00 Total :345.00 130289 2/2/2012 069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN LAMPHERE15043 TAMING YOUR SUGAR BEAST TAMING YOUR SUGAR BEAST #15043 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 120.00 Total :120.00 130290 2/2/2012 073917 MALONE, LINDA MALONE0626 REFUND 13Page: Packet Page 100 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130290 2/2/2012 (Continued)073917 MALONE, LINDA REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 22.50 Total :22.50 130291 2/2/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 15792050 123106800 POLYURETHANE WASHER/PIPE FITTTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 283.38 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 90.22 Total :373.60 130292 2/2/2012 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC P-12010042 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WEIGHT ROOM EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 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 130293 2/2/2012 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER0112 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 130294 2/2/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 140925 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES CONCRETE VIBRATORS FOR MILLTOWN 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 60.00 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 5.70 Total :65.70 130295 2/2/2012 073918 MINTON, SHARON MINTON15113 PRENATAL YOGA PRENATAL YOGA 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 96.00 Total :96.00 130296 2/2/2012 066006 MORGAN SOUND MSI67312 PLAZA ROOM AMP 14Page: Packet Page 101 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130296 2/2/2012 (Continued)066006 MORGAN SOUND PLAZA ROOM AMP 001.000.640.574.200.350.00 477.28 PLAZA ROOM AMP 117.100.640.573.100.350.00 477.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.350.00 45.34 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.350.00 45.34 Total :1,045.24 130297 2/2/2012 023870 NATIONAL REC & PARK ASSOC 29558 GROUP MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL GROUP MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR CARRIE 001.000.640.574.100.490.00 360.00 Total :360.00 130298 2/2/2012 073920 NELSON, HSIANG-YUN HSIANG-YUN15118 PASTEL & DRAWING CLASSES PASTEL WORKSHOP #15118 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 121.00 DRAWING #15109 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 254.10 Total :375.10 130299 2/2/2012 072700 NETWORK HARDWARE RESALE LLC 354792 1000BASE-CWDM 1590 ETHERNET CWDS-SFP-1590-NHR 1000base-cwdm 001.000.310.518.870.350.00 1,364.93 Total :1,364.93 130300 2/2/2012 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 28213 260 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 933.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 88.71 Total :1,022.51 130301 2/2/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-410453 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL 15Page: Packet Page 102 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130301 2/2/2012 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HAINES WHARF 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 220.77 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-410543 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:PINE STREET PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-410544 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-413312 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HICKMAN PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 310.99 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-413344 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:YOST PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 228.72 Total :985.18 130302 2/2/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 265029 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 195.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 18.56 Total :213.89 130303 2/2/2012 073921 ORONG, DANIELLE ORONG0131 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 1/10 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 120.00 Total :120.00 130304 2/2/2012 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 198640 H20 LNI VIDEO 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 12.00 Total :12.00 130305 2/2/2012 029800 PRINZ, DANIEL 13 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 16Page: Packet Page 103 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130305 2/2/2012 (Continued)029800 PRINZ, DANIEL 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,721.00 Total :1,721.00 130306 2/2/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 184.91 Total :184.91 130307 2/2/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 010-187-400-6 650 MAIN ST (LIBRARY) 650 MAIN ST (LIBRARY) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 325.92 600 3RD AVE S (CITY PARK SHOP)023-075-700-7 600 3RD AVE S (CITY PARK SHOP) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 378.29 71 W DAYTON ST (LS7)191-676-600-7 71 W DAYTON ST (LS7) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY)275-316-600-4 250 5TH AVE N (PUBLIC SAFETY) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 594.66 7110 210TH ST SW (PUBLIC WORKS277-636-500-5 7110 210TH ST SW (PUBLIC WORKS 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 46.98 7110 210TH ST SW (PUBLIC WORKS 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 178.52 7110 210TH ST SW (PUBLIC WORKS 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 178.52 7110 210TH ST SW (PUBLIC WORKS 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 178.52 7110 210TH ST SW (PUBLIC WORKS 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 178.52 7110 210TH ST SW (PUBLIC WORKS 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 178.51 6801 MEADOWDALE RD (CLUBHOUSE525-492-600-8 6801 MEADOWDALE RD (CLUBHOUSE 17Page: Packet Page 104 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130307 2/2/2012 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 483.11 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16)532-232-313-9 8429 196TH ST SW (FS16) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,190.92 8001 SIERRA DR (LS9)567-289-500-9 8001 SIERRA DR (LS9) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 34.48 21105 72ND AVE W (FLEET)590-308-500-8 21105 72ND AVE W (FLEET) 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 552.94 275 6TH AVE N (FIRE)643-956-600-8 275 6TH AVE N (FIRE) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,209.37 700 MAIN ST (FAC)649-032-700-1 700 MAIN ST (FAC) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,989.50 107 RAILROAD AVE (LS8)885-190-800-7 107 RAILROAD AVE (LS8) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94 23009 88TH AVE W (FS20)991-966-110-9 23009 88TH AVE W (FS20) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 567.03 Total :9,354.54 130308 2/2/2012 073819 ROCK SOLID LEARNING LLC ROCKSOLID14901 GEMS & GEODES GEMS & GEODES #14901 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 72.60 Total :72.60 130309 2/2/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 9933 100TH AVE W (SIGNAL LIGHT) 9933 100TH AVE W (SIGNAL LIGHT) 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 57.32 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD (CLUBHOUSE2003-8645-6 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD (CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 177.06 18Page: Packet Page 105 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130309 2/2/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 700 MAIN ST (FAC)2004-2241-8 700 MAIN ST (FAC) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,427.26 16121 75TH PL W (LS12)2012-6598-0 16121 75TH PL W (LS12) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 363.96 599 MAIN ST (4 WAY SIGNAL)2012-8389-2 599 MAIN ST (4 WAY SIGNAL) 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 61.80 6811 1/2 157TH PL SW (LS11)2013-7496-4 6811 1/2 157TH PL SW (LS11) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 34.77 660 EDMONDS WAY (SIGNAL LIGHT2015-6343-4 660 EDMONDS WAY (SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 55.71 7710 168TH PL SW (LS15)2015-9448-8 7710 168TH PL SW (LS15) 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.56 413 MAIN ST (DECO LIGHT)2016-5690-7 413 MAIN ST (DECO LIGHT) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 763.94 23190 100TH AVE W (SCHOOL X-WALK LIGHT2017-0375-8 23190 100th Ave W (School Crosswalk 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.59 120 5TH AVE N (LOG CABIN)2024-2158-2 120 5TH AVE N (LOG CABIN) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 586.12 552 MAIN ST (CS1)2042-9221-3 552 MAIN ST (CS1) 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 35.62 Total :5,649.71 130310 2/2/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 120429417 2030-9778-7 WWTP ELECTRICTY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 36,596.06 19Page: Packet Page 106 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :36,596.06130310 2/2/2012 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 130311 2/2/2012 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE JANUARY 2012 INV FOR ACCT# 12000100 -EDMONDS PD SUBPOENA SERVICE #11-2965 001.000.410.521.210.490.00 79.00 Total :79.00 130312 2/2/2012 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I000293362 2012 SERS OPERATING ASSESSMENT 2012 SERS Operating Assessment 001.000.390.525.600.510.00 87,660.00 Total :87,660.00 130313 2/2/2012 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC 345 01/12 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE 01/12 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 130314 2/2/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 120429417 2030-9778-7 ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 5,708.40 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 503.37 Total :6,211.77 130315 2/2/2012 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 02/12 Standard FEBRUARY 2012 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUM February 2012 standard insurance 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,465.90 Premium rate increase on basic life 001.000.390.517.780.230.00 231.75 Total :13,697.65 130316 2/2/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100092586.001 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 34.98 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 3.32 20Page: Packet Page 107 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :38.30130316 2/2/2012 040430 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 130317 2/2/2012 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 440011251030 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 01/02/12 - 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 Domain forwarding 12/22/11 - 01/21/12 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 2.00 C/A 440001307733440011251036 01/2012 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 Total :71.90 130318 2/2/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01764380-01192012 INV#I01764380-01192012 CUST#126500 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD 01/19/12 001.000.410.521.100.440.00 29.40 Total :29.40 130319 2/2/2012 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY TRUAX0129 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR FOR RENTAL 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00 Total :48.00 130320 2/2/2012 062693 US BANK 2985 EXAM GLOVES EXAM GLOVES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 1,049.40 APP APPLE/RANDOLPH 411.000.656.538.800.310.42 29.54 Total :1,078.94 130321 2/2/2012 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS V0298897A INV V0298897A EDMONDS PD PAGER LEASE & MSGING 1/27-2/26 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 47.67 Total :47.67 130322 2/2/2012 045517 WACA 2012 WACA/NACA DUES 2012 WACA/NACA DUES -EDMONDS PD DAWSON 2012 WACA/NACA DUES 001.000.410.521.700.490.00 35.00 21Page: Packet Page 108 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130322 2/2/2012 (Continued)045517 WACA SHOEMAKE 2012 WACA/NACA DUES 001.000.410.521.700.490.00 35.00 Total :70.00 130323 2/2/2012 073916 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS HEATING Ref000236445 LI Refund Cst #00215441 -customer paid LI Refund Cst #00215441 -customer paid 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 50.00 Total :50.00 130324 2/2/2012 045912 WASPC DUES 2012-00109 ACTIVE DUES 2012 EDMONDS PD - ACTIVE DUES 2012 - COMPAAN 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 365.00 Total :365.00 130325 2/2/2012 071359 WASSER CORPORATION INV000000118 564 PAINT THINNER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 820.98 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 97.60 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 78.03 Total :996.61 130326 2/2/2012 070180 WATAI WATAI 02-13-12 ADV CDR HARBINSON,EDMONDS PD ADV CDR COURSE - HARBINSON - 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 475.00 Total :475.00 130327 2/2/2012 068227 WCCFA EDMCEM2012 VOTING MEMBER DUES 2012 VOTING MEMBER DUES~ 130.000.640.536.200.490.00 280.65 Total :280.65 130328 2/2/2012 068270 WETHERHOLT & ASSOCIATES PS 34691 10-110335A2 C-383 ROOF REPLACEMENT 414.000.656.594.320.410.10 3,371.57 22Page: Packet Page 109 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:58:46AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :3,371.57130328 2/2/2012 068270 068270 WETHERHOLT & ASSOCIATES PS 130329 2/2/2012 072281 WILCOX CONSTRUCTION 12-5563-COE MILLTOWN COURTYARD BOARDWALK MILLTOWN COURTYARD BOARDWALK 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 1,721.39 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 163.53 Total :1,884.92 130330 2/2/2012 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 14 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,158.00 Total :1,158.00 130331 2/2/2012 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1000 JAN-12 RETAINER January-12 Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00 Total :13,000.00 Bank total :1,520,676.5397Vouchers for bank code :front 1,520,676.53Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report97 23Page: Packet Page 110 of 218 02/02/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:20:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 130233 1/27/2012 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 261 Planning Board Minutetaker 12/14/11 Planning Board Minutetaker 12/14/11 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 465.00 Total :465.00 130234 1/27/2012 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 262 HPC Minutetaker 12/8/11` HPC Minutetaker 12/8/11` 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 96.00 Total :96.00 Bank total :561.002Vouchers for bank code :front 561.00Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report2 1Page: Packet Page 111 of 218 Packet Page 112 of 218 Packet Page 113 of 218 Packet Page 114 of 218 Packet Page 115 of 218 Packet Page 116 of 218 Packet Page 117 of 218 Packet Page 118 of 218 Packet Page 119 of 218 Packet Page 120 of 218 Packet Page 121 of 218 AM-4515 Item #: 2. E. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:Consent Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Bernard Morris ($1,238.93) and Frontier (amount undetermined). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Claims for Damages were submitted to the city by the following entities: Bernard Morris 3914 - 221st Pl. SE Bothell, WA 98021 ($1,238.93) Frontier CMR Claims Department P.O. Box 60770 Oklahoma City, OK 73146-0770 (Amount undetermined) Attachments Morris Claim for Damages Frontier Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 01/31/2012 09:20 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 09:23 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 01/24/2012 03:58 PM Final Approval Date: 01/31/2012 Packet Page 122 of 218 Packet Page 123 of 218 Packet Page 124 of 218 Packet Page 125 of 218 AM-4510 Item #: 2. F. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:Consent Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Carl Nelson Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For Informational Purposes Previous Council Action Resolution 1234 - Support of Continued Development of Fiber Optic Opportunities as a Source of City Revenue. 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: SNOCOM is a user of City provided internet services, the Edmonds Center for the Arts has been connected and testing is proceeding. The Building at 110 James street will soon be using City provided internet services, a downtown business, and a tenant at the Port of Edmonds is considering using City of Edmonds fiber for a portion of their business needs. Attachment 1 shows a Dec 31st 2011 snapshot of expenditures to date (minor changes may occur due to month end postings) and, using these numbers, Attachment 2 shows, with the addition of SNOCOM, the estimated break even date has moved up to Jan 2015 from Apr 2015. Expenditures for the 2011 Fiber Optic Budget have been: ISP charges (approx $11,000), Professional Services ($7,500), and Repairs/Maintenance ($6,160 - which was used to complete internal fiber cross splices for connectivity between City Hall, Public Safety, and the old fiber end point in Fire station 17). Attachments Attachment 1 (expenditures) Attachment 2 (analysis) Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Shawn Hunstock 01/19/2012 01:27 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 08:18 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/31/2012 09:29 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 09:41 AM Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 01/19/2012 Final Approval Date: 01/31/2012 Packet Page 126 of 218 Packet Page 127 of 218 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 (as of 1/5/12) Title/Object Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Budgeted Budgeted Prelim Actuals 310 SUPPLIES -$ -$ -$ 7,888.99$ -$ 7,888.99$ 1,000.00 -$ 7,888.99$ 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - 17,336.17 1,463.62 1,000.00 18,799.79 0.00 - 18,799.79$ 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,795.68 34,886.87 76,370.39 93,116.02 46,826.36 54,000.00 258,995.32 5,000.00 7,450.92 266,446.24$ 420 COMMUNICATIONS - - 34,186.06 43,932.95 21,109.44 25,000.00 99,228.45 13,200.00 10,994.40 110,222.85$ 450 RENTAL/LEASE - - - 4,552.93 3,948.00 - 8,500.93 4,000.00 - 8,500.93$ 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE - - - 2,456.39 114.46 3,600.00 2,570.85 2,500.00 6,160.00 8,730.85$ 490 MISCELLANEOUS - - 6.05 600.00 2,772.47 - 3,378.52 - - 3,378.52$ 640 EQUIPMENT - 126,248.00 - - - - 126,248.00 - - 126,248.00$ Total 7,795.68 161,134.87 110,562.50 169,883.45 76,234.35 24,605.32$ 550,216.17$ reimbursement(a)(20,874.08) (20,874.08) -3375 Est:(24,249.08) 55,360.27 504,736.77 525,967.09 Fiber Optic Budget (Page 31 of 2009/2010 Budget)292,062.00 197,200.00 113,600.00 83,600.00 25,700.00 Difference between budget and expenditures (181,499.50)$ (27,316.55)$ (58,239.73)$ (28,239.73)$ (237,055.78)$ (1,094.68)$ (238,150.46)$ (267,055.78)$ after budget adj a) Attachment 1 Total as of 10/02/2011 2010 Professional Services figures take into consideration reimbursement by project partners totaling $20,874.08 through 12/31/2010. City of Edmonds Fiber Project Costs FY 2006 - 2011 Total as of 12/31/2010 Packet Page 128 of 218 ATTACHMENT 2 Costs incurred to date: Description 7/28/2010 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 $7,888.99 $ 7,888.99 $7,888.99 Small Equipment:Small scale purchases for switching and routing equipment (accessories) necessary to expand the networks ability to accommodate additional partners. $17,336.17 18,799.79 $18,799.79 Professional Svc:Consulting for Configuration, Design, Install, Legal fees and consulting fees for the Program Director. (July 22nd MOU with City of Seattle will reduce this by $20,245.38) $236,439.11 $ 238,121.24 $ 242,197.16 Communications:Fees paid to the regional fiber consortium for shared costs of certain assets and fees paid for Internet access. $92,902.82 99,228.45 $110,222.85 Rental & Lease:Pole rental $8,007.43 8,500.93 $8,500.93 Repair & Maintenance:Fees paid to the regional fiber consortium for shared Maintenance of certain assets as well as repairs to wholly owned fiber assets. $2,570.85 2,570.85 $8,730.85 Miscellaneous $628.52 3,378.52 $3,378.52 Equipment:Fiber construction & Equipment costs associated with establishing service and connection of new partners to the network. $126,248.00 $ 126,248.00 $ 126,248.00 TOTAL Costs to Date $492,021.89 $504,736.77 $525,967.09 Estimated Ongoing Expenditures: Per Month 7/28/2011 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Ongoing costs of $196/month for pole rental and consortium dues $196 $2,352 $3,332 $2,352 Internet Service Provider $1,000 $12,000 $17,000 $12,000 Cisco Maintenance $2,000 $2,000 TOTALS $16,352 $22,332 $14,352 Recurring savings or revenues implemented: Item Total Revenue Per Month 7/28/2010 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Replacement of (2) T-1's to City Offices Began 1/2007 $1,100 $34,100 $39,600 $52,800 Video Arraignment - reduction transportation (Feb 2010 estimate)$2,750 $16,500 $30,250 $63,250 Video Arraignment – reduction in Jail Days $2,769 $16,614 $30,459 $63,687 TOTAL SAVINGS $6,619 $67,214 $100,309 $179,737 NetRiver (starting Jan 2007, increa $48,500 $1,500 $48,500 $56,000 $74,000 SNOCOM (starting Aug 2011)$3,000 TOTAL BENEFIT TO CITY $48,500 $8,119 $115,714 $156,309 $256,737 BALANCE ($376,307.89)($348,427.77)($269,230.09) Years to pay off:4.3 3.9 3.0 Likely pay off date:10/30/2014 12/16/2015 1/22/2015 Savings/Revenues as of Costs as of: Item Item Supplies:Miscellaneous publishing of plans, documents and drawings in support of the projects major directives. Yearly and "To date" Costs as of: Packet Page 129 of 218 AM-4516 Item #: 2. G. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:Consent Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Renewal of Uniform Contracts Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff recommends that Council approve the police uniform contract renewal between the City of Edmonds and Blumenthal Uniforms and Kroesen's Uniforms. Previous Council Action None Narrative This is a request for Council to renew the two uniform contracts the City previous had with Blumenthal Uniforms and Kroesen's Uniforms. Included are the contracts and the price list from each company. The contract is for three years retroactively from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014. There are no major changes from this contract and the previous contract the City had with both companies. Attachments Blumenthal Contract Blumenthal Price List Kroesen's Uniform Contract Kroesen's Price List Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 08:18 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/31/2012 09:29 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 09:41 AM Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 01/25/2012 02:02 PM Final Approval Date: 01/31/2012 Packet Page 130 of 218 1 POLICE UNIFORM CONTRACT CITY OF EDMONDS This contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into this _____ day of __________, 20__, between Blumenthal Uniforms and Equipment (“Blumenthal”), with principal offices located at 20812 International Boulevard, SeaTac, Washington and the City of Edmonds (“the City”), with principal offices located at 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with a uniform supplier to provide uniform items for its police employees; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have Blumenthal, pursuant to certain terms and conditions, supply the necessary uniform items to outfit the City’s police employees; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: Blumenthal agrees to provide the City with the uniform items as requested and established by the City in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Blumenthal must be able to completely outfit new police employees within seventy-two hours and must make all uniform items, in a wide variety of sizes, readily available from stock on hand. This Contract does not establish Blumenthal as the sole source for City purchases, and the City specifically reserves the right to go elsewhere for its needs if Blumenthal cannot supply the particular item within the times provided herein. The City may also designate additional suppliers if, by doing so, it obtains the lowest overall price for its uniform needs. The City reserves the right to engage in non-exclusive contracts with multiple vendors in order to provide the lowest possible price on a per-item basis. 2. Ordering of Items: The City will designate certain employees as its buyer(s) for the purposes of ordering items from Blumenthal pursuant to this Contract. The City will so inform Blumenthal as to the names of these individuals. The City will submit its order by phone or by facsimile on official letterhead, with any phone orders to be “backed-up” by facsimile as soon as practicable. Blumenthal is not to accept orders from individual police employees under the terms of this Contract, except as follows: Some of the City’s police employees are not covered by the City’s “quartermaster” system. Some employees receive a uniform allowance so they can individually purchase uniform items from any vendor as long as the items meet certain standards of the City. Some of these employees may desire to purchase uniform items from Blumenthal. Packet Page 131 of 218 Blumenthal agrees to honor prices for items listed in Exhibit A attached hereto for “individual employee” purchases. However, for Blumenthal to honor this contract price, the City’s designated buyer(s) will order the items(s) on behalf of the “individual employee” utilizing the same procedure as specified above. In addition, it will be noted on the order facsimile that this is an “individual employee” purchase. It will be the responsibility of Blumenthal and the “individual employee” to agree upon payment terms for any items ordered by the City’s buyer where the facsimile order specifies an “individual employee” order. The City will not be responsible for payment of “individual employee” orders. Under the terms of this Contract, all shoulder patches and bone buttons will be sewn on by Blumenthal at no charge when a new uniform shirt is purchased. All service stripes and chevrons will be sewn on at the City’s expense. Tailoring requested by a police employee will be done by Blumenthal at the City’s expense, provided that an Assistant Chief of Police has first authorized such tailoring. 3. Term of Contract: Blumenthal shall begin performing the services under the terms of this Contract effective January 1, 2012, and the Contract will remain in effect until December 31, 2014, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 8. Blumenthal retains the right to request price increases on an annual basis, provided that Blumenthal first provides the City with documentation supporting the price increase, such as information relating to a price increase from its supplier. The City has the right to deny such a request, but will not unreasonably do so. 4. Compensation: The City shall pay Blumenthal for the police uniform items provided pursuant to this Contract, except in the case of “individual employee” purchases as noted in Paragraph 2, at the price rates established in Exhibit A. All prices listed in Exhibit A include any charges for delivery to the City. No later than October 1st of each Contract year, Blumenthal shall provide the City with an updated price list and samples of any items that replace or supersede any items on the expiring list. The City shall have forty-five (45) days to review and accept or reject the uniform prices and samples. Blumenthal shall provide the City with monthly invoices for supplying uniform items. The City shall pay Blumenthal within thirty days of receipt of each invoice. Invoices shall include the name of each employee for which the respective uniform items are being provided. Blumenthal agrees that the City will not be billed for items ordered as “individual employee” purchases as specified in Paragraph 2. 5. Assignment and Subcontract: Blumenthal shall not assign or subcontract to any person or entity any portion of the services contemplated by this Contract without the City’s written consent. 6. Independent Contractor: The City and Blumenthal agree that Blumenthal is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Contract. Nothing in this Contract shall be considered to create an employer/employee relationship between the parties hereto. Neither Blumenthal nor any employee of Blumenthal shall be entitled to any benefit accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Contract. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting Federal Income Tax or Social Security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to Blumenthal or any employee of Blumenthal. Packet Page 132 of 218 7. Indemnification: Blumenthal shall protect, defend, save harmless and indemnify the City and its agents, officers and employees from and against all claims, suits and actions for all damage or injury arising from the negligent and/or malicious acts, errors or omissions and any willful, wanton, malicious or intentional tortious conduct on the part of Blumenthal or its agents and/or employees. Blumenthal further agrees to fully indemnify the City from and against any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, of defending such claim or demand. Additionally, Blumenthal specifically waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to indemnify the City extends to any claim, demand or action brought by or on behalf of any employee of Blumenthal, and includes any judgment, award and costs thereof including attorneys’ fees incurred. This paragraph shall not apply to damages and claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City. 8. Termination: The City may terminate this Contract at any time by providing written notice of termination to the other party. Such termination shall become effective thirty days after receipt of said notice. In any case whereby this Contract is terminated prior to the stated expiry date, the City shall provide reasonable compensation to Blumenthal for the uniform items and services provided pursuant to this Contract and accepted by the City up to the date of termination. 9. City Review/Approval: Upon delivery to the City of any police uniform items required by the scope of work identified in Paragraph 1, the City may accept or reject such uniform items, and may request such modification of said uniform items as it deems appropriate. To service such modifications, Blumenthal must have on-site tailoring facilities. Blumenthal shall promptly perform such modifications and correct any defects present in the uniform items. Blumenthal shall not be entitled to compensation for time devoted to correcting defective police uniform items. 10. Force Majeure: Neither party shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations herein to the extent that the performance of said obligation is prevented or delayed by any cause, existing or future, which is unforeseen and beyond the reasonable control of the affected party. 11. Applicable Law and Venue: This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action upon the terms of this Contract shall be within King County, Washington. 12. Entire Agreement: The City and Blumenthal agree that this Contract is the complete expression of the terms between the parties hereto and no other agreement, oral or otherwise, which regards the subject matter of this Contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Contract. Packet Page 133 of 218 13. Notice: Whenever it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this Contract, such notice or demand shall be given or served, and shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by first-class mail, addressed to the address of the party as specified in the opening paragraph herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Blumenthal and the City have caused this Contract to be executed by the person authorized to act in their respective names. CITY OF EDMONDS: BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT: Dave Earling, Mayor By Its ATTEST: ________________________________ Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ City Attorney Packet Page 134 of 218 Exhibit A Page 1 Item Model Cost Notes Shirt, Men's short Sleeved Elbeco or Flying Cross 67.95 7408Z Shirt, Men's long sleeved Elbeco or Flying Cross 89.95 7480Z Shirt, short sleeve, med blue Flying cross 45.50 95R6625 Shirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 51.25 (animal control)45W6625 Shirt, short sleeve, white Flying cross 25.00 65R5400 Shirt, long sleeve, white Flying cross 33.00 15W5400 Shirt, BDU, long sleeve Propper 5452 29.95 Shirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 51.25 (clerks)139R5425 Polo shirt, blueberry Sanmar L447 25.00 Pants, Men's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13057 O/S 108.00 style O/S Pant, Men's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13507 108.00 Pant, Women's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13507W 108.00 Pant, poly/wool/pleated (A/C)Fechheimer 32231 46.75 Belt (clerks)6606 15.95 Rain Pants 48057-19 85.00 5.11 TDU P/C Rip pants 74003-019 42.50 5.11 TDP Rip Shirt l/s 72002-019 42.50 Cardigan Sweater SAI 6300 35.95 Sleeveless Sweater vest SAI 6600 25.00 5 in 1 Jacket 5.11 48017-724 239.00 BUC Patrol Jacket PJ400 400.00 Turtle neck shirts, navy 7700 22.50 Mock turtle neck shirts,navy 8600 22.50 Hat, LAPD style inc rain cover Midway LAPD 44.95 and cap strap Packet Page 135 of 218 Exhibit A Page 2 Cap cover, black nylon Neese 447CCN 7.95 Cap strap, snake style silver P8005 9.95 Cap strap, snake style gold P8004 9.95 Tie, women's clip on Broome 45055-61 5.14 Tie, Regular navy clip on Broome 45015-61 5.14 Tie, Long navy clip on Broome 45045-61 5.14 Tie, women's navy velcro Broome 45122-61 6.95 Tie, Regular navy velcro Broome 45095-61 6.95 Tie, Long navy velcro Broome 45115-61 6.95 Boots, Blackhawk II Danner 24600 262.95 non-stock Boot, 5.11 ATAC 6"5.11 12002-BLK 85.00 Boot, 5.11 ATAC 8"5.11 12001-BLK 87.95 Boot, Striker 8", Goretex Danner 42980 169.95 Boot, ATAC 8" waterproof 12004-019 115.00 non-stock Boot, Men's nylon/ltr/Acadia Danner 21210 239.95 Shoe, lo top Thorogood 834-6056 115.00 non-stock New Balance (Clerks)MK706BL 109.95 New Balance (Clerks)WK706BL 109.95 Thorogood (Clerks)534-6908 129.95 non-stock Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-3A00S-SM01 800.00 Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-2000S-SM01 725.00 Holster, ALS mid ride Level II 6360-219 120.00 Duty Belt BW 2 1/4 Aker B01 39.42 Duty Belt BW 2 1/4 Bianchi 7950 49.95 Belt, Black BW 1 3/4 Chambers 6605 19.95 ASP Holder BW closed bottom Aker 552 for 21/26 18.92 ASP Holder BW closed bottom Bianchi 7912-24022 or 20.49 Keeper, BW hidden snap Bianchi 7906 14.95 Mace Holder MK4 BW HS Aker 570 20.83 Mace Holder MK4 BW HS Bianchi 7907 23.33 Cuff case, single BW HS Aker 508 22.12 Cuff case, single BW HS Bianchi 7900 25.20 Keyholder Aker 564 18.95 Keyholder Bianchi 7916 18.95 Double mag pouch BW HS Bianchi 7902 34.95 Double mag pouch BW HS Saf 77-76-4HS 34.95 Handcuffs Peerless 700N 21.41 Tactical Baton F-21B ASP 52411 78.95 Tactical Baton F-26 ASP 53611 78.95 Gear Bag Premier PBG-081 39.95 Hi Vis Safety Vest Blauer 339P 47.95 Letters E.P. 1/2" Rhodium Blackington 17.95 Letters E.P. 1/2" Gold Blackington 17.95 Packet Page 136 of 218 Exhibit A Page 3 Tie bar w/seal & EP Rhodium Blackington A367 17.95 Tie bar w/seal & EP Gold Blackington A367 17.95 Set of btns w/washers, togg-silver Waterbury 8.95 Set of btns w/washers, togg gold Waterbury 8.95 Chevrons, sgt, pr Emblem Ent 5425S 2.95 Chevrons, corp, pr Emblem Ent 5425C 2.95 Service bars Emblem Ent 5396 0.75 Metal name tags N8 slvr or gold 10.95 Jacket name tag (F.M.Last)13DNDN wht ltrs/4.95 Shirt name tag (F.M,.Last)22BB wht or gld ltrs 4.95 Reflective Police Panel X144038B 8.00 Academy Uniforms Hanes T- shirt Hanes T5180 6.08 Last name on shirt 10.00 Gray sweatshirt Jerzees 562M Birch 12.47 Last name on sweatshirt 10.00 Gray sweatpants Jerzees 973M Birch 10.91 Pants, navy uniform 65%/35%RedKap 7m76SNV Blue academy pants 511-74004-724 35.99 Blue academy pants-rip pants 511-74003-724 35.99 Pants. Cargo/BDU Popper F5201 NA Academy shirt s/s RedKap7M76SNV 18.18 Academy shorts Jerzees T-110 10.95 Traffic template 1186I 7.95 Gravity grip hand trainer Gravity Gripp 7.79 Mouthpiece Mouthpiece 1.25 Baseball hat w/ emb EP 21.95 L/S Tactical Gear shirt Under Armor 1216029 24.99 Waist adjustment (Normal charge $10.00)6.75 Alter rise (Normal charge $10.50)7.00 Shorten sleeve (normal charge $10.00)5.00 Sew on emblem COG $2.50 NC Sew on badge COG $2.50 1.00 Sew on name COG $2.50 1.00 Sew on chevrons, per pair COG $2.50 pr 2.50 Sew on buttons NC Taper sides of shirt Currently paid by Officer 6.00 Sew on Police Panel 2.50 Sew velcro on back of emblem 5.00 Heat stamp 1 line 1 side 6.00 Embroider name 8.00 Sew on years of service COG $2.50 1.00 Remove emblems, per pair 2.50 Packet Page 137 of 218 1 POLICE UNIFORM CONTRACT CITY OF EDMONDS This contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into this _____ day of __________, 20__, between Kroesens [Full name?](“Kroesens”), with principal offices located at [Address, City, State] and the City of Edmonds (“the City”), with principal offices located at 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with a uniform supplier to provide uniform items for its police employees; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have Kroesens, pursuant to certain terms and conditions, supply the necessary uniform items to outfit the City’s police employees; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: Kroesens agrees to provide the City with the uniform items as requested and established by the City in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Kroesens must be able to completely outfit new police employees within seventy-two hours and must make all uniform items, in a wide variety of sizes, readily available from stock on hand. This Contract does not establish Kroesens as the sole source for City purchases, and the City specifically reserves the right to go elsewhere for its needs if Kroesens cannot supply the particular item within the times provided herein. The City may also designate additional suppliers if, by doing so, it obtains the lowest overall price for its uniform needs. The City reserves the right to engage in non-exclusive contracts with multiple vendors in order to provide the lowest possible price on a per-item basis. 2. Ordering of Items: The City will designate certain employees as its buyer(s) for the purposes of ordering items from Kroesens pursuant to this Contract. The City will so inform Kroesens as to the names of these individuals. The City will submit its order by phone or by facsimile on official letterhead, with any phone orders to be “backed-up” by facsimile as soon as practicable. Kroesens is not to accept orders from individual police employees under the terms of this Contract, except as follows: Some of the City’s police employees are not covered by the City’s “quartermaster” system. Some employees receive a uniform allowance so they can individually purchase uniform items from any vendor as long as the items meet certain standards of the City. Some of these employees may desire to purchase uniform items from Kroesens. Packet Page 138 of 218 Kroesens agrees to honor prices for items listed in Exhibit A attached hereto for “individual employee” purchases. However, for Kroesens to honor this contract price, the City’s designated buyer(s) will order the items(s) on behalf of the “individual employee” utilizing the same procedure as specified above. In addition, it will be noted on the order facsimile that this is an “individual employee” purchase. It will be the responsibility of Kroesens and the “individual employee” to agree upon payment terms for any items ordered by the City’s buyer where the facsimile order specifies an “individual employee” order. The City will not be responsible for payment of “individual employee” orders. Under the terms of this Contract, all shoulder patches and bone buttons will be sewn on by Kroesens at no charge when a new uniform shirt is purchased. All service stripes and chevrons will be sewn on at the City’s expense. Tailoring requested by a police employee will be done by Kroesens at the City’s expense, provided that an Assistant Chief of Police has first authorized such tailoring. 3. Term of Contract: Kroesens shall begin performing the services under the terms of this Contract effective January 1, 2012, and the Contract will remain in effect until December 31, 2014, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 8. Kroesens retains the right to request price increases on an annual basis, provided that Kroesens first provides the City with documentation supporting the price increase, such as information relating to a price increase from its supplier. The City has the right to deny such a request, but will not unreasonably do so. 4. Compensation: The City shall pay Kroesens for the police uniform items provided pursuant to this Contract, except in the case of “individual employee” purchases as noted in Paragraph 2, at the price rates established in Exhibit A. All prices listed in Exhibit A include any charges for delivery to the City. No later than October 1st of each Contract year, Kroesens shall provide the City with an updated price list and samples of any items that replace or supersede any items on the expiring list. The City shall have forty-five (45) days to review and accept or reject the uniform prices and samples. Kroesens shall provide the City with monthly invoices for supplying uniform items. The City shall pay Kroesens within thirty days of receipt of each invoice. Invoices shall include the name of each employee for which the respective uniform items are being provided. Kroesens agrees that the City will not be billed for items ordered as “individual employee” purchases as specified in Paragraph 2. 5. Assignment and Subcontract: Kroesens shall not assign or subcontract to any person or entity any portion of the services contemplated by this Contract without the City’s written consent. 6. Independent Contractor: The City and Kroesens agree that Kroesens is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Contract. Nothing in this Contract shall be considered to create an employer/employee relationship between the parties hereto. Neither Kroesens nor any employee of Kroesens shall be entitled to any benefit accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Contract. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting Federal Income Tax or Social Security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to Kroesens or any employee of Kroesens. Packet Page 139 of 218 7. Indemnification: Kroesens shall protect, defend, save harmless and indemnify the City and its agents, officers and employees from and against all claims, suits and actions for all damage or injury arising from the negligent and/or malicious acts, errors or omissions and any willful, wanton, malicious or intentional tortious conduct on the part of Kroesens or its agents and/or employees. Kroesens further agrees to fully indemnify the City from and against any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, of defending such claim or demand. Additionally, Kroesens specifically waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to indemnify the City extends to any claim, demand or action brought by or on behalf of any employee of Kroesens, and includes any judgment, award and costs thereof including attorneys’ fees incurred. This paragraph shall not apply to damages and claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City. 8. Termination: The City may terminate this Contract at any time by providing written notice of termination to the other party. Such termination shall become effective thirty days after receipt of said notice. In any case whereby this Contract is terminated prior to the stated expiry date, the City shall provide reasonable compensation to Kroesens for the uniform items and services provided pursuant to this Contract and accepted by the City up to the date of termination. 9. City Review/Approval: Upon delivery to the City of any police uniform items required by the scope of work identified in Paragraph 1, the City may accept or reject such uniform items, and may request such modification of said uniform items as it deems appropriate. To service such modifications, Kroesens must have on-site tailoring facilities. Kroesens shall promptly perform such modifications and correct any defects present in the uniform items. Kroesens shall not be entitled to compensation for time devoted to correcting defective police uniform items. 10. Force Majeure: Neither party shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations herein to the extent that the performance of said obligation is prevented or delayed by any cause, existing or future, which is unforeseen and beyond the reasonable control of the affected party. 11. Applicable Law and Venue: This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action upon the terms of this Contract shall be within King County, Washington. 12. Entire Agreement: The City and Kroesens agree that this Contract is the complete expression of the terms between the parties hereto and no other agreement, oral or otherwise, which regards the subject matter of this Contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Contract. Packet Page 140 of 218 13. Notice: Whenever it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this Contract, such notice or demand shall be given or served, and shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by first-class mail, addressed to the address of the party as specified in the opening paragraph herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Kroesens and the City have caused this Contract to be executed by the person authorized to act in their respective names. CITY OF EDMONDS: KROESENS [Full name?]: Dave Earling, Mayor By Its ATTEST: ________________________________ Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ City Attorney Packet Page 141 of 218 Exhibit A Kroesen's Price List Page 1 Item Model Price Chg # Shirt, Men's short Sleeved Elbeco 7408Z 69.50 F/C 746R9226 Shirt, Men's long sleeved Elbeco 7480Z 92.50 F/C 414W92267 Shirt, short sleeve, med blue Flying cross 49.50 95R6625 Shirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 55.90 (animal control)45W6625 Shirt, short sleeve, white Flying cross 37.50 65R5400 Shirt, long sleeve, white Flying cross 39.50 15W5400 Shirt, BDU, long sleeve Propper 5452 32.50 Shirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 37.50 (clerks)139R5425 Polo shirt, blueberry Sanmar L447 21.00 Pants, Men's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13057 O/S 140.00 mod 32289 style O/S Pant, Men's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13507 125.00 mod 32289 Pant, Men's dacron wool SPD Fechheimer 32220 89.50 Blauer 8561P7 Pant, Women's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13507W 130.00 mod 35289 Pant, Tactical Class A, 5.11 44059T ? poly/rayon Pant, Tactical Class A, 5.11 44060T 102.50 Fechheimer 44900 (Poly Wool) Pant, Tactical Class A, Edwards Co. 8650 42.00 Pant, poly/wool/pleated (A/C)Fechheimer 32231 49.50 Pant, poly/wool/pleated (clerks)8659-10 42.00 Belt (clerks)6050-01 17.90 Rain Pants 48057-19 $99.99 5.11 TDU P/C Rip pants 74003-019 $44.99 5.11 TDP Rip Shirt l/s 72002-019 $54.99 Cardigan Sweater SAI 6300 36.50 Sleeveless Sweater vest SAI 6600 24.50 5 in 1 Jacket 5.11 48017-724 249.99 BUC Patrol Jacket PJ400 Unknown Maker - ? Packet Page 142 of 218 Exhibit A Kroesen's Price List Page 2 Turtle neck shirts, navy 7700 29.50 Blauer 8100X Mock turtle neck shirts,navy 8600 29.50 Blauer 8110X Hat, LAPD style inc rain cover Midway LAPD 55.50 and cap strap Cap cover, black nylon Neese 447CCN 7.00 Blauer 101 Cap strap, snake style silver Cadet 7-450 7.50 Eisman Ludmar Cap strap, snake style gold Cadet 7-451 7.50 Eisman Ludmar Tie, women's clip on Broome 45055-61 7.00 Tie, Regular navy clip on Broome 45015-61 7.00 Tie, Long navy clip on Broome 45045-61 7.00 Tie, women's navy velcro Broome 45122-61 7.00 Tie, Regular navy velcro Broome 45095-61 7.00 Tie, Long navy velcro Broome 45115-61 7.00 Boots, Blackhawk II Danner 24600 229.00 Boot, Women's Goretex hi-top Rocky 4044 NA Boot, Goretex hi top lug sole Rocky 8032 147.50 Boot, 5.11 ATAC 6"5.11 12002-BLK 86.00 Boot, 5.11 ATAC 8"5.11 12001-BLK 95.00 Boot, Striker 8", Goretex Danner 42980 145.00 Boot, ATAC 8" waterproof 12004-019 129.99 Boot, Men's nylon/ltr/Acadia Danner 21210 229.00 Shoe, lo top Thorogood 834-6056 115.50 Men's shoe Black Rocky 2025 93.00 Thorogood (Clerks)MK706BL Unknown # Thorogood (Clerks)Unknown # Thorogood (Clerks)534-6908 100.00 Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-3A00S-SM01 NA Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-2000S-SM01 NA Holster, ALS mid ride Level II 6360-219 160.00 Duty Belt BW 2 1/4 Aker B01 54.50 Duty Belt BW 2 1/4 Bianchi 7950 52.50 Belt, Black BW 1 3/4 Chambers 6605 16.90 ASP Holder BW closed bottom Aker 552 for 21/26 28.50 ASP Holder BW closed bottom Bianchi 7912-24022 or 45.50 Keeper, BW hidden snap Bianchi 7906 14.50 Mace Holder MK4 BW HS Aker 570 30.50 Mace Holder MK4 BW HS Bianchi 7907 28.50 Cuff case, single BW HS Aker 508 32.50 Cuff case, single BW HS Bianchi 7900 28.50 Packet Page 143 of 218 Exhibit A Kroesen's Price List Page 3 Keyholder Aker 564 20.00 Keyholder Bianchi 7916 21.50 Double mag pouch BW HS Bianchi 7902 38.50 Double mag pouch BW HS Saf 77-76-4HS 39.50 Handcuffs Peerless 700N 28.50 6501 Tactical Baton F-21B ASP 52411 84.50 Tactical Baton F-26 ASP 53611 87.50 Gear Bag Premier PBG-081 53.50 Hi Vis Safety Vest Blauer 339P 49.50 Letters E.P. 1/2" Rhodium Blackington 15.90 Emblem Ent Letters E.P. 1/2" Gold Blackington 15.90 Emblem Ent Tie bar w/seal & EP Rhodium Blackington A367 16.30 C.W. Nielsen Tie bar w/seal & EP Gold Blackington A367 16.30 C.W. Nielsen Set of btns w/washers, togg-silver Waterbury 10.50 Set of btns w/washers, togg gold Waterbury 10.50 Chevrons, sgt, pr Emblem Ent 5425S 3.00 Chevrons, corp, pr Emblem Ent 5425C 3.00 Service bars Emblem Ent 5396 0.75 Metal name tags N8 slvr or gold 15.00 Jacket name tag (F.M.Last)13DNDN wht ltrs/6.50 1"x5" Cloth Shirt name tag (F.M,.Last)22BB wht or gld ltrs 4.75 3/4"x3" Cloth Reflective Police Panel X144038B 7.50 HeroesPride 11"x4" #5624 Hanes T- shirt Hanes T5180 4.50 Last name on shirt Gray sweatshirt Jerzees 562M Birch 10.50 Last name on sweatshirt Gray sweatpants Jerzees 973M Birch 13.00 Pants, navy uniform 65%/35%RedKap 5P56T00 20.50 BigBen PT62NV Blue academy pants 511-74004-724 44.99 Blue academy pants-rip pants 511-74003-724 44.99 Pants. Cargo/BDU Popper F5201 32.50 Academy shirt s/s RedKap7M76SNV 31.00 BigBen ST62NV Academy shorts Jerzees T-110 12.00 Sport Tel ST310 Traffic template 1186I 9.50 Pickett Gravity grip hand trainer Gravity Gripp ? Mouthpiece Mouthpiece NA Baseball hat w/ emb EP 19.95 Elbow guard 2400 15.00 Hatch NE 35 Knee guard 32.00 Hatch NE 45 Apply heat letters to garments 9.00 L/S Tactical Gear shirt 5385 - Discontinued 28.00 Under Armor #1201085 Packet Page 144 of 218 Exhibit A Kroesen's Price List Page 4 Waist adjustment (Normal charge $10.00)10.00 Alter rise (Normal charge $10.50)10.50 Shorten sleeve (normal charge $10.00)10.00 Sew on emblem COG $2.50 NC Sew on badge COG $2.50 2.00 Sew on name COG $2.50 2.00 Sew on chevrons, per pair COG $2.50 pr 2.00 Sew on buttons NC Taper sides of shirt Currently paid by Officer 10.00 Sew on Police Panel 2.00 Sew velcro on back of emblem 2.00 Heat stamp 1 line 1 side 7.50 Name ? Embroider name 8.90 Sew on years of service COG $2.50 1.00 Remove emblems, per pair 2.00 We do not charge to apply your patches to new purchases. We do not charge to apply purchased from us patches. We do not charge to remove old emblems when replacing with new. Let me know if you have any questions. I couldn't price everything - some items like the BUC Patrol Jacket I could not find anywhere. Packet Page 145 of 218 AM-4538 Item #: 2. H. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:Consent Submitted For:Jen Machuga Submitted By:Jen Machuga Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Ordinance revising outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and addition of a definition of "outdoor dining area" to ECDC 21.75. (File No. AMD20110005) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Adopt the outdoor dining ordinance (Exhibit 1) as prepared by the City Attorney. Previous Council Action This item was discussed with the CS/DS Council Committee on December 13, 2011, and the Committee moved to forward the item to the full Council for a public hearing with no recommendation. A public hearing was held before the Council on January 23, 2012. Following the close of the public hearing, the Council voted to approve the Planning Board's recommendation on revisions to the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption, with an amendment to the permitted hours of operation for sites adjacent to residentially-zoned property. The draft minutes from this meeting are included for reference as Exhibit 2. Narrative As requested by the Council, the City Attorney has prepared an ordinance for revisions to the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and the addition of a definition of "outdoor dining area" to ECDC 21.75.120. This ordinance is included as Exhibit 1, which includes the changes to ECDC 17.75 as Attachment A. The ordinance would allow outdoor dining outright within specified commercial zones as long as the outdoor dining area complies with at least one of the following criteria: 1) The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially-zoned property(ies). 2) The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13 along the property line(s) directly adjacent to the residentially-zoned property(ies). 3) The dining area is screened from adjoining residential property(ies) by a building and/or a 4-foot wall, hedge, or solid fence. 4) Seating is limited to an additional 10 percent of the existing interior seating of the establishment or 12 seats, whichever is greater. Additionally, for sites directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the ordinance would limit the hours of operation of the outdoor dining area by requiring the outdoor dining area to be closed between the hours of 9:00 pm and 8:00 am. Packet Page 146 of 218 the hours of 9:00 pm and 8:00 am. Provisions are included within the ordinance to allow for proposals for outdoor dining areas that do not meet at least one of the four listed criteria or the limitation on the hours of operation where adjacent to residentially-zoned property to be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner as a Type III-A conditional use permit application. The ordinance includes a provision requiring areas utilized for outdoor dining to comply with the setback requirements applicable to the underlying zoning of the site. For example, on sites that are directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property(ies), the outdoor dining area must be set back from the shared residential property line a distance equivalent to or greater than the minimum setback distance, which is typically 15 feet for commercial properties adjacent to residentially-zoned properties. Exhibits are as follows: 1. Outdoor Dining Ordinance 2. Draft Council Minutes 1/23/12 Attachments Exhibit 1: Outdoor Dining Ordinance Exhibit 2: Draft Council Minutes 1/23/12 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/02/2012 02:15 PM Mayor Dave Earling 02/03/2012 08:30 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/03/2012 08:36 AM Form Started By: Jen Machuga Started On: 02/02/2012 11:34 AM Final Approval Date: 02/03/2012 Packet Page 147 of 218 ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY’S OUTDOOR DINING REGULATIONS; PERMITTING BUSINESSES TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR DINING AS A PERMITTED SECONDARY USE IN CERTAIN ZONES WITHOUT OBTAINING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET; ESTABLISHING THE HOURS BY WHICH OUTDOOR DINING IS PERMITTED FOR THOSE BUSINESSES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES; ADDING A DEFINITION OF “OUTDOOR DINING AREA”; AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 17.75 AND 21.75; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. _____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, at the May 25, 2011 Planning Board meeting, staff brought it to the Board’s attention that several inquiries had recently been received by the Development Services Department for the establishment and/or expansion of outdoor dining areas; and WHEREAS, under the current outdoor dining regulations, outdoor dining is permitted outright as a secondary use for an additional 10 percent of the interior seating or eight seats, whichever is greater; and WHEREAS, under the current outdoor dining regulations, a conditional use permit, which carries with it an application fee of approximately $1,500.00, is required for businesses that wish to provide outdoor dining in excess of the 10 percent or eight seats; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this issue on July 13, 2011, which was continued to August 10, 2011; and WHEREAS, after discussion, the Planning Board agreed on a few additional revisions to the draft regulations and then voted to forward the proposed outdoor dining language to the City Council with a recommendation that the council approve the amendments to the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and add the definition of “outdoor dining area” to ECDC 21.75; and WHEREAS, the revised provisions of the outdoor dining ordinance would allow outdoor dining as a permitted secondary use within the BN, BC, BP, BD, CW, CG, MU and FVMU zones if the outdoor dining area complied with certain criteria, and if the dining area did not comply, only then would a conditional use permit be required; and Exhibit 1 Packet Page 148 of 218 WHEREAS, the originally proposed revisions of the outdoor dining ordinance proposed that outdoor dining areas directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties would be closed between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on January 23, 2012, the City Council directed that an ordinance be prepared to adopt the revised outdoor dining regulations, amending the proposed regulations by changing the allowable hours of operation, thereby mandating outdoor dining areas directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties to be closed between 9:00 pm and 8:00 am; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment to Outdoor Dining Regulations. ECDC chapter 17.75, entitled “Outdoor Dining” is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown as strike-through). Section 2. Adding “Outdoor Dining Area” to Definitions. A new section 21.75.120, entitled “Outdoor dining area,” is hereby added to chapter 21.75 ECDC to read as follows: 21.75.120. Outdoor dining area. An outdoor dining area is a portion of a property utilized by a licensed food or beverage establishment for the seating of customers for their consumption of food or beverages served by the establishment. An outdoor dining area is not located within a completely enclosed building, but is instead located outside the building, such as on an outdoor patio or deck. The area may be open to the elements or may be covered by a roof or awning or partially enclosed. A portion of a dining area within an enclosed building that is temporarily opened to the outdoors (such as by opening windows, doors, or walls) is not considered to be an outdoor dining area. An outdoor dining area must be located on property outside of the City right-of-way. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of 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. Packet Page 149 of 218 APPROVED: ________________________________ MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY _________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY, JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ____ Packet Page 150 of 218 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington ______________________________________________________________________________ On the ____ day of _______________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _______________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY’S OUTDOOR DINING REGULATIONS; PERMITTING BUSINESSES TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR DINING AS A PERMITTED SECONDARY USE IN CERTAIN ZONES WITHOUT OBTAINING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET; ESTABLISHING THE HOURS BY WHICH OUTDOOR DINING IS PERMITTED FOR THOSE BUSINESSES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES; ADDING A DEFINITION OF OUTDOOR DINING AREA; AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 17.75 AND 21.75; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this ________ day of __________________, 2012. ____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 4822-3045-2750, v. 2 Packet Page 151 of 218 [ATTACHMENT A] Chapter 17.75 OUTDOOR DINING Sections: 17.75.010 Outdoor dining – Permitted secondary use. 17.75.020 Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit. 17.75.030 Reduction of outdoor seating by existing nonconforming seating. 17.75.0340 Outdoor dining buildings or structures. 17.75.010 Outdoor dining – Permitted secondary use. A. Limited outdoor seating for outdoor dining is hereby allowed as a permitted secondary use in the BN – neighborhood business zone, BC – community business zone, BP-planned business zone, BD – downtown business zone, CW – commercial waterfront zone, and CG – general commercial zone, MU – medical use zone, and FVMU – firdale village mixed use zone. When established as a permitted secondary use, the outdoor dining area shall currently comply or be proposed to comply with at least one of the following criteria: (1) The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially-zoned property(ies). (2) The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13 along the property line(s) directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property(ies). (3) The dining area is screened from adjoining residential property(ies) by a building and/or a 4-foot wall, hedge, or solid fence. (4) Seating shall be is limited to an additional 10 percent of the existing interior seating of the establishment or eight 12 seats, whichever is greater. B. For sites directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the outdoor dining area shall be closed between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. C. Areas utilized for outdoor dining shall comply with setback requirements applicable to the site. D. Seating, and shall be located outside of public rights-of-way. Seating within public rights-of- way is reviewed as bistro dining pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 18.70.030. E. No additional parking stalls shall be required for outdoor dining usage. [Ord. 3628 § 3, 2007; Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000]. 17.75.020 Outdoor dining – Secondary Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit. Outdoor dining not meeting the requirements of ECDC 17.75.010 shall be a primary secondary use requiring a conditional use permit within the zones states in 17.75.010(A). in the BN – neighborhood business zone, BC – community business zone, BD – downtown business zone, CW – commercial waterfront zone, and CG – general commercial zone, for outdoor seating which Packet Page 152 of 218 [ATTACHMENT A] exceeds 10 percent of the existing interior seating in the establishment or more than either seats, whichever is greater. This use shall be established and maintained only in accordance with the terms of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a Type III-A decision under the procedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the outdoor seating, and/or buffering of the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All seating permitted pursuant to the conditional use permit shall be located outside of public rights-of-way. If outdoor seating is approved under these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required for the outdoor dining. [Ord. 3783 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 19, 2009; Ord. 3628 § 4, 2007; Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000]. 17.75.030 Reduction of outdoor seating by existing nonconforming seating. An existing eating establishment with nonconforming seating which exceeds the current standards of the city zoning ordinance may utilize outdoor dining as a permitted secondary use or as a primary use requiring conditional use permit; provided, however, that the outdoor seating shall not increase the nonconformity of the establishment. For example, an existing establishment whose interior seating exceeds the normally permitted seating requirement for the zone by four seats, outdoor dining permitted as a secondary use shall be reduced by four seats. Any additional seating shall require a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 17.75.020. [Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000]. 17.75.0340 Outdoor dining buildings or structures. Any building or structure such as a service stand, fence, planter, kiosk, awning or other shelter utilized in serving outdoor diners shall fully comply with all provisions of the State Building Code and this community development code, including but not limited to architectural design approval review. [Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000]. 4838-5790-8238, v. 1 Packet Page 153 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 3 N. REAPPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL MESTRES AND BRUCE "MICK" O'NEIL TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR ANOTHER TERM. O. REAPPOINTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER LARRY VOGEL. 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DRAFT REVISIONS TO THE OUTDOOR DINING REGULATIONS OF ECDC 17.75 AND ADDITION OF A DEFINITION OF OUTDOOR DINING TO ECDC 21.75. (FILE NO. AMD20110005) Planner Jen Machuga explained the City’s current regulations allow outdoor dining outright as a secondary use for an additional 10% of the existing interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is greater. If the restaurant wishes to have more than 10% of the interior seats or 8 seats, a Type III-A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. The cost of a CUP is approximately $1500 and is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. The current process is cost prohibitive especially for small businesses who want to add a few seats over the limit. Ms. Machuga reviewed a timeline for the code revision process: • May 25, 2011 – Planning Board discussion • July 13, 2011 – Planning Board hearing • August 10, 2011 – Planning Board continued hearing • December 13, 2011 – CS/DS Council Committee discussion • January 23, 2012 – City Council hearing Ms. Machuga reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendation: • Outdoor dining permitted outright if one of the following criteria are met: 1. Site is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties; or 2. Site complies with landscaping requirements along property lines adjacent to residentially- zoned properties; or 3. Dining area is screened from residential properties by a building and/or 4-foot wall, hedge, or fence; or 4. Dining area contains no more than 10% of interior seating or 12 seats, whichever is greater. • If site is adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the dining area shall be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM • Requires a Type III-A CUP if requesting exemption from the four criteria or the hours of operation. • Updated the definition of outdoor dining in the code Ms. Machuga displayed drawings illustrating what the proposed code language would allow with regard to screening for a restaurant with outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property. She noted if a restaurant wanted outdoor dining and did not provide landscaping/screening, they could seek a CUP. She provided several photographs to illustrate how existing outdoor dining areas are screened. Mayor Earling complimented Ms. Machuga’s presentation and also requested staff footnote acronyms in their presentations in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the zoning where Rory’s is located allows them to have outdoor dining later than 10:00 p.m. Ms. Machuga answered Rory’s is in the Downtown Business (BD) zone and does not have the limitation on hours in the outdoor dining code because it is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Any outdoor dining area is subject to the City’s noise ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Rory’s could have outdoor dining until 2:00 a.m. Ms. Machuga answered yes. She recalled Rory’s had a CUP in 2004 for a potential additional/remodel that eventually did not occur which limited their hours. Exhibit 2 Packet Page 154 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 4 Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $1500 fee applied only to the CUP. Ms. Machuga agreed it did. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was any fee associated with applying for outdoor dining. Ms. Machuga answered a permit would not be required if the restaurant was adding seats to an existing area but there may be fees associated with the creation of a new outdoor dining area that requires design review. Those fees are much less expensive compared to a CUP. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Pam Stuller, Richmond Beach, owner of Walnut Street Coffee, expressed her support for the proposed change to the code language. She anticipated the change would encourage a more lively and interactive downtown which is beneficial to small businesses as well as residents. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned the purpose of the 4-foot fence, commenting a fence in a residential area was required to be 5-feet. He pointed out most of the examples staff provided buffered the outdoor dining area from the street and none of them illustrated an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned property. He questioned whether consideration had been given to outdoor dining in buildings downtown where there is residential on the second floor. He questioned whether there was a difference between dining and drinking in outdoor dining areas. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the fence for an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned property was only required to be 4 feet in height. Ms. Machuga answered that was the Planning Board’s recommendation for one of the four criteria; the 4-foot fence would not be required if the outdoor dining area met the landscaping requirement or have less than 10% of the number of interior seats or 12 seats whichever is greater. Councilmember Plunkett summarized if the outdoor dining area did not meet the other criteria, they would be required to have a fence and if the outdoor dining area were adjacent to a residentially-zoned property, the fence would only be 4-feet in height. Ms. Machuga agreed. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Planning Board or staff discussed the concept of 6-foot fences in residential areas. Ms. Machuga responded a fence is not required to be 6 feet in height in a residential neighborhood; that is the maximum height. The Planning Board originally discussed a 6-foot height but felt more architectural interest could be provided by allowing a 4-foot fence and the business owner could add a trellis. As one of the examples illustrated, if a 6-foot fence were required, it was feared it would be a solid plain cedar fence rather than a 4-foot fence with a decorative trellis, flower boxes, etc. The Planning Board also discussed that the height of people seated in an outdoor dining area is closer to the 4-foot height. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out it was not required to add a trellis or other architectural feature above the 4-foot fence adjacent to a house. Ms. Machuga agreed a 4-foot fence with nothing above could be provided. Councilmember Petso referred to the four criteria, observing that under the proposed language a restaurant with 11 outdoor seats adjacent to a house would not require a fence, screening or CUP. Ms. Machuga agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned property must close at 10:00 p.m. Ms. Machuga answered yes, unless they applied for and received a CUP. The CUP is a Type III-A process before the Hearing Examiner that includes public notice, public hearing, etc. With regard to adjacent to residentially-zoned property, she clarified that meant a shared property line. There are few commercial properties downtown directly adjacent to residential properties; there is either a street or alley separating them. In those cases, the restaurant would meet the first criteria, not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Packet Page 155 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE HOURS FOR SITES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT THE DINING AREA BE CLOSED BETWEEN 9:00 P.M. AND 8:00 A.M. Councilmember Petso explained the hours she proposed were consistent with the hours in the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Petso explained the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance regulates home-based businesses in residential areas. Those businesses are required to be closed between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Because outdoor dining areas would be permitted immediately adjacent to a residential area, she proposed changing the hours to match the hours in the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Bloom asked if that requirement was related to noise. Councilmember Petso responded yes. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote). Councilmember Petso suggested requiring that outright permitted outdoor dining meet both criteria 1 and 4 and either criteria 2 or 3. Student Representative Springer questioned the requirement to meet both criteria 1 and 4 and the reasoning for changing the hours if a site was not adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Councilmember Petso explained her intent was if a site is adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the outdoor dining area would not be permitted outright unless screening was provided. Student Representative Springer asked if an establishment could apply for a CUP if their outdoor dining was not outright permitted. Ms. Machuga answered yes. Councilmember Petso suggested if an applicant did not meet criteria 1 and 4, they be required to apply for a CUP. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were any outdoor dining establishments adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Ms. Machuga could not think of any. Ms. Machuga clarified under Councilmember Petso’s proposal, for an outdoor dining area to be allowed outright, it could not be directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, there would be a limit on the number of seats and screening would be required either by landscaping or a fence. She summarized that was just as restrictive as the existing regulations. Councilmember Petso commented her proposal would apply to Five Bistro which is adjacent to single family residential and potential redevelopment in Firdale Village and Five Corners where outdoor dining could be immediately adjacent to someone’s yard. Ms. Machuga explained there is a single family house next door to Five Bisto that is on the same Neighborhood Business (BN) zoned lot. Using that as an example, under the Planning Board’s proposal, outdoor dining would be allowed outright because it would not be directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property. With regard to examples of outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property, Ms. Machuga referred to examples of CUP granted for Five Bistro, Scott’s Bar & Grill and Penara; none of those are directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties. Under the Planning Board’s proposal, they would have been outright permitted without a CUP. Under Councilmember Petso’s proposal a CUP would be required due to the number of seats. Packet Page 156 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 6 Student Representative Springer questioned the reason for requiring criteria 4, limiting outdoor dining to 10% of interior seating or 12 seats whichever is greater, if the site is not directly adjacent to residentially- zoned property. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING TO BE PERMITTED OUTRIGHT ONLY IF IT MEETS CRITERIA 1 AND ONE OF THE OTHER THREE CRITERIA. Councilmember Plunkett advised he would support the amendment as the ordinance would come back to the Council for approval. Ms. Machuga asked if Councilmember Petso’s intent was outdoor dining would be permitted outright as a secondary use if the site is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, and it meets one of criteria 2-4, and outdoor dining directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property would require a CUP regardless of the number of seats. Councilmember Petso responded that was her intent. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed his understanding of the amendment was any application for outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property would require a CUP no matter what. If the application for outdoor dining was for a property that was not adjacent to residentially-zoned property, it might not need a CUP as long as one of criteria 2, 3 or 4 is met. Student Representative Springer commented it was unfair toward businesses adjacent to residentially zoned property because it forced them to pay the $1500 fee for a CUP. He pointed out the hours for outdoor dining had already been limited which was sufficient for outdoor dining adjacent to residentially- zoned property. Councilmember Plunkett commented it was imminently fair because a business that is next to a residence should be held to a higher standard. Council President Peterson agreed with Student Representative Springer. The Planning Board’s proposal with the change in hours was restrictive enough. The point of the Planning Board’s recommendation was to create business opportunities; making the regulations more restrictive defeats that purpose. He did not support the proposed amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote). Mr. Taraday explained Mayor Earling was unable to vote to break the tie because this ultimately would come back to the Council as an ordinance. Student Representative Springer supported limiting the dining hours to 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., pointing out during Daylight Savings Time, the sun sets later and limiting dining hours to 9:00 p.m. would require patrons to be seated by 8:00 p.m. He concluded the 9:00 p.m. time limit reduced access to the outdoor seating area particularly during the longer summer days. Councilmember Petso recalled the Home Occupation Ordinance that was adopted in the name of economic development and the ensuing public outcry about what could occur in a single family neighborhood. The Council subsequently limited the hours. If someone sited a restaurant off her back fence and was allowed to have outdoor dining until 10:00 p.m. she would likely have to move as she would find that highly unsatisfactory. Packet Page 157 of 218 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Page 7 THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote). 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Laura Spehar, Edmonds, shared a story about a friend who is gay that was a victim of a hit-and-run accident and whose 20-year partner was not allowed into the emergency room or given information about her condition because she was not recognized as a relative or spouse. The victim also had no medical insurance at the time of the accident; her partner worked for the State but was not allowed to include her partner on her medical insurance policy. She and her husband felt it an unjustified privilege to obtain medical insurance, rights, marriage certificate, and acceptance when they married only because they are a non-gay couple. She urged the Council to remember her friends’ story when voting on the resolution in support of marriage equality and adding marriage equality to the 2012 legislative agenda. She viewed her friends’ 20-year relationship as a partnership that should be recognized. Unfortunately due to various beliefs, misinformation, lack of education, the United States is still behind in addressing this issue. Christopher Querubin, Edmonds, explained he met his spouse in 2007, they became domestic partners in 2010 and they were married in Connecticut in 2011. He asked for the Council support for the resolution in support of marriage equality. He has requested a meeting with Senator Paull Shin on Friday. He supported marriage equality at the state and federal level. His husband is a business owner based in Edmonds and they hire veterans. Royce Napolitano, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the resolution in support of marriage equality, noting there are many families that need this. Although the votes at the state level are promising, he urged Council to take a stand to demonstrate support from grassroots and not just an overall populous. Dave Page, Edmonds, spoke regarding the resolution in support of marriage equality. He pointed out the Council was non-partisan but marriage equality was a partisan issue. He noted various churches in Edmonds that do not support marriage equality. Observing that the vast majority of the Council’s constituency was conservative, if the Council did not pass the resolution, the liberals in the community would call the Council right-wing nuts; if the Council passes the resolution and declare their partisanship, the right-wing nuts will think the Council are crazy left-leaning liberals. He concluded right or wrong was not the issue, the legislature will pass marriage equality legislation and there is no need for the Council to commit on this topic. He requested Council pull this item from the agenda. Don Hall, Edmonds, expressed concern with the process related to Agenda Items 6 and 10. With regard to Item 6, he pointed out it was on the Consent Agenda on the Tuesday, January 17 meeting that was canceled due to snow. He supported the change to place it on the agenda for tonight’s meeting because when the charge of a commission is being changed, the public should know which Councilmembers want the changes and why. He questioned whether those in favor of the changes had attended any of the Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) meetings or discussed their concerns with the commission. Scheduling such a change on the Consent Agenda was a poor example of open government. With regard to Agenda Item 10, he commented this is another poor example of open government because the public was given very little notice this issue would be on the Council agenda, giving no opportunity for the local newspaper to publish articles and it was not listed as a public hearing. The public has not had an opportunity to express their opinion unless they did so to the legislature. He concluded Agenda Item 10 was rushed for political reasons, a poor example of open government. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Page and Mr. Hall with regard to Agenda Item 10. He pointed out the Seattle City Council passed a resolution in support of marriage equality and questioned whether Edmonds wanted to use Seattle as its standard of excellence. With regard to the roundabout, he explained a preponderance of citizens have expressed opposition to the project. Their opposition is not Packet Page 158 of 218 AM-4544 Item #: 2. I. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:Consent Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.65; designating the City Clerk as the Public Records Officer for the Transportation Benefit District. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The Public Records Act mandates that local government agencies designate a public records officer whose responsibility is to serve as the "point of contact" for members of the public seeking public records. The City Council previously designated the city clerk as the public records officer for the city. During the annual review with the Washington Cities Insurance Authority, it was recommended that the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) separately designate a public records officer for the TBD. The TBD is scheduled at its meeting on February 7 to designate the city clerk as its public records officer. Due to the action of the TBD, Section 3.65.020 of the Edmonds City Code needs to be amended to include the statement: "The public records officer of the transportation benefit district shall be the city clerk." The City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance. Attachments Ordinance - Public Records Officer for TBD Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 02/03/2012 08:29 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/03/2012 08:36 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/02/2012 05:24 PM Final Approval Date: 02/03/2012 Packet Page 159 of 218 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 3.65; DESIGNATING THE CITY CLERK AS THE PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICER FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECITVE DATE. ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Edmonds transportation benefit district or “district” was created by ordinance in 2008; and WHEREAS, the governing board of the district is the Edmonds city council acting in an ex officio and independent capacity, which shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers set forth in chapter 36.73 RCW; and WHEREAS, the state legislature amended the public records statutes during the 2005 legislative session and subsequently re-codified the Public Disclosure Act at chapter 42.56 RCW, now referred to as the Public Records Act (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the Act mandates that local government agencies designate a public records officer whose responsibility it is to serve as the “point of contact” for members of the public seeking public records; and WHEREAS, the district is a local governmental entity subject to the Act; and WHEREAS, the district resolved to designate the city clerk as the public records officer; and WHEREAS, the ordinance governing the district, chapter 3.65 of the Edmonds City Code, should be amended by City Council to incorporate the city clerk as the public records officer so that the district can comply with the Act; NOW, THEREFORE, Packet Page 160 of 218 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment to Transportation Benefit District Ordinance. Section 3.65.020 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Governing board,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown as strike-through). 3.65.020 Governing board. A. The governing board of the transportation benefit district shall be the Edmonds city council acting in an ex officio and independent capacity, which shall have the authority to exercise the statutory powers set forth in Chapter 36.73 RCW. B. The treasurer of the transportation benefit district shall be the city finance director. C.The public records officer of the transportation benefit district shall be the city clerk. C.D.The board shall develop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the ability to plan, pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW 36.73.160(1). At a minimum, if a transportation improvement exceeds its cost by more than 20 percent, as identified in the district’s original plan, a public hearing shall be held to solicit public comment regarding how the cost change should be resolved. D.E. The board shall issue an annual report, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.73.160(2) [Ord. 3707 S 2, 2008]. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of 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. Packet Page 161 of 218 APPROVED: ________________________________ MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY _________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY, JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ____ Packet Page 162 of 218 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington ______________________________________________________________________________ On the ____ day of _______________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _______________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 3.65; DESIGNATING THE CITY CLERK AS THE PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICER FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECITVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this ________ day of __________________, 2012. Packet Page 163 of 218 AM-4526 Item #: 4. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Joe McIalwain Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Review Committee: Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type:Action Information Subject Title A. Ordinance approving an amendment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Charter; changing the semi-monthly regular meeting schedule of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board to a monthly regular meeting schedule. B. Ordinance approving an amendment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Charter; establishing board term limits for members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative The Edmonds PFD Board is seeking approval of the following draft ordinances by the Edmonds City Council in order to facilitate two separate changes to the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) Charter. A draft ordinance to change the Edmonds PFD regular meeting days and times. The PFD Board is proposing an update to the charter to reflect that regular meetings of the PFD Board will be the 4th Thursday of every month beginning at 8:30 am. Attached PFD Board Resolution #41 provides PFD Board approval of this change and outlines specific language of the added clause. 1. A draft ordinance that adds a clause establishing PFD board term limits for PFD Board Members. Attached PFD Board Resolution #38 provides PFD Board approval of this change and outlines specific language of the added clause. 2. Joe McIalwain, Edmonds Center for Arts Executive Director, will be attending the February, 7, 2012 City Council meeting to present a brief overview of the proposed changes and to answer questions. Attachments Ordinance - Change in regular meeting times Ordinance - Establish term limits Edmonds PFD Resolution No. 41 Edmonds PFD Resolution No. 38 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/01/2012 03:01 PM Mayor Dave Earling 02/01/2012 03:14 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/01/2012 03:37 PM Packet Page 164 of 218 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/01/2012 03:37 PM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 02/01/2012 11:25 AM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2012 Packet Page 165 of 218 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT CHARTER; CHANGING THE SEMI-MONTHLY REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD TO A MONTHLY REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE; FIXING THE DATE AND TIME OF SAID REGULAR MEETINGS; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City Council created Edmonds Public Facilities District through Ordinance No. 3358 on April 24, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently granted a Charter to the District on May 14, 2001, which by its terms required City Council approval of any amendment thereof; and WHEREAS, said Charter established a semi-annual regular meeting schedule for District Board members; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently approved an amendment to the District Charter which replaced the original semi-annual regular meeting schedule with a semi- monthly regular meeting schedule by way of Ordinance No. 3468 on August 12, 2003; and WHEREAS, the District Board has approved a proposed amendment to the District Charter which would replace the current semi-monthly regular meeting schedule with a monthly regular meeting schedule to be held on the 4th Thursday of each month, starting at 8:30AM; and WHEREAS, the District Board requests City Council approval of the proposed amendment to its Charter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 166 of 218 Section 1. The proposed amendment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Charter contained in Resolution #41 of the Edmonds Public Facilities District, attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, is hereby approved. A copy of this ordinance shall be affixed to and maintained with said Charter in the formal records of the City. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of 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 DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY _________________________________ JEFFREY B. TARADAY Packet Page 167 of 218 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ____ Packet Page 168 of 218 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of _______________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT CHARTER; CHANGING THE SEMI-MONTHLY REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD TO A MONTHLY REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE; FIXING THE DATE AND TIME OF SAID REGULAR MEETINGS; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this ___ day of ____________, 2012. _______________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 169 of 218 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT CHARTER; ESTABLISHING BOARD TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council created the Edmonds Public Facilities District through Ordinance No. 3358 on April 24, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently granted a Charter to the District on May 14, 2001, which by its terms required City Council approval of any amendment thereof; and WHEREAS, the District Board has approved a proposed amendment to the District Charter which would set term limits for members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board, and now requests City Council approval of the same; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The proposed amendment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Charter contained in Edmonds Public Facilities District Resolution No. 38, Section 1, attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, is hereby approved. A copy of this ordinance shall be affixed to and maintained with said Charter in the formal records of the City. Section 2. 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 Packet Page 170 of 218 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: ________________________________ MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ______________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APROVED 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 171 of 218 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of _______________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT CHARTER; ESTABLISHING BOARD TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this ___ day of ____________, 2012. _______________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 172 of 218 Packet Page 173 of 218 Packet Page 174 of 218 Packet Page 175 of 218 Packet Page 176 of 218 AM-4508 Item #: 5. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:City Council Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Discussion regarding retail only zone in BD1. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the Planning Board's recommended changes and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption. Previous Council Action The City Council discussed this topic on August 23, 2011, and made the following motion: COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE OFFICE USES FROM THE STORE FRONTS IN THE BD1 ZONE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3); COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. Narrative Attached for your reference is a copy of the proposed Code amendments along with the minutes from the August 23, 2011 City Council Meeting on this topic. (Note: The material for this discussion is from the last time this item appeared, on the Council's October 4, 2011 agenda.) Attachments Proposed Code Amendments - Retail Only 08-23-11 City Council Minutes (Excerpt) Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 08:18 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/31/2012 09:28 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/31/2012 09:41 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 01/12/2012 Packet Page 177 of 218 Final Approval Date: 01/31/2012 Packet Page 178 of 218 1 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core; BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. Packet Page 179 of 218 2 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices (including professional offices)A1 A A A A Service uses (including banking and real estate businesses)A A A A A Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C Packet Page 180 of 218 3 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D Notes: A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front Packet Page 181 of 218 4 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. Packet Page 182 of 218 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 13 specifically audit this project. Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Taraday, the City Clerk and he will provide responses to Councilmember Bernheim’s questions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was speechless. She believes this will be looked at in a thorough manner. She looked forward to determining how to proceed in the future and appreciated Mr. Williams’ input regarding a policy to avoid this in the future. She wondered if the Council would have stopped the project if they knew the overruns were this high; remarking the Council should have been given the opportunity to make that decision. Councilmember Wilson commented the Auditor is not the appropriate arbiter of whether something is legal or illegal. Before the next Council meeting he suggested a definitive answer be provided by someone outside the City, whether that was an investigation by the Office of the Attorney General or the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office or some other entity. He summarized it was not appropriate for the Council or Mayor to pass judgment regarding what was legal or illegal. Councilmember Plunkett suggested scheduling an Executive Session with regard to what is legal and illegal, whether to pursue an investigation, etc. Mr. Taraday answered if the Council was contemplating whether the City has a cause of action that would be appropriately discussed in Executive Session as would be the defense regarding the request for equitable adjustment. Councilmember Plunkett commented Mr. Williams, Mr. Taraday and Mayor Cooper made every effort to make the information public as soon as they received it. The Council now needs to discuss how to proceed in Executive Session. Council President Peterson scheduled an Executive Session on September 6, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Cooper advised staff will answer the questions asked by the Council and schedule review of a purchasing policy on a future agenda. (Councilmember Wilson did not participate in the following items.) 7. POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BD ZONES. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Community Services/Development Service Committee discussed this at their recent meeting and forwarded three of the Planning Board recommendations to the Council for further consideration. Development agreements are not part of this agenda item and will be scheduled for a future Council work session. Council President Peterson clarified tonight’s discussion did not include development agreements. The City Attorney will review the issue of development agreements and make further recommendations. Mr. Chave advised the City Attorney will provide background on development agreements at a future work session. Council President Peterson advised he has been working with Mr. Taraday to schedule a work session on land use issues. Councilmember Bernheim provided a PowerPoint presentation. He expressed support for the 45-foot depth for the storefronts and not allowing offices on the ground floor in the retail core. He did not support removing the step backs in the BD zone, at least at this point; and did not support allowing buildings as tall as 35 feet along the main retail corridors, Fifth Avenue and Main Street, noting he had seen no research or evidence proving these are good ideas. He provided photographs supporting his research that step backs are highly desirable and are necessary to preserve human scale, noting step backs are required in Kirkland and Friday Harbor. As support for his opposition to 35-foot buildings, he provided photographs of 1-2 story buildings along main shopping streets in Kirkland and Edmonds. He provided several photographs of buildings he liked. Packet Page 183 of 218 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 14 Councilmember Bernheim said he would not approve an increase in height limits on the main retail shopping streets just to keep a post office or build a boutique hotel. He envisioned the sky, the air above, the view, the pedestrian scale, trees taller than buildings as the City’s “seed corn,” the City’s heritage and the tourism golden egg and he would not sell it for the promise that residents could “save a buck on property taxes.” He suggested the following ideas be considered before approving a permanent height increase: • Limit the width of buildings on the street front (to break up buildings into smaller pieces) • Measure height from the main street instead of the center of the lot (so the height of the building slopes with the street) • Develop the alleys (to provide more storefront) • Limit the volume of the building to, e.g., 250% of the lot size (to give builder flexibility, but control maximum building mass) • Underground utility wires • Replace some on-street parking with a pedestrian pathway Councilmember Bernheim proposed the following: 1. Anywhere downtown, amend the Code to allow an extra 3 feet for solar panels (the City already allows unlimited extra height for church steeples, 3 feet for elevator penthouses and chimneys, 18” for vent pipes, and 30” for stand pipes. ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Maximum building height for lots in any BD zone should be between two and four stories • Stories above the second story should be set back 45 feet along Main Street and Fifth Avenue to match the recommended depth of the retail space. • All development in the BD zone above two stories requires ADB review after new guidelines are adopted. • Two stories along the main retail streets will protect human scale and pedestrian orientation. • Four stories everywhere in the BD zone with ADB approval except the valuable shopping streets. 3. Eliminate three-hour free parking • In BD-1 zone, 2 hours free, pay for anything over that, up to 4 hours. • In other downtown zones, to create commuter, transit-oriented parking, 2 hours free, pay for anything over that, up to 14 hours. Councilmember Bernheim suggested holding a town hall meeting where residents can be heard, and can work together to find common ground. He summarized economic development does not require changing the zoning code to allow taller buildings. Building heights can be raised but only if residents support that change in the community character. To promote economic development, zoning codes should be predictable and fair; there are many more solutions than raising building heights along main historical town streets. Councilmember Petso commented earlier this week she sent an email to some Councilmembers, Mr. Chave, Mr. Taraday, Mr. Clifton and Mayor Cooper conveying her analysis that the building height limit was 25 feet but the proposed amendments to Section C2 and C3 would change the height limit to 30 feet. Previously those sections allowed 30 feet with step backs for pitched roofs and the amendments appeared to allow 30 foot boxes. Mr. Chave answered 25 feet is the basic height limit in the BD zones and there are different ways to achieve 30 feet. For example in the BD1 zone, a 30-foot height can be achieved if the building has a 15-foot ground floor. In other BD zones a 30-foot height can be achieved with a step back and a 12-foot ground floor. The Planning Board recommendation eliminates the step back requirement but retains the 12-foot ground floor requirement. Packet Page 184 of 218 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 15 COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE 60-FOOT AND 30-FOOT DEPTH TO A 45 FOOT COMMERCIAL DEPTH IN THE BD ZONES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE OFFICE USES FROM THE STORE FRONTS IN THE BD1 ZONE. Councilmember Plunkett relayed he would be unable to support this amendment, envisioning a property owner may not have a tenant without an office use. He preferred to allow the marketplace to determine whether an office such as a tax accountant locates in the BD1 zone based on their success. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was also concerned that a space would remain vacant if a building owner was unable to rent to a retail use. She did not support the motion. Council President Peterson commented service businesses currently located in the BD1 zone would be grandfathered. He pointed out this is not radical thinking; there are retail districts around the world and they exist for a reason. As a retailer he understood that although some service businesses attract customers, a consistent retail base is needed in the retail core. Shoppers in a retail area encountering spaces where curtains are drawn because it is a dental office will often turn around and proceed no further. He emphasized this is proposed for a very limited area of downtown, it is the right thing to do for the greater good of the retail core and it is endorsed by business leaders in the community. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented a dental office cannot be visible to the street due to HIPPA requirements. She envisioned uses such as interior designers, insurance, etc. who bring money to Edmonds. She was not convinced that Edmonds should not allow those businesses as prominently as retail stores. She favored a mixture of businesses in the City. She observed grandfathering meant that existing businesses could remain and asked whether the grandfather clause would allow another office after an office tenant moved out. Mr. Chave answered a similar use could locate in the space within 6 months. He relayed there have been instances where the building owners do not always seek a retail use first and rent to whomever shows up which over time can erode the retail core. The Planning Board’s recommendation was only for the BD1, a very small area and only in the first 45 feet of the ground floor. In the BD1 zone offices can locate above or behind a retail uses. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3); COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Councilmember Petso reported on the Public Facilities District Board meeting; these are generally good and exciting times for the PFD. Although items are not usually presented to the Council without review by a Council committee, Councilmember Petso explained the PFD is working on term limits for their boards and they plan to present their proposal to Council on a Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Finance Committee is nearly to the point where policy decisions can begin to be made on individual items, from staffing levels to hydrant maintenance, within the RFA. As it will be difficult to get Council enough information in advance to seek policy direction, she planned to tentatively agree to policies to get a preliminary model in place. She will avoid agreeing on more than a tentative basis until there is an opportunity for Council discussion. Councilmember Bernheim reported he was invited by the Muslim Association of Puget Sound to their beautiful new mosque in Redmond to break the fast. Packet Page 185 of 218 AM-4525 Item #: 6. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Naming of Old Milltown Park Site Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Planning Board, Mayor, and staff are recommending that Council adopt the name " Hazel Miller Plaza" for the Old Milltown park site. Previous Council Action At the November 9, 2011 Planning Board meeting, Vice Chair Reed reminded the Board that a public hearing related to the name for the new park at Old Milltown is scheduled for December 14. The Board discussed the process that was previously used for naming parks. On December 14th, the Planning board heard a staff presentation, opened the public hearing, and discussed the naming of Old Milltown park site. The decision was made to continue the public hearing to January. On January 11th, the Planning Board continued the public hearing, and unanimously decided to forward the recommendation of "Hazel Miller Plaza" to Council for adoption. Narrative A new park site is currently under construction at the Old Milltown site. In accordance with the Park Naming Policy adopted on March 24, 2009, the Planning Board is required to conduct a public hearing, and make a formal recommendation to the City Council for adoption. With the assistance of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Staff, naming proposals were solicited and 43 recommendations were submitted. The Planning Board received the proposed names on November 22 and they held a public hearing on December 14th to solicit additional input. They decided on December 14th to continue the public hearing in January. Attached are the final minutes from the December Planning Board meeting, the draft minutes from the January meeting, the list of names submitted by the community, and a letter from the Hazel Miller Foundation. Following the continued Public Hearing on January 11th, the Planning Board unanimously decided to forward the name " Hazel Miller Plaza" to Council for consideration of adoption. Attachments Planning Board January Draft minutes Planning Board December Minutes Park Naming Submissions Packet Page 186 of 218 Letter from Hazel Miller Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/01/2012 11:05 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/01/2012 03:15 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/01/2012 03:37 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 02/01/2012 10:54 AM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2012 Packet Page 187 of 218 DRAFT Subject to January 25th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 11, 2012 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair John Reed, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier (arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart Neil Tibbott Bill Ellis (Alternate) STAFF PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed the proposed agenda. No changes were made, and the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURAL SERVICES UPDATE Ms. Hite said she was present to update the Board on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services activities that have occurred from July through December. She referred them to the written report prepared by staff, and specifically highlighted the following: • The City broke ground on the Interurban Trail Project last August. The contractor expressed a desire to expedite the construction schedule but was unable to complete the project within the weather window. The project is about 95% complete, and the remaining work must wait for warmer weather. At this time, the contractor is working with adjacent property owners to complete mitigation projects. The contractor is hoping to complete the project no later than the end of April, pending weather conditions. She summarized that the project is on scope and on budget, and the contractor has created a good relationship with adjacent property owners to provide appropriate mitigation. The City is happy with the process and the progress of the project. Packet Page 188 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 2 • The City also broke ground last October for the small courtyard area in front of Old Milltown. However, while grading the surface to get ready for construction, the contractor found that some posts and the boardwalk at Old Milltown had deteriorated to a point where they needed to be replaced before the trench for the drain could be installed. The City was not successful working with the bank (owner of the building) to resolve the issue, and did not not have the ability to do repair work on private property. The City has recently learned the property was purchased, and the new owner has repaired the posts and the boardwalk and indicated support for the proposed park development. The new owner has an ambitious business plan to attract new businesses into Old Milltown. The first raised flower bed will be poured tomorrow, and the planters have been constructed by staff and are ready to be poured. All the precast planters have been delivered and the benches have been sold and delivered. The City’s two horticulturists have worked with the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club to select plants for the new park. She said she anticipates the project will come together fairly quickly from this point. • Last summer the Yost Park pool was replastered, and the project was completed on time and on budget. Other minor improvements were done, as well. There is also money in the budget in 2012 to replace the boiler, and staff will research more sustainable alternatives. However, because the pool will open in June, installation of the new equipment may have to wait until after the pool closes in the fall. • The Edmonds School District owns the former Edmonds Woodway High School (EWHS) property, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns part of the field and the green spaces west of the field. The District has indicated their interest in redeveloping the field, and they have worked with the surrounding neighborhood to create a master plan. Because the initial plan would be costly, the District is now considering scaling back the project to just one baseball and one soccer field. They have invited representatives from the City of Edmonds to participate in future discussions, along with representatives from Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, and Verdant Health Care. Their goal is to put together a financial plan to move the project forward. City staff has expressed concern that developing just one soccer field would not meet the current needs of the community. While the City does not have a huge baseball community, they do have a need for two to three full-sized soccer fields to meet community needs and to attract tournaments that bring visitors to the City. The District has indicated that they have no desire to sell the Civic Stadium to the City, and the current lease ($1 per year) expires in 2020. The District has also made it clear that they will seek market value for the property once the current lease expires. The City depends on this property for fields, festivals, and other gathering opportunities, and staff is working with the district to identify a solution. She has had discussions with the District about alternative options. For example, the property could be developed as part of a partnership between the City and the District through a Mutual Use Agreement. There has also been preliminary discussions about creating a master plan for Civic Stadium that could include a baseball field to attract a semi-professional team to the City. This would meet the District’s needs for a high-school sports facility, and address the community’s needs at the same time. However, there are numerous concerns and benefits that still need to be addressed. Using this approach, a baseball field would no longer be needed at the EWHS site, and additional soccer fields could be accommodated instead. The District is interested in discussing various partnership opportunities. As discussions move forward, staff will continue to report to the Board. • The City has partnered with People for Puget Sound and received a $100,000 grant from the Salmon Recovery Board, which will be matched with $50,000 from the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Fund, and $50,000 from the Stormwater Fund. The grant provides funding to start a feasibility study on the marsh, which does not currently function property. The City, in conjunction with People for Puget Sound, is looking for ways to rehabilitate the marsh so it can absorb storm and tide water, allow enough room for salmon to swim upstream, and provide habitat for salmon. At this time, there is no evidence of salmon habitat in the marsh, and the study will include an analysis of the best way to daylight Willow Creek to allow for potential salmon return. People for Puget Sound will take the lead on the feasibility study and will work closely with parks and stormwater staff. Once a promising project has been started, it is common for the Salmon Recovery Board to stick with it and continue to provide funding. A five- year plan has been created to move the project forward, and the City is seeking a consultant to help further define the next steps in the process. Packet Page 189 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 3 Chair Lovell noted that the Interurban Trail Project report indicates that “sharrows” would be added to 74th Avenue West. He asked staff to define a “sharrow.” Ms. Hite answered that a “sharrow” is an arrow that identifies a shared roadway for both bicycles and vehicles. She noted that bike lanes are already present on 74th Avenue West, but they will be restriped with reflective paint. Chair Lovell recalled that at their last meeting, Ms. Hite advised the Board that labor costs for constructing the Old Milltown Plaza would be charged directly to the City. He asked if this expense is reflected in the total cost of the project. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell asked if staff could provide an update on the Haines Wharf Park situation. Ms. Hite answered that because of potential litigation, she is unable to provide an update on this project. Chair Lovell asked if the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has adequate funding to complete ongoing maintenance and repair projects in 2012. Ms. Hite answered that there is sufficient funding for this year. However, numerous maintenance projects have been deferred such as replacement of playground equipment. While staff works hard to ensure the equipment is safe, it is worn out and takes a lot of staff time to inspect and correct problems. The restrooms at many parks are old and need to be remodeled and/or replaced, as well. She advised that she has a list of deferred maintenance projects that could be forwarded to Planning Board members. While some REET funding can be used to address immediate maintenance needs, she acknowledged that numerous maintenance projects are not being taken care as a result of insufficient funding. Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Hite and parks staff for putting the City in a good position from an economic and environmentally sustainable standpoint. She said she is excited that the City received funding for a marsh feasibility study and that the City can provide the necessary matching funds to accept the grant. She noted that the study would take between five and six months to complete, and she questioned how this would impact the Port of Edmonds’ ability to move forward with their Harbor Square Redevelopment Master Plan. Ms. Hite said she has discussed this concern with the Port of Edmonds. The Salmon Recovery Board did a site visit and raised the concern that daylighting Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park may not be a viable option. They suggested that a better option would be to run the creek through Port property. While the Port has concerns about this option, they have indicated their willingness to discuss the concept with the City. This change may or may not impact Harbor Square. She noted that three options would be considered for daylighting Willow Creek: through Marina Beach Park using the culvert that was already installed as part of the Sound Transit project, across Port property, or up to Olympic Beach Park. Contamination on the Chevron property must also be addressed, and then the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will have the first right of refusal to purchase the land. The current channel for Willow Creek may be too long, and using a portion of the Chevron property would accommodate an easier channel for salmon. Board Member Reed recalled that two years ago, several designs were considered for replacing Yost Pool with a new version. He asked if this project is still included on the City’s “wish list.” If so, does staff have any plans for moving the project forward at some point in the future? Ms. Hite answered that the project is still included on the City’s long-term “wish list.” However, it would be difficult to move it forward at this time because of its significant cost. She acknowledged there are opportunities for grant funding, but it would take a tremendous amount of community support to approve bonds, levies, etc. to fully fund the project. She reminded the Board that the City does not have a lot of capital dollars for parks. They are currently limited to the $500,000 REET fund, so it would take a significant amount of time to stock pile enough money for the project. She said a private/public partnership is another option the City could consider for potential redevelopment of Yost Pool. While these partnerships have occurred across the nation, they are more difficult at this time given the current economic situation. Chair Lovell recalled that he participated on the citizen group that explored options for a new aquatics center in the City. The EWHS site was one potential site for the facility, but the District made it clear they would not support the concept. He encouraged staff to be cautious when approaching the District about a potential partnership to develop a new pool. Board Member Johnson asked Ms. Hite to share the City’s recent and planned efforts to raise more park revenue. Ms. Hite reported on the following activities: • A non-resident fee for recreation programs was implemented in December. While they received a few negative comments from non-residents, none were received from City residents. The 20% premium charged to non-residents is estimated to result in an additional $50,000 of revenue per year. Packet Page 190 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 4 • A large percentage of recreational programs require for contract instructors to teach the classes. The instructors are paid a percentage of revenue depending on how many people register for the class, so there is incentive for them to get more people. In the past, the revenue has been distributed 80% to instructors and 20% to the City. Staff has been working to renegotiate the percentages to 75/25 and 70/30. The instructors have been cooperative because they recognize that the City needs more revenue to continue to administer the programs. The previous 20% split was not sufficient to cover the City’s cost of advertising and registering participants and providing space for the classes. • Staff will propose changes to the Edmonds Municipal Code to make it easier to allow concessions in parks. The current code language is cumbersome and requires a public hearing and City Council approval. The proposed new language would give the mayor authority to enter into concession agreements so that concessions can be treated more like a business. She pointed out that a citizen has operated a day camp at Yost Park for several years at no charge. While the camp provides a public benefit, the operator has been allowed to use public land without paying for it. The operator is also not currently required to provide insurance, so the City has increased liability exposure. She said the same is true for the dive shop and compass course school, which operate out of the dive park free of charge and without providing insurance. The proposed code amendments would help clear up some of the problems with the current process by requiring concessionaires to enter into formal contracts with the City, provide proof of insurance, and provide some public benefit. • The public has frequently asked for more amenities in the parks, particularly at Marina Beach Park, and the new code language would encourage these types of uses to benefit the public. In addition, the City would receive a percentage of the revenue, which could be used to fund other park projects. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON PROCESS AND NAMING RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PARK AT THE OLD MILLTOWN SITE Chair Lovell noted that the initial public hearing for naming the park at Old Milltown was held on December 14th, and it was continued to January 11th. He recalled that at the initial hearing, the Board received numerous materials regarding past proposals and plans related to the site. They agreed it would be appropriate to review the materials before making a recommendation to the City Council. He particularly referred to the document titled, “Renovation of Old Milltown Garden,” which was prepared in 2010 by the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club. Board Member Cloutier arrived to the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Leigh Bennett, Edmonds, Hazel Miller Foundation Board Member, recalled that he spoke to the Board at the December 14th hearing on behalf of the Hazel Miller Foundation, and was present once again to address the Board’s inquiries. He said he reviewed the minutes from the last public hearing and found them to be accurate as to what was said. Because she was not in attendance at the December 14th hearing, Board Member Stewart asked Mr. Bennett to summarize the comments he made earlier. Mr. Bennett advised that the Hazel Miller Foundation was established after Hazel Miller’s death in 2010. Its purpose is to enhance quality of life by offering grant funding to organizations and municipalities in South Snohomish County, particularly the City of Edmonds where she lived for 30 years. The Foundation was fully funded less than one year ago, and they now have between $11 million and $12 million dollars. It is intended that the Foundation will exist in perpetuity. Once fully operational, they will give away $500,000 to $600,000 per year. As per Ms. Miller’s legal documents, the Mayor of Edmonds will appoint members to fill vacant Foundation Board positions. Mr. Bennett reported that in 2011, the Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department submitted a grant request asking the Foundation for either $40,000 to assist in the development expenses of the Old Milltown Park or up to $88,000, which is more than 50% of the total construction cost. The understanding was that staff would do their best to shepherd the Foundation’s desired name for the park through the process. The Foundation Board voted to accept the $88,000 grant request on the condition that the new park would be named “Hazel Miller Plaza.” He specifically referred to the City’s adopted Park Naming Policy and noted that Criteria E allows the City to name a park after “an individual or Packet Page 191 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 5 organization that contributes significantly to the acquisition or development of the facility to be named.” Because the Foundation is offering to provide more than 50% of the total construction cost for the project, the Foundation Board felt it would be consistent with the City’s Park Naming Policy to name the park “Hazel Miller Plaza.” He also referred to Criteria D, which allows the City to name a park after “a commonly recognized historical event, group, organization or individual (living or deceased).” He emphasized that the Foundation will become more recognized in future years and will exist in perpetuity. He said the policy also states that the City is to conduct a poll to obtain citizen input on potential names, which was done by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. He noted that of the 43 names submitted, more than half included Hazel Miller’s name and at least 25% supported the name “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Mr. Bennett recalled that at the last meeting the Board asked if the Foundation Board support a variation of the name, and he emphasized that the Board strongly believes it is important to use Hazel Miller’s full name, and not just her last name. They agreed that they were to not willing to compromise their position in this regard. It is now up to the Board to determine if a different name is so important that the City should elect to turn down the grant funding. He also emphasized that the Foundation Board wants to start off their relationship with the City on a good and healthy foundation, and they view this as an opportunity for the City. Mayor Earling thanked the Board for their service to the community. He commented that one of the City’s successes is their volunteers who are willing to fill important roles and make good decisions on behalf of the citizens. He said he is fortunate enough to have known the Miller Family. They were quiet people who loved the community, and the legacy they have left for the community is important for the Board to consider, understand and appreciate. He said he supports naming the park “Hazel Miller Plaza” so the City can accept the $88,000 grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation. This would free up money that can be used for other park projects. Mayor Earling said it is important to keep in mind that the Foundation was formed to benefit the community in perpetuity. That means the Foundation will still be in place and making grants in the community when the Board members are gone. They have already distributed grant funding throughout the community. He said he is on the Senior Services of Snohomish County Board, which was one of the first recipients of a $500,000 grant from the foundation. Not only did he know the Millers, but he knows most of the Foundation Board Members. They are thoughtful people who make good decisions. The Old Milltown Park is one of the first large projects they have expressed an interest in, and accepting their generous grant offer will not only leave a great legacy for the Miller Family, but the City will know they were one of the first to receive a major grant. He said he supports the name proposed by the Foundation, and he knows the community will appreciate the park for years to come. Diana White, Edmonds, Hazel Miller Foundation Board, agreed that the Foundation has an excellent Board, and they think hard on the decisions they make. She said she fully supports the Foundation’s proposed name of “Hazel Miller Plaza.” She said Mr. and Mrs. Miller were very generous in what they did and she continually thinks of them watching the things the Foundation does with their donation. Ms. White said she is also a newly elected member of the Edmonds School Board, and she will share the Planning Board’s earlier discussions about partnering with the City to provide recreational opportunities for the community. Board Member Tibbott asked if the Foundation foresees the possibility of on-going support for the programs offered at the new park. Mr. Bennett referred to an email he sent to Ms. Hite in which he stated that the City could always submit a grant proposal for park maintenance in the future, and the Foundation would make a decision on the request at that time. Board Member Tibbott said he researched the Foundation’s website to learn more about the projects they have contributed to, as well as what they have in mind for the future. He asked if Mr. Bennett would consider Hazel Miller’s name as the trademark of the Foundation. Mr. Bennett said Hazel Miller is the Foundation’s legal name. He recalled the Board previously inquired if the Foundation would support the name “Miller Plaza,” and he responded in an email that it is important to use Ms. Miller’s entire name because “Miller” is a common name and they want the park to be specifically associated with Hazel Miller. The Foundation believes it is important to recognize that the funds originated from Hazel Miller. Packet Page 192 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 6 Board Member Clarke said he is grateful that there are individuals, families and organizations that have a desire to give back to the community, particularly in perpetuity. It is a wonderful blessing for organizations to receive funding from the Foundation to improve the quality of life in the community. He said that, as a public board, the Planning Board has an obligation to represent the constituents, and this is only the third time in the past 30 years that the City has named a new park. The last two were named after individuals, but all previous parks were named after streets, locations, etc. He expressed concern that the City’s adopted Park Naming Policy does not give exact guidelines on this issue. They know that if an organization or individual donates more than 50% of the cost of project construction, the City has the ability to name the park after that organization or individual. However, the Board must also provide a forum for the public to voice their opinions and ideas, recognizing that the City Council will make the final decision. Board Member Clarke asked if Mayor Earling would agree that the Park Naming Policy needs to be refined and updated, particularly to clarify who gets to choose the name of the park. Mayor Earling answered that any time the Board determines that a policy is not working, they can recommend that the policy be reviewed and updated appropriately. He said that while the policy may be somewhat unclear, it does not preclude the Board from accepting the park name proposed by the Foundation. He encouraged the Board to take action on the park name now, and then ask the City Council to consider revisions to the policy at some point in the future. Chair Lovell recalled that the Board worked with the City’s previous Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director to create the current Park Naming Policy, which was adopted by the City Council in 2009. While he agreed with Board Member Clarke’s concern that the policy may need to be updated, he cautioned that perhaps some flexibility was intended to allow the Board to act on various situations that come up that are in the best interest of the citizens. He encouraged the Board to move forward with a recommended park name, and then work with staff to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the policy be updated. Board Member Clarke recalled that during a previous park naming process, a City Council Member indicated he would not vote for naming a park after an individual who was still living, but the policy does not support this decision. Upon researching policies from other cities and counties in the area, he found that some are much more specific. He suggested the Board recommend the document be updated at some point in the future to provide greater clarity. However, he agreed that the Board should not postpone their recommendation regarding the Old Milltown Park name until after the policy has been updated. Vice Chair Reed said he found the additional information provided at the last meeting to be helpful in understanding and recognizing the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club’s effort and substantial contributions to the process. Irrespective of what the park is named, he said it is very important that significant donors and organizations are recognized in some way when the park is completed. Ms. Hite agreed and advised that individuals and organizations who have contributed significantly to the park project will be recognized by having their names placed on plaques that will be installed on planter insets. Vice Chair Reed said he highly appreciates the Foundation’s gesture. He suggested there has been enough publicity that the public is aware of what the Foundation has done, is doing and will continue to do for the community. He said he is impressed with the list of projects for which the Foundation has already provided support. Board Member Stewart also thanked the Foundation for their generous donation towards the park construction. She said she wished she could have known Ms. Miller. The City should be honored by the legacy that she has left and accept the donation. She noted that many who submitted names for the park were in favor of using Hazel Miller’s name is some fashion, so naming the park “Hazel Miller Plaza” should not create controversy. She agreed it would be appropriate to recognize others who have contributed to the process, as mentioned earlier by Ms. Hite. She also suggested that the sign to the park could also include (in small letters) the words “at Old Milltown.” She explained that people who have lived in the community recognize Old Milltown as a destination, and including it on the sign would let people know right where to go without diminishing the name “Hazel Miller Plaza.” She said she is not concerned about using Ms. Miller’s first and last name as part of the park name. Because the Foundation is named after Hazel Miller, it seems appropriate to use the full name at the park name, as well. She said she is in favor of supporting the Foundation’s request. Chair Lovell summarized that: Packet Page 193 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 7 • When the City Council approved the project last August, they temporarily loaned the Parks Department $70,000 from the REET Fund to aid in fulfilling funding needs for construction. However, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department was instructed to go out and raise funds to refill the kitty. • The design and construction currently in progress is not based on the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club’s “Renovation Plan” dated October, 2010. • Many citizens, friends, and organizations within Edmonds have given much work, history, contribution and input to the program now being realized at the park site. All of these efforts and contributions will be visually and permanently designed and displayed within the park’s infrastructure as coordinated and led by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. • The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department fulfilled the City Council’s charge of procuring additional funding for the construction of the park by applying for and obtaining a two-part grant award from the Hazel Miller Foundation. The larger grant award of $88,000 under current consideration is “conditioned” by the Hazel Miller Foundation to provide that the restored park be named “Hazel Miller Plaza.” • The Park Naming Policy has been followed. • Until the City may choose to identify and acquire same from independent sources, the maintenance and upkeep of the new park will be carried out by the City’s in-house forces. CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PARK AT THE CORNER OF FIFTH AVENUE AND MAPLE STREET BE NAMED “HAZEL MILLER PLAZA.” HE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE NAMES OF OTHER CONTRIBUTING INDIVIDUALS, CLUBS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL ENTITIES TO EITHER THE PARK’S HISTORY OR FUNDING BE RECOGNIZED THROUGH PERMANENTLY-INSTALLED PLAQUES AT THE NEW PARK, SAID PROCESS BEING LED BY THE PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Tibbott asked if the City would have the ability to rename the park if the Foundation ceases to exist. Board Member Johnson pointed out that Item 3.B of the Park Naming Policy states that “parks and facilities named after individuals shall not be changed unless it is found that because of the individual’s character the continued use of their name would not be in the best interest of the community.” THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: As an alternate, Board Member Ellis did not vote.) BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CREATION OF A PERMANENT PLAQUE THAT BEARS THE IMAGE OF HAZEL MILLER AND A DISCRIPTION OF HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WILL REMAIN IN THE PARK IN PERPETUITY. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the proposed plaque would be similar to the one that was installed at Hickman Park in recognition of Robert O. Hickman. Vice Chair Reed recalled that at the December 14th meeting it was discussed that the Parks staff would work with the Foundation to design the sign. Ms. Hite emphasized that the sign would be designed to meet the City’s adopted sign standards. The Foundation understands this requirement, and they will have an opportunity to view the final mock up before the sign is constructed. Vice Chair Reed asked if the motion on the floor would be consistent with the City’s current sign standard. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. She said she supports the proposed motion, but she suggested the Board seek feedback from the Foundation as to whether a sign with Hazel Miller’s image would be acceptable to them before forwarding the recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Clarke explained that there is value to the community to help future generations understand those who have contributed throughout their lives. This kind of understanding and context is what often inspires other people to rise to something better. It is a wonderful way to preserve history and create an inspiring memorial. Packet Page 194 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 8 Mr. Bennett said the Foundation Board Members in attendance believe the entire Foundation Board would support the concept of including Ms. Miller’s image and a description of her contribution on a park sign. He noted that one Foundation Board Member was a long-time friend of the Miller’s, and they are certain he would support the idea, as well. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: As an alternate, Board Member Ellis did not vote.) Board Member Johnson referred to a letter from Betty Larman of the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, which talks about an agreement that was signed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director and Mayor Haakenson. Ms. Hite said she was unable to find a copy of the signed agreement in the City Clerk’s office. Therefore, she concluded that the agreement was likely never signed. Board Member Johnson said the letter from Ms. Larman also states that the original design included a gazebo or bandstand structure. Ms. Hite explained that when the City Council charged her with completing the park, several citizens expressed concern about the proposed design. She explored how the plan came about and met with members of the Garden Club, including Ms. Larman, to discuss these concerns. Particular concerns were that the proposed bandstand would block the view to businesses at Old Milltown, no utilities were identified in the plan to accommodate the structure, and drainage issues were not considered. In addition, the Garden Club’s process did not include public input. As per the City Council’s direction that she collaborate with the Garden Club to redesign the project, a committee of 20 individuals was formed, including members of the Citizens Economic Development Commission, Planning Board, Arts Festival Foundation, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds, and Edmonds in Bloom. The committee reviewed the Garden Club’s plan and identified their concerns. Everyone agreed, including the Garden Club Members, that the bandstand should be eliminated. Board Member Johnson recalled that four couples contributed money specifically for the bandstand structure. She asked if they have been notified of the design change. Ms. Hite answered that all four have confirmed their commitment to the park. Ms. Hite reminded the Board that part of the Garden Club’s proposed agreement with the City indicated that the Garden Club would be responsible for maintaining the park in perpetuity. Several members of the Garden Club expressed concern that they would not be able to fulfill this responsibility. It was agreed that the City would be responsible for park maintenance, but the Garden Club would provide input on appropriate plant materials. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ELECTION OF 2012 PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS The Board discussed whether or not a Board Member was limited as to the number of terms he/she could serve as chair of the Board. They agreed there was no limitation. Board Member Clarke pointed out that three Board Members’ terms (Lovell, Clarke and Stewart) expire at the end of 2012. Board Member Johnson reminded the Board that they previously discussed the need to review and perhaps update their rules and procedures. However, this task was not accomplished in 2011. Chair Lovell agreed to contact staff to schedule this discussion on a future agenda. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER LOVELL AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD. THE NOMINATION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLARKE. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE NOMINATION. Board Member Johnson commented that the City Council typically bases their chair and vice chair appointments on longevity. She suggested the Board consider the same approach. Packet Page 195 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes January 11, 2012 Page 9 BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER STEWART AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATION, AND BOARD MEMBER STEWART WAS ELECTED VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD BY A VOTE OF 5-2. (Note: As an alternate, Board Member Ellis did not vote.) REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed the proposed schedule for Strategic Plan Stakeholder Focus Group Sessions as follows: • January 17th at 7:00 p.m. – Parks and Recreation – Board Members Stewart and Reed would attend. • January 18th at 1:00 p.m. – Transportation – Board Members Tibbott and Johnson would attend. • January 18th at 7:00 p.m. – Economic Development – Board Members Lovell, Tibbott and Cloutier would attend. • January 19th at 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. – Individuals and Special Interest Groups • January 24th at 6:45 p.m. – Joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission, Planning Board and City Council. Chair Lovell advised that he would work with staff to update the extended agenda to incorporate the Port of Edmonds’ Harbor Square Redevelopment Master Plan process, the Strategic Planning Process, and the Shoreline Master Program Update. The Commission agreed to tentatively schedule their retreat for February 22nd. They also agreed to schedule a review of the Park Naming Policy. Board Members were encouraged to review Portland’s policy, which was forwarded to them by Vice Chair Stewart. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not make any additional comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart challenged the Board Members to use electronic versions of the documents that are prepared for each meeting. They should set an example for City staff and others to use less paper. She said she recently read a study that indicated the City of Seattle uses 74 million sheets of paper each year, which would equal 40 space needles in height. She cautioned that the environmental impact associated with this high level of paper use is substantial. She shared other facts brought out in the City of Seattle study and said she plans to conduct a similar review for the City of Edmonds. Board Member Clarke thanked Board Member Reed for serving as vice chair of the Board for the past year. He noted that Board Member Reed has served on the Board since October 24, 2006. He thanked him for his leadership contribution. He also thanked Chair Lovell and Vice Chair Stewart for accepting the responsibility to lead the Board in 2012. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Packet Page 196 of 218 DRAFT Subject to January 11th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 14, 2011 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair John Reed, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Kristiana Johnson Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Valerie Stewart (excused) Bill Ellis (excused) STAFF PRESENT Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Kernan Lien, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Andy Eccleshall, Historic Preservation Commission, presented each of the Board Members with a copy of the 18-month calendar that was created by the Historic Preservation Commission. He advised that the calendar illustrates various historic sites and events in Edmonds. It is being offered to the public free of charge as a public outreach tool to raise awareness about historic preservation. Copies of the calendar can be obtained at City Hall, the library and the Edmonds Museum. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD’S PROCESS AND NAMING RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PARK AT THE OLD MILLTOWN SITE AT FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH AND MAPLE STREET Ms. Hite advised that the purpose of the public hearing is to consider potential names for the new park that is currently under construction at Old Milltown. She reviewed that the park site was purchased by the City in 2008. In 2010 the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club agreed to develop and maintain the site in perpetuity, but this agreement was never signed and made official. When park staff met with representatives from the Garden Club in January 2011 to discuss the agreement further, the Garden Club informed them that they would be unable to fulfill their obligation. Subsequent conversations with members of the Garden Club indicated support for a design committee to move the project forward. Packet Page 197 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 2 Ms. Hite explained that when she was hired by the City in January 2011, the City Council indicated a strong desire to get the Old Milltown Park constructed as a gateway for the downtown. The park is intended to be a gathering place for the community. She said she spent her first three months at the City meeting with members of the community to learn, listen and gather information. During this time, many concerns were voiced about the park at Old Mill Town, and these were identified at the City Council retreat in February. She also met with the City Council and the Planning Board in April, May and June to discuss the issue further. It was decided that the park should be redesigned to address the concerns. A design committee was formed, comprised of 20 members from the community, to prepare a new design proposal, which was presented to the City Council for final adoption in August of 2011. Ms. Hite advised that the Floretum Garden Club has been the driving force behind the Old Mill Town Park project, and members of the group participated on the design committee and met with staff throughout the year to discuss their ideas and concerns. She emphasized that the City has every intention of recognizing their efforts at the park site, as well as the efforts of other individuals and groups who have contributed significantly to the project. The design calls for precast planters lining the front entry. These planters will be custom designed to provide space for plaques to recognize those who donated more than $1,000. Ms. Hite said it has been amazing to see the amount of community support that has come forward for the project. The estimated cost of the project is $150,000, depending on the artistic elements that are incorporated into the design. This cost includes design work, demolition, permitting, utility work, grading, etc. She noted that a lot of work has been done in house to construct the raised bed garden formations. She specifically reviewed the more significant contributions as follows: • The Floretum Garden Club provided $12,000, of which $2,000 was allocated for the purchase of a bench in memory of one of their members. The remaining $10,000 is to be used for the plantings and the raised bed garden features. • Edmonds in Bloom contributed $4,000, and indicated their interest in supporting the garden features at the park. • The Hubbard Family Foundation provided $4,000 and indicated their interest in supporting artistic elements. • The Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation also contributed $4,000 to fund artistic features. • The Edmonds Arts Commission provided $2,000 for artistic features. • Rebecca Wolfe contributed $3,000 to purchase the drinking fountain in memory of her late husband. • Two other individuals contributed $2,000 to purchase benches for the park, as well. • The Alliance of Citizens of Edmonds (ACE) contributed $200, with a strong offer to help raise more money if needed. Ms. Hite summarized that total revenues collected from individual and group donations to date are $33,700. The City Council originally allocated $40,000 for the project. However, because they had a strong interest in getting the project started, they allocated an additional $70,000 from the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) fund, on the contingent basis that City staff search for additional grant funding to support the project and replenish the REET fund. She noted that it is important to replenish the REET fund because it is the only capital fund for parks and there are several projects in queue for next year. Ms. Hite explained that in accordance with the City’s adopted Park Naming Policy, the Planning Board is required to conduct a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council. She specifically noted that one the Park Naming Policy allows the City to name a park after an individual or organization that contributes significantly to the acquisition or development of the facility. She advised that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff solicited name proposals, and a list of the 43 nominations received was forwarded to the Planning Board on November 22nd. She noted that 25 of the 43 nominations include the name “Hazel Miller” in some fashion, and about 25% of the nominations were for the specific name of “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Ms. Hite said Hazel Miller and her husband were long-time residents of Edmonds. Upon Ms. Miller’s passing in 2009, she donated large amounts of money to several organizations, the largest of which was to create the Hazel Miller Foundation, which is dedicated to serving the citizens of Edmonds and South Snohomish County through programs and projects that serve the public’s benefit, especially in the areas of education and youth services, poverty alleviation and hunger, civic and community services and amenities, the environment and culture and the arts. Ms. Hite reported that this fall, the Hazel Miller Foundation awarded the City of Edmonds an $88,000 grant to develop the Old Milltown park site, pending the name of the Packet Page 198 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 3 site as the “Hazel Miller Plaza.” The Foundation’s interest is to ensure the community recognizes Mrs. Miller as a vital member of the community, and naming the park after her represents an excellent opportunity to accomplish this goal. Ms. Hite said both the staff and Mayor Earling are strongly recommending the Planning Board consider a recommendation to name the Old Milltown park site as the “Hazel Miller Plaza” to recognize Mrs. Miller’s efforts to support Edmonds through contributions to both the City and South Snohomish County. The Mayor has indicated his strong support for the Hazel Miller Foundation. Vice Chair Reed asked what the budget was at the time the new design was reviewed and approved by the City Council in July and August. Ms. Hite answered that the budget was $125,000, plus an additional $25,000 for utility work. In response to Board Member Johnson, Ms. Hite said that park acquisition costs were $250,000. Board Member Johnson asked if the City considered the total cost of the park (acquisition and construction) when determining whether or not the Foundation’s donation was significant enough to warrant naming the park “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Ms. Hite replied that the Park Naming Policy actually says the City can name a park after an individual or organization that contributes significantly to the acquisition or development of the facility. Chair Lovell asked if the park project is proceeding on budget at this time. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell asked about the anticipated completion date for construction. Ms. Hite answered that they have run into some issues with deteriorated boards and posts on the adjacent boardwalk, and this has caused a one-month delay in construction. They are now ready to proceed, and they are anticipating completion by the end of January. Chair Lovell asked how the in-house work costs are being tracked. Ms. Hite answered that the materials purchased for the in- house work are funded by the project budget. While the labor hours are being tracked, they are not being charged as part of the project costs. She summarized that the total project budget is $150,000, plus in-house labor. Chair Lovell asked if the project is expected to be completed within budget. Ms. Hite answered that she anticipates the project can be completed under budget. Chair Lovell stressed the importance of being up front with the citizens about the actual cost of the project, including in-house labor, so they can avoid the confusion that occurred with the Haines Park cost overruns. Vice Chair Reed asked if the Floretum Garden Club is still making the commitment to maintain the park. Ms. Hite said representatives from the Garden Club have been working with the project’s horticulturist to identify plantings for the garden areas. They will help plant the materials and maintain the gardens, but the City will be responsible to oversee the maintenance program in the future. Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that their role as Parks Board is to be an advisory body to the City Council. The makeup of the City Council changes with each election. Because there has been confusion in the past, he suggested it would be good for the Board to carefully review the history of park naming in the City. He noted that this is the third park the City has named in the last three years, and no parks were named in the prior 20 years. He made the following observations: • The majority of parks in the City are named after districts or the character of the site. • Those parks that are named after individuals have generally been for historic figures in the community (i.e. Brackett, Yost, Hutt, etc.) • Hutt Park was a donation of land with a specific name based on the deed restriction. • Mathay Ballinger Park, located in the southeast corner of the City, is named after the George Mathay family, who owned a saw mill in the area where Scott’s Restaurant is currently located. Their son built a subdivision on 79th Place West, and the property along the east side of the Interurban right-of-way was excess land the family owned and later donated to Snohomish County. A park was developed on the site, and the City eventually acquired the property as part of annexation. • Recently, the City made a decision to rename a portion of the Pine Street Park Playfield after Mr. Myring, and a special plaque with his name was installed at the park. • Hickman Park was the first park named after an individual who was living. While some concern was voiced, there was nothing in the park naming policy that requires that individuals must be deceased. The Planning Board, as part of their recommendation, named the play area after J.P. Patches. Also, a group raised funding to develop a sport Packet Page 199 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 4 court at the park that was named after a young man from the community who had passed away. Small plaques were placed in both of these locations to recognize these two individuals. • Haines Park was named after a historic family, but a portion of the park (the overlook) was also named after a former public servant, Chief David Stern. He emphasized that while there is a plaque in this location to memorialize Chief Stern, the park is not named after him. Board Member Clarke said that after visiting numerous parks in the area, he appreciates the complexity of the park naming process, and he participated on the Board’s park naming committee on two occasions. He expressed his belief that the City should eventually come up with a new name for the “mini park.” Ms. Hite agreed to bring this issue forward in 2012. Board Member Clarke referred to the Park Naming Policy and noted the criteria requires that multiple characteristics of a park be considered when deciding what to name it. He invited staff to share their thoughts about how to balance the conflicts between the generosity of citizens (individuals, groups, corporations, etc.) and the community’s desire to name a park a particular name that does not incorporate the donor’s name. Ms. Hite acknowledged that not only is this a struggle for the City, it has become a national struggle, as well. As park budgets become more and more constrained, governments are looking for revenue opportunities to support park services other than their general funds. Concepts such as concessions in parks, selling advertising space in parks and private donations are becoming more popular. When determining the correct balance, she tries to keep in mind the benefits and cost of each proposal to citizens of Edmonds. In the current case, the Hazel Miller Foundation has offered a significant donation to the community. Aside from the $88,000, their presence in the community in the future is also very important. The park naming process ensures that the City obtains input from all interested citizens. The citizens were notified of the Foundation’s generous offer in exchange for naming the park “Hazel Miller Plaza.” However, they were also invited to provide input for other potential names for the park. She reminded the Board that the majority of nominations included Mrs. Miller’s name in some form. Ms. Hite advised that since the Staff Report was sent out, the City received two additional comments, both of which asked that the efforts of the Floretum Garden Club be recognized in some manner, which she agrees is important. She noted that the Garden Club previously was promised a plaque at the park to identify those who donated $1,000 or more, and the City intends to honor this promise. However, staff is not proposing that the park be named after the Floretum Garden Club. Board Member Clarke observed that most parks in the City have names that include three words, one of which typically refers to a geographic location. He asked a representative from the Hazel Miller Foundation to provide feedback about the Foundation’s willingness to be flexible. He referred to the letter from the Foundation, which suggests that the Foundation should also be allowed to approve the park sign. He reminded the Board that the City has a sign standard for all parks, which includes not only the park name, but lists the various amenities that can be found at the park. Ms. Hite responded that the park sign would be consistent with the City’s new sign design. Ms. Hite explained that it is becoming increasingly difficult to adequately operate a park system without private donations because of budget cuts. It makes sense for the City to seek opportunities for donations and partnerships to help fund the park services. Leigh Bennett, Edmonds, said he is a member of the Hazel Member Foundation Board. He thanked Ms. Hite for her great explanation of the Foundation’s proposal. He referred to information he provided prior to the meeting regarding the history and mission of the Foundation. He specifically noted that Hazel Miller was a 30-year resident of Edmonds, and she loved the City. He advised that the Foundation was established upon Ms. Miller’s death in 2010. In its nearly two full years of grant making, it has progressively increased its gift giving in the areas of education, youth services, poverty alleviation and hunger, civic and community services and amenities, the environment and culture and the arts totaling nearly $500,000. In accordance with its mission, all recipients directly benefit the general population of Edmonds and South Snohomish County. In addition to the Foundation, Mrs. Miller also made significant donations in her will to the Seattle Children’s Hospital Foundation, the Millionair Club charity, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, and the Salvation Army. Mr. Bennett advised that once fully operational, the Foundation will have between $500,000 and $600,000 to donate in Edmonds and South Snohomish County each year, and the Foundation will exist into perpetuity. He specifically noted that in its short life, the Foundation has provided financial support for the Edmonds 4th of July celebration, Edmonds Center for the Packet Page 200 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 5 Arts, local food banks and scholarships for local school children. Again, he said the Foundation is dedicated to serving the citizens of Edmonds and South Snohomish County through programs and projects that serve the public benefit. Mr. Bennett advised that in the summer of 2011, the City of Edmonds submitted a grant application for funding to develop the park at Old Milltown. Their initial request was for a small amount, but a subsequent application increased the grant request to $88,000. As part of the application, staff indicated their willingness to help the Foundation through the park naming process if they were willing to donate more than half of the construction costs. He said the Foundation believes it is critical to have Mrs. Miller’s name established in the City where she lived, and the park at Old Milltown represents an opportunity for them to accomplish this goal. It is important to the Foundation that Mrs. Miller’s previous and future contributions to the community are acknowledged. They hope the Planning Board will recognize this need and recommend the City Council approve the name “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Board Member Clarke observed that in his profession, he works with a number of high-net-worth families and foundations and everyone has a sensitivity associated with philanthropy. He asked if there is anything in the legal papers associated with Mrs. Miller’s request that specifically asks that her name be attached to her contributions in any way. Mr. Bennett answered no. Board Member Clarke asked if Mrs. Miller’s name was attached to her contributions to Seattle Children’s Hospital, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the Salvation Army, etc. Mr. Bennett said he does not know the answer to this question, but he assumes that some recognition was provided for each of these donations. Board Member Clarke referred to the Foundation’s letter, which specifically states that their donation is contingent upon the City naming the park “Hazel Miller Plaza.” He reminded the Board that the Park Naming Policy calls for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Board, and then a final decision by the City Council. He asked if the Foundation would consider another name if that is the outcome of the park naming process. Mr. Bennett emphasized that the letter is clear that if the name “Hazel Miller Plaza” is not ultimately approved by the City Council, the Foundation would withdraw the grant funding. He explained that this issue was discussed as the recent Foundation Board meeting, and the Board unanimously felt it was important to stick with the name they original suggested. Board Member Clarke asked if the Foundation Board considered any of the other names that were nominated by the public. Mr. Bennett again stated that the Foundation Board believes the name they submitted is important for the foundation and the relationship they will have with the City of Edmonds in the future beyond this particular park, itself. While he acknowledged that the Board did not have a thorough discussion of all the names, he noted that more than half of the nominations included Mrs. Miller’s name in some form, and about one quarter of them recommended “Hazel Miller Plaza.” He emphasized that from the Foundation’s standpoint, it is less about the money and more about where they are going in the future. They also carefully considered what Mrs. Miller would have wanted, and they agreed that she would have wanted to have her name on this particular park. He said the Foundation is not expecting her name to be placed every time money is donated, but they felt it was important to stick with their original request. Board Member Clarke summarized the Foundation’s position that if the City does not name the park “Hazel Miller Plaza,” the Foundation will withdraw their grant offer. Mr. Bennett agreed that is the Foundation’s position. Board Member Clarke asked if the Foundation would consider the option of adding to the name of the park, such as “Hazel Miller Plaza at Old Milltown.” Mr. Bennett said that all on the Foundation Board agreed that they did not want to have additional names on the park. Board Member Clarke summarized that adding the location of the park as part of the name would be unacceptable to the Foundation. Mr. Bennett agreed and added that there is only one name the Foundation would support. Chair Lovell emphasized that it is important to include input from other citizens as part of the record. He specifically referred to an email the Board received from Rich Senderoff just prior to the meeting asking that the Board consider the name “Hazel Miller Floretum Plaza.” He recalled Ms. Hite’s earlier comment that additional plaques would be placed at the park to recognize the contribution of the Floretum Club, as well as others who have contributed significantly to the park. Chair Lovell also referred to a memorandum the Board received from Board Member Stewart, indicating her support for including “Old Milltown” in the name. She also suggested that “plaza” would be better than “courtyard.” Board Member Tibbott asked if the Foundation would consider a contribution to a future project in the City as opposed to this particular park that is currently under construction. Mr. Bennett answered that if the City Council does not approve the name Packet Page 201 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 6 “Hazel Miller Plaza,” there will likely be other opportunities. However, the Foundation is interested in placing Mrs. Miller’s name on a significant feature in the City, and they feel the park at Old Milltown fits well, given the size of the Foundation. Board Member Tibbott asked if it possible the Foundation would consider contributing an entire year’s funds to a City project in the future. Mr. Bennett answered that he is unable to make a commitment on behalf of the Foundation Board. Board Member Tibbott pointed out that it could be a long time before the Foundation is able to establish a track record for contributions to the City of Edmonds. Mr. Bennett agreed that it will take a few more years for the Foundation to be fully operational. He emphasized that because the money must be spent in Edmonds and South Snohomish County, it is highly likely the Foundation will provide a significant benefit to the Edmonds community. Board Member Tibbott asked Mr. Bennett to describe the Foundation’s mission and the types of contributions they have made and plan to make in the future. Mr. Bennett referred the Board to the Foundation’s website for a list of contributions that have been made, as well as information about future contributions. He reminded the Commission of his earlier comments about the types of projects and programs the Foundation will support. He summarized that, in its short span, the Foundation has given away more that $5 million. Board Member Tibbott asked how widely the City distributed their request for park name nominations. He said he was curious about why so many of the nominations included Hazel Miller’s name in some form. He asked if the nominations were submitted by individuals or groups. Ms. Hite answered that the request for park name nominations was announced to the public through local news organizations, and notification was also posted at the park. In addition, people approached staff to submit suggested names. She noted that individuals from one group, in particular, submitted the name “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Board Member Tibbott expressed concern that the City’s outreach effort only netted 42 nominations, and one quarter of them were for the same name. Ms. Hite pointed out that the Foundation’s grant offer of $88,000, as well as their proposed name for the park, was published in a news story. Board Member Tibbott pointed out that many people stated they were nominating “Hazel Miller Plaza” because it would save the City $88,000. Board Member Clarke pointed out that Nominations 26 through 33 must have been submitted by people from the same group, since they all included the exact same reasons for their nomination. Board Member Tibbott said he would like to hear other reasons, besides the $88,000 contribution, for naming the park after Mrs. Miller. He would also like to learn more about other contributions Mrs. Miller and/or the Foundation have made to the City of Edmonds. Ms. Hite noted that some of the nominations recognized Mrs. Miller as being an Edmonds benefactor and an outstanding person in the community. Mr. Bennett referred to his earlier comments in which he identified the programs and projects the Foundation has supported over the past few years. He also reminded the Board of the Foundation’s Mission Statement that outlines the types of programs and projects the Foundation supports (see earlier comments). In addition to the contributions mentioned earlier, he noted that the Foundation also awarded a grant to the Wade James Theater to redo their heating system. Chair Lovell pointed out that because Mrs. Miller passed away less than two years ago, the Foundation has not had an opportunity to establish a lengthy track record. He referred to Nomination 23, which suggests the name “Hazel Miller Courtyard at Old Milltown.” The submitter stated that, not only would this name honor a citizen who set up a generous foundation to benefit Edmonds, it would also recognize the site’s history so it is not lost to future generations. Vice Chair Reed recalled that the letter from the Foundation indicated they would like to have an opportunity to review and approve the design of the park sign. He asked if the Foundation Board has discussed what they would like to see on the sign. Mr. Bennett answered that the Foundation does not intend to deter from the City’s sign standards, but they would like an opportunity to review the sign design and location because it is intended to be a legacy for Mrs. Miller. Vice Chair Reed asked if the Foundation would be amenable to naming the park “Hazel Miller Plaza at Old Milltown.”. Perhaps the park sign could also recognize those who contributed to the park significantly. Mr. Bennett emphasized that the Foundation is asking that the park be named Hazel Miller Plaza, and they do not believe it would be appropriate to add other names to the sign. Recognition of other individuals could be provided on a separate plaque, if desired. Board Member Clarke pointed out that most other parks that are named after individuals on the national, state and local level use just the last name of the individual. This precedent is true in the City of Edmonds, as well. He noted that Hickman Park Packet Page 202 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 7 is named after Dr. Robert O. Hickman, and there are numerous signs throughout the park that provide information about Dr. Hickman and his contribution to the community. He recalled that when the park was named, he specifically recommended that just Dr. Hickman’s last name should be used to be consistent with other parks in Edmonds. He expressed his belief that most people would not want their name to become a controversy when they are trying to do something good. He expressed concern that naming the park “Hazel Miller Plaza” could set precedence for future situations. Mr. Bennett pointed out there is nothing in the Park Naming Policy that requires the City to use just the last name of an individual. He said that if the Board recommends “Miller Plaza” to the City Council they should do so with the understanding that the Foundation would likely withdraw their grant offer. Again, he reminded the Board that the grant is based on the Foundation’s letter and the application that was submitted by the City. He emphasized that the Foundation did not approach the City first; the City requested the grant funding. Ms. Hite confirmed that after discussions in July and August, the City Council allocated $70,000 for park construction, with the caveat that staff would apply for grant funding. As a result, staff submitted several grant applications, including one to the Hazel Miller Foundation. Vice Chair Reed asked if the grant application stated that the City would name the park “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Ms. Hite explained that the grant request was two-tiered. One request was for a lesser amount to support the project, and another was for over 50% of the construction costs, with the caveat that the City would go through the naming process to name the park “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Vice Chair Reed said he is not opposed to including Mrs. Miller’s first name as part of the park name. Board Member Johnson summarized that the Foundation’s letter makes it clear that their donation is contingent upon the park being named “Hazel Miller Plaza.” She said she referred to the dictionary for definitions of “plaza” and “courtyard.” A plaza is typically located in the center of town and is surrounded by shops. Historically, a courtyard was the center of the castle, but in modern times it is considered a three-sided area, which is consistent with the subject park area. She asked why the Foundation is set on using the word “plaza,” rather than a more unique name. There is already a Library Plaza and a Century Plaza in downtown Edmonds. Mr. Bennett did not provide a response. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Park Naming Policy states that the Board should approach parking naming with caution and deliberation, yet this is the first time the Board has heard the fact that they only have one option in relation to the generous contribution from the Hazel Miller Foundation. Mr. Bennett pointed out that the Foundation’s letter made this stipulation very clear. Board Member Clarke agreed that the letter indicates the Foundation’s desire that the park be named “Hazel Miller Plaza,” but it does not specifically state that this must be the name of the park or the Foundation would withdraw their grant offer. Mr. Bennett specifically referenced to the following statements from the Foundation’s letter: • “We are excited at the prospect of having this park named the “Hazel Miller Plaza,” and have allocated $88,000 should this name be chosen.” • “Before we fully confirm this grant, it is necessary that the City Council approves the name “Hazel Miller Plaza” for this project.” Vice Chair Reed said his interpretation of the letter is that the name “Hazel Miller Plaza” must be approved by the City Council before the grant funding would be confirmed. Board Member Clarke said the letter does not specifically state that the Foundation would not consider any other name. Vice Chair Reed emphasized that the Foundation Board has decided that the name must be “Hazel Miller Plaza” or the grant will not be funded. The Foundation Board’s next meeting is not until February, and staff has indicated the project will be completed by the end of January. Chair Lovell asked if the City Council is aware of the ramifications of the letter. Ms. Hite answered that the City Council is aware that the grant funding is contingent upon the Foundation’s recommended park name. She agreed to make it clear to the City Council that the Hazel Miller Foundation Board has decided there is no flexibility in the park name if the City wants to obtain the grant funding. Board Member Tibbott pointed out that although the Foundation has offered a grant that is contingent upon a certain name, the City should not circumvent the process outlined in the Park Naming Policy. They should consider all of the nominations that were submitted. The Board should not feel obligated to forward a recommendation that the park be named as per the Foundation’s request. Packet Page 203 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 8 Polly Peterson, Edmonds, said she did not find out about the park naming contest until she walked by the park area on the deadline day. She said she worked at Old Milltown in the 1970s and 1980s. She is familiar with the park area, which was a source of pleasure for many people as a central gathering place. She noted that the majority of the nominations contained some form of Mrs. Miller’s name. She questioned whether the public was adequately notified of the opportunity to submit nominations, or if the majority of the nominations came from people who are familiar with the Foundation’s grant offer. She cautioned against naming the park based solely on the $88,000 promised by the Foundation. The Foundation can find other things to do with their money. She noted that the Foundation’s website indicates that “Hazel Miller Plaza” has already been approved as the name for the park. She questioned the need for nominations if the name had already been decided. Board Member Johnson asked if Ms. Peterson nominated a potential park name. Ms. Peterson answered that she recommended the name Rachel Setchfield Park. She recalled that Ms. Setchfield spent a lot time in the area and gave so much pleasure to people while she worked at Old Milltown. She said she also thought about nominating the Floretum Garden Club as a potential name for the park. She said she grew up in Edmonds and the ladies in the Garden Club spent hours trying to beautify the community as volunteers. Board Member Johnson referred to an article she obtained about Ms. Setchfield, which describes how she contributed to the maintenance of the gardens. Board Member Johnson thanked Ms. Peterson for sharing her thoughts. She reminded the public that the Planning Board is required to conduct an open public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. It is important that everyone has an opportunity to contribute and be considered. Board Member Clarke referred to an email the Board received, which contained an article about Rachel Setchfield from THE ENTERPRISE dated March 22, 1978. He said the Board also received an email from Betty Larman, which provided additional background on the Floretum Garden Club’s activity and contribution. Her email also outlines her conversations with the City’s former Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, Brian McIntosh, about recognizing the contributions of the Garden Club. He said it appears the City plans to provide a plaque to honor their previous commitment to recognize the contributions of Garden Club members. Ms. Hite advised that the Garden Club also contributed $2,000 to purchase a bench in memory of Rachel Setchfield. Board Member Clarke read Board Member Stewart’s written comment into the record as follows: “When considering the criteria for park naming, I would like to draw attention to Items A and E in the Park Naming Policy. A refers to the geographic location, and E refers to an individual or organization that contributed significantly to the acquisition or development of the facility. I wanted to note Nomination 23: Hazel Miller Courtyard at Old Milltown. This nomination takes care of both A and E. So does Nomination 39: the Old Milltown Hazel Miller Plaza. In looking up the definition, plaza is described as a public square, usually paved between a building and a street. A courtyard is open space surrounded by walls or buildings. It sounds to me like “plaza” is a better term to use here. I do think it’s important to recognize the historical significance of the place along with the donor.” Board Member Tibbott said he feels it is important to recognize and perhaps save some of the historical significance of the site for future generations. Ms. Hite noted that historic elements would be incorporated into the park design, and there is a lot of research going back to when the site was owned by the Yost family and operated as a garage. Board Member Johnson said she has a picture of the site just prior to when it was developed. The space between the road and the building used to be a driveway to an existing filling station. Board Member Tibbott suggested that perhaps the name “Old Milltown” does not accurately depict the history of the site. It might be more accurate to call it the “old repair station or garage.” Board Member Johnson suggested it is a matter of perception. For example, Betty Larman has commented that Old Milltown is significant because it was developed in the 1970’s and designed by a noted architect. In addition, most people in the City know where Old Milltown is located, but they may not know that the site was previously the home of Yost Garage. Board Member Clarke referred to an email the Board received from Jean Richards expressing opposition to naming the park in honor of a person, either past or present. Board Member Johnson also noted an email the Board received from Rich Packet Page 204 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 9 Senderoff dated December 14th asking that the Board consider the name “Hazel Miller Floretum Plaza” and an email from Betty Larman dated November 14th recounting the history of the site, the significant involvement of the Floretum Garden Club, and some of the fund raising facts associated with the property acquisition. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the last paragraph in the Park Naming Policy states that “parks and facilities named after individuals shall not be changed unless it is found that because of the individual’s character, the continued use of the name would not be in the best interest of the community.” He said that, in his opinion, this paragraph would not be applicable to the Hazel Miller, so the name would stay the same in perpetuity. Board Member Tibbott asked what other names the Board could consider besides “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Board Member Johnson answered that the Board should consider all of the nominations that were submitted prior to the deadline. She said that when staff presents the Board’s recommendation to the City Council, they will likely be asked about the process. She questioned the process of inviting the public to participate, knowing there is an offer on the table for a specific name. She questioned how the Board could reconcile the process to ensure it is transparent. Ms. Hite said the City tried to make the Hazel Miller Foundation’s offer clear in the information that was published regarding the park naming process. Chair Lovell added that an advertisement was placed in the local news media inviting the public to nominate potential names and participate in the public hearing. Ms. Hite said a press release was also issued by City staff on October 26th to inform the public that the Foundation has requested the name “Hazel Miller Plaza.” Board Member Clarke commented that while the policy also calls for a parking naming contest, there is actually no contest and no prizes are awarded. He suggested they eliminate the word “contest” to make the process more clear. Board Member Johnson said the Board has received numerous emails and reports regarding the issue and has not had an opportunity to thoroughly review each one. She particularly referred to an October 21, 2010 submittal by the Floretum Garden Club, which was part of another opportunity for grant funding through the Washington State Federation of Garden Clubs. It recommends the name “Old Milltown Garden.” She said it is important that Board Members have an opportunity to review all available information before making a recommendation to the City Council. She commented that the Board Members owe it to themselves to be fully informed so they can provide background information and history to support their recommendation. It is also important that all available information is provided to the City Council as part of the public record. In answer to Vice Chair Reed, Ms. Hite clarified that the City Council is not required to conduct a public hearing before making a final decision. This responsibility is given to the Planning Board. However, the City Council can choose to have a public hearing if they find it appropriate. Vice Chair Reed suggested the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council that is consistent with the funding request from the Hazel Miller Foundation, and then supplement their recommendation with alternative names and suggestions for obtaining funding if they do not accept the Foundation’s offer. They could also recommend that the park include visible recognition of others who have made significant contributions to the park’s existence. Board Member Johnson said she would support any name that includes “Hazel Miller.” She said she would not be opposed to using Mrs. Miller’s full name if that is the desire of the Foundation. Board Member Tibbott, on the other hand, said he struggles with using the full name of a citizen who is not widely known throughout the community. At this point, the Foundation’s work is just emerging, and he would prefer to see a track record for the types of contributions they have made and will make in the community before naming a park after Mrs. Miller in perpetuity. Once this track record has been established and the mission of the Foundation is better understood, he would be more in favor of the Foundation’s request to name a park after Mrs. Miller. Board Member Johnson said she is aware of the many good works performed by the Foundation to date, and they will continue to have a significant amount of money to invest in South Snohomish County, particularly Edmonds. One reason for the Foundation’s request to name the park “Hazel Miller Plaza” is to give recognition to the contributions the foundation will make in the future. Board Member Tibbott said he understands the Foundation’s intent, and if a track record had already been established, it would be easier for him to support the proposed name. He said he would prefer the park name to reflect the Packet Page 205 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 10 history of the site and the significance of its location. If the City chooses not to name the park “Hazel Miller Plaza” as requested by the Foundation, perhaps there will be other opportunities in the future for the City to work with the Foundation. Board Member Clarke referred to Nomination 11, which recommends the name “Rick Steves Park” because of Mr. Steve’s profound contribution to the community. He noted that Mr. Steves recently announced his long-term commitment to financially contribute to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. He draws numerous people to the community to attend his events, and he has made it well known that he lives in and appreciates Edmonds. He suggested it would be appropriate to provide some type of recognition for Mr. Steves at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Board Member Clarke also referred to Nomination 42, which recommends the name “John Byron Beck Municipal Park.” The nomination indicates that Mr. Beck was a long-standing member of the community, serving as a Washington State Legislator. He was a local businessman and past president of the Chamber of Commerce. He was also one of the founders of the Bank of Edmonds. While the Foundation’s gift to the community would be significant, Board Member Clarke suggested the Board has an obligation to consider all the submitted nominations. He said he has lived in Edmonds all his life. While things have changed, some things, such as Old Milltown, have remained constant. Although it has no relationship to a mill, it has become a historic site that is recognized by the citizens of Edmonds. If the park were named “Hazel Miller Plaza at Old Milltown,” everyone in the City would know exactly where it is located. Adding Old Milltown to the name would be positive and would not take away from the name of Hazel Miller. Chair Lovell recommended the Board continue their discussion to a future meeting so they could move on with the remainder of their agenda. This would allow the Board Members to review the additional information and obtain input from the Foundation about what other names they might be willing to consider. BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 11, 2012 FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND CONTINUED BOARD DELIBERATION. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING AT 9:25 FOR A SHORT BREAK. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:34 P.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Mr. Lien advised that Bob McChesney, Port of Edmonds Executive Director, was present to share the Port’s plans for their Harbor Square Master Plan and to make sure it is consistent with the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He explained that the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan has progressed to the point where they might be able to slow the SMP update process until the Port has submitted their application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to incorporate their new master plan. Mr. McChesney recalled that he has spoken to the Board on previous occasions regarding the Port’s Harbor Square Redevelopment Master Plan process. He emphasized that no preferred alternative has been identified at this point. The plans are still at the conceptual level. A feasibility study (Phase 1) was done in 2009 and was followed by a public outreach program (Phase 2) that was completed in June 2011 with the help of a community steering committee. A draft report has been prepared and will be circulated to the public in January. Mr. McChesney reported that the Port is working closely with the City to coordinate their process with the SMP update. He referred to a letter the Port received from the Department of Ecology (DOE) that endorses the Port’s process. In addition, the Port has been working with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh to address concerns related to the marsh. From the Port’s point of view, they need to finalize their public outreach phase by circulating the report to every residential address in Edmonds and Woodway. The next step is for the Port to engage in a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review process that will become the enabling document for the Port Commission to adopt the concepts into the Port’s Master Plan. They expect these steps to occur during the first quarter of 2012, which will enable the Port to present a Comprehensive Plan amendment request Packet Page 206 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 11 to the City for consideration by the Planning Board and City Council. Once the master redevelopment plan has been adopted into the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Port can engage in discussions having to do with a future development agreement that addresses issues such as traffic, design, site configuration, etc. Mr. McChesney summarized that the Port believes it is time to move forward with the master plan. City and Port staff have worked together to ensure that the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan and the SMP move forward in sync. Board Member Johnson asked Mr. McChesney to clarify the Port’s plans for disseminating the report. Mr. McChesney answered that the Port Commission believes it is absolutely vital to send the report to all residential addresses in Edmonds and Woodway. They will be asking the City for approval, so everyone in the City should have an opportunity to understand what the Port is proposing. Board Member Reed asked if the public would have an opportunity to comment on the report. Mr. McChesney replied that there will be opportunities for additional public comment during the 30-day comment period for SEPA, and he anticipates public hearings would also be conducted by both the Planning Board and the City Council before the Comprehensive Plan amendment is adopted. Chair Lovell asked Mr. McChesney to describe the Port’s anticipated timeline for completing the process. Mr. McChesney said the Port wants to be ready to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal to the Planning Board and City Council during the second quarter of 2012. This will allow them three months at the beginning of 2012 to complete the SEPA review and for the Port Commission to approve the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan as part of their overall Master Plan. Board Member Johnson reminded Mr. McChesney that the City will embark on a Strategic Planning process in January 2012. She asked how the Port would coordinate their work with the City’s Strategic Plan work. Mr. McChesney said the Port will attempt to coordinate their Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan process with the City’s Strategic Plan process. He said he believes the Harbor Square Redevelopment Master Plan process will be complimentary and illustrative of a good planning process in general. In fact, it could become a module or part of the Strategic Plan, if only by reference. He said the Port has also tried to follow some contemporary planning guidance to incorporate form-based zoning as part of their master plan concept. He summarized that although the Port’s plan might move slightly ahead of the Strategic Plan, they will not conflict with each other and will, in fact, be very complimentary. Chair Lovell said the Economic Development Commission has suggested that perhaps the City would look to the Port to develop a similar study relative to the remainder of the waterfront, using the same type of process that was used for Five Corners and Westgate. The Strategic Plan process has been restructured so the timing will be fairly consistent with the Port’s time frame for completing their Master Plan. He explained that not only would the Strategic Plan identify a vision for the City, it would also identify both short and long-term goals to implement the vision. These goals will include the marsh, drainage problems on Dayton Street, access to the waterfront over the railroad tracks, etc. While it would be optimal to work concurrently on the SMP and the Strategic Plan to ensure the two documents are consistent, the State has identified a deadline for completing the SMP update. Mr. Lien advised that the SMP update must be completed in 2012. He reminded the Board of their previous discussion about bumping back the SMP update schedule a few months. They originally anticipated the first public hearing before the Planning Board on March 14th, but perhaps it would be appropriate to postpone the public hearing until after the Port has submitted their Comprehensive Plan amendment in May or June. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that at their last meeting, they reviewed a memorandum from staff that outlined the issues for which they are seeking additional direction from the Board. One issue was related to the proposed new Urban Mixed Use III designation. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to continue their discussion to a future meeting to seek additional input from the Port of Edmonds about how the new designation would impact their proposed Harbor Square Redevelopment Master Plan. They were particularly interested in feedback about how the proposed parking setback requirements. Because of the lateness of the hour, he suggested the Board continue their discussion to the January 25th meeting. He suggested the public hearing be postponed until May or June, after the Port has submitted their master plan proposal. Board Member Johnson asked if the Port is going to complete the SEPA review before distributing the report. Mr. McChesney answered that the two activities would occur simultaneously. He further advised that the SEPA review would be completed before the Port’s Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal is submitted to the Planning Board for review. The Port Commission will approve the master plan prior to submitting the document to the City, as well. Packet Page 207 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 12 Vice Chair Reed recalled that there has been some discussion about liquefaction issues at the Antique Mall site, and this could impact what can and cannot be developed. It could also impact the costs associated with redevelopment. He suggested that this problem might also be applicable to the Harbor Square site. He cautioned against creating grand plans that involve three to five-story structures that may not be feasible due to existing soil conditions. These issues must be resolved prior to redevelopment, and he encouraged the Port to make sure the issue is considered as part of their master plan discussion. Chair Lovell agreed it could be an engineering challenge to develop these two sites, but it could be done with pilings, etc. He referred to the soils study that was completed for the Senior Center site, which talks about liquefaction. It indicates that the risk is very slight. He suggested that the water table would be the largest challenge, particularly when considering below- grade construction. Mr. McChesney agreed these issues need to be thoroughly reviewed, but he cautioned that the Port is still in the conceptual stage. They are proceeding with the assumption that because there are buildings on the site now, there is reason to believe they will be able to build as needed. However, he acknowledged that the Port will need to do a thorough evaluation at some point in the future. Board Member Johnson asked if financial feasibility would be part of the SEPA review. Mr. McChesney answered that it would not be a direct part of the review. However, there are realities and constraints that must be considered. The Port is trying to abide by the imperative that the master plan must be economically feasible based on the reasonable assumptions that were presented to the Port Commission. Board Member Johnson acknowledged that given enough money, a developer could resolve most engineering challenges to enable development to occur almost anywhere. However, because of water table and liquefaction issues, she felt it would be appropriate for the Board to conduct additional analysis. Mr. McChesney said the Port will be unable to address these issues until the requirements have been established. He recalled that in past discussions with the Board, he has mentioned that the Port’s approach to redevelopment at Harbor Square is different than that of a private sector developer. A private sector developer would likely attempt to optimize the economic opportunity and massing on the parcel. The Port’s goal is to determine the minimum amount of development that must occur on the site to be economically feasible. The Port’s feasibility study identifies the constraints, assumptions and realities. However, the Port does not know in real time when redevelopment will occur and market factors will also determine what is economically feasible. He said the Port does not anticipate redeveloping the site, itself. Their goal is to perfect a concept and achieve the necessary entitlements so they can engage the private sector to do the actual development. The Port has limited resources but a fair amount of expertise in master planning. The Commission does not have an appetite for investing in building construction, but they think it is appropriate for the Port to lead the process to obtain the necessary entitlements that will express what is in the best interest of the community. Board Member Clarke expressed his professional opinion that because the Port does not have an adequate analysis to identify existing soil conditions and the water table, the financial feasibility study is misleading. The study merely represents preliminary cost numbers that do not take into consideration the soil on the site. He expressed his belief that these issues must be clearly defined, quantified and addressed as part of the feasibility study. Mr. McChesney explained that the feasibility study is intended to be a bulk analysis that identifies how much mass is needed on the parcel to be economically feasible. While Board Member Clarke’s points are well taken, the Port’s thought was that this level of analysis would not be necessary for what they are trying to achieve in this phase of the process. The Port would address the more detailed, site-specific constraints and issues as part of the next phase of the project. Board Member Clarke commented that this approach would be appropriate for almost any site in the City, with the exception of those along the waterfront because of known issues related to the water table and liquefaction. He said the reality is that an architect cannot design a building unless he/she knows what the soils are on the site. This information is critical to an overall plan. Board Member Johnson pointed out that the sewer treatment plant was constructed after Harbor Square was developed. She suggested the Port obtain copies of the studies that were done for that site, since the soil conditions would probably closely resemble those at Harbor Square. Mr. McChesney summarized that the Board provided some good comments. The Port wants to learn and understand in advance what the Board’s concerns will be, and they will try to answer them to the extent possible. He said it did not occur to the Port that this high level of detail would be an important part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Board Member Johnson noted that the marsh and its environment will be important elements of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She Packet Page 208 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 13 recalled that at their last discussion, the Board was not quite sure about the appropriate distance that should be required from the edge of the marsh and potential buildings and parking areas. The Board was interested to learn how different setback standards would compliment or interfere with the Port’s plans. Based on discussions with staff, Mr. McChesney said he believes the Port’s master plan is tracking well with the City’s SMP update. The Port has also been working with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh and the DOE. It appears as though the buffers and setbacks contemplated would be perfectly adequate and even better than what might be expected. Mr. McChesney explained that redevelopment of Harbor Square and restoration of the marsh are neither mutually exclusive nor incompatible. In fact, the two depend on each other. Redevelopment of Harbor Square creates opportunities for restoring the marsh, including improvements to stormwater, enhanced buffers, and daylighting Willow Creek. All of these projects work together. It is important to find the best way to redevelop Harbor Square to the benefit of the community, including marsh restoration. Board Member Johnson said the Board has expressed an interest in learning how the marsh would be impacted if Willow Creek were delighted or the flood gate were left open. However, this data is apparently not available. Mr. McChesney said there are grant funding opportunities to complete a baseline conditions survey and explore future opportunities in more detail. Mr. Lien added that policies were added to the SMP to prioritize studies related to the marsh. In addition, the City has received grant funding to study the marsh. Board Member Johnson asked how restoration of the marsh would impact the 200- foot area of the shoreline jurisdiction. Mr. Lien referred to Revised Code of Washington 90.58.580, which says that if a restoration project alters the ordinary high water mark or shoreline location, the new property that is now within the shoreline jurisdiction can get relief from the regulations. It is important that people are not discouraged from doing restoration projects. Board Member Clarke asked if the SMP includes setback requirements related to the railroad right-of-way for pedestrian activity and building improvements. He suggested it might be appropriate to require a setback to account for situations such as train derailment. Mr. Lien answered that the State does not require setbacks from the railroad right-of-way, and the issue is not addressed in the City’s draft SMP. He noted that the majority of the railroad is located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Chair Lovell suggested this is a railroad safety issue rather than a shoreline issue. He expressed his belief that requiring buffers for potential accidents along the railroad rights-of-ways would not be the highest and best use of land. Board Member Clarke pointed out that a railroad disaster would not only impact the railroad right-of-way but adjacent private property, as well. Board Member Johnson asked if the City knows the extent of the restoration project at this time. Mr. Lien answered that the City would not know the extent of the restoration until a project proposal comes forward. Board Member Johnson asked if this would be part of the Port’s Harbor Square Redevelopment Master Plan proposal. Mr. McChesney answered that it would not because a project has not been defined yet, and they do not know enough about what the final outcome should be. He emphasized that the Port is committed to participating in the process as much as possible. Keeley O’Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, explained that they do not know what the extent of the restoration will be at this time. People for Puget Sound was just awarded a grant from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board through Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 that will initiate a feasibility study. She explained that because of constrained funding situations, there are significant restrictions on what the money can be used for. It can be used to define the area that will become salt marsh and what the average tidal cycle will be and how it relates to juvenile Chinook foraging success. If it can be shown there will be juvenile Chinook foraging over a certain amount of time, they will be allowed to continue to accept funding requests to carry the project forward into design, permitting, construction and monitoring post construction. They have ideas for what they think needs to happen and what the constraints are. They also know where they have opportunities to change the constraints and where they cannot significantly change the constraints. For example, they understand that they cannot change the Harbor Square site back into a marsh. Ms. O’Connell explained that Friends of the Edmonds Marsh must work closely with the City staff to address issues related to stormwater coming into the system. However, the current grant funding cannot be used for this purpose. It will be used to specifically determine how much water would come in on average if they were to open the creek channel directly to Puget Sound and how much of the salt water marsh would be converted to fresh water marsh. They expect that the tidal affects Packet Page 209 of 218 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2011 Page 14 would expand. She explained that the ordinary high water mark on the north side of the marsh that abuts Harbor Square and is right up to the levy would not change. Addressing the flooding issues will be part of future studies. Board Member Johnson summarized that the anticipated study will focus on how opening the creek channel will impact salinity, high water marks, and tides related to juvenile Chinook foraging. She asked for more information about how the creek channel would be opened. Ms. O’Connell answered that the main constraint is the long narrow pipe that limits the amount of water that can get into the system on a daily basis. In addition, there is a tide gate that is only open for a portion of the year. It is closed during the winter months so that only fresh water enters the marsh. An ideal situation would be a channel connection that takes the water out of the pipe and into the natural stream bank. They expect to see much more salt water coming into the marsh on a daily basis, but the need for a tide gate is still unknown. It may be that the only way to address flooding is to have a gate system, but it must be a smart gate that would not have to be locked shut for several months a year. Board Member Johnson asked Ms. O’Connell to clarify her earlier comment about the levy on the north side of the marsh along the Harbor Square property. Ms. O’Connell explained that while they expect more water in the marsh, they do not expect to remove portions of developed land and covert it back to marsh. There are some constraints that can be addressed such as the pipe and the lack of tide water getting into the marsh. However, the reality is that Harbor Square is built out and they are not trying to convert it back to marsh. Instead, they need to figure out how to make redevelopment happen so that it is not harmful and actually enhances the marsh. Board Member Johnson asked the time frame for the study. Ms. O’Connell answered that the study will take between 12 and 18 months to complete. There are two proposals currently on the table to bring additional funding from the City to support the grant funding received from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board so that stormwater issues can be addressed. These studies could be done simultaneously. Board Member Johnson said it is important to clearly understand the constraints of the marsh and how it fits into the timing of the SMP. However, she observed that the study information will not be available before the City is required to adopt their updated SMP. Ms. O’Connell clarified that the marsh tops wherever there is a levy or dyke. Any water coming out of the marsh going over the dyke is considered flooding, which is a public issue. Friends of the Edmonds Marsh has an interest in restoring what remains of the marsh to the best of their ability, working with the current constraints of the built out urban environment. They expect to see changes in the future in the types of vegetation and wildlife present at the marsh, but they would not expect changes in the integrity of the dyke system. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell agreed to email the Board Members his thoughts and ideas for issues that are scheduled to come before the Board in early 2012. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Johnson announced that the Economic Development Commission cancelled their December 21st meeting due to the holiday. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m. Packet Page 210 of 218 PARK NAMING CONTEST ENTRIES – Old Milltown Site 1. 10/24/11 Hazel Miller Plaza The foundation is dedicated to Edmonds citizens by supporting programs and projects for the public’s benefit. The foundation has supported numerous organizations and this would be a good way to say thank you. 2. 10/24/11 Hazel Miller Humanitarian Park It captures the spirit of all the efforts that Hazel Miller wished for her philanthropic efforts and also the feelings of those living in the wonderful Edmonds community. It has a very positive meaning and generates a great feeling. 3. 10/25/11 Hazel Miller Town Park I think a nice name would be Hazel Miller Town Park. It keeps the Old Mill Town in the name and incorporates Hazel Miller into the new name. 4. 10/25/11 Hazel Miller Boardwalk Park It honors Hazel Miller and recognizes that there was/is a boardwalk in the former Old Milltown. The boardwalk is charming! 5. 10/26/11 Hazel on 5th I suggest it because it sounds nice to go relax at Hazel on 5th! 6. 10/26/11 Edmonds Ferry Park It’s a play on words; instead of a tiny park for fairies, it’s a ferry park. Post a sign where drivers/passengers get off the ferries. It would encourage them to go into Edmonds instead of by-passing the town and get more sales for merchants. It would be nice if there were something more for kids to play with like a boat wheel off the ferries. There should be a picture of an Edmonds Ferry somewhere. 7. 10/31/11 Millertown Square or Hazel Miller Town Square It keeps Old Milltown in mind and it incorporates Hazel Miller’s name. Plus a town square is a gathering place for a community. 8. 11/1/11 Milltown Rising Park – With Thanks to Hazel Miller It is located near Old Milltown, that we all hope will be reborn with new life and economic activity. Whether you need to use the word “Foundation” after her name is up to you, but I thought using her name would be contingent on getting an $88,000 contribution. 9. 11/3/11 Sawmill Park The reason for Sawmill Park is that Old Milltown was named after all the saw mills in our community of Edmonds. 10. 11/4/11 Old Milltown Park It’s an historical site in the heart of Edmonds. 11. 11/4/111 Rick Steves Park Rick Steves contributions to our community are profound. It’s time we should honor him!! 12. 11/4/11 Our Town Because it is our town 13. 11/4/11 Central Park Central Park in NYC is one of the grandest in the world. This new park is a wonderful idea and it is also in a central area of Edmonds. 14. 11/4/11 Mill Town Park It is what everyone already calls it. Edmonds is an Old Mill Town. 15. 11/4/11 Courtyard at Milltown That’s where it is!!! 16. 11/4/11 (The) Courtyard at Milltown It sounds classy and still contains “Milltown” so people would know what/where it is. 17. 11/4/11 Edmonds Millfront Park In keeping with Edmonds history as a milltown. 18. 11/4/11 Edmonds Central Park The word “central” sounds very big such as New York Central Park. This is very small park located in central area of Edmonds. Very cute and humorous name. Easy to remember. We should be very proud of this small Edmonds Central Park! 19. 11/5/11 Hazelwood Plaza I am so happy that the little park has been maintained for the city and will be restored to a newer and better design for us Edmondites to enjoy. A “plaza” according to Webster is an open-air public area located near walkways and shopping. So I suggest the name Hazelwood Plaza (and plant some hazel shrubs there). In any case, having watched that corner change from pre Ward Phillips development into Old Milltown and to its current state, I look forward to seeing it come to fruition. Thanks to Hazel Miller for her generosity, and to you for considering this name. 20. 11/7/11 Silver Lining Park People move to Edmonds and grow old here – we have a wonderful “silver haired” crowd that roams the DT area. They are an important part of our community, hence, the Silver Lining. 21. 11/8/11 Hazel Miller Park After reading in the Edmonds Beacon paper about Hazel Miller and the generous donation from her foundation…I think it would be wonderful to name our new park (across the street from Tully’s)…Hazel Miller Park. 22. 11/8/11 Grace The biggest hearted citizen of Edmonds (born and raised) who is loved by all who meet her. Grace by the Sea, Grace Bickel. She has the spirit of love in her. We are only here by God’s Grace. 23. 11/10/11 Hazel Miller Courtyard at Old Milltown It’s good to honor a citizen who set up a generous foundation to benefit Edmonds. But it’s also important to acknowledge the site’s history so it is not lost to future generations. 24. 11/10/11 Hazel Miller Plaza See attachments* - Letter to Carrie Hite dated 11/8/11 and Press Release dated 10/26/11 Packet Page 211 of 218 PARK NAMING CONTEST ENTRIES – Old Milltown Site 25. 11/14/11 Hazel Miller Courtyard Because she donated the money for this park. 26. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Park She’s been an Edmonds benefactor 27. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza Save taxpayers money if named after Hazel Miller 28. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza So the taxpayers can save $88,000 29. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller For the donation of $88,000 and she helps our community 30. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza So we can save money. 31. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza Funding 32. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza To save $88,000 33. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza To save the City $88,000! 34. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza To honor this outstanding person and fund a lovely plaza without burdening taxpayers. 35. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza Funding 36. 11/15/11 Hazel Miller Plaza Opportunity for funding the development of the park. 37. 11/17/11 Milltown Courtyard Sounds good; is catchy and will quickly feel natural; is historically accurate; describes the place precisely – it is a community courtyard located in historical Milltown location. 38. 11/17/11 Park Side This little park is next to our sidewalk and will attract the daily walkers like myself, or the not so daily walkers, by giving them a chance to rest and visit with other locals. 39. 11/18/11 The Old Milltown HAZEL MILLER PLAZA This would incorporate the required name for the Hazel Miller Grant, but also give the Edmonds community a quick reference as to the location. 40. 11/18/11 Another Waste of Taxpayer Dollars This name should be chosen because the city council is wasting taxpayer dollars on another park that is not needed. The city needs money to repair the streets, repair the water main and most of all pay city employees for a full 40 hour week and not make them take a forced day off with no pay. The city council should be ashamed of themselves for even considering the purchase of this piece of property. To add insult to injury they then spend additional money to "improve it" when it was perfectly fine the way it was. 41. 11/18/11 Hazel Miller Old Milltown Courtyard This would reflect both the generous contribution of the Foundation, but also acknowledge the many years of hard work by the City, Floretum Garden Club, and other community groups in bringing the park to reality, while recognizing its history. 42. 11/21/11 John Byron Beck Municipal Park I would like to nominate the name of the new park after an old friend who left us too early and contributed selflessly to our community and state. John loved Edmonds and its people; he looked forward to each day and received great joy in making new friends. In addition to having his own business in Edmonds he served the community as president of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, he was a board member of Catholic Community Services of Snohomish County, and of Edmonds-South County Historical Museum, and he was also one of the founders of the Bank of Edmonds, now Bank of Washington. In 1986, he was elected to the Washington State Legislature and served three terms representing our community. His interests included improving the quality of education, helping children and seniors and assisting small-business owners. Both his business and the bank he helped start are adjacent to the new park. Born in Bellingham, he came to Seattle as a boy and graduated from Blanchet High School. He earned a bachelor's degree in political science and economics at Seattle University. After serving in the Army, he worked as a diplomatic courier and foreign-service officer for the U.S. State Department in embassies in Zaire, Oman and Germany. He returned to Edmonds in 1978 to buy Beck's Funeral Home and Restlawn Memorial Park from his father and contributed for over two decades until his untimely death at the age of 53 on April 27, 1997. Edmonds has an opportunity to use the naming of the new park to remember an old friend to many, one who gave countless time and effort to his community and served as an inspiration to future generations that a local leader can make a difference. Packet Page 212 of 218 PARK NAMING CONTEST ENTRIES – Old Milltown Site 43. 11/21/11 Rachel Setchfield Park Rachel loving cared for the Milltown garden while I worked at Milltown in the 1970s and 1980s. The “meadow” of Forget-Me- Nots and various plants and trees which she nurtured gave quiet respite and pleasure to passersby, customers and employees alike. The garden was alive with color and the sounds of song birds thanks to her care. I believe she did this on a volunteer basis though I’m not sure, but people loved the work she did and would always comment on the lovely garden or how it reminded them of their grandmother’s or aunt’s garden. A g arden (or park) should be a place to restore. I feel Rachel helped achieve this for many people as they went about their busy days if only for a moment or two. #24 Attachments: Letter to Carrie Hite dated 11/8/11 and Press Release dated 10/26/11 – supporting documents Packet Page 213 of 218 Packet Page 214 of 218 Packet Page 215 of 218 Packet Page 216 of 218 Packet Page 217 of 218 AM-4536 Item #: 7. City Council Meeting Date: 02/07/2012 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:Councilman Yamamoto Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding transport fees and insurance. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action None Narrative Many communities across the country have begun to bill Medicaid/Medicare and private insurance companies the cost of transporting patients via ambulance. Most insurance already factors in this cost resulting in no added costs to people being transported via ambulance. This has been found to be a significant financial support for EMS services. This agenda item is for discussion purposes only. No council action, other than possible referral to committee is expected. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/02/2012 02:15 PM Mayor Dave Earling 02/03/2012 11:10 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/03/2012 11:30 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/02/2012 09:51 AM Final Approval Date: 02/03/2012 Packet Page 218 of 218