2012.09.18 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B.AM-5112 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 11, 2012.
C.AM-5126 Approval of claim checks #134142 through #134306 dated September 13, 2012 for
$600,875.09.
D.AM-5087 Approval of the list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license with the
Washington State Liquor Control Board for the months of July, August, and September
2012.
E.AM-5116 July 2012 Monthly Financial Report.
F.AM-5113 Authorization for Mayor to sign a $500,000 grant contract with the Department of
Commerce for the Main St. Improvement Project between 5th and 6th Avenues.
G.AM-5118 Authorization for Mayor to sign agreements with Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. and
Carburetor Connection Inc. re: vehicle fleet propane conversion.
H.AM-5120 Approve a Bill of Sale to transfer ownership of sewer pipe on 224th that is currently in
Esperance from being City owned to OVWSD owned.
I.AM-5122 Report on final construction costs for the 2010 Watermain Replacement Project and
final acceptance of project.
J.AM-5123 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program
Packet Page 1 of 437
J.AM-5123 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program
Agreement between the State of Washington Department of Ecology and the City of
Edmonds for $259,745 for a Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit at the Public Works Yard.
3.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings .
4.(10 Minutes)
AM-5119
Interim Zoning Ordinance to allow farmers markets in Business Commercial (BC) and
Business Downtown (BD) Zones.
5.(10 Minutes)
AM-5114
2013 Budget Schedule
6.(15 Minutes)
AM-5121
Police Services Contract - Town of Woodway
7.(15 Minutes)
AM-5130
Hearing Examiner Annual Report.
8.(20 Minutes)
AM-5128
Presentation on Chip Seals
9.(15 Minutes)
AM-5127
Update on Regional Fire Authority and Authorization to sign Interlocal Agreement.
10.(15 Minutes)
AM-5115
Discussion and possible action regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions.
11.(60 Minutes)
AM-5125
Nonrepresented Employee Compensation Study and Policy Discussion (Public
comment will be received).
12.(15 Minutes)
AM-5111
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of September 11, 2012.
13.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
14.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 437
AM-5112 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 11, 2012.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
CC Draft Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/14/2012 12:43 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/14/2012 01:07 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/07/2012 03:54 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2012
Packet Page 3 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 11, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 11, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(b)
At 5:43 p.m., Mayor Earling called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers located in the Public
Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds. He announced that the City Council would first convene in
executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive
session would be held in the Jury Meeting Room and was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes. No
action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. He noted that executive
sessions are not open to the public. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling,
and Councilmembers Peterson, Petso, Fraley-Monillas, Bloom, and Johnson. Councilmember Buckshnis
recused herself. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sharon Cates, Public
Works Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English and Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd. The
executive session concluded at 6:02 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:04 p.m., asking for a moment of silence
in memory of the attack on the United States on 9-11, followed with the flag salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
Councilmember Bloom requested a change to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting
agenda.
Packet Page 4 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 11, 2012
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
CHANGE THE ORDER OF ITEMS ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL
COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA IN ORDER TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION WITH ITEM C,
FOLLOWED BY ITEMS A, B, AND D. MOTION CARRIED (6-0).
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ADRIENNE
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS REVISED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Johnson pointed out that the City Council Meeting minutes of 8-28-2012 should be
pulled and corrected on page six, in the second paragraph, as Mr. Doherty cited, to read: “There is case
law that supports the view that those are not public records; they are a Councilmember’s own personal
notes, not taken at the request of the City, and not used by the City.”
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO REVISE THE 8-28-2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES TO REFLECT THE
SENTENCE ON PAGE 6 IN THE MINUTES BE REVISED TO: “THERE IS CASE LAW THAT
SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT THOSE ARE NOT PUBLIC RECORDS; THEY ARE A
COUNCILMEMBER’S OWN PERSONAL NOTES, NOT TAKEN AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CITY, AND NOT USED BY THE CITY.” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0).
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS REVISED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2012 WITH A
REVISION MADE TO PAGE SIX.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #133953 THROUGH #134054 DATED AUGUST 30,
2012 FOR $162,148.46 (REPLACEMENT CHECKS #133954 $175.20, #133968 $1,285.20,
#134011 $100.00, #134018 $45.84 & #134036 $15.50), CLAIM CHECK 134055 DATED
AUGUST 31, 2012 FOR $255.00 AND CLAIM CHECKS #134056 THROUGH #134141
DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 for $285,258.49 (REPLACEMENT CHECKS #134068
$2,671.20, #134113 $15.50 & #134127 $46,960.40). APPROVAL OF PAYROL DIRECT
DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51635 THROUGH #51669 FOR $467,725.21 AND BENEFIT
CHECKS #51670 THROUGH #51682 & WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $200,548.94 FOR THE
PERIOD AUGUST 16, 2012 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2012.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented about training that is going to be provided
by Fire District #1 via computer to residents at Lake Ballinger to assist the Fire District in their ability to
locate emergency events.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out that he did not see any mention regarding chip-
seal in the Capital Facilities Plan. He did not understand how the proposal to create a ferry underpass at
the Main Street railway crossing worked with the probability of moving the ferry dock. He did not see
Packet Page 5 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 11, 2012
Page 3
any communication with the Ferry System about what their plans are and whether they concur with the
City’s plans.
5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling noted that he had an opportunity to participate in the 703 ceremony at the intersection of
5th and Main, where Debbie Dawson sounded taps in memory of the 9-11 attack. There were around 40
people there, and it was a very solemn, nice moment to observe.
He thanked all of the people who worked so hard to put together the car show this year, with a record
number of over 300 cars.
Mayor Earling announced that the Half Marathon event will be taking place this Saturday and they are in
urgent need of volunteers to help. They may contact Renee McRae at Parks and Recreation.
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mayor Earling if he would like to comment regarding the Lake
Ballinger visit. The Mayor stated that a delightful celebration was held over at Lake Ballinger the day
before yesterday where the Ballinger family deeded some property to the city to allow the city to
complete the walking and biking trail extension. A plaque is mounted on 76th Street to commemorate the
gift.
Councilmember Buckshnis stated that her uncle thought the car show was great and that there are pictures
from that on the dog park facebook page. She noted that the art tour is coming this weekend. She pointed
out that last weekend was great for the Birdfest. The Annual Salmon Tour, which is October 5th, offers an
opportunity to tour every year to see where all of the money is going, mostly to the Little Bear Creek fish
passage, which is in the Washington Cedar Sammamish watershed. Salmon can be seen and funding is
explained along with how they fix up the creek. It is one of the groups that the city is going to start
getting funding for the smaller streams.
Councilmember Johnson explained that on Sunday, September 16th, the Police Department will be
having an open house from 12:00 – 5:00 p.m. There will be a canine unit there. She mentioned that the
Edmonds Museum is having an exhibit that is celebrating 100 years of the Edmonds Police Department
and she displayed the flyers that talk about that. She invited the public to attend.
Ms. Johnson stated that she and Councilmember Bloom attended the 911 ceremony today at 6th and
Sprague and there is going to be a permanent memorial to 9-11 consisting of an I-beam from one of the
Twin Towers. To raise money for the memorial, they are raffling a black fire helmet just before the end
of the year and the tickets cost approximately $34.30.
Councilmember Bloom also enjoyed the 9-11 ceremony. She noted that the Planning Board is meeting
again tomorrow and they are dealing with a number of items that are also on the Port Master Plan
proposal and the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan as a result and she has been at the last two
meetings and has found it invaluable learning about what they are proposing and the questions that the
Planning Board is asking. She encouraged people who have any interest in the future of the waterfront
activity center to attend that meeting or listen to it on Channel 21 or 39.
7. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting adjourned to Committee meetings at 6:22 p.m.
Packet Page 6 of 437
AM-5126 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
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 #134142 through #134306 dated September 13, 2012 for $600,875.09.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2012
Revenue:
Expenditure:600,875.09
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $600,875.09
Attachments
claim cks 09-13-12
Frequently Use Project Numbers
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 09/12/2012 02:43 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 03:36 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2012 03:45 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 11:44 AM
Packet Page 7 of 437
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 09/12/2012 02:26 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 8 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134142 9/7/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 379556-06 E9FB.8229 TALBOT RD POWER DIS
E9FB.8229 Talbot Road Power Dis-Connect
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 236.00
Total :236.00
134143 9/13/2012 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC 165616 Periodic testing services - Harris
Periodic testing services - Harris
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 52.00
Total :52.00
134144 9/13/2012 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 137.33
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 27.57
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 104.75
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 104.75
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 104.75
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 104.75
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 104.74
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 146.81
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 64.98
Total :900.43
134145 9/13/2012 068857 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC K11571806 Perrinville Creek Fish Salvage - Prof
1Page:
Packet Page 9 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134145 9/13/2012 (Continued)068857 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC
Perrinville Creek Fish Salvage - Prof
411.000.652.542.400.410.00 2,347.37
Total :2,347.37
134146 9/13/2012 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC VF35 NPDES SAMPLING
NPDES SAMPLING
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 165.00
Total :165.00
134147 9/13/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6380448 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 27.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.61
Total :30.06
134148 9/13/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0341611-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 6,303.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 598.87
Total :6,902.62
134149 9/13/2012 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 47.34
Total :47.34
134150 9/13/2012 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 79155 SOFTBALL TROPHIES
TROPHIES FOR SENIORS AND FALL SOFTBALL
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 182.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 17.34
Total :199.84
134151 9/13/2012 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0812 Background check services
2Page:
Packet Page 10 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134151 9/13/2012 (Continued)069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
134152 9/13/2012 071658 BANNICK, PAUL 09082012 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Speaker/presenter fee for Puget Sound
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 700.00
Total :700.00
134153 9/13/2012 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 462920 E7AA.COPIES OF SPECS AND PLANS
E7AA.Copies of Specs and Plans
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 198.52
9.5% Sales Tax
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 18.86
Total :217.38
134154 9/13/2012 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 11-1847.3 E1JE.SERVICES THRU 9/4/12
E1JE.Services thru 9/4/12
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 793.00
Total :793.00
134155 9/13/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 942792-02 INV#942792-02 EDMONDS PD-INVENTORY
GOLD POLICE LETTERS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 35.90
TIE BAR W/SEAL
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 17.95
METAL NAMETAG-RICHARDSON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.04
INV#942792-81 REFUND NAMETAG942792-81
REFUND-NAMETAG INCORRECT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -10.95
3Page:
Packet Page 11 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134155 9/13/2012 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -1.04
INV#945921-02 - EDMONDS PD -MILLS945921-02
BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 400.00
CLOTH NAMETAGS "G.B.MILLS"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90
SEW NAME ON JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.00
APPLY HEAT STAMP "POLICE"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 12.00
SEW BADGE EMBLEM ON JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 40.37
INV#951158 - EDMONDS PD -RAMSEUR951158
DUTY BELT W/O VELCRO
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 26.95
TACTICAL HARNESS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 34.45
BELT KEEPERS/NYLON/D RING
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.59
INV#953338 - EDMONDS PD -RICHARDSON953338
REMOVE NAMETAGS FROM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.50
SEW NEW NAME TAGS ON SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.00
REMOVE NAMETAG FROM JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50
SEW NEW NAMETAG ON JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.00
9.5% Sales Tax
4Page:
Packet Page 12 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134155 9/13/2012 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.33
INV#953357 - EDMONDS PD -MILLS953357
SEW NAMETAG ON SHIRT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.10
Total :628.11
134156 9/13/2012 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &053059 Storm - Concrete Recycle Fees
Storm - Concrete Recycle Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 472.50
Total :472.50
134157 9/13/2012 074169 BOROFKA, LINDA BOROFKA0905 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO FAMILY EMERGENCY
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
134158 9/13/2012 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 298768 E9FB.PEA GRAVEL FOR DEWATERING
E9FB.Pea Gravel for Dewatering
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 378.00
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 35.91
Total :413.91
134159 9/13/2012 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 91626009 Storm - Cement
Storm - Cement
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 189.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 17.96
Total :206.96
134160 9/13/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12096473 CANON CONTRACT CHARGE IRC5051
Canon contract charge IRC5051
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 83.35
5Page:
Packet Page 13 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134160 9/13/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Canon contract charge IRC5051
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 83.35
Canon contract charge IRC5051
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 83.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 7.91
Total :273.74
134161 9/13/2012 068484 CEMEX LLC 9424376827 Roadway - Asphalt
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 118.75
Roadway - Asphalt9424427828
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 390.00
Water - Asphalt
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 551.65
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 37.05
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 52.41
Total :2,399.86
134162 9/13/2012 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08120991 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BALLOONS
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BALLONS
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 11.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 1.07
Total :12.32
6Page:
Packet Page 14 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134163 9/13/2012 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08120992 2954000
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 55.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 5.23
Total :60.23
134164 9/13/2012 074166 CHILD ADVOCACY CTR OF SNO CO 0000000278 INV#0000000278 CUST#391 -EDMONDS PD
CHILD INTERVIEW SPEC. 1ST Q 2012
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 944.35
CHILD INTERVIEW SPEC. 2ND Q 2012
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 944.35
Total :1,888.70
134165 9/13/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9621 E1JB.DESIGN SERVICES THRU 6/30
E1JB.Design Services thru 6/30/12 (Bill
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 22,175.14
Total :22,175.14
134166 9/13/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9628 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 27,602.00
Total :27,602.00
134167 9/13/2012 071389 COASTAL WEAR PRODUCTS INC 3548 Unit 138 - 2 Tube Broom HD, 60 Gutter
Unit 138 - 2 Tube Broom HD, 60 Gutter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2,380.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 211.82
Total :2,591.82
134168 9/13/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2464411 SUPPLIES
SPRAY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 108.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.34
7Page:
Packet Page 15 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134168 9/13/2012 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
SUPPLIESW2465815
LINERS, TOILET TISSUE,HORNET KILLER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 746.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.94
Total :936.85
134169 9/13/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2462940 Fac Maint - Cleaners, Bleach, Filters,
Fac Maint - Cleaners, Bleach, Filters,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 495.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.04
Fac Maint - Bowl Brush, TT, Towels,W2465694
Fac Maint - Bowl Brush, TT, Towels,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 505.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.00
Total :1,095.45
134170 9/13/2012 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC SEPT-12 C/A CITYOFED00001
Sept-12 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20
Total :916.20
134171 9/13/2012 070323 COMCAST 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
BUNDLED SERVICES FOR CEMETERY OFFICE
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 116.47
Total :116.47
134172 9/13/2012 072848 COPIERS NW INV744075 INV#INV744075 ACCT#HMH636 -EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 08/05 TO 09/04/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 226.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 21.54
INV#INV74407 ACCT#HMH636 -EDMONDS PDINV744076
8Page:
Packet Page 16 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134172 9/13/2012 (Continued)072848 COPIERS NW
BLACK COPIES 08/05 TO 09/04/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 45.54
COLOR COPIES 08/05 TO 09/04/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 45.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 8.65
Total :348.00
134173 9/13/2012 068161 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION INC 1000195931 PS - Fire Alarm Svc
PS - Fire Alarm Svc
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 330.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 31.35
Total :361.35
134174 9/13/2012 005965 CUES INC 371670 Sewer Camera Parts
Sewer Camera Parts
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 748.30
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 53.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 76.17
Sewer Camera Repairs371935
Sewer Camera Repairs
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 808.39
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 44.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 76.82
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.22
Total :1,811.66
134175 9/13/2012 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E1JE.Pmt 1 E1JE.PROGRESS PMT 1 THRU 8/31
E1JE.Progress Pmt 1 thru 8/31/12
9Page:
Packet Page 17 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134175 9/13/2012 (Continued)069529 D & G BACKHOE INC
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 225,115.79
E1JE.Ret 1
412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -10,279.26
Total :214,836.53
134176 9/13/2012 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3264755 E9GA.AD FOR BIDS
E9GA.Ad for Bids
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 395.90
Total :395.90
134177 9/13/2012 072189 DATASITE 75295 INV#75295
SHREDDING 2 TOTES 08/09/12
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 80.00
SHREDDING 6 BOXES 08/09/12
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 24.00
Total :104.00
134178 9/13/2012 072189 DATASITE 28635 RECORDS STORAGE
Record Storage
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 65.00
SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS75260
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
Total :115.00
134179 9/13/2012 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 321856 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 8/4/12
E1AA.Services thru 8/4/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 11,175.07
Total :11,175.07
134180 9/13/2012 073371 DENALI ADVANCED INTEGRATION 0177673-IN LICENSE RENEWALS
LIcense renewals -Threat Prevention
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 3,570.00
10Page:
Packet Page 18 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134180 9/13/2012 (Continued)073371 DENALI ADVANCED INTEGRATION
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 339.15
Total :3,909.15
134181 9/13/2012 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2012080346 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for August 2012
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 940.00
Total :940.00
134182 9/13/2012 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2012080019 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Adobe Acrobat 10 Professional Win
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 193.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 18.35
Total :211.51
134183 9/13/2012 072885 DICK'S TOWING INC 129451 UNIT 22 TOWING
Unit 22- Towing
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 333.00
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 30.64
Total :363.64
134184 9/13/2012 070336 DOSSETT, MICHAEL 09082012 BIRD FEST SPEAKER/PRESENTATION FEE
Puget Sound Bird Fest Speaker Fee
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 100.00
Total :100.00
134185 9/13/2012 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 12-2034.2 E3JA.SERVICES THRU 8/26/12
E3JA.Services thru 8/26/12
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 7,702.36
E3GA.SERVICES THRU 8/26/1212-2035.2
E2GA.Services thru 8/26/12
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 7,981.51
E2CB.TASK ORDER 12-04 SRVCS THRU12-2046.1
11Page:
Packet Page 19 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134185 9/13/2012 (Continued)070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC
E2CB.Task Order 12-04 Services thru
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 2,177.07
Total :17,860.94
134186 9/13/2012 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1410520 LUMBER
PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.31
Total :26.55
134187 9/13/2012 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1398507 PS - Brushes
PS - Brushes
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.01
Unit EQ87WQ - Supplies1410586
Unit EQ87WQ - Supplies
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 86.17
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 8.19
Total :129.11
134188 9/13/2012 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 12-14657 Water Quality -Water Testing for Leak
Water Quality -Water Testing for Leak
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 94.00
Total :94.00
134189 9/13/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 14950 INV#14950 - EDMONDS PD
FOAM GLASS CLEANER
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 58.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.53
Total :63.73
12Page:
Packet Page 20 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134190 9/13/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 14076 Storm - Battery for Pressure Washer
Storm - Battery for Pressure Washer
411.000.652.542.400.350.00 48.88
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.350.00 4.64
Total :53.52
134191 9/13/2012 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2012-09-01 09/12 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE
09/12 Recreation Services Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
134192 9/13/2012 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 204205 INV#204205 CLIENT#308 -EDMONDS PD
WELLNESS EXAM-DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 36.40
DHPP BOOSTER - DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 19.00
BORDETELLA VACCINE - DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 19.00
METACAM 1.5 MG - DASH
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 72.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 6.84
Total :153.24
134193 9/13/2012 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 107945 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -Oct
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total :152.00
134194 9/13/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 079364 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE @ FAC
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 23.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 2.21
COPIER LEASE079376
13Page:
Packet Page 21 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134194 9/13/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 184.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 17.53
Total :227.53
134195 9/13/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 079378 Copier charges C5051
Copier charges C5051
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 142.96
Copier charges C5051
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 142.96
Copier charges C5051
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 142.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 13.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 13.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 13.50
COPIER CHARGE C1030079513
Copier charge C1030
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 9.25
Copier charge C1030
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 9.25
Copier charge C1030
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 9.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 0.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.88
Total :499.07
134196 9/13/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078969 METER READING
14Page:
Packet Page 22 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134196 9/13/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
Recept. desk copier 4/21-5/21
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 13.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.30
METER READING079382
8/30 to 9/30 Meter Reading
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 364.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 34.59
Total :413.66
134197 9/13/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078970 FLEET COPY USE
Fleet Copy Use - B/W 230, Color 38
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.33
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.41
WATER SEWER COPY USE078977
Water Sewer Copy Use - B/W 430,Color
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.67
Water Sewer Copy Use - B/W 430,Color
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.67
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.73
PW COPY USE078978
PW Copy Use B/W 6145, Color 1404
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 34.55
PW Copy Use B/W 6145, Color 1404
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 19.58
PW Copy Use B/W 6145, Color 1404
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 19.58
PW Copy Use B/W 6145, Color 1404
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.82
15Page:
Packet Page 23 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134197 9/13/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
PW Copy Use B/W 6145, Color 1404
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.82
PW Copy Use B/W 6145, Color 1404
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.28
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 1.86
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 1.86
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.31
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.31
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.32
Total :147.63
134198 9/13/2012 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO 73894 12-887
EMC EXTENDED SOFTWARE SUPPORT
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 995.00
Total :995.00
134199 9/13/2012 074174 EPOA EPOA PAYMENT FOR MARATHON OFFICERS
MARATHON OFFICERS
001.000.000.367.110.000.00 900.00
Total :900.00
134200 9/13/2012 065958 EZ-LINER 21208 UNIT 46 - SUPPLIES
Unit 46 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 812.05
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 75.00
Total :887.05
16Page:
Packet Page 24 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134201 9/13/2012 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443 11245 SIGNS FOR PUGET SOUND BIRD FEST
Signs for Puget Sound Bird Fest 9/08/
120.000.310.575.420.490.00 172.78
9.5% Sales Tax
120.000.310.575.420.490.00 16.41
Total :189.19
134202 9/13/2012 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0348492 Water Meter Inventory - # 2034 1 1/2
Water Meter Inventory - # 2034 1 1/2
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 4,850.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 460.77
Total :5,310.97
134203 9/13/2012 067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 22116-00 O RING
O RING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 192.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.40
Total :223.56
134204 9/13/2012 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 202544 September 2012 Flexicommute Plan fees
September 2012 Flexicommute Plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 25.00
Total :25.00
134205 9/13/2012 074170 FLOCK, BONNIE FLOCK0905 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 53.00
Total :53.00
134206 9/13/2012 072174 FRIENDS OF FRANK DEMIERO DEMIERO2012 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,250.00
17Page:
Packet Page 25 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,250.00134206 9/13/2012 072174 072174 FRIENDS OF FRANK DEMIERO
134207 9/13/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.70
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.04
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 67.44
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 110.78
Total :260.96
134208 9/13/2012 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 303.26
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 303.25
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE253-011-1177
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
18Page:
Packet Page 26 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134208 9/13/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.08
LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031
LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 46.84
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.79
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 41.70
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.02
Total :986.44
134209 9/13/2012 073491 FUHRIMAN, BETH FUHRIMAN0905 SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENTF
REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES FOR SISTER
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 132.73
Total :132.73
134210 9/13/2012 073821 GEODESIGN INC 0812-182 E1JE.SERVICES THRU 8/24/12
E1JE.Services thru 8/24/12
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 923.50
Total :923.50
134211 9/13/2012 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 106878 Fleet -- Tire Inventory
Fleet -- Tire Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 2,159.80
State Tire Fee
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 205.18
Total :2,384.98
134212 9/13/2012 072515 GOOGLE INC 3205988 C/A #396392 MESSAGE DISCOVERY BILLING
19Page:
Packet Page 27 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134212 9/13/2012 (Continued)072515 GOOGLE INC
Internet Anti-Virus &Spam Maint Fee
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 241.00
Total :241.00
134213 9/13/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9885892084 PS - DP Compact Contactors
PS - DP Compact Contactors
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 112.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.67
PW - Wall Fan, Supplies9900974826
PW - Wall Fan, Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 198.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.87
PS - IEC Aux Contact9907136759
PS - IEC Aux Contact
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.02
PS - 3V Lithium Battery - 12PK9915747910
PS - 3V Lithium Battery - 12PK
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 40.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.80
Total :407.59
134214 9/13/2012 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 962059065 0000482902
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 160.11
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.06
0000482902962188794
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
20Page:
Packet Page 28 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134214 9/13/2012 (Continued)012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 160.69
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.81
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.29
Total :372.92
134215 9/13/2012 072900 GUTTMAN, BURTON C 09082012 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Puget Sound Bird Fest Speaker Fee
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 75.00
Total :75.00
134216 9/13/2012 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 131700/1 WAter - 14" x 1"Concrete Diamond Blade
WAter - 14" x 1"Concrete Diamond Blade
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 132.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.57
Total :144.92
134217 9/13/2012 012560 HACH COMPANY 7912424 Water Quality -Spadns Fluoride Accuvac
Water Quality -Spadns Fluoride Accuvac
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 64.70
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.67
Total :88.32
134218 9/13/2012 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007D0942 036570
VALVE BALL TUBING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 530.50
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 30.20
Total :560.70
21Page:
Packet Page 29 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134219 9/13/2012 065764 HASNER, THOMAS W 65 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00
Total :150.00
134220 9/13/2012 074004 HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION 5755 E2AA.SERVICES THRU 9/5/12
E2AA.Services thru 9/5/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 6,936.09
Total :6,936.09
134221 9/13/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 92580 6035322500959949
LUMBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.08
Total :12.40
134222 9/13/2012 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 PS - Eco Mat
PS - Eco Mat
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 54.98
Fac Maint - TimeMist, Blocks, Magic
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 160.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.43
Total :235.41
134223 9/13/2012 067171 HUSKY TRUCK CENTER 277224T Unit 40 - Water Valve
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.13
Unit 40 - Water Valve
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 222.57
Total :255.05
134224 9/13/2012 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 23450 E2CB.TASK ORDER 12-02.SERVICES THRU
22Page:
Packet Page 30 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134224 9/13/2012 (Continued)060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
E2CB.Task Order 12-02.Services thru
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 270.00
E9FB.SERVICES THRU 9/1/1223479
E9FB.Services thru 9/1/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 28,071.34
Total :28,341.34
134225 9/13/2012 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 517269-1 Fleet Shop Tool
Fleet Shop Tool
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 91.20
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 9.46
Total :109.03
134226 9/13/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2143251 Misc. office supplies including scale
Misc. office supplies including scale
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 160.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 15.25
Total :175.66
134227 9/13/2012 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 3030667 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
134228 9/13/2012 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 560929 Unit - Low Profile Mini M
Unit - Low Profile Mini M
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.45
Unit EQ87WQ - Safety Director 1,Int561343
Unit EQ87WQ - Safety Director 1,Int
23Page:
Packet Page 31 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134228 9/13/2012 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 579.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 55.05
Total :662.76
134229 9/13/2012 072367 ITA AMD131021 98011021
MEMBERSHIP/INSTRUMENTATION
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 255.00
Total :255.00
134230 9/13/2012 074168 JOHNSON, MELISSA JOHNSON0831 CEMETERY BOARD REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR CEMETERY AD
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 75.00
Total :75.00
134231 9/13/2012 074165 JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS INC 09062012 ONLINE AD CHOOSE WASHINGTON
On-line magazine ad with Dept of
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 2,735.00
Total :2,735.00
134232 9/13/2012 070145 JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS 49319 DISPLAY AD IN 2012/13 ECA SEASON PROGRAM
Display ad in ECA 2012/13 Season
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 634.00
Total :634.00
134233 9/13/2012 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3610443 INV#3610443 CUST#100828 -EDMONDS PD
10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 246.20
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 36.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 23.39
Total :306.49
134234 9/13/2012 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND 09082012 BIRD FEST PROGRAM FEE KRUCKEBERG
Program fee for Puget Sound Bird Fest
24Page:
Packet Page 32 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134234 9/13/2012 (Continued)068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
134235 9/13/2012 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09042012-01 INV#09042012-01 - EDMONDS PD
48 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 08/12
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 241.44
Total :241.44
134236 9/13/2012 074158 LASER UNDERGROUND &EARTHWORKSE2FA.Pmt 1 E2FA.PROGRESS PMT 1 THRU 8/31
E2FA.Progress Payment 1 thru 8/31/12
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 46,345.88
E2FA.Ret 1
412.200.000.223.400.000.00 -2,116.25
Total :44,229.63
134237 9/13/2012 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK 8/12 Tuition Reimbursement -Summer Qtr
Tuition Reimbursement -Summer Qtr
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 365.18
Total :365.18
134238 9/13/2012 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20120831 INV 1201641-20120831 EDMONDS PD
SEARCHES/REPORTS AUG 2012
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 68.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 6.54
Total :75.34
134239 9/13/2012 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Sept-12 09-12 LEGALS FEES
09-12 Legal fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 32,000.00
Total :32,000.00
134240 9/13/2012 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 656813 Unit 55 - Serpentine Belt
Unit 55 - Serpentine Belt
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.69
9.5% Sales Tax
25Page:
Packet Page 33 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134240 9/13/2012 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.20
Shop Supplies663088
Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.26
Sewer - E-1 Pump parts664036
Sewer - E-1 Pump parts
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 387.84
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 36.84
Unit 400 - Oil Filter664550
Unit 400 - Oil Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.74
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter, Air Filter664618
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter, Air Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.63
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.58
Unit 121 - Oil Filter Cap664669
Unit 121 - Oil Filter Cap
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.75
Unit 98 - Oil Change Pump664831
Unit 98 - Oil Change Pump
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.50
Total :551.88
134241 9/13/2012 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 799461 Unit 62 - Fileter
Unit 62 - Fileter
26Page:
Packet Page 34 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134241 9/13/2012 (Continued)018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.00
Total :23.00
134242 9/13/2012 072992 LYNNWOOD ICE CENTER LYNNWOODICE15586 ICE SKATING LESSONS
ICE SKATING #15586
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 277.20
ICE SKATING #15584
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 69.30
ICE SKATING #15585
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 207.90
ICE SKATING #15583
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 138.60
Total :693.00
134243 9/13/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 35609423 123106800
HEAD CAP SCREW/STEEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 229.40
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.68
12310680035650902
TIN-COATED COUNTERBORE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 73.31
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.94
12310680035823907
POLYPROPYLENE/POLYETHYLENE DOLLY
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 408.87
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 54.21
Total :791.41
134244 9/13/2012 063773 MICROFLEX 00020804 TAX AUDIT MAINTENANCE &SUPPORT FEE
Tax Audit Maintenance Agreement &
27Page:
Packet Page 35 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134244 9/13/2012 (Continued)063773 MICROFLEX
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 902.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 85.70
08-12 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM00020812
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 48.42
Total :1,036.18
134245 9/13/2012 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 61420 Fac Maint - Truck Supplies
Fac Maint - Truck Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.18
Total :25.13
134246 9/13/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 154194 OIL, GREASE
OIL, GREASE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.51
SPARK PLUG, CLUTCH DRUM154336
SPARK PLUG, CLUTCH DRUM
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.33
Total :55.78
134247 9/13/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 144720a 412185
ALUMINUM PLANK
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 87.60
Total :87.60
134248 9/13/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 153204 Storm - Pressure Washer
Storm - Pressure Washer
411.000.652.542.400.350.00 127.14
28Page:
Packet Page 36 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134248 9/13/2012 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.350.00 12.08
Total :139.22
134249 9/13/2012 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0466940-IN Fuel Island - Control Handle
Fuel Island - Control Handle
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 249.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.66
Total :272.66
134250 9/13/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-525190 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:EDMONDS ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-525191
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:MADRONA ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 102.50
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-528282
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62
Total :409.47
134251 9/13/2012 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 318 Planning Board minutes on 8/22/12.
Planning Board minutes on 8/22/12.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 480.00
Total :480.00
134252 9/13/2012 065792 NWPMA 2012F024 NWPMA 2012 Conference - T Moles
NWPMA 2012 Conference - T Moles
111.000.653.542.900.430.00 250.00
Total :250.00
134253 9/13/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 135408 INV#135408 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
TDK-CD-R RECORDABLE DISCS
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 51.39
29Page:
Packet Page 37 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134253 9/13/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 4.88
Total :56.27
134254 9/13/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 026717 PW Admin Office Supplies - File
PW Admin Office Supplies - File
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 65.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 6.19
PW Admin Office Supplies -File Folders027306
PW Admin Office Supplies -File Folders
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 30.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.91
Total :104.83
134255 9/13/2012 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER August, 2012 COURT, BLDG CODE &JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services &Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,199.33
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 24,856.11
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 175.50
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.000.237.330.000.00 45.89
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 4,240.07
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 22.83
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,367.87
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 432.28
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.000.237.290.000.00 202.20
30Page:
Packet Page 38 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134255 9/13/2012 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.000.237.300.000.00 202.21
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.000.237.320.000.00 72.86
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 312.86
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.000.237.340.000.00 260.80
Total :34,390.81
134256 9/13/2012 068709 OFFICETEAM 36186885 Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Total :525.36
134257 9/13/2012 073751 OKANOGAN COUNTRY SHERIFF OKC JAIL AUG 2012 INMATE HOUSING EDMONDS PD AUG
58 HOUSING DAYS @ $52 - AUG 2012
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 3,016.00
Total :3,016.00
134258 9/13/2012 072027 OLYMPIC TRUCK SERVICE INC 58470 Unit 98 - Parts
Unit 98 - Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.13
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.01
Total :25.14
134259 9/13/2012 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W
220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 12.32
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY0001520
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 32.85
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY0001530
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
31Page:
Packet Page 39 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134259 9/13/2012 (Continued)026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 106.46
5TH & ST RTE0002930
5TH & ST RTE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.45
9803 EDMONDS WAY0005060
9803 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 13.65
SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL0026390
SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 13.65
Total :219.38
134260 9/13/2012 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00065090 Unit 106 - Diode Box
Unit 106 - Diode Box
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 250.33
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.39
Unit 106 - 3" Check Valves, ORings00065191
Unit 106 - 3" Check Valves, ORings
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,049.58
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 101.71
Total :1,465.04
134261 9/13/2012 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.954023030573 PS - Paint Supplies
PS - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 75.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.13
Total :82.15
32Page:
Packet Page 40 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134262 9/13/2012 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 4170199 Unit 411 - Radiator
Unit 411 - Radiator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.26
Unit 424 - Radiator4170213
Unit 424 - Radiator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.26
Total :282.52
134263 9/13/2012 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20100166.000-14 E2DB.SERVICES THRU 8/26/12
E2DB.Services thru 8/26/12
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 6,137.60
Total :6,137.60
134264 9/13/2012 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 414681 LETTER OPENER MAINTENANCE10
Maintenance contract letter opener
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 355.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 33.73
Total :388.73
134265 9/13/2012 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 202431 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.62
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&202545
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.64
33Page:
Packet Page 41 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134265 9/13/2012 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.62
Sewer - Return postage for Camera202610
Sewer - Return postage for Camera
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 108.09
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&202671
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.62
Total :139.71
134266 9/13/2012 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 41.73
Total :41.73
134267 9/13/2012 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 129331 INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: TALLMAN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 90.00
INSCRIPTION129358
INSCRIPTION: SECOGES
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 90.00
Total :180.00
134268 9/13/2012 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.54 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
34Page:
Packet Page 42 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134268 9/13/2012 (Continued)067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 25.19
Total :25.19
134269 9/13/2012 074162 ROHANI, LORENZO 09082012 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE 9/08/12
Puget Sound Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 50.00
Total :50.00
134270 9/13/2012 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY AUG 2012 INVOICE 08/31/12 ACCT#70014 -EDMONDS PD
#110582 8 NPC - 08/06/12
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 88.16
#110987 5 NPC - 08/20/12
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 55.10
Total :143.26
134271 9/13/2012 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-185283 Unit 338 - Cooling Motor
Unit 338 - Cooling Motor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.97
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.08
Unit 379 - Battery03-186318
Unit 379 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.95
Unit 338 - Motor and Fan03-186507
Unit 338 - Motor and Fan
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 198.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.85
Unit 121 - Headlight Switch03-186668
Unit 121 - Headlight Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.51
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.08
35Page:
Packet Page 43 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134271 9/13/2012 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Unit 335 - Battery03-186836
Unit 335 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 87.63
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.32
Unit 2 - Brake Shoe Kit03-187126
Unit 2 - Brake Shoe Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.69
Unit 424 - Anit Freeze03-189026
Unit 424 - Anit Freeze
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 65.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.26
Unit 42 - Filter Assembly03-189498
Unit 42 - Filter Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.79
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.84
Fleet Returned Supplies05-433833
Fleet Returned Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -121.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -11.52
Total :502.10
134272 9/13/2012 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 242895 Unit 413 - Howar Key
Unit 413 - Howar Key
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 56.13
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.33
Total :61.46
134273 9/13/2012 070488 SELMANN, DAN SELMANN0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
36Page:
Packet Page 44 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134273 9/13/2012 (Continued)070488 SELMANN, DAN
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 200.00
Total :200.00
134274 9/13/2012 073931 SHUSTER, JERALD Shuster.PE Renwal 12 SHUSTER.PE LICENSE RENEWAL 2012
Shuster.PE License Renewal 2012
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 116.00
Total :116.00
134275 9/13/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200650851 CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 45.59
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP200651644
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 364.58
PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS200869246
PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.60
23700 104TH AVE W2011-8453-8
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 143.41
PARK GAZEBO201383270
PARK GAZEBO
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.68
PLAYFIELD LIGHTS201453057
PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 235.66
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS &202114484
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS &
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 90.09
Total :984.61
134276 9/13/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 31.68
37Page:
Packet Page 45 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :31.68134276 9/13/2012 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
134277 9/13/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 133765759 2025-7952-0
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 8.35
Total :8.35
134278 9/13/2012 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 0390007714 E2DB.RELOCATION OF PUD FACILITIES
E2DB.Relocation of PUD Facilities
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 1,854.80
Total :1,854.80
134279 9/13/2012 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2012-1282 CREDITS ON INVOICE 2012-1282 EDMONDS PD
CREDIT .33 BOOKING - JULY 2012
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -30.60
CREDIT 32 HOUSING - JULY 2012
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -2,060.16
INV#2012-1282 - EDMONDS PD -AUG2012-1282
AUG BOOKINGS - 59.17 @ $92.70
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,485.06
AUG HOUSING - 365.17 @ $64.38
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 23,509.64
AUG WORK RELEASE- 2.5 @ $43.26
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 108.15
Total :27,012.09
134280 9/13/2012 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000308172 SOLID WASTE CHARGES
SOLID WASTE CHARGES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 474.00
Total :474.00
134281 9/13/2012 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER August 2012 CRIME VICTIMS COURT REMITTANCE AUG
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 741.06
Total :741.06
134282 9/13/2012 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 51236 "Applicant shall repair/replace"stamp
38Page:
Packet Page 46 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134282 9/13/2012 (Continued)038100 SNO-KING STAMP
"Applicant shall repair/replace"stamp
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 35.03
Total :35.03
134283 9/13/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 29.95
Total :29.95
134284 9/13/2012 074167 SOURCE NORTH AMERICA CORP 1038077 412185
M-062 UNDERGROUND DIESEL STORAGE TANK
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 1,875.00
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 178.13
4121851038860
M-062 UNDERGROUND DIESEL STORAGE TANK
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 6,900.00
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 655.50
Total :9,608.63
134285 9/13/2012 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3001979103 INV#3001979103 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 0.36
Total :10.36
134286 9/13/2012 073549 STERRETT CONSULTING LLC 1201-05 Consulting for Westgate review process
Consulting for Westgate review process
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,020.00
Total :1,020.00
134287 9/13/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100288977.002 E9FB.ELECTRICAL MATERIALS
E9FB.Electrical Materials
39Page:
Packet Page 47 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134287 9/13/2012 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 388.62
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 36.92
Total :425.54
134288 9/13/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100113482.001B Fac Maint Elect Supplies
Fac Maint Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.91
PS - Contactor Coil 120V ACS100237619.002
PS - Contactor Coil 120V AC
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 36.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.50
PS - Elect SuppliesS100287714.001
PS - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 316.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.06
Total :408.91
134289 9/13/2012 060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE 152854 Sewer LS 10 - Annual Tank Rental
Sewer LS 10 - Annual Tank Rental
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 5.70
Total :65.70
134290 9/13/2012 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSET BAY15308 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #15308
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 9,600.00
OVERNIGHT BEACH CAMPSUNSETBAY15325
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY -OVERNIGHT
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 4,977.00
40Page:
Packet Page 48 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :14,577.00134290 9/13/2012 072319 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC
134291 9/13/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 8312012 Council & Plann Brd Agendas
Council & Plann Brd Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,565.36
Total :1,565.36
134292 9/13/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1792323 Westgate/AMD20120006 Land Use
Westgate/AMD20120006 Land Use
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 36.12
Total :36.12
134293 9/13/2012 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 342088 SPRINKLER SUPPLIES
SPRINKLER NAOZZLES, CAPS,ROTORS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,482.50
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 144.27
Total :1,662.80
134294 9/13/2012 074171 TRUE, MELISSA TRUE0905 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INJURY
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 37.33
Total :37.33
134295 9/13/2012 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0435992-WA Water Dept - 1 DOT
Water Dept - 1 DOT
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 65.00
Total :65.00
134296 9/13/2012 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1113411662 C/A 571242650-0001
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld Dept
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 186.03
Blackberry Cell Phone Service City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 56.00
iPad Cell Phone Service Council
41Page:
Packet Page 49 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134296 9/13/2012 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.110.511.100.420.00 240.16
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 93.20
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 56.00
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 74.95
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 276.94
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Facilities
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 90.91
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 84.95
Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 30.02
Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 391.91
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor'
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 84.95
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks Dept
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 54.95
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 896.87
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 218.99
Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 750.42
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 56.00
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St Dept
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 39.54
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 38.00
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water
42Page:
Packet Page 50 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134296 9/13/2012 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 37.99
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer Dept
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 94.94
Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 120.93
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 134.95
Total :4,109.60
134297 9/13/2012 069889 VETERINARY SPECIALTY CENTER 159465 INV#159465 CLIENT#7257 -EDMONDS PD
EMERGENCY SERVICE -DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 74.99
TRAMADOL 50MG TAB - DASH
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 21.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 2.00
Total :98.06
134298 9/13/2012 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 44220 City - FDC Test & Repairs
City - FDC Test & Repairs
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 5,863.39
9.5% Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 557.02
City Buildings Sprinklers - Inspection44221
City Buildings Sprinklers - Inspection
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 3,631.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 344.99
Total :10,396.90
134299 9/13/2012 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC CURRAN0911 PLAYGROUND SAFETY &CERTIFICATION COURSE
CPSI COURSE &EXAM FOR JESSE CURRAN
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 540.00
Total :540.00
43Page:
Packet Page 51 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134300 9/13/2012 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I13001643 INV#I13001643 EDM301 -EDMONDS PD
BACKGROUND CHECKS AUG 2012
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 214.50
Total :214.50
134301 9/13/2012 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-8810 Street - 840 Hindley Lane - 6 Maple
Street - 840 Hindley Lane - 6 Maple
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 840.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 79.80
Street - 1241 7th Ave S -Down dead Fir06-8811
Street - 1241 7th Ave S -Down dead Fir
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 240.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 22.80
Sewer - Eagle's Nest HOA Alder Rotten06-8822
Sewer - Eagle's Nest HOA Alder Rotten
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 450.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 42.75
Total :1,675.35
134302 9/13/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5619 Utilities - Return Envelopes (2500) #9
Utilities - Return Envelopes (2500) #9
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 50.00
Utilities - Return Envelopes (2500) #9
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 50.00
Utilities - Return Envelopes (2500) #9
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 4.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.75
44Page:
Packet Page 52 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :164.25134302 9/13/2012 073552 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
134303 9/13/2012 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS P-26690-0 Unit 106 - Supplies
Unit 106 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 238.56
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.66
Total :261.22
134304 9/13/2012 074163 WOODLAND PARK ZOO 09082012 BIRD FEST PROGRAM SPEAKER FEE
Speaker/program fee for Puget Sound
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
134305 9/13/2012 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY PEST/RECERT WSU PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION
PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING FOR
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 200.00
Total :200.00
134306 9/13/2012 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0157239 Traffic - 25 - 10' x2"Metal Sign Posts
Traffic - 25 - 10' x2"Metal Sign Posts
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 775.00
Single Clamp Brackets for 2" Posts
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 92.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 65.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 88.54
Total :1,020.54
Bank total :600,875.09165Vouchers for bank code :front
600,875.09Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report165
45Page:
Packet Page 53 of 437
09/12/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
1:02:55PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
46Page:
Packet Page 54 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 55 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 56 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FA c336 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR E1GA c347 Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
WTR E2CC c399 5th Avenue Overlay Project
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 57 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 58 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements
SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail
General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program
STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza
PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR c300 E8GC BNSF Double Track Project
SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project
PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support
FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c336 E1FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 59 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain
STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update
STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project
WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR c399 E2CC 5th Avenue Overlay Project
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 60 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
WTR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 61 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
Revised 9/12/2012Packet Page 62 of 437
PROJECT NUMBERS
(Phase and Task Numbers)
Phases and Tasks (Engineering Division)
Phase Title
ct Construction
ds Design
pl Preliminary
sa Site Acquisition & Prep
st Study
ro Right-of-Way
Task Title
196 Traffic Engineering & Studies
197 MAIT
198 CTR
199 Engineering Plans & Services
950 Engineering Staff Time
970 Construction Management
981 Contract
990 Miscellaneous
991 Retainage
stm Engineering Staff Time-Storm
str Engineering Staff Time-Street
swr Engineering Staff Time-Sewer
wtr Engineering Staff Time-Water
prk Engineering Staff Time-Park
Packet Page 63 of 437
AM-5087 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of the list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license with the Washington State
Liquor Control Board for the months of July, August, and September 2012.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City Clerk's Office, the Police Department, and the Mayor have reviewed the attached lists and have
no concerns with the Washington State Liquor Control Board renewing the liquor licenses for the listed
businesses with the following exceptions:
1) July 2012 List -- #7 S & S Trading Partner which does not have a current City of Edmonds business
license
Attachments
WSLCB Jul 2012
WSLCB Aug 2012
WSLCB Sept 2012
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 04:22 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 08/29/2012 10:11 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 64 of 437
Packet Page 65 of 437
Packet Page 66 of 437
Packet Page 67 of 437
Packet Page 68 of 437
Packet Page 69 of 437
Packet Page 70 of 437
Packet Page 71 of 437
Packet Page 72 of 437
Packet Page 73 of 437
Packet Page 74 of 437
AM-5116 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
July 2012 Monthly Financial Report.
Recommendation
N.A. For informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
The July 2012 Monthly Financial Report reflects additional changes to those shown with the June 2012
report. Committee feedback is being requested on the changes, as well as any other changes they would
like to see.
Attachments
July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 11:38 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2012 02:08 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 03:37 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 09/12/2012 09:39 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/12/2012
Packet Page 75 of 437
1
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
001-General Fund 5,705,633$ 3,410,974$ 5,769,121$ 2,484,282$ 63,488$
004-Criminal Investigations Fund 2,500 2,500 2,500 - -
006-Emergency Financial Reserve Fund 1,927,600 1,927,600 1,927,600 - -
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 320,656 165,244 271,819 157,262 (48,838)
010-Reserve Fund 1,338,178 1,338,576 1,339,367 392 1,189
011-Risk Management Fund - - 244,000 - 244,000
113-Multimodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 - -
116-Building Maintenance 212,212 212,275 232,448 27,363 20,235
Total General Fund 9,562,638$ 7,113,028$ 9,842,713$ 2,669,299$ 280,075$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$9.56
$7.11
$9.84
-
2
4
6
8
10
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
General FundGeneralFund
General Fund activity through July added an increase of $280,075 in fund balances
year-to-date. The second quarter brought an increase of $2.7 million in the general
fund, while at the end of the first quarter; there was a $2.4 million deficit in this fund.
Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through July.
These include the Electric Utility Tax (68% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (67% of
budget), Telephone Utility Tax (66% of budget), Business Licenses (91% of budget),
Franchise Fees (average of 76% of budget), Pull Tabs Tax (66% of budget), Liquor
Excise Taxes (73% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Taxes (there has been a
larger number of sales transactions than were expected).
At the end July, 58% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures
are on track with 56% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all
departments are at 55% of budget, and Overtime is at 51% of budget. Departments
that are significantly under budget include Human Resources (48% spent so far),
Economic Development (48%), and the City Clerk’s Office (48%).
Packet Page 76 of 437
2
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
General Fund 9,562,638$ 7,113,028$ 9,842,713$ 2,669,299$ 280,075$
Special Revenue 3,610,619 4,341,494 4,205,312 (98,188) 594,694
Debt Service 242,765 242,806 94 1,216 (242,671)
Governmental Funds 13,416,022$ 11,697,328$ 14,048,119$ 2,572,327$ 632,097$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$9.56
$7.11
$9.84
$3.61
$4.34 $4.21
$0.24 $0.24 $0.00 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances -By Fund Group
$13.42
$11.70
$14.05
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dec 2011 March
2012
July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmental Fund Balances
-Combined
Combined governmental fund activity through July added an increase of $632,097 to fund balances. The General
Fund was responsible for $280,075 of this increase, the special revenue funds for $594,694, and the remaining
was due to a deficit of $242,671 in the debt service funds. The second quarter brought an increase of $2.6 million
in governmental funds, while at the end of the first quarter; there was a $1.7 million deficit in this fund. The deficit
of $242,671 in the debt service funds is due to a transfer for $244,000 from Fund 213 (LID Guaranty Fund) into
Fund 011 (Risk Management Reserve Fund).
Packet Page 77 of 437
3
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 124,661$ 165,623$ 151,622$ (9,487)$ 26,962$
111 - Street Fund 392,049 284,506 222,486 (51,178) (169,562)
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 423,449 619,232 530,334 (79,919) 106,886
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 401,698 402,043 402,543 8,031 845
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,646 17,651 17,662 5 16
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 93,895 108,523 100,236 (2,933) 6,341
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 77,577 82,964 71,742 (11,769) (5,835)
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 16,534 15,858 14,927 (1,643) (1,607)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 60,250 58,255 56,479 (1,806) (3,770)
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 436,640 565,696 671,704 157,278 235,064
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 225,937 371,840 530,289 92,417 304,351
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 193,985 198,794 213,544 12,928 19,559
129 - Special Projects Fund 5,841 5,841 3,166 (1,833) (2,675)
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 85,714 79,750 75,264 1,207 (10,449)
131 - Fire Donations - - - - -
132 - Parks Construction Fund 86,794 391,378 174,002 (205,375) 87,208
136 - Parks Trust Fund 156,611 156,655 149,812 (6,887) (6,798)
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 801,079 804,922 810,363 4,364 9,284
138 - Sister City Commission 10,261 11,964 9,136 (1,589) (1,125)
Total Special Revenue 3,610,619$ 4,341,494$ 4,205,312$ (98,188)$ 594,694$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$3.61
$4.34 $4.21
-
1
2
3
4
5
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
Activity in all special revenue funds through July brought an increase of $594,694, a deficit of $98,188 during the
second quarter, and an increase of $730,875 in the first quarter. The graph below shows the total fund balances
for all nineteen special revenue funds as of December 2011, March 2012, and the current ending balance as of
July 2012.
Packet Page 78 of 437
4
48,998,030 50,368,197 51,344,118
18,605,638 17,700,923 16,889,080
65,558,827 66,013,239 66,108,857
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
411 - Combined Utility Operation
412 - Combined Utility Const/Improve
Combined Enterprise Funds (411-414)
Enterprise Funds -Fund Balances
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
411 - Combined Utility Operation 48,998,030$ 50,368,197$ 51,344,118$ 576,865$ 2,346,089$
412 - Combined Utility Const/Improve 18,605,638 17,700,923 16,889,080 (611,353) (1,716,558)
414 - Capital Improvements Reserve (2,044,841) (2,055,881) (2,124,342) (37,069) (79,501)
Enterprise Funds 65,558,827$ 66,013,239$ 66,108,857$ (71,557)$ 550,030$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$51,344,118
$16,889,080
$(2,124,342) $(2,200,000)
$7,800,000
$17,800,000
$27,800,000
$37,800,000
$47,800,000
Combined Utility Operation Combined Utility Const/Improve Capital Improvements Reserve
Enterprise Fund Balances as of July 31, 2012
Utility Fund Activity through July brought an increase of $550,030 in the Enterprise Funds. The second quarter
brought a deficit of $71,557, while the first quarter brought an increase of $454,412. It is expected that regular
annual capital maintenance and improvements will not begin until later in the spring and summer.
Packet Page 79 of 437
5
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
Governmental Funds 13,416,022$ 11,692,328$ 14,048,119$ 2,572,327$ 632,097$
Enterprise Funds 65,558,827 66,013,239 66,108,857 (71,557) 550,030
Internal Services Fund 6,662,893 6,718,782 6,472,682 (24,443) (190,211)
Pension Trust Fund 213,210 184,287 226,699 44,831 13,490
City-wide Total 85,850,951$ 84,608,636$ 86,856,357$ 2,521,158$ 1,005,406$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$9,842,713
$151,622
$222,486
$530,334
$402,543
$17,662
$100,236
$71,742
$14,927
$56,479
$671,704
$530,289
$213,544
$3,166
$75,264
$174,002
$149,812
$810,363
$9,136
$44
$50
$1 $2,000,000
General Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
Street Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Youth Scholarship Fund
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Gifts Catalog Fund
Special Projects Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Parks Construction Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Sister City Commission
L.I.D. Fund Control
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
Limited Tax G.O. Bond Fund
Governmental Fund Balances as of July 31,2012
At the end of July, 58% of the year had expired. Activity through July added $1 million to the City-Wide fund
balance, bringing the total to $86.9 million. Of the year-to-date increases, $632,097 was generated by
governmental funds, $550,030 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, a deficit of $190,211 was generated
by Internal Service Funds, and an increase of $13,490 by the Pension Trust Fund. The second quarter brought
an increase of $2.5 million to City-Wide Funds, while the first quarter brought a deficit of $1.2 millio n.
Packet Page 80 of 437
6
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 6,662,893$ 6,718,782$ 6,472,682$ (24,443)$ (190,211)$
Internal Service Funds 6,662,893$ 6,718,782$ 6,472,682$ (24,443)$ (190,211)$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.66 $6.72 $6.47
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Balances
Internal Service Fund activity through July brought a deficit of $190,211. The second quarter brought a deficit of
$24,443, while the first quarter brought an increase of $55,889. The purchase of new Machinery in July resulted in
the deficit of $190,211. Overall, besides this purchase, we have not seen a significant change in the Equipment
Rental Fund. We began the year with a fund balance of $6.7 million and currently at the end of July, we see an
ending fund balance of $6.5 million.
Packet Page 81 of 437
7
Fund
No.Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 33,017,174$ 18,775,883$ (14,241,291)$ 57%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 600,550 300,207 (300,343) 50%
010 RESERVE FUND 2,200 1,189 (1,011) 54%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 244,000 244,000 - 100%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 28,200 44,430 16,230 158%
111 STREET FUND 1,313,650 773,516 (540,134) 59%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,006,864 812,462 (1,194,402) 40%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.- - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,860 28,496 (28,364) 50%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 58,325 16,991 (41,334) 29%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 28 16 (12) 56%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 51,950 37,737 (14,213) 73%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,140 6,708 (13,432) 33%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,525 1,336 (1,189) 53%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 93 (18,907) 0%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 770,850 444,927 (325,923) 58%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 590,800 384,628 (206,172) 65%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 10,759 21,002 10,243 195%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 482,004 - (482,004) 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,850 77,273 (42,577) 64%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,289,414 418,282 (871,132) 32%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 177 132 (45) 74%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 9,284 (5,316) 64%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 5,230 1,710 (3,520) 33%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 46,700 1,175 (45,525) 3%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 151,725 106,154 (45,571) 70%
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,478,573 136,786 (341,787) 29%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,456,920 9,225,062 (6,231,858) 60%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 7,888,400 22,544 (7,865,856) 0%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,583,389 367,736 (1,215,653) 23%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,076,456 629,866 (446,590) 59%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 94,423 68,862 (25,561) 73%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 385,169 (214,831) 64%
68,081,736$ 33,343,657$ 101,425,393$ 49%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 82 of 437
8
Fund
No.Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,811 349,044 (270,767) 56%
010 RESERVE FUND - - - 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,233 17,468 (62,765) 22%
111 STREET FUND 1,625,148 943,078 (682,070) 58%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,107,428 705,577 (1,401,851) 33%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.- - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 245,000 8,261 (236,739) 3%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 134,550 16,146 (118,404) 12%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 56,500 31,396 (25,104) 56%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 12,543 (13,543) 48%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 2,943 (1,057) 74%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 3,863 (15,137) 20%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,055,000 209,864 (845,136) 20%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 697,717 80,277 (617,440) 12%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 12,275 1,443 (10,832) 12%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 483,500 2,675 (480,825) 1%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 172,005 87,723 (84,282) 51%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,376,200 331,075 (1,045,125) 24%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 6,930 6,930 - 100%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD - - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 2,834 (1,766) 62%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 151,500 106,000 (45,500) 70%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 244,000 244,000 - 100%
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,478,573 136,786 (341,787) 29%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,370,401 6,878,973 (8,491,428) 45%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 10,987,679 1,739,102 (9,248,577) 16%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,571,515 447,236 (1,124,279) 28%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,321,334 820,078 (501,256) 62%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 123,515 55,372 (68,143) 45%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 385,169 (214,831) 64%
72,840,828$ 32,338,251$ (40,502,577)$ 44%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 83 of 437
9
Fund
No.Title
1/1/2012
Beg. Balance
2012
Revenues
2012
Expenditures Difference
7/31/2012
End. Balance
001 GENERAL FUND 5,705,633$ 18,775,883$ 18,712,395$ 63,488$ 5,769,121$
004 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FUND 2,500 - - - 2,500
006 EMERGENCY FINANCIAL RESERVE FUND 1,927,600 - - - 1,927,600
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 320,656 300,207 349,044 (48,838) 271,819
010 RESERVE FUND 1,338,178 1,189 - 1,189 1,339,367
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 244,000 - 244,000 244,000
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - - 55,859
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 212,212 28,496 8,261 20,235 232,448
TOTAL GENERAL FUND PER CAFR 9,562,638 19,349,775 19,069,700 280,075 9,842,713
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 124,661 44,430 17,468 26,962 151,622
111 STREET FUND 392,049 773,516 943,078 (169,562) 222,486
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 423,449 812,462 705,577 106,886 530,334
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 401,698 16,991 16,146 845 402,543
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,646 16 - 16 17,662
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 93,895 37,737 31,396 6,341 100,236
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 77,577 6,708 12,543 (5,835) 71,742
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,534 1,336 2,943 (1,607) 14,927
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 60,250 93 3,863 (3,770) 56,479
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 436,640 444,927 209,864 235,064 671,704
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 225,937 384,628 80,277 304,351 530,289
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 193,985 21,002 1,443 19,559 213,544
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 5,841 - 2,675 (2,675) 3,166
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 85,714 77,273 87,723 (10,449) 75,264
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - - -
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 86,794 418,282 331,075 87,208 174,002
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 156,611 132 6,930 (6,798) 149,812
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 801,079 9,284 - 9,284 810,363
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,261 1,710 2,834 (1,125) 9,136
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 104,869 1,175 106,000 (104,825) 44
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 137,896 106,154 244,000 (137,846) 50
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,1 136,786 136,786 (0) 0
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 48,998,030 9,225,062 6,878,973 2,346,089 51,344,118
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 18,605,638 22,544 1,739,102 (1,716,558) 16,889,080
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE (2,044,841) 367,736 447,236 (79,501) (2,124,342)
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,662,893 629,866 820,078 (190,211) 6,472,682
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 213,210 68,862 55,372 13,490 226,699
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 385,169 385,169 - -
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 85,850,951$ 33,343,657$ 32,338,251$ 1,005,406$ 86,856,357$
CITY OF EDMONDS
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - SUMMARY
Packet Page 84 of 437
10
This page is intentionally left blank.
Packet Page 85 of 437
11
Page 1 of 3
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,629,986$ 5,054,121$ (4,575,865)$ 52%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,908,944 1,569,029 (1,339,915) 54%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 895,640 496,907 (398,733) 55%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,724,183 2,837,791 (1,886,392) 60%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 13,244 5,250 (7,994) 40%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 514,898 301,301 (213,597) 59%
GAS UTILITY TAX 892,381 595,099 (297,282) 67%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 750,682 374,730 (375,952) 50%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,390,242 918,807 (471,435) 66%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,473,880 1,002,829 (471,051) 68%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 294,601 164,375 (130,226) 56%
WATER UTILITY TAX 824,935 467,026 (357,909) 57%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 276,020 (193,980) 59%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 254,061 151,809 (102,252) 60%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 221,162 105,124 (116,038) 48%
PULLTABS TAX 60,257 39,915 (20,342) 66%
25,319,096 14,360,131 (10,958,965) 57%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,000 5,313 313 106%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 1,000 510 (490) 51%
AMUSEMENTS 6,000 5,475 (525) 91%
BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 3,885 (1,115) 78%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 105,245 95,945 (9,301) 91%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 588,008 470,088 (117,920) 80%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 106,930 44,459 (62,471) 42%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 6,901 7,332 431 106%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 212,292 175,322 (36,970) 83%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 21,000 10,995 (10,005) 52%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 38,885 22,550 (16,335) 58%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 10,000 9,308 (692) 93%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 420,000 192,927 (227,073) 46%
ANIMAL LICENSES 11,000 6,843 (4,157) 62%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 42,000 16,282 (25,718) 39%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 7,000 5,897 (1,104) 84%
DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE - - - 0%
1,586,261 1,073,129 (513,132) 68%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - Bullet Proof Vest 3,969 - (3,969) 0%
EECBG Grant - - - 0%
WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - - 0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 2,084 (7,916) 21%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 406 (5,594) 7%
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - 0%
Puget Drive Walkway HLP-PB07(009)- - - 0%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 183,348 - (183,348) 0%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 13,000 6,224 (6,776) 48%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,100 6,672 (2,428) 73%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,827 25,116 (8,711) 74%
DUI - CITIES 9,500 5,628 (3,872) 59%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 200,666 146,591 (54,075) 73%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 310,835 216,740 (94,095) 70%
SHARED COURT COSTS 6,300 1,500 (4,800) 24%
MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD 1,050 750 (300) 71%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 55,080 43,622 (11,458) 79%
POLICE FBI CONTRACTS - - - 0%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,760 6,277 (4,483) 58%
OCDETF OVERTIME - 1,226 1,226 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.11,500 4,041 (7,459) 35%
WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 10,000 11,723 1,723 117%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 34,650 (34,650) 50%
SNOCOM FIBER OPTIC SERVICE INTERLOCAL - 4,200 4,200 0%
SNO-ISLE 69,418 41,718 (27,700) 60%
1,013,653 559,168 (454,485) 55%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 86 of 437
12
Page 2 of 3
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,050 607 (444) 58%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 100 - (100) 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 950 82 (868) 9%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS - 41 41 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 150 92 (58) 62%
PHOTOCOPIES 4,000 1,994 (2,006) 50%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 5,000 2,570 (2,430) 51%
ASSESSMENT SEARCH - 5 5 0%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 10,500 6,925 (3,575) 66%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 11,974 (14,026) 46%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES - 318 318 0%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 68,300 33,171 (35,129) 49%
ELECTRONIC MONITORING 150 - (150) 0%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 700 82 (618) 12%
BOOKING FEES 6,300 2,652 (3,648) 42%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 6,060 2,910 (3,150) 48%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 21,210 10,534 (10,676) 50%
DUI EMERGENCY AID 200 33 (167) 17%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 848,500 325,997 (522,503) 38%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 281 (20) 94%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 700 382 (318) 55%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,900 2,588 (3,312) 44%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,100 930 (1,170) 44%
POLICE TRAINING CLASSES - - - 0%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 102,010 59,660 (42,350) 58%
FIBER SERVICES - 20,309 20,309 0%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 4,000 3,885 (115) 97%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS - 182 182 0%
ANNUAL VEHICLE FEE (TBD)- - - 0%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 55,000 22,972 (32,028) 42%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 3,300 793 (2,508) 24%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 235,000 137,557 (97,443) 59%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 4,500 326 (4,174) 7%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,000 1,940 (4,060) 32%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 8,060 (6,940) 54%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 52,471 38,852 (13,619) 74%
LOCKER FEES 300 125 (175) 42%
SWIM CLASS FEES 45,520 20,924 (24,596) 46%
PROGRAM FEES 800,000 477,200 (322,800) 60%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 120,000 90,765 (29,235) 76%
SWIM TEAM / DIVE TEAM 31,150 30,019 (1,132) 96%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 620 140 (480) 23%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,582,061 905,102 (676,959) 57%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES - - - 0%
4,065,102 2,222,977 (1,842,125) 55%
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,500 5,792 (4,708) 55%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 51,472 17,150 (34,322) 33%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 285,000 149,354 (135,646) 52%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)15,000 10,985 (4,015) 73%
SPEEDING DOUBLE - 38 38 0%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES - 900 900 0%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,250 323 (927) 26%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 33,000 19,985 (13,015) 61%
PR - HANDICAPPED 800 - (800) 0%
PARKING INFRACTION LOC 600 40 (560) 7%
PARK / INDDISZONE 600 1,828 1,228 305%
DWI PENALTIES 9,500 3,405 (6,095) 36%
DUI - DP ACCT - 770 770 0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 189 139 379%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 40,000 19,216 (20,784) 48%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 600 241 (359) 40%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 11,500 9,786 (1,714) 85%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 950 585 (365) 62%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 61,352 (58,648) 51%
JURY DEMAND COST 100 - (100) 0%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 37,000 17,940 (19,060) 48%
COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 136 (164) 45%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,050 960 (90) 91%
619,272 320,973 (298,299) 52%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
Packet Page 87 of 437
13
Page 3 of 3
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST - 4,492 4,492 0%
INVESTMENT SERVICE FEES 9,800 - (9,800) 0%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 2,000 1,154 (846) 58%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 3,150 3,091 (59) 98%
PARKING 10,000 6,770 (3,230) 68%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 140,000 81,879 (58,121) 58%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 7,800 3,194 (4,606) 41%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 1,000 2,545 1,545 255%
LEASES LONG-TERM 173,465 94,153 (79,312) 54%
VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 4,700 2,560 (2,140) 54%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 10,078 3,745 (6,333) 37%
PARKS DONATIONS 8,456 7,742 (714) 92%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,500 900 (600) 60%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 200 1,080 880 540%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 920 (3,080) 23%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 200 - (200) 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 100 150 50 150%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES (200) (3) 197 0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 5,103 2,103 170%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT - 55 55 0%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC - 120 120 0%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 525 383 (142) 73%
NSF FEES - DEVEL SERV DEPT - - - 0%
PLANNING SIGN REVENUE 2,000 - (2,000) 0%
381,774 220,032 (161,742) 58%
TRANSFERS-IN:
INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER-IN - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - In (From 121)25,086 19,473 (5,613) 78%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 136)6,930 - (6,930) 0%
32,016 19,473 (12,543) 61%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 33,017,174$ 18,775,883$ (14,241,291)$ 57%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 88 of 437
14
This page is intentionally left blank.
Packet Page 89 of 437
15
Page 1 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES:
SALARIES AND WAGES 12,400,240$ 6,843,572$ (5,556,668)$ 55%
OVERTIME 458,540 233,824 (224,716) 51%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 179,687 2,526 (177,161) 1%
BENEFITS 4,244,174 2,405,103 (1,839,071) 57%
UNIFORMS 63,880 33,800 (30,080) 53%
SUPPLIES 435,011 203,447 (231,564) 47%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 133,012 96,881 (36,131) 73%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,852,841 870,423 (982,418) 47%
COMMUNICATIONS 210,037 100,456 (109,581) 48%
TRAVEL 51,060 12,589 (38,471) 25%
ADVERTISING 71,667 21,213 (50,454) 30%
RENTAL/LEASE 139,281 77,704 (61,577) 56%
INSURANCE 444,962 420,109 (24,853) 94%
UTILITIES 454,500 252,069 (202,431) 55%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 331,397 154,285 (177,112) 47%
MISCELLANEOUS 327,242 168,140 (159,102) 51%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,218,704 5,846,073 (2,372,631) 71%
ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE 250,000 80,635 (169,365) 32%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 3,588 (1,612) 69%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 009,116,117,125,617)899,623 419,926 (479,697) 47%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 - (17,144) 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 1,084,062 - (1,084,062) 0%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 63,380 63,380 (0) 100%
OTHER DEBT - - - 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 296,838 149,706 (147,132) 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 5,000 1,125 (3,875) 23%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 197,900 - (197,900) 0%
INTERFUND FUEL - 55 55 0%
INTERFUND SUPPLIES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 430,246 250,985 (179,261) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - 780 780 0%
33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE:
BENEFITS 462,886$ 256,756$ (206,130)$ 55%
In-Home LTC Claims 140,425 84,853 (55,572) 60%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,500 7,186 (9,315) 44%
MISCELLANEOUS - 250 250 0%
619,811$ 349,044$ (270,767)$ 56%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND:
SUPPLIES 200$ -$ (200)$ 0%
FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 1,286 (714) 64%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,254 (979) 56%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - (800) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 (15,000) 25%
INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 9,928 (40,072) 20%
80,233$ 17,468$ (62,765)$ 22%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 90 of 437
16
Page 2 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STREET FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 474,924$ 308,009$ (166,915)$ 65%
OVERTIME 18,400 20,685 2,285 112%
BENEFITS 191,707 137,176 (54,531) 72%
UNIFORMS 7,000 4,450 (2,550) 64%
SUPPLIES 242,500 91,660 (150,840) 38%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,000 11,919 (12,081) 50%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32,700 19,379 (13,321) 59%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,139 (861) 71%
TRAVEL 1,000 60 (940) 6%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,435 (65) 96%
INSURANCE 93,719 93,305 (414) 100%
UTILITIES 261,100 126,102 (134,998) 48%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 25,500 4,479 (21,021) 18%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 6,793 793 113%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 6,000 1,003 (4,997) 17%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 38,954 - (38,954) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 6,200 3,100 (3,100) 50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 190,944 111,384 (79,560) 58%
1,625,148$ 943,078$ (682,070)$ 58%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 846,180$ 506,843$ (339,337)$ 60%
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112, 132)53,497 41,694 (11,803) 78%
LAND 231,022 - (231,022) 0%
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 763,300 1,700 (761,600) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,202 72,201 (1) 100%
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,841 4,840 (1) 100%
INTERFUND SERVICES 136,386 78,298 (58,088) 57%
2,107,428$ 705,577$ (1,401,851)$ 33%
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD:
PROFESSIONAL SVC -$ -$ -$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
-$ -$ -$ 0%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE:
SUPPLIES 10,000$ -$ (10,000)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40,000 4,825 (35,175) 12%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 195,000 3,436 (191,564) 2%
MISCELLANEOUS - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
245,000$ 8,261$ (236,739)$ 3%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND:
SUPPLIES 4,200$ 165$ (4,035)$ 4%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 523 (477) 52%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110,500 13,232 (97,268) 12%
TRAVEL 50 10 (40) 20%
ADVERTISING 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - (300) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 2,216 (8,284) 21%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117.300)3,000 - (3,000) 0%
134,550$ 16,146$ (118,404)$ 12%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000$ 5,459$ (4,542)$ 55%
ADVERTISING 35,000 23,554 (11,446) 67%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 384 (2,116) 15%
TRANSFER TO FUND 117 4,000 2,000 (2,000) 50%
TRANSFER TO FUND 132 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
56,500$ 31,396$ (25,104)$ 56%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 91 of 437
17
Page 3 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND:
SUPPLIES 1,000$ -$ (1,000)$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001)25,086 12,543 (12,543) 50%
26,086$ 12,543$ (13,543)$ 48%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND:
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000$ 2,943$ (1,057)$ 74%
4,000$ 2,943$ (1,057)$ 74%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS:
PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 33$ (10,467)$ 0%
ADVERTISING 4,500 3,830 (670) 85%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
19,000$ 3,863$ (15,137)$ 20%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2:
SUPPLIES 36,000$ 39,495$ 3,495$ 110%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 617,000 68,621 (548,379) 11%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100,000 1,544 (98,456) 2%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117,132)199,000 - (199,000) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 103,000 100,203 (2,797) 97%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0%
1,055,000$ 209,864$ (845,136)$ 20%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ:
MISCELLANEOUS -$ -$ -$ 0%
TRANSFER TO FUND 234 68,080 16,540 (51,540) 24%
1998 REF BOND PRINCIPAL 502,163 - (502,163) 0%
2001 BONDS, B - INTEREST 127,474 63,737 (63,737) 50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
697,717$ 80,277$ (617,440)$ 12%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND:
SUPPLIES 6,275$ 1,443$ (4,832)$ 23%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132)2,000 - (2,000) 0%
12,275$ 1,443$ (10,832)$ 12%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83,500$ 1,833$ (81,667)$ 2%
CONSTRUCTION 400,000 - (400,000) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - 841 841 0%
483,500$ 2,675$ (480,825)$ 1%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT:
SALARIES AND WAGES 71,107$ 39,420$ (31,687)$ 55%
OVERTIME 3,500 1,690 (1,810) 48%
BENEFITS 32,926 18,690 (14,236) 57%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
SUPPLIES 7,000 2,558 (4,442) 37%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 15,214 (4,786) 76%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 200 (800) 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 698 (714) 49%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 3,000 1,456 (1,544) 49%
UTILITIES 3,800 1,512 (2,288) 40%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 2,049 1,049 205%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,500 - (17,500) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,260 4,235 (3,025) 58%
172,005$ 87,723$ (84,282)$ 51%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 92 of 437
18
Page 4 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND:
SUPPLIES -$ 72,779$ 72,779$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,000 50,480 (12,520) 80%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,303,200 188,540 (1,114,660) 14%
INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 19,276 9,276 193%
1,376,200$ 331,075$ (1,045,125)$ 24%
PARKS TRUST FUND:
INTERFUND TRANSFER 6,930$ 6,930$ -$ 100%
6,930$ 6,930$ -$ 100%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION:
SUPPLIES 500$ 1,242$ 742$ 248%
STUDENT TRIP 2,600 - (2,600) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,500 1,592 92 106%
4,600$ 2,834$ (1,766)$ 62%
LID FUND CONTROL
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 213)151,500$ 106,000$ (45,500)$ 70%
151,500$ 106,000$ (45,500)$ 70%
LID GUARANTY FUND
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 011)244,000$ 244,000$ -$ 100%
244,000$ 244,000$ -$ 100%
LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND:
2002 BOND PRINCIPAL 205,000$ -$ (205,000)$ 0%
2002 BOND INTEREST 273,573 136,786 (136,787) 50%
478,573$ 136,786$ (341,787)$ 29%
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION:
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,791,123$ 1,562,331$ (1,228,792)$ 56%
OVERTIME 117,180 71,253 (45,927) 61%
BENEFITS 1,113,707 656,377 (457,330) 59%
UNIFORMS 28,650 14,664 (13,986) 51%
SUPPLIES 675,015 356,595 (318,420) 53%
FUEL CONSUMED 150,723 99,710 (51,013) 66%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 621,492 (788,508) 44%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 55,868 (87,132) 39%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 25,500 1,859 (23,641) 7%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 228,808 92,148 (136,660) 40%
COMMUNICATIONS 72,200 36,879 (35,322) 51%
TRAVEL 18,600 158 (18,442) 1%
ADVERTISING 3,560 1,132 (2,428) 32%
RENTAL/LEASE 16,300 8,558 (7,742) 53%
INSURANCE 288,211 242,229 (45,982) 84%
UTILITIES 999,853 458,119 (541,734) 46%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 131,930 44,832 (87,098) 34%
MISCELLANEOUS 592,880 359,794 (233,086) 61%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 667,900 118,438 (549,462) 18%
INTERFUND TAXES 1,548,996 894,854 (654,142) 58%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412,414)1,852,811 70,205 (1,782,606) 4%
LAND - - - 0%
BUILDINGS - - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 111,862 - (111,862) 0%
REVENUE BOND PRINCIPAL 445,499 - (445,499) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 180,398 181,966 1,568 101%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 496,987 238,122 (258,865) 48%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 33,104 2,759 (30,345) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 272 272 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 818,454 450,855 (367,599) 55%
INTERFUND RENTAL 407,150 237,503 (169,647) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - - - 0%
15,370,401$ 6,878,973$ (8,491,428)$ 45%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 93 of 437
19
Page 5 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,814,861$ 360,163$ (1,454,698)$ 20%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112,117,132,412.300)496,111 - (496,111) 0%
LAND 3,500 - (3,500) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 8,102,386 1,021,492 (7,080,894) 13%
INTERFUND SERVICES 570,821 357,447 (213,374) 63%
10,987,679$ 1,739,102$ (9,248,577)$ 16%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85,000$ 258,956$ 173,956$ 305%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,226,012 107,755 (1,118,257) 9%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 85,888 - (85,888) 0%
REVENUE BONDS 49,132 - (49,132) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 34,875 34,875 - 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 90,608 45,643 (44,965) 50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 7 7 0%
1,571,515$ 447,236$ (1,124,279)$ 28%
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 218,537$ 124,508$ (94,029)$ 57%
OVERTIME 2,000 91 (1,909) 5%
BENEFITS 100,670 59,801 (40,869) 59%
UNIFORMS 1,000 470 (530) 47%
SUPPLIES 76,000 53,973 (22,027) 71%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 674 (326) 67%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 320,510 190,583 (129,927) 59%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 4,815 (5,185) 48%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 372 (628) 37%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 814 (2,686) 23%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,500 710 (2,790) 20%
INSURANCE 23,261 32,530 9,269 140%
UTILITIES 14,000 7,436 (6,564) 53%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 85,000 19,033 (65,967) 22%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,500 3,926 (3,574) 52%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,338 (1,162) 54%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 420,000 312,962 (107,038) 75%
INTERFUND SERVICES 20,000 - (20,000) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 10,356 6,041 (4,315) 58%
1,321,334$ 820,078$ (501,256)$ 62%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND:
BENEFITS 66,515$ 33,227$ (33,288)$ 50%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 52,500 21,081 (31,419) 40%
PROF SERVICES 4,500 1,065 (3,436) 24%
123,515$ 55,372$ (68,143)$ 45%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT:
INSURANCE 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 100%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 595,000 49,936 (545,064) 8%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (To 111)- 330,233 330,233 0%
600,000$ 385,169$ (214,831)$ 64%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 72,840,828$ 32,338,251$ (40,502,577)$ 44%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 94 of 437
20
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL 269,812$ 149,229$ (120,583)$ 55%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 253,184 132,537 (120,647) 52%
HUMAN RESOURCES 286,799 136,806 (149,993) 48%
MUNICIPAL COURT 779,038 426,424 (352,614) 55%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 138,880 66,413 (72,467) 48%
CITY CLERK 609,840 289,704 (320,136) 48%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,412,575 777,501 (635,074) 55%
CITY ATTORNEY 495,000 286,492 (208,508) 58%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 11,399,538 6,952,172 (4,447,366) 61%
POLICE SERVICES 9,165,244 4,842,275 (4,322,969) 53%
COMMUNITY SERVICES 326,930 183,163 (143,767) 56%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,658,272 906,199 (752,073) 55%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,506,852 1,877,276 (1,629,576) 54%
PUBLIC WORKS 1,612,816 926,411 (686,405) 57%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,351,548 759,794 (591,754) 56%
33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 2,174,153$ 1,024,697$ (1,149,456)$ 47%
WATER 5,158,024 2,487,947 (2,670,077) 48%
SEWER 4,506,994 1,487,144 (3,019,850) 33%
TREATMENT PLANT 3,531,230 1,879,185 (1,652,045) 53%
15,370,401$ 6,878,973$ (8,491,428)$ 45%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 95 of 437
21
Page 1 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 105,665$ 62,119$ (43,546)$ 59%
OVERTIME 7,240 3,537 (3,703) 49%
BENEFITS 69,902 41,794 (28,108) 60%
SUPPLIES 1,525 553 (972) 36%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 50,000 32,158 (17,842) 64%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,558 (1,442) 52%
TRAVEL 2,500 879 (1,621) 35%
RENTAL/LEASE 480 281 (199) 58%
REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 28,000 6,350 (21,650) 23%
269,812$ 149,229$ (120,583)$ 55%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 193,896$ 103,745$ (90,151)$ 54%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 49,188 23,979 (25,209) 49%
SUPPLIES 2,000 421 (1,579) 21%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 652 (748) 47%
TRAVEL 700 711 11 102%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,429 (71) 95%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,601 (1,399) 53%
253,184$ 132,537$ (120,647)$ 52%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 144,191$ 51,287$ (92,904)$ 36%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 32,098 19,218 (12,880) 60%
SUPPLIES 2,500 1,477 (1,023) 59%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 77,500 55,219 (22,281) 71%
COMMUNICATIONS 500 214 (287) 43%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 9,000 683 (8,317) 8%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,353 (647) 68%
REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 4,820 (1,180) 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 12,410 2,535 (9,875) 20%
286,799$ 136,806$ (149,993)$ 48%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 486,685$ 272,333$ (214,352)$ 56%
OVERTIME 1,400 572 (828) 41%
BENEFITS 172,053 99,935 (72,118) 58%
SUPPLIES 14,500 6,491 (8,009) 45%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,500 - (6,500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66,600 31,085 (35,515) 47%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,264 (1,336) 49%
TRAVEL 2,500 1,517 (983) 61%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,300 385 (916) 30%
REPAIR/MAINT 2,200 961 (1,239) 44%
MISCELLANEOUS 22,350 11,790 (10,560) 53%
INTERGOVTL SVC 350 92 (258) 26%
779,038$ 426,424$ (352,614)$ 55%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 96 of 437
22
Page 2 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BENEFITS -$ 13$ 13$ 0%
SUPPLIES 500 1,330 830 266%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - (300) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 103,680 60,315 (43,365) 58%
COMMUNICATIONS 400 29 (371) 7%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 30,000 3,210 (26,790) 11%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,516 (1,484) 51%
138,880$ 66,413$ (72,467)$ 48%
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 302,054$ 167,815$ (134,239)$ 56%
BENEFITS 90,045 52,636 (37,409) 58%
SUPPLIES 13,760 5,509 (8,251) 40%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89,377 10,949 (78,428) 12%
COMMUNICATIONS 52,067 20,208 (31,859) 39%
TRAVEL 1,000 7 (993) 1%
ADVERTISING 23,690 12,998 (10,692) 55%
RENTAL/LEASE 27,310 9,548 (17,762) 35%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 7,778 (259) 97%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 2,256 (245) 90%
609,840$ 289,704$ (320,136)$ 48%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 741,281$ 414,764$ (326,517)$ 56%
OVERTIME 8,100 5,250 (2,850) 65%
BENEFITS 222,830 129,741 (93,089) 58%
SUPPLIES 60,690 23,138 (37,552) 38%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 63,500 55,478 (8,022) 87%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,842 22,823 (49,019) 32%
COMMUNICATIONS 60,220 35,802 (24,418) 59%
TRAVEL 4,800 1,108 (3,692) 23%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,300 2,731 (569) 83%
REPAIR/MAINT 164,720 75,226 (89,494) 46%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 10,978 478 105%
INTERFUND RENTAL 792 462 (330) 58%
1,412,575$ 777,501$ (635,074)$ 55%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SVC 495,000$ 286,292$ (208,708)$ 58%
MISC PROSECUTOR - 200 200 0%
495,000$ 286,492$ (208,508)$ 58%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 100,000$ -$ (100,000)$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 70,000 33,756 (36,244) 48%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 294,962 136,957 (158,005) 46%
COMMUNICATIONS - 4 4 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,700 3,600 (100) 97%
INSURANCE 444,962 420,109 (24,853) 94%
MISCELLANEOUS 72,300 40,023 (32,277) 55%
INTERGOVT SVC 7,611,611 5,599,363 (2,012,248) 74%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 250,000 80,635 (169,365) 32%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 3,588 (1,612) 69%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 899,623 419,926 (479,697) 47%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,084,062 - (1,084,062) 0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 63,380 63,380 (0) 100%
OTHER DEBT - - - 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 296,838 149,706 (147,132) 50%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 1,125 (3,875) 23%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 197,900 - (197,900) 0%
11,399,538$ 6,952,172$ (4,447,366)$ 61%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 97 of 437
23
Page 3 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,400,738$ 2,966,012$ (2,434,726)$ 55%
OVERTIME 420,000 215,060 (204,940) 51%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 179,687 2,526 (177,161) 1%
BENEFITS 1,899,147 1,031,839 (867,308) 54%
UNIFORMS 53,570 30,592 (22,978) 57%
SUPPLIES 95,900 51,089 (44,811) 53%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 14,300 3,804 (10,496) 27%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 95,200 52,827 (42,373) 55%
COMMUNICATIONS 33,592 14,621 (18,971) 44%
TRAVEL 26,300 6,526 (19,774) 25%
ADVERTISING 375 66 (309) 18%
RENTAL/LEASE 18,000 9,076 (8,924) 50%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,115 4,076 (12,039) 25%
MISCELLANEOUS 55,512 24,598 (30,914) 44%
INTERGOVTL SVC 536,048 241,618 (294,430) 45%
INTERFUND FUEL-BOAT - 55 55 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 320,760 187,110 (133,650) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - 780 780 0%
9,165,244$ 4,842,275$ (4,322,969)$ 53%
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN
SALARIES 212,854$ 122,737$ (90,117)$ 58%
BENEFITS 60,622 36,333 (24,289) 60%
SUPPLIES 1,000 201 (799) 20%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 500 - (500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 45,924 21,322 (24,602) 46%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,090 461 (629) 42%
TRAVEL 1,000 18 (982) 2%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 1,361 41 103%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 365 (635) 37%
INTERFUND RENTAL 620 364 (256) 59%
326,930$ 183,163$ (143,767)$ 56%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,071,681$ 606,419$ (465,262)$ 57%
OVERTIME 2,800 2,215 (585) 79%
BENEFITS 374,639 216,874 (157,765) 58%
UNIFORMS 320 - (320) 0%
SUPPLIES 17,510 6,417 (11,093) 37%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,300 231 (2,069) 10%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 116,890 37,759 (79,131) 32%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,630 3,124 (1,506) 67%
TRAVEL 3,500 426 (3,074) 12%
ADVERTISING 4,250 1,397 (2,853) 33%
RENTAL/LEASE 22,500 12,399 (10,101) 55%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,000 606 (1,394) 30%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,600 13,867 (13,733) 50%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,652 4,466 (3,186) 58%
1,658,272$ 906,199$ (752,073)$ 55%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 958,860$ 547,226$ (411,634)$ 57%
OVERTIME 5,000 551 (4,449) 11%
BENEFITS 321,636 192,985 (128,651) 60%
UNIFORMS 450 - (450) 0%
SUPPLIES - - - 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,500 2,398 (102) 96%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 5,000 2,596 (2,404) 52%
COMMUNICATIONS 6,500 3,157 (3,343) 49%
TRAVEL 620 463 (157) 75%
ADVERTISING - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - - - 0%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,800 895 (905) 50%
MISCELLANEOUS 9,600 5,516 (4,084) 57%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 6,740 3,934 (2,806) 58%
1,318,706$ 759,721$ (558,985)$ 58%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 98 of 437
24
Page 4 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,880,905$ 1,053,853$ (827,052)$ 56%
OVERTIME 5,300 5,325 25 100%
BENEFITS 571,640 345,960 (225,680) 61%
UNIFORMS 6,540 1,934 (4,606) 30%
SUPPLIES 145,026 62,824 (82,202) 43%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 35,012 33,568 (1,444) 96%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 339,666 120,093 (219,573) 35%
COMMUNICATIONS 28,938 11,035 (17,903) 38%
TRAVEL 6,140 899 (5,241) 15%
ADVERTISING 3,852 2,859 (993) 74%
RENTAL/LEASE 50,471 34,942 (15,529) 69%
PUBLIC UTILITY 150,000 90,133 (59,867) 60%
REPAIR/MAINT 52,025 25,973 (26,052) 50%
MISCELLANEOUS 76,370 43,720 (32,650) 57%
INTERGOVTL SVC 70,695 5,000 (65,695) 7%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 - (17,144) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 67,128 39,158 (27,970) 58%
3,506,852$ 1,877,276$ (1,629,576)$ 54%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 208,578$ 122,149$ (86,429)$ 59%
OVERTIME 200 - (200) 0%
BENEFITS 64,638 37,451 (27,187) 58%
SUPPLIES 5,100 2,776 (2,324) 54%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 29 (171) 14%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,100 680 (420) 62%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,400 600 (6,800) 8%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,500 1,378 (1,122) 55%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 522 (478) 52%
INTERFUND RENTAL 1,894 1,106 (788) 58%
294,110$ 166,690$ (127,420)$ 57%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 592,852$ 353,114$ (239,738)$ 60%
OVERTIME 8,500 1,314 (7,186) 15%
BENEFITS 245,736 142,592 (103,144) 58%
UNIFORMS 3,000 1,274 (1,726) 42%
SUPPLIES 75,000 41,221 (33,779) 55%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 8,000 1,401 (6,599) 18%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - - 0%
TRAVEL - 35 35 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 14,000 7,647 (6,353) 55%
PUBLIC UTILITY 302,000 160,558 (141,442) 53%
REPAIR/MAINT 75,000 33,950 (41,050) 45%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,303 203 110%
INTERFUND RENTAL 24,660 14,385 (10,275) 58%
1,351,548$ 759,794$ (591,754)$ 56%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 99 of 437
25
Page 1 of 2
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE
SALARIES 477,207$ 262,889$ (214,318)$ 55%
OVERTIME 6,000 4,216 (1,784) 70%
BENEFITS 195,826 108,282 (87,544) 55%
UNIFORMS 6,500 3,875 (2,625) 60%
SUPPLIES 58,005 26,142 (31,863) 45%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,836 4,864 (13,972) 26%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 791 (2,409) 25%
TRAVEL 4,300 - (4,300) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,500 747 (6,753) 10%
INSURANCE 9,302 8,889 (413) 96%
UTILITIES 10,000 5,235 (4,765) 52%
REPAIR/MAINT 12,860 5,102 (7,758) 40%
MISCELLANEOUS 78,500 60,401 (18,099) 77%
INTERGOVT SERVICE 40,000 38,045 (1,955) 95%
STORMWATER TAX 254,061 151,809 (102,252) 60%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412)200,000 - (200,000) 0%
LAND - - - 0%
BUILDINGS - - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 108,298 - (108,298) 0%
REVENUE BOND 68,724 - (68,724) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN 32,063 32,063 (1) 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 183,267 88,129 (95,138) 48%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 78 78 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 228,092 125,659 (102,433) 55%
INTERFUND RENTAL 167,112 97,482 (69,630) 58%
2,174,153$ 1,024,697$ (1,149,456)$ 47%
WATER
SALARIES 715,880$ 388,688$ (327,192)$ 54%
OVERTIME 24,180 11,415 (12,765) 47%
BENEFITS 267,990 169,483 (98,507) 63%
UNIFORMS 6,800 2,366 (4,434) 35%
SUPPLIES 143,505 91,662 (51,843) 64%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 621,492 (788,508) 44%
SUPPLIES FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 140,000 55,868 (84,132) 40%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 - (10,000) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 77,136 12,738 (64,398) 17%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 16,365 (13,635) 55%
TRAVEL 3,400 - (3,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 560 - (560) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 4,023 2,523 268%
INSURANCE 84,030 70,440 (13,590) 84%
PUBLIC UTILITY 28,000 21,243 (6,757) 76%
REPAIR/MAINT 24,160 7,068 (17,092) 29%
RCP - MISCELLANEOUS 301,630 173,258 (128,372) 57%
INTERGOVTL SVC 30,000 18,366 (11,634) 61%
WATER TAX 824,935 467,026 (357,909) 57%
INTERFUND TRANSFER-OUT (to 412)200,000 - (200,000) 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,980 - (1,980) 0%
REVENUE BOND 181,627 - (181,627) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 44,270 45,839 1,569 104%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 260,432 121,818 (138,614) 47%
AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,553 1,379 (15,174) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 163 163 0%
INTERFUND SVC 224,970 126,298 (98,673) 56%
INTERFUND RENTAL 104,486 60,949 (43,537) 58%
5,158,024$ 2,487,947$ (2,670,077)$ 48%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 100 of 437
26
Page 2 of 2
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
SEWER
SALARIES 434,516$ 259,951$ (174,566)$ 60%
OVERTIME 17,000 12,891 (4,109) 76%
BENEFITS 206,345 123,686 (82,659) 60%
UNIFORMS 5,100 3,014 (2,086) 59%
SUPPLIES 61,005 25,363 (35,642) 42%
SEWER INVENTORY 3,000 - (3,000) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,000 1,511 (4,489) 25%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,836 5,818 (48,018) 11%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 14,280 (15,720) 48%
TRAVEL 2,400 - (2,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 2,172 372 121%
INSURANCE 104,574 94,658 (9,916) 91%
PUBLIC UTILITY 533,813 178,522 (355,291) 33%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,860 7,076 (9,784) 42%
MISCELLANEOUS 130,000 84,756 (45,244) 65%
INTERGOVTL SVS 393,900 25,419 (368,481) 6%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 276,020 (193,980) 59%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412, 414)1,452,811 70,205 (1,382,606) 5%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,584 - (1,584) 0%
REVENUE BONDS 106,475 - (106,475) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 104,065 104,065 (0) 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 50,044 26,683 (23,361) 53%
AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,551 1,379 (15,172) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 28 28 0%
INTERFUND SVC 176,571 94,838 (81,733) 54%
INTERFUND RENTAL 128,244 74,809 (53,435) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - 0%
4,506,994$ 1,487,144$ (3,019,850)$ 33%
TREATMENT PLANT
SALARIES 1,163,520$ 650,804$ (512,716)$ 56%
OVERTIME 70,000 42,731 (27,269) 61%
BENEFITS 443,546 254,927 (188,619) 57%
UNIFORMS 10,250 5,408 (4,842) 53%
SUPPLIES 412,500 213,428 (199,072) 52%
FUEL CONSUMED 150,723 99,710 (51,013) 66%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,500 348 (5,152) 6%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 79,000 68,727 (10,273) 87%
COMMUNICATIONS 9,000 5,442 (3,558) 60%
TRAVEL 8,500 158 (8,342) 2%
ADVERTISING 2,000 1,132 (868) 57%
RENTAL/LEASE 5,500 1,615 (3,885) 29%
INSURANCE 90,305 68,242 (22,063) 76%
UTILITIES 428,040 253,119 (174,921) 59%
REPAIR/MAINT 78,050 25,586 (52,464) 33%
MISCELLANEOUS 82,750 41,378 (41,372) 50%
INTERGOVTL SVS 204,000 36,608 (167,392) 18%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 4 4 0%
REVENUE BOND 88,673 - (88,673) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 3,244 1,492 (1,752) 46%
INTERFUND SVC 188,821 104,061 (84,760) 55%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,308 4,263 (3,045) 58%
3,531,230$ 1,879,185$ (1,652,045)$ 53%
Total Combined Utility Fund Expenditures 15,370,401$ 6,878,973$ (8,491,428)$ 45%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 101 of 437
27
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,254,252$ 1,254,252$ 1,608,118$ 28.21%
February 3,063,163 1,808,911 3,432,053 12.04%
March 5,168,945 2,105,781 5,372,339 3.93%
April 7,722,732 2,553,787 8,516,228 10.27%
May 15,170,920 7,448,188 15,369,907 1.31%
June 16,856,021 1,685,100 17,064,191 1.23%
July 18,803,696 1,947,675 18,775,883 -0.15%
August 20,454,375 1,650,679 20,424,120 -0.15%
September 21,996,040 1,541,665 21,963,505 -0.15%
October 24,533,766 2,537,726 24,497,478 -0.15%
November 31,335,142 6,801,376 31,288,794 -0.15%
December 33,017,174 1,682,032 32,968,338 -0.15%
Real Estate Excise Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 50,516$ 50,516$ 55,795$ 10.45%
February 80,158 29,643 119,438 49.00%
March 117,689 37,531 145,824 23.91%
April 170,233 52,544 199,122 16.97%
May 219,071 48,838 255,250 16.51%
June 275,073 56,002 318,412 15.76%
July 330,084 55,011 384,310 16.43%
August 390,495 60,410 454,644 16.43%
September 447,318 56,823 520,802 16.43%
October 504,597 57,280 587,491 16.43%
November 548,998 44,400 639,185 16.43%
December 590,000 41,002 686,923 16.43%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 102 of 437
28
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 375,013$ 375,013$ 396,472$ 5.72%
February 850,350 475,338 880,438 3.54%
March 1,188,451 338,101 1,236,580 4.05%
April 1,538,704 350,253 1,614,832 4.95%
May 1,953,189 414,485 2,037,398 4.31%
June 2,321,894 368,705 2,436,804 4.95%
July 2,693,818 371,925 2,837,791 5.34%
August 3,130,679 436,861 3,298,000 5.34%
September 3,516,951 386,272 3,704,917 5.34%
October 3,912,817 395,866 4,121,940 5.34%
November 4,351,601 438,784 4,584,175 5.34%
December 4,724,183 372,582 4,976,670 5.34%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 123,772$ 123,772$ 109,321$ -11.68%
February 253,656 129,883 232,788 -8.23%
March 371,883 118,227 329,885 -11.29%
April 470,918 99,035 433,268 -8.00%
May 554,498 83,580 502,369 -9.40%
June 617,198 62,700 552,855 -10.42%
July 663,083 45,884 595,099 -10.25%
August 695,629 32,546 624,308 -10.25%
September 725,807 30,179 651,393 -10.25%
October 757,941 32,134 680,232 -10.25%
November 812,573 54,632 729,263 -10.25%
December 892,381 79,808 800,888 -10.25%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Sales and Use Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 103 of 437
29
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 86,875$ 86,875$ 129,337$ 48.88%
February 208,469 121,594 222,717 6.83%
March 342,214 133,745 353,214 3.21%
April 435,440 93,226 485,917 11.59%
May 553,336 117,896 672,856 21.60%
June 648,289 94,953 792,936 22.31%
July 776,209 127,920 918,807 18.37%
August 899,335 123,126 1,064,552 18.37%
September 992,632 93,297 1,174,989 18.37%
October 1,142,349 149,717 1,352,211 18.37%
November 1,227,014 84,665 1,452,430 18.37%
December 1,390,242 163,228 1,645,644 18.37%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 151,744$ 151,744$ 159,973$ 5.42%
February 319,668 167,924 322,487 0.88%
March 474,035 154,367 489,585 3.28%
April 631,016 156,981 638,942 1.26%
May 768,814 137,798 783,961 1.97%
June 881,589 112,775 892,229 1.21%
July 988,356 106,767 1,002,829 1.46%
August 1,080,682 92,325 1,096,507 1.46%
September 1,179,059 98,377 1,196,324 1.46%
October 1,264,304 85,245 1,282,817 1.46%
November 1,371,246 106,942 1,391,325 1.46%
December 1,473,880 102,634 1,495,462 1.46%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 104 of 437
30
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 3,440,395$ 3,440,395$ 2,080,142$ -39.54%
February 5,703,503 2,263,108 5,514,121 -3.32%
March 8,127,471 2,423,968 7,666,998 -5.67%
April 11,052,112 2,924,641 10,886,288 -1.50%
May 13,142,760 2,090,649 12,749,656 -2.99%
June 16,357,661 3,214,901 16,874,568 3.16%
July 19,279,887 2,922,226 18,712,395 -2.94%
August 21,498,760 2,218,873 20,865,957 -2.94%
September 24,465,533 2,966,773 23,745,404 -2.94%
October 26,599,165 2,133,632 25,816,234 -2.94%
November 29,101,405 2,502,240 28,244,822 -2.94%
December 33,266,328 4,164,923 32,287,153 -2.94%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 2,047,429$ 2,047,429$ 527,429$ -74.24%
February 2,299,635 252,206 2,317,066 0.76%
March 2,873,705 574,070 2,771,982 -3.54%
April 3,758,093 884,388 4,360,812 16.04%
May 3,985,119 227,026 4,563,592 14.52%
June 5,851,882 1,866,764 6,904,530 17.99%
July 6,655,043 803,160 6,952,172 4.46%
August 6,686,270 31,227 6,984,793 4.46%
September 7,564,704 878,434 7,902,447 4.46%
October 7,683,657 118,953 8,026,711 4.46%
November 7,973,338 289,682 8,329,326 4.46%
December 11,399,538 3,426,200 11,908,495 4.46%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
11,000,000
12,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
3,000,000
6,000,000
9,000,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
18,000,000
21,000,000
24,000,000
27,000,000
30,000,000
33,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 105 of 437
31
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 19,762$ 19,762$ 18,170$ -8.06%
February 41,832 22,070 40,409 -3.40%
March 64,009 22,177 62,230 -2.78%
April 87,150 23,141 77,262 -11.35%
May 105,041 17,891 103,859 -1.13%
June 125,476 20,435 128,336 2.28%
July 149,760 24,284 149,229 -0.35%
August 172,297 22,538 171,686 -0.35%
September 191,074 18,777 190,397 -0.35%
October 219,806 28,731 219,027 -0.35%
November 240,319 20,514 239,468 -0.35%
December 269,812 29,493 268,856 -0.35%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 21,049$ 21,049$ 20,420$ -2.99%
February 42,489$ 21,440$ 40,120$ -5.58%
March 63,849$ 21,360$ 58,059$ -9.07%
April 84,582$ 20,733$ 75,981$ -10.17%
May 105,135$ 20,553$ 94,870$ -9.76%
June 125,384$ 20,249$ 113,618$ -9.38%
July 147,384$ 22,000$ 132,537$ -10.07%
August 168,135$ 20,750$ 151,197$ -10.07%
September 188,520$ 20,385$ 169,529$ -10.07%
October 211,220$ 22,701$ 189,943$ -10.07%
November 232,824$ 21,603$ 209,370$ -10.07%
December 253,184$ 20,360$ 227,679$ -10.07%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 106 of 437
32
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 22,108$ 22,108$ 15,139$ -31.52%
February 45,111 23,004 27,098 -39.93%
March 70,318 25,207 56,071 -20.26%
April 94,775 24,457 71,795 -24.25%
May 117,492 22,717 96,673 -17.72%
June 140,095 22,602 114,330 -18.39%
July 162,181 22,086 136,806 -15.65%
August 184,290 22,109 155,456 -15.65%
September 210,792 26,502 177,811 -15.65%
October 231,031 20,240 194,884 -15.65%
November 253,730 22,699 214,031 -15.65%
December 286,799 33,069 241,926 -15.65%
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 56,684$ 56,684$ 57,047$ 0.64%
February 119,103 62,420 121,057 1.64%
March 185,043 65,939 183,959 -0.59%
April 250,566 65,524 245,061 -2.20%
May 314,083 63,516 302,900 -3.56%
June 381,809 67,726 365,837 -4.18%
July 443,918 62,110 426,424 -3.94%
August 510,114 66,196 490,011 -3.94%
September 573,477 63,363 550,877 -3.94%
October 638,600 65,123 613,433 -3.94%
November 704,816 66,216 677,040 -3.94%
December 779,038 74,222 748,336 -3.94%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 107 of 437
33
Economic Development/Community Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 30,372$ 30,372$ 22,962$ -24.40%
February 73,754 43,382 59,724 -19.02%
March 114,246 40,492 92,678 -18.88%
April 149,965 35,719 132,111 -11.91%
May 187,341 37,376 178,589 -4.67%
June 222,700 35,358 212,324 -4.66%
July 269,288 46,588 249,576 -7.32%
August 301,418 32,130 279,353 -7.32%
September 338,442 37,024 313,667 -7.32%
October 377,797 39,355 350,142 -7.32%
November 410,485 32,688 380,436 -7.32%
December 465,810 55,325 431,712 -7.32%
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 50,352$ 50,352$ 38,375$ -23.79%
February 97,512 47,161 76,194 -21.86%
March 151,688 54,176 119,740 -21.06%
April 200,724 49,035 158,147 -21.21%
May 257,542 56,818 197,762 -23.21%
June 305,615 48,073 246,012 -19.50%
July 357,211 51,597 289,704 -18.90%
August 408,044 50,833 330,930 -18.90%
September 458,834 50,790 372,121 -18.90%
October 503,062 44,229 407,991 -18.90%
November 553,417 50,355 448,830 -18.90%
December 609,840 56,423 494,589 -18.90%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Economic Development/Community Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Economic Development/Community Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 108 of 437
34
Information Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 46,319$ 46,319$ 45,804$ -1.11%
February 107,710 61,392 94,222 -12.52%
March 152,083 44,373 152,829 0.49%
April 201,916 49,832 200,427 -0.74%
May 248,762 46,847 259,869 4.46%
June 299,283 50,521 316,292 5.68%
July 346,978 47,695 350,853 1.12%
August 409,564 62,586 414,138 1.12%
September 459,114 49,549 464,241 1.12%
October 512,043 52,929 517,761 1.12%
November 561,496 49,453 567,766 1.12%
December 657,841 96,345 665,187 1.12%
Finance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 73,408$ 73,408$ 72,999$ -0.56%
February 136,996 63,588 140,691 2.70%
March 198,836 61,841 200,031 0.60%
April 257,292 58,456 256,611 -0.26%
May 315,263 57,970 312,742 -0.80%
June 381,627 66,364 369,308 -3.23%
July 441,290 59,663 426,648 -3.32%
August 495,104 53,815 478,677 -3.32%
September 555,551 60,447 537,118 -3.32%
October 621,970 66,419 601,334 -3.32%
November 687,980 66,010 665,154 -3.32%
December 754,734 66,754 729,693 -3.32%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 109 of 437
35
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 41,250$ 41,250$ 32,000$ -22.42%
February 82,500 41,250 72,417 -12.22%
March 123,750 41,250 125,330 1.28%
April 165,000 41,250 170,361 3.25%
May 206,250 41,250 192,778 -6.53%
June 247,500 41,250 234,108 -5.41%
July 288,750 41,250 286,492 -0.78%
August 330,000 41,250 327,419 -0.78%
September 371,250 41,250 368,346 -0.78%
October 412,500 41,250 409,274 -0.78%
November 453,750 41,250 450,201 -0.78%
December 495,000 41,250 491,129 -0.78%
Police
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 755,785$ 755,785$ 649,122$ -14.11%
February 1,479,570 723,784 1,338,091 -9.56%
March 2,251,474 771,905 2,037,833 -9.49%
April 2,965,978 714,504 2,722,871 -8.20%
May 3,657,308 691,330 3,380,135 -7.58%
June 4,467,277 809,969 4,149,872 -7.11%
July 5,203,139 735,862 4,842,275 -6.94%
August 5,920,175 717,036 5,509,581 -6.94%
September 6,700,331 780,155 6,235,629 -6.94%
October 7,422,067 721,736 6,907,309 -6.94%
November 8,377,803 955,736 7,796,760 -6.94%
December 9,165,244 787,441 8,529,588 -6.94%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 110 of 437
36
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 130,080$ 130,080$ 119,611$ -8.05%
February 260,534 130,454 256,302 -1.62%
March 408,125 147,591 387,213 -5.12%
April 543,094 134,968 516,641 -4.87%
May 680,281 137,188 650,915 -4.32%
June 819,050 138,769 774,015 -5.50%
July 952,449 133,399 906,199 -4.86%
August 1,092,073 139,624 1,039,043 -4.86%
September 1,229,320 137,247 1,169,625 -4.86%
October 1,375,997 146,677 1,309,180 -4.86%
November 1,509,812 133,814 1,436,496 -4.86%
December 1,658,272 148,460 1,577,748 -4.86%
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 225,510$ 225,510$ 221,141$ -1.94%
February 471,071 245,561 441,578 -6.26%
March 736,610 265,539 681,137 -7.53%
April 991,189 254,579 928,272 -6.35%
May 1,256,082 264,893 1,201,609 -4.34%
June 1,582,719 326,637 1,503,266 -5.02%
July 1,980,455 397,735 1,877,276 -5.21%
August 2,384,822 404,367 2,260,577 -5.21%
September 2,699,757 314,936 2,559,105 -5.21%
October 2,946,685 246,927 2,793,167 -5.21%
November 3,185,327 238,643 3,019,377 -5.21%
December 3,506,852 321,525 3,324,151 -5.21%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 111 of 437
37
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 27,382$ 27,382$ 23,781$ -13.15%
February 50,599 23,217 47,443 -6.24%
March 74,354 23,755 70,857 -4.70%
April 97,129 22,775 95,079 -2.11%
May 119,986 22,856 119,904 -0.07%
June 143,545 23,559 143,089 -0.32%
July 175,267 31,722 166,690 -4.89%
August 198,164 22,897 188,466 -4.89%
September 221,614 23,450 210,768 -4.89%
October 244,229 22,616 232,277 -4.89%
November 267,862 23,633 254,753 -4.89%
December 294,110 26,248 279,717 -4.89%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 102,793$ 102,793$ 107,234$ 4.32%
February 220,909 118,116 223,733 1.28%
March 340,858 119,950 337,372 -1.02%
April 481,844 140,985 438,882 -8.92%
May 553,750 71,907 549,148 -0.83%
June 673,162 119,412 646,963 -3.89%
July 779,482 106,320 759,794 -2.53%
August 879,994 100,512 857,767 -2.53%
September 995,315 115,321 970,175 -2.53%
October 1,103,341 108,026 1,075,473 -2.53%
November 1,213,261 109,920 1,182,617 -2.53%
December 1,351,548 138,287 1,317,411 -2.53%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 112 of 437
38
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 108,801$ 108,801$ 108,908$ 0.10%
February 217,665 108,865 217,975 0.14%
March 326,749 109,084 329,676 0.90%
April 443,098 116,349 435,974 -1.61%
May 551,007 107,909 544,312 -1.22%
June 658,262 107,255 652,666 -0.85%
July 769,311 111,049 759,721 -1.25%
August 879,506 110,195 868,543 -1.25%
September 992,929 113,423 980,552 -1.25%
October 1,104,742 111,813 1,090,970 -1.25%
November 1,212,341 107,599 1,197,228 -1.25%
December 1,318,706 106,365 1,302,268 -1.25%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2012
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 113 of 437
AM-5113 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a $500,000 grant contract with the Department of Commerce for the
Main St. Improvement Project between 5th and 6th Avenues.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign grant contract.
Previous Council Action
On July 10, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended
it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
In April 2012, the City was successful in securing a $500,000 state direct appropriation grant for the
Main St. Improvement project between 5th and 6th Avenues. The Public Works Board, under the
Washington State Department of Commerce, has been assigned to administer the grant funds. The
State's administration fee is 1.5% ($7,500) of the grant, so $492,500 is available for the project. The City
will need to execute the attached contract with the Public Works Board to receive the funds.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Grant Contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Megan Luttrell 09/12/2012 04:29 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/14/2012
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/14/2012 08:13 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/14/2012 08:17 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/14/2012 10:23 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/11/2012 01:44 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2012
Packet Page 114 of 437
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
5
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
6
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
7
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
8
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
9
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
0
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
1
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
2
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
3
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
4
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
5
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
6
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
7
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
8
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
9
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
0
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
1
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
2
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
3
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
5
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
6
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
7
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
8
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
9
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
0
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
1
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
2
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
3
o
f
4
3
7
AM-5118 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Phil Williams
Department:Public Works
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign agreements with Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. and Carburetor Connection
Inc. re: vehicle fleet propane conversion.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign agreements.
Previous Council Action
On September 11, 2012, the Finance committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the
regular council agenda for discussion and action.
Narrative
The Fleet Division of the Department of Public Works & Utilities seeks to enter into a five (5) year
agreement with Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. for the installation of the Prins Bi-Fuel Vapor Sequential
Injective alternative fuel system in no less than seventeen (17) vehicles, including sixteen (16) Ford
Crown Victoria police interceptors and one (1) Ford F-350 truck. The Prins Vapor Sequential Injective
alternative fuel system is a proven technology imported from the Netherlands that provides lower
long-term fuel costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and less frequent need for routine maintenance.
Also, the Prins Bi-Fuel Vapor Sequential Injective alternative fuel system offers a three (3) year, 36,000
mile warranty which will not void OEM vehicle warranties.
The scope of service to be provided to the City by Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. shall include: arranging and
coordinating vehicle fuel conversions with its conversion center partner Carburetor Connection Inc.;
managing at its own expense the installation of the necessary fueling infrastructure consisting of a 1,000
gallon propane tank, a pump and motor, a 50 PIN cabinet containing an ultra-low emission nozzle, and
various other related fueling equipment; providing the propane Autogas vehicle fuel per a supply
contract; and overseeing training of City personnel. The new fueling facility shall comply with all NFPA
58 regulations as well as all applicable local fire marshal rules and regulations. Total approximate initial
investment for conversion and construction is $105,915 plus tax.
After conversion fuel cost savings for these seventeen (17) vehicles is estimated to be between $57,000 to
$64,000 annually.
Payback for this project is estimated at twenty-one (21) months with a five (5) year internal rate of return
(IRR) of 70.7%. For the first two years of the contract Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. agrees to provide
propane fuel at a fuel price of at least $1.25 per gallon less than the weekly Seattle Regular Unleaded
Packet Page 144 of 437
street price, exclusive of excise taxes, and at a price of at least $1.00 less than the weekly Seattle Regular
Unleaded street price for the remaining term of the contract. The supply agreement will renew annually
until cancelled by either party.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2012 Revenue:Expenditure:$111,699
Fiscal Impact:
The total cost includes $111,699 ($101,915 plus tax) to convert 16 Police patrol vehicles and one Ford
F-350 truck to propane. The additional $4,000 covers the City's cost to hook up the new propane tank
and software (supplied by the vendor) to our network. The cost of converting the Police vehicles is
anticipated to come from the General Fund during 2012 and is currently unbudgeted. This will require a
budget amendment be executed by YE 2012. The cost to convert the F-350 will be paid for by the
Street Fund.
Attachments
Conversion proposal
Vehicle Conversion Contract
Fuel supply Contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 09/12/2012 03:11 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 03:36 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2012 03:48 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 11:44 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/12/2012 09:52 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 145 of 437
Packet Page 146 of 437
Packet Page 147 of 437
Packet Page 148 of 437
Packet Page 149 of 437
Packet Page 150 of 437
Packet Page 151 of 437
Packet Page 152 of 437
Page 1 of 5
AUTOGAS VEHICLE CONVERSION
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Agreement is entered into as of_______________, 2012 (“Agreement Date”) by and
between Carburetor Connection, Inc., a Washington corporation with principal place of business
at 13611 126th Street NE Place #240, Kirkland, WA 98034 (“CarbConn”) and City of Edmonds
Public Works whose address is 7110 210th Street, South West Edmonds, Washington 98026
(“Customer”).
WHEREAS, CarbConn is a company that is in the business of installing alternative fuel
system to convert vehicles from gasoline to Autogas;
WHEREAS, Customer desires to convert its fleet vehicles from gasoline to Autogas;
The parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Alternative Fuel System Installations
a. CarbConn shall install (“Installation Services”), and Customer agrees to have
installed on its fleet vehicles, the Prins-manufactured Vapor Sequential Injection
(VSI) LPG alternative fuel system (“the Products”). The Products shall include
the following specification and components:
i. All hardware, software, and nozzles associated with converting a vehicle
to run on Autogas;
ii. Autogas fuel tank, mounts, and fuel filling access;
iii. Bi-fuel capability to allow the vehicle to run on Autogas or gasoline;
All specification and components are of a type and quality that conform to
applicable Federal specifications and standards.
b. All installations shall be done during business hours Monday – Friday 8 a.m.-5
p.m. Provided CarbConn has seventeen (17) days notice from Customer,
CarbConn will provide services to support weekend/holiday installation schedule.
2. Ordering & Payment
a. Upon execution of this Agreement, Customer and CarbConn mutually agree to
convert sixteen (16) Ford Crown Victoria vehicles and one (1) E-350 van with
model years that comport to EPA certificates existing as of the Agreement Date.
The vehicles to be converted are listed in Addendum A to this Agreement.
b. The cost to convert one vehicle for this order is $5,995.00 (Five Thousand Nine
Hundred Ninety Five Dollars) for a total of $101,915.00 (One Hundred One
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen Dollars) (“Initial Order”). All prices indicated
above are inclusive of shipping and labor costs. Customer shall submit a purchase
Packet Page 153 of 437
Page 2 of 5
order to CarbConn for the Initial Order and CarbConn shall provide Customer an
invoice. Full payment is due on each converted vehicle upon Customer pick up.
c. Upon execution of this Agreement, CarbConn and Customer shall mutually agree
upon a schedule for the completion of converting the vehicles as described in this
Section.
d. Future Customer orders to convert vehicles shall be based upon Customer’s
business needs and the pricing for any future conversions shall be determined at
that time. Customer shall provide CarbConn a purchase order for any future
orders with full payment being due on each converted vehicle upon Customer
pick up.
e. All prices indicated in this Section 2 do not include Federal, State, or local
government sales, use, excise taxes, (or similar taxes or fees), or insurance
charges. All invoices shall state on a separate line any government –related taxes
or fees.
f. Until the moment of full payment, the Products shall remain the property of
CarbConn and, if the Customer should obtain the actual possession thereof before
that time, it is mutually agreed that the Products were sent on consignment to
Customer with CarbConn being entitled at all times to claim immediate surrender
of the Products. In addition, CarbConn may seek additional remedies including
without limitation a mechanic’s lien on Customer’s vehicles to secure payment
for installation services.
3. Terms and Conditions of Sale. CarbConn shall use its commercially reasonable efforts
to complete orders according to the mutually agreed upon schedule. CarbConn shall not
be liable to Customer or to any other person or entity, for any reason, for failure to
deliver, delay in delivery or otherwise fill any orders if caused by fire, embargo, strike,
failure to receive materials, governmental actions or restrictions, delays or failures of
suppliers or subcontractors or other circumstances beyond CarbConn’s control.
4. Quality Control Program. CarbConn shall institute and maintain a complete quality-
control program to ensure that the requirements of this agreement are provided, as
specified. The quality control program shall include an inspection process covering all
the services required with a comprehensive checklist to be used for each Customer order;
a process to identify and correct deficiencies in the quality or quantity of service.
5. Warranty and Disclaimer. CarbConn shall honor all warranty terms and conditions in
the American Alternative Fuel System Warranty Terms and Conditions, and such terms
and conditions are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Other than the
warranty explicitly provided for in this Agreement, CarbConn makes no other warranty,
including without limitation any warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, warranty of
merchantability, or warranty for workmanlike quality with respect to the Products and
Packet Page 154 of 437
Page 3 of 5
installation services and none shall be implied. CarbConn makes no other or different
representations or warranties, or whatever nature, express or implied.
6. Limitation of Liability. CarbConn and its officers, directors, agents, representatives, or
its partners shall not be liable to the Customer and not to any other party for any liability
including without limitation strict liability or products liability including liability for loss
or damages, whether economic, consequential, direct or indirect, incidental, exemplary,
or punitive damages, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, or any other claims or
expenses whatsoever, including without limitation liability, losses or damages either
directly or indirectly connected with claims for installation services, losses or liabilities
incurred by Customer, its employees (including agents or representatives), by virtue of,
or in connection with this Agreement, or from the discovery or elimination of, or the
failure to discover any and all hazards, or by reason of any act, omission, negligence,
gross negligence or any error or omission in the services provided or any use or
application thereof, misrepresentation, imprudence, lack of skill or error in judgment on
the part of CarbConn or its officers directors, agents and representatives, or any one or
more of them, excepting only claims and demands arising out and in connection with a
breach of warranty by CarbConn or a manufacturer of Products.
7. Waiver. Failure of CarbConn to insist upon the strict performance of any or all of the
terms and conditions herein shall not constitute, and shall not be construed as, a waiver of
its rights to thereafter enforce any such terms or conditions, but the same shall continue in
full force and effect.
8. Counterparts . For purposes of this Agreement, a facsimile signature of the parties shall
serve as an original. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of
which shall constitute but one original.
9. Law Governing. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with laws of the State of Washington.
10. Dispute Resolution. ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
AGREEMENT, SHALL BE RESOLVED ONLY BY BINDING ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED BY
THE JUDICIAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICE (JAMS) (OR THEIR SUCCESSOR
AND IF NO SUCCESSOR, THEN BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION), IN
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION SHALL
BE SERVED ON THE OTHER PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT AND FILED WITH THE
ARBITRATION SERVICE. THE DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE DISPUTE HAS ARISEN, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL IT BE
MADE AFTER THE DATE UPON WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED BY THE TERMS OF
THIS AGREEMENT OR APPLICABLE LAW. EACH ARBITRATOR MUST BE EXPERIENCED IN
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION. ARBITRATION SHALL BE COMPLETED NOT
LATER THAN 180 DAYS FOLLOWING ITS INITIATION. IN REACHING THEIR AWARD, THE
ARBITRATORS SHALL FOLLOW AND BE BOUND BY SUBSTANTIVE WASHINGTON LAW.
Packet Page 155 of 437
Page 4 of 5
HOWEVER, ARBITRATORS SHALL IN NO MANNER AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES (OR
DAMAGES CALCULATED BY APPLYING A MULTIPLIER) OR DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS. THE AWARD SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL CONTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW AND SHALL SET FORTH THE NATURE, AMOUNT AND MANNER
OF CALCULATION OF ALL DAMAGES. THE AWARD SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING, AND
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED UPON IT IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION. THIS
PROVISION HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES WITH FULL
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT ACTS TO WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO A TRIAL BY JUDGE OR JURY AND THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO PUNITIVE OR
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES.
11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the invoice for each order made by
Customer, or any written modifications or amendments hereto, hereinafter entered into,
shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter
hereof and shall supersede any prior agreement or understandings, whether written or
oral, which the parties may have had relating to the subject matter hereof.
12. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action is brought by either Customer or CarbConn
against the other to enforce or for the breach of any of the terms, covenants or conditions
contained in this Sublease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court, together with costs of suit therein incurred.
WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES, this ______day of July, 2012.
Carburetor Connection, Inc.
By: _________________________________
Alex Racz, President
Customer: City of Edmonds Public Works
By: __________________________________
____________________________________
[Print Name and Title]
Packet Page 156 of 437
Page 5 of 5
Addendum A
List of Vehicles to Be Converted by the City of Edmonds
1. Two (2) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2006
2. One (1) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2007
3. Seven (7) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2008
4. Three (3) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2009
5. Three (3) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2011
6. One (1) Ford E-350 van, Model Year 2002
Packet Page 157 of 437
Page 1 of 8
AUTOGAS SUPPLY AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into on __________, 2012 by and between Blue Star Gas – Seattle
Co., a Washington corporation whose address is 10802 E. Marginal Way, Tukwila, WA 98168
(Blue Star Gas) and City of Edmonds Public Works whose address is 7110 210th Street, South
West Edmonds, Washington 98026 (Customer).
WHEREAS, Customer desires to convert its fleet vehicles from gasoline to Autogas;
WHEREAS, Blue Star Gas shall supply Autogas to Customer and shall provide for a
fueling facility for the duration of this Agreement as dictated by the terms and conditions set
forth herein;
The parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from date the Agreement is
executed. After the initial five (5) year term, the Agreement shall continue on a year-to-
year basis until such time when either party gives the other at least ninety (90) days
written notice to terminate this Agreement.
2. Conversions. Customer agrees to have installed in all or an agreed part of its fleet of
motor vehicles based at Customer’s location, the Prins Bi-Fuel Vapor Sequential
Injection alternative fuel system. Blue Star Gas’ scope of service shall include:
arranging and coordinating such conversions with its conversion center partner;
supplying the Customer with the Autogas, as well as providing the necessary fueling
infrastructure; and arranging for Customer personnel training to fuel Customer vehicles.
The terms and conditions for the conversion systems and all vehicle-related provisions
shall be set forth in a separate agreement between the conversion center and Customer.
3. Autogas Supply Exclusivity. Customer agrees that Blue Star Gas will be its exclusive
supplier of propane for Autogas or other potential uses for the duration of this
Agreement. Customer agrees that its failure to do so constitutes a material breach to this
Agreement.
4. Price and Payment Terms
a. Customer agrees to pay Blue Star Gas a price per gallon for propane Autogas
equal to the Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices for Regular Unleaded
Gasoline for the Seattle metropolitan area as reported by the United States
Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the www.eia.gov website MINUS
the following adjustments:
(1) a fixed discount of $1.25 per gallon of propane Autogas purchased for the
first two (2) years of this Agreement, and a fixed discount of $1.00 per
Packet Page 158 of 437
Page 2 of 8
gallon of propane Autogas for the remaining three (3) years of the
Agreement
(2) any state and federal motor fuel taxes included in the reported Seattle
Metropolitan Market price (presently the included gasoline motor fuel
excise taxes in the EIA quoted price is $.184 Federal motor fuel excise tax,
and $.375 State motor fuel excise tax).
Blue Star Gas will also bill and collect from Customer the appropriate Federal
motor fuel excise taxes for propane Autogas of $.183. Customer is aware that,
assuming it does not qualify for a tax exemption, Customer must register each
vehicle with the Department of Licensing and pay an annual special fuel
licensing registration fee in lieu of the State special fuel excise tax. Addendum
A of this Agreement contains an example of these calculations. Customer shall
provide documentation to Blue Star Gas evidencing that either they have re-
registered its vehicles as described herein or provide documentation evidencing
that it is exempt from paying the $.375 excise tax or corresponding licensing
registration.
b. Customer shall pay Blue Star Gas for supplied Autogas within 10 days of
invoicing. Invoicing will occur once per week. Payment will be made by check
payable to Blue Star Gas –Seattle Co.
c. Blue Star Gas will communicate to Customer changes in the alternative fuel
markets that offer credits, rebates or other incentives. Where appropriate, Blue
Star Gas will incorporate tax changes into the pricing structure to Customer.
Blue Star Gas assumes no liability whatsoever for either doing so or failing to do
so timely.
5. Fueling Facility
a. Blue Star Gas will provide for a fueling facility at Customer’s principal place of
business to supply Customer with Autogas at its own expense. The fueling
facility shall consist of a 1,000 gallon propane tank, a pump and motor, a 50 PIN
cabinet containing an ultra-low emission nozzle, as well as other related fueling
equipment. The fueling facility shall comply with all NFPA 58 regulations, as
well as the local fire marshal rules and regulations. Customer is committing to
convert seventeen (17) vehicles as a condition precedent to Blue Star Gas’
obligation to install a fueling facility.
b. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Customer shall pay for and supply the
required electricity, electrical work, and crash posts for the fueling facility.
c. All related equipment at the fueling facility shall be and will remain the property
of Blue Star Gas, which agrees to maintain same for the period of this
Agreement. Blue Star Gas will perform maintenance on any of the fueling
Packet Page 159 of 437
Page 3 of 8
facility equipment upon notification by Customer of required maintenance, or
repair items needed upon routine inspections performed by Blue Star Gas
personnel. In the event Blue Star Gas suspects Customer personnel of
negligence, Blue Star will communicate that and reserves the right to charge
Customer for repair to the damaged fueling facility equipment.
d. Blue Star Gas agrees to provide initial operating instructions, training, and
training materials (“Safety Training”) for Customer’s personnel for the safe
handling of Autogas and operation of fueling equipment. Times will be
scheduled to train all Customer personnel initially by Blue Star Gas, and a
designated Customer representative will be taken through a “train the trainer”
curriculum to provide ongoing training of Customer personnel. After the initial
Safety Training, Blue Star Gas will conduct regular annual training for all
Customer personnel. Customer shall ensure that all its employees abide by the
Safety Training and that its employees shall safely handle Autogas and safely
operate the fueling facility. Blue Star Gas shall not be liable for any cause of
action or for any injury arising from or relating to a Customer’s employee’s
failure to follow or abide by the Safety Training or, for any cause of action or
injury arising from or relating to a Customer’s employee’s otherwise negligent
handling of Autogas or the operation of the fueling facility.
e. Customer shall not use the fueling facility for its consumption, storage, or
distribution of propane from any source other than Blue Star Gas during or after
this Agreement.
6. Default
a. Each of the following events shall be a default hereunder by Customer and a
breach of this Agreement:
(1) If Customer shall file a petition in bankruptcy.
(2) If voluntary proceedings under any such bankruptcy law or insolvency
act shall be instituted against Customer.
(3) If Customer fails to pay Blue Star Gas any payment as and when the
same shall become due and payable and shall not make such payment
within ten (10) days after written notice from Blue Star Gas that
payment was not received when due.
(4) If Customer otherwise fails to perform any of its material obligations
under this Agreement, and such non-performance shall continue for a
period of twenty (20) days after written notice by Blue Star Gas.
b. Upon default by Customer, Blue Star Gas may immediately terminate this
Agreement and, in addition, be entitled to recover:
(1) Autogas tank, dispensing equipment, and other equipment related to the
fueling facility that Blue Star Gas will install as provided in Section 5 of
this Agreement; and
Packet Page 160 of 437
Page 4 of 8
(2) Autogas in fueling facility tank and Blue Star Gas shall refund Customer
for any gallons Customer already paid Blue Star Gas.
The remedies provided in this Section 6 shall not limit Blue Star Gas
from seeking additional remedies under this Agreement or in law or in
equity due to Customer’s default.
7. Confidentiality. Blue Star Gas and Customer each agree that they will not disclose the
terms of this Agreement to any third party without the written consent of the other party
or if compelled by a court of law.
8. Notice. Any notices provided for herein shall be in writing and delivered to the other
party certified mail, return receipt requested, at the following address:
Customer
City of Edmonds Public Works
7110 210th Street
South West Edmonds
Washington 98026
Att:
Blue Star Gas – Seattle Co.
880 N. Wright Rd.
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties
hereto, and any modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the
party to be charged therewith.
10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws
of the state of Washington.
11. Counterparts. For purposes of this Agreement, a facsimile signature of the parties shall
serve as an original. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of
which shall constitute but one original.
12. Severability. If one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall, for any reason,
be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not effect any other provision hereof and this Agreement will be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained
herein.
13. Insurance. Blue Star Gas shall maintain general liability insurance coverage on its
operations. Said insurance shall be in the amount of $2,000,000.00 (Two Million
Dollars) for each accident or occurrence. At the inception of this Agreement, Blue Star
Packet Page 161 of 437
Page 5 of 8
Gas shall furnish Customer, upon request, a certificate of insurance evidencing that such
insurance coverage is in force.
14. Indemnification. Customer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Blue Star Gas
harmless from any and all loss, property damage, personal injury or death, and any
expenses, including, reasonable attorneys fees and expert expenses, associated with any
claim, action, or proceeding, including, a claim, action, or proceeding brought by an
employee of Customer, arising from or relating to: 1) any failure of the storage tank(s)
and/or Autogas delivery system (i.e., the fueling facility) occasioned through no fault or
negligence of Blue Star Gas; 2) any failure of a Customer’s employee in handling
Autogas or the fueling facility in a safe manner; or 3) any other negligence or fault of
any kind on the part of Customer or its employees.
15. Dispute Resolution. ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
AGREEMENT, SHALL BE RESOLVED ONLY BY BINDING ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED BY THE
JUDICIAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICE (JAMS) (OR THEIR SUCCESSOR AND IF NO
SUCCESSOR, THEN BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION), IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.
WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION SHALL BE SERVED ON THE OTHER PARTY
TO THIS AGREEMENT AND FILED WITH THE ARBITRATION SERVICE. THE DEMAND FOR
ARBITRATION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE DISPUTE HAS ARISEN,
AND IN NO EVENT SHALL IT BE MADE AFTER THE DATE UPON WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
BARRED BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT OR APPLICABLE LAW. EACH ARBITRATOR MUST BE
EXPERIENCED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION. ARBITRATION SHALL BE
COMPLETED NOT LATER THAN 180 DAYS FOLLOWING ITS INITIATION. IN REACHING THEIR
AWARD, THE ARBITRATORS SHALL FOLLOW AND BE BOUND BY SUBSTANTIVE WASHINGTON
LAW. HOWEVER, ARBITRATORS SHALL IN NO MANNER AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES (OR
DAMAGES CALCULATED BY APPLYING A MULTIPLIER) OR DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
THE AWARD SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL CONTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF
LAW AND SHALL SET FORTH THE NATURE, AMOUNT AND MANNER OF CALCULATION OF ALL
DAMAGES. THE AWARD SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING, AND JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED UPON
IT IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY AGREED TO BY
THE PARTIES WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT IT ACTS TO WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JUDGE OR JURY AND THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO
PUNITIVE OR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES.
16. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action is brought by either Customer or Blue Star Gas
against the other to enforce or for the breach of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions contained in this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
reasonable attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court, together with costs of suit therein
incurred.
[Signature page to follow]
Packet Page 162 of 437
Page 6 of 8
WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES, this ______day of _____________, 2012.
Blue Star Gas: Blue Star Gas – Seattle Co.
By: _________________________________
Jeff Stewart, President
Customer: City of Edmonds Public Works
By: ________________________________
Packet Page 163 of 437
Page 7 of 8
ADDENDUM A
Seattle Market posting as of 7/23/12
(includes MVF taxes) $ 3.667
Less Federal gasoline MVF tax $ (0.184)
Less OR State gasoline MVF tax $ (0.375)
Seattle Market RBOB BEFORE MVF tax $ 3.108
Less discount $(1.250)
Cost of propane Before Taxes $ 1.858
Add Federal propane MVF tax $ 0.1830
Add WA State propane MVF tax
Deduct WA propane MVF tax once
Customer registers vehicles with DOL
$ 0.375
$(0.375)
$ 2.041
Packet Page 164 of 437
Page 8 of 8
Packet Page 165 of 437
AM-5120 2. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approve a Bill of Sale to transfer ownership of sewer pipe on 224th that is currently in Esperance from
being City owned to OVWSD owned.
Recommendation
Approve Bill of Sale to transfer ownership of sewer pipe on 224th that is currently in Esperance from
being City owned to OVWSD owned.
Previous Council Action
On August 21, 2012, City Council authorized Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View
Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) to install sewerline and associated appurtenances as part of the 224th
St. SW Sewer Replacement Project.
On September 11, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
The City was in the process of replacing a City owned existing sewerline extending from the intersection
of 224th St. SW and 76th Ave W to the intersection of 224th St. SW and 78th Ave W. Historically, the
pipe has experienced lack of capacity and needed to be replaced. The pipe conveys flows for which the
overwhelming majority are under the jurisdiction of OVWSD. During the research phase of the project,
the City realized that the majority of the City owned sewer pipe system to be replaced in this project was
actually located in Esperance, which is unincorporated Snohomish County. The City would therefore
need to get a franchise agreement with the County in order to replace the system.
The City began coordinating the replacement of the system with OVWSD. After discussing the situation
with OVWSD it was mutually agreed that OVWSD should actually have ownership of the pipe that is
within Esperance and that they would pay for the replacement costs for the pipe within Esperance. In
addition, the City would pay for the replacement costs that are within City limits. Since the majority of
the pipe replacement project is under the jurisdiction of OVWSD, it was agreed that the project then be
led by OVWSD.
This project will be funded as part of the 2012 Sewer Replacement Program. The budget for this project
is $120,000.
Packet Page 166 of 437
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Bill of Sale
Attachment 2 - Site Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Megan Luttrell 09/13/2012 11:28 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/14/2012
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/14/2012 08:13 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/14/2012 08:17 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/14/2012 10:23 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/12/2012 09:58 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2012
Packet Page 167 of 437
SEWER BILL OF SALE
Recording Requested By And
When Recorded Mail To:
Olympic View Water and Sewer District
8128 SW 228th Street
Edmonds, WA 98026
DOCUMENT TITLE: SEWER BILL OF SALE
REFERENCE NUMBER OF RELATED DOCUMENT: Not Applicable
GRANTOR(S) City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation
ADDITIONAL GRANTORS ON PAGE ____ OF DOCUMENT
GRANTEE(S): Olympic View Water and Sewer District, a municipal corporation
ADDITIONAL GRANTEES ON PAGE _____ OF DOCUMENT
ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ASSESSOR’S TAX / PARCEL NUMBER(S):
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby conveys and transfers to Olympic View Water and Sewer District
(the “District”) the following described property:
See Attached Exhibit A
This conveyance is made in consideration of the Distr ict’s agreement to provide sewer services
pursuant to the District’s regulations which may be amended from time to time.
The undersigned and its successors and assigns covenants that it is the owner of such
improvements and has good right, title, and authority to sell and convey the same and that it will, and
does, hereby warrant and agree to defend the sale of such property improvements to the District, its
successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to
claim the same.
City of Edmonds:
By
Its
TITLE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
On this day of , 20 , before me personally appeared
, and , to me known to be
the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
Packet Page 168 of 437
acknowledged the said instrument to be their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year first above written.
Notary Public in and for the State of
residing at .
My commission expires .
Packet Page 169 of 437
SEWER BILL OF SALE
EXHIBIT A
All sewer mains and appurtenances constructed for the City of Edmonds ,
being more particularly described as follows:
In
From
To
Size
Length
224th St SW MH14-49 MH 13-4 8 inch 333 lf 224th St SW MH 13-4 MH 13-4A 8 inch 125 lf 224TH St SW MH13-4A MH 13-5 8 inch 121 lf 224TH St SW MH 13-5 MH 13-6 8 inch 250 lf 7821 224th St SW MH 13-6 MH 13-6A 8 inch 102 lf 7821 224th St SW MH 13-6A MH 13-7 8 inch 103 lf 7821 224th St SW MH 13-7 MH 13-7A 8 inch 81 lf
Along with all manholes, side sewers and other sewer system appurtenances.
Packet Page 170 of 437
SEWER BILL OF SALE
EXHIBIT B
The total cost of installing the sewer system facilities for the City of Edmonds,
as described in Exhibit A, including labor and materials, is Zero
Dollars ($ 0.00 ). Said total cost is divided
into individual amounts as follows:
Sewer Mains $ 0.00
Manholes $ 0.00
Side Sewers & Cleanouts $ 0.00
Lift/Pump Stations $ N/A
Force Mains $ N/A
Other $ N/A
Total $ 0.00
Packet Page 171 of 437
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
2
o
f
4
3
7
AM-5122 2. I.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the 2010 Watermain Replacement Project and final acceptance of
project.
Recommendation
Accept project.
Previous Council Action
On March 15, 2011, Council voted to award the contract in the amount of $1,834,833.02 for construction
of the project to Kar-Vel Construction.
On September 11, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
The 2010 Watermain Replacement Project replaced approximately 10,000 linear feet of waterline piping
with associated meters, fire hydrants and two pressure reducing stations. Construction work started in
May 2011 and physical completion was reached in April 2012. The final punch list items and contract
documentation has been submitted by the Contractor and the project is ready for final acceptance.
In March 2011, the City Council approved a contract with Kar-Vel Construction for $1,834,833 with a
management reserve of $184,000. There were four approved change orders that totaled $72,111 and the
final construction cost paid to the contractor with the change orders was $1,906,944.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Site Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/12/2012 03:10 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/12/2012 03:14 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 03:36 PM
Packet Page 173 of 437
Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2012 03:47 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 11:44 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/12/2012 11:13 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 174 of 437
Packet Page 175 of 437
AM-5123 2. J.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program Agreement between
the State of Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Edmonds for $259,745 for a Vactor
Waste Facility Retrofit at the Public Works Yard.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the grant agreement.
Previous Council Action
On September 11, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
The 2012 Washington State Legislature appropriated over $24 million to the Department of Ecology
(Ecology) for local governments; to be used in the 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program. The
funding targets construction or design/construction of projects that will result in the greatest
improvements to water quality.
In November 2011, the City submitted a grant application to Ecology to expand the current vactor waste
handling facility at the Public Works Yard. The vactor waste handling facility receives a mixture of liquid
and solids collected from the thousands of stormwater catch basins throughout the City. It also receives
street sweepings. Theses catch basins collect a portion of the sediment that is contained in urban
stormwater. The full vactor trucks dump their load into a pit where the liquid is drained to the sanitary
sewer system where it under goes treatment at the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The solids are dried
and disposed of in accordance with state and Federal regulations.
The City of Edmonds Public Works vactor waste facility is currently undersized and is operating at a
maximum capacity. The current facility, operating equipment, and staff are unable to support the City’s
current maintenance schedule. The City is unable to clean four stormwater flow control and treatment
facilities on an annual basis due to limitations at the current facility. In addition, street sweeping
frequencies would increase by 25% if additional capacity was available.
The current dumping facility requires excessive maintenance to remove solids. The extra maintenance
required by the City’s crew to maintain the current decant facility, is time and money taken away from
cleaning the City’s stormwater system on a more frequent basis.
Packet Page 176 of 437
The City’s goal is to clean approximately 8,000 structures per year, and all underground water quality
vaults. The City would like to increase the stormwater system cleaning frequency by 25%, to at least
once per year. This will help ensure the catch basin and manhole sumps are no more than 60% full as
recommended by Ecology. The City cannot currently achieve this objective since the current decant
facility is at maximum capacity and a large amount of maintenance equipment and labor resources are
used on just maintaining it. Reducing maintenance and increasing decant facility capacity is needed to
achieve the cleaning frequency goal. Further, it will facilitate cleaning operations during the months
where increased run-off and sedimentation occurs by reducing reliance on evaporation as the primary
decanting method.
This grant provides the resources to expand the current waste handling facility that will allow the City to
increase the frequency of cleaning catch basins, streets, and other City owned and operated stormwater
facilities. This will provide a water quality benefit throughout the City in the creeks, Lake Ballinger, and
Puget Sound.
The effective date of the grant agreement is July 1, 2012, and the agreement expires on December 31,
2013. The City plans to design the facility in 2012 and complete construction in 2013.
The grant agreement (Attachment 1) has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
This Committee meeting and the subsequent full Council meeting serve as the public notice for this grant
agreement.
Fiscal Impact:
This grant will add $259,745 to the 412-200 Stormwater Capital Fund. The grant requires a 25% match
by the City. The $86,580 in matching money will be spent from the 412-200 Stormwater Capital Fund
from the “Public Works Water Quality Upgrades” project.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Department of Ecology Grant
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/12/2012 03:11 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/12/2012 03:17 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 03:36 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2012 03:46 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 11:44 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/12/2012 11:15 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 177 of 437
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
8
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
9
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
0
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
1
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
2
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
3
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
4
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
5
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
6
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
7
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
8
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
9
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
0
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
1
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
2
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
3
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
4
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
5
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
6
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
7
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
8
o
f
4
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
9
o
f
4
3
7
AM-5119 4.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Interim Zoning Ordinance to allow farmers markets in Business Commercial (BC) and Business
Downtown (BD) Zones.
Recommendation
The City Council Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee expressed support for the draft ordinance
and recommended this item be forwarded to the full City Council along with a brief presentation by City
staff.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The city has been approached by an organization that would like to operate a farmers market on
Wednesday evenings in the BC or BD zone beginning in September of this year and extended at least into
the autumn months. The existing City of Edmonds Development Code does not expressly list farmers
markets as a permitted use in the BC and BD zones and allows "seasonal" farmers markets to operate only
during the period between May and September.
The attached interim zoning ordinance will allow farmers markets to operate in the BC and BD zones in
any month. The City Council may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months, as
long as the City Council holds a public hearing on the proposed interim zoning ordinance within sixty
days after adoption (RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390). During the six month period that this interim
zoning ordinance is in effect, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing, consider whether this interim
zoning ordinance should be adopted for a period longer than six months, and transmit its recommendation
to the City Council.
In addition to the above, City staff has reviewed Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90, Community Oriented
Open Air Markets and has identified that this chapter also needs updating. Amendments to this chapter
and other sections of the code will be forthcoming in order to allow or create a process that will more
clearly define how community oriented and/or farmers markets can operate year round.
Attachments
Packet Page 200 of 437
Interim Zoning Ordinance To Allow Farmers markets in BC and BD Zones
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 11:37 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2012 02:02 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 03:37 PM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 09/12/2012 09:55 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/12/2012
Packet Page 201 of 437
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FARMERS MARKETS
IN THE BC AND BD ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS
AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds only allows farmers markets to operate during the
period between May and September, inclusive; and
WHEREAS, there has been interest expressed in having a farmers market operate during
the entire year; and
WHEREAS, the city has been approached by an organization that would like to operate a
farmers market in the BC or BD zone beginning in September of this year and extended at least
into the autumn months; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code does not expressly list
farmers markets as a permitted use in the BC and BD zones; and
WHEREAS, the operation of a farmers market would not likely result in any long term
changes in the physical appearance of the city; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning
ordinance for a period of up to six months, as long as the City Council holds a public hearing on
the proposed interim zoning ordinance within sixty days after adoption (RCW 35A.63.220, RCW
36.70A.390); and
WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt an interim zoning ordinance that will allow farmers
markets to operate in the BC and BD zones year round; and
WHEREAS, during the six month period that this interim zoning ordinance is in effect,
the Planning Board shall hold a public hearing, consider whether this interim zoning ordinance
should be adopted for a period longer than six months, and transmit its recommendation to the
City Council; NOW, THEREFORE,
Packet Page 202 of 437
2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definition of Farmers Market. A new section 21.30.014, entitled “Farmers
Market,” is hereby added to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as follows:
21.30.014 Farmers Market.
A farmers market is an indoor and/or outdoor retail market consisting of several
independent vendors specializing in the sale of farm-grown or home-grown produce,
food, flowers, plants or other similar perishable goods.
Section 2. Community Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.50.010 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
16.50.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone;
2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales,
used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
sales and services;
3. New automobile sales and service;
4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive
cleaning agents;
5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments;
6. Bus stop shelters;
7. Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed
pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code;
8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a
structure;
9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020;
10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G)
through (R);
11. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
12. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted
master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.;
13. Farmers markets and seasonal farmers markets.
Packet Page 203 of 437
3
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or
conditional use;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use;
3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under
subsections (C)(11) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be
located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street.
C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Commercial parking lots;
2. Wholesale uses;
3. Hotels and motels;
4. Amusement establishments;
5. Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions;
6. Drive-in businesses;
7. Laboratories;
8. Fabrication of light industrial products;
9. Convenience stores;
10. Day-care centers;
11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums;
12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033;
13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug
abusers;
14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use;
2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC.
Section 3. Community Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section
16.50.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Operating restrictions,” is
hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
strikethrough):
16.50.030 Operating restrictions.
Packet Page 204 of 437
4
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers' markets and farmers markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards.
Section 4. Downtown Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.43.020 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
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 A A A A A
Service uses 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
Packet Page 205 of 437
5
Farmers markets and seasonal farmers markets 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
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 businesses C 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
Packet Page 206 of 437
6
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
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
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.
Section 5. Downtown Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section
16.43.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Operating restrictions,” is
hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
strikethrough):
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
Packet Page 207 of 437
7
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets and farmers markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 EC
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040;
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards.
Section 6. Purpose. The purpose of the adoption of this interim zoning ordinance is to
establish the development regulations that will allow farmers markets to operate in the BC zone
while the Planning Board holds a public hearing, gains public input on this issue, provides a
recommendation to Council, and the Council considers the final version of the ordinance on this
subject.
Section 7. Duration of Interim Zoning Ordinance. The City Council shall hold a public
hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordinance within 60 days of adoption and shall adopt findings of
fact justifying this Interim Zoning Ordinance no later than immediately after that hearing. This
Ordinance shall be effective until six (6) months after the effective date.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
Packet Page 208 of 437
8
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 209 of 437
9
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, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FARMERS
MARKETS IN THE BC AND BD ZONES,
ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE
EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, 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
4852-4054-9897, v. 1
Packet Page 210 of 437
AM-5114 5.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Debra Sharp
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
2013 Budget Schedule
Recommendation
To update the Finance Committee on the proposed budget schedule
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The Finance Department added the following items to the City Council's Extended Agenda, which
include work sessions, public hearings, etc needed for the adoption of the 2013 Budget.
September 25
2013 Budget Review Work Session (60 Minutes)
October 9
Finance Committee - Review Property Tax Ordinance (15 Minutes)
October 16
Presentation of Preliminary 2013 Budget
The Finance Director will give a brief overview of the exhibits, layout and changes (30 Minutes)
October 23
Budget Work Session (3 Hours)
October 30 (Fifth Tuesday)
Budget Work Session (3 Hours)
November 5
Public Hearing - Revenue sources including property tax increases (20 Minutes)
Public Hearing - 2013 Budget (20 Minutes)
Property Tax Resolution and Ordinance (20 Minutes)
November 20
Public Hearing - 2013 Budget (20 Minutes)
Packet Page 211 of 437
2013 Budget Adoption (20 Minutes)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 11:38 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/12/2012 02:09 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/12/2012 03:37 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 09/12/2012 09:24 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/12/2012
Packet Page 212 of 437
AM-5121 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Police Services Contract - Town of Woodway
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
This matter was most recently discussed at the August 6, 2012 meeting of Edmonds City Council.
Council President Peterson provided Council with an update regarding his discussion on the Police
Services Contract with the Town of Woodway.
Narrative
The present Woodway Police Services contract expires December 31, 2012. Council President Peterson
has explored viable contract term options with Woodway Mayor Nichols and Edmonds Mayor Earling,
and has sought input from Edmonds City Council on several occasions, most recently at its meeting of
August 6, 2012. Council President Peterson is bringing forth the current draft for Council's consideration
and possible approval at this evening's meeting.
Attachments
Woodway Police Svcs-redline
Woodway Police Svcs Clean Copy
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 11:44 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/13/2012 12:07 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 12:23 PM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 09/12/2012 10:40 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 213 of 437
{WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1
AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES
PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT
CHAPTER 39.34 RCW
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington is an optional code city constituted in
accordance with the provisions of Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Woodway is a Town organized pursuant to certain provisions
of Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act authorizes public agencies,
including municipal corporations, to exercise their respective powers and any power capable of
being exercised by either party pursuant to an interlocal agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds and the Town Council of the Town
of Woodway deem it to be in the public interest to enter into an interlocal agreement for the
provision of police services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION in consideration ofor the promises set
forth in this interlocal Aagreement and the mutual benefits to be derived, the City of Edmonds,
Washington, (hereinafter "Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway, (hereinafter "Woodway")
have entered into this interlocal Aagreement in accordance with the provisions set forth below:
I. TERM
THIS AGREEMENT for Police Services (“Agreement”) shall have a threetwo year term
commencing on January 1, 20130 and expiring on December 31, 20142.
1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause by the provision
of ninety days written notice addressed to the respective City or Town Clerk, at his/her regular
business address.
1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for cause if, but only if:
1.2.1 Prior written notice of an alleged breach of the terms of the Agreement is
provided to City or Town Clerk; and
1.2.2 The breach is not cured within 48 hours of the actual receipt of the written
notification of breach.
Packet Page 214 of 437
{WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2
1.3 This Agreement may be extended once for an additional two-year period, from
January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, for future calendar on the same terms or such other
terms as the parties may deem appropriate upon the signed, written approval of the parties.
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
THIS AGREEMENT does not create a separate entity for the provision of services.
Rather it is the intent of the parties that Edmonds shall provide back-up police services as
described herein when a Woodway officer is not on duty or is otherwise unavailable to respond
to the call. In such event, the Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency
(“SNOCOM”) shall dispatch an Edmonds officer in or on an appropriate vehicle and with
appropriate back-up when needed for:
2.1 All priority one (1) in-progress calls, which currently includes, but are not limited
to, abduction, bank alarm, robbery hold-up alarm, assault, assault with weapon, burglary, fight
with weapon, hostage situation, prowler, rape, robbery and strong-arm robbery; and/or
2.2 Priority two (2) in-progress calls in progress, which currently includevolve, but
are not limited to, theft, threats to life or property, including residential alarms, panic alarms,
suspicious persons, suspicious circumstances, traffic accidents, and 911 hang-up calls.
2.3 Priority one and priority two calls shall be defined in accordance with the
definition established for such calls by SNOCOM, such definitions to be incorporated by this
referenced as fully as if herein set forth. The determination of SNOCOM regarding the
characterization of any call shall be final and determinative.
2.4 If a Woodway police officer is on regular scheduled duty and back-up is required,
the Edmonds police department will continue to assist, if an officer is available, at no charge, in
accordance with other existing mutual aid agreements.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
3.1 The Edmonds Police Department shall:
3.1.1 Conduct an initial investigation of incidents;
3.1.2 Assist victims and witnesses at the crime scene;
3.1.3 Preserve crime scenes;
3.1.4 Take reports on minor incidents;
3.1.5 Provide a written report on every dispatched call; and
3.1.6 As required, attend and testify at any prosecution arising from the call.
Packet Page 215 of 437
{WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3
3.2 The Woodway Police Department shall:
3.2.1 Provide any follow-up investigation, report or action required relative to
an assault, burglary or crime with possible suspects by call-out of a Woodway police officer.
3.2.2 Woodway, through its police officers, shall pProvide any crime scene
investigation regarding burglaries, multiple property crimes, serious accidents, or similar events
of a serious or felonious nature.
3.2.3 Woodway shall cCall out an officer to provide service in the event that
arrest and booking of a suspect is required. Woodway police department citation forms shall be
used and an "assist other agency" report and statement prepared. If no Woodway police
department officer is reasonably available, an Edmonds citation form may be used. In such
event, the Edmonds police department policy regarding issuance of citations on state charges
shall be followed.
3.2.4 Retain Eevidence shall be retained byat the Woodway police department.
3.2.5 Refer Jjuveniles referrals will be referred to the Woodway police
department for processing, including appropriate report and referral.
IV. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
3.34.1 Report Process.The Edmonds and Woodway Police Departments’ Chiefs of
Police, or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW
39.34.030.
3.3.14.2 A written report shall be provided by Edmonds regarding all calls
to which an Edmonds officer is dispatched.
3.3.24.3 The original shall remain with the Edmonds police department.
3.3.34.4 Copies shall be sent immediately to the Woodway police
department.
3.3.4 A copy shall be provided to the Edmonds Assistant Chief for the Police
Support Services division.
V. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
3.4 Emergency Situations; No Special Duty or Third Party Right Created. The parties
understand and agree that in the event of an emergent situation in Edmonds, services under this
Agreement may be delayed or suspended. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any third
party right, nor is any special duty to any third party, private party, person or entity created as a
result of this Agreement.
Packet Page 216 of 437
{WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4
IVI. BILLING PROCESS
6.1 Woodway shall pay to the City of Edmonds the sum of $3,000.00 per month for
the services provided by Edmonds under the terms of this Agreement, which sum shall include a
maximum of ten (10) 137.50 per dispatched calls. Services for additional calls beyond the first
ten shall be assessed at a flat rate of $75.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment for the Edmonds
officer’s time based on the nearest 15 minute increment of time spent on the call.
6.2 If a call requires more than one Edmonds officer to respond, and that additional
officer(s) is on the Woodway call in excess of 15 minutes from time of arrival, an additional cost
will be assessed for police services at the flat rate of $75.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment
42.82 for theeach additional officer(s) time based on the nearest 15 minute increment. The
individual officer’s unit history will be used for the record for time spent in Woodway.
6.3 Edmonds shall provide a detailed quarterly billing which shall include at a
minimum the Edmonds police department case number and the date of the incident. Payment
shall be remitted within 30 days of billing. In the event of a dispute regarding billing, the parties
agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration or such other form of alternative dispute
resolution (mediation) as the parties shall approve.
VII. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Edmonds shall provide services through use of its own vehicles and equipment and be
responsible for all costs associated therewith, including but not limited to damage from any kind
or nature and normal wear and tear. Edmonds shall also utilize its own reports and forms with
the exception of citations as herein provided. Edmonds citations shall only be used when no
Woodway citations are reasonably available.
VIII. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY
68.1 Edmonds shall indemnify and hold harmless Woodway, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of an Edmonds officer or employee in the
provision of services under this Agreement by Edmonds officers. This promise to indemnify and
hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to
the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
68.2 Woodway shall indemnify and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of a Woodway officer or employee in the provision
of services under this Agreement by Woodway officers. This promise to indemnify and hold
harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the
extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
68.3 In the event of a claim, loss or liability based upon the alleged concurrent or joint
negligence or tortious act of the parties, the parties shall bear their respective liability, including
Packet Page 217 of 437
{WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 5
costs, in accordance with an assignment of their respective liability established in accordance
with the laws of the State of Washington.
IX. INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTS
Edmonds and Woodway recognize and agree that each is an independent governmental
entity. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the
discretion of the governing bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing,
Edmonds shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method by
which the services are to be provided unless otherwise stipulated within this Agreement. Neither
Edmonds nor Woodway, except as expressly set forth herein or as required by law, shall be liable
for any debts or obligations of the other party.
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals
which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by facsimile,
sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United
States mail, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
For the City of Edmonds:
City Clerk AND Chief of Police
City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Police Department
121 5th Avenue North 250 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
For the Town of Woodway:
Clerk Treasurer AND Chief of Police
Town of Woodway Town of Woodway Police Department
[ADDRESS] [ADDRESS]
[ADDRESS] [ADDRESS]
Or, to such other address as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and
deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to
accept delivery. Facsimile or electronic mail transmission of any signed original document and
retransmission of any signed facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be the same as
delivery of an original document.
Packet Page 218 of 437
{WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 6
10.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
parties from entering into contracts for services in support of this Agreement.
10.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any
benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Agreement
shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The parties
shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes
and intent of this Agreement.
10.4 Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior
understanding, written or oral, shall be deemed merged with its provisions. This Agreement
shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the City Council and
Town Council of the respective parties.
10.5 Jurisdiction and Venue. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies
exclusively in Snohomish County, Washington.
Packet Page 219 of 437
{WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 7
VII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT
This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior understanding, written or
oral, shall be deemed merged with its provision. This Agreement shall not be amended except in
writing with the express written consent of the City Council and Town Council of the respective
parties.
EXECUTED this ______ day of _____________________, 201209.
CITY OF EDMONDS TOWN OF WOODWAY
By: By:
Mayor David O. EarlingGary Haakenson Mayor Carla A. Nichols
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED
By: By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk Joyce Bielefeld, (Town Clerk)
Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY:
By: By:
Packet Page 220 of 437
1
AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES
PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT
CHAPTER 39.34 RCW
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington is an optional code city constituted in
accordance with the provisions of Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Woodway is a Town organized pursuant to certain provisions
of Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act authorizes public agencies,
including municipal corporations, to exercise their respective powers and any power capable of
being exercised by either party pursuant to an interlocal agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds and the Town Council of the Town
of Woodway deem it to be in the public interest to enter into an interlocal agreement for the
provision of police services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises set forth in this interlocal
agreement and the mutual benefits to be derived, the City of Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter
"Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway, (hereinafter "Woodway") have entered into this
interlocal agreement in accordance with the provisions set forth below:
I. TERM
THIS AGREEMENT for Police Services (“Agreement”) shall have a two year term
commencing on January 1, 2013 and expiring on December 31, 2014.
1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause by the provision
of ninety days written notice addressed to the respective City or Town Clerk, at his/her regular
business address.
1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for cause if, but only if:
1.2.1 Prior written notice of an alleged breach of the terms of the Agreement is
provided to City or Town Clerk; and
1.2.2 The breach is not cured within 48 hours of the actual receipt of the written
notification of breach.
1.3 This Agreement may be extended once for an additional two-year period, from
January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, on the same terms or such other terms as the parties
may deem appropriate upon the signed, written approval of the parties.
Packet Page 221 of 437
2
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
THIS AGREEMENT does not create a separate entity for the provision of services.
Rather it is the intent of the parties that Edmonds shall provide back-up police services as
described herein when a Woodway officer is not on duty or is otherwise unavailable to respond
to the call. In such event, the Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency
(“SNOCOM”) shall dispatch an Edmonds officer in or on an appropriate vehicle and with
appropriate back-up when needed for:
2.1 All priority one (1) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited
to, abduction, bank alarm, robbery hold-up alarm, assault, assault with weapon, burglary, fight
with weapon, hostage situation, prowler, rape, robbery and strong-arm robbery; and/or
2.2 Priority two (2) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited to,
theft, threats to life or property, residential alarms, panic alarms, suspicious persons, suspicious
circumstances, traffic accidents, and 911 hang-up calls.
2.3 Priority one and priority two calls shall be defined in accordance with the
definition established for such calls by SNOCOM, such definitions to be incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth. The determination of SNOCOM regarding the
characterization of any call shall be final and determinative.
2.4 If a Woodway police officer is on regular scheduled duty and back-up is required,
the Edmonds police department will continue to assist, if an officer is available, at no charge, in
accordance with other existing mutual aid agreements.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
3.1 The Edmonds Police Department shall:
3.1.1 Conduct an initial investigation of incidents;
3.1.2 Assist victims and witnesses at the crime scene;
3.1.3 Preserve crime scenes;
3.1.4 Take reports on minor incidents;
3.1.5 Provide a written report on every dispatched call; and
3.1.6 As required, attend and testify at any prosecution arising from the call.
3.2 The Woodway Police Department shall:
3.2.1 Provide any follow-up investigation, report or action required relative to
an assault, burglary or crime with possible suspects by call-out of a Woodway police officer.
Packet Page 222 of 437
3
3.2.2 Provide any crime scene investigation regarding burglaries, multiple
property crimes, serious accidents, or similar events of a serious or felonious nature.
3.2.3 Call out an officer to provide service in the event that arrest and booking
of a suspect is required. Woodway police department citation forms shall be used and an "assist
other agency" report and statement prepared. If no Woodway police department officer is
reasonably available, an Edmonds citation form may be used. In such event, the Edmonds police
department policy regarding issuance of citations on state charges shall be followed.
3.2.4 Retain evidence at the Woodway police department.
3.2.5 Refer juveniles to the Woodway police department for processing,
including appropriate report and referral.
IV. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
4.1 The Edmonds and Woodway Police Departments’ Chiefs of Police, or their
designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW 39.34.030.
4.2 A written report shall be provided by Edmonds regarding all calls to which an
Edmonds officer is dispatched.
4.3 The original shall remain with the Edmonds police department.
4.4 Copies shall be sent immediately to the Woodway police department.
V. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
No Special Duty or Third Party Right Created. The parties understand and agree that in
the event of an emergent situation in Edmonds, services under this Agreement may be delayed or
suspended. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any third party right, nor is any special
duty to any third party, private party, person or entity created as a result of this Agreement.
VI. BILLING PROCESS
6.1 Woodway shall pay to Edmonds the sum of $3,000.00 per month for the services
provided by Edmonds under the terms of this Agreement, which sum shall include a maximum
of ten (10) calls. Services for additional calls beyond the first ten shall be assessed at a flat rate
of $75.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment for the Edmonds officer’s time based on the nearest
15 minute increment of time spent on the call.
6.2 If a call requires more than one Edmonds officer to respond, and that additional
officer(s) is on the Woodway call in excess of 15 minutes from time of arrival, an additional cost
will be assessed for police services at the flat rate of $75.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment for
each additional officer(s) time based on the nearest 15 minute increment. The individual
officer’s unit history will be used for the record for time spent in Woodway.
Packet Page 223 of 437
4
6.3 Edmonds shall provide a detailed quarterly billing which shall include at a
minimum the Edmonds police department case number and the date of the incident. Payment
shall be remitted within 30 days of billing. In the event of a dispute regarding billing, the parties
agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration or such other form of alternative dispute
resolution (mediation) as the parties shall approve.
VII. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Edmonds shall provide services through use of its own vehicles and equipment and be
responsible for all costs associated therewith, including but not limited to damage from any kind
or nature and normal wear and tear. Edmonds shall also utilize its own reports and forms with
the exception of citations as herein provided. Edmonds citations shall only be used when no
Woodway citations are reasonably available.
VIII. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY
8.1 Edmonds shall indemnify and hold harmless Woodway, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of an Edmonds officer or employee in the
provision of services under this Agreement by Edmonds officers. This promise to indemnify and
hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to
the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
8.2 Woodway shall indemnify and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of a Woodway officer or employee in the provision
of services under this Agreement by Woodway officers. This promise to indemnify and hold
harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the
extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
8.3 In the event of a claim, loss or liability based upon the alleged concurrent or joint
negligence or tortious act of the parties, the parties shall bear their respective liability, including
costs, in accordance with an assignment of their respective liability established in accordance
with the laws of the State of Washington.
IX. INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTS
Edmonds and Woodway recognize and agree that each is an independent governmental
entity. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the
discretion of the governing bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing,
Edmonds shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method by
which the services are to be provided unless otherwise stipulated within this Agreement. Neither
Edmonds nor Woodway, except as expressly set forth herein or as required by law, shall be liable
for any debts or obligations of the other party.
Packet Page 224 of 437
5
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals
which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by facsimile,
sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United
States mail, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
For the City of Edmonds:
City Clerk AND Chief of Police
City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Police Department
121 5th Avenue North 250 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
For the Town of Woodway:
Clerk Treasurer AND Chief of Police
Town of Woodway Town of Woodway Police Department
[ADDRESS] [ADDRESS]
[ADDRESS] [ADDRESS]
Or, to such other address as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and
deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to
accept delivery. Facsimile or electronic mail transmission of any signed original document and
retransmission of any signed facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be the same as
delivery of an original document.
10.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
parties from entering into contracts for services in support of this Agreement.
10.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any
benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Agreement
shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The parties
shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes
and intent of this Agreement.
10.4 Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior
understanding, written or oral, shall be deemed merged with its provisions. This Agreement
shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the City Council and
Town Council of the respective parties.
10.5 Jurisdiction and Venue. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies
exclusively in Snohomish County, Washington.
Packet Page 225 of 437
6
EXECUTED this ______ day of _____________________, 2012.
CITY OF EDMONDS TOWN OF WOODWAY
By: By:
Mayor David O. Earling Mayor Carla A. Nichols
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED
By: By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk Joyce Bielefeld, Clerk Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY:
By: By:
Packet Page 226 of 437
AM-5130 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Hearing Examiner Annual Report.
Recommendation
None.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The Hearing Examiner will provide his annual report to Council.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/14/2012 11:08 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/14/2012 11:30 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/14/2012 10:42 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2012
Packet Page 227 of 437
AM-5128 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee: Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on Chip Seals
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Staff will make a presentation on chip seals which is a pavement surface treatment option for extending
the life of street pavement.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/13/2012 02:36 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/14/2012
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/14/2012 08:13 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/14/2012 08:16 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/14/2012 10:23 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/13/2012 11:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2012
Packet Page 228 of 437
AM-5127 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana
Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Update on Regional Fire Authority and Authorization to sign Interlocal Agreement.
Recommendation
Approve ILA
Previous Council Action
Edmonds City Council passed Resolution 1243 (attached) in January 2011 to participate in discussions
about the formation of a Regional Fire Authority. Council and Administration representatives have been
participating since then.
Narrative
The Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee is made up of elected representatives from
Edmonds, Woodway, Mukilteo, Mount Lake Terrace, Brier, Mill Creek, Lynnwood, Fire District 1 and
Fire District 7. They have been meeting on a monthly basis since January of 2011 to discuss the
possibility of forming an RFA in order to improve and streamline fire services throughout South
Snohomish County.
Tonight’s update by Council President Peterson will bring the Council and public up to date on the
process.
Council President Peterson will also introduce an Inter Local Agreement (ILA - attached) between the
above-mentioned entities in order to pay for a consultant to review the work that has been done to date.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:TBD
Revenue:TBD
Expenditure:$2,700 (maximum)
Fiscal Impact:
Joining the RFA—TBD
Passing the ILA--$2700 (maximum)
Packet Page 229 of 437
Attachments
Resolution 1243
RFA Consultant Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 11:44 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/13/2012 12:08 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 12:23 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/13/2012 09:20 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 230 of 437
Packet Page 231 of 437
Packet Page 232 of 437
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE AGENCIES
PARTICIPATING IN THE REGIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTHORITY
PLANNING PROCESS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made by and between the Cities of Edmonds, Brier,
Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Lynnwood, Mill Creek, the Town of Woodway and Snohomish
County Fire Districts No. 1 and 7 (hereinafter “the Parties”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, this interlocal agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority vested in
each of the Parties under Chapter 39.34 RCW; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.34.060, public agencies entering into an interlocal
agreement may appropriate funds and may sell, lease, give, or otherwise supply property,
personnel, and services to the administrative joint board or other legal or administrative entity
created to operate the joint or cooperative undertaking; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are presently engaged in planning process to consider the
formation of a Regional Fire Protection Services Authority (or “RFA”), and find that it would be
beneficial to the joint undertaking, and each of them, to engage the services of a consultant to
review the proposed draft RFA Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the joint funding of a
qualified consultant to review the Draft RFA Plan for the benefit of the Parties.
2. Delegation of Authority. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (“the District”) is
hereby authorized on behalf of the Parties to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for the purpose
of recruiting, screening and retaining a qualified consultant to assist in the evaluation of the Draft
RFA Plan. As part of the RFP process, the District shall prepare a scope of work and contract
for the successful consultant.
3. Joint Interview Board. Each party hereto shall appoint one person to the Joint
Interview Board in order to assist the District in interviewing qualified respondents to the RFP.
The Board shall make a consensus recommendation as to the most qualified consultant to the
RFA Planning Committee for its consideration and approval. Once the Joint Interview Board has
discharged its tasks, the Joint Interview Board shall cease to operate.
4. Consulting Contract Award and Administration. Final selection of the most qualified
consultant shall be made by a majority vote of the RFA Planning Committee members at one of
its regular meetings. Thereafter, the District shall award the contract to the selected candidate
and enter into a contract for services with the successful consultant to perform the work, and act
as the contract administrator. The initial contract price (“Contract Price”) shall not exceed
$25,000, absent approval by each of the Parties.
Packet Page 233 of 437
5. Cost Sharing. Each of the Parties shall contribute an equal share toward the Contract
Price. The District shall be responsible for payment of all accepted invoices from the consultant
according to the terms of the contract for services. The District will send each party a bill for an
equal amount of each invoice to cover its share of the Contract Price. Each Party shall pay the
District within 30 days of receipt of their bill.
6. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a. Venue. This agreement is entered into according to the laws of the State of
Washington. Any suit arising hereunder shall only be brought in a court of competent
jurisdiction in Snohomish County, Washington.
b. This agreement may not be modified except through a written, signed contract
amendment by all parties.
7. Recording with the Auditor. This interlocal agreement shall take effect after
execution by all parties and recording with the Snohomish County Auditor’s Office.
8. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts.
Executed this ______ day of ___________________, 2012.
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: City of Brier
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: City of Edmonds
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: Town of Woodway
Packet Page 234 of 437
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: City of Mountlake Terrace
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: City of Mill Creek
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: City of Mukilteo
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: City of Lynnwood
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: Snohomish County Fire District No. 1
By: ____________________________________
Typed Name and Title: ______________________
Agency: Snohomish County Fire District No. 7
Packet Page 235 of 437
AM-5115 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and possible action regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
During the July 17, 2007 Council Meeting there was a discussion regarding Executive Sessions (minutes
attached). During that meeting Resolution 1150 (attached) was approved and placed on the August 8,
2007 consent agenda and approved.
This agenda item was discussed during the 2012 City Council Retreat (minutes attached). It was
discussed again at the March 20, 2012 Council Meeting (minutes attached). It was then discussed during
the Public Safety and Personnel Committee on June 12, 2012 (minutes attached).
This item was again discussed at the August 28, 2012 Council Meeting and referred back to the Public
Safety and Personnel Committee for further discussion and clarification (minutes attached).
The Public Safety/Personnel Committee had another discussion on this issue at their 9/11/12 meeting
(minutes attached).
Narrative
Council President Peterson has placed this item on the agenda for discussion and possible action.
Attachments
6-5-2007 Approved Council Minutes
7-17-2007 Approved Council Minutes
2012 Council Retreat Minutes
3-20-12 Approved Council Minutes
Resolution No. 853
Resolution 1150
6-12-2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes
Packet Page 236 of 437
6-12-2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes
8-28-2012 Draft Council Minutes
Mr. Nixon's Presentation
9-11-12 PS/P Committee Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 11:44 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/13/2012 12:05 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 12:23 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/12/2012 09:30 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/13/2012
Packet Page 237 of 437
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 5,2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.rn. for an Executive Session regarditrg a legal matter, the Edmonds Citv
Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.nr- by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers,250 5'r'
Avenue Nofth, Edmonds. The rneeting was opened u,ith the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson. Council President
Michael PIunkett. Councilmernber larrivcd 7:21 p.m.)
Richard Marin. Counciltnember
Mauri Moore, Coulcilmetnber
Deanna Dawson. Councilrnember
Dave Orvis, Councilmernber
Ron Warrbolt, Councilrnernber
ALSO PRESENT
2
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
John Westfall. Fire Marshal
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Comrnunity Services Director
Brian Mclntosh, Parks & Recreation Direclor
Noel Miller'. Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Plann ing Manager
Rich Lindsay. Parks Maintenance Manager
Dave Gebeft, City Engineer
Jeannine Graf. Building Official
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, Ciry Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines. Recorder
Shaun Callahan, Student Representative
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE
THE AGENDA tN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Plunkett ryas not present for the vote.)
RollC^ll
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett was not
present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINC MINUTES OF MAY 22,2007.
AppRovAL oF CLAIM CHECKS #96460 THROUCH #96614 FOR MAY 24,2007 IN THE
AMOUNT OF 5440,499.08 AND #96615 THROUGH #9675I FOR MAY 3I, 2OO7 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $234,953.60.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CLIFF SANDERLIN
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND PHILIP LAUE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
511)t01
Clrnn
B
c
Clai,irs lbr
Darnagcs D
Ednrcnds Cit) Council Approvcd Minulcs
June 5. 200?
Page I
Packet Page 238 of 437
shcll
vrllc\
Enrcrgcnc)
Condidflc
(iuid.Lnes
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT TO DESIGN
THE SHELL VALLEY EMERCENCY ACCESS AND PRELIMINARY SHORT SUBDIVISION.
E
Ord. *i617
Srh A\c l'\
Itight ol
Ord #i648
Nlrssage
Sist.)r CiL)
F.
G
H
DRAFT GUIDELINES - CANDIDATE FORUMS AND USE OF CITY FACILITIES.
ORDINANCE NO. 3647 . VACATING CERTAIN UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 8TH
AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF SPRAGUE STREET, AND RDSERVING AN EASEMENT,
ORDINANCE NO, 3648 _ AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE,
SECTION 4,50.040 FEES - DISBURSEMENTS, PARAGRAPH (D), RELATING TO THE
RECISTRATION OF LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPISTS.
3 2006 ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION.
Shiva Riddell, Ednronds Sister City Commission Chair, explained each year the twelve nrenrber Comrnission
strives to fulfill the Commission's mission, "to promote international communication and understanding through
excJranges of people, ideas, and culture" by providing activities and exchanges that foster understanding and
friendship between Edmonds and its Sister City, Hekinan, Japan. She relayed the Commission's sincere thanks
to the many individuals, families, businesses, schools and organizations that have provided time and resources to
help make these programs successful. She introduced the Executive members of the Board, Felix de Mello,
Vice Chair; Jeanne Mazzoni, Secretary; and Rita Bailey lkeda, Treasurer. She introduced Comrnissioners Bryan
Bechler, Jim Corbett, Lawrence Cretin, I-lolly Guentz, Grant Linden, lyoko Okano, Vera Papageorgiou, and
Karen Towey. She noted 2006 saw the departure of Cornrnissioners Consuelo Kinahan and Karen Towey and
the addition of Commissioners Grant Linden and Holly Guentz. She extended the Commission's thanks to
Brian Mclntosh, Director of Parks and Recreation, for his supporl and guidance.
Ms. Riddell described community outreach including a visit by the Commission to the Shinto Slrrine in eastem
Snohorrish County, an inforr.nation booth at the Ednronds Summer Market, presentation to the Senior Kiwanis
Meeting, artist Jolrn Vanderbrooke working with wax medium with the visiting Japanese students, and a major
Japanese calligraphy exhibit at the Seattle Center by Meito Shodokai attended by several Cornmissioners.
Ms. Riddell reported on the Student Delegation to Hekinan in July where fifteen 4- I 7 year old students and their
chaperones traveled for l5 days and stayed with host farrilies. She reported on the Student Delegation from
Hekinan where the Commission arranged home stays for l5 students and two chaperones frorr Hekinan for trvo
weeks in early August and described activities they enjoyed. She reported or a l2 rrember adult delegation
lrom Ilekinan who visited Ednionds in October and described activities during the delegates stay.
Ms. Riddell recognized Comrnissioner Jim Corbett for preparing the quarterly Sister City newsletler. Next, she
described the Hekinan/Edmonds Cooperative Student Art Project. The theme was an "east meets west" and
collages were created using small iterns and objects representing the northwest and the Hekinan region.
Ms. Riddell explained Mariko Watts and Michael Hopkins were interviewed and selected from a pool of l4
applicants to work as assistant English teachers in junior high schools in Hekinan for a period of two years,
Further, she relayed 2008 rvill rnark the 20th Anniversary ofthe Edmonds-Hekinan Sister City relationship. The
Cornnrission is planning an adult delegation to Japan in April 2008.
Ms. Riddell extended the Commission's appreciation to Mayor Haakenson, the City Council, the Edmonds Arts
Cominission and all City Departrnents for the continued support of the Commission's cultural programs and
activities. Councilmember Marin extended the Council's appreciation to the Sister City Commission.
PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED 76TH AVENUE WEST/75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY4i 75rlr PIW
'llrll,\r\:l6lnd S(
trdnronds CiL! Council Approvcd Minutes
.lunc 5.200?
Pagc 2
AND I62ND STREET SW PARK,
Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene introduced the City's new Transportation Engineer, Beftrand Hauss. Mr.
Fiene then provided background on the project, explaining it was the highest priority walkway in the current
Packet Page 239 of 437
Walkway Complehensive PIan that has not yet been consftucted- The I62"d Street Park was identified as a mini-
park in the current Park Comprehensive PIan. The 2007 -2008 capital budget allocated $945,000 for 76'r'Avenue
West/75'l' Place West u'alkrvay and $325,000 for the 162"d Street Park.
Mr. Fiene explained the City contracted with Gray & Osborne and their sub-consultant for the 162"d Slrcct Park,
SBA Associates, in Septernber 2005: the first phase of the contract was preliminary design and deterrnining a
prefered altenrative. A public rneeting was held in April 2007 to solicit public feedback which will be
incorporated into the final design.
Tani Stafford, Gray & Osborne, displayed a site map identifing the project on 76'r'Averrue West from
Meadowdale Beach Road to 75'l'Place West to Meadowdale County Park. She described Iimited space between
the existing pavement and the east side of the righlof-way north of 162"'r which lirnited the location of the
waikway to the west side. Because a significant portion of the project was rvithin a landslide prone area. LIWA
Geosciences was hired to investigate the best techniques for widening a roadway in an area prone to landslide.
Their recornmendation was to build the walkway on the east side if at all possible as cutting into the
embankment and rernoving cxisting soil made the slope more stable. Because much of the walkway was lirnited
to the west side, they recornnrended a pile supported struclure on the wcst.
Ms. Stafford displayed and reviewed Concept l. identif,ing sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot asphalt
rvalkway: a piJe-supported boardwalk at 162"d; and the 5-foot asphalt walkway u,ith a soldier pile wall. She
advised the walkway would be on the east side on the south end ofthe projcct adjoining the existing sidewalk on
the east side and shift to the west side at 162''d. She displayed renderings of the existing conditions and
proposed inrproverrenls lor eaclr sectiort.
Ms. Stafford displayed and reviewed Concept 2, explaining the primary difference was the entire walkway was
on the west side in Concept 2. She identified areas of asphalt walkway and pile suppofied walkway. She
pointed out the section of the road where there was ir.rsufficient right-of-rvay on the west side for a walkway
which would require shiliing the road slightly to the east, requiring a soldier pile wall which made Concept 2
more expensive than Concept L Because cost estinrates for both concepts were over the City's budget, they
considered phasing the project.
Ms. Stafford staled they recomnrended Concept I, Phase l, which would eud north of the 162"'r park. She
reviewed pros and cons for both concepts:
Concept 1
Pros: lmproves slope stability in landslide zone; improves sight distance a1 horizontal curve at south end
of project; better connection to existing waJkway at south end; less expensive to construct.
Cons: More right-of-way acquisition required; nrore crosswalks needed at l62nd.
Concept 2
Pros: Less right-of-way acquisition required; fewer crosswalks needed at 162nd.
Cons: More expensive to construct; more driveway crossings; not a desirable connection to existing
u'alkway a1 south end.
Susan Black, SBA Associates, described site conditions of the I 62"d Street Park including the approximate half
acre size. west orientatioll, 4:l slope, Puget Sound and regional mountain/island views, and location rnidway on
the walkway project. She described views from tlre site, oppoftunities for passive recreation, active play, and
trail linkages. She highlighted steep slopes on tl're east and west arrd more usable space in the center. She
displayed the proposed site plan and described play opportunities such as an interpretive overlook, ship galleon
slide, hillside slide/clirnb. and play structure. She described opponunities for iuterpretive signs ofthe Olympic
Mountains, regional island views and ship stack identification systerr- She corntnented on the oppofiunity for a
sailboat flect structure. swings. walking path. and open lawn. She sumnarized site amenities could include
picnic areas- open lawr for unstructured play, picnic and BBQ areas, restroolll, benches, and drinking fourrtains.
Edmonds Clil), Clouncil Approvcd Minutes
Junc 5.2007
pagc j
Packet Page 240 of 437
llczone
Propcrlies
Srdc ol'
Mr. Fiene relayed staff,s reconrnrendation of Concept I for the walkway and concurrence with the 162"d Street
Park concept. He pointed out the walkway on the east provided better slope stability and cost $292,000 less
than Concept 2. Staff reconrmends proceeding with design for Concept I walkrvay lor the Meadowdale Beach
Road to 162"d section (cost estirnate $671,000) and along tlre frontage of I62"d Street Park (cost estimate
S237,000). Staff recommends a separate schedule for the 162"d Street Park to North Meadowdale Beach Road
section as it was likeiy too expensive and provided less benefit (cost estimate $523,000), and recommends not
designing the Nonh Meadowdale Road to County Park section as the $514,000 cost estimate was well beyond
the budget and provides limited benefit. Staff recommends designiug low cost safety improvernents for the
North Meadowdale Road to Countv Park section.
Councilrrember Moore inquired about the feedback frorn the public rneeting and how it was incorporated into
the design. Mr. Fiene answered there wele corrments about amenities at tlie park; attendees liked the walkway
concept and alerted staff to another safety issue near 158'l'street that staff plans to investigate in fiDal design.
Councilmember Moore asked if at the tirne the rneeting was held the public was inforrned both projects rnay not
be possible. Mr, Fiene answered yes,
Councilmember Marin expressed suppoft for the design, particularly the elevated walkway and the sailboat fleet
in the park. He noted his original understanding was there would be an asphalt walkway; he preferred the
proposed design, finding it would enhance the area and nimic the beauty ofthe downtown waterfront.
Responding to Councilmember Moore, Mr. Feine advised the Council rvould have an opportunity to approve the
bid at a later date. Councilmember Moore asked when the engineer's estimate would be available. Mr. Fiene
advised there rvere engineer's estimates for the concept stagei estimates would inrprove as design progressed.
Councilmember Moore was concerned the project could become proh;bitively expensive due to increases in
construction materials ifthe design took too long.
Ms. Stafford acknowledged constructiou costs continued to increase, although because the City completed all
the surveys and the base map models, moving from preliminary design to final design would not take very long
and the project could go to construction during next summer. She noted there could be delays if a great deal of
rightof-way was needed, however, the concept they proposed only required acquisition of right-of-way lrom
one parcel and could be compJeted without that right-of-way if rrecessary. Projects could be delayed by utility
locating, however. staff intends to involve the utilities early in the design to allow them to move facilities early
in the process. She advised their cost estirnates were based on bids received in the past two years plus an
additional cushion and a l0o% escalation. Councilrnember Moole rernarked two years was a long time in vieu
ofrecent increases in construction costs. Ms. Stafford replied the City could also bid the project in segments.
Councilmernber Moore expressed her support for the project, noting it was a project the City had rvarted to
construct for a long time. She wanted the pLrblic to be aware that pieces of the project may not be constructed
due to budgetary constrairts.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED
TJNAN I MOIJS LY.
CLOSED RECORD REVIEW ON THf, REZONE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) TO
OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (OR) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SUNSET AVE.
N. AND SOUTH OF BELL ST. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REZONE INITIATED BY THE CITY
OF EDMONDS TO BRING THE ZONING OF THESE PROPERTIES INTO CONFORMITY WITH THtr
COMPREHINSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. R-07-I4)
As this u'as a quasi judicial rnatter, under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked
whether any Councilmember had any ex parte communications or conflicts to disclose,
Iidnronds Cit) Colrcil Approvcd Minutes
Junc 5 2007
I']ase 4
Packet Page 241 of 437
)006
Couucihnenrber Marin disclosed he was friends with Mr. Huston from the VFW and had received a campaign
confibution from Mr. Drerv. He advised neither would irnpact his decision in the matter.
Councilrnember Orvis disclosed he received a campaign contribution frorn Mr. I{uston aud possibly from
auother pafly of record in an amount below $250.
Counciltnember Wambolt disclosed he received a srrrall campaign contribution from Mr. Jacobsen
Counciltnember Dawsotr advised she received similar campaign contributions which would not impact her
ability to participale.
Counciimember Plunkett disclosed he received a $100 contribution frorn Mr. Jacobsen and Sl00 frorn Mr
I-luston-
Mayor Haakensotr asked whether any of the parties of record objected to any Councilnrembers' parlicipation
There were no objections voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilrnenrbers would participate.
Planniug Manager Rob Chave recalled the Council's extensive process to change the Conrprehensive Plan
designation for these properties on the west side of Sunset Avenue south of Bell Street. Following the
Cotnprehensive Plan arrendment, the Council arnended the Developmenl Code to add a new OR (Office
Residential) zone. Staff has proposed an administrative rezone due to the Comprehensive Plan designation and
creatiolt ofthe OR zone. 'fhe Planning Board held a public hearing and received no corrtlent opposed to the
proposed action. The Planning Board recomtnends the Council approve the rezone.
Mayor Haakensotl invited parties of record to provide comment. There were no pafties of record present wlto
wished to comlneut and Mayor Haakenson closed the opponunity for comment by pafiies of record.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE
THE REZONE REQUEST AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE
FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION.
Councilmetnber Dawson expressed her pleasure at tlre work done by the Planning Board ou this matter. She
recalled instances in the past when there was Iittle opposition and the record was somewhat incornplete. She
appreciated Planring Board Member Freeman in particular for the record created supporting the Planning
Board's recornmendation. She urged the Planning Board to create a similar record for future matters.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING. FIRE AND
SUPPLEMENTAL CODE
Building Official Jeannine Graf explained every three years the revised International Building, Fire, Plumbing,
Mechanical and Supplernental Code rvas presented to the Council for adoption. She referred to Exhibit 2, a
redlined version of I'itle l9 of the Edmonds Communigr Developrnent Code, and relayed stafl-s
recommendation that the City Council direct the City Attomey to prepare an ordinance adopting the 2006
International Building, Fire, and Supplernental Code-
Fire Marshal John Westfall was also present to ansu,er questions.
Mayol I-laakenson opened the public pafticipation portion ofthe public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds. expressed support for adoption of the International Building, Fire and Suppletnental
Code.
Idnronds Ci1] Council Approvcd Minutcs
Junc 5..1007
Page 5
Packet Page 242 of 437
Hearing no further public corrrnent, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hcaring and renranded the matter to
Council for action
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING
THE 2006 INTEIINATIONAL FIRE, BUILDING AND SUPPLEMENTAL CODES. MOTION CARRIED
UN ANIMOUSLY,
PIJBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT UNDER RCW'l
)01 5rh ,{\c
i {Old
U,llu\ n )
36.708-170 TO PROVIDtr VESTING TO CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2OI 5TH
AVENUE SOUTH.EDMONDS. WASHINGTON (OLD MILLTOWN). THE AGREEMENT COVERS
LOTS t. 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 37.38.39 AND 40, INCLUDING BOTH OLD MILLTOWN AND THE ADJACENT
ITE
City Attorney Scott Snydel advised the developmenl agreement was proposed by Gregg Developnrent
Associates as part of a comprehensive setllement of a Land Use Petition Action and danrage suit brought by
Gregg Productions Associates. Although the matter had been discussed by the Council in ExecLrtive Session,
the Council could not reach a decision in Executive Session and because the primary considerations for the
settlement agreenent was the development agreenrent, the Council could not make a commitment ur'rtil there
had been a public hearing. This was the public hearing and opportunity for discussion.
Mr. Snyder explained a developrnent agreement was a tool created by the Glorvth Managenrent Act (GMA) to
establish development requirements for pafiicular propefy. While development agreements could cover a wide
variety of subjects, all that was proposed in this agrcement was that the propefty described in the agreernent, Old
Milltown and adjacent properties, be vested undel the City Codes in effect on April 15, 2007, the date oftheir
proposal. The date takes into account newly enacted BD zone requirements as well as changes to the City's
Architectural Design Boald process. While this was a contractual obligation, a development agreernent was
appealable under LUPA if it related to development approval. The Council must find the development
agreement was consistent with the City's development regulations. The proposed developrnent agreement
requests no variations or changes in the development requiremenls established by City ordinance, only that the
current provisions not be arnended until January 15, 2008.
Mr. Snyder explained the development agreement had been subject to negotiation between Mr. Gregg's legal
counsel and him to insert the language that reserues the City's right to amend its codes if required by public
health and safety, a requirement under CMA, and limit tlie period ofvesting to January 15. 2008. He explained
January 15,2008 was the first Council meeting at which a new City Council could take action as ne\\'
Councilmembers would be srvom in on Janualy 8, 2008. Further, it was practically the soonest the current
discussiolrs with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Planning Board and Architectural Design Board
(ADB) regarding new design standards for the BDI zonelHeritage Center could be implemented. He explained
the public benefit was determined by the City Council following public input. From his perspective, the
proposal was a reasonable solution to the existing situation.
Councilrnember Moore asked Mr. Snyder to expand on the existing situation. He responded the
rightness/wrongness and public benefit was for the Council to decide. From a cos/benefit point-of-view, the
arnounts proposed in the seftlernent agreement were equivalent to what tlie City would spend on a successful,
quick defense. The development agreement has only one condition - assurance that the development rules with
regard to Mr. Gregg's property would not clrange for a period of time, a period of time that was collsistent with
the length of tirne for the Council to receive a recommendation and hold public hearings on tlre changes uuder
consideration. Councilmember Moore summarized the Council rvould be agreeing in the development
agreement not to change the rules even though it was unlikely they rvould be changed before January 2008 and
in exchange Mr. Gregg would drop his lawsuit. Mr. Snyder agreed.
s
udnronds Ci1! Counciln pproved Minu(cs
lunc 5.2007
Pogc 6
Packet Page 243 of 437
Mr. Snyder suggested Mr. Gregg and lris attorney be provided an opportunity to make comment prior to the
public hearing. Mr. Cregg advised he would answer questions at the conclusion if necessary.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public padicipatioll pofiion of the public hearing
Joan Bloom, Edmonds. referred to Mr. Gregg's building at 5'r'& Walnut, the Gregory. calling it a "greedy
building" because it occupied nearly the entire lot, partially or totally blockcd rnany residents' views, provided
no open space in spite of Mr. Gregg's pronrises to provide open space, was unwelcorning and uninviting and did
not reflect the clraracter and small towr feel of Edmonds that citizens want preserved. She was concerned with
the City giving Mr'. Gregg carte blanche to do wlratever he rvanted with OId Milltown based on the current
design guidefines, particularly the boardwalk. She recalled aquoteof Mr. Gregg in the Edrnonds Beacon thathe
rvould withdraw his lawsuit if the Council reached agreement on design guidelines, yet now he did not want to
be sub.jected to the design guidelines. The design ofthe Gregory dernonstrated Mr. Gregg did not understand or
care w.hat citizens rvanted. She cited the importance of the boardrvalk as a gathering place, comrnenling if Mr.
Gregg were allowed to build under the currerlt design guidelines, the building could extend to the sidewalk,
elirnirratirrg the boardwaik. She encouraged Council not to approve the agreement. She referred to Mayor
Haakenson's editorial regarding a citizen who filed a lawsuit against the City at a cost of $20,000 and asking
citizens if they wanted their laxes spent in that manner and stating no good deed goes unpunished. She
surrmarized if Council approved the development agreement, no bad deed would go unrewarded. She was
concerned with the City paying Mr. Glegg $30.000 to drop tlie Iawsuit in addition to legal costs.
Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, expressed her thanks to Mr. Snyder and the Building & Planning Departlnent for
answering hcr questions regarding the proposed developrnent agreernent for Old Milltowu. She rvas
disheartened by Mr. Gregg's lawsuit. recalling his stated desire to work with the City. She noted Mr. Hertrich
and her families' lives and the entire city had been disturbed by Mr. Gregg's lawsuit against all of them. She
understood the desire to setlle the dispute with Mr. G|egg but did not \\'ant it to be at the expense of the City's
patrimony. She viewed Old Milltown as a quinte sse ntial parl of Edmonds. citing the importance of preservation
and restoration to many residents including over 1,000 who signed a petition to save the building and have Mr.
Gregg adhere to the City's codes and ordinances. She questioned why Old Milltown was included in the
proposed development agreement when it was already vested and recornmended the Council require Mr. Gregg
provide additional infolnration and plans for the proposed buildings on the ad-jacent Iots to tlre east and south.
She surnmarized only then could the Council make a proper decisiorr regarding settling the lawsuit and ensuring
Old Milltown would be refurbished as approved-
Alan MacFarlane, Edmonds, voiced his concern with the area of Old Milltown in the southwest corner
bordered by 5'r' Avenue South on tl're west and Maple Street on the south, the boardwalk area. He noted this
wonderful, open space area \\,as a syrnbol of historic Edrlonds and needed to be retained as it currently exists.
He cited the importance of the boardwalk area because it drew people to tlre downtowl'l area, people drawn
downtown spend rnoney il downtown stores, and removing the boardlvalk area would result in lost revenue and
otller negative impacts. Pointing out the City did not have a City Square. he urged the Council to retain "this
little park" to draw people to downtown Edmonds.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, provided copies of plan review documents for the present Old Milltown project,
pointing out the Engineering Department had 34 questions and the Building Department had 44 questions. He
referred to the Building Official's statement that the project u,as corsidered a redesign, noting what originally
was presented to the Council was being changed. l-le cited several questions/requests for information posed by
staff includilg information on demolition phases 2 and 3, site plan difficult to read, prints difficult to read,
alternate design for gluelarr beams and the need for height calculations, parking requirements, floor plan of the
basement, and details ofthe east wall and rooftop mechanical equipment. He noted the number ofquestions,
changes and issues raised question with how Mr. Gregg operated. He recommended omitting Old Milltown
from the agreement as it rvas already vested and requiring Mr. Gregg submit a concept of his plans for the
Ldnronds Cily Council Approvcd Mirutcs
.lunc 5 2007
Page 7
Packet Page 244 of 437
remainder ofthe site. He referred to an Engineering Departmeut colnment that it appeared the building was set
up for a third floor ofresidential. In his view the City was giving away more than it got rvith the agreenleut. He
recommended holding another public hearing alier Mr. Gregg subrnitted a concept of his plans for the site. I-le
was concerned Council was doing planning in Executive Session, noting tlre development agreement $,as
scheduled for a public hearing long before any information was available to the public.
AI Rutledge, f,dmonds, agreed discussions should have been held in open rneeting. He commented the City's
concern was cost but another consideration was the character of downtown. He referred to higher building
heights and increasing retail activity on Hwy. 99.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, questioned whether this was a quasi judicial healing, remarking if it was, Mayor
I-laakenson had not asked for Council disclosures. He found the use of a developrnent agreement in this
circumstance inappropriate, pointing out the number of criteria provided in the RCW, yet the development
agreernent was only Lrsed for one - to allow Mr. Gregg to vest the properly, He expressed concern with the City
Attorney allowing the State legislature to usurp local land use rules; questioning the opportunity for public
participation to adopt this land use tool in Ednronds. He noted there were nurnerous land use tools in the RCW
that the City had not adoptcd, for example the Cily adopted the Hearing Examiner method but had eliminated
the Board of Adjustrnent. He found it inappropriate not to include the public in the process and for the Council
to make decisions in Executive Session that changed land use laws.
I-learing no furthel public colnnlent, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing. Mr. Gregg was again provided an opportunity to speak which he declined.
ln response to Ms. Bloom's and Mr. Hefirich's assertions that the deveJopment agreement gave Mr. Gregg carte
blanche to do whatever he wanted, Mr. Snyder assured the only thing the development agreelnent provided was
that Mr. Gregg had until January 15,2008 to subrnit plans under the codes that exist in the City. He was
receiving no waivers, no variances, and must follow the same process to develop the property. In regard to Mr.
Hertrich's suggestion that Mr. Gregg be required to present plans, Mr'. Snyder advised if Mr. Gregg could
present plans, he could vest under the code and did not need the development agreenlent. He reiterated January
15, 2008 was apploximately the same period of tirne it would take to adopt new development regulatiolls.
ln response to Ms. Bloom's comment that the City was paying Mr. Gregg $30,000 in addition to legal costs, Mr.
Snyder explained the amount proposed to be paid was approximately the amount to win the lawsuit. With
regard to Ms. Larman's desire to preserve patrimony, he explained settling the lawsuit would ensure Mr.
Gregg's design as approved and underway, that Ms. Larman fought for, r,r,ould be buih. With regald to Mr.
MacFarlane's desire to preserve the open space, Mr. Snyder explained under current Ciry oldinance,
development in the downtown area was lot line to lot line. If the City attempted to regulate and prohibit
developrnent lot line to lot line, it must purchase the propefy via a direct purchase or inverse condemnation.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's cornments about questions raised by Engineering and Building Departments
regarding the design under construction, Mr. Snyder advised to his knorvledge there had been no revisions to the
design approved by the ADB. I-le noted OId Milltown was a very old building and things were discovered as
construction got underway. He suggested the Council direct questions with regard to the building permit to
Development Services Director Duane Bowman.
With regard to the allegation that something occurred in Executive Session, Mr. Snyder advised once the
process was concluded, all Executive Session minutes would be available to the public. As the minutes would
reveal, he was very clear to the Council when this was discussed that a settlement proposal had been presented
to the Council; the settlement proposal depended upon passage ofthe development agreement. LIe assured he
had not polled the Council and only sought reactions and feedback regarding negotiating the terus. He had
advised tlre Council they could not make a decision in Executive Session and that they should not give direction
l-idmonds Cit] Con cil Approvcd Minulcs
.lunc i.2007
I'agc 8
Packet Page 245 of 437
regarding the developrnent agreement. The Council was not asked their opinion regarding the developrnent
agreement in Executive Session as that could only be done in open session after a publiJ heari"ng.
Mr. Snyder referred to Mr. Henrich's assertion that the Council was taking action in Executive Session,explaining as soon as the Executive Session was complete the City CJerk showei a deveiopment agreernent andsettlemelt agreernellt on the extended agenda and notice of the public hearing was provided to propeny owners.published and posted on the City's website. The development agreement and settlement agreement telns were
being negotiated between Mr. Gregg's attorney and hirn; as soon he received a final de,rjopment agreemelt.within ten minutes it was provided erectronically to Mr. Henrich's attorney, Ms. Larmar, tie ciq, -lerk. theEnterprise- and was posted on thc City's website. Within an lrour it was avaiiable for public review.
With regard to amending by statute, Mr. Snyder explained the Hearing Examiner statute specifically provides
that if the City Council adopts a Hearing Examiner system, it is done via ordinance. fne CV,q. provides for a
developrnent agreelnent which is a legislative decision unless the agreement addresses a development approval.
He acknorvledged the developrnent agreement contained only one of the 8-9 issues that could be addresied by adevelopment agreement. He reiterated Mr. Gregg received no waivers. variances, lee reductions. etc. via theagreement, only assurance that the rules related to his developrnent ofthe properly would not clrange.
Developlllent Services Director Duane Bowman advised the comments the Council u,as provided were plan
revierv comments for a building permit which was not a quasijudicial matter but a rnatter between the Building
and Planniug Departrnent with a perrnit applicant as they proposed a project. The City's review conrments drewfrom the permit subrnittal; the applicant was required to iespond to ensure when the permit was finalized theywere compliant with adopted codes. The comments had notliing to do with the deveiopment agreement. The
developer was required to comply with all City Codes and the ADB's review.
Councilmetnber Wanlbolt asked Mr. Snyder to claril! that this was not a quasi judicial hearing. Mr. Snyder
advised
-a developrnent agreemenl coulifix specific requirements and address siecific approvals. When that
occurred- it was subject to LUPA. review. In this instance. a permit would follow the d"u"loprr1"nt agreernentwhich would be quasijudicial. The proposed development agreement rvas a legislative decision on a proposed
contractual element.
Courrcihrember Wambolt referred to Mr- Hertrich's suggestiol') that the development agreemert only cover theportion of the property to the south and not the portion for rvhich a pennit was being so-ught. He asked whether
that would be advantageous to the City. Mr. Snyder responded tv,ti. Gregg could a-pply io, u n"* approval butrvould do so ullder the new code provisions which were more restrictive than the oli toOe provisiols. He noted
one ofthe advantages of settling the lawsuit was citizens would be assured the second plan which Ms. Larman
and Mr. Hertrich fought for would be constructed. He acknowledged Mr. Gregg could stop at any tine and file
a nerv application but did not view tltat as a good business practice.
Councilmernber Orvis asked wiether the development agreement would preclude the Council from purchasing
any section ofthese properties to preserve open space. Mr. Snyder answeied no, commenting if the iity wanteJto preserve open space on a lot line to Iot line project or create a public meeting place/square, the Ciq,,sobligatron u'ould be to condemtr or purchase it via negotiation; anltiing else *,oJIi be an u;constitutional
taking of property.
Councilmember Dawson cornmented the development agreement provided some degree of assuralce that the
second plan that tlle citizens fought for would be built. She noted the current plan vlas still somewhat in pJaylegally speaking due to the lawsuit: if Mr. Gregg rvere to prevail in that lawsuit, presumably he could proieei
with the first plan. She asked what assurance tlre development agreement provided that the second plan would
be built? She inquired rvhether there was anything in the agreemint that piecluded Mr. Gregg from taking the
money in the settlement and reappiying for the first plan again or if that was precluded due tJt-he dismissal with
Ildnronds City Council npproved Milrutcs
.tunc i. 2007
pase 9
Packet Page 246 of 437
prejudice provision? Mr. Snyder stated the lawsuit and damage clairns lelating to the first process would be at
an end. Mr. Cregg, like any other applicant, could stop work on the project although that would be questionable
frorn a bLrsiness point of view as tl're new process would take at least 120 days during wtich tirne the building
would need to be preserved or demolished. He advised there was no Iegal reason why Mr. Gregg could not
abandon the design and start over although there were matty practical reasons.
Councilmember Dawson asked Mr. Gregg why the portion of the property that was already vested and in the
process of construction was included in the development agreemeDt. Bob Gregg stated that question was not
raised by any of the attorneys during negotiation and he objected to revising the developrneut agreement at this
point due [o concern with unintended col]sequences of making last minute revisions. He assured he had not
asked for anything in the developrrent agreement that was not already provided on April 15. The City, via a
very public process, took several years including 2-3 years of building moratoriulns to develop the code. His
request was that the code uot be changed for a period of time to allow him sufficicnt time to develop plans under
stable, unchanging rules. He noted they originally requested l2-18 months and Mr. Snydel asked for seven
months. He conmented that he was unaware that the appeal of an appeal was litigationi thelefore, although he
was being accused of suing, he was only exercising his right to an appeal of an appeal. He commented the
settlemerlt agreement was a windfall to the City. He concluded lre was not ir'lterested in reopening/renegotiating
the developurent agreement due to concern with unintended conseqllences. Mr. Gregg stated if he wanted to
withdrarv and resubmit Plan l, he would have every right to do so, sLLbject to appeal. He assured they had
absolutely no intention of doing so.
If the answer was it was unintentional that the portion of the property that was already vested was included in
tlte developntent agreement and he had no intension of resubmitting plans for Old Milltown. Councih.nentber
Dawson was unclcar why Mr. Cregg would not agree to str;ke that portion of the agreement, particularly as he
had every right to resubmit notwithstanding a development agreement. She asked Mr. Gregg why he would uot
agree to strike that portion ofthe development agreement if it would make everyone more comfortable and ifthe
Council's purpose was to ensure the second building plan was built rather than another version the public may
not approve of. Mr. Gregg asked why the Council did not assure him the rules would not change for six or telt
months.
Councihnember Dalson answered assuming the Council could assure him the developrnent rules would not
change for six montlrs which she noted was unlikely anyway, would he then agree to strike that portion of the
agreement. Mr. Gregg answered no, not during an election year. Councihnernber Darvson clarified Mr. Gregg
rvould not assure he would not submit a different plan than the one that had been approved. Mr. Gregg
answered he would give the same assurance if the City would not change the rules in the rneantime.
Councilniember Dawson clarifled the Council was agreeing to one thing but he was not agreeing to the otlier by
not agreeing to strike it from the development agreeInertt.
Councihnember Plunkett did not understand the applicant's concern about the rules changing, cor'llnenting the
point of vesting was once an application was made, the Council could change the rules and the applicant
continued to build under the code that was in place when the project vested. He asked whether the applicant
rvas vested regardless of changes that may be made to the code, Mr. Snyder explained under State law an
applicant was vested when a fully completed building penlit application was submitted. The City Code also
provides for vesting of the design via the ADB process and in this case a design had been vested. Mr. Gregg
could file an ADB or building permit application to vest the other poftions ofthe project at any time.
Councihnember Moore asked Mayor Haakenson his recommendation with regard to the developmetlt
agreement. Mayor I'laakenson read stafl and his recommendation from the Agenda Memo, "This development
agreernent is associated with the proposed settlelnent agreement. If the City Council, after taking public
testimony, js inclined to approve the agreement then the Mayor should be authorized to sign the developmerlt
agreement," summarizing it was a poJicy decision fol the Council to make. He noted it appeared based on this
Edmonds CiLy Council Approvcd Minutcs
Junc 5. 2007
Pa-sc l0
Packet Page 247 of 437
Council's history ol legislative deliberation, the Council would not approve any nerv codes between now and
January 2008 and it appeared Mr. Cregg rvas concerned about the rules changing before January 2008. He
referred to Mr. Snyder's indication that this was a fair settlernent, it protected Mr. Hertrich and Ms. Larman's
desire for.the building to be built as tliey fought for, it was a win for the City froln a financial standpoint and the
City did not give up anything to Mr. Gregg that he did not already have.
Councilmernber Plunkett referred to Mayor Haakenson's staternent that the building would be constructed based
on the second plan, yet although Mr. Gregg stated that was his intent. he rvould not conrmit to that in the
development agreernent. Mr. Gregg advised the building perrnit application was subject to design revierv that
rvas approved. Plan 2 was wtat they were cunently proceeding rvith. He noted any tinre an applicant submitted
an application, various City departrnents conducted due diligence over an approximately 28 day review period.
In his experience in Edmonds and other j urisd ictions, the result was not a permit but a list ofquestions about the
application that was submitted. in this instance a list of I l7 questions. He noted the HPC, ADB and Planning
Board when proposing code revisions needed to consult with staff as there were numerous iterns that those
groups wanted that could not be done.
Councilmember Plunkett stated Mr. Gregg's intent was to build the second plan but in his discussion with
Councilmember Dawson he was uuwilJiug to commit to that in the developrnent agreemert. Mr. Gregg agreed,
commenting he rvas not happy with Plan l, feeling it was rushed. He noted Plan 2 resulted in arr extreme
conflict - the ADB and the approved process did not allow the storefronts to be extended to the sidewalk. His
intent was to leave it because they could not remodel it to make it functional and practical. He noted many of
the 117 questions were in regard to the unused portion to the east which he noted could not be Ieft alone and
needed to be brought up to code. He expressed frustratiou that despite the fact they could not remodel it, it had
to be brought up to code. The reason he did not want to commit was because they did not have Plan 2 flushed
out yet and needed time to do so, He noted the voluntary pre-conference with the ADB had been replaced by a
two-stage process. If they carre with their plans "on the back of an envelope" in an effort to get a great deal of
public input and then have rnore specific plans developed. he envisioned emergency Council meetings to arnend
the code. He concluded they were moving forward with the plan that was approved under the old code; if he
rvere to withdraw it and change it and return to PIan l, it would be under the new code. He commented if he
resubmitted Plan l. it would likely be approved as it was approved by stafltu,ice, approved by the ADB twice,
remanded by Council once and rejected by Councii once in a decision that he felt was in error. Without the
graciousness ofthe settlernent agreement. Plan 1 rvould be approved and the City rvould be paying $250,000.
Mr. Snyder summarized the appeal of the rejection of Plan I rvould be dropped under the settlement agreement.
Mr. Cregg agreed "Plan I is dead:" if he wanted to reactivate PIan I he would have to go back thlough the entire
process and under the curent code. Mr. Snyder sunrnrarized PIan 2 would remain vested and Mr. Cregg was
reserving the right to stop construction and reapply and go through the entire process again-
Councilmernber Warnbolt asked whelher a project was vested when the building perrnit was applied for or when
it u'as approved. Mr. Snyder described how projects could vest includirrg when a fully conrpleted buiJding
perrnit application with a fee was filed rvith the City, via multiple approval processes, via an alternative vest;ng
provision for ADB applications and via a development agreement under CMA. He noted Old Milltown Plan 2
desigrr uas vested by application.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Councilrnember Marin relayed his experience as a general coltractor building new homes in l3 jurisdictions and
his frustration with inspections that differed in each jurisdiction. The development agreement was an
opportunity to provide certainty that the rules would remain the sarne, an oppofiunity for Mr. Gregg to withdrarv
lidmonds Cit) Council Approvcd Minules
J une 5.2007
Pagc I I
Packet Page 248 of 437
gracefuliy from the lawsuit and an oppoftunify to conclude the lawsuit in a rnanner that was equitable to the
Cily. He expressed his support for the development agreement.
Council Presiderrt Olsorr erpressed her suppon lor the de"elopmerl agreemert. comrnenting irt a negotiation
both parties need to feel they are getting sonrething. She liked that PIan I would be dead and tlie building would
be built in accordance u,ith Plan 2. Further, the City was not giving anything arvay and the rnatter u,ould lot go
to court with both sides spending a great deal of money. She viewed the development agreernent as a good
compromise.
Councilmember Warnbolt agreed with Ms. Bloom's aversion to giving arvay $30,000, noting the alternative as
described by Mr. Snyder was worse! possibly losing the lawsuit which would cost the City a great deal more
than legal fees. Although there were pros and cons, in view ofthe recommendation fron the City Attorney, he
would support approval ofthe developrrent agreement.
Councilrnernber Dawson agreed it was unlikely the development rules would be changed between now and the
tirne period referenced in tlre developnrent agreement. She acknowledged even if the Council agreed now, it
would be difficult to adopt thern by January 2008 based on past practice, the Planning Board's schedule. etc.
She commented when she first reviewed this matter she felt the City was not giving up anything because there
were no plans to change the rules and slre could appreciate Mr. Gregg's desire for certainty with regard to the
portion ofthe building that was not currently in process. Although she originally planned to vote in lavor of the
development agreement, Mr. Gregg Irad convinced her otherwise tonight. She was no longer persuaded the City
was getting anything from the development agreement because she was no longer convinced based ou Mr.
Gregg's comments that the second plan would be built. She was coucemed that if the Council approved the
development agreement and the settlement agreement, this particular lawsuit could be dropped, the Cily would
pay $30,000 and Mr. Gregg could institute another plan and tlie City could not preclude it. She acknowledged
Mr. Gregg could do that regardless of whether the Council approved the development agreement. She rvas
concemed with Mr. Glegg's unwillingness to exempt Old Milltown frorn the development agreement. She was
willing to refer the maner for further negotiations and could agree to the development agreement if the portion
of tlre site that was already vested were removed but could not approve the development agreement as proposed-
Councilmember Moore commented she did not attend the Executive Session where this was discussed and noted
apparently during the Executive Sessiou there was some direction frorn the Council to the City Attomcy to craft
the developrnent agreement. As she did not attend the Executive Session and did not know ufiat had transpired,
slre planned to abstain from the vote.
Councilmember Dawson assured there was no decision made by the Council in Executive Session. There was
direction given to the City Attonley to negotiate a developrnent agreement and return for a public hearing. Once
this matter was concluded, the minutes would clearly indicate that that rvas all the CoLrncil, as appropriate Lrnder
the law, had done. Councilmernber Moore responded she did not intend to imply a decision was rnade but that
some direction was given to the City Attorney. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Council against discussing what had
occurred in Executive Session. He explained he had an ethical obligation to present a settlement agreernent
made to him to the Council as his client. The proposal was rrade by Mr. Glegg and lris attorney and discussed
with the Council in Executive Session. He assured uo mernber of thc Council indicated a position on the
development agreement because from the first Executive Session, the Council lvas informed they could not do
so in EKecutive Session. He urged Councilmember Moore to consider voting, advising that she, like all
Councilmembers, must make a decision based on the public hearing and the documents provided. He assured
no member ofthe Council had anv infonnatioll that Councilmerrber Moole did not.
Councilmember Dawson noted it was a Councilmember's prerogative to vote yes, no or abstain. She supported
Councilmember Moore obtaining additional legal advice from Mr. Snyder if necessary prior to tlre vote.
Councihnember Moore answered that was unnecessary.
Ldnonds Cir)' Council Approlcd Minutcs
June 5- 2007
Pagc 12
Packet Page 249 of 437
Councilmernber Plunkett commerted the orly way a Councilmember could abstain was if he/slie did not have
sufficient information. He asked whether Mayor I'laakenson could vote if Ms. Moore did not. Mr. Snyder
ansu'ered Mayor Haakenson could vote on the deveiopment agreement: he could not vote on the passage of an
ordinance, letling of a franchise or appropriation offunds. I-le clarified Mayor Haakensor could not vote on the
settlement agreement.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, PLUNKETT, MARIN, AND WAMBOLT IN
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
OLSON
FAVOR;
AND
AND
.rrcgg \
ScrLlcrncnt
Councrl
SW
Ldinonds
Ncighbor-
I APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - GREGG PRODUCTIONS, INC. V. CITY OF
EDMONDS CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 7.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the tenns of the settlement agreement were in the record. The settlemerlt
agreerneut was presented rvith his and Washington Cities Insurance Authority's recomrnendation. Thc $30,000
payment was approximately equivalent to the cost of winning a LUPA and avoided darnage claims on summary
judgment in a best case scenario. In his view it was a waslr with regard to cost. He noted the third item in the
settlement agreelnent was the Cily would treat Mr. Gregg fairly in the permit process as was the City's
obligation with respect to every applicant.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Councihnember Plunkett advised the reason he voted in favor of the development agreernert was the rnoney and
the code. Fle noted the code w.as vague and he was not confident it would stand up to a challenge. He explained
the reaso:r historic design standards for downtown were being created was to be able to require future projects to
meet historic design standards.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE,
PLUNKETT, MARIN, AND WAMBOLT lN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND
DAWSON OPPOSED.
9 AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jesse Scott, Edmonds, urged the Council to favorably consider the uext agenda item, award of the contract for
the sidewalk on I 64'r' Street. He explained the project was actually a rework of the roadway in an attempt to
resolve a safety issue. He pointed out recently an Ed:ronds fire engine was unable to negotiate the turu, the only
access to an area of 150 homes, wedging itselfon the hili. A Lvnnwood fire truck approached from the opposite
direction and responded. His major concern was children walking on the street on their way to school,
colnmenting it was only a matter of tirne before a child was injured. He recalled engineering work for the
project was approved three years ago but a contract was not approved. Last year he appeared before the Council
with a petition from homeowners urging the Council to take action. At that time the Council approved it but no
contract was approved. He noted the Council's inaction had cosl citizens approxirnately $300,000 as the cost of
the project was now $525,000. I'le rvas unconcerned about the funding as it lvas from the same source for a
$945.000 sidcwalk that led to the North Meadowdale County Park. He expressed concern with the $345,000 the
Council approved for the 162''d Street park, only four blocks frorn the Coul'lty Park. I'le urged the Council to use
common sense and favorably corrsider the 164't' Street sidewalk project-
David Page, Edmonds, expressed concern with rnembers ofthe public who complained about tlre Council in
the press rvhere the Council had little ability to respond. Although he disagreed with the Council on occasiolr
and acknowledged the Council sometimes made mistakes, he appreciated their hard work and dedication.
Al Rutledgc, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Marin for attending the Kiwanis CJub rneeting. I{e provided
an update regarding the Snohomish County Superior Cor:rt decision on the SW Edmonds Neighborhood Park
Edmonds CiLy Council Approrcd Minulcs
.lune 5 2007
rdc$oLk
I'jacc l3
Packet Page 250 of 437
0td
\lrllLo\1r
Councrl
otd
Crcgg r
lidmonds
Sclrlcmcnl
l6.rrh sl
sw
$'olk\o\'/
Tlrh Plw
and the 2l day appeal process. Next, he inquired about the fence around the old Woodway Elementary School
playfields and recommended it be removed immediately. FIe also referred to a Hearing Examiner meetirg
regarding a new 2Tlrome development.
Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Darvson and Councihnernber Orvis for their courage
lvith regard to their vote orr the development agreement and settlement agreement. Next, she pointed out the
proposed park in front of the boardwalk rvas not City property and was concerned the City could lose that
property. She challenged Councihnember Moore to spearhead the efTort to preserve that park.
Gary Humiston, trdmonds, cornrnented on the fence alound the fields at the old Woodway Elementary School
playfields. As it appeared people continued to use the fields, he and others should be allowed access. He
inquired about the location of the gate to access the field and whether the Interlocal Agreement for the fields
remained in effect,
Kevin Clarke, Edmonds, recalled the oppofiunity to serve on a Commission with a great deal of controversy,
the Citizens Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials, commenting rnuch could be learned from the Pirates
Council in Pirates of the Caribbean 111. He noted the Council addressed many difficult issues, yet were often
crucified in the press for those decisions. He comnented on his experience driving behind the procession for
Police Chief Stern and his pride at being a lesident of Edmonds. He expressed his thanks to the Council fol all
they do.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, stated no one impugned the rnotives ofthe Council but they wer-e not excused from
making gross errors. He recalled being the victini ofthe erroneous application ofa law for the construction ofa
building illegally approved contrary to the unarnbiguous lvords of the code. He asserted the Ciry attempted to
create a sense of ambiguity to allow construction of 3-story buildings. Next, he recalled hearing that the cost of
the old Woodway EJenrentary school property was $ I 6 million when in reality the cost for the entire site was $8
rnillion and only $4 million for the property the City did not purchase. He then colnmented on the fence at the
old Woodway Elementary school, pointing out that area was still listed as a park in the Chamber of Cornrnerce
publication- LIe summarized additional density and elimination of open space was a formula that did not
increase the residents' well being. lle concluded not purclrasing the entire parcel was a mistake.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, thanked Councilrnember Dawson for her reaction to Mr. Gregg's comments. He
expressed concern with Mr. Gregg's unwillingness to negotiate and the Council's decision not to try to get mole
from Mr. Gregg. He refered to the current empty condition of OId Milltown, asserting it was arvaiting rnore
changes by Mr. Gregg. l-le noted Mr. Gregg never described his plans for the south end and he anticipated the
current parking would be third story condominiums in the future with excavation below for palking. He
anticipated the project would continue to grow and change.
IO. REPORT OF BIDS OPENED ON MAY 8,2OO7 FOR THE 164TH STREET SW WALKWAY AND THE
74TH PI,ACE WEST DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
TRIMAXX CONSTITIJCTION INC 545 565.00
City Engineer Dave Gebeft explained due to the proxinity of these projects in the Meadowdale area aud
sirnilarities in the u'ork, they were combined into one project. Bids rvere opened on May 8; three bids were
submitted, all above estimates. The low bid was $545,646; the engineer's estimate was $318,878. The
invitation for bids included two projects: Schedule A - 164'r'street SW walkway and Scheduled B - 74'r'Place
West drainage improvements.
l64tl' Street SW Walkwav
Mr. Geberl explained lhis had become a more expensive project than originally anticipated '12-18 months ago
and in 2002-2003 rvhen the project was designed. The lorv bid for Schedule A, the walkway portion of the bid,
Ednronds Cit)' Council Approrcd Minutes
June i.2007
Pagc 1.1
Packet Page 251 of 437
was $412,686, the engiueer's estjmate was $255,135 and the budget in Fund 125 Parks Improvement was
$270,000. 'fhe reason the project had become so expensive was the cuffent bidding clirnate as well as project
scope. With regard to tlre current construction industry bidding climate, he explained the construction industry
was experiencing rapidly escalating bids, especially on public pro.jects. He recalled a recent Sound Trans;t
station that received one bid lor $90 million and the engineer's estimate was $50 rnillion. He noted before
advertising for bids the engineer's estimate was reviewed and updated. however. it appeared the amount did llot
accuralelv account for the malket conditions and degree of difficuJty anticipated by bidders.
With regard to project scope. Mr. Geberl explained the site of this project has very challenging topography;
164'r' Street SW is a steep. narrow, curving road, with steep slopes on both sides and there is insufficient space
to install a sideu,alk that would meet current safety standards. He displayed several photographs that illustrated
the topography on the site. He surnnrarized that although this was a walkway project, installation of the
sidewalk required major road reconstruction including significant excavat;on, reconstruction. w.idening of the
road, relocation of a water main, and installation of a retaining wall. In addition, construction of sidewalks
requires compliance rvith current Federal standards for ADA curb ramps, which requires additional
reconstructiol'l at tl're intersection of 16411' Str-eet SW and North Meadowdale Road. where tlre current
configuration is a very sharp and steep turn.
Because 164'l'Stleet SW is the only public road providing access to this neighborhood of approxirnately 150
hornes, traffic flow lnust be maintained during constructio|- This results in significant traffic control costs. He
concluded this walkway project in essence had become a road reconstruction projcct. He displayed a drawing
illustrating the sidewalk. retaining wall. excavation and reconstruction, guardrail, and ADA curb ramps.
Mr. Gebert reviewed options considered by staff:
. Adjustments to the scope or design to reduce the cost by change order - staff was not able to identify
any significant cost reductiols rvithin the current design
o Reevaluate other design alternatives previously rejected - any significant redesign rvould require
deferring the construction a year (due to the steep slopes and the need to perform construction in this
location during dry summer months) and rebidding the project, and rvould involve additional design
costs. with no assurance at this point ofa less expensive project.
e Defer the project and advertise for bids again next year - no basis for expecting a better bidding climate
next year.
o Install the sidervalk orrlv - staff concluded a safe sidewalk could not be constructed without all the
roadwav reconstruction
After careful review by staff. Mr. Gebert advised the following practical options were identified:
l. Appropriate additional funds and award the contract
2. Cancel the project for this year, review redesign alternatives, redesign as appropriate, and advertise for
bids again next year
3. Cancel the project cornpletely
He explained to award a contract to the low bidder for Schedule A (164'r'street SW Walkway) would require
approxinrately $495.500 which includes the bid amount and continSency, elgineering, material testing, public
art. etc. The budget for the walkway pofiion was $270,000: an additional $225,500 was necessary 1o award the
project- He described funding sources considered and staffs conclusion that the road was seriously deteriorated
and needed to be repaved soon, wirether or not a sidewalk was constructed. He displayed several photographs
illustrating the poor condition of the roadway. For that reason and because the project included a number of
road reconstruction items. if Council wants to proceed with the l64rr' Street SW Walkway project. staff
recornmends rnoving forward $225.500 ofthe $550,000 budgeted in 2008 in Fund 125 (REET2 Transportatiol
Projects) to 2007 to fund the I 64'r' Street SW Walkway pro.ject instead of cityrvide street overlays.
Edmonds Cit!' Council npprolcd MiDUtcs
Jrnc 5- 2007
Pa-qc 15
Packet Page 252 of 437
74th Place West Drainage lrnprovernenls
Mr. Geberl explained this was an emergent drainage problem identified subsequent to preparation of the 2007-
2008 capital budget. The funds required to award the contract are S158,000 which includes the contract bid
amount as well as contingency, construclion engineering, ctc. There is $70,000 included in the 2007 capital
budget for general Meadowdale drainage projects. An additional $88,000 is required to award Schedule B for
the 74(r' Place West Drainage Improvements project. There is sufficient cash balance in Fund 4i2 for utilities
capital projects.
Mr. Gebert relayed stafls reconrmendation that the Council appropriate the additional $225,500 from Fund 125
(REET 2 'l'ranspoftation Projects) for tlie walkway and appropriate an additional $88,000 in Fund 4l 2 200 and
award the contract to Trimaxx Construction. Inc. in the amount of $545,565.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether it would be impractical to award the two contracts to two diffelent
contractors. Mr. Gebert answeled that would not be ethical; the City's procedure was the lower bid was based
on the total ofthe schedules. Councilmember Wambolt questioned why the projects were bid separately if they
could not be awarded separately. City Attonrey Scott Snyder explained the schedules were bid as one project
and the project would need to be rebjd to separate the schedules.
Councilmember Wambolt reiterated this was two differcnt projects. Mr. Geberl expiained it was bid as one
contract and one bid invitation. Councilmember Warnbolt noted Trirnaxx was tlre lowest in total but not tl're
lowest on either schedule. Mr. Gebert explained the projects were bid together as they rvere in close proximity
and due to the need to coordinate the traffic control between projects. Councilmenrber Wambolt asked whether
the bidders' understanding was tlrey would be awarded the entire project or nothing. Mr. Gebert ansrvered yes,
rloting another option lvould be to award only one schedule.
Councilmember Moore stated although she understood the construction industry climate, staff knew the
difficulty with regard to the scope ofthe project. She asked why tlre engineer's estimate was far below the bids.
Mr. Gebert stated staff considered the scope in the estilnate but underestimated the unit prices for the quantities.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the difference between the bid and the engineer's estimate for traffic control,
recalling the traffic control was under-estimated in another project. Mr. Gebert advised the ellgineer's estirnate
of $20,000 for traf'fic control would lypically be a very large amount; the bid was 538,000. Because this was an
isolated location and trucking costs were expensive, the bidders vierved it as a more difficult and complex
project. He noted the Council would soon be provided a bid for the 100'l' Avenue slope stabilization where the
lorv bids again were considerably higher than the engineer's estimate. He noted sorne of the engineer's
estimates were developed by staff and others were developed by consultants. Staff met today with the low
bidder on the 100'r' Avenue slope stabilization project to determine if there were ways to reduce the cost. The
cortractor informed hirn they no longer take into account tlre engineer's estimates wlien bidding a project.
Councilmember Moore asked what would be sacrificed by reallocating these funds. Mr. Gebert answered
overlays in other areas. The rationale for the funding source was much of the project \\,as road repair and road
reconstruction. Councilrnember Moore asked what other roads would not receive an overlay if this project were
financed fiom that funding source. Mr. Gebert answered that had not yet been determined.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why staff did not recornmend review of design alternatives. Mr. Geberl
answered redesign would result in a one year delay as the work must be done during summer months, thele was
no assurance the project costs would be less, and there would be additional costs to redesign the project. He
explained during the design process in 2002-2003 several design altematives were considered and rejected.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were other design alternatives that could be reviewed. Mr- Gebert
explained factors considered in rejecting the otl.rer altematives included geotechnical issues due to unstable soils,
degree of difficuJty transitioning a sidewalk to North Meadowdale Road, safety issues and cost factors. He
Ednlonds Citl Council ADprovcd Minutcs
Junc i.200?
l'age l6
Packet Page 253 of 437
summarized the result of reviewing design alternatives was additional cost for redesign arrd advertising. a one-
rear delay- and onl; possibll a lcss expensire project.
Councilmenrber Warnbolt recalled RE.ET 2 collections in excess of $750.000 rvere allocated to Fund 125 and
those funds had generally been stronger than projected. Therefore other overlays may not need to be delayed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT THE
COUNCIL APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $225,000 IN FUND I25 (REET 2 TRANSPORTATION)
AND AN ADDITIONAL $88,OOO IN FUND 4I2-2OO (DRAINAGE PROJECTS), AND AWARD A
CONTRACT TO TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF S54s,s65.00 FOR THE
164,I.', STREET sw WALKWAY AND THE ?4TIT PLACE wEsT DRAINAGE IMPRoVEMEN'I.
PROJECTS.
Councilrnember Orvis expressed support for the motion, comlnenting althougir it was a difficult decision, this
roadway served an entire neighborhood and he did not envision the project getting less expensive.
Council President Olson acknowledged these were cxpensive projects but sJre supported tirem. She noted it was
the Council's responsibility to ensure neighborhoods were accessible.
Councilmernber Moore agreed tltis rvas a necessaD irnprovernent and was a high priority. She was concented
the engirreer's estinlates would ueed to be doubled or tripled in the future, an issue tl'rat needed to be considered
during preparation ofthe budget. She pointed out the imponance ofdeveioping a strategic plan to identify the
source of funds in the future.
Councihnember Marin commented it was difficult for the engirreer to estimate staging and sequencing. He
anticipated the contractor rvould have difficulty identifl,ing a staging area nearby to store materials and
equiplnent as rvell as have difficulty sequencing tlte project.
Councilmember Wainbolt commented the eslimate for dernolition of Lhe old Woodway Elernetrtary was a
fraction ofthe estimate. and thr: City was saving several hundred thousand dollars.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
I I. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson cornrnented that although the Council would always be asked to do due diligence to reduce
costs, ;t was apparent costs would continue to increase and the Council rnust consider the source of funds to
cover these increasing costs.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Olson rvished Councilmember Warnbolt a belayed Happy Bifthday on June l. She also
comrnended the Noon Rotary for the Waterfront Festival. remarking events such as the Festival are a great way
to prornole Edmonds.
Councilmember Warnbolt referred to Mr. Bernheim's comrrents regarding the elirrination of opcn space.
explaining the City rvas elirninating buildings. not open space. With regard to Mr. Hertrich's assertion that the
Council did not gain anything frorn settling the lawsuit witli Mr. Gregg, he pointed out tlie benefit to the City
was tlte la\\,suit was dropped. Although he had some ofthe sarne reservations about Mr. Cregg due to his past
perfonrance, he believed the dcvelopmeDt agreernent and settlement agreement made the best ofthe situation.
Edmonds Cit) Colncil Approvcd Minutcs
.lune 5.2007
Pagc I ?
Packet Page 254 of 437
ll.alrh
Drsrrict
Councihnember Dawson relayed that her lrusband and she played tennis at Seaview Park and took a walk on the
Edmonds beach this weekend wlrich rrade her feel like she was on vacation in her own town. She remarked on
what a wonderful place Edmonds was and felt blessed to live here
Councilmer.nber Marin reported flu season was winding down and the West Nile Virus season was beginning.
He described the Health District's program that included the collection of dead birds that were inspected for
West Nile Virus infection as well as the trapping of mosquitoes to determine whether they were the variety that
carried West Nile Virus. He explained onJy the fenale of one variely carried the virus. He advised when the
Health District identified a Iocatiorl that was a vector for the virus, the city was contacted and infolmed rvhere
larvaeside may need to be placed.
Councilmenrber Moore inquired about the fence on the old Woodway Elementary School site. Mr. Clarke
advised it was on the deveJoper's property.
Studeut Representative Callahan reported Special Olympics Washington concluded this weekend. He
volunteered for the Edmonds School District Special Olympics team and urged tlie public to volunteet. Next, lte
remarked rnuch of high school literature was intended to teach students that doing the right thing was always
right in the long run. He commented people visited Edmonds because of its uniqueness - a srnall, friendly town
with a true downtown with buildings frorn a bygone era. I-le feared tliat faced with a difficult decision tonight,
the rnajority ofthe Council disregarded the opportuniry to do the light thing. He urged the Council not to lose
sight ofwhat Edmonds meant to the regioll.
I3. AD.IOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:l I p.m
0ld
lllcmenm^
Sp.cLal
Ol! pics
Iidnronds Cit,v Council Approved Minutcs
Junc 5.2007
I)asc 18
Packet Page 255 of 437
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 15
proposal adhered to GMA policies, met the GMA housing goals, fit within the surrounding uses, was
suitable and met the value criteria.
Councilmember Orvis spoke against the motion, commenting if allowing additional units on a site was
required to get buildings upgraded, the entire City would be rezoned eventually which was contradictory
to the changes, suitability and surrounding area criteria.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting there were many requirements a developer
must meet currently. He supported having the Planning Board consider the multi family zoning but
cautioned against requiring sustainability as he was hesitant to mandate sustainability in private buildings.
Councilmember Wambolt spoke in support of the motion. In response to Mr. Bernheim, he noted the
benefit of the rezone and subsequent new construction which would be more energy efficient than the
existing homes that were constructed in 1946 and 1966.
Councilmember Plunkett commented in a quasi judicial hearing the Council could not consider what
should be, only whether the applicant met the criteria with their proposal. He found the applicant met the
criteria under the existing code, zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, requested the Council consider term limits for Boards and Commissions as
well as the City Council and the Mayor. Council President Olson cautioned him to avoid campaign
issues. Next, Mr. Hertrich commented he could not recall a Council meeting being cancelled when he
was on the Council and he objected to giving the Council President that power.
11. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE INCLUDING: (1)
CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, (2) EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, (3) GOVERNMENT ACCESS
CHANNEL 21, AND (4) COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.
Council President Olson explained these issues were discussed at the recent Council retreat.
Cancellation of Meetings
Council President Olson did not envision this occurring very often, noting it occurred in the past due to
the loss of the Police Chief. As it was not possible to talk to each Councilmember because that was
considered a rolling quorum, there needed to be a way to cancel Council meetings.
Councilmember Marin was satisfied with delegating that authority to the Council President.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed.
Councilmember Dawson envisioned it would be a rare occurrence for the Council President to exercise
his/her authority to cancel a meeting. She acknowledged two meetings were cancelled earlier this year
due to Police Chief Stern’s sudden illness and subsequent memorial service. She found it inappropriate to
require staff and/or Council to attend a meeting under those circumstances. She remarked it was a waste
of public resources to schedule a meeting if there was no business as each Councilmember was paid,
some staff members were paid, etc. She concluded it was appropriate to delegate that authority to the
Council President.
Councilmember Moore commented the proposed method was more efficient. She noted a Council
President who cancelled meetings that the Council did not want to have cancelled would answer to the
Council.
Term Limits
Meeting
Cancellations
Council Rules
of Procedure
Packet Page 256 of 437
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 16
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3656. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1.04 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO
ADD A NEW SECTION 1.04.140 CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Executive Session
Councilmember Plunkett advised he requested a resolution be prepared regarding Executive Sessions. He
recalled during the discussions of the park in south Edmonds over the past year, there was some confusion
regarding what information was and was not Executive Session, whether the Council should discuss
certain issues in Executive Session and in at least one instance the confidentially of an Executive Session
was broken. The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus
regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He advised this resolution would
accomplish two purposes, 1) if a Councilmember believed an Executive Session was taking place that
should not, they could propose a motion to end the Executive Session and the Council could have
discussion and make a determination during the public meeting, and 2) prevent any one member from
revealing information that other Councilmembers believed was protected by Executive Session.
Councilmember Dawson commented the resolution did not appear to address Councilmembers
questioning whether the Council should be in Executive Session; she agreed it was appropriate for
Councilmembers to have the ability to question whether a topic should be discussed in Executive Session.
She noted the draft resolution also addressed the dissatisfaction expressed at the retreat with the way
meetings were handled, the way Councilmembers were recognized and the number of times each
Councilmembers could speak.
Councilmember Moore agreed the resolution did not appear to provide Councilmembers a way to
question an inappropriate Executive Session. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised a Councilmember
could always leave an Executive Session that they felt was inappropriate. He noted the City kept minutes
of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue.
He explained the Council could reach consensus in Executive Session. If the Council agreed to discuss an
issue in the open meeting, they could come out of Executive Session and make a motion to have the issue
placed on a future agenda and/or request information be released. In the absence of a motion, the
confidence of the Executive Session would be observed. He noted the resolution did not address the
appropriateness of a subject for Executive Session because that was addressed in state law.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled there were Councilmembers who revealed information that the Council
had agreed should not be disclosed. His intent was to develop rules so that all Councilmembers had the
same understanding. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting release of confidential Executive Session information
was a crime and a potential basis for forfeiture of office. The resolution was intended to establish an
orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. He concluded Executive Session
information remained confidential as long as the Council felt it should remain confidential.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1150 ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Committee Assignments
Council President Olson explained in the past some Council committee meetings were paid and others
were not; in assigning committees, it seemed more prudent to simply pay Councilmembers for a
Ord# 3656
Cancellation of
Council
Meetings
Packet Page 257 of 437
Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes
February 2-3, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
APPROVED MINUTES
February 2-3, 2012
The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 10:04 a.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2012 in the
Brackett Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Thursday, February 2
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
PUBLIC PRESENT
Thursday, February 2
Bruce Witenberg
Darrol Haug
Ron Wambolt
Harry Gatjens
Al Rutledge
Roger Hertrich
Evan Pierce
Ken Reidy
Bruce Faires
Jim Orvis
STAFF PRESENT
Thursday, February 2
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director/Interim
Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Tod Moles, Street Operations Manager
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant
Kody McConnell, Executive Assistant
Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 – CALL TO ORDER
Council President Peterson called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m.
• Introduction/Brief Preview of Retreat Agenda
Council President Peterson explained in preparation for the retreat he asked the Council, Mayor and staff to
identify issues important for 2012. Most of the issues were included on the retreat agenda; some will be on
future Council agendas throughout the year. Mike Bailey, Redmond’s Finance Director, is ill and unable to
make the presentation regarding budgeting by priorities. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock will introduce the
topic today. Mr. Bailey will be invited to provide a workshop to the Council in the next few weeks to explore
the concept in detail.
Packet Page 258 of 437
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2010
Page 2
Council President Peterson explained because this is a relatively young City Council with the majority of
Councilmembers in their first term, roles and responsibilities of the Council was a topic that many identified. A
consultant recommended by AWC will make a presentation tomorrow to review the relationship between City
Council and Mayor in a strong Mayor/Council form of government. Council President Peterson briefly reviewed
other topics on the retreat agenda.
Councilmembers and staff introduced themselves.
Audience Comments
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their efforts. This is the third retreat he has attended and he
enjoys the open, candid dialogue that occurs at retreats that does not happen at City Council meetings. Today is
Groundhog Day; in this case the shadow looming is the budget issue. Because 2012 is not an election year, he
suggested it would be a good time for the Council to continue the spirit of the retreat and establish a policy to
solve the budget gap. Budgeting by priorities was studied by the levy committee and he urged the Council to
consider that concept as a way to help the City. He looked forward to a concerted effort to identify policies early
in the process and was hopeful the shadow of the budget gap would not be quite as looming next year.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, acknowledged the City did its best during the snow. He reported there was no mail
delivery on SR 104/205th or on 76th for four days due to snow which could have been a problem for someone
expecting medical supplies via mail. On the fifth day of the snow, a car hit a pole causing a power outage in the
Lake Ballinger area. He suggested the situation be reviewed by the Police Chief. Next, he suggested the Council
discuss the sale of Robin Hood Lanes and hold a public hearing.
Council President Peterson referred to an email from Ken Reidy, Edmonds, regarding executive sessions. Mr.
Reidy’s email cited the preamble to the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) which states in
part, the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in
delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know
and what is not good for them to know. In Mr. Reidy’s opinion, state law requires the eventual release of
executive session meeting minutes to the citizens such as after real estate has been purchased, after publically
bid contracts are finalized or after pending litigation has been settled and/or all appeal rights related to the
litigation have been exhausted. He supported the keeping of detailed minutes of all executive sessions and
offered to work with elected officials to clearly establish the point in time that executive session meeting
minutes will be made available to the citizens.
Discussion about Executive Sessions and the Consequences of Minutes/Notes
Council President Peterson explained there has been some question about what other cities in Washington
do/not do with regard to executive session minutes/notes, when those minutes/notes are made available to
public, pros and cons regarding attorney/client privilege and the concept of executive sessions.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided the following introductory comments: first, there is a clear distinction
between notes and minutes. Minutes may begin as notes but become minutes when the City Council has an
opportunity to review and vote to approve their accuracy and in some cases make revisions which may include
reviewing the audio of the meeting. Currently in executive session the City Clerk takes notes but those notes are
never reviewed/approved by the City Council so they do not have the status of minutes. Second, Mr. Taraday
was not aware of any other city in Washington that keeps notes of executive session. Municipal Research
Service Center (MRSC) recommends against that practice. Edmonds began keeping notes of executive sessions
in 1996 when Resolution 853 was adopted. Mr. Taraday read Resolution 853, Establishing a Procedure for
Keeping and Retaining Minutes of City Council Executive Sessions.
Packet Page 259 of 437
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2010
Page 3
Mr. Taraday pointed out that although the resolution uses the term “minutes,” he does not consider the Council’s
practice to be generating minutes. To the extent the Council deems that there is a public interest for making a
record of what takes place in executive session, that record should be as accurate as possible. If there is a desire
for a record, there should be an audio recording of executive sessions. Alternatively, the Council goes into
executive session for a reason; the reason is stated before the Council goes into executive session and it is an
executive session because it is a discussion that should not be public and no record should be made. Mr. Taraday
recommended the Council either make a full record or make no record; to do what the Council is doing now is
potentially misleading in that it is not possible to take down on paper everything that takes place in executive
session.
The Council raised the following suggestions/questions/topics (City Attorney’s response in italics):
• As an alternative to recording, keep notes of executive sessions and the Council review the notes and
possibly in the future call them minutes. The resolution seems to state the Council wants to ensure there
is a record stating the Council was in executive session for the right reason. There is no way to know
that an accurate record exists unless there is a recording to back up the notes. The Council also needs
to vote to approve minutes; the Council cannot vote in executive session. The Council could review the
minutes privately and then vote in open session to approve them. If there is an interest in a fully
accurate record of what takes place in executive session, the only way to ensure that is to record it.
• Why not record executive sessions? The City has always asserted that if the executive session is for the
purpose of discussing pending/potential litigation and the City Attorney is present, the notes taken
during executive session are attorney/client privilege protected and therefore are not subject to public
disclosure. However, there is no case law and there is no guarantee the court would rule that way.
Therefore in the absence of a more clear statute about note taking/minute taking/recording of executive
sessions, there is some risk that a court could rule that whatever record was made should be made
public. He would, of course, vehemently object to that effort and would argue that any record of a
discussion regarding pending/potential litigation should be treated as attorney work product or
attorney/client privilege and not subject to public disclosure.
• What topics are permissible for Executive Session and why don’t other cities take notes? The reason
other cities do not take notes is out of concern that the record cannot be protected from public
disclosure. Mr. Taraday reviewed the permissible bases for executive sessions contained in RCW
42.30.1101(1).
• The Council could continue its current practice but revise the resolution to conform to the current
practice. If the current practice is continued, Councilmembers have some protection because they do not
review or approve the notes taken of executive sessions. Mr. Taraday did not recommend continuing the
current practice because if the goal is an accurate, complete record, it should be a record that can be
verified later.
• There are some issues on the list of bases for an executive session that should not have any record kept;
the philosophy behind an executive session is to have an open discussion about sensitive issues such as
personnel, potential litigation, and those should never be revealed to the public. The Council could
record discussions regarding real estate matters; the Council could review and approve minutes in open
session and possibly release them in the future. The Council would not record or take notes of all other
executive session topics. The City Council could establish a policy to record certain types of executive
sessions. With regard to the approval of minutes, there is no exemption from the OPMA for approval of
executive session minutes; the City Council cannot go into executive session to discuss a change to
executive session minutes. MRSC recommends that minutes not be kept of executive sessions because a
public records request could be made for the minutes and there is no automatic exemption from
disclosure that applies.
• RCW 42.30.010 cited by Mr. Reidy states that the people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to
the agencies which serve them. The Council should take full and complete minutes and record executive
sessions and determine what can/cannot be revealed in the future. The risk of that approach is the
Packet Page 260 of 437
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2010
Page 4
executive session list of topics does not clearly say that a record of the executive session is not
disclosable under the Public Records Act.
• Why does Edmonds keep notes of executive sessions? MRSC recommends notes not be kept and most
cities do not. There is no legal need to takes notes to comply with state law; it is up to the Council
whether to preserve a record of executive sessions. It can be helpful in the future to check on topics the
Council has discussed in the past.
• Executive sessions give the Council an opportunity to have an open dialogue with staff. The philosophy
of executive sessions is to have a frank dialogue, a recording would minimize that.
• There may be short term reasons not to disclose executive session notes but not in the long term. If
Councilmembers know what they say could eventually be disclosed, they may be more thoughtful in
their questions and discussion. All executive session conversations should be disclosed in the future.
The public has a right to know the information unless it is confidential and private.
• Need to determine why other cities are not taking notes of executive sessions. The reason other cities do
not take notes is clear in the statement on MRSC’s website; there is no automatic exemption from
disclosure. There is the possibility even in the short term that a court could require disclosure of a
record the City Council thought would not be disclosed. A potential option would be to have the City
Attorney take notes. His notes would be easier to protect as they are an attorney work product.
• It would be unpractical to have discussion in executive session if Councilmembers have to think about
what could be released. Recording or taking minutes for only some topics would also be difficult. There
is the potential for a lawsuit with regard to any executive session topic and the Council has the fiduciary
responsibility to limit/reduce lawsuits. Prefer no minutes be kept of executive sessions.
It was the consensus of the Council to clarify, revise, rewrite the resolution. Council President Peterson will
schedule it for consideration by the full Council during the first half of the year and take public comment. He
asked Councilmembers to provide him their suggestions.
Budgeting by Priorities Presentation (working lunch)
Community Services/Economic Development Director Clifton explained one of the topics at an Association of
Washington Cities budget workshop was budgeting by priorities/budgeting for outcomes. Councilmember
Buckshnis, Citizen Darrol Haug and he and a few others then met with Redmond Finance Director Mike Bailey
who reinforced their interest in the concept and determining whether it would be an appropriate budgeting
process for Edmonds. Mr. Bailey, who is ill today, will be invited to conduct a workshop with the Council in the
future to describe what it was like for Redmond to implement budgeting by priorities, and how it was received
by the directors, elected officials and citizens.
Mr. Hunstock explained Redmond spent 1-2 years and $160,000 on consultants to put a budgeting by priorities
process in place. He referred to a handout from the Government Finance Officers Association regarding a
priority-driven budget process that is similar to budgeting by priorities. He provided an overview of budgeting
for outcomes:
1. Determine the “price of government” (total resources)
2. Determine priorities
a) Example: one of Redmond’s priorities was a safe place to work, play and live
3. Assign a portion of the “price” to each priority
4. Determine best way to delivery results by priority
a) Results Team develop strategies/RFOs
b) Program staff submits “offer (attempt to address goal), may be multi-department offer
c) Results teams rank/scale offers
5. Results budgeting is focused on strategies to accomplish priorities
Packet Page 261 of 437
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 20, 2012
Page 7
Association of Washington Cities and the District Municipal Court Judges Association are also working
on this.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Judge Fair’s opinion about the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold
the use of red light cameras. Judge Fair answered he was not surprised because the legislature gave that
authority to the governing bodies in their enacting legislation. The dissenting opinion was that it was a
moot point because it has been resolved by the City Councils. In reality it was a good issue to resolve
because it has become a concern in many cities.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no members of the public who wished to provide comment.
9. FLOWER BASKET DONATION PROGRAM
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite announced a new program, Adopt a Flower Basket. She thanked
Councilmember Buckshnis for her assistance with launching the program and credited Jack Bevan for the
idea.
Ms. Hite distributed an Adopt a Flower Basket brochure. The program allows community members to
donate $100 in support of each of the City’s flower baskets. Each basket will have a name tag stating who
this basket was donated by or in memory of. Councilmember Buckshnis donated the first $100 in memory
of her dog, Buddy.
Ms. Hite also thanked Recreation Manager Renee McRae who worked closely with Councilmember
Buckshnis on this program.
10. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
Council President Peterson explained this issue was discussed at the Council retreat. He explained there
are limited reasons under RCW for the Council to meet in executive session. There is legislation under
consideration regarding the recording of executive sessions and limiting what must be provided via a
Public Records Request.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided an overview of the issue. The Council adopted Resolution 853 in
1996 which is when the Council began taking notes during executive sessions. He emphasized the notes
that are currently taken are notes, rather than minutes. The distinction is minutes are reviewed and
approved at a subsequent meeting by the body conducting the meeting. While the notes taken of executive
sessions are generally accurate, they do not have a review and approval process. That is significant
because it does not provide an opportunity for a Councilmember to review them or request a change.
Mr. Taraday explained he has been uncomfortable with the current practice because in his opinion if the
Council records the meeting, it should be recorded completely with an audio recording so there would not
be any question regarding what really happened. The Council could then discontinue the practice of note
taking. He pointed out Edmonds is one of the few if not the only city in Washington who keeps notes of
executive sessions. It is up to the Council to decide whether to continue or change the current practice.
Council President Peterson commented his intent was to have a discussion; he did not foresee any action
tonight other than scheduling it on a future meeting agenda for public comment/public hearing and
potential action.
Packet Page 262 of 437
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 20, 2012
Page 8
Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109, recently passed by the Senate 39-9, exempting video and
audio recordings of executive sessions. She recognized the bill had not yet been finalized. Mr. Taraday
offered to research the progress of SB 6109 and comment later in the discussion. His understanding of SB
6109 was it may give Public Records Act protection from disclosure of executive session records. One of
his concerns with taking notes is that although an argument can be made that the notes are attorney-client
privileged or work product protected or both, there is not a clear exemption in the Public Records Act for
executive session notes.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested amending Resolution 853 because the current practice creates
notes, not minutes. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council either needed to change its practices to conform with
the resolution or change the resolution to conform to the practice. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she
was ready to do that tonight. Councilmember Bloom advised she was ready to begin recording executive
sessions now. Mayor Earling pointed out Council President Peterson’s intent that this item was for
discussion only.
Council President Peterson commented his discomfort with note taking, minute taking or recording
executive sessions was because an executive session was an opportunity for the Council and Mayor with
the City Attorney and preferably not the City Clerk to have a free flow of ideas and discussion on a
limited number of sensitive topics including litigation, personnel, and real estate. He understood citizens’
concerns that things might happen behind closed doors or that deals are being struck; the Council, Mayor
and City Attorney keep each other in check should the discussion drift off topic. He recognized there is
distrust in government, pointing out Washington was one of the first states to have a Public Records Act.
The topics that can be discussed in executive session are not intended for the public and that is one of the
reasons Councilmembers are elected. The ability for Councilmembers, Mayor and City Attorney to keep
each other in check ensures the system works.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the RCWs address everything Council President Peterson said. The
RCW identifies when the Council can have an executive session rather than a public meeting. The
advantage of recording executive sessions is it would provide proof in the event of challenge. A judge
would then review the recording and determine whether the Open Public Meetings Act was violated. It
was her opinion that recording executive sessions would instill more trust. She concluded it was very
important for the Council to “show our work.”
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was undecided about this issue but in light of the personnel
issues that occurred last year, feels note taking is the appropriate way to proceed in the future as they
provide a record. Audio recording may be problematic because some Councilmembers prefer to speak
less professionally in an executive session; that candor would not be possible if executive sessions are
recorded. She did not support recording executive sessions unless only notes could be taken for executive
session regarding personnel matters.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed recording executive sessions would reflect positively on
Councilmembers for the purposes of openness and transparency. Conversely, she questioned why
Edmonds is the only city currently taking notes. This may be a moot point depending on what the
legislature does.
Mr. Taraday explained SB 6109 has not yet passed the House. If it were signed into law it would exempt
video and audio recordings of executive sessions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. If
someone made a request for an audio recording of an executive session, under this exemption the City
would not be required to provide it. Currently if someone requests notes of an executive session, a
roundabout argument has to be made regarding why the notes should be exempt from disclosure. The bill
would provide an exemption for audio recordings but not for notes.
Packet Page 263 of 437
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 20, 2012
Page 9
Councilmember Yamamoto commented for each executive session he has attended, Councilmembers
know the topic in advance. The Council discusses only that topic and if anyone gets off track, another
Councilmember, the Mayor or the City Attorney brings them in check. He appreciated the opportunity for
Councilmembers to have a frank discussion; recording executive sessions could hamper that ability. He
clarified the Council only has discussions in executive session and does not make decisions.
Council President Peterson suggested the Council wait to see what the legislature does. There is currently
no hard and fast laws regarding what can be exempted under the Public Records Act with regard to
executive sessions. Until protection was provided, he was concerned that a Public Records Request could
require release of sensitive information. If SB 6109 is not passed into law, the Council can consider
amendments to the resolution.
11. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY
CODE SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2), EXTENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION SUNSET DATE, AND OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Council packet
contains a draft ordinance and attachment which, if approved by the City Council, would amend ECC
Chapter 10.75 regarding the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The Council discussed
potential amendments on December 20, 2011, January 23, 2012 and March 6, 2012. During the March 6
meeting, the Council discussed four amendments:
• Section 10.75.030(A)(2): insert language that the EDC would focus primarily on economic
development related activities
• Section 10.75.030(A): extension of the sunset date of the EDC approximately 4 years to
December 31, 2015
• Section 10.75.010(B)(d): elected officials shall not be allowed to serve on the EDC but may serve
as non-voting ex-officio members. This would also apply to elected Port Commissioners.
• 10.750.030(C): staggering commission terms. Existing Commission members would be allowed
to serve through the end of the year. Commissioners have indicated their interest in continuing to
serve; approximately two-thirds expressed interest in remaining on the Commission. This will
ensure some continuity and institutional memory on the EDC. Staff will advertise immediately to
fill the remaining positions; terms filled this year would expire in 2014. Staff would re-advertise
at the end of the year and either new Commissioners or existing Commissioners could be
appointed. Appointments made in 2013 would expire at the end of 2015.
Mr. Clifton explained another option related to staggering is to have terms expire at the end of the
Councilmember’s term who appointed the Commissioner. City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified in addition
to the ordinance, the Council needs to provide direction regarding staggering of Commissioners’ terms.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Clifton explained approximately 5-6 Commissioners have stated they
do not plan to continue serving on the EDC. Upon confirming existing members’ desire to continue
serving on the Commission, staff will advertise to fill the vacant positions. As the former Council liaison
on the EDC, Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are often less than a handful of Commissioner
present at EDC meetings. She suggested each Councilmember have an opportunity to appoint at least one
Commissioner.
As Chair of the former EDC, Councilmember Yamamoto clarified there was always a quorum present at
EDC meetings. Most Commissioners informed staff when they would be absent and the absences were
for legitimate reasons. He agreed there were a couple Commissioners who did not attend meetings
regularly or notify of their absence. He agreed with the proposal to stagger terms.
Packet Page 264 of 437
Packet Page 265 of 437
Packet Page 266 of 437
Packet Page 267 of 437
Packet Page 268 of 437
Packet Page 269 of 437
Minutes
Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting
June 12, 2012
Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Joan Bloom
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson
Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. by Councilmember Bloom.
A. Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2012 – 2013 Interlocal
Agreement
Assistant Police Chief Gannon described the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
(SRDGTF) Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the SRDGTF, he pointed out that Edmonds also
participates in the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force with the cities of Lynnwood
and Mountlake Terrace. The two task forces work closely and assist each other with staffing
and equipment. Mr. Gannon requested that the committee approve the placement of the
Interlocal Agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda.
Responding to questions from Councilmember Bloom concerning how the fees are calculated
for the Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Gannon stated the fees are based on population. Edmonds
fee is $9,939 for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 (a decrease of $59 over last year’s fee).
Councilmember Johnson had specific questions regarding the agreement which Mr. Gannon
responded to. In particular Councilmember Johnson asked questions pertaining to the
participation of certain cities/entities and why they were listed in the agreement. Mr. Gannon
clarified that the interlocal agreement originates from the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office.
Edmonds’ participation is just the funding. He stated that he would provide additional
information following this meeting to further respond to Councilmember Johnson’s questions.
Action: Assistant Chief of Police Gannon to provide additional information to the Committee.
The Committee approved placing the agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda.
B. Discussion Regarding Taking Minutes/Notes During Executive Session
Councilmember Bloom suggested in addition to discussing whether to take minutes/notes
during executive session, the discussion include whether executive sessions should be
recorded. She acknowledged there may be some executive sessions that should never be
recorded such as those regarding personnel.
Councilmember Bloom explained Resolution 853 states the Council takes minutes of executive
sessions and at some point the minutes will be available to the public if the reason for the
Packet Page 270 of 437
executive session has expired. The issue is staff takes summary notes which are not approved
by Council so they are not technically minutes.
A discussion with the residents who were present ensued. Their comments included the
following:
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, asked whether Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson had reviewed
the materials from the Council retreat. Councilmember Johnson said she had and
Councilmember Bloom said she was present at the retreat. Mr. Wambolt pointed out Mr. Reidy
has done a great deal of research regarding this issue.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, acknowledged this was a complicated issue; taking minutes/notes was
important to him because he believes citizens would get better representation by their elected
officials and more honest government if the City Council and Mayor knew eventually the
minutes of Executive Sessions could be released to the public in certain situations. Resolution
853 requires minutes be kept; if minutes require an audio or video recording, executive sessions
should be recorded. Resolution 853 also addresses the concept of minutes being subject to
release when the reason for the executive session expires. He acknowledged Edmonds is
unique; he was not aware of any other cities that keep executive session minutes. This is an
opportunity to build trust in local governance and for Edmonds to be a leader in transparency.
He hoped the Council would go in that direction rather than to discontinue keeping
minutes/notes.
Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, commented a resolution was non-binding, she preferred the
requirement be contained in an ordinance. She felt tensions build when elected officials know
what occurs in executive sessions and citizens do not. Recording or minutes of executive
sessions would bring tensions into balance and elected officials would be aware that the
minutes could be released at a later date. If there are no recording/notes, executive sessions
seem like secret meetings. The people’s right to know is of greater importance than elected
officials’ right to discuss it without anyone looking. Ms. Talmadge said executive session
minutes would also allow Councilmembers to refresh their memory if necessary regarding what
was discussed in executive session. She wanted the public and the Council protected because
it ultimately saved the City money.
Damon Pistulka, Edmonds, commented a Councilmember could be presented information in
an executive session that is later contradicted. Without documentation, there is nothing to
substantiate the information provided in executive session. It was beneficial for all parties to
have notes/minutes of executive sessions, especially in litigation. Current and future
Councilmembers could also review notes/minutes of an executive session.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, suggested the City Attorney make a presentation at a Council
meeting similar to the presentation at the retreat, including addressing public comments that
have been made since that presentation. With regard to release of executive session
minutes/notes, he commented that although a litigation or real estate matter may have been
concluded, the City may use the same tactics and strategies in future negotiations/litigation;
having that information made public could be a disadvantage to the City. The reason for the
executive session and the passage of time are not the only criterion for releasing information.
Other issues to consider include preserving the attorney/client privilege in an executive session
and inadvertent disclosure if notes/minutes/recordings are kept of executive sessions. He
suggested the City Attorney’s presentation also clarify who is the client in executive sessions.
Packet Page 271 of 437
Mr. Reidy suggested also having a proponent of open government address the City Council in
addition to the City Attorney to provide a balanced viewpoint. Even if executive session minutes
are never released to the public, it is important to have executive sessions recorded and
detailed minutes kept.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether other cities record their executive session. City Clerk
Sandy Chase said Edmonds is the only city she knows of that takes minutes/notes of executive
sessions.
Mr. Reidy noted Resolution 853 was passed on September 16, 1996 on the Consent Agenda;
he asked whether there was any previous discussion. Ms. Chase recalled the City Council was
holding a number of executive sessions at the time and there were similar concerns expressed;
Resolution 853 was a response to the concerns at that time.
Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109 which would have required a judge to review the
audio recording if there was a public record request of an executive session to determine if it
was truly necessary to hold an executive session. She asked why the Senate proposed that bill
if other cities do not document their executive session. Ms. Chase stated her understanding that
it may be due to efforts by Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG) and others.
Mr. Pistulka commented executive session notes would be helpful regardless of whether they
are released. He cited the example of business board meeting notes that provide useful
information.
Councilmember Johnson observed there is a balance between the public’s right/need/desire to
know, risk assessment and the attorney/client privilege. Resolution 853 was a compromise in an
attempt to appease all parties. However, the language in the resolution does not necessarily
reflect the practice. Minutes require approval, notes do not. She suggested determining whether
to modify the resolution or the practice. She supported having a presentation from the City
Attorney on this subject at the full Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested having a presentation from AWC and WCOG as
well. Councilmember Johnson suggested MRSC as an additional resource.
Other topics discussed included increased frequency of executive sessions this year, redaction
of information in executive session minutes, the City Attorney’s presence at executive session,
and assessing risk.
Action: At next week’s meeting the City Attorney make a presentation, to be followed by
Council discussion with the goal of a future public hearing and further input from AWC, WCOG,
etc.
C. Public Comments
Public comment occurred during Agenda Item B.
Adjourn: 8:21 p.m.
Packet Page 272 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 5
distributed to different groups around the county. The ESSP is studying a standardized permitting
process. Because this is new technology, many jurisdictions do not have a permitting process to address
it. The ESSP will likely make a recommendation regarding fees, but each jurisdiction will establish its
own fees.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out without a permit, the City would not know how many residences
have solar systems. She supported lowering the permit fee to provide incentive for solar installations. She
asked about Exhibit 1 in the packet, Community Solar Fee Comparison. Mr. Yarberry advised the
numbers were provided by Mr. Bernheim and were used by staff to calculate a baseline fee for Phase 1 of
the Frances Anderson Center project.
Councilmember Johnson suggested evaluating the amount of time spent on plan review and inspection in
determining the fee for a commercial solar installation.
Council President Peterson observed if the Council took no action, staff would continue with the fee
structure for residential installations as described. Mr. Yarberry agreed. Council President Peterson
observed waiving fees would require Council action. Mr. Yarberry agreed.
Council President Peterson disclosed he owns a slice of the solar installation on the Frances Anderson
Center and has promised to donate any profits from it to Sustainable Edmonds.
The Council took no action with regard to this item.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
Council President Peterson explained the Council began discussing the taking of minutes/notes during
executive sessions at the 2012 Council retreat. Upon further Council and Committee direction, he was
asked to schedule a broader discussion along with presentations from outside interested parties.
Jim Doherty, Legal Consultant, Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC), explained MRSC has
functioned in Washington for over 75 years as an advisory group to cities, counties and special purpose
districts on a wide range of issues. MRSC has 25 staff members including 6 attorneys, 2 planners, a
finance consultant, policy consultants and has the most extensive local government library in the State.
MRSC’s website, www.MRSC.org, is open to the public. He has been with MRSC for over 19 years and
authors and updates the Public Records Act (PRA) publication as well as has addressed many questions
over the years regarding Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) issues.
Mr. Doherty relayed he had reviewed Council minutes where the issue of taking minutes/notes during
executive session had been discussed and City Attorney Taraday’s input regarding the pattern in
Washington cities. He was also provided an email from Ken Reidy that contained a blog post and
responses regarding this issue.
Mr. Doherty relayed MRSC is not aware of any cities in the State of Washington that take minutes of
executive sessions or record executive sessions. He found a reference that was confirmed by Mr. Nixon
that the Port of Seattle records their executive sessions because of scrutiny by the State Auditor’s Office
due to past problems. MRSC’s advice to cities over the last 20 years is that cities not take minutes of
executive sessions. He clarified it was not that MRSC was for or against open government, as a practical
matter there is some uncertainty regarding the status of minutes of executive sessions because they
usually are not taken; there is no specific exemption in the PRA for minutes of executive sessions.
MRSC’s position is cautious; their advice is why create a problem that cities do not need.
Packet Page 273 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Doherty explained the purpose of minutes is an official record of action taken by the Council.
Executive sessions are discussion and not final action; any action is taken during open session. Thus the
purpose of minutes of an executive session is not clear because no action is taken.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work MRSC does for city officials,
recalling she utilized their resources regarding financial transparency. She asked about taking notes of
executive session rather than minutes. Mr. Doherty asked who would take the notes. If a Councilmember
takes notes in executive session for their own use, they are similar to notes taken during an open Council
meeting. There is case law that supports the view that those are public records, they are a
Councilmember’s own personal notes, not taken at the request of the City, and not used by the City. He
cited Jacobellis v. Bellingham where the court found personal notes are not a public record.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about notes taken by the City Clerk. Mr. Doherty answered if those
notes are minutes, a record of the executive session, under one statute they are not open to public
inspection. He noted it is unclear as the statute was written long before the PRA was adopted.
Councilmember Petso asked about the statute that distinguishes Clerk’s notes from a public record. Mr.
Doherty answered RCW 42.32.030 which was passed in 1953 and has never been amended.
Councilmember Johnson observed one question is whether a written record should be kept of executive
sessions. She asked what should be done with the records maintained of executive sessions over the past
seven years if the Council decided to stop keeping a written record; should they be destroyed or were they
subject to public record requests. Mr. Doherty answered their destruction would depend on how the
records retention schedule applied to those records. The retention schedule for minutes of regular Council
meeting minutes requires they be kept permanently. He was uncertain whether that would apply to notes
of an executive session. With regard to public records requests for those notes, he referred the Council to
the City Attorney. He recognized many of the notes are related to attorney-client privilege where
exemptions clearly apply.
Councilmember Johnson commented if the Council chose to stop taking minutes of executive sessions,
the Council could audio record executive sessions. She asked whether Mr. Doherty knew of any other
cities, other than the Port of Seattle, that audio record their executive sessions. Mr. Doherty answered he
did not. He pointed out there is no exemption that applies to an audio recording, whether video or voice,
and if no exemption applies, it must be disclosed. If the City made an audio recording of an executive
session and someone requested it, the City would need to provide it. That could be problematic if the
Council was discussing a real estate purchase or other sensitive issues. Councilmember Johnson
commented she had not heard that before; it was a key point. Mr. Doherty commented there was
legislation pending this year and in past years regarding recording of executive sessions but it included a
provision that any challenge would require a judge review the recording in chambers and exemptions
would apply. That legislation did not pass and there is currently no exemption in the law for a recording
of an executive session. Unless that is clarified, he recommended cities not record executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether any legislation regarding recording of executive sessions was
anticipated in the next legislative session. Mr. Doherty answered that was difficult to anticipate; it has
been raised in the past and has not been passed. It may be introduced again as the Coalition for Open
Government and other groups believe it is an important issue.
Councilmember Johnson summarized Mr. Doherty’s recommendation was that the City do not maintain
written records or audio recordings of executive sessions and whatever records of executive sessions the
City has created would be maintained in accordance with the records retention schedule. Mr. Doherty
agreed with her summary.
Packet Page 274 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 7
Toby Nixon, President, Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG), explained he is a
former member of the State Legislature, served as ranking member on a Committee of the House that had
responsibility for the open government laws of Washington, and is currently a City of Kirkland
Councilmember, elected in November 2011.
Mr. Nixon commented this has been one of WCOG’s highest priority issues for several years. WCOG is a
statewide non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and extending the people’s right to
know what their government is doing. WCOG focuses most of its energy on the PRA and OPMA but also
works on open courts, open legislative process, open rule-making processes, follows the workings of the
Public Disclosure Commission, disclosure of campaign finance and lobbyist information, whistle-blower
laws, ethics laws, and anything related to transparency and accountability in government. This is
accomplished via four programs: education, litigation, legislation and recognition.
He relayed language from RCW 42.30.010, “The legislature finds and declares that all public
commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other
public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It
is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted
openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the
people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that
they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Mr. Nixon provided a definition of executive session: “Executive sessions are meetings allowed (but not
required) to be closed to the public because the people, through their legislative representatives, have
determined that it is more in the public interest than not that the specific information to be discussed be
kept secret for some period of time.”
To the question of whether recordings should be made, Mr. Nixon said yes. Agencies can choose today to
make audio or video recordings, or to keep notes or minutes, of executive sessions. There is no
prohibition of such recordings. Recordings can be useful for a number of agency purposes:
• To resolve disagreements over what transpired or was said
• To hold attorneys and others accountable for advice given or information provided in closed
meetings
• To allow newly-appointed or newly-elected members of the body to catch up on previous
executive session discussions
• To improve the ability of the agency to defend itself if it is accused of having an inappropriate
discussion in an executive session
Mr. Nixon relayed reasons some many do not want executive sessions recorded:
• Would interfere with frank, honest, free-flowing conversations. He emphasized that is the point,
executive sessions should be limited to only the allowed topic and nothing more. Members should
not need to be behind closed doors to have a frank and honest discussion.
• Recording is expensive. He cited the reasonable cost of a digital audio recorder. Operation is
trivial. The recorder can be plugged into a PC via USB cable and recordings transferred to a
secure server, and be as well protected as any other confidential electronic city records. No need
for expensive safes, locked file cabinets, or large amounts of storage space.
• Risk of disclosure under the Public Records Act. Mr. Nixon relayed information from RCW
42.56.010 Definitions, of “public record” and “writing,” agreeing that audio recordings are
records, including voicemails. He acknowledged recordings are not automatically exempt.
Recordings of several of the allowed topics for executive sessions would be exempt from
disclosure, but not all.
Packet Page 275 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 8
Mr. Nixon explained the Port of Seattle Digitally records all executive sessions. They submit records to
outside counsel for periodic review for compliance. They have not had many requests for disclosure
although who knows what will happen with current controversy.
Mr. Nixon described the allowable topics for executive session (RCW 42.30.110) and his response to
each (in italics):
(a) To consider matters affecting national security.
Rarely applies to cities. Some topics covered under 42.56.420 (security plans and vulnerabilities,
prevention of terrorist acts).
(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when
public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price.
(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public
knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. However,
final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open to the public.
Real estate appraisals are covered by 42.56.260, but not discussion of price willing to pay or sell
for, or the fact that the city is interested in the property.
(d) To review negotiations on the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge
regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased costs.
Not covered by any known PRA exemption.
(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee.
However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the
public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge.
Records of complaints against public employees are disclosable unless determined to be
unsubstantiated or false. 42.56.230(3), Bellevue John Does v. Bellevue School District.
Some records may be exempt under the investigatory records exemption, 42.56.240(1).
Identity of persons filing complaints may be exempt under 42.56.240(2) if their life, safety, or
property may be endangered by disclosure, and they request non-disclosure.
(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the
performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a
governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied
within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects
to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or
discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the
public;
Names, resumes, other application materials are exempt from disclosure under 42.56.250(2). No
exemption for other content of discussion.
(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office. However, any
interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a
meeting open to the public;
Not exempt under PRA.
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement
actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to
which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to
become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse
legal or financial consequence to the agency.
All materials are likely exempt under RCW 42.56.290 or 5.60.060(2)(a), which are broader than
the allowed purposes for executive sessions for attorney-client communication, and include all
“attorney work product”.
Topics for executive session not applicable to cities include:
(e) …export trading company…;
(j) …state library…;
Packet Page 276 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 9
(k) …state investment board…;
(l) …state purchased health care services…;
(m) …life sciences discovery fund authority…;
(n) …health sciences and services authority…;
(o) …innovate Washington…
Mr. Nixon referred to RCW 42.30.140 that describes meetings that are not technically “executive
sessions,” in that they do not require the agency to first convene in an announced public meeting, declare
the purpose and duration of the closed meeting, and then return to public session to adjourn. He explained
“140” meetings can be entirely secret, although many agencies treat them the same as “110” executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon reviewed the four types of meetings described in RCW 42.30.140 and his response to
each (in italics):
(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an order granting, suspending,
revoking, or denying any license, permit, or certificate to engage in any business,
occupation, or profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member of such
business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a license for a sports activity or to
operate any mechanical device or motor vehicle where a license or registration is
necessary; or
Business license proceedings occur in cities, but are not exempt under the PRA.
(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter
between named parties as distinguished from a matter having general effect on the public
or on a class or group; or
Cities have quasi-judicial discussions for permitting, etc. Not exempt under the PRA.
(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; or
Does not apply to cities.
(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract
negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or
application of a labor agreement; or (b) that portion of a meeting during which the
governing body is planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the
governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations,
or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in the
negotiations or proceedings while in progress.
Information regarding unfair practices exempt under 42.56.250(4) and (5). Otherwise,
not exempt under PRA.
Mr. Nixon relayed WCOG’s support for enactment of additional PRA exemptions:
• Specific public records exemptions to cover each of the executive session topics, even if the
material is discussed in writing rather than in an executive session.
• Blanket public records exemption for all recordings, minutes, and notes of executive sessions.
This would also cover materials prepared by staff for review during executive sessions. Materials
provided in executive session today are not exempt from disclosure under the PRA unless
communications from the City Attorney protected by attorney-client privilege.
In the meantime, WCOG recommends Council’s be selective; have a policy to not record executive
sessions when the discussion would not be exempt from the PRA, or retain only a high-level summary of
the nature of the discussion without the key details. They recommend cities consider the benefits of
recordings or notes on key topics that would be exempt from disclosure. For example because there is a
broad exemption for attorney-client privilege communications and since attorney-client communications
are the most frequent purpose for executive sessions, the Council may decide to record those executive
sessions.
Mr. Nixon provided WCOG’s contact information: Washington Coalition for Open Government, 6351
Seaview Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98107; (206) 782-0393; info@washingtoncog.org;
www.washingtoncog.org.
Packet Page 277 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 10
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why no cities in the State kept minutes or record executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it is due to the concern about possible disclosure if a member of the public
submitted a properly worded public records request. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether
Kirkland keeps minutes or records executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered Kirkland does not.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why Councils have executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it
was because the legislature decided it was more in the public interest than not to have that discussion in
secret and to keep the content secret for at least some period of time. For example if the Council were to
discuss the most they were willing to pay for property and that information became public and known to
the property owners, that would become the price of the property and the City’s ability to negotiate a
lower price would be extremely limited.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about executive session for labor negotiations. Mr. Nixon
responded when he was in the legislature, he advocated for removing labor negotiations as an allowed
topic for executive session; he personally believes labor negotiations should occur in public as they do in
many other states.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if one of the legislature’s responsibilities was to be risk managers. Mr.
Nixon answered one would hope they had that exposure in mind when they passed bills. In his
experience, that did not always happen because the analysis has not been deep enough. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked as risk managers, shouldn’t the goal be to prevent litigation; recordings of executive
session could expose Councilmembers and the City to liability. Mr. Nixon answered it was unlikely to
expose Councilmembers individually. There could be scenarios for liability based on the content of the
recording such as inappropriate statements or incorrect information made in executive session that could
be considered libel. His focus was the purpose of the executive session; attorney-client privilege is
obvious, the Council does not want to expose its courtroom strategy to the opposition in a lawsuit.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if executive sessions were recorded, Councilmembers would need
to be more careful about what they said. Mr. Nixon answered that was a good thing; people in leadership
positions should think carefully before they speak. As a Councilmember himself, before saying or
emailing anything, he assumes it will be printed on the front page of the Seattle Times the next day.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not object to disclosing information discussed in
executive sessions regarding real estate once the transaction had been completed. She recognized
confidentiality must be maintained for some other topics. Mr. Nixon referred to the fundamental
principles of the PRA and OPMA, the people are sovereign, they have a right to know what their
government is doing, and it is up to them to decide what is good for them to know, not for elected
officials to decide what is good for them to know.
Rather than determining what topics were exempt from the PRA, Councilmember Yamamoto suggested it
would be simpler not to record executive sessions. He suggested that was why no other cities recorded
executive sessions. Mr. Nixon agreed without a blanket exemption for recordings of executive sessions,
cities are unwilling to determine what executive session topics should and should not be recorded. If the
idea of recording executive sessions for its own use is something the Edmonds City Council would like,
he urged them to request that AWC support legislation that would allow it.
Councilmember Yamamoto referred to Mr. Nixon’s comment about handouts provided during executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon explained if a document is produced by City staff and distributed in executive
session, it does not become a protected document because it was viewed in executive session. It is a
public record like any other City document. Unless there is an exemption covering the content of the
document, it must be released if a member of the public requested it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked
what documents would be protected. Mr. Nixon answered it would depend on the nature of the document;
Packet Page 278 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 11
a memo from the attorney regarding a case and strategies would be exempt from disclosure. Other
documents may not be exempt. For example in the case of real estate, there is an exemption in the PRA
for an appraisal but there is no exemption for other types of information such as a staff analysis of the
property, how a facility would fit on the property, etc., unless it was protected by the generic deliberative
process exemption. Simply collecting documents distributed in executive session and shredding them is
not enough; the original is still on someone’s computer and required to be retained under the records
retention schedule. If a member of the public requested it, the City Attorney would need to determine how
to prevent its disclosure.
Councilmember Yamamoto summarized his understanding was that every document and handout
provided at executive session should be processed accordingly. Mr. Nixon answered similar to any
document handled by the Council in its official role it is considered a public record and unless a specific
exemption applies, someone could request it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked Mr. Doherty’s opinion.
Mr. Doherty agreed with Mr. Nixon’s statement; just because something is looked at in executive session
does not create an automatic exemption for it.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether comparisons provided by staff in executive session regarding
labor negotiations would be subject to a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered he was not aware of
any exemption for that. Mr. Doherty referred to a case, ACLU v. Seattle, where strategy papers reviewed
in executive session were not exempt under the PRA.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether the attorney should check everything that staff provided prior
to an executive session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out it was not sufficient for him to check
something; it would need to be advice from him in order to be attorney-client privilege exempt. It was not
enough for a director to have the City Attorney review it for it to become attorney-client privilege exempt.
Mr. Nixon agreed having the City Attorney in the room does not make a conversation attorney-client
privilege nor does the City Attorney reading a document make it attorney-client privilege. Mr. Nixon
suggested the Council could ask the City Attorney whether a document would be exempt from disclosure.
Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Nixon said the Council could choose to record some executive
sessions. If the Council made a decision to record all executive sessions regarding attorney-client
privilege, would they be exempt from disclosure under the PRA? Mr. Nixon answered yes, as long as the
executive session followed the guidelines in the OPMA.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether those recordings would be exempt forever from public disclosure?
Mr. Nixon answered according to a Supreme Court decision, there is no timeout on attorney-client
communication, particularly related to litigation. Even though one lawsuit completes, there is nothing to
stop someone else from suing on a similar topic; therefore, privileged information should not be released
and benefit the next person filing a lawsuit.
Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification whether notes taken by the City Clerk or any record kept of
executive sessions related to attorney-client privilege would be subject to public disclosure. Mr. Nixon
answered the portion of the notes related to questions asked of the attorney and the attorney’s responses
could be redacted. Anything else would be disclosable. Councilmember Bloom asked who made the
decision regarding what was exempt and what was not if a public records request was submitted. Mr.
Nixon answered the Public Records Officer; if he/she had any questions, he/she would seek direction
from the City Attorney. Ultimately the State Supreme Court decides what is exempt or not exempt. Even
if staff makes a decision they believe is correct with regard to disclosure, someone could still sue the City.
Councilmember Bloom commented Edmonds is in the unique position of having taken summary minutes
of executive sessions for several years in accordance with direction provided by resolution. She
commented it would be difficult to go backward when that practice was started for a legitimate reason.
Packet Page 279 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 12
There was also discussion at a Council meeting that certain executive session meetings could be disclosed
when the issue was resolved. She questioned how the City should proceed when it was “already more
advanced in some ways in terms of open government than other cities are.” Mr. Nixon answered
according to the law, if someone made a public records request for them, the non-exempt portions would
need to be disclosed. If they meet the legal definition of minutes, they must be retained forever. If they are
only notes, their retention is determined by the records retention schedule.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the question she asked previously, should the City maintain a paper
record; if the answer is yes, it is important to know the retention schedule. Although the ordinance refers
to them as minutes, the City Attorney has advised they do not meet the legal definition of minutes
because they are not voted upon and are actually notes kept by the City Clerk. Given the current laws, she
asked for Mr. Nixon’s recommendation whether a paper record should be kept. Mr. Nixon clarified under
the PRA, all types of records are the same, whether paper, electronic or an audio recording, the content of
the record is what is important. It is easier to redact paper records. With regard to a recommendation, he
has not loudly demanded that Kirkland start recording executive sessions because he recognizes the value
of their being exempt. He has encouraged Kirkland to urge AWC not to oppose legislation regarding
executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that it made a difference who took the notes. She
asked if an audio recording or notes taken by the City Attorney would be exempt. Mr. Nixon answered it
would depend whether it was an attorney-client privileged discussion. The City Attorney’s record of
questions asked and responses he gave would be exempt as an attorney-client work product. If the City
Attorney was simply being used as a clerk to take notes about something other than an attorney-client
privilege discussion, the fact that he was the City Attorney would make no difference with regard to
whether the notes were disclosable.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that there was no exemption for audio recordings
other than regarding an assessed valuation of a real estate transaction and would need to be made
available upon a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered audio recordings are included in the
definition of public records. Whether a recording was disclosable would depend on the content of the
recording; portions of the recording for which there is an exemption could be redacted, the rest of the
recording would have to be disclosed.
With regard to minutes versus notes, Council President Peterson asked if there could be such a thing as
executive session minutes when the Council did not vote on the minutes in executive session or in public
session. And if they are just cursory notes that are not reviewed by the Council, who outside the City
Clerk has the ability to verify their authenticity/accuracy if they become a public record upon a public
records request. Mr. Nixon answered that is why the Port of Seattle is recording their executive sessions.
He asked if the executive session minutes/notes the City currently maintains are distributed to Council
following executive session. Council President Peterson answered they are not. Mr. Nixon agreed the
Council was very dependent upon the accuracy of the person taking notes during executive session. If
there were a dispute in the future regarding an executive session, he envisioned a judge and jury would
ultimately make a decision regarding the accuracy of the record. Council President Peterson summarized
the Council was in a very nebulous situation with any kind of recording device, whether pen or audio
recording.
Mr. Nixon clarified he is not an attorney and urged the Council not to act on anything he said without first
checking with the City Attorney.
Councilmember Petso asked how confident Mr. Nixon was in his statement that a Councilmember’s
personal notes made in executive session were not a public record. Mr. Nixon answered that was
established in the case Jacobellis v. Bellingham which is summarized on the MRSC website. As long as a
Packet Page 280 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 13
Councilmember does not share their notes with others, it is a personal record and not a City record.
Councilmember Petso asked whether that applied to notes typed into her city-provided iPad. Mr. Nixon
answered yes; he sends emails to himself and was told by Kirkland’s City Attorney that emails he sends
to himself as personal notes and not shared with anyone else were exempt from disclosure. If the emails
are forwarded to someone else, they become a public record. Mr. Taraday stated he was unsure about that
interpretation.
Council President Peterson asked for Council direction regarding recording executive sessions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to wait to see what action the legislature took.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO RESCIND RESOLUTION 853 BECAUSE MINUTES ARE IN FACT NOT
BEING TAKEN.
Councilmember Petso pointed out this was listed on the agenda as a discussion item. She preferred to
rescind the resolution at a future meeting when the item is on the agenda for action.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso. She suggested holding a public hearing.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Council consider keeping a record of attorney-client privileged
discussions as they would be exempt under the PRA.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Council President Peterson asked whether this issue should go back through the committee process.
Councilmember Bloom commented it would be prudent to have it discussed at committee as
Councilmember Johnson was not on the Committee at that time and new information has been provided
that warrants further discussion.
Council President Peterson explained the purpose of committee discussion was so staff could update the
committee. There is no City staff person in that role for this item. He did not want it to be a discussion
between two Councilmembers and members of the public that excluded the other five Councilmembers.
He preferred any further discussion occur at a regular Council meeting.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented discussions at committee should only be with the two
Councilmembers on the committee; the public is not included in discussion other than by providing input
during public comment.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the City Attorney can participate at the committee level. The
discussion at committee could include attorney-client privilege, recording, which executive sessions could
be recorded, etc. Mr. Taraday responded he is happy to attend a committee meeting if there is meaningful
discussion he needs to participate in. His advice on this matter is straight-forward and remains the same.
The vast majority of executive sessions are attorney-client privileged. Any recording of executive
sessions regarding potential litigation is in all likelihood protected under the PRA and it is up to the City
Council to decide whether to record those. With regard to other types of executive sessions, they should
not be recorded because there is no clear exemption from disclosure. He summarized it is an
administrative, logistical question; whether the City wants to deal with the hassle of turning on and off a
recording device or having the City Clerk enter and leave the room for the portion of the executive
session the Council wants a written record maintained. He was unsure he needed to attend the committee
Packet Page 281 of 437
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 14
meeting to have that discussion. The presentations by Mr. Doherty and Mr. Nixon were excellent; he
would broaden what Mr. Nixon said would be included under the potential litigation exemption.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented this was a work session and presentations were made by two
parties. He was unclear what sending it to committee would accomplish. He preferred the full Council
participate in any further discussions.
For Council President Peterson, Councilmember Johnson said she was present when the committee last
discussed this matter. Council President Peterson asked whether Councilmember Johnson preferred to
have it discussed at committee. Councilmember Johnson suggested the committee could discuss it at the
September 11 meeting and it could be scheduled for full Council discussion on September 18. She was
uncertain Councilmember Bloom and she were of like minds but they could narrow the issues to facilitate
Council discussion.
Council President Peterson concluded since both committee members asked for this issue to be scheduled,
he will schedule it on the September 11 Committee agenda. He echoed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’
comments that committee meetings are not open discussions with the public. He will discuss with Mr.
Taraday whether his presence at the committee meeting is necessary.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff determine the records retention for notes.
8. REPORT ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Yamamoto reported SnoCom is working to resolve issues with the New World system.
The Port of Edmonds is in the process of presenting the Harbor Square Master Plan to the Planning
Board. The Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) did not meet this month.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Snohomish County Health District Program Policy
Committee discussed fluoride in the water and agreed to send the matter to the full Board with a
recommendation not to change the current policy regarding fluoride in water. The Committee has
requested that testimony be limited to recent data and not old data from the 1950s and 1960s.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is having a Cedar River Watershed event. She reported
Governor Gregoire gave each Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) member a merit award for
intergovernmental collaboration in the preparation of the Countywide Planning Policies. SCT is also
discussing dispute resolution for municipal urban growth areas (MUGA).
Council President Peterson reported the Council will be provided an update on the Regional Fire
Authority (RFA) discussion at the September 18 meeting. Mayor Earling, Councilmember Petso and he
participate on the planning committee as well as individual subcommittees.
Mayor Earling requested Council President Peterson and Councilmember Petso meet with him after the
meeting regarding the RFA.
Councilmember Bloom reported staff provided updates to the Economic Development Commission
regarding Highway 99, the Harbor Square Master Plan, Main Street project, etc. Evan Pierce and Bruce
Witenberg were elected co-chairs.
Councilmember Johnson reported there will be a formal dedication of the Allen House on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places on August 29 at 3:00 p.m.
Packet Page 282 of 437
To Record
or Not to Record?
Toby Nixon
President
Washington Coalition for Open Government
president@washingtoncog.org
Packet Page 283 of 437
Independent, Non-partisan, Non-profit
“Dedicated to promoting and defending the
people’s right to know in matters of public
interest and in the conduct of the public’s
business. The Coalition’s driving vision is to
help foster open government processes,
supervised by an informed and engaged
citizenry, which is the cornerstone of
democracy.”
Packet Page 284 of 437
What does WCOG do?
Education
Forums, speakers, CLEs,
Web Site, Help Line, Op-Eds
Litigation
Amicus briefs and public
interest lawsuits
Legislation
Legislative Agenda, Bill
Tracking, Testimony
Recognition
Madison, Andersen, Key,
and Ballard-Thompson Awards
WCOG
Packet Page 285 of 437
“The legislature finds and declares that all
public commissions, boards, councils,
committees, subcommittees, departments,
divisions, offices, and all other public
agencies of this state and subdivisions
thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's business. It is the intent of this
chapter that their actions be taken openly
and that their deliberations be conducted
openly.”
RCW 42.30.010
Packet Page 286 of 437
“The people of this state do not yield their
sovereignty to the agencies which serve
them. The people, in delegating authority, do
not give their public servants the right to
decide what is good for the people to
know and what is not good for them to
know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over
the instruments they have created.”
RCW 42.30.010
Packet Page 287 of 437
Executive Sessions
Executive sessions are meetings allowed
(but not required) to be closed to the
public because the people, through the
legislature, have determined that it is more
in the public interest than not that the
specific information to be discussed be
kept secret for some period of time.
Packet Page 288 of 437
Can Recordings Be Made?
Yes. Agencies can choose today to
make audio or video recordings, or to
keep notes or minutes, of executive
sessions. There is no prohibition of
such recordings.
Packet Page 289 of 437
Why Make Recordings?
Recordings can be useful for a number of agency
purposes:
•To resolve disagreements over what transpired or was said
•To hold attorneys and others accountable for advice given or
information provided in closed meetings
•To allow newly-appointed or newly-elected members of the
body to catch up on previous executive session discussions
•To improve the ability of the agency to defend itself if it is
accused of having an inappropriate discussion in an executive
session
Packet Page 290 of 437
Why Not Record?
Some argue that recordings would interfere with
frank, honest, free-flowing conversations.
•But that’s the point – executive sessions
should be limited to only the allowed topic
and nothing more.
•You shouldn’t have to be behind closed doors
to have a frank and honest discussion.
Packet Page 291 of 437
Why Not Record?
Some argue that making and securely
storing recordings would be expensive.
We’re not talking about a full recording studio with racks
of tapes. A digital audio recorder that can keep hundreds
of hours of audio can be purchased at Radio Shack for
under $50. Operation is trivial. The recorder can be
plugged into a PC via USB cable and recordings
transferred to a secure server, and be as well protected as
any other confidential electronic city records. No need for
expensive safes, locked file cabinets, or large amounts of
storage space.
Packet Page 292 of 437
Port of Seattle
•Digitally records all executive sessions
•Submits records to outside counsel for
periodic review for compliance
•Has not had many requests for disclosure
–but who knows what will happen with current
controversy
Packet Page 293 of 437
So Why Not Record?
Risk of disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Packet Page 294 of 437
Audio Recordings are Public Records
42.56.010 Definitions.
(3) "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of
government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned,
used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For
the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of
representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also
means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll
records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record
designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and
every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not
limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers,
maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video
recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other
documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or
translated.
And that includes voicemails.
Packet Page 295 of 437
Not Automatically Exempt
Recordings of several of the allowed topics for
executive sessions would be exempt from
disclosure, but not all.
Packet Page 296 of 437
National Security
(a) To consider matters affecting national
security;
Rarely applies to cities. Some topics covered
under 42.56.420 (security plans and
vulnerabilities, prevention of terrorist acts).
Packet Page 297 of 437
Real Estate Transactions
(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real
estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding
such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price;
(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be
offered for sale or lease when public knowledge regarding such
consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price.
However, final action selling or leasing public property shall be
taken in a meeting open to the public;
Real estate appraisals are covered by 42.56.260, but not
discussion of price willing to pay or sell for, or the fact that the
city is interested in the property.
Packet Page 298 of 437
Contract Performance
(d) To review negotiations on the performance
of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge
regarding such consideration would cause a
likelihood of increased costs;
Not covered by any known PRA exemption.
Packet Page 299 of 437
Complaints or Charges
(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public
officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee,
a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon
such complaint or charge;
Records of complaints against public employees are disclosable unless
determined to be unsubstantiated or false. 42.56.230(3), Bellevue John Does
v. Bellevue School District.
Some records may be exempt under the investigatory records exemption,
42.56.240(1).
Identity of persons filing complaints may be exempt under 42.56.240(2) if
their life, safety, or property may be endangered by disclosure, and they
request non-disclosure.
Packet Page 300 of 437
Evaluating Employment Applicants
(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public
employment or to review the performance of a public employee.
However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a governing body
of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally
applied within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public,
and when a governing body elects to take final action hiring, setting
the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or
discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a
meeting open to the public;
Names, resumes, other application materials are exempt from
disclosure under 42.56.250(2). No exemption for other content of
discussion.
Packet Page 301 of 437
Filing Vacancies on Council
(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate
for appointment to elective office. However, any
interview of such candidate and final action
appointing a candidate to elective office shall be
in a meeting open to the public;
Not exempt under PRA.
Packet Page 302 of 437
Attorney-Client Communication
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters
relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal
counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation
to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in
an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public
knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an
adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. …
All materials are likely exempt under RCW 42.56.290 or
5.60.060(2)(a), which are broader than the allowed purposes
for executive sessions for attorney-client communication, and
include all “attorney work product”.
Packet Page 303 of 437
Not Applicable to Cities
(e) …export trading company…;
(j) …state library…;
(k) …state investment board…;
(l) …state purchased health care services…;
(m) …life sciences discovery fund authority…;
(n) …health sciences and services authority…;
(o) …innovate Washington….
Packet Page 304 of 437
RCW 42.30.140
Meetings described in RCW 42.30.140 are
technically not “executive sessions”, in that they
do not require the agency to first convene in an
announced public meeting, declare the purpose
and duration of the closed meeting, and then
return to public session to adjourn. “140”
meetings can be entirely secret, although many
agencies treat them the same as “110”
executive sessions.
Packet Page 305 of 437
License Proceedings
(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an
order granting, suspending, revoking, or denying any license,
permit, or certificate to engage in any business, occupation, or
profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member
of such business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a
license for a sports activity or to operate any mechanical device
or motor vehicle where a license or registration is necessary; or
Business license proceedings occur in cities, but are not exempt
under the PRA.
Packet Page 306 of 437
Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial
body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter
between named parties as distinguished from a
matter having general effect on the public or on
a class or group; or
Cities have quasi-judicial discussions for
permitting, etc. Not exempt under the PRA.
Packet Page 307 of 437
APA Proceedings
(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the
Administrative Procedure Act; or
Does not apply to cities.
Packet Page 308 of 437
Labor Negotiations, etc.
(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations,
including contract negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions
relating to the interpretation or application of a labor agreement; or
(b) that portion of a meeting during which the governing body is
planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the
governing body during the course of any collective bargaining,
professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings, or
reviewing the proposals made in the negotiations or proceedings while
in progress.
Information regarding unfair practices exempt under 42.56.250(4)
and (5). Otherwise, not exempt under PRA.
Packet Page 309 of 437
So, What to Do?
WCOG supports enactment of additional PRA
exemptions:
•Specific public records exemptions to cover
each of the executive session topics, even if
the material is discussed in writing rather than
in an executive session.
•Blanket public records exemption for all
recordings, minutes, and notes of executive
sessions.
Packet Page 310 of 437
In the Meantime…
Be selective. Have a policy to not record
executive sessions when the discussion would
not be exempt from the PRA, or retain only a
high-level summary of the nature of the
discussion without the key details. But do
consider the benefits of recordings or notes on
key topics that would be exempt from
disclosure.
Packet Page 311 of 437
Washington Coalition for Open Government
6351 Seaview Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98107
(206) 782-0393
info@washingtoncog.org
www.washingtoncog.org
Packet Page 312 of 437
1
PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
PERSONEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
September 11, 2012
Committee members present: Council Member Joan Bloom
Council Member Kristianna Johnson
Others present: Mayor Dave Earling
Council President Strom Peterson
City Attorney Jeff Taraday
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton
Reporting Director for HR Carrie Hite
HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie
HR Consultant Tara Adams
Citizen Ken Reidy
Citizen Don Hall
Council Member Joan Bloom started the meeting at 6:27 pm
DISCUSSION ON MINUTES/NOTE TAKING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Council Member Bloom stated that she wanted to discuss minutes vs. notes during executive sessions [with regard to
executive sessions that contained attorney/client privileged information as well as exemptions release of executive
session information under the Public Records Act (PRA) exemptions. Council Member Bloom asked City Attorney Jeff
Taraday to clarify what is protected by attorney-client privilege (exempt from release as a public record) as well as
clarification on all things that should not be kept private from the public. Council Member Bloom further stated that she
was interested in focusing on [looking into] recording executive sessions as described by Attorney Toby Nixon who made
a recent information presentation to Council on this subject.
City Attorney J. Taraday stated that he would generally agree that the items on Mr. Nixon’s list that were considered
exempt from public records disclosure would be exempt although he has not had a chance to thoroughly cross check
every item on the list that was presented. City Attorney Taraday further stated that he was not prepared at this time to go
through the items on the list provided by Mr. Nixon (one by one) and agree or disagree although he does not have a
quarrel with the information provided. Additionally, there are certain types of executive sessions in which the PRA does
not provide clear protection.
Council Member Bloom requested that City Attorney J. Taraday provide additional clarification on items that were
considered to be attorney-client privileged. City Attorney J. Taraday stated that any time that Council meets in an
executive session regarding litigation or pending litigation, this would (in his opinion) have attorney-client privilege or work
product privilege and is non-disclosable. This covers a large portion of what is discussed in executive session.
Council Member Kristianna Johnson stated that regarding the RCW's that are covered with regard to this subject that
reference to them which could be written down for Council provided by City Attorney J. Taraday would be helpful. Council
Member Johnson made a future recommendation to consider whether or not the Council should have written rules about
how to handle notes in executive sessions.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to how the recording of executive sessions (documentation) should be handled since
the “minutes” from the session are not approved, so they are not legally minutes. Additionally, how should Council
continue to address the recording of meetings (in what form), etc.
Council Member Bloom stated that she would like everything to be recorded if possible (to the extent that it is not
protected) and that there was a need to look at two different categories of sessions - those protected and those not
protected from disclosure (under PRA).
Council Member Johnson stated that it would be important to monitor legislative changes regarding this and that Mike
Doubleday could keep the Council apprised on this subject with any changes . Council Member Johnson further inquired
as to whether or not there was a retention record regarding previous Council notes. City Attorney J. Taraday stated that
there should be a good reason for continuing to keep notes on executive sessions and/or why Council would want to
Packet Page 313 of 437
2
make a record of executive sessions since, as privileged conversations, they [the records] will be unlikely to be
disclosed. City Attorney J. Taraday further explained that a questionable reason to keep record of the executive sessions
would be so they [the records] could be disclosed in the near future. There is a risk in keeping a record of exempt items
and an audio or video is quite thorough.
Council Member Bloom stated that she liked the transparency of having all the information disclosed to the extent that it
may be disclosable but [that it seems appropriate] to just record only attorney-client privilege information until the
legislature comes out with new information.
Council Member Johnson stated that she respectfully disagreed due to the risk [of keeping such a recording] and based
on legal advice. Council Member Johnson stated that the Council should have clear rules about how executive sessions
are recorded and that it would be important to continue to monitor legislative issues with Mike and that pending checking
on further information on Council notes in executive sessions, she feels split on recording them or not.
Recommendation
None for Council at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Citizen Ken Reidy stated that he believed there is an issue with the recording of notes [such that] in the event that there is
a lawsuit related to this, it may fall under discovery in a court of law. Citizen Reidy further stated that the judge will be the
entity who will make the decision as to what is protected or attorney-client privileged. Citizen Reidy further stated that he
believes everyone would be better off if there was an audio or video recording (which does not require review and
approval) that can be used and that this is reflective of trust issue [with transparency of information].
JOB DESCRIPTIONS REVIEW
Reporting Director for HR Carrie Hite explained that the job descriptions project has been a process in the works with
WCIA and the unions. The City hired Public Sector Personnel Consultants as a consultant to this project and HR
Consultant Tara Adams and HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie have worked on the job descriptions as well as every
employee (including managers and directors) The job descriptions contain updated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
language. Out of concerns for potential financial impacts of job reclassifications, HR worked closely with the unions so
that there were no reclassification requests [with financial impacts] at this time from the job descriptions update.
There was some discussion that followed about the job descriptions in the development services department and in the
public Works department as to why some positions on the second floor of City Hall [engineering] reported to public works
and why others [planning and building] reported to the [acting] development services director.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to whether the City would look at restructuring the development services department
to provide more efficiencies and the impact of this upon job descriptions. Mayor Dave Earling stated that this issue was
currently under discussion with management and that he is aware of Council Member Bloom’s concerns and is working to
address them. Mayor Earling stated that he had been trying to understand what each department does and it responsible
for and also what each employee does [through the job descriptions]. Additionally, he has put a working group (consisting
of Phil Williams – Public Works & Utilities Director, Leonard Yarberry – Building Official, Stephen Clifton – Community
Services/Economic Development Director and Rob Chave – Acting Development Services Director) to have discussions
regarding how to package this with more of a collaborative style in the department and for ways for things to work better
but it will take time. Mayor Earling further stated that a recommendation will be put together for council approval in the
future and that he firmly believes that a more friendly city is for good quality development [but requires] a collaborative
approach.
There was further discussion that followed about re-organizations and what departments could be eligible for
reorganization.
Council Member Bloom stated that she wanted to understand the role of Council in reviewing organizational chart and job
descriptions. Reporting Director for HR Hite stated that, as she understood, Council has authority over working conditions
in job descriptions and personnel policies as well as benefits and the Mayor has responsibility and authority to hire,
terminate and discipline employees (aside from positions appointed by Council). Additionally, the Mayor can reorganize
and make recommendations on the budget but has to have financial authority from Council although he has the financial
parameters from Council to “run” the City.
Packet Page 314 of 437
3
There was further discussion that followed about the Mayor’s expectation of Council regarding the job descriptions as well
as how many more different job duties of employees were going to be affected with the voluntary separation incentive
program (VSIP). Mayor Earling stated that he has reviewed the organizational chart and the job descriptions and that he is
comfortable with the layout [of both]. Mayor Earling stated that he understood that he will make decisions [regarding a
reorganization] depending on the issues that may arise from the VSIP [or the budget], but that with feedback Council
Member Bloom about the second floor reorganization [development services] is being taken seriously and will be taken
into consideration after a thorough review has been done.
Council Member Johnson inquired as to how much more different the job duties of employees were going to be for those
positions that would be affected by the VSIP changes, etc. Reporting Director for HR Hite stated that there will be
changes. Council Member Johnson stated that in her review of the commissioned police officer positions it did not appear
that under the “Knowledge” requirements that “Federal” knowledge was required but that it should be. Also, it was
suggested that the “Maintenance Custodian” and “Custodian” position differences be reviewed.
There was some discussion that followed as to why positions were not more generic and why there were specific a nd
explanation by HR provided as to legal requirements, risk management, distribution of labor, performance management
and ADA requirements that necessitated specific job descriptions.
Council Member Johnson made a recommendation for the union job descriptions [SEIU, TEAMSTERS, Law Support &
EPOA] be forwarded to the next Council meeting for approval but that due to concerns with the Non-Represented job
descriptions that the Non-represented positions be discussed at another time.
Community Services Director/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton inquired as to what the preliminary
concerns may be with regard to the Non-Represented job descriptions. Council Member Johnson stated that the there
was variation in the years of experience in the Director level position as well as in the supervisory experience at the
Director level. Additionally, there was clarity needed about how education and job experience were substituted on a ratio
basis. Also, whether or not certifications should be required for the paraprofessional positions is a concern. Reporting
Director for HR Hite requested that Council Member Johnson e-mail the technical questions to HR for further looking into
before the next discussion.
Council President Strom Peterson expressed concern as to whether or not it was clear where working conditions (such as
where the Mayor gets to approve in terms of technical requirements) and changing qualifications were under Council
purview. Council President Peterson stated that some latitude should be given to administration [the Mayor] to do so.
Reporting HR Director Hite stated that she would e-mail City Attorney J. Taraday for further clarification on this.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to whether or not there are certain directors who are considered officials [as codified
in the Edmonds’ Municipal Code] and that Council has to approve these appointments. Which director positions are
considered officials and have to be approved by Council.
Recommendation
Council Member Bloom and Council Member Johnson recommended moving the represented positions [SEIU,
TEAMSTERS, Law Support & EPOA] for approval at the next council meeting on 9/18/12 and that they would arrange a
further meeting with HR on the Non-Represented job descriptions so that the Non-rep job descriptions would be able to
move forward for Council approval on 9/25/12.
ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR THE SALARY COMMISSION
Council President Peterson presented the ordinance change for the Salary Commission, wanting to allow the Commission
to meet anytime during the year if needed. The impetus for this request is to allow the Salary Commission to consider
their recommendations during the City's budget process, so they would have full information about finances before they
make a recommendation.
There was some discussion that followed by the committed.
Recommendation
It was determined that the committee was not supportive of the recommendation with respect to the decision of the Salary
Commission. Additionally, it was recommended that action toward forwarding this item to Council be delayed at this time.
The Personnel Committee adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Packet Page 315 of 437
AM-5125 11.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Nonrepresented Employee Compensation Study and Policy Discussion (Public comment will be
received).
Recommendation
Receive public comment and approve nonrepresented compensation for 2012, and make
recommendations for 2013.
Based on above recommendations, discuss policy, adopt or give staff direction to revise and bring final
version back for adoption.
Previous Council Action
December 7, 2010: Council voted to authorize $50,000 to hire a Compensation Consultant to complete a
nonrepresented compensensation survey and policy review, and a complete job description update.
March/April/May 2011: There were various discussions with the Public safety and HR Committee, who
forwarded to Council the RFP/RFQ for approval.
June 21, 2011: Council voted to advertise an RFQ/RFP for a Compensation study and job description
update to be completed.
August 10-Sept 2, 2011: RFP was published.
October 10th, 2011: Council President Peterson and Council member Fraley-Monillas and staff
interviewed three firms and forwarded a reccomendation to Council.
October 18th, 2011: Council awarded a contract to Public Sector Personnel Consultants ( PSPC ).
October 25th, 2011: PSPC briefed Council on the process of performing a job description update and
Packet Page 316 of 437
nonrepresented compensation study and policy review.
December 6, 2011: Council discussed comparator cities and reqeusted staff to bring back alternatives.
December 20, 2011: Council adopted comparator cities for the study.
July 24th, 2012 Council discussed final report and recommendations. Council requested an
additional meeting to receive public comment, and narrow down options to adopt nonrepresented
compensation for 2012, and a Nonrepresented Compensation Policy.
Narrative
Public Sector Personnel Consultants presented the final report and proposed Nonrepresented
Compensation Policy on July 24th, 2012. Matt Weatherly, President and Owner will provide a briefing
of the recommendations, and subsequent recommendations as a result of Council discussion.
Attached for Council review is:
1. PSPC's Final Report
2. Appendix I: Salary survey worksheets by job class
3. Appendix II: Benefits data by comparator city
4. Appendix III: Draft Non-Represented Compensation Policy
5. Proposed Salary Ranges chart
6. Comparison Current/Proposed Salary Ranges chart
7. 2011-2012 External COLA comparison
8. Historical internal COLA comparison
Attachments
PSPC Final Report
Appendix I: Salary Survey Worksheets by job class
Appendix II: Benefits Data by comparator city
Appendix III: Draft Nonrepresented Compensation Policy
Copy of Proposed Salaray Ranges 2012-09-13
Copy of Proposed to Existing Salary Ranges 2012-09-13
2011-2012 External COLA comparison
Historical internal COLA comparison
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 02:43 PM
Packet Page 317 of 437
Parks and Recreation Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 04:38 PM
Parks and Recreation Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 04:47 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/13/2012 04:58 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/14/2012 08:20 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/14/2012 10:23 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 09/12/2012 12:28 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2012
Packet Page 318 of 437
Packet Page 319 of 437
Packet Page 320 of 437
Packet Page 321 of 437
Packet Page 322 of 437
Packet Page 323 of 437
Packet Page 324 of 437
Packet Page 325 of 437
Packet Page 326 of 437
Packet Page 327 of 437
Packet Page 328 of 437
Packet Page 329 of 437
Packet Page 330 of 437
Packet Page 331 of 437
Packet Page 332 of 437
Packet Page 333 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 1 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL $61,212 $69,133 $75,854 $86,221 $6,251 $22,124 $89,587 $97,508 $104,229 -1%-$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$95,212 $103,212 $110,001
LIMITED DATA range width
Assistant Bldg Official Puyallup, City of $61,212 $70,392 $79,572 30%$61,212 $70,392 $79,572
Asst Bldg Of/Ld Inspec Des Moines, City of $62,412 $69,133 $75,854 21%$62,412 $69,133 $75,854
Assistant Bldg Official Lacey, City of $59,907 $65,574 $71,241 19%1%1%$60,506 $66,230 $71,953
no comparable match Lynnwood, City of
no comparable match Bothell, City of
no comparable match Bremerton, City of
no comparable match Burien, City of
no comparable match Issaquah, City of
no comparable match Kirkland, City of
no comparable match Olympia, City of
no comparable match Sammamish, City of
no comparable match University Place, City of
Median:$61,212 $69,133 $75,854 Median:$61,212 $69,133 $75,854
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:-8.5%-17.3%-24.4%Current Base Variance:-8.5%-17.3%-24.4%
0.91 0.83 0.76 0.91 0.83 0.76
Proposed Base Range:$62,701 $73,363 $84,025 35%
Range 10
Bldg Svcs. Supervisor King County - INFO ONLY $78,108 $88,566 $99,024 27%
Building Insp Supervisor Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 21%
no comparable match Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
no comparable match Shoreline - INFO ONLY
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 334 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 2 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $108,012 $115,698 $125,352 $121,314 $8,795 $22,124 $138,931 $146,617 $156,271 5%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+DCP $141,400 $149,086 $165,008
range width
Police Commander Olympia, City of $128,268 $132,528 $136,788 7%$128,268 $132,528 $136,788
Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $108,012 $122,664 $137,316 27%$108,012 $122,664 $137,316
Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $102,480 $116,640 $130,800 28%5%$300 $300 $102,780 $116,940 $137,640
Commander Des Moines, City of $110,052 $115,698 $121,344 10%$110,052 $115,698 $121,344
Deputy Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $122,304 $127,296 $132,288 27%5%$122,304 $127,296 $132,288
Police Commander Lacey, City of $121,908 $115,048 $125,352 1%1%$123,127 $116,198 $126,606
Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $88,800 $102,126 $115,452 30%4%4%$92,352 $106,211 $120,070
Police Captain Bremerton, City of $107,907 $112,929 $117,951 4%4%$112,223 $117,446 $122,669
Police Captain Kirkland, City of $91,644 $104,952 $118,260 $91,644 $104,952 $118,260
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
Pierce County no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$108,012 $115,698 $125,352 Median:$110,052 $116,940 $126,606
Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604
Current Base Variance:14.4%-2.0%-11.5%Current Base Variance:16.6%-0.9%-10.6%
1.14 0.98 0.89 1.17 0.99 0.89
Proposed Base Range:$97,270 $113,811 $130,351 34%
Range 19
Undersheriff Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $118,631 $133,811 $148,990 26%
Chief Deputy Sheriff King County - INFO ONLY $113,724 $128,940 $144,156 27%
Assistant Police Chief Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $94,644 $103,002 $111,360 18%
no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 335 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 3 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $58,500 $65,580 $71,256 $73,169 $5,305 $22,124 $85,928 $93,008 $98,684 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$92,473 $99,624 $105,357
range width
Planner, Associate Issaquah, City of $62,928 $71,610 $80,292 28%5%5%$62,928 $71,610 $84,307
Associate Planner Kirkland, City of $65,892 $71,706 $77,520 18%$65,892 $71,706 $77,520
Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $57,886 $68,554 $79,221 37%$57,886 $68,554 $79,221
Planner II Bremerton, City of $62,150 $67,808 $73,466 18%$62,150 $67,808 $73,466
Associate Planner Puyallup, City of $52,308 $60,156 $68,004 30%$52,308 $60,156 $68,004
Associate Planner Olympia, City of $58,500 $64,776 $71,052 22%$58,500 $64,776 $71,052
Planner Burien, City of $58,020 $64,278 $70,536 22%$58,020 $64,278 $70,536
Associate Planner Lacey, City of $59,904 $65,580 $71,256 19%1%1%$60,503 $66,236 $71,969
Associate Planner Lynnwood, City of $52,499 $59,478 $66,456 27%$52,499 $59,478 $66,456
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Bothell, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$58,500 $65,580 $71,256 Median:$58,500 $66,236 $71,969
Urban Planner (Journey)ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $56,088 $66,969 $77,849
Private Sector Median:$56,088 $66,969 $77,849 Private Sector Median:$56,088 $66,969 $77,849
Unweighted Average:$57,294 $66,274 $74,553 Unweighted Average:$57,294 $66,602 $74,909
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610
Current Base Variance:-0.8%-8.2%-13.9%Current Base Variance:-0.8%-7.7%-13.5%
0.99227572 $1 0.86078397 0.99227572 0.92278698 86.49%
Proposed Base Range:$59,715 $69,870 $80,024 34%
Range 9
Transp or WQ Planner II King County - INFO ONLY $63,888 $72,432 $80,976 26%
Associate Planner Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $53,904 $63,180 $72,456 34%
Associate Planner Shoreline - INFO ONLY $59,520 $65,970 $72,420 22%
Associate Planner Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $42,445 $46,996 $51,546 21%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 336 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 4 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
BUILDING OFFICIAL $82,281 $93,345 $103,851 $92,718 $6,722 $22,124 $111,126 $122,190 $132,697 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,491 $127,666 $138,278
range width
Director, Building & Permitting Issaquah, City of $107,616 $122,484 $137,352 28%5%5%$107,616 $122,484 $144,220
Dep Com Dev Dir/Bldg Off Bothell, City of $97,848 $111,126 $124,404 27%$97,848 $111,126 $124,404
Building Services Manager Kirkland, City of $88,956 $99,390 $109,824 23%$88,956 $99,390 $109,824
Building Official Sammamish, City of $80,432 $95,254 $110,076 37%$80,432 $95,254 $110,076
Building Official Lynnwood, City of $84,760 $96,013 $107,266 27%$221.52 $221.52 $84,760 $96,013 $107,487
Building Official Des Moines, City of $82,128 $90,972 $99,816 21%$82,128 $90,972 $99,816
Building Official University Place, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%$82,433 $91,435 $100,437
Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $72,480 $83,358 $94,236 30%$72,480 $83,358 $94,236
Building Official Burien, City of $76,284 $84,504 $92,724 21%$76,284 $84,504 $92,724
Building Official/Fire Marshal Lacey, City of $81,552 $81,552 $81,552 flat rate 1%1%$82,368 $82,368 $82,368
no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of
no comparable match reported Olympia, City of
Median:$82,281 $93,345 $103,851 Median:$82,400 $93,345 $103,962
Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855
Current Base Variance:-3.47%-12.39%-18.77%Current Base Variance:-3.33%-12.39%-18.69%
0.96531436 0.8761 0.81225842 0.96671938 0.87609577 81.31%
Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34%
Range 15
Building Official Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,084 $93,198 $102,312 22%
Building Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $72,579 $80,387 $88,194 22%
Building Official Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 25%
Div Dir, Building Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $95,618 $108,410 $121,202 27%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 337 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 5 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $70,159 $77,712 $85,824 $75,506 $5,474 $22,124 $97,757 $105,310 $113,422 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $103,547 $111,100 $119,212
(2 positions - salary averaged)
range width
PE req'd Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $67,498 $76,661 $85,824 27%$67,498 $76,661 $85,824
Capital Project Supervisor Kirkland, City of $63,418 $72,634 $81,850 29%$63,418 $72,634 $81,850
CIP Management Coordinator Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501
Project Manager Bremerton, City of $78,461 $87,029 $95,597 22%$78,461 $87,029 $95,597
No PE CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $75,936 $84,114 $92,292 22%$75,936 $84,114 $92,292
Project Manager Sammamish, City of $70,516 $83,511 $96,505 37%$70,516 $83,511 $96,505
No PE Engineering Project Manager Olympia, City of $70,159 $77,712 $85,265 22%$70,159 $77,712 $85,265
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $70,644 $78,252 $85,860 22%$70,644 $78,252 $85,860
Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $66,123 $74,901 $83,678 27%$221.52 $221.52 $66,123 $74,901 $83,900
Project Engineer University Place, City of $59,700 $67,638 $75,576 27%$59,700 $67,638 $75,576
Project Manager Puyallup, City of $61,212 $70,392 $79,572 30%$61,212 $70,392 $79,572
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
Median:$70,159 $77,712 $85,824 Median:$70,159 $77,712 $85,824
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610
Current Base Variance:21.5%7.7%-0.9%Current Base Variance:21.5%7.7%-0.9%
1.21508486 $1 0.99092484 1.21508486 1.07671631 0.99092484
Proposed Base Range:$65,836 $77,032 $88,227 34%
Range 11
Capital Proj Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $72,480 $80,328 $88,176 22%
Capital Projects Manager II King County - INFO ONLY $63,096 $71,544 $79,992 27%
Capital Proj Coord Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $60,768 $68,352 $75,936 25%
Project Spec II Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $53,469 $59,216 $64,962 21%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 338 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 6 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (we suggest title change to IS Manager)$82,090 $92,189 $103,252 $93,872 $6,806 $22,124 111,019$ 121,118$ 132,181$ 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,299 $126,499 $137,673
range width
Info Systems Manager Bothell, City of $84,372 $95,826 $107,280 27%$84,372 $95,826 $107,280
Ntwk & Ops Division Manager Kirkland, City of $85,320 $97,704 $110,088 29%$85,320 $97,704 $110,088
Info Systems Manager Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997
Info Services Manager Lacey, City of $103,227 $103,227 $103,227 flat rate 1%1%$104,259 $104,259 $104,259
20% reduction (+)Info Tech & Comm Cntr Dir Puyallup, City of $79,440 $91,358 $103,277 30%$79,440 $91,358 $103,277
Info Systems Manager Sammamish, City of $80,432 $95,254 $110,076 37%$80,432 $95,254 $110,076
Comm/IT Manager University Place, City of $78,828 $90,834 $102,840 30%$78,828 $90,834 $102,840
20% reduction (+)Asst Fin Dir - Info Services Lynnwood, City of X $82,052 $92,943 $103,834 26%$221.52 $221.52 $82,052 $92,943 $104,055
Info Systems Manager Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%4%4%$85,730 $95,092 $104,454
Info Systems Manager Des Moines, City of $82,128 $90,972 $99,816 22%$82,128 $90,972 $99,816
Info Systems Manager Burien, City of $75,744 $83,904 $92,064 22%$75,744 $83,904 $92,064
Assoc. Director LOB Olympia, City of $79,913 $88,513 $97,124 22%$79,913 $88,513 $97,124
Median:$82,090 $92,189 $103,252 Median:$82,090 $95,173 $104,157
Level 1 Systems & Prog Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $75,990 $104,766 $133,542
Private Sector Median:$75,990 $104,766 $133,542 Private Sector Median:$75,990 $104,766 $133,542
Unweighted Average:$79,040 $98,477 $118,397 Unweighted Average:$79,040 $99,970 $118,850
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107
Current Base Variance:3.9%3.6%3.8%Current Base Variance:3.9%5.1%4.2%
1.0390288 $1 1.03759585 1.0390288 1.051327 1.04156272
Proposed Base Range:$84,025 $98,314 $112,602 34%
Range 16
no comparable match reported King County - INFO ONLY
no comparable match reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY
Information Syst Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $95,112 $105,420 $115,728 22%
IT Systems Admin Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 25%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 339 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 7 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
CITY CLERK $67,800 $78,194 $88,116 $106,022 $7,687 $22,124 $97,610 $108,004 $117,926 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$101,866 $112,364 $122,385
range width
City Clerk Kirkland, City of $73,656 $84,348 $95,040 29%$73,656 $84,348 $95,040
City Clerk Issaquah, City of $72,828 $82,896 $92,964 28%5%5%$72,828 $82,896 $97,612
City Clerk Bothell, City of $69,252 $78,648 $88,044 27%$69,252 $78,648 $88,044
City Clerk Bremerton, City of $74,680 $82,836 $90,991 22%4%4%$77,667 $86,149 $94,631
City Clerk Puyallup, City of $67,800 $77,958 $88,116 30%$67,800 $77,958 $88,116
City Clerk Sammamish, City of $66,026 $78,194 $90,361 37%$66,026 $78,194 $90,361
City Clerk Des Moines, City of $67,500 $74,772 $82,044 22%$67,500 $74,772 $82,044
City Clerk University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660
City Clerk Burien, City of $62,388 $69,114 $75,840 22%$62,388 $69,114 $75,840
City Clerk Lacey, City of $64,512 $69,672 $74,832 16%1%1%$65,157 $70,369 $75,580
Associate Line of Business Director Olympia, City of $80,712 $89,404 $98,095 22%
no comparable match reported Lynnwood, City of
Median:$67,800 $78,194 $88,116 Median:$67,650 $78,076 $88,080
Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855
Current Base Variance:-20.5%-26.6%-31.1%Current Base Variance:-20.6%-26.7%-31.1%
0.79542922 $1 0.68918697 0.79366942 0.73278912 0.6889054
Proposed Base Range:$76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34%
Range 14
Div Dir, Rec & Lic Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $121,200 $137,412 $153,624
Comm Rel Dir/City Clerk Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696
County Clerk Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $98,789 $98,789 $98,789
City Clerk Shoreline - INFO ONLY $72,480 $80,328 $88,176
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 340 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 8 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
CITY ENGINEER $85,237 $93,982 $102,133 $123,024 $8,919 $22,124 116,280$ 125,024$ 133,176$ 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$119,478 $128,309 $136,542
range width
Deputy PW Dir/City Eng Bothell, City of $97,848 $111,126 $124,404 27%$97,848 $111,126 $124,404
City Engineer Bremerton, City of $100,437 $111,405 $122,372 22%4%4%$104,454 $115,861 $127,267
City Engineer Lacey, City of $115,308 $115,308 $115,308 flat rate 1%1%$116,461 $116,461 $116,461
Assistant Director - Trans & Eng Des Moines, City of $96,084 $106,428 $116,772 22%$96,084 $106,428 $116,772
City Engineer Puyallup, City of $88,800 $102,126 $115,452 30%$88,800 $102,126 $115,452
City Engineer University Place, City of $88,440 $102,930 $117,420 33%$88,440 $102,930 $117,420
Engineering Manager Issaquah, City of $88,536 $101,094 $113,652 28%5%5%$88,536 $101,094 $119,335
City Engineer Sammamish, City of $85,901 $101,732 $117,562 37%$85,901 $101,732 $117,562
City Engineer Olympia, City of $83,772 $92,811 $101,851 21%$83,772 $92,811 $101,851
Pub. Wks Dir./City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $114,297 $129,546 $144,615 26%$221.52 $221.52 $114,297 $129,546 $144,837
no comparable match reported Burien, City of -
no comparable match reported Kirkland, City of -
Median:$92,442 $104,679 $117,096 Median:$92,442 $104,679 $117,491
Level 2 Engineering Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $105,520 $129,781 $154,041
Private Sector Median:$105,520 $129,781 $154,041 Private Sector Median:$105,520 $129,781 $154,041
Unweighted Average:$98,981 $117,230 $135,569 Unweighted Average:$98,981 $117,230 $135,766
Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604
Current Base Variance:4.9%-0.7%-4.3%Current Base Variance:4.9%-0.7%-4.1%
1.04850533 0.993447 0.95737762 1.04850533 0.9934472 0.95877235
Proposed Base Range:$97,270 $113,811 $130,351 34%
Range 19
Engineering Svcs Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23%
Data Not Reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY
Data Not Reported King County - INFO ONLY
City Engineer Shoreline - INFO ONLY $107,625 $119,284 $130,942 22%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 341 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 9 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $101,196 $115,412 $128,214 $136,979 $9,931 $22,124 $133,250 $147,466 $160,269 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $134,584 $148,800 $161,602
range width
Asst City Manager/Econ Dev ManagerBothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760
20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Kirkland, City of $111,082 $127,217 $143,352 29%$111,082 $127,217 $143,352
Dir Comm Planning & Development Olympia, City of $127,332 $127,332 $127,332 flat rate $127,332 $127,332 $127,332
Exec Dir Com & Econ Development University Place, City of $104,064 $119,520 $134,976 30%$104,064 $119,520 $134,976
Economic Development Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096
Economic Development Director Lynnwood, City of $102,959 $116,625 $130,291 27%$221.52 $221.52 $102,959 $116,625 $130,513
20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Bremerton, City of $99,432 $110,153 $120,874 22%4%4%$103,409 $114,559 $125,709
20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Burien, City of $97,891 $108,439 $118,987 21%$97,891 $108,439 $118,987
20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Issaquah, City of $91,771 $104,458 $117,144 28%5%5%$91,771 $104,458 $123,001
Economic Development Mgr Des Moines, City of $82,128 $90,972 $99,816 21%$82,128 $90,972 $99,816
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
Median:$101,196 $115,412 $128,214 Median:$103,184 $115,592 $128,214
Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352
Current Base Variance:-2.3%-10.9%-17.5%Current Base Variance:-0.4%-10.7%-17.5%
0.97709235 0.891484 0.82531284 0.99629364 0.89287777 0.82531284
Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34%
Range 20
Comm & Econ Dev Dir Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23%
Econ Dev Prog Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $95,219 $111,518 41%
Econ Dev Prog Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22%
Ast Div Dr Comm Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $84,926 $96,283 $107,640 27%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 342 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 10 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,059 $85,689 $95,319 $96,131 $6,970 $22,124 $105,152 $114,782 $124,412 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $109,447 $119,077 $128,707
range width
Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $93,605 $106,018 $118,431 27%$221.52 $221.52 $93,605 $106,018 $118,653
Municipal Court Admin Issaquah, City of $80,292 $91,386 $102,480 28%5%5%$80,292 $91,386 $107,604
Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $79,740 $88,332 $96,924 21%$79,740 $88,332 $96,924
Court Services Admin Bremerton, City of $78,461 $87,029 $95,597 22%4%4%$81,599 $90,510 $99,421
Court Administrator Kirkland, City of $73,656 $84,348 $95,040 29%$73,656 $84,348 $95,040
Court Administrator Bothell, City of $69,252 $78,648 $88,044 27%$69,252 $78,648 $88,044
Court Administrator Olympia, City of $70,164 $77,712 $85,260 22%$70,164 $77,712 $85,260
Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $59,136 $68,010 $76,884 30%$59,136 $68,010 $76,884
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$76,059 $85,689 $95,319 Median:$76,698 $86,340 $95,982
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107
Current Base Variance:0.0%-9.9%-16.5%Current Base Variance:0.8%-9.2%-15.9%
0.99983568 0.9011400 0.83534314 1.0082423 0.907991 0.84115786
Proposed Salary Range $72,584 $89,174 $97,270 34%
Range 13
Court Svcs Admin Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $97,219 $115,518 46%
Court Ops Manager - Sup Ct Crim DivKing County - INFO ONLY $66,096 $75,108 $84,120 27%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 343 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 11 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR unfilled $106,122 $118,963 $129,444 VACANT $9,385 $22,124 $137,630 $150,471 $160,952 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $141,633 $154,730 $165,421
range width
Director, Planning Issaquah, City of $113,004 $128,610 $144,216 28%5%5%$113,004 $128,610 $151,427
Community Development Director Bothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760
Director of Community DevelopmentSammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950
Dir Com Planning & Dev Olympia, City of $127,332 $127,332 $127,332 flat rate $127,332 $127,332 $127,332
Planning Director Kirkland, City of $107,040 $122,580 $138,120 29%$107,040 $122,580 $138,120
Planning, Bldg & PW Dir Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636
Development Svcs Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096
Director of Community DevelopmentBremerton, City of $105,521 $117,044 $128,567 22%4%4%$109,742 $121,726 $133,710
Community Development Director Lynnwood, City of $102,565 $116,178 $129,792 27%$221.52 $221.52 $102,565 $116,178 $130,014
Community Development Director Burien, City of $97,764 $108,300 $118,836 22%$97,764 $108,300 $118,836
Planning & Dev Svcs Dir University Place, City of $88,440 $102,930 $117,420 33%$88,440 $102,930 $117,420
Community Development Director Lacey, City of $106,723 $106,723 $106,723 flat rate 2%2%$108,857 $108,857 $108,857
Median:$106,122 $118,963 $129,444 Median:$107,949 $121,304 $131,325
Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352
Current Base Variance:2.5%-8.1%-16.7%Current Base Variance:4.2%-6.3%-15.5%
1.02466013 0.918917 0.83323034 1.0422981 0.93699892 0.84533678
Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34%
Range 20
Plan & Com Dev Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 22%
Planning & Dev Svc Dir Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $105,672 $127,499 $149,325 41%
Dir Dev & Env Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $127,088 $144,082 $161,075 27%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 344 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 12 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 PE may be required $69,228 $76,993 $84,702 VACANT $6,141 $22,124 $97,493 $105,257 $112,967 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $102,616 $110,381 $118,090
range width
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $69,096 $79,458 $89,820 30%$69,096 $79,458 $89,820
Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $75,480 $82,134 $88,788 17%$75,480 $82,134 $88,788
Associate Engineer Sammamish, City of $70,516 $83,511 $96,506 37%$70,516 $83,511 $96,506
Engineer II Issaquah, City of $69,360 $78,948 $88,536 28%5%5%$69,360 $78,948 $92,963
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $70,644 $78,252 $85,860 22%$70,644 $78,252 $85,860
PE may be req'd Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $62,652 $71,154 $79,656 27%$62,652 $71,154 $79,656
Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $69,493 $75,733 $81,973 18%4%4%$72,273 $78,762 $85,252
PE req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $66,024 $74,784 $83,544 27%$221.52 $221.52 $66,024 $74,784 $83,766
PE may be req'd Project Engineer II Olympia, City of $66,252 $73,392 $80,532 22%$66,252 $73,392 $80,532
Project Engineer University Place, City of $59,700 $67,638 $75,576 27%$59,700 $67,638 $75,576
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
Data Not Reported Lacey, City of
Median:$69,228 $76,993 $84,702 Median:$69,228 $78,507 $85,556
Engineer ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $72,468 $87,514 $102,560
Private Sector Median:$72,468 $87,514 $102,560 Private Sector Median:$72,468 $87,514 $102,560
Unweighted Average:$70,848 $82,253 $93,631 Unweighted Average:$70,848 $83,011 $94,058
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:5.9%-1.6%-6.7%Current Base Variance:5.9%-0.7%-6.3%
1.05893431 0.98352 0.93296997 1.05893431 0.99257552 0.93722454
Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34%
Range 12
Cap Proj Manager II Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22%
Cap Proj Manager III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27%
Prog Eng - Cap Projects Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 345 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 13 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 PE may be required $76,336 $88,406 $97,777 VACANT $7,089 $22,124 $105,548 $117,619 $126,989 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $109,724 $121,794 $131,165
range width
Engineer, Senior Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997
Civil Engineer Senior Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,202 $100,836 30%$77,568 $89,202 $100,836
Senior Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $83,016 $90,342 $97,668 18%$83,016 $90,342 $97,668
Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $75,311 $89,190 $103,068 37%$75,311 $89,190 $103,068
PE req'd Civil Engineer, Senior Bothell, City of $72,660 $82,518 $92,376 27%$72,660 $82,518 $92,376
PE req'd Development Services Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $77,360 $87,623 $97,885 27%$221.52 $221.52 $77,360 $87,623 $98,107
Civil Engineer III Bremerton, City of $73,466 $79,831 $86,195 17%4%4%$76,405 $83,024 $89,643
PE Req'd Engineering Program Manager Olympia, City of $73,466 $79,831 $86,195 17%$73,466 $79,831 $86,195
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$76,336 $88,406 $97,777 Median:$76,882 $88,406 $97,887
Project Engineer ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $91,728 $111,722 $131,715
Private Sector Median:$91,728 $111,722 $131,715 Private Sector Median:$91,728 $111,722 $131,715
Unweighted Average:$84,032 $100,064 $114,746 Unweighted Average:$84,305 $100,064 $114,801
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:25.6%19.6%14.3%Current Base Variance:26.0%19.6%14.4%
1.2559861 1.196485 1.14336426 1.26007264 1.19648547 1.14391608
Proposed Base Range:$76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34%
Range 14
Cap Proj Manager II Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22%
Cap Proj Manager III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27%
Prog Eng - Cap Projects Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 346 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 14 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $52,776 $59,940 $67,104 $52,507 $4,865 $22,124 $79,765 $86,929 $94,093 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $86,164 $93,328 $100,492
range width
Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $64,397 $71,429 $78,461 22%$64,397 $71,429 $78,461
Admin Asst Sr Non-Rep Bothell, City of $52,776 $59,940 $67,104 27%$52,776 $59,940 $67,104
Executive Assistant University Place, City of $53,664 $62,136 $70,608 32%$53,664 $62,136 $70,608
Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $55,488 $61,470 $67,452 22%$55,488 $61,470 $67,452
PD Admin Secretary Puyallup, City of $43,488 $50,004 $56,520 30%$49,476 $56,898 $64,320
Executive Assistant PC Kirkland, City of $57,744 $66,126 $74,508 18%$43,044 $49,290 $55,536
Executive Assistant Burien, City of $52,464 $58,122 $63,780 22%$52,464 $58,122 $63,780
PD Admin Office Supervisor Issaquah, City of $54,348 $61,854 $69,360 27%5%$300 5% + $300 $54,648 $62,154 $73,128
Administrative Assistant Sammamish, City of $47,518 $56,275 $65,032 37%$47,518 $56,275 $65,032
Administrative Secretary Olympia, City of $52,776 $59,940 $67,104 27%$52,776 $59,940 $67,104
Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $48,024 $54,403 $60,782 25%$221.52 $221.52 $48,024 $54,403 $61,004
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
Median:$52,776 $59,940 $67,104 Median:$53,556 $59,031 $66,068
Executive Sec to VP ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $49,598 $59,904 $70,210
Private Sector Median:$49,598 $59,904 $70,210 Private Sector Median:$49,598 $59,904 $70,210
Unweighted Average:$51,187 $59,922 $68,657 Unweighted Average:$51,577 $59,468 $68,139
Current Edmonds Base Range:$48,574 $60,718 $72,861 50%$48,574 $60,718 $72,861
Current Base Variance:-5.1%1.3%6.1%Current Base Variance:-5.8%2.1%6.9%
0.948952 1.013276 1.061232 0.941776 1.021020 1.069300
Proposed salary range:$54,164 $63,374 $72,584 34%
Range 7
Admin Asst II King County - INFO ONLY $62,856 $71,268 $79,680 27%
Admin Asst - HR (Confid)Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $56,120 $62,198 $68,276 22%
Exec Assistant Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $52,824 $59,430 $66,036 25%
Admin Asst III Shoreline - INFO ONLY $48,792 $54,090 $59,388 22%
Current Edmonds Base Range:
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 347 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 15 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $54,300 $62,178 $70,608 $64,500 $5,119 $22,124 $81,543 $89,421 $97,851 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $87,688 $95,566 $103,996
range width
Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $64,397 $71,429 $78,461 22%$64,397 $71,429 $78,461
Executive Asst (To City Manager)Bothell, City of $58,260 $66,162 $74,064 27%$58,260 $66,162 $74,064
Executive Asst to Mayor Issaquah, City of $57,072 $64,950 $72,828 28%5%5%$57,072 $64,950 $76,469
Executive Asst to Mayor Lynnwood, City of $58,128 $65,832 $73,536 27%$221.52 $221.52 $58,128 $65,832 $73,758
Executive Secretary Sammamish, City of $54,200 $64,189 $74,177 37%$54,200 $64,189 $74,177
Executive Assistant - CMO I Kirkland, City of $54,300 $62,178 $70,056 29%$54,300 $62,178 $70,056
Executive Assistant University Place, City of $53,664 $62,136 $70,608 32%$53,664 $62,136 $70,608
Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $55,488 $61,470 $67,452 22%$55,488 $61,470 $67,452
Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $49,476 $56,898 $64,320 30%$49,476 $56,898 $64,320
Executive Assistant Burien, City of $52,464 $58,122 $63,780 22%$52,464 $58,122 $63,780
City Manager Executive Secretary Olympia, City of $50,628 $56,112 $61,596 22%$50,628 $56,112 $61,596
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
Median:$54,300 $62,178 $70,608 Median:$54,300 $62,178 $70,608
Executive Sec to CEO ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $59,041 $71,668 $84,294
Private Sector Median:$59,041 $71,668 $84,294 Private Sector Median:$59,041 $71,668 $84,294
Unweighted Average:$56,671 $66,923 $77,451 Unweighted Average:$56,671 $66,923 $77,451
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50%$57,740 $72,175 $86,610
Current Base Variance:-1.9%-7.3%-10.6%Current Base Variance:-1.9%-7.3%-10.6%
0.98147731 $1 0.89425009 0.98147731 0.92722896 0.89425009
Proposed Salary Range $56,872 $66,543 $76,214 34%
Range 8
County Exec Asst II King County - INFO ONLY $95,616 $108,402 $121,188 27%
Exec Asst to County Exec Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $58,934 $71,109 $83,283 41%
Exec Asst To City Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $56,616 $62,748 $68,880 22%
Executive Assistant Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $52,824 $59,430 $66,036 25%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 348 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 16 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
FINANCE DIRECTOR $110,788 $124,353 $133,856 $137,800 $9,705 $22,124 $142,616 $156,181 $165,684 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2%$146,391 $160,228 $169,921
range width
no IT Director, Finance Issaquah, City of $118,644 $135,030 $151,416 28%5%5%$118,644 $135,030 $158,987
includes IT Director, Admin Services Olympia, City of $131,376 $131,376 $131,376 flat rate $131,376 $131,376 $131,376
no IT Finance Director Kirkland, City of $112,452 $128,772 $145,092 29%$112,452 $128,772 $145,092
no IT Finance Director Bothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760
includes IT Director & Asst City Manager Sammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950
includes IT Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $114,297 $129,456 $144,615 27%$221.52 $221.52 $114,297 $129,456 $144,837
includes IT Director of Financial Services Bremerton, City of $110,863 $122,970 $135,076 22%4%4%$115,298 $127,888 $140,479
includes IT Finance Director Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636
no IT Finance Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096
no IT Finance Director Lacey, City of $122,556 $122,556 $122,556 flat rate 2%2%$125,007 $125,007 $125,007
includes IT Finance Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,872 $123,852 21%$101,892 $112,872 $123,852
includes IT Finance Director University Place, City of $88,440 $102,930 $117,420 33%$88,440 $102,930 $117,420
Median:$110,788 $124,353 $133,856 Median:$111,582 $127,254 $136,558
Accounting Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $95,956 $117,008 $138,059
Private Sector Median:$95,956 $117,008 $138,059 Private Sector Median:$95,956 $117,008 $138,059
Unweighted Average:$103,372 $120,680 $135,958 Unweighted Average:$103,769 $122,131 $137,308
Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352
Current Base Variance:-0.2%-6.8%-12.5%0.2%-5.7%-11.6%
0.99810511 0.9321808 0.87515771 1.00194075 0.94339 0.88385254
Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34%
Range 20
Div Dir Fin & Bus Ops King County - INFO ONLY $127,088 $144,092 $161,096 27%
Fin & Risk Mgmt Dir Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $105,672 $127,499 $149,325 41%
Finance Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23%
no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 349 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 17 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
FLEET MANAGER $75,042 $85,575 $96,049 $87,125 $6,964 $22,124 $104,129 $114,662 $125,136 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$109,181 $119,819 $130,398
range width
Fleet and Facilities Manager Bothell, City of $76,440 $86,814 $97,188 27%$76,440 $86,814 $97,188
Fleet Manager Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501
Fleet Manager Kirkland, City of $73,644 $84,336 $95,028 29%$73,644 $84,336 $95,028
Data Increased 20%(-)Auto Shop Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $76,723 $86,897 $97,070 27%$221.52 $221.52 $76,723 $86,897 $97,292
PW Supervisor II Puyallup, City of $69,096 $79,458 $89,820 30%$69,096 $79,458 $89,820
Fleet Manager Bremerton, City of $71,082 $78,844 $86,606 22%4%4%$73,925 $81,998 $90,070
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
no comparable match reported Olympia, City of
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$75,042 $85,575 $96,049 Median:$75,183 $85,575 $96,108
Fleet Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $64,310 $78,342 $92,373
Private Sector Median:$64,310 $78,342 $92,373 Private Sector Median:$64,310 $78,342 $92,373
Unweighted Average:$69,676 $81,958 $94,211 Unweighted Average:$69,746 $81,958 $94,241
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:4.1%-2.0%-6.1%Current Base Variance:4.2%-2.0%-6.1%
1.04141693 0.97999 0.93875027 1.04246798 0.97999259 0.93904323
Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34%
Range 12
Vehicle Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $101,400 $114,966 $128,532 27%
Fleet Equip Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $86,982 $104,948 $122,914 41%
Fleet, Fac & Prop Mgmt Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY $67,332 $74,622 $81,912 22%
Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 350 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 18 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $58,248 $66,162 $73,539 VACANT $5,332 $22,124 $85,703 $93,617 $100,994 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $91,636 $99,550 $106,927
range width
Human Resources Analyst Bothell, City of $58,260 $66,162 $74,064 27%$58,260 $66,162 $74,064
Human Resources Analyst Kirkland, City of $58,248 $66,708 $75,168 29%$58,248 $66,708 $75,168
Human Resources Analyst Bremerton, City of $61,293 $67,987 $74,681 22%$61,293 $67,987 $74,681
Human Resources Analyst Lacey, City of $71,520 $71,520 $71,520 flat rate 1%1%$72,235 $72,235 $72,235
Human Resources Analyst Puyallup, City of $52,308 $60,156 $68,004 30%$52,308 $60,156 $68,004
Human Resources Analyst Lynnwood, City of $58,130 $65,834 $73,539 27%$58,130 $65,834 $73,539
Personnel Analyst Olympia, City of $54,552 $60,432 $66,312 22% $54,552 $60,432 $66,312
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Issaquah, City of
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$58,248 $66,162 $73,539 Median:$58,248 $66,162 $73,539
Current Edmonds Base Range:$48,574 $60,718 $72,861 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$48,574 $60,718 $72,861
Current Base Variance:19.9%9.0%0.9%Current Base Variance:19.9%9.0%0.9%
1.19916004 1.08967 1.00930539 1.19916 1.08967 1.00931
Proposed Base Range:$56,872 $65,836 $76,214 34%
Range 8
Human Res Analyst King County - INFO ONLY $62,388 $70,734 $79,080 27%$5,128 $18,401 $94,263
Human Res Analyst Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 21%$4,350 $16,440 $80,791
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 351 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 19 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $81,883 $96,010 $110,269 $85,237 $7,994 $22,124 $112,001 $126,128 $140,387 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,089 $130,358 $144,759
NOTE: Most agencies have HR Directors & HR Analysts, but not HR Manager positions; the HR Director position range width
was factored down when used in this survey comparison
Data reduced -Human Resources Director Bothell, City of $99,641 $113,162 $126,684 27%$99,641 $113,162 $126,684
Human Resources Manager Bremerton, City of $78,461 $87,029 $95,597 22%4%4%$81,599 $90,510 $99,421
Data reduced -Human Resources Director Kirkland, City of $96,336 $110,322 $124,308 29%$96,336 $110,322 $124,308
Data reduced -Human Resources Director Puyallup, City of $89,370 $102,778 $116,186 30%$89,370 $102,778 $116,186
Data reduced -Human Resources Director Lynnwood, City of $92,308 $104,561 $116,813 26%$221.52 $221.52 $92,308 $104,561 $117,034
Human Resources Manager Issaquah, City of $88,536 $100,770 $113,004 28%5%5%$88,536 $100,770 $118,654
Data reduced -Human Resources Director Lacey, City of $101,056 $101,056 $101,056 flat rate 1%1%$102,066 $102,066 $102,066
Human Resources Manager Burien, City of $79,572 $88,152 $96,732 22%$79,572 $88,152 $96,732
HR Manager Puyallup, City of $63,264 $72,762 $82,260 30%$63,264 $72,762 $82,260
Manager, HR University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Olympia, City of
Adm Svcs includes:no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
HR, City Clerks, Courts, Risk, Facilities Median:$88,953 $100,913 $107,030 Median:$88,953 $101,418 $109,126
HR Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $74,395 $90,964 $107,533
Private Sector Median:$74,395 $90,964 $107,533 Private Sector Median:$74,395 $90,964 $107,533
Unweighted Average:$81,674 $95,938 $107,281 Unweighted Average:$81,674 $96,191 $108,330
Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855
Current Base Variance:-4.2%-10.0%-16.1%Current Base Variance:-4.2%-9.7%-15.3%
(-) DATA ADJUSTED DOWN 10%0.95820 0.90044 0.83909 0.958199 0.902812 0.847285
Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34%
Range 15
Human Resources Manager King County - INFO ONLY $79,092 $89,670 $100,248 27%`
(+)Human Resources Director Shoreline - INFO ONLY $94,500 $104,733 $114,966 22%
Human Resources Director Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $86,289 $104,109 $121,929 41%
(+)Division Dir - HR Mgmt King County - INFO ONLY $109,119 $123,692 $138,266 27%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 352 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 20 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $105,990 $118,614 $128,322 $123,900 $9,303 $22,124 $137,417 $150,041 $159,749 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $141,498 $154,374 $164,277
range width
Director Parks & Recreation Issaquah, City of $113,004 $128,610 $144,216 28%5%5%$113,004 $128,610 $151,427
Director Parks & Recreation Sammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950
Pks, Rec & Cultural Arts Dir Lynnwood, City of $114,297 $129,456 $144,615 27%$221.52 $221.52 $114,297 $129,456 $144,837
Parks & Comm Svcs Dir Kirkland, City of $107,040 $122,580 $138,120 29%$107,040 $122,580 $138,120
Parks & Rec Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096
Parks, Rec & Sr. Svc Dir Des Moines, City of $104,940 $116,244 $127,548 22%$104,940 $116,244 $127,548
Director Parks & Recreation Olympia, City of $118,500 $118,500 $118,500 flat rate $118,500 $118,500 $118,500
Parks & Recreation Director Lacey, City of $118,728 $118,728 $118,728 flat rate 2%2%$121,103 $121,103 $121,103
Director Parks & Recreation Bremerton, City of $100,437 $111,405 $122,372 22%4%4%$104,454 $115,861 $127,267
Parks & Recreation Director Burien, City of $97,236 $107,712 $118,188 22%$97,236 $107,712 $118,188
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
no comparable match reported Bothell, City of
Median:$105,990 $118,614 $128,322 Median:$105,990 $118,673 $128,322
Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352
Current Base Variance:2.3%-8.4%-17.4%Current Base Variance:2.3%-8.3%-17.4%
1.0233856 0.916221 0.82600803 1.0233856 0.91667913 0.82600803
Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34%
Range 20
Pks, Rec & Cult Svc Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 22%
Parks & Rec, Director Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $95,877 $115,677 $135,477 41%
Rec & Parks Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $104,040 $113,220 $122,400 18%
Dir., Nat'l Resources & Parks King County - INFO ONLY $133,266 $151,091 $168,917 27%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 353 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 21 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $69,726 $79,053 $90,091 $89,709 $6,532 $22,124 $98,381 $107,708 $118,746 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$103,811 $113,232 $124,380
range width
Parks Division Manager Issaquah, City of $80,292 $91,386 $102,480 28%5%5%$80,292 $91,386 $107,604
Parks Ops Manager Kirkland, City of $77,796 $89,094 $100,392 29%$77,796 $89,094 $100,392
Parks Maint Superintendent Lynnwood, City of $77,360 $87,622 $97,885 27%$221.52 $221.52 $77,360 $87,622 $98,107
Parks & Facilities Manager Puyallup, City of $69,096 $79,458 $89,820 30%$69,096 $79,458 $89,820
Maintenance Supervisor Bothell, City of $69,252 $78,648 $88,044 27%$69,252 $78,648 $88,044
PW & Pks Maint Superintendent Des Moines, City of $70,200 $77,772 $85,344 22%$70,200 $77,772 $85,344
Parks Project Manager Sammamish, City of $66,026 $78,194 $90,361 37%$66,026 $78,194 $90,361
Data Increased 20%(+)Parks Maintenance Supervisor Lacey, City of $73,052 $83,285 $93,517 28%1%1%$73,783 $84,117 $94,452
Parks Maint Manager Bremerton, City of $67,657 $75,045 $82,433 22%4%4%$70,363 $78,047 $85,730
Data Increased 20%(+)Supervisor, Park Maint University Place, City of $64,037 $72,562 $81,086 27%$64,037 $72,562 $81,086
Parks Dev & Ops Manager Burien, City of $67,296 $74,544 $81,792 22%$67,296 $74,544 $81,792
Associate Director LOB Olympia, City of $79,918 $88,521 $97,124 22%$79,918 $88,521 $97,124
Median:$69,726 $79,053 $90,091 Median:$70,282 $79,053 $90,091
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:4.2%-5.5%-10.2%Current Base Variance:5.0%-5.5%-10.2%
1.04216426 0.9453 0.89769127 1.05046917 0.94525388 0.89769127
Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34%
Range 12
Parts Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $89,040 $100,956 $112,872 27%
Parks Superintendent Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,878 $97,728 22%
Parks & Facilities Superintendent Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $67,944 $76,434 $84,924 25%
Park Ops Supervisor Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $51,546 $57,113 $62,679 22%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 354 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 22 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
PLANNING MANAGER $84,729 $96,179 $107,647 $111,981 $7,804 $22,124 $114,657 $126,107 $137,575 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $118,117 $129,567 $141,035
range width
Deputy Director Community DevelopmentSammamish, City of $91,742 $108,649 $125,556 37%$91,742 $108,649 $125,556
Planning Manager Bothell, City of $84,372 $95,826 $107,280 27%$84,372 $95,826 $107,280
Deputy Planning Director Kirkland, City of $85,572 $97,998 $110,424 29%$85,572 $97,998 $110,424
Planning Manager Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997
Data Increased 20%+Project & Planning Supervisor Olympia, City of $84,191 $93,254 $102,318 22%$84,191 $93,254 $102,318
Planning Manager Lynnwood, City of $85,086 $96,382 $107,678 27%$221.52 $221.52 $85,086 $96,382 $107,900
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Puyallup, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$84,729 $96,179 $107,647 Median:$84,729 $96,179 $109,162
Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855
Current Base Variance:-0.6%-9.7%-15.8%Current Base Variance:-0.6%-9.7%-14.6%
0.99404015 $1 0.84194595 0.99404015 $1 0.85379344
Proposed Base Range:$84,025 $98,314 $112,602
Range 16 34%
Real Est, Lnd Use & Env Plan SupervisorKing County - INFO ONLY $85,872 $97,362 $108,852 27%
Ast Dir Plan & Dev Svc Shoreline - INFO ONLY $86,184 $95,526 $104,868 22%
Principal Planner III Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $76,297 $84,444 $92,590 21%
Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 355 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 23 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
POLICE CHIEF $116,475 $130,780 $141,914 $148,859 $10,289 $22,124 $148,887 $163,192 $174,326 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $152,193 $166,784 $178,140
range width
Police Chief Olympia, City of $145,728 $145,728 $145,728 flat rate $145,728 $145,728 $145,728
Police Chief Bothell, City of $119,220 $135,396 $151,572 27%$119,220 $135,396 $151,572
Director, Police (Chief)Issaquah, City of $118,644 $135,030 $151,416 28%5%3.5%$123,997 $140,956 $165,486
Police Chief Bremerton, City of $116,475 $129,195 $141,914 22%4%4%$121,134 $134,362 $147,591
Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $115,905 $131,283 $146,661 27%$221.52 $221.52 $115,461 $130,780 $146,883
Chief of Police Kirkland, City of $112,104 $128,376 $144,648 29%$109,368 $125,244 $141,120
Police Chief Lacey, City of $142,404 $142,404 $142,404 0%2%2%$145,252 $145,252 $145,252
Chief of Police Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636
Chief of Police Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%4%4%$103,272 $118,766 $134,260
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
Pierce County no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$116,475 $131,283 $144,648 Median:$119,220 $134,362 $145,728
Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352
Current Base Variance:12.5%1.4%-6.9%Current Base Variance:15.1%3.8%-6.2%
1.12462344 1.01408 0.93109841 1.15112776 1.03786714 93.81%
Proposed Base Range:$112,602 $131,750 $150,898 34%
Range 22
County Sheriff Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $121,061 $121,061 $121,061 0%$8,777 $16,440 $146,278
Police Chief Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $104,040 $113,220 $122,400 18%$8,208 $24,459 $145,887
Sheriff King County - INFO ONLY $170,144 $170,144 $170,144 0%$12,335 $18,401 $200,880
no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 356 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 24 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (propose title modification PW/UTILITIES Director)$110,040 $125,490 $134,600 $138,050 $9,759 $22,124 $141,922 $157,372 $166,482 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $145,629 $161,388 $170,680
range width
Also a Dir PW Ops Dir, PW Engineering Issaquah, City of $118,644 $135,030 $151,416 28%5%5%$118,644 $135,030 $158,987
Director, Public Works Olympia, City of $134,124 $134,124 $134,124 flat rate $134,124 $134,124 $134,124
Public Works Director Bothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760
Director Public Works Sammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950
Director, Public Works Kirkland, City of $109,368 $125,244 $141,120 29%$221.52 $221.52 $109,368 $125,244 $141,342
PW Dir/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $113,859 $128,960 $144,061 27%$113,859 $128,960 $144,061
Public Works Director Lacey, City of $130,656 $130,656 $130,656 flat rate 2%2%$133,269 $133,269 $133,269
Dir of PW & Utilities Bremerton, City of $110,863 $122,970 $135,076 22%4%4%$115,298 $127,888 $140,479
Planning, Bldg & PW Dir Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636
Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096
no utilities - incr. 10%(-)Public Works Director University Place, City of $97,284 $113,223 $129,162 33%$97,284 $113,223 $129,162
Public Works Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,872 $123,852 22%$101,892 $112,872 $123,852
no comparable match reported Lynnwood, City of
Median:$110,040 $125,490 $134,600 Median:$110,040 $126,812 $137,302
Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352
Current Base Variance:6.2%-3.1%-13.4%Current Base Variance:6.2%-2.0%-11.6%
1.06249034 0.96933 0.86641949 1.06249034 0.97954689 0.88380916
Proposed Base Range:$107,240 $125,476 $143,712 34%
Range 21
Public Works, Dir of Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $116,475 $140,532 $164,589 41%$10,189 $16,440 $167,161
Public Works Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 22%$9,314 $16,440 $154,220
Public Works Dir Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23%$7,747 $24,459 $139,066
no comparable match reported King County - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 357 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 25 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
RECREATION MANAGER $68,900 $75,906 $84,025 $90,057 $6,092 $22,124 $97,115 $104,121 $112,241 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$102,977 $110,053 $118,254
range width
Recreation Div Manager Issaquah, City of $80,292 $91,386 $102,480 28%5%5%$80,292 $91,386 $107,604
Recreation (and Park Planning) ManagerBothell, City of $76,440 $86,814 $97,188 27%$76,440 $86,814 $97,188
Recreation Superintendent Lynnwood, City of $77,360 $87,622 $97,885 26%$221.52 $221.52 $77,360 $87,622 $98,107
Recreation Manager Kirkland, City of $71,040 $81,348 $91,656 29%$71,040 $81,348 $91,656
Recreation Manager Puyallup, City of $63,264 $72,762 $82,260 30%$63,264 $72,762 $82,260
Senior Services Recreation Manager Des Moines, City of $67,500 $74,772 $82,044 22%$67,500 $74,772 $82,044
Manager, Recreation University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660
Athletics/Rec Manager Bremerton, City of $67,657 $75,045 $82,433 22%4%4%$70,363 $78,047 $85,730
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $67,296 $74,544 $81,792 22%$67,296 $74,544 $81,792
Data Increased 20%(+)Recreation Supervisor II Lacey, City of $70,142 $76,766 $83,390 19%1%1%$70,844 $77,534 $84,224
no comparable match reported Olympia, City of
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
Median:$68,900 $75,906 $84,025 Median:$70,604 $77,790 $85,195
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:3.0%-9.2%-16.3%Current Base Variance:5.5%-7.0%-15.1%
1.02981392 0.907621 0.83725463 1.05528065 0.93015708 0.84891249
Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34%
Range 12
Recreation Progs Manager King County - INFO ONLY $89,040 $100,956 $112,872 27%
Recreation Superintendent Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22%
Data Increased 20%(-)Recreation Supervisor Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $74,707 $84,139 $93,571 25%
Level not a match Snohomish County - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 358 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 26 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST UNFILLED $67,002 $76,488 $85,974 VACANT $6,233 $22,124 $95,359 $104,845 $114,331 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $100,390 $109,876 $119,362
range width
HR Analyst, Senior Issaquah, City of $68,004 $77,400 $86,796 27%5%5%$68,004 $77,400 $91,136
Personnel Analyst, Sr Olympia, City of $72,108 $79,878 $87,648 22%$72,108 $79,878 $87,648
Senior HR Analyst Kirkland, City of $66,000 $75,576 $85,152 25%$66,000 $75,576 $85,152
HR Analyst, Senior Bothell, City of $60,504 $68,712 $76,920 26%$60,504 $68,712 $76,920
no comparable match Bremerton, City of ---
no comparable match Burien, City of ---
no comparable match Des Moines, City of ---
no comparable match Lacey, City of ---
no comparable match Lynnwood, City of ---
no comparable match Puyallup, City of ---
no comparable match Sammamish, City of ---
no comparable match University Place, City of ---
Median:$67,002 $76,488 $85,974 Median:$67,002 $76,488 $86,400
Current Edmonds Base Range:___50%Current Edmonds Base Range:___
Current Base Variance:___Current Base Variance:___
Private Sector Median:$67,146 $75,315 $83,484
Unweighted Average:$65,734 $76,365 $86,963
Current Edmonds Base Range:___
Proposed Base Range:$62,106 $73,066 $84,025 34%
Range 10
HR Analyst Senior King County - FOR INFO ONLY $70,236 $79,638 $89,040 27%
Sr HR Analyst Shoreline - FOR INFO ONLY $64,056 $70,992 $77,928 21%
no comparable match Snohomish County - FOR INFO ONLY ---
no comparable match Mountlake Terrace - FOR INFO ONLY ---
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 359 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 27 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
SENIOR PLANNER unfilled $63,678 $72,180 $80,610 VACANT $5,844 $22,124 $91,646 $100,147 $108,578 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $97,066 $105,568 $113,998
range width
Planner, Senior Issaquah, City of $69,360 $78,948 $88,536 28%5%5%$69,360 $78,948 $92,963
Senior Planner Kirkland, City of $72,936 $79,374 $85,812 17%$72,936 $79,374 $85,812
Planner, Senior Bothell, City of $64,212 $72,930 $81,648 27%$64,212 $72,930 $81,648
Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $67,500 $74,772 $82,044 22%$67,500 $74,772 $82,044
Senior Planner University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660
Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $61,212 $70,392 $79,572 30%$61,212 $70,392 $79,572
Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $61,822 $73,215 $84,608 37%$61,822 $73,215 $84,608
Senior Planner Bremerton, City of $64,397 $71,429 $78,461 22%$64,397 $71,429 $78,461
Planner, Senior Olympia, City of $62,364 $69,090 $75,816 21%$62,364 $69,090 $75,816
Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $61,235 $69,358 $77,480 27%$221.52 $221.52 $61,235 $69,358 $77,702
Senior Planner Burien, City of $63,144 $69,948 $76,752 21%$63,144 $69,948 $76,752
Senior Planner Lacey, City of $62,928 $68,880 $74,832 19%$62,928 $68,880 $74,832
Median:$63,678 $72,180 $80,610 Median:$63,678 $72,180 $80,610
Urban Planner (Advanced)ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $67,789 $80,550 $93,310
Private Sector Median:$67,789 $80,550 $93,310 Private Sector Median:$67,789 $80,550 $93,310
Unweighted Average:$65,734 $76,365 $86,963 Unweighted Average:$65,734 $76,365 $86,960
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:-1.8%-8.7%-13.3%Current Base Variance:-1.8%-8.7%-13.4%
0.9824901 0.91311 0.86652783 0.9824901 0.9131069 0.86649794
Proposed Base Range:$65,836 $77,031 $88,227 34%
Range 11
Transp or WQ Planner III King County - INFO ONLY $71,928 $81,552 $91,176 27%
Senior Planner Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 25%
Senior Planner Shoreline - INFO ONLY $65,640 $72,762 $79,884 22%
Senior Planner Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 21%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 360 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 28 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $83,016 $91,435 $100,824 $85,000 $7,310 $22,124 $112,449 $120,868 $130,257 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $116,404 $124,823 $134,212
range width
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $84,372 $95,826 $107,280 27%$84,372 $95,826 $107,280
Engineer, Senior Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997
Civil Engineer, Sr.Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,196 $100,824 30%$77,568 $89,196 $100,824
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%$82,433 $91,435 $100,437
Sr. Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $75,311 $89,190 $103,068 37%$75,311 $89,190 $103,068
Sr. Engineer - Utilities Lacey, City of $94,140 $94,140 $94,140 flat rate $94,140 $94,140 $94,140
Sr. Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $83,016 $90,342 $97,668 17%$83,016 $90,342 $97,668
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Lynnwood, City of
no comparable match reported Olympia, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$83,016 $91,435 $100,824 Median:$83,016 $91,435 $100,824
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:24.08%9.33%0.46%Current Base Variance:24.1%9.3%0.5%
1.24080413 1.09331 1.00464338 1.24080413 1.09330814 100.46%
Proposed Base Range:$76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34%
Range 14
Engineer III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27%
Engineer IV Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 361 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 29 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
STORMWATER ENGINEER $75,114 $85,857 $95,022 $99,548 $6,889 $22,124 $104,127 $114,870 $124,035 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $108,502 $119,245 $128,410
range width
Engineer, Senior Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997
Sr. Stormwater Prog Engineer Sammamish, City of $80,432 $95,254 $110,076 37%$80,432 $95,254 $110,076
Civil Engineer, Senior Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,196 $100,824 30%$77,568 $89,196 $100,824
Civil Engineer, Senior Bothell, City of $72,660 $82,518 $92,376 27%$72,660 $82,518 $92,376
Surface Water Systems Engineer Kirkland, City of $66,240 $72,090 $77,940 18%$66,240 $72,090 $77,940
Project Engineer II Olympia, City of $66,252 $73,392 $80,532 22%$66,252 $73,392 $80,532
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $70,644 $78,252 $85,860 21%$70,644 $78,252 $85,860
Sr. Surface Water Engineer Lynnwood, City of $83,016 $90,342 $97,668 18%$83,016 $90,342 $97,668
no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Lacey, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$75,114 $85,857 $95,022 Median:$75,114 $85,857 $95,022
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358
Current Base Variance:12.3%2.7%-5.3%Current Base Variance:12.3%2.7%-5.3%
1.12269636 1.02661 0.94683035 1.12269636 1.02661079 94.68%
Proposed Base Range:$72,584 $84,927 $97,270 34%
Range 13
Engineer III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27%
Engineer IV Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 362 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 30 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
STREET/STORMWATER MANAGER $69,270 $79,416 $90,279 $81,214 $6,545 $22,124 $97,938 $108,084 $118,947 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$103,350 $113,598 $124,569
range width
Water Resource Manager Lacey, City of $107,400 $107,400 $107,400 flat rate 1%1%$108,474 $108,474 $108,474
Data Increased 20%(+)PW Supervisor II Puyallup, City of $82,915 $95,350 $107,784 30%$82,915 $95,350 $107,784
PW Superintendent Bothell, City of $82,320 $93,492 $104,664 27%$82,320 $93,492 $104,664
Data Increased 20%(+)Streets Maint Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $84,065 $95,222 $106,380 27%$221.52 $221.52 $84,065 $95,222 $106,601
Water Resource Manager Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%4%4%$85,730 $95,092 $104,454
Street Division Manager Kirkland, City of $78,384 $89,766 $101,148 29%$78,384 $89,766 $101,148
PW Operations Manager Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501
PW Infas Ops & Maint Manager Sammamish, City of $70,516 $83,511 $96,505 37%$70,516 $83,511 $96,505
Streets/Storm Wat Maint Manager Burien, City of $72,096 $79,860 $87,624 22%$72,096 $79,860 $87,624
no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of
no comparable match reported Olympia, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$82,320 $91,435 $101,148 Median:$82,320 $93,492 $104,454
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107
Current Base Variance:8.2%-3.8%-11.4%Current Base Variance:8.2%-1.7%-8.5%
1.08214694 0.9616 0.88643116 1.08214694 0.9832 0.91540817
Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34%
Range 15
Road Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27%
Roads Maint Ops Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $95,219 $111,518 41%
Storm Water Prog Manager Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $71,412 $80,346 $89,280 25%
Data Increased 20%(-)PW Maint Spv Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 363 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 31 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $75,012 $85,854 $96,600 $82,380 $7,004 $22,124 $104,139 $114,981 $125,727 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $108,400 $119,242 $129,988
range width
Engineer, Traffic Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997
Assoc Transp Engineer Des Moines, City of $86,064 $95,340 $104,616 22%$86,064 $95,340 $104,616
Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,196 $100,824 30%$77,568 $89,196 $100,824
Sr. Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $75,311 $89,190 $103,068 37%$75,311 $89,190 $103,068
Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $72,660 $82,518 $92,376 27%$72,660 $82,518 $92,376
Transportation Engineer Kirkland, City of $74,712 $81,306 $87,900 18%$74,712 $81,306 $87,900
Project Manager - Traffic EngineeringLynnwood, City of $62,244 $70,500 $78,756 26%$221.52 $221.52 $62,244 $70,500 $78,978
Transportation Mgr Lacey, City of $68,880 $78,528 $88,176 29%$68,880 $78,528 $88,176
no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of
no comparable match reported Olympia, City of
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$75,012 $85,854 $96,600 Median:$75,012 $85,854 $96,600
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107
Current Base Variance:-1.4%-9.7%-15.3%Current Base Variance:-1.4%-9.7%-15.3%
0.98607222 0.90288 0.84657383 0.98607222 0.90287783 84.66%
Proposed Base Range:$72,584 $84,927 $97,270 34%
Range 13
Ast Rds Maint Manager & Traffic EngKing County - INFO ONLY $93,372 $105,864 $118,356 27%
Traffic Engineer Shoreline - INFO ONLY $88,308 $97,884 $107,460 22%
Traffic Engineer Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $75,221 $83,345 $91,468 22%
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 364 of 437
City of Edmonds
FY 2012 Compensation Survey
Page 32 of 32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(7.25%
PERS)
Health
Insurance*
(family of
four)
MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car
Allowance
Market
Retiree
Market
Health
Insurance
MIN MID MAX
Edmonds Employer
Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation
Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total
Cash Compensation TOTAL
Additional Cash
Compensation
(Comparator
Cities)
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
medical and cash compensation
from comparator cities)
ANNUAL
Edmonds
Current
Actual Pay
Edmonds Job
Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization
WATER/SEWER MANAGER $82,377 $92,464 $100,415 $98,944 $7,280 $22,124 $111,780 $121,867 $129,818 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,588 $126,776 $134,807
range width
Data Increased 20%(+)PW Supervisor II Puyallup, City of $82,915 $95,350 $107,784 30%$82,915 $95,350 $107,784
PW Superintendent Bothell, City of $82,320 $93,492 $104,664 27%$82,320 $93,492 $104,664
Data Increased 20%(+)Util Maint Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $84,065 $95,229 $106,392 27%$221.52 $221.52 $84,065 $95,229 $106,614
Water Resource Manager Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%4%4%$85,730 $95,092 $104,454
PW Operations Manager Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501
W/WW Maint Supervisor Lacey, City of $93,876 $93,876 $93,876 flat rate 1%1%$94,815 $94,815 $94,815
Stormwater/sewer Div Mgr Kirkland, City of $77,796 $89,094 $100,392 29%$77,796 $89,094 $100,392
Supervisor IV Olympia, City of $74,039 $82,031 $90,023 22%$74,039 $82,031 $90,023
no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of
no comparable match reported Burien, City of
no comparable match reported University Place, City of
Median:$82,377 $92,464 $100,415 Median:$82,618 $94,153 $103,478
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107
Current Base Variance:8.3%-2.8%-12.0%Current Base Variance:8.6%-1.0%-9.3%
1.08288967 0.97239 0.88000298 1.08605908 0.99016059 90.68%
Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34%
Range 15
Road Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27%
Data Increased 20%(-)PW Maint Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22%
no comparable match reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY
no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012
Packet Page 365 of 437
City of Edmonds
Prevailing Benefits Practices Comparison
Page 1 of 57
Benefit Offering Less than
Average Average Better than
Average
Medical Premium % Paid by ER
Employee Only
Employee plus Family
Dental Premium % Paid by ER
Employee Only
Employee plus Family
Vision Premium % Paid by ER
Employee Only
Employee plus Family
Employee Life
Spouse Life
Children's Life
AD&D Premium % Paid by ER
Employee AD&D
Spouse AD&D
Child/Children AD&D
Disability
STD
LTD
Pension Retirement
General
Police
Wage Replacement Benefits
Vacation
Sick
Admin or Management Leave
Comp Time
Holiday
Fringe Benefits
Vehicle Allowance
Take Home Vehicle
Management Leave
Deferred Comp
Transportation (Transit, parking)
Life Insurance Premium % Paid by ER
Not widely offered
Not widely offered
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 366 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 2 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Plan Option 1
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only Regence $651.95 $586.77 90%$65.18 10%
Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Regence $1,291.40 $1,162.28 90%$129.14 10%
Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & One Child Regence $944.05 $849.66 90%$94.38 10%
Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence $1,842.65 $1,658.41 90%$184.26 10%
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $617.87 $617.87 100%$0.00 0%
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,239.98 $1,115.56 90%$124.42 10%
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,174.82 $1,063.43 91%$111.39 9%
Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,796.94 $1,561.12 87%$235.81 13%
Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $902.38 $857.64 95%$44.74 5%
Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $908.35 $863.02 95%$45.33 5%
Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $1,355.72 $1,265.65 93%$90.07 7%
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
1 Employee Only KPS Plan B $559.13 $559.13 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
2 Employee & Spouse KPS Plan B $1,185.46 $1,122.83 95%$62.63 5%
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
3 Employee & Children KPS Plan B $1,065.78 $1,015.12 95%$50.67 5%
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
4 Other: Employee plus Family KPS Plan B $1,692.11 $1,578.81 93%$113.30 7%
Burien 1 Employee Only Group Health, $10 Co-pay $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health, $10 Co-pay $902.38 $857.64 90%$44.74 10%
Burien 3 Employee & Children Group Health, $10 Co-pay $908.35 $863.01 90%$45.34 10%
Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health, $10 Co-pay $1,355.72 $1,265.67 90%$90.08 10%
Des Moines 1 Employee Only POS Medical $493.43 $493.43 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse POS Medical $986.85 $937.51 95%$49.34 5%
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children POS Medical $993.18 $943.20 95%$49.98 5%
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family POS Medical $1,486.60 $1,387.28 93%$99.32 7%
Des Moines 1 Employee Only Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $3,100.00 $2,250.00 73%$850.00 27%
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72%$1,750.00 28%
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72%$1,750.00 28%
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72%$1,750.00 28%
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 367 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 3 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Plan Option 1
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Regence PPO $617.88 $617.88 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Regence PPO $1,240.00 $1,177.79 95%$62.21 5%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Regence PPO $1,174.84 $1,119.14 95%$55.70 5%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence PPO $1,796.96 $1,679.05 93%$117.91 7%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Annual contribution to Health Retirement Account $1,550.00 100%
King County 1 Employee Only Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $639.27 $639.27 100%$0.00 0%
King County 2 Employee & Spouse Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,242.39 $1,242.39 100%$0.00 0%
King County 3 Employee & Children Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,121.76 $1,121.76 100%$0.00 0%
King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,324.88 $1,324.88 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 1 Employee Only Kirkland PRIME $610.61 $610.61 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Kirkland PRIME $1,234.49 $1,234.49 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep Kirkland PRIME $1,489.71 $1,489.71 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee & 1 dep Kirkland PRIME $922.55 $922.55 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Kirkland PRIME $1,234.49 $1,234.49 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Kirkland PRIME $1,830.00 $1,830.00 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,265.29 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,198.80 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,833.61 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only Regence/Willamette/Vision $712.83 $712.83 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Regence/Willamette/Vision $1,401.19 $1,332.35 95%$68.84 5%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Regence/Willamette/Vision $1,403.40 $1,334.34 95%$69.06 5%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence/Willamette/Vision $2,038.21 $1,905.67 93%$134.54 7%
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,170.07 92%$95.22 8%
Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,113.56 93%$85.24 7%
Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,653.15 90%$180.46 10%
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only AWC HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100%$1.89 0%
Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse AWC HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,138.33 90%$130.16 10%
Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children AWC HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,085.14 91%$117.34 10%
Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family AWC HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,592.98 87%$244.31 13%
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 368 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 4 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Plan Option 1
Olympia 1 Employee Only AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$630.48 $630.48 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$1,265.29 $1,170.07 92%$95.22 8%
Olympia 3 Employee & Children AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$1,198.80 $1,113.55 93%$85.25 7%
Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$1,833.61 $1,653.14 90%$180.47 10%
Puyallup 1 Employee Only City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $602.00 $602.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,201.00 $1,201.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 3 Employee & Children City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,761.00 $1,761.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,129.00 $1,129.00 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 1 Employee Only Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr*nr*100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A 1796.93 1702.61 95%94.32 5%
Shoreline 1 Employee Only Regence Blue Shield PPO $568.00 $568.00 100%$0.00 0%
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Regence Blue Shield PPO $571.90 $571.90 100%$0.00 0%
Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Regence Blue Shield PPO $852.10 $852.10 100%$0.00 0%
Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence Blue Shield PPO $1,083.90 $1,083.90 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
1 Employee Only Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
2 Employee & Spouse Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
3 Employee & Children Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
1 Employee Only Group Health #6177 $970.59 $939.59 97%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
2 Employee & Spouse Group Health #6177 $1,077.59 $939.59 87%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
3 Employee & Children Group Health #6177 $1,058.59 $939.59 89%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health #6177 $1,124.59 $939.59 84%$0.00 0%
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 369 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 5 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Plan Option 1
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 1 Employee Only Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 3 Employee & Children Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 1 Employee Only HealthFirst nr*nr*100%$0.00 0%
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse HealthFirst nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
University Place 3 Employee & Children HealthFirst nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family HealthFirst nr*$1,733.50 $94.32 nr*
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 370 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 6 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only
Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse
Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & One Child
Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children
Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only
Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse
Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children
Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
1 Employee Only
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
2 Employee & Spouse
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
3 Employee & Children
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
4 Other: Employee plus Family
Burien 1 Employee Only
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse
Burien 3 Employee & Children
Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Des Moines 1 Employee Only
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Des Moines 1 Employee Only
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 2
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Group Health $499.32 $449.40 90%$49.92 10%
Group Health $989.51 $890.57 90%$98.94 10%
Group Health $747.66 $672.90 90%$74.76 10%
Group Health $1,486.19 $1,337.57 90%$148.62 10%
GH $10 co-pay Plan $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0%
GH $10 co-pay Plan $902.38 $812.91 100%$89.47 10%
GH $10 co-pay Plan $908.35 $817.69 100%$90.66 10%
GH $10 co-pay Plan $1,355.72 $1,175.58 100%$180.14 13%
KPS Plan B nr*nr*100%$0.00 0%
KPS Plan B nr*nr*90%nr*10%
KPS Plan B nr*nr*90%nr*10%
KPS Plan B nr*nr*90%nr*10%
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $565.00 $565.00 100%$0.00 0%
Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,134.30 $1,077.37 95%$56.93 5%
Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,074.58 $1,023.62 95%$107.89 10%
Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,643.88 $1,535.99 93%$107.89 7%
HSA Medical $346.40 $346.40 100%$0.00 0%
HSA Medical $692.80 $658.16 95%$34.64 5%
HSA Medical $697.24 $662.16 95%$35.08 5%
HSA Medical $1,043.65 $973.92 93%$69.73 7%
Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $550.00
Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00
Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00
Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 371 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 7 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Issaquah - Exempt Employees
King County 1 Employee Only
King County 2 Employee & Spouse
King County 3 Employee & Children
King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Kirkland 1 Employee Only
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse
Kirkland 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep
Kirkland 2 Employee & 1 dep
Kirkland 3 Employee & Children
Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse
Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children
Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only
Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse
Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children
Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 2
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Group Health - $10 co-Pay $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health - $10 co-Pay $902.38 $902.38 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health - $10 co-Pay $908.35 $908.35 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health - $10 co-Pay $1,355.72 $1,355.72 100%$0.00 0%
KingCare Silver $603.09 $603.09 100%$0.00 0%
KingCare Silver $1,170.02 $1,170.02 100%$0.00 0%
KingCare Silver $1,056.63 $1,056.63 100%$0.00 0%
KingCare Silver $1,523.56 $1,523.56 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health $489.95 $489.95 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health $936.46 $936.46 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health $1,162.59 $1,162.59 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health $716.08 $716.08 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health $942.21 $942.21 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health $1,388.72 $1,388.72 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Premiums $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Premiums $902.38 $902.38 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Premiums $908.35 $908.35 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Premiums $1,355.72 $1,355.72 100%$0.00 0%
Regenc/WDS/Vision $702.12 $702.12 100%$0.00 0%
Regenc/WDS/Vision $1,382.23 $1,314.22 95%$68.01 5%
Regenc/WDS/Vision $1,371.44 $1,304.51 95%$66.93 5%
Regenc/WDS/Vision $2,006.25 $1,875.84 93%$130.41 7%
Group Health $10 Copay Plan $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health $10 Copay Plan $842.38 $835.28 99%$7.10 1%
Group Health $10 Copay Plan $908.35 $840.35 93%$68.00 7%
Group Health $10 Copay Plan $1,355.72 $1,220.62 90%$135.10 10%
Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$455.01 $455.01 100%$1.89 0%
Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$902.38 $812.91 90%$92.67 10%
Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$908.35 $817.68 90%$94.35 10%
Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$1,355.72 $1,175.58 87%$183.82 14%
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 372 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 8 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Olympia 1 Employee Only
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse
Olympia 3 Employee & Children
Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Puyallup 1 Employee Only
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse
Puyallup 3 Employee & Children
Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Sammamish 1 Employee Only
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse
Sammamish 3 Employee & Children
Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Shoreline 1 Employee Only
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse
Shoreline 3 Employee & Children
Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
1 Employee Only
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
2 Employee & Spouse
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
3 Employee & Children
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
4 Other: Employee plus Family
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
1 Employee Only
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
2 Employee & Spouse
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
3 Employee & Children
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 2
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $902.38 $835.27 93%$67.11 7%
Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $908.35 $840.35 93%$68.00 7%
Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $1,355.72 $1,220.61 90%$135.11 10%
No additional plans offered.
No additional plans offered.
No additional plans offered.
No additional plans offered.
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*100%nr*0%
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $423.92 $423.92 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $840.20 $840.20 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $1,051.13 $1,051.13 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $1,262.06 $1,262.06 100%$0.00 0%
PPO #1008695 $1,124.13 $1,059.13 94%$65.00 6%
PPO #1008695 $1,276.13 $1,059.13 83%$217.00 17%
PPO #1008695 $1,168.13 $1,059.13 91%$109.00 9%
PPO #1008695 $1,321.13 $1,059.13 80%$262.00 20%
Regence PPO (Traditional)$969.59 $939.59 97%$30.00 3%
Regence PPO (Traditional)$1,073.59 $939.59 88%$134.00 12%
Regence PPO (Traditional)$1,054.59 $939.59 89%$115.00 11%
Regence PPO (Traditional)$1,119.59 $939.59 84%$180.00 16%
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 373 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 9 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 1 Employee Only
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 2 Employee & Spouse
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 3 Employee & Children
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 4 Other: Employee plus Family
University Place 1 Employee Only
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse
University Place 3 Employee & Children
University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 2
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
PPO #1008695 $1,124.13 $1,059.13 94%$65.00 6%
PPO #1008695 $1,276.13 $1,059.13 83%$217.00 17%
PPO #1008695 $1,168.13 $1,059.13 91%$109.00 9%
PPO #1008695 $1,321.13 $1,059.13 80%$262.00 20%
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 374 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 10 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only
Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse
Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & One Child
Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children
Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only
Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse
Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children
Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
1 Employee Only
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
2 Employee & Spouse
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
3 Employee & Children
Bremerton - Management & Professional
Employees
4 Other: Employee plus Family
Burien 1 Employee Only
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse
Burien 3 Employee & Children
Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Des Moines 1 Employee Only
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Des Moines 1 Employee Only
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost
of Coverage
Plan Option 3
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
Regence HDHP $329.93 $329.93 100%$0.00 0%
Regence HDHP $663.50 $596.78 90%$66.71 10%
Regence HDHP $631.41 $571.12 90%$60.30 10%
Regence HDHP $964.99 $837.97 87%$127.01 13%
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
AWC RBS HDHP $329.93 $329.93 100%$0.00 0%
AWC RBS HDHP $663.50 $630.14 95%$33.36 5%
AWC RBS HDHP $631.42 $601.27 95%$30.15 5%
AWC RBS HDHP $964.99 $901.48 93%$63.51 7%
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 375 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 11 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Issaquah - Exempt Employees
King County 1 Employee Only
King County 2 Employee & Spouse
King County 3 Employee & Children
King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Kirkland 1 Employee Only
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse
Kirkland 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep
Kirkland 2 Employee & 1 dep
Kirkland 3 Employee & Children
Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse
Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children
Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only
Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse
Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children
Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost
of Coverage
Plan Option 3
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
No additional plans offered
KingCare Bronze $572.93 $572.93 100%$0.00 0%
KingCare Bronze $1,109.71 $1,109.71 100%$0.00 0%
KingCare Bronze $1,002.35 $1,002.35 100%$0.00 0%
KingCare Bronze $1,539.13 $1,539.13 100%$0.00 0%
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
Group Health/WDS/Vision $526.65 $526.65 100%$0.00 0%
Group Health/WDS/Vision $1,019.32 $970.05 95%$49.27 5%
Group Health/WDS/Vision $1,080.99 $1,025.57 95%$55.42 5%
Group Health/WDS/Vision $1,528.36 $1,428.20 93%$100.16 7%
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!#####
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 376 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 12 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Olympia 1 Employee Only
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse
Olympia 3 Employee & Children
Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Puyallup 1 Employee Only
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse
Puyallup 3 Employee & Children
Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Sammamish 1 Employee Only
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse
Sammamish 3 Employee & Children
Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Shoreline 1 Employee Only
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse
Shoreline 3 Employee & Children
Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
1 Employee Only
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
2 Employee & Spouse
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
3 Employee & Children
Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and
Elected
4 Other: Employee plus Family
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
1 Employee Only
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
2 Employee & Spouse
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
3 Employee & Children
Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies,
Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains
4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost
of Coverage
Plan Option 3
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No additional plans offered.
No additional plans offered.
No additional plans offered.
No additional plans offered.
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
#DIV/0!#####
SC Select #10008695 $1,105.13 $1,059.13 96%$46.00 4%
SC Select #10008695 $1,237.13 $1,059.13 86%$178.00 14%
SC Select #10008695 $1,138.13 $1,059.13 93%$79.00 7%
SC Select #10008695 $1,269.13 $1,059.13 83%$210.00 17%
SC Select #10008695 $939.59 $939.59 100%$0.00 0%
SC Select #10008695 $1,014.59 $939.59 93%$75.00 7%
SC Select #10008695 $1,004.59 $939.59 94%$65.00 6%
SC Select #10008695 $1,039.59 $939.59 90%$100.00 10%
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 377 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance - by Employer
Page 13 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 1 Employee Only
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 2 Employee & Spouse
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 3 Employee & Children
Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 4 Other: Employee plus Family
University Place 1 Employee Only
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse
University Place 3 Employee & Children
University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost
of Coverage
Plan Option 3
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
SC Select #10008695 $1,105.13 $1,059.13 96%$46.00 4%
SC Select #10008695 $1,237.13 $1,059.13 86%$178.00 14%
SC Select #10008695 $1,138.13 $1,059.13 93%$79.00 7%
SC Select #10008695 $1,269.13 $1,059.13 83%$210.00 17%
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
No Additional Plans Offered
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 378 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Ins Notes
Page 14 of 57
Employer Comments
Bothell, City of Employee contributions vary by bargaining unit. City pays 100% of the employee's premium and a percentage of the additional premium for
spouse, first dependent, and second dependent.
Bremerton, City of Employee pays 10% of dependent premium
Burien, City of Both medical plans sponsored by Association of Washington Cities Benefit Trust
Burien, City of Employer pays 100% of the employee's premium and 90% of the dependents premium.
Issaquah, City of Employer pays 100% of the employee's medical premium and 90% of the premiums for spouse, dependents, and/or domestic partner.
Kirkland, City of Medical premiums include a $43.45 per month "Program Fee" previously included in premium rate but now shown as a separate fee.
Lacey, City of Management Exempt I benefits are an allowance of $1906.52. ME II Premium amounts paid by City for Dental and Vision are included in the
premiums listed on the Medical Insurance tab. City pays 100% of employee and 90% of dependents.
Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier I) per month to buy benefits. If the employee does not
use the entire $865, the remaining amount goes into a deferred compensation plan. If the cost is greater than $865, the employee moves to
Tier II, and is able to receive an additional contribution from the City of up to a total of $1,370. The employee pays the costs that exceed
$1,370.
University Place, City of Employer pays 100% of the employee's medical premium and 75% of the dependents' medical premium.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 379 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance - by Employer
Page 15 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $56.33 $50.70 90%$5.64 10%
Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $107.19 $96.47 90%$10.72 10%
Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & Children Level not offered
Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $186.47 $167.84 90%$18.66 10%
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$53.18 $53.18 100%$0.00 0%
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$101.53 $91.86 90%$0.00 0%
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$188.52 $130.54 69%$0.00 0%
Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$188.52 $161.45 86%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service $50.89 $0.00 0%$50.89 100%
Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service $96.19 $0.00 0%$96.19 100%
Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service $151.89 $0.00 0%$151.89 100%
Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service $151.89 $0.00 0%$151.89 100%
Burien 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$45.16 $45.16 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$83.90 $83.90 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$139.37 $139.37 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$139.37 $139.37 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 1 Employee Only Dental $62.49 $62.49 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Dental $118.56 $118.56 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Dental $207.33 $207.33 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Dental $207.33 $207.33 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
King County 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service $68.48 $68.48 100%$0.00 0%
King County 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service $129.96 $129.96 100%$0.00 0%
King County 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service $117.66 $117.66 100%$0.00 0%
King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service $179.14 $179.14 100%$0.00 0%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 380 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance - by Employer
Page 16 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Kirkland 1 Employee Only Washington Dental $58.71 $58.71 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental $110.84 $110.84 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental $175.08 $175.08 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental $175.08 $175.08 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 1 Employee Only Teamsters (available to Teamsters only)$127.79 $127.79 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Teamsters (available to Teamsters only)$127.79 $127.79 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Washington Dental $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental $96.19 $89.39 85%$6.80 15%
Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental $151.89 $136.73 85%$15.16 15%
Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental $151.89 $136.73 85%$15.16 15%
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $61.10 $61.10 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $115.15 $107.11 85%$8.04 15%
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $183.85 $165.51 85%$18.34 15%
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $183.85 $165.51 85%$18.34 15%
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0%
Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0%
Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$46.32 $46.32 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$86.76 $86.76 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$159.82 $159.82 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$159.82 $159.82 100%$0.00 0%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 381 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance - by Employer
Page 17 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Puyallup 1 Employee Only Self insured $106.00 $106.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse Self insured $212.00 $212.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 3 Employee & Children Self insured $195.00 $195.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family Self insured $301.00 $301.00 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*#######
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*#######
Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*#######
Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*#######
Shoreline 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service Plan F $55.07 See Medical Note
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service Plan F $104.08 See Medical Note
Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service Plan F $164.27 See Medical Note
Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service Plan F $164.27 See Medical Note
Snohomish County 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 382 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance - by Employer
Page 18 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only
Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse
Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & Children
Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children
Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only
Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse
Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children
Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Burien 1 Employee Only
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse
Burien 3 Employee & Children
Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Des Moines 1 Employee Only
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family
King County 1 Employee Only
King County 2 Employee & Spouse
King County 3 Employee & Children
King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.
Plan Option 2
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 383 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance - by Employer
Page 19 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Kirkland 1 Employee Only
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse
Kirkland 3 Employee & Children
Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Kirkland 1 Employee Only
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse
Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children
Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 1 Employee Only
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 2 Employee & Spouse
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 3 Employee & Children
Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only
Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse
Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children
Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Olympia 1 Employee Only
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse
Olympia 3 Employee & Children
Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.
Plan Option 2
Willamette Dental $58.50 $58.50 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental $109.30 $109.30 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental $174.70 $174.70 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental $174.70 $174.70 100%$0.00 0%
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Washington Dental Services $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services $96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services $96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0%
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 384 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance - by Employer
Page 20 of 57
Employer Insurance Group
Puyallup 1 Employee Only
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse
Puyallup 3 Employee & Children
Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Sammamish 1 Employee Only
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse
Sammamish 3 Employee & Children
Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Shoreline 1 Employee Only
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse
Shoreline 3 Employee & Children
Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Snohomish County 1 Employee Only
Snohomish County 2 Employee & Spouse
Snohomish County 3 Employee & Children
Snohomish County 4 Other: Employee plus Family
University Place 1 Employee Only
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse
University Place 3 Employee & Children
University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family
Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of
Coverage Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.
Plan Option 2
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Additional plan not offered
Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $56.90 See Medical Note
Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $106.40 See Medical Note
Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $169.85 See Medical Note
Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $169.85 See Medical Note
Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0%
Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0%
Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0%
Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 385 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance Notes
Page 21 of 57
Employer Comments
Snohomish County Dental Plan Option 3 - Total premium $102.90 all levels of enrollment, 100% paid by County.
Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier I) per month to buy benefits. If the employee does not use the entire $865,
the remaining amount goes into a deferred compensation plan. If the cost is greater than $865, the employee moves to Tier II, and is able to receive an
additional contribution from the City of up to a total of $1,370. The employee pays the costs that exceed $1,370.Bothell, City of Employee contributions vary by bargaining unit. City pays 100% of the employee's premium and a percentage of the additional premium for spouse, first
dependent, and second dependent.
Lacey, City of Premium amounts paid by City for Dental and Vision are included in the premiums listed on the Medical Insurance tab. City pays 100% of employee and 90% of
dependents.
Issaquah, City of Orthodontia - The Employer shall provide eight thousand five hundred dollars ($8,500) each calendar year for use by regular employees and part-time
employees to help offset the cost of orthodontic care. A reimbursement form along with supporting documentation as to expenses paid must be submitted to
Human Resources by November 20th of each year. Reimbursements will then be disbursed by mid December. Costs not reimbursed to any employee during one
calendar year may be reimbursed in subsequent calendar years. Any funds not utilized in a calendar year will be rolled over to the following year.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 386 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Vision Insurance - by Employer
Page 22 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Name Monthly Cost
of Coverage
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only $10.00 Deductible $19.33 $17.39 90%$1.94 10%
Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Level not offered
Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & Children Level not offered
Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family $10.00 Deductible $19.33 $17.39 90%$1.94 10%
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0%
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0%
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0%
Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee Only VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Employee & Spouse VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Employee & Children VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 4 Other: Employee plus FamilyVision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 1 Employee Only Vision $6.22 $6.22 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Vision $9.95 $9.95 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Vision $10.16 $10.16 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision $16.37 $16.37 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Not offered
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Not offered
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Not offered
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Not offered
King County 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan $11.54 $11.54 100%$0.00 0%
King County 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan $21.44 $21.44 100%$0.00 0%
King County 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan $19.47 $19.47 100%$0.00 0%
King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan $29.37 $29.37 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)$9.51 $9.51 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.19 $15.19 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.52 $15.52 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)$25.01 $25.01 100%$0.00 0%
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 387 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Vision Insurance - by Employer
Page 23 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Plan Name Monthly Cost
of Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)$7.56 $7.56 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)$9.27 $7.56 82%$1.71 18%
Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)$18.94 $7.56 40%$11.38 60%
Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)$18.94 $7.56 40%$11.38 60%
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 1 Employee Only Self-insured $28.00 $28.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse Self-insured $56.00 $56.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 3 Employee & Children Self-insured $53.00 $53.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family Self-insured $81.00 $81.00 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*100%nr*0%
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*90%nr*10%
Shoreline 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note
Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note
Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note
Snohomish County 1 Employee Only Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County 2 Employee & Spouse Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County 3 Employee & Children Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0%
Snohomish County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 388 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Vision Insurance Notes
Page 24 of 57
Employer Comments
Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier I) per month to buy benefits. If the employee does
not use the entire $865, the remaining amount goes into a deferred compensation plan. If the cost is greater than $865, the employee
moves to Tier II, and is able to receive an additional contribution from the City of up to a total of $1,370. The employee pays the costs Lacey, City of Premium amounts paid by City for Dental and Vision are included in the premiums listed on the Medical Insurance tab. City pays 100%
of employee and 90% of dependents.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 389 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Life Insurance - by Employer
Page 25 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Not
Offered
Monthly Cost
of Coverage
% Employer
Pays/Mo.
% Employee
Pays/Mo.Amount of Coverage
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Life Insurance - Other non-reps 100%0%50% of salary; $150k for duty related death
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Life Insurance - Directors/Manager 100%0%1x annual salary; $150k for duty related death
Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse's Life Insurance 100%0%$1,000 for dependents
Edmonds, City of 3 Children's Life Insurance 100%0%$1,000 for dependents
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Life Insurance $24.00 100%0%$100k
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee Life Insurance voluntary
Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x
Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Children's Life Insurance x
Bremerton - Non Rep Employee + 1 x
Bremerton - Non Rep Family x
Burien 1 Employee Life Insurance $0.200 per $1,000 100%0%1x annual salary
Burien 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x
Burien 3 Children's Life Insurance x
Des Moines 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*100%0%$5,000
Des Moines 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Des Moines 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Life Insurance 100%$50k
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse's Life Insurance
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Children's Life Insurance
King County 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*100%0%1x annual salary
King County 2 Spouse's Life Insurance voluntary
King County 3 Children's Life Insurance voluntary
Kirkland 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Kirkland 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Kirkland 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 390 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Life Insurance - by Employer
Page 26 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Not
Offered
Monthly Cost
of Coverage
% Employer
Pays/Mo.
% Employee
Pays/Mo.Amount of Coverage
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Life Insurance $0.198 per $1,00 of benefit 100%0%1x annual salary
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Children's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Life Insurance $0.198 per $1,00 of benefit 100%0%1x annual salary
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Children's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000
Lynnwood 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*1x salary to max of $50k
Lynnwood 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*$1,000
Lynnwood 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*$1,000
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*3x annual to $250k
Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Mountlake Terrace 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Olympia 1 Employee Life Insurance $0.14 per $1,000 (per $1,000 of benefit or base payroll)nr*nr*nr*
Olympia 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*$0.38 nr*nr*nr*
Olympia 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*$0.38 nr*nr*nr*
Puyallup 1 Employee Life Insurance $10.98 100%0%Life, AD&D and LTD (Unum) included in premium
Puyallup 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x
Puyallup 3 Children's Life Insurance x
Sammamish 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*2x annual salary
Sammamish 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Sammamish 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Shoreline 1 Employee Life Insurance $10.50 Mandatory coverage, $50k cap based on salary (annual
salary/1000x .21); supplemental coverage to additional
$100k available, based on age.
Shoreline 2 Spouse's Life Insurance Spouse can purchase up to equvalent of half of
employee's supplementa amount.
Shoreline 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Snohomish County 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*100%0%$40k plus $40k AD&D
Snohomish County 2 Spouse's Life Insurance voluntary
Snohomish County 3 Children's Life Insurance voluntary
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 391 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Life Insurance - by Employer
Page 27 of 57
Employer Insurance Group Not
Offered
Monthly Cost
of Coverage
% Employer
Pays/Mo.
% Employee
Pays/Mo.Amount of Coverage
University Place 1 Employee Life Insurance $6.50 100%0%$25k
University Place 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x
University Place 3 Children's Life Insurance x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 392 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Life Insurance Notes
Page 28 of 57
Employer Comments
King County Additional life insurance available on a voluntary basis.
Bremerton - IAFF City pays each employee $35 per month toward the cost of Short Term Disabilitye, Long Term Disability, and Life insurance. Life
insurance is available through payroll deduction in amounts form $10,000 to $500,000.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 393 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
AD&D
Page 29 of 57
Employer Policy Type Not Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per
$1,000 in payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee x
Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse x
Edmonds, City of 3 Child/Children x
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee
Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse
Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Child/Children
Burien 1 Employee $0.05 per $1,000 100%0%1 x annual salary
Burien 2 Spouse x
Burien 3 Child/Children x
Des Moines 1 Employee nr*100%0%$5,000
Des Moines 2 Spouse x
Des Moines 3 Child/Children x
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Child/Children
King County 1 Employee nr*100%0%Basic paid by employer enhanced offered on
voluntary basis
King County 2 Spouse voluntary
King County 3 Child/Children voluntary
Kirkland 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Kirkland 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Kirkland 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Child/Children
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Included in life
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse x
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Child/Children x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 394 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
AD&D
Page 30 of 57
Employer Policy Type Not Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per
$1,000 in payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
Lynnwood 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Lynnwood 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Lynnwood 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Olympia 1 Employee $0.04 per $1,000 (per $1,000 of benefit or of payroll?)nr*nr*nr*
Olympia 2 Spouse x
Olympia 3 Child/Children x
Puyallup 1 Employee included in Life
Puyallup 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Puyallup 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Sammamish 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Sammamish 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Sammamish 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Shoreline 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Shoreline 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Shoreline 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Snohomish County 1 Employee Included in Life $40k
Snohomish County 2 Spouse voluntary
Snohomish County 3 Child/Children voluntary
University Place 1 Employee $1.00 100%0%$25k
University Place 2 Spouse x
University Place 3 Child/Children x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 395 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
AD&D Notes
Page 31 of 57
Employer Comments
No comments.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 396 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Disability Insurance - by Employer
Page 32 of 57
STD
Employer Policy Type Not
Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per $1,000 in
payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee x
Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse x
Edmonds, City of 3 Child/Children x
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee 1.154% of base salary 100%0%nr*
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee voluntary
Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)1 Employee
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee voluntary
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Spouse voluntary
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Child/Children voluntary
Burien 1 Employee x
Burien 2 Spouse x
Burien 3 Child/Children x
Des Moines 1 Employee x
Des Moines 2 Spouse x
Des Moines 3 Child/Children x
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee x
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse x
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Child/Children x
King County 1 Employee x
King County 2 Spouse x
King County 3 Child/Children x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 397 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Disability Insurance - by Employer
Page 33 of 57
STD
Employer Policy Type Not
Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per $1,000 in
payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
Kirkland 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Kirkland 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Kirkland 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee x
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse x
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Child/Children x
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee x
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse x
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Child/Children x
Lacey - Police 1 Employee x
Lacey - Police 2 Spouse x
Lacey - Police 3 Child/Children x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 398 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Disability Insurance - by Employer
Page 34 of 57
STD
Employer Policy Type Not
Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per $1,000 in
payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
Lynnwood 1 Employee nr*$0.00 voluntary
Lynnwood 2 Spouse x
Lynnwood 3 Child/Children x
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Olympia 1 Employee voluntary 0%100%
Olympia 2 Spouse voluntary 0%100%
Olympia 3 Child/Children voluntary 0%100%
Puyallup 1 Employee voluntary 0%100%
Puyallup 2 Spouse voluntary 0%100%
Puyallup 3 Child/Children voluntary 0%100%
Sammamish 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Sammamish 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Sammamish 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Shoreline 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Shoreline 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Shoreline 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Snohomish County 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Snohomish County 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Snohomish County 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
University Place 1 Employee x
University Place 2 Spouse x
University Place 3 Child/Children x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 399 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Disability Insurance - by Employer
Page 35 of 57
Employer Policy Type
Edmonds, City of 1 Employee
Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse
Edmonds, City of 3 Child/Children
Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee
Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse
Bothell - Non Rep 3 Child/Children
Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee
Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse
Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Child/Children
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)1 Employee
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)2 Spouse
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)3 Child/Children
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Spouse
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Child/Children
Burien 1 Employee
Burien 2 Spouse
Burien 3 Child/Children
Des Moines 1 Employee
Des Moines 2 Spouse
Des Moines 3 Child/Children
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse
Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Child/Children
King County 1 Employee
King County 2 Spouse
King County 3 Child/Children
LTD
Not
Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per $1,000 in
payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
6.2% of payroll 6.2% of payroll MEBT included LTD and $75k life
insurance
x
x
Included in STD
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
$20.00 Available to Ee's enrolled in LEOFF2, employee selects coverage amounts.
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
voluntary
voluntary
voluntary
$0.330 per $100 of covered payroll 100%0%
x
x
nr*100%0%60% of basic monthly income; max benefit $5,00/mo.
x
x
nr*100%0%
x
x
nr*nr*100%0%60% of earnings after 180 day wait;
enhanced LTD voluntary
nr*nr*100%0%nr*
nr*nr*100%0%nr*
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 400 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Disability Insurance - by Employer
Page 36 of 57
Employer Policy Type
Kirkland 1 Employee
Kirkland 2 Spouse
Kirkland 3 Child/Children
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Child/Children
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse
Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Child/Children
Lacey - Police 1 Employee
Lacey - Police 2 Spouse
Lacey - Police 3 Child/Children
LTD
Not
Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per $1,000 in
payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
$0.35 per $100 of covered payroll 100%0%66.66% max $7,500 per month.
x
x
100%0%66.66% max $7,500 per month.
x
x
$0.55 per $100 of covered payroll 100%0%66.66% max $7,500 per month.
x
x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 401 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Disability Insurance - by Employer
Page 37 of 57
Employer Policy Type
Lynnwood 1 Employee
Lynnwood 2 Spouse
Lynnwood 3 Child/Children
Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee
Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse
Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children
Olympia 1 Employee
Olympia 2 Spouse
Olympia 3 Child/Children
Puyallup 1 Employee
Puyallup 2 Spouse
Puyallup 3 Child/Children
Sammamish 1 Employee
Sammamish 2 Spouse
Sammamish 3 Child/Children
Shoreline 1 Employee
Shoreline 2 Spouse
Shoreline 3 Child/Children
Snohomish County 1 Employee
Snohomish County 2 Spouse
Snohomish County 3 Child/Children
University Place 1 Employee
University Place 2 Spouse
University Place 3 Child/Children
LTD
Not
Offered
Monthly Cost of
Coverage per $1,000 in
payroll
Amt. Employer
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee
Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage
nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*for staff working 30 hours + per week
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
$0.403 per $100 of payroll nr*nr*nr*
x
x
$0.90 per $100 of salary 100%0%
x
x
nr*nr*nr*67% Benefit level
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Mandatory coverage, rate based on salary Annual
salary /12/100x.21 (no change)
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
$100.00 100%0%60% of pre-disability gross wages to
max of $3,000 per month.
$0.58 per $100 of salary 100%0%
x
x
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 402 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
STD & LTD Notes
Page 38 of 57
Employer Comments
Snohomish County LTD - For employees in the management and exempt disability plan, disability payment wil be 66.66% of your pre-disability gross wages
(maximum $5,00 per month).
King County Basic long term disability is employer paid. Enhanced long term disability - reduced waiting period/increased monthly benefit available at
employee's expense.
Bremerton - Police Officer's Guild Employees enrolled in LEOFF Plan 2 may enroll in Long Term Disability through Standard Insurance Company with the City paying a
maximum of $20 toward the premium costs.
Bremerton - Police Mgmt Association Employees enrolled in LEOFF Plan 2 may enroll in Long Term Disability through Standard Insurance Company with the City paying a
maximum of $20 toward the premium costs.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 403 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Pension-Retirement - by Employer
Page 39 of 57
Employer Employee Group Employer
Contribution
Employee
Contribution Formula
Defined Benefit
Employee
Contribution Paid
by Employer
Edmonds, City of PERS Plan 1 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%6.00%nr*
Edmonds, City of PERS Plan 2 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%4.64%nr*
Edmonds, City of PERS Plan 3 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%See notes page nr*Combination Db and Dc; Employee chooses from 6 plans
Edmonds, City of LEOFF (eff. 9/1/11)5.24%8.46%nr*
Edmonds, City of PSERS (eff. 9/1/11)8.86%6.36%nr*
Bothell - Non Rep PERS Plan 1 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%6.00%nr*
Bothell - Non Rep PERS Plan 2 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%4.64%nr*
Bothell - Non Rep PERS Plan 3 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%See notes page nr*Combination Db and Dc; Employee chooses from 6 plans
Bothell - Non Rep LEOFF (eff. 9/1/11)5.24%8.46%nr*
Bothell - Non Rep PSERS (eff. 9/1/11)8.86%6.36%nr*
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PERS Plan 1 5.290%6.000%nr*Defined benefit plan
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PERS Plan 2 (after 10/1/77)5.290%3.890%nr*Defined benefit plan
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PERS Plan 3 (after 10/1/77)8.310%Empoyee's decision nr*Combination of a defined benefit and defined contribution plan
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PSERS Plan 2 9.430%6.570%nr*
Bremerton - Non Rep Misc/General nr*
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)LEOFF II (after 10/1/77)5.24%8.46%nr*
Burien PERS Plan 1 7.250%6.000%0.000%
Burien PERS Plan 2 7.250%4.640%0.000%
Burien PSERS Plan 2 8.860%6.360%0.000%
Des Moines PERS Plan 2 7.250%4.640%0.000%
Issaquah - Exempt Employees PERS Plan 2 7.250%4.640%0.000%
King County Regular or Local 587 employee 7.250%6.000%nr*PERS I (membership before 10/1/77)
King County Regular or Local 587 employee 7.250%4.640%nr*PERS 2
King County Deputy Sheriff or paramedic 5.240%8.460%nr*LEOFF 2
King County Public Safety employee 8.860%6.360%nr*PSERS
King County Former City of Seattle employee nr*10.030%nr*SCERS
Kirkland Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)General 7.250%6.000%0.000%
Lynnwood Misc/General
Mountlake Terrace Misc/General
Olympia PERS 1 7.250%6.000%0.000%
Olympia PERS 2 7.250%4.640%0.000%
Olympia PERS 3 7.250%varies 0.000%
Olympia PSERS 8.860%6.360%0.000%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 404 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Pension-Retirement - by Employer
Page 40 of 57
Employer Employee Group Employer
Contribution
Employee
Contribution Formula
Defined Benefit
Employee
Contribution Paid
by Employer
Puyallup Misc/General 7.250%4.640%0.000%PERS 2
Puyallup Misc/General 7.250%Options 0.000%PERS 3
Puyallup Police & Fire 5.240%8.460%0.000%LEOFF 2
Sammamish Misc/General
Shoreline Misc/General 8.480%6.000%0.0000%Plan I
Shoreline Misc/General 8.480%4.430%0.0000%Plan II
Shoreline Misc/General 8.480%Choice of 5 - 15%0.0000%Plan III
Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%6.000%0.0000%PERS 1
Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%4.640%0.0000%PERS 2
Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%Options 0.0000%PERS 3
Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%12.260%0.0000%PERS JBM Plan 1 (Judicial)
Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%11.600%0.0000%PERS JBM Plan 2 (Judicial)
Snohomish County Misc/General 8.860%6.360%0.0000%PSERS 2
Snohomish County Misc/General 0.160%0.000%0.0000%LEOFF 1
Snohomish County Misc/General 5.240%8.460%0.0000%LEOFF 2
University Place Misc/General 5.310%per calculations from budget cost
University Place PERS 1 7.250%6.000%0.000%
University Place PERS 2 7.250%4.640%0.000%
University Place PERS 3 7.250%varies 0.000%
University Place PSERS 8.860%6.360%0.000%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 405 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Pension & Retirement Notes
Page 41 of 57
Employer Comments
PERS Plan 3 Member Contribution Rate OptionsOption A - 5 percent of pay at all ages
Option B - 5 percent of pay until age 35; 6 percent of pay from age 35 until 44; 8.5 percent age 45 and above
Option C - 6 percent of pay until age 35; 7.5 percent of pay from age 35 until 44; 8.5% age 45 and above
Option D - 7 percent of pay at all ages
Option E - 10 percent of pay at all ages
Option F - 15 percent of pay at all ages
Employer Contribution Rate is the same as the PERS Plan 2 rate.
www.drs.wa.gov/employer/employerhandbook/pdf/combinedlist.pdf
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 406 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
DC-SS-Medicare - by Employer
Page 42 of 57
Employer Employee Group Employer
Contribution
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution
Employee
Contribution Formula or Plan Name
Other
Employee
Contribution Paid
by Employer
Employee
Contribution
Paid by
Social Security Medicare
Employee
Contribution
Paid by
Employer
Edmonds, City of Misc/General nr*nr*nr*1.450%1.450%1 0.000%6.200%6.200%MEBT - Retirement program in lieu of Social Security
Bothell - Non Rep Non Represented 6.200%6.200%0.000%1.450%1.450%0.000%
Bremerton - Non Rep Misc/General 6.200%6.200%1.450%1.450%4.0000%See note page.
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*4.0000%See note page.
Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Management and Professional nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*4.0000%See note page.
Burien Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*401a social security replacement plan; If employee enrolls
in HDHP, the employee can choose to have the HDHP
incentive contributed into a deferred comp fund or a H.S.A.
City pays: Single - $1,500/yer; Family $3,000/year,
otherwise deferred comp is funed entirely by the employee.
Des Moines Non-Union 5.000%401a social security replacement plan, also 457 with 1.52%
of gross wages.
Des Moines Union - Local No. 763 5.000%401a social security replacement plan
Des Moines Police Guild 6.520%401a social security replacement plan
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Misc/General 6.200%6.200%0.0000%Match up to $300 457 ICMA Deferred Comp Plan
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Directors Only 6.200%6.200%0.0000%$1,200 457 ICMA Deferred Comp Plan
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Directors Only 6.200%6.200%0.0000%3.5% match Min 5%457 ICMA Deferred Comp Plan
King County Misc/General 6.200%6.200%0.000%0.000%voluntary 0.000%IRS 457 Plan
Kirkland Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*0.000%voluntary 0.000%MEBT or ICMA voluntary plans
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)Misc/General
Lynnwood Misc/General 0.000%voluntary 0.000%457 Deferred Compensation Plan (Voluntary)
Mountlake Terrace Misc/General Match 80%6.2% of salary MEBT
Olympia Misc/General Deferred comp offered on a voluntary basis. No employer
contribution.
Puyallup Misc/General
Sammamish Misc/General 0.000%0.000%0.0000%0.000%0.000%0.0000%6.200%6.200%0.0000%401(A) Plan in lieu of social security. The City and
employees each contributie 6.2% to this fund.
Shoreline Misc/General 6.200%6.200%0.0000%Social Security replacement (Mandatory 401a)
Shoreline Misc/General - Deferred Compensation Balance of allotmentVoluntary Mandatory for any remaing funds from $831 monthly
allocation.
Snohomish County All other eligible employees 50.000%voluntary Deferred Compensation NACO; County matches 50% of
employees contribution to a max of 1% of employee's
monthly base.
Snohomish County Airport Fire Fighter 3.000%voluntary Deferred Compensation NACO; Dollar for dollar match to
max of 3% of monthly base wage.
Snohomish County Sheriff's Lt and Captains (SOMA)$105 voluntary Deferred Compensation NACO; County matches 20% of
employee's contribution to a max of $105 per month.
University Place Misc/General 6.200%6.200%401a match at 6.2%
1 - Employee hired after 4/86 pays 1.45%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 407 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Pension & Retirement Notes
Page 43 of 57
Employer Comments
Edmonds, City of MEBT - retirement program in lieu of Social Security; contribution rate City and Employee 6.2% each, includes LTD & $75,000 life insurance.
Sammamish, City of 457 Deferred Compensation Plan - Voluntary employee contribution.
Snohomish County All regular Snohomish County employees working 20 hours or more in a budgeted position, except: Elected Officials, Sheriff's Deputies and
Sergeants, Sheriff's Law Enforcement Support, Corrections Guild (Corrections Deputies), Corrections Support.
Issaquah, City of 401 (a) Plan (Directors Only) - Department Directors are eligible to receive matching contributions form the City towards the ICMA 401(a) Deferred Compensation
Plan. The Director must contribute a minimum of 5% of their monthly base pay and the City will provide a match of 3.5% of their monthly base pay (for 2011 the City match
will be 2.5% as part of its budget reduction efforts). This is an annual election so Directors may change their percentage contribution rate during the annual open enrollment
period in December.
Bremerton, City of Deferred Comp - City match up to 4% of monthly pay rate, max combined (employer and employee) contribution of $16,500.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 408 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Retiree Health - by Employer
Page 44 of 57
Employer Employee Group Employer
Contribution
Employee
Contribution
Employee
Contribution Paid by
Employer
Formula/Plan
Edmonds, City of Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*
Bothell - Non Rep All groups 0.0000%0.0000%0.0000%Retiree Health Savings Account
Bremerton - Non Rep Misc/General
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police Mgmt 30.00$ Retirement Medical Savigns Account
Burien Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*
Des Moines Misc/General
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Misc/General 1.0000%Mandatory ICMA Retirement Health Savings Account (RHS)
King County Misc/General
Kirkland Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)Misc/General
Lynnwood Misc/General
Mountlake Terrace Misc/General
Olympia Misc/General
Puyallup Misc/General
Sammamish Misc/General
Shoreline Misc/General
Snohomish County Misc/General
University Place Misc/General
Retiree Health Plan
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 409 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Retiree Healthcare Notes
Page 45 of 57
Employer Comments
Bremerton, City of - Police Mgmt Assoc Retirement Medical Savings Account - on 2/2/09 City contributed $825 into each employee's HRSA in addition to the $30/mo. Per MOU.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 410 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer
Page 46 of 57
@ 1 Year
@5
Years
@10
Years
@15
Years
@20
Years
20+
Years
Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr
VACATION LEAVE
Employer PTO
Bank Comments
Employee Group
Bothell - Non Rep General
Bremerton - Non Rep General 120 160 200
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police 105 104 152 192 208 208 Max carry-over 160 hrs <5yrs;
300 hrs >5 yrs
Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeesPolice 120 200 200 200 200 200
Burien General 96 168 8 to 14 hrs/mo based on service
Des Moines General
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 1 w/12 sick days per years 96 128 160 176 192 192 See Notes page
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 2 w/8 sick days per years 128 160 192 208 224 224 See Notes page
King County General 96 96 128 160 192 200
Kirkland General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)General
Lynnwood General
Mountlake Terrace General 96 nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*Increases over time
Olympia General 96 nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Puyallup Unaffiliated 96 nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*Increases over time
Sammamish General 96 128 168 168 168 168
Shoreline General 96
Shoreline FLSA Exempt staff 96
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 411 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer
Page 47 of 57
@ 1 Year
@5
Years
@10
Years
@15
Years
@20
Years
20+
Years
Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr
VACATION LEAVE
Employer PTO
Bank Comments
Employee Group
Snohomish County AFSCME 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours
Snohomish County Clerks Association 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours
Snohomish County Correction's Captains 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours
Snohomish County Correction's Guild 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours
Snohomish County Correction's Support 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours
Snohomish County Deputy Sheriff's Association 80 120 168 184 200 200 Max 320 hours
Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (24hr shift)84 126 176 193 210 210 Max 280 hours
Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (40hr week)84 126 176 193 210 210 Max 280 hours
Snohomish County Human Services Supervisors 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours
Snohomish County Local 763 80 121 185 201 201 201 Max 240 hours
Snohomish County Sheriff's Office Management Team 0 0 168 184 200 200 Max 320 hours
Snohomish County SOMT 80 121 144 168 200 200 Max 240 hours
University Place General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*
Averages #DIV/0!96 124 172 192 209 209
Edmonds, City of Director 176 176 176 176 176 176
Edmonds, City of Other 40 88 128 176 200 Max @ 25+ years = 27 days/year
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 412 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer
Page 48 of 57
Employer Employee Group
Bothell - Non Rep General
Bremerton - Non Rep General
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police
Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeesPolice
Burien General
Des Moines General
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 1 w/12 sick days per years
Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 2 w/8 sick days per years
King County General
Kirkland General
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)General
Lynnwood General
Mountlake Terrace General
Olympia General
Puyallup Unaffiliated
Sammamish General
Shoreline General
Shoreline FLSA Exempt staff
Sick Personal Holidays
Mgmt or
Admin
Hours/Yr Days/yr Days/yr Days/yr Comments
OTHER LEAVE
5 to 10 42 merit leave hours, can carry up to 84, 40
hours professional leave. Upper mgmt: 80 hrs
0 10
96 1 10 Max sick accrual is 1200 hrs
96 1 10 Max sick accrual 125 days
96 1 10
4 Admin leave offered
96 11 comp time up to 100 hrs
64 11
96 2 10
nr*nr*nr*3 to 5 Directors - 50 hrs; Managers- 40 hrs;
Supervisors- 30hrs
8
96 1 10
96 nr*11
96 12
96 11
96 2 10
96 5 10
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 413 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer
Page 49 of 57
Employer Employee Group
Snohomish County AFSCME
Snohomish County Clerks Association
Snohomish County Correction's Captains
Snohomish County Correction's Guild
Snohomish County Correction's Support
Snohomish County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (24hr shift)
Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (40hr week)
Snohomish County Human Services Supervisors
Snohomish County Local 763
Snohomish County Sheriff's Office Management Team
Snohomish County SOMT
University Place General
Averages
Edmonds, City of Director
Edmonds, City of Other
Sick Personal Holidays
Mgmt or
Admin
Hours/Yr Days/yr Days/yr Days/yr Comments
OTHER LEAVE
96 2 10
96 2 10
96 2 10
96 2 10
96 2 10
96 2 11
164 Holiday-in-lieu 5% of annual base
126 10 or Holiday-in-lieu 5% of annual base
96 2 10
96 2 10
96 2 10
96 2 10
nr*nr*nr*
98 2 10
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 414 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
PTO Notes
Page 50 of 57
Employer Comments
Bremerton, City of Fire Benefit sheet - Sick Leave Shift employees sick leave is accreued at a rate of 8 hours each pay period for the first five years of employment.
Sick leave is accrued at a rate of 4 hours (5.25 for shift personnel after 5 years) each pay period. The maximum accrual is 960 hours (1440 for shift
personnel). [exact language]
Des Moines, City of Deferred Compensation (457) - The City cashes and deposits 1 or 2 hours of sick leave, depending on sick leave balances, to a 457 Deferred
Compensation plan for Teamsters Union employees. Police Guild 457 - The City cashes and deposits 2 or 3 hours of sick leave, depending on
sick leave balances, to a 457 Deferred Compensation plan for Police Guild employees. Police Patrol - Patorl schedule consists of an 8 day work
week, with 4 days on and 4 days off. Each workday is 12 hours in duration, resulting in a total of 2,190 hours scheduled per year. Because of this,
each employee assigned to a 12 hour schedule receives an additional 55 hours of leave (Kelly time) every 6 months (Jan 1 - Jun 30 and Jul 1- Dec
31).Issaquah, City of Exempt Vacation - At the time of hire and annually thereafter, employees shall have the option of selecting from two vacation/sick leave schedules
based on years of service. Once a selection is made, it will remain intact until such time as the employee requests a different schedule. This
change can only be done during the annual open enrollment period at the end of each year. If no selection is made at the time of hire, then
Schedule 1 will be assigned.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 415 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
PTO Notes
Page 51 of 57
Employer Comments
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 416 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Other Benefits - by Employer
Page 52 of 57
Employer
Bi
l
i
n
g
u
a
l
P
a
y
De
f
e
r
r
e
d
C
o
m
p
Di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
Bo
n
u
s
EA
P
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
A
A
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
B
A
Fl
e
x
i
b
l
e
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
(S
e
c
.
1
2
5
P
l
a
n
)
Lo
n
g
e
v
i
t
y
On
C
a
l
l
P
a
y
o
r
Ca
l
l
O
u
t
P
a
y
Ta
k
e
H
o
m
e
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Al
l
o
w
/
R
e
i
m
b
Tu
i
t
i
o
n
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
Comments
Bothell - Non Rep
Bremerton - Non Rep 4%Managers and above
Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)4%2%4%x Middle Mgmt Cert pay 1.75%; Exec Cert pay 2.5%
Burien x Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community
Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sount Transit
Des Moines x N/A
Issaquah - Exempt Employees see note 5% longevity after 5 years of employment
King County x x x Bus pass and other alternative transportation incentives
offered.
Kirkland
Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1-2%Def Comp 1% for Managers & 2% for Directors
Lynnwood see note 5 years = $221.52/yr;8 years = $443.04/yr; 11 years =
$664.56/yr; 15 years = $941.52/yr
Mountlake Terrace Choice of 2;
voluntary
x x
Olympia see note $450 longevity after 15 years of employment
Puyallup N/A
Sammamish x
Shoreline N/A
Snohomish County x x
University Place N/A
Edmonds, City of
PD Mgmt 2%-7%
PD mgmt 2%-3%
PD Mgmt 2.5%-5%
PD Mgmt 2%-3%
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 417 of 437
City of Edmonds
2012 Benefits Survey Summary
Other Benefits Program Notes
Page 53 of 57
Employer
Longevity Pay
Length of Continuous Service Rate per Hour
0 through 5 years continuous employment 0%
6 through 10 years continuous employment 1.25%
Commencing 11 through 15 years continuous employment 2.25%
Commencing 16 through 20 years continuous employment 3.50%
Commencing 21 through 25 years continuous employment 7.75%
Commencing 26 years and over continuous employment 9.00%
Burien, City of
King County HRA Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) offered on voluntary basis.
Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit.
Comments
Bremerton - Police Mgmt Assoc.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012
Packet Page 418 of 437
Non-Rep Total Compensation - Police Chief
Police Chief - Elements of Compensation
City
Education
Incentive
Longevity
Incentive
Deferred
Comp
Admin
Leave
Comp
Time Overtime
Certification
Pay Merit Pay
Clothing
Allowance as
salary
Holiday Buy-
Back
Min Hourly
Rate
Salary Min - all
compensation
Max
Hourly
Rate
Salary Max - all
compensation
Bothell 88 hrs/yr 57.32$ 124,264$ 72.87$ 157,985$
Bremerton 4%121,134$ 147,591$
Des Moines 2.5% AA 32 hrs/yr 1%80 hrs/yr 52.47$ 116,096$ 66.96$ 148,094$
4% BA
5% MA
Edmonds
Issaquah 2%
$100/mo
plus 3.5%150 hrs/yr 59.61$ 132,939$ 79.35$ 183,446$
Kirkland 50 hrs/yr 53.90$ 114,799$ 69.54$ 148,125$
Lacey 2%145,252$ 145,252$
Lynnwood 1.95% 45 hrs 2% - 5 yrs 64 hrs/yr
75 hrs/yr @
1.5x 55.51$ 125,703$ 79.97$ 181,088$
4% AA 3% - 10 yrs
5.4% BA 5% - 15 yrs
6.85% MA 7% - 20 yrs
Olympia 40 hrs/yr 70.06$ 148,530$ 70.06$ 148,530$
Puyallup 2% AA 1% - 5 yrs 4%103,272$ 151,042$
3% BA 3% - 10 yrs
5% - 15 yrs
7% - 20 yrs
10% - 25 yrs
Packet Page 419 of 437
Non-Rep Total Compensation - Police Chief
Police Chief
Calculation of Minimum and Maximum Salaries - all compensation
City Base Annual Hourly
Education
Incentive
Longevity
Incentive
Deferred
Comp Admin Leave Comp Time Overtime
Certification
Pay Merit Pay
Clothing
Allowance as
salary
Holiday
Buy-Back
Salary - all
compensation
Bothell Min 119,220$ 57.32$ 5,044$ 124,264$
Max 151,572$ 72.87$ 6,413$ 157,985$
Bremerton Min 116,475$ 4,659$ 121,134$
Max 141,914$ 5,677$ 147,591$
Des Moines Min 109,128$ 52.47$ -$ 1,679$ 1,091$ 4,198$ 116,096$
Max 132,636$ 66.96$ 6,632$ 2,143$ 1,326$ 5,357$ 148,094$
Edmonds
Issaquah Min 118,644$ 59.61$ 5,353$ 8,942$ -$ 132,938$
Max 151,416$ 79.35$ 3,028$ 6,500$ 11,903$ 10,599$ 183,446$
Kirkland Min 112,104$ 53.90$ 2,695$ 114,799$
Max 144,648$ 69.54$ 3,477$ 148,125$
Lacey Min 142,404$ 2,848$ 145,252$
Max 142,404$ 2,848$ 145,252$
Lynnwood Min 115,905$ 55.51$ -$ -$ 3,553$ 6,245$ 125,703$
Max 146,661$ 79.97$ 10,046$ 10,266$ 5,118$ 8,997$ 181,088$
Olympia Min 145,728$ 70.06$ 2,802.40$ 148,530$
Max 145,728$ 70.06$ 2,802.40$ 148,530$
Puyallup Min 99,300$ -$ -$ 3,972$ 103,272$
Max 129,096$ 3,873$ 12,910$ 5,164$ 151,042$
Packet Page 420 of 437
Non-Rep Total Compensation - Assistant Police Chief
Assistant Police Chief - Elements of Compensation
City
Education
Incentive
Longevity
Incentive
Deferred
Comp
Admin
Leave Comp Time Overtime
Certification
Pay Merit Pay
Clothing
Allowance
as salary
Holiday Buy-
Back
Accreditation
Incentive
Retiree
Medical
Account
Min
Hourly
Rate
Salary Min - all
compensation
Max
Hourly
Rate
Salary Max - all
compensation
Bothell 88 hrs/yr 51.93$ 112,582$ 66.02$ 143,126$
Bremerton 2% AA 1.25% 6-10 yrs 4%1.75% Mid Mgmt 51.88$ 112,223$ 66.49$ 143,016$
4% BA 2.25% 11-15 yrs 2.5% Exec
3.5% 16-20 yrs 4.25% Max
7.75% 21-25 yrs
9% 26+ yrs
Des Moines 2.5% AA 32 hrs/yr 1%80 hrs/yr 52.91$ 117,078$ 61.26$ 135,486$
4% BA
5% MA
Edmonds
Issaquah 2%$300/yr 100 hrs/yr 0-4 yrs 5%49.27$ 107,707$ 68.54$ 149,726$
5+ yrs 7%
Kirkland 2% BA 1.5% 5-10 yrs 40 hrs/yr 1%$75/mo 44.06$ 95,222$ 64.82$ 138,309$
3% MA 3% 11-15 yrs
3% Command
School 5% 16-19 yrs
6% 20-25 yrs
7% 26+ yrs
Lacey 1%123,127$ 126,606$
Lynnwood 1.95% 45 hrs 2% 5 yrs 64 hrs/yr
75 hrs/yr @
1.5x 58.80$ 132,682$ 72.41$ 163,390$
4% AA 3% 10 yrs
5.4% BA 5% 15 yrs
6.85% MA 7% 20 yrs
Olympia 1% 7-10 yrs 128,268$ 150,467$
3% 11-14 yrs
5% 15-18 yrs
7% 19-22 yrs
8.5% 23-26 yrs
10% 27+ yrs
Puyallup 2% AA 1% 5 yrs 4%92,352$ 135,079$
3% BA 3% 10 yrs
5% 15 yrs
7% 20 yrs
10% 25+ yrs
Packet Page 421 of 437
Non-Rep Total Compensation - Assistant Police Chief
Assistant Police Chief
Calculation of Minimum and Maximum Salaries
City Base Annual Hourly
Education
Incentive
Longevity
Incentive
Deferred
Comp Admin Leave Comp Time Overtime
Certification
Pay Merit Pay
Clothing
Allowance as
salary
Holiday
Buy-Back
Accreditation
Incentive
Retiree
Medical
Account
Salary - all
compensation
Bothell Min 108,012$ 51.93$ 4,570$ 112,582$
Max 137,316$ 66.02$ 5,810$ 143,126$
Bremerton Min 107,907$ 51.88$ -$ 4,316$ 112,223$
Max 117,951$ 66.49$ 4,718$ 10,616$ 4,718$ 5,013$ 143,016$
Des Moines Min 110,052$ 52.91$ -$ 1,693$ 1,101$ 4,233$ 117,078$
Max 121,344$ 61.26$ 6,067$ 1,960$ 1,213$ 4,901$ 135,486$
Edmonds
Issaquah Min 102,480$ 49.27$ 300$ 4,927$ -$ 107,707$
Max 130,800$ 68.54$ 2,616$ 300$ 6,854$ 9,156$ 149,726$
Kirkland Min 91,644$ 44.06$ -$ -$ 1,762$ 916$ 900 95,223$
Max 118,260$ 64.82$ 7,096$ 8,278$ 2,593$ 1,183$ 900 138,309$
Lacey Min 121,908$ 1,219$ 123,127$
Max 125,352$ 1,254$ 126,606$
Lynnwood Min 122,304$ 58.80$ -$ -$ 3,763$ $ 6,615 132,682$
Max 132,288$ 72.41$ 9,062$ 9,260$ 4,634$ $ 8,146 163,390$
Olympia Min 128,268$ -$ 128,268$
Max 136,788$ 13,679$ 150,467$
Puyallup Min 88,800$ -$ -$ 3,552$ 92,352$
Max 115,452$ 3,464$ 11,545$ 4,618$ 135,079$
Packet Page 422 of 437
D R A F T
Proposal
PERSONNEL POLICY
NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
The City’s non-represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity in pay for all
employees, offers competitive salaries to attract high level applicants, offers internal equity to
foster long-term retention of valuable employees, and rewards meritorious job performance.
It is the policy of the City for the classification and compensation plan to provide salaries that
compare favorably with other similar cities in the region for comparable jobs, and within budget
limitations. It is also the policy of the City to ensure that salaries are internally equitable, in
proper relationship to all other jobs within the City.
SALARY RANGE PROGRESSION
Salary ranges for non-represented positions will have a 35% spread from the bottom to the top
of each salary range, and will include a seven-step scale with 5% between each of the steps.
All new employees will generally be hired at the first step of their salary range; however, an
entry level rate of pay above the minimum may be offered to an applicant whose education and
experience exceed the minimum qualifications for the classification, or when external labor
market pay practices impact recruitment. Initial step placement at higher than Step 3 of the
salary range, is subject to approval by the Mayor prior to the offer of employment.
Employees are generally advanced to the next salary step increment after six months of
satisfactory job performance, and each succeeding year, after a concurrent performance
evaluation has been completed by their supervisor, until reaching the maximum step. An
employee who fails to achieve at least a satisfactory overall rating on their annual performance
evaluation shall not be eligible for a step increase until their next performance evaluation rating
period.
In the event of promotion of a non-represented employee to another non-represented job
classification in a higher pay range, the employee will receive a salary increase of not less than
5% or will be adjusted to the minimum salary level of the new position’s salary range, whichever
is greater.
To ensure internal equity, employees promoted from a represented position to a non-
represented position in a higher pay range, will receive a gross salary increase of not less than
5% or the minimum salary level of the new position’s salary range, whichever is greater,
including consideration of other cash compensation being received in the former position.
In the event of a lateral placement of a non-represented employee to another non-represented
job classification in the same pay range, the employee will not receive a salary increase.
Packet Page 423 of 437
ANNUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
The Mayor will recommend the adjustment of salary ranges for non-represented employees to
the City Council for approval as part of the budget process, effective January 1 of each year.
Salary ranges for non-represented employees will be adjusted at a rate not less than the
average adjustment negotiated and approved for represented employee groups. Each
employee will maintain the same step within the newly approved salary range that they held
prior to the adjustment.
To maintain internal equity and to prevent compression within the ranks, the City will maintain
the minimum of a 10% increment between the salary ranges at midpoint of supervisor
classifications and those supervised. Additionally, the City will ensure that salary ranges of non-
represented positions are equal to or exceed salary ranges for comparable represented
positions. The City will attempt to mitigate compression issues as they may arise.
MARKET ANALYSIS
The Human Resources Department will conduct compensation surveys for each non-
represented benchmark position no later than September 1, every three years. The following
criteria will be used for determining which cities are comparable for the purposes of analyzing
and comparing compensation (“Qualified Comparable Cities”):
Comparable cities must be located in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, or Kitsap
counties; and
Comparable cities will include all cities with a population that is no more than 10,000
over or no more than 10,000 under the population of the City of Edmonds according
to the most recent population figures published by the Washington State Office of
Financial Management or a similar successor government agency; and
The application of the above criteria will be utilized to select a minimum of eight
agencies that are closest in population to the City of Edmonds. If this process yields
fewer than eight comparable cities (not counting Edmonds) for analysis during a
particular year, additional cities shall be selected for analysis by adding an additional
city or cities, up to eight, with agencies that are outside the 10,000 over/under
criteria, but that are the next closest in population to the City of Edmonds, with the
goal of having 50% of the cities with a higher population and 50% with a lower
population than Edmonds.
Additionally, private sector data will be gathered and considered where it is a significant factor in
the City’s competitiveness.
Benchmark positions are those which are assigned clearly recognizable work at a well-defined
level of responsibility, and for which comparable classifications are easily identified to ensure
that sufficient data can be collected. Classifications that are selected as comparable for survey
purposes must match the benchmark position by 80% in level of work and responsibility.
Salaries for comparable positions that are not a complete match may be leveled up or down by
a maximum of 20%, to adjust for differences in the level or scope of responsibility in work duties.
Packet Page 424 of 437
Non-benchmark classifications (those for which there are not adequate comparable
classifications) will be indexed to a corresponding City benchmark position, which is comparable
in required qualifications, scope of work, and level of responsibility.
Salary ranges for benchmarks will be determined by using the prevailing rates in the identified
comparator cities. The City will be competitive within the defined market, but will not assume
the position of a lead pay policy compared to the market; therefore the median or 50th percentile
of the mid-range of salary data collected will be used to determine competitiveness.
Every three years, based upon the survey data, salary ranges for non-represented positions will
be realigned, to maintain the mid-point of each salary range between 5% high/low of the mid-
point of the comparator city median. Positions requiring adjustment will be assigned to the new
salary range within the salary range table that places the position closest to the comparator city
median. Any employee whose actual salary falls below the newly adopted pay range minimum,
shall be adjusted up to the new minimum upon adoption of the new pay ranges. Any employee
whose actual salary exceeds the top of the approved salary range, will have their salary frozen
until such time that market rates support pay range adjustment for their job classification.
EXTERNAL/INTERNAL EQUITY
To be more competitive in the market place, the City will provide a deferred compensation
contribution of 2% for non-represented employees. If the City is financially unable to offer the
deferred compensation contribution, the City will provide non-represented employees with 40
hours of Administrative Leave annually. Administrative Leave will have no cash-out value and
will not be carried over at the end of the calendar year.
To address internal equity issues among all employees, Non-represented employees will be
eligible for receipt of Longevity Incentive Pay, consistent with that provided by SEIU, Teamsters,
and the Edmonds Police Officers’ Association represented employees.
In addition, to avoid inequity between supervisory ranks, and to eliminate disincentive for
promotion within the Department, Commissioned Police management personnel will be eligible
for receipt of an Educational Incentive Pay, consistent with that provided to Edmonds Police
Officers’ Association represented employees.
Non-represented at-will employees will be provided with an employment contract that articulates
all compensation and benefits, as well as severance provisions that will be imposed in the event
that their employment is involuntarily terminated.
Packet Page 425 of 437
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Proposed Salary Ranges Compared to Existing Non-Represented Salaries
Proposed Salary Range
(solid line)
Current Salary
(red dot)
Note: Current salary (red dot) is the 'average' salary of all employees holding that position title.
Packet Page 426 of 437
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Proposed Salary Ranges Compared to Existing Salaries and Ranges
Proposed Salary Range
(solid line)
Current Salary
(red dot)
Current Salary Range
(two horizontal markers)
Note: Current salary (red dot) is the 'average' salary of all employees holding that position title.
Packet Page 427 of 437
CITY POPULATION
NO
N
-
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
E
D
PO
L
I
C
E
LA
W
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
PO
L
I
C
E
M
G
M
T
AS
S
O
C
.
AF
S
C
M
E
/
A
S
A
/
S
E
I
U
TE
A
M
S
T
E
R
S
OT
H
E
R
NO
N
-
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
E
D
PO
L
I
C
E
LA
W
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
PO
L
I
C
E
M
G
M
T
AS
S
O
C
.
AF
S
C
M
E
/
A
S
A
/
S
E
I
U
TE
A
M
S
T
E
R
S
OT
H
E
R
1 Kirkland 49,020 0%1.2%0%0%0%0%0%2.5%2.5%3.7%0%0%0%0%
2 Burien 47,660
3 Sammamish 46,940 -0.5%3.2%
4 Olympia 46,780 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%1%1%0%1%1%
5 Lacey 42,830 0%1%1%0%0%2%2.34%1%2%2.34%
EDMONDS 39,800 0%0%0%0.0%0%NS NS 1.5%1.5%
6 Bremerton 38,790 2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%
7 Puyallup 37,240 0%2%2%0%0%0%2%2%2%2%2% &
NS 2%
8 Lynnwood 35,860 0%NS NS 0%0%0%NS NS
9 Bothell 33,720 2%3.7%3.7%NS 5.22%
10 University Place 31,170 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
11 Issaquah 30,690 2%2%2%2%2%2%2.5%
12 Des Moines 29,680 2%2%2%2%2%3.2%3.2%3.2%3.2%3.2%
NS = not settled
2011 COLA 2012 COLA
1% - all employees non-represented 0% - all employees non-represented
Packet Page 428 of 437
NON-
REPRESENTED
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Non-Represented 2 2.7 3 3.5 5.8%*( -3.5%)0 0 **1.5%
Budgeted
Non-Represented 0-5%0-5%0-3%0-3%0 0-3%1.5%***1.5%
Budgeted
Total Increase 2-7%2.7-7.7%3-6%3.5-6.5%2.30%0-3%0-1.5%0
* COLA's in 2009 were offset by 9 mandated furlough days, which is equivalent to a 3.5% reduction
** COLA has not been implented; wage study currently being performed by a consultant
***Mayor has not yet made a determination
REPRESENTED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2.5*2*
1*1*
SEIU 2 2.5 3 3.5 5.8*( -3.5%)2.5 0 1.5
Teamsters 2 2.5 3 3.5 5.5*( -3.5%)2.5 0 1.5
Non-
Commissioned
(Law Support)
2 2.5 3 3.5 6.2 0 0 0**
All Represented 5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
Total Increase 7-8%7.5-8.5%6-8%9%7-11.2%5-7.5%5%5-6.5%
**Contract not settled
* Awarded for first and second half of year
All represented groups receive a guaranteed step increase of 5% per year until they reach the top step.
All represented groups are eligible for longevity pay
All represented groups have certification pay eligibility and/or other incentive pay such as educational pay (PD).
CITY OF EDMONDS
History of Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) & Merit Increases for Non-Represented Employees (2005-2012)
0**
STEP INCREASES
COLAS
COLAS
MERIT INCREASES
3 3.5 6.2 0 0Commissioned
Police (EPOA)
V:\HR Transition Plan\Compensation Consultant\Non-Represented COLA History.xlsxPacket Page 429 of 437
AM-5111 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/18/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of September 11, 2012.
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The following City Council Committees met on September 11, 2012 and copies of the minutes for each
committee are attached:
•Finance Committee
•Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
•Public Safety & Personnel Committee
Attachments
9-11-12 Finance Committee Minutes
9-1-2012 PPP Committee Minutes
9-11-12 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/14/2012 09:45 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/14/2012 10:23 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/07/2012 03:44 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2012
Packet Page 430 of 437
9/11/12 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
Attendees: Diane Buckshnis, Phil Williams, Carrie Hite, Frances Chapin, Deb Sharp, Sarah Mager, Ron
Wambolt, Bruce, and Dave a representative Blue Star Gas Seattle.
Original agenda was amended to move the REET fund discussion to Item A instead of Item D, and the
rest to follow as originally placed.
The 9/11/12 Finance Committee Meeting started at 6:25 p.m., and adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Item A: Reet Fund Discussion – Take it to full Council with no recommendations from the Finance
Committee. Carrie Hite updated us on the legal requirements of REET, said we may miss out on Grant
funding if are not able to match funds. Carrie moves to leave the limits at $750,000 and break out as is.
Diane mentioned that is why we need the Metropolitan Parks District, and Phil said that they have no
Street Preservation Funds either. Carrie and Phil discussed 112 funding; Carrie inquired what the source
of 112 funding came from. Phil said that about $160,000 is moved into the 112 fund every year from
Gas tax; this money is used for Grant matching.
Item B: Art work donation - Frances Chapin discussed how the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation would
like to gift two pieces to the City of Edmonds. These pieces are currently located at the Edmonds Center
for the Arts and would remain on display there. Frances discussed insuring the art with Shawn Hunstock
and how this will now be the City’s responsibility. The City will need to sign an Interlocal Agreement
with the ECA. This will require a public hearing as the value of the pieces exceed $5,000.
Item C: Propane Conversion - Phil Williams and David from Blue Star Gas Seattle presented the
proposal to convert 17 City vehicles to use Propane. This consists of 16 police vehicles and one Public
Works truck. This would be the first groups of cars to convert. This would be another way to conserve
energy, resources, and funds for the City. The cost would be $5,995 per vehicle. The cars would still
have the ability to use both unleaded gasoline as well as Propane.
There was discussion about where the tanks were located; they are placed in the trunk. These
conversion kits can be moved from one car to another. The police have tested one vehicle so far and
were positive with the results. For this project, approximately $100,000 will be from the General Fund
for the 16 police vehicles. The funds will be coming from the General Fund as the expected cost savings
due to fuel savings will benefit the General Fund. The return on the investment is expected to be in 20-
21 months. There was also discussion about adding a Propane Tank (for re-fueling) up at the Fuel Tanks;
these funds will be coming out of the B fund. Diane told Phil to work with Strom to present before full
council.
Item D: Stormwater Exemptions - The Finance Committee recommends this goes to full council.
Finance recommends that past fees be waived. A policy needs to be developed that establishes the
percentage discount for storm water.
Packet Page 431 of 437
Item E: July 2012 Monthly Financial Report - Diane says Great Job Sarah. The July 2012 Monthly
Financial report does include the new “Risk Management Reserve Fund”. In August, we will see a
combination of the various reserve funds, rolled into one Contingency Reserve Fund. Things of note
were that the Telephone Utility Tax is trending above budget so far to date. Ron Wambolt mentioned
that his experience with telephone billings were that the company was behind in invoicing customers for
four months in his case.
Item F: Addition to 2013 Budget Document - Diane says Great Job again. She appreciates the addition.
She thinks the variety of pictures (graphs, charts) as well as written explanation is good for the variety of
users. Diane mentioned that this addition would be helpful information to have out there for the
passing of levies, etc. This should be put forward to full council for review and discussion. We need to
find out from Phil Williams if he would like to include the CIP information shown in the Draft. This will
be discussed with the budget presentations on 9/25/12.
Item G: 2013 Budget Schedule - Diane mentioned that she thinks this should be moved to consent or
full council; it is a good idea to have the citizens and full council notified.
Audience Comments: Ron Wambolt inquired whether there was difference in taxes between gas and
propane. As shown in the proposal from Blue Star Gas Seattle, it appears there is no difference in taxes.
Bruce inquired whether the conversion kits were able to move from one vehicle type to another. There
was discussion that these kits could move from one vehicle to another, but it was not clear whether for
example this could be moved from say a Crown Victoria to a Dodge Charger.
Packet Page 432 of 437
D R A F T M I N U T E S
Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee Meeting
September 11, 2012
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Chair Rob English, City Engineer
Council Member Lora Petso Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services and
Economic Development Director
The committee convened at 6:15p.m.
A. Interim Zoning Ordinance to allow farmers markets in Business Commercial (BC) and
Business Downtown (BD) Zones.
ACTION:
Councilmember Petso left the meeting prior to item B and returned for the remaining items.
B. Approve a Bill of Sale to transfer ownership of sewer pipe on 224th that is currently in
Esperance from being City owned to OVWSD owned.
Mr. English reviewed the purpose of the bill of sale and why the existing section of sewer
pipeline was being transferred to Olympic View Water and Sewer District.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
C. Report on final construction costs for the 2010 Watermain Replacement Project and final
acceptance of project.
Mr. English reported on the final construction costs for the 2010 Watermain Replacement project
and the timeline on when the project was completed.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
D. Authorization for the Mayor to sign 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program Agreement
between the State of Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Edmonds for
$259,745 for a Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit at the Public Works Yard.
Mr. English discussed that the proposed funding agreement was for the State grant for the
Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit at the Public Works Yard. There was discussion on how the
improvements would benefit the maintenance and operations of the City’s stormwater system.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
Packet Page 433 of 437
Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee Minutes
September 11, 2012
Page 2
2
E. Introduction to the Capital Facilities Plan (2013-2018) and the Capital Improvement
Program (2013-2018).
Mr. English provided a brief overview of the 2013-2018 draft CIP/CFP and the schedule on when
the documents would be presented to the Planning Board and City Council. He also explained
that a comparison matrix would be provided at the next presentation showing the changes from
last year’s CIP/CFP. There was a lengthy discussion on why the Ferry Underpass project at
Main St. (page 26 of the CFP) was added to this year’s draft CIP/CFP. Additional questions
were raised about several transportation projects and the need to identify the walkway priority
received in the 2009 transportation plan.
ACTION: Item will be presented to the full Council for information on October 2, 2012.
F. Public Comments
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Packet Page 434 of 437
1
PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
PERSONEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
September 11, 2012
Committee members present: Council Member Joan Bloom
Council Member Kristianna Johnson
Others present: Mayor Dave Earling
Council President Strom Peterson
City Attorney Jeff Taraday
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton
Reporting Director for HR Carrie Hite
HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie
HR Consultant Tara Adams
Citizen Ken Reidy
Citizen Don Hall
Council Member Joan Bloom started the meeting at 6:27 pm
DISCUSSION ON MINUTES/NOTE TAKING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Council Member Bloom stated that she wanted to discuss minutes vs. notes during executive sessions [with regard to
executive sessions that contained attorney/client privileged information as well as exemptions release of executive
session information under the Public Records Act (PRA) exemptions. Council Member Bloom asked City Attorney Jeff
Taraday to clarify what is protected by attorney-client privilege (exempt from release as a public record) as well as
clarification on all things that should not be kept private from the public. Council Member Bloom further stated that she
was interested in focusing on [looking into] recording executive sessions as described by Attorney Toby Nixon who made
a recent information presentation to Council on this subject.
City Attorney J. Taraday stated that he would generally agree that the items on Mr. Nixon’s list that were considered
exempt from public records disclosure would be exempt although he has not had a chance to thoroughly cross check
every item on the list that was presented. City Attorney Taraday further stated that he was not prepared at this time to go
through the items on the list provided by Mr. Nixon (one by one) and agree or disagree although he does not have a
quarrel with the information provided. Additionally, there are certain types of executive sessions in which the PRA does
not provide clear protection.
Council Member Bloom requested that City Attorney J. Taraday provide additional clarification on items that were
considered to be attorney-client privileged. City Attorney J. Taraday stated that any time that Council meets in an
executive session regarding litigation or pending litigation, this would (in his opinion) have attorney-client privilege or work
product privilege and is non-disclosable. This covers a large portion of what is discussed in executive session.
Council Member Kristianna Johnson stated that regarding the RCW's that are covered with regard to this subject that
reference to them which could be written down for Council provided by City Attorney J. Taraday would be helpful. Council
Member Johnson made a future recommendation to consider whether or not the Council should have written rules about
how to handle notes in executive sessions.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to how the recording of executive sessions (documentation) should be handled since
the “minutes” from the session are not approved, so they are not legally minutes. Additionally, how should Council
continue to address the recording of meetings (in what form), etc.
Council Member Bloom stated that she would like everything to be recorded if possible (to the extent that it is not
protected) and that there was a need to look at two different categories of sessions - those protected and those not
protected from disclosure (under PRA).
Council Member Johnson stated that it would be important to monitor legislative changes regarding this and that Mike
Doubleday could keep the Council apprised on this subject with any changes. Council Member Johnson further inquired
as to whether or not there was a retention record regarding previous Council notes. City Attorney J. Taraday stated that
there should be a good reason for continuing to keep notes on executive sessions and/or why Council would want to
Packet Page 435 of 437
2
make a record of executive sessions since, as privileged conversations, they [the records] will be unlikely to be
disclosed. City Attorney J. Taraday further explained that a questionable reason to keep record of the executive sessions
would be so they [the records] could be disclosed in the near future. There is a risk in keeping a record of exempt items
and an audio or video is quite thorough.
Council Member Bloom stated that she liked the transparency of having all the information disclosed to the extent that it
may be disclosable but [that it seems appropriate] to just record only attorney-client privilege information until the
legislature comes out with new information.
Council Member Johnson stated that she respectfully disagreed due to the risk [of keeping such a recording] and based
on legal advice. Council Member Johnson stated that the Council should have clear rules about how executive sessions
are recorded and that it would be important to continue to monitor legislative issues with Mike and that pending checking
on further information on Council notes in executive sessions, she feels split on recording them or not.
Recommendation
None for Council at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Citizen Ken Reidy stated that he believed there is an issue with the recording of notes [such that] in the event that there is
a lawsuit related to this, it may fall under discovery in a court of law. Citizen Reidy further stated that the judge will be the
entity who will make the decision as to what is protected or attorney-client privileged. Citizen Reidy further stated that he
believes everyone would be better off if there was an audio or video recording (which does not require review and
approval) that can be used and that this is reflective of trust issue [with transparency of information].
JOB DESCRIPTIONS REVIEW
Reporting Director for HR Carrie Hite explained that the job descriptions project has been a process in the works with
WCIA and the unions. The City hired Public Sector Personnel Consultants as a consultant to this project and HR
Consultant Tara Adams and HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie have worked on the job descriptions as well as every
employee (including managers and directors) The job descriptions contain updated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
language. Out of concerns for potential financial impacts of job reclassifications, HR worked closely with the unions so
that there were no reclassification requests [with financial impacts] at this time from the job descriptions update.
There was some discussion that followed about the job descriptions in the development services department and in the
public Works department as to why some positions on the second floor of City Hall [engineering] reported to public works
and why others [planning and building] reported to the [acting] development services director.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to whether the City would look at restructuring the development services department
to provide more efficiencies and the impact of this upon job descriptions. Mayor Dave Earling stated that this issue was
currently under discussion with management and that he is aware of Council Member Bloom’s concerns and is working to
address them. Mayor Earling stated that he had been trying to understand what each department does and it responsible
for and also what each employee does [through the job descriptions]. Additionally, he has put a working group (consisting
of Phil Williams – Public Works & Utilities Director, Leonard Yarberry – Building Official, Stephen Clifton – Community
Services/Economic Development Director and Rob Chave – Acting Development Services Director) to have discussions
regarding how to package this with more of a collaborative style in the department and for ways for things to work better
but it will take time. Mayor Earling further stated that a recommendation will be put together for council approval in the
future and that he firmly believes that a more friendly city is for good quality development [but requires] a collaborative
approach.
There was further discussion that followed about re-organizations and what departments could be eligible for
reorganization.
Council Member Bloom stated that she wanted to understand the role of Council in reviewing organizational chart and job
descriptions. Reporting Director for HR Hite stated that, as she understood, Council has authority over working conditions
in job descriptions and personnel policies as well as benefits and the Mayor has responsibility and authority to hire,
terminate and discipline employees (aside from positions appointed by Council). Additionally, the Mayor can reorganize
and make recommendations on the budget but has to have financial authority from Council although he has the financial
parameters from Council to “run” the City.
Packet Page 436 of 437
3
There was further discussion that followed about the Mayor’s expectation of Council regarding the job descriptions as well
as how many more different job duties of employees were going to be affected with the voluntary separation incentive
program (VSIP). Mayor Earling stated that he has reviewed the organizational chart and the job descriptions and that he is
comfortable with the layout [of both]. Mayor Earling stated that he understood that he will make decisions [regarding a
reorganization] depending on the issues that may arise from the VSIP [or the budget], but that with feedback Council
Member Bloom about the second floor reorganization [development services] is being taken seriously and will be taken
into consideration after a thorough review has been done.
Council Member Johnson inquired as to how much more different the job duties of employees were going to be for those
positions that would be affected by the VSIP changes, etc. Reporting Director for HR Hite stated that there will be
changes. Council Member Johnson stated that in her review of the commissioned police officer positions it did not appear
that under the “Knowledge” requirements that “Federal” knowledge was required but that it should be. Also, it was
suggested that the “Maintenance Custodian” and “Custodian” position differences be reviewed.
There was some discussion that followed as to why positions were not more generic and why there were specific and
explanation by HR provided as to legal requirements, risk management, distribution of labor, performance management
and ADA requirements that necessitated specific job descriptions.
Council Member Johnson made a recommendation for the union job descriptions [SEIU, TEAMSTERS, Law Support &
EPOA] be forwarded to the next Council meeting for approval but that due to concerns with the Non-Represented job
descriptions that the Non-represented positions be discussed at another time.
Community Services Director/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton inquired as to what the preliminary
concerns may be with regard to the Non-Represented job descriptions. Council Member Johnson stated that the there
was variation in the years of experience in the Director level position as well as in the supervisory experience at the
Director level. Additionally, there was clarity needed about how education and job experience were substituted on a ratio
basis. Also, whether or not certifications should be required for the paraprofessional positions is a concern. Reporting
Director for HR Hite requested that Council Member Johnson e-mail the technical questions to HR for further looking into
before the next discussion.
Council President Strom Peterson expressed concern as to whether or not it was clear where working conditions (such as
where the Mayor gets to approve in terms of technical requirements) and changing qualifications were under Council
purview. Council President Peterson stated that some latitude should be given to administration [the Mayor] to do so.
Reporting HR Director Hite stated that she would e-mail City Attorney J. Taraday for further clarification on this.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to whether or not there are certain directors who are considered officials [as codified
in the Edmonds’ Municipal Code] and that Council has to approve these appointments. Which director positions are
considered officials and have to be approved by Council.
Recommendation
Council Member Bloom and Council Member Johnson recommended moving the represented positions [SEIU,
TEAMSTERS, Law Support & EPOA] for approval at the next council meeting on 9/18/12 and that they would arrange a
further meeting with HR on the Non-Represented job descriptions so that the Non-rep job descriptions would be able to
move forward for Council approval on 9/25/12.
ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR THE SALARY COMMISSION
Council President Peterson presented the ordinance change for the Salary Commission, wanting to allow the Commission
to meet anytime during the year if needed. The impetus for this request is to allow the Salary Commission to consider
their recommendations during the City's budget process, so they would have full information about finances before they
make a recommendation.
There was some discussion that followed by the committed.
Recommendation
It was determined that the committee was not supportive of the recommendation with respect to the decision of the Salary
Commission. Additionally, it was recommended that action toward forwarding this item to Council be delayed at this time.
The Personnel Committee adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Packet Page 437 of 437