2012.11.20 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
NOVEMBER 20, 2012
6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
2.(60 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION / FLAG SALUTE
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-5267 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 30, 2012.
B.AM-5268 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012.
C.AM-5276 Approval of claim checks #135276 through #135398 dated November 8, 2012 for
$866,660.11, and claim checks #135399 through #135519 dated November 15, 2012
for $773,414.44. Approval of payroll replacement check #51800 for the period October
16, 2012 through October 31, 2012.
D.AM-5248 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Jo Ellen Gregor ($1,447.49).
E.AM-5272 Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) for SEIU & Teamsters' unions for the 2012
medical insurance article reopener negotiation of the change to the United Healthcare
(UHC) medical insurance plan effective 2013.
F.AM-5270 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles
G.AM-5280 Request for Bid: Wastewater Treatment Disinfection and Odor Control Chemicals
H.AM-5271 Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Packet Page 1 of 998
H.AM-5271 Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds for joint funding of the Recycling Coordinator.
I.(5 Minutes)
AM-5284
Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities.
J.AM-5262 Capital Asset Policy
K.AM-5263 Banking Services RFP Recommendation
L.AM-5265 Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Okanogan County for jail services.
M.(5 Minutes)
AM-5266
Renewal of contract for services with S. Morris Company.
N.AM-5281 Authorization for Mayor to sign a $67,112.90 grant from the State through the Salmon
Recovery Board (SRFB) and the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for a
limited feasibility study for the day lighting of Willow Creek from the Edmonds Marsh
to Puget Sound.
O.AM-5282 Report on final construction costs for the Relocation of Private Electrical Services for
the Main Street Improvements (5th Ave - 6th Ave) and acceptance of project.
5.(5 Minutes)
AM-5260
Proclamation Honoring Veteran Nicholas McCallon.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
7.(15 Minutes)
AM-5273
Public Defender Annual Report
8.(15 Minutes)
AM-5274
Prosecutor Annual Report
9.(60 Minutes)
AM-5285
Presentation regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan.
10.(10 Minutes)
AM-5264
November 2012 Budget Amendment
11.(20 Minutes)
AM-5278
Public Hearing on 2013 budget.
12.(10 Minutes)
AM-5277
2013 Property Tax Ordinance
13.(60 Minutes)
AM-5279
2013 Budget Adoption
14.(10 Minutes)
AM-5261
September 2012 Quarterly Financial Report
Packet Page 2 of 998
15.(15 Minutes)
AM-5250
Referral of BC-EW and RM-EW zones to the Planning Board for review and possible
revision.
16.(15 Minutes)
AM-5251
Request City Attorney to draft moratorium on land use applications for BC-EW and
RM-EW zones.
17.(15 Minutes)
AM-5275
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of November 13, 2012.
18.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
19.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 3 of 998
AM-5267 4. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 30, 2012.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
At the November 5 City Council Meeting, Councilmember Bloom requested a verbatim transcript be
prepared for certain comments made at the October 30 City Council Meeting. She noted a discrepancy
between the draft minutes and the comments that were made by Councilmember Buckshnis related to the
Public Safety and Personnel Committee. As Councilmember Bloom chairs that committee, she requested
an exact transcription of Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments be included in the minutes rather than an
edited version.
It was the consensus of the Council to have a verbatim transcript prepared of the comments.
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes that includes a verbatim transcript of the comments made by
Councilmember Buckshnis under Agenda Item 9, Council Comments. The comments are in italics and
can be found on pages 19 and 20 of the draft minutes.
Attachments
10-30-12 Draft City Council Minutes with Verbatim Transcript of Certain Comments
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 12:20 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 12:23 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/14/2012 11:57 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 4 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
October 30, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President Pro Tem
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (arrived 7:06 p.m.)
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Strom Peterson, Council President
STAFF PRESENT
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
Carl Nelson, CIO
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Debra Sharp, Accountant
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL – MOTION TO EXCUSE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All Councilmembers were present with the exception of Council
President Peterson and Councilmember Johnson.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO, TO EXCUSE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON FROM TONIGHT’S MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON FROM TONIGHT’S MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item A, Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2012,
be removed from the Consent Agenda. Finance staff has requested an opportunity to review and make
corrections to the minutes and return them for approval at a subsequent meeting.
Packet Page 5 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #135001 THROUGH #135143 DATED OCTOBER 25,
2012 FOR $605,749.78 (REPLACEMENT CHECK #135136 $130.00).
C. 2012-2013 EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMISSIONED EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
(Councilmember Johnson arrived at 7:06 p.m.)
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO RESCIND THE MOTION TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Dale Hoggins, Edmonds, on behalf of himself and Betty Deebach Gaeng, invited everyone to observe
Veteran’s Day at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium on November 10 at 1:00 p.m. for a
guided tour of veterans’ gravesites and memorials. Over 400 veterans from Edmonds and Snohomish
County, whose military service date back to the Civil War, are buried or memorialized in the cemetery.
On Veteran’s Day, each veteran site is marked with a flag or country. Both he and Betty are Edmonds
High School graduates and members of the Alderwood Manor Heritage Association. Ms. Deebach Gaeng
is a superior genealogical researcher and the author/compiler of the book, Etched in Stone, that contains
the biography of the men whose names are etched on the memorial monument in front of the Edmonds
Museum. He invited anyone with questions to contact him; his phone number is in the telephone book.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the 2013 budget, crediting Mayor Earling with presenting a budget
that balances revenues and expenses. He thanked Finance Director Hunstock for producing a first class
budget package, particularly the comparison of the 2013 budget to up-to-date estimates for 2012 rather
than comparing to 2012 budget figures. He pointed out 2012 wages are estimated to be over budget and
exceed 2011 by 5.9%. The 2013 budget includes represented and nonrepresented employees’ salary
ranges; he suggested this be expanded in the future to include actual salaries. A balanced budget means
changes in service levels; he suggested citizens review the service level implications included in the
Mayor’s budget memo. The 2013 budget projects a General Fund balance at the end of 2013 of $3.9
million in excess of the 16% Contingency Reserve Fund. Prudent use of some of that balance is an option,
particularly for one-time expenses such as the code rewrite and as backup for the Risk Management
Reserve Fund. Balancing the budget without service cuts or tax increases will be impossible as long as
City employees receive annual COLAs plus 5% step increases until they reach the top of their salary
range. For 2013, those increases are expected to amount to 7% for represented and nonrepresented
employees. One solution is to reduce the number of employees; another alternative is to do as Fire District
1 did, seek concessions from the union, preventing layoff of some firefighters. The long term solution is
to reduce headcount by obtaining efficiencies by amalgamating municipalities. He urged the public to
attend the November 5 and 20 hearings on the budget and speak to the Council about the budget.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the bargaining agreement approved on the Consent Agenda, stating it
should have been discussed as an agenda item on tonight’s meeting. Other cities, counties and the state
inform citizens about the details in the bargaining agreements. He summarized it was wrong to approve
the bargaining agreement on the consent agenda when the Council was interested in open government.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to an Edmonds Beacon article written by former Fire Chief Tom
Tomberg suggesting the Council reconsider their decision regarding the underpass. He noted while Mr.
Packet Page 6 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 3
Tomberg was the City’s Fire Chief, he never heard him express a need for a tunnel or for pedestrian
access across the railroad tracks. Next, Mr. Hertrich reported when the City of Bremerton built a similar
underpass they experienced a number of cost overruns; it disrupted the business district and Bremerton
now has an annual cost to support the tunnel. He summarized the tunnel was a poor example of open
government as no studies have been done and there has been no public participation. He suggested
contacting officials in Bremerton to learn more about their experience.
5. MEDICAL INSURANCE COVERAGE CHANGE
Reporting Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this item is a
recommendation for the Mayor to sign several forms in the packet regarding the medical insurance
coverage change. She explained staff has been exploring options to change medical insurance since April.
Goals included, 1) cost savings, 2) identifying a similar plan, and 3) access to claims data. The City’s
current preferred provider is AWC Trust. The recommendation is to change insurance to United Health
Care, using Mercer as a broker. Staff has had many discussions regarding this change with employees and
negotiations with SEIU, Teamsters, EPOA and law support. There has been very positive feedback from
employees; all the bargaining units have agreed with the exception of Teamsters who will be discussing it
tomorrow although they have indicated preliminary support for the change.
Council action is required tonight as the City has until November 1 to withdraw their announcement to
AWC to change medical insurance; notice was provided to AWC on July 1. She referred to additional
information distributed to the Council to clarify the employer pays 100% of premiums only for EPOA
and law support; other employees pay 10% of their premiums. Information distributed to Council also
includes an Acceptance of Insurance letter from United Health Care accepting Edmonds as insured. That
confirmation was not available when the Council packet was prepared.
Ms. Hite recommended the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements to allow staff to move
forward on November 1. Open enrollment will be November 1-30; insurance is effective January 1, 2013.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENTS ALLOWING THE CITY
TO CHANGE MEDICAL PPO HEALTH COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (VSIP)
Mayor Earling explained this program, which allows employees to voluntarily separate from the City, was
presented to the Council in August. Nine employees originally expressed interest; six were accepted given
the program criteria; one employee subsequently withdrew. The intent of VSIP is to reduce salary
expenditures by eliminating positions. The goal was to achieve a savings of $400,000; actual savings will
be $488,731. One of the positions is paid by the Combined Utility Fund ($86,760) for a total savings of
$575,491.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the salary amount and medical benefits employees will
receive. Mayor Earling answered it varies based on the length of service. The program announcement in
the Council packet includes a formula for calculating salary and COBRA health benefits based on four
levels, 0-5 years of service, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, and 15+ years.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about Mayor Earling’s efforts to ensure there are no voids in
departments where an employee has left via the VSIP. Mayor Earling explained a considerable amount of
time has been devoted to redistributing workloads in departments where an employee is leaving via VSIP.
All departments feel the workloads have been adequately redistributed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked
Packet Page 7 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 4
how work will be distributed in IT when CIO Carl Nelson leaves via the VSIP. Mayor Earling answered
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock will assume some of those duties. Ms. Hite clarified there have been
some service level cuts via the VSIP. For example in the Parks & Recreation Department, the Office
Supervisor is participating in VSIP; her position will be eliminated and the Cultural Arts Assistant
Position will be moved into an Administrative Assistant position to provide support for arts, the director
and payroll. The result is internal cuts as well as cuts to the arts program.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the hours paid out at separation. Mr. Hunstock explained it is the
balance of vacation, annual leave at separation and the appropriate portion, according to the bargaining
unit contract, of any sick leave or accrued comp time balance.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND
INCENTIVE PAYOUTS FOR THOSE VOLUNTEERING TO SEPARATE FROM THE CITY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. BUDGET WORK SESSION
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock advised responses to Council questions at the October 23 budget work
session will be provided at the November 6 meeting prior to the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Council questions be posted on the City’s website so that citizens
are aware that Councilmembers have asked a number of global questions in addition to questions asked at
the October 23 meeting and that will be asked tonight. Mr. Hunstock answered that could be done.
Mr. Hunstock referred to a question regarding allocation of the savings due to bond refinancing,
explaining a $1.4 million savings was originally anticipated from the GO bond refinancing. Due to the
low interest rates, a savings of $1.9 million was realized over the life of the bonds. He will provide more
details at next week’s Council meeting during a presentation regarding the bond refinancing. The savings
were allocated in accordance with the source of the original debt service. For example, the 2002 bonds
issued for the benefit of the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA), the City provided an 8% match from
REET revenue; with the bond refinancing, 8% of any savings attributable to that bond issue are returned
to the REET fund.
Mayor Earling reminded Council that the 2013 budget is balanced. He requested any additions to the
budget be balanced with a revenue source or other budget reduction.
Mr. Hunstock noted all the organization charts in the 2013 budget document reflect the elimination of
positions via the VSIP.
Police Department – Total Department (page 70)
Mr. Hunstock referred to the organization chart, explaining this organizational chart, reflects a total
reduction of four FTE, one position eliminated via VSIP and three others.
Mr. Hunstock referred to page 71, explaining this chart reflects the total Police Department budget by
division. He pointed out Prisoner Care was moved to the Non-Departmental Budget. In addition to
moving Prisoner Care to Non-Departmental, the budget for Prisoner Care was also reduced from the
amount budgeted in 2012 ($531,050) to $486,000, a decrease of $45,000.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why Prisoner Care was moved to Non-Departmental. Mr.
Hunstock responded Non-Departmental is used for uncontrollable expenses or expenses related to
multiple departments. For example, Citywide Insurance is a Non-Departmental expense. With regard to
Packet Page 8 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 5
Prisoner Care, although the Police arrest individuals, sentencing and the length of time served is done by
another department. Dispatch, Public Defender, etc. are other examples of Non-Departmental expenses.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether there was a mechanism/tool to identify the department for
expenses that were moved to Non-Departmental. Mr. Hunstock advised that could be added if the Council
wished. There is reference on the Prisoner Care page that the expense was moved to Non-Departmental.
At the time expenses were moved to Non-Departmental, he assumed that was noted in the department
section of the budget document. This is the only expense that was moved to Non-Departmental this year.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented that she agreed with the statement that the collective bargaining
agreement should have been an agenda item. She then pointed out the police overtime budget (page 72)
increased $50,000 and asked whether an employee contract could be drafted with the Police Chief and
Assistant Police Chief to incentivize them to reduce/eliminate overtime. Mr. Hunstock explained page 72
reflects $453,000 in overtime in 2011; the 2012 estimate is $370,000. The 2013 budget is $420,000. He
clarified overtime costs are expected to be lower than budget. Police Chief Al Compaan pointed out the
2013 overtime budget of $420,000 was the same as the 2012 budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were ways to reduce Police Department overtime. Chief
Compaan pointed out the 2012 estimate was $370,000, a decrease of $80,000 compared to 2011 actuals.
He summarized the Police Department is doing the best they can to reduce overtime.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the 2013 budget for overtime be $370,000 if the 2012
estimate is $370,000. Mr. Hunstock answered the 2013 budget for overtime could be decreased based on
the 2012 estimate although the 2012 estimate is a projection and not a guarantee. Chief Compaan
explained some of the overtime is reimbursable via grants for emphasis enforcement and other purposes.
Overtime is unpredictable; for example last Friday’s shooting resulted in overtime. The $420,000
budgeted for overtime provides some cushion; if the cushion is removed, the Police Department still
needs to do the work and will request the additional funds via a budget amendment.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a cushion of less than $50,000 could be provided. Chief
Compaan answered it is a roll of the dice because overtime is unpredictable. He assured overtime money
is never wasted; it is managed as carefully as possible. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her
understanding that without a cushion or with less of a cushion, the Police Department may have to request
a budget amendment. Chief Compaan agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether having one less assistant chief and one less sergeant will result
in less or more overtime. Chief Compaan answered it would not make a difference with one less assistant
chief position as that was a nonrepresented position. The impact on overtime due to the loss of one
sergeant and two police officers is unknown. Theoretically there could be a reduction in overtime if a
certain amount of overtime is attributable to each position but the need for overtime is unpredictable.
Police– Administration (pages 74-75)
Mr. Hunstock referred to page 75, explaining the numbers reflect the loss of one assistant chief position.
The reason Interfund Rental increased is the B Fund in the General Fund is being funded in the amount of
approximately $300,000. That was not funded in 2009 or 2012. It is the opinion of Public Works and fleet
staff that funding could not be skipped a third year. All funds with equipment have funds included in their
budget in 2013 to fund the B Fund for maintenance of the City’s rolling stock.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the travel budget for the total department (page 72), relaying
$26,000 was budgeted in 2012, the 2012 estimate is $15,200, and the 2013 budget is $26,000. She
expressed concern the 2013 travel budget was $10,000 over the 2012 estimate. Chief Compaan answered
the 2013 budget is $26,000, the same as the budget for 2012. The $15,200 estimate for 2012 is likely low
Packet Page 9 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 6
when compared to 2011. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested a reduction of four FTE in the Police
Department would also reduce travel expenses.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the Training budget on page 71, assuming that was training
for the entire department. Mr. Hunstock explained page 71 is the budget by division, not object code; the
Training line may include other expenses in addition to training such as travel, etc. Page 72 is by object
code; the totals on page 71 correspond to the totals on page 72; it is simply a different way of dividing up
the Police Department budget.
Councilmember Petso recalled when the departments made their initial budget presentation, the Police
Department indicated the Street Crimes Unit would be eliminated. She asked the impact of losing that
department. Chief Compaan answered three of the four positions that are being eliminated are in Field
Services; one sergeant who is participating in the VSIP and two police officers, one of which has been
vacant and the other via a planned retirement. To maintain staffing for uniformed patrol services,
operations in the Street Crimes Unit were suspended. The Street Crimes Unit consisted of a sergeant and
two police officers who worked plain clothes patrol, targeting burglary emphasis, registered sex
offenders, prostitution, vehicle prowls, etc. Since beginning operation in 2009, the unit made nearly 400
arrests for a variety of crimes and was very instrumental in addressing the Puget Sound-wide burglaries
last year. They were a wonderful interface between uniformed patrol and the detective unit and good at
interfacing with similar units in other Police Departments. He was disappointed the Street Crimes Unit
was being eliminated but tough decisions had to be made. He summarized he was not happy about any of
the cuts but each department was required to do its part. He was hopeful at some point the Street Crimes
Unit could be reinstated.
Responding to Councilmember Petso, Chief Compaan stated there was still a robust uniform patrol that
responds to 911 calls. It does eliminate some flexibility in targeting the type of crimes he described.
Police Department – Records Management (page 76)
Chief Compaan explained the $85,000 reduction in salaries should be reflected in Patrol. There has been a
sergeant in Street Crimes and in Records Management. The sergeant in Records Management is
participating in the VSIP. The sergeant in Street Crimes will transition into Records Management, net loss
of one sergeant.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Chief Compaan to describe Holiday Buyback and if it affects overtime.
Chief Compaan explained Holiday Buyback is payment for the 11 holidays that Police Department staff
work. It is a required provision of the collective bargaining agreements. It does not affect overtime.
Holiday Buyback is part of the salary amount for pension contributions required by the State.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the reduction in health insurance was reflected in the Police
Department budget. Mr. Hunstock answered the health insurance change was not yet reflected in the
Police Department budget; when the 2013 budget was prepared, EPOA had not yet approved the change
to United Health Care. An offset, also not included, is the deferred comp contribution that is part of the
collective bargaining agreement. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for an updated comparison. Mr.
Hunstock agreed, advising preliminary estimates are approximately $15,000 for the entire department.
Police – Investigation (page 77)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed a question from Councilmember Johnson regarding the low
amount shown for 2012 estimated benefits ($169,650). Mr. Hunstock advised staff will research that.
Police – Patrol (page 79)
Councilmember Yamamoto observed with the additional $85,000 savings from Records Management,
total salary savings in Patrol are $160,000. Chief Compaan agreed.
Packet Page 10 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 7
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Police Department still had a dive team. Chief
Compaan answered yes; Fire District 1 has the boat.
Mr. Hunstock pointed out the increase in the Interfund Rental budget was due to funding the B Fund, the
increase is $161,496.
Police – Special Operations (page 80)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether this was different than the Street Crimes Unit. Chief
Compaan answered Special Operations is expenses related to participation in SWAT.
Police – K-9 Unit (page 81)
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the 2013 benefit budget was much higher than 2012 estimate. Mr.
Hunstock pointed out two changes that are not reflected; the change in health insurance offset by the
deferred comp contribution. As wages increase, typically benefits also increase. There were also increases
in other benefits such as L&I. Benefits may also be impacted by the person in the position; for example
the health insurance premium for a single person is $600/month versus $2000/month for a married person
with two dependents.
Police – Crime Prevention (page 82)
Chart shows prior year actuals only. No Council questions.
Police – Youth Services (page 83)
Chart shows prior year actuals only. No Council questions.
Police – Training (page 84-85)
Chief Compaan referred to the $20,000 decrease in Miscellaneous; it was anticipated the Police
Department would pay the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission $10,000 for each of the
two new hires who attended the academy; expenses were not as high as the State originally indicated. The
balance in Miscellaneous is training and travel expenses.
Police – Ordinance Enforcement (page 86)
Councilmember Buckshnis asked where revenue generated from licenses and tickets was reflected in the
budget. Mr. Hunstock answered it depended on the type of revenue. He referred to Total Revenue by
Fund (page 27) and Revenue by Type (page 32). Revenue from licenses could be in Licenses and Permits
and tickets could be under Fines and Penalties. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if she wanted to
increase animal licenses from $5 from $7.50 to help Animal Control be sustainable, the increased revenue
would just “flow into the bucket.” Mr. Hunstock agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if revenue from parking tickets was included in the “big revenue
bucket.” Mr. Hunstock agreed and explained cities do not track revenue by department in the General
Fund. Based on the type of revenue, some revenue can be associated with certain departments such as
permits.
Police – Traffic (page 87)
There were no Council questions.
Police – Property Management (page 88)
There were no Council questions.
Police – Prisoner Care (page 89)
Mr. Hunstock advised this was moved to Non-Departmental.
Packet Page 11 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 8
Police – Dispatch (page 90)
Mr. Hunstock advised this is the General Fund contribution to replace police radios and mobile
computers. This was not funded in 2012 but is funded in 2013.
Drug Enforcement Fund (page 134)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there would be impact on the Police Department budget if the
marijuana sale and distribution initiative passes. Chief Compaan stated staff has not researched it much. If
it passes, there will be a lot of unanswered questions such as the federal government’s response. Oregon
has a similar initiative on their ballot; a recent poll indicated that initiative is unlikely to pass.
Chief Compaan thanked Finance Department staff, particularly Mr. Hunstock and Ms. Sharp, for their
assistance with reviewing the Police Department budget. He invited Councilmembers to email him any
additional questions.
Mayor – Human Resources (page 54-55)
Mr. Hunstock explained some of the changes in the Human Resources budget are related to the addition
of a Human Resources Analyst position authorized by Council earlier this year. The decrease in
Professional Services primarily relates to not having the 2012 cost of the compensation consultant.
Mr. Hunstock relayed a question from Councilmember Buckshnis regarding wages for Ms. Hite as the
Reporting Director for Human Resources. He explained that cost is included in the Human Resources
budget. Ms. Hite explained the Salaries budget includes a Human Resources Manager, a Human
Resources Analyst which is currently being recruited, and 5% Reporting Director Special Duty Pay.
Ms. Hite relayed the impact of the 4% cut in the Human Resources budget:
• Reduction in supplies
• Eliminated onsite employee flu shots
• Reduced advertising budget
• Reduced budget for citywide tuition reimbursement program
Councilmember Petso asked how long Ms. Hite would be the Reporting Director for Human Resources.
Ms. Hite responded the Council passed an ordinance related to Special Duty Pay for one year; it is up to
the Mayor whether it would be for a year or end sooner. If it ended sooner, the Mayor would need to
determine reporting duties for the Human Resources Department.
Councilmember Petso asked about the Human Resources Analyst’s duties. Ms. Hite explained in the
absence of a Human Resources Analyst, the City has utilized temporary personnel. The Human Resources
Analyst will assume the duties of the temporary personnel as well as provide Human Resources expertise.
She anticipated the Human Resources Analyst would minimize her work in the department as well as
allow the Human Resources Manager to work at a manager/policy level.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a manager must report to a department head or could they report
to the Mayor. Ms. Hite stated the organization is up to the Mayor. It would have been difficult to have the
Human Resources Manager report to the Mayor during the past year due to the number of large, difficult
projects such as job description updates, personnel policies, Police contract, medical insurance, etc.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled previously there was only a Human Resources Manager and a
Human Resources Analyst. She was unsure who the Human Resources Manager reported to at that time.
Ms. Hite stated it is vital to have a Reporting Director for Human Resources as there are a lot of projects
that need a higher analysis and policy-level thinking. She understood that previously the Administrative
Packet Page 12 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 9
Services Director provided oversight of Human Resources. She noted there was a great deal of work to be
done in Human Resources and she was uncertain if directly reporting to the Mayor would be effective.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hite for doing double duty. It was her understanding that the
policy stated six months. Ms. Hite answered acting duty was six months; the ordinance the Council
passed in April was one year for special duty. She explained acting duty was if there was a director
position listed; the Council eliminated the Human Resources Director position. When then-Mayor Cooper
requested she oversee the Human Resources Department, she was an acting director until January when
the position was eliminated. In April the Council passed an ordinance related to special duty pay,
specifically for a person who took on special duties, for up to a year.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the personnel policy needed to be updated. Ms. Hite answered
the special duty will be included in the updated personnel policies that will be presented to the Council
shortly. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Ms. Hite spent 95% of her time in Parks & Recreation
and 5% in Human Resources. Ms. Hite answered she did not.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Professional Services budget could be reduced and asked if there
were any union negotiations in 2013. Ms. Hite answered the only negotiations is law support; that
contract expires December 2012. The cost of the compensation consultant was removed; there has always
been an amount in the Professional Services budget for special projects, negotiations or additional
assistance in the Human Resources department. She pointed out the 2011 actual for Professional Services
is $26,298 and the 2013 budget is $25,000. The $67,000 in the 2012 budget and the $57,000 in the 2012
estimate reflect decision packages for the compensation consultant.
Councilmember Petso assured she was not implying that she did not appreciate Ms. Hite’s service in
Human Resources. She recalled when the Council discussed reorganizing the Human Resources
Department, comparable cities only had a manager and analyst and no director. She questioned if the 5%
special duty pay and split duties would continue indefinitely. Ms. Hite responded the split duties would
not continue indefinitely. The budget includes funds for a Reporting Director for Human Resources,
whoever that is. She was uncertain that most comparable cities do not have a Human Resources Director;
most comparable cities have more than two people in their Human Resources Department and often have
3-5. She offered to provide the Council further information. Mayor Earling agreed with Ms. Hite, the
majority of comparable cities have more than two employees in Human Resources. He pointed out Ms.
Hite had a considerable amount of experience and understanding of Human Resources issues from her
prior employment in Kirkland.
Parks & Recreation – Total Department (page 104-105)
Ms. Hite explained the 2013 Parks & Recreation and Cultural Services budget is similar to 2012, less a
4.5% cut. She highlighted the cuts:
• Reduce seasonal parks labor – reduces corner flower beds, mowing, landscaping, trash pickup
and restroom cleaning
• Reduce irrigation at neighborhood parks and ball fields – reduces water costs and need for
mowing
• 1.5 FTE reduction at Frances Anderson Center – reduces recreation office hours and decreases
service level in arts program
• Suspend General Fund Arts Fund transfer of $15,000 until 2015, required by ordinance –
eliminates one summer concert, the arts scholarship program and use revenues from the Write on
the Sound Conference to fund arts programs
• Reduce beach range program, results in limited summer beach patrols, closing the visitor station
at the fishing pier and reducing programs
Packet Page 13 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 10
Ms. Hite pointed out the 2013 budget includes a decision package for the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space (PROS) Plan. The cost to update the plan, including the Community Cultural Plan update, is
$125,000. The PROS Plan expires in May 2014; to qualify for State grants such as the grant the City
received for the Interurban Trail, the PROS Plan must be current. She proposed beginning the update in
mid-2013 to include a public process in order to capture Edmonds citizens’ wants, needs and desires. The
decision package requires hiring a consultant; the cost could be spread over two years. If the Council only
funded half the cost of the update in 2013, Mr. Hunstock cautioned the other half is not programmed into
the 2014 projection. To the extent that half the expense is delayed until 2014 and the funds used for a
another permanent cost in 2014, there will be impacts to the 2014 budget and beyond.
Ms. Hite referred to the Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Fund (pages 154-155), explaining the fund
balance was used in 2012 and 2013. After 2013, the fund balance will be reduced to $15,000 and
consideration will need to be given to a subsidy to allow the cemetery to operate at its current level.
Ms. Hite explained the Parks & Recreation budget was developed with the same service level at Yost
Pool. Yost Pool revenue in 2012 was $124,000; direct cost expenditures were $107,000 but that does not
include Park maintenance staff, chemicals, utilities, water, etc. which total $88,000. Including all costs,
the subsidy to Yost Pool is approximately $72,000. In talking with other Parks & Recreation Directors,
she recognized pool subsidies are common other than for leisure pools that have a lot of play features.
Pools promote healthy activity and citizens prioritize them and are willing to pay for them.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the funds generated by Write on the Sound are currently used. Ms.
Hite responded the funds go into the Art Fund which is also used for arts programing. The proposal is to
only use those funds for arts programming which resulted in one less concert and cuts to the arts
scholarship program.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the proposed 80% cut to the flower program when the
Adopt-A-Flower Basket program was very successful, generating $13,300. She asked if consideration had
been given to Adopt-A-Corner for businesses and other measures that would allow the community to
contribute. Ms. Hite agreed that was a possibility. She noted the reduction on page 105 was a very small
portion of the cost of the flower program. The most expensive portion of the flower program is the two
FTEs and the nursery to grow the flowers. The comment that the flower program was cut by 80% is not
accurate; the cut is to seasonal labor associated with the flower program. There are still two FTEs
associated with the flower program. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the reduction from the 2012
estimate of $34,977 to $8,394. Ms. Hite responded the flower program is a $170,000 program. Mr.
Hunstock explained there are expenses in other funds in addition to the General Fund related to the flower
program. There are two FTEs funded in the Parks Department that work in the flower program whose cost
is reflected in the General Fund, not the flower program. If the cost of the two FTEs was included in the
flower program, the program would be subsidized by $150,000.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested passing the hat at free concerts. Ms. Hite agreed that was a great
idea. She noted the former City Attorney had concern with accepting cash in the park; she will work with
Mr. Taraday on that issue.
Councilmember Petso asked about the reduction in hours at the Frances Anderson Center (FAC). Ms.
Hite answered the hours at the FAC will be reduced by five hours a week, primarily evening and Saturday
drop-in hours; the FAC will close at 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Councilmember Petso asked if the reduction
would affect people coming to the FAC in the evening to shoot hoops. Ms. Hite answered it is possible.
Parks & Recreation – Administration (page 107)
Mr. Hunstock explained, as Ms. Hite mentioned, there is a 0.5 FTE reduction and a small decrease in
Professional Services.
Packet Page 14 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 11
Councilmember Bloom asked for the definition of professional services. Mr. Hunstock offered to provide
the generic description of the type of expenses paid under professional services. Professional services
differ depending on the division; in Finance, the sales tax auditing/monitoring is a professional service.
Councilmember Bloom asked what professional services were cut. Ms. Hite answered professional
services in Parks & Recreation vary by division. In the administration budget, the professional services
are monitors for contracted staff who monitor buildings during off-hour rentals. This line item is being
reduced due to a transition to hired hourly staff, which is less expensive than contract staff.
Parks & Recreation – Recreation & Cultural Services (page 108)
Mr. Hunstock pointed out there has been a $59,000 reduction in this division. Ms. Hite advised this
category covers many recreation programs including children and adult classes, dance classes, camps, etc.
The budget for 2013 for this division is $907,000; revenues total $691,000.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about supplies, observing 2011 actuals were $1,947, the 2012
budget was $33,506, the 2012 estimate is $16,000 and 2013 budget is $20,835. Ms. Hite responded these
are recreational supplies. In 2012 the City received a Verdant grant to cover the supplies for the Cross-Fit
Kids Camp. Enrollment was not as high as anticipated and not as much was expended on supplies. The
2013 budget anticipates spending some grant funds for recreational supplies. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas commented the grant funds are not shown. Ms. Hite answered the grant funds are included in the
$691,000 revenue she cited. The 2012 budget included an explanation regarding the Verdant grant.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if consideration had been given to asking Verdant for a grant to
subsidize Yost Pool. Ms. Hite answered staff has had several discussions with Verdant regarding several
programs. Verdant is interested in new health-related programs, not necessarily paying for current
programs. Verdant supported Hospital District-wide free swim lessons for all third graders. The City sent
out swim vouchers to all third graders that were reimbursed by Verdant.
Parks & Recreation – Discovery Program (page 109)
Due to cuts in this program, Ms. Hite advised the budget for salaries should be approximately $37,900,
instead of $65,246; and benefits should be $8,247 instead of $8,643. The 2013 budget total expenditure is
$51,582. The revenue for this program area is $24,000. Mr. Hunstock advised the savings will be
reflected on the spreadsheet of all the changes either Council or Administration has identified.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether consideration has been given to getting the groups to become
non-profit, like Off Leash Area Edmonds that stewards the dog park and the City only picks up garbage.
Ms. Hite answered that is always a possibility and worthy of exploration and discussion.
Councilmember Bloom asked if Parks & Recreation would exceed the 4% across-the-board reduction
with this additional reduction. Ms. Hite answered $10,000 was cut from this budget, the numbers simply
do not reflect that.
Councilmember Bloom commented she was aware budget cuts were necessary but this environmental
program seems like a good program. Ms. Hite agreed it was an excellent program, well loved by the
community as is the flower program, park maintenance, etc. The portion of the program that goes into
classrooms that has a broad impact on school children was retained.
Councilmember Petso asked if this program still had some utility program funding. Ms. Hite answered it
does, it funds half the recreation coordinator who oversees this program. Her salary is not in this budget,
it is in the Recreation & Cultural Arts budget. The salaries in this division are for the Ranger Naturalist
and the summer Beach Rangers and Interpretive Specialist.
Packet Page 15 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 12
Parks & Recreation – Aquatics (page 110)
Ms. Hite advised the revenue for this division in 2012 was $123,000; 2013 revenue is projected to be
$126,000. There is a surplus of revenue to operations, but that does not include Parks maintenance,
chemicals or utility costs.
Parks & Recreation – Athletics (page 111)
Ms. Hite advised the revenue for this budget is $110,000.
Parks & Recreation – Day Camps (page 112)
Ms. Hite advised the revenue for this program area is $109,000.
Parks & Recreation – Fitness (page 113)
Ms. Hite advised the revenue for this program area is $95,000.
Parks & Recreation – Gymnastics (page 114)
Ms. Hite advised the revenue for this program area is $133,000.
Mr. Hunstock pointed out most of the recreation programs generate revenue; cutting a program that
generates revenue does not result in any savings.
Parks & Recreation – Meadowdale Preschool (page 115)
Ms. Hite advised the 2013 budget for salaries should be $25,628; the total cost is $32,638. Proposed 2013
revenue for this program area is $39, 280.
Parks & Recreation – Parks Maintenance (pages 116-117)
Ms. Hite advised there is no revenue generated by this program area. She previously described cuts made
to this program area.
Parks & Recreation – Flower Program (page 118)
Ms. Hite advised there is also approximately $30,000 budgeted in the REET 125 for the flower program
as well as funds in the General Fund.
Municipal Arts Fund (pages 141-142)
Ms. Hite answered $15,000 is transferred from the General Fund by ordinance to this fund. That is one of
the Parks & Recreation Department proposed cuts.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the ordinance would be presented to the Finance Committee. Ms.
Hite answered yes; an amendment to the ordinance will be required to suspend the transfer until 2015.
Councilmember Bloom asked about the $80,000 in professional services. Ms. Hite answered it is for the
Write on the Sound Conference which generates revenue. She offered to provide Council revenues figures
from the 2012 Write on the Sound Conference.
Councilmember Petso referred to professional services ($11,000 in 2011, $30,000 estimated for 2012, yet
the 2012 and the 2013 budget is $80,000). Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin advised most of the
$80,000 was a set-aside for a public art project on the exterior of the Senior Center building that the Arts
Commission felt was a priority; because of other projects, it has not proceeded. The amount varies year to
year.
Memorial Street Tree Fund (page 143)
Councilmember Bloom asked what the fund is for and how it is allocated. Ms. Hite answered Parks
Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay recalled this fund was established when the Street Tree Plan was
Packet Page 16 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 13
adopted. Revenue from citizens who want to support the Street Tree Program is collected in this fund.
Funds are expended from this fund and from Parks maintenance for street trees; there is not a consistent
method.
Youth Scholarship Fund (page 146)
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with reducing scholarships for summer recreational programs.
Ms. Hite clarified expenditures from the fund are not being reduced; the fund balance will be used to
continue providing the same scholarship levels. Staff will seek donations to replenish the fund.
Tourism Promotional/Arts Fund (page 147)
There were no Council questions.
REET 2 – Parks Improvement Fund 125 (page 148)
Councilmember Petso recalled Ms. Hite said some of the funding for the flower program was from one of
the REET funds. She asked how that was possible in that the flower program was not a capital expense.
Ms. Hite answered the State Legislature passed legislation two years ago (expires in 2015) that allowed
the use of REET for Parks operations and maintenance. The City has often funded the flower program
from REET. That was an issue in an audit prior to the passage of that legislation and the REET fund had
to be replenished. Of the $36,000 in supplies, $30,000 is the flower program, and $6,000 is flower poles.
Councilmember Petso pointed out there was only $29,000 budgeted for supplies. Ms. Hite indicated she
would research that.
If the Council found reductions in the flower program unacceptable, Councilmember Petso asked if
funding from the REET Parks Improvement Fund could be increased. Ms. Hite answered the Council
could but it would impact other projects including set-asides for larger projects and/or the fund balance.
REET 1 – Special Capital/Parks Acquisition Fund 126 (page 149)
Mr. Hunstock pointed out the budget and actuals for debt principal and interest have decreased which
reflects the impact of the bond refinancing. This included the anticipated $1.4 million savings which was
actually a $1.9 million savings. This page will be updated to reflect the additional savings in 2013.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the $200,000 budgeted for purchase of land. She asked what land was
being purchased. Ms. Hite answered it was a placeholder in the event an opportunity to purchase land
arose. She acknowledged it was not a lot of money but was an amount that could fit in this budget.
Gifts Catalog Fund (pages 150-151)
Ms. Hite advised the Adopt-A-Flower Basket revenue was allocated in this fund. Those funds can be used
for the flower program in 2013.
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Fund (page 154)
Ms. Hite reiterated her previous comments that the fund balance is reduced to $15,000 in 2013.
Parks Construction Fund (page 156)
Ms. Hite advised due to the success of community donations for the Hazel Miller Plaza, the CIP identified
an $80,000 transfer from the Parks Construction Fund back to REET 125 Fund. Mr. Hunstock advised
that will be reflected in the 2012 estimate.
Councilmember Bloom asked about the $1,887,500 in the 2013 budget for professional services. Ms. Hite
responded the Parks Construction Fund is used to receive grants and transfers from REET. The 2013
budget includes City Park; staff expects a $500,000 State grant if the State does not cut the budget for
WWRP grant program. Another $500,000 is allocated in the CIP for City Park Revitalization as well as
$300,000 in donations staff plans to seek for the project, a total of $1.3 million. The budget also includes
Packet Page 17 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 14
Dayton Street Plaza. The other $500,000 is for the Senior Center parking lot which is subject to a CBDG
grant. The cost of those projects is all professional services as the work on the projects is outsourced. Mr.
Hunstock referred to a project list on page 182.
Parks Trust Fund (pages 158-159)
There were no Council questions.
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund (page 160)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund was established by
ordinance. She asked whether use of the funds were restricted only by ordinance or were there other
restrictions. Ms. Hite answered it was her belief there were other regulations on the trust. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday advised he would need to research it; the fact that it is identified as a trust rather than a fund
implies there are restrictions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with researching it, noting it has a
balance of $800,000. Ms. Hite noted there is merit in building the trust large enough so the interest can be
used as a self-sustaining structure for the cemetery. If the capital is spent and that structure eroded, an
ongoing subsidy of the cemetery will be required. She noted other cemeteries have a similar trust and use
the interest to maintain their cemetery. Mr. Hunstock commented investment income has been limited in
recent years. Staff recently began purchasing CDs which provide a significantly higher return.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the annual cost to maintain the cemetery including staff.
Ms. Hite answered the cost to maintain the cemetery is $150,000/year; that includes one FTE and
supplies. Revenue is approximately $120,000/year. The City has been subsidizing the cemetery by
approximately $30,000/year since the FTE was moved to the Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Fund.
It was her understanding the Cemetery Sexton was originally funded by the General Fund; when cuts
were made in 2009, the budget for that position was moved to the Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Fund. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the $800,000 fund balance could fund the $30,000/year
subsidy for 5-10 years until the economy improves, particularly when consideration is being given to
closing parks, eliminating programs, or staff layoffs or reducing services further. Ms. Hite agreed that can
be investigated; the Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Fund is balanced for 2013 which leaves time
for that research. Mr. Hunstock said the goal is to cover the subsidy with investment income.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Public Works & Utilities (page 120-121)
Public Works Director Phil Williams reviewed 2013 project priorities:
• Water
o Complete design, bidding, and construction of the 2013 water main replacement program
including 7,500 feet of new mains (1.5 miles) and 80 new or replaced services - $2.1 million
o 7.5% rate increase in accordance with the 2010 Water Comprehensive Plan
• Wastewater
o Lift Station Improvement Program - update/replace 12 of the City’s 14 wastewater pumping
stations - $3.55 million
o Design and construct over 5,000 feet of sewer main replacements - $3,000,000
o 5% Rate increase as a ramp-up to a new CIP from the upcoming Wastewater Comprehensive
Plan
In response to a question regarding grants, Mr. Williams explained there are few grants for utilities as
rates can be set to generate revenues. There are loans available; staff is pursuing a $4.5 million Public
Works Trust Fund Loan. He continued his review of 2013 projects/priorities:
• Stormwater
o SW Edmonds Drainage Project (238th /104th) - $650,000
o Vactor Waste Decant Facility - $300,000
Packet Page 18 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 15
o New NPDES Permit Compliance date - 08/01/2013
o Upgrade and revise maintenance procedures and frequencies
o Incorporate low impact development (LID) into development codes
o 8.0 % rate increase in accordance with the 2010 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan
• Transportation
o Finalize design, bid, and construct the Five Corners Roundabout - $3,124,000
cost increased from $2.5 million to $3 million due to inclusion of replacement of the old
cast-iron waterlines in the intersection in the 2013 Waterline Replacement Program,
funded by the Water Utility
o Complete design/ROW in 2012/2013 for 228th/Hwy. 99 safety and access improvement -
$720,000 ($4,073,000 Construction 2014)
o Complete Design/begin ROW 76th/212th - $450,000
o Begin detailed design of Sunset Avenue Walkway - $88k – 2013 ($901k – 2014)
Mr. Williams emphasized the need to establish an on-going source of revenue for street preservation
(pavement preservation) - $1,500,000 per year.
Mr. Williams displayed and reviewed the Administration/Facilities/Engineering budget (page 122),
pointing out the 85% increase in Interfund Rental to fund the B Fund. He reviewed the following:
• Administration (page 123)
o Executive Assistant position reduced to 0.8 FTE saving $11,000+
• Facilities (page 125)
o $52,000+ savings target reached through anticipated energy savings from the upcoming
ESCO project and line item cuts.
o Line item cuts will sharply reduce minor upgrades and replacements, i.e. carpet, paint,
cabinets, etc.
o Continue operating down one custodial position
o Will need to do a budget amendment either now or in 2013 for the FAC Roof
• Engineering (page 124)
o Need to deliver numerous significant capital projects in 2013 and beyond in all three utilities
and transportation. 2013 budget includes a decision package for an additional project
manager position fully paid for by savings, less expensive by half compared to hiring a
consultant
o Off-setting revenue from the Utilities for development review related to the City’s rights-of-
way, will meet $52,000+ budget savings target. Interfund charges increased
With regard to the above offset, Mr. Hunstock explained to the extent development review is done for a
utilities-related purpose, the Utility Fund would reimburse the General Fund for that cost. It is not shown
as a budget reduction in the General Fund but as a General Fund revenue.
Councilmember Petso recalled funding for the decision package for an additional person in Engineering
was to be from the Utility Fund only. She asked if the funding should be split if the person oversaw
transportation projects. Mr. Williams agreed whatever projects are assigned to the new position, that
capital project will be charged, not the General Fund. Mr. Hunstock explained in the list of decision
packages, the cost is allocated 1/3 to each Utility Fund; it would be to capital projects within each of those
Utility Funds. Mr. Williams assured if the person was assigned to a transportation project, their time/costs
would be charged to the transportation project, which likely would be funded by a transportation grant.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the additional engineer FTE was included in the budget. Mr.
Hunstock answered none of the decision packages are included in the budget.
Packet Page 19 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 16
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas found it difficult to cut police while adding an engineer. Mr. Williams
commented the decision package stands on its own merits because it will save money. These are funded
projects for which the project management will be done by a new staff person or a consultant.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the funding source for the projects. Mr. Williams answered
they have grant funding or capital funding via the utility. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed
interest in researching this further.
Water Fund 421(page 168)
Mr. Williams explained the Water Fund is presented differently in the 2013 budget than it was in the past.
The sheet on page 169 includes both water capital and water maintenance. Previously the O&M for all
three utilities was contained in Fund 411, Combined Utility Fund. He pointed out the beginning fund
balance included assets such as the waterlines; of the $17.6 million in the 2013 budget, there is
approximately $5 million in cash. He referred to Revenue Bond Proceeds in the 2012 estimate, explaining
that was unlikely to occur in 2012 and would more likely be $4.7 million in 2013.
Storm Water Fund (page 171)
Mr. Williams explained similar to the Water Fund, the Revenue Bond anticipated to be issued in 2012,
will be issued in 2013.
Sewer / WWTP Fund (pages 174-175)
Mr. Williams referred to $3.8 million in Revenue Bonds in the 2012 estimate, anticipating the Revenue
Bond will likely be replaced with a $4.5 million Trust Fund Loan at 1% interest for 20 years. He will
provide further information regarding capital projects upon completion of the Wastewater Comprehensive
Plan.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to a document provided by South Snohomish County Cities that
indicated Edmonds’ sewer and water rates are considerably lower than surrounding cities. Mr. Williams
agreed Edmonds’ sewer rates are quite favorable. He referred to page 175, $6.5 million in expenditures
for sewer and treatment plant capital projects.
Equipment Rental Fund (page 177)
Mr. Williams referred to 2012 estimated Interfund Income of $1,052,791 and $1,344,372 for the 2013
budget which reflects funding of the B Fund in 2013. The difference is the General Fund portion of the B
Fund contribution, approximately $300,000.
Mr. Williams provided a rate comparison of the average monthly single family utility bill changes (based
on 500 cf/month without taxes):
Utility Bill 2012 2013 Difference
Water fixed fee $20.60 $22.15 $1.55
Water/HCF/748 gal $10.70 $11.50 $0.80
Sewer $25.32 $26.59 $1.27
Stormwater $10.47 $11.31 $0.84
Total $67.09 $71.55 $4.46
Taxes 2012 2013 Difference
Water fixed fee $3.85 $4.14 $0.29
Water/HCF/748 gal $2.00 $2.15 $0.15
Sewer $2.53 $2.66 $0.13
Stormwater $1.05 $1.13 $0.08
Total $9.43 $10.08 $0.65
Grand Total $76.52 $81.63 $5.11 (6.7%)
Packet Page 20 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 17
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the Street Fund was asking for an additional $100,000 from the
General Fund. Mr. Williams answered revenue sources for the Street Fund, gas tax and TBD revenues are
declining or not increasing, yet costs increase which does not leave enough money for operations and
maintenance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the $100,000 would be returned if the legislature
increases the Councilmanic TBD authority. Mr. Williams answered if approved by the legislature, it
would give cities with a TBD the option of adding an additional $20. Approval by the TBD Board would
be required. An additional $20 vehicle license fee would generate an additional $600,000/year. He
suggested the additional revenue could be used to make up the difference between revenues and expenses
for O&M and the balance be used for some pavement preservation.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the new apartments on Edmonds way would increase the
population and the annual vehicle fee collected by the TBD. Mr. Williams did not assume the 89
apartments generated 170 new residents; some were likely from elsewhere in Edmonds. He summarized
the City’s population is not increasing.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for Mr. Hunstock breaking out the enterprise funds
and for including beginning fund balances, revenues and expenditures.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there would be an additional cost for fast tracking the Transportation
Element to include an underpass. Mr. Williams answered hiring a consultant to fast track the
Transportation Element would require funding. The source that was most likely to be receptive to a
request for funding for a project was the Freight Mobility Board; unfortunately, the opportunity to make
that request was last week. The City could apply for funding again in 1-2 years.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was prudent to include a project in the CFP/CIP without having it
in the Transportation Element. Mr. Williams answered the Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2009;
it will be updated again in 2015. The Comprehensive Plan could be amended to include that project;
typically Comprehensive Plan updates occur every six years. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the
Comprehensive Plan amendment could be fast tracked to include the underpass so it can be included in
the CFP/CIP. Mr. Williams stated the schedule could be compressed, and noted the funding opportunity
that existed is no longer available, although he acknowledged there may be other funding opportunities.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Williams relayed a question from Councilmember Yamamoto regarding rental of City buildings such
as the Library, Boys and Girls Club, Museum, etc. Mr. Williams explained the library pays its own
electric bill and direct labor costs for custodial work, the City pays the gas bill, and SnoIsle pays no rent.
Neither the Boys and Girls Club nor the Museum pay rent. There is approximately $900/month in rental
revenue from the old Public Works building, the Chamber of Commerce pays some rent on space they
occupy in City Hall, and $200/month for the cabin.
Mr. Williams summarized:
• Public Works Department met and exceeded budget reduction targets for 2013
• Utility rate adjustments for 2013 are budgeted at 7.5% Water, 8% Stormwater, 5% Sewer
• Engineering Division Decision Package
Councilmember Bloom asked if there was one page that summarized Public Works and what budget
reductions were made: Mr. Williams responded Public Works and Utilities only have three subfunds that
the General Fund contributes to, Administration, Facilities and Engineering (page 120). In
Packet Page 21 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 18
Administration, an $11,000 savings was realized by reducing the Executive Assistant position to 0.8 FTE.
In Facilities, the $52,000 savings will be reached through anticipated savings from the ESCO project and
line item cuts such as carpet and paint. In Engineering, the $52,000 savings will be from interfund transfer
from Utilities to the General Fund for development review. He noted the propane conversion will save
approximately $60,000/year in fuel costs and will be reflected in several department budgets.
Councilmember Bloom asked how many engineers there are in Public Works, noting the decision
package was for another engineer. City Engineer Rob English answered there are 12 FTEs in
Engineering; 4 licensed professional engineers including him; the remainder are capital project managers,
technicians and an administrative assistant. The position in the decision package would be an engineering
technician or a capital project manager. Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Williams to explain why he
was proposing a decision package. Mr. Williams advised the water, wastewater and storm water utilities
have numerous capital projects; those projects need to be managed. In addition there are numerous
transportation projects with grant funding that need to be delivered in the next 3+ years. Rather than hire
consultants for three years at a much higher rate, it would be preferable to hire an internal staff member to
provide those services. The only reason is to save the City money.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the need for a code rewrite which affects all departments. She found it
difficult to allocate funds for an engineer for Public Works without first addressing code issues and when
Development Services was cutting one FTE. Mr. Hunstock explained it is not allocating funds to an
engineering-type position that could be used for something else. The expense will occur; the money will
either be paid to consultants at a higher rate or expended on a staff person at a lower rate.
Councilmember Petso referred to the utility rate increases, noting the water and stormwater have
previously been presented to the Council; the 5% sewer rate increase is new. She asked whether a public
hearing is required for a rate increase. Mr. Williams advised the change in the rates must be done by
ordinance. That is scheduled for November 5.
Councilmember Petso asked whether Council has authorized construction of the Five Corners roundabout
or only the design. Mr. Williams answered it is in the CIP; the Council approved the CIP, and funding is
available. Councilmember Petso asked whether the contract had been awarded. Mr. Williams answered
once the project is bid in the spring, a construction contract will be presented to the Council.
Councilmember Petso asked about funding the City received for 5th Avenue and whether similar funding
could be obtained for other streets. Mr. Williams answered the Interagency Coordinating Committee
(ICC) prioritizes federal funding allocated by Puget Sound Regional Council. The ICC recommended
some funds be set aside for preservation; every jurisdiction had an opportunity to apply for funds. The
waterline project on 5th from Elm to Walnut was used as a match to the grant funds to overlay the corridor
as well as upgrade ADA ramps.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hunstock advised next week’s Council meeting includes two public hearings, one on revenues and
the other on the 2013 budget. He will provide a list of proposed changes and their impact on the 2013
budget at next week’s meeting. The Council can prioritize the list or wait until budget deliberations on
November 20.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling looked forward to thousands of children coming downtown on Halloween. Due to
concerns with limited lighting on Main Street between 5th and 6th, 100 flashlights will be provided at both
ends of the street.
Packet Page 22 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 19
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso corrected the statement she made last week regarding the zoning of the new
buildings on Edmonds Way; the building that has two additional properties with like zoning is the
building to the east, the larger building. Incentives in the current code allow a base height of 25 feet, 15
additional feet for a 4-foot setback and other requirements and an additional 5 feet for architectural
features, which allows a 45 foot tall building. She met with staff and Mr. Taraday last week to discuss the
zoning. There is staff support for having the Planning Board review the two zones to ensure the result of
the incentive zoning is the desired outcome. She suggested a moratorium also be adopted so that
development applications are not received while the Planning Board is conducting their review. Even if
the Planning Board’s review was expedited, it would not be completed until at least January.
Councilmember Petso recommended the referral to the Planning Board and a moratorium be discussed at
the next committee meeting. She advised approval of four Councilmembers was necessary for City
Attorney Jeff Taraday to draft a moratorium ordinance for view at the committee.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the next committee meeting is November 13. If the Planning
Board can review the code by January, that leaves only six weeks, three of which are holidays. She
agreed it needed to be discussed at the committee meeting.
Mayor Earling clarified staff was supportive of Planning Board review but took no position on a
moratorium.
Note: The following comments made by Councilmember Buckshnis are provided verbatim:
“I’ve had a number of conversations recently with fellow Councilmembers, citizens, Mayor Earling and
our attorney and some directors regarding what I would classify as process issues as opposed to issues of
substance. Yes, there are some process issues that are substantive but I would like to provide some
examples to help all of us understand my thought processes.
Recently we have been looking over a number of resolutions that in my opinion deal with processes. As an
example, currently there is an issue regarding Resolution 292, dated 1974, that apparently outlines how
Council meetings should be handled rather than Roberts Rules of Order. This issue among other items
such as thirteen ranking motions, meeting procedures, how Councilmembers should conduct themselves
during and outside of meetings are all being reviewed by the Public Safety/Personnel Committee.
Additionally, they have also worked on rewriting job descriptions.
While I’m not in any way criticizing this committee for taking on these tremendous tasks of updating these
policies that for years have had little or no problems, my concern is that we are attempting to nitpick or
micromanage everything that is not really our role to do as legislators. Sure, I’m guilty of
micromanaging a bit when I saw that there were few policies or procedures in place in the finance area
but I did not write those policies or procedures. I merely asked and provided examples. And then when I
didn’t get an answer, I asked and provided more examples and that was my role. I saw it as substantive
and a process was left to the staff. So really it’s a matter of looking at what really is a process and what
really is substance.
When I retire, I’m not concerned that I will be remembered for not knowing the parliamentary procedures
found in Roberts Rules of Order or that the thirteen ranking motions or other issues in this manual that I
have read and understand. When I do retire, I want to be remembered for my consistent challenges to the
City’s financial team to change its financial reporting so that every fund is identified and every report
reconciles. Do want to be remembered for making staff create policies and procedures so that we don’t
Packet Page 23 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 30, 2012
Page 20
see another Haines Wharf. I do want to be remembered for requiring significant changes to our budget
amendments to ensure correct versions, correct numbering and that each amendment is documented and
explained and that all numbers reconcile. In this regard, the Finance Committee can fully vet documents
and instances such as removing the police holiday buyback which was similar to union furloughs which
slipped through the cracks via the amendment that was approved at midnight City Council and thus
causing much resentment among the unions.
I do want to be remembered for putting citizens’ voices in the land use decisions. I also want to be
remembered for requiring the first ever reserve policy for the City. I do want to be remembered,
unfortunately, for having to put sanctions on a fellow Councilmember when in fact it was clear he acted
not in the best interest of the City. I don’t care if I’m criticized for not understanding Roberts Rules of
Order or how to handle myself as instructed in Resolutions 292, 150 or any other outdated information in
this manual. I can go on but I think you can all now catch my drift and I am almost out of time.
But what I do want to do is remember that the City Council has operated this way for many years. I will
be asking Mr. Peterson to bring back these outdated resolutions, 292, 853, 150 to come to us in the
following weeks and allow each of us to decide if we want to vote like me to remove these items before
going over them and just move on.
Additionally, I would like to reconsider the executive session notes that we tasked Mr. Taraday to craft
because once again, after I did my own research, after asking for empirical evidence from the committee
and I found out that, yes, it is a huge issue and that I’ve spoken to a few prominent Mayors, former
Councilmembers and a few fellow Councilmember friends. They of course have convinced me that I need
to change my view on this.
Lastly, I’d like to speak to the cat containment law which I now understand is back in discussion in Public
Safety. Whatever the outcome, I would like to bring forward a public hearing that both Ms. Petso and Ms.
Fraley-Monillas requested. During the Halloween Howl at the dog park, I was bombarded by comments
about sneaking in the cat containment rescission along with the off leash dog park laws. Just because
tickets are not issued does not mean that the law is or was not enforced. I know of only one scoop the
poop law and yet, do we want to remove that law from our books? It’s the same idea.
So again, we need to look back at substances versus process. And I think we need to realize we cannot
continue to micromanage our staff and the Mayor. Thanks for your time. Pray for the people and animals
on the east coast.”
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Packet Page 24 of 998
AM-5268 4. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
11-05-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 12:18 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 12:23 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/14/2012 12:12 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 25 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
November 5, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
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
Rob Chave, Interim Development Services Dir.
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debra Sharp, Accountant
Rob English, City Engineer
Gina Janicek, Associate Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All Councilmembers were present with the exception of
Councilmember Buckshnis.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS.
Councilmember Petso commented the Council has not yet developed standards for excusing
Councilmember absences. Because she had prior knowledge that Councilmember Buckshnis would be
absent tonight, she will support the motion excusing her.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
2. MEET WITH CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD.
At 6:50 p.m., Mayor Earling stated the City Council would next meet with a candidate for appointment to
the Architectural Design Board (ADB), Cary Guenther. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting
Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. The meeting with Mr. Guenther was open to the public and
all Councilmembers were present.
Packet Page 26 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 2
Mayor Earling reconvened the meeting at the dais in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2012.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #135144 THROUGH #135275 DATED NOVEMBER 1,
2012 FOR $131,486.85. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS
#51772 THROUGH #51787 FOR $462,236.65, BENEFIT CHECKS #51788 THROUGH
#51799 & WIRE PAYMENTS OF $195,441.47 FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 16, 2012
THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2012.
D. APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS' BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD, OCTOBER 2012.
E. CONFIRM ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CANDIDATE CARY GUENTHER TO
THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS PUBLIC
FACILITIES DISTRICT REGARDING DISPLAY OF CHIHULY ARTWORK.
G. COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY
REPORT - OCTOBER, 2012.
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 30, 2012
Councilmember Bloom thanked the citizen who brought to the City’s attention a discrepancy between the
minutes and the comments by Councilmember Buckshnis. Because Councilmember Buckshnis’
comments referenced work by the committee she chairs, the Public Safety and Personnel Committee, she
requested an exact transcription of Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments be included in the minutes
rather than an edited version.
It was the consensus of the Council to have a verbatim transcript prepared and approval of the October
30, 2012 minutes delayed.
5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF BILL BRAYER, FOUNDER OF MS HELPING HANDS.
Mayor Earling commented although people may be aware of the good work done by MS Helping Hands,
few are aware of the extent of what Mr. Brayer has given to the community. Mayor Earling read a
proclamation describing Mr. Brayer’s efforts and asking all citizens of Edmonds to join him in thanking
Mr. Brayer for his dedication and hard work on behalf of the MS cause and also in congratulating him on
his well-deserved retirement.
Packet Page 27 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 3
Bill Brayer, Co-Founder, MS Helping Hands, expressed his appreciation for the proclamation. He
explained receiving a proclamation from the City completes the circle; he received an award from
Congress, the Governor of Washington and now the City of Edmonds. He was honored to represent MS
Helping Hands which he and his wife co-founded in 1998. It will be in good hands with his retirement
with Executive Director Jan Vance and new President, Traci Shepard.
6. VIDEO ANNOTATION OF AGENDAS.
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained this is a demonstration of a concept only at this point. Staff
is not prepared to provide specific costs, vendors or options. Before investigating this concept further,
staff wanted to ensure Council was interested in staff pursuing it.
CIO Carl Nelson commented one of his interests was keeping costs down. Therefore he began with using
existing systems, such as Agenda Quick which is provided by Destiny Software, to add a feature that
provides access to video of specific City Council agenda items. He demonstrated how that could work via
accessing the agenda from the City’s webpage.
Council President Peterson asked if that could be done utilizing the current structure and technology. Mr.
Nelson answered there would be a series of phases/steps. The first step would be sending the video that is
currently captured to the vendor who would index it to the agenda, assign buttons to specific agenda items
and make it available within an amount of time that is negotiated. The second step would be to swap out
some of the current technology so that as meetings are recorded, they would be sent to the vendor who
would do the indexing and provide access within 4-10 hours. Once the video is digitally captured, an
automated broadcast station would be possible that replaces the software/hardware for Channel 21/39 and
pulls directly from the storage sources. The final step would be to increase the quality of the video to high
definition. Some vendors have suggested a remote control feature where they take control of the cameras
as part of their fees and services; that would be a future step.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about live steaming. Mr. Nelson advised all vendors offer live
streaming but there has been some reluctance on the Council’s part as well as the potential for the public
to use live streaming to their advantage such as grandstanding in a manner that causes a public
nuisance/outcry. The preference would be a 5-10 second delay. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed
her understanding that a number of nearby cities have live steaming.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed citizens unable to attend meetings have said that live streaming
would allow them to watch Council meetings from home as they occur. Mr. Nelson stated live streaming
would be part of the proposal; it would be up to the Council whether they wanted it.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the chart illustrating the possible system and inquired about
the section entitled improved Council Chambers and remote control. Mr. Nelson answered that would be
replacing the existing cameras with high definition and remote control so a vendor could do the video
recording. Having a vendor do the recording is usually a fixed price per meeting or a number of meetings
per year. That would assist in the budgeting process by predetermining the cost of videoing, indexing,
having them available online, and stored.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed remote control would allow a vendor to do the recording from
a remote site. Mr. Nelson agreed.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the intent of phasing is to determine cost and fit it into
the budget. Mr. Nelson answered the intent of phasing is to put the technology in place, change the
business practices with the technology and then go to the next step. He clarified it was not that it could
Packet Page 28 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 4
not be funded all at once but he did not think it would be wise to do it all at once. He suggested using the
video that is already captured and annotating the agendas and then considering how the technology can be
improved to provide a better product. An improved system would also allow videotaping capacity outside
the Council Chambers; the vendors indicated the City’s fiber optics would allow remote video access.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether staff would provide final figures regarding Phase 1 in advance of
the Council finalizing the 2013 budget. Mr. Nelson hoped so. If the Council gives approval, he will
pursue the vendors to get costs and more specifics.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Councilmember Yamamoto, who has been working with Mr.
Nelson, to provide input regarding how this would benefit citizens. Councilmember Yamamoto
responded in the long run it would include upgrading the current system which would allow recording of
remote meetings such as a meeting in the Brackett Room. There are future cost savings. The system
would be easier to manipulate and does not require any special training or requirements. Other advantages
include the ability to record and broadcast other meetings as well as provide additional information live
on Channels 21/39. Phasing will allow additional features to be added which will also increase the cost.
Mayor Earling asked Mr. Hunstock to summarize the action staff is requesting. Mr. Hunstock explained
staff wanted to ensure the Council was interested in having staff pursue and develop options with regard
to phasing and vendors. If the Council was interested in pursuing the concept, staff will return to a future
Council meeting with specific costs, vendor options, etc. It was the consensus of the Council for staff to
proceed as Mr. Hunstock described.
7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF A "TYPE IV-B" REZONE APPLICATION INITIATED BY
OWNERS SID ODGERS AND KEN DARWIN TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR
THEIR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 8609/8611/8615 244TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL "RS-8" TO MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL "RM-2.4." THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THESE PROPERTIES WAS AMENDED LAST
YEAR FROM "SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1" TO "MULTI FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY."
Mayor Earling described the procedures for the closed record review. He explained a rezone is a Type IV-
B application where staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board and the Planning Board
forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final decision. He opened the closed record review.
He advised there is no opportunity during the closed record review for public testimony other than parties
of record. Parties of record typically include the applicant and any person who testified at the open record
public hearing on the application and any person who submitted written comments concerning the
application at the open record public hearing. In this case there was no testimony other than the
applicant’s testimony and staff’s presentation and no written comments were received. Therefore, there
will only be presentations by the applicant and by staff.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires each hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance.
The hearing must not only be fair but also appear to be fair. He asked if any member of the decision-
making body had engaged in communication with proponents or opponents regarding the issues in this
matter outside the public hearing process. There were no disclosures by any Councilmember or Mayor
Earling.
Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not
hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner. There were no conflicts of interested
voiced.
Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the audience objected to his or any Councilmembers’
participation as a decision maker in this hearing. There were no objections voiced.
Packet Page 29 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 5
Mayor Earling advised the applicant’s presentation will be limited to five minutes.
Associate Planner Gina Janicek displayed a vicinity map, Exhibit 1 to Attachment 1, and identified the
site which is comprised of three parcels. Last year the Council approved a Comprehensive Plan
amendment for the site. The applicant is here to answer questions but does not plan to make a
presentation. She identified the parcels colored yellow on the map zoned RS-8 including the subject site.
The site is adjacent to RM-1.5, multi-family high density. The proposal is to rezone the site to RM-2.4;
there are other parcels with that zoning east of Highway 99 (colored orange on the vicinity map). RM-2.4
is viewed as a good transition zone between single family and the RM-1.5 zone. No public comments or
feedback from the neighborhood has been received and none was received when the Comprehensive Plan
designation was changed last year.
She referred to Exhibit 2, the Planning Board meeting minutes from the October 10 public hearing. She
reviewed factors to be considered for a rezone:
A. Comprehensive Plan. Approval of the rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
as the current zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The current zoning is single
family and the Comprehensive Plan designation is multi-family, medium density.
B. Zoning. The existing single family homes would be an appropriate use in the multi-family zone as
would any multi-family development. Any future proposal for multi-family development would
require review by the Architectural Design Board and SEPA review. There are no development
plans proposed at this time.
C. Density. There are two zones compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation, RM-2.4,
multi-family medium density and RM-3. Further details regarding the zones are provided on Page
3 of Exhibit 1.
D. Changes that merit a rezone. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site was changed last
year.
E. Suitability. The site is very flat and slopes toward Highway 99 and is located on an arterial.
F. Value. The tax base likely will increase with the rezone.
Ms. Janicek identified the 3 parcels on the vicinity map, approximately 59,000 square feet. The Planning
Board unanimously recommends approval of the rezone.
Applicant Presentation
The applicant did not wish to make a presentation.
Mayor Earling closed the presentation portion of the closed record review.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING AND DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR FINAL COUNCIL ACTION.
Councilmember Petso said she will support the motion but as she read the criteria regarding value, the
Council was to evaluate the health, safety and welfare with versus without the proposal. She did not see
that an increase in the tax base met the criteria regarding health, safety and welfare but she was not aware
of any objection to the proposal.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3894 - AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE THAT
WOULD ALLOW FARMERS MARKETS IN BUSINESS COMMERCIAL (BC) AND BUSINESS
DOWNTOWN (BD) ZONES.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton recalled on September 11, 2012,
the Council adopted Ordinance No. 3894, an interim ordinance that would allow farmers markets in the
BC and BD zones. At that time, he informed the Council that the current code does not expressly allow
Packet Page 30 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 6
farmers markets within these two zones, but allows seasonal farmers markets to operate May through
September. The interim ordinance would allow farmers markets in these two zones, on public and private
property, and throughout the year. There has been interest expressed in a year-round farmers market; this
ordinance would allow that. The interim ordinance was proposed due to the Museum’s request to operate
a farmers market on Wednesday evenings through late fall which did not occur. The intent is to develop a
revised ordinance that allows farmers markets to operate year-round on public and private property.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide testimony. Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion
of the public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE WHEREAS CLAUSES IN ORDINANCE NO. 3894 AS THE
COUNCIL’S FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RESCHEDULED TO A LATER DATE: PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE ADDITION OF A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY OF STATE
ROUTE 104, BETWEEN THE INTERURBAN TRAIL (76TH AVE. W) AND THE FERRY
TERMINAL, TO THE 2013-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
10. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2013 REVENUE SOURCES INCLUDING PROPERTY TAXES.
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock distributed hardcopies of a PowerPoint presentation, advising it will
also be available on the City’s website tomorrow. This public hearing on revenue including property taxes
is a statutory requirement. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide the Council and the public
information regarding revenue sources in the proposed budget.
Mr. Hunstock displayed a bar graph illustrating General Fund, Total Revenue by Type, 2009-2013 (based
on numbers on page 35 of the budget document). He summarized overall revenues are down from the
high in 2010. The three largest revenue sources are property taxes, sales tax and utility taxes. Total
budgeted revenue for the General Fund is $32,869,792 (page 35 of the budget document):
• Property tax and sales tax together account for 58% of the City’s General Fund revenue
• Single largest change for 2013 is the loss of liquor taxes; a $200,000 decrease in General Fund
revenue
• Revenue is projected to be up by 0.5% from the 2012 estimate
• Total revenue in 2013 is projected to be down by 5% from the high in 2010
Mr. Hunstock displayed a graph of assessed value and regular levy rate, 2009-2013 which illustrates how
the allowable 1% increase in property tax is captured when assessed values are decreasing. There has
been an approximately $2.2 billion decrease in assessed value between 2009 and 2013; at the same time,
the levy rate increases, allowing the City to capture its allowable 1% increase in property tax. The 1% is
specifically related to total revenue, not the levy rate. The levy rate could increase by more than1% to
capture a 1% increase in total property tax revenue. He referred to the graph, explaining the levy rate goes
from slightly less than $1.20 in 2009 to a proposed rate of $1.76 in 2013. He summarized the assessed
value and regular levy rate change relative to each other; as one goes down, the other goes up in order to
capture the 1% allowable increase in total property tax revenue.
Mr. Hunstock displayed a bar graph illustrating the regular levy and EMS levy 2009-2013. The graph
illustrates the regular property tax slight increases each year. The EMS levy is decreasing due to the cap
of $0.50/$1000 of assessed value. He displayed a comparison of regular property tax levy by city in
Packet Page 31 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 7
Snohomish County; Edmonds is slightly lower than the average but slightly above the median, 10th out of
20 Snohomish County cities.
Mr. Hunstock explained between 2009 and 2013, assessed values (AV) will have declined by $2.2 billion
or 28%:
• In order for the City to levy its allowable 1% increase in revenue year-over-year, the City’s
regular levy has increased from $1.20 to $1.76
• Because the EMS levy is capped at $0.50, the decline in AV means a loss in revenue in the 2009-
2013 timeframe of over $1 million in the EMS portion of the property tax
• This more than offsets the increase in regular property taxes, for the 1% allowable increase as
well as the credit for new construction
• The regular levy increased by $546,870
Mr. Hunstock reported unpaid property taxes have increased recently. He displayed a comparison of
property tax levies and collections for the last ten fiscal years that illustrated the increase in unpaid
property taxes. Property tax collections were over 98% in 2007-2010 and 97.6% in 2011 or unpaid
property taxes of $318,000 in 2011; unpaid property taxes 2002-2011 totaled $483,000. It is not only the
City’s portion of the property tax that is unpaid; County’s, School District’s, etc. portions are also unpaid.
He expected the taxes would eventually be collected by Snohomish County via liens on the properties and
at some point foreclosure.
Mr. Hunstock displayed a pie chart of the 2012 property tax levy by jurisdiction (a corrected version of
the chart on page 35 of the budget document). He highlighted the City’s regular property tax levy of
$1.66, the EMS levy of $0.50 and the voted bond levy of $0.17; of the total tax levy, the City receives 21-
22%.
He displayed a bar graph of the next largest revenue source in the General Fund, utility tax. The bar graph
illustrates utility tax by type; utility taxes in total are increasing each year. He displayed a comparison of
2009-2013 utility tax by type (external and internal). He displayed utility tax rates:
• External utilities (non-City):
o Natural gas – 6%
o Cable – 6%
o Telephone – 6%
o Electric – 6%
o Solid waste – 10%
• City operated utilities:
o Water – 18.7%
o Sewer – 10%
o Storm – 10%
Mr. Hunstock noted the above taxes are in addition to any applicable franchise fees. The higher utility
taxes for water are intended to cover fire hydrant maintenance costs.
Mr. Hunstock displayed a chart illustrating sales tax for 2006-2011. Sales tax still has not recovered from
the economic decline. Retail sales tax is down by 14.2% between the high of 2007 and 2011. The total
retail sales tax rate is 9.5%; the City’s component is 0.85%. He identified the top three industries that
generate sales tax (page 40):
• Auto dealerships - $1,028,350 (21.9%)
• Construction - $625,730 (13.3%)
• Accommodations and food services - $600,509 (12.8%)
Packet Page 32 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 8
Mr. Hunstock summarized General Fund revenue for 2013 is expected to remain relatively flat compared
to 2012 estimates, a 0.5% increase for 2013. It is a mixed bag in other funds (pages 127-180 in the budget
document):
• Street Fund 111 – no significant change except for $100,000 proposed transfer in from General
Fund
• REET funds 125 and 126 – REET revenue is expected to increase over 2012
• Equipment Rental 511 – increase for funding of the B Fund
• Utility funds 421, 422 and 423 – revenue increases large depend on proposed rate changes
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the 1% increase in property taxes the Council is considering,
noting no one likes tax increases. He suggested the Council specify that half the 1% increase would be
used for chip seal and road improvements and the other half use to assist with the EMS shortage. He felt
most citizens would understand the need for increased taxes if it was used for those two purposes. Next,
he referred to the amount citizens pay for utilities, noting it is particularly hard for people out of work or
not working at their usual rate due to the economy. He pointed out the City has raised water every year; it
was $551,000 in 2009, $711,000 in 2010, $798,000 in 2011 and $841,000 in 2012 and $904,000 in 2013.
He suggested spreading the workload over more years.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
No Council action was required.
11. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2013 BUDGET
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock referred to questions asked by the Council at the October 23 work
session. Councilmember Yamamoto asked why there was $209,000 in grant revenue in 2010, and a
relative small number budgeted for 2012. Mr. Hunstock explained some of the grants were not expected
to continue. He distributed a revenue status report that provided further detail regarding grants by account
number in the General Fund, noting there is typically not a lot of grant activity in the General Fund.
Mr. Hunstock relayed a question from Council President Peterson regarding how the City Attorney
invoices are reflected in the Council budget. The past practice with the former City Attorney and the
current City Attorney has been to the extent work is done on requests by the City Council, the City
Council budget is charged for that portion of the invoice. For example, with the current monthly flat fee,
the portion of the fee charged to the City Council budget varies based on the amount of time the City
Attorney spends on Council requested items. The total flat rate does not vary month to month.
Mr. Hunstock distributed a list of questions from the October 30 budget workshop. He advised the
handouts could be available via email and online. Questions asked at and prior to the October 23 budget
workshop and staff’s responses are on the Finance Department webpage. He noted Councilmember
Johnson also submitted several questions today; all questions and responses will be posted online before
the Council is scheduled to take action on the budget on November 20.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Trudy Dana, Edmonds, explained as an employee of the Lynnwood Police Department for 18 years, she
conducted the Lynnwood Police Citizens Patrol and Citizens Academy. Prior to working for Lynnwood,
she wrote books on child safety and worked with a number of police agencies. During that time, she
learned the importance of a strong public safety agency in a community’s life. Edmonds’ Police Chief Al
Packet Page 33 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 9
Compaan has done an amazing job working within a tight law enforcement budget while retaining high
morale and excellent police services. The loss of additional police personnel would be a mistake; there is
a limit to how lean a department can become without realizing a steep decline in law enforcement
services. To ensure the quality of life, small town atmosphere and a friendly city, the police department
must be adequately funded. She recognized the difficulty of budget decisions, but emphasized public
safety is one area that can only be cut so far before a steep decline occurs.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Mr. Hunstock distributed and displayed a comprehensive list of suggested budget changes he has received
from Councilmembers. Due to Councilmember Buckshnis’ absence tonight, he proposed the Council
review the suggested changes at the November 20 Council meeting. He invited Councilmembers to
contact him if his summary of their suggested changes were incorrect.
Mayor Earling recalled Mr. Hunstock’s suggestion that the Council prioritize the suggested changes
following the second public hearing on November 20.
Councilmember Petso referred to one of the suggested changes, explaining it was not her intent to draw
down the balance in the actuarial funds 617 and 009 all at once or in a single year. Her request was either
this year or in future years, to ask the actuary firm about the possibility of beginning to draw down
reserves; specifically, to potentially discontinue the $50,000/year General Fund contribution to the 617
fund and to fund it with fire insurance premiums.
No Council action was required.
12. 2013 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained the Council packet contains the proposed ordinance as well
as calculations of the suggested 2013 levy rates. The assessed value in the City has decreased
significantly. The levy rate may change between now and the end of the year as the State has not yet
concluded their assessment of the value of private and publicly owned utilities. What typically happens
and what happened last year, and the City is presented with an option of levying an additional $0.01-0.05,
the City has the ability to capture that with the Assessor’s Office at that time, typically the first week in
December. The figures in the Council packet are based on the latest available information from the
Assessor’s Office. The ordinance can be adopted tonight or Council can delay it until November 20; the
ordinance must be adopted by City Council by November 30.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed a preference to review the information further and delay a
decision until November 20.
It was the consensus of the Council to consider this again at the November 20 meeting.
13. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to video recording Council meetings, advising Shoreline has live
video. He referred to a report in the Everett Herald that Everett is spending approximately $500,000 to
upgrade all their video equipment. Everett accumulated $1.7 million for that project via a $1/month fee on
cable bills. Everett stopped collecting the $1 once they accumulated sufficient funds for the upgrade. He
suggested the City consider that.
14. NONREPRESENTED COMPENSATION POLICY
Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite referred to the Compensation
Policy for Nonrepresented Employees, explaining the policy is a culmination of a year of work by a
compensation consultant that the City hired last year. The compensation consultant has been working
Packet Page 34 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 10
with staff to update job descriptions and conduct a salary survey as well as provide a recommended
Compensation Policy for the Nonrepresented Employees. Presentations were made to the Council in July
and September; Council took action in September to move toward a Compensation Policy for
Nonrepresented Employees by placing all nonrepresented employees on a step with the intent of reaching
an objective compensation policy and awarded a lump sum with the remaining budget authority.
Still outstanding for Council action is adoption of a Compensation Policy for Nonrepresented Employees.
The compensation consultant provided a proposal in July which was presented to the Council again in
September. At the September 25 Council meeting, two Councilmembers volunteered to review the policy
and provide recommended changes. After meeting with Councilmembers Petso and Buckshnis, she
prepared a redline version with their suggested changes. After reviewing the changes suggested by
Councilmembers Petso and Buckshnis, Mayor Earling prepared his Mayor’s recommendation.
Ms. Hite reviewed a comparison between the compensation consultant recommendation,
Councilmembers’ suggestions and Mayor’s recommendation.
Section Compensation
Consultant’s
Recommendation
Councilmembers’
Suggestion
Mayor’s
Recommendation
Policy Statement Ensure salaries are equitable Strive to maintain equity Strive to maintain equity
Salary Range
Progression
(current policy for
represented
employees: step
increase at 6-months)
5% step increase after 6
months successful probation.
5% Step increase after one
year, with satisfactory
performance, and every year
after that until at maximum
salary range.
Automatic with above
formula
Completion of 6 months of
probation, then 5% step
increase in the following
January, and every January
after that until employee
reaches maximum range.
This can be proposed as part
of budget, but is subject to
Council approval.
5% step increase after 6
months of probation, then
the January following one
year anniversary, and every
January after that until
employee reaches
maximum salary range.
Mayor will include this in
the budget each year, and
as such, will need to be
approved by Council
Promotion
(current policy:
minimum of 5%
increase)
Receive an increase not less
than 5%, or adjusted to the
minimum salary level of the
new position, whichever is
greater.
Placed on first step of new
range, or lowest step of new
range that results in an
increase in current salary
(no minimum).
The employee will get the
lesser of 5% increase or the
amount to get them onto a
step. After that, it would
follow the Salary Range
Progression plan, which
would be a step increase on
the January 1st following
the anniversary date.
Annual Salary
Adjustment
(Represented
employees received
1.5% COLA in 2012.
Nonrepresented
employees received a
lump sum equal to
.0045%.
(2013 budget includes
a 2% COLA for
nonrepresented
Salary ranges will be
adjusted at a rate no less than
the average adjustment
negotiated and approved for
represented employee
groups.
Every three years, based
upon the survey data, salary
ranges for Nonrepresented
positions will be realigned,
based on criteria.
Mayor will consider the
average adjustment
negotiated and approved for
represented groups, and will
make recommendation to
Council for approval in
budget process.
Mayor will make
appropriate and timely
recommendations to City
Council to maintain internal
equity and prevent
compression issues.
Mayor will include annual
salary adjustments in the
budget that are no less than
the average adjustment
negotiated and approved
for represented employee
groups. Budget is subject to
Council approval.
Mayor will include
appropriate adjustments in
the budget that will
mitigate any compression
issues and strive to
Packet Page 35 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 11
employees, the
average bargained for
represented
employees.)
Every three years, based
upon the survey data, the
Mayor will recommend
salary range market
adjustments to Council
based on criteria.
maintain equity.
Every three years, based
upon the survey data and
criteria, the Mayor will
adjust salary ranges for
Nonrepresented positions
as part of the budget
process.
External/Internal
Equity
To be more competitive in
the market place, the City
will provide:
Deferred Compensation 2%
and/or Management Leave,
40 hours
Longevity incentive pay,
consistent with all
represented groups.
Commissioned Police
management: Educational
Incentive Pay
Employment Contract
Delete all, and add:
Mayor will make
appropriate and timely
recommendations to City
Council to consider changes
to the compensation and/or
benefits of non-represented
employees.
To be more competitive
and equitable both
internally and externally,
the City will provide:
Management leave of up to
24 hours per year, on a use
it or lose it basis, to non-
represented employees that
are not eligible for
compensatory time.
Longevity incentive pay
that is consistent with all
represented groups.
Mayor Earling respected the suggestions made by Councilmembers Petso and Buckshnis and he agreed
with several. One of the objectives of the Nonrepresented Compensation Study was to define equity
between nonrepresented employees as well as between union contracts and the nonrepresented
employees. Another objective was to address the issue of compression. A third objective was to show
value to the nonrepresented employees. The compression issues and lack of equity have resulted in some
resentment by some nonrepresented employees. The 5% step increase and the 2% COLA are already
included in the balanced 2013 budget.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to “average adjustment” under the COLA and asked the average
adjustment for nonrepresented employees if SEIU received 1%, Police received 2%, police support staff
received 0% and Teamsters received 2%. Ms. Hite answered it would be 1.25%. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked if that would create issues with the union that received a 0% COLA. Ms. Hite answered
there would not be any immediate issue but the next negotiations may be harder.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council needed to approve the policy tonight or was there time for
Councilmember Buckshnis and her to meet with Mayor to “close the gap.” Ms. Hite answered that was up
to the Council.
Councilmember Petso commented one of the things Councilmember Buckshnis and she were trying to
accomplish was policy guidance for the Mayor to address issues of equity without it being mandatory or
creating rights of employees. If the Council approved the Mayor’s proposal, she asked whether it created
a right of employees that hampers the Council’s ability to make budget adjustments. Ms. Hite responded
the Council always has the last word on adoption of the budget. The Mayor’s recommendation, via an
automatic inclusion in the budget, adds value to nonrepresented employees.
Councilmember Petso asked if there was any effective difference between Councilmember Buckshnis’
and her suggestion that the Mayor make a recommendation to the Council for approval in the budget and
he presumably includes it in his proposed budget, and the Mayor’s proposal. Ms. Hite answered there was
no difference.
Packet Page 36 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 12
Councilmember Petso referred to promotion, noting the difference of a minimum of 5% versus moving to
the next step. Ms. Hite answered promotion is not a minimum of 5%. The Mayor’s proposal regarding
promotion is the same as the Councilmembers’ suggestion but adds clarifying language that following the
increase to place them on a step, it would follow the Salary Range Progression Plan, which would be a
step increase on January 1st following the anniversary date.
Councilmember Petso observed the significant changes between the Councilmembers’ suggestions and
the Mayor’s recommendation are adding management leave and longevity incentive pay. Ms. Hite agreed.
Councilmember Petso asked about the longevity benefit in union contracts. Ms. Hite answered it begins
after 10, 15, and 20 years and ranges between .5% to 1.5%. The cost of placing tenured nonrepresented
employees on longevity scale similar to SEIU and Teamsters is approximately $30,000/year.
If nonrepresented employees receive essentially equivalent treatment as union members, Councilmember
Petso asked if it was like being in a union without having to pay dues. Ms. Hite answered no, it was not a
guarantee like a collective bargaining agreement; everything was subject to Council approval.
Councilmember Petso commented the recommendations are very close and she asked her fellow
Councilmembers to consider allowing Councilmember Buckshnis and her to meet with Mayor Earling to
complete the revisions.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented the City paid a compensation consultant $30,000 to provide these
recommendations and it took him a year to complete the study. He expressed concern with the Council
hacking up the compensation consultant’s recommendation. He pointed out it was not the Council that
had developed the suggested revisions, it was only two Councilmembers. He preferred all
Councilmembers have input on any revisions. He felt many of the recommended revisions were
wordsmithing and he preferred to trust the compensation consultant to revise the policy. He agreed the
Council has the final say via the budget adoption. The Council does not have the time or wherewithal to
micromanage the changes; he preferred to leave that to the Mayor and staff.
Councilmember Yamamoto questioned the two Councilmembers’ suggestion to delete the entire
paragraph in the policy regarding external/internal equity. He reiterated his preference for the entire
Council to make any revisions to the policy rather than only two Councilmembers.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the full Council can revise the policy once the two
Councilmembers complete their review. The Council represents the taxpayers, not necessarily the staff.
She was amenable to Councilmembers Petso and Buckshnis meeting with Mayor Earling and returning
the policy to the Council for further revision and approval.
Councilmember Petso recalled Ms. Hite invited comments from all Councilmembers and contacted
Councilmember Buckshnis and her because they had submitted comments. She pointed out Mayor
Earling’s recommendations were not identical to the consultant’s recommendations either. She was
hesitant to take the consultant’s recommendations; for example the compensation consultant
recommended deferred compensation of 2% which neither Councilmember Buckshnis and she nor the
Mayor recommended. She preferred to have one more discussion with Mayor Earling to hammer out an
agreement. If Councilmembers were included in that discussion, it would need to be noticed as a public
meeting. She summarized reverting to the consultant’s recommendation, which does not match Mayor
Earling’s recommendation, would be a step backward.
Councilmember Johnson apologized she did not provide Ms. Hite her comments but she did not want to
defer her vote to three people. She planned to provide her comments during the next week so that all
Councilmembers could weigh in on the process.
Packet Page 37 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 13
Council President Peterson recommended any Council comments on the policy be provided to Ms. Hite to
avoid a rolling quorum. He also planned to provide Ms. Hite his comments. He explained one of the
advantages of the Mayor including increases in the budget is it provides for better planning. Every year
the Council makes the final decision regarding allocation of funds to that line item.
Council President Peterson observed Councilmembers Buckshnis and Petso recommended deleting
employment contracts and Mayor Earling had not recommended their inclusion. Ms. Hite recalled at the
September meeting Councilmembers wanted to postpone that issue until next year and have it discussed
by a committee.
Council President Peterson suggested the Nonrepresented Employee Compensation Policy be rescheduled
on the November 27 agenda.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested gathering information from other employment contracts. She
wants employment contracts moved forward sooner than later to provide the Mayor more flexibility in the
hiring process. Mayor Earling observed the intent is to discuss employment contracts early next year. Ms.
Hite advised staff has several samples of employment contracts from comparable cities and the City
Attorney has also been exploring employment contracts.
Councilmember Petso asked whether employment contracts were contemplated for director level
employees or all nonrepresented employees. Ms. Hite answered primarily director level employees which
is what most comparable cities have.
Councilmembers agreed with Mayor Earling’s suggested deadline of the next Council meeting for
Councilmembers to submit comments to Ms. Hite.
15. ADOPTION OF UTILITY RATE ORDINANCE
Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled last week the Council discussed the proposed utility rate
adjustments that are included in the 2013 budget. He displayed a page from the current Water Rate Plan
that illustrates projected rate increases for the planning period. The City is approximately halfway through
the planning period; the approach was to smooth rate adjustments over the planning period to avoid
significant variations in the annual adjustment. The recommended increase for the water utility in 2013 is
7.5%. Using the same logic and the rate plan prepared by the rate consultant FCS, the recommended
increase for stormwater in 2013 is 8.5%. His revised recommendation is an 8% increase in 2013.
With regard to sewer, there is not a recommendation for a rate adjustment from the rate consultant as a
meaningful recommendation cannot yet be prepared. The City is in the process of preparing a new
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. The focus of that plan in the past has been primarily on the treatment
plant, this plan will focus on the wastewater collection. The City’s water infrastructure has a lot of old
water lines; the same situation exists in the wastewater collection system. A great deal of information
regarding the condition of the sewer lines has been gathered in the past few years from sewer line
videoing. When the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan is completed, it will include an ambitious capital
plan. Sewer rates have not been adjusted since 2006. In 2006 sewer rates were reduced 2.2%. The last
increase was in 2004. The rates Edmonds residents pay for sewer on a monthly basis is 2.2% lower than it
was 8 years ago, a fairly unusual circumstance.
He provided a comparison of 2010 sewer rates, noting Edmonds rates are very low compared to most
competitors. He recommended a 5% rate adjustment for sewer in 2013. He did not anticipate that would
be anywhere close to the adjustment needed on multi-year basis to start the rehab of the collection system.
He summarized a 5% rate adjustment in 2013 was a way of smoothing rate adjustments in 2014 and 2015.
Packet Page 38 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 14
Mr. Williams provided a rate comparison of the average monthly single family utility bill changes (based
on 500 cf/month without taxes), noting the numbers changed from the comparison he provided last week
which were bimonthly rates:
Utility Bill 2012 2013 Difference
Water fixed fee $10.30 $11.08 $0.78
Water/HCF/748 gal $10.70 $11.50 $0.80
Sewer $25.32 $26.59 $1.27
Stormwater $10.47 $11.31 $0.84
Total $56.79 $60.48 $3.69
Taxes 2012 2013 Difference
Water fixed fee $1.93 $2.07 $0.14
Water/HCF/748 gal $2.00 $2.15 $0.15
Sewer $2.53 $2.66 $0.13
Stormwater $1.05 $1.13 $0.08
Total $7.51 $8.01 $0.50
Grand Total $64.30 $68.49 $4.19 (6.5%)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about a comparison of other cities’ water, sewer and stormwater
rates. Mr. Williams answered he could prepare a comparison chart, although it is very complex as utilities
bill based on different volumes, monthly and bimonthly, different tiers in their water rate structure,
different amounts of water with the fixed fee, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed Edmonds
water rates were fairly low compared to other cities but it was brought to her attention that at least one
neighboring city’s water rates include sewer. Mr. Williams responded Edmonds’ water rates are in the
lower half, not quite as low as wastewater. Stormwater is also about in the middle compared to what other
cities are charging. Edmonds has been fortunate to have low wastewater rates for quite some time.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a public hearing was required before utility rates were increased.
Mr. Williams responded he could find no evidence that a public hearing was required to adjust rates. The
last time the Council changed utility rates was in July 2010; a hearing was held. However, when rates
were changed in 2007 and 2008, no public hearing was held and it was approved on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Petso observed there was no information from the rate consultant on the sanitary sewer
CIP and recommended revenue requirements. Mr. Williams answered the information regarding the
collection system will identify the capital needs. The City has partners in its treatment facility who
provide as much as half the money for capital and operations. Edmonds residents must provide all the
funding to operate and maintain the collection system including the pump stations. The Council recently
approved a $3.8 million contract to rehab 9 pump stations. The total capital program next year for
wastewater is $6.47 million. Added to that will be a long term rehabilitation of the wastewater collection
system. Those projects have not yet been identified and prioritized to determine the impact on rates. He
assured it would not be an insignificant amount.
Councilmember Petso commented a more normal sequencing would have been to complete the plan and
then approach the Council for a rate increase. She asked whether the recommended 5% rate increase was
a placeholder for an anticipated rate increase that would be instituted in advance of completing the plan.
Mr. Williams answered yes; he anticipated the total need will be a great deal higher and be a multi-year
rate increase similar to water. He recommended making a modest adjustment now to avoid rate shock in
the future, recognizing that Edmonds rates are very attractive and will need to increase.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the section of the ordinance regarding connected and non-
connected. Mr. Williams answered the rate for non-connected is less than a third of the connected rate.
Packet Page 39 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 15
Homes in Edmonds that are not connected to sewer but have sewer available within 200 feet are supposed
to pay that amount.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the presentation made to the Council regarding hookup fees was very
clear and included a comparison of rates and a recommendation. This presentation does not include that
information and she was at a loss to make a decision without it. She asked whether a study was available
that recommended the rate increases and had a comparison of other cities’ rates. Mr. Williams answered
the pages he displayed were from the study prepared by the rate consultant FCS in 2010. He offered to
provide the study or the relevant pages to Councilmembers.
Councilmember Yamamoto referred to the connected and unconnected portion of the ordinance, and
asked why a home in Edmonds would not be hooked up to sanitary sewer. Mr. Williams answered it
could be an existing home and the LID that installed the sewer in the area did not bring the sewer close
enough to connect. Technically a home within 200 feet of a public sewer is required to hookup; that
requirement is typically enforced by the health district. A home that is not on sewer is likely on a septic
system; if their septic systems fails, they are required to hookup to the public sewer. In the meantime,
they are supposed to pay the unconnected fee of $8.60/month. He noted staff does their best to identify
those homes and collect those fees. Water customers can be influenced to pay by turning off their water
for non-payment. The City has little leverage with residents who are not water customers. There are only
a few unconnected houses in Edmonds.
Council President Peterson observed it appeared the Council also wanted to delay this item to a later date.
Councilmember Bloom suggested, given the economic situation, that the Council hold a public hearing
and since it was unclear whether a public hearing was required and a public hearing was held in 2010.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified it was not unclear whether a public hearing was required. Staff was
unable to find anything indicating a public hearing was required. Some cities hold a public hearing but
only because they want to. The City Council can hold a public hearing on anything they want including
the utility rate ordinance but it is not required. Mr. Williams pointed out this was an advertised Council
meeting and citizens were welcome to provide comment on any of the agenda items.
Councilmember Bloom suggested holding a public hearing since the Council was delaying it to a future
date. Council President Peterson commented public hearings typically take more time. Council agendas
between now and the end of the year are filling up fast. He reiterated his frustration with the Council
continually postponing items and not making decisions.
Mr. Taraday pointed out Finance Director Hunstock mentioned utility rates in his presentation during the
public hearing regarding revenues. If one considers the public hearing on all sources of revenues
including utility rates, that could be considered the public hearing.
Councilmember Johnson commented she was not a big fan of the concept of a rate increase in advance of
the actual study and identifying capital projects. Mr. Williams explained that is his recommendation; if
the Council preferred the rates can be adjusted once a capital plan is developed. Councilmember Johnson
responded that was more logical and appropriate. She was concerned with implementing rate increases in
anticipation. Mr. Williams answered he was not guessing; a sizable increase will be necessary to deal with
the wastewater infrastructure and it would be nice to smooth the rate shock somewhat. Since Edmonds’
rates are so low, a modest adjustment now would not be seen as inappropriate and would prevent a big
increase later.
Council President Peterson said this item can be moved to the November 27 meeting. While he
appreciated the desire to look at other cities’ rates, Edmonds’ older, failing infrastructure needs to be the
primary driver of rates. Other cities rates are somewhat immaterial because they likely have newer
Packet Page 40 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 16
infrastructure. Although he appreciated Councilmember Johnson’s point of view, if the Council waits
until the study is completed, instead of a 5% increase every few years, a 15-17% increase may be
necessary in one year. The work that has already been done indicates the costs will be significantly higher
than can be generated by a 5% increase. He agreed with Mr. Taraday that a public hearing had been held
on all revenue sources. Unless the Council provided direction that they wanted a public hearing, this item
will be scheduled on November 27, a noticed meeting where public comment can be provided.
Councilmember Yamamoto pointed out Mr. Williams has explained a rate increase is necessary. He
preferred to approve the utility rate ordinance as proposed by staff.
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN ORDINANCE
ADOPTING NEW UTILITY RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2013.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
AMEND THE MOTION, TO DELETE THE SANITARY SEWER RATE INCREASE IN SECTION
7.30.040.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of Mr. Williams’ intent to smooth the rate increase and
pick a number. She was not comfortable with the information available to her to adopt a rate increase
prior to adopting capital projects and a revenue requirement analysis that justifies the rate increase.
UPON ROLL CALL, THERE WAS A TIE VOTE (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BLOOM
AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
Per Mr. Taraday, Mayor Earling was unable to vote to break the tie because the vote was on an ordinance.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FAILED (3-3).
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she will vote no on the motion because she did not believe
Councilmembers had all their questions answered or reached agreement on whether to hold a public
hearing.
Councilmember Petso advised she will also vote no because she would not mind an opportunity to allow
public comment.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BLOOM,
JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso suggested rescheduling this item on November 27 now that the issues have been
identified. Council President Peterson clarified it was not currently scheduled as a public hearing.
Mr. Williams asked for clarification regarding information the Council wanted, 1) copies of the studies
from which the information was obtained, and 2) a comparison of Edmonds rates to neighboring cities’
rates. Councilmember Bloom requested Mr. Williams identify the relevant pages of the study.
16. REPORT ON RESULTS OF BOND REFINANCING
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock displayed a Summary of Refunding Results, explaining the pages he
will display are part of a 66 page report. He offered to send Councilmembers the entire report. He
explained the sale occurred on October 19 and closed on October 30, 2012. It was a very successful bond
Packet Page 41 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 17
sale; the interest rate was 1.58%. Including all financing costs, the net all in cost was 1.69%, a very
favorable interest rate.
He displayed a list of savings for all four bond issues that were refinanced. The total savings, net present
value is $1.9 million. The savings were originally estimated to be $1.4 million; waiting to do the bond
refinancing resulted in lower interest rates and the very favorable rate the City received. He explained
negative savings/cost increase shown on the savings summary in 2027-2031 was due to the Marina Beach
bonds that were refinanced and the repayment extended at Council direction last November to save
money in the short term in REET.
Mr. Hunstock displayed a summary of the cost of issuance, advising the total debt issuance cost was
$72,000. He advised the costs are typically based on a flat percentage for the size of the bond issue. This
was a $9.8 million bond issue. If the amount is under $10 million, there is a ¼% break in the interest rate.
Mr. Hunstock provided information related to the savings for each bond:
• Refinancing 1998 bond saved approximately $35,000
• 2001B bonds (related to Marina Beach): refinancing and 10 year extension saved approximately
$99,000/year in the short term in REET funds that can be repurposed for other projects
• Refinancing 2001 bonds saved approximately $300,000
• Refinancing 2002 bonds (related to PFD) saved $1.3 million, 86% related to the PFD
Mr. Hunstock reviewed a summary of debt service savings by bond issue by fund, summarizing the
original estimated savings was $1.4 million; the actual savings was $1.9 million. In response to a Council
comment during the budget workshop regarding how the savings are allocated to each fund, Mr.
Hunstock explained the savings are allocated to the fund where the original bond issue occurred. For
example the 1998 bonds, the savings returns to General Fund, Streets, Storm and REET 126 according to
the percentage of debt service from each fund.
Mr. Hunstock explained the proposed 2013 budget assumed the $1.4 million savings. He displayed the
difference between the $1.4 million savings and the $1.9 million savings, approximately a $51,000 total
savings in 2013, $7500 attributable to the General Fund. He proposed the savings be returned to each
fund.
17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported a couple days were lost on the Main Street project last week due to rain. Asphalt
was laid last Friday. The contractor had a crew working last Saturday and likely will have a crew working
this Saturday to make up the lost time.
Mayor Earling advised the Antique Mall property owner and Sound Transit have reached a proposed
agreement, to be ratified by the Sound Transit Board on November 15, that will provide 103 parking stalls
for the Sound Transit commuter rail. He noted that the City has received several emails from people
unable to find parking.
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reminded citizens to vote. The newspaper reported the Edmonds-
Woodway area had the highest number of ballots already turned in.
Council President Peterson recalled there had been some interest in having the full Council discuss
Council meeting procedures at next year’s retreat. He noted that topic is on the Public Safety/Personnel
Packet Page 42 of 998
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 5, 2012
Page 18
Committee’s agenda next week; he asked if that was acceptable to the Council. There were no objections
voiced.
19. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Packet Page 43 of 998
AM-5276 4. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
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 #135276 through #135398 dated November 8, 2012 for $866,660.11, and claim
checks #135399 through #135519 dated November 15, 2012 for $773,414.44. Approval of payroll
replacement check #51800 for the period October 16, 2012 through October 31, 2012.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and payroll replacement check.
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:1,640,074.55
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $1,640,074.55
Payroll replacement check $1,993.46
Attachments
Claim Checks 11-8-12
Claim Checks 11-15-12
Project Number 11-15-12
Packet Page 44 of 998
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 11/15/2012 12:39 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 04:54 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 11/15/2012 11:05 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 45 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135276 11/8/2012 072627 911 ETC INC 21151 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Oct-12 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 100.00
Total :100.00
135277 11/8/2012 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC 167842 Drug testing services
Drug testing services
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 52.00
Drug testing services
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 52.00
Total :104.00
135278 11/8/2012 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 2Z0271141 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 149.80
INTERPRETER FEES2Z0409375
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 158.60
INTERPRETER FEES2Z0409375
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 146.50
INTERPRETER FEES2Z228395
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 156.40
INTERPRETER FEES2Z76934
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 166.30
INTERPRETER FEESCR14275
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 149.80
INTERPRETER FEESCR27152
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 149.25
INTERPRETERCR28720
INTERPRETER
1Page:
Packet Page 46 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135278 11/8/2012 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 145.40
INTERPRETER FEESCR28720
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 130.00
Total :1,352.05
135279 11/8/2012 074253 AAA WASHINGTON 17686 PROMOTIONAL AD NOV/DEC AAA JOURNEY
Promotional ad in Nov/Dec 2012 AAA
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
135280 11/8/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 313161 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE RODENT CONTROL
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL313268
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 114.98
Total :197.10
135281 11/8/2012 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 37532 LABOR &PARTS FOR ZANDER FILTER REPLACEM
LABOR FOR DRAIN REPLACEMENT
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 540.00
REPLACEMENT DRAIN
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 378.00
OIL FILTER
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 53.75
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 19.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 94.15
Total :1,085.20
135282 11/8/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6477078 PARKS UNIFORM SERVICES
PARKS UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.22
2Page:
Packet Page 47 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135282 11/8/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.68
Total :30.90
135283 11/8/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6431646 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
WWTP UNIFORMS & TOWELS655-6431650
WWTP UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 1.08
WWTP TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 56.42
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 5.36
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6433537
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet Page 48 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135283 11/8/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6433538
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.03
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.02
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6433539
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.45
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6441078
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 22.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.11
WWTP UNIFORMS & TOWELS655-6441083
WWTP UNIFORMS
4Page:
Packet Page 49 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135283 11/8/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 1.14
WWTP TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 54.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 0.11
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 5.14
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6445642
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 4.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6445643
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
5Page:
Packet Page 50 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135283 11/8/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6445644
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.14
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.51
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.52
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6453220
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 22.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.11
WWTP UNIFORMS & TOWELS655-6453224
WWTP UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 1.14
WWTP TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 54.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 0.11
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 5.14
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6457754
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
6Page:
Packet Page 51 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135283 11/8/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 4.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6457755
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6457756
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.14
FLEET DIVISION MATS
7Page:
Packet Page 52 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135283 11/8/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.51
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.52
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6465158
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 22.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.11
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6469616
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 4.07
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 4.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.39
9.5% Sales Tax
8Page:
Packet Page 53 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135283 11/8/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6469617
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6469618
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.14
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.51
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.52
Total :472.29
135284 11/8/2012 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 66877 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 89.32
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 89.32
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 92.01
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 300.21
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 300.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.49
9Page:
Packet Page 54 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135284 11/8/2012 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.49
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.73
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS66891
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 22.89
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 22.89
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 23.58
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 98.78
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 98.77
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.23
Total :1,170.28
135285 11/8/2012 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1012 Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 20.00
Total :20.00
135286 11/8/2012 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON AUBOUCHON 15765 JEWELRY 15765
JEWELRY 15765
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 82.50
Total :82.50
135287 11/8/2012 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14178632 ODOR SCRUBBER EVALUATION PROFESSIONAL
ODOR SCRUBBER EVALUATION PROFESSIONAL
10Page:
Packet Page 55 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135287 11/8/2012 (Continued)066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 80.00
SWITCHGEAR CATWALK PROJECT PROFESSIONAL
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 313.00
AERATION BASIN UPGRADE CONTRACT14178634
AERATION BASIN UPGRADE CONTRACT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 1,776.00
Total :2,169.00
135288 11/8/2012 073979 CAMCAL INC 23075 Fleet - Cast Iron Lid for Fuel Station
Fleet - Cast Iron Lid for Fuel Station
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 238.76
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.53
Total :282.73
135289 11/8/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12220866 CANON CONTRACT CHARGE IRC1030
Canon contract charges - Mayor
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 9.35
Canon contract charges - Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 9.35
Canon contract charges - Mayor
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 9.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 0.88
CANON CONTRACT CHARGE IRC505112237287
Canon contract charge IRC5051
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 83.50
Canon contract charge IRC5051
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 83.50
11Page:
Packet Page 56 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135289 11/8/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Canon contract charge IRC5051
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 82.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 7.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 7.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 7.89
Total :304.39
135290 11/8/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12236552 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
WWTP COPIER/PRINTER LEASE
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 85.80
Total :85.80
135291 11/8/2012 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON 15881 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING
ADVENTURES IN DRAWING
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 292.50
Total :292.50
135292 11/8/2012 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN10120982 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BALLOONS
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BALLOONS
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
135293 11/8/2012 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 186947 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 169.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.07
COMPRESSED GAS CONTAINERSXC 13758
COMPRESSED CARBON MONOXIDE CONTAINERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 579.60
12Page:
Packet Page 57 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135293 11/8/2012 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SURCHARGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 57.58
Total :848.88
135294 11/8/2012 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT 15922 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 15922
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 52.60
Total :52.60
135295 11/8/2012 074142 CITRIX SYSTEMS INC 91341752 CITRIX XENSERVER ENTERPRISE EDITION
Citrix XenServer Enterprise Edition
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 10,265.15
Total :10,265.15
135296 11/8/2012 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE81973301 Sr Center- Inverter Kit
Sr Center- Inverter Kit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 388.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 36.92
Total :425.56
135297 11/8/2012 074255 COAL CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC 120902-01 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN COMPLYING WITH
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN COMPLYING WITH
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 1,592.97
Total :1,592.97
135298 11/8/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2486954 Fac Maint - Disinfectant Cleaner, TT,
Fac Maint - Disinfectant Cleaner, TT,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 526.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 50.06
13Page:
Packet Page 58 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :576.96135298 11/8/2012 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABS
135299 11/8/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2483717 LABORATORY SUPPLIES
LABORATORY SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 135.03
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 12.83
Total :147.86
135300 11/8/2012 070323 COMCAST 8498310300721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 116.58
Total :116.58
135301 11/8/2012 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING OCTOBER 2012 DRY CLEANING SEPT/OCT -EDMONDS PD
CLEANING/LAUNDRY SEPT/OCT 2012
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 925.37
Total :925.37
135302 11/8/2012 005965 CUES INC 376012 Sewer TV Truck -Service Contract and
Sewer TV Truck -Service Contract and
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,800.00
Total :1,800.00
135303 11/8/2012 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER 16105 TURTLE TIME
TURTLE TIME 16105
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 26.40
Total :26.40
135304 11/8/2012 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC 138706 Hydrant Use Permit "Deposit" for City
Hydrant Use Permit "Deposit" for City
411.000.000.245.110.000.00 950.00
Water Usage in excess of 23 cf (47waterusage
Water Usage in excess of 23 cf (47
411.000.000.343.810.100.00 -100.58
Tax on water usage
411.000.000.343.810.300.00 -18.81
14Page:
Packet Page 59 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :830.61135304 11/8/2012 069529 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC
135305 11/8/2012 072189 DATASITE 29559 INV#29559 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 2 TOTES 10/11/12
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 80.00
Total :80.00
135306 11/8/2012 072189 DATASITE 29452 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 111.20
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
Total :136.20
135307 11/8/2012 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2012100353 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for October 2012
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 940.00
Total :940.00
135308 11/8/2012 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Oct 2012 DRS OCTOBER 2012 DRS
October 2012 DRS contributions
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 133,944.02
Total :133,944.02
135309 11/8/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3313 MINUTE TAKING
10/30/12 Council Mintues
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 357.00
Total :357.00
135310 11/8/2012 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 10312012 STATE LOBBYIST OCTOBER 2012
State lobbyist for October 2012
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,391.00
Total :2,391.00
135311 11/8/2012 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 12-1955.5 E2FB.SERVICES THRU 10/28/12
E2FB.Services thru 10/28/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 282.20
15Page:
Packet Page 60 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135311 11/8/2012 (Continued)070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC
E3JA.TO 12-05 SERVICES THRU 1012-2062.3
E3JA.Task Order 12-05 Services thru
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 215.73
Total :497.93
135312 11/8/2012 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1525969 LUMBER SUPPLIES
LUMBER SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 73.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.00
LUMBER SUPPLIES1526356
LUMBER SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.34
FLOWER BASKET REPLACEMENT1532463
FLOWER BASKET REPLACEMENT
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 883.28
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 83.91
Total :1,074.69
135313 11/8/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 16623 SHOP SUPPLIES
SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.74
Total :8.58
135314 11/8/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 16423 FASTENERS & 11OZ WD40
FASTENERS & 11OZ WD40
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 76.84
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.30
16Page:
Packet Page 61 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :84.14135314 11/8/2012 007675 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
135315 11/8/2012 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 175-5/18/2012 CONCERT SPONSORSHIP DEL MCCOURY
SPONSORSHIP DEL MCCOURY
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
135316 11/8/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 081044 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 99.69
COPIER MAINT081298
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.450.00 7.81
Total :107.50
135317 11/8/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 081280 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 20.35
Meter charges 09/30/12 - 10/30/12 B&
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 214.26
ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE081284
Maintenance for printers 09/21/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 128.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 12.22
Total :375.51
135318 11/8/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 081281 COPIER CHARGES C5051
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 5.41
Copier charges C5051
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 56.91
Copier charges C5051
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 56.91
Copier charges C5051
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 56.88
17Page:
Packet Page 62 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135318 11/8/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 5.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 5.40
COPIER CHARGE C1030081411
Copier charge C1030
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 7.69
Copier charge C1030
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 7.69
Copier charge C1030
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 7.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 0.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.73
Total :212.16
135319 11/8/2012 073837 ENERGY INDUSTRIES LLC 2012-272 LIGHTING RETROFIT PROJECT PHASE II
LIGHTING RETROFIT PROJECT PHASE II
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 14,189.86
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 1,348.04
Total :15,537.90
135320 11/8/2012 071108 ENVIROCARE INTERNATIONAL INC 10945 PUMP W/MOTOR AND FLANGE SET
PUMP W/MOTOR AND FLANGE SET
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 7,980.00
Freight
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 237.98
Total :8,217.98
135321 11/8/2012 065789 ESTES, KEN 80 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
18Page:
Packet Page 63 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135321 11/8/2012 (Continued)065789 ESTES, KEN
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 676.15
Total :676.15
135322 11/8/2012 070531 FARLEY, TIMOTHY bld2011-0430 Refund because applicant had to cancel
Refund because applicant had to cancel
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 1,504.00
Total :1,504.00
135323 11/8/2012 067113 FAST WATER HEATER COMPANY bld20120996 Refund building site not in city limits
Refund building site not in city limits
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 65.00
Total :65.00
135324 11/8/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU26911 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 76.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.25
Total :83.58
135325 11/8/2012 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 103112 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 8,670.00
Total :8,670.00
135326 11/8/2012 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 205614 October 2012 Sectio n125 plan fees &
October 2012 Sectio n125 plan fees &
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 51.10
November 2012 -Flexicommuter plan206150
November 2012 -Flexicommuter plan
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 25.00
Total :76.10
135327 11/8/2012 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 81 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 9,180.00
19Page:
Packet Page 64 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135327 11/8/2012 (Continued)010660 FOSTER, MARLO
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 25.00
Total :9,205.00
135328 11/8/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 67.95
Total :67.95
135329 11/8/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR
POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 41.67
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE253-012-9189
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.08
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 217.18
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE253-020-6656
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 21.95
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 95.35
Total :417.23
135330 11/8/2012 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA GAVIOLA 15814 TAEKWON DO
TAEKWON DO 15814
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 205.57
TAEKWON DO 15810
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 132.00
Total :337.57
135331 11/8/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9952708999 E1FD.WASH STATION SUPPLIES
E1FD.Hose Reel, Hand Crank
20Page:
Packet Page 65 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135331 11/8/2012 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 802.38
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 76.22
Total :878.60
135332 11/8/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9958556558 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 79.56
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.56
Total :87.12
135333 11/8/2012 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 2105 WEB &VIDEO INSTRUCTION MAINT
Web Maintenance, Video Instruction
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 490.00
Total :490.00
135334 11/8/2012 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3251054 E1FD.WASH STATION SUPPLIES
E1FD.Hydrant Guard Post
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 250.95
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 23.84
Total :274.79
135335 11/8/2012 074096 HENDERSON, YOUNG & COMPANY 544-1203 P&R IMPACT FEE STUDY &ANALYSIS
PROGRESS BILLING PERIOD OCTOBER
001.000.640.576.800.410.00 2,919.00
Total :2,919.00
135336 11/8/2012 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 51988770 ENGINEERING HIGH PERFORMANCE WORKSTATION
HP Z220 SFF Workstations,Windows
411.000.652.542.400.350.00 1,006.90
HP Z220 SFF Workstations,Windows
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 1,006.90
HP Z220 SFF Workstations,Windows
21Page:
Packet Page 66 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135336 11/8/2012 (Continued)069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 503.44
HP Z220 SFF Workstations,Windows
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 503.44
HP Z220 SFF Workstations,Windows
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 300.00
HP Z220 SFF Workstations,Windows
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1,713.80
Total :5,034.48
135337 11/8/2012 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 3037700 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
135338 11/8/2012 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E7AA.Pmt 2 E7AA.PAYMENT 2 THRU 10/26/12
E7AA.Payment 2 thru 10/26/12
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 434,615.41
Total :434,615.41
135339 11/8/2012 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 564021 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,064.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 289.14
Total :3,354.04
135340 11/8/2012 070145 JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS 49506 PROMOTION AD NOVEMBER JOURNAL
Promotional ad in November 2012
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 634.00
Total :634.00
135341 11/8/2012 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS 16110 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION
WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 21.00
Total :21.00
22Page:
Packet Page 67 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135342 11/8/2012 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3632832 INV#3632832 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
135343 11/8/2012 016600 KROESENS INC 20661 INV#20661 - EDMONDS PD -BROMAN
BLACK TROUSERS
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 85.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 8.08
Total :93.08
135344 11/8/2012 070478 LANE COMMUNICATIONS INC 2156 6TH AND MAIN ST FIBER PROJECT
6th and Main St Fiber Optics Project -
001.000.310.518.870.480.00 3,500.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.870.480.00 332.50
Total :3,832.50
135345 11/8/2012 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG 1103 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR DANCE CLASSES 11
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
135346 11/8/2012 074254 LITTLE, LAURA LITTLE1030 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
Refund of damage deposit
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00
Total :200.00
135347 11/8/2012 061900 MARC 0481477-IN DE-LIMER SUPPLIES
DE-LIMER SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 354.00
23Page:
Packet Page 68 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135347 11/8/2012 (Continued)061900 MARC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 33.63
Total :387.63
135348 11/8/2012 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 25157 INV#25157 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING 2004 GMC #B03611T
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 98.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 9.40
INV#25524 - EDMONDS PD25524
TOWING 2004 GMC #B03611T
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 98.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 9.40
Total :216.70
135349 11/8/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 39708514 MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 263.04
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.09
Total :271.13
135350 11/8/2012 073918 MINTON, SHARON MINTON 15736 PRENATAL YOGA
Prenatal Yoga
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 96.00
Total :96.00
135351 11/8/2012 069365 MOON CONSTRUCTION INC 12030 AERATION BASIN UPGRADE PROJECT
AERATION BASIN UPGRADE PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 48,754.95
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 4,875.50
RETAINAGE DUE ON SWITCHGEAR ACCESS12031
RETAINAGE DUE ON SWITCHGEAR ACCESS
24Page:
Packet Page 69 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135351 11/8/2012 (Continued)069365 MOON CONSTRUCTION INC
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 3,086.75
Total :56,717.20
135352 11/8/2012 073678 NORTHSHORE FITNESS LLC NORTHSHORE 15935 ZUMBA
ZUMBA
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 87.30
Total :87.30
135353 11/8/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-562272 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:EDMONDS ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
Total :112.35
135354 11/8/2012 065332 NVL LABORATORIES INC 1214028 Museum - Lead Analysis
Museum - Lead Analysis
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 35.00
Total :35.00
135355 11/8/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 015810 COPY PAPER
COPY PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 193.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.43
TAB DIVIDERS507389
TAB DIVIDERS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.50
CLOCK AND DUSTER971149
CLOCK AND DUSTER
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 29.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 2.76
EPSON INK989060
EPSON INK
25Page:
Packet Page 70 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135355 11/8/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 61.72
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 5.87
INSERTABLE TABS990026
TABS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.63
Total :324.71
135356 11/8/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 988032 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 81.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.70
Total :88.75
135357 11/8/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 892994 PW Admin Supplies - Paper, Pens,
PW Admin Supplies - Paper, Pens,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 426.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 40.49
Water Sewer - Mobile File Stands896002
Water Sewer - Mobile File Stands
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 454.35
Water Sewer - Mobile File Stands
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 454.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 43.17
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 43.16
PW Admin Office Supplies -Filler Paper921217
PW Admin Office Supplies -Filler Paper
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 14.34
9.5% Sales Tax
26Page:
Packet Page 71 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135357 11/8/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.36
Water Sewer -Hanging Clamps for File930315
Water Sewer -Hanging Clamps for File
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 429.00
Water Sewer -Hanging Clamps for File
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 429.00
Sewer - HP Ink
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 132.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 40.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 53.29
Total :2,561.40
135358 11/8/2012 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER October, 2012 COURT, BLDG CODE &JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services &Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,334.19
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 30,692.92
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 175.50
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.000.237.330.000.00 62.31
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 4,981.55
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 315.86
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,656.38
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 489.96
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.000.237.290.000.00 45.53
Multi-Model Transportation
27Page:
Packet Page 72 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135358 11/8/2012 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
001.000.000.237.300.000.00 45.58
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.000.237.320.000.00 98.89
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 237.92
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.000.237.340.000.00 353.81
Total :41,490.40
135359 11/8/2012 068709 OFFICETEAM 36611399 Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services36658650
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Total :1,050.72
135360 11/8/2012 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W
FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 174.06
Total :174.06
135361 11/8/2012 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 141385 Storm - Dump Fees
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 63.00
Storm - Dump Fees141417
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 63.00
Storm Dump Fees141588
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 52.50
Storm Dump Fees141595
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees141602
28Page:
Packet Page 73 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135361 11/8/2012 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees141611
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm dump fees142097
Storm dump fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees142108
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees142118
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Total :619.50
135362 11/8/2012 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 464241 POSTAGE METER SUPPLIES
Postage Meter Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 131.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.53
Postage Meter supplies5502054952
Postage Meter supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 9.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 0.95
Total :155.38
135363 11/8/2012 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2612712 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 21.84
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.07
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES2615860
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
29Page:
Packet Page 74 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135363 11/8/2012 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 116.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 11.07
Total :151.55
135364 11/8/2012 073231 POLYDYNE INC 762178 POLYMER CHEMICALS
POLYMER CHEMICALS
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 4,092.00
Total :4,092.00
135365 11/8/2012 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 203481 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
Sewer - Return Postage - Prat Paris203560
Sewer - Return Postage - Prat Paris
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 23.41
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&203604
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
Sewer -Cues Camera Shipping for Repairs203631
Sewer -Cues Camera Shipping for Repairs
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 108.09
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&203723
30Page:
Packet Page 75 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135365 11/8/2012 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
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
Fleet- Setcom - Return Postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 19.48
Fleet- Owen Equipment -Return Postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 16.98
Total :199.58
135366 11/8/2012 072993 PRIMACIO, GEORENE PRIMACIO 15938 UKULELE
UKULELE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 385.00
Total :385.00
135367 11/8/2012 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
135368 11/8/2012 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 15830 FELDENKRAIS
FELDENKRAIS 15830
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 164.00
Total :164.00
135369 11/8/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP 200 DAYTON ST / METER 000390395
WWTP 200 DAYTON ST / METER 000390395
411.000.656.538.800.472.63 185.98
Total :185.98
135370 11/8/2012 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 12-739 COURT SECURITY
31Page:
Packet Page 76 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135370 11/8/2012 (Continued)070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 3,431.25
Total :3,431.25
135371 11/8/2012 070042 RICOH USA INC 87946361 Lease for DSD MP171SPF Copier/printer
Lease for DSD MP171SPF Copier/printer
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Total :30.66
135372 11/8/2012 073819 ROCK SOLID LEARNING LLC ROCK SOLID 16093 GEMS AND GEODES
GEMS & GEODES
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 30.25
Total :30.25
135373 11/8/2012 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7817 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,400.00
Total :1,400.00
135374 11/8/2012 074256 RYDIN DECAL 279080 PARKING PERMITS
2013 Employee parking
121.000.340.517.900.310.00 645.75
Freight
121.000.340.517.900.310.00 22.01
Total :667.76
135375 11/8/2012 074014 SAIC ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT &03-634 E1FM.SERVICES THRU 09/28/12
E1FM.Services thru 09/28/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 30,247.80
Total :30,247.80
135376 11/8/2012 067474 SHAW, BENSON 2012-11/01 GEORGE STREET INLAYS
PRECAST HISTORIC GEORGE STREET PANELS
117.200.640.575.500.410.00 1,275.00
9.5% Sales Tax
117.200.640.575.500.410.00 121.13
32Page:
Packet Page 77 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,396.13135376 11/8/2012 067474 067474 SHAW, BENSON
135377 11/8/2012 073859 SIMMONS, SHELLY SIMMONS 16085 SUPERSQUAD CHEER CLINIC 16085
SUPERSQUAD CHEER CLINIC 16085
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 198.00
ZUMBATONIC 16696
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 84.34
ZUMBATONIC 15767
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 216.34
Total :498.68
135378 11/8/2012 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0143874-IN Unit eq73po - Mongoose 9"Locking Arm
Unit eq73po - Mongoose 9"Locking Arm
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 191.75
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 14.75
Unit 338 - 2 Microphone Assemblies0144099-IN
Unit 338 - 2 Microphone Assemblies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 254.80
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.75
Unit 335 - Link Amplifier0144160-IN
Unit 335 - Link Amplifier
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 299.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.75
Unit eq86so -LED Light s and supplies0144162-IN
Unit eq86so -LED Light s and supplies
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 657.00
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 16.73
Total :1,463.93
135379 11/8/2012 036955 SKY NURSERY 26953 FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 145.68
33Page:
Packet Page 78 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135379 11/8/2012 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 13.84
FLOWERS FOR CEMETERY26954
FLOWERS FOR CEMETARY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 80.79
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 7.68
Total :247.99
135380 11/8/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200650851 CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.57
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP200651644
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 422.38
Total :474.95
135381 11/8/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 73.84
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21506 84TH AVE W2011-5142-0
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21506 84TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.64
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W2011-8789-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.52
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW2015-0127-7
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.64
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @2017-1178-5
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,403.00
WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W2019-2991-6
WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 30.64
34Page:
Packet Page 79 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135381 11/8/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW2021-9128-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 30.64
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @2025-2918-6
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,133.63
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @2025-7615-3
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 14,016.45
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W2047-1489-3
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 3.05
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2002047-1492-7
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 67.73
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 4002047-1493-5
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 35.72
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 1002047-1494-3
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 4.54
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2502047-1495-0
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 108.19
Total :18,001.23
135382 11/8/2012 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER October 2012 Crime Victims Court Remittance -
Crime Victims Court Remittance -
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 897.23
Total :897.23
135383 11/8/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.68
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700103585
35Page:
Packet Page 80 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135383 11/8/2012 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 459.89
Total :2,240.27
135384 11/8/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100320326.001 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 111.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.61
MILLTOWN FOUNTAIN LIGHTSS100334705.001
MILLTOWN FOUNTAIN LIGHTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 420.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.24
Total :597.63
135385 11/8/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100339768.002 E1FD.WASH STATION SUPPLIES
E1FD.PVC Fitting
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 10.91
E1FD.Greenlee 608 Piston
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 4.82
E1FD.Caddy CD0B 1/2 Cond HGR w/
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 3.98
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1.87
Total :21.58
36Page:
Packet Page 81 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135386 11/8/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100336860.001 FS 17 - MH Bal Kit
FS 17 - MH Bal Kit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 71.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.77
FS 17 - Elect SuppliesS100336860.002
FS 17 - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 195.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.61
PW - Elect SuppliesS100339768.001
PW - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 64.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.13
FAC - Elect SuppliesS100340611.001
FAC - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 299.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.49
Total :691.61
135387 11/8/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100328667.001 FACILITIES REPAIR SUPPLIES
FACILITIES REPAIR SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.480.23 15.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.23 1.46
Total :16.85
135388 11/8/2012 074252 SUNDANCE ENERGY SERVICES bld20120984 Refund-site not located with city limits
Refund-site not located with city limits
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
135389 11/8/2012 073049 TEC-WORKS INC 12122 TRANSITION NETWORKS,TRANSITION
TRANSITION NETWORKS,TRANSITION
37Page:
Packet Page 82 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135389 11/8/2012 (Continued)073049 TEC-WORKS INC
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 3,697.10
Freight
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 28.20
TRANSITION NETWORKS AND ASSOCIATED12138
TRANSITION NETWORKS AND ASSOCIATED
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 725.40
Freight
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 9.04
Total :4,459.74
135390 11/8/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 10312012 NEWSPAPER ADS
Council & Plan Brd. Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,988.69
NEWSPAPER AD1799075
Ord. 3897
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.08
Total :2,012.77
135391 11/8/2012 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 346389 PS - Supplies
PS - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.80
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.45
Total :28.18
135392 11/8/2012 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 195IF00792 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 924.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 87.80
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F.ANDERSON CENTER195IF00836
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANCES ANDERSON
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 932.41
38Page:
Packet Page 83 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135392 11/8/2012 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 88.58
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER195IF05837
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 792.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 75.34
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER195IF06766
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 172.82
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 16.42
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER195IM09195
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 46.73
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING LIBRARY195IM09709
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SNO
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 71.53
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER195IM09891
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.06
Total :3,222.81
135393 11/8/2012 043935 UPS 00002T4T13422 SHIPPER NUMBER 2T4T13 RETURN FREIGHT
RMA 701-DWBY4-11 Return freight 5
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 113.55
Total :113.55
135394 11/8/2012 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 799467 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 960.24
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 62.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 97.14
39Page:
Packet Page 84 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,119.68135394 11/8/2012 064423 064423 USA BLUE BOOK
135395 11/8/2012 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1131212981 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
001.000.110.511.100.420.00 243.15
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 91.05
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 20.02
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 75.09
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 277.10
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Facilities
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 91.05
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 85.09
Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 30.02
Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 456.37
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor'
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 85.09
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks Dept
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 55.07
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 881.54
Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 722.39
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 56.00
40Page:
Packet Page 85 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135395 11/8/2012 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St Dept
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 39.35
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 38.00
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 37.99
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer Dept
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 95.08
Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 121.07
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 135.09
C/A 772540262-000011131546750
Lift Station access - testing
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 22.37
Total :3,900.01
135396 11/8/2012 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2013-1487 INV 2013-1487 DAVIDSON LIM EDMONDS PD
PRE-SUPERVISORS COURSE -DAVID LIM
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 250.00
Total :250.00
135397 11/8/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5693 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 285.80
Total :285.80
135398 11/8/2012 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1010 OCT-12 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer - Oct 2012
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00
Total :13,000.00
Bank total :866,660.11123Vouchers for bank code :front
866,660.11Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report123
41Page:
Packet Page 86 of 998
11/08/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
7:40:15AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
42Page:
Packet Page 87 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135399 11/15/2012 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 2Z0193546 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 154.20
INTERPRETER FEES2Z0271144
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 145.40
INTERPRETER FEES2Z0404710
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 193.80
INTERPRETER FEES2Z0409375
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 134.95
INTERPRETER FEES2Z0409375
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 182.25
INTERPRETER FEES2Z0409375
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 134.95
INTERPRETER FEES2Z130516
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 155.30
INTERPRETER FEES2Z271141
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 149.80
INTERPRETER FEES2Z399967
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 160.80
INTERPRETER FEES2Z399967
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 145.40
INTERPRETER FEES2Z399967
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 145.40
INTERPRETER FEES2Z415653
1Page:
Packet Page 88 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135399 11/15/2012 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 152.00
INTERPRETER FEESC8406
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 173.45
INTERPRETER FEESCR21625
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 155.85
INTERPRETER FEESCR21625
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 174.55
INTERPRETER FEESCR24809
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 161.35
INTERPRETER FEESCR27153
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 148.70
INTERPRETER FEESCR27153
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 148.70
INTERPRETER FEECR28116
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 169.60
INTERPRETER FEESCR28915
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 155.85
INTERPRETER FEESCR28919
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 149.80
INTERPRETER FEESCR28919
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 145.40
INTERPRETER FEESCR28919
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 145.40
2Page:
Packet Page 89 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135399 11/15/2012 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
INTERPRETER FEESCR28935
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 155.30
INTERPRETER FEESCR29096
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 148.70
INTERPRETER FEESCR29439
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 155.85
INTERPRETER FEESCR29439
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 183.35
INTERPRETER FEESCR29489
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 163.55
INTERPRETER FEESIN103653
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 177.85
INTERPRETER FEESIN104036
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 192.15
INTERPRETER FEESIN104047
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 159.70
Total :4,919.35
135400 11/15/2012 074261 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES 37282177 E7AA.SERVICES THRU 09/28/12
E7AA.Services thru 09/28/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 22,998.67
Total :22,998.67
135401 11/15/2012 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 15870 MARINA BEACH PLAQUE
BRONZE PLAQUE/GIRL SCOUT ACTIVITY BOX
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 178.40
Freight
3Page:
Packet Page 90 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135401 11/15/2012 (Continued)069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.60
Total :202.90
135402 11/15/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 15053244 JACKET
JACKET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 79.94
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.31
UNIFORM SERVICES655-6488915
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.68
Total :138.14
135403 11/15/2012 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 46.05
Total :46.05
135404 11/15/2012 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 24866 ROUGH BOX
BURIAL SUPPLIES, LINDSEY
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 405.00
BURIAL SERVICES, WICKERSHAM25211
BURIAL SERVICES, WICKERSHAM
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 405.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES, PETERSON25229
BURIAL SUPPLIES, PETERSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 704.00
BURIAL SERVICES,HELLENBERGER25230
BURIAL SERVICES,HELLENBERGER
4Page:
Packet Page 91 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135404 11/15/2012 (Continued)001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 405.00
Total :1,919.00
135405 11/15/2012 072276 BADGER METER INC 96179301 Water - Hydrant Meter
Water - Hydrant Meter
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 570.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 55.76
Total :642.72
135406 11/15/2012 074136 BEYONDNET SOLUTIONS LLC 14487 MS EXCHANGE 2010 MIGRATION CONSULTINGSVC
Professional Consulting &
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 3,360.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 319.20
Total :3,679.20
135407 11/15/2012 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 4744 E2GA.SERVICES THRU 10/19/12
E2GA.Services thru 10/19/12
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 4,598.59
E2GA.Services thru 10/19/12
411.000.656.538.800.410.00 3,916.95
Total :8,515.54
135408 11/15/2012 073062 BLUE FLAME BLD20121006 Applicant had to cancel his project.
Applicant had to cancel his project.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
135409 11/15/2012 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 6354 E1JE.SERVICES THRU OCTOBER 2012
E1JE.Services thru October 2012
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 9,798.50
Total :9,798.50
5Page:
Packet Page 92 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135410 11/15/2012 068484 CEMEX LLC 9424886691 Roadway - Asphalt Class C
Roadway - Asphalt Class C
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 210.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 19.95
Roadway - Asphalt Class C, Liquid9424966442
Roadway - Asphalt Class C, Liquid
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 390.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 37.05
Roadway - Asphalt Class C, Liquid9424966443
Roadway - Asphalt Class C, Liquid
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 460.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 43.70
Roadway - Aphalt Class C, Liquid9424973166
Roadway - Aphalt Class C, Liquid
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 690.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 65.56
Total :1,916.26
135411 11/15/2012 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 186943 Fleet- Oxygen for Tank + fees
Fleet- Oxygen for Tank + fees
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 26.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 2.53
Total :29.13
135412 11/15/2012 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT 15923 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 15923
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 103.56
Total :103.56
135413 11/15/2012 064525 CHERMAK CONTRUCTION INC E7AA.Pmt 1 FINAL E7AA.PMT 1 FINAL THRU 10/19/12
E7AA.Pmt 1 Final thru 10/19/12
6Page:
Packet Page 93 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135413 11/15/2012 (Continued)064525 CHERMAK CONTRUCTION INC
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 27,117.68
E7AA.Ret 1
112.200.000.223.400.000.00 -1,238.25
Total :25,879.43
135414 11/15/2012 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1210 E9GA.SERVICES THRU OCTOBER 2012
E9GA.Services thru October 2012
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 4,150.98
Total :4,150.98
135415 11/15/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9734 INV#9734 CUST#1430 -EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONE NARCS 10/2012
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 95.45
Total :95.45
135416 11/15/2012 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC NOV-12 C/A CITYOFED00001
Nov-12 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20
Total :916.20
135417 11/15/2012 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8863238 INVOICE #
WATER WATCH PAGERS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 4.25
Total :4.25
135418 11/15/2012 072848 COPIERS NW INV774155 INV#INV774155 ACCT#HMH636 -EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 10/05 TO 11/04/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 226.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 21.54
INV#INV774156 ACCT#HMH636 -EDMONDS PDINV774156
BLACK COPIES 10/05 TO 11/04/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 45.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 18.37
7Page:
Packet Page 94 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135418 11/15/2012 (Continued)072848 COPIERS NW
COLOR COPIES 10/05 TO 11/04/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 147.96
Total :460.06
135419 11/15/2012 070344 CORNERSTONE ROOFING BLD20121034 Outside City Limits.
Outside City Limits.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 140.00
Total :140.00
135420 11/15/2012 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E1JE.Pmt 3 E1JE.PMT 3 THRU 10/31/12
E1JE.Pmt 3 thru 10/31/12
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 164,439.97
E1JE.Ret 3
412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -7,508.68
Total :156,931.29
135421 11/15/2012 074257 DANIKA PLUMBING & CONTRACTING BLD20121014 On line permit Not in City.
On line permit Not in City.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 65.00
Total :65.00
135422 11/15/2012 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 324169 E1CA.SERVICES THRU 9/29/12
E1CA.Services thru 9/29/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 25,905.79
Total :25,905.79
135423 11/15/2012 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 10/17/12-11/14/12 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 453.00
Total :453.00
135424 11/15/2012 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY OIT 3972 Wastewater Operator Cert 2013 Annual
Wastewater Operator Cert 2013 Annual
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 30.00
Total :30.00
8Page:
Packet Page 95 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135425 11/15/2012 074177 DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT INC 12896 PRESENTATION ON MARKETING
Meeting and presentation on Nov 8 by
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 2,500.00
Total :2,500.00
135426 11/15/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3315 INV#12-3315 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #12-2448
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 33.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE#12-3275
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 27.00
TRANSCRIBE SMART#WP12000003
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 69.00
TRANSCRIBE SMART#WP12000005
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 69.00
TRANSCRIBE SMART#WP12000006
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 21.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #12-3972
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 48.00
Total :267.00
135427 11/15/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3316 MINUTE TAKING
11/5 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 303.00
Total :303.00
135428 11/15/2012 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 11082012 NOVEMBER 2012 BOND OBLIGATION
November 2012 Contigency Reserve request
001.000.390.598.190.520.00 169,365.00
Total :169,365.00
135429 11/15/2012 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2012-11-01 11/12 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE
11/12 Recreation Services Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
135430 11/15/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-10351 23823 76TH AVE W
9Page:
Packet Page 96 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135430 11/15/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
23823 76TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.51
Total :57.51
135431 11/15/2012 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 174860 INV#174860 CLIENT#5118 -EDMONDS PD
SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #8739
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 97.50
NEUTER DOG - IMPOUND #8727
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 85.00
Total :182.50
135432 11/15/2012 070676 EFFICIENCY INC 6231112 FTR RECORDER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
FTR RECORDER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 389.09
FTR RECORDER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
001.000.250.514.300.480.00 389.09
FTR RECORDER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 389.09
Total :1,167.27
135433 11/15/2012 068803 EJ USA INC 3540423 Sewer - Valves
Sewer - Valves
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 65.44
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.11
Total :93.55
135434 11/15/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 081279 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 112.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 10.67
10Page:
Packet Page 97 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :122.9713543411/15/2012 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
135435 11/15/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 081282 METER READING
10/30 to 11/30
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 346.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 32.95
Total :379.76
135436 11/15/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 081408 Meter charges for Planning's C1030 for
Meter charges for Planning's C1030 for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 19.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 1.81
Total :20.87
135437 11/15/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU26965 Storm - Supplies
Storm - Supplies
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 15.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1.44
Total :16.64
135438 11/15/2012 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0354759 E9FB.MATERIALS
E9FB.Fastite Pipe
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,655.00
E9FB.6 DI MJ WDG Rest Glnd pk
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 585.12
E9FB.6x12 MJ C153 Long Slv L/A
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 158.24
E9FB.6 MJ RW Gate Vlv OL
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 715.28
7.7% sales tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 316.75
E9FB.MATERIALS0354902
E9FB.Fastite Pipe
11Page:
Packet Page 98 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135438 11/15/2012 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,593.00
E9FB.6 Fast Grip GSKT
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 913.84
7.7% sales tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 193.03
Total :7,130.26
135439 11/15/2012 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0359292 Water Meter - #2024 M-METER-0.625
Water Meter - #2024 M-METER-0.625
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 2,521.26
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 239.52
Fire Hydrant and Supplies for 88th &0359471
Fire Hydrant and Supplies for 88th &
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,426.60
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 186.85
Total :5,374.23
135440 11/15/2012 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 128519 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG CABLE RUN
Work performed at Public Safety Bldg
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 160.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 15.20
Total :175.20
135441 11/15/2012 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH 15886 IRISH DANCE
IRISH DANCE 15886
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 44.00
IRISH DANCE 15889
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 82.50
Total :126.50
135442 11/15/2012 074259 FRIX TECHNOLOGIES LLC 12110701 MICROFILM SERVICES
Microfilm Essential Records
12Page:
Packet Page 99 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135442 11/15/2012 (Continued)074259 FRIX TECHNOLOGIES LLC
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 2,918.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 277.21
Total :3,195.23
135443 11/15/2012 074264 GLACIER PEAK CONSTRUCTION LLC E9FB.Pmt 1 E9FB.PMT 1 (GLACIER PEAK)THRU
E9FB.Pmt 1 (Glacier Peak) thru 10/15
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 32,964.90
E9FB.Ret 1 (Glacier Peak)
412.200.000.223.400.000.00 -16,482.45
Total :16,482.45
135444 11/15/2012 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 107780 Unit 102 - Tires (2)
Unit 102 - Tires (2)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 177.40
Unit 51 - Tires (4)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,368.96
State Tire Fee ($1 per tire)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 146.90
Unit 67 - Tires (2)108026
Unit 67 - Tires (2)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 326.94
State Tire Fees ($1 per tire)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.06
Total :2,059.26
135445 11/15/2012 072515 GOOGLE INC 3886647 C/A #396392 MESSAGE DISCOVERY BILLING
Internet Anti-Virus &Spam Maint Fee
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 242.00
Total :242.00
13Page:
Packet Page 100 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135446 11/15/2012 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 963284416 E6MA.LIGHTING MATERIALS
E6MA.LEDG 120 53 4k AS G L3 Holophane
129.000.240.595.700.410.00 7,841.75
9.5% Sales Tax
129.000.240.595.700.410.00 744.97
Total :8,586.72
135447 11/15/2012 012370 GREENSHIELDS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY PI0011743 Water - Pipe Choker
Water - Pipe Choker
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 90.80
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.35
Total :99.15
135448 11/15/2012 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 132977/1 Water Inventory #334 - W-PIPECO-01
Water Inventory #334 - W-PIPECO-01
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,695.00
Water Supplies - Clamps
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 192.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 161.03
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.24
Sewer - Supplies132978/1
Sewer - Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 296.08
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.13
Water - Supplies133476/1
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 768.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 72.97
Water - Supplies133640/1
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 197.50
14Page:
Packet Page 101 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135448 11/15/2012 (Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.76
Water Inventory #434133641/1
Water Inventory #434
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,391.19
Water Supplies - Resetters,Angle Curbs
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,184.84
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 132.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 207.56
Total :7,363.56
135449 11/15/2012 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3239219 Water - Non Inventory - Quick Joint
Water - Non Inventory - Quick Joint
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,358.01
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 129.01
Water Inventory - #435I3257395
Water Inventory - #435
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 2,848.10
Water Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 868.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 270.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 82.47
Total :5,556.26
135450 11/15/2012 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 5540080 E9FB.MATERIALS
E9FB.6 MJ 22-1/2 Bend
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 89.38
E9FB.6 MJ L/P Sleeve
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 54.10
7.7% sales tax
15Page:
Packet Page 102 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135450 11/15/2012 (Continued)071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 11.05
Total :154.53
135451 11/15/2012 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 31818 E1FN.SERVICES THRU 10/26/12
E1FN.Services thru 10/26/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,764.55
Total :1,764.55
135452 11/15/2012 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 23627 E3JA.T.O. 12-05 THRU 10/27/12
E3JA.Task Order 12-05 thru 10/27/12
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 10,623.22
Total :10,623.22
135453 11/15/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2149636 Misc. office supplies including
Misc. office supplies including
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 329.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 31.31
Misc.office supplies including bankers2179370
Misc.office supplies including bankers
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 402.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 38.26
Total :801.55
135454 11/15/2012 074260 INTELLICEPT 16644 CAST BRONZE SERIES
CAST BRONZE SERIES
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,368.96
Freight
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 78.00
Total :1,446.96
135455 11/15/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701006906 INV#1905701006906 -EDMONDS PD
AA DURACELL BATTERIES-24 PKS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 89.90
16Page:
Packet Page 103 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135455 11/15/2012 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.54
Total :98.44
135456 11/15/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 713816 GLOVES, ETC.
GLOVES, CABLE TIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 113.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.75
Total :123.95
135457 11/15/2012 074262 JACKSON DEAN CONSTRUCTION INC 503867 KEY BANK-50%COST TO REPAIR TRAFFIC LOOP
KEY BANK-50%COST TO REPAIR TRAFFIC LOOP
111.000.653.542.640.480.00 3,119.18
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.480.00 296.32
Total :3,415.50
135458 11/15/2012 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD 16113 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 301
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 16113
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 80.00
Total :80.00
135459 11/15/2012 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 11052012-01 INV#11052012-01 - EDMONDS PD
31 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 10/2012
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 155.93
Total :155.93
135460 11/15/2012 017060 L & O DISTRIBUTING CO 88464 FAC - Water Press Regulator
FAC - Water Press Regulator
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 99.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.47
FAC - Hoffman Vent88492
FAC - Hoffman Vent
17Page:
Packet Page 104 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135460 11/15/2012 (Continued)017060 L & O DISTRIBUTING CO
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 121.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.56
Total :242.37
135461 11/15/2012 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20087 expenses 09-12 EXPENSES
09-12 reimbursement for expenses -
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 147.85
11-12 LEGALS FEESNOV-2012
11-12 Legal fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 32,000.00
Total :32,147.85
135462 11/15/2012 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 666807 Unit 70 - Wheel Seals
Unit 70 - Wheel Seals
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.70
Unit 133 - Alt Fan Belt666865
Unit 133 - Alt Fan Belt
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.12
Unit 138 - Oil Filter667345
Unit 138 - Oil Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.96
Unit 14 - Oil Filter668128
Unit 14 - Oil Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.32
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.60
Unit 57 - Fuel Filter668182
Unit 57 - Fuel Filter
18Page:
Packet Page 105 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135462 11/15/2012 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.67
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.11
Fleet Returns668197
Fleet Returns
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -16.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.54
Unit 20 - Tank Heater668556
Unit 20 - Tank Heater
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 56.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.35
Total :199.38
135463 11/15/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1025 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
Total :88.32
135464 11/15/2012 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 110712 COAT
PARKS COAT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.65
Total :76.65
135465 11/15/2012 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 61729 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 205.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.54
Total :225.24
135466 11/15/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 157777 Street -Motor and Supplies for Cement
19Page:
Packet Page 106 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135466 11/15/2012 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
Street -Motor and Supplies for Cement
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 326.70
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 31.04
Total :357.74
135467 11/15/2012 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0332009-IN Swer -Transmitter Sensor and Supplies
Swer -Transmitter Sensor and Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 940.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 90.56
Total :1,043.78
135468 11/15/2012 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0485084-IN Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 63.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 6.04
Fleet - Filters0485311-IN
Fleet - Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.79
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.49
Fleet- Filter Inventory0485312-IN
Fleet- Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 42.97
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 4.08
Total :156.89
135469 11/15/2012 062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 1027358 Unit EQ84SD & EQ86SO -New Hoists for
Unit EQ84SD & EQ86SO -New Hoists for
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 16,982.00
20Page:
Packet Page 107 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135469 11/15/2012 (Continued)062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,613.29
Total :18,595.29
135470 11/15/2012 072700 NETWORK HARDWARE RESALE LLC 388795 Professional Service
Professional Service
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 525.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 49.88
Total :574.88
135471 11/15/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-561381 CREDIT FROM HONEY BUCKET
Credit from 10/22/12-11/11/12
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -127.09
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-564728
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62
Total :67.53
135472 11/15/2012 073392 NORTHWEST PERMIT INC BLD20121027 Checked gas piping in error.
Checked gas piping in error.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 20.00
Checked gas piping in error.BLD20121028
Checked gas piping in error.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 20.00
Total :40.00
135473 11/15/2012 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 336 Historic Preservation Minutes for
Historic Preservation Minutes for
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 288.00
Total :288.00
135474 11/15/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 024721 THERMAL PAPER ROLLS FOR EDEN CASHIERING
Thermal Paper rolls 3.125"
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 115.10
21Page:
Packet Page 108 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135474 11/15/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 10.94
Total :126.04
135475 11/15/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 093827 USB DRIVE
USB DRIVE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 16.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.59
BINDER WHITE097719
BINDER WHITE
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 5.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.54
BLUE COVER STOCK147533
BLUE STOCK
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.51
Total :30.56
135476 11/15/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 085774 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 63.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 6.03
Total :69.55
135477 11/15/2012 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC, PLLC OCTOBER 2012 October 2012 Hearing Examiner Services
October 2012 Hearing Examiner Services
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 464.00
Total :464.00
135478 11/15/2012 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-176237 Unit 70- Disc Kit
Unit 70- Disc Kit
22Page:
Packet Page 109 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135478 11/15/2012 (Continued)073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.32
Unit 70 - Disc Kit2-176263
Unit 70 - Disc Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.32
Total :53.42
135479 11/15/2012 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 13.32
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY0001520
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 31.54
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY0001530
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 149.90
5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER0002930
5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.43
9803 EDMONDS WAY0005060
9803 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 14.65
SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL0026390
SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 14.65
Total :249.49
135480 11/15/2012 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 140781 DUMP FEES
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.50
DUMP FEES140791
DUMP FEES
23Page:
Packet Page 110 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135480 11/15/2012 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.00
DUMP FEES140823
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.50
DUMP FEES140836
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 94.50
DUMP FEES140846
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.00
DUMP FEES140854
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.50
Total :483.00
135481 11/15/2012 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 142266 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees142277
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees142285
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees142292
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Storm Dump Fees142306
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 73.50
Total :367.50
135482 11/15/2012 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 14-79329 E7AA.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER
E7AA.Services thru September 2012
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 8,264.99
24Page:
Packet Page 111 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :8,264.9913548211/15/2012 065051 065051 PARAMETRIX INC
135483 11/15/2012 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.954023032939 PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 31.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.96
Total :34.14
135484 11/15/2012 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20100166.000-16 E2DB.SERVICES THRU 10/28/12
E2DB.Services thru 10/28/12
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 4,006.71
E7AC.SERVICES THRU 10/28/1220110010.000-15
E7AC.Services thru 10/26/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,362.45
Total :6,369.16
135485 11/15/2012 064167 POLLARDWATER.COM-EAST I338689-IN Water Supplies - Fire Hose for Water
Water Supplies - Fire Hose for Water
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 243.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 24.20
Total :278.88
135486 11/15/2012 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY STORMWATER RENT TO PORT OF EDMONDS
CITY STORMWATER RENT TO PORT OF EDMONDS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,326.58
Total :2,326.58
135487 11/15/2012 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 15834 FELDENKRAIS
FELDENKRAIS 15834
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 140.00
Total :140.00
135488 11/15/2012 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000131224 MARKER, MORELAN
25Page:
Packet Page 112 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135488 11/15/2012 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
MARKER, MORELAN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 329.00
MARKER, EBINGER00000131225
MARKER, EBINGER
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 516.00
NICHE INSCRIPTION00000131413
NICHE INSCRIPTION
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 90.00
Total :935.00
135489 11/15/2012 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 003833 Storm Street Sweeping Dump Fees
Storm Street Sweeping Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 550.71
Total :550.71
135490 11/15/2012 006841 RICOH USA INC 5024134849 Meter charges for Engineering color
Meter charges for Engineering color
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 419.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 39.86
Meter charges for large copier for502413848
Meter charges for large copier for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 62.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 5.96
Total :528.15
135491 11/15/2012 070042 RICOH USA INC 87987184 Rent on MPC 6000 Engineering Color
Rent on MPC 6000 Engineering Color
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on Large Copier R907EX in DS Dept87987186
Rent on Large Copier R907EX in DS Dept
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,270.48
26Page:
Packet Page 113 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135492 11/15/2012 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY OCT 2012 INVOICE 10/31/12 ACCT#70014 -EDMONDS PD
#111836 5 NPC - 10/8/12
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 55.10
Total :55.10
135493 11/15/2012 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 245156 Unit 96 - Handle
Unit 96 - Handle
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.35
Total :50.15
135494 11/15/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200869246 PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS
PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 83.99
23700 104TH AVE W2011-8453-8
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 195.73
PARK GAZEBO201383270
PARK GAZEBO
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.13
PLAYFIELD LIGHTS201453057
PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 581.69
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS &202114484
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS &
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 149.80
Total :1,041.34
135495 11/15/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 137010328 E9FB.TEMPORARY POWER
E9FB.Temporary Power
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 27.40
Total :27.40
135496 11/15/2012 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2012-1360 CREDITS ON INVOICE #2012-1360 EDMONDS PD
CR 31 WORK RELEASE $18 EACH
27Page:
Packet Page 114 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135496 11/15/2012 (Continued)063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -558.00
CR 22 WORK RELEASE $43.26 EACH
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -951.72
INV#2012-1360 - EDMONDS PD2012-1360
OCT BOOKINGS - 57.83 @ $92.70
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,360.84
OCT HOUSING - 454.1 @ $64.38
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 29,234.96
OCT WORK RELEASE - 59 @ $43.26
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 2,552.34
Total :35,638.42
135497 11/15/2012 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000309410 INV#I000309410 CUST#SSH00095-EDMONDS PD
SCSO RANGE USAGE 6.5 HRS 10/1
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 325.00
INV#I000309412 CUST#SSH00095-EDMONDS PDI000309412
SCSO RANGE USAGE 9.5 HRS 10/2
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 475.00
Total :800.00
135498 11/15/2012 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000311546 SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 381.00
Total :381.00
135499 11/15/2012 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I000309750 2ND HALF 2012 P&I 800 MHZ BILLING
2nd Half 2012 800 MHZ Billing -
001.000.390.591.220.710.00 80,522.28
2nd Half 2012 800 MHZ Billing -
001.000.390.592.220.830.00 18,002.08
2ND HALF 2012 SNO COM P&I BILLINGI000309751
2nd Half 2012 SnoCom billing -
001.000.390.591.220.710.00 22,036.91
2nd Half 2012 SnoCom billing -
001.000.390.592.220.830.00 4,926.71
28Page:
Packet Page 115 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :125,487.9813549911/15/2012 067809 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE
135500 11/15/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 SOLID WASTE
PARK MAIT. DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 569.63
Total :569.63
135501 11/15/2012 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4207367-01 PANTS, JACKET
PANTS, JACKET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 221.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.05
Total :242.60
135502 11/15/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100345260.001 E1FD.WASH STATION SUPPLIES
E1FD.Intermatic...1G RCP Cover
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 16.58
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1.58
Total :18.16
135503 11/15/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100347961.001 Fac Maint - Elect Supplies
Fac Maint - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 327.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.09
Total :358.36
135504 11/15/2012 060167 TEREX UTILITIES 0045036-IN Unit 100 -Perform ANSI Annual Aerial
Unit 100 -Perform ANSI Annual Aerial
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 315.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 29.93
Total :344.93
135505 11/15/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1799373 Shoreline Master Program/AMD20080017
Shoreline Master Program/AMD20080017
29Page:
Packet Page 116 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135505 11/15/2012 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 142.80
Sundquist/PLN20080046 Legal Notices1800145
Sundquist/PLN20080046 Legal Notices
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 34.40
Total :177.20
135506 11/15/2012 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10016485 HERALD
HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 2013
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 189.00
Total :189.00
135507 11/15/2012 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 346869 Library -Latch for ADA Partition Door
Library -Latch for ADA Partition Door
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 42.93
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.94
Total :56.83
135508 11/15/2012 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV987819 City Wide - Filters for City Buildings
City Wide - Filters for City Buildings
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,638.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 155.62
Total :1,793.74
135509 11/15/2012 070774 ULINE INC 47385824 INV#47385824 CUST#2634605 -EDMONDS PD
WHITE PAPER CD ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 59.00
KRAFT REDI SEAL 10X13 ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 240.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 49.06
9.5% Sales Tax
30Page:
Packet Page 117 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135509 11/15/2012 (Continued)070774 ULINE INC
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 33.07
Total :381.13
135510 11/15/2012 062693 US BANK 5923 PARKING CHARGES
Parking while attending meetings at
001.000.610.519.700.490.00 9.00
Total :9.00
135511 11/15/2012 062693 US BANK 3249 HOTEL FEE FOR COURT STAFF TRAINING
HOTEL FEE FOR COURT STAFF TRAINING
001.000.230.512.500.430.00 131.74
PASSPORT POSTAGE
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 49.00
Total :180.74
135512 11/15/2012 062693 US BANK 3470 CASHIERING RIBBONS,SNO CO RECORDINGS
Snohomish County Recordings -Utility
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 504.00
Snohomish County Recordings -Utility
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 504.00
Office Supply Outfitters - EDEN
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 105.47
LODGING ACCIS FALL CONFERENCE S HUNSTOCK5506
Semiahmoo Resort - ACCIS Fall
001.000.310.518.880.430.00 367.84
GFOA WEBINAR,GASB SUBSCRIPTION D SHARP5855
GFOA -Building an Electronic Budget
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 35.00
GASB -Governmental Accounting Research
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 445.00
Total :1,961.31
135513 11/15/2012 062693 US BANK 5593 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 544.50
31Page:
Packet Page 118 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135513 11/15/2012 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 544.50
Total :1,089.00
135514 11/15/2012 062693 US BANK 3355 Heathman Lodge Vancouver, WA -Stay for
Heathman Lodge Vancouver, WA -Stay for
111.000.653.542.900.430.00 524.68
Total :524.68
135515 11/15/2012 062693 US BANK 6045 Keyboard for iPad 3 and IPad 2 for Rob
Keyboard for iPad 3 and IPad 2 for Rob
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 156.56
Total :156.56
135516 11/15/2012 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 2100116 utility locates - October 2012
utility locates - October 2012
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 74.75
utility locates - October 2012
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 74.75
utility locates - October 2012
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 77.00
Total :226.50
135517 11/15/2012 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 12-536 2013 MEMBERSHIP
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP 2013
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 156.00
Total :156.00
135518 11/15/2012 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I13003347 INV#I13003347 EDM301 -EDMONDS PD
BACKGROUND CHECKS OCT 2012
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 198.00
Total :198.00
135519 11/15/2012 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0158749 Traffic Control - Blanks 18x9 .080
Traffic Control - Blanks 18x9 .080
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 88.80
32Page:
Packet Page 119 of 998
11/15/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
7:57:46AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
135519 11/15/2012 (Continued)051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 9.03
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 9.29
Total :107.12
Bank total :773,414.44121Vouchers for bank code :front
773,414.44Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report121
33Page:
Packet Page 120 of 998
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 121 of 998
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 122 of 998
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 123 of 998
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 124 of 998
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 125 of 998
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
WWTP c383 WWTP WWTP ReRoof Project
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 126 of 998
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 127 of 998
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 11/15/2012Packet Page 128 of 998
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 129 of 998
AM-5248 4. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Jo Ellen Gregor ($1,447.49).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A Claim for Damages has been received from the following individual:
Jo Ellen Gregor
8120 Talbot Rd.
Edmonds, WA
($1,447.49)
Attachments
J. Gregor Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 11/08/2012 09:44 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:39 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 11/08/2012 08:27 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 130 of 998
Packet Page 131 of 998
Packet Page 132 of 998
Packet Page 133 of 998
Packet Page 134 of 998
Packet Page 135 of 998
Packet Page 136 of 998
AM-5272 4. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) for SEIU & Teamsters' unions for the 2012 medical insurance
article reopener negotiation of the change to the United Healthcare (UHC) medical insurance plan
effective 2013.
Recommendation
For Council approval to be signed by the Mayor.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City negotiated the change to the new medical insurance plan with UHC effective 1/1/13 with all the
unions. Specific to the SEIU & Teamsters' unions, there was an insurance article re-opener for this item.
The resultant agreement (Memorandums of Understanding) between the City and the unions reflect a one
time floater holiday for both SEIU & Teamsters employees (to be used by these respective employee
groups in 2013 or 2014) in order to transition to the new UHC health insurance plan on 1/1/13.
Attachments
SEIU MOU
Teamsters MOU
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 08:20 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 08:52 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:33 PM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 11/14/2012 03:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/15/2012
Packet Page 137 of 998
Memorandum of Understanding
Amended to the AGREEMENT by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
And
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL UNION No. 925
January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014
THIS AMENDMENT is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON (the “City”) and the SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU) LOCAL UNION No. 925.
WHEREAS, the parties have ratified a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)
effective January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the parties engaged in discussions leading to a change from the current
health and medical insurance plan to the United Healthcare insurance plan pursuant to the
medical insurance article reopener in Article 9.1.1 of the parties CBA;
NOW THEREFORE, the City and SEIU have entered into this Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”) to memorialize the following agreement:
The parties agree that (with regard to this specific United Healthcare insurance plan
change taking effect January 1, 2013) if the City’s other represented bargaining units
receive additional benefits to mitigate the health insurance plan change to United
Healthcare, SEIU employees will receive the same additional benefits (with the exception
of any changes for bargaining units entering into mediation or arbitration as a result of
negotiations that involve the healthcare insurance change to United Healthcare).
The parties additionally agree, in consideration for SEIU employees to move to the
United Healthcare insurance plan, as configured on January 1, 2013, that the City shall
give each employee in the bargaining unit one (1) additional day of “floating holiday,” to
be taken at a mutually agreed time either in calendar year 2013 or 2014, (not to be
carried over into 2015). The choice of calendar year shall be at the employee’s
discretion.
The parties agree that this MOU is non-precedent setting.
Packet Page 138 of 998
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL CITY OF EDMONDS,
UNION, LOCAL UNION No. 925 (“SEIU”) WASHINGTON
By _________________________________ By __________________
Megan McCumsey Dave Earling
Representative Mayor
Date ________________________________ Date:__________________
Packet Page 139 of 998
VOTING DOCUMENT
October 17, 2012
Memorandum of Understanding
Amended to the AGREEMENT by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
And
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION No. 763
January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014
THIS AMENDMENT is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON (the “City”) and the PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE -CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND
DRIVERS LOCAL UNION No. 763, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the
“Teamsters”).
WHEREAS, the parties have ratified a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) effective January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the parties engaged in discussions leading to a change from the current health and medical insurance
plan to the United Healthcare insurance plan pursuant to the medical insurance article reopener in Article 10.1.2
of the parties CBA;
NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Teamsters have entered into this Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)
to memorialize the following agreement:
The parties agree, in consideration for the Teamsters’ move to the United Healthcare insurance plan, as
configured on January 1, 2013, that the City shall give each employee in the bargaining unit one (1) additional
day of “floating holiday,” to be taken at a mutually agreed time either in calendar year 2013 or 2014 , to be used
by the end of 2014 (not to be carried over into 2015). The choice of calendar year shall be at the employee’s
discretion.
The parties agree that this MOU is non-precedent setting.
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE- CITY OF EDMONDS,
CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS WASHINGTON
LOCAL UNION No. 763, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters 763
By _________________________________ By __________________
Scott A. Sullivan Dave Earling
Secretary- Treasure Mayor
Date ________________________________ Date:__________________
Packet Page 140 of 998
AM-5270 4. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell
Department:Public Works
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles
Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to the Public Works & Utilities Department to contract
with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell a surplus vehicle obtained through seizure by the Edmonds
Police Department and that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda for the November 20, 2012,
meeting of the City Council.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Previously the City has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City
vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost-effective method to manage surplus items.
The following vehicle was obtained through seizure by the Edmonds Police Department and can be
divested as surplus.
Black 2001 Volvo S60 / VIN# YV1RS58D612074190 / WA License No. 197-UXB
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2012 Revenue:6,000 Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Monies will be deposited into the general fund account.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 03:02 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 08:50 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:33 PM
Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 11/14/2012 02:31 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/15/2012
Packet Page 141 of 998
Packet Page 142 of 998
AM-5280 4. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Pamela Randolph Submitted By:Pamela Randolph
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Request for Bid: Wastewater Treatment Disinfection and Odor Control Chemicals
Recommendation
We recommend that the Council approve this request to conduct an open bid for Wastewater Treatment
Disinfection and Odor Control Chemicals.
Previous Council Action
Chemical bid and contract award was last completed in 2009.
Narrative
The wastewater treatment process requires Sodium Hypochlorite for disinfection and odor control,
Sodium Bisulfite for dechlorination and Sodium Hydroxide for odor control. These chemicals in
combination, allow us to achieve NPDES compliance and reduce odors associated with the treament
process. The average expenditures for these chemicals is approximately $93,000.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 04:56 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Pamela Randolph Started On: 11/15/2012 12:43 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 143 of 998
AM-5271 4. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell
Department:Public Works
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Lynnwood and the City
of Edmonds for joint funding of the Recycling Coordinator.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement between Lynnwood
and Edmonds to jointly fund the Recycling Coordinator position and implement their respective 2013 and
2014 Waste Prevention and Recycling Programs.
Previous Council Action
Since 1995, the Edmonds City Council and staff have agreed to pursue an interlocal cooperative
agreement with the City of Lynnwood to share resources in respect to their waste prevention and
recycling programs. The original interlocal agreement between the two municipalities was produced and
approved on March 28, 1995. A provision of the original agreement allows its extension upon mutual
consent of both the City of Edmonds and the City of Lynnwood and it has been renewed continually ever
since.
Narrative
The waste prevention, recycling, and conservation programs of the City of Edmonds includes providing
full-time education and outreach efforts on a wide variety of environmental issues including solid waste
handling, hazardous waste disposal, recycling maximization, water conservation, and state and regional
policy implementation coordination. The goal of these programs is to ensure the preservation of the
health of our community environment and the protection of local watersheds and waterways from
environmental pollution through proactive communication and the provision of many incidental and
related public services.
The attached updated interlocal cooperative agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City
Attornies of both Edmonds and Lynnwood and covers the next biennial period through 2013 to the end of
2014. This agreement is renewed biennially to coincide with the State of Washington's budget cycle in
order to align the Department of Ecology's grant award process with the operations of both municipalities.
This agreement estimates that the City of Lynnwood will provide approximately 28% of the funding of
the Recycling Coordinator position in return for a corresponding portion of time committed to assist in
the implementation of Lynnwood's parallel efforts at waste prevention, recycling, and conservation.
Considering the important synergistic interconnections of neighboring municipalities in effectuating
these type of programs, the ultimate return on investment for both partners offers an enhanced public
Packet Page 144 of 998
value for the citizen stakeholders of both communities.
This agreement is anticipated to be funded as follows:
2013 Budget
$21,805 Washington State Department of Ecology Grant
$16,860 City of Lynnwood
$60,250 Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421
2014 Budget
$21,805 Washington State Department of Ecology Grant
$16,860 City of Lynnwood
$60,250 Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421
This interlocal cooperative agreement is presently being moved through the approval process in the City
of Lynnwood in parallel with the City of Edmonds.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2013 Revenue:37,945 Expenditure:98,915
Fiscal Impact:
Revenues are from State of Washington Department of Ecology grant funds and cost reimbursements
from the City of Lynnwood.
Expenditures of $60,250 are from the City of Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421.
There is no fiscal impact on expenditures from the City of Edmonds General Fund.
Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue:37,945 Expenditure:98,915
Fiscal Impact:
Revenues are from State of Washington Department of Ecology grant funds and cost reimbursements
from the City of Lynnwood.
Expenditures of $60,250 are from the City of Edmonds Water Utility Fund 421.
There is no fiscal impact on expenditures from the City of Edmonds General Fund.
Attachments
2013-2014 Edmonds/Lynnwood Recycling Coordinator ILA
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 03:02 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 08:53 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:33 PM
Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 11/14/2012 02:32 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/15/2012
Packet Page 145 of 998
Final Approval Date: 11/15/2012
Packet Page 146 of 998
330936.01|360099|0009|73c_01!.DOC (11/7/12) -1-
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 1
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD 2
AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR 3
JOINT FUNDING OF A RECYCLING COORDINATOR 4
5
THIS AGREEMENT between the City of Lynnwood (“Lynnwood”) and the City of Edmonds 6
(“Edmonds”), each a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Washington, is dated 7
this______ day of ____________ 2012. 8
9
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government units to 10
make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities 11
on the basis of mutual advantage; and 12
13
WHEREAS, Edmonds and Lynnwood each presently staff and operate a solid waste program 14
partially funded by a Department of Ecology grant; and 15
16
WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology has funds available to partially fund a continuation of 17
the program; and 18
19
WHEREAS both Edmonds and Lynnwood have partially funded their respective programs for 20
2013 and 2014, yet do not have full funding capability; and 21
22
WHEREAS, Edmonds and Lynnwood have concluded that it would be in their best interests for 23
Edmonds and Lynnwood to jointly fund their solid waste efforts as provided herein. 24
25
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 26
27
1. Edmonds employs Steve Fisher as Recycling Coordinator, and Lynnwood has approved 28
service provision by Mr. Fisher. Should the position of Recycling Coordinator become 29
vacant during the term of this Agreement, Edmonds shall employ a Recycling Coordinator 30
with appropriate qualifications. The selection of the replacement Recycling Coordinator 31
shall be subject to the approval of Lynnwood, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 32
33
2. The Recycling Coordinator shall provide Edmonds and Lynnwood with a recycling program 34
during 2013 and 2014 to provide for the activities and services described in exhibit A, which 35
is incorporated herein by reference. 36
37
3. The Edmonds Recycling Coordinator will document actual activities and contacts in meeting 38
the Lynnwood recycling program, and will provide verification of time spent on Lynnwood 39
activities, prior to or at the time of submission of any invoice by Edmonds to Lynnwood for 40
payment under Paragraph 4 below. 41
42
4. For services provided by the Recycling Coordinator, Lynnwood will reimburse Edmonds an 43
amount not to exceed $26,000.00 in the year 2013 and $29,000.00 in 2014. Reimbursement 44
shall be paid quarterly at a rate of $58.85 per hour in the year 2013 and $60.03 in the year 45
2014, plus Lynnwood’s fair share of direct charges of labor, benefits, and material costs, 46
without the inclusion of overhead or general administrative charges, incurred in 47
administering the Lynnwood recycling program. Edmonds shall notify Lynnwood when 48
Packet Page 147 of 998
330936.01|360099|0009|73c_01!.DOC (11/7/12) -2-
Edmonds has been reimbursed $20,000.00 in either year at which time the parties shall meet 1
to determine whether to amend the agreement to provide for further work and compensation. 2
3
5. The term of this agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2013 and will expire December 4
31, 2014. This agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of both parties and 5
upon specific approval of the respective recycling programs for future budget years. 6
7
6. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon sixty (60) days notice. 8
Reconciliation of costs, payment, transfer of developed materials, and a current report of 9
completed activities will be completed within the sixty (60) day period following notice by 10
either party. 11
12
7. Lynnwood agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds from any claims 13
arising as a result of the administration of Lynnwood’s program under this agreement. 14
Lynnwood and Edmonds shall each be responsible for any and all liability resulting from any 15
acts or omissions resulting from its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, and 16
those of its own agents, employees, contractors, or officials, as the same shall be determined 17
under the laws of the State of Washington or a mutually approved settlement agreement. 18
19
8. This agreement incorporates the entire understanding between Edmonds and Lynnwood 20
regarding the subject matter of this agreement. This Agreement may only be modified in a 21
writing signed by the parties hereto. It shall be filed with the Department of Ecology and the 22
Snohomish County Auditor as required by law. 23
24
9. In addition to the provisions previously stated regarding duration, organization and purpose, 25
the following provisions are included pursuant to the requirements of RCW 39.34.030. 26
27
9.1 No joint or cooperative undertaking is required by this agreement. 28
Therefore, no provision is made for the financing of any joint or cooperative 29
undertaking. 30
31
9.2 No joint property ownership is contemplated under the terms of this 32
provision. To the extent title to the right of way exists, it shall remain in the 33
ownership of the party which acquires it. In the event, at the termination of this 34
agreement, any personal property is jointly owned by the parties, either party 35
may purchase the interest of the other, with the other party’s permission, at fair 36
market value, as such value is determined by the parties. In the event that neither 37
party wishes to retain jointly obtained property, it shall be surplussed and the 38
proceeds divided pro-rata based upon the party’s initial contribution to the 39
purchase of such property. If both parties seek ownership of the property, value 40
shall be determined as herein provided and the right of the parties to purchase 41
the property or properties determined by the drawing of lots. 42
43
9.3 Because no joint or cooperative undertaking is contemplated by this 44
agreement, no provision has been made for an administrator or joint board. 45
46
Packet Page 148 of 998
330936.01|360099|0009|73c_01!.DOC (11/7/12) -3-
9.4 This agreement shall be effective when listed by subject on the City of 1
Edmonds’ web site, Lynnwood’s web site or another electronically retrievable 2
public source, whichever shall first occur. 3
4
5
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of this 7
_____ day of ________________, 2012. 8
9
CITY OF LYNNWOOD CITY OF EDMONDS 10
11
12
___________________________ ___________________________ 13
Don Gough, Mayor Dave Earling, Mayor 14
15
ATTEST ATTEST 16
17
18
___________________________ ___________________________ 19
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Sandra Chase, City Clerk 20
21
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM 22
23
24
___________________________ ___________________________ 25
Rosemary Larson, City Attorney Sharon Cates, Office of the City Attorney 26
27
Packet Page 149 of 998
330936.01|360099|0009|73c_01!.DOC (11/7/12) -4-
EXHIBIT A 1
2
3
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs 4
Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood 5
6
7
CONTINUED PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL MESSAGES & OUTREACH: 8
City Newsletter articles. 9
Program information section for city Internet web sites. 10
Presentations and assistance to schools and businesses. 11
Educational outreach at local events. 12
Maintain Recycle Cart (Edmonds) and Recycle/Compost information racks (Lynnwood). 13
Distribution of brochures and flyers, and creation of educational displays. 14
Publicity, coordination and assistance with local scout troops with Christmas tree recycling. 15
16
ASSISTANCE to MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES with RECYCLING EFFORTS: 17
Continues to supply information and assistance to managers and tenants. 18
Expansion of available recycling to non-participating properties. 19
Contamination issues, illegal dumping, Christmas tree collection, multi-lingual information. 20
21
EXPANSION & MAINTENANCE of SINGLE-FAMILY RECYCLING PROGRAMS: 22
Cooperation with the municipal waste collection companies in identifying non-customers for use in a campaign to 23
increase single family participation. 24
Publicity, information and management for special recycling collection and clean-up events. 25
26
ASSISTANCE to the COMMERCIAL SECTOR with WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING EFFORTS 27
and SOLID WASTE ISSUES & MANAGEMENT: 28
Contacts, site visits, waste assessments to retail/office/manufacturers/schools/institutions. 29
Presentations of options and opportunities for businesses such as construction and demolition debris recycling, 30
material exchanges and reuse opportunities, and issues affecting water quality. 31
Continuation of support and maintenance of the Compost Collection Project – involving collecting organics from 32
restaurants and other food service businesses. 33
Small Quantity Generator educational outreach (special & hazardous wastes). 34
35
CONTINUED CITY IN-HOUSE WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING PROGRAM: 36
Keep employees updated on recycling information and opportunities. 37
Expand and evaluate recycling, reuse, and solid waste generation and disposal. 38
Coordinate proper recycling of unwanted electronics, cell phones, batteries, and printer cartridges. 39
40
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES: 41
Grant administration: Quarterly and final reports for Department of Ecology. 42
Program evaluation and ordinance research and writing. 43
Continuation as part of development Services review, specifically for proposed new and remodeled commercial and 44
multi-family properties to help site enclosures and containers for garbage and recycling. 45
Continued liaison with the municipal solid waste collection companies. 46
47
CONTINUED LIAISON with COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT: 48
Meetings and assistance with County programs: 49
-Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Station. 50
-County solid waste and recycling facilities. 51
-Used oil, oil filters, and antifreeze collection sites. 52
-“Take It Back” Network for proper electronics recycling. 53
Representative on Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) (Edmonds) 54
55
56
Packet Page 150 of 998
AM-5284 4. I.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Carl Nelson
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities.
Recommendation
Review of Third Quarter Fiber Optic Opportunities and recommendation to establish the Fiber Optic
Project as an enterprise fund in keeping with resolution 1234.
Previous Council Action
Resolution 1234 - Support of Continued Development of Fiber Optic Opportunities as a Source of City
Revenue.
Narrative
The August 24, 2010 presentation of "Edmonds Fiber Optic Broadband Initiative - Background and
Update" resulted in Resolution 1234 - setting the policy to review Fiber Optic "opportunity that serves
the interest of the citizenry of Edmonds" and requiring quarterly reports to the Finance Committee.
Progress has been made: In providing fiber to the Yost Pool, the Wade James Theater, which is on the
fiber route, was connected. The Building at 110 James Street and SNOCOM are using City provided
Internet services. The Edmonds Center for the Arts has been connected and Rick Steves has
live-streamed two events from the ECA. Rick Steves Europe through the back door location is also using
City of Edmonds fiber. In response to a tenant at the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square property, City of
Edmonds is placing fiber under Hi-Way 104.
Attachment 1 shows expenditures as of Oct 31st. Attachment 2 shows cumulative expenditures and
yearly anticipated revenues. Attachment 3 is a chart showing savings/revenues and an estimated Net to
the City for the fiber effort. Using current trends the anticipated payback for the original investment is
mid to end of 2014. The Citizens Advisory Committee has reviewed the attachments.
Expenditures for the 2012 Fiber Optic Budget have been: ISP charges (approx $9,762), Small Equipment
(lasers and equipment) ($5,742.94) for the fiber at Wade James, Yost, and City Hall, Professional
Services (approx $5,912.14.), Repairs/Maint ($1,911), and on-going PUD pole rental ($814). The City
Council recently amended the budget to authorize a one-time expenditure of $27,000 which will provide
an opportunity to place fiber under Hi-Way 104 in cooperation with Washington Department of
Transportation and connect Harbor Square and City Park properties. Due to removal of poles for the 6th
& Main Street project, a one time charge of about $12,000 has been allocated. Both of these expenditures
Packet Page 151 of 998
will show up in the next quarter's reporting.
Current total yearly revenues from the Fiber Optic Project are about $40,000/year.
CTAC discussed the diverse route proposal and recommended a diverse route be pursued.
CTAC also discussed the hiring of a temporary part time position to find and develop new fiber optic
customers. There were questions if the compensation amount proposed was adequate. CTAC
recommended continued pursuit of new customers.
Shawn Hunstock brought to CTAC a proposal to move the fiber project into an Enterprise Fund (see
attached memo). CTAC discussed and recommended his proposal for moving the Fiber Optic Project
into an enterprise fund be brought forward to City council for implementation. The proposed enterprise
fund is where all revenues and expenditures for the City's Fiber Optic Project would be accounted for.
Included in the proposed 2013 Fiber Optic Project budget would be the 2013 budget decision packages
for a Customer Development part time position and the start of the diverse fiber route to HiWay 99.
Attachments
Hunstock CTAC Memo
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 11/15/2012 04:02 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 11/15/2012 04:21 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/16/2012 08:55 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 09:33 AM
Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 11/15/2012 03:30 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 152 of 998
City of Edmonds Finance and Information Systems
To: Citizens Technology Advisory Committee
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Date: November 1, 2012
Re: Enterprise Fund for City Fiber
The concept of an enterprise fund for the City’s fiber infrastructure is one that I fully
support, and is one that I think will help insure not only the viability of the Edmonds
Fiber Network (EFN) but also help facilitate a strategic vision for what the City’s
elected officials want for the Network. The issue in my opinion is not one of timing,
creation of a utility fund could be done at any time. The issues I see involved with
making a change to an enterprise fund are outlined below.
Historical Costs and Revenue
The City currently tracks historical costs associated with 1) the legal efforts
undertaken to insure the City can sell excess fiber capacity as well as 2) the costs to-
date for the physical fiber infrastructure. Revenue received to-date is tracked as well,
and a measure of how long it will take to fully recover those historical costs is
presented to Council on a quarterly basis.
In my opinion this information is valuable and critical for elected officials and the
public to know of the City’s investment in this valuable public asset. In the context of
transitioning to an enterprise fund which, by definition, is not only self-sustaining but
also generates enough revenue to fund future physical infrastructure investments, the
practice of continuing to track historical costs and a payback period is a hindrance. I
view it as a hindrance not because I feel the prior expenses will not be able to be
recovered. To the contrary, each new customer that signs up only shortens the
payback period even more. In my view the prior practice of accounting for these costs
is a hindrance because those are sunk costs at this point and the notion of waiting until
a payback period is met, where all past costs are recovered, only delays the timing of
a transition to a self-supporting enterprise fund. Those prior costs will be recovered in
quick order and the EFN will generate positive cash flow to fund the support and
capital investment that is needed for it to be successful. My suggestion would be that
CITY OF EDMONDS
DAVE EARLING
CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR MAYOR
EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425)771-0240 FAX (425)771-0265 SHAWN HUNSTOCK
FINANCE DIRECTOR
FINANCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT
Packet Page 153 of 998
City of Edmonds Finance and Information Systems
the EFN not only start with a “clean slate” at this point, if the desire is to create an
enterprise fund in the near future, but for the Council to also seed the effort with a
one-time investment to accomplish the items noted below.
Strategic Vision
Another critical item, in my opinion, is development of a strategic vision for where
elected officials and other interested parties want the EFN to go. I see that happening
in three ways:
1. Short-term; market to and invest in customers within a reasonable proximity of
the current fiber infrastructure. This would expand the customer base for EFN,
generating position cash flow, with relatively minimal capital costs. Carl
Nelson submitted a Decision Package as part of the 2013 budget process that
would accomplish this.
2. Medium-term; develop a business and marketing plan that 1) outlines the
vision for where the City sees the EFN going in 5-10 years, and 2) develops
resources that can be used to help attract commercial customers to the EFN. A
critical component of this phase will be the completion of a diverse fiber route
to Hwy 99 to insure redundancy and reliability.
3. Long-term; develop a strategic vision for how the City can best serve the
business and citizen communities from a technology perspective. This could
encompass more than just the EFN. The use of EFN and other technologies to
reduce costs for the City should also be investigated. For instance, wireless
remote reads for utilities. Technologies that improve the quality of life of
Edmonds residents could be developed too, such as citywide wifi. The vision
and strategies should not be limited to just fiber technologies, but incorporate
the EFN into a comprehensive strategic plan for technology investment within
the City.
Recommendation
In the short-term I would recommend the CTAC endorse a plan to develop short-term
opportunities as outlined in item #1 above, as well as the development of a request to
the City Council for start-up funding to begin the process of working on item #2.
Packet Page 154 of 998
City of Edmonds Fiber Project Costs FY 2006-2012
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012
Title/Object Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Budgeted Actuals YTD
310 SUPPLIES -$ -$ -$ 7,888.99$ -$ -$ -$
350 SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - 17,336.17 1,463.62 - 3,500.00 4,357.62
410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,795.68 34,886.87 76,370.39 93,116.02 46,826.36 7,450.92 6,000.00 3,271.79
420 COMMUNICATIONS - - 34,186.06 43,932.95 21,109.44 10,994.40 13,200.00 6,097.20
450 RENTAL/LEASE - - - 4,552.93 3,948.00 - 814.33
480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE - - - 2,456.39 114.46 6,160.90 2,500.00 1,911.82
490 MISCELLANEOUS - - 6.05 600.00 2,772.47 - - -
640 EQUIPMENT - 126,248.00 - - - - - -
Total 7,795.68 161,134.87 110,562.50 169,883.45 76,234.35 24,606.22$ 25,200.00$ 16,452.76$
reimbursement(a)(20,874.08) (3,375.00)
55,360.27
Fiber Optic Budget (Page 31 of 2009/2010 Budget)292,062.00 197,200.00 113,600.00 25,700.00 25,200.00
Difference between budget and expenditures (181,499.50)$ (27,316.55)$ (58,239.73)$ (1,093.78)$ (8,747.24)$
(267,055.78)$
a)2010 Professional Services figures take into consideration reimbursement by project partners totaling $20,874.08 through 12/31/2010.
Attachment 1
Packet Page 155 of 998
ATTACHMENT 2
Costs incurred to date:
12/31/2010 12/31/2011 6/30/2012
$ 7,888.99 $ 7,888.99 7888.99
Small Equipment:Small scale purchases for switching and routing equipment
(accessories) necessary to expand the networks ability to
accommodate additional partners.
18,799.79 18,799.79 $23,157.41
Professional Svc:Consulting for Configuration, Design, Install, Legal fees and
consulting fees for the Program Director. (July 22nd MOU with
City of Seattle will reduce this by $20,245.38)
$ 258,995.32 $ 266,446.24 $ 245,468.95
Reimbursement: $ (20,874.08) $ (24,249.08)
Communications:Fees paid to the regional fiber consortium for shared costs of
certain assets and fees paid for Internet access.
99,228.45 $ 110,222.85 $116,320.05
Rental & Lease:Pole rental 8,500.93 $ 8,500.93 $9,315.26
Repair & Maintenance:Fees paid to the regional fiber consortium for shared
Maintenance of certain assets as well as repairs to wholly owned
fiber assets.
Ongoing costs of $196/month for pole rental and consortium
dues + $2,000 CISCO maintenance
2,570.85 $ 8,731.75 $10,643.57
Miscellaneous 3,378.52 $ 3,378.52 $3,378.52
Equipment:Fiber construction & Equipment costs associated with
establishing service and connection of new partners to the
network.
$ 126,248.00 $ 126,248.00 $ 126,248.00
TOTAL Costs to Date $504,736.77 $525,967.99 $542,420.75
Recurring savings or revenues implemented:
12/31/2010 12/31/2011 6/30/2012
REVENUE FROM CUSTOMERS $15,900 $21,000 $17,220
Payoff with savings and revenues for initial investment likely by Dec 2014
Revenues as of:
Item
Supplies:Miscellaneous publishing of plans, documents and drawings in
support of the projects major directives.
Description
See Attachment 2 for details
CUMULATIVE Costs as of:
Packet Page 156 of 998
$376,307.89
$348,427.77
$272,230.99
$228,749.75
$141,787.27 (est)
$54,824.79 (est)
($100,000.00)
$0.00
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
$500,000.00
$600,000.00
J
a
n
-
1
0
A
p
r
-
1
0
J
u
l
-
1
0
O
c
t
-
1
0
J
a
n
-
1
1
A
p
r
-
1
1
J
u
l
-
1
1
O
c
t
-
1
1
J
a
n
-
1
2
A
p
r
-
1
2
J
u
l
-
1
2
O
c
t
-
1
2
J
a
n
-
1
3
A
p
r
-
1
3
J
u
l
-
1
3
O
c
t
-
1
3
J
a
n
-
1
4
A
p
r
-
1
4
J
u
l
-
1
4
O
c
t
-
1
4
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
o
n
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Attachment 3
Original Fiber Investment Minus Savings and Revenues
Break Even (est). Break Even (est).
Packet Page 157 of 998
AM-5262 4. J.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Capital Asset Policy
Recommendation
Recommend adoption of the proposed Capital Asset Policy
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
The auditors noted during the 2011 audit that the City did not have an adopted capital asset policy. The
policy included with this agenda item will address that deficiency. The primary goal is to define the
threshold for circumstances under which capital purchases will be recorded as an asset on the City's
balance sheet ($5,000 for equipment and $50,000 for infrastructure).
Attachments
Capital Asset Policy
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:03 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 11:14 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:39 AM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 11/14/2012 07:57 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 158 of 998
1
1.0 PURPOSE:
To establish a Policy providing stewardship over the City’s capital assets, as well
as the capitalization and depreciation or amortization of capital purchases over
time, as appropriate.
2.0 ORGANIZATION AFFECTED:
All City funds.
3.0 REFERENCES:
RCW 43.09.200
Budgetary, Accounting, and Reporting System (BARS) Manual, Part Three,
Chapter 7, Capital Assets and Internal Service Funds
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles
OMB Circular A-102, Common Rule
4.0 CAPITAL ASSET POLICY:
4.1 Capital Assets – General capital assets are those assets not specifically
related to activities reported in the proprietary funds. The capital assets
purchased or constructed by a governmental fund are recorded as
expenditures in the fund at the time the related purchases are made;
however, the associated capital assets are reported in the governmental
activities column of the government-wide statement of net assets while not
reported in the fund balance sheets.
4.2 The City classifies assets with an estimated useful life in excess of one
year as capital assets. Capital assets include land, buildings,
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL ASSET POLICY
Subject: Capital Asset Policy Original Policy Date: N/A
Originating Department: Finance Division Last Revision Date: N/A
Approved By: Shawn Hunstock, Director, Finance & Information Services
Packet Page 159 of 998
2
improvements, machinery, equipment, intangible assets, and
infrastructure. Land is capitalized at cost with no minimum threshold.
Buildings, improvements, intangible assets, and machinery and equipment
are capitalized when cost meets or exceeds $5,000. Public domain
(infrastructure) assets consist of certain improvements other than
buildings, including utility systems, streets, traffic controls, and overlays
are capitalized when cost equals or exceeds $50,000.
4.3 Costs of normal maintenance and repair for general assets are not
capitalized. However, any improvement that increases an asset’s value,
capacity or materially extends its life is added to that asset’s capitalized
costs.
4.4 Equipment items acquired through capital lease agreements and land
purchased through conditional sales contracts are reported as general
capital assets in the government-wide statement of net assets. In the
governmental fund financial statements, lease and contract payments are
reported as expenditures.
4.5 The City will complete an inventory of equipment no later than February
15th for the previous calendar year. Each department will maintain an
inventory of small and attractive assets.
4.6 In accordance with federal requirements, the City will specifically identify
in its inventory any equipment or real property purchased with federal
funds. The appropriate federal agency will be contacted regarding the
disposition of assets that were purchased with federal funds that the City
has declared to be surplus.
4.7 All project costs are included in construction in progress in the
government-wide statement of net assets. At completion, capital costs are
reclassified to property, plant and equipment. In the governmental fund
financial statements, projects are reported as expenditures.
4.8 Capital assets acquired or constructed by the proprietary funds are
capitalized in those funds at historical cost. Contributed assets are
recorded at their estimated fair values as of the date acquired. The
estimated value of donated assets is recorded as contributed capital by
the fund which receives them.
4.9 Land and construction in progress are not depreciated. Buildings,
equipment, non-building improvements and intangible assets are
depreciated using the straight line method, using varying estimated
Packet Page 160 of 998
3
service lives for individual assets and asset classifications depending on
particular characteristics of an asset and factors surrounding its
anticipated use. Depreciation is reported as part of the related program
expense column on government-wide statement of activities and as a fund
expense in the proprietary funds, while not reported in the fund statements
of governmental funds. Capital assets are reported net of accumulated
depreciation on the government-wide statement of net assets and in the
proprietary fund statement of net assets, while not reported in the
governmental fund balance sheets.
4.10 The average service lives used to calculate depreciation for specific
categories of assets are summarized below:
Asset Type Est. Service Life (Yrs)
Buildings 30-50
Improvements other than Buildings 25-60
Infrastructure 20-100
Machinery and Equipment 2-20
Intangible Assets 20-30
5.0 DEFINITIONS:
5.1 "Assets" - All land, buildings, improvements, infrastructure, works of art
and historic collections and equipment purchased, donated, constructed,
or acquired by the City.
5.2 "Capital Assets" -Land of any value; artwork and historic collections of any
value; improvements and infrastructure; buildings, their furnishings,
fixtures, and furniture; equipment, machinery, vehicles, and tools, with a
value of $5,000 or more for non-infrastructure or $50,000 or more per
item for infrastructure, and having a useful life exceeding one year from
the date of acquisition.
5.3 "Control" - Being in charge of, and having the authority to manage the
asset. Having the custodial responsibility of the asset that includes, but is
not limited to the caring, keeping, safekeeping and protecting the asset.
5.4 "Infrastructure" - Roads, bridges, sidewalks, water lines, sewers, drainage
systems, and the like.
5.5 "Inventory"- The process of physically confirming the existence and
location of capital assets.
5.6 "Small and Attractive Assets" - small and attractive assets are those
assets that are particularly at risk or vulnerable to loss and cost less than
$5,000. Departments have discretion in defining small and attractive
assets in many instances; however, departments must include, at a
Packet Page 161 of 998
4
minimum, the following assets with unit costs of $500 or more as small
and attractive:
• Communications Equipment; both Audio and Video
• Optical Devices, Binoculars, Telescopes, Infrared Viewers, and Range
finders
• Cameras and Photographic Projection Equipment
• Microcomputer Systems, Laptop and Notebook Computers
• Other data processing Accessory Equipment and Components
(Scanners, Data Displays, etc.)
• Office Equipment
• Stereos, Radios, Television Sets, Tape Recorders, DVD players, VCRs,
and Video Cameras
Packet Page 162 of 998
AM-5263 4. K.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Banking Services RFP Recommendation
Recommendation
Approve the recommended vendor for citywide banking services.
Previous Council Action
The Finance Committee reviewed the Request for Proposals (RFP) on August 14, 2012. The City
Council approved the RFP on August 21, 2012.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for citywide banking services in August
2012. Proposals were due to the City on October 5th. Six financial institutions, all with branches located
in Edmonds, submitted proposals. Prior to submitting the proposals representatives from most of the
banks asked clarifying questions about items they were required to respond to in the RFP. After the
proposals were submitted Finance staff inquired as needed about the contents of their proposals. Formal
interviews with the banks were not necessary.
In accordance with the schedule included in the RFP, the Finance Department is hereby making a
recommendation to proceed to the contract phase with one of the banks. US Bank is the vendor being
recommended by administration. US Bank provides the lowest estimated monthly cost, as well as the
highest earnings credit rate. The earnings credit rate is equivalent to interest the City will receive that can
be used to help pay for normal monthly banking fees. Additionally, US Bank is offering a $10,000 credit
to the City for use against future banking fees if we make the switch to their financial institution. For
these reasons administration is recommending beginning the contract negotiation phase with US Bank,
subject to Council approval. If approved, the transition from Union Bank to US Bank would occur on
approximately December 6, 2012.
Attachments
Banking RFP
Banking Vendor Costs
Banking Vendor Response Analysis
Form Review
Packet Page 163 of 998
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:03 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 11:13 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:39 AM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 11/14/2012 07:58 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 164 of 998
Request for Proposal (RFP) for:
Banking Services
City of Edmonds
Finance Department
121 5th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Page 165 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 2 of 22
I. PURPOSE OF REQUEST
The City of Edmonds (“City”) is requesting proposals for its primary banking services. The
City’s needs are outlined in the following Request for Proposal (“RFP”).
II. BID PROCESS
The City will attempt to follow this timetable, which should result in the implementation of a
banking services agreement by December 6th, 2012
Issue RFP August 15th, 2012
Deadline for Submittal of Proposals - 4:00 p.m. October 5th, 2012
Interview with Selected Firms October 17th, 2012 (if necessary)
Preliminary Selection of Firm November 6th, 2012
Recommendation to City Council November 13th, 2012
Implementation of Banking Services Agreement December 6th, 2012
III. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
To be considered for selection, financial institutions must meet at least the following minimum
qualifications:
A. Authority to offer banking services. Institution must hold a charter from either the
United States Government or the State of Washington.
B. Access to the Federal Reserve System. Institution must be a member of (or
have access to) the Federal Reserve System and have access to all Federal
Reserve System services.
C. Legal Compliance. Institution must be in compliance with all applicable laws,
rules, regulations, and ordinances of the City of Edmonds, the State of
Washington, and the United States
D. Public Deposit Protection Act. Institution must be a Washington State qualified
depository for public funds and must be in compliance with the Washington
Public Deposit Protection Act (RCW 39.58).
E. Local banking office. Institution must have an established office or local branch
within or close proximity to the City of Edmonds.
IV. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
A. All proposals and/or questions should be directed to:
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
City of Edmonds
Packet Page 166 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 3 of 22
121 5th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 775-7743
shawn.hunstock@ci.edmonds.wa.us
B. All proposals must be in a sealed envelope and clearly marked in the lower left-
hand corner: “RFP - Banking Services”. All proposals must be received by
October 5th, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. Five (5) copies of the RFP must be presented. No
faxed, e-mailed or telephone proposals will be accepted. Late proposals shall be
returned unopened.
C. Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straight
forward, concise description of provider capabilities to satisfy the requirements of
the request. Special bindings, colored displays, promotional materials, etc. are
not required. Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity of content. Use
recycled paper for responses and any printed or photocopied material created
pursuant to a contract with the City whenever practicable. Use both sides of the
paper for any submittal to the City whenever practical.
D. All proposals must include the following:
1. Responses to Banking Services Questions/Statements in section VIII.
2. Statement of Financial Institution Qualifications found in section IX, signed
and notarized.
3. Non-Collusion Affidavit Certificate found in section X, signed and notarized.
4. A detailed schedule of costs by specified task using the Bid Sheet form in
Attachment A. Volumes indicated on the Bid Sheet are estimates and actual
quantities may vary. Costs not included on the Bid Sheet, but which the
financial institution proposes to charge, must be individually itemized and
thoroughly explained. Bid Sheets must be executed by an official of the firm
in a position to commit the institution to provide the services in accordance
with these terms and conditions.
V. SCOPE OF SERVICES
General Information
The City of Edmonds is soliciting proposals for a primary banking relationship with a financial
institution which operates an office within the city limits. The City will be contracting for the
following general services for a four year period beginning December 6th, 2012 and ending
December 5th, 2016. At the City’s option, a two year extension will be permitted with the same
terms and conditions of the original contract or as amended.
The following is a listing of mandatory services the City requires of its financial institution:
• Demand deposit checking accounts;
• Nightly account balance sweep;
• Banking supplies;
• Interim financing or line of credit;
• Payroll direct deposit;
Packet Page 167 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 4 of 22
• Trust & escrow agent services;
• Credit/debit card services;
• Investment safekeeping services;
• ACH debit services;
• On-line balance reporting;
• On-line Stop-pays;
• ACH reporting;
• On-line wire transfers;
• Overdraft Line of Credit;
• Positive-Pay on Checking Accounts;
• Purchasing Cards;
• Credit Cards;
• Safe Deposit Services;
• Night Depository Services.
• Excellent customer service & response;
Edmonds utilizes a check system, as opposed to warrants. The City anticipates that proposed
banking services will be compensated either by the credit earned on average collected balances
or CD, or a fee for service basis, but is also willing to consider other options.
The following is a list of optional services the City may require:
• Check 21 or similar expedited payment options;
• Lock-box Services;
• Courier Services;
• Armored Car Services;
• Account Reconciliation Processing (ARP).
Services Required
Checking Accounts: The City currently utilizes four checking accounts: 1) the primary
checking account, 2) an accounts payable account, 3) a payroll check processing account, 4)
and a checking account for the Court. The institution will furnish the City with additional
checking accounts as needed. Currently, City of Edmonds staff delivers deposits to the
institution’s branch once each workday, for processing and credit to the City’s account that day.
NSF checks must be processed twice before being returned to the City. The basic checking
account services should at least consist of:
• Provide month-end statements by the 15th day of the following month and provide
statements to various auditors upon request;
• Provide electronic check image retrieval on CD monthly including necessary
software;
• Provide individual and consolidated monthly account analysis for all accounts by the
15th day of the following month;
• Provide an on-line wire transfer system for transferring money to other institutions,
along with appropriate security levels for wire transfer initiations and approvals;
• Provide an on-line computer balance reporting system, with information on collected,
available and closing balances, as well as a detail of total debits and credits posted
to the account for the previous day, by 7:00 a.m. each business day;
• Provide an on-line reporting system that shows current day ACH credits and debits,
by 7:00 a.m. each business day.
• Provide deposit reporting by location via an auxiliary MICR field or other means;
Packet Page 168 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 5 of 22
• Provide Positive Pay feature with exception reporting/return of unknown items;
• Provide for on-line stop-pay look-up and notification;
• Provide support in answering questions, trouble shooting problems and resolving
issues in a prompt manner;
• Provide means to inquire about canceled checks and stop payment on checks upon
proper authorization.
Nightly Sweep/Zero Balance: To supplement the City’s daily major cash transfers to primary
checking, and travel advance account, sweep account structures to bank intra-day or overnight
investment options should be utilized to ensure all minimal bank-held operating funds are
invested at the highest possible rate. Bank sweep alternatives shall include only SEC
registered US government and agency or prime money market funds. Sweeps are designed to
also minimize collateral risk for the System by eliminating overnight deposits which otherwise
must be collateralized.
Interim Financing and Overdraft Protection: The City may require short-term financing up to
$5,000,000 for a period not to exceed one (1) year in the form of short-term notes. This short-
term financing could be secured by the anticipated revenue of City funds or sale of General
Obligation, Revenue, or Local Improvement District bonds. The successful bidder agrees to
provide interim financing to the City on a prompt and competitive basis.
Although the City will attempt to minimize daylight and overnight overdraft situations, it
recognizes that there are times these situations will occur. It is anticipated these overdraft
situations will not exceed $5 million, if and when they do occur.
Trust and Escrow Agent Services: The City may require trust and escrow agent services to
hold letters of credit and other third party commercial documents. The institution will, in most
cases, be required to take physical custody of these securities, notify the Parties of their
expiration thirty days prior to termination of the agreement and accept renewal or replacement
of instruments. The City may also require retainage accounts be maintained for contractors
choosing to place retainage funds in an interest bearing account.
Safekeeping Services: The institution may occasionally require safekeeping facilities and
services for the City’s investment securities. Required safekeeping services include (but are not
limited to):
• Receive/deliver securities on a delivery versus payment method;
• Price securities to market;
• Collect coupon bond interest;
• Provide delivery confirmation on new security purchases;
• Provide a monthly statement of holdings;
• Register or transfer securities;
• Verify holdings as of specific dates for audit purposes;
• Credit the City’s account for interest and principal payments on the day received;
• Provide maturity and interest payment notices at least 5 days prior to payment date
The City currently invests in U.S. Treasury and Agency securities that require safekeeping
services. The City may invest in other securities allowed by Washington State Statute in the
future. The successful bidder will be required to comply with all State and Federal regulations
regarding safekeeping of municipal securities.
Packet Page 169 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 6 of 22
Banking Supplies: The financial institution will be required to provide a supply of coin rollers,
locking bank bags, tamper proof plastic deposit bags, deposit slips, advance travel and other
miscellaneous checks, and endorsement stamps for each location. The cost of such supplies
shall be charged against the City’s primary checking account as supplies are furnished to the
City.
ACH Debit Services: As noted below, the City processes direct deposits of payroll twice a
month. Other miscellaneous ACH transactions such as merchant credit card fees, excise tax
payments, and federal tax payments flow through the account each month.
Direct Deposit for Payroll: Edmonds offers and encourages direct payroll deposit for its
employees. The City pays its employees semi-monthly on the 5th and 20th. On an average
payroll, 262 employees receive direct deposit, which generates approximately 342 transactions
per pay period due to many employees having multiple bank account transfers.
Currently, the City transmits the payroll data to the institution via modem before 4:00 p.m. the
second working day prior to payday. Deposits must be made into the employees’ account by
8:00 a.m. on payday. Any deviation from these time limits must be stated in the bid. Any bidder
with less restrictive time requirements will be given favorable consideration.
The City from time to time may need to transmit the payroll data one day prior to the pay date.
We are therefore requesting bids on both a one-day and two-day turnaround. We are interested
in what the deadlines for transmission are for both situations.
Credit/Debit Card Services: The Financial institution will provide the City with the ability to
accept payment through the use of credit/debit cards. The City currently accepts MasterCard
and Visa credit cards in person and on-line for collection of recreation payments, utility
payments, licensing payments, and online permit payments. The City currently has six locations
that accept credit cards, with the possibility of more locations in the future. The City will be
credited daily for the gross amount of the bank card transactions. Any sales discount fee or
percentage proposed will be billed at the end of each month as part of the activity charges.
Night Depository Services: The Financial institution will provide the City with the ability to
make ‘night drop’ deposits after hours. City staff will prepare a deposit slip and ‘night drop’ the
deposit after hours, for deposit the next day. We currently use the tamper-resistant plastic bags
for this function.
Corporate Credit Cards: The City also utilizes credit cards for travel, internet purchases,
emergencies and other purposes and would require the financial institution to itemize the cost
for issuing credit cards to the City and associated annual fees and rates. Currently the City has
twenty-eight departmental/individual Visa accounts. The cards are used to make purchases in
lieu of issuing purchase orders, and are used for travel needs by City staff while traveling for
City business.
Data Equipment Compatibility: The City is interested in equipment and data compatibility and
therefore requests the specifications needed for an automated wire transfer, ACH debit & credit,
credit card, balance reporting and any other automated systems be included in this proposal.
Any costs associated with automated data and equipment should be identified on the Bid Sheet
form in Attachment A.
Miscellaneous Optional Services: In addition to the requirements listed above, the proposal
Packet Page 170 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 7 of 22
shall identify proposed fees for the following services:
• Rapid processing/deposit options for checks such as Check 21;
• Automatic Account Reconciliation;
• Armored Car Services;
• Courier Services;
• Lockbox Services;
• Payment of Financial System Upgrades and Fees through use of analysis. In order
to enhance our banking/financial processing capabilities we may wish to pay for
these fees through banking analysis;
• Other services provided by your institution that would be beneficial to the City of
Edmonds, but have not specifically been addressed. Please itemize on the Bid
Sheet form in Attachment A.
Services Not Provided: In the event that the primary proposing financial institution does not
provide all requested services included in this RFP, the financial institution will submit as part of
its proposal additional partners/providers whom do provide these services. It is the sole
responsibility of the primary financial institution to secure and maintain the relationship with any
additional providers. The primary financial institution, at the time of bid submittal will identify all
secondary providers.
Should the financial institution be unable to secure and provide the relationship, in certain
instances such as the City’s financial system software vendor or armored car services, the City
may contract with independent service providers.
VI. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, and to waive minor
irregularities in any proposal.
B. The City reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted, and
to request additional information on any proposal.
C. The City reserves the right to award any contract to the next most qualified
financial institution, if the successful financial institution does not execute a
contract within 30 days of being notified of selection.
D. Any proposal may be withdrawn up until the date and time set above for opening
of the proposals. Any proposal not so timely withdrawn shall constitute an
irrevocable offer, for a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days to sell to the
City the services described in the attached specifications, or until one or more of
the proposals have been approved by the City administration, whichever occurs
first.
E. The contract resulting from acceptance of a proposal by the City shall be in a
form supplied or approved by the City, and shall reflect the specifications in this
RFP. A copy of the proposed contract is available for review (see attachment B).
The City reserves the right to reject any proposed agreement or contract that
does not conform to the specifications contained in this RFP and which is not
approved by the City Attorney’s office.
Packet Page 171 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 8 of 22
F. The City shall not be responsible for any costs incurred by the financial institution
in preparing, submitting or presenting its response to the RFP.
VII. EVALUATION PROCESSS
Proposals will be evaluated by a committee of City staff. Evaluations will be based on criteria
outlined herein which may be weighted by the City in a manner it deems appropriate. All
proposals will be evaluated using the same criteria. The criteria used will be:
A. Responsiveness to the RFP
The City will consider all the material submitted to determine whether the
financial institution’s offering is in compliance with the RFP documents.
B. Ability to Perform Required Services
The City will consider all the relevant material submitted by each financial
institution, and other relevant material it may otherwise obtain, to determine
whether the financial institution is capable of providing services of the type and
scope specific to the RFP.
The following elements may be given consideration by the City in determining
whether a financial institution is capable:
1. The ability and capacity of the financial institution and the skills, experience,
and availability of the specific individuals to be assigned to the City to perform
the services required;
2. The quality of performance by the financial institution on previous and similar
contracts and such other information as may be secured and considered
relevant by the City, including information on customer service as supplied in
section VIII 4 and obtained from references provided;
3. The ability of the financial institution to present professional and innovative
work; the skill of the financial institution as demonstrated by samples of
similar work and/or references from similar organizations;
C. Fees
As described in Section IV D. 4.
D. References
As described in Section VIII 2.
E. Community Presence
As described in Section VIII 3.
F. Interviews and Site Visits
The City may conduct interviews and site visits as part of the final selection
process.
VIII. BANKING SERVICES QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS
Packet Page 172 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 9 of 22
Please provide your responses to the items below in the order presented.
A. Provide the names of individuals, with phone numbers and e-mail addresses,
who will be working on the proposed services and their areas of responsibility
including their specific experience relative to the request for proposal
requirements.
B. Submit at least five (5) references (preferably from current local government
customers) who can attest to the financial institution’s experience as it relates to
providing banking services. The references must include contact name, title,
address, e-mail address, telephone number and services used.
C. Describe your institution’s community participation/reinvestment program
including your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating.
D. Describe your institution’s customer service philosophy and organizational
structure and provide meaningful examples to illustrate.
E. Provide the following reports and information about your institution:
1. Analysis & bank statement
2. Safekeeping statement and receipts
3. Most recent financial statement
4. S&P and/or Moody’s credit rating or comparable rating
F. Provide a funds availability schedule. Describe one day, two day availability and
wire requirements.
G. Describe your Balance Reporting systems and availability.
1. What hardware/software does the bank use to deliver balance and
transaction detail information?
2. What time is previous day information available for access by the customer?
3. What are the hours of access of the balance reporting system?
4. Does the bank provide current day information?
a. How frequently is this information updated throughout the day?
b. What transaction types are available on current day reports?
5. Describe the level of detail provided in previous and current day reports?
6. How many days of history can be accessed through the system?
7. In what format is information available?
8. Provide a sample printout of the daily on-line balance information.
H. ACH Services:
1. What is the recommended service delivery method (i.e. direct transmission,
on-line, or other)?
a. What are the hardware/software requirements?
b. What training does the bank provide?
c. Does the software offer the ability to manage security and access levels
by user?
d. What report options are available?
e. What controls are in place to protect against lost files and duplications of
transmissions?
Packet Page 173 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 10 of 22
f. Does the bank provide automatic file receipt acknowledgements? If so,
how?
g. Describe the role of any third-party processor used by the bank to provide
this service?
2. What are the hours of operation of the ACH unit?
3. What are the bank’s cut-off times for customer initiation of ACH transactions?
4. Describe the procedures used to verify accurate and secure receipt of
transmissions.
5. Can the bank automatically redeposit items returned for insufficient or
uncollected funds?
6. How does the bank handle file, batch, and item reversals and deletions?
I. Positive Pay
1. What is the recommended service delivery method (i.e. direct transmission,
on-line, or other)?
a. What are the hardware/software requirements?
2. What controls are in place to protect against lost files and duplications of
transmissions?
3. Does the bank provide automatic file receipt acknowledgements? If so, how?
4. Describe the role of any third-party processor used by the bank to provide
this service?
5. What is the bank’s deadline for transmitting files/data?
6. What is the process for notifying the bank of a single check or small check
run outside of the regular batch file?
7. How does the City notify the bank of voided and stop payment checks?
8. Does your bank have payee verification?
9. Is the positive pay service fully implemented at all bank branches?
10. How does the bank handle exception (“paid not issued”) items?
a. Does the bank offer a daily listing of exception items?
b. Are there defaults available for each account to either automatically return
or pay on exception items?
c. What is the timeline for reporting exceptions to the city?
d. How are exceptions reported to the city? Will an image be available?
e. What is the timeline for the city to act on any exceptions?
f. What are the hours of operation of this service unit?
J. Merchant Card Services:
1. Provide a funds availability schedule by card type. Is it negotiable?
2. What is the settlement deadline?
3. What daily and/or monthly reconciliation reports are available?
4. Do you offer recurring billing processing?
K. Payment of Fees. Respondents will need to provide information on the following:
1. The proposed method for setting rates on a compensating certificate of
deposit;
2. Whether a service charge credit/debit can be carried forward to the next
period;
3. The formula for any fees in the event of an overdraft;
4. Describe what constitutes a daylight and overnight overdraft situation.
L. Errors and Adjustments
Packet Page 174 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 11 of 22
1. Describe your adjustment process for resolving deposit discrepancies.
2. At what dollar amount do you write off discrepancies?
3. Do you adjust the deposit amount or process an adjusting debit or credit?
M. Describe how inquires requiring research and adjustments are handled by the
institution. Are there established turn-around times for research and adjustment
items? If yes, specify.
N. Describe NSF or Returned Items processing procedures, fees or other related
services available. The City will require re-depositing ‘NSF’ or ‘uncollected funds’
returned items so that they may be presented a second time prior to being
charged back.
O. Security/Protection Measures: What security features are in place to minimize
the risk of unauthorized transactions?
P. Service Enhancements: Describe any enhancements, technological or otherwise,
that we should consider to improve operational or cash management efficiencies.
Q. Discuss your use of the internet in providing services to your municipal/business
customers.
R. Provide information on how your institution plans to keep your product line
competitive. Describe what approach the bank is taking in the development of
new services and what new services and/or features the bank plans to offer and
within what time frame.
S. Disaster Recovery:
1. Describe your institution’s formal disaster recovery plan.
2. How quickly will back-up facilities be activated?
3. Describe your institution’s operating capabilities to assist the City in the event
of a disaster or declared emergency.
T. Conversion Plan: Describe the conversion plan you would coordinate to ensure a
smooth transition from the current provider.
U. List the address and hours of operation at your nearest branch office and also
the hours of operation for non-branch services.
V. Discuss any special conditions, other fees, other services, or deviations from the
requested scope.
Packet Page 175 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 12 of 22
IX. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION QUALIFICATIONS
Each financial institution submitting a proposal for items included in this document shall prepare
and submit the following data along with their proposal:
1. Name of Financial Institution
2. Business Address
3. Business Phone Fax No.
4. E-mail address
5. How many years have you been in business under the present name?
6. General character of services provided by your institution:
7. City of Edmonds Business License Number:
8. State of Washington Sales Tax Registration Number:
9. Federal I.R.S. Identification Number:
10. I certify that the institution:
is capable of providing the services as outlined in this proposal,
will comply with the rules and regulations outlined by the Revised Code of Washington,
Edmonds Municipal Code, and the Washington Public Deposit Protection Commission,
and other applicable laws and regulations.
City of Edmonds
Banking Services
Institution Name Authorized Signature
Sworn before me, this day of, 2012.
Notary Public
in and for the State of Washington
Packet Page 176 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 13 of 22
X. NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT CERTIFICATE
State of Washington )
)ss
County of )
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and say that the person, firm, association, co-
partnership, or corporation herein named has not either directly or indirectly entered into any
agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free
competitive bidding in the preparation and submission of a proposal to the Owner for
consideration in the award of a contract on the improvement described as follows:
City of Edmonds
Banking Services
Institution Name Authorized Signature
Sworn before me, this day of, 2012.
Notary Public
in and for the State of Washington
Packet Page 177 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 14 of 22
XI. OTHER INFORMATION
For additional information or explanation of the contents or intent of these specifications, please
e-mail your questions to Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, at
shawn.hunstock@ci.edmonds.wa.us. An optional bidder’s conference will be held ___________
at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds,
Washington.
The City will provide copies of this document for your modification in MS Word format (.doc) to
assist with your responses.
Packet Page 178 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 15 of 22
Attachment A
Bid Sheet
Item
Unit
Price
Estimated
Monthly
Volume
Avg.
Monthly
Cost Explanation
Account Analysis:
ACCOUNT MAINTENANCE – MAIL 4.00
Account Reconciliation:
BASIC POS PAY- ACCOUNT BASE 2.00
BASIC POS PAY – PER ITEM 250.00
BASIC POS PAY – PER ITEM 250.00
BASIC POS PAY - PER ITEM 116.33
BPP – PPW EXCEPTION REPORTED 3.00
BPP – PPW EXCEPTION IMAGE VIEW ED 3.25
BPP – PPW UPLOAD ISSUE FILE 250.00
BPP –PPW UPLOAD ISSUE FILE 250.00
BPP – PPW UPLOAD ISSUE FILE 133.42
BPP –PPW MANUAL ISSUE ENTRY 2.17
Business Checking:
BRANCH DEPOSIT 32.92
ELECTRONIC CREDIT 149.50
NIGHT DROP DEPOSIT 155.42
PAID CHECK CHARGE 500.00
PAID CHECK CHARGE 133.42
ELECTRONIC DEBIT 31.75
BANK STATEMENT WEB 4.00
Check Processing:
UB CHECKS – BRANCH DEPOSIT 136.00
LOCAL CLR.HSE./BRANCH DEP. 28.00
LOCAL FED DIST 12 – BRANCH DEP 4,065.67
OTHER FED – BRANCH DEPOSIT 810.42
DEBIT ERROR NOTICE 3.30
CREDIT ERROR NOTICE 1.86
Clear Pay:
ACH WEB MONTHLY BASE FEE 1.00
ACH WEB CREDIT TRANSACTION 100.00
ACH WEB CREDIT TRANSACTION 488.42
ACH WEB NOC TRANSMISSION 3.29
ACH WEB BATCH RELEASE 2.00
Packet Page 179 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 16 of 22
Commercial Customer Service:
IMAGE OF DEP ITEM <30 DAYS 176.75
IMAGE OF DEP ITEM 31-60 DAYS 2.00
Information Reporting:
SIMPLIFIED PD REPORT ACCT – CLVL 5.00
SIMPLIFIED PD BAL/SUM UPDATED 1,088.75
SIMPLIFIED PD TRANSACTION UPDT 1,088.42
SIMPLIFIED CD REPORT ACCT – CLVL 5.00
SIMPLIFIED CD BAL/SUM UPDATED 234.42
SIMPLIFIED CD TRANSACTION UPDT 256.17
Deposited Items Returned:
DEPOSITED ITEMS RETURND-CHRGBK 11.83
Office Cash Services:
DEPOSITED CURRENCY 42,331.64
CURRENCY FURNISHED 647.45
Savings Account:
BANK STATEMENT WEB 1.00
FDIC INSURANCE 1.59
Statements:
IOD-SINGLE IMAGE (<120 DAYS) 8.40
STATEMENT-IMAGE VIEW 2.00
Teleservices:
INQUIRY & TRANSFER SERVICE 1.00
Team Stop Payments:
WEB STOP SINGLE INQUIRY 1.50
WEB DDA STOP PAYMENT 2.50
Electronic Wire Transfer:
ACCT TRANSFER END-OF-DAY/WEB 1.25
WIRE TRANSFER MONTHLY FEE/WEB 1.00
Zero Balance Accounts:
SUB LEVEL 1 1.00
SUB LEVEL 1 1.00
Packet Page 180 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 17 of 22
Notes or Item Description:
Formulas:
Daylight Overdraft Formula
Overnight Overdraft Formula
Short-Term Financing Formula
FDIC Insurance Formula
Service Charge Credit Formula
Packet Page 181 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 18 of 22
The undersigned, an institution or firm maintaining operations within the city limits of Edmonds,
Washington, submits the following proposal for the City’s banking services for the period
beginning December 6th, 2012 and ending December 5th, 2012.
Authorization:
Institution Name Date
Mailing Address Phone Number
City, State, Zip Fax Number
By Title
Contact Name (if different from above) Contact Phone Number
Packet Page 182 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 19 of 22
Attachment B
Banking Services Agreement
BANKING SERVICES AGREEMENT PROVISIONS FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
The City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City") and
______________________, whose address is ______________________________________,
(hereinafter the "Financial Institution", agree and contract as follows:
A. SERVICES BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
1. The Financial Institution agrees to perform the services described in this
proposal, which attachment is incorporated herein by reference.
2. All services, and all duties incidental or necessary thereto, shall be conducted
and performed diligently and completely and in accordance with professional
standards of conduct and performance.
B. COMPENSATION
1. The total compensation to be paid to the Financial Institution shall be detailed
in Attachment A.
The above fees include all labor, materials and expenses required for the
completion of these services.
2. Payment to Financial Institution by the City in accordance with the above
shall be the total compensation for all work performed under this agreement
and supporting documents hereto as well as all subcontractor's fees and
expenses, supervision, labor supplies, materials, equipment or the use
thereof, reimbursable expenses, and other necessary incidentals.
3. The Financial Institution shall be paid based on the acceptance of the
proposed compensation.
4. The City shall have the right to withhold payment to the Financial Institution
for any service not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as the
Financial Institution modifies such service to the satisfaction of the City.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, any payment shall be
considered timely if a check is mailed or is available within 45 days of the
date of actual receipt by the City of an invoice conforming in all respects to
the terms of this Agreement.
C. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
The City reserves the right to terminate or suspend this Agreement at any time,
with or without cause, by giving forty-five (45) days’ notice to the financial
Packet Page 183 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 20 of 22
institution in writing. In the event of termination, all finished or unfinished reports,
or other material prepared by the Financial Institution pursuant to the Agreement
shall be provided to the City. In the event the City terminates this agreement
prior to completion without cause, the Financial Institution may complete such
analyses and records as may be necessary to place its records in order. The
Financial Institution shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation
of any satisfactory services completed prior to the date of suspension or
termination, not to exceed the compensation set forth above. Should the
Financial Institution desire to terminate this agreement, written notice of 180 days
is required.
D. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT
Ownership of the originals of any reports, data, studies, surveys, charts, maps,
drawings, specifications, figures, photographs, memoranda, and any other
documents which are developed, compiled or produced as a result of this
agreement, whether or not completed, shall be vested in the City. Any reuse of
these materials by the City for projects or purposes other than those which fall
within the scope of this agreement or the project to which it relates, without
written concurrence by the Financial Institution will be at the sole risk of the City.
E. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
The Finance Director for the City of Edmonds shall review and approve the
Financial Institutions charges to the City under this Agreement, shall have the
primary responsibility for overseeing and approving services to be performed by
the Financial Institution, and shall coordinate all communications with the
Financial Institution from the City.
F. CONTRACT PERIOD
The Banking Services Agreement is to extend for a period of four years,
beginning on December 6th, 2012 with a two year option to renew the Agreement.
The City in order to exercise its renewal option will need to do nothing. At the
end of this period, the City may choose to negotiate a renewal option or to
request additional proposals.
G. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
The Financial Institution shall not assign, transfer, convey, pledge, or otherwise
dispose of this agreement or any part of this agreement without prior written
consent of the City.
H. NONDISCRIMINATION
The Financial Institution shall, in all hiring or employment made possible or
resulting from this agreement, take affirmative action to ensure that there shall be
no unlawful discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment
because of sex, race, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status or the
presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a
bonafide occupational qualification, and this requirement shall apply to but not be
Packet Page 184 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 21 of 22
limited to the following: employment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of
pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including
apprenticeship.
No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefit
of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement on
the grounds of sex, race, color, creed, national origin, age except minimum age
and retirement provisions, marital status, or the presence of any sensory, mental
or physical handicap.
I. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
The Financial Institution agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the City
and its officers, agents, and employees, from any claim, real or imaginary, filed
against the City or its officers, agents, or employees, alleging damage or injury
arising out of the subject matter of this Agreement; provided, however, that such
provision shall not apply to the extent that the damage or injury results from the
fault of the City or its officers, agents, or employees. "Fault" as herein used shall
have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 4.22.015.
J. LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE
The Financial Institution will, at the Financial Institution's sole expense, obtain
and maintain during the life of this Agreement, policies of comprehensive general
liability insurance, each with combined single limits of not less than $1,000,000
per occurrence. Any policy of required insurance on a claims-made basis shall
provide coverage as to all claims arising out of the services performed under the
contract and filed within three (3) years following completion of the services so to
be performed. A failure to obtain and maintain such insurance or to file said
certificates shall be a material breach of this Agreement.
K. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Financial Institution shall comply with all applicable State, Federal and City
laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes.
L. FUTURE SUPPORT
The City makes no commitment and assumes no obligations for the support of
Financial Institution activities except as set forth in this Agreement.
M. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The Financial Institution is and shall be at all times during the term of this
agreement an independent contractor.
N. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT/MODIFICATION
This Agreement, together with all attachments and addenda, represents the
entire and integrated Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This
Packet Page 185 of 998
City of Edmonds Banking Services RFP
August 15, 2012 Page 22 of 22
Agreement may be amended, modified or added to only by written instrument
properly signed by both parties hereto.
O. ADDITIONAL WORK
The City may desire to have the Financial Institution perform other services in
connection with the banking relationship other than provided for by the express
intent of this contract. Any such services shall be considered as additional work,
supplemental to this Agreement. Additional work shall not proceed unless so
authorized in writing by the City.
Authorized additional work will be compensated for in accordance with a written
supplemental Agreement between the City and the Financial Institution.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates written
below:
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: CITY OF EDMONDS:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Edmonds City Attorney
Date:
Packet Page 186 of 998
Ba
n
k
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
Fe
e
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
An
n
u
a
l
F
e
e
C
o
s
t
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
C
r
e
d
i
t
Ra
t
e
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
C
r
e
d
i
t
US
B
a
n
k
7
0
1
.
9
2
$
8
,
4
2
3
.
0
4
$
9
,
9
0
2
,
2
7
0
$
0
.
7
5
%
7
4
,
2
6
7
.
0
2
$
Ba
n
n
e
r
B
a
n
k
8
1
4
.
7
1
9
,
7
7
6
.
5
2
9
,
9
0
2
,
2
7
0
0
.
4
5
%
4
4
,
5
6
0
.
2
1
1s
t
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
B
a
n
k
8
4
7
.
9
9
1
0
,
1
7
5
.
8
8
9
,
9
0
2
,
2
7
0
0
.
5
0
%
4
9
,
5
1
1
.
3
5
Ke
y
B
a
n
k
1
,
0
0
8
.
7
9
1
2
,
1
0
5
.
4
8
9
,
9
0
2
,
2
7
0
0
.
2
0
%
1
9
,
8
0
4
.
5
4
Un
i
o
n
B
a
n
k
1
,
0
9
3
.
9
9
1
3
,
1
2
7
.
8
8
9
,
9
0
2
,
2
7
0
0
.
2
5
%
2
4
,
7
5
5
.
6
7
Op
u
s
B
a
n
k
1
,
3
6
2
.
5
8
1
6
,
3
5
0
.
9
6
9
,
9
0
2
,
2
7
0
0
.
3
5
%
3
4
,
6
5
7
.
9
4
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
7
of
99
8
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ba
n
k
i
n
g
R
F
P
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
W
e
i
g
h
t
U
S
B
a
n
k
1s
t
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Ba
n
k
Ba
n
n
e
r
Ba
n
k
Op
u
s
Ba
n
k
Un
i
o
n
Ba
n
k
K
e
y
B
a
n
k
U
S
B
a
n
k
1s
t
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Ba
n
k
Ba
n
n
e
r
Ba
n
k
Opus BankUnion Bank
K
e
y
B
a
n
k
VI
I
(
A
)
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
t
o
th
e
R
F
P
1
0
%
33
3
3
2
3
0.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
0
VI
I
(
B
)
Ab
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
0
%
33
3
2
3
3
0.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
VI
I
(
C
)
Fe
e
s
6
0
%
5
3
.
3
3
3
4
.
1
6
7
1
1
.
6
6
7
2
.
5
3
.
0
0
2
.
0
0
2
.
5
0
0
.
6
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
5
0
VI
I
(
D
)
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
1
0
%
43
3
4
3
4
0.
4
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
4
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
4
0
VI
I
(
E
)
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
pr
e
s
e
n
c
e
1
0
%
34
3
3
4
3
0.
3
0
0
.
4
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
4
0
0
.
3
0
VI
I
(
F
)
In
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
vi
s
i
t
s
N
/
A
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
%
4.
3
0
3
.
3
0
3
.
7
0
1
.
8
0
2
.
2
0
2
.
8
0
Co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
C
r
e
d
i
t
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
$
5
Ex
c
e
e
d
s
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
F
P
4 3
Me
e
t
s
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
F
P
2 1
Do
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
F
P
5
Lo
w
e
s
t
c
o
s
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
4.
1
6
7
3.
3
3
3
2.
5
1.
6
6
7
1
Hi
g
h
e
s
t
c
o
s
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
-
(
I
t
e
m
s
A
,
B
,
D
,
E
&
F
)
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
-
(
I
t
e
m
C
)
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
8
of
99
8
AM-5265 4. L.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Okanogan County for jail services.
Recommendation
It is the recommendation of staff and the Public Safety and Personnel Committee that the agreement be
approved by full Council via consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
Reviewed and discussed at the November 13, 2012 Public Safety and Personnel Committee with the
recommendation that the agreement be approved by full Council via consent agenda.
Narrative
In August 2011, the city entered into an agreement with the Okanogan County Jail to provide long-term
commitment services for subjects sentenced through the Edmonds Municipal Court. This is a renewal of
that original agreement, with no substantive changes, with the exception of extending this to a three year
agreement as opposed to a one year agreement with subsequent addendums.
The City Attorney has reviewed the the attached ILA and has approved the document as to form.
Attachments
Okanogan County ILA
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:03 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 11:10 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:39 AM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 11/14/2012 10:53 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 189 of 998
1
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OKANOGAN COUNTY,
WASHINGTON AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, FOR THE HOUSING OF INMATES IN
THE OKANOGAN COUNTY JAIL
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Edmonds,
hereinafter referred to as "the City", and the Board of County Commissioners of Okanogan
County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as "Okanogan County", each party having been duly
organized and now existing under the laws of the State of Washington.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Okanogan County is authorized by law to operate a jail and the City is
authorized by law to operate a jail; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to designate the Okanogan County jail as a place of
confinement for the incarceration of one or more inmates lawfully committed to the City's
custody; and
WHEREAS, the Director of the Corrections Facility of Okanogan County is desirous of
accepting and keeping in his/her custody such inmate(s) in the Okanogan County jail for a rate of
compensation mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto; and
WHEREAS, RCW 39.34.080 and other Washington law, as amended, authorizes any
county to contract with any city to perform any governmental service, activity or undertaking
which each contracting jurisdiction is authorized by law to perform; and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of each of the parties hereto have determined to enter
into this Agreement as authorized and provided for by RCW 39.34.080 and other Washington
law, as amended,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and foregoing recitals, the payments
to be made, the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. GOVERNING LAW
Packet Page 190 of 998
2
The parties hereto agree that, except where expressly otherwise provided, the laws and
administrative rules and regulations of the State of Washington shall govern in any matter
relating to inmate confinement pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 2. DURATION
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from January 1, 2013 until December 31,
2015, subject to earlier termination as provided by Section 3 herein. Nothing in this Agreement
shall be construed to make it necessary for the City to have inmates housed in Okanogan County
continuously.
Section 3. TERMINATION
(a) By either party. This Agreement may be terminated by written notice from
either party to the other party and to the State Office of Financial Management as required by
RCW 70.48.090, stating the grounds for said termination and specifying plans for
accommodating the affected City inmates, delivered by regular mail to the contact person
identified herein, provided that termination shall become effective ninety (90) days after receipt
of such notice. Within said ninety (90) days, the City agrees to remove its inmate(s) from the
Okanogan County jail.
(b) By the City due to lack of funding. The obligation of the City to pay
Okanogan County under the provision of this Agreement beyond the 2013 fiscal year is
expressly made contingent upon the appropriation, budgeting, and availability of sufficient funds
by and from the City of Edmonds. In the event that such funds are not budgeted, appropriated or
otherwise made available for the purpose of payment under this Agreement at any time after the
2013 fiscal year, then the City shall have the option of terminating the Agreement upon written
notice to Okanogan County, except that all services provided to that point shall be compensated
at the agreed rate. The termination of this Agreement for this reason will not cause any penalty to
be charged to the City.
(c) Compensation Due for Services Rendered. In the event of termination of
this Agreement for any reason, the City shall compensate Okanogan County in the same manner,
and at the same rates, as if this Agreement had not been terminated, should any City inmates
remain housed by Okanogan County after notice of such termination.
Section 4. MAILING ADDRESSES
(a) All notices, reports, and correspondence to the respective parties of this
Agreement shall be sent to the attention of the following people, except as set forth in (b) below:
Okanogan County:
Okanogan County Corrections
Street 149 4th Ave N
City Okanogan, WA 98840
Contact Person: Noah Stewart
Packet Page 191 of 998
3
City of Edmonds:
Edmonds Police Department
250 5th Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
Contact Person: Assistant Chief of Police Jim Lawless
(b) Contact Person: Notification related to the Medical, Removal, Escape, or
Death clauses herein shall be given by facsimile with a follow up telephone call to:
The City of Edmonds Assistant Chief of Police shall serve as administrator or responsible
official for this Agreement. PHONE NUMBER CONTACT (425) 771.0200
Section 5. COMPENSATION
(a) Rates. Except as provided in subsection (b), Okanogan County agrees to
transport City inmates at no transport cost to the City, between the Okanogan County
Corrections Facility and the City Jail or such other location as designated by the City in order to
transport inmates to and from the City, and to house the City inmates for compensation per day
per inmate, at the rate of fifty-three dollars and fifty cents ($53.50) per day. This rate shall be in
effect from January 1 through December 31, 2013. The rate shall be adjusted in 2014 and 2015,
with the new rate taking effect on January 1st of each year, in an amount equivalent to 100% of
the June to June Seattle, Tacoma, and Bremerton CPI-W for the preceding year.
(b) Billing and payment. Okanogan County agrees to provide the City with
an itemized bill listing all names of inmates who are housed, the case or citation number, the
number of days housed including the date and time booked into Okanogan County’s jail and the
date and time released from Okanogan County’s jail, and the dollar amount due for each.
Okanogan County agrees to provide said bill on or about the 10th of each month. The City agrees
to make payment to Okanogan County on or about thirty (30) days from the date the bill is
received.
Section 6. RIGHT OF INSPECTION
The City shall have the right, but not the duty, to inspect at all reasonable times, all Okanogan
County jails in which inmates of the City are confined in order to determine if such jail maintains
standards of confinement acceptable to the City and if such inmates therein are treated equally
regardless of race, religion, color, creed or national origin. Okanogan County shall be obligated
to manage, maintain, and operate its facilities consistent with all applicable federal, state and
local laws and regulations.
Section 7. INMATE ACCOUNTS
Okanogan County shall establish and maintain an account for each inmate received from the City
and shall credit to such account all money which is received and shall make disbursements,
debiting such account in accurate amounts for the inmate's personal needs. Disbursements shall
be made in limited amounts as are reasonably necessary for personal maintenance. Okanogan
Packet Page 192 of 998
4
County shall be accountable to the City for such inmate funds. At either the termination of this
Agreement, the inmate's death, release from incarceration or return to either the City or indefinite
release to the court, the inmate's money shall be transferred to the inmate's account in care of the
City. If requested by the City, Okanogan County Corrections will return said inmate
reimbursement to the City in the form of a check in the name of each inmate eligible for said
reimbursement.
Section 8. RESPONSIBILITY FOR INMATE'S CUSTODY
(a) It shall be the responsibility of Okanogan County to confine the inmate or
inmates; to provide treatment, including the furnishing of subsistence and all necessary medical
and hospital services and supplies; to provide for the inmates' physical needs; to make available
to them programs and/or treatment consistent with their individual needs; to retain them in said
custody; to supervise them; to maintain proper discipline and control; to make certain that they
receive no special privileges and that the sentence and orders of the committing court in the State
are faithfully executed; provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require
Okanogan County, or any of its agents, to provide treatment, facilities or programs for any
inmates confined pursuant to this Agreement, which it does not provide for similar inmates not
confined pursuant to this Agreement.
(b) Except as provided in Section 12, it is expressly understood that Okanogan
County shall not be authorized to transfer custody of any inmate confined pursuant to this
Agreement to any party other than the City, or to release any inmate from custody without
written authorization from the committing court.
Section 9. MEDICAL SERVICES
(a) Inmates from the City shall receive such medical, psychiatric and dental
treatment as may be necessary to safeguard their health while housed in the Okanogan County
jail. Okanogan County shall provide or arrange for the providing of such medical, psychiatric,
and dental services. The City shall pay directly or reimburse Okanogan County for all costs
associated with the delivery of medical services, or any emergency and/or major medical service,
provided to the City inmates.
(b) Okanogan County shall keep an adequate record of all such services. The
City will be able to review at its request any medical or dental services of major consequence, in
accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to HIPPA. Okanogan County will
report to the City any medical or dental services of a major consequence as soon as is practical.
(c) Should medical or dental services require hospitalization, the City agrees
to compensate Okanogan County dollar for dollar any amount expended or cost incurred in
providing the same; provided that, except in emergencies, the City will be notified either by
phone or fax prior to the inmate's transfer to a hospital and nothing herein shall preclude the City
from retaking the ill or injured inmates.
Section 10. DISCIPLINE
Packet Page 193 of 998
5
Okanogan County shall have physical control over and power to execute disciplinary authority
over all inmates of the City. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize
or permit the imposition of a type of discipline prohibited by state or federal law or the
imposition of a type of discipline that would not be imposed on an inmate who is not confined
pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 11. RECORDS AND REPORTS
(a) Before or at the time of delivery of each inmate, the City shall forward to
Okanogan County a copy of all inmate records pertaining to the inmate's present incarceration at
the City of Lynnwood or Snohomish County Jail. If additional information is requested
regarding a particular inmate, the parties shall mutually cooperate to provide any additional
information.
(b) Okanogan County shall keep all necessary and pertinent records
concerning such inmates in the manner mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. During an
inmate's confinement in Okanogan County, the City shall, upon request, be entitled to receive
and be furnished with copies of any report or record associated with said inmate’s incarceration.
Section 12. REMOVAL FROM THE JAIL
Except for eligible inmates for correctional work details and under the direct supervision of a
corrections officer, an inmate of the City legally confined in Okanogan County shall not be
removed therefrom by any person without written authorization from the City or by order of any
court having jurisdiction. Okanogan County agrees that no early releases or alternatives to
incarceration, including furloughs, passes, home detention, or Work Release shall be granted to
any inmate housed pursuant to this Agreement without written authorization by the committing
court. This paragraph shall not apply to an emergency necessitating the immediate removal of
the inmate for medical, dental, psychiatric treatment or other catastrophic condition presenting an
imminent danger to the safety of the inmate or to the inmates or personnel of Okanogan County.
In the event of any such emergency removal, Okanogan County shall inform the City of the
whereabouts of the inmate or inmates so removed, at the earliest practicable time, and shall
exercise all reasonable care for the safe keeping and custody of such inmate or inmates.
Section 13. ESCAPES
In the event any City inmate shall escape from Okanogan County's custody, Okanogan County
will use all reasonable means to recapture the inmate. The escape shall be reported immediately
to the City. Okanogan County shall have the primary responsibility for and authority to direct the
pursuit and retaking of the inmate or inmates within its own territory. Any cost in connection
therewith shall be chargeable to and borne by Okanogan County; however, Okanogan County
shall not be required to expend unreasonable amounts to pursue and return inmates from other
states or other counties.
Section 14. DEATH OF AN INMATE
Packet Page 194 of 998
6
(a) In the event of the death of a City inmate, the Okanogan County coroner
shall be notified. The City shall receive copies of any records made at or in connection with such
notification. Okanogan County will investigate any death within its facility and will allow the
City to join in on the investigation.
(b) Okanogan County shall immediately notify the City of the death of a City
inmate, furnish information as requested and, subject to the authority of the Okanogan County
coroner, follow the instructions of the City with regard to the disposition of the body. Written
notice shall be provided within three calendar days of receipt by the City of notice of such death.
All expenses relative to any necessary preparation of the body and shipment charges shall be
paid by the City. With the City's consent, Okanogan County may arrange for burial and all
matters related or incidental thereto, and all such expenses shall be paid by the City. The
provisions of this paragraph shall govern only the relations between or among the parties hereto
and shall not affect the liability of any relative or other person for the disposition of the deceased
or for any expenses connected therewith.
(c) The City shall receive a certified copy of the death certificate for any of its
inmates who have died while in Okanogan County custody.
Section 15. RETAKING OF INMATES
In the event the confinement of any City inmate is terminated for any reason by either party,
retaking of inmates shall be coordinated in the same manner and at the same rates as if this
Agreement had not been terminated, or in a manner as agreed in writing by the parties.
Section 16. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION
(a) The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Okanogan County, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, cost, judgment or damages, including attorneys'
fees, arising from any City action or proceeding involving the confinement of any inmates from
the City in Okanogan County: provided that this subsection shall not apply to any such claim,
cost, judgment or damage that arises out of or in any way results from any allegations of any
intentional, willful or negligent act or omission on the part of Okanogan County or any officer,
agent or employee thereof.
(b) Okanogan County shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, cost, judgments or damages, including attorneys'
fees, including third party claims, arising out of any action or omission of Okanogan County, its
officers, agents, independent contractors, or employees while City inmates are in the custody of
Okanogan County, or for any wrongful release of inmates placed in their custody, or for any
claim by its employees, agents or independent contractors that may be asserted against the City
in performing this Agreement.
(c) An inmate shall become the responsibility of Okanogan County at the
point that the inmate is booked into Okanogan County jail or when the inmate has been released
to the care, custody and control of Okanogan County, including without limitation the point at
which Okanogan County, or its agents, picks up inmate(s) or transports inmate(s) as in Section 5,
Packet Page 195 of 998
7
whichever occurs first. Okanogan County shall hold the City harmless under the terms of this
section for all claims arising out of the detention of the inmate(s). Accordingly, Okanogan
County shall be held harmless by the City under the terms of this Agreement, for claims arising
out of the arrest of the inmate(s), or arising out of any situation occurring prior to the time that
Okanogan County assumes responsibility for the inmate(s).
(d) The County and City hereby waive, as to each other only, their immunity
from suit under industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity was mutually
negotiated by the parties hereto.
(d) The provisions of this section shall survive any termination or expiration
of this Agreement.
Section 17. INSURANCE
(a) Each party agrees to provide the other with evidence of insurance
coverage, in the form of a certificate of insurance from a solvent insurance provider and/or a
letter confirming coverage from a solvent self-insurance pool, which is sufficient to address the
insurance and indemnification obligations set forth in this Agreement.
(b) Each party shall obtain and maintain coverage in minimum liability limits
of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) in the
aggregate for its liability exposures, including comprehensive general liability, errors and
omissions, auto liability and police professional liability. The insurance policy shall provide
coverage for those events that occur during the term of the policy, despite when the claim is
made. For the purpose of this paragraph, membership in a self-insurance risk pool that provides
coverage with limits that are no less than the policy and limits identified above shall satisfy the
requirements of this section.
Section 18. RIGHT TO REFUSE INMATE(S)
(a) Okanogan County shall have the right to refuse to accept any inmate from
the City when, in the opinion of Okanogan County, its inmate census is at capacity or so near
capacity that there is a substantial risk that, through usual operation of the jail, the reasonable
operational capacity limits of the jail might be reached or exceeded.
(b) Okanogan County shall further have the right to refuse to accept any
inmate from the City who, in the judgment of Okanogan County, has a current illness or injury
which may adversely affect the operations of the Okanogan County jail, has a history of serious
medical problems, presents a substantial risk of escape, or presents a substantial risk of injury to
other persons or property.
Section 19. MISCELLANEOUS
In providing services under this Agreement, Okanogan County is an independent contractor and
neither it nor its officers, agents or employees are employees of the City for any purpose,
including responsibility for any federal or state tax, industrial insurance or Social Security
liability. Neither shall the provision of services under this Agreement give rise to any claim of
Packet Page 196 of 998
8
career service or civil service rights, which may accrue to an employee of the City under any
applicable law, rule or regulation.
Section 20. FINANCING
There shall be no financing of any joint or cooperative undertaking pursuant to this Interlocal
Agreement. There shall be no budget maintained for any joint or cooperative undertaking
pursuant to this Agreement.
Section 21. PROPERTY
This Interlocal Agreement does not provide for the acquisition, holding or disposal of real or
personal property.
Section 22. JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD
No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this Agreement. To the extent necessary,
this Interlocal Agreement shall be administered by the City Clerk for the City of Edmonds, or
his/her designee, and the Chairman of the Okanogan County Board of Commissioners, or his/her
designee.
Section 23. SEVERABILITY
Any provision of this Agreement that is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or
invalidate any other provision.
Section 24. MODIFICATIONS
No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such
change or addition be in writing and executed by both parties.
Section 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
Unless otherwise agreed in writing executed by both parties, on and after January 1, 2013, and so
long as this Agreement remains in effect, this document constitutes the entire Agreement
between the City and Okanogan County under which the County houses City inmates, and no
other oral or written agreements between the parties shall affect this Agreement.
Section 26. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement, or any interest herein, or claim hereunder, shall not be assigned or transferred in
whole or in part by the County to any other person or entity without the prior written consent of
the City. In the event that such prior written consent to an assignment is granted, then the
assignee shall assume all duties, obligations, and liabilities of Okanogan County stated herein.
DATED at Okanogan, Washington this _____ day of _____________ 2012.
Packet Page 197 of 998
9
CITY OF EDMONDS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OKANOGAN, WASHINGTON
By: __________________________ __________________________________
David O. Earling, Mayor Andrew Lampe, Chairman
__________________________________
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Jim DeTro, Vice-Chair
By: __________________________ __________________________________
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk Don Hover, Member
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ __________________________________
Office of the City Attorney Lalena Johns, Clerk of the Board
OKANOGAN COUNTY SHERIFF
By: ______________________________
Frank Rogers, Sheriff
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Steve Bozarth, Civil Deputy
Packet Page 198 of 998
AM-5266 4. M.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Renewal of contract for services with S. Morris Company.
Recommendation
It is the recommendation of staff and the Public Safety and Personnel Committee that the full
Council approvel via consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
Reviewed and discussed at the November 13, 2012 Public Safety and Personnel Committee meeting with
the recommendation that the contract be approved by full Council via consent agenda.
Narrative
Since January 2007, the Police Department has engaged the services of the S. Morris Company for the
disposal of dead animals. This is a somewhat unique service that is being provided; additionally, the
department has been quite pleased with the level of service provided by the vendor. Therefore, the
attached contract is a renewal agreement for those services.
The City Attorney has reviewed the attached contract and has approved the document as to form.
Attachments
S. Morris Contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:03 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 11:10 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:39 AM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 11/14/2012 10:56 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 199 of 998
1
AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL DISPOSAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made between the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereafter
referred to as “the City”, and The S. Morris Company, hereafter referred to as “Morris”.
WHEREAS, the City has determined by ordinances to regulate animals within the
city limits, and
WHEREAS, the City periodically comes into possession of deceased, diseased,
injured or otherwise un-adoptable animals that must be euthanized as part of its animal
control operations, and
WHEREAS, the City has no dead animal disposal services of its own, and
WHEREAS, Morris is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of
Washington, and
WHEREAS, the City and Morris desire to enter into a contract defining the rights
and responsibilities of Morris and the City with respect to dead animal disposal, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, Morris and the City have
mutually agreed and do hereby agree as follows:
1. Undertakings of Morris.
1.1 Morris will furnish dead animal disposal services to the City. This includes
cremation of animals at the facility operated by Morris and legal disposal of any
crematory remains.
1.2 Morris shall make a minimum of one scheduled pick-up per week of dead
animals from the City’s designated location.
1.3 Upon request by the City, Morris will furnish a chest freezer for storage of
dead animals.
2. Undertakings of the City. In consideration of the services performed, the City
shall pay to Morris the sum of $11.32 per animal for disposal services, increased in 2014
and 2015 by an amount equivalent to the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton June CPI-U for the
preceding year, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the renewal of the Agreement is subject
to an appropriation by the Edmonds City Council for future annual terms. If the City
Council fails to appropriate funds for animal disposal services, this Agreement shall
expire at the end of the last term for which an appropriation has been made.
Packet Page 200 of 998
2
2.1 Invoices shall be submitted by Morris to the City for payment pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each invoice
to Morris. Morris may submit invoices to the City for services performed and accepted
by the City. Billing shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City’s warrant process. No
invoice / billing shall be considered for payment that is not sufficiently detailed to verify
validity thereof, and that has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the
scheduled cut-off date. Such late invoice will be checked by the City and payment will
be made in the next regular payment cycle.
2.2 The service and invoice records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement
are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three
(3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
3. Indemnity. Morris agrees to indemnify, reimburse, save and hold harmless the
City for any claim, loss damage, expense or liability to the City which the City may incur
by reason of any act of Morris in performing this contract. Morris further agrees to
procure and maintain an insurance policy or policies protecting Morris and their officers
and employees against any loss, liability or expense whatsoever from personal injury,
death, property damage or otherwise arising or occurring in connection with the
performance of this contract. Said policy or policies shall be written by a responsible
insurance company or companies satisfactory to the City and shall include general
liability for personal injury and/or property damage in an amount not less than $500,000
for each person or occurrence. The insurance policy or policies shall further provide that
the same shall not be reduced or cancelled without at least twenty days prior notice to the
City, shall name the City as additionally insured and shall be primary to any other such
insurance maintained by the City. A copy of all such insurance policies shall be
submitted to the City within five days of the execution of this Agreement, and current
proof of insurance shall be submitted to the City as the policy periodically renews. To the
extent necessary to enforce this indemnification agreement, Morris waives its immunity
under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington.
4. Independent Contractor. Morris is and shall be considered an independent
contractor. All persons performing services under this Agreement shall be employees of
Morris and are not employees of the City. Morris agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents, and employees from any cost, claim, or liability
arising out of the employment of individuals by Morris. Morris shall have entire control
and direction of its business operations and kenneling services, subject only to the
conditions and obligations established by this Agreement. The indemnities provided in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Agreement shall survive its termination. Notwithstanding
Morris’ status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to
this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement,
Morris shall not perform work for any party with enforcement action subject to the
administrative or quasi-judicial review by the City without written notification to the City
and the City’s prior written consent.
Packet Page 201 of 998
3
5. Discrimination prohibited. Morris shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or
physical handicap.
6. Changes/Additional work. The City may engage Morris to perform services in
addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Morris will be entitled to additional
compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable
for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and
compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both Parties to this
Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of
Works, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Work and fees may be
required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to
obligate Morris to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the
payments discussed in Section 2.A, unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is
approved in writing by both Parties.
7. Standard of care. Morris represents that Morris has the necessary knowledge,
skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Morris and any
persons employed by Morris shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a
professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and
customary professional care required for services agreed to herein.
8. Supervision of employees. Morris is responsible for the direct supervision of its
employees, and a supervisor shall be available at reasonable times to confer with the City
in regards to services. Morris commits that its services will be performed by careful and
efficient employees trained in the best practices and highest standards imposed by
Morris. Morris agrees to remove any of its employees who in the reasonable opinion of
the City, are guilty of improper conduct or incapable of performing the work assigned to
them.
9. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision.
10. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by Morris shall not be assigned or
subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
11. Covenant against contingent fees. Morris warrants that it has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
Morris, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Morris, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon
or resulting from the award of making this contract. For breach or violation of this
warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its
discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the
full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
Packet Page 202 of 998
4
12. Compliance with laws. Morris in the performance of this Agreement shall
comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including but not
limited to provisions of Title 51 RCW, Title 16 RCW and other laws, tax regulations,
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and
accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as
described in the Agreement and or necessary to assure quality of services delivered.
13. B&O Taxes. Morris specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and
occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement.
14. Expiration, Notice. In the event that the period covered by this Agreement shall
expire without the benefit of a new agreement, the rate scheduled then in effect as of the
date of Agreement expiry shall continue until such time as Morris and the City agree to
an amended rate schedule, provided that either party may, upon one hundred eighty days
advance written notice, issue notice of termination, which shall not require cause, and
after expiry of notice, the Agreement shall be of no further force or effect. Either party
may terminate this Agreement immediately for cause upon the deposit of written
notification in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the regular mailing address of
each party. The regular mailing address of the Parties shall be:
City of Edmonds
c/o Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
425.775.2525
The S. Morris Company
c/o Steve Morris
P.O. Box 99768
Seattle, WA 98139
206.784.4055
15. Severability. This Agreement shall be read and interpreted as a whole, except that
the capitalized and underlined headings for each numbered paragraph are for descriptive
purposes and shall not prevail over the provision which they head. In the event that any
provision herein shall be struck down, particularly those contained in provision number 4
(Independent Contractor), this Agreement shall be at an immediate end.
16. Integration. The Agreement between the Parties shall consist of this document
and the Exhibits attached hereto. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the
parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties as provided
in provision 6 (Changes/Additional Work). In the event of any conflict between this
written Agreement and any provisions of Exhibits attached hereto, this Agreement shall
control.
Packet Page 203 of 998
5
17. Venue and jurisdiction. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be
brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties
agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue.
18. Force Majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any
governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or
delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond parties reasonable control. In
the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for
completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the
effect of such delay.
19. Entire Agreement; Amendment; Attorneys’ Fees. This Agreement contains all
the understandings between the Parties and is intended to operate as such. In the event of
a dispute over any part or portion of this Agreement, the party prevailing upon its claim
or claims shall also be awarded reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
20. Term. This Agreement shall have a three year term commencing on January 1,
2013.
EXECUTED this ______ day of _________________, 2012.
CITY OF EDMONDS THE S. MORRIS COMPANY
By: __________________________ By:
Mayor David O. Earling Its:
ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED
By: ___________________________
Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: ___________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 204 of 998
AM-5281 4. N.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a $67,112.90 grant from the State through the Salmon Recovery Board
(SRFB) and the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for a limited feasibility study for the day
lighting of Willow Creek from the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the grant.
Previous Council Action
On November 13, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
This project is exploring the feasibility of maximizing Chinook salmon rearing habitat in Edmonds Marsh
through day lighting a connection between Willow Creek and Puget Sound. The original sponsor
(recipient) of this grant was the non-profit organization People for Puget Sound (PfPS). The City has
been working co-operatively with PfPS on this project since late 2011; which included providing
matching dollars for the grant from the 412-200 (Stormwater Capital) Fund. On October 1, 2012, PfPS
closed its doors, and the RCO-SRFB seeks a new sponsor for the remaining grant dollars.
If Council approves acceptance of the grant, the City will contract with the original consultant that is
working on the project to complete the remaining tasks. The City held 4 of the 5 spots on the selection
panel when this consultant was selected for the project earlier in 2012.
The grant agreement has been “approved as to form” by the City Attorney.
Fiscal Impact:
This grant will add to the 412-200 Fund. Matching funds ($50,000 total) have already been allocated in
the 2012 budget. Funds will be rolled over to 2013, if necessary, given that the sponsor change may
impact the project schedule.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Amendment
Attachement 2 - Original Agreement
Packet Page 205 of 998
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 11/15/2012 03:48 PM
Public Works Kody McConnell 11/15/2012 03:50 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/16/2012 08:33 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 09:33 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/15/2012 01:21 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 206 of 998
Amendment to Project Agreement
11-1553PPeople for Puget Sound
Willow Creek daylighting
Amendment Type:
Project Sponsor Change
Amendment Description:
Project sponsor is changed to City of Edmonds, as People for Puget Sound is ceasing
operations and transitioning projects to other agencies.
Project Sponsor:Project Number:
Amendment Number:Project Title:1
Agreement Terms
In all other respects the Agreement, to which this is an Amendment, and attachments thereto, shall
remain in full force and effect. In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed this Amendment.
State Of Washington
Recreation and Conservation Office
Project Sponsor
BY:
AGENCY:
BY:
Kaleen Cottingham
TITLE:Director TITLE:
DATE:DATE:
Pre-approved as to form:
BY: /S/
Assistant Attorney General
EXISTING
AGENCY:
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
NEW
PSAR Project Project Sponsor Change Amendment
AMENAGR2.RPT
Salmon Funding Accounts Chapter 77.85 RCW, Chapter 420 WAC
Packet Page 207 of 998
AMENDMENT APPROVAL FORM InitialsDate
Grant Mgr:
Section Mgr:
Fiscal:
Deputy:
Director:Project Sponsor:
Project Title:
Project #:
Amendment #:
Willow Creek daylighting
People for Puget Sound
1 - Project Sponsor Change
11-1553 Planning
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Project sponsor is changed to City of Edmonds, as People for Puget Sound is ceasing operations and transitioning projects
to other agencies.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Board Funded Date:12/09/2011 Prior Time Extensions:0 RCO Amount: $100,000.00
Project Start Date:
Original End Date:
12/08/2011
12/31/2013
Current End Date:12/31/2013
Other External Amendments:0
Sponsor Active Projects:
Sponsor Completed Projects:
1
1
Sponsor Not Completed Projects:1
Sponsor Dead Projects:0
Sponsor Match Amount:$52,100.00
Total:$152,100.00
RCO Paid To Date (33%):$32,887.10
RCO Remaining (67%):$67,112.90
Last Billing Date:10/15/2012Last Progress Report:
PROJECT AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION:
People for Puget Sound will explore the feasibility of maximizing Chinook salmon rearing habitat in Edmonds Marsh through
daylighting the connection between Willow Creek and Puget Sound. Edmonds Marsh is located within the City of Edmonds in
the Central Puget Sound basin. The feasilibility report will a) evaluate the topography and hydrology of the marsh area to
determine the potential for use by juvenile Chinook; b) analyze three options for daylighting Willow Creek; c) assess the
hydrology of a restored marsh system that identifies the freshwater and saltwater hydrology signal, average water elevation,
maximum and minimum water levels and hydroperiod during tidal fluctuations; and d) provide conceptual designs for the
preferred alternative.
The evaluation of sediment accretion, erosion, and transport, and storm water inputs may be part of a later feasibility
assessment phase.
PROJECT FUNDING (CURRENT):
Bien Fund Appn Reapp Ind Orig Bien Orig Appn Grant Activity SubActiv SO Amount
11-13 057 K00 New psarp PROJ NZ $100,000.00
QUESTIONS:
Yes No N/A
Other
(see notes)
Is the amendment request consistent with the original project intent?
Did the sponsor provide adequate justification for the proposed change?
Did the sponsor exhaust all practical alternatives before requesting the amendment?
Is the current project meeting its milestone obligations to RCO?
Is the current project meeting its billing obligations to RCO?
Did the sponsor have little control over the condition causing the amendment?
Does the sponsor have a good track record of implementing projects?
AMENDAPPROVALFORM.RPT
Packet Page 208 of 998
Yes No N/A
Other
(see notes)
Will the proposed change help implement the project faster?
Is the project change a result of a design and /or permitting requirement?
Will this action cause funding to be re-appropriated?
Is staff recommending approval of this amendment request?
Does the Lead Entity support the proposed change and is the documentation provided (letter or
e-mail)?
Is the proposed change technically sound? Has the Review Panel reviewed the change? If so,
have their comments been incorporated into the request (i.e. conditioning)?
NOTES AND ANALYSIS:
AMENDAPPROVALFORM.RPT
Packet Page 209 of 998
Amendment Special Conditions
Amendment Number:Project Title:
Project Sponsor:
Special Conditions
Project Number:People for Puget Sound
Willow Creek daylighting
11-1553 P
1
a. Cultural Resources Consultation: This project does not include ground disturbing activities, nor alter structures built
more than 50 years ago, and therefore appears to be exempt from Governor’s Executive Order 05-05 Archaeological
and Cultural Resources Consultation as described in Section 9 of this project agreement. If any ground disturbance or
demolition or modification of structures older than 50 years becomes necessary, promptly notify your RCO grant
manager as cultural resources consultation will be required. Completion of this consultation and a Notice to Proceed
from RCO will be required before these activities can begin.
b. Design Deliverables: The project will meet the standards for Design and Restoration Project Deliverables described in
Manual 18 (January 2012) Appendix D "Conceptual Design Deliverables" which includes a comprehensive report
addressing the following elements:
1. Description of the project site and the problem(s) within the context of salmon recovery.
2. Identification of specific objectives for addressing the problem(s).
3. Presentation and evaluation of basic site characterization data and engineering analysis that was used for
identifying the conceptual design alternatives.
4. Identification and conceptual design of alternatives for achieving the project objectives. Each conceptual design
alternative should include a description of the design and at least a plan view drawing of the proposed project
on an accurately-scaled site plan. The plan view drawing should include: an area/location map; property
boundaries (either surveyed or approximated based on assessor’s data); landownership; roads or other
infrastructure as appropriate; scale; North arrow; waterbodies and direction of flow; ordinary high water line or
mean high water line for marine waters; and approximate dimensions of proposed elements. Sponsors should
provide a plan view showing the existing conditions of the site as well as the proposed project.
5. Evaluation and discussion of the pros and cons of each alternative. This explanation should take into account
the views of stakeholders (including landowners, and lead entity citizen and technical groups) and other factors
the sponsor considers relevant.
6. Selection of preferred alternative(s) including an explanation for why it was selected over the other alternatives.
For some projects, it may be unrealistic to narrow the “preferred alternative” to one option, because additional
technical information may be needed to make a fully informed choice. In these situations, it would be
acceptable to advance more than one alternative to the preliminary project design phase.
7. Rough construction cost estimate of the preferred alternative(s).
November 7, 2012ASPECCOND.RPT Page 1Packet Page 210 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
3
0
o
f
9
9
8
AM-5282 4. O.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Relocation of Private Electrical Services for the Main Street
Improvements (5th Ave - 6th Ave) and acceptance of project.
Recommendation
Accept project.
Previous Council Action
On November 13, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
The Main Street Improvement project between 5th and 6th Avenues included the relocation of existing
overhead utilities to the alley south of Main Street. The Snohomish County PUD completed the
relocation work to move the overhead wires to the alley. Four private property electrical services were
required to be redirected to the new electrical system in the alley. The City, through the small works
project process, hired Chermak Construction to complete the reconnection of the private electrical
services.
The contract award amount was $27,117.68 and the work has been completed and inspected by the
Department of Labor and Industries. There were no change orders required to complete the project and
the contractor was paid the full contract amount.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 11/15/2012 03:51 PM
Public Works Kody McConnell 11/15/2012 03:52 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/16/2012 08:54 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 09:33 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/15/2012 01:25 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 231 of 998
AM-5260 5.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn
LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation Honoring Veteran Nicholas McCallon.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Tonight Mayor Earling will read a proclamation honoring Nicholas McCallon, a two tour Iraq War
Veteran and Purple Heart recipient who recently saved the life of a woman involved in a fatal car
accident. Nick witnessed and was first to respond to the accident which happened on Evergreen Way in
Everett. Nick's quick response and army training in first medical response allowed him to stabilize the
injured victim until medical teams arrived. Hours later Nick and his wife Felicia welcomed into the world
their second child, son Nathan. Nick works for Operation Military Family here in Edmonds. Mayor
Earling met Nick earlier this year when they worked together promoting the kick-off of Military
Veteran's Promotions .
Attachments
Nicholas_McCallon
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 11:57 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 11/13/2012 04:55 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 232 of 998
Packet Page 233 of 998
AM-5273 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Public Defender Annual Report
Recommendation
Information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
James Feldman, Public Defender, will provide his annual report to the City Council.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 08:50 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/15/2012 08:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 234 of 998
AM-5274 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Prosecutor Annual Report
Recommendation
Information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Representatives from Zachor & Thomas, the law firm that serves as Prosecutor for the city, will provide
their annual report to the City Council.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 08:50 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:33 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/15/2012 08:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/15/2012
Packet Page 235 of 998
AM-5285 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Recommendation
Hold a Public Hearing on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City of Edmonds to incorporate the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan (Attachment 1) into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor Square Master Plan envisions a mixed-use transit-oriented development. The mixed-use nature of the Master Plan will allow for
retail, commercial, office and public uses, and residential housing. The SEPA checklist indicates a redeveloped Harbor Square consistent with the Master Plan could
provide 340 to 358 residential units, 50,400 square feet of retail, 9,784 square feet of office, 123,410 square feet of recreational health club uses (including tennis
courts), 3.8 acres of public open space, and 1,091 spaces of off-street parking. The Master Plan envisions buildings of varying heights, up to a maximum of 55 feet.
Conceptually, the Master Plan proposal calls for locating the taller building towards the southern and western property boundaries of the site and outside of
recognized public view corridors while shorter buildings would be located along Dayton Street.
While the Harbor Square Master Plan contains some language on the types of uses to be allowed and discusses potential building heights, the request is not a
project-level proposal. However, incorporating the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a future rezone
and/or development agreement for the Harbor Square property to support a mixed-use transit-oriented development. Any future rezone and/or development agreement
would be subject to further public participation and Council approval as well as project level environmental review under SEPA at that time.
The Planning Board conducted an extensive review of the Harbor Square Master Plan over the course of six meetings (July 25, August 22, September 12, September
26, October 10, and October 24). Minutes from these meetings are included as Attachment 3. The Planning Board has recommended that the City Council
incorporate the Port of Edmonds' Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan and has also offered fourteen (14) additional recommendations with
regard to incorporating the Master Plan within the City's Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 2). The Planning Board Chair will provide additional comments regarding
the Planning Board's review of the Harbor Square Master Plan at the City Council meeting (Attachment 4).
The Port of Edmonds submitted a substantial amount of material in support of their request to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's
Comprehensive Plan. This material is included as Attachments 5 - 15 of this agenda memo.
During the course of the Planning Board's review of the Harbor Square Master Plan the Port of Edmonds submitted additional information to address questions raised
by the Planning Board. This material is included as Attachments 16 - 20. Staff and the City Attorney also provided responses to questions from the Planning Board,
these are included as Attachments 21 and 22. Additionally, a number of written comments on the proposal were received during the Planning Board's review. These
comment letters/emails are provided as Attachment 23.
The City conducted a nonproject State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposal and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on
October 4, 2012. The SEPA Checklist and MDNS are included as Attachment 24.
Staff has developed a website for the Harbor Square Master Plan to help citizens follow the process. The application materials, links to Planning Board agenda items,
minutes and review process information is located on this website. The website can be accessed from the Planning Division page on the City's website, or directly via
this link
http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-division-home/plans-long-range-planning/harbor-square-master-plan.html.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Harbor Square Master Plan dated August 27, 2012
Attachment 2 - Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
Attachment 3 - Planning Board Minutes from July 25, August 22, September 12, September 26, October 10, and October 24
Attachment 4 - Planning Board Chair Comments to City Council
Attachment 5 - Port of Edmonds Narrative on Comp Plan Amendment Application
Attachment 6 - Transporation Technical Report
Attachment 7 - View Corridor Impact Study
Attachment 8 - Redevelopment Analysis and Real Estate Consultations
Attachment 9 - Steering Committee Meeting Notes
Packet Page 236 of 998
9.
City Council Meeting
Planning
Information
Subject Title
Presentation regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Recommendation
Hold a Public Hearing on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City of Edmonds to incorporate the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan (Attachment 1) into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor Square Master Plan envisions a mixed-use transit-oriented development. The mixed-use nature of the Master Plan will allow for
retail, commercial, office and public uses, and residential housing. The SEPA checklist indicates a redeveloped Harbor Square consistent with the Master Plan could
provide 340 to 358 residential units, 50,400 square feet of retail, 9,784 square feet of office, 123,410 square feet of recreational health club uses (including tennis
courts), 3.8 acres of public open space, and 1,091 spaces of off-street parking. The Master Plan envisions buildings of varying heights, up to a maximum of 55 feet.
Conceptually, the Master Plan proposal calls for locating the taller building towards the southern and western property boundaries of the site and outside of
recognized public view corridors while shorter buildings would be located along Dayton Street.
While the Harbor Square Master Plan contains some language on the types of uses to be allowed and discusses potential building heights, the request is not a
project-level proposal. However, incorporating the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a future rezone
and/or development agreement for the Harbor Square property to support a mixed-use transit-oriented development. Any future rezone and/or development agreement
would be subject to further public participation and Council approval as well as project level environmental review under SEPA at that time.
The Planning Board conducted an extensive review of the Harbor Square Master Plan over the course of six meetings (July 25, August 22, September 12, September
26, October 10, and October 24). Minutes from these meetings are included as Attachment 3. The Planning Board has recommended that the City Council
incorporate the Port of Edmonds' Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan and has also offered fourteen (14) additional recommendations with
regard to incorporating the Master Plan within the City's Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 2). The Planning Board Chair will provide additional comments regarding
the Planning Board's review of the Harbor Square Master Plan at the City Council meeting (Attachment 4).
The Port of Edmonds submitted a substantial amount of material in support of their request to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's
Comprehensive Plan. This material is included as Attachments 5 - 15 of this agenda memo.
During the course of the Planning Board's review of the Harbor Square Master Plan the Port of Edmonds submitted additional information to address questions raised
by the Planning Board. This material is included as Attachments 16 - 20. Staff and the City Attorney also provided responses to questions from the Planning Board,
these are included as Attachments 21 and 22. Additionally, a number of written comments on the proposal were received during the Planning Board's review. These
comment letters/emails are provided as Attachment 23.
The City conducted a nonproject State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposal and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on
October 4, 2012. The SEPA Checklist and MDNS are included as Attachment 24.
Staff has developed a website for the Harbor Square Master Plan to help citizens follow the process. The application materials, links to Planning Board agenda items,
minutes and review process information is located on this website. The website can be accessed from the Planning Division page on the City's website, or directly via
this link
http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-division-home/plans-long-range-planning/harbor-square-master-plan.html.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Harbor Square Master Plan dated August 27, 2012
Attachment 2 - Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
Attachment 3 - Planning Board Minutes from July 25, August 22, September 12, September 26, October 10, and October 24
Attachment 4 - Planning Board Chair Comments to City Council
Attachment 5 - Port of Edmonds Narrative on Comp Plan Amendment Application
Attachment 6 - Transporation Technical Report
Attachment 7 - View Corridor Impact Study
Attachment 8 - Redevelopment Analysis and Real Estate Consultations
Attachment 9 - Steering Committee Meeting Notes
Packet Page 237 of 998
Attachment 10 - Public Open House Comments
Attachment 11 - EDC Presentation May 12, 2011
Attachment 12 - Harbor Square Mailing Brochure
Attachment 13 - Port of Edmonds SEPA MDNS and Checklist
Attachment 14 - Port of Edmonds Commission Resolution No. 12-05
Attachment 15 - Letter's of support submitted by the Port of Edmonds
Attachment 16 - Port of Edmonds response to Planning Board questions
Attachment 17 - Harbor Square Redevelopment Continuum
Attachment 18 - Port of Edmonds Mission Statement and financial documents
Attachment 19 - Sample Development Agreement - Mill Creek
Attachment 20 - Sample Development Agreement, City of Everett and Port of Everett
Attachment 21 - Staff Memo from Planning Board Public Hearing
Attachment 22 - City Attorney Memorandum
Attachment 23 - Written comments received during Planning Board review
Attachment 24 - City of Edmonds SEPA MDNS and Checklist
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/16/2012 08:55 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 09:33 AM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 11/15/2012 06:15 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 238 of 998
Attachment 10 - Public Open House Comments
Attachment 11 - EDC Presentation May 12, 2011
Attachment 12 - Harbor Square Mailing Brochure
Attachment 13 - Port of Edmonds SEPA MDNS and Checklist
Attachment 14 - Port of Edmonds Commission Resolution No. 12-05
Attachment 15 - Letter's of support submitted by the Port of Edmonds
Attachment 16 - Port of Edmonds response to Planning Board questions
Attachment 17 - Harbor Square Redevelopment Continuum
Attachment 18 - Port of Edmonds Mission Statement and financial documents
Attachment 19 - Sample Development Agreement - Mill Creek
Attachment 20 - Sample Development Agreement, City of Everett and Port of Everett
Attachment 21 - Staff Memo from Planning Board Public Hearing
Attachment 22 - City Attorney Memorandum
Attachment 23 - Written comments received during Planning Board review
Attachment 24 - City of Edmonds SEPA MDNS and Checklist
Form Review
11/16/2012 08:23 AM
11/16/2012 08:55 AM
11/16/2012 09:33 AM
Started On: 11/15/2012 06:15 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 239 of 998
New or Expanded Elements
of the Port of Edmonds
Master Plan
Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan
APRIL 18, 2012 Revised for Planning Board Review
August 29. 2012
INTRODUCTION
The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan has been prepared as an amendment to the Port’s Master
Plan. Its purpose is to provide a framework and solid foundation for the eventual redevelopment of
the 11-acre site into an economically feasible, environmentally responsible, and well-designed
mixed-use transit-oriented development in the City’s Downtown Waterfront District.
Harbor Square is an important component of the Port’s overall property holdings and when
redeveloped will further the Port’s statutory directive of “engaging in economic development
programs” to benefit constituents of the Port District as well as the overall Edmonds community.
The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan provides important site planning and design principles to
be used for future development plans.
The preparation and adoption of the Plan is in the midst of a multi-phased planning process.
Completed, ongoing, and future phases include:
Phase 1 (complete)
Prepared a generalized fiscal impact analysis of site redevelopment scenarios.
Phase 2 (complete)
An extensive outreach program to define the community’s preferred use, connections, and design
principles for the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan.
Phase 3 (ongoing)
Port Commissioners will adopt the Redevelopment Plan into the Port Master Plan. Following Planning
Board public hearings and action by the Edmonds City Council the Redevelopment Plan, if
approved, will be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 240 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 2
Phase 4 (Future)
Following approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Edmonds City Council, The Port
will market the project to solicit responsible development interests. With the selection of a
developer by the Port, negotiations between the Port and City will occur to address project issues
including rezoning of the site, site layout, design issues, impact mitigation and other site
development issues. Resolution of project issues will likely occur through the preparation and
approval of a rezone and/or development agreement involving the City, the Port and the selected
developer. Upon approval of the development agreement by the Edmonds City Council
construction documents will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Implementation of the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan is intended to occur over several years,
depending on the economic climate, existing lease arrangements and site planning considerations.
REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT
The Port has identified opportunities to redevelop the Harbor Square site with a mix of residential,
office, and retail uses that promote economic development, environmental responsibility, and a high
quality design character. The redevelopment concept includes increased public access
opportunities and other amenities that capitalize on the site’s waterfront setting and adjacency to
Edmonds Marsh. Public benefits include an expanded tax base, increased downtown activity,
enhanced connections between downtown and the waterfront, an improved pedestrian
environment, promotion of transit oriented development, improved ecology, and increased
waterfront view opportunities with public gathering places.
Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
This Master Plan is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and pursues a number
of the Plan’s goals and policies. Most of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to
Harbor Square are located in the Waterfront Activity Center element. Below are some of the goals
and policies from that element that guide this master plan. Additionally, the Physical Design
Principles included in this Master Plan implement the design-specific Comprehensive Plan policies
which are listed in that section. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are identified in “italics.”
Comprehensive Plan Goals
Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian
links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity.
Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement
downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at residential uses in the area
surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these
supporting areas.
Packet Page 241 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 3
Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes (e.g.
convenience shopping, community activities).
Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically
encouraging arts-related and arts-complementing uses.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key
identity element for the Edmonds community.
E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed-use
development and pedestrian-oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along
Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements
found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown
Area.
E.8. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local
businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects.
E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings,
natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the
shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline.
The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master
Program requirements placed on private development.
E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown
commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region.
E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and
cultural activities.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies individual districts within Edmonds Waterfront. Harbor Square is
located in the “Downtown Master Plan District” and the Comprehensive Plan describes the intent for
this district as quoted below:
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square,
the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail
parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned
development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between
the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site’s
situation at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings
outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street
fronts, and provide pedestrian-friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets.
Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area
that provides a “first impression” of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront.
Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any
redevelopment project.
Packet Page 242 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 4
Planning Principles
The concept diagram on the next page illustrates the planning principles developed during Phase 2
of the planning process. The principles serve as design objectives and form the basis for the Plan
Elements.
The design intent as it relates to the uses, building character, circulation and parking, public
spaces, and sustainability is defined below.
Principles
1. Create a pedestrian entry and visual gateway at the Highway 104 / Dayton Street intersection which is the key link to
downtown Edmonds.
2. Create an attractive street front along Highway 104.
3. Feature pedestrian-friendly facades and uses along Dayton Street W.
4. Establish a pedestrian-friendly esplanade with adjacent activities between the plaza (1) and the marsh.
5. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around the marsh.
6. Provide vehicular access into the site from Dayton Street W.
7. Provide direct pedestrian access to the marsh from Hwy 104.
8. Create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or plaza in the center of the redevelopment.
9. Locate residential development in the southeast portion of the site.
10. Locate parking near the western perimeter, next to the railroad, within a parking structure designed to serve the entire
redevelopment
11. Architectural character should emphasize a “Northwest Style” compatible with the rest of downtown and feature high quality
traditional materials and a variety of colors, forms, and textures.
12. Provide improved vegetation buffers to protect and enhance the Edmonds marsh.
13. Provide for a well-landscaped, Northwest-oriented, small town design theme.
Packet Page 243 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 5
PLAN ELEMENTS
The Port will incorporate the following elements into the redevelopment of Harbor Square through
design guidelines or conditions of purchase/sale agreement(s).
Uses and Site Planning
Create a “village” character with pedestrian gathering spaces.
Create an attractive street front along SR104 as an entry into downtown, with a pedestrian and
visual “gateway” at the SR104/Dayton Street intersection.
Locate most of the residential development in the southeast corner and southern part of the
site in a village setting or well landscaped complex.
Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that provide optimal tax revenue and
other benefits to the City and Port, including pedestrian oriented retail and a residential mix
geared toward a range of incomes.
Circulation, Traffic and Parking
Provide vehicular access from Dayton Street approximately midway between SR104 and the
railroad.
Locate most of the parking near the western perimeter of the site, next to the railroad.
Parking could be enclosed in an above ground structure designed to serve the entire site.
Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians.
Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on
internal streets.
Public Amenities
Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual
gateway to Edmonds Marsh from the intersection at SR104/Dayton Street. This public entry
point will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds and also create a pedestrian focus such
as a village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for
public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market.
Establish a pedestrian friendly esplanade with compatible adjacent activities and building
facades that extends from the public plaza at the corner of SR104/Dayton Street across
Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh..
Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail spaces that open onto the Dayton Street W
sidewalk. Small scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development
and the streetscape.
Packet Page 244 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 6
Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and
pedestrian routes. Orient development in a manner that connects Harbor Square to
downtown and the waterfront.
Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR104.
Provide a civic/cultural/view point/interpretive element within the development as a public
benefit.
Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g.: storage racks) in circulation and open space
planning.
Pedestrian friendly esplanade extending from public plaza at corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to
Edmonds Marsh
Sustainability
Edmond’s Comprehensive Plan includes a Community Sustainability Element with goals and poli-
cies to increase the city’s sustainability based on three principles: flexibility to adapt to changing
conditions, a holistic approach that integrates multiple actions to address the broad range of issues
and a long term perspective that extends beyond the typical 20 year GMA time frame. Among the
most relevant of this section’s policies are: (See pages 19 through 26 in the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan)
Packet Page 245 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 7
A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and
recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and
mutually-supporting whole.
B.1 Undertake a multi-modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an integrated system
of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation designed to effectively support
mobility and access.
B.4 When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and encourage land
use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation system.
D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life-cycle cost analysis,
designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs.
E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of
local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally
F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into the City’s
infrastructure and planning process
G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while
providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices.
G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to
choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time.
The Harbor Square Master Plan responds to these policies in several ways. The multi-functional
uses proposed for the site and the connections to downtown and the waterfront called for in Master
Plan’s Planning Principles reflect the objectives of policies A.3 and E.4. Proximity and connections to
bus, rail and ferry service respond to the transportation policies, especially B.1 and B.4. The Master
Plan provisions directly below include an emphasis on green building and green infrastructure solu-
tions as called for in Policy D.3 and the integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting
principles as well as provision for the athletic club and the marsh boardwalk address Policy F.2’s
call for integrated recreational opportunities. Finally, the Master Plan encourages a residential type
and setting unique in Edmonds. Below are additional provisions to Edmonds’ sustainability objec-
tives.
Incorporate into individual buildings and the overall site redevelopment both low energy and
low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint.
Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life-cycle cost analysis, designed to
maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs
Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance
Edmonds Marsh.
Packet Page 246 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 8
Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain
gardens to reduce undesirable run-off.
Contribute to day-lighting Willow Creek and improving the site’s ecological value.
Dayton Street sidewalk character
Physical Design Criteria
In order to direct the development of Harbor Square in an orderly manner to create a unified and
attractive complex, the Port of Edmonds will establish design standards or guidelines that direct the
design of individual buildings and spaces. The standards or guidelines will be used along with
other zoning code and municipal code regulations to review projects within Harbor Square. The
criteria are intended to be consistent with and implement the following goals and policies in
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown Waterfront Activity Center element:
Packet Page 247 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 9
E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds’
attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive
reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and its
economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian-scale development are an
important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and
design guidelines.
E.17. Provide pedestrian-oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown
waterfront area, including such things as:
o Weather protection,
o Street trees and flower baskets,
o Street furniture,
o Public art and art integrated into private developments,
o Pocket parks,
o Signage and other way-finding devices,
o Restrooms.
E.18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible.
E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation.
E.20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging
signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging
obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities.
E.21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security,
and aesthetic beauty.
E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with
pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and
courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown
area.
The criteria described below present the general objectives and parameters that the standards or
guidelines will implement.
The physical design criteria for Harbor Square are necessarily general in nature because a specific
lay-out for the complex will depend on development considerations and opportunities at the time.
As noted above, they are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as immutable
standards. See site development objectives the Uses and Site Planning, Circulation and Traffic,
and Public amenities sections.
Height and Bulk
Buildings should be no higher than 55’ above grade except for 1) roof-top equipment and other
appurtenances that are not visible from ground level and do not block significant views, and 2)
special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc.
Packet Page 248 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 10
All structures above 35’ in height should not diminish the “human scale” experience of pedestrians
on Dayton Street or decrease sunlight on the street. To that end, all buildings over 35’ should be
set back at least 1’ horizontally away from Dayton Street for every 1’ in height above 35’ above
grade. (This results in n significant additional sun shading or perception of a taller building by a
pedestrian on Dayton.) The schematic section below illustrates these relationships.
Furthermore, the “average building height” of all buildings on the Harbor Square site, taken as a
whole shall not exceed 45’. The means of calculating “average building height” shall be as stated
in the notes at the end of this Master Plan.
Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh
All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of Edmonds Shoreline
Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading
parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the
ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase
ecological functions. Envisioned improvements include: on-site storm water improvements per the
City’s Storm Water Management regulations (which will improve water quality), vegetation plantings
(buffers), and a nature viewing boardwalk.
Small Scale Buildings
All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to
maintain the small scale of Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on
architectural elements such as windows, balconies, façade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually
break down the façade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the stepping back or
projecting forward of portions of a building façade as a means of breaking up the building’s
apparent bulk.
Packet Page 249 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 11
In general, the articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal
module is no greater than 60’ in width. These preliminary dimensional provisions are intended to
respond to Downtown Edmonds’ historic 60’ lot pattern and traditional architecture.
Buildings over 35’ in height should be horizontally articulated with upper story setbacks, different
materials or window patterns on different stories, balconies, canopies or other means.
Street Orientation
Dayton Street Frontage
The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature “pedestrian oriented
facades” and “pedestrian oriented uses”. A “pedestrian oriented façade” is one with
transparent windows or window displays along most of the façade front, pedestrian weather
protection, signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the automobile passenger, a
prominent building entry and other amenities such as building details, lighting, street furniture,
etc. A “pedestrian oriented use” is a use that emphasizes human activity on the street such
as retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and service oriented
offices, etc.
Buildings fronting on Dayton Street should either front directly on the street or be separated by
a pedestrian oriented space such as a plaza, garden, outdoor seating area, etc. The
sidewalk should be at least 15’ wide.
SR 104 Frontage
The site frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive
landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There
should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR 104 frontage. If WSDOT is amenable, the Port
should enter into an agreement with WSDOT to improve the SR 104 ROW on the west side of
the roadway to provide a much better streetscape, development edge and entry into
downtown. Improvements should include street trees, landscaping, and if appropriate, a
shared use (bike/pedestrian) trail.
Architectural Character
Provide for a well landscaped, Northwest oriented, small-town development character.
Site Design and Landscaping
Use green space that relates to and complements the adjacent uses.
Use landscaping to create buffers between sidewalks and adjacent roadways.
Notes:
Average Building Height” shall be calculated by:
1. First, multiplying the foot print of each building on the Harbor Square site (as defined in the
Harbor Square Master Plan) times the height (as defined in Edmonds Zoning Code) of the
Packet Page 250 of 998
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan 12
respective building. (See conditions below for buildings with multiple heights) This calcu-
lation will yield the volume for each building.
2. Then, adding together the products calculated in step 1 (building volumes) and dividing that
sum by the sum of all building footprints on the Harbor Square site.
Provided that:
Existing and proposed buildings will be included in the calculations
Where the height of a building varies from portion to another (e.g.: one wing of a building is 3
stories in height and another wing is 5 stories high.) then the building volume (height x foot-
print) of each building portion shall be calculated separately. The height of buildings with
pitched roofs shall be calculated as the average of the height of the ridge and the lower
eave.
For phased development where a portion of the site is developed, the maximum average
building height for an early phase may exceed 45’ if the average height of all buildings on
site is less than 45’ for all subsequent phases.
Packet Page 251 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
9
o
f
9
9
8
APPROVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 25, 2012
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier (arrived at 7:08 p.m.)
Bill Ellis
John Reed
Neil Tibbott
STAFF PRESENT
Kernen Lien, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Lovell announced that the meeting would be recorded and televised on Channel 21 as early as Friday morning.
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled that at a recent City Council meeting, Chair Lovell expressed the need to better inform
the public about what is going on at the Planning Board level. This is particularly important as the Planning Board embarks
on their review of the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan. In response to the Board’s concern, Mr. Hertrich said he has
approached several City Council Members with a request that Planning Board meeting agendas be posted on Channel 21.
Currently, Channel 21 only informs the public that information about the Planning Board’s agenda is available on the City’s
website. He suggested the Board approach the Mayor’s office with a specific request that their agenda’s be published on
Channel 21.
Mr. Hertrich expressed concern about the City’s recent attempts to enforce the City’s tree-cutting regulations. While fines
have been assessed in some situations, code enforcement staff has failed to collect the fines. He suggested the City should
either eliminate the tree-cutting codes or enforce them and collect fines when a violation occurs.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, expressed concern that the public notice for tonight’s Planning Board meeting appeared to
minimize the importance of the decision the Board and City Council is being asked to make regarding the Harbor Square
Master Plan. The agenda notes that “the request is not for a rezone and is not a project level proposal. However,
incorporating the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a future
Packet Page 260 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 2
rezone and/or development agreement for the Harbor Square property to support a mixed-use, transit-oriented development.”
Ms. Shippen expressed concern that this statement seems to be telling the public to not worry about the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment because nothing will happen for a long-time. She said the City should make it clear that the
Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan contains design concepts for redevelopment that includes four and five-story buildings.
She reminded the Board that when reviewing rezone proposals, the City would look to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance.
Adoption of the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan would pave the way for a rezone that would
allow four and five-story buildings at Harbor Square.
Eric Livingston, Edmonds, said he is in favor of redeveloping Harbor Square. However, the Port’s proposal of a mixed-use,
transit-oriented development is not in the best interests of the citizens of Edmonds. He said that in every conversation he has
had regarding the Port’s proposal, with the exception of those directly involved in the proposal, no one really wants 358
condominiums downtown or to have building heights increased to 55 feet. He said it is fortunate that the Port’s proposal to
amend the Comprehensive Plan and to allow a rezone that permits an increase of building height to 55 feet will require a
rigorous review process. He reminded the Board that, as per the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the
Comprehensive Plan can be amended if:
The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the
public interest. Mr. Livingston pointed out that in both strategic planning efforts (in 1994 and 2012) involving public
input, there was and still is strong support for developing a public farmer’s market and the most mentioned locations for
this concept are the Antique Mall and Harbor Square sites. According to the current Strategic Plan statistics, the public
has expressed significant interest in redeveloping both sites with concepts that are more civically-minded rather than tax-
revenue-driven.
The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City.
Mr. Livingston commented that allowing between 340 and 716 people to live within 100 yards of a railroad crossing
would put residents closest to coal train pollution, noise pollution, and possible safety issues related to children if
unsupervised. It is a fact of life that couples living in the units will have children.
The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. Mr. Livingston
pointed out that the bowl is actually the most densely-populated area of Edmonds and comprises the smallest section of
Edmonds proper. He questioned how the proposed development would maintain an appropriate balance of land use. He
suggested that focusing on developing other areas of Edmonds that are beginning to develop economically (Perrinville,
Five Corners, Westgate and Highway 99) would not only be in compliance with the State’s Growth Management Act
(GMA); but in all likelihood would prove to be better sources of future tax revenue.
Mr. Livingston observed that none of the Port’s documents show that any other concepts were discussed during the
development process of the current proposal. The only concept discussed was a mixed-use, transit-oriented development. He
reminded the Board that public interest has been expressed in the past and is currently being expressed. If the Port’s Harbor
Square Master Plan is adopted, it would appear that the public expressions are being ignored again. He entered several
documents into the record and asked that the Board deny the Port’s request to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
INTRODUCTION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO HAVE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER
PLAN INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chair Lovell explained that the Board expects the Harbor Square Master Plan review process to be a very deliberative,
detailed and long process. The Board’s goal is to make every attempt to provide up-to-date information to the public
regarding the Board’s process and new materials that are available. In addition to information in the media, the City’s
website and Channel 21, the Planning Board provides a bi-monthly report to the City Council to brief them in some detail as
to what the Board is currently working on. The next report is scheduled to occur on August 6th.
Chair Lovell emphasized that the purpose of this meeting is to allow the staff and Port representatives to introduce the
proposed Harbor Square Master Plan to the Board. He said he does not anticipate the Board will deliberate at the conclusion
of the presentations. However, they will raise questions and identify additional information they would like the Port and/or
staff to provide regarding the proposed master plan.
Packet Page 261 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 3
Mr. Lien explained that this is the first introduction of the Port of Edmonds’ request to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan
to incorporate the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan. He emphasized that while the plan contains some language on the
types of uses to be allowed and building heights, the request is not for a rezone and is not a project level proposal. He said it
is important to point out the differences in process between the current Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal and a site-
specific rezone and/or development agreement proposal. Site-specific rezones and/or development agreements, which could
follow for Harbor Square, are Type IV-B applications that require a quasi-judicial review. Comprehensive Plan amendments
are Type V applications that require a legislative review. Quasi-judicial reviews require a higher level of analysis than what
is typically required for a legislative review.
Mr. Lien further explained that pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, Comprehensive Plan amendment are Type V actions, which are
legislative decisions made by the City Council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future
private and public developments and management of public lands. The framework for Type V actions is provided in ECDC
20.01.001.C, which states that the Planning Board shall hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City
Council on Type V actions, and the City Council may consider the Planning Board’s recommendation in a public hearing.
He noted that the City Council has traditionally held public hearings on Comprehensive Plan amendments, and notice of
public hearings is required. He noted that no notice of application has been published for the master plan because legislative
actions do not require such. However, all application materials associated with the Harbor Square Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan amendment have been uploaded to the City’s on-line permit system under File Number AMD20110009.
These can be accessed through the following link: https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/Citizen/Citizen_Home.aspx?CONID=PT-
LIVE&CONNECTION=PERMIT. In addition to sending notices to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property
and posting a notice on site as legally required, City staff anticipates purchasing a piece in the local newspaper and
publishing an announcement on myedmondsnews.com. He explained that Comprehensive Plan amendments can only occur
once per year. The City typically holds public hearings throughout the year on various amendments and then takes formal
action, via an ordinance, before the end of the year.
Mr. Lien said that pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan may be adopted only if the
following findings are made:
The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public
interest.
The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City.
The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Mr. Lien pointed out that, in the case of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map, the subject parcels must also be
physically suitable for the requested land use designation. He advised that the Port is not proposing to change the
Comprehensive Plan Map.
Mr. Lien advised that if approved by the City Council, the 11-page Harbor Square Master Plan would be adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan by reference. Specifically, the list of adopted elements on Page 17 would be amended to include
“Harbor Square Master Plan” in the 7th Bullet under Item 2.
Mr. Lien reviewed that Harbor Square is located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center and the Downtown Master
Plan District, which is described as:
“The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former
Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for
design-drive master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic
location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the
site’s situation at the bottom of ‘the Bowl,’ could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current
view corridors. Any development in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian-friendly
walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad
side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a ‘first impression’ of the city from railroad passengers and
Packet Page 262 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 4
visitors to the waterfront. Artwork, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any
development project.”
Mr. Lien noted that more information about the policies and objectives for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center and the
type of development that should occur in the area are described on Pages 42 through 60 of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Board should consider these policies and objectives as they review the Port’s master plan proposal.
Mr. Lien said the Port of Edmonds, acting as lead agency for the Port Commission’s adoption of the Harbor Square Master
Plan, issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the plan. The mitigation required in the Port’s
MDNS is “Preparation of a transportation impact analysis report that documents existing conditions, estimates project
related changes to local traffic, and describes related impacts and mitigation.” Mr. Lien pointed out that the City would
conduct its own SEPA review for inclusion of the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan and issue a
SEPA threshold determination before the Planning Board’s public hearing on the proposal.
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board has been working through the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update for the last year and
a half. During this process, it was noted that portions of the Edmonds Marsh are now being considered shorelines of the
state, which means the shoreline jurisdiction extends into Harbor Square. He reminded the Board that the City is required by
the State’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) to “consider all plans made or being made that deal with pertinent shorelines
of the state. In response to this requirement, the City has proposed a new Urban Mixed Use III Shoreline Environment for
shoreline jurisdictions around the Edmonds Marsh. He recalled that the Board has had considerable discussion about the new
environment and has expressed concern that the City was considering the new environment before the Port of Edmonds
presented its redevelopment vision to the City. The Board agreed to stall the SMP update to allow the Port time to submit the
Harbor Square Master Plan to the City. He summarized that, as the Board considers the Harbor Square Master Plan, they
should evaluate it for consistency with the proposed SMP update, as well.
Board Member Reed asked if the Board is required to recommend either approval or denial of the Harbor Square Master Plan
as proposed by the Port. Mr. Lien answered that the Board can recommend adoption of the master plan as presented by the
Port, denial of the master plan as presented by the Port, or they could recommend approval of a modified master plan.
However, it would ultimately be up to the Port to accept the modifications. If the Port does not accept the modifications, they
could ask the City to take action on the master plan as proposed. Mr. Lien added that prior to the public hearing, staff would
analyze the proposal and make findings on how the plan is consistent or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Reed asked if the only amendment required to the Comprehensive Plan is adding “Harbor Square Master
Plan” on Page 17, or if the plan would also be referenced in the Downtown/Waterfront Element on Pages 42 through 60. Mr.
Lien said staff is currently recommending that the plan be adopted by reference on Page 17, but the Board could decide to
adopt the actual master plan into the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Reed asked if the Port has completed a transportation impact analysis for the proposed master plan. Mr. Lien
said a transportation technical report was done in conjunction with the Port’s SEPA analysis, but the higher level of review
provided by a transportation impact analysis is not required as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment application. He
cautioned that the renderings provided in the proposed master plan illustrate the type of development that could occur on site,
and more detailed information would be required as part of any site-specific rezone or development agreement proposal.
Chair Lovell asked if it is possible for the Board to recommend the Port incorporate the concept of a public/private
partnership into their master plan proposal. Mr. Lien said public/private partnership opportunities could be considered as part
of a future development agreement application. Chair Lovell asked if it would be appropriate for the Board to recommend
the Port enter into a development agreement with the City that would include certain mitigation such as public amenities
above and beyond what a developer is typically required to provide. Mr. Lien observed that the Port’s application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment envisions going down this road at some point in the future, but not as part of the current
proposal. He agreed to research this topic and report back to the Board.
Chair Lovell summarized that the Board’s charge is to review the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan based on the three
criteria contained in the Comprehensive Plan. They are not to consider potential rezones or development agreements at this
Packet Page 263 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 5
time. Mr. Lien added that the Board should also review the proposal for consistency with the goals and objectives for the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center found on Pages 42 through 60 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Chair Stewart asked if a soil analysis has been done for the Harbor Square site. Mr. Lien said that some soil analysis
has been done on surrounding properties; and Keeley O’Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, recently provided a
presentation about how the Edmonds Marsh was filled over the years to create the surrounding developed properties. He said
it is likely that the soils on the Harbor Square site are similar to properties across the street that have been studied.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the Harbor
Square Master Plan and discuss some of the important elements and issues that may be of interest to the Board as they
deliberate on its merits. He said the Port believes the plan is good, with many tangible benefits for the community. He
introduced key members of the Harbor Square Planning Team, including Chief Planner Bill Trimm, Design Architect John
Owen, and Real Estate Economist Greg Easton. Commissioners Block and Orvis were also present, along with the Port’s
Attorney, Brad Cattle.
Mr. McChesney said their purpose is to present the Harbor Square Master Plan that was adopted and approved by the Port
Commission on June 25th. He reported that the Port has prepared an application that meets and exceeds the City’s procedural
requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments and is pleased to have an opportunity to share the key elements of the
plan with the Planning Board prior to the statutorily-required public hearing to be scheduled in August. He explained that
their presentation would address the highlights of the master plan, including the process used to prepare the plan and the
significant economic outcomes associated with implementing the plan. He said the Port looks forward to discussing the plan
with the Board, addressing any questions the Board has and continuing through the City’s process of adopting the master plan
into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. McChesney said the Port’s overarching goal is to amend the Port of Edmonds Master Plan and the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan with an economically feasible, environmentally responsible and high-quality designed redevelopment
plan for Harbor Square. He said the Port believes its application is solid and represents the work and thoughtful ideas of
some really smart people and community leaders who have volunteered their time to help develop the best plan for future
redevelopment at Harbor Square. The proposal reflects a balance of interests and a package of compromises that are intended
to create a lively new urban neighborhood that is economically responsible and a benefit to the entire Edmonds community.
He said the proposed master plan represents the initial action of putting this critical patch of the Edmonds front yard on a
sustainable path to the future.
Mr. McChesney reviewed that the Harbor Square Master Plan process has taken over three years and has been methodical,
open, inclusive and transparent. In response to people who have asked why the Port has embarked upon this enterprise, Mr.
McChesney advised that the primary empowerment of the Port is economic development, which is a somewhat vague
concept. In the Port’s view, economic development means planning for the future, having a conversation with the
community and the City about economic vitality, and identifying the opportunities and constraints that frame the question.
The Port believes its plan for Harbor Square does exactly that. He said most thoughtful citizens in the community have come
to the realization that something must be done. The City’s budget is in peril, and essential services the community depends
on may be in jeopardy. He emphasized that future generations depend on what the community does now. With these
circumstances in mind, Mr. McChesney commented that most people will easily concede to the reality that economic
development is necessary for healthy sustainability (work, live, play and shop). However, he recognized that aesthetics and
environmental values are also critically important elements.
Mr. McChesney stressed the need for realistic and attainable plans to achieve the community goals, policies and plans as set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The issue that must be addressed is how best to responsibly grow while respecting the
present and future values of the community. The Port firmly believes that the Harbor Square Master Plan provides the
opportunity for a future well-designed, pedestrian-oriented development that gives people what they want without destroying
what they value most about the great town of Edmonds. The Port is prepared to make this case, and they believe they have
the right answer.
Mr. McChesney said it is important to understand what a Comprehensive Plan amendment is. Without prejudice to the
Board’s recommendation, achieving a Comprehensive Plan amendment is simply an “enablement” device. It is not an
Packet Page 264 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 6
entitlement to do anything. It won’t result in an immediate building permit. The site-specific, detailed design features will
be determined as the process continues. But without a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the process will be stopped.
Bill Trimm, FAICP, explained that an extensive public participation process was used to prepare the Harbor Square Master
Plan, starting in November 2009 with a redevelopment analysis report prepared by LMN and Berk Associates to determine
the general potential massing for future redevelopment of the site. The report identified the following key findings:
The existing 1980 contract rezone hinders redevelopment through prohibition of residential uses, as well as limiting the
height to 35 feet.
The Harbor Square zoning regulations need to be revised to allow mixed use development and greater height limits to be
competitive with current practices for mixed-use development.
Redevelopment of the site would result in increased tax revenue from property tax, sales tax, and tax on new
construction.
The master plan should identify a new configuration and image for Harbor Square, using a taller approach to building
height.
Mr. Trimm said the Port built on the initial redevelopment analysis report (Phase 1) by embarking on the public outreach
(Phase 2) portion of the master plan process. The LMN/Berk Associates Report was presented to the public, and public open
houses were held in October 2009 and May 2010. At those meetings, the public indicated that the future plan should:
Provide for a mixture of uses.
Provide for a variety of housing needs, including affordable housing.
Present creative ideas to address building heights over 35 feet.
Provide increased revenue to the City of Edmonds.
Avoid replicating the type of waterfront development that has occurred in eastside communities along Lake Washington.
Mr. Trimm advised that during the summer of 2010, the Port engaged Makers Architecture and Urban Design to be part of
the design team to move the master plan forward. Makers’ first step was to clearly understand the Port’s overarching goal to
amend the their master plan and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan with an economically feasible, environmentally
responsible, and high-quality designed redevelopment plan for Harbor Square.
Mr. Trimm reviewed that the design team presented the Port’s master plan process to the City of Edmonds Economic
Development Commission and Planning Board in October of 2010, and invited them to participate on the 14-member
Steering Committee, which was made up of representatives from the Port of Edmonds, the Town of Woodway, the Edmonds
Economic Development Commission, the Edmonds Planning Board, Harbor Square Tenants and various community leaders.
Stephen Clifton, Edmonds Community Development/Economic Development Director attended each of the meetings to
observe. The purpose of the Steering Committee was to determine what goals and principles should be used to guide the
preparation of the redevelopment plan that would meet the Port’s stated project goal. At their first meeting on December 10,
2010, the Steering Committee had a general discussion about what they felt were the community’s key issues and values that
should be reflected in the master plan. They particularly discussed:
What the mixture of uses should be?
How the uses and the configuration of the land uses should connect to the waterfront and downtown?
How they can ensure that the design principles of the master plan are solid and address building height and articulation
and ensure the streets are well-designed and pedestrian-oriented with a focus on Dayton Street, which is a key
connection between the downtown and the waterfront.
Mr. Trimm said the design team used these comments to prepare two schematic drawings that were presented to the Steering
Committee for comment at their second meeting. Also at the second meeting, the Steering Committee members were invited
to participate in a visual preference survey of various types of buildings, landscaping, streetscape, etc. A viewshed analysis
that was prepared by graduate students from the University of Washington was also presented. The Steering Committee
determined that Scheme 2 would serve as the foundation for future development of the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Packet Page 265 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 7
Mr. Trimm reported that at their third Steering Committee meeting on April 4, 2011, the design team presented a revised
schematic based on comments from the previous meeting. The Steering Committee requested the following changes:
Decrease the building height on Dayton Street from 55 to 45 feet. Any development above 35 feet should be stepped
back one foot for each additional foot in height.
Increase the sidewalk width from 12 to 15 feet to provide for street trees, artwork, etc. and to allow the retail uses to spill
out onto the sidewalk.
Make sure there is appropriate space for public areas such as plazas and provide a gateway element at the intersection of
SR-104 and Dayton Street.
Mr. Trimm advised that the schematic drawing was updated once again and presented to the Port Commission on May 9,
2011, at which time the Commission directed the design team to present the plan to the public. As directed by the
Commission, the design team met with the Economic Development Commission on May 12, 2011, to solicit additional
feedback regarding the draft master plan. At that time, the Economic Development Commission formally validated the
Port’s planning process and encouraged them to continue moving the plan forward through the City and Port review
processes. A public open house was held on June 9, 2011; a mostly positive comments were received from those who
participated. A series of different design images reflected in the plan were presented, and those in attendance were invited to
comment on each one.
Mr. Trimm announced that in March of 2012 the Harbor Square Master Plan was revised further and presented to the Port
Commission. Members of the Steering Committee were present to provide their thoughts regarding the plan, as well. The
Port Commission authorized staff to move forward with preparation of the environmental documents required to formally
adopt the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Port acted as the lead agency for the SEPA
review, and a MDNS was issued. He noted that the City would also conduct a SEPA review as part of their review of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. He emphasized that the current proposal is a non-project action, which is the first
phase of Harbor Square redevelopment. The second phase will include a site-specific proposal with additional environmental
review and a transportation analysis report.
Mr. Trimm provided a diagram to illustrate the Harbor Square Master Planning process. He explained that after the Planning
Board has reviewed the proposal, conducted a public hearing and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council, the City
Council would also conduct a public hearing and make a final decision on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Anticipating formal adoption of the proposed master plan, the next phase would be for the Port to market the plan to the
development community, which is when the public/private partnership option could come into play.
John Owen, Makers Architecture/Urban Design, pointed out that an Edmonds Comprehensive Plan’s Long-Term Action
Strategy calls for redeveloping the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main
Street, according to a mixed-use master plan. He emphasized that, throughout the master plan process, the design team
consulted with and tried to build upon goals and policies outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. To emphasize the Port’s
commitment to the community, the proposed master plan incorporates the following key Comprehensive Plan policies to
guide future development:
E.1 – Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues – and builds upon – its function as a key identity element for
the Edmonds Community.
E.5 – Extend downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed-use development and
pedestrian-oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development
in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural
tie throughout the downtown area.
E.8 – Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage
industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects.
Mr. Owen provided a table that illustrates the results of the economic analysis that was done to determine the number of units
and square footage that could be provided by each of two schematic drawings. He said the Steering Committee determined
that Scheme 2 should be refined to become the preferred alternative. He referred to the updated Scheme 2 and once again
emphasized that the drawing does not illustrate a proposed development. It is intended to illustrate how the site could be
Packet Page 266 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 8
developed, how the parking and access requirements could be met, how development could conform to the setback
requirements in the proposed SMP, and how the site could be redeveloped incrementally. Although the schematic drawing is
not an actual development proposal, it illustrates that a mixed-use development would be a viable and practical form of
development at Harbor Square.
Mr. Owen commented that the Comprehensive Plan states that because there are larger buildings on the waterfront, the
Harbor Square property may be an appropriate place for taller buildings. The design team reviewed a very extensive
viewshed analysis from very specific locations throughout the bowl area that was prepared by graduate students from the
University of Washington. The intent of the analysis was to illustrate how structures 55-feet in height at Harbor Square
would impact public views from upland areas. He invited the Board Members and interested citizens to review the viewshed
analysis, which is available via the City’s website. He said the analysis concluded that a 55-foot height limit would not block
views from public viewpoints. However, in some cases, the new buildings would be visible.
Mr. Owen said the proposed master plan also addresses the following aesthetic policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan:
E.14 – Reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small-town, pedestrian-oriented character. Height limits that reinforce and
require pedestrian-scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through
zoning regulations and design guidelines.
E.17 – Provide pedestrian-oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area.
E.19 – Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation.
E.21 – Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security and aesthetic beauty.
E.22 – Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and
break up the streetscape.
Mr. Owen reviewed that the proposed Master Plan includes the following elements to address key policies in the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan:
Visual Preference
Development at Harbor Square should be consistent with the look and feel of downtown and attempt to accommodate
both the historical character of older buildings and the newer building techniques.
Development should be of a northwest traditional style with a stone base, timber/wood materials and glass.
Height and Bulk
Buildings should be no higher than 55 feet above grade except for roof-top equipment and special architectural features
that do not block significant view.
All structures above 35 feet in height should not diminish the “human scale” experience of pedestrians on Dayton Street
or decrease sunlight on the street. Buildings over 35feet should be setback at least one foot horizontally away from
Dayton Street for every one foot in height above 35 feet. This would result in no significant additional sun shading or
perception of a taller building by a pedestrian on Dayton Street.
Design: Street Orientation
Uses on Dayton Street should be pedestrian oriented.
The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature pedestrian-oriented facades and uses.
Sidewalks on Dayton Street should be at least 15-feetwide.
The site frontage along SR-104 should feature either pedestrian-oriented facades or landscaping sufficient to screen the
majority of building facades and all parking areas.
There should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR-104 frontage.
Design: Small-Scale Buildings
All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to maintain the small
scale of downtown Edmonds.
Articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal module is no greater than 60 feet in
width. This would be consistent with downtown Edmonds’ historic 60-foot lot pattern and traditional architecture.
Packet Page 267 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 9
Buildings over 35 feet in height should be horizontally articulated.
Mr. Owen provided a drawing looking westward on Dayton Street to illustrate pedestrian-oriented retail development,
landscape buffers, street trees, upper story setbacks, and 15-foot sidewalks. He also provided a sketch to illustrate building
size and the passageway from Dayton Street and SR-104 to the Edmonds Marsh. He summarized that the master plan will
guide any future projects to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the design guidelines, and zoning regulations.
Greg Easton, Property Counselors, said he is a economic consultant who specializes in issues related to land use and
facility development. He briefly reviewed the projects he has recently worked on in Edmonds, Seattle and Everett. He said
he was hired by the Port of Edmonds to review the economic feasibility of maintaining, improving or redeveloping the
Harbor Square site. He said the economic criterion used to make this determination was the highest and best use of the
property as reflected in the residual land value of the different options. He said the study done by Berk and Associates in
2009 considered three scenarios:
Maintaining the existing buildings in their current condition would result in an estimated residual land value of $8.8
million.
Redeveloping the site based on the current 35-foot height limit would result in an estimated residual land value of $7.9
million.
Redeveloping the site with a combination of building heights up to a maximum of five stories would result in an
estimated residual land value of $10.9 million.
Mr. Easton summarized that redeveloping the site based on current zoning would result in a lower residual land value than
maintaining the existing buildings in their current conditions. Therefore, there would be no incentive for redeveloping the
properties. Retaining the existing buildings would create more value to the Port. There would be incentive to redevelop the
property if additional height of up to five stories is allowed because the residual land value of this option would exceed that
of maintaining the existing buildings. Mr. Easton provided a graph to illustrate the anticipated net income, development cost,
entrepreneurial return, and residual land value for each of the three options, which come into play when determining whether
or not a redevelopment scenario is feasible.
Mr. Easton said he explored the following types of development throughout the region:
Two and three-story residential, commercial and/or mixed use buildings are typical scenarios. This type of building is a
relatively low-cost form of development that is typically served by surface parking. It can generally support rents that
are affordable in most markets in the region.
Five-story development that is wood-frame construction over one or two floors of concrete typically provides for
structured underground parking. The current building code only allows a maximum of five floors for this building type,
which offers construction efficiencies and allows a developer to spread the cost of the land over more units. This type of
development is supportable in urban and close-in suburban markets and can be found in communities very much like
Edmonds.
Concrete and steel buildings are the most costly to construct, and are typically only feasible at 12 floors or higher.
Structured parking would be provided, but this type of development is only supportable in urban markets.
Mr. Easton summarized that the character of development and current demographics of the Edmonds community would
support the higher density of development reflected in the wood-frame/concrete building type, but a height limit greater than
35 feet would be required to justify tearing down and replacing the existing improvements with new structures.
Board Member Ellis asked if the economic analysis studies are available as part of the materials the Port provided to the City.
Mr. Easton said his analysis is based on the Port’s previous economic studies and his experience in other communities. He
said he did not submit a formal report, but he could provide additional documentation as requested by the Board. Board
Member Ellis said he would like an explanation of the concepts of residual land value and entrepreneurial return, as well as
information that was used to arrive at those figures. Mr. Easton explained that his work was based on the Berk and
Associates study, which was provided to the City as part of the Port’s application. The other materials he provided were
prepared for illustrative purposes, but he agreed to provide supporting documentation.
Packet Page 268 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 10
Mr. McChesney emphasized that the Port’s goal is to achieve economic feasibility. The LMN and Berk and Associates study
that was completed in December 2009 was intended to be a bulk analysis to point the Port in the right direction. Since that
time, McCauley Associates, a Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI), was hired to do additional consulting work. This
report is also available for the Board and public’s review. He said Mr. Easton was hired to perform a peer review of the
previous reports, and that was the focus of his presentation.
Mr. McChesney said that, unlike private sector developers who try to develop concepts to maximize their financial return, the
Port has tried to identify the minimum amount of development that has to occur at Harbor Square sometime in the future in
order to achieve economic feasibility sufficient to attract a private sector partner and/or investor. He emphasized that the Port
does not anticipate being the prime developer of the Harbor Square site, and they believe the Harbor Square Master Plan is a
good and thorough plan that contemplates five stories as the minimum necessary to accomplish feasibility.
Mr. McChesney pointed out that the application material included the McCauley and Associates and Berk and Associates
reports, which were thoroughly vetted during public meetings conducted by the Port. However, the Port could engage in
more analysis and provide additional information at the request of the Board. He said the Port and its representatives are
available to answer additional questions regarding economic feasibility, which is fundamental to the Port’s current proposal.
Mr. Lien acknowledged that the Port’s application included the economic analysis reports, but they were inadvertently left
out of the materials posted on the City’s website. He agreed to post these reports as soon as possible.
Mr. McChesney specifically asked Board Member Ellis to identify specific information he would like the Port to provide.
Board Member Ellis said he would like information about the underlying assumptions that went into the economic analysis,
which resulted in the Port’s decision to request additional height up to five-stories. Mr. McChesney answered that this
information is contained in the McCauley and Berk Associates studies, as well as the peer review conducted by Mr. Easton.
Mr. McChesney thanked the Planning Board for listening to the Port’s presentation. He said the Port believes the proposed
plan is good, and they look forward to having more discussion and a public hearing to review the plan and how it is
consistent with criteria outlined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the
public interest. Mr. McChesney noted that the Harbor Square Master Plan would enable a distinctive mixed-use,
transit-oriented neighborhood that is a gateway entrance to the City and anchors the western edge of downtown. It
would also offer active pedestrian streets for additional retail and cultural events and link downtown to the waterfront.
The City would receive economic benefit through increased revenues, and the plan would result in enhanced
environmental protections related to the Edmonds Marsh and site.
The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City.
Mr. McChesney said the Harbor Square Master Plan would provide for housing, employment, and cultural/recreational
activities, promote walkable environments, provide economic benefits to help fund City services, and provide
environmental enhancements.
The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. Mr. McChesney
said the Harbor Square Master Plan would enable a downtown legacy project that contributes to a “sense of place,”
provide increased revenue to support City services, and set a standard of quality for future waterfront improvements.
Mr. McChesney said the Port anticipates that a public hearing regarding their proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment
would be scheduled as soon as possible. He explained that approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment would enable
the conversation to continue. However, he acknowledged that much more process and work would be necessary to move the
Harbor Square Master Plan into the entitlement phase. He asked that the Board review the Port’s application as expeditiously
as possible and recommend approval to the City Council.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A SHORT BREAK FROM 8:35 TO 8:45 P.M.
Chair Lovell reiterated that this is the Board’s first meeting regarding the Port’s proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to
incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan. He recalled that when the Board reviewed the Firdale Village Comprehensive
Packet Page 269 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 11
Plan amendment a few years ago, they got sidetracked into discussions that were outside the realm of the proposed
amendment. He cautioned the Board against doing the same with the Port’s proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. He
said that as the Board continues their review of the proposed amendment, they would continue to collect both written and oral
comments from the public. He summarized that the Board would like more information from the staff and/or the Port
regarding the following:
Keeley O’Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, recently provided a presentation to the Board regarding the group’s
goals and action plan for the marsh. The Board invited her to provide input during their review of the Harbor Square
Master Plan. At that meeting, Board Member Reed brought up the need for the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan and
the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to be consistent, particularly related to height limits and buffer and
setback requirements from the marsh. He said the Board would specifically like to know what the Port is proposing for
setbacks for buildings and impervious surfaces.
Several citizens have commented that the taller buildings proposed in the master plan would block views. He suggested
it would be helpful for the Port to provide more detail about the impact the proposed master plan could have on public
view corridors from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Avenues. The Board would also like an opinion from the City’s legal counsel as
to the requirements for protecting private views. While he does not believe there are code provisions to protect private
views, public view corridors are an element of the Comprehensive Plan and must be considered. He recalled the
viewshed analysis indicates that the proposed redevelopment at Harbor Square would not even be visible from some
uphill properties. He suggested the Port provide a graphic illustration to identify these properties.
When considering opportunities for mixed-use development, it is important to have a clear understanding about whether
these units would be condominiums or if they would be rental units. He noted that transit-oriented and/or affordable
housing does not necessarily translate into condominiums.
If a parking garage is being considered as a potential option for redevelopment, the Port should provide additional
information about where this facility would be located.
Drainage is a major concern in the area, and the City’s Engineering Department is working to address the problem. The
Capital Improvement Plan identifies funding for a floodplain study and engineering solutions for drainage. It would be
helpful to know what drainage issues could be addressed by the Harbor Square redevelopment. The Port should provide
specific information about how implementation of the proposed master plan would help reduce the flooding caused by
Shellebarger Creek.
Several years ago, local high school students presented their ideas for the downtown/waterfront area, which were well
done and attracted a lot of interest. He suggested the Port provide these examples for the Board’s information. Mr. Lien
said he could provide this information.
Board Member Clarke recalled that, as per the Comprehensive Plan, the Board must review the proposed Master Plan and
make a recommendation on whether or not it would be in the public interest, if it would be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare, and if it would maintain an appropriate balance of land use in the City. He provided a brief history of the
Harbor Square site, which was rezoned (contract) in 1980 to create commercially-zoned land in this portion of the downtown.
He noted that the contract rezone specifically does not allow residential uses because the design was to attract businesses to
locate in this portion of downtown to create an economic base for Edmonds. He said it is important to understand that the
developer leased the land from the Port of Edmonds for a length of time of approximately 80 years so the improvements
could be amortized over a long-period of time. It was the developer’s intent to maintain the current configuration of Harbor
Square for decades. Until very recently, there had been no proposals to redevelop Harbor Square to any other configuration,
with the exception of recent hotel and athletic club expansions.
Board Member Clarke referred to a 2009 history of Harbor Square, which was prepared three years after the Port purchased
the buildings and settled a lawsuit. The history makes no mention of Harbor Square redevelopment. Instead, it talks about a
four-year capital improvement plan to improve and maintain Harbor Square. He asked the Port to identify the exact meeting
where the Commission decided to move forward with a redevelopment proposal for Harbor Square. He also asked for
Packet Page 270 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 12
information about how and when the Commission decided it would be appropriate to tear down the existing buildings and
redevelop the site. He specifically asked for minutes from these meetings.
Board Member Clarke said he also needs more information to understand the economic equation. From his understanding,
the Port was sued by the ground lease tenant because of contamination on the site. The lawsuit created a need for the Port to
clean up the property at a cost of about $2 million. In 2006, the Port Commission, in public minutes, indicated that the
lawsuit had been settled and the Port agreed to pay $13.5 to purchase the buildings. The Port now owns all of the buildings at
Harbor Square except the Harbor Inn, and they have always owned the land the buildings are located on. He said the Port
obtained a $10 million, 10-year loan from Cascade Bank at a very high interest rate to purchase the buildings. It now appears
the Port is having a hard time paying the debt service for the loan, and a substantial balloon payment of $8.5 million is due in
2016. From his understanding, the Port is concerned about how they will repay the loan based on current operation of the
buildings. He questioned why the Port would pay so much for the buildings if they are not worth anything and they are going
to tear them down. He noted that the financial feasibility of the proposed master plan, with buildings up to 55 feet in height,
is just under $10 million, which is less than the $13.5 million the Port paid to purchase the buildings. This figure does not
recognize the land value. The Port already owned the land and was charging rent to tenants. He requested that the Port
provide documentation that demonstrates why the Port paid $13.5 million and explains what the interest rate is on the $10
million loan, could the existing buildings ever become financially feasible, and does the Port believes the asset must be sold
to a private developer in order to recoup moneys spent with respect to the lawsuit and having to purchase the buildings.
Board Member Clarke observed that, throughout their entire history, the Port has been a steward of public lands rather than a
developer. The ground lease is a good example of being a steward, and the Port had no risk in developing the buildings.
Now it seems the Port would be financially upside down using any of the three development scenarios identified in the
financial analysis. He commented that redevelopment of Harbor Square appears to be motivated by debt created by
purchasing the buildings rather than by a desire to serve a public interest. He pointed out that the public owns the Harbor
Square property, and they should be responsible for deciding its long-term future. Once the land is sold to a private
developer, the public would no longer have control of the property. He emphasized that the Harbor Square site is the largest
piece of publicly-owned property in Edmonds. He questioned the public interest in spinning the property out to gain a
financial wholeness as a result of redevelopment of the buildings.
Board Member Clarke commented that he cannot make the numbers in the financial analysis jive. He would like to see the
actual work product in the analyst’s file to show how the spreadsheet was created to come up with the final numbers. He said
he wants to understand why there is no public record that the Port even considered alternative land uses such as a public
market or a land swap with the Senior Center. The current Senior Center property is one of the most valuable parcels on the
waterfront, yet it is currently underdeveloped. The Senior Center could be relocated to the Harbor Square site, and the
property could be redeveloped to serve a public use. He said he has not seen any dialogue or proposal for creative
development concepts beyond the five-story, mixed-use development proposed in the Port’s master plan.
Board Member Clarke referred to Page 2 of the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan, which makes reference to the following
City Council goal: “Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses
supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and is a destination for visitors from throughout the
region.” He said he sees no tourists from throughout the region wanting to come to Harbor Square because of something
unique created as a result of the proposed Master Plan He also noted that, as per the Comprehensive Plan, residential
development was proposed to be east of SR-104, along 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Avenues where most of the higher-density
residential development has been constructed.
Board Member Clarke said that while the Port has emphasized that redevelopment of Harbor Square as per the proposed
Master Plan would result in additional revenue to the City, the same argument could be made for any redevelopment
regardless of whether it is three or five stories. He expressed concern about allowing residential development at Harbor
Square, which is one of the few commercial parcels in the downtown that is large enough to produce general commercial uses
that will enable the City’s economic base to grow and provide jobs and synergy for other businesses that exist in the
downtown. Again, he said he would like more information about why a public market was not considered as an alternative
use for the site, particularly recognizing the demand for public markets in the greater Puget Sound area.
Packet Page 271 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 13
Vice Chair Stewart thanked the Steering Committee for putting a lot of thought and time into the process. She said she
enjoyed reading the packet submitted by the Port, which included comments from the Steering Committee. She commented
that the Steering Committee worked hard to cover as many issues as possible.
Vice Chair Stewart said it would be helpful to have visual information to depict how the proposed redevelopment would be
different than the existing development. She noted that there is currently a lot of impervious surfaces on the site, and the
proposed master plan calls for restoring the ecology of the area and enhancing the marsh and its function. She said she
assumes this means there would be less impervious surface. She asked for more information about the process for
determining the number of parking spaces required for the site. She recalled that in many urban areas that have the advantage
of being close to transit opportunities, the trend is to encourage residents to not have cars as much as possible. One option
for accomplishing this goal would be to eliminate the minimum parking requirement. She asked what other alternatives the
Port has considered for parking other than a stacked parking garage. She acknowledged that stacked parking would be better
than surface parking because the footprint would be smaller.
Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that there is not enough in the plan to reflect sustainable design. She suggested the
Port pay more attention to the open space and what they can do to address water and energy conservation even more. She
suggested they also consider incorporating sustainability programs such as an environmental learning center in conjunction
with the marsh. She expressed her belief that the marsh is one of the City’s greatest assets to attract tourists.
Vice Chair Stewart asked for more information from the Port regarding the future of the Harbor Square Athletic Club. Mr.
McChesney replied that it has always been anticipated in the master plan that the athletic club would remain at Harbor
Square. It has been discussed in conceptual representations that the club could be relocated to the far western perimeter of
the site near the railroad tracks, and the Port has had discussions with the owners about this potential scenario. Port Attorney,
Brad Cattle, emphasized that the athletic club has a current lease that would allow them to remain in their existing location.
It would be up to the property owners whether or not the lease is modified to allow the facility to be relocated at some point
in the future. Vice Chair Stewart commented that the athletic club is a beautiful facility, and tearing it down for
redevelopment would not be a sustainable approach. She questioned the desirability of placing the athletic club next to the
railroad tracks. She suggested the Port consider opportunities to use existing foundations and repurpose materials from
buildings that are torn down.
Vice Chair Stewart said she is also concerned about the bulk and scale of the proposed development, and she questioned the
appropriateness of diminishing the view of the marsh to accommodate five-story buildings. She said she would like the Port
and/or staff to provide a definition for “pedestrian scale.” She said she does not envision five-story buildings to be
“pedestrian scale.” Although the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to connect the downtown and waterfront, she is
concerned that the location of the treatment plant and the existing topography would discourage this connection. She
summarized that she would like more facts to support the Port’s conclusions.
Board Member Cloutier commented that the Port was very thorough when describing how the proposed Harbor Square
Master Plan is consistent with the land use goals and policies found in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the proposal does
not address how the master plan would be consistent with the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He
emphasized that the master plan must be consistent with this element, as well.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that one significant change, in addition to height, is the Port’s proposal to allow
residential uses in a zone that is currently limited to commercial uses. He asked for additional direction from staff as to
whether or not the Comprehensive Plan would allow residential development at Harbor Square.
Board Member Reed thanked the Port for the tremendous amount of material they provided to help the Board understand
how they got where they are. He noted that excerpts from various public meetings conducted by the Port were also provided
as part of the application package to help the Board understand how the master plan progressed and why certain concepts
were rejected and accepted.
Board Member Reed suggested that some of the language in the proposed master plan may not be relevant to the
Comprehensive Plan and could be eliminated to avoid confusion and conflict. However, he commented that the narrative that
explains in detail how the master plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is helpful. He recalled that at a previous
Packet Page 272 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2012 Page 14
meeting, a member of the audience asked why an EIS was not required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
He said it would be helpful to have more information about the Port’s SEPA review and how they reached a mitigated
determination of nonsignficance (MDNS). He recalled that the City issued a Determination of Significance (DS) for the
Antique Mall, which required the property owner to submit an EIS. He said it is important for the public to have a clear
understanding about the differences between the Port’s SEPA determination for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the
City’s potential SEPA determination for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and the City’s recent SEPA determination for
the Antique Mall.
Board Member Reed pointed out that Attachment 1 includes a litany about the characteristics of the Port’s proposed concepts
including number of units, types of uses, square footage, and varying building heights. The Port’s master plan has morphed
into a 55-foot height limit for the entire site, with the exception that for buildings above 35 feet there is a one-foot step back
required for each additional foot of height over 35 feet. He suggested the Board may need to recommend a change to the
master plan to make it consistent with the Port’s concepts and the SEPA checklist. He said he would also like more
information about the 90% impervious surface and four acres of open space that is discussed in the SEPA Checklist.
Board Member Clarke questioned how the Port or the City could perform an economic analysis on the proposal without
having clear information about where the Harbor Square Athletic Club would be located. He commented that without this
information and specific information about the current lease agreement between the Port and the athletic club, it would be
impossible to accurately calculate the land value. He suggested the Port should provide an economic analysis for two
potential scenarios: the athletic club being relocated and the athletic club remaining in its current location.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Commission did not discuss their extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the sixth Strategic Planning Retreat is scheduled for July 31st. He also reported that
Mayor Earling informed him that he received four applications for the vacant Planning Board position. The Mayor has
interviewed all four candidates and will make a recommendation to the Council soon.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Clarke reported that he attended the first meeting of the reconvened Citizens Economic Development
Commission as a liaison from the Board. He said he was impressed with the caliber of the volunteers. It is a great group that
is looking to do positive things. Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, will provide
leadership to get positive momentum going to consider alternatives for improved economic activity in the City.
Board Member Clarke advised that he would also represent the Board as a judge at the upcoming sandcastle competition.
Vice Chair Stewart reported on her attendance at a recent King County Builder’s Council meeting where representatives from
Issaquah described their recent reorganization process, which combines several (planning building, engineering, and public
works) departments into a single development services department to facilitate an integrated design approach. It was pointed
out that developers are seeking certainty about the types of permits that will be required, the cost of the permits, and how
long the review processes will take. The reorganization is intended to streamline planning and building functions in an effort
to attract development opportunities. An oversight manager would be appointed to make sure the process moves forward in a
timely and efficient manner. She said she found the approach interesting, and she was able to meet with some builders and
share the City of Edmonds’ desire to be more progressive in their process, as well.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Packet Page 273 of 998
APPROVED SEPTEMBER 12TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 22, 2012
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
John Reed
Neil Tibbott
Ian Duncan
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
OTHERS PRESENT
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds
Bill Trimm, MAKERs Architecture and Urban Design
John Owen, MAKERs Architecture and Urban Design
Bradford Cattle, Port Attorney, Anderson Hunter Law Firm
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2012 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Stewart met with City staff and Port representatives to discuss the best process
for reviewing the Port’s request to incorporate their Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It was
determined that a workshop discussion would be appropriate. He referred to the proposed agenda, noting that public
comments would not be taken until after the workshop discussion. This will insure sufficient time to complete the workshop
and give the public the advantage of the results of the discussion.
The Board accepted the agenda as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
WORKSHOP DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, PORT OF EDMONDS AND CITY STAFF
REGARDING THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER
PLAN INTO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER AMD20110009)
Chair Lovell explained the following ground rules for the workshop:
Packet Page 274 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 2
The charge of the Planning Board is to continue and complete a review of the Port’s proposed master plan for the
potential redevelopment of the Harbor Square area in accordance with the goals and provisions contained within the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The primary purpose of the workshop is to allow the Port to answer a series of questions with regard to the plan as
identified following their initial presentation to the Board on July 25th. The questions and the framework of the
workshop agenda is contained in Attachment 1 on the City’s website, which posts all documents and submittals
regarding the Port’s proposal.
The Port has provided a supplement to its proposal (Attachment 2), answering many of the questions posed by the
Planning Board on July 25th. The answers may need to be supplemented with items identified in the question outline
within Attachment 1.
The questions would be taken in order, via the Port’s continuum presentation (Attachment 3). Some questions may not
be answerable at this time because there is not enough information to properly do so. Participants should stick to one
question at a time and try not to jump around.
Please avoid redundancy.
A lot of information has already been provided to answer many questions and participants should avail themselves to this
data.
Please give everyone a chance to participate. If the Chair believes the group is straying too far off track or beating a
question to death, he will attempt to redirect the group or move on as appropriate.
Try and follow Roberts Rules of Order, recognizing the Planning Board is less formal.
Tonight is not for motions and action; only information gathering and sharing.
Speak into the microphones. The meeting is being recorded and videotaped for replay on Channels 21 and 39.
Chair Lovell introduced Port representatives, Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds; Bill Trimm, Chief
Planner, MAKERs Architecture and Urban Design; John Owen, Design Architect, MAKERs Architecture and Urban Design;
and Bradford Cattle, Port Attorney, Anderson Hunter Law Firm. He then invited Mr. McChesney to introduce the Port’s
purpose, history, mission and intent with regarded to their Harbor Square Master Plan submittal for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, distributed a map identifying the current Port District boundaries,
specifically pointing out that the Port District boundaries are different than the City of Edmonds boundaries. He noted the
presence of Port Commissioner Jim Orvis in the audience. He advised that the Port is before the Planning Board asking for
approval of an amendment to incorporate the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He
explained that this is a critical milestone achievement, without which the Port cannot move forward. As discussed
previously, the planning process for future redevelopment at Harbor Square has been open, methodical and transparent at
every step along the way. The Port has held numerous public meetings and engaged a community steering committee to
shape the concept. As a first step, the Port believes the master plan is right, but there is much more in the process yet to
follow before the plan is finished and ready for development.
Mr. McChesney advised that Port representatives are prepared to address issues and answer questions raised during their
initial presentation to the Board on July 25th. Chief Planner, Bill Trimm, will discuss the planning process in order to
generate some perspective on how and when various issues and questions come into focus; and John Owen, Design Architect,
will discuss the design elements of the plan including the View Impact Study that was used to establish a base map for the
conceptual site plan. He said that, as requested, the Port has provided additional documentation, including a copy of the
Port’s Mission Statement, the Harbor Square Loan Payoff Plan, the Year-to-Date Rent Role for Harbor Square, a graphic of
the Process Compendium, and an elevation cross section diagram.
Before getting into the specifics of the proposed master plan, Mr. McChesney said it is important to talk about the Port, in
general and touch briefly on the history of Harbor Square and how the Port came to own it. As a point of reference, he
referred to a recent article in THE EDMONDS BEACON, titled, “Port: Who? What? Why?” He advised that while the
original legislative action dates back to the Port District Act of 1911, the Port of Edmonds was formed by a vote of the people
in 1948. The general idea was to maintain local control over future waterfront development and to provide a separate taxing
district to finance capital improvements. The Port of Edmonds marina was constructed in 1962, and it has been perhaps the
most obvious result of that vision for what a port district should.
Packet Page 275 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 3
Mr. McChesney advised that the Port of Edmonds is governed by five commissioners elected from within the Port District.
The Port District boundaries were set at the time the Port was created and, to his knowledge, have not been expanded since
that time. Roughly, the western perimeter is bounded by the Edmonds and Woodway shoreline along Puget Sound to the
Snohomish County line; the eastern boundary is 92nd Avenue west, northerly until the street merges into the shoreline. A key
point to note is that while the City has grown over the decades, the Port District boundaries have not. This has resulted in a
discontinuity of governance areas that is sometimes inconvenient and difficult for people to comprehend. The Port of
Edmonds is a municipal corporation also known as a special purpose jurisdiction and junior taxing authority. The Port is not
a department of the City. However, just like any other land owner or developer, it is under the City’s zoning and land use
jurisdiction.
Mr. McChesney emphasized that there is no sunset provision to the Port’s basic mission, and the Port’s authority to
participate in what is broadly defined as “economic development” programs can be found in Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 53.08.245: “It shall be in the public purpose for all port districts to engage in economic development programs. In
addition, port districts may contract with nonprofit corporations in furtherance of this and other acts relating to economic
development.” Mr. McChesney explained that because the term “economic development” has no precise definition, a
question arises as to whether or not the Port may seek to plan and develop non-transportation and non-harbor related uses
such as residential and office development. The answer to that question is yes. However, he specifically noted that the Port
is not seeking a development permit at this stage. Rather the Port is moving forward with an amendment to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan that adopts the Harbor Square Master Plan as an element.
Mr. McChesney explained that State law requires all ports to have on file a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements
that directs capital projects. This is generically called a “master plan.” The Port Commission adopted an amendment to its
Master Plan for Harbor Square on June 25th and is now seeking to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the
goals, policies and directives of the master plan. To be clear, Mr. McChesney emphasized that the action before the City at
this time is not to approve a permit for development. The City’s Comprehensive Plan provides goals, guidelines and polices
that identify and define the types of land uses, opportunities and constraints for future development; and these provisions are
implemented through zoning and other tools such as development agreements that regulate physical development. Once
adopted by the City, the Harbor Square Master Plan would become the basis for evaluating a development proposal,
including the application of zoning and related conditions set forth in a development agreement.
Mr. McChesney stated that the Port is not limited to just transportation and harbor-related development. RCW 53.08.040
provides, among other things, that port districts may develop their properties for industrial and commercial purposes. The
redevelopment contemplated by the Harbor Square Master Plan anticipates a typical mixed-use concept that includes ground
floor retail, office, residential, hotel and athletic club, with off-street (structured) parking for businesses, patrons and the
general public. He pointed out that the conventional wisdom in commercial development is that residential drives the retail
component and is the most likely path to achieve highest and best use of the property. Therefore, it should be the Port’s goal.
Mr. McChesney acknowledged that the Port will not be the primary developer seeking permits for the project. Their intent is
to enter into a public/private partnership in order to effectuate the development. The Port will engage a developer in the form
of a development agreement to insure that development is consistent with the requirements of the Port and the commitments
under the master plan. More than likely, there will be another development agreement with the City for conformance and
compliance with all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and entitlements. This is a preferred arrangement and is very typical
for ports. He pointed out that RCW 53.08.080 provides that a port district may lease real property owned and controlled by it
for such purposes and upon such terms as the port commission deems proper as consistent with its basic mission. Further
RCW 53.08.090 authorizes the sale of port real property. Thus, what the Port is proposing at Harbor Square is fundamentally
consistent with the legal authority for port districts. He noted there are numerous examples of similar type developments by
other ports including Bellingham, Everett and Seattle.
Mr. McChesney reviewed that the Port acquired the property known as Harbor Square (14.62 acres) in 1978 for $350,000. In
1980 a contract rezone was obtained for a mixed-use development that included retail, office and light industrial, but not
residential. The height was (and still is) 35 feet. In 1982 the Port entered into a ground lease with a private developer, and in
2006, the Port purchased the assets from the developer for $13.5 million to settle environmental litigation and to regain
control of the property.
Packet Page 276 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 4
Bill Trimm, Chief Planner, MAKERs, referred the Board to the process compendium, which outlines the various phases of
the two processes: a Comprehensive Plan amendment to adopt the Harbor Square Master Plan and actual design review of a
development application that would implement the master plan. He emphasized that, at this time, the Port does not know
what the development action will be, and the current workshop discussion should focus on the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment. He provided a compendium outlining the Comprehensive Plan and development review process for Harbor
Square and reviewed each of the steps as follows:
Port prepares and adopts Harbor Square Master Plan. The master plan process included numerous opportunities for
public input, and a Harbor Square Steering Committee was formed to identify a vision that was used to create and revise
the development schemes. This process concluded on June 25th when the Port Commission adopted the Harbor Square
Master Plan into the Port of Edmonds Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements.
City reviews and adopts the Harbor Square Master Plan as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. A lengthy
Comprehensive Plan amendment review process is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the Port
submitted an application on July 10th. The City issued a letter of completeness on August 9th, and the Port’s proposal to
amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan was initially presented to the
Planning Board on July 25th. If the Board feels comfortable moving forward, a public hearing has been tentatively
scheduled for September 26th. After the public hearing, the Board would forward a recommendation to the City Council,
and the City Council would conduct another public hearing before taking final action on the application. Adoption of the
Harbor Square Master Plan would enable future redevelopment at Harbor Square.
City completes and adopts the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The SMP is part and party to the Comprehensive
Plan amendment proposed by the Port, and a public hearing before the Planning Board on the draft SMP is tentatively
scheduled for October 24th. Once the Planning Board’s review has been completed, the document will be forwarded to
the Department of Ecology (DOE) for a protracted review and comment process. The DOE will issue a letter of
approval that will be presented to the City Council, and the City Council will take final action on the draft SMP by
ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and adopted SMP will provide the framework and create opportunity
for the next stages in the process.
City and Port enact conceptual development agreement. This vital step involves the preparation of a conceptual
development agreement to specify the conditions and standards that would be incorporated into a final development plan.
The conceptual development agreement would be between the City and the Port and identify what would be part of a
future development application submitted by a developer. This conceptual development agreement will occur prior to
the Port issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for development and will inform potential developers of what will be
required and provide the community an opportunity to see what the Port intends for redevelopment at Harbor Square.
The conceptual development agreement will likely occur in 2013 or 2014.
Port prepares and issues developer Request for Proposals (RFP), reviews proposals and selects developer. The
RFP will include the conditions and requirements specified in the conceptual development agreement, such as a
numerical range for the amount of commercial, residential and public uses required. It would also require prospective
developers to define the impacts and mitigation requirements associated with a proposed project. The RFP would also
define the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Code that all development proposals
would be required to meet. The Port will review each proposal and select a developer.
Developer refines analysis, secures financing and prepares proposal and permit application. The selected
developer would put together a proposal that is consistent with the approved Harbor Square Master Plan and the
City/Port conceptual development agreement. The developer will eventually go through due diligence to determine what
the site configuration and general mixture of uses will be and secure financing for the project.
Developer applies to city for Final development agreement. City reviews and approves with conditions. At this
point, the developer would submit a formal application to the City for a final development agreement to redevelop
Harbor Square. During this process the City, the Port and the developer would review the prescribed conditions and
identify specific standards for inclusion in a final development agreement that would address issues such as bulk, floor
Packet Page 277 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 5
ratio, drainage and other details. This is the stage where the community will have a clear picture of how the
development proposal will implement the adopted Harbor Square Master Plan. The City’s review is a very extensive
process and includes a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. The will City issue a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS), a Determination of Significance (DS) or a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
for the proposal. If an DS or MDNS is issued for the proposal, the developer would be required to complete a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which would be submitted to the public for comment prior to issuance of a final
EIS. Once the environmental review process has been completed, the proposed development agreement would be
presented to the Planning Board for a public hearing and review. They will forward a recommendation to the City
Council, who may conduct another public hearing before taking final action. Once a development agreement has been
adopted by the City Council, the developer will have a clear understanding of what he/she is entitled to do and what will
be required. The final development agreement will be a binding contractual agreement between the developer and the
City about what will be required, who will be responsible for what, and how the project will be phased. This detailed
agreement would represent a win/win for the City and the developer.
Developer completes construction documents and prepares building permit application. Once a development
agreement has been adopted, the developer will complete construction documents and submit a building permit
application.
City reviews building permit application. The application will be reviewed by various City Departments for
compliance with applicable City codes and the approved development agreement.
Construction begins. Construction could start as soon as the building permit application has been approved by the City.
Mr. Trimm once again emphasized that the current workshop is intended to focus on a proposed amendment to incorporate
the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Lovell asked if a development proposal must conform to both the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan policies. Mr. Trimm answered that the conceptual development agreement would specify standards and
conditions to address issues such as the required infrastructure, mitigation to address potential impacts, project phasing, etc.
The Comprehensive Plan policies would be amended with adoption of the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan, which includes
recommended policies and a general development scheme. Development proposals would have to be consistent with policies
and conditions identified in both the Comprehensive Plan and the development agreement.
Chair Lovell expressed concern that many citizens think about the Harbor Square Master Plan as just the conceptual drawings
that are provided in the proposal. Mr. Trimm explained that the GMA requires master plans to contain three elements: maps,
goals and policies. He suggested it might be helpful to refer to the conceptual drawings as illustrative diagrams, instead.
Board Member Reed observed that Mr. Trimm’s presentation did not mention that the City is also conducting a State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the Port’s proposal and will issue a determination before the Planning Board
conducts a public hearing. Mr. Trimm explained that the Port submitted an application for a non-project action, and the City
is currently going through the SEPA review process. They will make a declaration prior to the first public hearing. The City
would also conduct a project-specific SEPA review if and when a development agreement application is submitted. If the
City issues an MDNS or a DS, the developer would be required to complete a draft EIS. The City would identify the impacts
they anticipate and ask the developer to respond with proposed mitigation. The draft EIS would be published for public
comment and the developer would be required to address each comment in the final EIS.
Mr. Lien explained that when adopting the Harbor Square Master Plan, the Port acted as the SEPA review agency, and they
issued a MDNS. The City will be the SEPA review agency for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. In the process of
considering the SEPA portion of the application, the City has the same options for declaration as the Port had (DS, DNS and
MDNS). The Port’s current proposal to adopt the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan is a non-
project action, but the development agreement will require a more detailed and in-depth review process. He summarized that
the level of analysis required for the Comprehensive Plan amendment is less than what would be required for a development
agreement.
Packet Page 278 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 6
Board Member Clarke noted that the Port’s Application Narrative states that because the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requires zoning and development regulations to be consistent with and enable the Comprehensive
Plan, it is paramount that the City’s Comprehensive Plan acknowledge and incorporate the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan
into its relevant policies. Such incorporation will provide the basis for subsequent rezoning and development agreements to
implement the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Clarke disagreed with this statement. The reality is that the City must
review the master plan proposal to determine if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Once this is done, they can
incorporate specific standards related to a potential future rezone. He observed that no rezone would be necessary if the
Port’s proposed Harbor Square Master Plan did not identify a residential component and a height limit of up to 55 feet.
However, if the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted as proposed, the City would be required to grant a rezone to
allow for residential development and buildings to a height of 55 feet. Mr. Trimm explained that adoption of the Port’s
Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan would result in a compilation of goals, policies and vision.
Implementation would include a development agreement that specifies how the goals, policies and vision would be
implemented.
Board Member Clarke stated that if the Harbor Square Master Plan, which identifies residential development and a 55-foot
height limit, is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, the City must allow a future rezone or development agreement that
calls for residential development up to 55 feet. Mr. Trimm advised that adoption of the proposed master plan would not
require the City to adopt 55-foot height limits for Harbor Square. A developer would use the goals and policies in the
Comprehensive Plan to design a specific development proposal, which may or may not include 55-foot buildings. A
developer may determine that 45-foot buildings are sufficient. However, a height limit greater than 55 feet would be
inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Additional height and a residential component would
only be allowed if approved as part of a future development agreement.
Board Member Clarke said his interpretation is that a rezone would be required to develop the property as per the master plan
because the current zoning on the property has a 35-foot height limit. A rezone must be granted in order to make the zoning
and the Comprehensive Plan consistent, which is required by State law. Mr. Lien clarified that adoption of the proposed
master plan would not require a developer to propose a 55-foot height limit, but a 55-foot height limit would be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Clarke emphasized that the City would be unable to deny a request for 55-feet in height if that is what
developer requests. Mr. Lien referred to graphics showing where the different heights could be allowed, depending on
location. For example, 55-foot buildings would not be allowed along Dayton Street, but 55-foot buildings could be allowed
in the southwest corner of property.
Bradford Cattle, Port Attorney, explained that as per the proposed SMP, any building height in excess of 35 feet would
require a view analysis which involves a certain amount of evaluation. When considering a rezone or development
agreement proposal, the City must not only consider the Comprehensive Plan policies, but also the SMP requirements. The
description that flows from the SMP is not automatic and the Comprehensive Plan does not vest a developer’s rights like the
zoning code does. To say that the Port and/or developer can put 55-foot buildings anywhere on the site based on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is not the case.
Board Member Reed asked if it would be necessary to amend the draft SMP if a height greater than 35 feet is adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan as proposed by the Port. He noted that the proposed Urban Mixed Use III Environment currently
identifies a 35-foot height limit. Mr. Cattle pointed out that the SMP already provides the ability to go beyond 35 feet in
height, but the additional height must be supported by a view analysis and structures must be designed to minimize impacts
on public views. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) also contains specific requirements to protect public views and
requires an evaluation if more than 18% of the view corridor is changed. A development agreement might also require
review by the Shoreline Hearings Board, where a more sophisticated view analysis would be required than the view study
that was presented up to this point. He summarized that the existing rules are clearly defined to protect the interests of the
people who are concerned about views. The acceptance to the answer by people may not all be the same, but the rules in the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, the SMA and the SMP create the opportunity for a developer to present a
development agreement and development proposal.
Packet Page 279 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 7
Mr. Chave summarized that height is one factor in the proposed master plan, but there are many other policies and
requirements that must be weighed for any given proposal. Just because the master plan identifies a potential height limit of
55 feet does not mean a developer would automatically be granted 55 feet. The height limit will depend on balancing the
overall master plan provisions with various other factors. These details will be worked out at a later time. He said that while
the 55-foot height limit identified in the proposed master plan is one factor, it is not the end of the story.
Board Member Clarke requested legal direction from the City Attorney relative to this issue so the public clearly understands
what impact adoption of a master plan that calls out a 55-foot height limit would have on future redevelopment of Harbor
Square and other properties located within the downtown/waterfront area. He said it appears counterintuitive for the Port to
ask for a 55-foot height limit now unless it is very important for their future redevelopment.
Board Member Reed asked what flexibility the Board has to amend the Harbor Square Master Plan before forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien said the Board could propose changes to the Harbor Square Master Plan and
invite the Port to identify whether they would support the changes or not. Another option would be to simply include any
changes in their recommendation to the City Council. If the Port does not agree with the changes, they could ask the City
Council to vote against the Board’s recommendation.
Mr. Cattle clarified that non-substantive changes would not require formal action by the Port Commission and could be
authorized by Port representatives. However, more substantial changes should be evaluated by the Port Commission.
Another option would be to forward the recommended changes to the City Council, and the Port Commission could evaluate
the changes in the time frame between the Board and City Council deliberations. He emphasized that the circumstances of
the master plan have been applied for the reasons articulated. However, if the Board thinks they can achieve the goals with
modifications that do not do disservice to the goals identified in the proposed master plan, the Port Commission would likely
be open to suggestions. However, it is not likely the Port Commission would consider an amendment that lowers the height
limit to 40 feet. He summarized that it all depends on the nature of the proposed changes.
Board Member Reed asked if the Port Commission would be required to conduct a public process before accepting revisions
to the plan. Mr. Cattle answered that the process for amending the Port’s Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements
simply requires a 10-day public notice. While he would be concerned about the receptivity of more substantive changes, a
10-day notice and a Port Commission meeting could accommodate the less substantial changes. A major change would
likely reopen the public process if the Port Commission is interested in considering the revision.
Board Member Ellis pointed out that if a future developer presents a proposal that looks exactly like the conceptual drawing
shown in the master plan, the City would have no basis for denying the request for a 55-foot height limit because it would
have already been deemed appropriate at the time the master plan was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cattle
explained that a final development agreement, which requires a public process, must be completed before a building permit
and rezone applications can be submitted. Issues related to height will be dealt with as part of a rezone or development
agreement application, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be required for structures that exceed 35-feet in
height. The increased height must be supported by a view analysis and structures must be designed to minimize impact to
public views. The Comprehensive Plan amendment simply identifies opportunities. Rather than approving buildings, it
identifies potential uses in the area.
Mr. Lien explained that Harbor Square is currently zoned General Commercial (CG), which was done through a contract
rezone in 1980 with a 35-foot height limit. Mr. Cattle pointed out that a contract rezone amendment would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan amendment that identifies up to 55 feet in some locations. However, the additional height would not
be automatic. A developer must also meet the test for rezone applications and Shoreline Substantial Development Permits.
The City still has the discretion to approve or deny the project based on these requirements.
Mr. Chave advised that as the Port continues along the process compendium, more and more detail will be provided and
reviews will occur at each phase against more and more specific criteria. At this time, the Port is at the Comprehensive Plan
amendment level and the parameters are general. As the Port moves forward, more details will be provided. At this time, the
Port cannot say what the final project will look like.
Packet Page 280 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 8
Mr. Cattle emphasized that adopting the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan would not
guarantee a developer five stories. Chair Lovell agreed that approval of the master plan would not mean the Port is
automatically entitled to residential uses and 55-foot height limits in the final development agreement. The Board agreed it
would be helpful to obtain legal guidance from the City Attorney to clarify this issue.
Board Member Clarke noted that the Port of Edmonds is a member of the Washington Public Port Association (WPPA). He
referred to the WPPA’s website, which states that “Washington ports have a crucial mandate: job creation. A port district is
uniquely capable of creating economic growth and increasing the number of family-wage jobs in a community, because of
the specific authorities granted by the legislature.” However, none of the Port’s presentation materials identified the number
of jobs the proposed redevelopment scenario would create. He said he would like the Port to supply this information. He
noted that the Port’s definition for economic development does not include job creation. Instead, it talks about increasing the
tax base, real estate taxes, and developer fees that will come to the City.
Board Member Clarke questioned why a history of the Port was not part of the documents prepared by the consultant. He
pointed out that the current master ground lease covers the nine lots within the contract rezone and has specific language that
says only two uses are permitted on the property: commercial and industrial. He said Lots 1 through 3, which front along
Dayton Street, are the only lots that permit commercial development. Lots 4 through 9 are required to have industrial uses
and the lease specifically states what the industrials uses are to be: warehouse and light manufacturing. Mr. McChesney
pointed out that when the Port acquired the Harbor Square assets from the private developer, the leasehold restrictions were
nullified. Board Member Clarke noted that the ground lease is still in effect under the Harbor Inn.
Board Member Clarke said the Harbor Square Business Park was designed to be a mixed-use business park, with commercial
and industrial uses. Harbor Square Associates, the land tenant, was not allowed to put in any other uses without the
permission of the Port. The Harbor Square Athletic Club was constructed as an industrial building; but because they couldn’t
find a tenant, the athletic club was permitted to occupy the space as a commercial use. The athletic club owners leased the
buildings from Harbor Square Associates and made substantial improvements over the years. These modifications recognize
supply and demand to permit greater flexibility, but Harbor Square has always been a business park.
Mr. Cattle asked how this information bears on the Board’s review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Board Member
Clarke said he is trying to help the public understand the history of Harbor Square.
Board Member Clarke reviewed that a binding site plan was approved by the City last in 1989, after the lots were all
developed with the inner looping circulation road. This binding site plan was integrated with the contract rezone to show
how landscaping, buffer requirements, walkways, etc. would be laid out. The City required additional documentation to
address parking, as well. A parking agreement was required to give each tenant who occupied a lot the right to park
anywhere in the business park.
Board Member Clarke requested more information to understand the environmental contamination that was found on the
Harbor Square site. He said that when the contamination was found, the level of required cleanup necessitated the Port’s
need to purchase the buildings. Mr. McChesney said he was not around during that time. However, prior to the buildings
being constructed, it was known that the property was closely associated with the tank farm and railroad activities. After the
buildings were constructed, residual contamination was discovered and the Port spent a considerable amount of money on the
cleanup for excavation, soil removal, and foundation stabilization. The DOE was involved throughout the process.
However, there was a dispute between the Port and the private developer about who was ultimately liable and if the cleanup
was complete. This situation initiated the Port’s negotiations with the private developer to settle the dispute and purchase the
assets for $13.5 million in 2006.
Board Member Clarke noted that cleanup under Buildings 1 through 4 was never done because it would have required the
structures to be torn down. The DOE required a restrictive covenant that does not allow the Port to remove asphalt or tear
down these buildings without a cleanup program in place that is authorized by the DOE. At this time, there is still
contamination under Buildings 1 through 4. Mr. McChesney said there is no documentation to confirm Board Member
Clarke’s statement, but he assumes that is the case.
Packet Page 281 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 9
Board Member Clarke expressed concern that the LMN/Berk Study did not reference any of the legal issues. It did question
whether the soils could handle development, but no study of the soils was done. Mr. McChesney confirmed that there has
never been a full geotechnical study of the soils at Harbor Square. Board Member Clarke observed that, at this time, the Port
does not know that five-story development is even possible at Harbor Square. Mr. McChesney explained that because of
cleanup efforts elsewhere on the site, the Port has a good idea of the existing soil. He said it is important to understand where
in the process a geotechnical study would be conducted and additional information would come into play. Board Member
Clarke said he cannot find any history related to the soil conditions and contamination in any of the Port’s documentation.
He said it is important to understand this critical oversight of the LMN/Berk Study, which does not identify the highest and
best use for the property. Mr. McChesney said the study was not intended to answer that question. It was intended to be a
bulk study.
Board Member Clarke said the mapping study done by Berk Associates was intended to identify the size of improvements
needed on the property in order to reach a threshold of economic feasibility. The economic feasibility threshold was based
on buildings and land, which means the Port paid $13.5 million for the buildings and an additional $2 million to clean up the
site. The purpose of the study was to identify the building mass required for the Port to sell the property and recoup what
they paid for it and/or pay back the $10 million loan. The land value threshold is referenced in each scenario, but no market-
driven scenario was provided. The study was based on the economics required to get the land value high enough for the Port
to pay back its loan. Mr. McChesney pointed out that the Port has never represented in any of the public meetings or reports
that the underlying economic analysis was definitive or conclusive on how Harbor Square would ultimately be redeveloped.
The issue of valuation cannot be fixed at this moment in time. The Port does not have perfect information, but the
LMN/Berk Study told them what they thought they needed to know to develop a concept. In the final analysis, economic
feasibility cannot be known until someone makes an investment decision.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Port’s entire Harbor Square Master Plan process began with the Berk Study,
which was first presented to the public on May 5, 2010 at a Port Commission meeting. At that meeting, Mr. McChesney
reported that the Port owed more on the property than it was worth. In addition, a Port Commissioner stated that if the
Harbor Square Master Plan is not approved, the business complex will turn “into a slum.” Board Member Clarke recalled
that at a previous meeting, Mr. McChesney presented the Planning Board with a series of slides showing different scenarios.
He indicated that three to five-story buildings are necessary in order for redevelopment to be feasible. He said that is what
the Port’s conclusion has always been. Mr. McChesney clarified that the first public meeting at which the LMN/Berk Study
was discussed was held in December of 2009. This was the first time the Commission had seen the report from the
consultant. At that time, the Commission was still trying to come to grips with the economic realities. While comments
could have been spoken better, it does not change in a material sense what the Port is proposing. Since that time, a series of
public meetings and open houses were held to solicit feedback from citizens.
Board Member Clarke said the LMN/Berk Study presented a scenario that would upgrade the existing improvements. At that
time, the consultant stated that the residual land value of a three to five-story scenario could potentially exceed the value of
the property today in which case the Port could consider selling the property for redevelopment. However, with the
improvements to the current buildings, the value of the property could increase to the point that selling the property for
redevelopment does not make financial sense.” Mr. McChesney said he is not sure the Port Commission fully agrees with
that qualifier. The Port has been managing the property for a number of years, and market conditions have not been good. It
is difficult for them to conceive of a meaningful redevelopment plan that simply puts new paint, windows, etc. on the existing
buildings. It has been a challenge to maintain occupancy and find new tenants. They are not inspired or motivated to change
the aesthetics of the existing configuration.
Board Member Clarke reviewed that the Port borrowed $10 million from Cascade Bank in 2006 at a high interest rate, and
things were tight at that time. The Port was able to obtain the loan based on the value of the buildings, not the land. In 2011,
the Port refinanced the loan at a significantly lower interest rate, and they currently have a cash flow machine that will help
them pay the debt early without doing anything to improve the buildings. By 2021 when the loan is due, the Port will have
almost paid it off, which is good. He summarized that there is no longer a dire economic circumstance like what existed in
2006 and 2010.
The Board and Port representatives discussed each of the following topics that were raised by the Board at their July 25th
meeting:
Packet Page 282 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 10
Edmonds Marsh – Compatibility/congruency with the SMP (buffers, drainage issues, setbacks, impervious
surface, environmental considerations/accommodations. Board Member Reed specifically asked for input from the
Port regarding buffer expectations. He asked what the Port has in mind for buffers around the Marsh and how they relate
to the 200-foot buffer stated in the SMP and the 25 to 35-foot setback requirement currently identified for the Urban
Mixed Use III Environment. Mr. McChesney clarified that Board Member Reed’s reference to 200 feet actually applies
to the shoreline jurisdiction and is not an actual setback requirement. He also noted that setbacks and buffers are
distinctly different. Mr. Owen said Port representatives have met periodically with Mr. Lien and Mr. Chave to discuss
the SMP and its potential impact to Port property. He said the Port intends to abide by the setbacks and buffers
identified in the SMP. They will also comply with all shoreline restoration requirements. He said the conceptual
drawing contained in the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan identifies a 50-foot setback and some type of vegetation
enhancement. The Board has also indicated its willingness to construct a new boardwalk to replace the existing one, and
the new boardwalk will meet the requirements of the SMP.
Chair Lovell said staff is currently working with the Board to insert actual setback numbers into the SMP, particularly
for the Urban Mixed Use III Environment. Mr. Owen agreed to get back to the Board with a recommendation for an
actual number that is acceptable to the DOE, but the conceptual drawings currently assume an approximately 50-foot
setback. He said it is important not only to state the number, but to identify how the setback will be measured and
whether other factors will be considered.
Chair Lovell said the Board has also expressed concern about setback requirements for parking. Mr. Owen said the
proposed master plan does not specify parking setbacks because they know the SMP will dictate what the parking
setbacks must be. Chair Lovell stressed how important it is to have consistency between the master plan and the SMP.
It is also important that the provisions are accepted by the DOE and provide enough clearance for the marsh to be
restored. The Board directed staff to work with Port representatives to address this issue further and report back.
Board Member Clarke said the binding site plan shows that the area south of Building 5 has been designated as a marsh
protection area that must remain undeveloped. However, a gravel parking lot is currently located in this area. He said
the binding site plan identifies two zoning designations: CG and Open Space (OS). He asked why the current use of the
OS zoned properties, as well as the walkway located behind the open tennis courts, is inconsistent with the binding site
plan and the contract rezone. Mr. Owen said one reason for updating the SMP is to improve upon the City’s currently
regulations. The City staff and consultants have done a good deal of scientific study to look at what is important for the
ecology of the marsh and this information will be integrated into the SMP. He suggested it is not very useful to look at
previous requirements because they hope to change them and make them better and consistent with current science and
DOE requirements.
Board Member Clarke asked if the legally recorded setbacks found in the binding site plan would stay in place or would
the master plan change the setbacks. Mr. Trimm answered that setbacks will definitely be addressed as part of any
development proposal, and they could be included in the development agreement as a specific condition. At the request
of Board Member Clarke, Mr. Cattle agreed to review the terms of the binding site plan and report back to the Board.
Mr. McChesney said that, throughout the process, the Port has maintained that redevelopment of Harbor Square is not
incompatible with restoring the marsh; and in fact, the two work together. It is not possible to talk about restoring the
marsh habitat and improving stormwater controls and redevelopment at Harbor Square as separate projects. He reported
that the Port has obtained a letter of support from Friends of the Edmonds Marsh and the DOE Shoreline Management
Division. Both feel comfortable with the idea that redevelopment at Harbor Square will benefit the marsh overall. This
reality helped shape the vision and inspired the Port’s site plan.
Where is the transition point and exact meeting and scenario when the Port Commission made the decision to do
the Master Plan and redevelop Harbor Square? Mr. McChesney clarified the answer he provided in Attachment 2,
by pointing out that the master plan process was not actually instigated by the Group of 33. Before the Group of 33 was
convened during the earlier planning process, there was a collaboration between the City administration, the Port and
private property owners to begin a planning process. It is not clear when these discussions were made public, but it
caught the attention of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), after which the Group of 33 was formed.
Packet Page 283 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 11
Views from 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th in particular with respect to increased building heights proposed for part of
potential redevelopment. Mr. Owen explained that the viewshed analysis was done in two parts. The Port of Edmonds
commissioned graduate students from the University of Washington to do an analysis of where the sensitive view sites
are located. They provided a map to identify the specific points where potential view impacts might occur. A 65-foot
building was superimposed onto the Harbor Square property, and a sophisticated analysis from each point was done to
see what would be visible from the various sensitive areas. The study was primarily interested in public views, as
required by the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the geometrically imposed models that illustrate what the view would
be from several site that were felt to be the most sensitive. He noted that the students did not complete models for 3rd 4th
and 5th Avenues because the study did not indicate any potential public view blockage. He summarized that while the
building was visible from a number of points, it did not block a significant amount of the water and mountain views.
Board Member Tibbott asked if a viewshed analysis was performed from third floor levels as opposed to just the ground
floor. Mr. Owen said the study focused primarily on ground floor views. Mr. McChesney added that he knocked on
doors and went on rooftops to take pictures. Mr. Tibbott noted that none of Mr. McChesney’s work was represented in
the mock ups prepared by the University of Washington students. Mr. Owen agreed that the students focused on ground
level, public pedestrian view points. Mr. McChesney said some site visits were completed. However, because the
Comprehensive Plan’s mandate is to protect public viewpoints, that was the focus of the study.
Board Member Reed pointed out that the detailed viewshed study was part of the Port’s application materials, and it is
available via the City’s website. He referred to a handout he provided prior to the meeting from Dave Buelow, which
provides graphic illustrations of views from condominiums on 2nd, 3rd and 4th Avenues. Mr. Buelow intent is to show
existing views and how they would be impacted if a 60-foot tall building covered the horizon. He said the document
would be entered into the public record and made available on the City’s website.
Makeup of residential component – condos versus rental. It was noted that this question would be answered later in
the redevelopment process.
Garage – Public? Part of program? Reality? It was noted that while the conceptual design contained in the Harbor
Square Master Plan includes a parking garage, it is too soon to know if a parking garage would be part of an actual
development proposal.
Health Club – Future Status? Vice Chair Stewart shared an overview of a recent conversation she had with Jack
Tawney, Harbor Square Athletic Club owner and a member of the Harbor Square Master Plan Steering Committee. He
indicated that some of his thoughts regarding the future of the club may not have been adequately conveyed to the Port,
and he would like an opportunity to meet Port representatives to express his wishes and needs. He indicated that the
dollar figure necessary for him to support relocation of the club is very high, and he pointed out that the club has
approximately 7,000 local members that benefit from their programs. The club helps the community to remain healthy,
which is a sustainability charge in the Comprehensive Plan. He specifically noted that more than 1,000 seniors use the
club each week. Vice Chair Stewart summarized that the club owners do a lot for the community, including donating
money to good causes. Again, she said Mr. Tawny would like an opportunity to speak about the Harbor Square Master
Plan and how his club may or may not fit into the concept currently being presented. He has requested that a
representative from the Port contact him directly. He also indicated that he previously submitted a letter voicing his
support for the proposed concept, but he is interested in learning more about how the proposal could impact the club. He
is also interested in how the plan would be impacted if he decides to stay in his current location instead of relocating as
the plan suggests. Vice Chair Stewart questioned if the Port has a back-up plan.
Mr. McChesney agreed that Mr. Tawney has submitted a letter of support and he also participated on the Harbor Square
Master Plan Steering Committee. He explained that the business decision about where or when the athletic club would
move or how much it would cost is further down the line in the process. The Port fully expects to be engaged with Mr.
Tawney, and they do not know at this stage how much it would cost to relocate the facility. Mr. Tawney has indicated he
is familiar with the site constraints and the process; and if the consultant’s assumptions are correct, he would support
relocation of the club. Mr. McChesney said he also spoke with Mr. Tawney a few times during the past week regarding
Packet Page 284 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 12
the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan and its implications to the athletic club. He understands that Mr. Tawney has
some numbers in mind, but the Port is not at a point to talk about the business particulars.
Vice Chair Stewart said the numbers associated with relocation of the club are very large. Recognizing that development
would occur in phases if and when the plan starts to take shape, she asked if the residential units would be developed
first. Mr. McChesney answered that the project phasing has not been established at this point. This information will be
identified as part of the actual entitlement phase. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that the residential units are proposed
to be located in the athletic club’s current location, which would necessitate relocation of the athletic club.
While it is difficult to determine based on the various iterations of the Harbor Square Master Plan, Board Member Clarke
pointed out that only the existing Harbor Inn buildings would remain on the site as per the conceptual drawings. He
questioned why the proposed master plan does not acknowledge that the Port does not have legal right to redevelop the
property where the athletic club is currently located. The current athletic club lease does not expire for 29 years. He
suggested the master plan should show what Harbor Square redevelopment could look like if the athletic club remains in
its current location. The plan should also describe all the components that must be addressed in order for the conceptual
designs to work. Mr. Owen emphasized that the conceptual drawing is just one example of what development could
look like. He anticipates the actual development will be different based on future changes in market conditions. The
conceptual drawing identifies a scenario that increases the size of the tennis club and athletic facility and moves it
towards the railroad tracks. However, the master plan also provides for different options, depending on the agreement
made between the athletic club and the Port. Mr. Owen also emphasized that the master plan does not identify a specific
time line for completion, and redevelopment of the Harbor Square site may take decades to accomplish. The purpose of
the conceptual drawing is to portray the major principles for future redevelopment such as a solid connection between
the Dayton and SR-104, interaction with the marsh throughout the site, circulation that does not impact SR-104, public
plazas, and public spaces. There is no guarantee that future development will be consistent with the conceptual drawing,
and the concepts identified in the drawing can be implemented in a number of ways.
Board Member Clarke said he understands that only limited access would be allowed from SR-104, and that is why the
existing access is right-turn only. The conceptual drawing identifies a major access point from SR-104. He asked if the
Port has the necessary information to justify this access point. Mr. Owen said the conceptual drawing shows that the
Port would like a full intersection on SR-104. While they believe there is some possibility this could take place, they
recognize it may not be possible. They are only counting on a right-in and right-out at the current access point.
Drainage/flooding issues at Harbor Square and Dayton and soil conditions and liquefaction. Chair Lovell
commented that drainage and flooding issues would be addressed as part of a future development agreement. The
development agreement process would also include a study to affirm the existing soil conditions. Mr. McChesney said
the Port believes that redevelopment of Harbor Square would actually improve drainage and flooding problems.
Redevelopment would also result in a reduction of impervious surface.
In answer to the Port’s questioned about where the Board came up with the figure of 90% impervious surface (see
Response 14 in Attachment 2), Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that Item G on Page 6 of the SEPA document submitted
with the application states that “the redevelopment plan estimates approximately 90% of the site would be covered with
impervious surfaces. She reminded the Board and the Port representative that Policy E-16 of the Comprehensive Plan
(Page 53) provides for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately paved areas. She suggested it would behoove
the Port to address this issue in some fashion given that impervious surface is also addressed in the Sustainability
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Financial Analysis/feasibility. Board Member Clarke acknowledged that redevelopment of Harbor Square is a hard
project and it is difficult to include all the assumptions. He commended the Port on what they have tried to do.
However, he noted that the Port has not provided a document that explains why they are asking for an additional 55 feet
in height. While the Port has provided numerous examples of mixed-use development throughout the Puget Sound area
that is more than three stories in height, they have not identified a market-driven reason for the additional height at
Harbor Square other than the loan aspect. He said that based on the Port’s current model, he could demonstrate that
three-story buildings would pencil out economically. He asked the Port to provide justification for their requested 55-
foot height limit.
Packet Page 285 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 13
Mr. McChesney said the Port’s master plan was informed and guided by the LMN/Berk Study and the McCauley Report.
However, he acknowledged the Port does not have perfect information. The process is iterative. Unlike a private
developer, who might look at a property to figure out the maximum development that could occur, the Port actually tried
to identify the minimum development necessary to achieve financial feasibility and attract developers. The Port believes
that five stories is necessary in some areas in order to achieve economic feasibility. While it cannot be proven at this
point in the process, the studies thus far support this conclusion. He summarized that economic feasibility cannot be
proved or determined in any definitive sense until someone makes an investment decision. The Port’s goal is to create
an environment that would attract investors to redevelop a property that was developed in the 1980’s. The Port believes
they have presented a good case in support of their request.
Mr. Owen explained that from an architectural point of view, five-story development offers significant development
efficiencies. A greater height makes projects more able to provide structure parking, which reduces impervious surfaces.
It also allows space for more on-sight public amenities and open spaces, which is one of the specific commitments the
Port has called out in their proposed master plan. In addition, it would allow a better configuration for the athletic club.
He summarized that there are some real benefits to the City and the general public if taller buildings are allowed on a
portion of the site.
Board Member Clarke observed that the Port is unique in that they have the opportunity to provide an economic engine
with a level of flexibility that cannot be provided by the private sector. The Port can provide improvements on their
property that enable public benefits that may not be available in the private sector. He said that although many members
of the community have expressed a desire for a public market, none of the Port’s studies identified this type of use as a
potential option. He suggested the Port consider other opportunities for public amenities. Mr. Owen referred to Page 6
of the Harbor Square Master Plan which lists some of the public amenities the Port is committing to provide including a
pedestrian entry and visual gateway at the SR-104/Dayton Street intersection, a pedestrian-friendly esplanade, direct
pedestrian access to the marsh, pedestrian walkways to provide linkage around the marsh to citywide bicycle and
pedestrian routes, a pedestrian focus such as a village green or plaza in the center of the site, and an interpretive element
within the development. Mr. Owen emphasized that the Port is committed to a variety of public amenities and he invited
the board to identify additional opportunities.
Board Member Clarke noted that a public market was not included in the master plan as a potential public amenity.
Given the Port’s unique jurisdiction of powers, this public amenity could be created at Harbor Square. Private property
owners do not have the same authority to do things for public benefit. He asked if the Port ever studied the feasibility of
having a public market on the site, either indoor or outdoor. Mr. McChesney said this option was never studied, but it
was discussed. The Port’s general assumption is that from an economic feasibility and evaluation point of view, a public
market would not generate enough cash flow or revenues to pay the rent to capture the underlying investment. While the
Port did not do a detailed analysis for a public market, he has been involved in small scale public markets in other
locations that have been successful. A small-scale public market would be perfectly compatible with what the Port is
proposing, but the concept has not been defined as a key component or an anchor tenant.
Board Member Ellis asked if the City would be responsible to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the
redevelopment. He noted that the LMN/Berk Study assumed there would be no infrastructure costs to the City and the
existing infrastructure was sufficient. Mr. McChesney said this assumption would need to be confirmed during the
entitlement process. The Port is aware that some mitigation would be required to address impacts, but they are not far
enough in the process to define what the mitigation would be. Board Member Ellis asked if the Port considered whether
or not the sewer, gas, and water systems are adequate to accommodate the proposed number of residential units. Mr.
McChesney said this is an engineering questions that has not been answered yet. Board Member Ellis summarized that
the bottom line assumes a certain return to the City, but the return could be significantly less if infrastructure is needed.
Mr. Trimm said this issue will be addressed as part of a future development agreement. He said he is not sure of the
City’s specific policy for infrastructure improvements, but most cities require developers to provide the necessary
infrastructure. Mr. Chave added that the City’s general principle is that developers must pay for additional infrastructure
when a development exceeds the capacity of the existing infrastructure. The answer to this question will depend on the
development proposal that is submitted.
Packet Page 286 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 14
Board Member Reed recalled that at the July 25th meeting, the Port’s consultant provided a slide showing the residual
land value based on existing conditions, three-story buildings (35-foot height), and five-story buildings (55-foot height).
The consultant explained that there would be no incentive to redevelop the property under the existing 35-foot height
limit, but there would be sufficient incentive if five-story development was allowed. He asked if the consultant
identified the residual land value based on a 45-foot height limit. Mr. McChesney said the master plan contemplates a
building configuration that is a combination of three, four and five-story buildings. This is consistent with the
consultant’s findings. No specific study was done for a 45-foot scenario.
Address sustainability elements within the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair Stewart referred to the Sustainability
Element, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McChesney said the proposed master plan does include some
sustainability provisions. He invited the Board to help the Port focus on elements of sustainability that need to be better
addressed. Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be very helpful, especially when the master plan is forwarded to the
City Council for review, for the Port to identify page numbers and sections for the Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies that are referenced in the master plan. She suggested the Port specifically review the Sustainability Element in
the Comprehensive Plan and identify the specific goals and policies the proposed master plan addresses. Board Member
Cloutier reminded the Port that the master plan must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
Sustainability Element has its own set of goals, and it would behoove the Port to tie their master plan to the sustainability
goals found in this element. Mr. Owen said he understands that consistency with the Sustainability Element is an
important priority for the Board.
Pedestrian scale with respect to some of the potential buildings. Mr. Trimm explained that people typically walk
down a street for two reasons: to reach a destination located on the street or because there is a terminal vista that draws a
person down the street. He said the configuration of the buildings offers a terminal vista by providing step backs on
Dayton, as well as a pedestrian plaza that could be used for a small-scale farmer’s market. There must be a reason for
people to use a street and there must be reasonable, attractive and safe routes for people to walk. The Port tried to
incorporate these elements into their master plan. Harbor Square is located between the waterfront and downtown, so it
will be important to make Dayton Street a special place so that the uses, landscaping, artwork, and building facades offer
a safe and pleasant place for people to walk. He recognized that although it is always difficult to cross a state highway, it
is important to provide some type of safe pedestrian access at this intersection to address the issue of walkability.
Mr. Owen specifically noted that the master plan indicates that the site frontage along SR-104 should feature either
pedestrian-oriented facades or landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of the building facades and all parking areas.
It further states that there should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR-104 frontage. He reminded the Board that most
of the frontage along SR-104 is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and there is a
40 to 60-foot landscaped area between the edge of the highway and the Port’s property line. The Port believes there
should be landscaping and a pedestrian oriented walkway along SR-104, mostly as a visual entry point. If the Board
believes there should be something else along SR-104, the Port is open to ideas.
Vice Chair Stewart said the Port did a great job making sure there is opportunity for pedestrians to get around. She
asked if the Port also plans to provide bikeways. She noted that Goal E10 on Page 52 of the Comprehensive Plan
specifically references bikeways, and a lot of people in Edmonds use bicycles. She said she would like the Port’s master
plan to encourage this type of transportation, as well.
Board Member Clarke suggested that the Port work with WSDOT to possibly landscape the strip of property that is
located between SR-104 and the Harbor Square property. He felt this would enhance the gateway entrance to the City.
Mr. McChesney said the Port already has an arrangement in place with WSDOT to landscape and maintain this strip of
land.
Board Member Reed said it would be helpful for the Port to provide examples of what a development agreement or
memorandum of understanding would look like. Mr. Trimm agreed to forward to the Board a copy of one of the first
development agreements done in the State of Washington for a mixed-use development project in Millcreek, which has been
used as a model statewide.
Packet Page 287 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 15
Board Member Reed commented that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is a complicated issue, and the Board
will likely have many more questions as they move forward with their review. However, he reminded the Board of the tight
timeline in order to take final action as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendment package. He asked what would
happen if the City is unable to take final action on the proposed amendment before the end of 2012. He asked if the rule that
limits comprehensive plan amendments to one time per year is hard and fast, or is there some leeway for the City to consider
the amendment in early 2013. Mr. Chave said the City must abide by the once-a-year limit. However, he recalled that on a
previous occasion, the City missed the end of the year deadline, and they actually adopted the Comprehensive Plan
amendment in early spring of the next year. But that eliminated the City’s ability to consider additional Comprehensive Plan
amendments later in the year. If the City does not believe that additional amendments will come forward later in 2013 and
the Port agrees to extend the deadline for approval, the City could postpone approval and consider the application in early
spring as part of the 2013 amendment package. Again, Board Member Reed commented that although the City intends to do
everything they can to move the proposed amendment forward, it is a complex issue that will take some time.
Vice Chair Stewart suggested the Port provide an opportunity for Board Members to tour the Harbor Square site. This would
help them visualize the concepts that are outlined in the proposed master plan and gain a better understanding of what four
and five-story buildings would look like on the site. She said she would also like the Port to describe the condition of the
existing buildings. Mr. McChesney extended an open-ended invitation for Board Members to tour the Harbor Square
property with a Port representative, either as individuals or in small groups. Chair Lovell suggested the Port identify times
during both the day and early evening hours for when the tours could take place.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed that the Board is under pressure to complete their review of the Port’s proposed amendment as part of
the 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendment package. The Board is also working to complete their work on the Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) update, as well as the Westgate Plan and form-based code. He noted that a public hearing on the
Odgers Rezone application and a public hearing on the draft Westgate Plan and form-based zoning have been scheduled for
September 12th. The Board agreed to move forward with the public hearing on the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master
Plan on September 26th. Chair Lovell suggested the Board identify any additional materials and information they would like
the Port to provide as quickly as possible so the items can be added to the agenda for discussion on September 12th in
preparation for the public hearing. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the Port invite Jack Tawney to attend the September 12th
meeting to share his thoughts about how the proposed master plan would impact the athletic club.
Mr. McChesney thanked the Board for the opportunity to continue the discussion related to the Harbor Square Master Plan.
He acknowledged that the process will be difficult, but it is very important. He said the Port representatives have been
enlightened by the many questions and issues raised by the Board, and they will do everything they can to address them
properly.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell thanked the Port representatives for their effort and the high-quality documentation they have provided thus far.
He encouraged members of the public to avail themselves of the materials provided by the Port, which is available via the
City’s website. Many questions have been asked and there are concerns by many individuals on different matters and points.
The public should use the available information to their advantage to understand what the Port is trying to accomplish.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed welcomed Ian Duncan as the new alternate member of the Planning Board.
Packet Page 288 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 22, 2012 Page 16
Board Member Clarke said he has received numerous personal comments about things he has said at meetings (both good
and bad) and this is all part of the public process. He thanked the Port representatives and said he was impressed with how
they responded to the Board’s questions. They have provided everything the Board has asked for. The Port is a great asset to
the community. A lot of people do not understand what the Port has been through since 2008, and Mr. McChesney has done
an excellent job as financial steward of the Port assets. He said the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan team is top notch in the
State of Washington, and they are fortunate to have these resources to draw from for this unique asset in the City.
Vice Chair Stewart thanked the Port’s team and the audience for being so thorough and careful about the process. She said
she is excited about the possibilities and the Board will do their best to move the Port’s proposal forward in a timely fashion.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Packet Page 289 of 998
APPROVED SEPTEMBER 26TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 12, 2012
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
John Reed
Neil Tibbott
Ian Duncan
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2012 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Dave Buelow, Edmonds, said he lives on 4th Avenue South. He was out of town for the recent Harbor Square workshop, but
Board Member Reed gave the Board copies of some information he prepared that included pictures from his living room, a
couple of real estate sales brochures for units that happen to be for sale on 2nd and 3rd Avenues South, and a cross-hatch
portrayal of the impact the proposed Port buildings would have on the water view seen in each picture. While not a slick
presentation like the Port’s view study that showed virtually no impact on public views, the pictures demonstrate the huge
negative impact the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP) would have on the water views of many private property owners in
the lower bowl area.
Mr. Buelow said the cross hatching on the pictures is shown at 60 feet. He explained that besides being easy to determine
since the 60-foot flagpole is visible in each picture, it is also what the Port is really asking for. While the Port consistently
talks about 55-foot building heights, the HSMP language actually calls for buildings at 55 feet, plus rooftop equipment,
towers and architectural features. He suggested that such vague language is an open invitation for a hard-driving, profit-
oriented developer to build up to 60 feet in a heartbeat. He expressed his belief that even if the Port focuses on average
overall building height at Harbor Square to placate critics, once a massive wall of residential towers at 55 feet or greater is
Packet Page 290 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 2
built between the water and private homes, no one will care if parking garages on the other side are only two stories high with
tennis courts on top. While this type of configuration will mathematically generate an average building height in the 40-foot
range and provide water views for residents of the new residential towers, the damage will have already been done for
neighboring property owners in the bowl, and their views will be gone forever.
Mr. Buelow voiced concern that private owners will each suffer property value decreases ranging from $50,000 to $150,000
or more. This is particularly egregious because these financial hits will only be incurred if the City approves a
redevelopment plan that is nothing more than a financial bailout for the Port. While the Port has explained that cash flow
from Harbor Square is great and they may even pay the debt off early, debt service is not the financial problem they have to
solve. The Port’s problem is that their balance sheet reflects $15 million in costs for property that their own valuation studies
have indicated is only worth $5 million. The Port will have to recognize this financial deficiency eventually and market these
assets to value unless the City bails them out by changing the zoning at Harbor Square to allow for residential construction
and buildings at 55 feet or greater. This action would magically remedy the Port’s $10 million shortfall.
Mr. Buelow advised that he watched the workshop meeting on television and was struck by concern that including 55-foot
buildings in the City’s Comprehensive Plan could mean that specific projects must be approved in the future. Whatever the
legalities, he suggested the Board has the right to be uncomfortable. While the City’s immediate actions may not technically
convey rights to the Port or others, the Board is fooling themselves if they think the 55-foot height limit, if provided for a tax-
supported public entity like the Port, won’t be aggressively fought for, and probably litigated for, so private developers can
enjoy the same benefits. He reminded the Board that the Port already enjoys the highest building height limit in the bowl at
35 feet. Any redevelopment should be done within the existing limit. He urged the Board to do the right thing and
recommend the City Council deny the Port’s request to incorporate the HSMP into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE GUIDING FUTURE COMMERCIAL
AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA
Mr. Chave reviewed that the Board has had three meetings in 2012 regarding form-based codes and the draft Westgate Plan
and code proposal. He emphasized that tonight’s hearing is the first opportunity for the public to comment in a formal
hearing, but it will not be the last hearing before the Board regarding the Westgate Plan and form-based code proposal. The
Board will have at least one more work session followed by an additional public hearing before forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council. It is typically the City Council’s practice to also conduct a public hearing before
making a final decision. Mr. Chave referred to the August 29, 2012 draft of the Westgate District Plan and form-based code
which is titled, “Revisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code.” He briefly reviewed the document,
particularly highlighting the following:
The goals of the plan include creating a mixed-use, walkable, and compact development that is economically viable,
attractive and community friendly; improving connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle users; prioritizing amenity spaces
and open spaces; and emphasizing green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features.
Rather than establishing mandatory new development levels, the proposed form-based code approach is intended to
provide options for potential future development that is consistent with the goals for the Westgate area. Staff does not
envision wholesale redevelopment of the Westgate area in the near future, but the proposed Westgate District Plan opens
possibilities if and when changes start to occur.
The University of Washington team, along with the Cascade Land Conservancy, conducted background research,
looking at such things as economics, moving traffic and pedestrians through the area, opportunities to improve sidewalks
and walking connections between Westgate and surrounding neighborhoods, and ways to improve bicycling
opportunities through the area.
The process involved an extensive public outreach program that included surveys and hands-on workshops to solicit
feedback from the public about features they would like to see long term at Westgate. The team used this information to
identify a number of different alternatives, and the plan currently before the Board is the culmination of this work.
Packet Page 291 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 3
The site plan contained in the Westgate District Plan is illustrative and intended to show one possibility for future
redevelopment, but it is not the only option. In this type of form-based code and plan, it is very important to make sure
the development that does occur adheres to the general form and layout envisioned in the plan, which talks about the
relationship of buildings to the street, to other buildings, and to pedestrian areas.
The plan stresses the need for better circulation for traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. It would be preferable for people
to park in one location and be able to walk to a number of different businesses.
There is already a fair amount of pedestrian traffic at Westgate. One purpose of the plan is to make the pedestrian
connections clearer so people feel safer and are encouraged to use the available pedestrian opportunities.
The proposed form-based code includes core concepts such as green space and buffers between the Westgate commercial
areas and the surrounding residential areas. The existing hillsides are very important to the character of Westgate and
form a buffer between the commercial and residential development.
A form-based code focuses closely on the form factor, or how buildings are arranged or constructed throughout the site.
The central idea is to have different choices for building types rather than limiting development to any one particular
building type or use.
Two main arterials intersect at Westgate (100th Avenue and SR 104). There is also an internal drive, which is important
particularly in the northeast quadrant. The plan recognizes that an internal drive would benefit the businesses by
providing better on-site circulation so people do not have to go back onto the arterials to access different businesses. The
internal drive is not designed to be a cut-through street to avoid the intersection.
The plan provides numerous examples of building types that would be appropriate for Westgate, and illustrations of each
of the types are provided.
The plan provides a generic site plan to show what an arrangement of uses might look like. The site plan identifies
substantial surface parking, with buildings located closer to the street rather than pushed back into the properties. This
allows development to take advantage of the existing walkways and provides a better separation of internal circulation
from particular activities that are associated with open space.
The plan does not anticipate that Westgate will become a pedestrian-oriented area. Westgate serves two purposes; it
provides services to people living in the local neighborhood, but it also takes advantage of the SR-104 traffic. The
existing anchor businesses make Westgate a regional destination, and the plan recognizes that automobile access is still
very important.
The plan talks about the relationship of buildings to surrounding sidewalks, streets and other buildings. The plan
provides some suggestions about what revised or updated street cross sections or rights-of-way might look like. For
example, SR 104 would retain the five lanes of traffic, but sidewalks could be enhanced and additional amenity areas
could be provided. The buildings would be set back a bit to provide some active space and take advantage of the
existing right-of-way space. The plan shows the potential for bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue, as well as on on-street
parking and through lanes in some locations.
Staff has nearly completed a traffic analysis that will indicate whether the ideas proposed in the plan are feasible or not.
The City should not allow development that is detrimental to the traffic flow in favor of a particular activity or amenity.
The goal is for both to work together.
The plan identifies a different way to look at landscaping. The proposed point system emphasizes the importance of
amenities and green features so sites are more pleasant and function better. The plan provides more flexibility in site
design and gets away from the cookie cutter landscaping that has occurred in the past. The goal is to encourage
developers to look holistically at a site to arrange amenities so they integrate with the space.
Packet Page 292 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 4
The plan provides standards for open space and amenity space such as lawns plaza, sidewalks, and green open space. It
emphasizes the need to retain vegetation on the slopes.
All future development would be required to conform to the plan, which limits development to a maximum of four
stories. However, the plan also includes a provision that allows development of up to five stories in some areas near the
slope if a developer provides more green features, amenities, etc. This concept is something the Board needs to discuss
and refine further.
Chair Lovell opened the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he has followed the Westgate planning process for the past several months. He said he is
disappointed with the results and felt the ideas proposed by the University of Washington team are out of touch with reality,
particularly regarding traffic. He pointed out that a business district needs customers to be successful, and Westgate is
successful because of its geographic location on two major arterials. The cars make the difference, not pedestrians. The plan
talks about walkability; but realistically, people go to Westgate by car and park and shop in a specific location. Rarely would
a person cross over to another quadrant. He emphasized that traffic is already in short supply at Westgate, and traffic
accessing the site from 100th Avenue has created significant congestion. The plan should place an emphasis on addressing
parking and circulation issues.
Mr. Hertrich said he is also opposed to the concept of locating buildings closer to the street, given the heavy traffic that
already exists. The plan should focus on how to get traffic through the area to its destination rather than trying to make
Westgate pedestrian friendly. He compared the new veterinary clinic that was recently constructed near Westgate with the
new bank building that is currently under construction. He noted that the veterinary clinic is set back from the street, and the
bank building is not. He expressed his belief that placing buildings closer to the street will result in a wall of buildings as
opposed to a pleasant, semi-landscaped street.
Again Mr. Hertrich expressed his belief that the University of Washington teams’ work is out of touch with reality. He
suggested the Board start the planning process again, using automobile traffic as a basis. The Westgate area would be
unsuccessful without automobiles and customers coming from around the region. He expressed concern that form-based
codes are basically codes without a lot of rules and they tend to be very confusing. The City’s effort in this direction allows a
liberal approach to what is developed at Westgate in the future. Future redevelopment at Westgate needs to be realistic and
fit the needs of the community, and that is not the case with the current proposal.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Mr. Chave said staff’s intent is that the Board would have another study session to talk about traffic and the relationship of
the slope to the proposed height limit. He said that, contrary to Mr. Hertrich’s opinion, the proposed plan is intended to
preserve traffic circulation and enhance the relationship between traffic and how people walk throughout the site. Staff has
nearly completed the traffic analysis, which will identify the overall traffic level associated with potential redevelopment.
The analysis also tests the University of Washington team’s ideas for new street cross sections for 100th to see if they are
reasonable and/or feasible or if some other configuration would be better.
Chair Lovell announced that he recently walked the Westgate area with Council Member Petso. He said her major concerns
are more related to parking than traffic. She expressed concern that the existing parking is already being tested, and QFC
employees park along 100th Avenue adjacent to the cemetery to leave on-site parking space for customers. She voiced
concern that introducing more residential elements would create a greater demand for parking and perhaps penalize the
parking that is available for the commercial uses. While he heard her concern, he reminded the Board that at a recent
presentation, the University of Washington team emphasized that they anticipate automobile traffic will continue to govern
the area, and they expect that many people will drive to the area to shop. The extent to which people will park in one
quadrant and visit businesses in another quadrant without moving their vehicles depends on how pedestrian friendly the area
can become. He said both he and Council Member Petso agreed that the proposed plan appears to support the concept of
greater walkability and internal circulation.
Packet Page 293 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 5
Chair Lovell recalled that at an earlier version plan presented by the University of Washington team identified a fairly
substantial parking garage in the northeast quadrant, and there was significant public concern. Some citizens did not believe
that people would park in the garage and then walk to other quadrants since crossing the busy arterials could be challenging.
In response to this concern, the team updated the plan to place greater emphasis on internal circulation and providing more
parking within each of the quadrant, particularly to accommodate residential uses. In addition, the plan identifies a three-
story building where the QFC is currently located. This would allow the property owner to add additional stories to the
building to increase the parking capacity of the site. Mr. Chave agreed that the conceptual plan identifies various parking
locations within each quadrant. He reminded the Board that the plan is conceptual. He said the plan recognizes, but does not
require, the regional trend of adding additional stories to existing structures to accommodate parking. This would be a
market decision, but the plan provides an opportunity for the Westgate area to accommodate this type of development and
still meet the goals of the City.
Mr. Chave explained that, up to this point, the Westgate District Plan and form-based code are contained in a single
document. Before the Board’s next work meeting, staff will try to identify how the various elements of the current document
will be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Code (zoning). The new version should be
available for Board’s review on October 10th. Chair Lovell noted that the Westgate District Plan is scheduled for additional
Board review on October 10th, with a tentative hearing scheduled for October 24th.
Chair Lovell said he also had a discussion with Council Member Petso that the Westgate area is currently zoned
Neighborhood Business (BN), which allows a limited amount of residential development. Mr. Chave pointed out that the
Comprehensive Plan identifies the Westgate area as Commercial Business (BC). However, because the area serves not only
the local neighborhood, but also the region, BN zone is not a good fit. Whether or not the Board agrees with the University
of Washington’s proposal, the zoning needs to be changed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Reed pointed out that the Westgate area is discussed on Pages 76 and 77 of the Comprehensive Plan. He
asked if staff anticipates the language on these pages will also need to be changed to be consistent with the newly adopted
Westgate District Plan. Mr. Chave agreed that this section would have to be updated accordingly. However, the
Comprehensive Plan already discusses many of the concepts discussed in the proposed plan. .
Board Member Reed asked if the plan would propose specific parking standards for the Westgate area. Mr. Chave explained
that the City used to address parking requirements based on use, and each use had its own parking standard. However, when
the Downtown Plan was updated in 2006, the parking requirement for all commercial uses was eliminated. This change was
consistent with a parking study that showed a great reservoir of parking in the downtown. He noted that parking is still
required for any new residential use in the downtown. He summarized that parking standards are different depending on the
area. The proposed plan calls out consistent residential and commercial parking standards, regardless of the uses proposed.
He explained that when the City regulated parking based on use, developers often constructed buildings assuming a certain
use that needed the least amount of parking. After construction, potential tenants often needed more parking than what the
development was designed to provide. This resulted in a cycle of building that put in too little parking and then had to turn
away potential tenants. A uniform parking standard regardless of the type of use is a much better way of approaching
parking in general. The trick is to identify the uniform standard that makes the most sense, which will differ district by
district.
Board Member Tibbott asked staff to describe how the streetscape improvements will be sequenced. He recalled Mr.
Chave’s earlier comment that it could be years before there is significant redevelopment. He asked if it is possible for the
landscaping to be done in advance of redevelopment. Mr. Chave explained that streetscape improvements consistent with the
plan will be required for any new development or redevelopment. Incremental changes will occur parcel-by-parcel over time.
Board Member Tibbott observed that the streetscape improvements could look very hodgepodge if they are done
incrementally as development occurs. Mr. Chave said wholesale right-of-way improvements could only occur if the City had
sufficient funds to pay for the work. He noted there may be opportunities for grant funding for right-of-way improvements
on SR-104 at some point in the future.
Board Member Clarke said it is difficult to wrestle with how the new mixed-use development with greater building heights
will fit in with the local existing inventory of real estate. Unfortunately, there are very few examples in the community for
the Board to look at. While the slide show provided by the University of Washington team was helpful, the Board can learn
Packet Page 294 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 6
so much more from a site visit to see how the various components of a development interact with each other. He suggested
the Board visit actual sites as a group, particularly to get a better understanding about four, five and six-story buildings. It
would be helpful to meet with developers to discuss the pros and cons of their projects. He pointed out that real estate is a
capital-intensive investment, and most retail projects have an economic life of 40 to 50 years, so it is very important to be
sensitive to all the different dynamics.
Board Member Clarke stressed that parking and vehicular transportation is critical and will have an impact on way of life.
There are changes happening that most people do not understand. For example, the International Council of Shopping
Centers used to have a parking standard for different types of shopping centers. Developers expressed concern that parking
lots were underutilized and people were driving smaller cars. As a result, the council reduced the parking standard and
allowed for more compact stalls. It is difficult for larger vehicles to fit in the smaller spaces. Smaller parking areas have also
become a problem as demographics have changed and there is a greater demand for parking space at retail businesses
(particularly grocery stores) during the evening hours. He observed that if real estate is under parked, it will suffer functional
obsolescence. This could potentially occur in the Westgate area because grocery and drug stores are typically auto-dependent
businesses.
Board Member Clarke expressed concern that several issues were not addressed by the University of Washington’s proposal.
Rather than pushing the plan ahead quickly, he suggested the Board take time to get a better handle on the unresolved issues.
Chair Lovell agreed that site visits are valuable. He said he has visited a number of sites and taken pictures of good example
of development that could potentially occur at Westgate. He agreed to provide these pictures when the Board continues their
discussion on October 10th.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR
SQUARE MASTER PLAN (HSMP) INTO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER
AMD20110009
Chair Lovell recalled that at their August 22nd meeting, the Board requested that the Port schedule times for Board Members
to tour the Harbor Square site, and several Board members took advantage of this opportunity. He said he found his visit to
be valuable, not only in terms of what currently exists, but to understand the site’s potential. It was particularly interesting to
understand the site’s relationship to what could happen elsewhere in the rest of the downtown.
Mr. Lien reviewed that at their August 22nd work session, the Board provided numerous comments and suggestions, and the
Port addressed many during the work session. At the end of the work session, the Planning Board scheduled a public hearing
for September 26th, and notices for the hearing were mailed out on September 10th using an expanded public notice area
(James Street, Dayton Street, 5th Avenue, and SR 104). More than 1,200 notices were mailed out.
Mr. Lien reported that the public hearing notice that was sent out on September 10th included a pre-threshold determination
comment period for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. The City indicated in the notice that it would likely
issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with three potential mitigation measures:
1. That a traffic impact analysis must be done at the project level.
2. The average height allowed would be 45 feet, as described in the updated Harbor Square Master Plan.
3. That specific building design and site layout shall consider potential impacts on climate change such as sea level
rise, and potential for flooding.
Mr. Lien said the SEPA comment period ends of September 24th, and staff will provide a summary of the comments at the
Board’s September 26th meeting. He said the public hearing and SEPA notices have been published on the City’s website, as
well.
Bob McChesney, Port of Edmonds Executive Director, thanked the Board for the opportunity to continue the discussion
related to the Port’s request to incorporate the HSMP into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He reported that since the
workshop discussion on August 22nd, the Port has made changes to the HSMP to reflect the comments and suggestions
Packet Page 295 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 7
provided by the Board. The changes are intended to expand on the existing plan elements and have been approved by the
Port Commission. He reviewed each of the changes as follows:
The word vegetation was added to Item 12 on Page 4 to clarify that vegetation buffers would be improved to protect and
enhance the marsh.
An additional bullet was added on Page 5 to read, “Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes
and/or safe shared lanes on internal streets. This is consistent with the Board’s request that the master plan expand
provisions for bicycle access.
Additional language was added at the end of the 1st Bullet on Page 5 to read, “and also create a pedestrian focus such as a
village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for public activities such as concerts,
performances, fairs or an outdoor market.” This additional language is intended to expand upon what is meant by
“public amenities.”
An additional bullet was added on Page 6 to read, “Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g. storage racks) in
circulation and open space planning. Again, this change was made to address the Board’s concern that the plan provide
more provisions for bicycle access.
Upon the recommendation of the Planning Board, new language was added to the “Sustainability” section on Pages 6
through 8 to reference the Community Sustainability Element in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. It specifically lists
the policies that are most relevant to the HSMP, and explains how the HSMP responds to each one. In addition, the
previous language related to low-impact development techniques was amended to provide clarity. Specifically, the 2nd
Bullet on Page 7 was added to read, “Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life-cycle cost analysis,
designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facility costs.” The 3rd Bullet was modified
by inserting the word “vegetation” before “buffers.” The 4th Bullet was modified by adding “to reduce undesirable
runoff.”
A schematic drawing was added on Page 10 to illustrate the intent of the HSMP to modulate building height to average
45 feet. While some buildings would be up to 55 feet in height; others, particularly those along Dayton Street, would be
of a lesser height. A new paragraph was added to explain the concept of average building height, making it clear that the
average building height for all development on the Harbor Square site would not exceed 45 feet.
An additional paragraph was added on Page 10 to make it clear that all development within the shoreline jurisdiction
would be subject to the provisions of the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP). It also emphasizes the Port’s
commitment to improve the ecological health of the marsh. He reminded the Board that the Port has worked with the
Department of Ecology’s (DOE) Shoreline Management Division and Friends of the Edmonds Marsh to address issues
related to the marsh.
Language was added in the 2nd Bullet on Page 11 regarding the SR-104 Frontage. As discussed at the last Board
Meeting, if the Washington Statement Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is amenable, the Port would enter into an
agreement with them to improve the west side of the SR-104 right-of-way to provide a much better streetscape,
development edge and entry into downtown. These improvements could include street trees, landscaping, and perhaps a
shared-use trail. He noted the Port already has permission from WSDOT to manage the right-of-way and keep the
landscaping tidy.
Additional language was added on Pages 11 and 12 to outline the Port’s proposal for calculating “average building
height.”
Board Member Reed asked the procedure the Port used to amend their HSMP. Mr. McChesney answered that after the
August 22nd Planning Board meeting, Port staff met with their consulting team and the City’s Planning Division staff to
discuss how the plan could be amended to address the issues raised by the Planning Board. Because the plan has already
been approved by the Port Commission and submitted in the application to the City for a Comprehensive Plan amendment,
Packet Page 296 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 8
Port staff felt it necessary to present the changes to the Commission for approval. The Commission approved the changes on
September 10th and authorized staff to update their Comprehensive Plan amendment application accordingly. He explained
that the Commission agreed that the changes were not substantial and would not fundamentally change the plan significantly
enough to warrant a new SEPA review or another public hearing.
Chair Lovell specifically noted that the staff report included the following attachments:
Attachment 6 – A letter from Jack Tawney, Harbor Square Athletic Club, in support of the proposed HSMP.
Attachment 7 – View images submitted provided by Dave Buelow and submitted by John Reed at the August 22nd
Planning Board Meeting.
Attachment 8 – A letter from Mark Trumper, MaverickLabel.Com, expressing support for the proposed HSMP.
Attachment 9 – A letter from Allen Hendricks expressing support for the proposed HSMP.
Attachment 10 – An email and images submitted by Phil Lovell to describe his assessment of potential impacts to private
views.
Chair Lovell cautioned that as the Board continues the public hearing process and their deliberation to form a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, they must be careful not to
reach too far ahead of what the process is for this particular proposal. Many elements have not been answered yet because
the information is not available or it is too soon in the continuum of any future redevelopment that might take place on the
Harbor Square site.
Chair Lovell advised that he and Board Member Clarke attended the Saturday tour of the Harbor Square site and discussed
the following items:
Board Member Clarke provided numerous historic documents related to the property. He particularly referenced the
contract rezone agreement, which includes specific survey information and criteria related to buffers and setbacks. The
group agreed that the buffers and setbacks identified in the contract rezone agreement should be preserved, and they
should also be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). They further agreed that redevelopment should not
occupy more land that what the current zoning agreement allows.
The group had a lengthy discussion about how redevelopment of Harbor Square could potentially impact redevelopment
of the property on the other side of Dayton Street. It was noted that it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen
on either site at this point in time. However, they agreed that a private/public partnership for a catalyst project such as a
parking structure at Harbor Square would have a significant influence on how the property on the other side of Dayton
Street is eventually redeveloped.
The group discussed options to address drainage problems that exist in the area. The site currently drains untreated into
the marsh. Any future development agreement should require that stormwater runoff be treated to preserve and enhance
the marsh.
The group considered the future of the health club. It appears the health club’s main building will stay in its current
location for quite some time. Further discussion would need to take place between the health club owners and the Port to
determine the club’s long-term future.
The group had some discussion about the status of the existing buildings, as well as the existing soil conditions.
Chair Lovell said the group also noted that the multi-modal transportation center (Edmonds Crossing) project is discussed
extensively in the Downtown Waterfront Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Questions were raised as to whether this
represents reality. It was suggested that perhaps the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to eliminate this project. He
noted that some elements of the Edmonds Crossing project (i.e. new train station, new bus turn around, new ramp at the ferry
terminal) have already been implemented. Mr. Chave cautioned against making changes to the Comprehensive Plan related
to the Edmonds Crossing Project at this time. He reported that discussions are currently underway between the City and the
DOE regarding this issue, and a lot of work is being done to evaluate the various alternatives to determine the best route. He
Packet Page 297 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 9
noted that many of the projects that have been implemented were intended to be temporary in anticipation of a new multi-
modal facility at some point in the future. He summarized that the Edmonds Crossing Project is still valid, but it will take
some time to figure out how it will go forward. Amending the Comprehensive Plan now to eliminate the project would not
be prudent. He recommended that the HSMP should be considered on its own merits irrespective of what happens with the
Edmonds Crossing Project.
Board Member Ellis said that as he toured the Harbor Square site, he was struck by the amount of work it takes the Port to
manage and maintain the buildings. He pointed out that it is currently within the Port’s right to sell the property as it is, but it
is in the best interest of the taxpayers to have a plan that makes the property more valuable. He expressed his belief that the
Port’s plan appears to extend beyond pure economic interest. The Port is thinking about the City of Edmonds and how the
Harbor Square development should fit in with the rest of the City and the waterfront. The Port has made an effort to include
the community in the process and to incorporate elements in the plan that are not economically driven.
Board Member Ellis recalled that at their August 22nd meeting, there was some discussion about whether or not adopting the
HSMP as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan would essentially endorse a height limit and residential use that is not
presently provided for. He reminded staff that the Board requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding this
matter. Mr. Chave said this question has been relayed to the City Attorney, but he has not yet issued an opinion. Chair
Lovell also recalled that the Board requested a legal opinion as to the City’s obligation to preserve private views.
Board Member Clarke suggested the Board slow the process down. He reminded the Board that they have been appointed to
be the fact finding and thought process, and they have an obligation to find answers to all the pertinent questions before
making a recommendation to the City Council. He expressed frustration when the City Council send items back to the Board
because there are additional questions and they need more information. He suggested the Board needs to have answers to
their questions prior to the public hearing so the public has ample opportunity to comment on the answers that are provided.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan divides the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center into
separate districts, and specific language is provided for each one. He referred to Item C on Page 44, which calls for
“promoting downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby
residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region.” He noted that the
Port’s proposed HSMP does not include any language that addresses how the plan would accomplish this goal.
Board Member Clarke also referred to the second paragraph on Page 55 of the Comprehensive Plan that specifically
describes the Downtown Master Plan District, which encompasses the properties between SR-104 and the railroad tracks,
including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center, and extending past the commuter rail parking area up to Main
Street. He noted that nowhere in the paragraph does it suggest that residential development would be appropriate for the
Downtown Master Plan District. Instead, it talks about a mix of uses that take advantage of the properties’ strategic location
between the waterfront and the downtown. He questioned if “mix of uses” was intended to include only retail, office,
entertainment and associated businesses and not residential. He summarized that while the Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges high-density residential development within the larger Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, it does not
acknowledge the use in the Downtown Master Plan District. He questioned if approving the Port’s HSMP would lead the
other three property owners within the Downtown Master Plan District to automatically assume they would also have the
right to develop residential uses to the height limit talked about in the HSMP. He suggested it would be appropriate for the
City Attorney to provide a legal opinion as to how approval of the HSMP would impact the remaining properties within the
Downtown Master Plan District.
Board Member Clarke recommended that the public hearing on the HSMP be postponed until the Board has received answers
to all of their legal questions. It was discussed that the public hearing has already been advertised for September 26th. It was
noted that the Board could have additional discussion after the public hearing, and another public hearing could be held to
solicit additional feedback from the public before the Board formulates a recommendation for the City Council.
Board Member Clarke referred to Section 2.b on Page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states that “unless more specific
provisions are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two stories in
exterior appearance, design and character.” This section further states that “incentives or design standards may be adopted
which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which allow an additional height that does not
Packet Page 298 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 10
impact the generally two-story pedestrian-scale appearance of the public streetscape.” The section also notes that “the
Downtown Master Plan District could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors.”
He raised concern that the height proposed in the HSMP may not be consistent with this specific policy. He suggested it
would behoove the Board to carefully review each section of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center Element to
determine if the proposed HSMP is consistent. He explained that what the Port is proposing may be a great alternative for
the rest of the Downtown Master Plan District to provide more versatility and new development potential.
Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan trumps the Development Code (zoning). If the
Comprehensive Plan allows five-story buildings at Harbor Square and the Development Code does not, the property owner
can request a rezone to make the two documents consistent. If the HSMP is approved, allowing buildings up to 55 feet in
height, it seems that other property owners in the Downtown Master Plan District would also have the legal right to request
the additional height limit apply to their property, as well.
Mr. Chave pointed out that the language on Page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan states that building height should generally
be two stories, unless provisions contained in the description for specific downtown districts says otherwise. The note at the
end of the paragraph further states that higher buildings outside current view corridors may be allowed in the Downtown
Master Plan District. He pointed out that the proposed HSMP provides more specific information than the generic two-story
language found in the last paragraph on Page 58.
Board Member Clarke asked if it is reasonable to assume that the language in the last paragraph on Page 58 of the
Comprehensive Plan implies that taller buildings could be allowed in the Downtown Master Plan District, but buildings on
either side of Dayton and Main Streets must be no greater than two-stories in order to maintain the pedestrian-oriented
environment and the public view corridor. Mr. Chave replied that the proposed HSMP acknowledges that Dayton Street is a
pedestrian-oriented public view corridor. Board Member Clarke noted that the HSMP shows four-story buildings along
Dayton Street, with the top story being stepped back from the street. He pointed out that the HSMP Steering Committee
specifically recommended that buildings over 55 feet in height on either side of Dayton would create a canyon effect. The
illustrations provided in the Port’s HSMP show 35-foot buildings along the Dayton Street frontage, with an additional story
that is stepped back from the street. Again, he said it is important to explore the question of whether allowing additional
height at Harbor Square would require the City to allow a similar height for the property on the other side of Dayton Street.
Board Member Reed advised that the 3rd sentence in the 2nd paragraph on Page 55 of the Comprehensive Plan alludes to the
potential for taller buildings in the Downtown Master Plan District. Board Member Clarke agreed but questioned how this
would be reconciled with language on Page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states that buildings should be limited to
two stories. Again, he expressed his belief that allowing a greater height on the Harbor Square site would require the City to
allow a greater height on the remaining properties in the Downtown Master Plan District.
Board Member Tibbott questioned if the Comprehensive Plan language needs to be amended to identify an actual height limit
rather than using the term “two stories.” Board Member Clarke agreed that the Board needs to have this conversation at
some point. He said that while he likes the Port’s proposal for calculating average height, he would like more information
about why they are proposing an average height limit of 45 feet. He also asked the Port to indicate whether the 45-foot
average height limit would include mechanical equipment, etc.
Board Member Clarke reviewed that economic development is a critical mandate associated with Washington State ports.
Legislation grants ports special authority to increase economic development by creating jobs. He asked the Port to provide
more information about the Port’s special authority and how the proposed HSMP would accomplish this mandate. He asked
the Port to provide feedback about whether or not it is legal for ports to develop residential uses. He pointed out that the
City’s Strategic Planning process shows that the City’s top four priorities are: business development, employment, attracting
and retaining businesses, and taking advantage of the City’s fiber optic capabilities. He pointed out that the properties in the
Downtown Master Plan District are the last pieces of commercial properties that allow for significant job creation so that
Edmonds residents can work close to home rather than commuting outside of the city. He said he would like the Board to
have some discussion about whether or not this portion of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center should remain
commercial in nature.
Packet Page 299 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 11
Board Member Reed observed that Pages 4, 7 and 10 of the HSMP make reference to vegetation buffers and setback
requirements. He noted that the draft SMP update states that 25-foot buffers would be required, with a footnote that allows
flexibility. He asked if the Port has discussed how far back from the shoreline construction would occur. Mr. McChesney
replied that the proposed HSMP suggests that redevelopment at Harbor Square would create an opportunity to make the
marsh better, and this includes improving the existing buffers. He reminded the Board that the SMP process and run parallel
with the HSMP process, and the Port has worked with City staff to make sure the two documents are consistent. The Port has
not done a final site plan to answer precisely how the buffers will be delineated except to say they will not be smaller than
what already exists. In some locations the buffers will be greater. He reminded the Board that the Port has worked closely
with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh regarding habitat restoration and eliminating invasive species. Restoring the buffers is
compatible with the proposed HSMP.
Board Member Reed noted that the SMP is scheduled on the Board’s extended agenda for additional discussion and a public
hearing. The current draft SMP identifies specific distances for buffers, building setback and parking setbacks. Absent any
guidance from the Port, the Board must come up with appropriate numbers. Some Board members have suggested that
buffers and setbacks should be expanded to be greater than what is currently required. Mr. McChesney said the Port has been
working with City staff to define this issue, but they do not have an answer for the Board at this time. Board Member Reed
recalled that at their August 22nd meeting, the Port’s Consultant, Mr. Owen, agreed to get back to the Board with a
recommendation for an actual number that is acceptable to the DOE. At that time, he noted that the conceptual drawings
currently assume an approximately 50-foot setback. Mr. Lien said the Port has not received written approval from the DOE
for the setbacks proposed in the draft SMP, but they have given verbal approval for the proposed 25-foot setback from the
marsh for buildings, parking and recreational uses.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Port currently allows parking on a gravel lot that is located within the setback area
and identified in the Contract Rezone as open space. He emphasized that this use is illegal as this property is supposed to
remain undeveloped and protected. He asked the Port to clarify how the buffer and setback from the marsh would be
measured. Mr. Lien said the ecological buffer is measured from the edge of the marsh, and the setback is measured from the
ordinary high water mark. The 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction is measured from the shoreline. He emphasized that it is
important to use the correct terminology when discussing setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdictions. Board Member
Clarke suggested it would be helpful for staff to provide a map that shows the setbacks required by the Development Code, as
well as the setbacks proposed in the draft SMP. Mr. Lien recalled that he previously provided an illustration of buffers,
setbacks and shoreline jurisdictions, but he did not include the zoning. He agreed to provide this additional information when
the SMP is brought back to the Board for further discussion.
Board Member Clarke observed that the Port’s proposed HSMP does not address future zoning issues. Mr. Lien explained
that, typically, when a property owner wants to rezone a piece of property to something that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the first step is to request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is approved, the property owner can move forward with a rezone application. The two actions are not typically
done simultaneously. He further explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the overarching document, and zoning must be
consistent. While the existing zoning at Harbor Square would not be inconsistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment, it would allow for a future rezone or development agreement that is more consistent with the master plan.
Board Member Clarke commented that because the area surrounding the marsh is environmentally sensitive, the Open Space
(OS) designation should remain in place in perpetuity. Mr. Chave said that unless there is a zone that is more protective, it is
unlikely the zoning designation around the marsh would change. Board Member Clarke suggested that the zoning around the
marsh should be specifically addressed in the HSMP.
Board Member Reed said he is uncomfortable adopting the HSMP into the Comprehensive Plan by reference because things
tend to get lost. He suggested the entire HSMP should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan so that it is readily
available for public view.
Board Member Reed said that while he understands that the Comprehensive Plan amendment and a future development
agreement are two separate issues, it is important that the two are consistent with each other. Mr. Chave explained that the
Comprehensive Plan is the overall guide, but the Development Code and zoning are intended to implement the
Comprehensive Plan so there is consistency. It is not that one supersedes the other; they have to mesh together.
Packet Page 300 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 12
Board Member Reed said that while the Port’s current proposal to limit height at Harbor Square to an average of 45 feet is a
step in the right direction, he felt that 45 feet is too much. He also suggested that the plan should identify a maximum height
for buildings that front on Dayton Street, and then identify exactly how far back a building must be located from Dayton
Street to obtain additional height. He agreed with Board Member Clarke, that approval of the HSMP will have some
influence on how the properties on the other side of Dayton Street are eventually redeveloped.
Board Member Tibbott asked if a lower average height would address Board Member Reed’s concerns. Board Member Reed
questioned if that is the best approach for addressing height. Again, he suggested the Board consider limiting the height of
the buildings that front on Dayton Street and SR 104. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the Port is proposing a minimum
sidewalk width of 15 feet along Dayton Street. He noted there are no other sidewalks in the City that are 15 feet wide.
Mr. Lien pointed out that the current contract rezone allows 35-foot buildings along Dayton Street, and the proposed HSMP
would require one foot of horizontal step back for every additional foot of height above 35 feet for buildings along Dayton
Street. The proposed plan would also limit the stepped back portion of buildings along Dayton Street to be no greater than 45
feet in height. Chair Lovell commented that Dayton Street is not a narrow roadway. The 15-foot sidewalk and the 35-foot
height limit for buildings along Dayton Street, would create a streetscape that is favorable relative to the downtown.
Board Member Duncan suggested that rather than modifying the height limit for the Harbor Square site, the issue could be
dealt with by requiring Architectural Design Board review of any development proposal.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would require a development agreement
between the Port and a developer to address the requirements of the HSMP. Specific design would be approved on a project-
by-project basis. The parcels on the other side of Dayton Street are different and a Harbor Square development agreement
would by no means entitle these property owners to the same criteria contained in the HSMP. Board Member Clarke said he
would like an opinion from the City Attorney regarding this issue.
Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board provide specific direction regarding the proposed 35-foot height limit for
buildings along Dayton Street, with an additional 10 feet in height for the portion of building that is stepped back 10 feet
from the sidewalk. He suggested that if the Board does not support the provision, they should have a hardy discussion with
specific recommendations rather than just stating their concerns. He proposed that the provision is adequate and they move
on to the other points of discussion. The Board should be clear about what is meant by pedestrian scale and preserving public
views along Dayton Street.
Once again, Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan states that buildings shall be generally two
stories in exterior appearance, design and character unless more specific provisions are contained in the descriptions for
specific downtown districts. Again, he requested a legal opinion about how the proposed HSMP would be consistent with
this provision in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave advised that he wrote the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center
Element, which was thoroughly discussed by the Board and the City Council. The common understanding was that a master
plan would be considered a “more specific provision.” The two-story provision was only intended to apply unless otherwise
specified.
Board Member Reed proposed that the maximum average height be reduced to 35 feet. The maximum height of buildings on
Dayton Street should be reduced to 25 feet, and the maximum height of buildings on the site should be limited to 45 feet.
Board Member Duncan reminded the Board that the current zoning already allows 35 feet in height for buildings fronting on
Dayton Street. Board Member Reed agreed to bring a specific proposal to the September 26th meeting for the Board’s
consideration.
The Board discussed whether or not they should proceed with the public hearing on September 26th given the number of
issues that still need to be resolved. Mr. Chave suggested the Board hold the public hearing, which has already been
advertised. Because the materials are already available on the City’s website and people will be testifying on the information
that has been posted thus far, the Board should wait to consider changes until after the public hearing. The Board could hold
an additional work session to discuss potential changes, and a second public hearing could be held to allow the public to
testify. He noted that the September 26th hearing would likely be televised.
Packet Page 301 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 13
Board Member Clarke said the Board still needs to discuss whether the area of the master plan should focus on commercial
uses or other activities that are non-residential or if a residential component should be introduced. Mr. Chave responded that
the mixture of uses identified in the language pertaining to the Downtown Master Plan District was not intended to exclude
residential uses. Board Member Cloutier asked if there are special rules that apply when adding residential uses to a property
that were not previously allowed.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave advised that the City Attorney’s Public Meetings Act presentation has been postponed to an October meeting.
The entire September 26 agenda would be dedicated to the Port’s proposal to incorporate the HSMP into the Comprehensive
Plan. Three public hearings are scheduled on October 10th (Odgers rezone, street vacation, and Capital Improvement and
Capital Facilities Plans). He said the draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and draft Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) would be
provided to the Board prior to the meeting for review. Chair Lovell urged the Board to review the draft CIP and CFP and
hold them up against the available Strategic Plan information.
Board Member Reed asked when the Strategic Plan would be presented to the Planning Board for review. Mr. Chave said
the plan would likely be presented at a joint City Council/Planning Board/Economic Development Commission meeting.
The Board discussed a recommendation from the Community Services/Economic Development Director that the Board visit
a particular area in Kirkland in preparation for their discussion regarding ground floor uses in the Downtown Business (BD1)
zone. Chair Lovell noted that Vice Chair Stewart and Council Member Johnson agreed to update the matrix that maps out
the uses in the BD1 zone.
Mr. Lien announced that the Board would have one more workshop discussion on the Shoreline Master Program before it is
scheduled for a public hearing. They still need to discuss and resolve issues related to buffer and setback requirements.
Chair Lovell said it would be helpful for staff to provide a drawing to illustrate how the buffer and setback requirements
would be imposed on the Harbor Square property. Board Member Clarke suggested it would also be helpful to review the
drawings provided in the contract rezone, as well as the drawings provided by Lovell Sauerland and the Snohomish County
assessor.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell referred to an email from Vice Chair Stewart announcing that a candidate for Planning Board student
representative has been identified and interviewed. The Board agreed to move forward with the appointment.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed referred to an email Vice Chair Stewart sent to Board Members just prior to the meeting regarding the
Port’s proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. She specifically asked how the average height concept would be affected
by portions of the property that are not proposed for redevelopment in the near future. If the Board supports the 45-foot
average height proposed by the Port, they should make sure a future development agreement is iron clad on how the concept
would work so it functions as a true constraint. Chair Lovell suggested the Board discuss these two issues at their next
meeting.
Board Member Reed advised that the City Council now publishes their draft minutes as soon as they are available. He
questioned if the Planning Board should do the same. It was noted that the draft minutes are published as part of the Board’s
packet, which is available the Friday before each meeting.
Board Member Duncan suggested that the Port’s proposal would be easier to deal with using a variance approach. He
cautioned that it is difficult to implement the mixed-use concept on multiple parcels. It is critical that the site be developed
by a single developer.
Packet Page 302 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 12, 2012 Page 14
Board Member Tibbott reported that he recently met with the principal of Meadowdale High School to discuss the student
representative position. The principal was intrigued with the idea and suggested the position could become part of a senior
project.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
Packet Page 303 of 998
APPROVED OCTOBER 10TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 26, 2012
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
John Reed
Neil Tibbott
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Ian Duncan (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Lovell advised that the meeting would be video recorded and televised on Monday morning on Channels 21 and 39.
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reported that while the Planning Board Meeting was advertised on Channel 21, no specific
information was provided regarding the items on the agenda. He expressed his belief that if information about the topic of
the meeting had been provided, there would be significantly more people present to participate in the hearing. Once again, he
asked the Planning Board to invite the Mayor’s Office to include information about the agenda items.
Mr. Hertrich complimented the developer of the new veterinary clinic on Edmonds Way. It is a nice improvement to the
Westgate area, as opposed to the large development that occurred across the street, which represents the development
standards currently identified in the zoning code for that area. He noted that the building is located right next to the sidewalk.
He asked the Board to imagine what would happen if this type of development were allowed to occur in other areas of the
City, as well. He invited the Board to recommend adjustments to the zoning standards to accurately reflect community
concerns about what has been allowed to happen and what they would like to happen in the future.
Packet Page 304 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE
MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER AMD20110009)
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Port’s request to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Harbor Square Master
Plan (HSMP) has come before the Board on three previous occasions. He explained that the proposed HSMP envisions a
transit-oriented development. The mixed-use nature of the plan will allow for retail, commercial, office, public, and
residential uses. The plan envisions buildings of varying heights, ranging from 35 feet to a maximum of 55 feet. He
reminded the Board that the proposed amendment is a non-project action that will lay the groundwork for a future
development agreement or rezone of the property. The specific zoning details will be handled at a later stage.
Mr. Lien advised that Comprehensive Plan amendments are Type V Legislative Actions. The Planning Board will conduct a
public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will consider the Board’s
recommendation and conduct another public hearing. A public notice of the hearings is required. Although only required to
notify property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, the City expanded the notice to include almost 1,200
addresses of properties within close proximity. Notice was also posted on the property, the City’s website, THE EVERETT
HERALD, and various places throughout the City. The City Council will take final action on the proposed amendment via
ordinance.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.00.050, an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan may be adopted only if the following findings are made:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public
interest;
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City;
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Mr. Lien referred the Board to the Port’s narrative outlining how the proposed master plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 3). He also referred to Page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan and explained that several
plans are included in the Land Use Element, including the Port of Edmonds Master and Strategic Plans. The HSMP could be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan by simply adding a new line item on Page 17, but some Board Members have
questioned if this would be sufficient enough. Another option would be to include a new paragraph in the Comprehensive
Plan that is specific to and provides general information about the HSMP. He noted this approach has been used with other
neighborhoods in the City to highlight an adopted master plan.
Mr. Lien advised that Harbor Square is located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, specifically within the
Downtown Master Plan District, which includes the Harbor Square property, the Antique Mall Property, the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) property and the old Skippers property. In addition to being consistent with
the language contained in the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center Section, the proposed master plan must also be
consistent with the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed that the Downtown Master Plan District
is described as:
“The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former
Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for
design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location
between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation
at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors.
Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian-friendly walking areas,
especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the
properties, since this is an area that provides a “first impression” of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the
waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment
project.”
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Port conducted its own State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as part of the Port
Commission’s adoption of the HSMP, and a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) was issued. The City
Packet Page 305 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 3
must also conduct a SEPA review on the Port’s application to incorporate the HSMP into the Comprehensive Plan. He
reported that, along with the notice for the public hearing, the City issued a preliminary SEPA notice stating the City’s
intention to issue an MDNS, as well. The following potential mitigation measures were identified:
A traffic impact analysis must be done at the project level to document existing conditions, estimate project-related
changes to local traffic, and describe related impacts and mitigation measures.
Average building height of all buildings on the Harbor Square site taken as a whole shall not exceed 45 feet.
Specific building design and site layout shall consider potential impacts of climate change such as sea level rise and
potential for flooding. A range of techniques should be considered in meeting the goal such as low-impact development
(LID) techniques to reduce undesirable runoff; improving vegetation buffers and appropriate building setbacks to protect
and enhance Edmonds Marsh; or employing other alternative systems and techniques to reduce maintenance and
facilities costs.
Mr. Lien said the comment period for the preliminary SEPA determination ended on September 24th, and five comments
were received. One expressed concern about potential traffic impacts, particularly at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton
Street. The other four expressed opposition to the proposed increase in building height.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that they have also been working on an update to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The
updated SMP will identify the Edmonds Marsh as a shoreline, which means the shoreline jurisdiction will extend into the
Harbor Square property. To address this issue, staff proposed a new Urban Mixed Use III Environment that would apply to
the Harbor Square site. After a lengthy discussion, the Board agreed that the best approach would be to move the HSMP and
the SMP Update through the review process simultaneously.
Mr. Lien referred to a memorandum from the City Attorney (Attachment 6), which provides a response to the following three
questions raised by the Board:
Question 1 – If a Comprehensive Plan includes providing for buildings to be “up to 55 feet in height” does that mean
that development regulations must allow buildings as high as 55 feet? Would an applicant asking for a zoning change
that allowed 55-foot buildings be entitled to that change, or would the City have discretion to deny such a change in
zoning?
Answer – The City would likely have discretion in making later zoning decisions, but the Comprehensive Plan language
would be interpreted in conjunction with other plan language addressing the same issue. While consistency arguments
can be raised on height issues, the likelihood of success depends on the nature of the ultimate rezone proposal, as well as
the final Comprehensive Plan language that the City adopts. To address the Board’s concern, the following language
could be added to the plan to provide greater clarification: “With these Comprehensive Plan provisions, the City is not
definitively planning for height limits to exceed 35 feet in any particular zone or on a particular property or properties.
Rather, the plan identifies factors appropriate for City consideration should height limits above 35 feet be proposed, and
identifies mitigation which should be incorporated, if height limits are later approved which exceed 35 feet.” This
language would provide the City more discretion to address height limits.
Question 2 – What precedent is set in approving a sub-area planning proposal for property located proximate to other
properties within the same Comprehensive Plan designation? Specifically, do height limits addressing one property set a
precedent for what must be approved on surrounding areas?
Answer – Simply because two properties have the same Comprehensive Plan designation and are in the same vicinity, or
adjacent to each other, does not mean they must have the same zoning and the same regulation. To increase clarity on
this issue, if subarea planning is completed for a particular area, it may make sense for the Comprehensive Plan land use
map to be updated, as well.
Mr. Lien noted that Harbor Square and the Point Edwards sites provide a good example of properties that have the same
Comprehensive Plan designation (Master Plan) but are zoned differently. Adopting the HSMP and changing the zoning
for the Harbor Square site would not require the City to do the same for other nearby properties.
Packet Page 306 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 4
Question: Must private view protection be considered in reviewing a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal?
Answer: Aesthetic impacts, including private view impacts, should be considered. However, there is discretion in
determining both how and whether to protect such views, as long as the ultimate decision on the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with City planning documents. A number of jurisdictions, including
Edmonds, take a more holistic approach, by designating specific view corridors. This approach then requires those
public view corridors to be addressed consistent with City plan and regulation discretion. However, the City has
discretion in how it addresses private views.
Mr. Lien said the City’s Comprehensive Plan talks about the protection of public views, and that has been the City’s
general approach. He said he did an electronic word search of the Comprehensive Plan and found that public views were
mentioned three times, and private views were not mentioned. Within the current SMP, public views are mentioned four
times, with no mention of private views. The draft SMP update mentions public views 12 times, and private views are
not mentioned.
Mr. Lien commented that the current Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies the following public view corridors as
down 5th Avenue, Main Street and Dayton Street to the waterfront. The HSMP proposes a step back element for
buildings located along Dayton Street to protect the public view. The plan also identifies protection of the public view
from the corner of Dayton Street and SR104 to the Edmonds Marsh.
Mr. Lien said that in addition to the questions posed to the City Attorney, the Planning Board raised questions about other
elements of the plan. He reviewed each one as follows:
Pedestrian Scale –The Planning Board specifically asked for clarification on what “pedestrian scale” means and what it
would look like. A number of definitions for this term can be found in A PLANNER’S DICTIONARY, published by the
American Planning Association. He summarized that there are a number of design elements related to “pedestrian scale”
such as providing a sense of comfort and security, interest, a variety of planting and landscape materials, etc. He pointed
out that the HSMP contains a number of elements intended to establish pedestrian-scale development. It specifically
calls for 15-foot wide sidewalks and a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and traffic to provide a sense of security
and comfort when walking along the Street. The Dayton Street frontage would include a pedestrian-oriented retail front
with large transparent windows and pedestrian weather protection. The taller portion of the buildings on Dayton Street
would be stepped back, as well.
Setbacks from Edmonds Marsh – As part of their work on the SMP update, the Board has spent a considerable amount
of time discussing what appropriate setbacks should be. The current draft SMP provides for varying setbacks from the
marsh, depending on the use. Currently, a 25-foot setback is proposed for residential, commercial and parking uses, and
a 15-foot setback is proposed for recreational uses. While the HSMP is a non-project action, any development at Harbor
Square would have to comply with the City’s SMP. At the August 22nd work session with the Board, the Port indicated
they were envisioning setbacks of about 50 feet. The HSMP also contains other elements that provide benefits to the
marsh such as improvements to the onsite stormwater system, vegetative plantings, and a nature view boardwalk. In
addition, the HSMP indicates that redevelopment will incorporate LID elements such as pervious pavements and rain
gardens to reduce undesirable runoff and provide improved natural vegetation buffers. It also proposes building setbacks
to protect and enhance the marsh.
Residential Uses – The Harbor Square site is currently developed with only commercial type uses, and both the HSMP
and the SMP Update envision a mixed-use site that includes a residential element. Harbor Square is located within the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, which is described in the Comprehensive Plan as a mixture of uses, including
mixed-use development. One specific goal (Page 45) for the downtown/waterfront area is to “identify supporting arts
and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail uses.” A specific
implementation strategy (Page 50) is to “encourage a variety of housing to be developed as part of new development and
redevelopment of downtown properties.” A policy in the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center Plan (Page 53) calls for
“providing greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the
needs of a changing population.” The plan (Page 55) also specifically states that properties within the Downtown
Master Plan District are “appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses
Packet Page 307 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 5
and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and the downtown.” The cited policies and goals
indicate that in the context of the overall downtown discussion, a mix of uses is non-exclusive. Any mix of uses is
potentially appropriate, including residential.
Mr. Lien explained that, typically after a public hearing, the Planning Board makes a motion and forwards a recommendation
to the City Council, and the City Council reviews the Planning Board’s minutes to review their findings. In this situation,
staff recommends the Planning Board provide detailed findings to support their recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Lien referred to the compendium that was provided previously by the Port to outline the process for redevelopment of
Harbor Square. He noted that the Port’s adopted HSMP has been presented to the City as a proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board’s responsibility is to conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to
the City Council. At the same time, they will finalize their work on the SMP update and forward a recommendation to the
City Council. He reminded the Board that the higher-level details will be worked out during the development agreement
stage, which will also require a public process.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the Port’s request
to incorporate the HSMP into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the Port Commission decided to embark
upon the plan because the existing Harbor Square development is 30 years old and is approaching obsolescence. The Port
believes Harbor Square is a premier site for mixed-use, transit-oriented development and the opportunity to create a well-
designed special place for people to live, work and enjoy the cultural, recreational and passive activities of the Edmonds
waterfront. The Port also believes that redevelopment would bring economic benefits to both the City and the Port through
an increased revenue stream.
Mr. McChesney provided a diagram to outline the multi-faceted planning process that was used to create the HSMP. The
process started with a decision to move forward with a redevelopment plan that would be in the best interest of the
community. He described each phase of the process as follows:
Phase 1 – Collecting Background Information and Defining Existing Conditions. In 2009, the Port engaged the
services of LMN Architects and Berk Associates to provide an analysis of Harbor Square that could serve as footing for
a redevelopment Plan. The analysis found that the site’s economic potential was hindered by the 1980 contract rezone
that prohibits residential uses, limits height to 35 feet and includes low lot coverage requirements and outdated parking
ratios. The analysis also determined that with a rezone allowing three to five stories, the value of the property would
make it feasible to sell them for development. At the conclusion of the study, two public workshops were held to solicit
comments, which included the need to provide for mixed uses, the need to provide affordable housing, and the need to
creatively address the building height issue.
Phase II – Public Outreach and Master Plan Preparation. In 2010, the Port engaged Makers Architecture and Urban
Design to work with the community and guide the preparation of the HSMP. This 21-month process was highlighted by
the thoughtful and outstanding work of the HSMP Steering Committee, which was composed of 15 members
representing varied interests.
The Port’s stated project goal is “to amend the Port’s Master Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Plan with an
economically feasible, environmentally responsible and high-quality designed redevelopment plan for Harbor Square.”
The Steering Committee met from December 2010 to April 2011 and provided the foundational vision for the HSMP.
Their primary objectives were to:
o Introduce a mix of uses that complement the downtown with residential as the predominant use.
o Connect Harbor Square to the downtown and waterfront.
o Create a “village’ character with the focus on the pedestrian.
o Make Harbor Square a public asset for all of Edmonds with connecting bike and pedestrian routes.
o Focus density away from downtown, with façade building heights on Dayton Street to be 35 feet with a step
back to 45 feet.
o The pedestrian and visual gateway should be from the SR-104/Dayton Street intersection, and sidewalks should
be 15-feet wide.
Packet Page 308 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 6
o The marsh is the key attribute of the site redevelopment with appropriate setbacks and buffer enhancement.
The consulting team used the Steering Committee’s ideas to produce two alternative plans. With selection of a preferred
plan, the Port engaged students from the University of Washington to conduct a detailed view shed analysis to ensure
that public view corridors were not blocked.
Phase III – Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. After several public meetings, a presentation was
made to the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board and environmental review was done. The Port
Commission adopted the plan on June 25, 2012 and an application was submitted to the City on July 10, 2012. The
Master Plan was introduced to the Planning Board on July 25th, at which time the Board requested additional information
about the past history of Harbor Square, financial background information, a comparison of the proposed HSMP to
existing Harbor Square on-site uses, and clarification of master plan elements such as sustainability, pedestrian scale,
relationship to downtown, and building height step backs on Dayton Street from 35 to 45 feet. In addition, the Board
asked how the inclusion of residential uses to a development that was previously developed with commercial uses only
would address the mixed-use Comprehensive Plan policies.
The Port responded to the Board’s request with written material that was discussed at the August 22nd Planning Board
meeting. At that time, the Port also provided a compendium of the relationship of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
to other subsequent steps in the development review process. It is important to understand that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment will only enable the opportunity for a future development plan to be submitted to the City for review. It will
not change the zone district, the contract rezone or the current 35-foot height limit.
Based on comments and suggestions from the Planning Board, the Port amended the HSMP, and the changes were
reviewed and approved by the Port Commission on September 10, 2012. The changes include:
o A design policy that establishes a 45-foot average height for all buildings.
o Additional provisions for bicycle and pedestrian joint-use pathways.
o An enhanced pedestrian focus of the village green by providing for outdoor public events and a farmer’s
market.
o An expanded sustainability section that specifically addresses how the master plan is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan policies for sustainability.
o A reference to the City’s new SMP affecting the Edmonds Marsh and how the HSMP would comply with the
SMP buffer enhancement provision.
Mr. McChesney encouraged the Board to focus on the approval criteria outlined in ECDC 20.00.050 for reviewing
Comprehensive Plan amendments. It is important to keep in mind where the Port is in the process. The Comprehensive Plan
amendment creates the opportunity and sets the general considerations for the development entitlement discussion to follow.
He reviewed each of the review criteria as follows:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public
interest. The goals in the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center element of the Comprehensive Plan were used to set
the parameters for the Steering Committee’s work. The proposed HSMP meets the goals of supporting downtown as a
setting for mixed uses, and it responds to goals that encourage well-designed developments that can serve as gateways
and/or entrances to downtown. It also enables development opportunities in the waterfront area that encourage art
complementing uses. Numerous Comprehensive Plan policies were used to guide the HSMP. The proposed HSMP will
enable a well-designed mixed-use urban neighborhood that will be the western extension of downtown. Future
development will include residential, office, retail and public uses that will provide a distinct identity to the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center and represent an identifiable southern edge to the district as it borders the
Edmonds Marsh. Mixed-use activities are needed to create a more active and vibrant waterfront and street scene while
contributing to the overall draw of downtown Edmonds as a destination for many visitors. The HSMP enables a mixed-
use transit-oriented urban neighborhood that will provide an economic stimulus to the City. Taken together, the mixed-
use complex will be a significant economic boost to the City with increased one-time tax revenues estimated at $750,000
and annual retail and property tax revenues estimated at $300,000.
Packet Page 309 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 7
The HSMP provides enhanced environmental protection to shoreline features such as the Edmonds Marsh, and the
designated shoreline buffer will be improved by removing existing invasive vegetation species and replanting with
natural indigenous vegetation to protect the marsh and improve wildlife habitat. In addition, LID techniques such as
pervious pavement and rain gardens will be incorporated.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City. The
HSMP will enable redevelopment of the 11-acre site into a well-designed mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood that
anchors the western edge of the Edmonds downtown. The new urban neighborhood will provide housing, employment,
cultural and recreational activities, and opportunities for social interaction amongst residents and visitors. The economic
sustainability of the new neighborhood will contribute to City revenues to help fund public expenses and maintain the
City’s designated level of service to its residents. Any environmental health hazards that exist due to the property’s
historic use for waterfront industrial activities will be determined at such time that the plan is implemented with a
project-level proposal. City, state and federal regulations governing clean up and/or handling of toxic materials must be
closely adhered to.
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The HSMP will
maintain the appropriate balance of land uses in the City. Edmonds is predominantly a residential community with
approximately 60% of its total land base occupied with residential uses. Specifically, 54.8% of the land base is devoted
to single-family uses and 4.8% to multiple family uses. Retail and commercial uses, community facilities and open
spaces to support the residential community account for another 15%, with street rights-of-way and utilities accounting
for the remaining land area. The HSMP will match and maintain the Citywide allocation of uses, with residential being
the predominant proposed use and accounting for 60% of the site. Retail services, offices and open space would occupy
the remainder of the site.
When comparing the allocation of existing uses at Harbor Square to those proposed in the HSMP, it is important to note
that, with the exception of residential uses, many of the uses currently provided will be maintained. The addition of
residential uses to the current mix of uses at Harbor Square will enhance the human activity levels by providing the
opportunity for people to live in the waterfront district and interact with such facilities as waterfront parks, pedestrian
pathways, the commuter rail station and the new and expanded retail and service uses. All of these activities will
strengthen the economic and cultural vitality of the waterfront area while maintaining the City’s existing balance of land
uses.
Mr. McChesney once again thanked the Board for their commitment and work with the Port. He said the Port firmly believes
its application meets and exceeds the code requirements to incorporate the HSMP into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It is a
solid plan and much better because of the process.
Chair Lovell reviewed the public hearing procedures and noted that the Board does not intend to impose a time limit. He
encouraged members of the audience to be courteous and thoughtful of the time so that everyone has an opportunity to
participate. Those who agree with a particular speaker can simply indicate that they concur without repeating the position.
Berdine Walsh, Edmonds, said she lives in a condominium on 3rd Avenue South between Dayton and Walnut Streets. She
purchased her unit about five years ago, specifically because of the water view. The proposed HSMP would eliminate
approximately half of her existing view. She would not be able to see the ferry until it nearly reaches Bainbridge Island.
Because of the size of the proposed development, a considerable number of private property owners will lose their views.
She suggested the City require the applicant to put up something that reaches the height of the tallest buildings proposed to
illustrate the extent the proposed project would impact views from uphill properties.
Jan Cavadas, Edmonds, said she moved to her home 30 years ago before the Harbor Square site had been developed. In
addition to the water, her view includes the trains. She said she has already lost some of her private view as development has
occurred over the past 30 years, and the proposed HSMP would further impact her view of the trains and the water. She said
she used to shop at the retail businesses that at Harbor Square, as well as the old Safeway. She noted that quite a lot has
changed, and she is not quite sure what will happen to her view as change continues to occur.
Packet Page 310 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 8
David Dank, Edmonds, the public hearing notice was the first he knew of the HSMP. He expressed his belief that
everything described in the HSMP will enhance the waterfront and be a positive addition to the City. However, he allowing a
55-foot building height would be a mistake. He said he can see taller development metastasizing from the Harbor Square
property to other properties in Edmonds. He said he speaks for a number of people in voicing strong objection to the 55-foot
height allowance. Instead, building height should be limited to four stories or a maximum of 45 feet.
Jerry Capretta, Edmonds, pointed out that the City has had a Comprehensive Plan in place for decades. Although there has
been some controversy and politicking for votes, there is a firm understanding about building and zoning in Edmonds. He
questioned why the Port feels they can propose an amendment that will change everything. Any development over two
stories would eclipse properties in the surrounding area. While taller buildings would increase the amount of tax revenue the
City receives from the Port, it would decrease the amount paid by uphill private property owners whose property values
would decrease. Although the City has indicated that private views should not be a factor, the Board should keep in mind
that private property owners have been guided by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Code for years.
Allowing taller development at Harbor Square will simply be taking property value from private owners and transferring it to
the Port.
Mr. Capretta pointed out that it is already a challenge to fill the commercial space that currently exists in downtown
Edmonds. Small businesses have a difficult time because downtown Edmonds borders the Puget Sound. Businesses cannot
“sell products to the sea.” Further developing the waterfront is like throwing bad news at more bad news. He said he has
lived within a mile of Edmonds his whole life, and saw the Port development decimate the marsh 50 years ago. The Port has
a history of destroying the marsh, as their first tenant was an asphalt company called Joplin Pavement. He expressed his
belief that the profitable building opportunities in Edmonds are located on Highway 99, not in downtown. Downtown
Edmonds is the left-over remains of an old mill town. Lynnwood decided to become the retail, commercial and business hub
of the north end. Edmonds chose to go a different route and decided against the more intense commercial development.
Evelyn Jasper, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for over 60 years, and she and her husband constructed a five-unit
apartment complex on 3rd Avenue South about 35 years ago. She said she does not object to improving Harbor Square, but
she does object to 55-foot tall buildings. There is already a four-story building on the waterfront, which she believes was
built illegally. This four-story building wiped out a lot of peoples’ views from uphill properties. She said she has never had
a problem renting her apartments units because people like the view and the closeness to the water. She said other properties
in the downtown were limited to two stories measured from the sidewalk, and she does not see any reason why the Port
should have a greater height limit. Development at Harbor Square should be limited to 35 feet, so people living uphill can
see over the buildings. She said she agrees with Mr. Capretta’s comments.
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, said she would like to see Harbor Square redeveloped, but she is opposed to the proposed 55-
foot height limit. She reminded the Board that City Council Members are elected by citizens from throughout Edmonds who
want to keep the town small. For the most part, those elected support the small town Edmonds concept. She said many
people have questioned how two recent buildings, one on Dayton Street and another on SR-104, obtained City approval. She
suggested the City should require the Port to use a video process called “virtual reality,” which envisions what the proposed
development would look like from various points in the City. She felt this type of video would help open the public’s eyes to
clearly understand the impacts of the proposed HSMP.
Kathleen Dewhirst, Edmonds, said she was a member of the HSMP Steering Committee, which was a diverse and engaged
group of citizens who met many times to talk about the proposal. They spent months considering redevelopment of the
Harbor Square property. The Port’s consultant listened to the Steering Committee’s concerns and created a proposal that had
overwhelming consensus from the members. All had input and opportunities to respond. She expressed her belief that by
including the HSMP in the Comprehensive Plan, the City would be demonstrating a vision for the future of Edmonds. They
cannot stay in the past. They will get another 1 million people in the area in the next 20 years, and they need to
accommodate this growth. She urged the Board to support the proposed amendment.
Hank Landau, Woodway, said that although he does not live in Edmonds, most of his activities take place in Edmonds, he
owns commercial property in Edmonds, and his business is located in Edmonds. He explained that change usually makes
him uncomfortable and he needs good reasons to support change in places he likes. Since Edmonds is one of his favorite
places, he looked closely at the Port’s conceptual plan for Harbor Square. He also looked at areas in Edmonds that needed
Packet Page 311 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 9
improvement, especially the large number of vacant commercial buildings, the struggling nature of those still in business, and
the loss of tax revenue to keep Edmonds that way everyone wants it. He expressed his belief that the proposal will rejuvenate
the downtown area in a highly-positive way. It is more likely to provide space for new businesses that complement existing
businesses than to compete with them. With proper marketing, it will provide a catalyst for technology-based businesses to
move to Edmonds. New businesses could provide high-paying jobs for local people and people living outside Edmonds who
find it convenient to travel here. The availability of commuter rail, busses and ferry, and the housing units that will be part of
Harbor Square will mitigate the increase in automobile traffic that comes with growth. The proposed plan will also add to the
pedestrian friendliness of the waterfront and provide further amenities for Edmonds residents and potential environmental
improvements to the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek.
Mr. Landau said he is also concerned about view impacts and is sympathetic towards those who many lose some view, but he
gives the Port credit for a plan that mitigates the impacts. He noted that vertical development also lessens the environmental
impact caused by urban sprawl and decreases energy consumption compared to horizontal growth. He emphasized that the
Port’s proposal for 3 to 5-story buildings is a far cry from the 18 stories proposed for Point Wells below Woodway and
Shoreline. If the Port was less interested in what is good for the community and more interested in revenue, it could have
made a much stronger argument than that made for Point Wells that it is on a transportation corridor and thus qualifies for
extremely tall buildings that would truly impede neighbor’s views. Once 3 to 5-story buildings are completed, it is highly
unlikely they would be replaced by 12 to 18-story buildings in the foreseeable future. Thus a redeveloped Harbor Square is
more likely to preserve views rather than significantly impede them. He concluded by stating that he has found the Port
leadership to be very interested in what is good for the community and very open to suggestions from the community. He
said he supports the inclusion of the HSMP as an update to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, suggested that the HSMP raises the question of what should be the basis for establishing a
height limit. Should the height limit be based on a property value, community value or an evaluation? The HSMP isn’t
about the community quality, either environmental or visual. It’s about money and how to make more money by obtaining a
building height increase. She reviewed that the Port bought the Harbor Square buildings for $13.5 million in 2006. The
proposed HSMP would tear them all down and sell the land to a private developer. To make that particular deal profitable
for both the Port and developer, the Port says a 55-foot building height is necessary. However, it is important to keep in mind
that was not the only alternative. Berk and Associate, the Port’s financial consultant, stated in 2009 that “with improvements
in the current buildings, the value of the property could increase to the point that selling the property for redevelopment does
not make financial sense. . . this is an area of analysis it will want to explore further.” She noted that the Port never
explored this suggestion and the lack of sufficient money does not appear to be the Port’s problem. Last year, a
Commissioner stated that, failing approval of the HSMP, he would favor “selling the buildings and going back to a land-
lease situation that would provide an income stream for the Port into the future.” It appears the Port wants more money.
Ms. Shippen observed that approval of the HSMP would change the determination of building heights from a stable to an
unstable basis. Each request for a height increase will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The new standard will be
“Does this request produce more money for the owner than the existing limit?” If height produces more money, the decision
will always be approval. She summarized that a height limit based on economic evaluation is unpredictable; and ultimately,
there would be no limit. She reminded the Board that 32 years ago the Edmonds City Council lowered the height limit to 30
feet. Before that time, residents had seen taller buildings spring up, most notably the 5-story Ebb Tide Condominiums on the
waterfront. They did not like what they saw. They have been pleased with the scale achieved by the 30-foot limit. It has
preserved the small-town image they value, and it has been popular and stable. She concluded by stating that the Board
should not substitute a flexible, unpredictable economic standard for a stable community value.
Keeley O’Connell, Edmonds, said she participated on the HSMP Steering Committee and was also present to speak on
behalf of Friends of the Edmonds Marsh. The Friends of the Edmonds Marsh is supportive of redevelopment at Harbor
Square as it represents an opportunity to address some environmental impacts that are currently affecting the marsh,
particularly the large amount of impervious surface. In addition, stormwater from the site and from properties to the north
and east that runs through the site currently flows into the marsh untreated. Redevelopment of Harbor Square would allow
for buffer enhancement, as buildings and pavement would be set back further from the marsh. There are currently places
where the setbacks are not even ten feet wide. The HSMP offers not only the opportunity to setback buildings and parking,
but the buffer areas would also be enhanced. She emphasized that what happens in the setback area will have a larger impact
on protecting the marsh, habitat and water quality.
Packet Page 312 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 10
Ms. O’Connell reported that Friends of the Edmonds Marsh is currently working with the City, via a State Grant for Salmon
Recovery, to begin the process of restoring the marsh by opening a new channel for Willow Creek to replace the currently
piped waterway. This would allow salmon to return to what has historically been a salmon-bearing stream. She concluded
that the HSMP offers an opportunity to address the issues that affect the marsh from the Harbor Square property.
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, Vice President, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, reported that the Chamber has gone
on record previously that they support the HSMP. They believe in economic vitality. It is important to see that the Port has
listened to a lot of recommendations and made some adjustment to their proposal. The Port has been very attentive in their
design principles, as well. He says he understands that people fear that some change will bring about a lot of other changes,
but he believes the Planning Board and City Council will give each proposal its due consideration and approval of this project
will not result in a domino effect. He said it is important to keep in mind that the City needs to prepare for the kinds of
changes that are taking place in the community. He noted that about 60 to 70 years ago, there were only 10,000 residents and
14 shingle mills in Edmonds. There are now over 40,000 residents and no shingle mills. He expressed his belief that the City
has changed for the better and it will continue to change. Population is expected to increase to 45,000 residents in the next 10
years, and the City has very little buildable space. They must identify a solution that allows them to accommodate this
increased population. He said the Port has done a commendable job. The Port Commission and Executive Director have
given a great deal of thought to the proposed HSMP, and he encouraged the Board to recommend approval.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, said it is important to keep in mind that the Port is not a nasty Wall Street corporation as some of
the comments appear to suggest. The Port property is owned by the taxpayers, and the Port is trying to do what it believes
will benefit most of the residents. One of the Port’s main objectives is economic development, which the City desperately
needs right now. He advised that at the September 25th City Council Meeting it was announced that there will be some big
cuts in 2013 because sales, real estate excise and property taxes are all down. That means services will be cut. The City can
mitigate the need for cuts in subsequent years by promoting economic development opportunities.
Mr. Wambolt also noted that the population of Edmonds is expected to grow by 5,000 in the next ten years. While many
citizens do not necessarily want more people, the state has mandated the growth and the Growth Management Act (GMA)
requires the City to accommodate it. He recalled that most citizens did not want the development at Point Edwards; but if not
for that development, the City would have already fallen behind in their ability to meet the GMA growth target.
Development at Harbor Square offers another opportunity to accommodate the additional growth mandated by the State.
Mr. Wambolt said it is important to understand that the Port is not proposing a 45-foot average building height and 55-foot
maximum building height just because they like tall buildings. These are the heights required in order for a potential
development project to pencil out and be economically sound so the Port can attract developers to the site. While the Port
pointed out that the City would receive approximately $250,000 in property taxes annually from a redeveloped Harbor
Square, they should not discount the amount of additional property tax that would go to schools to help keep other taxes
lower. He summarized that he supports the HSMP, and he is not convinced it would impact very many private views. He
said it is likely the Port’s consultants know about the technology mentioned earlier by Ms. Wiggins, and it probably be used
at some point as a redevelopment proposal moves forward.
John Rutter, Edmonds, said he has lived in the City since 1960 and he agreed that redevelopment at Harbor Square is
needed. However, he thought the height issue in Edmonds had been resolved for the time being. He pointed out that of the
six units on the top floor of his complex on 3rd Avenue South that have a view, property owners paid approximately 40%
more for the view. This equates to an added value of about $1.5 million for the six units. Potential impacts from the HSMP
would cause these property values to decrease. He said he can speak with some confidence that once the potential for 55-foot
buildings exists and despite the suggested that the City will always have the discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis, he
knows what kind of pressure other property owners will place on the City to approve 55-foot building heights elsewhere.
This is particularly true if they know the economic feasibility of a development would improve with greater building heights.
The City needs to look at the potential for decreased property values as the views are reduced over time.
Darlene Stearn, Edmonds, said that in today’s economic environment, they need to be supportive of partnerships with such
good neighbors as the Port, who through a very lengthy public process has presented an enhanced option that addresses
economic potential in that area while improving the linkage between the western edge of downtown and the waterfront. She
Packet Page 313 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 11
expressed her belief that the height issue is overstated compared to other aspects of the plan. She pointed out that
incorporating the HSMP into the City’s Comprehensive Plan would not guarantee the automatic adoption of a 55-foot height
limit. She concluded that change is inevitable, and the City will decline if they do not change. She said she supports
approval of the HSMP as proposed.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, emphasized that although he is vice chair of the Economic Development Commission (EDC),
his testimony should not be construed as the position of the EDC. He was present to share his personal position as a private
citizen of Edmonds. He said he was a member of the HSMP Steering Committee. He supports the HSMP and urged the
Board to move it forward to the City Council with a recommendation for action before the end of the year. He said he has
been involved as a volunteer in many capacities in the 23 years he has lived in Edmonds, including as a member of and two-
term chair of the Planning Board and a member of the Highway 99 Task Force since its inception. He said he also regularly
attends City Council Meetings.
Mr. Witenberg reviewed that the three-year process for developing the HSMP has been one of the most open and transparent
processes he has seen. There has been many opportunities for citizen input, and there has been an extensive review by the
Planning Board. Representatives of the Port have met with the Planning Board on three previous occasions, and the Port has
done an excellent job of responding to the issues and the extensive questions posed by the Planning Board. This
demonstrates the Board’s flexibility and desire to move the matter forward to the City Council. He expressed his belief that a
recommendation by the Planning Board to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the HSMP would allow the process of
redevelopment of Harbor Square to move forward. Allowing the process to move forward will provide an opportunity for
infrastructure improvements such as less impervious surfaces and better stormwater control. More public open space will be
provided, as well enhanced public access to the marsh. Public view corridors will also be preserved, and redevelopment will
help the City meet its population targets under GMA. The HSMP takes advantage of public transportation in the area and
contributes vital pedestrian and bicycle links between Harbor Square and downtown. It will also provide the opportunity for
badly needed revenue in terms of real estate excise tax, property tax and retail sales tax.
Mr. Witenberg said adoption of the HSMP as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan allows the Port and the City to
position themselves for redevelopment as the economy improves. Jurisdictions all around Edmonds are planning for
redevelopment. In order to remain competitive, the City must act now. If the City waits until the economy turns around, it
will be too late and the dollars likely to be available for economic development when the economy improves will go
elsewhere. It is important for the public to remember that no specific design is being approved with the HSMP. The
Comprehensive Plan will only provide the guidelines for redevelopment at Harbor Square. He cautioned against having
considerable worry about the 55-foot height limit at this time. He noted there will be many opportunities for public
involvement as part of future discussions regarding forthcoming development agreements and form-based codes, both of
which can address impacts. The actual redevelopment of Harbor Square and potential rezone is likely several years in the
future and will require additional public input. He urged the Board to approve the amended HSMP and forward it to the City
Council with a recommendation for action before the end of the year.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern that if the HSMP is adopted into the City’s Comprehensive Plan with a 55-
foot height limit, a precedent will be set for the City to allow similar redevelopment on the properties to the north. He
recalled that the Port purchased the property because of environmental problems they had with the land. They ended up with
a big bill to pay. Changing the zoning on the property to allow greater heights would allow for a higher use of the property;
and consequently, the Port would have the ability to ask for more money. He said he has lived in Edmonds for 45 years, and
there has always been controversy about building heights. Every time there is an election, building heights is a major issue.
Because citizens of Edmonds generally like the “no change attitude”, the City is very different than surrounding
communities. Edmonds is the prize that remains somewhat the same with just a small amount of redevelopment. They have
a unique community that is different. If they resist the major change in building heights that is being proposed, they may stay
the same or similar with just small adjustments. Fifty years from now, people will talk about the little Edmonds on Puget
Sound that will become a center for tourism, which is the economic development approach that needs to be considered rather
than residential units on the top floor of mixed-use development.
Mr. Hertrich said there has been much discussion about how the proposed HSMP would impact views from private
properties, but there has been little conversation about the affect the plan would have on pedestrian views as people walk
down Dayton Street. Not only is it important for pedestrians to enjoy attractive street fronts, but natural sunlight is also an
Packet Page 314 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 12
important element of a pedestrian-friendly street. With the type of development proposed along Dayton Street and the sun
setting towards the south, pedestrians would walk in the shadow for a good portion of the day. The HSMP also calls for
taller buildings on the south side of the property near the marsh. Developing a wall along the setback line would cast a
shadow on the marsh and would be contrary to current efforts to restore, protect and enhance the marsh. He noted that the
existing low buildings do not create such a significant impact.
Mr. Hertrich pointed out that the space at Harbor Square is currently at 70% occupancy. The Port has indicated they could
improve the occupancy rate; and if certain repairs are made, they could live with the existing buildings. He questioned what
the City would gain by approving the HSMP. If the Comprehensive Plan and zoning changed on the south side of Dayton
Street, it is likely that the property owner on the north side would request a similar change. He noted that the current
Comprehensive Plan does not promote residential development in this portion of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center.
It mentions something about mixed-use development, but the emphasis was not on residential. He expressed his belief that
the City would gain nothing from the proposed HSMP. He said that citizens who thought building height was so important
years ago still feel the same way. He said that while he believes the Board will endorse the HSMP because it promotes
economic development, it is not the type of economic development the City wants.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Chair Lovell thanked the members of the audience for their input. He commented that there is still plenty of time left in the
process for public participation. Once the Board has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council, the City Council
would conduct an additional hearing. There will also be opportunities for public input as the HSMP proceeds to the
development agreement stage.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A SHORT BREAK AT 8:53 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE
MEETING AT 9:03 P.M.
Board Member Ellis asked if the Port’s estimate for the amount of tax dollars generated by redevelopment took into account
the tax dollars that would be lost if other property values are diminished by loss of view. Mr. McChesney answered that the
estimate did not reach that level of specificity. The numbers were provided for illustrative purposes to demonstrate to the
Board and the public that there are some positive economic benefits directly related to future redevelopment at Harbor
Square. Board Member Tibbott said he suspects that property values east of SR-104 could improve as a result of
redevelopment due to their close proximity to Harbor Square. He asked if the Port has any economic projections regarding
this possibility. Once again, Mr. McChesney said the Port’s analysis did not reach this level of specificity. He noted that
these issues would be discussed later in the process.
Board Member Clarke said the documents from the Port do not indentify how much real estate tax the Port currently pays.
Mr. McChesney explained that the Port, as an enterprise, is tax exempt, which means they do not pay real estate taxes. In
lieu of the real estate tax, their tenants pay a leasehold excise tax of 12.84%. However, he acknowledged that the leasehold
excise tax does not reflect the value of the land or the building. Board Member Clarke pointed out that if Harbor Square were
transferred to private ownership, real estate tax revenues to the City would increase, even if redevelopment does not occur.
Vice Chair Stewart questioned why it is necessary for the Port’s Narrative of Comprehensive Plan Consistency (Attachment
3) to state that the “master plan provides for the redevelopment and relocation of the athletic club and parking structure at
the western edge of the site adjacent to the BNSF right of way.” She pointed out that the athletic club’s lease does not expire
for 29 years, so this language does not really need to be included. Mr. Trimm explained that the intent of Attachment 3 is to
address how the HSMP is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The language was included to
reassure that the master plan does consider relocation of the athletic club, but the plan would be implemented in phases over
time. The language is not intended to suggest a land-use map change. Mr. Chave clarified that the language in Attachment 3
would not be incorporated into the HSMP.
Board Member Clarke said it is unfair to expect the Port to provide answers tonight for all of the questions raised by the
Board and public. Some members of the Board believe the process needs to go longer so the Board does not put undue
pressure on the Port to render an answer before doing adequate research. He said he does not believe this will be the Board’s
last opportunity to discuss the application.
Packet Page 315 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 13
Board Member Clarke asked why the Board’s packet did not include any information about the City’s SEPA determination.
Mr. Lien answered that the City has not issued a final SEPA determination yet. However, the hearing notice mentioned the
City’s intent to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) and invited members of the public to provide
preliminary comments. The City received five comment letters related to the preliminary SEPA determination. All of the
comment letters have been added to the record. Board Member Clarke asked if staff would prepare a formal SEPA document
for the Board’s review as part of the public process. Mr. Lien explained that the City is the lead SEPA agency and must issue
a determination as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. While the Board will not be involved in the SEPA review
process, a copy of the complete SEPA determination will be provided.
Board Member Clarke suggested it would be helpful for the Board to have a dialogue with the City Attorney. He said he
finds the written response provided by the City Attorney inadequate to address his concerns. For example, it does not answer
the question of why the Port has included a request for a maximum 55-foot height limit as part of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment. He said his understanding is that if the Port does not ask for the 55-foot height limit to be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan now, the City would be unable to approve the additional height as part of a future
development agreement or rezone application. Mr. Chave explained that if the Comprehensive Plan is silent about height,
then zoning would control. The Comprehensive Plan is a more general document and it can provide guidance for zoning, but
it does not typically provide a definitive answer on such things as maximum height. He noted that this issue is explained in
the City Attorney’s memorandum.
Board Member Clarke said this is the first time since the GMA was adopted that he has heard that the Comprehensive Plan is
not the ultimate standard. He said his understanding is that if zoning does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan, the owner
of the property can appeal to the City to have the zoning be consistent. He said he knows of no rezone application being
denied if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave said there have been challenges to the Growth Hearings
Board based on inconsistencies, and one such example is provided in the City Attorney’s response to the Board. There is no
guarantee that zoning automatically follows a Comprehensive Plan change, and there is some discretion in deciding what the
appropriate zoning is. For example, the Port’s property that fronts on Puget Sound and the Unocal property that is located on
the hillside both have a Master Plan land use designation, but they are zoned differently. He suggested that if the Board feels
strongly that the Harbor Square property is significantly different than the property north of Dayton Street, they could include
this specific finding as part of their recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board of the City Attorney’s suggestion that language could be incorporate into the Comprehensive
Plan to clarify whether or not including language providing for buildings to be up to 55 feet in height in the Comprehensive
Plan would mean that development regulations must allow buildings as high as 55 feet. This additional language would be
consistent with the Port’s point that the process, over time, would provide more detail, refinement and specificity.
Board Member Clarke recalled a situation in the Town of Woodway where a developer applied for a permit to develop an 86-
unit complex. The Town of Woodway indicated they would only be willing to approve a maximum of 46 units. When the
decision was appealed, the state indicated that up to 240 units should be allowed. The developer finally ended up building
118 units. He also referred to a proposal to develop the Point Wells site with buildings up to 18-stories tall, which was
appealed to the Growth Hearings Board. He said it is important for the Board to understand all the issues so they do not put
the City in a box. He questioned why the HSMP identifies a maximum building height in feet, when the current
Comprehensive Plan is silent on the matter. Mr. Chave agreed that the HSMP could be silent on the issue of maximum
height. However, the Port’s goal is to put up some parameters that would be guideposts for making decisions down the road.
At this time, the Port does not know what the configuration of redevelopment will be. The City Attorney’s language suggests
that heights greater than 35 feet will be evaluated on the merits of a future proposal, and the Comprehensive Plan does not
prejudge what the final conclusion will be.
Mr. Chave suggested that rather than relying on the minutes to provide the record for the Board’s recommendation, they
should formulate findings and conclusions to accompany their recommendation. He recalled that the community has
expressed concern that approval of the HSMP will set a precedent for other properties located north of the Harbor Square site.
If the Board recommends approval of the master plan, their findings should carefully state that the proposal only applies to
Harbor Square. They should also explain how Harbor Square is different than properties to the north because of its location,
history, etc.
Packet Page 316 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 14
Board Member Clarke noted that the current contract rezone is a very unusual zoning designation in the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, and Harbor Square is the only property in downtown Edmonds that is zoned General
Commercial (CG). Most CG zoning is located on Highway 99. He said he assumes the City will eventually have to rezone
this property. Mr. Chave said that if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved and a proposal is put forward that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a change in zoning would be logical. One option is to leave the CG zoning in place
and substitute a development agreement for the current contract. Another option is to create an entirely new zone that is
unique and specific to Harbor Square and directly implements what is envisioned in the HSMP. Board Member Clarke
pointed out that residential uses are not allowed in CG zones. Mr. Chave clarified that they are allowed, but there are certain
restrictions. He suggested that working with CG zoning may be challenging, and he suspects the Port will head in the
direction of creating a new zone and development agreement that is unique and specific to Harbor Square.
Board Member Clarke said it is important to help the public and City Council understand the process for moving forward.
Mr. Chave explained that if the proposed HSMP or some version is approved, the Port will likely submit an application to
change the zoning and/or create a development agreement between the Port and the City that would further refine the plan.
This type of application would be the subject of a public hearing, as well. He explained that in order for a development
agreement to work, there must be consistent zoning in place. The Port does not believe the existing CG zoning will work,
and they will likely propose a new zoning designation that goes hand-in-hand with their proposed development agreement
and the HSMP. The Board and City Council would review these applications, and public hearings would be held, as well.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that, up to this point, the Board has been talking about the HSMP in isolation from the
SMP. Mr. Lien explained that the intent is for the Board to review the SMP and the HSMP in tandem and forward a
recommendation to the City Council. It is important that the two documents are consistent with each other, and the
Comprehensive Plan supports the proposal in the SMP to create a new Urban Mixed Use III Environment that allows
residential uses.
Board Member Clarke questioned the need to add a residential component for Harbor Square in the SMP if it will be done as
part of a future development agreement. Mr. Chave emphasized that the SMP is more specific than the Comprehensive Plan
because it has to authorize specific uses. Board Member Clarke clarified that the SMP must be changed to allow residential
uses at Harbor Square. Mr. Chave said the proposed SMP update anticipates the changes proposed in the HSMP. If the
Planning Board and City Council support the HSMP, then changes in the SMP would follow. He explained that the details in
the HSMP will make all the difference in how the SMP views the uses allowed in the shoreline environment.
Mr. Trimm said if adopted into the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the HSMP would become a guiding document that identifies
design parameters and principles. Once adopted, the next step would be for the Port to market the property that is available
and enabled by the HSMP to the private development community. A private developer would negotiate a project that is
consistent with the design principles and elements in the Comprehensive Plan with the City and the Port. That is when the
real specificity would come into play. He summarized that the development agreement would implement the HSMP. The
development agreement and any new zoning must be consistent with the parameters of the HSMP. He emphasized that
binding specificity is important for both the City and the developer, and that is what a development agreement is intended to
do.
Chair Lovell noted that the Point Edwards site and the area below is zoned as Master Plan 1 and Master Plan 2. If the HSMP
is adopted into the City’s Comprehensive Plan, he asked if the City or the Port would propose a zoning change. Mr. Chave
answered that it could happen either way, but he suspects the Port would submit the proposal rather than waiting for the City
to do so. Again, he emphasized that any change in zoning and/or development agreement would require public hearings
before the Board and City Council, and the City Council would make the final decision.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that members of the audience had strong opinions about certain things, and he got the
impression that many do not clearly understand how land use and zoning work. He said the purpose of his questions is to
allow staff to provide further explanation and clarification about the process. Mr. Chave noted that the Board’s findings and
recommendation should address the concerns raised by the public, as well.
Packet Page 317 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 15
Board Member Clarke observed that some of the conceptual illustrations show massive buildings on the south side of Dayton
Street. Even with the proposed step backs, this has caused public concern. He referred to minutes from a HSMP Steering
Committee meeting in which the committee suggested that, for illustrative purposes, they did not want to put a building on
the north side of Dayton Street because it would demonstrate to the public that a tunnel would be created if development on
the north side of Dayton Street were to mirror the development proposed on the south side. He said it is important for the
Board to have a discussion about the view corridor from the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104 to the waterfront, and
the current illustrations do not allow the public to visualize what the potential impacts might be. Mr. Chave explained that
the proposed HSMP sets the parameters for development, but actual cross section drawings would not be provided until the
rezone and/or development agreement phase. He encouraged the Board to carefully review the HSMP and decide if the
proposed parameters are adequate. Board Member Reed referred to the City Attorney’s recommendation that the Board’s
recommendation should provide rationale for distinguishing between the two properties. The City Attorney recommended
that, to increase clarity on this issue, if subarea planning is completed for a particular area, it may make sense for the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to be updated to reflect that subarea planning work. Mr. Chave said this could be done
by simply adding an overlay for the Harbor Square property. He agreed with the City Attorney that the Board’s
recommendation should carefully explain how they think Harbor Square is unique or different, and why they believe the
HSMP would not set a precedent for other areas.
Board Member Clarke noted that the Harbor Square property is split zoned. The current contract rezone identifies a 25-foot
buffer setback from the marsh northward that is currently zoned Open Space (OS). Mr. Lien agreed that the marsh and a 25-
foot area landward of the marsh are currently zoned as OS, but the remainder of the Harbor Square property is zoned CG.
Board Member Clarke observed that the HSMP does not talk specifically about the property zoned OS and whether it would
become the setback line for future redevelopment. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that setbacks are not established at the
Comprehensive Plan level and would be addressed as part of a rezone and/or development agreement application. Board
Member Clarke pointed out that on the Snohomish County Assessor’s records, the OS-zoned property is a legal plat; and a
binding site plan for the property specifically states that it is to be zoned as a protection area for the marsh. While there is no
asphalt paving, a portion of the OS-zoned property is currently being used as a gravel parking lot. Again, Mr. Lien reminded
the Board that this issue would be addressed as part of a future rezone and/or development agreement application. Mr. Chave
added that the SMP and the HSMP should both clarify where the buffer should be measured from, and zoning and
implementation would follow from that. Chair Lovell referred to an email from Board Member Duncan regarding the
setback issue and suggested the Board should spell this issue out in detail as part of their recommendation. Brad Cattle, Port
Attorney, agreed it would be appropriate for the Board’s recommendation to address all matters they believe are important to
consider during the development agreement phase.
Board Member Clarke recalled that at a previous meeting, a Port Commissioner indicated that State Law prohibits ports from
developing residential projects. He said that, on three occasions, he requested the Port provide a citation for the State Law
that was referenced, but none has been provided to date. Mr. Cattle explained that there is State Statute that says that ports
can do commercial and industrial development, but it does not specifically address residential development. He further
explained that there is both a conservative and liberal interpretation as to whether or not the Port is entitled to develop
residential uses. The manner in which residential development would occur as part of a mixed-use development at Harbor
Square is that the Port would enter into a development agreement with a private developer, which would have the Port in the
most probable situation of selling the portion of the property that would be developed as residential to a private developer and
leasing the property that will be developed for non-residential purposes to maintain ownership.
Mr. Cattle referred to the development agreement between the Port of Everett and the City of Everett, which he provided
previously as an example for the Board’s information. This development agreement provided for both non-residential and
residential components and represents the likely scenario the Port of Edmonds would follow. The property to be developed
as residential was conveyed in fee to the developer and a statutory warrant of deed was issued. A developer entered into a
long-term ground lease with the port for the non-residential portion of the property. He said the Port of Bellingham used a
more liberal approach to develop a mixed-use project in which the Port retained the fee and ground lease for the entire
development, including residential. He said the Port of Seattle used a similar approach in which residential development was
done through a long-term air right lease. He summarized that this approach is inconstant with the analysis he performed for
the Port of Everett to determine whether or not residential development was within the scope of power of a port. Board
Member Clarke summarized that this issue will be handled at the development agreement stage and does not need to be
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cattle agreed.
Packet Page 318 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 16
Board Member Clarke expressed concern that the HSMP does not identify the number of jobs that would be created as a
result of redevelopment. He pointed out that as land use changes to allow a higher density, land values increase. As a result,
some of the uses that are currently located at Harbor Square may no longer be able to afford the associated rent. He asked
that the Port identify how many jobs would be created and how many jobs would be pushed out because of associated
increased land values.
Vice Chair Stewart complimented the Port team for their thorough and thoughtful responses to the Board throughout this
complicated process. She asked if the existing tenants would be allowed to remain on the site after redevelopment occurs.
Mr. McChesney answered that the Port cannot be certain of that in any definitive or conclusive way at this stage. Part of the
challenge of managing Harbor Square and planning for the future is to keep the existing tenant base. He said that, from time
to time, tenants have expressed concern about the future of Harbor Square, and this has also been a challenge from a
marketing perspective. It would be the Port’s goal to keep as many of the existing tenants as possible, but it is not possible to
say definitively who will stay and who will go. Vice Chair Stewart asked if the HSMP would allow all of the current uses to
remain on the site. Mr. McChesney said this would depend on the market and the type of development that is proposed.
Vice Chair Stewart asked if light industrial uses would be allowed to remain. Mr. McChesney explained that the market is
moving the Port away from light industrial and he is not sure he can tell them today what the exact mix for Harbor Square
will be. Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that whatever the Port proposes for future zoning, she hopes they will allow
the existing uses if appropriate. Mr. McChesney agreed that is a fair statement.
Board Member Reed asked if the current language on Page 55 of the Comprehensive Plan (related to the Downtown Master
Plan District) could be amended as part of the current action. Mr. Chave said that amendments to clarify the incorporation of
the HSMP into the Comprehensive Plan would be appropriate in this section, but it would not be appropriate to consider
amendments that would impact the three other properties included in the Downtown Master Plan District. Board Member
Reed suggested that the additional language recommended by the City Attorney to clarify whether or not other properties in
the Downtown Master Plan District would be entitled to a height limit consistent with that proposed in the HSMP should be
incorporated into this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Lovell concurred.
Board Member Reed asked staff to provide clarification about Item 2 on Page 2 of the Staff Report in which staff states that,
“if the City Council desires to hold a public hearing on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to
zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forward the proposed decision to the
planning board for a hearing.” Mr. Chave said that is actual code language, but it has never been the City Council’s practice.
Board Member Ellis summarized that the Board is considering a recommendation by the City Attorney that they add
language in their findings of fact or somewhere in their recommendation to the City Council to make it clear that by
providing this change in the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council is not in any way approving a change to the zoning code
that would allow 55-foot building heights. He asked how this would impact the Port’s ability to work with the development
community to move the project forward. Mr. McChesney said his initial reaction is that the language would be appropriate
and would not impede the Port’s ability to engage the development community. He summarized that the Port has known all
along that issues such as height would be on the table as part of any future development agreement proposal.
Board Member Cloutier suggested that to help future comment periods go better, it would be helpful to provide a one-page
flow chart or table showing what it takes to get height limits increased and built. It is important that zoning issues are not
confused with the Comprehensive Plan process. This one-page description could be hyperlinked to the view shed study that
was provided previously by the Port. He said that although the view shed analysis was referenced in both of the mailings the
Port sent to residents of the community, some citizens still do not have this information.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that he would not be present at the next two meetings. He said he would forward his
additional thoughts and recommendations to staff and Vice Chair Stewart. He invited each Board Member to also forward
their recommendations and/or findings to staff as soon as possible. Staff would take that input from each Board Member and
reorganize it into a brief memorandum for the Board to review item by item at their next meeting. This would help them
prepare a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave cautioned that Board Members should not communicate amongst
each other. Instead, their comments should be forwarded directly to staff.
Packet Page 319 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2012 Page 17
Board Member Reed asked how the Board’s recommendation would identify when there is a difference of opinion amongst
Board Members. Mr. Chave said staff would provide a short narrative and bullet points to help the Board focus on the main
issues of concern. He suggested the Board begin their discussion by identifying the findings where there is Board consensus,
and then discuss the remaining items. At some point, the Board would be asked to vote on the entire list as their
recommendation. Opposing viewpoints could be identified via a minority report, or the Board could allow their discussion in
the minutes to make this point.
Chair Lovell thanked the Board and public for their hard work. While there is still a lot of work to do, he believes they are
making progress. Vice Chair Stewart thanked Mr. Lien for pulling together all of the necessary information for the Board’s
continued discussion.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board did not review their extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not have any additional comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed referred to staff’s recent proposal to the City Council to not have minutes for Planning Board meetings.
Mr. Chave said the City is in the middle of budget discussions, and the City’s directors provided a lengthy presentation laying
out, in general terms, what the budget is looking like for next year. Basically, the 2013 budget will include reductions across
the board. One thought he presented is reducing the Planning Division’s use of paper by moving to digital copies. He also
suggested that professional services be reduced by cutting the equivalent of one Planning Board meeting each month for an
annual cost savings of between $3,500 and $4,000. This could be done by reducing the number of monthly meetings from
two to one. Another option is to do summary rather than detailed minutes and then provide a link to the audio recording on
the City’s website. The goal is to be more efficient while still accomplishing the same amount of work. He said this is
something the Board will need to talk about in the future.
Vice Chair Stewart announced that, as part of National Community Planning Month, Mayor Earling will present a
proclamation to the City Council on October 2nd recognizing the Planning Board for all they do. She also reminded the
Board that their next report to the City Council is scheduled for that same night. She agreed to present the report, but she
asked that another Board Member prepare the written report. Chair Lovell agreed to take on this assignment.
Vice Chair Stewart reported that a student representative for the Planning Board has been selected. Shukri Farey, from
Edmonds Woodway High School, comes highly recommended by her teachers and the assistant principal. She said she met
Ms. Farey last week and found her to be a leader who very much wants the youth voice to be heard in government. She will
be a non-voting member of the Board and some training will be involved. She is eager and wants to learn.
Board Member Clarke said he is still not clear how the 45-foot average height would be calculated as per the HSMP. Would
it be done in phases, and would the existing structures be part of the calculations. He reminded the Board that the Harbor Inn
and Harbor Square Athletic Club will likely remain in their current locations for at least 20 years. Would these existing
buildings be part of the average height calculation? If so, it may not be possible to build to an average height of 45 feet.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
Packet Page 320 of 998
APPROVED OCTOBER 24TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 10, 2012
Vice Chair Stewart called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
John Reed
Neil Tibbott
Ian Duncan
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Gina Janicek, Planner
Kernen Lien, Planner
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Manager
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Vice Chair Stewart introduced Shukri Farey, Edmonds Woodway High School Student, who has been selected to serve as
student representative to the Planning Board. She noted she is present to observe the meeting tonight and would sit on the
dais with the Board at the next meeting.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2012 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, recalled that at the their last meeting, the Board considered proposed language from the City
Attorney that would note the distinction between the Harbor Square property and the other properties located within the
Downtown Master Plan District of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The City Attorney’s recommended language
recognized that what is done at Harbor Square could influence later actions on the remaining properties in the district, mainly
allowing the same height. She noted that this language does not appear to have been included in any of the documents that
were provided for the Board’s continued discussion tonight. If the Board recommends approval of the Harbor Square Master
Plan, their recommendation should include some details as to why this property is different from the others in the district.
PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER PLN20120029 – A Type IV-B rezone proposal to change the zoning
designation on three parcels from Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Multi-Family Residential (RM-2.4). The
Comprehensive Plan designation for these properties was amended last year from “Single Family Urban 1 to Multi
Family Medium Density. The sites are located at 8609, 8611 and 8615 – 244th Street Southwest. (Applicants: Sid
Odgers and Ken Darwin)
Packet Page 321 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 2
Ms. Janicek displayed a zoning map to illustrate the location and current zoning of the subject properties. She reminded the
Board that these are the same properties they reviewed last year as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal. The
Board recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Single Family
Urban 1 to Multi Family Medium Density, and the City Council adopted the amendment as proposed. The applicants are
now proposing to change the zoning from Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) to correspond
with the Comprehensive Plan designation that was amended last year.
Ms. Janicek reported that no written public comments were received regarding the application, and no concerns were raised
by City departments. She received one telephone call from a neighbor indicating support of the application and suggesting
that both a preschool and a grocery store would be appropriate uses for the subject properties. She informed the citizen that
while day cares would be permitted in the proposed new zone, a grocery store would not.
Ms. Janicek referred to Page 3 of the Staff report, which provides a comparison of the different zoning designations (RS-8,
RM-2.4 and RM-3). She noted that both the RM-2.4 and RM-3 zoning designations are compatible with the Multi Family
Medium Density land use designation. She reminded the Board that the applicant originally proposed a Multi-Family High
Density land use designation, but this was not approved. She pointed out that the multi-family medium density zones provide
a transitional buffer between the General Commercial (CG) zone along the Highway 99 Corridor and the single-family
residential zones. She said staff recommends approval of the rezone as proposed.
Board Member Reed recalled that there is an uphill slope as you approach the subject properties. Ms. Janicek said the subject
properties are located at the top of the hill and are quite flat.
Sid Odgers, Applicant, said he is one of the three property owners, and has lived on his property for 34 years. He explained
that, over the years, the properties around him have all been redeveloped with two-story newer homes and condominiums.
The houses on the three subject properties are all single-story and no longer fit into the character of the area. Because the
properties are located adjacent to a condominium development, the property owners felt it would be nice to develop their
properties as multi-family, as well. They believe the subject properties are an excellent location for multi-family
development. They have good drainage, are relative flat, and very little soil would have to be removed to accommodate
construction.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD FILE NUMBER
PLN20120029 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL LAST
YEAR. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER AMD20120007 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element update for 2013 –
2018 to City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2013 – 2018. The proposal
updates the City’s CFP to include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as
transportation, parks, and stormwater along with other public facilities necessary to implement the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. English presented the proposed Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the years 2013 –
2018. He noted that Mr. Clifton, Ms. Hite and Mr. Shuster also contributed to the draft document before the Board and were
present to answer questions.
Mr. English reviewed that the CIP is budget driven. The information in the CIP helps staff prepare and develop projected
capital needs for the upcoming year. The CFP is mandated by the Growth Management Act (GMA) and is an element of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Both documents have a six year horizon, and the CFP goes beyond to a 20-year horizon for
most elements. Both plans include capital projects, and the CIP includes maintenance projects, as well.
Packet Page 322 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 3
Mr. English advised that the CFP includes three project sections: general (parks, buildings and regional projects),
transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian/bicycle projects), and stormwater. He said the proposed CFP includes the
following changes:
• The Main Street Undercrossing Project is a mini version of the Edmonds Crossing Multi-Modal Project for the ferry
terminal. The project would provide a crossing under Main Street to connect the ferry holding lanes to the loading dock
at Main Street. There would be a grade separation between the transportation modes. Funding is proposed in the CFP
for an initial study of what the project might look like and the associated costs. The initial cost estimate is between $60
million to $80 million. This smaller project would address not only the ferry access issue at Main Street, but it would
also provide emergency access to properties located on the west side of the railroad tracks.
• The State Route (SR) 99 and 212th Street Intersection Project has been included in the 20-year CFP for a number of
years, and has been moved to the list of 6-year projects in an effort to prepare future grant applications for funding. The
project would add westbound and eastbound left turn lanes to improve the level of service (LOS) at the intersection.
Mr. English explained that the CIP has two project sections: general and parks. It is organized by the City’s financial fund
numbers and identifies preliminary estimates on six-year expenditures and revenues. He provided a chart to illustrate the
various fund numbers, the types of projects in each, and the department that is responsible to oversee each fund. He pointed
out that even with a limited amount of City funds available for transportation improvements, the City has been able to secure
a significant amount of grant funding to complete large projects. He specifically referred to the 112 Street Fund and
highlighted the list of projects the City is actively pursuing as follows:
• Construction is currently underway on the Main Street Project, which is expected to be completed by November 19th.
Two grants (federal and state) were secured for the project, with some utility money as they are in the process of
replacing a water line and adding stormwater improvements. The infrastructure between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue will
be rebuilt, and new sidewalks and street lighting would be installed. The project also includes a mid block pedestrian
crossing.
• The City received a Federal Transportation Grant for the 5th Avenue Overlay Project. A water line on 5th Avenue was
replaced last year, and the roadway is currently patched. This project is scheduled to take place in 2013 and will provide
a complete curb-to-curb overlay of this section of the roadway.
• The Five Corners Roundabout is currently in the design phase, and right-of-way acquisition will start soon. The
project is scheduled for completion in 2013.
• Design for Phase 3 of the SR 99 Lighting Project will start in 2013.
• The City received grant funding to begin the design and right-of-way acquisition for the 228th Street Corridor
Improvement Project (between 76th Avenue and SR99).
• Preliminary design work was just completed for the 212th Street and 76th Avenue Improvement Project, and they will
move into final design and environmental review in 2013.
Board Member Ellis asked Mr. English to provide more information about “level of service” (LOS) and explain how it is
used to justify projects in the CFP. Mr. English said LOS is a transportation term that measures how well traffic moves
through an intersection and/or corridor, LOS A being the best and LOS F being the worst. There are different ways to
measure LOS, but it is usually a measurement of how long it takes a car to pass through an intersection. To determine how
an intersection behaves, the City collects traffic counts and enters them into a modeling software that gives information on
LOS. From the modeling information, the City can project what the LOS will be at an intersection based on the
Comprehensive Plan and the anticipated growth. He said the City’s current LOS standard is Level D, which was set by the
City Council after evaluating LOS as part of the 2009 Transportation Master Plan update. The Transportation Master Plan
will be updated again in 2015.
Packet Page 323 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 4
Board Member Tibbott asked where the 5th Avenue Overlay Project would begin and end. Mr. English answered that it
would start at Walnut Street and end at Elm Street.
Board Member Tibbott asked if it is correct to assume the City has all the funds in place for the projects identified in the CFP
for 2013. Mr. English answered that funding has been secured for the 5th Avenue overlay, the signal cabinet improvements,
and the Five Corners roundabout. They have funding for design and right-of-way acquisition for the 212th and 76th Avenue
Improvements, but not for construction. The design and right-of-way acquisition is the initial step in preparing the City to
apply for grant funding for construction.
Mr. English noted that 412 Utility funds are used for water, sewer and stormwater projects. He described the 2012 and
proposed 2013 projects as follows:
• Water Utility Fund. By the end of 2012, the City will have replaced 3,800 feet of water mains, and they plan to replace
10,000 feet in 2013. The City also completed 2,000 linear feet of roadway affected by previous waterline replacement
projects.
• Sewer Utility Fund. The City was awarded a $4.5 million grant to rehabilitate nine sewer lift stations, which is a much
needed improvement to help minimize the maintenance efforts needed to keep the stations operational. The City plans to
replace and/or rehabilitate 5,600 feet of sewer main in 2013 and 1,000 feet of CIPP sewer mains. The Sewer
Comprehensive Plan will also be updated in 2013.
• Stormwater Utility Fund. Drainage improvements on North Talbot Road were completed in August to correct a
drainage problem associated with the Lynnwood Treatment Plant. Another drainage improvement is currently underway
on Talbot Road next to Perrinville Creek. The City began a study of the Edmonds Marsh, which should be completed by
the end of 2012 or early 2013. The City will replace 3,300 feet of storm drain pipe in the Edmonds Basin along 238th
Street and 100th Avenue. The vactor waste handling facility will be upgraded in 2013 to handle more waste and allow
the City to increase the frequency of cleaning catch basins. This should improve the quality of water flowing into the
creeks and Puget Sound. A high flow reduction study of Perrinville Creek and a drainage study of the Dayton Street and
SR 104 intersection will be completed in 2013.
Ms. Hite shared the following highlights:
• Park CIP 2012 Highlights. The Interurban Trail and Hazel Miller Plaza were completed. There was a groundbreaking
for the SR 99 International District Lighting Enhancement Project, and progress has been made on the 4th Avenue
Cultural Corridor Improvement Project. The design and construction documents have been prepared for the Dayton
Street Plaza Project and construction will begin in the next few weeks.
• Parks CFP Highlights. A public market project was added to the CFP, and the City is planning and setting aside money
in the CFP for improvements at the Woodway High School Athletic Complex.
• Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 125 Highlights. REET funds were set aside in 2012 to replace the boiler at Yost Pool.
They were unable to complete this project as the funds were needed for other urgent repairs to get through the 2012
season. In 2013, $120,000 has been set aside for the boiler project. Funding for the City Park Playground Replacement
Project will be carried over into 2013 so that the project can be done in conjunction with the Spray Pad Project. The City
has submitted an application for a Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Grant for the combined project, and they
are hoping to obtain funding in the next budget cycle in July. REET funds, as well as stormwater utility funds, are being
used for the Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study to consider the potential of daylighting Willow Creek to improve fish
passage. Money has also been set aside for the Woodway High School athletic fields, replacement of the Mathay
Ballinger play equipment, a park impact fee study, and an update to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
• Park Construction Fund 132. Capital dollars have been moved into this fund to provide matching funds for grants to
construct projects. Projects identified for funding include the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Project, the Dayton Street
Plaza, and the City Park Spray and Play Revitalization Project. Matching funds have also been set aside for Senior
Center Improvements if the City is able to secure a Community Development Block Grant.
Packet Page 324 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 5
Board Member Reed requested additional information about the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Project. Ms. Hite said money
has been set aside for this project. Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Manager, has worked with property owners along the
corridor and historians in an attempt to capture the history of the corridor. The next step is to conduct a survey and secure
grant funding for project construction.
Mr. English advised that the draft CIP/CFP was introduced to the City Council on October 2nd, and is scheduled for a public
hearing before the City Council on October 16th. The goal is for the CFP to be adopted in December as part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Board Member Reed recalled that, as part of their review of the Harbor Square Master Plan, citizens expressed concern about
traffic congestion at the intersection of SR 104 and Dayton Street. When cars are backed up at this intersection, people living
in the Point Edwards development have difficulty accessing the highway because there is no light at their access point.
Citizens have expressed concern that redevelopment at Harbor Square will increase congestion, yet no project has been
identified in the Transportation Master Plan to solve this problem. He asked if the City has any plans to address this problem
in the near future. He also asked if the City has plans in place to address the increased traffic associated with redevelopment
at Westgate and Five Corners. Mr. English pointed out that the proposed roundabout at Five Corners is anticipated to bring
the LOS at the intersection to Level B, which should be sufficient to handle future redevelopment. He acknowledged there
are no traffic improvements planned on SR 104 in the Westgate area at this time. However, the City has conducted a high-
level transportation evaluation of this area to identify potential traffic impacts to the intersection based on the proposed
zoning changes. The evaluation concluded that there would not be a lot of change. However, as development progresses, the
intersection will need to be studied in greater detail. The evaluation will be presented to the Board in a few weeks as part of
their work session on the Westgate Plan and form-based code.
Board Member Clarke requested additional information about the transportation evaluation for the Westgate area. Mr.
English explained that the study looked at what the University of Washington proposed for both Westgate and Five Corners.
It evaluates how the proposed land use changes would impact traffic patterns in the area. The study anticipates the number of
additional trips that would be generated based on the proposed zoning changes and updates the transportation model
accordingly. It provides some suggestions for how the traffic patterns could be modified at the intersection, but it does not
go into detail about specific improvements.
Board Member Clarke said that, in his professional capacity, he has studied mixed-use developments in a variety of
communities and cannot find any that have three to five-story buildings located on major arterials with speed limits up to 35
miles per hour. He observed that the University of Washington team did not address safety related to the speed limits on SR
104 and 100th Avenue West. He asked if the City intends to conduct a traffic study to look at the public safety issues related
to ingress and egress from a mixed-use development that has high-density lot coverage and no setbacks from the street. Mr.
English answered that the transportation evaluation does not reach that level of detail. A more detailed study would be
required as part of a development proposal to address traffic impacts, safety, line of site, etc. He said he does not anticipate
the City would conduct a more in-depth study prior to a development proposal.
Mr. Chave clarified that the transportation evaluation studied the level of development, level of traffic and proposed public
improvements to determine if the existing street system, in its current configuration, would be adequate for the proposed level
of redevelopment. The basic conclusion was redevelopment at the level suggested in the Westgate Plan would not result in
the need for significant transportation improvements. He clarified that the University of Washington team has recommended
setbacks in the Westgate Plan to expand the public space. However, he acknowledged the buildings would be pushed
towards the sidewalks and parking would be located elsewhere. The buildings would be more prominent, but setbacks would
still be required.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that the City is obligated to study traffic safety issues related to future development. Mr.
English said the City studies traffic safety as it relates to accident history. If there is a high level of accident history, the City
may consider improvements to address the problem.
Board Member Tibbott asked staff to review the major capital and maintenance projects that must be deferred in 2013 and
2014 as a result of insufficient funding. Mr. English responded that while the City has secured funds for environmental
Packet Page 325 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 6
review and design of the 212th Street and 76th Avenue Improvement Project, they have not secured construction funding.
They are hoping to obtain grant funding in 2014 or 2015 to move forward with this project to address a LOS issue. The SR
99 and 212th Street Improvement Project has been pushed to 2016. As matching local dollars become available, the City
would apply for grant funding to move forward with the project. Improvements at the intersection of 220th Street and SR 99
have also been pushed out. However, he indicated that street preservation is the City’s most significant need at this time.
Right now, the City does not have any funding for overlays and pavement upgrades.
Board Member Tibbott asked if the City has funding to move forward with walkway improvements. Mr. English said the
City tries to capitalize on grant funding to complete walkway improvements. He noted that walkways have been prioritized
in the 2009 Transportation Master Pan, and the City tries to follow this plan when applying for grant funding. However,
there are times when the City pursues a lower-priority sidewalk project because it better fits a potential grant opportunity.
Board Member Tibbott asked to what extent the City needs matching funds to obtain grant dollars. Mr. English said
matching funds is an important component of any grant application. While federal grants only require a minimum match of
between 0 and 13.5%, grant applications score higher if the City can provide a greater percentage of matching funds.
Ms. Hite said that because of insufficient funding, the City has been unable to replace their playground equipment at the rate
they should. While staff has maintained the equipment so it is safe, it is not up to current playground standards. While funds
are dedicated each year to bicycle/walkway improvements, they are unable to develop new trails and the existing trails are
not well connected. The updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan will do a better job of connecting trails throughout
the park system, especially connecting the Interurban Trail to the waterfront. While the City does a good job of patching
sport courts and trails, there is insufficient funding to resurface these facilities to bring them up to current standards.
Ms. Hite reminded the Board that the City went through a public process to plan for an aquatic center. The option selected
by participating community members and ultimately adopted by the City Council was to include an indoor pool facility at the
Yost site. The City has completed a conceptual design for this project, but there is insufficient funding to move forward. She
also pointed out that the City’s lease with the Edmonds School District for the Civic Stadium property expires in 2020, and
the school district has indicated they are not interested in selling the property at this time. They are interested in getting fair
market value on the lease of the land. The City and district have discussed the option of a long-term lease that would interest
the City in investing capital dollars to upgrade the site so it can be used for other events besides large festivals and some
soccer. She noted that this property is an asset to the community and it would be fabulous to bring it into the City’s assets.
Ms. Hite said some money has been set aside for the Woodway High School Athletic Field Project. She recalled that through
a public process, it was determined that the site would be redeveloped into two soccer and one baseball field. She said in
recent years, a group of 20 community members have met to discuss the need for more sports fields. While the proposed new
fields at Woodway High School will help fulfill this need, it will not improve the City’s ability to host regional tournaments.
Recent discussions with the school district have brought forward the idea of maintaining the connecting walkway around the
area, but developing three or four full-sized soccer fields instead. While the school district has a need for a baseball field, it
would be hard for the City to justify a lot of capital dollars for just two soccer fields and one baseball field. They have
discussed with the school district the idea of locating a new baseball field at the Civic Stadium site for high schools and
perhaps a semi-professional team to use.
Ms. Hite said the City is in the process of conducting a study of the Edmonds Marsh, which has included a lot of discussion
about daylighting Willow Creek to create a fish passage into the marsh. The project has a three to five-year window, and
some grant funding is available. She noted that daylighting Willow Creek would likely involve changes to Marina Beach
Park.
Board Member Clarke asked how the City determines which parks have Honey Buckets. Ms. Hite said the City tries to put
Honey Buckets in parks that have the most traffic, which tends to be community and regional parks. They are also placed in
parks that have significant field use.
Board Member Clarke recalled that the City approved a proposal to name the playground at Hickman Park after J.P. Patches,
who recently passed away. He suggested that rather than the current small marker, the City should install a plaque that is
Packet Page 326 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 7
more visible and provides more information about J.P. Patches. Ms. Hite agreed that, at the direction of the Planning Board,
the City could do something to honor him in a larger way.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the City needs to further evaluate the SR104 and Dayton Street intersection, as well as
traffic on Edmonds Way. He suggested they particularly discuss how the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) contributes to the problem. Because Edmonds Way is the corridor to the ferry terminal, it becomes congested and
sometimes gridlocked. A number of problems are created by the major highway that goes through the middle of the City.
Mr. Hertrich expressed his belief that it would be impossible to construct an access under the railroad tracks. There is not
enough space to create lead in and lead out and still have room for the ferry dock and businesses on Main Street. He
suggested that WSDOT should be the lead agency for addressing access under the tracks to the ferry terminal, and not the
City.
Mr. Hertrich advised that on numerous occasions, he has raised the idea of using chip seal to rehabilitate roadways instead of
more costly overlays. This approach has been used successfully by both Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace, but it has not
been considered an option in Edmonds. He suggested the City complete a study to identify the roadways for which a chip
seal application would be appropriate. Chip seal offers a less costly way of protecting and enhancing the life of the
roadways. He asked that the Board endorse the idea and add it as a new item in the CIP.
Mr. Hertrich voiced concern that the Westgate Plan prepared by the University of Washington team did not address traffic at
all. He said he drives through the intersection at 9th and SR 104 often. He has found it very difficult to make a right turn
from SR 104 to head north on 9th Avenue, particularly during peak times. He suggested that adding another right turn lane at
this intersection would improve the efficiency of the intersection, but it is not identified in the proposed CIP. He suggested
the Board consider this option as they review the Westgate Plan so that adequate space can be provided.
Mr. Hertrich said he participated in the aquatic center study. The group discussed the option of locating an aquatic facility at
the Woodway High School site, but the school district opposed the idea. He said he finds it ironic that the school district is
now asking the City to help construct athletic fields when they were unwilling to work with the City to provide a good
location for a larger pool facility. He suggested that the Board recommend that the new aquatic center and Woodway High
School athletic field projects be combined.
Mr. Hertrich noted that a number of intersections have been identified by the City for potential traffic lights, but nothing has
been done. Future redevelopment can be held up until the city addresses the low LOS at each of these intersections.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Stewart said she lives on Cedar Street, which is a dead end street one block south of Walnut Street on the east side
of 9th Avenue. She noted that it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a left turn from Cedar Street onto 9th Avenue
because traffic backs up on 9th Avenue all the way past Cedar Street. Mr. English said the 2009 Transportation Master Plan
indicates that both the Main Street and 9th Avenue and Walnut Street and 9th Avenue intersections have LOS problems, and
traffic signals are identified in the long-range plan to address the situations. To address the problem on a short-term basis,
the City plans to restripe the intersection at 9th Avenue and Walnut before the weather changes to provide for two approach
lanes in either direction on 9th Avenue. This striping change should improve the LOS at the intersection and address
concerns about traffic backing up beyond Cedar Street.
Board Member Clarke questioned why there is a four-way stop at the intersection of 9th Avenue and Walnut Street. Because
cars rarely cross 9th Avenue in this location, it would be better to place a stop sign on the east/west street only. Mr. English
said he doesn’t know the history of this four-way stop, but it is likely that people on Walnut Street did not have an
opportunity to enter 9th Avenue during peak times because of high traffic volumes. The four-way stop provides a break in
traffic. He noted that a recent study found the intersection to be operating at an LOS D, and the striping improvements
should improve the LOS to B.
Board Member Cloutier invited staff to comment on Mr. Hertrich’s suggestion that chip seal is a less costly option for street
maintenance. Mr. English pointed out that the City’s current and proposed CIP does not include any funding for street
Packet Page 327 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 8
preservation, whether it be chip seal or overlays. Chip seal is one alternative the City could use if funding becomes available,
but it is not an option for all streets. The better conditioned roadways can receive chip seal, which is a surface treatment that
lasts between 10 and 15 years. However, an overlay treatment has a structural component with a life span of between 20 and
25 years. He summarized that the chip seal treatment is one tool in the preservation tool box, but it is not an application that
can be applied across the board to eliminate the need for street overlays.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Reed observed that it is unfortunate that over the past few years the City has had to postpone or eliminate
important projects because of insufficient funding. He noted that significant funding is still needed for the projects identified
for 2014. He reminded the Board that although the City Council considered the creation of a Transportation Benefit District,
it was never approved. The City must figure out a way to solve this problem.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF DRAFT PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE PORT OF EDMONDS
REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN (HSMP) INTO THE CITY OF
EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER AMD20110009)
Mr. Lien recalled that the Board conducted a public hearing on the Port of Edmonds’ application to incorporate their HSMP
into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Board members were invited to forward
recommendations and comments regarding the application to staff. They directed staff to incorporate the comments received
from each Board member into a draft recommendation for the Board’s continued discussion. He referred the Board to the
Staff Report, which provides a summary of the proposal, information regarding the location of the subject property and its
current Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and public notice information. He announced that subsequent to the public
hearing, the City issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on
October 4th, and there is a two-week comment period. No comments have been received to date. The MDNS included the
following three mitigating measures:
1. Preparation of a transportation impact analysis report that documents existing conditions, estimates project related
changes to local traffic, and describes impacts and mitigation measures.
2. The average building height of all buildings on the Harbor Square site taken as a whole shall be less than 45 feet.
3. Specific building and site design shall consider potential impacts of climate change such as sea level rise and increased
potential for flooding. A range of techniques should be considered in meeting this goal, such as low-impact development
(LID) techniques; enhanced buffers and appropriate building setbacks to protect and enhance the Edmonds Marsh;
and/or employing other alternative systems and techniques to reduce maintenance and facilities costs.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that Comprehensive Plan amendments can only be adopted if certain criteria (ECDC 20.00.050)
can be met. The Staff Report contains draft findings to explain how the proposal meets each of the criteria. It also contains a
list of draft recommendations that were forwarded to staff by Planning Board Members. He noted that some of the
recommendations conflict with each other, but all were included on the list for discussion purposes.
Vice Chair Stewart reviewed that the Board conducted a public hearing on September 26th. However, instead of making a
recommendation to the City Council at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board Members were invited to forward potential
recommendations to staff for future Board consideration. She explained that her charge is to help the Board organize and
discuss each of the recommendations and reach a consensus on as many as possible. She acknowledged there may be
differences of opinions regarding some of the recommendations, and the Board will need to vote.
Note: A list of the draft recommendations were included in the agenda packet but were not read into the minutes. To help
facilitate reference for readers of the minutes, the draft list of the Board’s recommendations are included herein:
Packet Page 328 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 9
1. The maximum 55 foot building height limit from existing grade shall be limited to buildings located in the southeastern
third of the Harbor Square site so as to minimize public view impacts of the water and mountains beyond from the lower
bowl of the City.
2. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit for special
architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted.
3. The City Council may consider removing any mention to specific height limits within the Harbor Square Master Plan.
4. Reduce height limit down from 55 feet with an average of 45 feet to a height limit of 45 feet with an average of 35 feet.
5. In the graphic Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West on page 10, the annotation as to “setback”
above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to “building step back”.
6. The method of average height calculations should be removed from the Master Plan. The method of average height
calculation is more appropriate for inclusion within a development agreement or rezone.
7. Buildings along Dayton Street and State Route 104 shall be limited to 35 feet in height. Any buildings over 25 feet shall
be step backed at least 1 foot horizontally away from Dayton Street for every 1foot in height above 25 feet. Third story
balconies may extend into the Dayton Street step back.
8. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to maintain consistency with the Shoreline Master Program
update to be determined following submittal by the City and approved by the State in accordance with process deadlines
existent between the State and the City.
9. By adoption of the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan, the City may choose in the future to explore with the Port a
public-private partnership potentially involving the Port’s selected private developer in order to accommodate public
amenities or facilities in conjunction with the yet to be determined mixed-use program from redevelopment of the site.
10. The City may wish to have a say in conjunction with potential determination by the Port to sell the Harbor Square
property/land. (more a comment than a recommendation) [suggested replacement for 5/6: By adopting the Port’s
Harbor Square Master Plan the City indicates its overall support for the proposal, but reserves its right to review
detailed project proposals as they are developed. The City urges the Port to consult with the City during its development
of a program addressing public amenities and facilities.]
11. The recommended provisions by the Edmonds City Attorney in the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 shall be
incorporated in the City’s adoption of the proposed Master Plan, specifically that:
a. Question 1 – Height Limits – the potential maximum 55 foot building height limit shall apply only to this adopted
Master Plan covering only the Harbor Square land area within the Downtown Waterfront District of the city. The
City should consider incorporation of revised language within the City’s Comprehensive Plan as proposed in the
second paragraph of this memorandum.
b. Question 2 – Precedent – If the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted and resultant zoning changes accomplished,
the City’s zoning map should be revised to clearly indicate that the provisions adopted apply only to the Harbor
Square area of the waterfront district.
c. Question 3 – Views – The Comprehensive Plan currently contains language with respect to preservation of public
view corridors. As stated in the memorandum, while private view impacts should be considered but if there are
currently no provisions for preservation of the same within the City’s codes or regulations, no precedent should be
established as applicable through the adoption of the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan.
12. The City should encourage the Port to communicate and work with the new owner of the Edmonds Antique Mall
property as to necessary coordination of efforts with regard to redevelopment, and in particular with respect to such
aspects as:
a. Land use and development program
b. Siting and massing of buildings and improvements
c. Balancing streetscape for Dayton Street
d. Traffic and parking provisions
e. Site drainage and utilities
f. State Route 104 / Dayton Street intersection
g. Connectivity to the downtown retail area
h. Walkability and waterfront access
i. Incorporation of public amenities
13. On page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under Circulation, Traffic and Parking
a. Add an emphasis on generous parking allowance given the absence of off-site parking. Suggested language, “Also
the absence of available off-site parking requires that generous parking allowance be made to accommodate all
customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times.”
Packet Page 329 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 10
Vice Chair Stewart noted that the Board may not be able to complete their deliberations tonight, and they may need to
continue to the next meeting for a final recommendation to the City Council. She reminded the Board that they would
resume their work on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on October 24th. It is the Board’s intent to forward the HSMP
and the SMP concurrently to the City Council.
The Board discussed the best approach for reviewing the proposed recommendations. They decided it would be appropriate
to group the recommendations, starting with those related to height. They also recognized that Board Members may bring
additional recommendations forward during the course of their deliberations. Board Member Reed pointed out that some
statements in the Staff Report may need to be changed, depending on decisions the Board makes related to the proposed
recommendations. For example, the language would need to be updated if the Board recommends a maximum building
height of 45 feet instead of 55 feet.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that Recommendations 1, 4, 7 and 11 all relate to the height limit. Board Member Clarke
referred to Board Member Reed’s recommendation (Attachment 2b) that the height issue be addressed by dividing the
property into three relatively equal zones, descending from south to north. He observed that the Board has never discussed
this option. Board Member Reed disagreed that the concept has never been discussed because various comments have been
made about putting the taller buildings near the marsh and requiring lower buildings heights along Dayton Street. His
proposal illustrates how this could be accomplished. He expressed his belief that the proposed 55-foot maximum building
height is too much, and 45 feet would be more appropriate. He recommended a 25-foot height limit on Dayton Street, as
shown in Attachment 2b. He noted that Attachment 2a provides yet another approach for addressing height and would
reduce the maximum height to 45 feet and the average height to 40 feet. It would also establish a height limit of 25 feet for
buildings along Dayton Street. All buildings should be stepped back at least one foot horizontally away from Dayton Street
for every one foot in height above 25 feet.
Board Member Clarke expressed frustration that the Port did not provide the requested mathematical examples to illustrate
the averaging concept. The Port is now proposing to eliminate the average building height concept from the HSMP and
“punt” the issue to the development agreement phase. He questioned if it is appropriate for the Board to recommend
approval of the averaging concept if they do not have a clear understanding of how it would be applied. He suggested the
Board put less emphasis on the averaging concept and look more at Board Member Reed’s proposal, which puts forth the
idea that building heights along Dayton Street should be lower than other areas and the tallest buildings should be located on
the western and southern portions of the site. He said he could support either a 25-foot height limit for buildings on Dayton
Street or the existing 35-foot height limit with a step back requirement for portions of the building over two stories. This
would allow the view corridor down Dayton Street to be preserved and even enhanced, which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Clarke advised that he recently participated in a tour of downtown Kirkland where step backs and height
limits were utilized to protect view corridors. He suggested this approach is similar to what Board Member Reed has
proposed. He said he cannot support a maximum building height of 55 feet, but he could support a 45-foot maximum
building height. He said he supports Board Member Reed’s recommendation (Attachment 2b) except the property designated
as Open Space (OS) needs to be clearly identified as a non-buildable preservation area as per the current contract rezone.
Board Member Ellis questioned how Board Member Reed’s recommendation would fit with the HSMP that has been
submitted by the Port. Board Member Clarke explained that the Board is not required to simply vote up or down on the
proposed HSMP. After discussing all the issue, they can recommend appropriate changes to address their concerns.
Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board focus first on height issues, which can be divided into three categories: the
maximum height along Dayton Street, inclusion of a step back requirement along Dayton Street, and overall maximum
height. He noted that proposed Recommendation 7 would address height issues related to Dayton Street, but he
recommended it be modified to read, “Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height. Any buildings
over 25 feet shall be stepped back at least one foot horizontally away from Dayton Street for every one foot in height above
25 feet. Third story balconies may extend into the Dayton Street step back.”
Packet Page 330 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 11
Board Member Duncan cautioned against setting these specific height limits. While it is appropriate to identify a maximum
height limit, the HSMP should not be so specific about height limits on Dayton Street. He said he would like to leave more
flexibility for creative design as part of a specific design proposal. For example, there may be an opportunity to develop a
four-story corner piece that compliments the overall project design. A hard a fast height limit for buildings on Dayton Street
would not allow flexibility for this to occur.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board of language proposed by the City Attorney that would maximize the City’s discretion once a
detailed design proposal as been submitted. He cautioned the Board against overdesigning at the Comprehensive Plan level.
However, it would be appropriate for the HSMP to describe what the City wants to achieve with a view corridor.
Delineating specific areas within the site may lock the City into something that may be counter to what they want to consider
down the road.
Board Member Reed pointed out that a drawing in the proposed HSMP shows a four-story building on Dayton Street, with a
10-foot step back above three stories. If this drawing remains in the HSMP, he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to
provide more specific direction as to building height limits along Dayton Street. Mr. Chave commented that if the Board
believes that some elements in the proposed HSMP are too specific, they can recommend that they be modified or eliminated
to make the document more generalized. Another option would be to incorporate the language recommended by the City
Attorney that would allow the City more discretion to address height limits later on. He clarified that, rather than modifying
the actual HSMP before sending it to the City Council, the Board could forward the HSMP to the City Council as drafted and
include a set of recommended changes. The Board could also identify issues that cannot or should not be addressed as part of
the Comprehensive Plan amendment but should be considered in more detail as part of a development agreement or rezone
proposal. The Port would have an opportunity between now and the City Council meeting to identify the recommendations
they support and oppose and present their case to the City Council.
Board Member Tibbott said he would prefer that the HSMP be more general in relation to height limits. He recalled that the
view shed analysis and the survey provided by Chair Lovell indicate that views to the east would not be significantly
impacted by 55-foot tall buildings on some of the Harbor Square property. He would like the HSMP to be as flexible as
possible at this point to see what amenities and additional design features the City might receive from allowing additional
height. He expressed his belief that 55-foot tall buildings could be acceptable under certain circumstances. He said he is also
concerned about crowding and massing along Dayton Street, but he assumes the designer of a potential project would
understand that a design of that nature would not receive approval from the City. He said he supports the HSMP as proposed
to allow maximum flexibility, particularly in regard to height.
Vice Chair Stewart referred to Board Member Duncan’s suggestion that the HSMP provide flexibility for buildings up to 55
feet in height. However, the additional height would require the developer to meet a higher standard of LEED. She
expressed her belief that a five-story building at Harbor Square should be a landmark project, and the Comprehensive Plan
should leave enough flexibility in design to come up with great solutions. Board Member Reed noted that Chair Lovell made
a similar suggestion.
Board Member Reed once again stated his belief that 55-foot tall buildings would not be appropriate on the waterfront. They
already have the Ebb Tide Condominium Project that is not an attractive design. He said he would not be able to support a
maximum height limit that is greater than 45 feet. He said he has had discussions with citizens about the “slippery slope”
argument and how a 55-foot height limit would impact other properties in the downtown and waterfront areas. He reminded
the Board that the Harbor Inn, which is built to a height of 25 to 35 feet, will remain at the Harbor Square site for a long time
and will draw the average building height down. He stressed the importance of setting some height limits for buildings along
Dayton Street, which is the only route to and from the waterfront.
Board Member Cloutier said that, with the exception of the view corridor, he would prefer to avoid dealing with site specific
height in the Comprehensive Plan since these issues would be better addressed within the realm of a development agreement.
Again, he suggested that the language provided in Recommendation 7 provides an appropriate way to protect the view
corridor.
Board Member Ellis said he is comfortable with Recommendation 7, as well. However, instead of focusing on the
aspirational plan included in the HSMP, he would be more in favor of leaving flexibility in the plan to see the creative ideas
Packet Page 331 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 12
that come up as part of a development proposal. Vice Chair Stewart said she has some level of comfort given that the
guidelines for protecting view corridors are already set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave agreed that the
Comprehensive Plan does talk about the need to protect view corridors, but the Board would be doing staff a service if
additional guidelines related to the view corridor were included in the HSMP. The guidance should be specific enough to
point the Port in the right direction, but flexible enough to accommodate creative design options.
Board Member Clarke referred to Mill Creek Town Center and downtown Kirkland, where the streetscape design has a
downtown feel. Parallel and/or diagonal parking is provided along the street, and the sidewalks are wider to create a
pedestrian atmosphere and an opportunity for outdoor dining. This same approach could be utilized on Dayton Street, with
two -story development along the street and step backs to give a view of the water and create openness. He expressed
frustration that the Comprehensive Plan language related to view corridors is general and does not identify a clear objective.
The HSMP does not provide specific information about view corridors, either. He said he would prefer to either use
Recommendation 7 to clarify the view corridor concept or simply eliminate all numbers for height in the Comprehensive Plan
and let these issues be addressed as part of a future development agreement.
Mr. Chave pointed out that Page 11 of the HSMP provides language relative to development along Dayton Street. There is
additional language related to Dayton Street in the last bullet on Page 5 of the HSMP. He asked if the Board feels this is
sufficient or if they want to add additional language. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that the height limits in the
diagram on Page 10 of the HSMP go beyond what he is willing to support for Dayton Street. Mr. Chave said that if the
Board is not comfortable with the detailed concept outlined in the HSMP, they could recommend it be dropped in favor of
more general language.
Vice Chair Stewart said she is leaning away from being too specific because the Comprehensive Plan is typically silent on
maximum height. Specific height could be addressed when a development proposal comes forward for evaluation. However,
the Port may need some assurance that there is potential for buildings up to 55 feet in height.
Bill Trimm, Port Consultant, explained that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide general guidance and assurance
to developers and the community, but maintain enough flexibility to accommodate a variety of options. He suggested that
additional language could be added to the HSMP to ensure that the view corridor down Dayton Street is enhanced and
preserved, but leave enough flexibility for the designer to figure out how to best accomplish the goal. Mr. Chave agreed that
language could be added to the HSMP to emphasize the importance of addressing the view corridor. This could include not
only the relationship of buildings to the sidewalk but scale, appearance, vertical design, etc.
Board Member Reed said he likes the compromise of allowing taller buildings closer to the marsh, but he felt that 55-feet is
too much. He said it is important to establish some parameters for height within the HSMP. He recommended a 45-foot
height limit and then control the height of development along Dayton Street. He said that he would need to see what the
actual language would look like and how it would be implemented before he could support a more general approach to
height.
Board Member Duncan asked if it would be possible to use a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) approach to zoning. Board Member
Clarke did not believe a FAR approach would work because the City must specifically identify setbacks and view corridors.
An FAR approach would not allow the City to offer a greater height limit in exchange for more open space away from the
pedestrian corridor. Exchanging extra amenities for additional height would not work with an FAR approach, either.
Mr. Lien pointed out that the setbacks for the marsh will be determined in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and any new
development at Harbor would have to be consistent. Board Member Duncan pointed out that a 25-foot setback is well below
what is typically required by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Mr. Chave explained that the DOE’s large buffer
requirements are generally aimed at pristine, rural areas and do not acknowledge situations in urbanized areas. The City’s
approach has been to set smaller buffers in areas where development has already occurred; but in exchange, a developer must
enhance and improve the remaining buffer areas. The DOE has indicated they are comfortable with this approach, as well.
Mr. Chave suggested that rather than drawing lines on a map as proposed in Board Member Reed’s recommendation
(Attachment 2b), the Board could recommend that language regarding the view corridor along Dayton Street be enhanced by
adding a statement to provide general guidance related to scale and height as development moves across the Harbor Square
Packet Page 332 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 13
site without saying exactly how buildings must be arranged. He reminded the Board that the draft HSMP already includes
language about view corridors and the relationship of buildings to the sidewalk, and the additional statement would provide
direction about what the City would expect to see in an exchange of zoning or development agreement. Another option
would be to focus just on the Dayton Street corridor and be silent about height limits elsewhere. Specific height limits could
be addressed as part of a development agreement. He cautioned that the HSMP is a planning level document; it should
provide parameters for design, but not design the project.
Board Member Tibbott suggested it would be helpful to provide some guidance as to the amenities the City would hope to
see in exchange for the additional height. Mr. Chave noted that the HSMP does provide examples of public amenities. The
Board could target and perhaps expand on this language. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that rather than prioritizing a list of
amenities, it would be more appropriate to allow flexibility to developers Board Member Duncan shared an example of
development in Hong Kong where no FAR and a 30-foot strict height limit resulted in boxy buildings to maximize
developable area. He suggested that avoiding policies and regulations that encourage developers to maximize to a certain
height results in better building modulation and creativity. Mr. Chave noted that the City of Kirkland uses FAR in
combination with setbacks to force modulation of heights along the street front in exchange for a greater height beyond.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO MODIFY RECOMMENDATION 7 TO READ, “BUILDINGS ALONG
DAYTON STREET SHALL BE LIMITED TO 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.” BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED
THE MOTION.
Board Member Ellis observed that Recommendation 7, as currently proposed, would establish a strict height limit for
development along Dayton Street.
Board Member Reed said he believes heights above 25 feet on Dayton Street are inappropriate. However, he would be
willing to support a height limit of up to 35 feet if the portion of the building above 25 feet is stepped back 10 feet. Board
Member Clarke said he has found the building step backs on Lake Street in Kirkland to be attractive and they preserve the
view towards the lake. Board Member Tibbott pointed out that forcing a step back could eliminate the opportunity for a
center piece or corner piece on Dayton Street. He felt the HSMP should allow more flexibility in design. Board Member
Ellis suggested that the motion be amended to change the word “shall” to “should.”
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO MODIFY RECOMMENDATION 7 TO
READ, “BUILDINGS ALONG DAYTON STREET SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.” BOARD
MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND.
Board Member Reed expressed concern that “should” has a different meaning than “shall,” and he will not support the
proposed amendment.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-2, WITH VICE CHAIR STEWART AND BOARD MEMBER REED VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL
RECOMMENDATION TO READ, “DEVELOPMENT PLANS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC VIEW
CORRIDOR DOWN DAYTON IS PRESERVED AND ENHANCED.” BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Reed recalled that the Board has received numerous public comments related to private views, and he is not
convinced that Chair Lovell’s walkabout survey is a reliable method for determining which private properties would be
impacted. While he understands the City has no legal responsibility to consider private views, the Board should at least
consider the impact the proposed HSMP would have on private properties. That is his motivation for arguing against a 55-
foot height limit.
Board Member Clarke mentioned that the Bullitt Center is building the world’s first Living Building Challenge project in
downtown Seattle. One unique characteristic is the variance the City of Seattle gave in relation to building height. It was
concluded that 13 stories was necessary in order for the building to be the unique Platinum Level LEED. This height would
Packet Page 333 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 14
allow them to incorporate sustainable elements, including open windows rather than rely on air conditioning. He reminded
the Board that sustainability is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and he would like the City to be forward thinking and
adaptable to changing technology and new concepts that are critical for the future. He suggested the Board discuss how they
can provide flexibility on the taller buildings (not on Dayton Street) to permit and promote this type of forward-thinking
development. For example, the City could allow additional height in exchange for significant sustainable features. Mr.
Chave agreed the Board could recommend a maximum height, with consideration being given for a portion of the site being
higher if certain conditions can be met such as innovative living building design.
Board Member Clarke suggested that the portion of property where the tennis facility is currently located would be a good
location to promote a maximum building height to help achieve economic feasibility for a developer. This portion of the site
is naturally screened with tall trees that are located in the wetland buffer. He noted that Mill Creek Town Center has one
five-story building that sits up against a wetland, with an associated three-story parking garage. The bottom floor of the
parking garage is open to the public, and the remaining buildings in the development are two and three stories. He said he
would also be in favor of allowing taller buildings in the southwest corner of the property near the railroad tracks.
Vice Chair Stewart said she has wrestled with the height issue for quite some time. She likes the concept brought forward by
Board Member Duncan to incentivize “green” development. She expressed her belief that Board Member Duncan’s proposal
would strengthen the language to make green building a requirement in order to achieve the maximum height. However,
unless she can be assured it would be a sustainable project to a specified standard, she would not support a 55-foot building
height.
Once again, Board Member Reed emphasized that he would not support a maximum building height greater than 45 feet.
Board Member Ellis asked Board Member Reed to explain why he is proposing a 45-foot building height rather than some
other limit. Board Member Reed said that 45 feet is the maximum height he is comfortable with, and he would prefer a 35-
foot height limit. Because the Port has indicated that a 35-foot height limit would be unfeasible, he is willing to compromise
and recommend 45 feet. He noted that the existing Ebb Tide Condominium building is 55 feet tall, and he does not like it.
Board Member Tibbott pointed out that the existing trees along the marsh are 60 feet and taller.
Board Member Tibbott expressed his belief that flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan would allow the City to see what types
of creative amenities an architect could come up with. Amenities such as sustainability and improvements along Dayton
Street and/or SR 104 are the kinds of things that can be sorted out as part of a development agreement.
Board Member Clarke noted that because the Harbor Square Property is located in a bowl, people living up hill will look
down on the roofs of the buildings. He asked Mr. Trimm to comment on whether flat or pitched roofs are considered more
attractive. Mr. Trimm said it depends on where you are looking from. From the street level, you want to see the roof edge.
Looking down hill, you want to see an attractive roof and beyond the roof. When doing the view shed analysis, they wanted
to ensure that what you see looking beyond are the same key elements that are visible now (mountains, water, edge of the
marina, sail boat masts). He concluded that people want to look at attractive buildings and rooftops that do not have
mechanical equipment.
Board Member Cloutier said he would support a 45-foot height limit, but with some consideration given for additional height
up to 55 feet for exceptional design such as LEED Platinum. However, he stressed that the taller buildings should only be
located on the south and west portions of the property and not along SR 104 and Dayton Street.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL
RECOMMENDATION TO READ, “BUILDING HEIGHTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 45 FEET. CONSIDERATION
MAY BE GIVEN FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS UP TO 55 FEET IF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES
SIGNIFICANT AMENITIES SUCH AS LEED PLATINUM CERTIFICATION.”
Board Member Duncan suggested that “building heights up to 55 feet” should be changed to “taller buildings.” Board
Member Cloutier said he would not support this change. Board Member Duncan suggested that “and significant public
amenities” should be added to the end of the proposed language. Mr. Chave pointed out that public amenities are already
discussed in the HSMP. Board Member Cloutier agreed that the HSMP states that amenities would be considered as part of a
development agreement, but it does not say that amenities could buy additional height.
Packet Page 334 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 15
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER AMENDED HIS MOTION TO READ, “BUILDING HEIGHTS SHALL BE
LIMITED TO 45 FEET AND CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN FOR HEIGHTS UP TO 55 FEET IF THE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC AMENITIES OR SUSTAINABLE DESIGN.”
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION.
Vice Chair Stewart said she could not vote in favor of the motion because she needs more assurance that a high level of
LEED certification would be required. She would like the recommendation to quantify the sustainable aspect by specifically
requiring LEED Gold or the equivalent. They need to make it clear that additional height would only be considered in the
case of a very green, sustainable project.
Board Member Clarke said he has struggled with the issue of averaging. The way he understands it, the Harbor Inn has the
opportunity to stay in its current location long term because of an existing ground lease. He suggested it would be unfair to
penalize the Port on an averaging formula that would include the two-story hotel building in the calculation. This approach
would restrict the hotel to always being two stories if the rest of the property is developed to the maximum average height
allowed. The motion on the floor would provide greater flexibility than the averaging concept. Mr. McChesney pointed out
that the motion on the floor would make the averaging concept mute. Board Member Cloutier agreed that is the intent.
Board Member Reed pointed out that Pages 6 and 7 of the HSMP include language that focuses on sustainability. Vice Chair
Stewart commented that requiring a development to meet a green building program standard would require a third-party
verification and the developer would be held to a higher standard. She said she feels strongly that the City should establish a
high standard for green development. This is a great opportunity to encourage and promote sustainable development on one
of the most sensitive sites in the City. They must protect this ecological asset by being more specific. Board Member
Cloutier agreed with Vice Chair Stewart’s sentiments and logic. He suggested his motion could be amended to include
examples of desirable amenities but not a specific standard.
Board Member Duncan pointed out that the performance review is a critical element of LEED certification. However, he
questioned if attaching height to a LEED standard would be a zoning issue rather than a Comprehensive Plan issue. Board
Member Cloutier agreed that this issue would be better addressed as part of a development agreement.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER AMENDED HIS MOTION FURTHER TO READ, “BUILDING HEIGHTS SHALL
BE LIMITED TO 45 FEET AND CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN FOR HEIGHTS UP TO 55 FEET IF THE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC AMENITIES AND/OR SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
CERTIFICATION SUCH AS LEED PLATINUM.” BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE AMENDMENT
TO THE MOTION.
Board Member Ellis summarized that, as per the motion on the floor, development up to 45 feet would be allowed without
any specific requirements. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the HSMP includes general development requirements
that would be applicable to all development, regardless of height. However, the HSMP does not specifically require green
certification.
THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED 5-2, WITH VICE CHAIR STEWART AND BOARD MEMBER REED
VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
The Board took a short break from 10:15 to 10:25 p.m.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD AMEND RECOMMENDATION 1 TO READ,
“DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SHOULD PLACE THE TALLEST BUILDINGS ALONG THE SOUTH AND WEST
BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY.” BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Reed expressed concern that this recommendation would leave it wide open for tall buildings to go all the
way to Dayton Street, which is not the Board’s intent. The intent is for the buildings to get taller as you move towards the
marsh and away from Dayton Street. He suggested that the recommendation should limit taller buildings to the southern 1/3
of the property. Board Member Ellis said he could not support this type of restriction. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that
Packet Page 335 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 16
the recommendation, as proposed, would provide sufficient guidance as to what the City wants to see with a development
proposal.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Reed asked if the recommendation that was just adopted would put the average height issue back on the table
because the HSMP would not be specific about where the taller buildings could be located. Mr. Chave reminded the Board
that the recently issued SEPA determination includes a condition that the average height would be limited to 45 feet.
Regardless of whether or not the HSMP identifies an average height for buildings, the SEPA condition would require the
overall average of development on the site to be less than 45 feet. The SEPA condition cannot be changed at this point.
Vice Chair Stewart referred to proposed Condition 13, which suggests that the HSMP should include an emphasis on a
“generous parking allowance” given the absence of off-site parking. Because the Harbor Square redevelopment is supposed
to be transit oriented, she recommended that the parking requirement be eliminated. She urged the Board to look towards the
future and make this development less car dependent and more walkable and transit oriented. She noted there are good
public transportation opportunities available in this area. Mr. Chave explained that if a developer provides too little parking,
there would be nowhere for the additional cars to park off site. Board Member Clarke pointed out that people could park on
City streets if the developer does not provide sufficient parking. Mr. Chave said the notion of requiring a developer to
provide adequate parking would be acceptable, but he cautioned against requiring a generous amount of parking. It would be
in the best interest of any developer to provide adequate parking, and he is confident a developer would pay close attention to
this issue. He also noted that parking is typically addressed by zoning rather than the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Clarke commented that, at this time, the City and Port have a reciprocal parking agreement, which binds the
entire Harbor Square site to permit anyone to park on the site. He asked if the HSMP would impact this agreement. He also
cautioned that the City should be careful to preserve the public parking at 51 West Dayton, which is designed to serve the
park and fishing pier. Mr. Chave said this public parking could be part of the public amenities discussed earlier.
Board Member Reed said he recommended a generous parking requirement because of what he sees in the bowl and
anywhere there are groups of condominium and apartment projects. When there is not sufficient parking on site, the cars
spill out onto the streets. He said he appreciates the desire to encourage transit-oriented development at Harbor Square; but if
there is not sufficient parking on site, it will spill out onto the downtown streets. Mr. Chave said all parking issues would
have to be addressed as part of a development agreement or the standard parking requirement would apply. The Board
agreed to accept Recommendation 13.a, but it was modified to change “generous” to “adequate.”
Board Member Tibbott suggested the need for a developer to provide a diversity of parking options for cars, bicycles, and
eco-friendly cars. Board Member Cloutier advised that parking diversity is addressed in the sustainability element of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, LEED Certification would require a developer to incorporate diverse parking opportunities
into the site plan. Mr. Chave added that if a developer proposes shared parking, the development agreement would have to
demonstrate how the concept would work.
Board Member Cloutier said he understands the intent of Recommendation 13.b, but felt it is the City’s responsibility to
improve the intersection at Dayton and SR 104 to relieve peak time difficulties. Board Member Ellis added that the Port may
not have the authority to make improvements at this intersection. Mr. Chave said this issue could be addressed as part of a
development agreement and/or development proposal. The required traffic analysis would identify the City and developer’s
responsibility related to this intersection. Mr. Lien added that the SEPA review would require a project level traffic analysis
to identify traffic impact fees and mitigating conditions. Board Member Reed expressed concern that the traffic impacts
would increase if the Harbor Square property is more densely developed. He said he proposed Recommendation 13.b to
address a public comment about how difficult it is to make a left hand turn at this intersection. However, he agreed that the
issue would be more appropriately addressed as part of a development proposal.
Board Member Reed said he proposed Recommendation 14 to require aggressive discussions with WSDOT regarding the
improves to the SR 104 right-of-way east of the Harbor Square Property. He suggested that a better recommendation would
be that the Port actively pursue discussions with WSDOT. Mr. McChesney reminded the Board that the Port already has a
permit from WSDOT to maintain the landscaping along the right-of-way. He recognized that they haven’t maintained the
Packet Page 336 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 17
area to the standard contemplated in the HSMP. He suggested that it may be necessary to modify the WSDOT permit to
allow for a bicycle path and other amenities.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the paragraph titled, “SR 104 Frontage” on Page 11 of the HSMP addresses this
issue. He suggested that rather than adding the language in Recommendation 11, the Board could recommend that the words
“if WSDOT is amenable” be removed from this paragraph. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Clarke said he proposed Recommendation 15. He pointed out that because of the bus stop and right turn lane,
there is only limited space in the right-of-way for curb-side parking, either angled or parallel along Dayton Street. Mr.
Trimm advised that the Mill Creek Town Center project provides angle parking in front of retail uses and parallel parking in
front of non-retail uses. Board Member Clarke observed that additional right-of-way would be necessary in order to
construct a sidewalk, the planting strip, turn lanes, and curb-side parking. He said it would also be desirable to have curb-
side parking on the north side of Dayton Street at some point in the future. This would create a small-town feel similar to
Main Street and the Avenues.
Mr. Trimm agreed that Dayton Street is an important streetscape, and the developer should work closely with the City’s
Public Works Department to figure out how the streetscape should be on both sides. He suggested that the Comprehensive
Plan could be amended to require developers on both sides of the street to provide a certain streetscape that includes curb-
side parking. Mr. Chave suggested this concept could be addressed by adding additional language to the “Dayton Street
Frontage” section on Page 11 of the HSMP. He expressed his belief that having parking and pedestrian activity on both sides
of Dayton Street is an important concept to keep in mind. Adding language in the HSMP would allow this discussion to
occur as part of the Development Agreement.
The Board asked Mr. Trimm to describe how the City could translate the parking design at Mill Creek Town Center to
Dayton Street. Mr. Trimm said the first step is to identify the desired streetscape in the master plan or Comprehensive Plan,
starting from the edge of the building towards the center line of the Street. This streetscape language could be used as a
guideline when a development application comes in for either Harbor Square or the property located on the other side of
Dayton Street.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT RECOMMENDATION 15 BE REPLACED WITH A
RECOMMENDATION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE IN THE “DAYTON STREET FRONTAGE”
SECTION ON PAGE 11 OF THE HSMP TO READ, “CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ENHANCE
STREET-SIDE PARKING TO SUPPORT SEPARATING HUMAN ACTIVITY FROM THE TRAFFIC ALONG
DAYTON STREET. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Clarke referred to proposed Recommendation 16 and asked if the HSMP, as proposed, would allow for
single-family residential. He asked if the SMP would determine the allowable zoning at Harbor Square based on the Urban
Mixed Use III Designation. Mr. Lien replied that, as currently drafted, the SMP would allow single-family development in
the Urban Mixed Use III Designation. The Board agreed that the SMP should be changed so that single-family is not allowed
in the Urban Mixed Use III Designation.
Board Member Ellis suggested that Recommendation 11 should be amended to read, “Edmonds City Attorney shall develop
language consistent with the memorandum dated September 6, 2012, to be incorporated into the City’s adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan addressing height limits, precedent and views.” The remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Clarke referred to Recommendation 2 and asked if the City would be required to allow wireless
communication facilities to exceed the 55-foot height limit if determined necessary to provide adequate coverage. Board
Member Cloutier replied affirmatively.
Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that currently the site has two zoning districts: Open Space (OS) and General
Commercial (CG). However, there is no reference in the proposed HSMP to the OS zoning designation, and it is not
identified in the SMP, either. He suggested that the OS zone should be specifically addressed in the HSMP. He said he is
bothered that the Port allows parking to occur on property that is identified in the contract rezone as Open Space. He said the
Packet Page 337 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 18
OS zoned property is located within the buffer area that is guaranteed in the contract rezone. This area needs to be preserved
into perpetuity. Mr. Lien agreed that the contract rezone identifies the property 25 feet from the edge of the marsh as OS
zoning. Board Member Clarke observed that this OS zoning is not depicted on any of the City’s maps, but it is shown on the
assessor’s records. Board Member Cloutier suggested an additional recommendation to read, “the existing OS zoning, as
identified in the contract rezone (R1979-4) shall be preserved.
Mr. Trimm explained that the development agreement would supersede the contract rezone and modify the zoning
boundaries. Mr. Chave suggested that a better way to approach the open space issue is to add a recommendation that any
future development proposal shall clearly demark and provide protection for the marsh and related open space. This would
give direction that the development agreement needs to clearly identify the open space. Mr. Lien added that the SMP
establishes setbacks for the critical areas, including a 25-foot setback from the marsh; but it does not specifically address the
open space identified in the contract rezone. However, Page 10 of the proposed HSMP includes language to describe the
anticipated setbacks and ecological enhancements along the marsh.
Board Member Clarke said that, right now, there is a boardwalk around the marsh that is considered part of the City park
system. He said he does not want this park to be lost in a landscape buffer that turns to weeds because that is how the owner
of the property wants to maintain the area. The Board concurred with Board Member Clarke’s concerns and agreed that staff
should determine the best way to protect the OS identified in Contract Rezone R1979-4 into perpetuity.
Vice Chair Stewart recommended that the last paragraph of Item 5a on Attachment 8 (Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment) be deleted. Because the athletic club has a long-term lease with the Port, she did not feel it would be
appropriate to bring up the issue of relocation at this time. Mr. Trimm pointed out that this language was part of the Port’s
application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it would not be part of the HSMP. Mr. Chave said it would continue
to part of the record, but it would be incorporated into the HSMP.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD DELETE ALL THE PROPOSED
RECOMMENDATIONS EXCEPT 2, 5, 8 AND 16 AS WRITTEN AND 11 AND 13.a AS MODIFIED. BOARD
MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT IF AND WHEN THE HSMP IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL,
IT SHOULD BE PHYSICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RATHER THAN
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN
THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD APPROVE INCORPOATION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS NEW
MASTER PLAN DATED AUGUST 27, 2012 FOR HARBOR SQUARE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ENTAILED WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS FILE NUMBER AMD20110009
AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SAME WITH THE BOARD’S ATTENDANT
RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING HEARWITH:
• BUILDINGS ALONG DAYTON STREET SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.
• DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SHOULD PLACE THE TALLEST BUILDINGS ALONG THE SOUTH AND
WEST BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY.
• BUILDING HEIGHTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 45 FEET AND CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN FOR
HEIGHTS UP TO 55 FEET IF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC
AMENITIES AND/OR SUSTAINABLE DESIGN CERTIFICATION SUCH AS LEED PLATINUM.
• AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 9 OF THE HSMP, THE EXCEPTION TO THE 55-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT FOR
SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES SUCH AS TOWER, SCULPTURE, ETC. SHOULD BE DELETED.
• DEVELOPMENT PLANS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDOR DOWN DAYTON
STREET IS PRESERVED AND ENHANCED.
• IN THE GRAPHIC SCHEMATIC SECTION THROUGH HARBOR SQUARE LOOKING WEST ON PAGE
10, THE ANNOTATION AS TO “SETBACK” ABOVE 35 FEET ALONG DAYTON STREET SHOULD BE
REVISED TO “BUILDING STEP BACK.”
Packet Page 338 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 19
• THE APPROVED MASTER PLAN SHALL BE MODIFIED AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN
CONSISTENCY WITH THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE TO BE DETERMINED
FOLLOWING THE SUBMITTAL BY THE CITY AND APPROVED BY THE STATE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PROCESS DEADLINES EXISTENT BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE CITY.
• IN THE “SR 104 FRONTAGE SECTION” ON PAGE 11 OF THE HSMP, THE WORDS “IF WSDOT IS
AMENABLE” SHOULD BE DELETED.
• AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE “DAYTON STREET FRONTAGE SECTION”
ON PAGE 11 OF THE HSMP TO READ, “CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ENHANCE STREET-
SIDE PARKING TO SUPPORT SEPARATING HUMAN ACTIVITY FROM TRAFFIC ALONG DAYTON
STREET.”
• THE EDMONDS CITY ATTORNEY SHALL DEVELOP LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH THE
MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY’S ADOPTION
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADDRESSING HEIGHT LIMITS, PRECEDENT AND VIEWS.
• STAFF SHOULD PROPOSE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR INCLUSION IN THE HSMP TO PROTECT
THE OPEN SPACE PROPERTY IDENTIIFED IN CONTRACT REZONE R1979-4 INTO PERPETUITY.
• ON PAGE 9 OF THE HSMP UNDER “CIRCULATION, TRAFFIC AND PARKING,” AN ADDITIONAL
SENTENCE SHOULD BE ADDED TO READ, “THE ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE OFF-SITE PARKING
REQUIRES THAT ADEQUATE PARKING ALLOWANCE BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL CUSTOMER,
EMPLOYEE AND RESIDENT VEHICLES DURING PEAK USE TIMES.”
• CLARIFYING LANGUAGE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE HSMP THAT RESIDENTIAL USES MUST BE
MULTI-FAMILY AND NOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
The Board discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to vote on the recommendation without seeing it written out.
They agreed it would be necessary for them to review their recommendation at the next meeting prior to forwarding it to the
City Council. Mr. Chave advised that the Board could take action on the motion and staff could prepare the recommendation
for the Board’s final review on October 24th. At that time, the Board would have the ability to make any final changes before
forwarding the recommendation to the City Council. The Board agreed that would be appropriate.
Board Member Reed indicated he would vote against the motion for the reasons stated earlier, particularly pertaining to the
proposed 55-foot maximum height limit.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO
REVIEW THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION ON OCTOBER 24, 2012 BEFORE IT IS FORWARDED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE AMENDMENT.
THE MOTION WAS APPROVED 6-1 AS AMENDED, WITH BOARD MEMBER REED VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Stewart announced that the Board’s October 24th agenda includes a work session on the Westgate Plan and form-
based code, an update on the Shoreline Master Program, and a presentation by the City Attorney regarding the Public
Meetings Act. The Board will also review their recommendation regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan before sending it
forward to the City Council.
Vice Chair Stewart advised that the next Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting is scheduled for October 17th
at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Chave said the EDC will have a discussion about retail uses in the downtown zones. Board Member Clarke
announced that, as Planning Board liaison to the EDC, he has been invited to provide an update on the Board’s work on the
Harbor Square Master Plan.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Packet Page 339 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012 Page 20
Vice Chair Stewart reported that she presented the Planning Board’s report to the City Council on October 7th. At that time,
she accepted the Mayor’s proclamation designating October as Community Planning Month in recognition of the Board’s
work. She also announced that Board Members Clarke and Ellis have been appointed to participate on the Strategic Plan
Subcommittee.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed recalled that when the Westgate Plan and form-based code proposal was introduced to the Board,
representatives from several jurisdictions shared how they incorporated a hybrid version of the form-based code concept. He
said he assumes this hybrid approach would also be considered as an option for Westgate.
Board Member Ellis reported that the Strategic Plan Subcommittee met; and with the help of staff, they were able to massage
the list of questions into something that is more useful. They particularly discussed the need to preserve citizen input into a
document that could be used when creating the Strategic Plan.
Mr. McChesney thanked the Board on behalf of the Port staff and Commission for their hard work on the HSMP. He
expressed his belief that the process validates the plan. He said the HSMP is a much better document as a result of the Port’s
engagement with the Planning Board and the community. He also thanked City staff for their help throughout the process.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 11:51 p.m.
Packet Page 340 of 998
APPROVED NOVEMBER 14TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 24, 2012
Vice Chair Stewart called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
John Reed
Neil Tibbott
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Chair (excused)
Kevin Clarke (excused)
Ian Duncan (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Rob English, Senior Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Traffic Engineer
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2012 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out that he was the only member of the public to speak to the Board at the October 10th
public hearing regarding the Capital Improvement and Capital Facilities Plans. Most of his comments are reflected in the
minutes. However, the minutes do not reflect that the Board’s Vice Chair actually cut him off even though there was no one
else in the audience to participate in the hearing. He pointed out that, at past hearings, the Board has been liberal in the
amount of time they allow members of the public to speak. He felt it was inappropriate to cut off his positive and
informational remarks. He observed that none of the Board Members responded to the concerns he raised, and he was
disappointed in the short amount of time the Board spent discussing transportation issues. He recalled that, in previous years,
the Board specifically discussed that there was insufficient budget to accomplish all of the items identified in the plan. He
suggested that the Board should have taken more time to review the transportation plan, as exhibited by the City Council’s
response to delete the proposed emergency access to the waterfront under the railroad tracks. He recalled that the City was
required to study alternate locations for the ferry terminal as part of the multi-modal study, and the underpass was one option.
He expressed frustration that the money was not spent to complete the project in the right place rather than studying other
potential locations. He urged the Board to look deeper at the Transportation Plan, which affects everyone in the City.
Packet Page 341 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 2
Vice Chair Stewart said Mr. Hertrich’s points are well taken, and his comments are always valued.
PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney Taraday said he was present to review the Open Public Meetings Act, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine,
and the Public Records Act. He explained that the Open Public Meetings Act, codified in Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 42.30, requires that all meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall
be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body or public agency except as otherwise provided in the chapter (i.e.
executive sessions). Any action that takes place at the meeting at which a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act occurs
would be null and void. If a Board Member violates the act, he/she would be subject to a $100 fine. A public agency, as
defined in the RCW, includes sub-agencies like the Planning Board. The Planning Board is a governing body of the public
agency. A governing body is defined as multi-member board, committee, commission or council or any counseling or rule-
making body of the public agency.
City Attorney Taraday explained that meetings of Planning Board subcommittees are also required to be open to the public if
a quorum of Board members will be present. Subcommittees that consist of fewer members than a quorum may not be
required to meet in public unless the subcommittee is acting on behalf of the governing body, conducting a hearing or taking
public comment. Because the City Council subcommittees allow an opportunity for public comment, their meetings are
subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. Any transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body
would also be subject to the act. This include not only City Council meetings where final decisions are made, but Planning
Board meetings where matters are discussed and recommendations are made to the City Council.
Mr. Taraday advised that a governing body can conduct a special meeting as long as they follow the specific procedures for
noticing special meetings as outlined in the RCW. He also advised that a meeting does not automatically occur when a
majority of Board members meet together. It depends on whether or not the group will be transacting the official business of
the Board. For example, the Board Members can meet together for a holiday party if they attend on a strictly social basis and
do not talk about Planning Board business.
Mr. Taraday cautioned the Board that the Open Public Meetings Act can also apply to email communications. He
encouraged extreme caution when using email to transact the business of the Board. Whenever a Board Member emails more
than one other Board Member they should put the email addresses in the Bcc field of the email rather than the address or Cc
field. This eliminates the opportunity for a Board Member’s response to be forwarded to all Board Members at the same
time. He summarized that responding back and forth amongst all Board Members via email is considered the same as
having private conversations and constitutes a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.
Board Member Reed expressed concern that emailing Board Members by placing the addresses in the Bcc Field seems
somewhat deceptive. He noted that most of the Board’s email relates to scheduling issues. They typically form
subcommittees of one or two Board Members to explore an issue and report back to the Board. He expressed his belief that
this would not be subject to the Open Public Meetings Act because the subcommittee would not constitute a quorum and
would report findings back to the Planning Board at an open meeting.
City Attorney Taraday agreed that a subcommittee meeting would only be subject to the Open Public Meetings Act if a
quorum of Board Members is present. However, disseminating email to the entire Board and allowing Board Members to
respond in a way that the entire Board can see each other’s responses is a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. Even if
the email is simply discussing a scheduling issue, it is still considered a private conversation and would not be allowed. He
expressed his belief that using the Bcc Field would be no more outside the spirit of the Open Public Meetings Act than two
Board Members meeting for coffee to talk about Planning Board business. Board Members are allowed to meet one on one,
but they are not allowed to meet together as a quorum to discuss Planning Board business outside of a public meeting.
City Attorney Taraday advised that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to quasi-judicial decision making. That
means the doctrine would apply each and every time the Board sits as judge on a quasi-judicial matter. The only time the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would come into play for the Planning Board is when they conduct open record public
hearings on site-specific rezone applications. Quasi-judicial proceedings must not only be fair, they must appear fair.
Fairness is not based only on the Board Members’ subjective view of whether they are being fair; it is how the public
Packet Page 342 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 3
perceives their fairness. He emphasized that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not apply when the Board is acting in
a legislative capacity, but they must exercise much more discretion when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. When sitting in
a quasi-judicial role, the Board will be required to apply certain standards to their decisions.
City Attorney Taraday said it is important to distinguish between site-specific rezones and Comprehensive Plan amendments.
It is possible that the Board will be required to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation on a Comprehensive
Plan amendment and a site-specific rezone application for the same property. The Comprehensive Plan amendment would
not be subject to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and Board Members could be lobbied outside of public meetings
without violating the doctrine. However, they would not be allowed to have conversations regarding a site-specific rezone
application outside of a public meeting.
City Attorney Taraday advised that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not allow Board Members to have ex parte
communications, which are communications regarding a quasi-judicial matter outside of a public hearing. Because the Board
will sit as judge on site-specific rezone applications, they cannot talk with either opponents or proponents of the application
except during a public meeting. He explained that a public record is created of an open public hearing for a site-specific
rezone application. Everything that the Board Members hear regarding the application should become part of the public
record. Conversations that take place outside of a public meeting would not be included in the record that is forwarded to the
City Council as part of the Board’s recommendation unless they are disclosed as an ex parte communication. He
acknowledged that ex parte communications happen from time to time, and sometimes they are difficult to avoid. If a Board
Member experiences this type of situation, they should disclose the circumstances of the communication at the beginning of
the open public hearing. The other side would then have an opportunity to rebut the substance of that ex parte
communications.
Board Member Ellis asked how the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and ex parte communications would work when the
Board considers both a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a site specific rezone for the same parcels but at different times.
He specifically referred to the Port of Edmonds’ request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Harbor Square
Master Plan. The Board conducted a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council on this legislative
action. If the Port follows the Comprehensive Plan amendment with a site-specific rezone application or a development
agreement proposal, the Board would conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing and make a recommendation to the City
Council. Mr. Taraday explained that if the Port’s application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment had been accompanied
by a binding, site-specific rezone application, the Board would have had to be very careful to avoid and disclose ex parte
communications as they discussed both applications. That is a good reason to complete the Comprehensive Plan amendment
process first and then follow with a site-specific rezone application. He summarized that if there is no site-specific rezone
application pending at the time of the communication, there is no ex parte communication. Whether or not it is required by
law, he recommended Board Members disclose any ex parte communications for the record to make the process appear as
fair as possible. This would allow the other side to rebut the substance of the comment.
City Attorney Taraday advised that at the outset of each quasi-judicial hearing, including each additional day that a hearing
is extended, the Planning Board Chair should perform an Appearance of Fairness inquiry, asking the Board Members
whether there has been any violation that needs to be disclosed. Each Board Member would have an opportunity to disclose
anything they feel is necessary. After each Board Member has answered the question, the Planning Board Chair should ask
whether any member has a conflict of interest or believes they cannot consider the application in a fair and objective manner.
Once all disclosures have been made and proponents and/or opponents have been allowed to rebut as necessary, the Planning
Board Chair should ask if anyone in the audience objects to a Board Member’s participation as a decision maker in the
hearing. This process forces anyone who wants to object to the process to do so as soon as the basis for the objection is
known.
City Attorney Taraday suggested that to determine whether or not it is necessary to recuse oneself, Board Members should
ask, “would a disinterested person with knowledge of the totality of my personal interest be reasonably justified in thinking
my involvement might affect my judgment?” He noted that even if no ex parte communication concerns are raised, Board
Members could still be challenged or asked to recuse themselves based on the following bias issues:
Board Members should recuse themselves if they have a prejudgment concerning issues of fact about parties in a
particular case. If Board Members feel they cannot be open minded, they should probably recuse themselves.
Packet Page 343 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 4
However, it is important to distinguish between a general policy leaning a Board Member might have and an actual
prejudgment about the facts of a specific case. For example, a Board Member may have a policy leaning that
development is good and he/she wants to see more development in Edmonds. However, that leaning would not
require a Board Member to step down from a site-specific rezone application that comes before the Board as long as
he/she is confident they won’t prejudge the application.
Board Members must avoid showing partiality or a personal bias or prejudgment signifying an attitude for or against
a party. They should ask themselves if a fair-minded person observing the proceedings could conclude that
everyone was able to be heard. For example, allowing a proponent to speak to the Board longer than an opponent
might suggest there is some partiality. The Board should also ask themselves if they gave reasonable consideration
to all creditable information that was presented to them.
There could be a conflict of interest if a Board Member stands to gain or lose something as a result of the Board’s
decision. These situations are usually clear and obvious circumstances such as a financial gain if a rezone is
approved or a Board Member owns the property that is the subject of a rezone application. Less obvious conflict of
interest situations include a Board Member being offered a job by the applicant who is seeking a rezone. Board
Members should contact the City Attorney if they have a question as to whether their participation in a public
hearing would be considered a conflict of interest.
City Attorney Taraday pointed out that the remedy for an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation is the same as for
violation of the Open Public Meetings Act; the Board’s action would be invalidated and a new public hearing would be
required. He emphasized the importance of identifying conflict of interest and appearance of fairness issues at the outset of
the public hearing process. He cautioned the Board that when conducting open record hearings, in general, it is important to
create a complete verbatim record. Every person who speaks during the hearing should use the microphone so the comments
are captured in the audio recording.
City Attorney Taraday explained that, as per the Public Records Act, any email that relates to Planning Board business is
considered part of the public record. While the City does not receive a lot of public record requests for Planning Board
Member emails, it could happen and Board Members would be required to produce all emails that are subject to the request
from their personal email accounts. He suggested that, at some point, it would be appropriate for the City to move official
emails from board and commission members to a City server so that board members and commissioners are not burdened
with having to search for and produce emails from their personal computers. Emails on the City server can be searched by
the City Clerk to fulfill public record requests. Until the City makes this change, he suggested the Board Members may want
to limit their email activity.
WORK SESSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED ZONING
Mr. Hauss introduced the City’s consultant, Jennifer Barnes, Heffron Transportation, Inc., who was present to provide a
summary of the transportation analysis that was recently completed based on the land use policy changes proposed in the
Westgate and Five Corners Plans. He also noted that Ms. Barnes worked with City staff to complete the 2009 Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) update.
Jennifer Barnes, Consultant, Heffron Transportation, Inc., explained that the purpose of the transportation analysis was
to determine how the proposed land use policy changes in the Westgate and Five Corners areas would affect the City’s
current adopted TMP. Because it serves as the Transportation Element in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, it is important to
identify the potential impacts to the TMP if the proposed changes are adopted. She explained that because the proposed
action is a policy change and not a specific development proposal, the analysis is still programmatic and intended to answer
the question of whether or not the TMP would still address transportation impacts resulting from future land use growth if the
proposed changes are adopted. She emphasized that whether or not the proposed land use policy changes are adopted,
subsequent development proposals would still be subject to project-level State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review,
including a required traffic impact and access management analysis.
Ms. Barnes advised that for the analysis, she evaluated conditions for the Comprehensive Plan long-range plan through 2025,
compared the assumed future land use in study areas with the proposal, calculated additional trips resulting from build out
under the proposal, evaluated the effect of additional trips on the City’s adopted long-range transportation plan, and evaluated
consistency with the City’s transportation policies. The analysis identified the following conclusions:
Packet Page 344 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 5
Build out of land use with the proposed policy changes would add some intersection delay, but the Level of Service
(LOS) would remain the same (LOS D).
With the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan in place, all intersections are expected to continue to operate within
the City’s LOS D standard.
Additional transit and non-motorized trips resulting from an increase in land-use density would not affect the TMP
improvements and recommendations, and no changes would be needed.
Ms. Barnes explained that the proposed design concept for the Westgate area also includes the potential narrowing of 100th
Avenue West from five vehicular traffic lanes to three. This would provide additional right-of-way to accommodate a
bicycle lane, parking, and sidewalks. The analysis considered the potential impacts of this change and determined that, with
the projected 2025 build-out volumes, such a roadway cross section would degrade operations at the Edmonds Way
intersection from LOS D to LOS F. She said she would not recommend adopting the proposed change at this time. If the
City chooses to pursue the option at some point in the future as part of an actual development proposal, a more detailed
project-level analysis would be needed to identify strategies for reducing vehicle demand through the intersection and/or
configuring the right-of-way to maintain a wider cross section at the intersection. However, she emphasized that the
proposed land use policy changes could still be adopted without adopting the proposed change to the roadway cross sections.
Ms. Barnes advised that because the proposal is a non-project action rather than a site specific development proposal, site-
specific characteristics such as driveway access, internal circulation, parking and safety are more detailed than is appropriate
at the Comprehensive Plan level. Subsequent development proposals would be required to evaluate site-specific elements for
consistency with the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. She summarized that, based on the conclusions of
the transportation assessment, the proposed land use policy changes would be consistent with the TMP policies, particularly
those that encourage alternative modes and transportation system efficiency.
Vice Chair Stewart raised a concern that the proposal to narrow 100th Avenue West from five to three vehicular lines would
not provide adequate space for safe bicycle lanes. Ms. Barnes explained that, currently, there are two lanes for vehicular
traffic in each direction and a center turn lane. As per the proposal, the street would be narrowed to one lane in each
direction, with a turn lane in the middle. The additional right-of-way width could be used for bicycle lanes, parking,
sidewalks, etc. The City must determine if providing access for non-motorized vehicles is an adequate tradeoff for reducing
the capacity for vehicular traffic. The traffic assessment has determined that without some additional analysis to identify
strategies to reduce vehicular demand through the intersection and/or reconfigure the intersection to maintain a wider cross
section, the LOS at the intersection would reach a level that would be unacceptable to both the City and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
Mr. Chave explained that there may be opportunities to change the street configuration while avoiding significant changes at
the intersection. For example, it may be possible to provide bicycle and pedestrian opportunities on 100th Avenue West near
the cemetery. He summarized that the traffic assessment concluded that more study is needed regarding the proposal to
narrow 100th Avenue West. If the concept is eliminated from the plan for the time being, the proposed land use policy
changes would still be consistent with the City’s adopted TMP. Ms. Barnes agreed that the concept could be pursued further
as part of a future development proposal.
Mr. Chave reported that City Council Member Johnson suggested that the City look holistically at the public improvements
on the SR 104 Corridor. It may be possible to apply some of the concepts discussed in the Westgate Plan to the entire
corridor.
Board Member Reed referred to Table 4 on Page 8 of the Transportation Assessment, which identifies the current and
projected number of primary and pass-by trips. He noted that “pass-by” trips refer to people heading home from work who
stop at businesses along the corridor. He observed that the recommendation focuses on the primary trips and suggested that
perhaps more weight should be given to the pass-by trips. Ms. Barnes explained that the general effect of both primary and
pass-by trips on the transportation system is accounted for in the analysis. A more specific analysis that distinguishes
between primary and pass-by trips would be required as part of a future development proposal. This more detailed analysis
would consider specific impacts to the transportation system as a result of additional driveways, driveway reconfiguration,
etc.
Packet Page 345 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 6
Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that the LOS at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West would drop
from Level D to Level F by 2025 (See Pages 11 and 13 of the report). Ms. Barnes said the comments about the significant
reduction in the LOS level are based on the reduced capacity that would result from an intersection reconfiguration. The
analysis shows that the LOS level would remain relatively the same if no significant changes are made to the intersection.
That is why the analysis recommends that more study is needed before the City makes a decision to reconfigure the
intersection.
Mr. Chave provided a map that was prepared by the University of Washington team to illustrate the topography of the
hillsides that surrounds the Westgate area. The map compares the elevation of the Westgate properties with the elevation of
the existing development on top of the slope and illustrates that five-story development makes more sense in some areas than
others. He noted that the elevation difference in the southwest quadrant is between 55 and 70 feet, and buildings of up to five
stories that sit below that level would not create a problem for the residential properties above. In the northwest quadrant, the
cemetery provides a significant buffer between the Westgate area and surrounding residential properties, so taller buildings
would not have a significant impact. In the northeast quadrant, the elevation change is about 50 feet so four-story and
potentially five-story development would work in this location, as well. However, elevation change in the southeast quadrant
is only 30 to 40 feet and four and five-story buildings may not be appropriate in this location because they could rise above
the surrounding residential areas. He noted that the depth of properties is less in the southeast quadrant, as well, which is
another reason why larger buildings may not be the best solution for that location.
Board Member Reed pointed out that Page 6 of the draft Westgate Plan and Form-Based Code indicates that all parcels
would be eligible for height bonuses up to four or five stories, including the southeast quadrant. A height bonus score sheet
is provided on Page 53 of the document and outlines what would be required for a developer to obtain the additional height.
Mr. Chave advised that the language could be changed to make it clear that the height bonus would only apply to certain
areas. Height in some areas, such as the southeast quadrant, could be restricted to three or four stories. The Board agreed it
would be appropriate to limit height in the southeast quadrant to no more than four stories.
Mr. Chave indicated that staff would incorporate the additional changes and prepare an updated draft that clearly
distinguishes between the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan elements. The updated draft would be presented to
the Board for additional review. It was noted that the extended agenda identifies a public hearing on the draft Westgate Plan
and Form-Based Code on November 14th, but this meeting would actually be a work session with a tentative public hearing
scheduled for December 12th. Mr. Chave invited Board Members to forward additional comments to staff. Staff would
compile a list of the comments for the Board’s consideration on November 14th. While it is possible for the University of
Washington Team to attend the Board’s work session on November 14th, Mr. Chave suggested it would not be necessary. He
emphasized that the proposal is now a City document to work through and make the appropriate changes.
FINALIZE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PORT OF
EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN (HSMP) INTO THE CITY
OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE AMD20110009)
Mr. Lien reviewed that on October 10th, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the Port of Edmonds’
request to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP) into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the
meeting, the Board voted 6-1 (Board Member Reed voted in opposition) to forward the HSMP to the City Council for
approval based on specific recommendations. Following the Board’s action, they agreed it would be appropriate to review
the recommendation one last time, in writing, before forwarding it to the City Council for final review and approval. He
referred to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (Attachment 1), which captures all of the motions made at the
last meeting. He noted that the recommendations were reorganized so that all those relating to height were placed first.
Note: The list of the draft recommendations were included in the agenda packet but were not read at the meeting. Upon the
direction of the Board, the list of recommendations was included in the minutes for additional clarity:
1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development
proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum.
2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property.
Packet Page 346 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 7
3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height.
4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced.
5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under “Circulation, Traffic and Parking”, an additional sentence should
be added to read: “The absence of available off-site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to
accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times.”
6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit for special
architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted.
7. In the graphic “Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West” on page 10, the annotation as to “setback”
above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to “building step back”.
8. An additional sentence should be added to the “Dayton Street Frontage” section on page 11 of the Harbor Square
Master Plan to read: “Consideration should be given to enhance street-side parking to support separating human
activity from the traffic along Dayton Street.”
9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under “SR 104 Frontage”, “If WSDOT is amendable” should be stricken
from the beginning of the third sentence.
10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 to be
incorporated into the City’s adoption of the Comprehensive Plan addressing height limits, precedent, and views.
11. Clarifying language should be added to the Harbor Square Master Plan that residential uses must be multi-family and
not single-family residential.
12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the City Council, it should be physically incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan rather than incorporated by reference.
13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and provide protection for the Edmonds Marsh by establishing an
area of open space not less than 25 feet landward from the edge of the Edmonds Marsh and ensure any development
preserves or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway.
14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to maintain consistency with the Shoreline Master Program
update to be determined following submittal by the City and approved by the State in accordance with process deadlines
existent between the State and the City.
Board Member Reed referred to the first sentence of the third paragraph on Page 5 of Attachment 1, which calls for locating
the taller buildings at the far southern edge of the site and outside of recognized public view corridors. He noted that this
statement is inconsistent with Recommendation 2 on Page 8 of Attachment 1, which calls for taller buildings towards the
south and west. The Board agreed that the language contained in Recommendation 2 should be incorporated into the
narrative on Page 5.
The Board discussed whether it would be necessary to make another motion to approve the recommendation as drafted. They
agreed that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations contained in Attachment 1 reflect the action taken by the Board
at the October 10th meeting. Because no substantive changes were made, the Board concluded that the previous action would
stand and no additional action would be required.
CITY OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that a few months ago they decided to put their review of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
on hold to allow time for them to complete their review of the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Plan. He referred the
Board to the most recent version of the SMP regulations (Attachment 1) and noted that minor changes were made related to
aquaculture. In addition, the Board indicated they would like to review the setbacks established in the Shoreline Bulk and
Dimensional Standards Table (ECDC 24.40.090).
Mr. Lien referred the Board to ECDC 24.60.010 (Page 88), which relates to aquaculture. He reminded the Board that in their
initial discussions they talked about prohibiting aquaculture within the shoreline area. Since that time, another jurisdiction in
Washington attempted to prohibit the use, and the Department of Ecology (DOE) determined that was not allowable.
However, the DOE advised that the City of Edmonds’ situation is different and they would allow them to place tidal
restrictions on aquaculture uses. He noted that net pens associated with the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery already exist, and
the proposed regulation would allow the use to continue but prohibit all other types of aquaculture uses. He noted that the
Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standard Table on Page 53 was also updated to eliminate the setback requirement for
permitted aquaculture uses in the residential zones.
Packet Page 347 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 8
Mr. Lien referred to the Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table, starting on Page 53 of the draft SMP and recalled
that the Board was particularly interested in reviewing the standards that would apply to the new Urban Mixed Use III
Environment. The current draft proposes a 15-foot setback for recreational uses, a 25-foot setback for buildings, and a 25-
foot setback for parking. The Board has discussed their desire to increase the setback requirement for buildings and parking
to at least 35 feet and as much as 50 feet. He invited the Board to provide additional direction regarding this issue now that
they have completed their review of the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Board Member Tibbott asked if there is additional scientific information that would support a setback requirement greater
than 25 feet. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the scientific data supports a 200-foot setback for pristine shorelines that are
undeveloped. While the Port has indicated their desire to improve the buffers along the marsh, it is important to recognize
that the property is already developed to within 25 feet of the shoreline. Both the adopted Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)
and the proposed SMP would allow development to occur within the footprint of existing development, but the footprint
could not be expanded further into the setback area. He recalled the pictures he provided previously to illustrate the types of
development that exists along the marsh.
Mr. Lien explained that the Critical Areas Ordinance is a requirement of GMA and applies to properties outside of the
shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP applies to properties within the shoreline jurisdiction, and the goal is “no net loss.” The
DOE has reviewed the City’s current CAO that was adopted in 2005 and applied it to their shoreline guidelines. They
determined that the buffers identified in the CAO were inconsistent, and the City was required to adopt buffers from the
DOE’s small jurisdiction best available science for wetlands (See the chart on Page 38). The Edmonds Marsh would be
classified as a Category I Estuarine Wetland, which requires a standard 150 foot buffer.
Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that they have learned a lot about wetlands and wetland buffers since the Harbor Square
property was originally developed. The Port has proposed a 50-foot setback in their conceptual plan. While she would like
the setback to be even greater, she would support a 50-foot setback given that the Port has proposed an increase in the buffers
and setbacks. She expressed her belief that the marsh must be given more room and restoring the buffers would be
appropriate.
Board Member Reed asked if the 50-foot setback proposed by Vice Chair Stewart would apply to all development within the
shoreline jurisdiction of the Urban Mixed Use III Environment. The Board agreed that recreational uses such as an
interpretive trail could have a lower setback requirement.
Board Member Cloutier left the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Mr. Lien reviewed the difference between a setback, buffer and shoreline jurisdiction. He reminded the Board that a buffer is
meant to provide an ecological function, and a setback is how far a structure must be setback from the shoreline. The
shoreline jurisdiction is measured 200 feet of the shoreline. He provided an image to illustrate the proposed buffer, setback
and shoreline jurisdiction for the Harbor Square property, which is located in the proposed new Urban Mixed Use III
Environment. He also noted the location of the Open Space (OS) zone, which is identified in the current contract rezone as
all property within 25 feet of the shoreline. All development is prohibited within the OS zone. Board Member Tibbott
pointed out that no buildings are located within 50 feet of the marsh currently. Vice Chair Stewart observed that the tennis
courts are located less than 50 feet from the marsh.
Board Member Tibbott asked if the City anticipates the marsh boundaries will expand if Willow Creek is daylighted at some
point in the future. Mr. Lien recalled that Keeley O’Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, previously explained that if
Willow Creek is daylighted, the marsh boundaries would likely expand towards SR 104. However, the marsh would not
expand in other directions because of the fill that has occurred. He provided a map that was done as part of a survey
associated with the Edmonds Crossing Project. The map delineates the current boundaries of the salt water marsh and
identifies the anticipated marsh expansion if Willow Creek is daylighted at some future time.
Board Member Reed clarified that all existing development would be grandfathered in irrespective of the changes to the
SMP. Mr. Lien said that existing development located within the setbacks established in the SMP would become legal, non-
conforming uses. The new standards would only apply to new development.
Packet Page 348 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 9
Once again, Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that the setback requirement for all new buildings and parking in the
Urban Mixed Use III Environment should be 50 feet regardless of the location of existing buildings. Recreational uses could
have a lesser setback requirement. She expressed concern that the closer a building and/or parking is placed to the marsh, the
more the marsh and its wildlife will be disturbed. She said she believes a 50-foot setback would be a good compromise,
particularly given the impacts of potential redevelopment at Harbor Square. Board Member Reed asked if Vice Chair
Stewart is recommending a 50-foot setback for both ground and structured parking. Board Member Stewart answered
affirmatively and pointed out that the lights and oil from cars is not good for the marsh environment.
Board Member Ellis suggested the Board should wait until a larger group of Board Members are present to make a final
decision related to setbacks. While he is not necessarily opposed to a 50-foot setback requirement, he is not convinced it is
appropriate, either. He would like to highlight this issue and discuss it further after the public hearing. He said that if the
Harbor Square Property was currently undeveloped, he would support a 150-foot setback requirement. But he is concerned
about the impact a 50-foot setback would have on the Port’s ability to implement the HSMP.
Board Member Reed recalled that at a previous meeting he asked Ms. O’Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, to provide
a recommendation related to setback, and she declined to do so. He reminded the Board that the Harbor Square Master Plan
contemplates a 50-foot setback for the developed portion of the property and a 200-foot setback for the property that is
currently undeveloped.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, said he would like to take the setback issue under advisement and
have further discussion with City staff. Generally speaking, the Port can live with a 50-foot setback requirement, but he
would like to review the proposal with his team to ensure it makes sense as per the HSMP. The Board agreed that would be
appropriate. They agreed to discuss the issue further at their next meeting. Mr. Lien announced that a public hearing on the
draft SMP has been scheduled for November 14th, at which time he will provide a more detailed presentation to refresh the
Board’s memory and highlight specific aspects of the proposal. His presentation can make specific note of the outstanding
issue related to setbacks in the Urban Mixed Use III Environment.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Stewart noted there are only two Planning Board meetings remaining in 2012. The second meetings in November
and December are near the holidays and have been cancelled. The November 14th meeting is scheduled as a study session for
the Westgate Plan and form-based code and a public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program. A public hearing on
proposed amendments to the street vacation regulations is scheduled for November 14th, as well. The Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services director will present the quarterly Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Report on December 12th.
Board Member Tibbott agreed to prepare an article for publication in the local newspaper to advertise the upcoming public
hearings on the Westgate Plan and formed based code and the Shoreline Master Program. Board Member Reed agreed to
review the article before it is submitted for publication.
Vice Chair Stewart noted that the Board was supposed to have a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission
(EDC) on October 17th, to discuss potential changes to the Downtown Business (BD1) zone. Board Member Reed said that
he and Board Member Clarke attended the EDC’s October 17th meeting where the BD1 zone was the topic of discussion. He
reminded the EDC that the Planning Board had an extensive discussion regarding this topic in 2011. Board Member Reed
agreed to contact Mr. Clifton to discuss whether the joint meeting should be rescheduled or if there would be a better way for
the Board to provide input to the EDC.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Stewart thanked the City staff and Port team for their hard work and multiple meetings to get through the Harbor
Square Master Plan process. She said she envisions good things ahead and she is hopeful.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Packet Page 349 of 998
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 24, 2012 Page 10
Board Member Reed noted that the Board’s recommendation to the City Council regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan
requires a signature from a member of the Board. He questioned if Vice Chair Stewart should sign the document or if they
should wait for Chair Lovell to return.
Vice Chair Stewart reminded the Board that several amendments were made to the original motion to recommend approval of
the Harbor Square Master Plan. The October 10th minutes indicate that the final vote on the original motion, as amended,
was 6-1, with Board Member Reed voting in opposition. She clarified that she had intended to vote against the final motion,
as well, because she was not in favor of the language that was approved for Recommendation 1: “Building heights shall be
limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant
public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum.” As she expressed on October 10th, she felt
the word “or” should be deleted. She asked that her concern be noted for the record.
Board Member Reed suggested that when the Planning Board recommendation was presented to the City Council, it would
be appropriate to mention that Recommendation 1 and 3 to the Harbor Square Master Plan passed with two opposed. It was
also suggested that the presentation could state that the full master plan, with all recommendations made by the Planning
Board, was approved by a vote of 6-1.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Packet Page 350 of 998
1 | Page
November 20, 2012
Edmonds Planning Board Commentary to City Council
RE: Conclusions and Recommendations accompanying the Board’s forwarding of Port of Edmonds
proposed Master Plan for Harbor Square for amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan
The intent of our commentary this evening is to strengthen the tenor of our findings with respect to the
Port’s Master Plan and to pass along some of the organizational undertakings of our Board in
deliberation of the Plan.
At the outset the Planning Board would like to sincerely thank our professional staff, the Port and their
consulting team, and the public for their hard work and assistance to the Board in reviewing the
proposed master plan.
Our commentary may be summarized in three major categories as follows:
Overall Summary
Depth of Review by the Planning Board
Public input to date in the process
Overall Summary
The Planning Board’s findings, recommendations, and recommendations are contained within the City
memorandum File Number AMD20110009, dated October 24, 2012 as signed by Board Vice‐Chair,
Valerie Stewart. In addition to background data, this memo includes staff findings relative to the city’s
Comprehensive Plan as well as a listing of 14 specific conditions developed by the Planning Board
accompanying our recommendation to Council that the Port’s Plan be added to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board believes that the Port’s plan as amended by the provisions
within this memorandum will provide a strong and conforming base for potential future development of
the Harbor Square property while preserving both the character and attractiveness of this city’s most
valuable asset, our downtown‐waterfront area.
Depth of Planning Board Review
We have undertaken an extensive review of the Port’s proposed master plan starting with the Port’s
introduction of the plan to the Board on July 25th. We have devoted substantial time at no less than six
(6) of our public meetings covering data collection and sharing, analysis, discussion, and deliberation,
with both Port and public participation virtually throughout. The depth of review and resultant
summaries of these meetings are contained within the published minutes of our meetings.
[7/25, 8/22, 9/12, 9/26, 10/10, 10/24] Critical meetings such as the public workshop held with the Port
on August 22 have been videotaped and should still be available. Additionally, audio recordings of the
board’s discussions are available for all of our meeting deliberations. On occasion, various council
members have shared with me that they enjoy reading the minutes to our meetings because of the
depth and scope of our deliberation on various issues. This would be a good time to exercise such
enjoyment.
Packet Page 351 of 998
2 | Page
In addition to our 7 meetings and volume of material prepared and presented, Board members took a 3
hour Port‐hosted walking tour of the Harbor Square site during which we learned much with regard to
this section of the city including but not limited to such aspects as:
Site access and egress
Existing buildings and tenants
Relationship to Edmonds Marsh
Parking and traffic
Drainage
Site history
Walkability
Landscaping and buffer zones
Streetscape, view corridors and characteristics
Relationship to the downtown core
Relationship to the antique mall site across Dayton
Furthermore, some of our Board members toured developed areas outside of Edmonds in order to
expand the scope of our thinking and discussions, specifically Mill Creek Town Center and downtown
Kirkland.
We would commend to you the documentation of our discussions and efforts with the firm belief that
we have addressed virtually every aspect of the Port’s Master Plan as to appropriateness and in
particular, with respect to conformity to the city’s comprehensive plan. We would also impart the same
cautions to you folks that were provided us which greatly helped our review process.
Firstly, this is not a project or development proposal being put forward for consideration and/or
approval. By incorporating the Port’s Master Plan into the City’s Comp. Plan we are only laying the
foundation for a future potential rezone and/or development agreement for the property to support a
mixed use concept. Any future development agreement would be subject to further public participation
and Council approval as well as project level environmental review.
Secondly, the Planning Board tried to avoid straying ‘too deeply into the weeds’ by over‐analyzing or
over‐designing individual aspects or characteristics covering desired details to the master plan concept.
At times, we wondered whether we would ever complete discussion or reach concurrence on certain
aspects of the Port’s plan, in particular the matter of building heights. Again we would suggest that the
Council start by reading the journey of our review; you might save yourself some time.
Public Input to date in the process
The Port has been working a master planning process for potential future development of Harbor
Square since the end of 2009 when their Phase I Feasibility Study was completed. Their planning process
has included continuous and active public input including a steering committee, numerous public
meetings and workshops, EDC and Planning Board briefings [we are, after all, part of the public], and
finally, a more formal public hearing prior to the Port Commission’s unanimous adoption of the
completed plan on June 25, 2012.
Packet Page 352 of 998
3 | Page
As mentioned above, the Planning Board has taken and considered considerable input from the public
as well. We understand that Council will be furthering these efforts.
In addition to completing Planning Board review of the Port’s proposed master plan I would also report
that following public hearing and related discussions during our regular meeting on Nov. 14 (2012)
regarding the city’s Shoreline Master Program update the board approved forwarding our associated
recommendation to Council. We would urge that this update be reviewed concurrently with the Port’s
plan primarily because adjustments to our SMP update are recommended to accommodate State DOE
determination that shoreline jurisdiction now extends into portions of the Edmonds Marsh.
In conclusion we like to again thank all organizations, staff, and the public for their valuable input and
assistance in reviewing the Port’s proposed Master Plan. We believe that incorporating the Plan with
the board’s accompanying recommendations into the City’s Comprehensive Plan will allow a new
vibrant neighborhood to be created thereby contributing to the economic, social, and environmental
well‐being of Edmonds, and in particular to its most valuable asset, our waterfront.
Respectfully submitted,
P. B. Lovell
Chair, Edmonds Planning Board
Packet Page 353 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
6
o
f
9
9
8
Addendum to Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
Addition to Application Form Item #5c
20.00.050 Findings.
C. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city;
The Harbor Square Master Plan amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan will maintain the
appropriate balance of land uses in the City. Edmonds is predominantly a residential community with
approximately 60% of its total land base occupied with residential uses. Specifically, 54.8% of the land
base is devoted single family uses while 4.8% is devoted to multiple family uses such as condominiums,
town homes and apartments. To support the residential community, retail and commercial uses,
community facilities and open space uses account for another 15% with street right of ways and utilities
accounting for the remaining land area.
The Harbor Square Master Plan matches and maintains the City‐wide allocation of uses with residential
being the predominant proposed use and accounting for 60% of the site (380,121 square feet) and retail
services, offices and open space occupying the remainder of the site (250,847 square feet).
The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adopting the Harbor Square Master Plan provides for the
phased conversion of the existing uses to a combination of personal and professional offices, retail
services, public open spaces, private recreation, hotel accommodation and residential uses. When
comparing the allocation of existing uses at Harbor Square to those proposed in the master plan, it is
important to note that with the exception of residential uses, many of the uses currently provided at
Harbor Square will be maintained. The addition of residential uses to the current mix of uses at Harbor
Square will enhance the human activity levels by providing the opportunity for people to live in the
waterfront district and interact with numerous waterfront activities. This interaction with such facilities
as waterfront parks, pedestrian pathways, the commuter rail station and new and expanded retail and
service uses will strengthen the economic and cultural vitality of the waterfront area while maintaining
the City’s existing balance of land uses.
Packet Page 367 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
6
o
f
9
9
8
Packet Page 387 of 998
Packet Page 388 of 998
Packet Page 389 of 998
Packet Page 390 of 998
Packet Page 391 of 998
Packet Page 392 of 998
Packet Page 393 of 998
Packet Page 394 of 998
Packet Page 395 of 998
Packet Page 396 of 998
Packet Page 397 of 998
Packet Page 398 of 998
Packet Page 399 of 998
Packet Page 400 of 998
Packet Page 401 of 998
Packet Page 402 of 998
Packet Page 403 of 998
Packet Page 404 of 998
Packet Page 405 of 998
Packet Page 406 of 998
Packet Page 407 of 998
Packet Page 408 of 998
Packet Page 409 of 998
Packet Page 410 of 998
Packet Page 411 of 998
Packet Page 412 of 998
Packet Page 413 of 998
Packet Page 414 of 998
Packet Page 415 of 998
Packet Page 416 of 998
Packet Page 417 of 998
Packet Page 418 of 998
Packet Page 419 of 998
Packet Page 420 of 998
Packet Page 421 of 998
Packet Page 422 of 998
Packet Page 423 of 998
Packet Page 424 of 998
Packet Page 425 of 998
Packet Page 426 of 998
Packet Page 427 of 998
Packet Page 428 of 998
Packet Page 429 of 998
Packet Page 430 of 998
Packet Page 431 of 998
Packet Page 432 of 998
Packet Page 433 of 998
Packet Page 434 of 998
Packet Page 435 of 998
Packet Page 436 of 998
Packet Page 437 of 998
Packet Page 438 of 998
Packet Page 439 of 998
Packet Page 440 of 998
Packet Page 441 of 998
Packet Page 442 of 998
Packet Page 443 of 998
Packet Page 444 of 998
Packet Page 445 of 998
Packet Page 446 of 998
Packet Page 447 of 998
Packet Page 448 of 998
Packet Page 449 of 998
Packet Page 450 of 998
Packet Page 451 of 998
Packet Page 452 of 998
Packet Page 453 of 998
Packet Page 454 of 998
Packet Page 455 of 998
Packet Page 456 of 998
Packet Page 457 of 998
Packet Page 458 of 998
Packet Page 459 of 998
Packet Page 460 of 998
Packet Page 461 of 998
Packet Page 462 of 998
Packet Page 463 of 998
Packet Page 464 of 998
Packet Page 465 of 998
Packet Page 466 of 998
Packet Page 467 of 998
Packet Page 468 of 998
Packet Page 469 of 998
Packet Page 470 of 998
Packet Page 471 of 998
Packet Page 472 of 998
Packet Page 473 of 998
Packet Page 474 of 998
Packet Page 475 of 998
Packet Page 476 of 998
Packet Page 477 of 998
Packet Page 478 of 998
Packet Page 479 of 998
Packet Page 480 of 998
Packet Page 481 of 998
Packet Page 482 of 998
Packet Page 483 of 998
Packet Page 484 of 998
Packet Page 485 of 998
Packet Page 486 of 998
Packet Page 487 of 998
Packet Page 488 of 998
Packet Page 489 of 998
Packet Page 490 of 998
Packet Page 491 of 998
Packet Page 492 of 998
Packet Page 493 of 998
Packet Page 494 of 998
Packet Page 495 of 998
Packet Page 496 of 998
Packet Page 497 of 998
Packet Page 498 of 998
Packet Page 499 of 998
Packet Page 500 of 998
Packet Page 501 of 998
Packet Page 502 of 998
Packet Page 503 of 998
Packet Page 504 of 998
Packet Page 505 of 998
Packet Page 506 of 998
Packet Page 507 of 998
Packet Page 508 of 998
Packet Page 509 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
0
o
f
9
9
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
1
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
2
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
3
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
4
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
5
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
6
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
7
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
8
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
54
9
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
0
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
1
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
2
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
3
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
4
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
5
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
6
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
7
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
8
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
55
9
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
0
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
1
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
2
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
3
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
4
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
5
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
6
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
7
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
8
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
56
9
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
57
0
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
57
1
of
99
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
57
2
of
99
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
3
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
3
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
3
2
o
f
9
9
8
- 1 -
BNC/11835/24/675443
PORT OF EDMONDS
HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN
APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
PLANNING BOARD QUESTIONS
1) Question and comment regarding economic feasibility; “…the economics
don’t work”. The Port submits that we have never represented in any of our
public meetings or reports that the underlying economic analysis was definitive or
in any way conclusive of how Harbor Square will ultimately be redeveloped. A
definitive answer to the economic feasibility question can only be known for
certain later in the process when a developer evaluates the redevelopment
potential and can specifically quantify the required financial components at that
time. The Port’s analysis at this time only attempts to illustrate in broad terms
what some of the economic issues would be, and how we can address them based
on what we know today. We don’t have perfect information. The economic
realities and market factors are dynamic. We’re in a serious dip now, but we hope
that won’t always be the case. In the final analysis, economic feasibility can’t be
known until someone makes an investment decision. At this point in the process,
we’ve had three consultants take a look at it. The LMN/Berk study provided the
initial bulk analysis based on a mixed use concept, up to 5-stories. The Macaulay
report suggests why it will be necessary to go up 5-stories to achieve an
investment grade development scenario. Greg Easton provided a peer review that
generally confirmed the validity of the previous two studies. So that’s where
we’re at. Economic feasibility is a recurring theme that iterates throughout the
process. More economic analysis will be provided as the process continues
through the entitlement phase and will form the basis for the Development
Agreement, and ultimately an investment decision. This reflects a minimum scale
for redevelopment to achieve economic feasibility.
In its simplest form, the question of 5-stories or what those “economics” do to
Harbor Square is to present the opportunity for development of a vibrant mixed-
use community that would replace the current under-utilized development that is
not contributing to the City as significantly as it could.
It was requested the Port should provide the backup documentation and work
product to support the feasibility analysis. There are no other additional
supporting documents that we know of. Everything is contained in the reports
already submitted.
2) Reviewed the history of Harbor Square and made some general observations
about the Port’s purchase of Harbor Square assets from the original private
developer; $13.5million in 2006. “Does the Port view it has to sell the asset to
a private developer to recoup the money it has paid to purchase Harbor
Square?…Redevelopment appears to be motivated by debt.” The attached
“Harbor Square Loan Payoff Plan” has been provided to clarify this point. In 2011
Packet Page 633 of 998
- 2 -
BNC/11835/24/675443
the Port Commission authorized staff to re-finance the original loan, reducing the
interest rate from 7.38% down to 5.25%. With accelerated payments, the loan
payoff amount will be $1.8 million in 2021. So the Port has the cash flow and
financial capability to payoff the Harbor Square debt independent of achieving a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would lead to future redevelopment. The
Port may or may not sell all or part of the property. Again, that decision will be
made much later in the process. But clearly, the Port’s motivation isn’t based on
getting out from underneath the loan.
3) “Where is the transition point and exact meeting and scenario when the Port
Commission made the decision to do the Master Plan and tear down the
current Harbor Square Development…where in the minutes…what was the
public process and where was it decided to change Harbor Square from a
commercial use with no residential, to “mixed-use” based on residential?” In
fact there was no single moment in time when this occurred. There wasn’t
suddenly a motion and a vote that said this is what we will do. That’s not how the
process works. The planning process for future redevelopment at Harbor Square
actually began as far back as 2007 when the Port joined with some private
property owners to attempt a coordinated Master Plan for several parcels along
the entire reach from Harbor Square to the Skippers property, and including the
Antique Mall. This was a public process that was instigated by the Group of 33.
But that effort did not get sustained momentum for a variety of reasons, building
heights being one of them. But that initial planning process shaped the idea of
mixed-use, and helped to define what might be possible at Harbor Square. The
Port used some of the issues and ideas that were learned to start a separate
planning process for Harbor Square. In 2009 the Port Commission authorized a
preliminary feasibility study by LMN/Berk to define site constraints and
economic issues. That study further informed the Port that mixed-use based on
residential and up to 5-stories would be the most likely redevelopment alternative.
The study was presented to the Commission in November 2009 at an open public
meeting. Over the next several months the Port held a series of public meetings
and open houses to engage the public on these possibilities; that was Phase-1
Public Outreach, we did it ourselves without the involvement of consultants. One
thing we learned from that process was that building heights and view impacts
were still big issues. To address those concerns, in 2010 the Port initiated a View
Corridor Impact Study by the University of Washington School of the Built
Environment; see SEPA Checklist attachments. At about the same time, in
October, 2010 the Port Commission authorized staff to conduct a Phase-2 Public
Outreach process. This was led by MAKERs with Bill Trimm as the facilitator
and lead planner. A key element of this was the formation of a community based
Steering Committee. Their role was to further define specific mixed-use elements
and site features to guide the process and bring the concept into focus. The View
Corridor Impact Study was used as a base map for the conceptual layout. The
Steering Committee met three times. There was an Open House to invite public
comment on June 9, 2011. The Final report was presented to the Commissioners
at their regular workshop meeting on June 13, 2011. A draft Harbor Square
Packet Page 634 of 998
- 3 -
BNC/11835/24/675443
Master Plan was presented to the Port Commission March 12, 2012 at which time
the Commission authorized staff to continue with SEPA. This process included a
15-day public comment period and another 15-days for appeal. In addition to the
City’s comment letter, only two other public comments were received via e-mail.
The Port’s SEPA process was completed and a Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance was issued May 22, 2012). The Port of Edmonds held a Public
Hearing on the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan on June 25, 2012. After
discussion, the Port Commission voted unanimously to approve, and authorized
staff to make an application to the City of Edmonds for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, and that’s where the process is right now. The Port’s process has
been open, transparent, methodical and engaged with the public every step along
the way.
4) What alternatives were studied; “…there is nothing in the records that shows
anything other than mixed-use has been studied, such as a land swap with
the Senior Center, or a public market…there appears to have been no
creative thinking by the Port”. In fact, alternatives have been discussed. They
have been discussed and considered during the process. From time to time people
have suggested a park, or a public market, or relocating the Senior Center. Is it
possible to convert Harbor Square into a tourist destination, or an RV park, or an
extension of the City’s stormwater and wastewater treatment facility. Any of a
number of uses could be possible. But the reality is no one yet has brought
forward an alternative proposal that seems practical from an economic
perspective. The Port is a public agency, but that doesn’t mean the land has no
value or opportunity cost. We suppose if the City or someone else would like to
buy Harbor Square and do something else that could be possible. But the key
factor from the Port’s basic mission is to develop a master plan that is
economically feasible based on the conventional assumptions of “highest and best
use”. That value is for the most part captured in a mixed use concept which
includes residential, ground floor retail, office, the existing hotel and Harbor
Square Athletic Club; and also includes open space and public access to the
Edmonds Marsh. In fact, the open plaza area could be made available for a
seasonal farmer’s market, so that idea has not been excluded from future
consideration under the Port’s Master Plan that is proposed as an amendment to
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Our plan illustrates those features, but it is not a
final design. At this stage in the process, the Comprehensive Plan creates
opportunities; it does not specify development agreement entitlements. That latter
aspect is later in the process.
5) An issue was raised as to the validity of the Port’s representations regarding
other monetary benefits the City would obtain if the Plan were to be
approved; (e.g., new tax revenues). Those prospective new tax revenues are
discussed and illustrated on pages 33 -36 of the LMN/Berk study. It shows the
incremental increase in taxes paid directly to the City under three mixed use
development scenarios. For example, improving operations at Harbor Square in
the current configuration without any new development would be expected to
Packet Page 635 of 998
- 4 -
BNC/11835/24/675443
generate $1.1million (NPV) in the first 10 years. This compares to likely new
taxes under the 3-5 stories mixed use redevelopment scenario that anticipates
$2.5million (NPV) over the same 10 year period. Clearly, based on these
development assumptions the 3-5 stories option would generate the highest return
in tax revenues to the City. However, it is important to understand these numbers
are for illustration. They are not conclusive. They simply represent a scenario
based on our best assumptions and information we have today. And there will be
other fees paid to the City for permitting and mitigation, but those won’t be
completely known until there’s an actual Development Agreement and a finished
design; see the process compendium as presented by Bill Trimm. Board member
Clarke is correct that any redevelopment scenario will, presumably, generate
some taxes. As identified above, however, it appears that the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment would provide the opportunity for
redevelopment that should significantly increase the present tax revenues
generated from the current Harbor Square facility.
6) A recurring issue and question was raised as to the future of Harbor Square
Athletic Club (HSAC) in the proposed redevelopment. As mentioned at the
previous Planning Board meeting, it has always been assumed and planned that
HSAC would remain. They are in effect the anchor tenants. In fact, the owner of
HSAC has been an active participant on the Steering Committee. The Possibility
of relocating HSAC to another parcel on the site was discussed at the conceptual
planning level. During the process various site configurations were illustrated. It
was the general consensus of the Steering Committee that, strictly from a site
planning perspective, one alternative seemed to make the most sense in terms of
optimizing redevelopment values. In particular, it was thought the best place for
taller residential buildings would be toward the rear southeast quadrant of the
property where the tennis courts are currently located. This would avoid potential
issues with view impacts and create a better synergy with the marsh. That’s the
theory. In reality, HSAC has a lease that won’t expire until July 14, 2040. The
owner has agreed to the concept. He’s open to the idea. But it’s a business
decision that will have to be considered at a future date when the development is
much further along in the process and there’s a developer involved. Again, these
are just concepts; artwork if you will, that represents the thoughts and ideas of the
Steering Committee. It is, after all, an exercise in creativity that involves many
complex factors to achieve “highest and best use” for Harbor Square.
7) How Does the Master Plan visually compare to the existing Harbor Square?
The master plan proposes to replace and relocate the existing buildings on the site.
The athletic club that occupies the southern portion of the site will be relocated to
the western portion of the site adjacent to the railroad tracks. Two mid-rise
buildings (5 stories) are proposed to occupy the area previously situated by the
athletic club. The hotel is proposed to remain in its current location and the
existing buildings labeled as 1-5 will be replaced by a combination of 2, 3, 4 and
5 story buildings. The buildings that front directly on Dayton Street are proposed
to be 3-stories with a stepped back fourth story, a two story office over retail is
Packet Page 636 of 998
- 5 -
BNC/11835/24/675443
proposed for the SR-104 frontage adjacent to a proposed pedestrian plaza located
at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. The remaining 5 story buildings
are proposed to be situated on the western portion of the site adjacent to the
athletic facility and garage structure. A total of 1051 off-street parking spaces are
proposed to serve the realm of residential, office, and retail uses.
8) How is sustainability addressed in the plan, specifically water conservation,
and would an environmental learning center be appropriate adjacent to the
marsh. The master plan addresses sustainability related to site development and
building construction. Low energy and low water consumption techniques are
provided in the plan policies as directives for future site and building planning.
Low impact development techniques such as rain gardens, green roofs and
pervious pavement together with improved natural enhancement of the Marsh
buffer and day-lighting of Willow Creek are intended to contribute to sustaining
the ecological functions of the Marsh. Buildings on the site have been configured
to benefit from solar access for ambient heating and cooling and to provide more
sunlight to open space areas and pedestrian areas. Reducing the sites carbon
footprint has also been factored into the master plan. The mixed use component
that places convenient retail and office uses within close proximity to residential
uses and the site’s location adjacent to the Sound Transit commuter rail terminal
will reduce the need for additional automobile trips. An environmental learning
center could be incorporated into one of the building situated adjacent to the
Marsh. The determination of whether it is mitigation measure will occur through
the City’s environmental review at such time that a development project is applied
for.
9) What is Pedestrian Scale? Pedestrian scale is the relationship of people on foot
to the built environment and allows pedestrians to comfortably walk from one
location to another and interact with the built environment. Building features and
spaces are designed to enhance the interaction of people and promote walking
between uses and spaces. Buildings and spaces that are designed at a pedestrian
scale usually invoke a higher quality of design detail since people viewing the
elements are closer to the feature and moving slower compared with views from
the street in automobiles. Pedestrian scale designs incorporate opportunities for
public interaction by providing wide sidewalks, street furniture, tasteful
landscaping, signage and building elements that can expand into the sidewalk to
benefit the walking public.
10) Will Harbor Square really connect to Downtown and what impact will the
coal trains have on connecting with Downtown? Has the impact of coal trains
been considered into the financial analysis? Connectivity was one of the key
elements that the Steering Committee wanted to ensure was incorporated into the
Master Plan. Planning for the efficient movement of people along a street is a
function of both the uses located along the street and the desired destination that
people choose. The uses that invite people to use a street are those that primarily
cater to the pedestrian such as restaurants, retail shops, coffee shops, and certain
Packet Page 637 of 998
- 6 -
BNC/11835/24/675443
offices such as personal and professional uses. These uses already exist in
Downtown and the waterfront and adding the retail uses and public spaces along
Dayton Street at Harbor Square, together with providing a “front porch” as a
public plaza at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton will contribute to the
myriad of uses that can serve the walking public thus promoting a stronger
connection between all three destinations.
The impact of the coal trains is a concern not only to Edmonds but to all
communities along the route to Whatcom County. The environmental review of
the impacts and associated mitigation measures will be addressed in a combined
federal and state environmental impact statement. The Port and City are expected
to respond accordingly to a scoping notice on the coal train action at such time
that a scoping notice has been issued.
11) What is the test for converting a commercial area into a residential area?
The City comprehensive plan designates future land uses and the implementation
of those land uses occur through the application of the City’s development code
including the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The change of one land use
designated on the comprehensive plan to another land use occurs through the
City’s comprehensive plan amendment process. Each application for an
amendment needs to comply with the City code at EMC 20.00.050 that includes
the following criteria (a.) consistency with the comprehensive plan goals and
policies, (b.) not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, and (c.)
maintaining the appropriate land uses in the City. The Ports application for a
comprehensive plan amendment has addressed these criteria and will be expanded
as part of the public hearing process.
12) Clarify why no Environmental Impact Statement or further review was
necessary because the environmental review that had been done for the
Antiques Mall. The City will conduct an environmental review of the Master
Plan as a “phased review” under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The
Harbor Square Master Plan is a “non-project or programmatic” action. That is, it
is not a development project. Under SEPA development projects are listed as
“project” actions. The City’s environmental review of the Master Plan will be the
first environmental review of the “programmatic non-project” action conducted
under the phased review section of SEPA. At such time that a development
application is submitted, the City will conduct and additional environmental
review on the project and issue an appropriate declaration that may require an
environmental impact statement to determine impacts and mitigation measures.
The environmental review that was conducted on the Antique Mall was a
“project” action and was required to prepare an EIS. The applicant decided not to
pursue the project further and an EIS was never prepared. There is no SEPA
related connection between the previous Antique Mall environmental review and
the environmental review associated with the Harbor Square Master Plan.
13) Clarify the stepback /setback provision of the 55 foot building height. The
Master Plan is very sensitive the building facades on Dayton Street and includes a
Packet Page 638 of 998
- 7 -
BNC/11835/24/675443
provision to ensure that buildings fronting on Dayton are no higher than 35 feet
(3-stories), with a fourth story stepped back 45feet to provide for minimal shading
shading of the adjacent sidewalk. Thus, buildings are proposed to have a zero
horizontal setback on the sidewalk. Vertically, the buildings are proposed to have
a 35’ façade height at the sidewalk and the fourth story will be stepped back at
least one foot horizontally away from Dayton Street for every one foot in height
above 35’. Thus, if a building is proposed to be four stories and 45’ in height on
Dayton Street, there will only be three stories that will be visible from the
streetscape. The fourth story, with a standard floor to ceiling height of 10 feet,
will be stepped back 10 feet horizontally from the top edge of the third story.
14) What is the proposed amount of impervious surface as 90% “sounds like a
lot”? The planning team is unaware of the comment that approximately 90% of
total surface will be impervious. Although the Master Plan does in fact provide
for greater setbacks from the Marsh edge to proposed buildings and more
pervious open space between buildings than the existing condition, we cannot
however trace the specific comment referred to. The key point is that when a
project is submitted for review by the City, the City will ensure that the proposal
meets and the requirements for pervious area set out in the City’s stormwater
master plan.
Packet Page 639 of 998
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
H
a
r
b
o
r
S
q
u
a
r
e
Po
r
t
pr
e
p
a
r
e
s
an
d
a
d
o
p
t
s
Ha
r
b
o
r
S
q
.
Ma
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
.
Ci
t
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
a
n
d
ad
o
p
t
s
H
S
M
P
a
s
a
C
o
m
p
.
P
l
a
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
.
Ci
t
y
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
&
a
d
o
p
t
s
SM
P
.
Ci
t
y
&
P
o
r
t
en
a
c
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
/
MO
U
.
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Po
r
t
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
s
a
n
d
is
s
u
e
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
RF
P
,
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
a
n
d
se
l
e
c
t
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
r
e
f
i
n
e
s
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
s
e
c
u
r
e
s
fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
a
n
d
pr
e
p
a
r
e
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
&
pe
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
Ci
t
y
f
o
r
D
e
v
e
l
-
op
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
Ci
t
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
&
ap
p
r
o
v
e
s
w
i
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Fi
n
a
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
pr
e
p
a
r
e
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
City
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
building permit applicationConstructionbegins
SM
P
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
be
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
ca
n
e
n
a
c
t
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
/
M
O
U
Th
i
s
i
s
a
k
e
y
s
t
e
p
t
h
a
t
b
u
l
d
s
o
n
t
h
e
C
o
m
p
.
Pl
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
e
t
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
re
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
a
n
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
-
m
a
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
m
o
r
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
us
e
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
P
o
r
t
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
k
n
o
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
ap
p
r
o
v
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
b
a
s
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
of
t
h
e
H
S
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
b
e
f
o
r
e
i
t
c
a
n
in
i
t
i
a
t
e
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
v
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
pr
e
p
a
r
i
n
g
a
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
/
M
O
U
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Th
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
p
o
i
n
t
a
t
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
re
v
i
e
w
s
f
u
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
fr
o
m
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
re
v
i
e
w
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
S
E
P
A
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
pu
b
l
i
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
ch
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
,
e
t
c
.
p
e
r
C
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
p
l
u
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
/
M
O
U
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
R
F
P
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
of
t
h
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
/
M
O
U
s
o
t
h
a
t
pr
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
th
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
a
n
y
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
.
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
u
s
t
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
Ci
t
y
/
P
o
r
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
/
M
O
U
.
Includes
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
o
f
standard
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
documentation required
b
y
C
i
t
y
.
20
0
4
-
Ju
n
e
2
0
1
2
Ju
l
y
-
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
2
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
U
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
-
D
e
p
e
n
d
s
o
n
m
a
r
k
e
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
64
0
of
99
8
Packet Page 641 of 998
Packet Page 642 of 998
Packet Page 643 of 998
Packet Page 644 of 998
Packet Page 645 of 998
Packet Page 646 of 998
Packet Page 647 of 998
Packet Page 648 of 998
Packet Page 649 of 998
After recording return to:
Scott M. Missall
Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, Washington 98104-4088
Document Title(s) City of Mill Creek Development Agreement for
Town Center
Reference Number(s) of related
documents
Grantor(s) Buchan Bros. Investments, Inc.
Grantees(s) City of Mill Creek
Legal Description
Assessor's Property Tax
Parcel/Account Number
Packet Page 650 of 998
Town Center Phase I Development Agreement - i
CONTRACT 2000-263
CITY OF MILL CREEK
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
TOWN CENTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS/OUTLINE
Page
1.0 Parties .................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Recitals ................................................................................................................................1
3.0 Property Descriptions ........................................................................................................3
3.1 Property. ...................................................................................................................3
3.2 Rezone Property. ......................................................................................................3
3.3 Zone Designation. ....................................................................................................3
4.0 Binding Site Plan ................................................................................................................3
4.1 Description. ..............................................................................................................3
5.0 Master Development Plan .................................................................................................3
5.1 Master Development Plan Required. .......................................................................3
5.2 Binding Nature; Conflict. ........................................................................................3
5.3 Future Environmental Review. ................................................................................3
5.4 Future Lot Development Process. ............................................................................4
5.5 Major and Minor Modifications. .............................................................................4
5.6 Recordation. .............................................................................................................4
6.0 State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") Conditions ..................................................4
6.1 Authority. .................................................................................................................4
6.2 Conditions and Requirements. .................................................................................4
7.0 Conditions Arising from Non-City Agencies with Jurisdiction ...................................11
7.1 Authority. ...............................................................................................................11
7.2 Snohomish County. ................................................................................................11
7.3 Community Transit. ...............................................................................................11
7.4 Silver Lake Sewer and Water District. ..................................................................12
7.5 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. .............................................12
7.6 Washington State Department of Transportation ("WSDOT"). ............................12
7.7 Fire District No. 7. .................................................................................................12
Packet Page 651 of 998
Town Center Phase I Development Agreement - ii
8.0 Town Center Design Guidelines .....................................................................................12
8.1 Description. ............................................................................................................12
8.2 Application to Project. ...........................................................................................12
8.3 Conditions and Requirements. ...............................................................................12
8.3.1 Ground Floor Retail Use Requirement. .....................................................12
8.3.2 Smokehouse/Mill Creek Crossing Design. ................................................13
8.3.3 Public Restrooms. ......................................................................................13
8.3.4 Building Modulation. .................................................................................13
8.3.5 Project Lighting. ........................................................................................13
8.3.6 Project Landscaping. ..................................................................................13
8.3.7 Landscape Performance and Maintenance Bonds. ....................................13
8.3.8 Project Identification. .................................................................................14
8.3.9 Sidewalks. ..................................................................................................14
9.0 Non-SEPA Transportation Improvements and Mitigation .........................................14
9.1 Public Works Department Conditions. ..................................................................14
9.1.1 SR 527 Right of Way. ................................................................................14
9.1.2 SR 527 Improvements. ...............................................................................14
9.1.3 Right of Way Improvements. .....................................................................15
9.1.4 Drainage. ....................................................................................................16
9.1.5 Trail. ...........................................................................................................16
9.1.6 Traffic Mitigation. .....................................................................................16
9.1.7 Town Center Connector. ............................................................................17
10.0 Parking ..............................................................................................................................17
10.1 Unified Parking Plan. .............................................................................................17
10.1.1 On Street Parking. ......................................................................................17
10.1.2 Employee Parking. .....................................................................................17
10.1.3 Minimum Required Parking. .....................................................................17
10.1.4 Shared Parking Zones. ...............................................................................18
10.1.5 Shared Parking Agreements. ......................................................................18
10.2 Transportation Demand Management....................................................................18
11.0 Use of Open Space; Operational Agreement .................................................................18
11.1 General; Operational Agreement. ..........................................................................18
11.2 City Authority Over Public Open Spaces. .............................................................18
11.3 Pedestrian Access Easements. ...............................................................................19
11.4 Operational Agreement ..........................................................................................19
12.0 Construction .....................................................................................................................19
12.1 General. ..................................................................................................................19
12.2 City Inspection. ......................................................................................................19
12.3 Clearing and Grading. ............................................................................................19
12.4 Tree Protection. ......................................................................................................19
12.4.1 SR 527 Roadway Buffer. ...........................................................................19
12.4.2 Tree Replacement. .....................................................................................19
12.5 Construction Noise. ...............................................................................................20
Packet Page 652 of 998
Town Center Phase I Development Agreement - iii
13.0 Environmentally Critical Areas .....................................................................................20
13.1 Wetland F Mitigation Plan. ....................................................................................20
13.2 Buffer Enhancement Plan. .....................................................................................20
13.3 Maintenance and Performance Bonds. ..................................................................20
13.4 Protection of Wetlands. ..........................................................................................20
13.5 ESA Biological Assessment. .................................................................................20
14.0 Binding Site Plan ..............................................................................................................21
14.1 Preparation. ............................................................................................................21
14.2 Notice of Conditions. .............................................................................................21
14.3 Updating of Binding Site Plan. ..............................................................................21
15.0 Phasing of Project ............................................................................................................21
15.1 Phasing. ..................................................................................................................21
15.1.1 Infrastructure Phase. ..................................................................................21
15.1.2 Building Phase I. ........................................................................................21
15.2 Subsequent Phases. ................................................................................................21
16.0 Bonding; Security ............................................................................................................22
16.1 Bond Required; Approval. .....................................................................................22
16.2 Waiver and Release................................................................................................22
17.0 Transfer of Property by Developer ................................................................................22
17.1 Authority to Transfer. ............................................................................................22
17.2 Obligations of Successors. .....................................................................................22
18.0 Binding Nature; Modification; Vested Rights ...............................................................22
18.1 Binding Nature. ......................................................................................................22
18.2 Modification of Agreement....................................................................................22
18.3 Vested Rights. ........................................................................................................22
19.0 Enforcement Authority ...................................................................................................23
19.1 Description .............................................................................................................23
20.0 Dispute Resolution ...........................................................................................................23
20.1 Description .............................................................................................................23
21.0 Authority to Approve Agreement ..................................................................................23
21.1 By Developer. ........................................................................................................23
21.2 By City. ..................................................................................................................23
22.0 General Terms ..................................................................................................................23
22.1 Integration. .............................................................................................................23
22.2 Venue. ....................................................................................................................23
22.3 No Waiver of Police Power or Condemnation Authority. .....................................23
22.4 Covenant Running with Land. ...............................................................................23
Packet Page 653 of 998
Town Center Phase I Development Agreement - iv
22.5 Developer's Responsibility. ...................................................................................24
22.6 Attorneys Fees. ......................................................................................................24
22.7 Severability. ...........................................................................................................24
Packet Page 654 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 1
CONTRACT 2000-263
CITY OF MILL CREEK
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
TOWN CENTER
(PHASE I)
1.0 Parties
1.1 This Development Agreement is made this day of , 2001 by and
between the City of Mill Creek, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City") and Buchan Bros.
Investments, Inc., a Washington corporation ("Developer").
2.0 Recitals
2.1 The Developer is the owner of a tract of land located in the City of Mill Creek,
Washington, containing approximately 56.37 acres, the legal description of which is attached and
incorporated in full as Exhibit A (the "Property").
2.2 The Property is located within a portion of the City that is planned for development as
a new commercial and retail center for the City (the "Town Center"), and comprises approximately
two-thirds of the Town Center planning area.
2.3 The Developer wishes to develop the Property in accordance with the City's Town
Center Conceptual Plan and Design Guidelines, adopted January 28, 1997, and as subsequently
amended (collectively "Town Center Plan" or "Town Center Design Guidelines"), and thus intends
to utilize the Property for development of a mixed-use commercial and retail community consisting
of shops, businesses, open space, plazas, recreational facilities, utilities, community facilities, road
systems and other related components and amenities (the "Project").
2.4 As part of the proposed development, the Developer has filed two applications with
the City. The first, filed under City File No. R 99-31, seeks a rezone of the northerly 850 feet of the
Property from Business Park to Planned Community Business, the legal description of which is
attached and incorporated in full as Exhibit B (the "Rezone" or "R 99-31"). The second, filed under
City File No. BS 99-42, seeks approval of a Binding Site Plan that will fix and establish the
development of the Property in a form that is consistent with the requirements of the City (the
"BSP," "Binding Site Plan," or "BS 99-42").
2.5 The City and the Developer wish to ensure that the Property will be developed in
accordance with the provisions of the Town Center Plan and BS 99-42, in compliance with all
applicable City codes, plans, and development regulations, and in a manner acceptable to the City.
These include, but are not limited to, the current edition of the Mill Creek Comprehensive Plan (May
1999) and the Mill Creek Municipal Code ("MCMC"), specifically including Development Code
Administration (Title 14), Building and Construction (Title 15), Plats and Subdivisions (Title 16),
Zoning Regulations (Title 17), and Environmental Policies (Title 18).
Packet Page 655 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 2
2.6 Following consideration of the Rezone pursuant to the City’s development review
process, the City Council determined that the Rezone was in the public interest, was in furtherance
of the public health, welfare and safety of the citizenry of Mill Creek, and was consistent with the
requirements of law applicable to the proposed rezone, all provided that certain conditions were met
by the Developer. Accordingly, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2000-486, granting the
Developer's application for the Rezone subject to conditions.
2.7 Following consideration of BS 99-42 pursuant to the City’s development review
process, the City Council determined that BS 99-42 also was in the public interest, was in
furtherance of the public health, welfare and safety of the citizenry of Mill Creek, and was consistent
with the requirements of law applicable to the proposed site plan, all provided that certain conditions
were met by the Developer. Accordingly, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2000-487,
granting the Developer's application for BS 99-42 subject to certain conditions.
2.8 The City and the Developer agree that the purpose of this Development Agreement is
to comply with the Mill Creek Municipal Code, and the Conditions of Approval for the Rezone and
BS 99-42 as approved by Ordinance 2000-486 and Ordinance 2000-487, by setting forth in detail the
conditions and requirements applicable to the Project as part of the Town Center. The City and the
Developer further agree that this Development Agreement establishes certain rights of the Developer
to develop the Property for the time period and in accordance with the conditions specified herein
and the approvals granted by the City with respect to the Project. The City and the Developer
further agree that this Development Agreement is consistent with RCW Chapter 36.70B, the Mill
Creek Municipal Code, and the Mill Creek Comprehensive Plan, and also with applicable elements
of the Town Center Draft Environmental Impact Statement (July 1996), the Town Center Final
Environmental Impact Statement (September 1996), and the Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance issued for the Rezone and BS 99-42 (February 18, 2000).
2.9 The City and the Developer agree that each has entered into this Development
Agreement knowingly and voluntarily and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this
Development Agreement.
2.10 The City and the Developer agree that the forgoing terms and recitals are material to
this Development Agreement, and that each party has relied on the material nature of such terms and
recitals in entering into this Development Agreement.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits of this Development
Agreement and the actions and promises set forth herein, including without limitation the approval
of the Developer's Rezone and Binding Site Plan, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree as follow:
3.0 Property Descriptions
3.1 Property. The Property, which is the subject of this Development Agreement, is fully
described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
Packet Page 656 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 3
3.2 Rezone Property. The portion of the Property which has been rezoned in conjunction
with this Development Agreement is fully described in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by this
reference as though fully set forth herein.
3.3 Zone Designation. The zoning designation of the Property shall be unchanged for the
duration of this Development Agreement, provided that the City shall not by such act forfeit or limit
its police power under the Washington Constitution except as may be limited by RCW 36.70B.180
et seq.
4.0 Binding Site Plan
4.1 Description. BS 99-42 was approved by the City as set forth in Ordinance 2000-487.
BS 99-42, through its various components and conditions, establishes the required layout of tracts
and lots, rights-of-way for roads, streets, lanes and sidewalks, public utilities, public utility and
pedestrian easements, and critical and wetland areas and attendant buffers. BS 99-42, through its
various components and conditions, also establishes the general layout of building footprints and
parking areas. In accordance with RCW 58.17.035, the Binding Site Plan shall be recorded in the
Snohomish County Auditors Office prior to the sale of any lots, tracts or parcels created by the
binding site plan.
5.0 Master Development Plan
5.1 Master Development Plan Required. Development of the Property shall be consistent
with the Master Development Plan approved pursuant to MCMC 17.21.020. Said Master
Development Plan shall consist of BS 99-42, the Rezone, this Development Agreement, and the
Town Center Design Guidelines.
5.2 Binding Nature; Conflict. The Developer and all subsequent applicants for individual
building permits and all other permits related to land or actions within the Property shall be bound
by and shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Master Development Plan. All the terms
and conditions of the Master Development Plan shall apply to the Project, provided that, should an
irreconcilable conflict arise when two or more of the terms and conditions of the Master
Development Plan are applied, the more stringent of said terms as determined by the City shall be
applied to the Project.
5.3 Future Environmental Review. In approving the Master Development Plan, the City
acknowledges that it has undertaken and completed all currently required environmental review for
the Project. Further environmental review shall not be required for individual permits falling within
the scope of the Project (e.g., building permits for Town Center buildings depicted on the illustrative
master plan required by MCMC 17.21.030 {A}), provided that every such permit shall be
conditioned in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Master Development Plan.
5.4 Future Lot Development Process. Upon approval of the Master Development Plan
and in accordance with the City’s development regulations, applicants seeking to develop individual
lots within the Project shall submit appropriate applications for building or other permits, and shall
be subject to review and approval of the City and/or the Design Review Board as appropriate.
Packet Page 657 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 4
5.5 Major and Minor Modifications. Any change or amendment to the approved Master
Development Plan shall comply with the provisions of MCMC 17.21.090. In determining the degree
of modification, the Director shall place emphasis on the consistency of the proposed modification
with the Town Center Design Guidelines and next with the Master Development Plan, except that
changes of use consistent with MCMC Title 17 and changes of building footprints of fifteen percent
(15%) or less shall be deemed minor modifications.
5.6 Recordation. This Development Agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish
County Auditor at the Developer's expense following the final execution of this document in
accordance with RCW 36.70B.190. The Binding Site Plan, Rezone and the ordinances approving
those documents shall be recorded at the Developer's expense as provided by City regulations.
6.0 State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") Conditions
6.1 Authority. The conditions in this Section have been imposed on the Project in
accordance with RCW Chapter 43.21C and MCMC Chapter 18.06, and are also set forth in the
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance ("MDNS") issued on February 18, 2000.
6.2 Conditions and Requirements. The following environmental conditions shall apply to
the Project:
ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACTED BY THIS ACTION AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
The environmental impacts of this proposal are documented in the Environmental
and Supplemental checklists, dated December 14, 1999 and December 22, 1999, and
other information on file with the City of Mill Creek, including the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements for the Town Center Master Development Plan.
The listed mitigation measures are imposed in response to the City's review of this
information.
1. EARTH
Erosion could occur during the grading and excavation for roadways, utilities,
parking lots, and building foundations.
The following minimum measures are required to mitigate the impacts of the
proposal on earth:
1. Submit a temporary stormwater and erosion control plan for approval
by the City Engineer. Said plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of
any construction permits or commencement of site work, including clearing
and grading, and shall include specific measures to protect North Creek and
Smokehouse Creek, including the following minimum measures:
a) Sediment ponds and traps;
Packet Page 658 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 5
b) Silt fences and other approved filtration to prevent runoff
sediments from reaching North Creek and Smokehouse Creek and
associated wetlands; and
c) Promptly covering exposed soil surfaces that remain
unworked for more than seven days during the period of April 1 -
September 30 or for more than two days during the period October 1
- March 30 with mulch or plastic sheeting unless other measures are
reviewed and approved by the City. (DEIS Section 3.1.3)
2. AIR
Construction activities may generate dust. Dust shall be controlled by watering areas
of soil disturbance during construction and using a street sweeper on roads internal to
the development and adjacent to the subject property for dust suppression.
3. WATER
Stormwater: Development will generate stormwater that may contain oil, heavy
metals, fertilizers, and other potential pollutants which, if untreated, can result in
degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. Increased impervious surfaces result in
larger volumes of stormwater runoff and high peak discharges which, if unmitigated,
could cause increased erosion, destruction of fish habitat, flooding, and adverse
impacts to Wetland AB.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm drainage plan with the Binding Site
Plan application. Runoff will be collected and conveyed to on-site detention
facilities. The ponds will ultimately discharge into the wetland associated with
Smokehouse Creek and North Creek.
Groundwater: The subject property has a relatively shallow groundwater table.
Development of the site may decrease the quantity of the shallow seasonal
groundwater feeding Wetland AB, as well as disrupt current shallow groundwater
flow patterns. No groundwater withdrawals are proposed.
The following minimum measures are required to mitigate the impacts of the
proposal on stormwater and groundwater:
1. Water quality treatment methods are required and shall be based on
the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater
Management Manual, Publication 92-32, Volume 1 and Publication 92-33,
Volume II and/or the Washington State Department of Fisheries Guidelines,
whichever is more restrictive.
2. To maintain the hydrology of the wetland edge, the flow of seasonal
shallow groundwater shall be maintained with the use of lateral spreaders for
groundwater/runoff discharge at specific locations along the wetland edge,
and periodic low permeability "checkdams" where applicable in utility
Packet Page 659 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 6
bedding materials. The release of stormwater to the level spreaders shall
mimic the existing soil saturation along the wetland edge where impacts due
to the shallow groundwater flow impacts will be the greatest. (DEIS, Section
3.3.3.3).
3. Site engineering, including the storm drainage system, shall be
designed to minimize impacts on the hydro-period in the central wetland and
forest. A monitoring plan, acceptable to the City, and based upon the health
and survival rate of wetland plant communities, shall be developed prior to
approval of the clearing and grading plan. The monitoring plan shall remain
in effect for five years and identify baseline data and specific standards for
assessing the hydro-period. Appropriate locations for vegetation plots or
other acceptable means of monitoring shall be determined by the City. A
contingency plan shall also be developed for implementation in the event that
post-construction monitoring reveals that deleterious hydro-period impacts
caused by this action have occurred or will continue.
Wetlands: The project site contains two wetlands designated as Wetland AB and
Wetland F in the DEIS, FEIS, and Technical Appendices. Wetland AB is part of a
larger wetland community associated with North Creek and Smokehouse Creek and
comprises 33.6 acres of the subject property. This wetland has been classified as a
palustrine forested wetland, and has high to moderately high value for several
important wetland functions. (DEIS Section 3.4.1.2 and Technical Appendix C,
Section 3.5 at Page 13). Wetland F is an isolated palustrine forested, scrub-shrub
wetland, and has a lower wetland value. It is located at the southern end of the site.
(DEIS Section 3.4.1.2 and Technical Appendix C, Section 3.5).
The boundaries of both wetlands have been delineated (Technical Appendix C) and
accepted by the US Army Corps of Engineers through June 5, 2001. Both wetlands
are subject to the City's Environmentally Critical Areas Ordinance, Chapter 18.06,
MCMC. Wetland AB has been designated as a Category II wetland, and Wetland F
designated as a Category III wetland in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.06, MCMC.
While development of the site does not require intrusion into Wetland AB, impacts
to wetlands could occur during upland site development. The Main Street alignment
has already been cleared and a culvert installed over Smokehouse Creek pursuant to
approved federal, state and local permits. No further impacts to Smokehouse Creek
and Wetland AB are anticipated with the construction of Main Street. However, if
impacts do occur, they shall be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.06.100,
MCMC.
Development impacts could alter existing wetland hydrology and hydro-period,
increase noise and glare from parking lots and nearby commercial/office buildings,
impact flora and fauna, introduce non-native plants, and increase the presence of
contaminants from parking areas.
Packet Page 660 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 7
The following minimum measures are required to mitigate the impacts of the
proposal on wetlands:
1. Buffers adjacent to Wetland AB shall be provided in accordance with
Section 18.06.090, MCMC. Potential impacts to Wetland AB can best be
mitigated by adherence to the following measures that, when properly
implemented, will categorize the proposed action as a low impact use.
a) Avoid human intrusion into Wetland AB and its associated
buffer by implementing the following measures:
Locate the majority of the North Creek Trail outside
of the wetland buffer;
Enhance the wetland buffer with native trees and
shrubs that provide a "full and bushy" screen in
appropriate locations. Trees shall be installed at a variety
of sizes, ranging from 8 to 12 feet in height for conifers,
and 1-1/2 to 3-1/2 inches in diameter for deciduous trees;
b) Shield parking lot and building light fixtures to avoid
spillover of light into the wetlands and associated buffers; and
c) Installation of vegetation or a wall/fence in appropriate
locations along the western edge of the parking areas to
prevent light intrusion into the wetlands and associated
buffers.
2. Acceptance by the City of a wetland mitigation plan, prepared in
accordance with Chapter 18.06, MCMC, for Wetland F prior to approval of
clearing and grading plans.
3. Construction activity shall be restricted so as not to cause disturbance
of or intrusion into the buffer of Wetland AB, except in limited instances for
the installation of stormwater discharge facilities such as lateral spreaders
providing wetland recharge, buffer enhancement planting, trail construction,
or other work as approved by the City.
4. Impacts to Wetland AB adjacent to Smokehouse Creek, beyond those
areas already cleared for Main Street, shall be mitigated in accordance with
Section 18.06.100, MCMC. Any clearing and grading within Wetland AB
shall be restricted to the period of April 1 September 30 unless otherwise
approved by the City.
5. The temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, as well as
permanent site engineering, shall be designed to prevent erosion,
Packet Page 661 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 8
sedimentation and chemical pollutants from entering into all areas of
undisturbed vegetation, including Wetland AB and associated buffers.
6. Use of best management practices to avoid erosion and sedimentation
during construction of Main Street across Smokehouse Creek and its
associated buffer. The applicant shall have a biologist/water quality
specialist onsite during construction to monitor the water quality of North
Creek and Smokehouse Creek and to determine the effectiveness of erosion
control measures. Onsite monitoring will occur on a schedule approved by
the City and take into consideration weather conditions such as heavy
rainfall. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City for documentation.
A contingency plan shall be implemented in the event of failure of each
element of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
7. DOE guidelines provided in the NPDES Permit Information shall be
followed for controlling stormwater discharge quality on the site during
construction.
8. To avoid post-construction adverse water quality impacts to Wetland
AB, control the quality of waters entering Wetland AB from the development
so that runoff does not exceed state water quality standards for North Creek.
Storm drainage improvements shall be designed in accordance with the City
and the current Department of Ecology "Stormwater Management Manual for
the Puget Sound Basin" standards, and any HPA permit requirements
established by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
9. All trees to be cut shall be removed in a manner that the fall direction
is away from the wetland and wetland buffer unless approved by the City as
part of a mitigation or habitat improvement effort. No trees shall be removed
from the wetland buffer without City approval and unless they are
determined, by a qualified plant biologist or certified arborist, to be
hazardous.
10. Construction stockpiles and debris shall be placed outside the wetland
buffer at locations approved by the City. Any wetland buffer destroyed or
disturbed during construction shall be replaced and restored as each phase of
construction is complete.
4. PLANTS
The portion of the site proposed for development is comprised primarily of a mixed
coniferous-deciduous canopy, with the upland portions dominated by coniferous
species and the wetland portions dominated by deciduous tree species. Development
of the site will result in the removal of most of the upland coniferous forest. Some
tree removal has already occurred in conjunction with the construction of 153rd
Street SE and the north/south sanitary sewer line. Removal of the upland forest will
result in the loss of wildlife habitat, as well as subject the remaining forest stand to
Packet Page 662 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 9
stresses such as increased temperature, light, wind-throw and altered hydrology.
Negative edge effects could reach into the remaining forest for a distance of 200 -
300 feet. (DEIS, Section 3.4.2, page 48; Technical Appendix VII, pages 18 - 19).
The following minimum measures are required to mitigate the impacts of the
proposal on plants:
1. Maintain a 35-foot roadway buffer/cutting preserve adjacent to SR
527 consistent with the Streetscape Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the City
identifying appropriate areas of tree preservation and vegetation
enhancement within the SR 527 roadway buffer/cutting preserve. The
landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Mill Creek
Design Review Board. No trees shall be removed from the SR 527 roadway
buffer/cutting preserve without City approval and unless they are determined,
by a qualified plant biologist or certified arborist, to be hazardous.
3. Trees and landscaping along streets, around the perimeter of the site
and within parking areas and public plazas, shall be installed in accordance
with the Town Center Design Guidelines and Chapter 17.34, MCMC.
4. See Section 3 for conditions regarding the enhancement of wetland
buffers.
5. ANIMALS
Terrestrial Habitat: Removal of the existing upland coniferous forest will result in
the loss of habitat for wildlife, including a reduction in the diversity of species and
reduced populations of remaining species. Post-construction light, noise and glare
may make the wetland forest habitat less suitable after the upland forest is cleared
and if the wetlands and associated buffers are not adequately treated.
Aquatic Habitat: The development will result in an increase in impervious area for
roads, buildings, parking lots, and landscape areas utilizing pesticides and fertilizers.
If not adequately treated, stormwater runoff will result in reduced water quality in
North Creek and Smokehouse Creek, resulting in negative impacts to aquatic habitat.
The following minimum measures are required to mitigate the impacts of the
proposal on animals:
1. Remaining habitat (wetlands and their associated buffers and the SR
527 roadway/cutting preserve) shall be enhanced using a variety of
enhancement measures such as the use of native plants, snags, and woody
debris in Smokehouse Creek to improve stream habitat. A preliminary
enhancement plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to Binding Site Plan approval. The enhanced habitat shall be monitored
Packet Page 663 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 10
for a period of five years from the date the City accepts the installation of the
enhancement measures.
2. Install interpretive signs in appropriate locations, along the western
edge of the parking areas adjacent to the wetland buffer, and within the Town
Center near Smokehouse Creek to provide educational information regarding
the protection of the natural habitat. The design content and location of the
signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to their installation.
6. TRANSPORTATION
City of Mill Creek Traffic Mitigation
Traffic mitigation to the City is required for the traffic generated by this
development. The applicant shall pay the total amount of the traffic mitigation fees
identified by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of any building permits.
SR 527/153rd Street SE Improvements
The applicant shall install a traffic signal at 153rd Street SE and SR 527.
Main Street Improvements
The applicant shall construct Main Street (including curb, gutter, sidewalks,
crosswalks, storm drainage, and streetlights) between the north and south boundaries
of the subject property, along with connections to SR 527 (151st Street SE and 153rd
Street SE).
Snohomish County
The Reciprocal Impact Mitigation Agreement between the City of Mill Creek and
Snohomish County, dated December 18, 1991, established policies and procedures
for the review of development impacts on interjurisdictional transportation systems
and the requirement to mitigate appropriate impacts in accordance with adopted road
improvement programs. In accordance with the agreement, the applicant shall
comply with specific measures identified by Snohomish County that are reasonably
necessary to mitigate the project's impacts on directly affected County roads in the
surrounding area.
The application for a mixed retail/commercial development constitutes a
development subject to SCC Title 26B. The development is located in
Transportation Service Area D. SCC Title 26B requires review of a development's
impacts to road system capacity. Snohomish County has determined, based on
adopted formulas, that commercial development mitigation fees for future road
system capacity are $148.00 per ADT.
7. PUBLIC SERVICE - FIRE SERVICE
Packet Page 664 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 11
The City of Mill Creek and Snohomish County Fire District No. 7 have executed an
Interlocal Agreement for mitigation of development impacts on fire
facilities/services. Mitigation fees are determined by the anticipated impact a
development will have on Fire District facilities. Based on the provisions of the
agreement, the mitigation required is $365.00 per equivalent development unit
(EDU), which is 2,400 square feet of structure. Payment of the mitigation fee to the
Fire District is required prior to the issuance of each building permit.
7.0 Conditions Arising from Non-City Agencies with Jurisdiction
7.1 Authority. The City utilizes its Technical Review Committee pursuant to MCMC
14.05.050 to evaluate land use development applications and incorporate responses from other
agencies with jurisdiction. Agency comments that are relevant to SEPA impacts and attendant
mitigation measures are included in Section 5.0 above. Comments and conditions arising from non-
City agencies with jurisdiction are set forth below.
7.2 Snohomish County. To mitigate impacts of the project on the Snohomish County
transportation system, the Developer shall contribute $148.00/ADT, based on the final accepted
traffic report, dated January 20, 2000, in the approximate amount of $202,547. Incremental payment
of this traffic mitigation to Snohomish County shall be made prior to the issuance of each building
permit issued for the Project.
7.3 Community Transit. In-lane bus stops will be provided on Main Street in front of the
Mill Creek Plaza in both directions consistent with Community Transit design standards for transit
access.
7.4 Silver Lake Sewer and Water District. Sewer and water connections shall be made in
accordance with plans approved by the Silver Lake Sewer and Water District.
7.5 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. If required by state statute or
regulation, the Developer shall obtain a hydraulic project approval ("HPA") prior to any site work
requiring such approval.
7.6 Washington State Department of Transportation ("WSDOT"). The Developer shall
provide confirmation from WSDOT, prior to the City's approval of clearing and grading plans, that
the required right-of-way width along the frontage of the Property with SR 527 has been acquired by
WSDOT. All channelization plans for SR 527 and related intersections within the Property frontage
on SR 527 shall be approved by WSDOT prior to the City's approval of the road construction plans
for 151st Street Southeast and 153rd Street SE intersections with SR 527.
7.7 Fire District No. 7. Fire hydrant design, location and spacing shall be reviewed and
approved by Fire District No. 7 and the Silver Lake Sewer and Water District prior to installation of
fire hydrants. All building addresses shall be clearly visible on the building frontage to fire and
emergency vehicles.
Packet Page 665 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 12
8.0 Town Center Design Guidelines
8.1 Description. The Town Center Design Guidelines shall control the design of building
sites, streets, sidewalks, plazas, public areas, landscaping, architectural character of buildings,
exterior building walls, roofs, building materials, general colors, service areas, lighting, signage,
parking and other urban design features.
8.2 Application to Project. The Town Center Design Guidelines will be administered by
City staff and used by the City’s Design Review Board to evaluate various building and site
development features proposed for the Project, including development of individual lots. The Town
Center Design Guidelines shall be applied to the Project as development regulations within the
meaning of RCW 36.70A.030.
8.3 Conditions and Requirements. The Design Guidelines shall be used to evaluate the
development features of the Binding Site Plan and to condition BS 99-42 and subsequent building
(and other) permits and related site plans proposed for each lot. In addition, the parties agree that
certain site features require special treatment beyond those listed in the Town Center Design
Guidelines. These site features are listed below, together with the special conditions that apply to
them.
8.3.1 Ground Floor Retail Use Requirement. All buildings proposed for Lots 2-10 that
front on Main Street shall devote a minimum of 75 percent of its retail frontage to ground-
floor, pedestrian-oriented uses, as defined in the Town Center Design Guidelines.
Building(s) proposed for Lot 1 shall devote a minimum of 25 percent of its retail frontage to
pedestrian-oriented uses.
8.3.2 Smokehouse/Mill Creek Crossing Design. The crossing shall be designed and
constructed to represent an identifiable architectural feature for the Town Center that
successfully blends with the architecture and design of the plazas north and south of
Smokehouse Creek. The architectural features of the crossing shall be designed and
constructed to include appropriate pedestrian weather protection on both the east and west
sidewalks. The crossing deck surface shall be constructed with a combination of asphalt and
concrete.
8.3.3 Public Restrooms. The Developer shall submit designs to the City and Design
Review Board and construct a public restroom to be located within or near Mill Creek Court.
The restroom shall include separate handicap accessible male and female facilities, and may
be freestanding or attached or incorporated into one of the buildings proposed for Lots 6, 7, 9
or 10.
8.3.4 Building Modulation. Because of the potential for long, blank walls on several
buildings adjacent to other properties, the Town Center Design Guidelines section on
secondary building walls and MCMC 17.34.040(B)(4) shall apply to the north elevations of
the buildings on Lots 4 and 5 and the south and west elevations of the building on Lot 8.
8.3.5 Project Lighting. A lighting plan and photometric plan for each phase of the Project
shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. The photometric plan shall include
Packet Page 666 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 13
minimum and maximum illumination levels and uniformity ratios. Lighting shall be
designed to minimize any spillover of light into adjoining wetlands and buffers, as well into
adjoining residential developments. The height of light poles shall conform to the Town
Center Design Guidelines.
8.3.6 Project Landscaping. The Developer shall submit for City approval an overall
concept landscaping plan consistent with the Town Center Design Guidelines and MCMC
Chapter 17.34 for the primary and secondary streets, and the SR 527 roadway buffer/tree
cutting preserve. The roadway buffer/tree cutting preserve shall be subject to the provisions
of the Town Center Design Guidelines. The landscape plan for individual lots shall be
prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Board prior to issuance of individual building permits. The landscape plan shall be
implemented commensurate with Project construction. Street tree wells/grates shall be a
minimum of 4' x 4' and irrigation shall be provided in all landscape areas.
8.3.7 Landscape Performance and Maintenance Bonds. Performance and maintenance
bonds shall be required for all landscaping as provided by City code, except as modified
below. The amount of the performance bond for landscaping shall be one hundred twenty-
five percent (125%) of the cost of installation, including plant materials, irrigation, and labor
for each phase of the Project. Upon acceptance of the landscaping and irrigation system for
each phase of the Project by the City, and posting of the maintenance bond, the performance
bond shall be released. A two-year maintenance bond, equaling twenty percent (20%) of the
amount of the performance bond, shall be posted prior to or at the time of the City s
acceptance of the landscaping and irrigation system.
8.3.8 Project Identification. Monument site entry markers consistent with the Town Center
Design Guidelines shall be provided at major entrances off of SR 527, including 151st Street
Southeast, 153rd Street SE, and the north line of the Property on Main Street. A site entry
sign, appropriately sized for the residential west entrance, shall be located on 153rd Street SE
near the stormwater detention pond. All signs shall require review and approval by the
Design Review Board. The monument sign at the North Main Street entry shall be designed
to ensure that the entrance to the Town Center is visible to south bound trips on Main Street.
[Note: The developer of the Wedgewood Condominium project, to the north of the Property,
is required under BS 99-41 to provide signage to the Wedgewood development visible from
the northbound lane of Main Street. Both sign faces shall be placed on the same monument
structure, and design of the sign shall be coordinated between the Developer and the
developer of the Wedgewood Condominium project, provided that the Developer is
responsible only for the north-facing elevation of the joint sign. The joint sign shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to installation, and shall be
installed or bonded for prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The cost of the sign
shall be shared by the Developer and the developer of the Wedgewood Condominiums.]
8.3.9 Sidewalks. The Developer shall coordinate with the developers of the Wedgewood
Condominiums to provide a transition of sidewalk widths between Town Center and
Wedgewood.
9.0 Non-SEPA Transportation Improvements and Mitigation
Packet Page 667 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 14
9.1 Public Works Department Conditions. Prior to issuance of any building permit for
the Project, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following, or shall
provide a secured agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer for the following:
9.1.1 SR 527 Right-of-Way. Provide documentation from WSDOT that right-of-way for
the SR 527 widening project has been acquired (see Section 7.6).
9.1.2 SR 527 Improvements. Complete improvements to SR 527 as necessary to
accommodate the proposed intersections of 153rd Street SE and the northern access road to
SR 527 (hereinafter called 151st Street SE). If the improvements are not complete prior to
issuance of building permits for the site, the Developer shall provide a secured agreement to
ensure that the installation of the improvements shall be complete prior to issuance of the
occupancy permit for the first building in the Project. Improvements shall be designed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and WSDOT and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
a) Widening and improvement of the intersection of 153rd Street SE and SR
527 as necessary to accommodate a signalized intersection. Improvements
may include but are not limited to widening of SR 527 as needed to provide
left-turn pockets at the intersection, installation of storm drainage, concrete
curb and gutter on 153rd Street SE, and pavement at the intersection, removal
and replacement of striping and other delineation and signs.
b) Installation of a traffic signal at 153rd Street SE and SR 527 unless such
signal is installed by WSDOT. If installed by WSDOT, the Developer shall
pay the Project’s proportional mitigation for said traffic signal to the City as
set forth in the January 20, 2000 Traffic Study. The signal shall be designed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the WSDOT. Mitigation fees
previously collected for the signal will be applied to the cost of the signal.
Signal and intersection construction costs that exceed the proportional share
of the Developer's responsibility shall be credit eligible from future
developments that proportionally impact the intersection and signal.
c) Widening and improvement of the intersection of 151st Street SE and SR 527
as necessary to accommodate the proposed unsignalized intersection as a
right-in, right-out, and left-in, left-out access. Improvements may include but
are not limited to appropriate turn lanes, storm drainage, concrete curb and
gutter on 151st Street SE, paving, removal and replacement of striping and
other delineation and signs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
WSDOT.
9.1.3 Right-of-Way Improvements. Complete the following prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy for the Project:
a) Sidewalk and Pedestrian Lighting. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall
be installed along and adjacent to the Project frontage adjacent to SR 527.
Packet Page 668 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 15
The sidewalk shall meander through the roadway buffer/cutting preserve
apart from the roadway. Sidewalk lighting shall be provided where the
sidewalk is not illuminated adequately by streetlights. Light standards and
fixtures shall be equivalent, as determined by the City Engineer, to those
found at the Jefferson at Mill Creek project. The location of the sidewalk
shall be field located by the City and shall be designed to minimize grading,
installation of retaining structures, and removal of significant trees. The
concrete sidewalk shall terminate at the northern edge of the Mill Creek
wetland buffer, where a temporary asphalt section shall be constructed to the
edge of the pavement in the right-of-way and over the existing culvert to the
southern edge of the Mill Creek wetland buffer, then the concrete sidewalk
shall continue to the southern Property line. WSDOT will replace the
temporary asphalt section with a permanent connection at such time that SR
527 is widened.
b) Interior Streets. Construct improvements to Main Street, 153rd Street SE,
and 151st Street SE through the entire Project. Improvements shall be
designed by the Developer's registered civil engineer, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer, in accordance with the Town Center Design Guidelines.
Improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of any certificate of
occupancy. Pedestrian crossings shall be clearly indicated through use of
varied pavement textures, in-pavement lights, raised crossings, or other
construction techniques as approved by the Director of Public Works.
Improvements to 153rd Street SE shall exclude those improvements to 153rd
Street SE that are specifically required for the final plat of West Village.
9.1.4 Drainage. Design and install drainage improvements for the Project and adjacent
roadways in accordance with City regulations and the current Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, and any HPA permit
requirements established by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
9.1.5 Trail. Design and construct a trail system along the wetlands adjacent to North Creek
as indicated on the approved Binding Site Plan and Town Center Design Guidelines. The
Trail system shall be constructed from the northern Property boundary to the southern
Property boundary and shall align with adjacent projects. Construction of the North Creek
Trail shall be consistent with the North Creek Trail Design Standards except where modified
by the Director pursuant to the MDNS or the Town Center Design Guidelines. The North
Creek Trail Design Standards shall apply to pedestrian furnishings, signs and lighting. A
public access easement shall be granted for public use of the Trail system to the satisfaction
of the City Attorney. The Trail shall be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for any building in the Project.
9.1.6 Traffic Mitigation. The Developer shall contribute to the City's transportation
mitigation program based on the projected traffic distribution in the accepted traffic report,
dated January 20, 2000. Except as set forth in this Section 9.1.6 regarding "additional daily
trips," the Developer's payment shall be calculated in accordance with the formulas
contained in City Resolution No. 97-227. The contribution shall be applied to the SR 527
Packet Page 669 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 16
improvements required by Section 9.1.2(b) above, except that if there are still mitigation
payments owing pursuant to this Section 9.1.6 after funding of the Section 9.1.2(b)
improvements, the balance of the mitigation payment shall be paid to the City prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit for the first building in the Project. Should the
Project be modified in the future such that additional daily trips are generated beyond the
number shown in the traffic report dated January 20, 2000, the additional daily trips shall be
assessed traffic impact fees in accordance with the formulas contained in City Resolution
No. 97-227, unless at the time of such proposed modification, the City has adopted new
traffic mitigation formulas, in which case the additional daily trips shall be assessed traffic
impact fees in accordance with City Resolution No. 97-227 plus CPI (Seattle – Urban
Workers). The CPI factor shall be applied to the base mitigation amount for the additional
daily trips commencing on the date of the adoption by the City of the new traffic mitigation
formula and ending on the date of payment by the Developer, but the traffic mitigation fee
for the additional daily trips shall not in any event exceed the maximum traffic mitigation fee
assessed under the City's new traffic mitigation formula.
9.1.7 Town Center Connector.
a) Description. The Town Center Connector is that portion of Main Street
situated south of the Town Center, running between Lots 15 and 16 in Mill
Creek Plaza, and including 158th Place SE ("Connector"). The Connector
needs to be designed and constructed to link the Town Center to the City's
existing core commercial area. Developments within the SR 527 Corridor,
including Town Center, have been and are expected to participate in the
preparation of engineering plans for the Connector since they will benefit
from the completion of the Connector.
b) Engineering Plans. The Developer shall contribute funds for the preparation
of the engineering plans for the Connector. The plans will include
preliminary engineering and cost estimation for the construction of 158th
Street Southeast, reconstruction of Mill Creek Boulevard, traffic control
measures, and the extension of Main Street from Town Center to 158th Street
Southeast. The parties benefiting from the Connector shall deposit with the
City sufficient funds to cover the cost of the plans. The developer’s
proportional share of the engineering plans is $4,000.00 and shall be paid
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
10.0 Parking
10.1 Unified Parking Plan. The mixed-use nature of the Town Center is designed to
encourage pedestrian activity and discourage internal vehicle trips. Through the application of
shared parking among tenants, the Unified Parking Plan is intended to ensure that adequate parking
is provided for customers and employees of the Town Center while decreasing large expanses of
surface parking area.
Packet Page 670 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 17
10.1.1 On-Street Parking. On-street parking stalls shall be for customer parking only and
will be limited to a two-hour maximum. On-street stalls may be allocated to the adjacent
building/use for purposes of meeting the required parking ratio set by this Section 10.1.
10.1.2 Employee Parking. Employee parking shall be limited to the peripheral stalls of
parking lots behind buildings, leaving the most convenient stalls for customer parking.
10.1.3 Minimum Required Parking. Each Town Center lot shall be developed with
sufficient parking to meet the following minimum parking ratios for each use developed on
the lot, unless a shared parking zone is established pursuant to Section 10.1.4 below:
Use Stalls Per Bldg. Sq. Ft.
Retail 4.0 / 1000
Office 3.5 / 1000
Cinema 1.0 / 4 seats
Restaurant 9.0 / 1000
Grocery 4.6 / 1000
10.1.4 Shared Parking Zones. Shared parking zones will be created to maximize parking
availability among uses whose peak parking periods offset each other and to establish the
minimum number of stalls for each parking zone ("Shared Parking Zone"). Parking ratios
within Shared Parking Zones shall be based on the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking
Guidelines. As development proceeds, shared parking zones will be created pursuant to
Section 10.1.5 below.
10.1.5 Shared Parking Agreements. If the owner of a Town Center lot desires to provide
fewer parking stalls for that lot than are required by this Section 10.1, or if an owner desires
to obtain the right to use parking stalls on other Town Center lots to meet that owner's
parking requirements, the first lot owner shall enter into a Shared Parking Agreement with
the owner of one or more other Town Center lots to provide such parking stalls; provided
that all lots benefited and burdened by a Shared Parking Agreement shall collectively
contain sufficient parking stalls to meet the minimum parking ratio requirement established
by this Section 10.1; and provided further that all such Shared Parking Agreements shall be
approved by the Director and the City Attorney in advance of their effective date, and shall
be recorded by the first lot owner.
10.2 Transportation Demand Management. The Developer shall include and implement
the following transportation demand management ("TDM") measures in the project: a centrally
located in-lane transit stop on Main Street for Community Transit, wide sidewalks, and connections
to the regional trail system. Additional TDM measures including, but are not limited to, preferential
parking for car pools and van pools, bicycle racks, informational kiosks and an on-site transportation
coordinator to promote a ride-match program. These additional measures shall be addressed and
implemented through the Town Center Business Association Operational Agreement.
11.0 Use of Open Space; Operational Agreement
Packet Page 671 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 18
11.1 Open Space. A central feature of the Town Center Plan is providing open spaces and
public spaces for use by the public and the City, both on a daily basis and on a special event or
special occasion basis. The parties acknowledge that there are two types of open space within the
Project: (1) public open spaces (consisting of dedicated street rights-of-way and portions of
sidewalks), and (2) private open spaces (consisting of plazas, trails, buffers, the wetlands, and
portions of sidewalks). All of these open spaces are intended for general use by the public-at-large.
In addition, however, the parties recognize that the Town Center merchants may desire to conduct
certain sales and promotional events on or in the private open spaces, and that the City desires to
conduct periodic community-wide events using all or portions of the dedicated public spaces and
open spaces. By way of example only, such community events could include holidays, parades,
public activities, presentations, or any other reason deemed desirable or necessary by the City.
11.2 City Authority Over Open Spaces. Nothing in this Development Agreement or the
Operational Agreement shall limit, in any respect, the City's authority to control, regulate or take any
other action in, on or upon the public open spaces. In addition, the City shall have the authority at
the City's sole discretion, but not the obligation, to regulate access to, conduct, behavior and other
actions occurring within any open space areas designated on the Binding Site Plan.
11.3 Pedestrian Access Easements. Except for designated wetlands and buffers, a public
pedestrian access easement allowing public access shall be granted over all private open spaces,
including without limitation, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, trails and plazas, sidewalks along Main
Street, 153rd Street SE, 151st Street SE, the North Creek Trail, and within the SR 527 Roadway
Buffer. All such public access easements shall be described and shown on the face of the Binding
Site Plan.
11.4 Operational Agreement. The Developer and the City shall enter into an Operational
Agreement to coordinate the use, activities, events and maintenance of the public and private open
spaces within the Town Center. A separate Operational Agreement is attached and incorporated into
this Development Agreement as Exhibit C.
12.0 Construction
12.1 General. Upon the City's approval of specific site development plans based on the
Master Development Plan, the Developer shall proceed with site construction and improvements.
12.2 City Inspection. The Developer shall pay fees to the City for plan review and
construction inspection in accordance with MCMC 3.42.210.
12.3 Clearing and Grading. Clearing and grading for the Project shall be restricted solely
to those areas identified on the final approved clearing and grading plans. The approved limits of
clearing shall be included on the approved construction drawings. No other clearing of any nature
shall be allowed without the express prior written approval of the City. Site grading at the north end
of the Property shall be coordinated with the Wedgewood Condominium developer so that there are
no conflicts regarding the location of the rock walls along the north Property line.
12.4 Tree Protection.
Packet Page 672 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 19
12.4.1 SR 527 Roadway Buffer. Significant trees shall be preserved within the SR 527
roadway buffer/tree cutting preserve where practical and consistent with the Streetscape
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Trees to be preserved shall be determined after a
review of the engineering construction drawings, review and approval by the City of a
qualified arborist tree report, and onsite identification by the City and the Developer.
Preservation areas and individual trees to be saved shall be protected from encroachment by
vehicles, earth moving, and excavating machinery, and material storage by the erection of
barrier fencing at the drip line of the tree, as approved by the City.
12.4.2 Tree Replacement. Trees designated for preservation that are injured, damaged or
removed during construction shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1. The replacement trees shall
be a coniferous (preferably native) species and have a minimum height at planting of 12 feet.
In addition, a penalty of $1,000.00 per tree may be assessed for any trees that are removed
or destroyed by the Developer without the express prior written approval of the City. The
City may, at its discretion, issue a stop work order for the Project until the penalty is paid.
12.5 Construction Noise. Construction hours and noise limitations shall be in compliance
with City regulations unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Engineer.
13.0 Environmentally Critical Areas
13.1 Wetland F Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall provide mitigation for the proposed
filling of Wetland F in accordance with the conceptual wetland mitigation plan as submitted,
reviewed and approved by the City. Final mitigation plans shall be developed in accordance with
MCMC Chapter 18.06.
13.2 Buffer Enhancement Plan. The Developer shall enhance the buffer for Wetland AB
and Mill Creek in accordance with the conceptual buffer enhancement plan for Wetland AB and Mill
(Smokehouse) Creek as submitted, reviewed and approved by the City. The final buffer
enhancement plan shall be developed in accordance with MCMC Chapter 18.06 and the mitigation
measures outlined in the MDNS at Section 6.2 above.
13.3 Maintenance and Performance Bonds. The Developer shall enter into an agreement
for implementation of the plans identified in this Section 13. Said agreement shall be secured by a
performance bond for a period of five years in the amount of one hundred twenty-five percent
(125%) of the cost of all labor and materials needed to implement the plans. Upon acceptance of the
wetland mitigation and buffer enhancement work by the City, the performance bond shall be
released. A five-year maintenance bond, equaling twenty percent (20%) of the amount of the
performance bond, shall be posted prior to or at the time of the City's acceptance of the wetland
mitigation and buffer enhancement work. In addition, the Developer shall provide an agreement
satisfactory to the City Attorney that will ensure compliance with the monitoring and maintenance
schedule contained within the final wetland mitigation and buffer enhancement plans.
13.4 Protection of Wetlands. The Developer shall place Wetland AB and associated
buffers in a separate tract and preserve such area through a permanent protective mechanism
approved by the City Attorney. The location and use limitations associated with the wetlands and
Packet Page 673 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 20
buffers shall be shown on the face of the Binding Site Plan, and the permanent protective mechanism
shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor's Office at the Developer's expense.
13.5 ESA Biological Assessment. The Developer is encouraged to prepare a Biological
Assessment under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and submit a copy of that report to the City.
The City acknowledges that the Developer has, up to the execution date of this Development
Agreement, complied with all of the City's existing and applicable environmental regulations,
notwithstanding that all conditions required under the MDNS are not yet completed. The Developer
acknowledges that future compliance with the ESA, if required, is not addressed by this
Development Agreement, but compliance shall not be inconsistent with the rights afforded by RCW
36.70B.180 et seq.
14.0 Binding Site Plan
14.1 Preparation. The Binding Site Plan shall be prepared by the Developer in
conformance with MCMC Chapter 16.12.
14.2 Notice of Conditions. All utility, stormwater, drainage, maintenance, and
landscaping buffers/easements, together with all attendant restrictions and conditions required by the
City, shall be portrayed on the face of the Binding Site Plan or recorded on a separate page along
with the Binding Site Plan.
14.3 Updating of Binding Site Plan. The recorded Binding Site Plan shall be updated as
each lot is developed to reflect the conditions of such new development. The updated Binding Site
Plan shall be prepared by the developer of each lot and submitted to the City for review and approval
at the time of the City's acceptance of as-built drawings for each developed lot. Upon approval by
the City, the updated Binding Site Plan shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor's
Office at the developer's expense.
15.0 Phasing of Project
15.1 Phasing. The Project shall be developed in phases to expedite site preparation and
ensure a strong pedestrian presence with the completion of initial buildings and uses. To meet this
goal, two phasing standards are required for initial construction of the Project:
15.1.1 Infrastructure Phase. The infrastructure phase of construction shall include the
following: clearing and grading; installation of utilities; permanent curb and gutters;
temporary sidewalks where first-phase buildings are not proposed; stormwater detention
ponds; buffer enhancement; rough grades for all building pads; SR 527 intersection
improvements; 153rd Street SE improvements that are not associated with the River
Crossing final plat construction documents; installation of fifty percent (50%) of the street
trees and streetlights in temporary locations along Main Street; complete (100%) street trees
and streetlights on 153rd Street SE and 151st Street SE.
15.1.2 Building Phase I. The first phase of building construction shall include construction
of a combination of structures and uses sufficient to stimulate pedestrian activity. It is the
Packet Page 674 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 21
City's objective that, and the Developer shall use its best efforts to ensure, the following
minimum square footage per use shall be constructed in this phase of development:
Retail: 75,000 square feet
Office: 25,000 square feet
Restaurant: 6,500 square feet
15.2 Subsequent Phases. Subsequent phases of construction shall be as agreed upon by the
City and Developer.
Packet Page 675 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 22
16.0 Bonding; Security
16.1 Bond Required; Approval. Performance bonds, payment bonds, and maintenance
bonds shall be required, managed, and released as set forth in the City code unless otherwise
specified in this Development Agreement. All bonding documents shall be approved by the City
Attorney.
16.2 Waiver and Release. No bond shall be released without the prior written consent of
the City and completion of the work for which the bond was submitted. No performance or payment
bond shall be released before any required maintenance bond has been submitted.
17.0 Transfer of Property by Developer
17.1 Authority to Transfer. The Developer's right to sell, transfer, mortgage, hypothecate,
convey or take any other similar action regarding the title to or financing for the Property shall not
be infringed by this Agreement, provided however that any such transfer, sale, etc. shall be subject
to the terms and conditions, rights and obligations of this Development Agreement, BS 99-42, the
Rezone, and the Master Development Plan. In any proposed transfer, the Developer (and any
subsequent transferor) shall give actual notice to the transferee of all such documents.
17.2 Obligations of Successors. The Master Development Plan shall be binding on all
subsequent purchasers, lessees or lessors, and transferors of every nature.
18.0 Binding Nature; Modification; Vested Rights
18.1 Binding Nature. Once executed by the parties, this Development Agreement shall be
binding on the Developer, its successors and assigns, and on the City, its successors and assigns,
through December 31, 2012.
18.2 Modification of Agreement. Until January 1, 2013, this Development Agreement
may be modified only with the mutual agreement of the Mill Creek City Council and the Developer;
provided that this shall not restrict the City's exercise of its police power under the Washington
Constitution except as may be limited by RCW 36.70B.180 et seq. and provided further that mutual
agreement shall not be required to change the Operational Agreement. Thereafter, this Development
Agreement shall be subject to the City's then applicable development regulations.
18.3 Vested Rights. Until January 1, 2013, the Developer shall have the right to develop
the Property in accordance with the Master Development Plan and the City's ordinances and
regulations in effect on the date of this Development Agreement, and the Developer shall be
considered to be vested as to such Master Development Plan, ordinances and regulations under the
current property rights vesting laws of the state of Washington, including but not limited to RCW
36.70B.180 et seq.
Packet Page 676 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 23
19.0 Enforcement Authority
19.1 This Development Agreement may be enforced against the Developer, its successors
and assigns. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall alter or change the City's enforcement
authority under the City code or state law.
20.0 Dispute Resolution
20.1 In the event of a dispute between the parties about the application or interpretation of
this Development Agreement, the Developer may appeal to the department head with jurisdiction,
whose decision shall be accorded substantial weight and deference. The Developer may thereafter
appeal to the City Manager, whose decision shall be the City's final decision unless the parties agree
to submit the dispute to a mediation within ten days of the City Manager's decision. Appeals of the
City's decision shall otherwise be taken to the Superior Court for Snohomish County.
21.0 Authority to Approve Agreement
21.1 By Developer. By executing this Development Agreement, the Developer represents
and warrants that it has taken all necessary steps under its corporate authorities to authorize such act,
and that its execution of this Development Agreement is valid and binding for all purposes.
21.2 By City. By executing this Development Agreement, the City represents and
warrants that it has taken all necessary steps under its corporate authorities to authorize such act, and
that its execution of this Development Agreement is valid and binding for all purposes, subject only
to subsequent appeals filed in accordance with RCW 36.70B.200.
22.0 General Terms
22.1 Integration. The Master Development Plan and its component parts constitute the
entire agreement between the parties, and no prior oral or written agreement shall be valid.
22.2 Venue. Venue for all disputes arising under or connected with the Master
Development Plan and its component parts shall be in the Superior Court for Snohomish County.
This Development Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with Washington
law.
22.3 No Waiver of Police Power or Condemnation Authority. The City does not waive its
police power or condemnation authority by entering into this Development Agreement, except as
may be limited by RCW 36.70B.180 et seq.
22.4 Covenant Running with Land. This Development Agreement and its component parts
shall be covenants running with the land, and shall be binding on the parties and their successors and
assigns, and on all subsequent purchasers, lessees or lessors, and transferors of every nature as set
forth herein.
22.5 Developer's Responsibility. Any act or omission required of or permitted by the
Developer hereunder may be taken by the Developer or by its agents, contractors or employees;
Packet Page 677 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 24
provided that the Developer shall not thereby be relieved of its responsibility or liability to the City
under this Development Agreement.
22.6 Attorneys Fees. In any action arising under or related to this Development
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to be paid its reasonable attorneys fees, expenses
and costs by the nonprevailing party.
22.7 Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or portion of this Development
Agreement is declared unlawful or unconstitutional for any reason, the remainder of this
Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
Packet Page 678 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 25
City of Mill Creek: Developer:
Buchan Bros. Investments, Inc., a
Washington corporation
By:
Robert S. Stowe, City Manager Its:
ATTEST:
Ardelle Bailey Kelly M. Hennesey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
Scott M. Missall, City Attorney Attorney for Buchan Bros. Investments, Inc.
Exhibits to Agreement:
Exhibit A: Description of the Property
Exhibit B: Description of the Rezone
Exhibit C: Operational Agreement
STATE OF )
) ss:
COUNTY OF )
Packet Page 679 of 998
Town Center Phase I – Development Agreement - 26
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
is the person who appeared before me, and s/he acknowledged that s/he signed this instrument,
on oath stated that s/he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the
City Manager, of City of Mill Creek. that executed the within and foregoing instrument, to be the
free and voluntary act of such party of the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED: , 2001.
Print Name:
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
, residing at:
My Appointment Expires:
STATE OF )
) ss:
COUNTY OF )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
is the person who appeared before me, and s/he acknowledged that s/he signed this instrument,
on oath stated that s/he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the
President, of Buchan Brothers Investment, Inc. that executed the within and foregoing
instrument, to be the free and voluntary act of such party of the uses and purposes mentioned in
the instrument.
DATED: , 2001.
Print Name:
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
, residing at:
My Appointment Expires:
Packet Page 680 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
9
o
f
9
9
8
Item #_____
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Meeting Date: September 26, 2012
Agenda Subject: Harbor Square Master Plan – Public Hearing
Staff Lead /
Author:
Kernen Lien
Initiated By: City Council Planning Board City Staff
Citizen Request Other: Port of Edmonds
Introduction
The Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City of Edmonds to incorporate the
Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor
Square Master Plan envisions a mixed‐use transit‐oriented development. The mixed‐
use nature of the Master Plan will allow for retail, commercial, office and public uses,
and residential housing. The SEPA checklist indicates that a redeveloped Harbor Square
consistent with the Master Plan could provide between 340 to 358 residential units,
50,400 square feet of retail, 9,784 square feet of office, 123,410 square feet of
recreational health club uses (including tennis courts), 3.8 acres of public open space,
and 1,091 spaces of off‐street parking. The Master Plan envisions buildings of varying
heights, up to a maximum of 55 feet. Conceptually, buildings of 35 feet are proposed
for the SR‐104/Dayton Street intersection while buildings of 45 feet are proposed along
Dayton Street (with step back provisions for portions above 35 feet). Five story
buildings (up to 55 feet in height) would be located at the far southern edge of the site.
Overall, the average height for all the buildings on the Harbor Square site would not
exceed 45 feet.
The Planning Board has reviewed the Harbor Square Master Plan at three meetings thus
far and has discussed a number of issues. The Port of Edmonds has provided
supplemental materials to assist the Planning Board in its review. This is the first Public
Hearing on the Port’s proposal for Harbor Square. Staff has compiled this memorandum
in order to summarize the process and the issues that are being addressed by the
Planning Board. The Board may elect to make a recommendation after this hearing, or it
could hold an additional hearing before making its recommendation to the City Council.
Edmonds Planning Board
Agenda Memo
Packet Page 780 of 998
Page 2 of 7
Process
Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, Comprehensive Plan amendments are Type V actions.
Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the City Council under its authority to
establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public developments, and
management of public lands. ECDC 20.01.001.C provides the framework for Type V
actions as:
1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing and make
recommendations to the City Council on Type V actions, except the City Council
may hold a public hearing itself on area‐wide rezones to implement city policies,
or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or zoning map.
The public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The City Council may consider the Planning Board’s
recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements
of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the
City Council desires to hold a public hearing on area‐wide rezones to implement
city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or
the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding the proposed decision to the
planning board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to
the public as set forth in Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
4. Implementation. City Council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution
and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
Required Findings
Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan may be
adopted only if the following findings are made:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest;
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety or welfare of the City;
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses
within the City; and
4. In the case of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map, the subject
parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designations(s) and the
anticipated land use developments(s), including, but not limited to, access,
Packet Page 781 of 998
Page 3 of 7
provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of
physical constraints.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Elements
Harbor Square is located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center and the site
itself is within the Downtown Master Plan district. The Downtown Master Plan district is
described as:
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR‐104 and the railroad, including
Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending
past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for
design‐driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and
takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The
location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the
bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings
outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to
the street fronts, and provide pedestrian‐friendly walking areas, especially along
Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad
side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a “first impression” of the
city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping,
and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment
project. (pg. 55)
More information on the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center and the type of
developments that should occur in this area is described on pages 42 through 60 of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor Square Master Plan must also be consistent with the
Community Sustainability Element on pages 18 through 42 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The current version of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted on December 22, 2011.
Port of Edmonds Materials
The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan currently under review is the August 29, 2012
Revised for Planning board Review version, included as Attachment 2 to the Planning
Board’s agenda item for this Public Hearing. This version of the Harbor Square plan has
been updated to address a number of items raised by the Planning Board. The Port of
Edmonds has also submitted a narrative detailing how the Port believes the proposed
Harbor Square Master Plan meets the required findings of ECDC 20.00.050. These
narratives are included as Attachment 3 to the Planning Board’s agenda item for this
Public Hearing.
Packet Page 782 of 998
Page 4 of 7
Legal Questions
The Planning Board has asked for input from the City Attorney on several questions,
outlined below. The memo from the City Attorney should be available to the Board by
the time of the Public Hearing.
Precedent: What precedent is set in approving the Harbor Square proposal for other
properties (i.e. lying to the north) which are also designated as Downtown Master Plan
in the Comprehensive Plan? For example, do height limits talked about for Harbor
Square set a precedent for expectations or what “has to be” approved on the Edmonds
Shopping Center (old Safeway) site?
Private views: Does protection of private views have to be considered in review of the
Harbor Square proposal?
Height: If the Harbor Square plan says “up to 55 feet in height,” does that mean that
adopted regulations have to include buildings as high as 55 feet? Would an applicant
asking for a zoning change that allowed 55‐foot buildings be entitled to that change…or
would the City have discretion to deny such a change in zoning?
Discussion Items
In addition to the questions posed above to the City Attorney, the Planning Board has
continued to discuss some other elements of the Harbor Square Master Plan. Some of
these questions are discussed below.
Pedestrian Scale:
Within Downtown Master Plan district, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that, “Any
redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide
pedestrian‐friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets (pg. 55).”
Pedestrian scale is mentioned a number of times throughout the Downtown/Waterfront
Activity Center portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Some examples:
Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies
E.6 Enhance Edmonds’ visual identity by continuing its pedestrian‐scale of
downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and
building on the strong visual quality of the “5th and Main” core.
Downtown Design Objectives
Height
a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds.
b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more
specific provisions are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown
districts, buildings shall be generally two stories in exterior appearance, design
and character. However, incentives or design standards may be adopted which
Packet Page 783 of 998
Page 5 of 7
are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which allow
for additional height that does not impact the generally two‐story pedestrian‐
scale appearance of the public streetscape. Note that the Downtown Master
Plan district described on pages 36‐37 could allow a design which provides for
higher buildings outside current view corridors. (pg. 58; emphasis added)
Wall Modulation
a. Create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds.(pg. 59)
Accents/Colors/Trim
A. Applied ornament and architectural detail, various materials and colors
applied to a façade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds on doors and
windows provide variation in the scale, style and appearance of every building
facade. Awnings and canopies also add to the interest and pedestrian scale of
downtown buildings. The objective is to encourage new development that
provides:
• Compatibility with the surrounding environment,
• Visual interest and variety in building forms,
• Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses,
• Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood. (pg.
60)
The Planning Board has asked for clarification on what pedestrian scale means or would
look like. The American Planning Association’s A Planners Dictionary (Planning Advisory
Service Report Number 521/522) has a number of definitions on pedestrian scale which
include:
The proportional relationship between the dimensions of a building or building
element, street, outdoor space, or streetscape element and the average dimensions
of the human body, taking into account the perceptions and walking speed of a
typical pedestrian. (Loveland, Colo.)
Design and construction considerations based upon the scale of a human being
which imbue occupants and users of the built environment with a sense of comfort
and security. (Traverse City, Mich.)
Site and building design elements that are dimensionally smaller than those
intended to accommodate automobile traffic flow and buffering. Examples include
ornamental lighting no higher than 12 feet; bricks, pavers, or other paving modules
with small dimensions; a variety of planting and landscaping materials; arcades or
awnings that reduce the perception of the height of walls; and signage and signpost
details designed for viewing from a short distance. (Beaverton, Ore.)
In addition to building heights, pedestrian scale development also incorporates design
elements that provide a sense of “comfort and security” as well as interest (“streetscape
element”, “variety of planting and landscaping materials”, “signage and signpost
Packet Page 784 of 998
Page 6 of 7
detailed design for viewing from a short distance.”) that can be perceived by pedestrian
traffic. In urban design terms, pedestrian scale refers to street‐level elements of building
and streetscape design, focusing on the experience of pedestrians at the street level.
The Harbor Square Master Plan contains a number of elements intended to establish
pedestrian scale development. The Master Plan calls for 15‐foot‐wide sidewalks (pg. 11)
and a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and traffic (pg. 8) which helps to provide a
sense of security and comfort when walking along a street. Dayton Street frontage will
include a “pedestrian oriented facade” with transparent windows, pedestrian weather
protection, and signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to automobile passenger
(pg.11). Buildings are intended to be small scale with horizontal and vertical articulation
and other architectural methods that help break up a building’s bulk (pg. 10).
Setbacks from Edmonds Marsh:
The Planning Board has also raised questions about how development at Harbor Square
will relate to Edmonds Marsh. The Planning Board has been working on an update to
the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). During this update the Planning Board has
spent a considerable amount of time talking about what appropriate setbacks should
be. The current draft of the SMP provides for varying setbacks from the marsh
depending on the use. The bulk and dimension table in the SMP provides for 25 foot
setbacks for residential and commercial development and parking uses. A 15 foot
setback is identified for recreational uses. While the Harbor Square Master Plan is a
nonproject action, any development at Harbor Square will have to comply with the
City’s SMP. During the August 22, 2012 work session with the Port, the Port indicated
that they were envisioning setbacks of about 50 feet.
A number of other elements in the Harbor Square Master Plan may provide benefits to
Edmonds Marsh. The Master Plan envisions improvements to the on‐site stromwater
system, vegetative plantings, and a nature view boardwalk (pg. 10). The Master Plan
indicates that development at Harbor Square will incorporate low impact development
(LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run‐
off (pg. 8) and provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to
protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh (pg. 7).
Residential Uses:
Harbor Square is currently developed with only commercial‐type uses, while the Harbor
Square Redevelopment Plan (and the SMP update) envision a mixed use site that
includes a residential element. As has been noted, Harbor Square is located within the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, and a number of references in the
Comprehensive Plan address residential development within the Downtown/Waterfront
Activity Center, including being part of a mixed‐use development.
The overall vision for the downtown waterfront area includes this statement:
The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and
multifamily development with new mixed use development types (pg. 44).
Packet Page 785 of 998
Page 7 of 7
Goals for the Downtown Waterfront Area:
Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at
downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and
residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for
links between the retail core and these supporting areas. (pg. 45)
Implementation Strategy – Short Term Actions:
8. Encourage a variety of housing to be developed as part of new development and
redevelopment of downtown properties. Housing should be provided to serve a
diverse community, including single family homes, multi family apartments and
condominiums, housing as part of mixed use developments, and housing connected
with live/work developments that could also encourage an arts‐oriented community
in the downtown area. A special focus for arts‐supporting live/work arrangements
could be in the corridor and nearby residential areas linking downtown with the
Edmonds Center for the Arts (pg. 50).
Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies:
E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the
downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population.
The specific discussion of the Harbor Square site, as part of the “Downtown Master
Plan” area states as follows:
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR‐104 and the railroad,
including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site),
and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area
is appropriate for design‐driven master planned development which provides for
a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the
waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the
waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a
design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any
redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide
pedestrian‐friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets.
Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties,
since this is an area that provides a “first impression” of the city from railroad
passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated
building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project.
In the context of the overall downtown discussion, “a mix of uses” is non‐exclusive, i.e.
any mix of uses is potentially appropriate, including residential uses.
Packet Page 786 of 998
Date: September 26, 2012
To: City of Edmonds Planning Board
Copy: Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Director
From: Lighthouse Law Group PLLC
Susan Drummond, Special Counsel
Re: Questions posed by the Planning Board in its review of the Harbor
Square Master Plan
1. Introduction
The City of Edmonds Planning Board identified three questions at a recent
workshop about which it requested additional analysis. The answers below
address these questions.
2. Questions
2.1 Question 1 – Height Limits
Short Answer. The City would likely have discretion in making later
regulatory and zoning decisions; however, such comprehensive plan language
would be interpreted in conjunction with other plan language addressing the same
issue. Additional language can be added to the plan to provide clarification, as
addressed below.
If a comprehensive plan includes language providing for buildings to be “up to
55 feet in height” does that mean that development regulations must allow
buildings as high as 55 feet? Would an applicant asking for a zoning change
that allowed 55-foot buildings be entitled to that change, or would the city
have discretion to deny such a change in zoning?
Packet Page 787 of 998
Background. Both rezones and development regulations can be
challenged for inconsistency with a comprehensive plan.1 However, cities have
discretion in determining how the plan is implemented, and the party challenging
a city's land use decision (be it a site specific rezone, area-wide rezone, or
development regulations) has the burden of proof.2 Inconsistency arguments may
be easier to make if plan provisions are particularly detailed (i.e, detailed policies
that direct the precise type of development planned for a particular geographic
area, or include mandatory language, such as "shall").
While consistency arguments can be raised on height issues, the likelihood
of success depends on the nature of the ultimate rezone proposal, as well as the
final comprehensive plan language that the City adopts. To provide greater
clarity, additional language can be added to the comprehensive plan. For
example, the plan could include language such as the following. "With these
comprehensive plan provisions, the City is not definitively planning for height
limits to exceed 35 feet in any particular zone or on a particular property or
properties. Rather, the plan identifies factors appropriate for City consideration
should height limits above 35 feet be proposed, and identifies mitigation which
should be incorporated, if height limits are later approved which exceed 35 feet."
While the City has discretion in how to address height issues, adding language to
the plan to clarify this may assist with future decision-making.
1
See e.g., RCW 36.70A.040 (development regulations to be consistent with comprehensive
plans); Edmonds Municipal Code 20.40.010(A) (consistency is a "factor" to be considered in
making a rezone decision).
2
Phoenix Development, Inc. v. City of Woodinville, 171 Wn.2d 820, 256 P.3d 1150 (2011) (city's
decision to deny rezone upheld); RCW 36.70A.320 and .3201 (standard of review under Growth
Management Act, for legislative decisions); RCW 36.70C.130 (standard of review under Land
Use Petition Act, for project decisions).
Packet Page 788 of 998
2.2 Question 2 - Precedent
Simply because two properties have the same comprehensive plan
designation, and are in the same vicinity, or adjacent to each other, does not mean
they must have the same zoning and the same regulations. Of course, there
should be a rationale for distinguishing among the properties and implementing
development regulations for all properties must be consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
To increase clarity on this issue, if subarea planning is completed for a
particular area, it may make sense for the comprehensive plan land use map to be
updated to reflect that subarea planning work.
2.3 Question 3 – Private views
Aesthetic impacts, including private view impacts, should be considered.
However, there is discretion in determining both how and whether to protect such
views, as long as the ultimate decision on the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment is consistent with city planning documents (i.e., the remainder of the
comprehensive plan and shoreline master program). A number of jurisdictions,
including Edmonds, take a more holistic approach, by designating specific view
corridors. This approach then requires those public view corridors to be
addressed consistent with City plan and regulation direction. However, the City
has discretion in how it addresses private views.
4838-‐5183-‐9498,
v.
1
What precedent is set in approving a sub-area planning proposal for property
located proximate to other properties within the same comprehensive plan
designation? Specifically, do height limits addressing one property set a
precedent for what must be approved on surrounding areas?
Must private view protection be considered in reviewing a comprehensive plan amendment
proposal?
Packet Page 789 of 998
Dear Editor:
When the City of Edmonds reviews and deliberates on the proposed plan to redevelop Harbor
Square, it is important that the various officials, boards, the City Council and the Mayor
approach this review with an open mind. Unfortunately over the past several years, there is
immediate opposition against any development proposal in the downtown area, which has
building with heights of more than two stories. I am requesting that the officials and boards and
City Council consider this proposed plan to redevelop Harbor Square in its totality and not reject
the plan because some of the building will be more than two stories.
In closing, it should be noted it is quite obvious that the Harbor Square area needs to be
redeveloped. Now is the opportunity for the Port and the City to provide a means to make that
area attractive. The present proposed Harbor Square Master Plan has been approved by the Port
District after an open deliberative process.
Allen Hendricks
Packet Page 790 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Stephen A. Bernheim [steve@stevebernheim.com]
Sent:Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:25 AM
To:Lien, Kernen
Subject:Fw: Harbor Square Master Plan
Attachments:20120711085346.pdf
Cc:Bob McChesney ; John & Gretchen Reed ; Neil ; Todd Cloutier ; Valerie Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Harbor Square Master Plan
Kernan, in connection with the Port's Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal, I attach a copy of my 8-page written
comments submitted along with all the others listed on the application website. I submitted these written comments at the
port meeting on Monday, June 25 prior to the Port commission's action on the project. I don't believe I was "late" in
submitting formal materials, so I expect mine can be included with all the rest of them submitted by the port in connection
with its application.
https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/Citizen/PermitInfo/PermitDetails.aspx?R=NyI0gw%2baNoELKUzYot%2b36L62
JkXxUGtw7rF4xRk2faLqYgt%2fFejtYRUftoHsgcCWbg8bpe%2f3ZOJKxo%2fnz2pEdD9QT%2fRdK28SNHiIGCOaSw
Oo2b6%2bsG0V31ukFdjBmZe0
I may not have email addresses for all of the planning board members, so I also hope I may impose upon you to forward
my written comments concerning the port's proposal directly to them?
Thanks !!
Stephen A. Bernheim, Attorney at Law
512 Bell St.
Edmonds WA 98020
425 712 8318 (office)
425 712 8418 (fax)
425 744 3021 (desk)
206 240 5344 (cell)
steve@stevebernheim.com
Packet Page 791 of 998
Packet Page 792 of 998
Packet Page 793 of 998
Packet Page 794 of 998
Packet Page 795 of 998
Packet Page 796 of 998
Packet Page 797 of 998
Packet Page 798 of 998
Packet Page 799 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:John J. Reed, Jr. [Reed@OLES.com]
Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:04 AM
To:Lien, Kernen; philov@comcast.net
Cc:Todd Cloutier; Stephen A. Bernheim
Subject:FW: harbor square
Kernen/Phil–PleaseaddtothematerialsanddistributetothePB.Thanks.JR
From: Stephen A. Bernheim [mailto:steve@stevebernheim.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:41 PM
To: Todd Cloutier
Cc: John J. Reed, Jr.
Subject: harbor square
Hello !
I don't think I'll make it to public hearing tonight, but I want to make four general points about the current Harbor Square
proposal, in a preliminary way.
First, the port is acting no different from a private developer seeking to maximize its financial return in order to pay off its
debt and hopefully have something left over.The port has never asked what their purpose with the property is, other than
alleging it is pursuing "economic development." The port is not here to restore the marsh and trying to figure out a viable
plan for how to do that. The port is not trying to encourage marine science and trying to figure out how best to do that. In
fact, the port is seeking only to generate a return on the property to cover its debt. This port is extremely successful at the
marina business and they manage to break even at it. The purpose of the Harbor Square project should not be to
maximize the financial return necessary to pay off the port's self-imposed debt. Please ask to see the schedule of
payments due to the port's lenders for the debt the port district owes. In my written comments to the port i tried to illustrat e
how non-specific the port's plan really is relating to anything claiming to improve the environment. This is a plan only to
sell the project to somebody for enough money. Is the port's schedule of debt payments sufficient reason to rezone the
area ? Is any property owner's financial condition reason ever to change the zoning laws ? ("I paid so much for this
property, I need to change the zoning because otherwise it doesn't pencil out !")
Second, no alternative to intensive mixed use has ever been considered. The only effort has been to sell the port's
original idea to the public rather than solicit public input in order to generate a Harbor Square development alternative. I
think Harbor Square could be developed into a very nice public housing community, or residential village of 40 or 50
homes and condos leaving a 100-foot buffer around the marsh, or it could become an important element of the city's
storm water management system, or soccer or cricket fields. There could be a native heritage museum. They're probably
lots of other much better ideas.But here, compare the port's original plans with the port's current plans. While the public
has had the opportunity to comment, and some of those comments have been incorporated into the project in order to sell
it to a broader market, there was never any serious effort by the port to seek from the people how they preferred to see
Harbor Square's future. Mixed use was always the only way the port could make the amount of money it needed to make
to avoid foreclosure.
Third, won't construction and development of the project cost the city more than the project will ever return to the city?
Haven't we reached the point where bigger is worse ? Do we really improve any situation by adding another 2,000 people
? Is this the time to attempt via re-zone to encourage a large influx of mixed use development ? Our current citizens do
not pay enough taxes to keep our city government going. By bringing in an intensive multi-million dollar investment, the
city surely will be obligated to lay out considerable infrastructure to support it, especially if it's under water every couple
years, witness the consequences of the December 2007 storm. Can we really expect the development planned by the
port to pay its own share of city expenses as well as to contribute to our current shortfall ? Among the alleged financial
benefits touted by the promoters are listed few, if any, of the actual costs to government of supporting a project like this.
Fourth, certainly it would be quite wrong to create a major new change in one of the City's core areas prior to completion
of the strategic plan. The strategic plan will set out the people's vision for the harbor square area, ... won't it ? Why are we
Packet Page 800 of 998
2
revising the most important elements of our city's planning regulations ... before completing the strategic planning process
? What if the strategic plan shows the people want something other than mixed use from its port commission ?
Stephen A. Bernheim, Attorney at Law
512 Bell St.
Edmonds WA 98020
425 712 8318 (office)
425 712 8418 (fax)
425 744 3021 (desk)
206 240 5344 (cell)
steve@stevebernheim.com
Packet Page 801 of 998
Packet Page 802 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Chave, Rob
Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:26 AM
To:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: Harbor Square Master Plan
Justnoticedthisone…
Rob Chave | Planning Manager
Acting Development Services Director
From: Earling, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane; Chave, Rob
Subject: Fwd: Harbor Square Master Plan
Another one.
Dave
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ann & Chris <ac.brown3@frontier.com>
Date: July 25, 2012 6:07:29 PM PDT
To:dave.earling@edmondswa.gov
Subject: Harbor Square Master Plan
Mr. Mayor,
As the coal train situation continues to percolate, my patience on another matter is waning.
I get how ponderous the process in developing a plan to redevelop Harbor Square must seem.
However, from my perspective that process has been methodical, open, and transparent. It's
been directed by a community-based steering committee; addressing not just economic
potentials, but our values as a small seaside town with expansive Sound and mountain views as
well. Let us please move forward on the Harbor Square Master Plan. I strongly encourage the
City to amend the current Comprehensive Plan and enable the conversation with the community
to continue,
Thank you, again, for all you do.
Chris Brown
1016 Daley Street
Edmonds
Packet Page 803 of 998
Packet Page 804 of 998
Packet Page 805 of 998
Packet Page 806 of 998
Packet Page 807 of 998
Packet Page 808 of 998
Packet Page 809 of 998
Packet Page 810 of 998
Packet Page 811 of 998
Packet Page 812 of 998
Packet Page 813 of 998
Packet Page 814 of 998
Packet Page 815 of 998
Packet Page 816 of 998
Packet Page 817 of 998
Packet Page 818 of 998
Packet Page 819 of 998
Packet Page 820 of 998
Packet Page 821 of 998
Packet Page 822 of 998
Packet Page 823 of 998
Packet Page 824 of 998
Packet Page 825 of 998
Packet Page 826 of 998
Packet Page 827 of 998
Packet Page 828 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Chave, Rob
Sent:Monday, September 24, 2012 11:43 AM
To:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: New submission from 'Contact Development Services'!
Harborsquarecomment…
Rob Chave | Planning Manager
Acting Development Services Director
From: Contact Development Services [mailto:noreply@edmondswa.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:51 AM
To: Planning
Cc: Building
Subject: New submission from 'Contact Development Services'!
You have a new submission.
Your Name: sharon powell
Your Email: 4fredsandsharon@gmail.com
Subject: Harbor Square Development
Message: We live on 3rd S and the heighth of 45 feet would destroy our view. The 25 foot rule would give us
some view of the water. My other concern is whenever commercial space is moved to a new area (especially
when it is attractive) Merchants move from the downtown to there leaving downtown empty and changing the
ambience of our unique little town. Fred and Sharon Powell, 210 3rd Ave S #B.Edmonds, 098020
: Send
Packet Page 829 of 998
Harbor Square
Change usually make me uncomfortable. I need good reasons to support changes to
places I like. Since Edmonds is clearly one of my favorite places I looked closely at
the Port of Edmonds conceptual plan for Harbor Square. At the same time I looked
at areas needing improvement in Edmonds, especially the large number of vacant
commercial buildings, the struggling nature of those still in business and the loss of
tax revenue to keep Edmonds the way we want it.
I believe that the Port's proposal will rejuvenate the downtown area in a highly
positive way. It is more likely to provide space for business that complement existing
businesses than to compete with them. I expect that with proper marketing it will
provide a catalyst for technology based businesses to move to Edmonds. New
businesses could provide high paying jobs for local people and people living outside
Edmonds who find it convenient to travel here. The availability of commuter rail,
busses and the ferry (and a nice downhill route for morning bicyclists) and the
housing units that will be part of Harbor Square will mitigate the increase in auto
traffic that comes with growth. The proposed plan will also add to the pedestrian
friendliness of the waterfront, provide further amenities for Edmonds residents and
potential environmental improvements to the Edmonds marsh and Willow
Creek.
Yes, I am concerned with view impacts. However I must give the Port credit for a
plan that minimizes this impact. Vertical development also lessens the
environmental impact caused by urban sprawl and decrease energy consumption
compared to horizontal growth. Finally, the Port's proposal for 3 to 5 story
buildings is a far cry from the 18 stories proposed for Point Wells below Woodway
and Shoreline. If the port was less interested in what is good for the community and
more interested in revenue it could have made a much stronger argument than that
made for Point Wells that it is on a transportation corridor and thus qualify for
extremely tall buildings that would truly impede neighbors views. Once 3 to 5 story
buildings are completed it is highly unlikely that they would be replaced by 12 to 18
story buildings in the foreseeable future, thus a redeveloped Harbor Square is more
likely to preserve views rather than significantly impede them.
I find the Port leadership to be very interested in what is good for the community
and very open to our suggestions. Now is the time to share our views with the Port
and the City and help them set the stage for responsible growth.
Hank Landau, PE, Ph.D
Packet Page 830 of 998
Packet Page 831 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Cunningham, Diane
Sent:Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:44 PM
To:John Reed; John Reed; Kevin Clarke; Neil Tibbott; Phil Lovell; Todd Cloutier; Valerie Stewart;
William Ellis
Cc:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: Letter in support of the Harbor Square Master Plan
From: Jack Faris [mailto:farisjack4@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:43 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Letter in support of the Harbor Square Master Plan
Philip Lovell, Chairman
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
John Reed
Neil Tibbot
Dear members of the Edmonds Planning Board -
I am writing in support of the Harbor Square Master Plan.
I believe this plan creates the opportunity to achieve a remarkable balance
of advancing economic vitality for Edmonds while protecting and
enhancing community values of environmental quality and visual
aesthetics. I encourage my fellow citizens to adopt some flexibility
regarding strongly held positions - a little bit of give with regard to
building heights – with strict limits, of course - can open up possibilities
Packet Page 832 of 998
2
for broad community benefits, including marsh restoration, improved
storm water management, and special new public spaces.
The Master Plan provides for exploration of a public space component that
could be funded through private donations from individuals and
foundations. During the course of the development of the Master Plan, a
number of Edmonds residents have participated in discussions of what
such a component could be, such as:
- A multi-purpose meeting space and gathering place that is comfortable
and enhanced by inspiring surroundings, including windows to the marsh.
- An educational facility with hands-on state-of-the-art learning
technologies for K-12 students to explore science first hand and to have
access to fascinating insights into the maritime industries.
- An architectural feature that is exceptional both in its aesthetic values
and its expression of green values.
- A destination and/or turnaround point for waterfront walkers.
These are of course a few of many possible ways in
which the Harbor Square plan can be enhanced with
imaginative design and philanthropic support.
I have been a resident of Edmonds for 29 years and I've
been part of a large number of fundraising projects in
Seattle - the Seattle Public Library Foundation
campaign, the Benaroya Hall project, the ACT Theatre
renovation of Eagles Auditorium, the new Village
Theatre in Issaquah, IslandWood, the $2.5 billion
Packet Page 833 of 998
3
University of Washington campaign, and others. I have
seen philanthropy from the inside as Director of
Community Strategies at the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation.
I am confident that the Edmonds community has the
capacity, the imagination, and the generosity to support
a significant enhancement to the Harbor Square Master
Plan. I strongly support going forward with the Master
Plan and with the formation of a group to begin the
planning process for a fundraising effort to support a
public benefit complement to the Master Plan. I would
be pleased to participate in such a planning effort.
We should be inspired by what is now developing as
transformational possibilities in the post-viaduct Seattle
waterfront. We can make Edmonds a place even more
special than it is today. What a legacy that will be for
our children and grandchildren.
Sincerely,
Jack Faris
215 10th Pl. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
425 771 6324
Packet Page 834 of 998
4
Packet Page 835 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Cunningham, Diane
Sent:Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:40 AM
To:Betty Larman; C moss; Carolyn LaFave; Chase, Sandy; Clifton, Stephen; Cruz, Cindi; Dave
Earling; Donnelly, Gail; English, Robert; Hite, Carrie; Jay Underwood; Jennifer Anderson;
Johnson, Susan; Karen Wiggins; Luttrell, Megan; My Edmonds News; Olsen, Huda;
Spellman, Jana; Thies, Mike
Cc:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: a Fatal Flaw
FYI
Diane
Cunninghamcunningham@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Administrative
Assistant425.771.0220x1335
From: Jerry Capretta [mailto:caprettajerry@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:40 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: FW: a Fatal Flaw
Diane:PleasedistributetoallplanningboardmembersandplaceinthePublicRecord.Pleaseemailbacktomethatyou
receivedthisandcandistributeasIhaveasked.Thankyou,JerryCapretta4257715243,938GlenSt.Edmonds
ThankYouPlanningBoardforthehardworkthatyoudo!PleaseseethethoughtsbelowsenttoCouncil.Thankyou,
JerryCapretta
From: Jerry Capretta [mailto:caprettajerry@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:33 PM
To: 'kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov'; 'Peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us'; 'adrienne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us';
'diane.buckshnis@ci.edmonds.wa.us'; 'Joan.Bloom@edmondswa.gov'; 'frank.yamamoto@edmondswa.gov';
'lora.petso@ci.edmonds.wa.us'
Subject: a Fatal Flaw
HelloCouncilMembers:
WhileIobjecttoneareverythingaboutthePortofEdmondsPlan,andsecondarilywhatwouldthenbecometheOld
SafewayPropertyeminentthreatforasimilarpropertyplan,aFatalFlawemergedinthePortofEdmondsPlanatthe
lastPlanningBoardMeetingthatdeservesspecialattention.TheMasterPlanrequiresthatDayton,MainStreet,and5th
AvenuebemaintainedasaPublicViewCorridor.Inanearlieremail,Icalledtheseviews“ancillary”andquestionedhow
muchaestheticand$dollarvaluewouldbelostinEdmondsduetowaterfrontareaheightincreases.Ididn’tknowthat
PublicViewProtectionwaslegallyaddressedinourstatutes!AspecialthankyoutoTheCityofEdmondsPlanning
Boardfortheirdiligentdiscussions!ThereisnowaythePortcanplacea3,4,or5storybuildingontheirproperties,
anywhere,andnotsignificantlyimpacttheviewsfromallthesestreets,especiallyDayton.This“PublicView”conceptis
oneofthemostbeautifulaspectsofhavingan“EdmondskindofDay!”Don’tyouenjoyseeingthewater,the
mountains,andthevesselsonPugetSoundasyouwalkEdmondsanddrivearoundEdmonds?Yes!Itisoneofthethings
thatpeopleloveaboutEdmonds!ThisisoneofthemostimportantlossestheCityofEdmondswouldloseiftheCityis
pushedintochangingzoningbythePort!
Furthermore,doyouthinkthereisanywaythecurrentownersoftheOldSafewaypropertywouldallowtheirlegal
counseltoletthePortplaceanimpactfulheightincreaseonthePort’spropertywithoutTheOldSafewaypropertybeing
grantedthesameprivilege?Iwonder,doyouthinkthecurrentownersoftheOldSafewayPropertywouldhavetheir
Packet Page 836 of 998
2
legalcounselsueincourt?And,doyouthinktheywouldwin?Whencompoundedwiththisominousthreat,youcreate
aTUNNELVIEWFROMALLOFDAYTONUPTOPERHAPSANDERSONCENTER.ThePublicViewProtectionaloneis
enoughtostopwhatthePortistryingtopushthrough.Asyouknow,thereismuchmoretoobjecttoaboutthePort’s
Plan,butthislegalaspectaloneissubstantivebyitselftoprovidetherationaletostopallconsiderationforincreasing
heightonpropertiesatornearthewaterfront,andcertainlynotgoingabove2stories.Itisthelawtoprotectthe
PublicViewsonDaytonandMainStreetand5thAvenue.AsacitizenofEdmonds,Iaskthatyouupholdthelawsthat
havebeencreatedtoprotectourcitizensandourtownfromoverlyaggressive,selfͲinterestpromotinglandowners,
likethePortofEdmonds.
So,asidefrommany,manyothersubstantiveissuesIwouldlovetoplaceinthisemail,onethingringsloudandclear:If
ThePlanningBoardsendstoCouncilthePlan,andtheCouncilAdoptsthePort’sPlanoraversionprovidingheight
increasesabovethecurrent2storylimits,justthecertaintyofthePort’sblockingviewswillviolatethesubstanceofthe
lawprotectingPublicViewsonDaytonSt.,MainStreet,and5thAve.And,theCitycouldbemadetograntthesame
increasesinheightsfortheOldSafewayProperty.ShouldtheCitytrytoplaceadistinctionofseparatingthe
zoning/planningusesofthePort’spropertytoomitsimilarusesbytheOldSafewayProperty,TheCityofEdmondsmay
befacedwithanexpensivelawsuitfromtheOldSafewayProperty.Andaskyourself,“Whatwouldbetheoutcome?”
So,holdrightnowonenforcingthelawswehaveonourbooks,andsavethecitythedollarcostoflostviews,lawsuits,
andfurthergrief.
Oh,andonemorething.Pleasechoosewordsandphrasingapprovedbyourcity’slegalcounselwhenyouholdfastto
thecurrentheightlimitsonthePort’spropertyandconsequentiallytheOldSafewayProperty.DoyouthinkthePortand
theOldSafewaypropertieswillsueuponanyviolationyoumightconduct?DoyouthinktheOldSafewayProperty
wouldsueindependentofalesslegallyaggressivePort?Pleasebecarefulwhatyousayduringpublicdiscussionsonthe
Port’sandOldSafewaypropertyforsimilarreasons.Respectfully,JerryCapretta,938GlenSt.,Edmonds.4257715243
Packet Page 837 of 998
Packet Page 838 of 998
Packet Page 839 of 998
Packet Page 840 of 998
Packet Page 841 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Cunningham, Diane
Sent:Monday, July 23, 2012 5:18 PM
To:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: Harbor Square application
Hi Kernen,
Please see the following email. Will you include it with your presentation to the Planning Board on
Wednesday, or should I go ahead and forward it to the Board now?
Thanks,
Jen (for Diane)
Diane
Cunninghamcunningham@ci.edmonds.wa.us
PlanningAssistant425.771.0220x1335
From: Kathy Dewhirst [mailto:jkdewhirst@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 3:05 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Harbor Square application
To:MembersofthePlanningBoard
I urge you to support the Harbor Square application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Harbor Square proposal is about the future of Edmonds. This is an important step in achieving the vision
for this community. With Edmonds at the tipping point, facing increasing budget shortfalls and service
reductions, it is time for the community to focus on its future.
The Harbor Square Master Plan Steering Committee, comprised of citizens from a wide variety of backgrounds,
spent months considering changes to the Port’s Master Plan. This was not an easy task given the location of the
railroad tracks, the marsh, existing businesses and expectations. In addition, the proposal had to function
financially. The result is a proposal that establishes a destination between the downtown core and the waterfront
– a destination with a mixture of housing, business, parking, retail, office, restaurants and recreation with urban
plazas.
Important elements of the proposal are improved access to the marsh and public open spaces. Restoration of the
marsh is possible with redevelopment of the Harbor Square property as the activity would create new resources
for habitat restoration, elimination of non-native plants and to daylight Willow Creek. Public open spaces would
be central to any new project.
The Steering Committee looked at demographic trends which suggest young professionals are looking for urban
settings with access to public transit, restaurants and city amenities. With the additional benefit of a beautiful
waterfront, this Port property is perfectly located to appeal to this group, retirees and families with small
children. Edmonds must encourage new housing opportunities to accommodate a changing population.
Packet Page 842 of 998
2
By including the Port’s Master Plan in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Edmonds is demonstrating that there is a
vision of the future. Adoption of the Master Plan is a first step toward realizing that vision.
KathleenDewhirst
HarborSquareSteeringCommitteemember
Packet Page 843 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Ken Reidy [kenreidy@hotmail.com]
Sent:Monday, July 23, 2012 9:58 AM
To:Lien, Kernen; Cunningham, Diane; Council
Subject:Please forward to City Council and Planning Board and please attach to related Planning
Board Agenda Item Al-4987
TheJuly25,2012EdmondsPlanningBoardAgendaMemorelatedtotheHarborSquareMasterPlan
ComprehensivePlanAmendmentcontainsreferencestothefollowingCityofEdmondsCodeSections:
1. ECDC20.01.003
2. ECDC20.01.001.C
3. Chapter20.06ECDC
4. Chapter20.03ECDC
5. ECDC20.00.050
Asacitizen,IstronglyrequestyouascertainthattheseCodeSectionsareproblemfreeandconsistentwith
StateLawBEFOREconsideringanychangestotheCity’sComprehensivePlan.Thisisaveryreasonable
requestastheCityhasadmittedthatitiswellawareofthemanyproblemswithitsCode.Forexample,
formerDevelopmentServicesDirectorDuaneBowmanstatedduringtheOctober25,2005CityCouncil
meetingthathehadbeendescribingtheneedtoupdatetheZoningCODEsincehewashiredin2000.The
commentwasalsomadethattheCity’sCODEdatedtothe1980sandpiecemealamendmentsmakeit
difficulttouseandadminister.
The2007CityAttorneyAnnualReportincludedthefollowing:Thebiggestissueatthestartof2007wasthe
coderewrite;foravarietyofreasonsincludingstaffillnessesandhissabbatical,littleprogresswasmadeon
thecoderewrite.
Thebiggestissueatthestartof2007wasthecoderewrite.Itwasbudgetedfor,moneywasappropriated,
butitstilldidn’tgetdone!
Asacitizen,IhaveverylittleconfidencethatthesesectionsofCodeareproblemfree.Forexample,Iknow
thatECDC20.01.003statesthatVariancesareTypeIIIͲBdecisionswhichconflictswithECDC20.85.020which
statesthat“ThehearingexaminershallreviewvariancesasTypeIIIͲAdecisionsinaccordancewithprovisions
ofChapter20.06ECDC.”
IalsobelieveitiscriticalthattheCityascertainthatalltheCity’slawsareconsistentwithStatelawbefore
proceedingforwardwithanyhearingsrelatedtochangestotheCity’sComprehensivePlan.
Finally,ambiguousCodeSectionscauseuncertaintieswhichleadtoproblems.DotheCitizensofEdmonds
benefitfromambiguitiessuchastheuseofthewords“may”and"if"inthefollowingCodeSection?:
ECDC20.01.001.C.2.CityCouncil.Thecitycouncilmayconsidertheplanningboard’srecommendationina
publichearingheldinaccordancewiththerequirementsofChapter20.06ECDCandRCW36.70A.035andall
otherapplicablelaw.IfthecitycouncildesirestoholdapublichearingonareaͲwiderezonestoimplement
citypolicies,oramendmentstozoningcodetext,developmentregulationsorthezoningmap,itmaydoso
withoutforwardingtheproposeddecisiontotheplanningboardforahearing.
IwouldarguethattheCitizensdonotbenefitoverallfromsuchambiguities.
Packet Page 844 of 998
2
Pleaseconductyouractionsintheproperorder.PleaseprioritizefixingtheCodeviaaComprehensiveCode
RewriteeffortthatisapprovedandbudgetedforbytheCityCouncil.Istronglybelievethisshouldbethe
City’spriority.IbelieveitisimproperfortheCitytoconductitsbusinessasiftheCodeisproblemfreewhen
allarefullyawareofthepoorconditionoftheCode.
Establishingacomprehensive,accurate,consistentandeasytoadministerCityCODEiscriticaltotheCity’s
effortstoprovideahighlevelofgovernmentservicewhichINVITESeconomicandotherbeneficialactivities
toourCity.ItisanabsoluteshamethattheCodeRewritewasnotcompletedyearsagosothatwecouldnow
considercriticalitemssuchastheHarborSquareMasterPlanwiththeknowledgeandcomfortthatThe
EdmondsCodeissolid,currentandaccurate.
Sincerely,
KenReidy
Packet Page 845 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Cunningham, Diane
Sent:Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:19 AM
To:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: Port of Everett Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Attachments:Edmonds Letter 072312.docx; ATT7262372.htm
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Diane
Cunninghamcunningham@ci.edmonds.wa.us
PlanningAssistant425.771.0220x1335
From: Earling, Dave
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 6:59 PM
To: Chave, Rob; Cunningham, Diane
Subject: Fwd: Port of Everett Comprehensive Plan Amendment
And one more.....
Dave
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Larry Beard" <ldbeard1@comcast.net>
Date: July 23, 2012 6:52:37 PM PDT
To: <dave.earling@edmondswa.gov>, <krisitina.johnson@edmondswa.gov>,
<peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, <adrianne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us>,
<diane.buckshinis@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, <frank.yamamoto@edmondswa.gov>,
<lora.petso@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, <joan.bloom@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Port of Everett Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Attached is a letter I sent to the Edmonds Beacon in support of the Port of Edmonds proposed
comprehensive plan amendment. Please consider this my input to the public process. I hope that the
City will approve the amendment so we can continue the dialog on redeveloping our waterfront into
something we can all enjoy and be proud of.
Thank you for your consideration.
Larry Beard
Packet Page 846 of 998
July 23, 2012
Pat Ratliff
Editor, Edmonds Beacon
edmondseditor@yourbeacon.net
RE: PORT OF EDMONDS PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
REDEVELOPMENT OF HARBOR SQUARE
Dear Mr. Ratliff,
As someone who both works and lives in Edmonds, I am sending a letter to the Beacon in support
of the Port of Edmonds plan to redevelop Harbor Square. Our waterfront is desperately in need of
redevelopment to create a place where residents and visitors can enjoy the beauty and unique setting that
Edmonds has to offer, and the City is desperately in need of the expanded tax revenue that it will
generate.
I know we will hear the same complaints that always arise regarding blocked views because the
planned changes include buildings up to 5 stories. But, this really should be a nonissue. The
development will be down in flats by the marsh, so it will only affect (and not ruin) the view of very few
homes, and in return the city as a whole gets a new neighborhood, more open space and public access,
marsh restoration, more local businesses, and an expanded tax base. The Port is proposing a well
balanced development that will help revitalize our city without sacrificing its unique, small seaside town
feel that brought most of us here.
The Port has followed an open and inclusive process that is endorsed by the City’s Economic
Development Commission. We all lose if the City bases its decision on the loud, vocal minority that
opposes any viable development in Edmonds and whose response to any downtown development
proposal, regardless of how well thought out and beneficial to the community, is “No”. I for one plan on
strongly urging the City to amend the Port’s comprehensive plan and allow the Port’s dialog with the
community to continue. I hope others will do so as well.
Sincerely,
Larry Beard
Packet Page 847 of 998
Packet Page 848 of 998
Packet Page 849 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Chave, Rob
Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:50 PM
To:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan
Rob Chave | Planning Manager
Acting Development Services Director
From: Patricia Sherwood [mailto:pksherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:48 PM
To: Chave, Rob; Spellman, Jana
Subject: FW: Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan
I'm sorry, I typed your addresses incorrectly so sending this to you again.
Pat Sherwood
From: pksherwood@hotmail.com
To: edmondseditor@yourbeacon.net; counciladmin@c.i.edmods.wa.us; rob.chave@c.i.edmonds.wa.us
Subject: Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:44:18 -0700
IamwritingagaintoaddmyopinionastowhyIamagainstthisplanaspresented.I'vewrittenbeforebut
evidently,notwellenough.Itisalovely,slickandexpensivelookingplan.Wedoneedthearearedeveloped,
I’mnotarguingthatpoint.But5storiestall?Thoseinfavorsayveryfewviewswillbeeliminated…really?All
thosealong2nd,3rd,4thandmaybeeven5thAvenuesSouthwilllosewaterview.Thosehomeownershavemost
likelyseenadecreaseinvaluebecauseoftheeconomy,butwillseeafurtherdecreasewiththelossofthe
viewtheyboughtthehomeforinthefirstplace. Walkingalong5thAvenueSouthIloveseeingtheviewatthe
crossstreets.Thatwilldisapplearforsure.
Oncetheheightrestrictionisforgiventhere,youcanbeassuredthatitwillcontinuetobeexceptedfor
otherfuturedevelopments,acrossDaytonforexample.Whereelse?Whereverthosewhowantamore
‘upscale’citycanconvincethecouncilitwillbeadvantageous.Whattypeofbusinesseswillcomethen?Most
likelyseveralexpensivespaͲtypebusinessesaswellasthemore'desired'upscaleones.Soundsfine,right?I
likethosebusinessesaswell,buttheywillovertakemanyothersintownleavingourbeautifulcityemptyof
moreaffordableshops.IshophereasmuchasIcantokeepmydollarsinourbeautifulcity.But,Iseeafuture,
wherelikeKirkland,IwillfindnothingherethatIcanafford.
Kirkland,whereIlivedfor35years,isagoodexample.BlockuponblockuponblockofhigherͲrisecondos,
andupscalebusinessesreplacedalltheothersthatwerecharminginthatonceͲlovelytown.Edmondsisa
beautifulcitywithasmalltownatmosphere;attractivetoyoungANDold,richANDnotͲsoͲrich.Thatwill
change,Iguaranteeit.Ihavesaidmanytimes,whydon’twefindoutwhatmakesGigHarbororLaConnorso
popularwithoutbuildingaslewofcondos.Addcondosoverbusinessesbutdotheyreallyneedsomanyto
maketheareaprofitable?Icouldgoonandon,butIfeelI’mwastingmybreathandeffort.Itrulyfearitwill
happennomatterhowmanyobject.FiveCornersisagoodexampleofthat!
Oh,andbytheway,oncethechangesaremade,whynotjustchangeournameto“KirklandbytheSea”?
Sincerely,
Packet Page 850 of 998
2
PatriciaSherwood
Edmonds
425Ͳ778Ͳ4159
Packet Page 851 of 998
Packet Page 852 of 998
Packet Page 853 of 998
Packet Page 854 of 998
Packet Page 855 of 998
Packet Page 856 of 998
1
Lien, Kernen
From:Cunningham, Diane
Sent:Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:01 PM
To:Lien, Kernen
Subject:FW: Harbor Square Master Plan
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Diane
Cunninghamcunningham@ci.edmonds.wa.us
PlanningAssistant425.771.0220x1335
From: Earling, Dave
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:58 PM
To: Chave, Rob; Cunningham, Diane
Subject: FW: Harbor Square Master Plan
Hereyougo.
Dave
From: Steve Johnston [mailto:sjohnston@landauinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:44 PM
To: Earling, Dave
Subject: Harbor Square Master Plan
DearMayorEarling:
AsalongͲtimeresidentofandbusinessownerwithintheCityofEdmonds,IamveryexcitedtoseethePortofEdmonds
offeringaclearandvisionaryplanforarevitalizedHarborSquare.TheproposedMasterPlanforHarborPointprepared
andsupportedbythePortofEdmondsprovidesacompellingoptionforthefutureofasignificantportionofthe
Edmondswaterfront.Firstandforemost,it’sarealandworkableplanfortheredevelopmentofanunderdevelopedand
agingcommercialandofficeareatoanewandattractivemixedͲuseoffice,residential,andcommercialdevelopment.
Clearly,thecourseofnoactionfortheareaadvocatedbysomecitizens,whogenerallyappeartobeinfavorofno
changeanywhere,hasnotservedtheCityoritsresidentswellinthepast.I,likemanyothers,havewatchedwith
frustrationasstructuresalongandnearourwaterfrontmaturepasttheirusefullifeandinsomecasesdeteriorate
substantiallywhilepeoplewithoutaworkableplanseektoblockeveryattemptatresponsibleredevelopmentorstall
inevitableimprovementswithdemandsofunrealisticandeconomicallynonviableproposalssuchasgreenbeltandpark
systemsforwhichthereisnofunding.
ThePort’splanforHarborSquarehasbeenvettedandshapedbyaknowledgeable,wellͲinformedsteeringcommittee
composedofinvolvedcitizenswhohavethefuture,notthepast,inmind.Theplanrepresentsareasonablebalanceof
developmentandpreservationintereststhatgivesEdmondsmuchofwhatitwantsandneedsintermsofeconomic
vitality,jobs,andanincreasedtaxbase,withouteliminatingtheamenitiesitanditscitizensvaluemost(ahealthymarsh
withviewingfacilities,stunningwesternviewsofSoundandmountains,waterfrontaccessandenhancement,andgreat
residentialandshoppingopportunities).Theplanneddevelopmentactuallyincorporatesandcreatesadditionalpublic
amenitiessuchasmarshandenvironmentalrestoration,publicopenandgatheringspaces,improvedstormwater
Packet Page 857 of 998
2
controls,morepermeablesurfacestoallowstormwaterinfiltrationandreduceflooding,andgreenconstructionfora
sustainablefuture.
AsaresidentandbusinessownerinEdmonds,Istronglysupportthisplan.IurgetheCitytoamendtheComprehensive
PlantoenabletheconversationsthatwillultimatelymaketheimprovedHarborSquareareality.ThenewHarbor
Squarecomplex,whencombinedwithotherinevitableandresponsibledevelopmentofunderdevelopedpropertiesto
thenorth,willeventuallyconnectourdowntowntothewaterandisthereforeacriticalpieceofEdmonds’inevitable
andrevitalizedfuture.
Andnoactionisnoplanatall.
Thankyouforyourconsiderationinthismatter.
SteveJohnston
778Ͳ0907
Email is a sustainable communications tool – please consider this before printing.
Notice: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the
sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Packet Page 858 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
5
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
7
o
f
9
9
8
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
The proposal is a non- project actions and does not relate to a
specific development project. The redevelopment plan
includes a Sustainablity Element that will be used to guide the
configuaration of buildings and site components when an
actual development plan is prepared. Specific policies in the
Master Plan and City’s Community Sustainability Element
address the objectives of reducing stormwater runoff through
the application of Low Impact Development techniques
including pervious pavement, rain gardens and minimizing
impervious surfaces. The estimates approximately 90% of the
site will be covered with impervious surfaces although the
actual final percentage of impervious surface will be
calculated at such time that a specific development proposal is
submitted to the City for review.
Packet Page 868 of 998
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
0
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
1
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
2
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
3
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
4
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
5
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
6
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
7
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
8
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
9
o
f
9
9
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
9
0
o
f
9
9
8
AM-5264 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Debra Sharp
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
November 2012 Budget Amendment
Recommendation
Approval of the November 2012 Budget Amendment
Previous Council Action
Reviewed by Finance Committee
Narrative
There are five budget amendments in regards to the General Fund with a net decrease to ending fund
balance in the amount of $343,161. The two largest items have been before Council for approval and are
now before Council for an increase in expenditure authority. The first is the Indefeasible Right of Use
Agreement ($66,451) and the VSIP Program ($274,910).
There ten budget amendments related to either special revenue funds or utility funds. Six of these
amendments have offsetting revenue from either donations or grants the City has received. Two of the
amendments are for coding corrections only. Two of the amendments are from the Engineering
Department requesting transfers from one fund to another fund to support either the utility portion of the
project or the public arts portion.
One of the budget amendments for the Parks Construction Fund is a transfer from the Parks Construction
Fund back into REET 2. The Old Milltown/Hazel Miller Plaza project received community donations
for this project. The Parks Department is transferring money that was approved to start the project back
into REET 2 because of the amount of donations received.
Attachments
2012 Budget Amendment
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 11/14/2012 11:51 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 12:18 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 12:21 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 12:23 PM
Packet Page 891 of 998
Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 11/14/2012 10:15 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 892 of 998
1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3897 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund
Transfers and increases in appropriations; and
WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is
transferred from one fund to another; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations
and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and
federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2012
Budget; and
WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified;
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3897 adopting the final budget for the
fiscal year 2012 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E
hereto, which exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
Packet Page 893 of 998
2
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
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 894 of 998
3
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 3897 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________,2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 895 of 998
EXHIBIT “A”: Budget Amendments by Revenue (November 2012)
4
ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2012
FUND FUND 3861 3882 3886 3891 3893 3897 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 11/22/2011 4/27/2012 5/25/2012 7/27/2012 8/31/2012 10/23/2012 Nov 2012 Budget
001 General Fund 33,006,588$ 7,930$ -$ 2,656$ -$ -$ 11,204$ 33,028,378$
004 Criminal Investigations - - - - - - - -
006 Emergency/Financial Reserve - - - - - - - -
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 600,550 - - - - - - 600,550
010 Reserve Fund 2,200 - - - - - - 2,200
011 Risk Management Reserve Fund - - - 244,000 - - - 244,000
012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - - - 5,282,000 - - 5,282,000
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund - - - - - 10,000 - 10,000
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 28,200 - - - - 2,500 - 30,700
111 Street Fund 1,313,650 - - - - - - 1,313,650
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,006,864 - - - 833,238 - 1,800 2,841,902
113 Multimodal Transportation Fd.- - - - - - - -
116 Building Maintenance 56,860 - - - - - - 56,860
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 58,325 - - - - - 7,643 65,968
118 Memorial Street Tree 28 - - - - - 140 168
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 69,200 - - (17,250) - - - 51,950
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,140 - - - - - - 20,140
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 2,525 - - - - - - 2,525
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 19,000 - - - - - 5,500 24,500
125 Park Acq/Improvement 590,850 77,000 103,000 - - - 85,143 855,993
126 Special Capital Fund 590,800 - - - - - - 590,800
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 10,759 - - - - - 11,204 21,963
129 Special Projects Fund 313,004 169,000 - - - - - 482,004
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 119,850 - - - - - - 119,850
132 Parks Construction 1,185,000 104,414 - - - - 115,824 1,405,238
136 Parks Trust Fund 177 - - - - - - 177
137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 14,600 - - - - - - 14,600
138 Sister City Commission 5,230 - - - - - - 5,230
211 Lid Fund Control 46,700 - - - - - - 46,700
213 Lid Guaranty Fund 46,725 105,000 - - - - - 151,725
234 Ltgo Bond Debt Service Fund 478,573 - - - - - - 478,573
411 Combined Utility Operation 15,306,920 150,000 - - - - 4,920 15,461,840
412 Combined Utility Const/Improve 7,888,400 - - - - - - 7,888,400
414 Capital Improvements Reserve 1,126,377 457,012 - - - - - 1,583,389
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,076,456 - - - - 111,700 - 1,188,156
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 94,423 - - - - - - 94,423
631 Transportation Benefit District 600,000 - - - - - - 600,000
Totals 66,678,974$ 1,070,356$ 103,000$ 229,406$ 6,115,238$ 124,200$ 243,378$ 74,564,552$
Packet Page 896 of 998
EXHIBIT “B”: Budget Amendments by Expenditure (November 2012)
5
ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2012
FUND FUND 3861 3882 3886 3891 3893 3897 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 11/22/2011 4/27/2012 5/25/2012 7/27/2012 8/31/2012 10/23/2012 Nov 2012 Budget
001 General Fund 32,949,288$ 211,384$ 103,000$ 2,656$ 2,015,000$ 148,809 354,365 35,784,502$
004 Criminal Investigations - - - - - 2,500 - 2,500
006 Emergency/Financial Reserve - - - - 1,927,600 - - 1,927,600
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 619,811 - - - - - - 619,811
010 Reserve Fund - - - - 1,339,400 - - 1,339,400
011 Risk Management Reserve Fund - - - - - - -
012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - - - - - - -
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund - - - - - 8,500 - 8,500
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 80,233 - - - - - - 80,233
111 Street Fund 1,604,948 20,200 - - - 6,600 - 1,631,748
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,075,625 31,803 - - 833,238 - 1,800 2,942,466
113 Multimodal Transportation Fd.- - - - - - - -
116 Building Maintenance 245,000 - - - - - - 245,000
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 134,550 - - - - - - 134,550
118 Memorial Street Tree - - - - - - 140 140
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 73,750 - - (17,250) - - - 56,500
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,086 - - - - - - 26,086
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 4,000 - - - - - - 4,000
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 19,000 - - - - - 5,500 24,500
125 Park Acq/Improvement 875,000 77,000 103,000 - - - - 1,055,000
126 Special Capital Fund 697,717 - - - - - - 697,717
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 12,275 - - - - - 11,204 23,479
129 Special Projects Fund 313,000 170,500 - - - - - 483,500
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 172,005 - - - - - - 172,005
132 Parks Construction 1,187,000 210,000 - (20,800) - - 85,143 1,461,343
136 Parks Trust Fund - 6,930 - - - - - 6,930
137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd - - - - - - - -
138 Sister City Commission 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600
211 Lid Fund Control 46,500 105,000 - - - - - 151,500
213 Lid Guaranty Fund - - - 244,000 - - - 244,000
234 Ltgo Bond Debt Service Fund 478,573 - - - - - - 478,573
411 Combined Utility Operation 15,598,246 191,481 - (419,326) - 3,881 4,920 15,379,202
412 Combined Utility Const/Improve 10,465,068 482,611 - 40,000 312,000 - 16,967 11,316,646
414 Capital Improvements Reserve 1,126,376 457,012 - (11,873) - - - 1,571,515
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,321,334 - - - - 111,700 - 1,433,034
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 123,515 - - - - - - 123,515
631 Transportation Benefit District 600,000 - - - - - - 600,000
Totals 70,853,500$ 1,963,921$ 206,000$ (182,593)$ 6,427,238$ 281,990$ 480,039$ 80,030,095$
Packet Page 897 of 998
EXHIBIT “C”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
6
Department BARS Category Debit Credit Description
General Fund 001 000 310 518 870 310 00 Supplies 4,606
General Fund 001 000 250 514 300 410 00 Professional Services 4,606
General Fund 001 000 620 532 200 490 00 Miscellaneious 1,800
General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,800
General Fund 001 000 310 518 870 480 00 Repair & Maintenance 66,451
General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 66,451
General Fund 001 000 390 519 900 110 00 Salaries 274,910
General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 274,910
General Fund 001 000 390 597 127 550 00 Transfer 11,204
General Fund 001 000 000 367 110 000 00 Donations 11,204
Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 640 575 500 310 00 Supplies 11,204
Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 000 397 001 000 00 Transfer 11,204
Municipal Arts Acq Fund 117 200 640 573 100 410 00 Professional Services 1,358
Municipal Arts Acq Fund 117 200 640 575 500 410 00 Professional Services 1,358
Municipal Arts Acq Fund 117 300 640 573 100 410 00 Professional Services 3,000
Municipal Arts Acq Fund 117 300 640 573 100 490 00 Professional Services 3,000
Memorial Tree Fund 118 000 641 576 800 310 00 Supplies 140
Memorial Tree Fund 118 000 000 367 000 000 00 Donations 140
Tourism Promotion/Arts 123 000 640 573 100 410 00 Professional Services 5,500
Tourism Promotion/Arts 123 000 000 337 070 000 00 Grants 5,500
Parks Construction Fund 132 000 640 597 125 550 00 Interfund Transfer 85,143
Parks Construction Fund 132 000 000 367 110 000 00 Donations 106,500
Parks Construction Fund 132 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 21,357
REET 2 125 000 000 397 132 000 00 Interfund Transfer 85,143
REET 2 125 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 85,143
Utility Fund 411 000 654 537 900 350 00 Small Equipment 4,920
Utility Fund 411 000 000 367 110 000 00 Donations 4,920
Utility Construction Fund 412 300 630 597 132 550 00 Interfund Transfer 9,324
Utility Construction Fund 412 300 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 9,324
Parks Construction Fund 132 000 000 397 412 300 00 Interfund Transfer 9,324
Parks Construction Fund 132 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 9,324
Utility Construction Fund 412 100 630 597 117 550 00 Interfund Transfer 4,170
Utility Construction Fund 412 100 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 4,170
Utility Construction Fund 412 200 630 597 117 550 00 Interfund Transfer 3,473
Utility Construction Fund 412 200 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,473
Municipal Arts Acq Fund 117 200 000 397 412 000 00 Interfund Transfer 7,643
Municipal Arts Acq Fund 117 200 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 7,643
Street Construction Fund 112 200 630 595 330 410 00 Professional Services 1,800
Street Construction Fund 112 200 000 333 020 205 04 Grants 1,800
Interurban Trail
Transfer to Arts
Fund
From Clerk Prof.
Serv. to IT
Merchant Bank
Card Fees
Indefeasible Right
of Use Agreement
VSIP Program
Marsh
Interpretive Signs
Correction of line
entry
Correction of line
entry
118 Fund - Tree
Fund Donation
Arts Tourism
Grant Award
226th Walkway
Project
Old Milltown /
Hazel Miller Plaza
REET Contribution
Hazel Miller-
Recycle Container
Packet Page 898 of 998
EXHIBIT “D”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
7
Above is a summary of the changes by fund:
Fund Name and Title: Budget Amendment Summary
General Fund 001 From Clerk’s Prof Services to IT Supplies
Merchant Bank Card Fees
Indefeasible Right of Use Agreement
VSIP Program
Marsh Interpretive Signs
Street Construction Fund 112 226th Walkway Project
Municipal Arts Acq Fund 117 Correction of line entry
Transfer to Arts Fund from Utility
Memorial Street Tree Fund 118 118 Fund – Tree Fund Donation
Tourism Promotion /Arts Fund 123 Arts Tourism Grant Award
REET 2 125 Old Milltown/Hazel Miller Plaza REET Contribution
Gifts Catalog Fund 127 Marsh Interpretive Signs
Parks Construction Fund 132 Old Milltown/Hazel Miller Plaza REET Contribution
Interurban Trail
Utility Fund 411 Hazel Miller-Recycling Containers
Utility Construction Fund 412 Interurban Trail
Transfer to Arts Fund from Utility
Fund Number
Change in
Beginning Fund
Balance Revenue Expense
Change in Ending
Fund Balance
001 - 11,204 354,365 (343,161)
112 - 1,800 1,800 -
117 - 7,643 - 7,643
118 - 140 140 -
123 - 5,500 5,500 -
125 - 85,143 - 85,143
127 - 11,204 11,204 -
132 - 115,824 85,143 30,681
411 - 4,920 4,920 -
412 - - 16,967 (16,967)
Total Change - 243,378 480,039 (236,661)
Packet Page 899 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
8
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund Supplies 001.000.310.518.870.310.00 4,606
001 General Fund Professional Serv 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 (4,606)
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)0$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Carl Nelson & Sandy Chase
Finance Department
Move From Clerk Prof Services to IT Supplies
In the 2012 Budget Decision package for the Clerks Document Managment system:
$68,770 was placed in the Clerks Professional Services line item and
$30,000 in Information Services Supplies to cover the software aquisition.
The professsional services expenditures are expected to be less than the 68,700 and the
software greater, by $4,606.11.
This budget ademndment is to move $4,606.11 from the Clerks ProfessionalServices to
Information Services Supplies to cover the additional amount.
Packet Page 900 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
9
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund Misc 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 1,800
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)1,800$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund Misc 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 (1,800)
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,800)$
Rob English
Public Works Department
Merchant Bank Card Fees
The 2012 budget for the "Miscellaneous" line item in the Engineering Division is $9,600.
During the development of the 2012 Budget, staff estimated $4,700 in merchant bank card
fees based on the 2011 fees. The Engineering Division has incurred $4,864 in merchant
bank card fees through September 2012. This amendment will increase the budget for
bank card fees from $4,700 to $6,500. The $1,800 budget increase will be added to the
"Miscellaneous" line item in the Engineering Division budget.
.
Packet Page 901 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
10
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund Repair & Maint 001.000.310.518.870.480.00 66,451
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)66,451$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 (66,451)
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(66,451)$
Carl Nelson
Finance Department
Indefeasible Right of Use Agreement
On Oct 16th City Council authorized Mayor to sign Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) Agreement
for Existing Fiber Connection with Blackrock Cable.
This is the budget ammendment to provide the funds for the IRU, it is comprised of:
IRU: $57,750.00
Maintenace FEE per contract: $46.00
Franchise Fee: $2,889.80
Sales Tax: $5,765.15
===============
TOTAL: $66,450.95
Packet Page 902 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
11
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund Salaries 001.000.390.519.900.110.00 274,910
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)274,910$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 (274,910)
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(274,910)$
Deb Sharp
Finance Department
VSIP Program
In an effort to accommodate budgetary constraints, the Mayor announced a one-time
limited offer for employees to voluntarily separate from the city in exchange for a small
incentive (Voluntary Separation Incentive Program, or VSIP). The VSIP aims to reduce the
City’s overall salary costs by reducing FTE levels, while minimizing impacts on service level to
citizens. This program gives City departments the option to offer incentives to employees to
voluntarily separate from employment, either through retirement or resignation.
There were nine employees that applied for the program, and six that were accepted given
the program criteria outlined . After the initial acceptance, one member revoked his
application.
There has been numerous reorganizing city wide to accommodate the separations of these
individuals. This will create some efficiencies, significant ongoing savings to the general fund,
and the ability to minimize impacts on service level to citizens.
Packet Page 903 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
12
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund Transfer 001.000.390.597.127.550.00 11,204
127 Gifts Catalog Fund Supplies 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 11,204
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)22,408$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
001 General Fund Parks Donations 001.000.000.367.110.000.00 (11,204)
127 Gifts Catalog Fund Transfer 127.000.000.397.001.000.00 (11,204)
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (22,408)$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Renee McRae
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Marsh Interpretive Signs
In September, a grant request was made to the Hazel Miller Foundation for interpretive signs
for the Edmonds Marsh. On October 8, 2012, the City received a check for $11,204 to cover
the cost of the signage. Signage has been ordered and will ship December 4.
The $11,204 covers the cost of the signage, tax and shipping. The City is responsible for the
$175 for the truck with a lift gate.
Packet Page 904 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
13
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
117-200 Public Art Prof Services 117 200 640 573 100 410 00 (1,358)
117-200 Public Art Prof Services 117 200 640 575 500 410 00 1,358
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)0$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Frances Chapin
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Correction of line entry
Paymentfor professional services for sculpture maintenance was made in the incorrect
professional services line. This correction does not impact the fund balance.
Packet Page 905 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
14
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
117-300 Scholarships Prof Services 117 300 640 573 100 410 00 (3,000)
117-300 Scholarships Miscellaneous 117 300 640 573 100 490 00 3,000
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)-$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Frances Chapin
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Correction of line entry
Paymentsfor professional services for scholarships should have been paid from
miscellaneous line. This correction does not impact the fund balance.
Packet Page 906 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
15
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
118 Memorial Street Tree Supplies 118-000-641-576-800-310-00 140
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)140$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
118 Memorial Street Tree 118 118-000-000-367-000-000-00 140
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease 140$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Carrie Hite
Parks & Recreation
118 Fund - Tree Fund Donation
A donation was made to purchase a memorial tree for City Park. A tree was purchased from
Wetlands and Woodlands in the amount of $136.88 as a commemorative tree for Rich
Lindsay's mother, who recently passed away. The amount was donated to the fund to cover
the complete cost of the tree. This is the purpose of this fund, and we request expenditure
authority, although the donation makes it a net zero expenditure.
Packet Page 907 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
16
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
123 Tourism Promotion/Arts Prof Services 123 000 640 573 100 410 00 5,500
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)5,500$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
123 Tourism Promotion/Arts Interlocal Grants 123 000 000 337 070 000 00 (5,500)
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (5,500)$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Frances Chapin
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Arts Tourism grant award
In2011 after the 2012 budget was completed a grant was submitted to the new Snohomish
County Tourism Promotion Area for $7,000. The budgeted amount for 2012 was $1,500
based on prior tourism grants. In 2012 the grant of $7,000 was awarded for promoting
Write on the Sound writers' conference through advertising and through the one time
development of a new website .
The revenue line for Interlocal Grants is increased $5,500 to reflect the increased grant
funds awarded. The expenditure line for Professional Services is increased $5,500.
Packet Page 908 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
17
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
132 Parks Construction Interfund Transfer 132.000.640.597.125.550.00 85,143
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)85,143$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
132 Parks Construction Donations 132.000.000.367.110.000.00 (106,500)
125 REET Interfund Transfer 125.000.000.397.132.000.00 (85,143)
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (191,643)$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
132 Parks Construction 132.000.640.508.000.000.00 21,357
125 REET 125.000.640.508.000.000.00 85,143
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)106,500$
Sue Johnson for Carrie Hite
Parks and Recreation
Old Milltown/Hazel Miller Plaza REET Contribution
Hazel Miller Plaza is now complete. Because of the amount of community donations, we are
able to transfer this back to the REET 125 for other parks projects.
Packet Page 909 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
18
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
411 Utility Fund Small Equipment 411.000.654.537.900.350.00 4,920
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)4,920$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
411 Utility Fund Donations 411.000.000.367.110.000.00 4,920
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease 4,920$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
-
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Steve Fisher
Public Works & Utilities
Hazel Miller Grant - Recyling Containers
Grant money received from the Hazel Miller Foundation in the amount of $4,920.00, for the
sole purchase of new outdoor recycling containers. The containers are to be placed at select
streetside locations in the immediate downtown area of Edmonds.
Packet Page 910 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
19
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
412-300 Utility Const Fund Interfund Transfer 412.300.630.597.132.550.00 9,324
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)9,324$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
132 Parks Capital Fund Interfund Transfer In 132.000.000.397.412.300.00 (9,324)
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (9,324)$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
132 Parks Capital Fund Ending Fund Balance 132.000.640.508.000.000.00 9,324
412-300 Utility Const Fund Ending Fund Balance 412.300.630.508.000.000.00 (9,324)
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Rob English
Public Works Department
Interurban Trail
In 2011, a transfer of $44,213 was made from the 412-300 Utility Fund to the 132 Parks
Construction Fund for the sewer improvements completed with the Interurban Trail project.
The final cost for the sewer improvements (Schedule C) is $53,537. This amendment will
program a transfer of $9,324 from the 412-300 Utility Construction Fund to the Parks Capital
Fund. This amount represents the difference between the 2011 transfer of $44,213 and the
final cost of $53,537.
Packet Page 911 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
20
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
412-100 Utility Const Fund Interfund Transfer 412.100.630.597.117.550.00 4,170
412-200 Utility Const Fund Interfund Transfer 412.200.630.597.117.550.00 3,473
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)7,643$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
117-200 Municipal Arts Fund Interfund Transfer in 117.200.000.397.412.000.00 (7,643)
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (7,643)$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
412-100 Utility Const Fund Ending Fund Balance 412.100.630.508.000.000.00 (4,170)
412-200 Utility Const Fund Ending Fund Balance 412.200.630.508.000.000.00 (3,473)
117-200 Municipal Arts Fund Ending Fund Balance 117.200.640.508.000.000.00 7,643
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Rob English
Public Works
Transfer to Arts Fund
Several capital improvement projects in the 412 utility construction fund were completed in
2012. This budget amendment will transfer funding from the 412 Utility Construction Fund
into the Municipal Arts Fund for the 1% for Arts program in accordance with Chapter 3.13 of
the Edmonds City Code. The utility projects that contributed 1% to the Municipal Arts Fund
are:
1. Interurban Trail - Storm drainage improvements
2. Main Street - Storm drainage improvements
3. Lift Station 2 - New watermain
4. Shell Valley Emergency Access Road -New watermain
5. 2010 Watermain Replacement Project -New watermain
Packet Page 912 of 998
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendments (November 2012)
21
Prepared By:
Department:
Description on Budget Amendment Summary:
Budget Amendment Detailed Description:
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount
112 Street Const Fund Professional Services 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,800
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)1,800$
Revenue (Increase) Decrease
Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount
112 Street Const Fund Federal Grant 112.200.000.333.020.205.04 (1,800)
Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (1,800)$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$
Rob English
Public Works Department
226th Walkway Project
The 2012 budget for the 226th Walkway project is $5,000. The project was constructed in
2011 and the $5,000 budget was for staff time to close-out the project. Payment of two
consultant invoices for the project in 2012 resulted in the need to increase the budget from
$5,000 to $6,800.
Packet Page 913 of 998
AM-5278 11.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn
Hunstock
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on 2013 budget.
Recommendation
N.A. For discussion only at this time.
Previous Council Action
Budget Work Sessions on 10/23/12 and 10/30/12. First Public Hearing on 11/5/12.
Narrative
This is the second required Public Hearing on the budget. Council will consider public input regarding
the proposed 2013 budget.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2013
Revenue:$66,426,307
Expenditure:$78,708,399
Fiscal Impact:
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 04:54 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 11/15/2012 12:30 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 914 of 998
AM-5277 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn
Hunstock
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
2013 Property Tax Ordinance
Recommendation
Recommend approval of the 2013 property tax levy ordinance.
Previous Council Action
Budget workshops on 10/23/12 and 10/30/12. First considered at the November 5, 2012 City Council
meeting.
Narrative
Council is being asked to adopt the ordinance setting the property tax levy for 2013.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2013
Revenue:$13,470,259
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Regular property tax levy: $9,779,567
EMS levy: $2,774,589
Voted bond levy: $916,103
Total property tax revenue: $13,470,259
Attachments
2013 Property Tax Ordinance
Property Tax Summary
Property Tax Levy Calculation
Packet Page 915 of 998
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 04:54 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 11/15/2012 12:25 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 916 of 998
2013 Property Tax Ordinance Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY
BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY
BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING
AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF
$9,800,000, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,300,000 AND LEVYING
$916,103 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMPLEX, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Edmonds have properly given
notice of the public hearing held on November 5, 2012, to consider the City's current expense
budget for 2013, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in the course of considering the budget for 2013
have reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and
WHEREAS, the district’s actual levy amount for the previous year was
$9,623,702 for regular property levy, and $3,263,193 for EMS levy, and $895,640 for debt
service payments, and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines following public hearing that it
is in the best interest of and necessary to meet the expenses and obligations of the City to
increase the regular property levy by 1%; and keep the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy
at the prior year level, and
WHEREAS, the population of this district is greater than 10,000, and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office has requested that all
Snohomish County Taxing Districts submit their levy certifications to the county on the State
Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100; NOW, THEREFORE
Packet Page 917 of 998
2013 Property Tax Ordinance Page 2 of 5
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year
2013 shall be limited to the 101%, or 100% plus inflation, which ever is lower of the highest
amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985.
Section 2. Regular Property Tax. The 2012 regular property tax levy for
collection in 2013 is the amount levied in 2011 for collection in 2012, plus an increase of
$97,000 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by
one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed
wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have
occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $9,800,000.
Section 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2012
EMS property tax levy for collection in 2013 is the amount levied in 2011 for collection in 2012,
plus an increase of $33,000 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the
amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property,
newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any
annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,300,000.
Section 4. There shall be and is hereby levied current taxes of $916,103, the
purpose of which is to make debt service payments on voter approved bonds.
Section 5. The levies contained in sections 2 through 4 are subject to amendment
upon receipt of 2012 assessed valuation from Snohomish County.
Section 6. Pursuant to the request by the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office,
the Finance Director is hereby authorized to submit to the Snohomish County Council
Packet Page 918 of 998
2013 Property Tax Ordinance Page 3 of 5
certification of the hereby approved levies on the State Department of Revenue standardized
form REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 8. 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. It is enacted on a vote of a majority plus one of the City Council.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: _________
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: _________
PUBLISHED: _________
EFFECTIVE DATE: _________
ORDINANCE NO. ____
Packet Page 919 of 998
2013 Property Tax Ordinance Page 4 of 5
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the __ day of November, 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, PROVIDING FOR THE
ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE
CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,800,000, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,300,000 AND LEVYING
$916,103 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this __ day of November, 2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 920 of 998
2013 Property Tax Ordinance Page 5 of 5
Exhibit A – Levy Certification
Levy Certification
Submit this document to the county legislative authority on or before November 30 of the year preceding
the year in which the levy amounts are to be collected and forward a copy to the assessor.
In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, for the City of
Edmonds, do hereby certify to the Snohomish County legislative authority that the Council of
said district requests that the following levy amounts be collected in 2013 as provided in the
district’s budget, which was adopted following a public hearing on November 5, 2012.
Regular Levy: $9,800,000
EMS Levy: $3,300,000
Excess Levy: $916,103
___________________________________________
Signature Date
Packet Page 921 of 998
Ci
t
y
of
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Su
m
m
a
r
y
20
0
9
‐20
1
3
% Change
%
Change
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
2
‐2013
2
0
0
9
‐2013
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
Va
l
u
e
7,
7
0
9
,
2
0
9
,
4
9
0
$
6,
9
5
5
,
4
8
2
,
7
1
7
$
6,
4
3
3
,
2
5
8
,
8
5
3
$
5,
7
9
4
,
6
4
4
,
4
6
5
$
5,
5
4
9
,
1
7
7
,
6
7
6
$
‐4.24%‐28.02%
Ci
t
y
Re
g
u
l
a
r
1.
1
9
9
9
0
2
$
1.
3
4
9
0
0
8
$
1.
4
7
6
6
3
2
$
1.
6
6
0
7
9
2
$
1.
7
6
2
3
4
5
$
6.11%
4
6
.
8
7
%
Ci
t
y
EM
S
0.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%0.00%
Ci
t
y
Bo
n
d
s
0.
1
1
5
6
5
0
0.
1
3
0
7
5
0
0.
1
4
5
7
2
1
0.
1
6
5
1
3
0
0.
1
6
5
0
8
8
‐0.03%
4
2
.
7
5
%
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
(C
i
t
y
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
Ta
x
)
1.
8
1
5
5
5
3
$
1.
9
7
9
7
5
8
$
2.
1
2
2
3
5
4
$
2.
3
2
5
9
2
3
$
2.
4
2
7
4
3
3
$
4.36%
3
3
.
7
0
%
Ci
t
y
Re
g
u
l
a
r
9,
2
5
0
,
2
9
9
$
9,
3
8
3
,
0
0
0
$
9,
4
9
9
,
5
5
8
$
9,
6
2
3
,
7
0
2
$
9,
7
7
9
,
5
6
7
$
1.62%5.72%
Ci
t
y
EM
S
3,
8
5
4
,
6
0
5
3,
4
7
7
,
7
4
1
3,
2
1
6
,
6
2
9
2,
8
9
7
,
3
2
2
2,
7
7
4
,
5
8
9
‐4.24%‐28.02%
Ci
t
y
Bo
n
d
s
83
9
,
0
8
4
85
3
,
0
8
4
87
7
,
9
8
4
89
5
,
6
4
0
91
6
,
1
0
3
2.28%9.18%
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
(C
i
t
y
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
Ta
x
)
13
,
9
4
3
,
9
8
8
$
13
,
7
1
3
,
8
2
5
$
13
,
5
9
4
,
1
7
1
$
13
,
4
1
6
,
6
6
4
$
13
,
4
7
0
,
2
5
9
$
0.40%‐3.40%
Re
g
u
l
a
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
‐
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
1%
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
,
pl
u
s
th
e
va
l
u
e
of
ne
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
t
e
n
a
n
t
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
EM
S
‐
Th
e
EM
S
le
v
y
al
l
o
w
s
fo
r
an
an
n
u
a
l
1%
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
du
e
to
th
e
$0
.
5
0
pe
r
$1
,
0
0
0
li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
we
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$2
.
8
M
in 2013 .
Vo
t
e
d
Bo
n
d
Le
v
y
‐
Th
i
s
le
v
y
is
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
bo
n
d
pa
y
m
e
n
t
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
fo
r
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
sa
f
e
t
y
bo
n
d
s
.
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Ra
t
e
s
(p
e
r
$1
,
0
0
0
as
s
e
s
s
e
d
va
l
u
e
)
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
e
s
To
t
a
l
Re
c
e
i
p
t
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
92
2
of
99
8
Ci
t
y
of
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
20
1
3
Le
v
y
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Re
v
i
s
e
d
10
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
2
Re
g
u
l
a
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Am
o
u
n
t
le
v
i
e
d
la
s
t
ye
a
r
9,
6
2
3
,
7
0
2
$
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
1%
9
6
,
2
3
7
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
fo
r
ne
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
49
,
5
8
8
(B
a
s
e
d
on
$2
9
,
8
5
8
,
0
2
3
of
ne
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
Re
f
u
n
d
e
d
am
o
u
n
t
to
be
ad
d
e
d
10
,
0
4
0
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
*
T
o
t
a
l
Le
v
y
EM
S
Le
v
y
B
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
Lev y
20
1
3
Re
g
u
l
a
r
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ta
x
le
v
y
9,
7
7
9
,
5
6
7
$
5,
5
4
9
,
1
7
7
,
6
7
6
$
1.
7
6
2
3
4
5
2
$
0.
5
0
$
0.
1
6
5
0
8
8
1
$
2.
4
2
7
4
3
3
3
$
EM
S
Le
v
y
Am
o
u
n
t
le
v
i
e
d
la
s
t
ye
a
r
3,
2
3
0
,
6
2
9
$
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
1%
3
2
,
3
0
6
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
fo
r
ne
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
14
,
9
2
9
(B
a
s
e
d
on
$2
9
,
8
5
8
,
0
2
3
of
ne
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
Re
f
u
n
d
e
d
am
o
u
n
t
to
be
ad
d
e
d
3,
5
4
2
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
*
20
1
3
EM
S
ta
x
le
v
y
3,
2
8
1
,
4
0
6
$
5,
5
4
9
,
1
7
7
,
6
7
6
$
0.
5
9
1
3
3
2
0
$
Ma
x
.
EM
S
le
v
y
**
*
2
,
7
7
4
,
5
8
9
5,
5
4
9
,
1
7
7
,
6
7
6
$
0.
5
0
St
a
t
u
t
o
r
y
li
m
i
t
of
$0
.
5
0
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
to
ex
c
e
s
s
(b
a
n
k
e
d
)
EM
S
le
v
y
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
50
6
,
8
1
8
$
0.
0
9
1
3
3
2
0
$
Vo
t
e
d
Bo
n
d
Le
v
y
‐
20
0
3
UT
G
O
Re
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
Bo
n
d
s
**
Vo
t
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ta
x
le
v
y
91
6
,
1
0
3
$
5,
5
4
9
,
1
7
7
,
6
7
6
$
*
0
.
1
6
5
0
8
8
1
$
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
To
t
a
l
D/
S
O/
S
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
20
1
3
80
0
,
0
0
0
$
11
6
,
1
0
3
$
91
6
,
1
0
3
$
2,
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
20
1
4
85
5
,
0
0
0
91
,
3
0
3
94
6
,
3
0
3
1,
8
6
5
,
0
0
0
20
1
5
90
5
,
0
0
0
64
,
3
7
0
96
9
,
3
7
0
96
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
96
0
,
0
0
0
33
,
6
0
0
99
3
,
6
0
0
‐
*
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
as
of
10
/
1
/
2
0
1
2
.
Fi
n
a
l
va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
no
t
be
kn
o
w
n
un
t
i
l
ea
r
l
y
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
**
C
i
t
y
'
s
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
ad
v
i
s
o
r
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
de
b
t
re
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
te
r
m
s
in
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
20
1
1
an
d
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
n o
ne
t
sa
v
i
n
g
s
on
re
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
th
e
s
e
bo
n
d
s
(a
n
y
sa
v
i
n
g
s
wo
u
l
d
be
le
s
s
th
a
n
bo
n
d
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
co
s
t
s
)
**
*
P
r
i
o
r
ye
a
r
EM
S
le
v
y
:
2,
8
9
7
,
3
2
2
$
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
le
v
y
fo
r
20
1
3
2,
7
7
4
,
5
8
9
In
c
r
/
(
d
e
c
r
)
fr
o
m
pr
i
o
r
ye
a
r
(1
2
2
,
7
3
3
)
$
‐4.
2
4
%
20
0
3
UT
G
O
Re
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
Bo
n
d
s
De
b
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
92
3
of
99
8
AM-5279 13.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn
Hunstock
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
2013 Budget Adoption
Recommendation
Recommend approval of the 2013 Proposed Budget, as amended.
Previous Council Action
Budget workshops on 10/23/12 and 10/30/12. Public Hearings on 11/5/12 and 11/20/12.
Narrative
Council will consider the 2013 Proposed Budget and will discuss changes to it.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2013
Revenue:$66,426,307
Expenditure:$78,708,399
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
2013 Budget Ordinance
2013 Budget Attachment A
2013 Budget Attachment B
2013 Budget Decision Packages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/15/2012 01:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 04:53 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 11/15/2012 12:34 PM
Packet Page 924 of 998
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 925 of 998
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2013
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the beginning
of the fiscal year of 2013, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the estimates of revenues
and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or additions
as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2013, filed the said revised
preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as recommendation for
the final budget, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget and
budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and posted
notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a public
hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law, and
WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for the
purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs, and
WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 5, 2012 which was on or before the
first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for the
purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for or
against any part of said budget, and
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such
adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE;
Packet Page 926 of 998
- 2 -
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are the totals of
estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate totals for all such
funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as if set forth in full
and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to include year-end
cash balances in the final budget document as determined at the close of the fiscal year.
Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2013, as adopted, together with a copy
of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal
Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities.
Section 3. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City Council of
the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect January 1, 2013.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
_______________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ____________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
Packet Page 927 of 998
- 3 -
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO. ____
Packet Page 928 of 998
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 20th day of November, 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, RELATING TO THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2013 AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 929 of 998
DIFFERENCE
REVENUE EXPENDITURES (REV - EXP)*
001 GENERAL FUND 32,869,792$ 32,869,792$ -$
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE SUBFUND 600,350 619,400 (19,050)
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE SUBFUND 418,200 661,000 (242,800)
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE SUBFUND 123,223 - 123,223
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND 56,900 35,000 21,900
Total General Fund 34,068,465 34,185,192 (116,727)
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 80,033 (59,858)
111 STREET FUND 1,406,800 1,558,082 (151,282)
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,223,755 6,254,984 (31,229)
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 59,891 130,600 (70,709)
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 - 27
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 70,120 68,500 1,620
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 26,726 (8,606)
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 4,000 (1,975)
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 19,000 -
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 650,600 964,000 (313,400)
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 650,600 677,382 (26,782)
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 20,483 20,020 463
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 14,700 14,700 -
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 119,950 152,761 (32,811)
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,869,500 1,887,500 (18,000)
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 - 228
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 - 14,600
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,517 4,600 (1,083)
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 645,000 -
Total Special Revenue Funds 11,809,091 12,507,888 (698,797)
211 LID FUND CONTROL 22,130 22,130 -
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 22,230 - 22,230
234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 414,500 414,500 -
Total Debt Service Funds 458,860 436,630 22,230
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 6,125,680 9,164,888 (3,039,208)
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,486,716 4,439,175 (952,459)
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 9,020,123 16,822,996 (7,802,873)
Total Enterprise Funds 18,632,519 30,427,059 (11,794,540)
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
F
u
n
d
s
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 1,042,840 319,132
Fi
d
u
c
i
a
r
y
Fu
n
d
s
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 95,400 108,790 (13,390)
Totals 66,426,307$ 78,708,399$ (12,282,092)$
* Amount represents a contribution to or (use of) fund balance.
En
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
Fu
n
d
s
Fund
EXHIBIT "A" 2013 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
n
d
s
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Fu
n
d
s
Packet Page 930 of 998
CORRECTIONS, REVISED CORRECTIONS, REVISED
ADJUSTMENTS REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURES DIFFERENCE
REVENUE DECISION PKGS BUDGET EXPENDITURES DECISION PKGS BUDGET (REV - EXP)*
001 GENERAL FUND 32,869,792$ -$ 32,869,792$ 32,869,792$ -$ 32,869,792$ -$
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE SUBFUND 600,350 600,350 619,400 619,400 (19,050)
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE SUBFUND 418,200 418,200 661,000 661,000 (242,800)
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE SUBFUND 123,223 123,223 - - 123,223
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND 56,900 56,900 35,000 35,000 21,900
Total General Fund 34,068,465 - 34,068,465 34,185,192 - 34,185,192 (116,727)
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 20,175 80,033 80,033 (59,858)
111 STREET FUND 1,406,800 1,406,800 1,558,082 - 1,558,082 (151,282)
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,223,755 6,223,755 6,254,984 6,254,984 (31,229)
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 59,891 59,891 130,600 - 130,600 (70,709)
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 27 - - 27
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 70,120 70,120 68,500 68,500 1,620
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 18,120 26,726 26,726 (8,606)
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 2,025 4,000 4,000 (1,975)
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 -
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 650,600 650,600 964,000 964,000 (313,400)
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 650,600 650,600 677,382 - 677,382 (26,782)
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 20,483 20,483 20,020 20,020 463
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 14,700 14,700 14,700 14,700 -
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 119,950 119,950 152,761 152,761 (32,811)
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,869,500 1,869,500 1,887,500 1,887,500 (18,000)
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 228 - - 228
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 14,600 - - 14,600
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,517 3,517 4,600 4,600 (1,083)
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 645,000 645,000 645,000 -
Total Special Revenue Funds 11,809,091 - 11,809,091 12,507,888 - 12,507,888 (698,797)
211 LID FUND CONTROL 22,130 22,130 22,130 22,130 -
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 22,230 22,230 - - 22,230
234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 414,500 414,500 414,500 - 414,500 -
Total Debt Service Funds 458,860 - 458,860 436,630 - 436,630 22,230
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 6,125,680 6,125,680 9,164,888 - 9,164,888 (3,039,208)
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,486,716 3,486,716 4,439,175 - 4,439,175 (952,459)
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 9,020,123 9,020,123 16,822,996 - 16,822,996 (7,802,873)
Total Enterprise Funds 18,632,519 - 18,632,519 30,427,059 - 30,427,059 (11,794,540)
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
F
u
n
d
s
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 - 1,361,972 1,042,840 1,042,840 319,132
Fi
d
u
c
i
a
r
y
Fu
n
d
s
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 95,400 - 95,400 108,790 108,790 (13,390)
Totals 66,426,307$ -$ 66,426,307$ 78,708,399$ -$ 78,708,399$ (12,282,092)$
* Amount represents a contribution to or (use of) fund balance.
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Fu
n
d
s
En
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
Fu
n
d
s
EXHIBIT "B" 2013 BUDGET RECONCILIATION BY FUND
Fund
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
n
d
s
Packet Page 931 of 998
2013 Proposed Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
43
DECISION PACKAGES
Budget
Year General
Water
Utility
Storm
Utility
Sewer
Utility
Decision Package Duration 2013 001 421 422 423
Council
None
Mayor
None
Municipal Court
None
Admin Services
Diverse Fiber Route to Hwy 99 One Time 60,000 60,000
Fiber Optic Customer Development One Time 40,000 40,000
Police
None
Community Services/ Econ. Development
None
Development Services
None
Parks & Rec
PROS Plan One Time 125,000 125,000
Public Works
Engineering FTE Ongoing 95,890 31,963 31,963 31,963
Grand Total 320,890 225,000 31,963 31,963 31,963
2013 Proposed Budget Decision Packages
Fund
Packet Page 932 of 998
Fund Number:
Department Number:
Cost Center Number:
Decision Package Title:
Preparer:
Ranking:
Budget Year Requested:2013
If ongoing costs, please put an " X " in the Ongoing Column
Expenditure Costs Ongoing 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Salaries (11)- - - -
Overtime (12)- - - -
Benefits (23)- - - -
Uniforms (24)- - - -
Supplies (31)- - - -
Small equip (35)$20,000 - - - -
Prof. Services (41)- - - -
Communication (42)- - - -
Travel (43)- - - -
Advertising (44)- - - -
Rental/Lease (45)- - - -
Repair/Maint (48)- - - -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Capital Equipment (64)$40,000 - - - -
Other:- - - -
Total Expenses 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Program Description:
Sources (Revenues) for this decision package are from:
Decision Package Request Form
Diverse Fiber Route to Highway 99
Carl Nelson
Currently the City uses redundant copper based PRIs to provide reliable phone service. To replace
the copper phone service with a fiber based lower cost service also requires the City to have a
second fiber path from downtown to the Public Works facility on 99and 210th Street.
In addition to providing reliable phone service the reliability of connectivity is assured for Police,
theWaste Water Treatment Plant, Public works, and other City service that use, and demand,
reliable high availability internet connectivity. When the New World computer aided dispatch
system comes on‐line in 2013‐2014 high reliability internet will be essential for day to day
operations.
Having the diverse route also opens up the possibility for the City to consider avoiding updating
and replacing its data center in the future with Cloud services from other governmental entities.
Upon completion of the route, $18,000/yr savings by displacing copper telephone service.
Packet Page 933 of 998
As part of a multi‐year process to complete the route an estimate is being prepared for
constructing the second path from City Park to Hiway 99. To help set expectations, the
approximate distance from is 18,000 to 22,000 feet. If most of this run can be accomplished
above ground for $10 per foot (PUD offered to help the City 2 years ago and quoted $5/ft as a
favor to the City). Getting fiber from City Park to the Cemetry is the first step of a multiyear
effort to complete the diverse route to HiWay 99. It is estimated that the cost to get to the
Cemetry from City Park would be $40,000. The hardware/software to support extension of the
diverse route is estimated to be about a $20,000 one time expenditure.
Packet Page 934 of 998
Fund Number:
Department Number:
Cost Center Number:
Decision Package Title:
Preparer:
Ranking:
Budget Year Requested:2013
If ongoing costs, please put an " X " in the Ongoing Column
Expenditure Costs Ongoing 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Salaries (11)- - - -
Overtime (12)- - - -
Benefits (23)- - - -
Uniforms (24)- - - -
Supplies (31)- - - -
Small equip (35)5,000 5,000 - - -
Prof. Services (41)25,000 25,000 - - -
Communication (42)- - - -
Travel (43)- - - -
Advertising (44)- - - -
Rental/Lease (45)- - - -
Repair/Maint (48)5,000 5,000 - - -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Capital Equipment (64)5,000 5,000 - - -
Other:- - - -
Total Expenses 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$
Program Description:
Sources (Revenues) for this decision package are from:
Decision Package Request Form
Fiber Optic Customer Development
Carl Nelson
Identify, develop, and sign customers for use of the City of Edmonds excess fiber optic capacity.
Hire a consultant to find 10‐20 new customers in the next 2 years who will generate a range of
$250‐$700/mo in revenue ($30,000 to $120,000 per year total) by the City providing internet
and other services to them.
From a previous study of businesses in the Edmonds area close to where fiber is located (see
attached map) potential customers were identified (blue columns in map below).
Additionally, using an industry average per connection cost estimate of $1,500 from the City's
RFI in 2007 and assuming an average of 25 contact hours per customer to get them to signing
and an equivalent number of hours for construction/provision of service to the customer,
results in an estimate for 20 potential customers of of about 1000 hours of "staff" or consultant
time. Therefore, a proposed budget over a 2 yr period of $50,000 for 1000 hours of consultant
time @$50/hr and $30,000 over that same time to establish service .
Current and Future ISP services to Edmonds Fiber & Data Services (FIDA) customers.
Packet Page 935 of 998
Packet Page 936 of 998
Fund Number:
Department Number:
Cost Center Number:
Decision Package Title:
Preparer:
Ranking: 1
Budget Year Requested:2013
If ongoing costs, please put an " X " in the Ongoing Column
Expenditure Costs Ongoing 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Salaries (11)- - - -
Overtime (12)- - - -
Benefits (23)- - - -
Uniforms (24)- - - -
Supplies (31)- - - -
Small equip (35)- - - -
Prof. Services (41)125,000 - - - -
Communication (42)- - - -
Travel (43)- - - -
Advertising (44)- - - -
Rental/Lease (45)- - - -
Repair/Maint (48)- - - -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Capital Equipment (64)- - - -
Other:- - - -
Total Expenses 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Program Description:
Sources (Revenues) for this decision package are from:
Decision Package Request Form
1
640.574.100
PROS plan update
Carrie Hite
The current Park Recreation and Open Space Plan expires in May, 2014. This comprehensive
plan is mandated under the State of Washington in order to be eligible for any outside grant
funding for parks. This plan will take 6‐8 months to complete, therefore, it would be prudent to
start the process in Fall 2013. This planning activity is not eligible for funding from REET, as it is
a comprehensive plan for all parks. To qualify for the use of REET funding, the "planning" has to
be directly associated with a specific capital project.
General Fund
Packet Page 937 of 998
Fund Number:
Department Number:
Cost Center Number:
Decision Package Title:
Preparer:
Ranking:
Budget Year Requested:2013
Fund 412 - Combined Utility C412 Capital Utility Funds and 112 Street Capital Funds
If ongoing costs, please put an " X " in the Ongoing Column
Expenditure Costs Ongoing 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Salaries (11)X 70,000 73,500 77,175 81,034 85,085
Overtime (12)- - - -
Benefits (23)X 23,730 24,917 26,162 27,470 28,844
Uniforms (24)X 120 124 127 131 135
Supplies (31)- - - -
Small equip (35)1,200 - - - -
Prof. Services (41)- - - -
Communication (42)X 840 865 891 918 945
Travel (43)- - - -
Advertising (44)- - - -
Rental/Lease (45)- - - -
Repair/Maint (48)- - - -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Capital Equipment (64)- - - -
Other:- - - -
Total Expenses 95,890$ 99,405$ 104,356$ 109,553$ 115,010$
Program Description:
Sources (Revenues) for this decision package are from:
Decision Package Request Form
001.000
620
532.200
Engineering FTE
Rob English
This decision package is for a new position in the Engineering Division to manage and inspect
capital improvement projects funded by the 412 Utility Fund and the 112 Street Fund.
Fund 412 Combined Utility Construction Improvement Funds and Fund 112 Transportation
Packet Page 938 of 998
AM-5261 14.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
September 2012 Quarterly Financial Report
Recommendation
N.A. For informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
The September 2012 Quarterly Financial Report reflects additional changes to those shown with the
August 2012 report. Committee feedback is being requested on the changes, as well as any other
changes they would like to see.
Attachments
September 2012 Quarterly Financial Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:03 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/14/2012 11:18 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/14/2012 11:39 AM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 11/14/2012 07:56 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/14/2012
Packet Page 939 of 998
1
12/31/2011 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 Q3 YTD
001-General Fund 5,705,633$ 5,895,256$ 3,435,243$ (2,460,013)$ (2,270,390)$
004-Criminal Investigations Fund 2,500 2,500 2,500 - -
006-Emergency Financial Reserve Fund 1,927,600 1,927,600 - (1,927,600) (1,927,600)
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 320,656 322,506 180,319 (142,187) (140,338)
010-Reserve Fund 1,338,178 1,338,968 - (1,338,968) (1,338,178)
011-Risk Management Fund - - 244,000 244,000 244,000
012 - Contingency Reserve Fund - - 5,282,540 5,282,540 5,282,540
113-Multimodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 - -
116-Building Maintenance 212,212 239,638 219,387 (20,251) 7,175
Total General Fund 9,562,638$ 9,782,327$ 9,419,848$ (362,479)$ (142,790)$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$9.56 $9.78 $9.42
-
2
4
6
8
10
Dec 2011 June 2012 Sept 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
General Fund
General Fund activity year-to-date brought a deficit of $142,790 in fund balances.
The third quarter brought a deficit of $362,479 in the general fund, the second
quarter an increase of $2.7 million, and the first quarter a deficit of $2.4 million.
Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through
September. These include Telephone Utility Tax (83% of budget), Electric Utility
Tax (82% of budget), Business Licenses (95% of budget), Franchise Fees (average
of 83% of budget), Amusements (91% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Taxes
(91% of budget).
At the end September, 75% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund
expenditures are on track with 69% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages
for all departments are at 71% of budget, and Overtime is at 67% of budget.
Departments that are significantly under budget include Human Resources (58%
spent so far), Economic Development (59%), and the City Clerk’s Office (61%). No
departments are over budget.
Packet Page 940 of 998
2
12/31/2011 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 Q3 YTD
General Fund 9,562,638$ 9,782,327$ 9,419,848$ (362,479)$ (142,790)$
Special Revenue 3,610,619 4,243,306 4,294,063 50,757 683,444
Debt Service 242,765 244,022 20,779 (223,243) (221,986)
Governmental Funds 13,416,022$ 14,269,655$ 13,734,690$ (534,965)$ 318,668$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$9.56 $9.78 $9.42
$3.61
$4.24 $4.29
$0.24 $0.24 $0.02 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dec 2011 June 2012 Sept 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
$14.27 $13.73
-
5
10
15
Dec 2011 June 2012 Sept 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmental Fund Balances
-Combined
Combined governmental fund activity through September brought an increase of $318,668 to fund balances. The
General Fund was responsible for a deficit of $142,790, the special revenue funds for an increase of $683,444,
and the remaining was due to a deficit of $221,986 in the debt service funds. The third quarter brought a deficit of
$534,965 in the governmental funds, the second quarter an increase of $2.6 million, and the first quarter a deficit
of $1.7 million.
Packet Page 941 of 998
3
12/31/2011 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 Q3 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 124,661$ 156,136$ 136,476$ (19,660)$ 11,815$
111 - Street Fund 392,049 233,328 176,481 (56,847) (215,567)
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 423,449 539,313 365,729 (173,584) (57,719)
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 401,698 410,075 395,490 (14,585) (6,207)
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,646 17,657 17,666 9 20
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 93,895 105,590 101,368 (4,222) 7,473
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 77,577 71,195 71,611 416 (5,966)
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 16,534 14,215 14,540 325 (1,994)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 60,250 56,449 61,447 4,998 1,197
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 436,640 722,973 817,767 94,794 381,127
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 225,937 464,256 684,757 220,501 458,820
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 193,985 211,722 212,316 594 18,331
129 - Special Projects Fund 5,841 4,007 (4,905) (8,912) (10,746)
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 85,714 80,958 64,937 (16,021) (20,776)
132 - Parks Construction Fund 86,794 186,003 206,427 20,424 119,633
136 - Parks Trust Fund 156,611 149,768 149,848 80 (6,762)
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 801,079 809,286 813,961 4,675 12,882
138 - Sister City Commission 10,261 10,375 8,146 (2,229) (2,115)
Total Special Revenue 3,610,619$ 4,243,306$ 4,294,063$ 50,757$ 683,444$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$3.61
$4.24 $4.29
-
1
2
3
4
5
Dec 2011 June 2012 Sept 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
Activity in all special revenue funds year-to-date brought an increase of $683,444, an increase of $50,757 in the
third quarter, a deficit of $98,188 during the second quarter, and an increase of $730,875 in the first quarter. The
graph below shows the total fund balances for all nineteen special revenue funds as of December 2011, June
2012, and the current ending balance as of September 2012.
Packet Page 942 of 998
4
48,998,030 50,945,062 52,064,437
18,605,638 17,089,570 16,445,216
65,558,827 65,941,682 66,597,920
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
Dec 2011 June 2012 Sept 2012
411 - Combined Utility Operation
412 - Combined Utility Const/Improve
Combined Enterprise Funds (411-414)
Enterprise Funds -Fund Balances
12/31/2011 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 Q3 YTD
411 - Combined Utility Operation 48,998,030$ 50,945,062$ 52,064,437$ 1,119,375$ 3,066,408$
412 - Combined Utility Const/Improve 18,605,638 17,089,570 16,445,216 (644,354) (2,160,423)
414 - Capital Improvements Reserve (2,044,841) (2,092,950) (1,911,732) 181,218 133,109
Enterprise Funds 65,558,827$ 65,941,682$ 66,597,920$ 656,238$ 1,039,094$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$52,064,437
$16,445,216
$(1,911,732) $(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 September 30, 2012
Utility Fund Activity through September brought an increase of $1,039,094 in the Enterprise Funds. The third
quarter brought an increase of $656,238, the second quarter a deficit of $71,557, and the first quarter an increase
of $454,412.
Packet Page 943 of 998
5
12/31/2011 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 Q3 YTD
Governmental Funds 13,416,022$ 14,269,655$ 13,734,690$ (534,965)$ 318,668$
Enterprise Funds 65,558,827 65,941,682 66,597,920 656,238 1,039,094
Internal Services Fund 6,662,893 6,694,339 6,435,323 (259,016) (227,570)
Pension Trust Fund 213,210 229,118 211,385 (17,733) (1,825)
City-wide Total 85,850,951$ 87,134,794$ 86,979,318$ (155,476)$ 1,128,367$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$9,419,848
$136,476
$176,481
$365,729
$395,490
$17,666
$101,368
$71,611
$14,540
$61,447
$817,767
$684,757
$212,316
$64,937
$206,427
$149,848
$813,961
$8,146
$20,729
$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
Governmental Fund Balances as of September 30, 2012
($4,905)
At the end of September, 75% of the year had expired. Year-to-date activity brought an increase of $1.1 million to
the City-Wide fund balance, bringing the total to $87 million. Of the year-to-date increase, $318,668 was
generated by governmental funds, $1,039,094 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, a deficit of $227,570
was generated by Internal Service Funds, and a deficit of $1,825 by the Pension Trust Fund. The third quarter
brought a deficit of $155,476, the second quarter an increase of $2.5 million to City-Wide Funds, and the first
quarter a deficit of $1.2 million.
Packet Page 944 of 998
6
12/31/2011 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 Q3 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 6,662,893$ 6,694,339$ 6,435,323$ (259,016)$ (227,570)$
Internal Service Funds 6,662,893$ 6,694,339$ 6,435,323$ (259,016)$ (227,570)$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.66 $6.69 $6.44
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Dec 2011 June 2012 Sept 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Balances
Internal Service Fund activity through September brought a deficit of $227,570. Th e third quarter brought a deficit
of $259,016, the second quarter a deficit of $24,443, and the first quarter brought an increase of $55,889. The
purchase of new Machinery in July resulted in a 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 September; we see an ending fund balance of $6.4 million.
Packet Page 945 of 998
7
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,254,252$ 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 20,425,260 -0.14%
September 21,996,040 1,541,665 22,229,739 1.06%
October 24,533,766 2,537,726 24,794,428 1.06%
November 31,335,142 6,801,376 31,668,066 1.06%
December 33,017,174 1,682,032 33,367,969 1.06%
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 60,410 453,447 16.12%
September 447,318 56,823 538,647 20.42%
October 504,597 57,280 607,621 20.42%
November 548,998 44,400 661,087 20.42%
December 590,000 41,002 710,461 20.42%
*The positive variance of 20.42% is due to a larger number of sales transactions than were expected.
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 946 of 998
8
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 3,279,895 4.77%
September 3,516,951 386,272 3,707,553 5.42%
October 3,912,817 395,866 4,124,873 5.42%
November 4,351,601 438,784 4,587,437 5.42%
December 4,724,183 372,582 4,980,211 5.42%
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 32,546 627,290 -9.82%
September 725,807 30,179 654,934 -9.76%
October 757,941 32,134 683,930 -9.76%
November 812,573 54,632 733,227 -9.76%
December 892,381 79,808 805,242 -9.76%
*The expectation is that the negative variance of 9.76% will level out during the upcoming winter months.
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
5000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Sales and Use Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 947 of 998
9
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 1,039,396 15.57%
September 992,632 93,297 1,158,687 16.73%
October 1,142,349 149,717 1,333,450 16.73%
November 1,227,014 84,665 1,432,279 16.73%
December 1,390,242 163,228 1,622,812 16.73%
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 1,100,703 1.85%
September 1,179,059 98,377 1,201,703 1.92%
October 1,264,304 85,245 1,288,584 1.92%
November 1,371,246 106,942 1,397,581 1.92%
December 1,473,880 102,634 1,502,186 1.92%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
0
250000
500000
750000
1000000
1250000
1500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 948 of 998
10
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 3,648,786$ 3,648,786$ 2,080,142$ -42.99%
February 6,048,974 2,400,188 5,514,121 -8.84%
March 8,619,767 2,570,792 7,666,998 -11.05%
April 11,721,558 3,101,791 10,886,288 -7.13%
May 13,938,841 2,217,283 12,749,656 -8.53%
June 17,348,474 3,409,633 16,874,568 -2.73%
July 20,447,704 3,099,231 18,712,395 -8.49%
August 22,800,978 2,353,274 22,577,199 -0.98%
September 25,947,453 3,146,476 24,500,129 -5.58%
October 28,210,323 2,262,870 26,636,779 -5.58%
November 30,864,128 2,653,805 29,142,557 -5.58%
December 35,281,328 4,417,200 33,313,370 -5.58%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 2,409,336$ 2,409,336$ 527,429$ -78.11%
February 2,706,122 296,786 2,317,066 -14.38%
March 3,381,665 675,543 2,771,982 -18.03%
April 4,422,379 1,040,714 4,360,812 -1.39%
May 4,689,535 267,156 4,563,592 -2.69%
June 6,886,270 2,196,736 6,904,530 0.27%
July 7,831,399 945,128 6,952,172 -11.23%
August 7,868,145 36,747 9,092,510 15.56%
September 8,901,853 1,033,707 9,326,743 4.77%
October 9,041,832 139,979 9,473,403 4.77%
November 9,382,718 340,886 9,830,560 4.77%
December 13,414,538 4,031,820 14,054,821 4.77%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
0
3000000
6000000
9000000
12000000
15000000
18000000
21000000
24000000
27000000
30000000
33000000
36000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 949 of 998
11
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 22,538 169,859 -1.42%
September 191,074 18,777 184,180 -3.61%
October 219,806 28,731 211,875 -3.61%
November 240,319 20,514 231,648 -3.61%
December 269,812 29,493 260,076 -3.61%
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$ 151,165 -10.09%
September 188,520$ 20,385$ 170,105 -9.77%
October 211,220$ 22,701$ 190,588$ -9.77%
November 232,824$ 21,603$ 210,081$ -9.77%
December 253,184$ 20,360$ 228,452$ -9.77%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 950 of 998
12
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 22,109 153,006 -16.98%
September 210,792 26,502 166,941 -20.80%
October 231,031 20,240 182,970 -20.80%
November 253,730 22,699 200,947 -20.80%
December 286,799 33,069 227,136 -20.80%
*The negative variance of 20.80% is due to the unfilled HR Analyst position. Salaries and Wages are currently tracking at 46.3% of budget.
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 66,196 485,375 -4.85%
September 573,477 63,363 542,542 -5.39%
October 638,600 65,123 604,152 -5.39%
November 704,816 66,216 666,796 -5.39%
December 779,038 74,222 737,014 -5.39%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 951 of 998
13
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 32,130 282,359 -6.32%
September 338,442 37,024 316,659 -6.44%
October 377,797 39,355 353,482 -6.44%
November 410,485 32,688 384,065 -6.44%
December 465,810 55,325 435,830 -6.44%
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 50,833 328,124 -19.59%
September 458,834 50,790 372,951 -18.72%
October 503,062 44,229 408,901 -18.72%
November 553,417 50,355 449,830 -18.72%
December 609,840 56,423 495,692 -18.72%
*The negative variance of 18.72% is due to unspent monies for the Public Records/Document Management System decision project.
This project was started in November, so we expect that future projections will be more in line with budget.
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Economic Development/Community Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Economic Development/Community Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 952 of 998
14
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 62,586 389,607 -4.87%
September 459,114 49,549 429,813 -6.38%
October 512,043 52,929 479,364 -6.38%
November 561,496 49,453 525,661 -6.38%
December 657,841 96,345 615,857 -6.38%
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 53,815 483,434 -2.36%
September 555,551 60,447 541,490 -2.53%
October 621,970 66,419 606,229 -2.53%
November 687,980 66,010 670,568 -2.53%
December 754,734 66,754 735,633 -2.53%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 953 of 998
15
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 41,250 313,126 -5.11%
September 371,250 41,250 371,126 -0.03%
October 412,500 41,250 412,363 -0.03%
November 453,750 41,250 453,599 -0.03%
December 495,000 41,250 494,835 -0.03%
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 5,532,985 -6.54%
September 6,700,331 780,155 6,195,697 -7.53%
October 7,422,067 721,736 6,863,076 -7.53%
November 8,377,803 955,736 7,746,831 -7.53%
December 9,165,244 787,441 8,474,966 -7.53%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 954 of 998
16
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 1,033,577 -5.36%
September 1,229,320 137,247 1,168,601 -4.94%
October 1,375,997 146,677 1,308,034 -4.94%
November 1,509,812 133,814 1,435,239 -4.94%
December 1,658,272 148,460 1,576,366 -4.94%
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 2,241,823 -6.00%
September 2,699,757 314,936 2,546,929 -5.66%
October 2,946,685 246,927 2,779,878 -5.66%
November 3,185,327 238,643 3,005,012 -5.66%
December 3,506,852 321,525 3,308,336 -5.66%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 955 of 998
17
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 22,897 191,557 -3.33%
September 221,614 23,450 216,464 -2.32%
October 244,229 22,616 238,555 -2.32%
November 267,862 23,633 261,638 -2.32%
December 294,110 26,248 287,276 -2.32%
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 879,994 100,512 856,140 -2.71%
September 995,315 115,321 966,285 -2.92%
October 1,103,341 108,026 1,071,161 -2.92%
November 1,213,261 109,920 1,177,875 -2.92%
December 1,351,548 138,287 1,312,129 -2.92%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
Actuals/Trend Budget
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 956 of 998
18
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 879,506 110,195 872,553 -0.79%
September 992,929 113,423 983,604 -0.94%
October 1,104,742 111,813 1,094,366 -0.94%
November 1,212,341 107,599 1,200,955 -0.94%
December 1,318,706 106,365 1,306,322 -0.94%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2012
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 957 of 998
19
Fund
No.Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 33,017,174$ 22,229,739$ (10,787,435)$ 67%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 600,550 300,263 (300,287) 50%
010 RESERVE FUND 2,200 1,189 (1,011) 54%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 244,000 244,000 - 100%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5,282,000 5,282,540 540 100%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 28,200 46,072 17,872 163%
111 STREET FUND 1,313,650 1,005,793 (307,857) 77%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,840,102 843,099 (1,997,003) 30%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.- - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,860 28,551 (28,309) 50%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 58,325 23,190 (35,135) 40%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 28 20 (8) 71%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 51,950 43,660 (8,290) 84%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,140 7,075 (13,065) 35%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,525 1,381 (1,144) 55%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 11,037 (7,963) 58%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 770,850 600,361 (170,489) 78%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 590,800 539,097 (51,703) 91%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 10,759 21,754 10,995 202%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 482,004 - (482,004) 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,850 107,890 (11,960) 90%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,289,414 463,253 (826,161) 36%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 177 168 (9) 95%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 12,882 (1,718) 88%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 5,230 2,030 (3,200) 39%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 46,700 21,860 (24,840) 47%
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 12,079,485 (3,377,435) 78%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 7,888,400 103,131 (7,785,269) 1%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,583,389 629,086 (954,303) 40%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,076,456 806,160 (270,296) 75%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 94,423 68,916 (25,507) 73%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 498,868 (101,132) 83%
74,196,974$ 46,265,489$ 120,462,463$ 62%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 958 of 998
20
Fund
No.Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 35,281,328$ 24,500,129$ (10,781,199)$ 69%
006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 1,927,600 (0) 100%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,811 440,601 (179,210) 71%
010 RESERVE FUND 1,339,400 1,339,367 (33) 100%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,233 34,258 (45,975) 43%
111 STREET FUND 1,625,148 1,221,360 (403,788) 75%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,940,666 900,818 (2,039,848) 31%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.- - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 245,000 21,376 (223,624) 9%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 134,550 29,397 (105,153) 22%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 56,500 36,187 (20,313) 64%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 13,041 (13,045) 50%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 3,375 (625) 84%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 9,840 (9,160) 52%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,055,000 219,234 (835,766) 21%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 697,717 80,277 (617,440) 12%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 12,275 3,423 (8,852) 28%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 483,500 10,746 (472,754) 2%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 172,005 128,666 (43,339) 75%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,376,200 343,620 (1,032,580) 25%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 6,930 6,930 - 100%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD - - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 4,145 (455) 90%
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 9,013,078 (6,357,323) 59%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 11,299,679 2,263,553 (9,036,126) 20%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,571,515 495,977 (1,075,538) 32%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,321,334 1,033,729 (287,605) 78%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 123,515 70,741 (52,774) 57%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 498,868 (101,132) 83%
79,268,066$ 45,137,122$ (34,130,944)$ 57%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 959 of 998
21
Fund
No.Title
1/1/2012
Beg. Balance
2012
Revenues
2012
Expenditures Difference
9/30/2012
End. Balance
001 GENERAL FUND 5,705,633$ 22,229,739$ 24,500,129$ (2,270,390)$ 3,435,243$
004 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FUND 2,500 - - - 2,500
006 EMERGENCY FINANCIAL RESERVE FUND 1,927,600 - 1,927,600 (1,927,600) -
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 320,656 300,263 440,601 (140,338) 180,319
010 RESERVE FUND 1,338,178 1,189 1,339,367 (1,338,178) -
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 244,000 - 244,000 244,000
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND - 5,282,540 - 5,282,540 5,282,540
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - - 55,859
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 212,212 28,551 21,376 7,175 219,387
TOTAL GENERAL FUND PER CAFR 9,562,638 28,086,283 28,229,073 (142,790) 9,419,848
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 124,661 46,072 34,258 11,815 136,476
111 STREET FUND 392,049 1,005,793 1,221,360 (215,567) 176,481
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 423,449 843,099 900,818 (57,719) 365,729
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 401,698 23,190 29,397 (6,207) 395,490
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,646 20 - 20 17,666
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 93,895 43,660 36,187 7,473 101,368
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 77,577 7,075 13,041 (5,966) 71,611
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,534 1,381 3,375 (1,994) 14,540
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 60,250 11,037 9,840 1,197 61,447
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 436,640 600,361 219,234 381,127 817,767
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 225,937 539,097 80,277 458,820 684,757
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 193,985 21,754 3,423 18,331 212,316
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 5,841 - 10,746 (10,746) (4,905)
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 85,714 107,890 128,666 (20,776) 64,937
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - - -
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 86,794 463,253 343,620 119,633 206,427
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 156,611 168 6,930 (6,762) 149,848
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 801,079 12,882 - 12,882 813,961
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,261 2,030 4,145 (2,115) 8,146
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 104,869 21,860 106,000 (84,140) 20,729
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 12,079,485 9,013,078 3,066,408 52,064,437
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 18,605,638 103,131 2,263,553 (2,160,423) 16,445,216
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE (2,044,841) 629,086 495,977 133,109 (1,911,732)
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,662,893 806,160 1,033,729 (227,570) 6,435,323
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 213,210 68,916 70,741 (1,825) 211,385
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 498,868 498,868 - -
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 85,850,951$ 46,265,489$ 45,137,122$ 1,128,367$ 86,979,318$
CITY OF EDMONDS
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - SUMMARY
Packet Page 960 of 998
22
This page is intentionally left blank.
Packet Page 961 of 998
23
Page 1 of 3
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,629,986$ 5,171,349$ (4,458,637)$ 54%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,908,944 1,605,353 (1,303,591) 55%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 895,640 508,464 (387,176) 57%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,724,183 3,707,553 (1,016,630) 78%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 13,244 6,181 (7,063) 47%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 514,898 393,578 (121,320) 76%
GAS UTILITY TAX 892,381 654,934 (237,447) 73%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 750,682 504,704 (245,979) 67%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,390,242 1,158,687 (231,555) 83%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,473,880 1,201,703 (272,177) 82%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 294,601 214,196 (80,405) 73%
WATER UTILITY TAX 824,935 632,300 (192,635) 77%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 355,858 (114,142) 76%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 254,061 211,732 (42,329) 83%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 221,162 156,162 (65,000) 71%
PULLTABS TAX 60,257 45,139 (15,118) 75%
25,319,096 16,527,893 (8,791,203) 65%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,000 5,353 353 107%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 1,000 510 (490) 51%
AMUSEMENTS 6,000 5,475 (525) 91%
BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 3,995 (1,005) 80%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 105,245 100,451 (4,794) 95%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 588,008 470,088 (117,920) 80%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 106,930 68,515 (38,415) 64%
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 14,970 (6,030) 71%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 38,885 26,400 (12,485) 68%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 10,000 9,308 (692) 93%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 420,000 259,078 (160,923) 62%
ANIMAL LICENSES 11,000 7,950 (3,050) 72%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 42,000 21,052 (20,948) 50%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 7,000 7,749 749 111%
DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE - - - 0%
1,586,261 1,183,548 (402,713) 75%
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 4,512 (5,488) 45%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 888 (5,112) 15%
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - 0%
Puget Drive Walkway HLP-PB07(009)- - - 0%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 183,348 184,756 1,408 101%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 13,000 12,448 (552) 96%
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 310,835 306,934 (3,901) 99%
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 8,070 (2,690) 75%
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 51,975 (17,325) 75%
SNOCOM FIBER OPTIC SERVICE INTERLOCAL - 7,386 7,386 0%
SNO-ISLE 69,418 41,718 (27,700) 60%
1,013,653 865,557 (148,096) 85%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 962 of 998
24
Page 2 of 3
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,050 955 (96) 91%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 100 - (100) 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 950 123 (827) 13%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS - 64 64 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 150 113 (37) 75%
PHOTOCOPIES 4,000 2,332 (1,669) 58%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 5,000 3,223 (1,777) 64%
ASSESSMENT SEARCH - 5 5 0%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 10,500 9,300 (1,200) 89%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 28,605 2,605 110%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES - 400 400 0%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 68,300 43,012 (25,288) 63%
ELECTRONIC MONITORING 150 - (150) 0%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 700 82 (618) 12%
BOOKING FEES 6,300 3,553 (2,747) 56%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 6,060 3,730 (2,330) 62%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 21,210 14,050 (7,160) 66%
DUI EMERGENCY AID 200 33 (167) 17%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 848,500 490,911 (357,589) 58%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 281 (20) 94%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 700 498 (202) 71%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,900 3,279 (2,621) 56%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,100 1,283 (817) 61%
POLICE TRAINING CLASSES - - - 0%
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - 336
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 102,010 72,720 (29,290) 71%
FIBER SERVICES - 35,781 35,781 0%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 4,000 5,185 1,185 130%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS - 182 182 0%
ANNUAL VEHICLE FEE (TBD)- - - 0%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 55,000 26,477 (28,523) 48%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 3,300 1,068 (2,233) 32%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 235,000 162,343 (72,658) 69%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 4,500 326 (4,174) 7%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,000 2,425 (3,575) 40%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 12,400 (2,600) 83%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 52,471 59,217 6,746 113%
LOCKER FEES 300 303 3 101%
SWIM CLASS FEES 45,520 28,625 (16,895) 63%
PROGRAM FEES 800,000 595,171 (204,829) 74%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 120,000 118,938 (1,062) 99%
SWIM TEAM / DIVE TEAM 31,150 30,019 (1,132) 96%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 620 1,015 395 164%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,582,061 1,163,557 (418,504) 74%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES - - - 0%
4,065,102 2,921,916 (1,143,522) 72%
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,500 7,207 (3,293) 69%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 51,472 21,502 (29,970) 42%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 285,000 188,090 (96,910) 66%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)15,000 13,876 (1,124) 93%
SPEEDING DOUBLE - 38 38 0%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES - 900 900 0%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,250 442 (808) 35%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 33,000 27,771 (5,229) 84%
PR - HANDICAPPED 800 - (800) 0%
PARKING INFRACTION LOC 600 40 (560) 7%
PARK / INDDISZONE 600 2,569 1,969 428%
DWI PENALTIES 9,500 6,118 (3,382) 64%
DUI - DP ACCT - 1,108 1,108 0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 306 256 611%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 40,000 24,191 (15,809) 60%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 600 241 (359) 40%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 11,500 10,787 (713) 94%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 950 861 (89) 91%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 80,567 (39,433) 67%
JURY DEMAND COST 100 - (100) 0%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 37,000 23,241 (13,759) 63%
COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 142 (158) 47%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,050 1,690 640 161%
619,272 411,685 (207,587) 66%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
Packet Page 963 of 998
25
Page 3 of 3
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST - 5,136 5,136 0%
INVESTMENT SERVICE FEES 9,800 (0) (9,800) 0%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 2,000 1,373 (627) 69%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 3,150 4,170 1,020 132%
PARKING 10,000 9,027 (973) 90%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 140,000 123,983 (16,017) 89%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 7,800 3,926 (3,874) 50%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 1,000 3,145 2,145 315%
LEASES LONG-TERM 173,465 120,980 (52,485) 70%
VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 4,700 5,512 812 117%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 10,078 5,745 (4,333) 57%
PARKS DONATIONS 8,456 6,742 (1,714) 80%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,500 1,527 27 102%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 200 1,080 880 540%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 1,171 (2,829) 29%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 200 - (200) 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 100 150 50 150%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES (200) 36 236 0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 5,133 2,133 171%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT - 87 87 0%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC - 180 180 0%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 525 505 (20) 96%
NSF FEES - DEVEL SERV DEPT - 60 60 0%
PLANNING SIGN REVENUE 2,000 - (2,000) 0%
381,774 299,667 (82,107) 78%
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$ 22,229,739$ (10,787,771)$ 67%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 964 of 998
26
This page is intentionally left blank.
Packet Page 965 of 998
27
Page 1 of 5
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES:
SALARIES AND WAGES 12,400,240$ 8,811,354$ (3,588,886)$ 71%
OVERTIME 458,540 305,721 (152,819) 67%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 179,687 2,526 (177,161) 1%
BENEFITS 4,244,174 3,080,500 (1,163,674) 73%
UNIFORMS 63,880 41,941 (21,939) 66%
SUPPLIES 435,011 261,100 (173,911) 60%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 133,012 103,528 (29,484) 78%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,852,841 1,159,301 (693,540) 63%
COMMUNICATIONS 210,037 135,988 (74,049) 65%
TRAVEL 51,060 14,287 (36,773) 28%
ADVERTISING 71,667 30,072 (41,595) 42%
RENTAL/LEASE 139,281 98,408 (40,873) 71%
INSURANCE 444,962 420,109 (24,853) 94%
UTILITIES 454,500 314,456 (140,044) 69%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 331,397 164,176 (167,221) 50%
MISCELLANEOUS 327,242 215,492 (111,750) 66%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,218,704 6,167,836 (2,050,868) 75%
ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE 250,000 80,635 (169,365) 32%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 5,296 96 102%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 009,012,116,117,125,617)2,914,623 2,434,926 (479,697) 84%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 13,097 (4,047) 76%
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 197,900 101,638 (96,262) 51%
INTERFUND FUEL - 55 55 0%
INTERFUND SUPPLIES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 430,246 322,695 (107,551) 75%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - 780 780 0%
35,281,328$ 24,500,129$ (10,781,199)$ 69%
EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 012)1,927,600$ 1,927,600$ (0)$ 100%
1,927,600$ 1,927,600$ (0)$ 100%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE:
BENEFITS 462,886$ 317,406$ (145,480)$ 69%
In-Home LTC Claims 140,425 115,760 (24,665) 82%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,500 7,186 (9,315) 44%
MISCELLANEOUS - 250 250 0%
619,811$ 440,601$ (179,210)$ 71%
RESERVE FUND
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 012)1,339,400$ 1,339,367$ (33)$ 100%
1,339,400$ 1,339,367$ (33)$ 100%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND:
SUPPLIES 200$ -$ (200)$ 0%
FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 1,682 (318) 84%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 1,180 (3,820) 24%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,677 (556) 75%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - (800) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 10,000 (10,000) 50%
INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 19,719 (30,281) 39%
80,233$ 34,258$ (45,975)$ 43%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 966 of 998
28
Page 2 of 5
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STREET FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 474,924$ 403,199$ (71,725)$ 85%
OVERTIME 18,400 23,902 5,502 130%
BENEFITS 191,707 176,469 (15,238) 92%
UNIFORMS 7,000 4,760 (2,240) 68%
SUPPLIES 242,500 150,894 (91,606) 62%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,000 11,919 (12,081) 50%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32,700 20,473 (12,227) 63%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,586 (414) 86%
TRAVEL 1,000 310 (690) 31%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 4,231 2,731 282%
INSURANCE 93,719 93,305 (414) 100%
UTILITIES 261,100 167,541 (93,559) 64%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 25,500 7,525 (17,975) 30%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 6,858 858 114%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 6,000 1,080 (4,920) 18%
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 190,944 143,208 (47,736) 75%
1,625,148$ 1,221,360$ (403,788)$ 75%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 846,180$ 675,189$ (170,991)$ 80%
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112, 132)53,497 41,694 (11,803) 78%
LAND 231,022 - (231,022) 0%
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 1,596,538 1,700 (1,594,838) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,202 72,201 (1) 100%
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,841 4,840 (1) 100%
INTERFUND SERVICES 136,386 105,193 (31,193) 77%
2,940,666$ 900,818$ (2,039,848)$ 31%
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD:
PROFESSIONAL SVC -$ -$ -$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
-$ -$ -$ 0%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE:
SUPPLIES 10,000$ -$ (10,000)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40,000 10,225 (29,775) 26%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 195,000 11,151 (183,849) 6%
MISCELLANEOUS - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
245,000$ 21,376$ (223,624)$ 9%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND:
SUPPLIES 4,200$ 734$ (3,466)$ 17%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 523 (477) 52%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110,500 21,697 (88,803) 20%
TRAVEL 50 10 (40) 20%
ADVERTISING 4,000 4,000 - 100%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - (300) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 2,434 (8,066) 23%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117.300)3,000 - (3,000) 0%
134,550$ 29,397$ (105,153)$ 22%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000$ 8,554$ (1,447)$ 86%
ADVERTISING 35,000 24,188 (10,812) 69%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 1,446 (1,054) 58%
TRANSFER TO FUND 117 4,000 2,000 (2,000) 50%
TRANSFER TO FUND 132 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
56,500$ 36,187$ (20,313)$ 64%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 967 of 998
29
Page 3 of 5
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND:
SUPPLIES 1,000$ 498$ (502)$ 50%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001)25,086 12,543 (12,543) 50%
26,086$ 13,041$ (13,045)$ 50%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND:
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000$ 3,375$ (625)$ 84%
4,000$ 3,375$ (625)$ 84%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS:
PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 2,533$ (7,967)$ 24%
ADVERTISING 4,500 3,865 (635) 86%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 3,442 (558) 86%
19,000$ 9,840$ (9,160)$ 52%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2:
SUPPLIES 36,000$ 41,070$ 5,070$ 114%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 617,000 76,416 (540,584) 12%
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$ 219,234$ (835,766)$ 21%
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 1,980 (2,020) 50%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132)2,000 - (2,000) 0%
12,275$ 3,423$ (8,852)$ 28%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83,500$ 5,978$ (77,522)$ 7%
CONSTRUCTION 400,000 - (400,000) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - 4,768 4,768 0%
483,500$ 10,746$ (472,754)$ 2%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT:
SALARIES AND WAGES 71,107$ 50,630$ (20,477)$ 71%
OVERTIME 3,500 2,272 (1,228) 65%
BENEFITS 32,926 24,048 (8,878) 73%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
SUPPLIES 7,000 2,774 (4,226) 40%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 18,551 (1,449) 93%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 200 (800) 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 931 (481) 66%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 3,000 1,531 (1,469) 51%
UTILITIES 3,800 2,270 (1,530) 60%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 2,678 1,678 268%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,500 17,336 (164) 99%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,260 5,445 (1,815) 75%
172,005$ 128,666$ (43,339)$ 75%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 968 of 998
30
Page 4 of 5
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND:
SUPPLIES -$ 74,206$ 74,206$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,000 60,479 (2,521) 96%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,303,200 188,540 (1,114,660) 14%
INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 20,395 10,395 204%
1,376,200$ 343,620$ (1,032,580)$ 25%
PARKS TRUST FUND:
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001)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 2,903 1,403 194%
4,600$ 4,145$ (455)$ 90%
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$ 2,008,990$ (782,133)$ 72%
OVERTIME 117,180 88,727 (28,453) 76%
BENEFITS 1,113,707 837,324 (276,383) 75%
UNIFORMS 28,650 16,135 (12,515) 56%
SUPPLIES 675,015 471,794 (203,221) 70%
FUEL CONSUMED 150,723 113,249 (37,474) 75%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 958,843 (451,157) 68%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 76,551 (66,449) 54%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 25,500 2,052 (23,448) 8%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 228,808 138,417 (90,391) 60%
COMMUNICATIONS 72,200 48,051 (24,149) 67%
TRAVEL 18,600 1,336 (17,264) 7%
ADVERTISING 3,560 1,177 (2,383) 33%
RENTAL/LEASE 16,300 11,291 (5,009) 69%
INSURANCE 288,211 242,229 (45,982) 84%
UTILITIES 999,853 574,624 (425,229) 57%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 131,930 83,354 (48,576) 63%
MISCELLANEOUS 592,880 465,309 (127,571) 78%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 667,900 167,731 (500,170) 25%
INTERFUND TAXES 1,548,996 1,199,889 (349,107) 77%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412,414)1,852,811 197,859 (1,654,952) 11%
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 818,454 579,665 (238,789) 71%
INTERFUND RENTAL 407,150 305,361 (101,789) 75%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - - - 0%
15,370,401$ 9,013,078$ (6,357,323)$ 59%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 969 of 998
31
Page 5 of 5
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,814,861$ 515,008$ (1,299,853)$ 28%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112,117,132,412.300)808,111 - (808,111) 0%
LAND 3,500 - (3,500) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 8,102,386 1,292,953 (6,809,433) 16%
INTERFUND SERVICES 570,821 455,592 (115,229) 80%
11,299,679$ 2,263,553$ (9,036,126)$ 20%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85,000$ 308,119$ 223,119$ 362%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,226,012 107,333 (1,118,679) 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$ 495,977$ (1,075,538)$ 32%
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 218,537$ 160,146$ (58,391)$ 73%
OVERTIME 2,000 906 (1,094) 45%
BENEFITS 100,670 76,812 (23,858) 76%
UNIFORMS 1,000 527 (473) 53%
SUPPLIES 76,000 68,048 (7,952) 90%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 756 (244) 76%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 320,510 233,552 (86,958) 73%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 5,007 (4,993) 50%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 437 (563) 44%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 1,026 (2,474) 29%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,500 842 (2,658) 24%
INSURANCE 23,261 32,530 9,269 140%
UTILITIES 14,000 8,764 (5,236) 63%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 85,000 23,239 (61,761) 27%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,500 5,666 (1,834) 76%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,440 (1,060) 58%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 420,000 406,264 (13,736) 97%
INTERFUND SERVICES 20,000 - (20,000) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 10,356 7,767 (2,589) 75%
1,321,334$ 1,033,729$ (287,605)$ 78%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND:
BENEFITS 66,515$ 41,509$ (25,006)$ 62%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 52,500 28,167 (24,333) 54%
PROF SERVICES 4,500 1,065 (3,436) 24%
123,515$ 70,741$ (52,774)$ 57%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT:
INSURANCE 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 100%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 595,000 49,936 (545,064) 8%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (To 111)- 443,933 443,933 0%
600,000$ 498,868$ (101,132)$ 83%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 79,268,066$ 45,137,122$ (34,130,911)$ 57%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 970 of 998
32
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL 269,812$ 184,180$ (85,632)$ 68%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 253,184 170,105 (83,079) 67%
HUMAN RESOURCES 286,799 166,941 (119,858) 58%
MUNICIPAL COURT 779,038 542,542 (236,496) 70%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 138,880 81,915 (56,965) 59%
CITY CLERK 609,840 372,951 (236,889) 61%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,412,575 971,303 (441,272) 69%
CITY ATTORNEY 495,000 371,126 (123,874) 75%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 13,414,538 9,326,742 (4,087,796) 70%
POLICE SERVICES 9,165,244 6,195,697 (2,969,547) 68%
COMMUNITY SERVICES 326,930 234,744 (92,186) 72%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,658,272 1,168,601 (489,671) 70%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,506,852 2,546,929 (959,923) 73%
PUBLIC WORKS 1,612,816 1,200,068 (412,748) 74%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,351,548 966,285 (385,263) 71%
35,281,328$ 24,500,129$ (10,781,199)$ 69%
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 2,174,153$ 1,276,759$ (897,394)$ 59%
WATER 5,158,024 3,315,631 (1,842,393) 64%
SEWER 4,506,994 1,962,759 (2,544,235) 44%
TREATMENT PLANT 3,531,230 2,457,930 (1,073,300) 70%
15,370,401$ 9,013,078$ (6,357,323)$ 59%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 971 of 998
33
Page 1 of 4
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 105,665$ 79,043$ (26,622)$ 75%
OVERTIME 7,240 4,340 (2,900) 60%
BENEFITS 69,902 52,990 (16,912) 76%
SUPPLIES 1,525 573 (952) 38%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 50,000 37,523 (12,477) 75%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,039 (961) 68%
TRAVEL 2,500 879 (1,621) 35%
RENTAL/LEASE 480 348 (132) 73%
REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 28,000 6,445 (21,555) 23%
269,812$ 184,180$ (85,632)$ 68%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 193,896$ 133,524$ (60,372)$ 69%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 49,188 30,579 (18,609) 62%
SUPPLIES 2,000 625 (1,375) 31%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 822 (578) 59%
TRAVEL 700 738 38 105%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,901 401 127%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,916 (1,084) 64%
253,184$ 170,105$ (83,079)$ 67%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 144,191$ 66,795$ (77,396)$ 46%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 32,098 24,874 (7,224) 77%
SUPPLIES 2,500 1,537 (963) 61%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 77,500 61,938 (15,562) 80%
COMMUNICATIONS 500 274 (226) 55%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 9,000 683 (8,317) 8%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,826 (174) 91%
REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 4,820 (1,180) 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 12,410 4,195 (8,215) 34%
286,799$ 166,941$ (119,858)$ 58%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 486,685$ 346,392$ (140,293)$ 71%
OVERTIME 1,400 572 (828) 41%
BENEFITS 172,053 125,377 (46,676) 73%
SUPPLIES 14,500 7,055 (7,445) 49%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,500 - (6,500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66,600 40,718 (25,882) 61%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,629 (971) 63%
TRAVEL 2,500 1,642 (858) 66%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,300 500 (800) 38%
REPAIR/MAINT 2,200 966 (1,234) 44%
MISCELLANEOUS 22,350 17,600 (4,750) 79%
INTERGOVTL SVC 350 92 (258) 26%
779,038$ 542,542$ (236,496)$ 70%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 972 of 998
34
Page 2 of 4
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BENEFITS -$ 13$ 13$ 0%
SUPPLIES 500 1,375 875 275%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - (300) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 103,680 70,441 (33,239) 68%
COMMUNICATIONS 400 161 (239) 40%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 30,000 8,314 (21,686) 28%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,612 (1,388) 54%
138,880$ 81,915$ (56,965)$ 59%
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 302,054$ 217,935$ (84,119)$ 72%
BENEFITS 90,045 67,856 (22,189) 75%
SUPPLIES 13,760 6,321 (7,439) 46%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89,377 13,061 (76,316) 15%
COMMUNICATIONS 52,067 28,703 (23,364) 55%
TRAVEL 1,000 7 (993) 1%
ADVERTISING 23,690 16,316 (7,374) 69%
RENTAL/LEASE 27,310 12,216 (15,094) 45%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 7,778 (259) 97%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 2,757 257 110%
609,840$ 372,951$ (236,889)$ 61%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 741,281$ 535,738$ (205,543)$ 72%
OVERTIME 8,100 5,411 (2,689) 67%
BENEFITS 222,830 169,389 (53,441) 76%
SUPPLIES 60,690 23,754 (36,936) 39%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 63,500 60,278 (3,222) 95%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,842 31,787 (40,055) 44%
COMMUNICATIONS 60,220 45,312 (14,908) 75%
TRAVEL 4,800 1,108 (3,692) 23%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,300 3,278 (22) 99%
REPAIR/MAINT 164,720 76,329 (88,391) 46%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 18,325 7,825 175%
INTERFUND RENTAL 792 594 (198) 75%
1,412,575$ 971,303$ (441,272)$ 69%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SVC 495,000$ 370,926$ (124,074)$ 75%
MISC PROSECUTOR - 200 200 0%
495,000$ 371,126$ (123,874)$ 75%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 100,000$ -$ (100,000)$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 70,000 33,756 (36,244) 48%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 294,962 168,192 (126,770) 57%
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 5,824,351 (1,787,260) 77%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 250,000 80,635 (169,365) 32%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 5,296 96 102%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 2,914,623 2,434,926 (479,697) 84%
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 197,900 101,638 (96,262) 51%
13,414,538$ 9,326,742$ (4,087,796)$ 70%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 973 of 998
35
Page 3 of 4
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,400,738$ 3,799,465$ (1,601,273)$ 70%
OVERTIME 420,000 280,437 (139,563) 67%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 179,687 2,526 (177,161) 1%
BENEFITS 1,899,147 1,317,269 (581,878) 69%
UNIFORMS 53,570 38,089 (15,481) 71%
SUPPLIES 95,900 65,591 (30,309) 68%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 14,300 4,868 (9,432) 34%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 95,200 62,488 (32,712) 66%
COMMUNICATIONS 33,592 19,073 (14,519) 57%
TRAVEL 26,300 7,885 (18,415) 30%
ADVERTISING 375 66 (309) 18%
RENTAL/LEASE 18,000 11,623 (6,377) 65%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,115 4,667 (11,448) 29%
MISCELLANEOUS 55,512 30,657 (24,855) 55%
INTERGOVTL SVC 536,048 309,586 (226,462) 58%
INTERFUND FUEL-BOAT - 55 55 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 320,760 240,570 (80,190) 75%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - 780 780 0%
9,165,244$ 6,195,697$ (2,969,547)$ 68%
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN
SALARIES 212,854$ 157,952$ (54,903)$ 74%
BENEFITS 60,622 46,742 (13,880) 77%
SUPPLIES 1,000 370 (630) 37%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 500 - (500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 45,924 26,104 (19,820) 57%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,090 611 (479) 56%
TRAVEL 1,000 18 (982) 2%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 1,833 513 139%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 646 (354) 65%
INTERFUND RENTAL 620 468 (152) 75%
326,930$ 234,744$ (92,186)$ 72%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,071,681$ 780,943$ (290,738)$ 73%
OVERTIME 2,800 2,360 (440) 84%
BENEFITS 374,639 280,226 (94,413) 75%
UNIFORMS 320 - (320) 0%
SUPPLIES 17,510 9,147 (8,363) 52%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,300 550 (1,750) 24%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 116,890 48,510 (68,381) 42%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,630 3,772 (858) 81%
TRAVEL 3,500 426 (3,074) 12%
ADVERTISING 4,250 1,834 (2,416) 43%
RENTAL/LEASE 22,500 16,126 (6,374) 72%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,000 606 (1,394) 30%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,600 18,361 (9,239) 67%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,652 5,742 (1,910) 75%
1,658,272$ 1,168,601$ (489,671)$ 70%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 958,860$ 707,093$ (251,767)$ 74%
OVERTIME 5,000 2,146 (2,854) 43%
BENEFITS 321,636 250,452 (71,184) 78%
UNIFORMS 450 122 (328) 27%
SUPPLIES - - - 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,500 2,398 (102) 96%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 5,000 2,145 (2,855) 43%
COMMUNICATIONS 6,500 4,028 (2,472) 62%
TRAVEL 620 463 (157) 75%
ADVERTISING - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - - - 0%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,800 895 (905) 50%
MISCELLANEOUS 9,600 8,804 (796) 92%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 6,740 5,058 (1,682) 75%
1,318,706$ 983,604$ (335,102)$ 75%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 974 of 998
36
Page 4 of 4
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,880,905$ 1,373,840$ (507,065)$ 73%
OVERTIME 5,300 8,693 3,393 164%
BENEFITS 571,640 448,683 (122,957) 78%
UNIFORMS 6,540 2,191 (4,349) 34%
SUPPLIES 145,026 89,145 (55,881) 61%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 35,012 33,568 (1,444) 96%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 339,666 225,430 (114,236) 66%
COMMUNICATIONS 28,938 18,940 (9,998) 65%
TRAVEL 6,140 1,119 (5,021) 18%
ADVERTISING 3,852 2,859 (993) 74%
RENTAL/LEASE 50,471 44,354 (6,117) 88%
PUBLIC UTILITY 150,000 112,636 (37,364) 75%
REPAIR/MAINT 52,025 27,763 (24,262) 53%
MISCELLANEOUS 76,370 60,457 (15,913) 79%
INTERGOVTL SVC 70,695 33,807 (36,888) 48%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 13,097 (4,047) 76%
INTERFUND RENTAL 67,128 50,346 (16,782) 75%
3,506,852$ 2,546,929$ (959,923)$ 73%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 208,578$ 159,112$ (49,466)$ 76%
OVERTIME 200 - (200) 0%
BENEFITS 64,638 48,861 (15,777) 76%
SUPPLIES 5,100 3,010 (2,090) 59%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 38 (162) 19%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,100 826 (274) 75%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,400 803 (6,597) 11%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,500 1,694 (806) 68%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 699 (301) 70%
INTERFUND RENTAL 1,894 1,422 (472) 75%
294,110$ 216,464$ (77,646)$ 74%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 592,852$ 453,523$ (139,329)$ 76%
OVERTIME 8,500 1,761 (6,739) 21%
BENEFITS 245,736 183,434 (62,302) 75%
UNIFORMS 3,000 1,538 (1,462) 51%
SUPPLIES 75,000 52,597 (22,403) 70%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 8,000 1,866 (6,134) 23%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - - 0%
TRAVEL - 2 2 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 14,000 9,795 (4,205) 70%
PUBLIC UTILITY 302,000 200,126 (101,874) 66%
REPAIR/MAINT 75,000 40,352 (34,648) 54%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,796 696 133%
INTERFUND RENTAL 24,660 18,495 (6,165) 75%
1,351,548$ 966,285$ (385,263)$ 71%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 35,281,328$ 24,500,129$ (10,781,199)$ 69%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 975 of 998
37
Page 1 of 2
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE
SALARIES 477,207$ 329,676$ (147,531)$ 69%
OVERTIME 6,000 5,831 (169) 97%
BENEFITS 195,826 136,263 (59,563) 70%
UNIFORMS 6,500 4,543 (1,957) 70%
SUPPLIES 58,005 27,154 (30,851) 47%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 4,000 193 (3,807) 5%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,836 9,268 (9,568) 49%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 998 (2,202) 31%
TRAVEL 4,300 - (4,300) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,500 3,309 (4,191) 44%
INSURANCE 9,302 8,889 (413) 96%
UTILITIES 10,000 6,437 (3,563) 64%
REPAIR/MAINT 12,860 5,139 (7,721) 40%
MISCELLANEOUS 78,500 77,619 (881) 99%
INTERGOVT SERVICE 40,000 42,528 2,528 106%
STORMWATER TAX 254,061 211,732 (42,329) 83%
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 228,092 161,576 (66,516) 71%
INTERFUND RENTAL 167,112 125,334 (41,778) 75%
2,174,153$ 1,276,759$ (897,394)$ 59%
WATER
SALARIES 715,880$ 502,456$ (213,424)$ 70%
OVERTIME 24,180 15,217 (8,963) 63%
BENEFITS 267,990 214,921 (53,069) 80%
UNIFORMS 6,800 2,603 (4,197) 38%
SUPPLIES 143,505 110,375 (33,130) 77%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 958,843 (451,157) 68%
SUPPLIES FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 140,000 73,251 (66,749) 52%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 - (10,000) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 77,136 19,198 (57,938) 25%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 20,776 (9,224) 69%
TRAVEL 3,400 - (3,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 560 - (560) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 2,799 1,299 187%
INSURANCE 84,030 70,440 (13,590) 84%
PUBLIC UTILITY 28,000 23,711 (4,289) 85%
REPAIR/MAINT 24,160 7,372 (16,788) 31%
RCP - MISCELLANEOUS 301,630 227,795 (73,835) 76%
INTERGOVTL SVC 30,000 23,630 (6,370) 79%
WATER TAX 824,935 632,300 (192,635) 77%
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 224,970 162,383 (62,588) 72%
INTERFUND RENTAL 104,486 78,363 (26,123) 75%
5,158,024$ 3,315,631$ (1,842,393)$ 64%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 976 of 998
38
Page 2 of 2
Title
2012 Amended
Budget
9/30/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
SEWER
SALARIES 434,516$ 335,520$ (98,996)$ 77%
OVERTIME 17,000 14,815 (2,185) 87%
BENEFITS 206,345 159,418 (46,927) 77%
UNIFORMS 5,100 3,014 (2,086) 59%
SUPPLIES 61,005 33,731 (27,274) 55%
SEWER INVENTORY 3,000 3,300 300 110%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,000 1,511 (4,489) 25%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,836 7,570 (46,266) 14%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 19,328 (10,672) 64%
TRAVEL 2,400 - (2,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 2,933 1,133 163%
INSURANCE 104,574 94,658 (9,916) 91%
PUBLIC UTILITY 533,813 238,579 (295,234) 45%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,860 8,697 (8,163) 52%
MISCELLANEOUS 130,000 105,013 (24,987) 81%
INTERGOVTL SVS 393,900 30,683 (363,217) 8%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 355,858 (114,142) 76%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412, 414)1,452,811 197,859 (1,254,952) 14%
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 176,571 121,935 (54,636) 69%
INTERFUND RENTAL 128,244 96,183 (32,061) 75%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - 0%
4,506,994$ 1,962,759$ (2,544,235)$ 44%
TREATMENT PLANT
SALARIES 1,163,520$ 841,339$ (322,181)$ 72%
OVERTIME 70,000 52,865 (17,135) 76%
BENEFITS 443,546 326,721 (116,825) 74%
UNIFORMS 10,250 5,975 (4,275) 58%
SUPPLIES 412,500 300,534 (111,966) 73%
FUEL CONSUMED 150,723 113,249 (37,474) 75%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,500 348 (5,152) 6%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 79,000 102,381 23,381 130%
COMMUNICATIONS 9,000 6,949 (2,051) 77%
TRAVEL 8,500 1,336 (7,164) 16%
ADVERTISING 2,000 1,177 (823) 59%
RENTAL/LEASE 5,500 2,251 (3,249) 41%
INSURANCE 90,305 68,242 (22,063) 76%
UTILITIES 428,040 305,896 (122,144) 71%
REPAIR/MAINT 78,050 62,146 (15,904) 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 82,750 54,882 (27,868) 66%
INTERGOVTL SVS 204,000 70,890 (133,110) 35%
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 188,821 133,771 (55,050) 71%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,308 5,481 (1,827) 75%
3,531,230$ 2,457,930$ (1,073,300)$ 70%
Total Combined Utility Fund Expenditures 15,370,401$ 9,013,078$ (6,357,323)$ 59%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 977 of 998
AM-5250 15.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Referral of BC-EW and RM-EW zones to the Planning Board for review and possible revision.
Recommendation
Staff supports planning board review.
Previous Council Action
Discussion of BC-EW and RM-EW zones at the October 9, 2012 Parks, Planning, and Public Works
Committee meeting.
Attachment 1: 10-9-2012 Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee Minutes.
Narrative
It was observed at the October 9, 2012 Parks, Planning and Public Works meeting that the newly
constructed buildings on Edmonds Way provide an opportunity for Council and the Planning Board to
evaluate the BC-EW and RM-EW zoning standards. As presently proposed, the planning board will be
requested to look at items including but not limited to design guidelines, whether our goals in offering
extra height were satisfied (see e.g. “16.30.030A note 6a regarding enclosed parking, and note 6b
regarding LID features), and whether there should be changes in the setback, bulk, height or other
requirements of the zone. It is requested that the planning board review include the staff report for each
of the two new buildings on Edmonds Way near 232nd.
Attachment 2: ECDC 16.50.020
Attachment 3 - ECDC 16.30.030
Attachments
Attach 1 - Oct 9 2012 PPP Committee Minutes
Attach 2 - ECDC 16.50.020
Attach 3 - ECDC 16.30.030
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2012 11:55 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 04:57 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Packet Page 978 of 998
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/08/2012 08:38 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 979 of 998
D R A F T M I N U T E S
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting
October 9, 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
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Director
The committee convened at 6:00p.m.
A. Discussion regarding design guidelines, height limits, and coverage requirements for
buildings along Edmonds Way.
The committee discussed current development in the Edmonds Way corridor, notably the relatively
recent zoning for BC-EW and RM-EW. It was noted that these zones resulted from privately
sponsored code and zoning changes, and have been applied in only a couple of locations. They do
have some very unique aspects that vary from other city zones. Committee members also discussed
their impressions of buildings in various locations in the corridor.
B. Quarterly Public Works Project Report
Mr. English highlighted the projects that were in construction or nearing completion during the
third quarter of 2012.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for information.
C. Report on final construction costs for North Talbot Drainage Improvement Project and
acceptance of project.
Mr. English informed the Committee of the final construction cost and that the project was
complete and ready for City Council acceptance.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
D. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplement No. 1 with Perteet for overlay and raised
median on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project
Mr. English reviewed the scope of work and fee for Supplement No. 1. A large percentage of the
extra services are needed to design the pavement overlay on 228th St. from 80th Ave W to 1,000
feet east of 72nd Ave W and on 76th Ave W from 228th St. SW to SR99.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
Packet Page 980 of 998
16.50.020
4. Amusement establishments;
5. Auction businesses, excluding vehi-
cle or livestock auctions;
ucts;
6. Drive-in businesses;
7. Laboratories;
8. Fabrication of light industrial prod-
9. Convenience stores;
10. Day-care centers;
1l. 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 facili-
ties as defined in ECDC 2l.85.033;
16.50.020 Site development standards.
A. Table.
Minimum Minimum
Minimum Minimum Street Side
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback
BC None None None None'
Be-None None None None'
Edmonds
Way
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 Condi-
tional Use Permit.
l. Outdoor storage, incidental to a per-
mitted or conditional use;
2. Aircraft landings as regulated by
Chapter 4.80 ECC. lOrd. 3627 § 2, 2007; Ord.
3353 § 4, 2001; Ord. 3269 § 2, 1999*; Ord.
3147 § 1, 1997].
*Code reviser's note: Ord. 3269 expired August 13,
2000. For provisions on the outdoor display of merchan-
dise, see Chapter 17 .65 ECDC.
Minimum
Rear Maximum
Setback Height Maximum Floor Area
None' 25'2 3 sq. ft. per sq. ft. of lot area
None! 35'3.4 3 sq. ft. per sq. ft. of lot area
1 The setback for buildings and structures ~ocated at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of
the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
2 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design
and are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar roof form (see illustrations). Vertical parapet walls or flat roofs with a
pitch of less than 3-in-12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unless they are part of an approved modulated
design.
3 The stated height limit may be increased to 40 feet; provided, that:
(a) The street setback of any proposed building shall be increased to four feet in depth. Type ill landscaping shall be located within
this setback. This landscaping may be located immediately adjacent to th e building, or may be combined with other landscaping
within or adjoining the right-of-way. In addition, the third and fourth stories of any proposed building shall be further stepped
back an additional six feet from the street frontage along all street fronts;
(b) Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential (RS) zoned property, in addition to complying with subsec ti on
(a) of this footnote, the proposed development s hall modulate the design of any building facades facing the single-family residen-
tially (RS) zoned property;
(c) The proposed development in tegrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this sub-
section, "low impact development techniques" shall include, but shall not be limited to, th e following: the use of bios wales, green
roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its
suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not render the use of low impact techniques unreasonable or unfeasible;
(d) The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with Type I landscaping pennanently maintained
by the owner of the Be lot; and
(e) For any buildings fronting on Edmonds Way, the maximum height of the wall or facade along Edmonds Way shall not exceed 45
feet as measured at the Edmonds Way property line.
4 In addition to any height bonus under note 3, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the building above
the height limit (after adding the height bonus under note 3) integrate distinctive architectural features that enhance and are integrated
(Revised 7/07) 16-16
-----.
Packet Page 981 of 998
Edmonds Community Development Code 16.50.020
into the overall design of the building. For purposes of this subsection, distinctive architectural features may include articulation,
changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves of facades. or the use of distinctive roof forms.
Examples of Modulated Roof Designs
30-ft limit with modulated roof
,-...... ------~:IIil& --~" .. ;;"i
30-tt limit with modulated roof ...... ------al~~~~~ii~~;tI:ij~ ..... -250 ft heighllimit'
B. Ground Floor. Development on the
ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses to a minimum depth of 30 feet as mea-
sured from the street front of the building, with
the following exceptions or clarifications:
1. That in all areas the provision of
pedestrian access to permitted residential uses
is allowed.
2. This provision shall not apply when a
single-family use is the primary use on the
property.
3. With respect to, but only to, property
located on the Fifth Avenue entrance corridor,
south of Walnut Street, in which the first 60
feet of the building as measured from Fifth
Avenue consists only of commercial uses; and
with respect to which the subject property
shares a property line with single-family or
multifamily zoned properties, then multifam-
ily units may be located on the ground floor in
such a manner that they face the adjacent resi-
dentially zoned property.
16-16.1
4. In the BC -Edmonds Way zone,
where the street frontage of the total site pro-
posed for development exceeds 150 feet in
length, this requirement shall apply to only 60
percent of the ground floor street frontage of
any proposed building. The remaining 40 per-
cent may include any other uses permitted in
the BC -Edmonds Way zone, including, but
not limited to, off-street parking or live/work
space.
C. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See
Chapters 17.50,20.10, and 20.60 ECDC.
D. Density. There is no maximum density
for permitted mUltiple dwelling units.
E. Screening. The required setback from R
zoned property shall be permanently land-
scaped with trees and ground cover and perma-
nently maintained by the owner of the BC lot.
A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid
hedge shall be provided at some point in the
setback.
(Revised 7/07)
Packet Page 982 of 998
16.50.030
F. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite
television antennas shall be regulated as set
forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the
architectural design board. [Ord. 3627 § 2,
2007; Ord. 3539 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3518 § 1,
2004; Ord. 3492 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3256 § 1,
1999; Ord. 3232 § 1, 1998; Ord. 3147 § 1,
1997].
16.50.030 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be car-
ried 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;
6. L imited outdoor display of merchan-
dise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65
ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with
Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards.
[Ord. 3627 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3320 § 3, 2000;
Ord. 3147 § 1, 1997].
(Revised 710 7 ) 16-16.2
Chapter 16.53
BP -PLANNED BUSINESS
Sections:
16.53.000
16.53.010
16 .53.020
Purpose.
Uses.
Site development standards.
16.53.000 Purpose.
The BP zone has the following specific pur-
poses in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chap-
ter 16.40 ECDC:
A. To reserve areas for those small scale
neighborhood-oriented retail stores, offices
and retail service establishments which offer
goods and services needed on an everyday
basis by re sidents of adjacent neighborhood
areas.
B. To ensure compact, convenient develop-
ment patterns which provide a transition to and
do not intrude into adjacent residential neigh-
borhoods.
C. To permit uses which allow for con-
trolled access by arterial traffic but which do
not contribute significantly to traffic conges-
tion.
D. To permit uses which provide for pedes-
trian and transit access to development from
adjacent neighborhoods.
E. To permit commercial uses which utilize
site designs which allow for and promote
shared access with adjacent commercial par-
cels. [Ord. 3127 § 1, 1997].
16.53.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Single-family dwellings in accor-
dance with the regulations applicable to the
RS-6 zone, Chapter 16.20 ECDC;
2. Business or professional offices or
studios;
3. Small-scale retail sales or services not
exceeding 5,000 square feet of cumulative
space on a site, such as convenience stores,
video stores, barber shops, beauty shops, g ift
Packet Page 983 of 998
16.30.020
5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and
aquariums of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facili-
ties as defined in ECDC 21.85.033;
6. Counseling centers and residential
treatment facilities for current alcoholics and
drug abusers;
7. High schools, subject to the require-
ments of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R);
8. Regional parks and community parks
without a master plan subject to the require-
ments of ECDC 17.1 00.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Condi-
tional Use Permit.
1. Day-care facilities of any size to be
operated in a separate, nonresidential portion
of a multifamily residential dwelling structure
operated primarily for the benefit of the resi-
dents thereof;
16.30.030 Site development standards.
A. Table.
Minimum Lot
Area Per Minimum Minimum
Dwelling Unit4 Street Side
Subdistrict (Sq. Ft.) Setback2 Setback2
RM-l.S 1,500 IS' 10'
RM-EW 1,500 IS' 10'
RM-2,4 2,400 15' 10'
RM-3 3,000 IS' IS'
2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or
more designated parking spaces in conjunction
with a church, school, or local public facility
allowed or conditionally permitted in this
zone. lOrd. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.020 Subdistricts.
There are established four subdistricts of the
RM zone, in order to provide site development
standards for areas which differ in topography,
location, existing development and other fac-
tors. These subdistricts shall be known as the
RM-1.5,RM-Edmonds Way (RM-EW), RM-
2.4, and RM-3 zones. lOrd. 3627 § 1,2007].
l\1inimum3
Minimum Parking
Rear Maximum Maximum (Spaces
Setback Height Coverage Per Unit)
IS' 25" ,5 45% 2
IS' 2S'5.6.7 45% 2
IS' 25'1,5 45% 2
IS' 25'1,5 45% 2
1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of
four inches in 12 inches or greater.
2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones.
3 See Chapter 17.50 EeDC for specific parking requirements.
4 See definition of townhouse.
S Maximum height for accessory structures of 15 feet.
6 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 30 feet if the following apply to the site
and proposed development:
(a) At least 50 percent of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a building or buildings;
(b) The subject property is at least five feet lower at its lowest elevation than any adjacent residentially (R) zoned property measured
at its lowest elevation; and
(c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this sub-
section, "low impact development techniques" shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bios wales, green
roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its
suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not make the use of the impact development unreasonable or unfeasible.
7 In addition to any height bonus under note 6, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the
height limit (after adding the height bonus under note 6) provide a minimum 15 percent slope or pitch.
(Revised 7/07) 16-10.2
Packet Page 984 of 998
Edmonds Community Development Code
B. Signs and Design Review. See Chapters
20.10 and 20.60 ECDC for regulations.
C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces
may be located within the street setback.
D. Landscaping. In addition to the land-
scaping requirements set forth in Chapter
20.13 ECOC, any development in the RM -
Edmonds Way zone shall retain at least 35 per-
cent of the existing healthy significant trees
within the side and rear setbacks of the devel-
opment site. The applicant shall retain an
arborist to determine the health of all signifi-
cant trees within the side and rear setbacks. For
the purposes of this section, "significant tree"
shall be defined as any tree wi th a cali per
greater than six inches measured at four feet
above grade. Where it is not reasonably feasi-
ble for the applicant to retain 35 percent of the
existing healthy significant trees within the
side and rear setbacks, the applicant may
replace any significant trees below the 35 per-
cent threshold as follows: each significant tree
removed that reduces the percentage of
retained significant healthy trees below 35 per-
cent shall be replaced with three new trees,
each of no less than three-inch caliper mea-
sured at four feet above grade. lOrd. 3627 § 1,
2007].
16.30.040 Site development exceptions.
A. Housing for the Elderly. Housing
projects for the elderly are eligible for special
parking and density provisions. See Chapter
20.25 ECOC.
B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite
television antennas shall be regulated as set
forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the
architectural design board.
C. Setback Encroachments.
1. Eaves and chimneys may project into
a required setback not more than 30 inches.
2. Except as authorized by subsection
(C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unen-
closed porches, steps, patios, and decks may
project into a required setback not more than
one-third of the required setback, or four feet,
16-11
16.30.040
whichever is less; provided, that they are no
more than 30 inches above the ground level at
any point.
3. In the RM -Edmonds Way zone,
uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps,
patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of
the required street setback area along
Edmonds Way; provided, that these structures
or uses are located no more than 20 feet above
the ground level at any point.
O. Comer Lots. Comer lots shall have no
rear setback; all setbacks other than street set-
backs shall be side setbacks. lOrd. 3652 § 1,
2007; Ord. 3627 § 1,2007].
(Revised 2/09)
Packet Page 985 of 998
AM-5251 16.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Request City Attorney to draft moratorium on land use applications for BC-EW and RM-EW zones.
Recommendation
No recommendation; this is a Council prerogative.
Previous Council Action
Discussion of BC-EW and RM-EW zones at the October 9, 2012 Parks, Planning, and Public Works
Committee meeting (minutes attached).
Narrative
It was observed at the October 9, 2012 Parks, Planning and Public Works meeting that the newly
constructed buildings on Edmonds Way provide an opportunity for Council and the Planning Board to
evaluate the BC-EW and RM-EW zoning standards.
To ensure that no land use applications vest under the current zoning while the review is pending, a
moratorium could be adopted by the City Council.
The first step in that process is to request the City attorney draft a moratorium ordinance for Council
review and potential adoption.
Attachments
Oct 9 2012 Parks, Planning, PW Committee Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2012 11:55 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/15/2012 04:57 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 08:23 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/08/2012 10:20 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 986 of 998
D R A F T M I N U T E S
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting
October 9, 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
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Director
The committee convened at 6:00p.m.
A. Discussion regarding design guidelines, height limits, and coverage requirements for
buildings along Edmonds Way.
The committee discussed current development in the Edmonds Way corridor, notably the relatively
recent zoning for BC-EW and RM-EW. It was noted that these zones resulted from privately
sponsored code and zoning changes, and have been applied in only a couple of locations. They do
have some very unique aspects that vary from other city zones. Committee members also discussed
their impressions of buildings in various locations in the corridor.
B. Quarterly Public Works Project Report
Mr. English highlighted the projects that were in construction or nearing completion during the
third quarter of 2012.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for information.
C. Report on final construction costs for North Talbot Drainage Improvement Project and
acceptance of project.
Mr. English informed the Committee of the final construction cost and that the project was
complete and ready for City Council acceptance.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
D. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplement No. 1 with Perteet for overlay and raised
median on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project
Mr. English reviewed the scope of work and fee for Supplement No. 1. A large percentage of the
extra services are needed to design the pavement overlay on 228th St. from 80th Ave W to 1,000
feet east of 72nd Ave W and on 76th Ave W from 228th St. SW to SR99.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
Packet Page 987 of 998
AM-5275 17.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:11/20/2012
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 November 13, 2012.
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached are copies of minutes for the following City Council Committees that met on November 13,
2012:
•Finance Committee
•Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
•Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Attachments
11-13-12 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
11-13-12 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
11-13-12 Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 11/16/2012 08:33 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 11/16/2012 09:33 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/15/2012 09:57 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/16/2012
Packet Page 988 of 998
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
November 13, 2012
Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember Buckshnis Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Councilmember Yamamoto Stephen Clifton, Community Services & Economic
Development Director
Public Present Carl Nelson, CIO
Ron Wambolt
Bruce Witenberg
Roger Hertrich
Business Improvement District
Committee Members
Councilmember Buckshnis called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Mr. Hunstock requested the
committee modify the agenda to discuss items D, E and F first. The agenda modification was approved.
D. Resolution Initiating a Proposal for a Business Improvement District within a Portion of
the City of Edmonds
Mr. Clifton discussed the process for initiating a Business Improvement District (BID). Members of the
BID Committee were present to discuss any questions the Committee members might have.
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto indicated they did not have questions beyond what was
already addressed in the agenda packet. Councilmember Buckshnis indicated she anticipated questions
from other Councilmembers when this item is discussed at the full Council meeting. The Committee
approved forwarding to the November 27th Council meeting with a recommendation to approve.
Action: Schedule for discussion at the November 27th Council meeting.
E. Quarterly report regarding fiber optic opportunities
Mr. Nelson gave a brief overview of fiber activities during the last quarter. Mr. Nelson then discussed a
memo prepared by Mr. Hunstock regarding future direction related to fiber. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Hunstock
discussed a proposal that will be coming to Council to convert the City’s fiber infrastructure into an
enterprise fund. The intent with an enterprise fund would be to earn net income from the operation of the
fiber utility in order to be self-sufficient and not require a subsidy from the General Fund. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked whether there would be a proposal to be considered now for the 2013 budget to
convert fiber into an enterprise fund. Mr. Hunstock indicated not at this time. The plan is, along with the
two decision packages included in the proposed 2013 budget, to request funding for a business plan to
be conducted in 2013. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that a business plan would be needed first
prior to establishing fiber as an enterprise fund. Councilmember Buckshnis asked that $35,000 be added
to the list of items to be considered by Council at the November 20th Council meeting when the 2013
budget is considered for changes and adoption. This is in addition to the two decision packages that will
also be considered at the November 20th meeting related to fiber.
Action: Schedule for discussion at the November 20th Council meeting.
F. Video Annotation of Agendas and upgrade of video
Mr. Nelson discussed the options (phases) related to video annotation of agendas and equipment that
would be needed to complete all three phases of implementation. Councilmember Buckshnis indicated
her support for the concept and requested Mr. Hunstock add to the list of things for Council to consider
for 2013 budget changes funding for phases #1 ($27,000) and #2 ($22,000).
Mr. Clifton discussed the funding for the capital portion of this project. The City is in the process of
negotiating a franchise agreement with Comcast. The proposed franchise agreement currently includes
Packet Page 989 of 998
11-13-12 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
an Education Government (EG) fee of $0.35 per month, per subscriber that Comcast would collect and
remit to the City. The City will propose the same EG fee to Frontier as part of the negotiations for that
franchise agreement once the Comcast agreement is finalized. The EG fee can only be used for capital
technology purposes. The revenue from the EG fee is not guaranteed until Council approves the
franchise agreements.
Action: Phase I and II of video annotation will be added to the list of proposed changes for Council
consideration at the November 20th Council meeting.
A. Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto indicated they had no questions regarding this agenda item
and they recommended moving to the following Council meeting on the Consent Agenda.
Action: Schedule for Consent Agenda next week.
B. Request for Bid: Wastewater Treatment Disinfection and Odor Control Chemicals
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto indicated they had no questions regarding this agenda item
and they recommended moving to the following Council meeting on the Consent Agenda.
Action: Schedule for Consent Agenda next week.
C. Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Lynnwood
and the City of Edmonds for joint funding of the Recycling Coordinator
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto indicated they had no questions regarding this agenda item
and they recommended moving to the following Council meeting on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis noted this was a continuation of an agreement the City has had with
Lynnwood in the past.
Action: Schedule for Consent Agenda next week.
G. November 2012 Budget Amendment
Mr. Hunstock distributed updated information to the Committee regarding the amendment being
considered. The amendment moving funding for software purchases from the City Clerk’s budget to the
Information Services budget was corrected to show the proper expenditure line items. A last minute
addition was also made increasing funding to the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) above the
$250,000 the City budgeted for such purpose in 2012.
Mr. Hunstock indicated the budget amendment related to the Indefeasible Right of Use agreement was
an item the Council already approved at a recent Council meeting. The amendment related to funding of
the payouts for the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program is also something the Council recently
approved. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the budget amendment for the Marsh Interpretive
Signs was for an item that has already been installed. Mr. Hunstock indicated those signs have not yet
been installed.
The Committee discussed the amendment related to the Edmonds PFD. Mr. Hunstock indicated this was
for the two debt service payments in 2012 on the 2008 bonds, in accordance with the Contingent Loan
Agreement between the City and the Edmonds PFD. Mr. Hunstock indicated he had asked Joe
McIalwain, Executive Director of the Edmonds PFD, to attend the November 20th Council meeting to
discuss their need for assistance from the City.
Packet Page 990 of 998
11-13-12 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3
Action: Schedule for discussion at the November 20th Council meeting.
H. September 2012 Quarterly Financial Report
Mr. Hunstock indicated there were no significant changes from previous monthly or quarterly financial
reports. There are also no departments currently over budget so far through September. Councilmember
Buckshnis thanked Mr. Hunstock for making additional changes to the report, specifically noting material
changes in the numbers or graphs with a footnote.
Action: Schedule for discussion at the November 20th Council meeting.
I. Capital Asset Policy
Mr. Hunstock indicated the policy under consideration was drafted in response to feedback from the
State Auditors Office (SAO) during the 2011 audit. During the fieldwork for the 2011 audit SAO staff
inquired of Finance staff about the City’s capital asset policy. Upon further research by Finance staff it
was determined that the City did not have a formally adopted policy relating to capital assets. The current
practice was developed several years ago and is mentioned in the City’s Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, but it was never formally adopted by City Council. The policy being considered
addresses that deficiency. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Hunstock for bringing the policy to
Council for adoption, and noted this was one of several policies she requested the City complete some
years ago.
Action: Schedule for Consent Agenda next week.
J. Banking Services RFP Recommendation
Mr. Hunstock indicated Council approved the RFP for banking services in August 2012. Every bank with
a branch in Edmonds was contacted regarding the RFP. Some banks were not able to respond legally
because they were not approved by the State Public Deposit Protection Commission (PDPC) to accept
public funds. Other banks indicated they would not be able to offer the suite of services the City would
require under the RFP. Six banks, all with branches in Edmonds, responded to the RFP. Mr. Hunstock
indicated based on his evaluation of the responses, in accordance with the terms included in the RFP,
that US Bank was being recommended for award of the banking services contract.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the security of City money held in financial institutions. Mr.
Hunstock indicated, because the City’s current bank as well as US Bank are approved by the PDPC,
100% of the City’s money is collateralized so there is no risk of loss.
Action: Schedule for Consent Agenda next week.
F. Public Comments
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, inquired about whether too much money was budgeted for legal services
since some of the City Attorney cost was budgeted in the City Council budget and another portion in the
City Attorney budget. Mr. Hunstock indicated he did not think the costs were over budgeted, but he would
check and get back to Mr. Wambolt.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, requested a report to Council on legal costs incurred, which firms the
amounts were paid to, and what the nature of the issue was that they were representing the City for.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that such a report would be useful information to have and indicated
perhaps that was something that could be included in an annual or quarterly report to Council.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, inquired about an amount shown in the budget amendment ($400,635 in
additional General Fund budgeted expenditures). Mr. Hunstock indicated that was the total expenditure
Packet Page 991 of 998
11-13-12 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 4
increase for all the individual budget changes included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hertrich inquired about
who was responsible on Council to review vouchers. Mr. Hunstock indicated the Council President is
appointed the Council audit committee, and has responsibility for voucher review. Councilmember
Buckshnis indicated Councilmembers frequently have questions on a regular basis regarding specific
vouchers and will contact the Finance Department or other departments to resolve their questions. Mr.
Hertrich indicated it is not apparent to the public when such discussions occur.
Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Packet Page 992 of 998
M I N U T E S
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting
November 13, 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
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Services Director
The committee convened at 6:00p.m.
Council Member Petso requested to add items D and E to the agenda and make Public Comments
item F.
A. Authorization for Mayor to sign a $67,112.90 grant from the State through the Salmon
Recovery Board (SRFB) and the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for a limited
feasibility study for the day lighting of Willow Creek from the Edmonds Marsh to Puget
Sound.
Ms. Hite explained that People for Puget Sound is no longer in operation and that a sponsor was
needed to manage the completion of the study to day light Willow Creek from the Edmonds
Marsh to Puget Sound.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
B. Report on final construction cost for the Relocation of Private Electrical Services for the
Main Street Improvements (5th Ave – 6th Ave) and acceptance of project.
Mr. English provided a summary of the work completed under the relocation of private electrical
services on Main St. for the Main St. Improvement project between 5th and 6th Avenues.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
C. Presentation from staff regarding Council communication of City plans to the PSRC and
other relevant agencies.
City Council asked questions about perceived discrepancies in the PSRC 2040 Transportation
Plan as it relates to Edmonds Crossing. City staff responded that Page 56 contains a broad
overview about ferry terminals and what they might cost while Page 80 references the term un-
programmed which means that the project has not been included in the 2040 Transportation
Plan financial strategy. This is, however, $26M budgeted which assumes a bare bones
maintenance and preservation budget. The long term needs related to Edmonds Crossing and
existing terminal needs to be clarified with WSDOT and Washington State Ferries. PSRC wants
to hear from the City and WSDOT/WSF what these agencies think is going to happen in the
future and they will be talking to agencies in January, 2013.
Questions were asked about the PSRC Board and how people are appointed or chosen to serve
on the board. City staff stated they would need to look into this issue.
Packet Page 993 of 998
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes
November 13, 2012
Page 2
2
D. Add referral of BC-EW and RM-EW zones to the Planning Board for review and possible
revision.
ACTION: The Committee requested the item be placed on the next council agenda for discussion.
E. Request for City Attorney to draft a moratorium on land use applications for BC-EW and
RM-EW zones.
ACTION: The Committee requested the item be placed on the next council agenda for discussion.
F. Public Comments
No comments.
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Packet Page 994 of 998
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
November 13, 2012
Page 1
Minutes
Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting
November 13, 2012
Elected Officials Present: Council President Strom Peterson
Councilmember Joan Bloom
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson
Mayor Dave Earling
Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless
City Attorney Jeff Taraday
Public Present: Don Hall
Bruce Witenberg
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
A. Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Okanogan County for Jail
Services.
The meeting began with ACOP Lawless providing background on the renewal of the
agreement with Okanogan County Jail for long-term jail commitments. It was explained
that it was a three year renewal of an agreement already in place.
Councilmember Bloom recommended that the agreement be placed on the consent
agenda for full Council approval. Councilmember Johnson agreed.
Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve.
B. Renewal of Contract for Services with S. Morris Company
Assistant Chief Lawless explained that the contract with S. Morris Company was for the
disposal of dead animals. Again, it is a three year renewal for an agreement already in
place.
Councilmember Bloom recommended that the agreement be placed on the consent
agenda for full Council approval. Councilmember Johnson agreed.
Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve.
C. Review of Nonrepresented Job Descriptions
Carrie Hite, Interim HR Reporting Director, summarized the process and changes that
were a compilation of Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson, with input from the Mayor.
Packet Page 995 of 998
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
November 13, 2012
Page 2
Ms. Hite will rework two items and send them to Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson
for approval. Once approved, the Committee will forward these to full Council for
discussion and adoption.
D. Discussion on Process of Personnel Policy Adoption
Ms. Hite requested direction from the Committee and Council President Peterson of
how they would like to handle the review and adoption of the Personnel Policy update.
It was decided that after the Mayor’s review, Ms. Hite would send the Personnel Policy
draft to each Councilmember in preparation for a full Council discussion. Ms. Hite will
send this draft as soon as possible, and will then schedule the discussion on a full
Council agenda.
E. Discussion on Council Meeting Procedures
Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson discussed the following procedures:
Council president responsibilities
• Add sentence to existing procedures to clarify that Council President sets agenda in
committees in consultation with the committee chair.
Current meeting procedure (with input from City Attorney Jeff Taraday)
• Do not adopt Roberts' Rules/stay with Resolution 292
• Adopt Roberts' Rules - downside is Council not likely to become familiar with them;
enough to adopt.
• Create own Resolution 292, or amend Resolution 292 - adopt procedures that
Council is likely to understand.
• Create own Resolution 292, adopt abridged version of Roberts' Rules with flash card
for easy reference.
• Mr. Taraday suggested taking a hard look at Resolution 292; what Council likes,
dislikes, indicate clear purpose for process adopted.
Council member participating long distance
• 24 hour notice re: use of speaker phone
• When is it allowed?
• Calling in re: public hearing/vote on issue when haven't heard all the comments
• Mr. Taraday suggested making sure that you can articulate the reason why you want
to do something.
Citizen comment
Don Hall needed to leave the meeting at this time and expressed concern regarding a
council member voting on an issue long distance without hearing comments by citizens
in a scheduled public hearing.
Excusing absences
• State - 3 unexcused absences in a row grounds for immediate dismissal.
Packet Page 996 of 998
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
November 13, 2012
Page 3
• Define excused absences
• When is it appropriate to make a motion to excuse.
Appointments to committees, boards, commissions
• More information is needed; Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson will research
current policies
• What constitutes an interview?
• Currently put on consent that night/possibility of putting on the following week in
case it is a controversial appointment.
• Membership of boards; what are the requirements related to being residents of
Edmonds.
Reading of citizen emails:
• Clarify to allow fairness to all citizens
Work sessions
• Clarify what a work session means
• Exceptions to the rule
• Consider work session prior to regular council meeting
Executive session procedure
• Council President Peterson and Mr. Taraday will work on documentation for Council
reference manual.
• Who gets to speak and for how long
• Who gets invited by whom and why
• How is consensus reached and how is president informed of consensus
Committee meeting
• Definition of the purpose for the committee meeting
• Opportunity for citizens to comment - last year was first year this was done
Clarity re: resolutions and ordinances
• Who brings forward and why
• How brought forward
• Clarification of differences
Clarity re: how to/or if Council addresses citizen questions
• Refer to Citizen Liaison
• Answer by chair, if easy
• Legal questions – Mr. Taraday indicated he would respond if the Mayor or one of
directors asked him to answer.
Define how public hearings are held:
• Staff introduction of issue
• Clarifying when council member can introduce an item
Packet Page 997 of 998
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
November 13, 2012
Page 4
Communicating via email
• Guidelines to be written by City Attorney and put in council manual
Responsibility for preparing an agenda item
• Council responsibility
• Staff responsibility
• Procedure for work that Council Assistant does- Council President Peterson
recommended copying the Council President on requests.
• Copy Mayor, in what circumstances, if asking staff to look into issues.
The Committee Members will request that Council Procedures be placed on the Council
Retreat agenda in February for full council discussion.
F. Public Comments
Bruce Witenberg inquired about the open public meetings act presentation at the
Planning Board and asked if a subcommittee invites the public, does it have to be
noticed as a public meeting.
Mr. Taraday pointed out the distinction in law between an actual public hearing and less
formal input from citizens.
Mr. Witenberg also cautioned the committee not to have lots of policies and procedures.
The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Packet Page 998 of 998