2014.01.07 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 7, 2014
6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.Roll Call
2.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b).
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 7, 2014
7:00 P.M. - RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION/FLAG SALUTE
3.(20 Minutes) Administration of Oath of Office to newly elected officials
4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
5.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-6458 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2013
B.AM-6459 Approval of claim checks #206030 through #206167 dated December 19, 2013 for
$504,268.61 and claim checks #206168 through #206316 dated December 31, 2013 for
$1,166,526.79. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #60710 through #60724
for $446,416.70, benefit checks #60708, #60725 through #60731 and wire payments of
$191,180.66 for the period December 1, 2013 through December 15, 2013. Approval of
payroll direct deposit and checks #60732 through #60745 for $453,567.56, benefit
checks #60746 through #60757 and wire payments of $376,791.95.
C.AM-6447 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Kyle Blackwell ($1,172.81), Jack
Lanum (amount undetermined), and Claire Hedman ($1,791,12).
Packet Page 1 of 333
D.AM-6442 Approval of WSLCB December 2013 Liquor License Renewals.
E.AM-6455 Resolution Thanking Councilmember Lora Petso for Her Service as Council President.
F.AM-6445 Approval of Bond Counsel Contract for authorized Refunding of UTGO Bonds
G.AM-6463 Authorization for Mayor to execute contract with Pioneer Cable, Inc. in the amount of
$201,598 for the Citywide Safety Improvements Project and authorize a $22,400
management reserve for changes or unforeseen conditions during construction.
6.(5 Minutes)
AM-6448
Selection of Council President for 2014
7.(5 Minutes)
AM-6449
Selection of Council President Pro Tem for 2014
8.AM-6450 Appointment of Committee Representatives for 2014
9.(5 Minutes)
AM-6451
Resolution appointing a Councilmember to the Snohomish County Health District
Board.
10.(5 Minutes)
AM-6453
Resolution appointing a representative and alternate to the Snohomish County Public
Transportation Benefit Area Corporation.
11.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
12.(5 Minutes)
AM-6456
Presentation of Resolution Thanking Councilmember Lora Petso for her Service as
Council President.
13.(10 Minutes)
AM-6440
Update from the Edmonds Sister City Commission.
14.(15 Minutes)
AM-6466
Planning Board Quarterly Report
15.(30 Minutes)
AM-6460
Public Hearing and Possible Action on Planning Board Recommendation to Limit
Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor
Street Frontages Within Downtown Business (BD1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone (File
No. AMD20130013).
16.(15 Minutes)
AM-6457
Discussion and potential action on ECC Chapter 2.10 regarding Confirmation and
Duties of City Officers.
17.(5 Minutes)
AM-6446
Authorize Mayor to sign contract to award bid for City Park Spray Equipment
18.(5 Minutes)
AM-6462
Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #9 with David Evans &
Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project.
19.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
20.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
Packet Page 2 of 333
ADJOURN
Packet Page 3 of 333
AM-6458 5. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2013
Recommendation
Review and approval of minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached are the draft minutes.
Attachments
12-17-13 Draft Council meeting minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 12/31/2013 10:52 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/31/2013
Packet Page 4 of 333
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
December 17, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (arrived 6:05 p.m.)
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Thea Ocfemia, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Carol Morris, Special Counsel
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Johnson.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the applicant for Item 6 may not have been informed of the 6:00 p.m.
start time. Although not legally required, out of an abundance of caution, he suggested taking other
matters on the agenda and taking up Item 6 at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess to allow
staff to contact the applicant.
(Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:05 p.m.)
The applicant was located and Mayor Earling reconvened the meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE
AGENDA TO REMOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS P (AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO
SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR A
NATURAL YARD CARE PRACTICES OUTREACH PROGRAM TARGETING
HOMEOWNERS) AND S (REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 15, 2013 FOR THE
CITYWIDE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
Packet Page 5 of 333
PIONEER CABLE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $201,598), AND AGENDA ITEM 11.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Petso requested Item L be removed from the Consent Agenda to abstain from the vote.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETSO ABSTAINING FROM ITEM L. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2013
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #205898 THROUGH #206029 DATED DECEMBER
12, 2013 FOR $464,056.52
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MICHELLE
BAILLET AND GUY FINEOUT (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND KAREN
GURNETT ($636.35)
D. UPDATE ON 2014 HOURLY WAGE
E. APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL TO REFINANCE CITY OF EDMONDS 2003 UTGO
BONDS
F. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF 2013 OCTOBER BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
G. APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' BENEFIT TRUST PLAN RESTATEMENT
H. APPROVAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING
OF A STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT TRANSFER AND ACCESS EASEMENT
GRANT AGREEMENT FOR 1142 VISTA PLACE
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING
OF A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT RELEASE AND GRANT AGREEMENT FOR
620 SUNSET AVE.
K. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
CITY VEHICLES
L. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 224TH ST. WATERLINE
RELOCATION PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
M. A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL THANKING
COUNCILMEMBER FRANK YAMAMOTO FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE EDMONDS
CITY COUNCIL
N. ADOPTION OF UPDATED RESOLUTION ON THE 2014 ENGINEERING AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES
O. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING MINOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO
ECDC 10.90.040 REGARDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S
POWERS AND DUTIES
Packet Page 6 of 333
Q. RENEWAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR FOOTBALL GAME
SECURITY
R. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT (2) TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
CELLMARK FORENSICS, INC. FOR DNA TESTING
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no comments from the audience.
5. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO COUNCILMEMBER FRANK
YAMAMOTO
Council President Petso read a resolution recognizing Councilmember Frank Yamamoto for his service
on the Council since January 2012. She presented the resolution and a plaque to Councilmember
Yamamoto. Councilmember Yamamoto thanked the Council and Mayor Earling for the resolution. He
thanked the City’s professional and knowledgeable staff, community leaders and citizens and said it had
been a privilege and honor to serve on the Council.
6. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S
DESIGN APPROVAL OF POINT EDWARDS' BUILDING 10 TO BE LOCATED AT 50 PINE
STREET UNDER FILE PLN20130022. APPEAL NUMBERS APL20130005 - APL20130008
Mayor Earling explained on October 15, 2013 and November 12, 2013 the City Council deliberated on 4
appeals of the Architectural Design Board’s (ADB) decision conditionally approving revisions of
Building 10 of the Point Edwards development, PLN20130022, which includes a multi-family residential
building of 85 units with structured and surface parking totally 144 parking stalls located at 50 Pine
Street, Edmonds. During the November 12, 2013 closed record public hearing the City Council
deliberated and voted to reverse the ADB’s decision. The Council directed staff to prepare draft Findings
and Conclusions for review and a vote on the final written decision. The draft Findings and Conclusions
have been circulated and are ready for consideration and a vote. The Council’s discussion of the draft
Findings and Conclusions will not involve any participation by the public, the appellant or any parties of
record. Oral arguments have been presented by the appellants and parties of record and that portion of the
closed record hearing is over.
At every continuation of the close record hearings on this matter, the Council is required to observe the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The Doctrine requires the hearing be fair in form, substance and
appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. Mayor Earling asked
whether any member of the decision-making body has engaged in communication with opponents or
proponents regarding the issues in this appeal outside the public hearing process since November 12,
2013. Councilmembers Yamamoto, Buckshnis, Johnson, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas and Peterson responded
they had not. Council President Petso reported she had received two emails which she was not certain
were from opponents or proponents that she forwarded to Special Counsel Carol Morris. She relayed Ms.
Morris’ advice that the emails be printed and provided to Senior Planner Kernen Lien. One of the emails
addresses the right kind of development in Edmonds with a heading related to this topic and the second
email is a question regarding the delay on December 3, 2013 to which she responded Carol Morris cannot
attend tonight. She provided the emails to Mr. Lien.
Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not
consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Yamamoto, Buckshnis,
Packet Page 7 of 333
Johnson, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas and Peterson indicated they had no conflicts. Council President Petso
stated she had two items to disclose; although she was told they were not conflicts, she was encouraged to
put the information in the record. First, she has been individually named in a lawsuit in regard to this
matter and second, she discovered 1½ weeks ago that her daughter’s father-in-law works for one of the
applicants. Mayor Earling advised he had no disclosures to make.
Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to his or any Councilmember’s
participation. There were no objections voiced.
Mayor Earling relayed he has been informed the applicant would like to supplement the administrative
record with a document that was not introduced into the administrative record at the November 12, 2013
closed record hearing. The document was presented to the City’s planner after the November 12, 2013
closed record hearing and has not been reviewed by any of the decision-makers. He directed the applicant
to present the document to Mr. Lien so it can be clearly marked as a document that was presented to the
City after the November 12, 2013 closed record hearing. Appellants and parties of record may review the
document.
Mayor Earling summarized the Council’s deliberations have been concluded and the Council directed the
attorney to draft Findings and Conclusions.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO USE THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO BEGIN
DELIBERATIONS ON THEIR ACCURACY. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETSO VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Council President Petso and the City have been named in a
lawsuit that used the minutes as their supporting document. She asked whether the transcript of the
meeting and Findings and Conclusions would become part of the record for the lawsuit. Ms. Morris
answered yes.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO STATE THEY WERE
ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 17TH, NOT DECEMBER 3RD.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY REMOVING ITEM I1 FROM PAGE 9.
Council President Petso did not recall the Council making a decision on that item; she recalled the
Council was told not to consider the procedural arguments related to the ADB process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for a further explanation. Council President Petso explained the
draft Findings and Conclusions do not exactly correspond to the motions that were made. The Council did
not make a motion on this item or discuss/deliberate it. In the case of other items, for example the Council
found the lighting appeal should be upheld, the Findings and Conclusions indicate it should be affirmed.
With regard to this item, she did not recall the Council making a finding regarding the ADB process and
therefore would prefer it not be included in the Findings and Conclusions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the information in the Findings and Conclusions is the ADB
voted to approve the design on May 15 and entered a final written decision on August 7. She asked
whether Council President Petso believed that was not part of the Council’s discussion at the hearing.
Council President Petso answered the Council did not discuss the appellant’s claim that ADB adoption of
Findings and Conclusions were post hoc rationalizations or not supported by the transcript of the ADB
meeting. Ms. Morris explained the Council could deliberate on that issue tonight and agree to include it in
Packet Page 8 of 333
the Findings and Conclusions or to remove that item. The Council is not limited to what was discussed
during its last deliberations.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussing the information in I1 in rebuttal to Councilmember
Peterson. She referred to page 39 of the old packet, where she stated her support for Title 20 to allow
citizens to speak for themselves, that as legislators the Council were also quasi-judicial, that it was
important Councilmembers read everything, that citizen volunteers on the ADB were appointed by the
Mayor and needed checks and balances and that she recognized errors were made by the ADB.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the Council had not voted on this issue.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Ms. Morris whether I1 should be deleted or retained, recognizing
the Council discussed it but did not vote on it. Ms. Morris answered if the Council felt I1 reflected its
decision, the Council could vote to include it.
Councilmember Bloom referred to language in I, that similar appeal issues have been grouped together.
She asked whether I1 grouped together numerous issues. Ms. Morris responded numerous issues were
grouped together in the body of the document; she was uncertain how many appellants appealed the issue
identified in I1. The statement Councilmember Bloom referenced refers to the entire document not just I1.
For example, I2 definitely included items group together.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS
AND PETERSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
FRALEY-MONILLAS, JOHNSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DELETE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 18 WHICH READS, THE COUNCIL
DISAGREES WITH THE ASSERTION THAT THE HEIGHT LIMIT WAS INCORRECTLY
MEASURED.
Council President Petso recalled the Council passed a motion determining the ADB’s findings regarding
height were clearly erroneous.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion as he recalled the Council never questioned how the
height was measured.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council did not disagree but questioned how the height was
measured, if the incentive was correct and the fact that it was erroneous. She did not recall the Council
saying it disagreed.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS
AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
MOVED THAT CONCLUSION OF LAW #4 ON PAGE 23 BE CHANGED TO DELETE THE
PHRASE, ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED BUILDING 10 SATISFIED THE CITY’S CODE
HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS
AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DELETE CONCLUSION OF LAW #5 ON PAGE 23 WHICH STATES, THE ADB’S
Packet Page 9 of 333
DECISION RELATING TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND THE
LIGHTING STANDARDS TO BE INSTALLED BY THE APPLICANT IS AFFIRMED.
Council President Petso recalled the Council passed motions finding the determinations regarding lighting
and parking were clearly erroneous.
Councilmember Johnson asked Ms. Morris to explain how she reached this conclusion. Ms. Morris
answered she was unable to articular any explanations due to the pending lawsuit.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS,
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
DELETE CONCLUSION OF LAW #8 ON PAGE 24, THE COUNCIL DENIES ALL OTHER
APPEAL ISSUES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THIS DECISION.
Council President Petso explained the Council’s discussion and vote regarding the number of permitted
units was not reflected in the Findings and Conclusions, therefore she wished to delete Conclusion #8.
Ms. Morris suggested the Council consider whether the density issue should be added before addressing
Conclusion #8 because there were other appeal issues that were not addressed by the Council.
Council President Petso asked whether it was permissible to have an executive session. Ms. Morris
answered not at this time. The Council could vote on the Findings and Conclusions and then have an
executive session.
Ms. Morris reiterated there were other appeal issues other than the density argument that were not
addressed in the Findings and Conclusions; therefore Conclusion #8 is still a true statement. She
recommended a separate motion if Council President Petso wanted the density argument included in the
Findings and Conclusions.
At Council President Petso’s request, Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Rick Gifford, attorney representing Edmonds Pine Street LLC, entered an objection related to
Council President Council President Petso’s request for a brief recess after being advised by counsel she
could not enter into discussions in executive session. Council President Petso then proceeded for several
minutes to effectively speak in executive session with Mayor Earling, City Attorney Jeff Taraday and
Special Counsel Carol Morris. He provided Mr. Lien a summary of objections made on the applicant’s
behalf at the Council’s November 12, 2013 hearing. Mayor Earling relayed his understanding that that
information was submitted to Mr. Lien after the conclusion of the hearing. Therefore it cannot be part of
the record but will be accepted as information outside the record. Mr. Gifford advised those materials
were presented during the course of the proceedings and should not have been precluded at that time. He
agreed to leave that to Ms. Morris’ discretion as she considers the materials. He felt the materials were
presented in a timely manner and only summarized comments made orally during the course of their
objections prior to the commencement of deliberations.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO WITHDREW THE MOTION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
CHANGE CONCLUSION #8 ON PAGE 24 TO READ, THE COUNCIL DENIES ALL OTHER
APPEAL ISSUES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THIS DECISION, EXCEPT DENSITY.
Packet Page 10 of 333
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there was no discussion regarding density in the Findings and
Conclusions. Ms. Morris agreed it was not included; Council President Petso was referring to appeal
issues.
In response to Councilmember Peterson’s request for clarification, Council President Petso recalled the
Council made a motion during prior discussions regarding density due to the zoning code; the density
issue is not addressed in the Findings and Conclusions. The motion reflects that fact. She provided the
wording of the previous motion, determine that the conclusion regarding density demonstrates clear error
because the zoning code specifies lot not site.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested including the Council’s decision regarding density in the
Findings and Conclusions rather than adding “except density” to Conclusion #8. Ms. Morris did not
recommend the Council add anything to the Findings and Conclusions related to density. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked whether Ms. Morris’ recommendation included using the word in Conclusion #8.
Ms. Morris answered yes.
MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES.
Mayor Earling said his conversation with Ms. Morris during the break was to determine whether any
clean-up needed to be done to the Findings and Conclusions. Ms. Morris explained changes need to be
made to the Findings of Fact. For example, the amendments related to the manner in which height was
calculated was clearly erroneous, the number of parking spaces and lighting standards are only reflected
in the Conclusions of Law; the Findings of Fact need to be revised to reflect those changes. She offered to
draft the changes for consideration by the Council later on the agenda.
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas voiced their agreement with Ms. Morris’ suggestion to
draft the changes tonight.
With the agreement of the Council, Mayor Earling continued this item for 45 minutes or more to allow
Ms. Morris to draft the changes.
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON WHETHER TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION
OF "REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE" WITHIN THE CITY'S CRITICAL AREA
REGULATIONS. (FILE # AMD20130009)
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained on July 2, 2013 the City Council passed Interim Ordinance No.
3931 which removed the definition of reasonable economic use from the City’s critical area regulations
and forwarded the issue to the Planning Board for consideration. This is a public hearing on the Planning
Board’s recommendation on the definition of reasonable economic use within the City’s critical area
regulations. To address situations where critical areas and/or buffers cover much of a property and the site
could not meet the City’s critical area regulations, the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) outlines a variance
process to allow reasonable economic use of the property. Prior to adoption of Interim Ordinance No.
3931, the City’s definition for reasonable economic use included specific reference to a single family
residence as a reasonable economic use on property zoned for residential development. The City Attorney
expressed concern with that specific reference and recommended it be deleted. The City Attorney also
recommended reasonable economic use be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board reviewed the issue at their September 25, 2013 meeting and held a
public hearing on November 13, 2013. The Planning Board recommended retaining the first sentence in
the reasonable economic use definition, “Reasonable economic use(s) means the minimum use to which a
property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid
taking and/or violation of substantive due process.” The Planning Board felt retaining the first part of the
Packet Page 11 of 333
definition was useful in providing parameters for those applying for a reasonable use variance and still
allow reasonable economic use to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The draft ordinance reflecting
the Planning Board’s recommendation is included in the packet as Exhibit 7.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested only stating case-by-case basis and omitting the phrase taking
and/or violations. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained anytime someone applies for a reasonable use
variance it will be determined on a case-by-case basis; that does not need to be articulated. The language
also does not need to reference constitutional provisions because that is considered when analyzing a
reasonable economic use variance request. When this issue arose, a brief survey of other jurisdictions
found several do not have such a definition which led to the recommendation to delete the definition in
Edmonds’ code. His recommendation, which differed from the Planning Board’s recommendation, was
not to have any definition and to adopt the interim ordinance as the permanent ordinance. He summarized
the reasonable economic use variance is a complex legal analysis that cannot be distilled into a sentence
in the code.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented reasonable economic use can be subjective. Mr. Taraday agreed,
pointing out a sentence regarding constitutional principles would not narrow the scope of the difference of
opinion and would not assist in confining the legal analysis.
For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Taraday provided his recommendation and the Planning Board’s
recommended paragraph:
• Mr. Taraday’s recommendation: Interim ordinance (packet page 1232), completely delete the
definition of reasonable economic use in its entirety.
• Planning Board recommendation: retains the sentence, “Reasonable economic use(s) means the
minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal
constitutional provisions in order to avoid taking and/or violation of substantive due process.”
Mr. Taraday said it makes little difference whether that sentence is in the code because those issues are
considered when analyzing a reasonable economic use variance. That language does not need to be in the
code for that exercise to occur.
Mayor Earling opened the public testimony portion of the public hearing.
Susan Paine, Edmonds, urged the Council to remove reasonable economic use from the code because it
can be confusing and misleading. If it is retained, she suggested critical areas not be considered as
expendable and that policies allow development in the most restrictive manner possible as critical areas
are very fragile.
Christine Lund, representing Chevron Corporation, relayed Chevron’s concerns about reasonable
economic use of property. In light of other actions the City is considering with regard to shoreline buffers
and downzoning the property Chevron owns, Chevron wants to be on record with their concerns about
reasonable economic use of the property and wants to ensure the language is not diluted.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented there were two viewpoints, first, a person on a board making a
decision and second, a property owner who has held property only to discover the regulations have
changed. He inquired what rules were used to make a determination regarding reasonable economic use,
fearing without rules, the matter would end up in court.
Jordan Shenk, Edmonds, explained the Planning Board meeting included examples of jurisdictions that
do not have a definition as well as jurisdictions that defined reasonable use in a critical area such as Lake
Forest Park. The Planning Board agreed to retain this language to guide applicants in understanding this is
Packet Page 12 of 333
a constitutional rights issue. He agreed it was redundant but would provide direction to an applicant. He
recommended retaining the sentence as recommended by the Planning Board.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3952, WITH THE PLANNING BOARD’S
RECOMMENDATION.
Councilmember Bloom spoke in favor of Mr. Taraday’s recommendation. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas agreed.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Mr. Shenk, pointing out redundancy did no harm and would add
clarity.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON,
YAMAMOTO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION ON ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TO STUDY
WATERFRONT ACCESS ISSUES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 1) EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS, 2) AT GRADE CONFLICTS WHERE MAIN AND DAYTON STREETS
INTERSECT BNSF RAIL LINES, 3) PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESS, AND 4) OPTIONS TO
THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTIMODAL TERMINAL PROJECT (IDENTIFIED AS
MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2) WITHIN THE 2004 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, ETC.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this item on the
December 3, 2013 agenda contained the following wording, “Public Comment and Discussion on the
SR104 Railroad Crossing Alternatives Analysis.” Prior to the December 3 meeting, he met with
Councilmember Bloom and Council President Petso who expressed a desire to have the language more
clearly reflect the purpose of the agenda item. He presented alternate language during the December 3
meeting, “Alternatives Analysis to Study Waterfront Access Issues Including, But Not Limited to, 1)
Emergency Vehicle Access, 2) At Grade Conflicts Where Main and Dayton Streets Intersection BNSF
Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal
Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
Mr. Clifton explained this title more clearly reflects how the $2 million would be used should the State
Legislature appropriate funds. If approved, this language will be incorporated into the 2014-2019 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Bullet 4 under Transportation Revenue Issues in the draft 2014 Legislative
Agenda includes this language.
Councilmember Bloom recalled at the December 3 meeting she asked whether emergency access could be
separated from the alternatives study and Mr. Clifton’s response was that could be done but that was not
the administration’s recommendation. She asked why the administration did not recommend separating
the emergency access from the alternatives study. Mr. Clifton answered all the issues need to be
considered holistically. For example, some Councilmembers have stated the emergency vehicle access
could be located at Point Edwards. As he said on December 3, that is a big presumption because there is
no certainty that it can or should be located at Point Edwards. Wherever an emergency vehicle access is
located, it will need to be at least 28 feet above the existing BNSF rail lines. Locating it at Point Edwards
could have a significant impact on the proposed Edmonds Crossing project as identified in the FEIS. The
alternatives study would also consider minimum build options to the existing Edmonds Crossing project
in the FEIS; identifying a specific location for the emergency the study could have an impact on any
Packet Page 13 of 333
minimum build options the study identifies. He recommended the issues be considered holistically
including the location of emergency vehicle access.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out emergency access is not included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Clifton answered emergency access was to be a part of the Edmonds Crossing project. Since
consideration of that project has been deferred until at least 2030, it will be some time before an
emergency vehicle access will be constructed. Councilmember Bloom asked whether emergency access
was defined in the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Clifton responded it was supposed to be at-grade as
well as over the ramps and climb down the other side. Councilmember Bloom pointed out “climb”
indicated it was not an emergency vehicle access. Mr. Clifton advised emergency vehicle access would be
at grade from the bus turnaround area.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Comprehensive Plan addressed emergency vehicle and
pedestrian access over the railroad tracks. Mr. Clifton answered it addresses pedestrian and bicycle access
but not vehicular. Councilmember Bloom summarized there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that
addressed emergency vehicle access over the railroad crossing or in the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr.
Clifton answered the alternatives study would consider that as part of the other three items.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her interest in emergency access. She asked whether the intent
was to fund all the items together or could the emergency access be funded sooner. Mr. Clifton answered
the $2 million appropriation by the legislature would not fund any construction; it was only to conduct an
alternatives analysis to consider feasibility, location, and how it relates to the other items in the
alternatives analysis.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the proposed alternatives analysis was a package. She asked
whether the funding for construction of items 1-3 would be a package. Mr. Clifton answered there is no
guarantee the alternatives analysis will identify any acceptable alternatives. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas reiterated her concern with the length of time to achieve an emergency access if all the items are
packaged together.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Shell Valley emergency access in the Comprehensive Plan,
recalling that happened right away. She was concerned with tying emergency access to Edmonds
Crossing when that project was not even in the 2040 transportation plan. She preferred to separate
emergency access from the alternatives analysis. Public Works Director Phil Williams said different areas
of the study could be sequenced. If the solution that is identified is long range and expensive,
consideration could be given to interim options for an emergency vehicle while a longer range project is
developed. He recognized the alternatives analysis may determine there is no project other than Edmonds
Crossing that addresses all the issues. Conversely, if a large, long term project is identified, efforts could
continue on that while an interim, smaller project is considered.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the emergency access be a separate study and docket it for the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Williams responded an emergency vehicle access only project may obviate
other solutions that would solve other problems in the future. He noted an emergency vehicle access 28
feet over the railroad tracks with approaches on both sides is huge project, easily $20+ million, and would
take time to develop.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a waterfront emergency vehicle access could be docketed for the
Comprehensive Plan. Interim Development Services Director Rob Chave commented the Downtown Plan
in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan was the first time the Point Edwards idea was included in the
Comprehensive Plan following analysis that identified Point Edwards as the best alternative. The
proposed alternatives analysis would consider the relationship between the items and the best solutions.
Once that analysis is completed, it would be appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He
Packet Page 14 of 333
anticipated a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be fleshed out with information from an alternatives
analysis.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Williams’ rationale for studying all the issues in the alternatives
analysis, explaining her rationale for separating them was the location for an emergency access could be
limited if it were linked with the ferry and railroad at-grade crossing issue. She referred to a citizen’s
email that proposed emergency access at Edmonds Street or Caspers Street. She preferred to separate
emergency access rather than combining it with an enormous study of the at-grade crossing issue to allow
an emergency access project to proceed as soon as possible. Mr. Chave answered that is a potentially
problematic approach; it would be best to look at all alternatives which may include separating
emergency access from Edmonds Crossing. If it is assumed the only and best solution is to separate the
issues, there are potential implications on funding. He explained phasing may be an option with
emergency access done first followed by a larger project. There is some urgency to the study and there
has been some interest in including it in a state transportation package. He feared opportunity could be
lost by focusing narrowly on one particular solution.
Councilmember Bloom feared emergency vehicles being unable to reach someone at the Senior Center or
Anthony’s while the City was focused an enormous, poorly defined study to resolve the ferry and
railroad’s problems. She referred to the emergency access provided for Shell Valley, yet there is no
waterfront emergency access in the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out the City already studied the at-
grade crossing and ferry issues in the Reid Middleton study; the proposal is to study those issues again
and to include emergency vehicle access which she noted should have been done years ago. Mr. Chave
explained Shell Valley was discussed for many years before a solution was arrived at. His concern with a
narrow focus on an emergency access was that would be an extremely expensive project for which it
would be difficult to find grant funding. There may be other short-term alternatives to provide emergency
services such as parking an aid car on the other side; those should be part of the study.
Councilmember Bloom summarized her main concern was time. She questioned the $20 million estimate
for an overpass when the Vancouver land-bridge, a beautiful work of art, cost $12.25 million in 2010. She
preferred to focus on emergency vehicle access rather than delaying it by trying to resolve the ferry and
railroad’s issues.
Council President Petso suggested an alternative to separating emergency vehicle access from the other
three items and studying it first is to break out Item 4, the multimodal terminal alternatives study. Several
emails she received over the past week indicated in a project related to WSDOT, WSDOT could take it
over at any time. She suggested the alternatives analysis focus on the Edmonds-centric issues and not
issues related to the ferries and SR104. Another alternative would be for the Council to vote separately on
the inclusion of each of the four items in the alternatives analysis.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was fortunate no major things had occurred on the
waterfront but assumed it eventually would occur. She recognized the connection between the issues, but
emergency access is a life and death issue. She supported separating the emergency access to get attention
and funding for it; citizens plan to talk to legislators about this issue. She anticipated a uniform approach
would increase the changes of obtaining funding for both projects and feared combining all the issues
would result in nothing occurring soon enough.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out the project needs to appeal to a majority of the legislature who are
already struggling to develop a basic transportation package. He agreed emergency access was a priority
but to obtain funding, the study needs to be global. If the City had its own funding, the study could be
Edmonds-centric although he recognized a study of only an emergency overpass would not be
inexpensive. Transportation is never about one city; it is about a connection of state highways. If the
legislature does not providing funding for the study, the scope does not matter. He agreed with having a
Packet Page 15 of 333
consultant focus on public safety but said that did not mean everything else should be ignored. If the other
issues are ignored, he doubted the legislature would appropriate funds for the study.
Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Councilmember Peterson. This is a business decision; the City
does not have the money to fund a separate study. He supported an emergency access but it needed to be
considered along with other issues to attract funding. Without funding for the study, nothing would be
done.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is not about what the legislature will/will not fund. In
her discussions with the legislature, they are concerned about emergency access and it is a priority to both
House and Senate members.
Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment.
Debbie Matteson, Edmonds, a realtor who lives on the west side of the tracks, said she lost business
when the tracks were blocked for four hours a few weeks ago. There were also people at the Senior
Center who were nervous and afraid because they were unable to leave. She encouraged the Council to
explore alternatives.
Susan Paine, Edmonds, spoke in favor of a separate emergency vehicle access, pointing out emergency
access is needed regardless of what the state does to address other issues. She recommended an overpass
rather than underpass due to the environmental damage a tunnel would cause. She recommended the
scope of the study be as comprehensive as possible but prioritize emergency vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle access.
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, speaking as a citizen, asked the Council to support the SR104 Railroad
Crossing Alternatives Analysis. Edmonds needs a permanent, comprehensive solution to unimpeded
access to the east and west side of the railroad tracks to resolve all problems. In addition to emergency
access, other issues include pedestrians, bicycles and ferry travelers. An independent analysis of the
problems will provide new ideas/innovations and a multi-faceted resolution to all the issues.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, compared the number of people in the audience to the number that could be
at the Senior Center or restaurants during a blockage of the train tracks. He asserted staff was carrying the
Mayor’s message to do it his way, not the Council’s way which made public safety a priority. He
expressed concern Mayor Earling wanted a ditch for the ferry terminal and was not concerned with public
safety. An emergency overpass could accommodate emergency vehicles as well as pedestrians and
bicycles. He asserted Edmonds Crossing never had an emergency access.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, expressed support for the $2 million for the alternatives analysis as
identified on page 6 of the CIP. If the legislature passes a transportation package and the $2 million is not
in the CIP, Edmonds has no chance of securing funding for an alternatives analysis. A small project has
less chance of being funded and no money has been appropriated in the City’s budget to fund such a
study. He agreed with Councilmember Peterson’s comments regarding a broader study to generate
support for state funding. All available alternatives to resolve conflicts should be explored. Three
directors recommend this alternatives study, taking into consideration the Council’s comments about
phasing. An alternatives study would include broad-based community input which increases community
buy-in for the ultimate plan. Some who have criticized staff for presenting limited alternatives now seek
to limit the study. A thorough, credible analysis process is required; he urged the Council to support the
$2 million funding request for such a study.
Mike Schindler, Edmonds, disagreed with Mr. Hertrich’s assertion that anyone put transportation issues
over public safety. He urged the Council to look at the whole problem because everything has a cause and
Packet Page 16 of 333
effect. He compared it to a doctor diagnosing a patient without doing an overall physical and missing
something else. He feared building an emergency access in the wrong location could impact future
decisions. He anticipated the study would provide options and the solution could be phased with
emergency access in phase one.
Councilmember Bloom read an email from Peter Gibson, Edmonds, in which he recommended the
emergency vehicle access at the waterfront be high on the City’s list of priorities. A 20 year resident of
Edmonds, he has been stranded on the other side of the tracks a handful of times, usually due to a
mechanical issue with a train that blocked both crossings. He envisioned a stalled train or a very long
train could delay patient care to people living or visiting the waterfront. With the possibility of more
freight and commuter trains in the future, he recommended the City pursue an emergency access; noting it
should have been done yesterday.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked staff to draft wording prioritizing emergency access.
Based on public comment, Council President Petso suggested instead of pulling Item 1, pulling Item 4
from the study and discussing it at the 2014 Council retreat. If WSDOT could take over a project, broad-
based community input would not have any impact.
Finance Director Roger Neumaier commented at Snohomish County he was more involved in financial
discussions than he has been in Edmonds because with expensive projects, the County’s the focus was on
money as well as the project. Although he concurred emergency access was critical, he did not anticipate
the City could afford $10-$12 million for an emergency access in the near future. The challenge was not
whether an emergency access was needed, it was realistically identifying funding for it as well as funds
for a planning study. He recalled former Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson secured much
of the County’s road and public safety funding by building a coalition. He agreed with prioritizing
emergency access, recognizing it may be difficult in this legislative climate to be successful in obtaining
funds for an Edmonds-centric project. He suggested he Council’s discussion include the fiscal reality.
Mayor Earling advised further discussion would occur as part of Agenda Item 9. He declared a brief
recess.
Continued Item
6. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S
DESIGN APPROVAL OF POINT EDWARDS' BUILDING 10 TO BE LOCATED AT 50 PINE
STREET UNDER FILE PLN20130022. APPEAL NUMBERS APL20130005 - APL20130008
Special Council Carol Morris explained staff will describe the changes made to the Finding and
Conclusions document, but there will be no explanations. Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the
changes:
• Finding G, page 8, the sentence, “The proposed building height elevation of 191.02 is 40 feet
above the average grade elevation of 151.0220.” was deleted.
Ms. Morris advised this was in response to the Council’s motion to remove the phrase, although the
proposed building 10 satisfied the city’s code height requirements, in Conclusion of Law on page 23, and
that the height limit was incorrectly calculated.
• Finding I1, page 9, was deleted in its entirety.
• Page 13, insert the following phrase at the beginning of the first paragraph, “Using the erroneous
height calculation methodology,”
Packet Page 17 of 333
• Page 18, delete the sentence, “The Council disagrees with the assertion that the height limit was
incorrectly measured.” Also delete “However” at the beginning of the next paragraph.
• Pages 18-20, delete Item 5 in its entirety.
• Page 20, Item 6, 1st paragraph, insert “parking, lighting,” so that it reads, “Whether the ADB’s
Final Decision is clearly erroneous on the issue of compliance with applicable design review
criteria, codes and comprehensive plan elements/policies, regarding parking, lighting,
landscaping, buffers and privacy.”
• Page 20, Item 6, 2nd paragraph, insert “parking, lighting,” so that it reads, “Appellants have
appealed the ADB’s decision on parking, lighting, landscaping, buffers and privacy, based on:…”
• Page 23, Item 4, 2nd sentence, delete the phrase, “Although the proposed Building 10 satisfied the
City’s code height requirements,”
• Page 23, Item 4, insert sentence at the end of paragraph that reads, “Building height should have
been calculated as required in the Master Plan on AR p. 0240.”
• Page 23, Item 5, delete in its entirety.
• Page 23, Item 6, insert “Parking, lighting,” so that it reads, “The ADB’s decision with regard to
parking, lighting, landscaping was clearly…”
• Page 24, Item 8, delete 1st sentence and insert “The City Council’s decision is based on the
finding of facts and conclusions set forth herein and the Council does not decide any remaining
appeal issues.”
Council President Petso asked whether the changes to the building height language incorporate the
question whether there was sufficient modulation to obtain five feet. Ms. Morris said the Council did not
make any finding or changes related to that issue and asked whether the Council wished to make a finding
on that issue. Council President Petso said she was reviewing the Council’s decision and items related to
building height to determine whether they were reflected in the revised findings. Ms. Morris advised the
Council did not direct any changes with regard to the modulation issue. Mr. Lien referred to Item 4 on
page 16 that addresses height and modulated roof design.
Council President Petso asked about the change that referenced a page in the record. Mr. Lien answered
that was a reference to the Master Plan and that height rectangles shall be calculated separately for each
portion of the building.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not recall the Council’s requesting removal of Item 5. Ms. Morris
explained the Council asked that the Conclusion of Law be removed that stated the ADB’s decision
relating to the required number of parking spaces and lighting standards to be installed by the applicant is
affirmed. Section 5 has the guidelines and the ADB’s decision and the Council’s finding in Section 5 is
that the ADB’s decision is affirmed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Council President Petso to
describe the reason for removing that item. Council President Petso said she did not want to remove Item
5, she wanted the finding to reflect what she thought the Council decided. She suggested the Council’s
Finding regarding that item on page 20 be changed rather than deleting the entire item. She explained the
issue was problems with parking and lighting; the Conclusion of Law appeared to indicate the Council
did not have a problem with parking and lighting. Ms. Morris advised parking is addressed in Item 6.
Councilmember Buckshnis responded Item 5 addressed specific items such as illumination spill and other
items that are not captured in Item 6. She preferred to include Item 5.
Ms. Morris asked what finding Councilmember Buckshnis would like to make with regard to lighting and
parking, explaining the finding in Item 5 is inconsistent with the Council’s decision that the ADB’s
decision should be affirmed. Councilmember Buckshnis said the issue with parking was it was initially
underground and there was now a large parking lot, new lighting, questionable off-street parking, cobra
lights, and illumination on all the time. Those issues were not addressed in Item 6. Ms. Morris advised
those items could not be discussed in open session. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested amending to
Packet Page 18 of 333
reverse the ADB’s decision that affirmed parking and lighting. Ms. Morris said that was done in Item 6
on pages 20-21.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained there are specifics in Item 5 that are not addressed in Item 6 such as
minimize potential for light to reflect or spill offsite or lights will be directed downward. Ms. Morris
explained those issues could be addressed through conditions. There was enough in the decision to
support the Council’s reversal of the ADB’s decision without getting into specifics.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1309, THE REVISED FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. Although he agreed it reflected what transpired, he
did not agree with the conclusion that was made.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON, AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE 2014-2019 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Mayor Earling opened the public comment. There were no comments from the audience.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton provided proposed language:
Alternatives Analysis to Study, 1) Waterfront Access Issues Emphasizing Near Term Solutions to
Providing Emergency Services Access, Also Including, But Not Limited to, 2) At Grade Conflicts
Where Main and Dayton Streets Intersection BNSF Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and
4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified
Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the use of the word “prioritizing.” Mr. Clifton suggested adding
“and prioritizing” following “emphasizing.” Mr. Clifton explained “emergency vehicles” was changed to
“emergency services” to include all emergency services.
Councilmember Bloom suggested “emergency access” may be more likely to include pedestrian
emergency access. She requested “emergency services access” be changed to “emergency access.”
Council President Petso requested the Council delete Item 4. Mr. Clifton relayed David Mosley’s,
Director, Washington State Ferries, support for conducting an alternatives analysis. Council President
Petso explained her concern was not WSF’s support; it was inconsistent with the plan for the past 20
years to move the ferry to Point Edwards, the 4 Nos, etc. She preferred to remove Item 4 from the
alternatives analysis and discuss at the Council retreat whether there was interest in alternatives to the
existing plan.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested retaining Item 4 and removing the words, “options to the.”
Mr. Clifton explained without the words, “options to the,” the alternatives analysis would not apply to
Item 4.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council vote on each item. She agreed with considering all
transportation issues as long as emergency access was prioritized.
Packet Page 19 of 333
Councilmember Bloom asked staff to describe what an option to the Edmonds Crossing multimodal
project would be. Mr. Clifton answered the FEIS includes modified alternative #2 (Point Edwards); with
the economy downturn in 2008, WSF did not anticipate funding for the project until at least 2030. He
emailed the Council in 2008 about discussions with WSF regarding minimum build options. An option
could be a scaled back version that did not include multimodal components at the existing location, other
locations along the waterfront, and other options.
In response to a public comment that he was driving staff’s conclusions, Mayor Earling explained
professionals developed this as the best way to solve the problem. He was affronted with the demeaning
comments made about staff including the assertion tonight that they were simply his shill which is simply
not the case. Every effort has been made in the modified language to include study of an emergency
overpass. He pointed out narrowing the project also narrows the ability to obtain funding for it from the
state and other regional sources. A project that has limited appeal outside Edmonds will not score well at
the local, state or federal level. He was open to all alternatives and found the modified language
acceptable.
Council President Petso pointed out the concern about WSDOT taking over a project goes away if Item 4
is eliminated. The first three items do not directly reference SR104 or the ferry system. Mr. Williams
referenced emails regarding WSDOT’s role in projects that affect state routes that are initiated by local
agency. He explained that was quite common and agreed WSDOT could assert their statutory authority
and take over a project. WSDOT could also initiate a project. A local agency can initiate a project, go
through the planning phase, assemble political support for funding and do the environmental work until a
large project reaches design and construction. Such a project often exceeds a city’s capacity and it makes
sense for WSDOT to take over at that point. It is preferable for the local agency to have as much input in
a project; the best way is to initiate, plan, and reach local consensus on a project. WSDOT has shown
willingness in the past to accept local agencies’ decisions.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
VOTE ON THE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
JOHNSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY MR. CLIFTON FOR ITEM 1
(ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TO STUDY WATERFRONT ACCESS ISSUES EMPHASIZING
AND PRIORITIZING NEAR TERM SOLUTIONS TO PROVIDING EMERGENCY ACCESS).
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO INCLUDE ITEM 2 WHICH READS, “ALSO INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 2) AT
GRADE CONFLICTS WHERE MAIN AND DAYTON STREETS INTERSECTION BNSF RAIL
LINES.”
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE “CONFLICTS” TO “SAFETY ISSUES.”
Councilmember Peterson pointed out safety is addressed in Item 1. Further, there are many conflicts in
addition to safety such as traffic, lost business, etc. Councilmember Bloom pointed out conflicts related to
the railroad and ferry are addressed in Item 4, options to the Edmonds Crossing multimodal terminal.
There are safety issues that would not be addressed by emergency access over the tracks such as safety
issues at the crossing itself. The description of the study does not include the safety of the railroad
crossing. Councilmember Peterson agreed there were safety conflicts at Main and Dayton, but there are
other conflicts such as beach access, etc. The word “conflicts” covers everything. Mr. Clifton explained
BNSF has plans for a second track. Intersection improvements related to the second track have not been
completed designed; at grade conflicts need to be considered at both intersections. There are also quiet
Packet Page 20 of 333
zone issues at those intersections; a quiet zone may require 4-quadrant gates at each intersection. He
summarized conflicts were much broader than safety.
Council President Petso asked whether the amendment would preclude analysis of a quiet zone. Mr.
Clifton answered no.
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETSO VOTING YES.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO INCLUDE ITEM 3, PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO INCLUDE ITEM 4, OPTIONS TO THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTIMODAL TERMINAL
PROJECT (IDENTIFIED AS MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2) WITHIN THE 2004 FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
Councilmember Bloom did not support the motion for the reasons Council President Petso described and
the alternatives have not been clearly defined and are too vague. She preferred to have staff return with a
more clearly defined study.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Clifton advised the intent of Item 4 was to define the best
project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the public and Council will have input into locations,
etc. Mr. Clifton answered once the Request for Qualifications is completed, a scoping meeting open to the
public will be conducted.
Council President Petso reiterated concerns she has received via email regarding taking the money and
being required to proceed with the project; she used the roundabout as an example. She noted although
public comment can be provided, when the public expressed their displeasure with the Bremerton project,
the state took it over. She preferred to keep the existing policy of moving the ferry to Point Edwards in
place, take public comment over the next year and not seek grant funds until “such time as we dare.”
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the comment that the City obtained the grant for the
Five Corners roundabout and not everyone was on board; she assured everyone was on board.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her concerns with including a study that will consider alternatives such as
leaving the ferry in its current location or a tunnel, because WSDOT can take over the project.
Alternatives were studied in the Reid Middleton Study and Point Edwards was identified as the preferred
alternative. WSDOT took over a project in Bremerton and she feared that could happen in Edmonds.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out WSDOT can do whatever they want on any state route. She
asked whether the language “options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project” disqualified
Point Edwards. Mr. Clifton answered no, the FEIS will remain although it likely will need to be updated
in the future. Item 4 allows other options to be considered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the
alternatives could be to move the terminal, keep it in its current location, scale back the project, etc.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO
VOTING NO.
Packet Page 21 of 333
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the public meeting tomorrow regarding the Sunset Walkway
Project. She asked whether that project could be changed in the future. City Engineer Rob English
answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE 2014-2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Council President Petso asked for clarification that the CIP will include the updated language the Council
just approved. Councilmember Buckshnis advised that was the intent of her motion.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her concern with a $5 million public market on the downtown
waterfront. She asked how the $5 million estimate was determined. Mr. Clifton relayed Parks &
Recreation Director Carrie Hite’s indication it was a placeholder for an indoor/outdoor year-round public
market. The estimate assumes a building would be acquired, infrastructure installed, as well as land for
parking and an outdoor market. Councilmember Johnson was opposed to the $5 million placeholder
concept without any study.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE $5 MILLION ESTIMATED PROJECT COST OF
THE PUBLIC MARKET DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PROJECT TO UNKNOWN.
Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained the CIP is a transparent document that shares with the
community projects the City is considering; funding estimates are a critical element. Approval of the CIP
does not approve any budgetary appropriations.
Councilmember Johnson referred to a $30,000 estimate for a Cultural Arts Needs Study. She preferred a
needs study rather than a $5 million placeholder. Mr. Neumaier suggested the estimated cost be reduced
and preliminary added to the language.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the estimated cost for other projects in the CIP was
identified as unknown. Mr. Neumaier answered no.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
FOR THE PUBLIC MARKET TO $500,000.
Council President Petso referred to Mr. Neumaier’s indication that there was greater transparency if the
estimated project cost was more representative. If the CIP pretended it could be done for $500,000 and
the eventual cost was $5 million, the City could be accused of lack of realism or deceptiveness.
Conversely if the project estimate is listed as $5 million and it only costs $250,000 the City will be
accused of being incredibly brilliant.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the CIP can be revised. The Council needs to rely on professional
staff; if staff developed a $5 million project estimate, she would support it.
Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with the placeholder concept. She recalled there were many
placeholder projects in the past, all with a $5 million amount. The public market began as a
Comprehensive Plan concept/policy; $5 million is a tremendous amount of public investment. There are
current two successful public markets in the City, one in the street by the museum and the other in the
Salish Crossing parking lot, neither cost $5 million. She preferred to have a more realistic project cost; $5
Packet Page 22 of 333
million for a public market was out of scale and was more than the purchase price of the entire Salish
Crossing site
MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING YES.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. CITY OF EDMONDS DRAFT 2014 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY
Government Relations Contractor Mike Doubleday reviewed top priorities in the City’s 2014 Legislative
Agenda:
• Transportation Revenue Package
o Support a transportation revenue package with the following elements for Edmonds:
1. Funding for the Edmonds Gateway project (Hwy 99 Corridor)
2. Funding for the Sunset Avenue project
3. Local options for cities including raising the transportation benefit district (TBD) rate
from $20 to $40 by Council approval
4. Alternatives Analysis to study waterfront access issues including, but not limited to, 1)
emergency vehicle access, 2) at grade conflicts where Main and Dayton Streets intersect
BNSF rail lines, 3) pedestrian/bicycle access, and 4) options to the Edmonds Crossing
Multimodal Terminal project (identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final
Environmental Impact Statement, etc.
This item will be amended in accordance with the Council’s direction
5. Advocate and fund key Safe and Healthy Communities, including safe routes to schools,
bicycle and pedestrian grants, and Complete Streets program
• Coal Trains
o Monitor any legislation relating to the movement of coal along the BNSF rail lines passing
through the City of Edmonds
• State-Shared Funding
o Work to achieve these state funding issues:
1. Restore Public Works Trust Fund monies diverted into the 2013-15 state general fund
(operating budget)
2. Restore local liquor revenue sharing to the historic revenue sharing formulas (help fund
public safety and other local impacts of liquor consumption).
3. Ensure continued appropriation of committed state share funds such as municipal
criminal justice account funding, the annexation sales tax credit, and public health
funding
• Marijuana Legalization Revenues
o Share a portion of the anticipated marijuana revenue collected with cities to help offset local
impacts. Harmonize medical marijuana regulations to reflect legalization and state regulation
of recreational marijuana. Oppose any pre-emption of local authority over traditional land
use, licensing, local taxes and fees, and other regulatory functions regarding marijuana
production or distribution.
• Extension of Public Facilities District (PFD) Sales and Use Tax Credit
o Seek to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) 15 years from 2027 to 2042
Mr. Doubleday reviewed support/monitor items on the 2014 Legislative Agenda:
• Public Records Requests
o Work with other local jurisdictions to pursue further funding for mediation of the public
records cost recovery issue.
• Fish Consumption Rulemaking and Legislation
Packet Page 23 of 333
o Monitor the Department of Ecology’s rulemaking and any subsequent legislation regarding
fish consumption and water quality standards with an emphasis on costs to comply with new
standards
Council President Petso asked whether this was as expensive as she has heard it will be. Mr. Doubleday
explained this is related the state’s establishment of their water-quality formula. The state has established
a 6.5 grams/day fish consumption rate; the federal EPA has determined that is too low. The State of
Oregon established a rate of 175 grams/day/person.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email she forwarded Mr. Doubleday from WRIA 8 related to
the Clean Water Act. She suggested Mr. Doubleday include the one related to Edmonds.
Mr. Doubleday continued his review of support/monitor issues:
• Protect WWRP funding in 2014 Capital Budget
• Support Department of Revenue (DOR) request legislation on “Amusement and Recreation
Services” sales taxes
• Support Issues for WRPA:
o Protect funding for dedicated accounts within the Capital Budget
o Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) – Monitor efforts to bring consistency between the first and
second quarter-percent REET, giving cities more financial tools to fund infrastructure and
acquisition
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE MIKE DOUBLEDAY’S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling recognized the superb job Mr. Doubleday does for the City, commenting local legislators
have a great deal of confidence in him.
11. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON POTENTIAL SALE OF SURPLUS CITY
PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 184TH STREET SW AND 80TH
AVENUE W (TAX PARCEL NUMBER 00370800101200)
This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 2.
12. UTILITY TAX RATE RENEWAL ORDINANCE
Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained this is related to the utility tax charged on electricity and
does not affect any other utilities. The current rate which has been in place many years sunsets at the end
of 2013 and drops to 5.25%. This was not anticipated in the 2014 budget and would impact revenues by
$186,000. The proposed ordinance removes the sunset language and continues the utility tax charged
during prior decades.
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3953, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3.20.050 OCCUPATIONS SUBJECT TO TAX –
AMOUNTS, RELATING TO UTILITY TAX RATES FOR PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICTS IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN SUCH RATES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. 2013 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT
Finance Director Roger Neumaier advised this was reviewed at length by the Finance Committee.
Packet Page 24 of 333
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
APPROVE THE 2013 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE. THE
CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO
UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE
GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY
AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE
SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET
SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE
EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS
WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND
ASSOCIATED WETLANDS
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the last time the Council discussed the SMP, the Council requested
options. Tonight he is seeking guidance from the Council regarding the options before they are
incorporated into the SMP. The goal is to incorporate the Council’s suggestions into the SMP and return
to the Council for a public hearing and final approval to send the SMP to Department of Ecology (DOE).
He reviewed a potential Urban Mixed Use IV (Exhibit 16, Attachment A):
• Create a new shoreline environment for Harbor Square without residential uses.
• Update 24.40.080 (Shoreline Development Table) and 24.40.090 (Bulk and Dimensional
Standards)
Mr. Lien reviewed potential incentives for residential development:
• Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and
pedestrian routes.
• Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh form SR 104.
• Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain
gardens to reduce undesirable run-off.
• Incorporate into individual building and overall site development both low energy and low water
consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint.
• Contribute to day-lighting Willow Creek and improving the site’s ecological value.
• Provide improved natural vegetated buffers to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh
He referred to the use table in 24.40.080, attachment A to the staff memo, and described how the
residential incentives would be applied. For example, residential development would be allowed if some
of the incentives were provided.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many incentives and the dollar amount. Mr. Lien answered the
dollar amount would be subjective. There are six potential incentives; a requirement for three could be
incorporated into the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the varied cost/complexity
of the incentives, anticipating a developer would be choose the easiest.
Councilmember Johnson recalled an earlier discussion that some LID techniques would not be feasible
due to the high water table. Mr. Lien answered LID techniques such as imperious surface or rain gardens
may be difficult at the Harbor Square site; studies have indicated the water table across the street is five
feet below the surface. Other LID techniques such as green roofs may be feasible.
Councilmember Johnson recalled previous discussions about appropriate types of residential uses such as
live/work units. She asked whether that would be part of an incentive program. Mr. Lien answered it
could be.
Packet Page 25 of 333
Councilmember Buckshnis recall the Friends of Marsh supported residential due to stormwater issues.
She suggested including stormwater incentives. Mr. Lien responded any new development must comply
with the City’s stormwater regulations; that was not an incentive. His approach to incentives was tying
them to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMP as well as the Council’s interest in
environmental stewardship of the marsh.
Council President Petso was not interested in residential incentives and preferred the Urban Mixed Use
IV environment. Mr. Lien advised the residential incentives could be applied to Urban Mixed Use IV.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether these could be requirements instead of incentives. Mr.
Lien answered they are termed incentives but they actually are requirements for residential development.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there should be a nexus between a development condition and the
impact the development has; that is what distinguishes incentive zoning from a typical development
regulation. In many development regulations, there is a direct nexus between the impact and the
requirement; those withstand constitutional scrutiny and there is no tradeoff like in incentive zoning. In
incentive zoning, for example no incentives would be required for commercial; residential development
would require incentives.
Mr. Lien explained the SMP as recommended by the Planning Board includes a 50-foot setback from the
edge of the marsh. Council requested staff provide options for setbacks and buffers. He reviewed three
potential options:
• Option 1: 50 foot setback as recommended by the Planning Board with a 45% maximum
structural coverage
Mr. Lien explained the City’s multi-family zones have a 45% maximum coverage.
Council President Petso observed the building would have a 45% maximum coverage; the remainder of
the site could be paved for parking. Mr. Lien agreed there was no limitation proposed on imperious
surface.
• Option 2: 100 foot setback, 50 foot vegetative buffer with redevelopment
For Councilmember Bloom Mr. Lien explained in this option the 100 feet is a structural setback; the 50
foot vegetative buffer is within the 100 foot setback. Different setbacks can be established for different
uses; buildings could have a 100 foot setback, roads and parking could have a 50-foot setback.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
• Option 3: 150 foot setback
Mr. Lien explained the buffer from a Category 1 wetland, such as the Edmonds Marsh, is 150 feet.
Establishing a 150 setback did not establish a 150 buffer because the area is developed. A 50 foot setback
requirement with a coverage limitation would allow some development which may result in some
enhancement to the marsh. He was concerned a 150 setback would result in continuation of the existing
conditions and no improvements to the marsh.
Councilmember Bloom suggested a 50 foot buffer enhancement along with the 150 foot setback. Mr. Lien
agreed any combination of the options was possible. He pointed out a 150 foot setback did not provide
any incentive for redevelopment or establishment of a 50 foot buffer. He noted this would only apply to
the shoreline jurisdiction; the regulations do not apply outside the shoreline jurisdiction.
Packet Page 26 of 333
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated in 100 years citizens would be more interested in the marsh, not
development. She referred to WRIA8 funding opportunities, expressing concern with the implication that
restoration will only occur with redevelopment. She referred to a project on the lower Cedar River that
included removal of 30 mobile homes and relocation of the residents to restore the area. She wanted to be
known for restoring the marsh, not for development. When WRIA8 allocates funds, they look at the
buffers. She concluded there was a lot of funding available for salmon recovery.
Mr. Lien relayed another option proposed by DOE:
• Establish an interim designation for Harbor Square
• Allow the City more time without holding up finalization of the SMP update
• Would require an SMP amendment in the future
David Pater, Shoreline Planner, DOE, explained Everett did something similar with their marshland
area in the southeastern portion of the city ten years ago as part of a legal settlement agreement. Everett
developed a subarea plan about four years ago including a restoration plan and a permanent environment
designation. Establishing an interim designation for Harbor Square would allow the SMP to proceed and
provide time to address issues in Harbor Square. Everett’s designation was Urban Conservancy
Agricultural Interim; existing uses were allowed to continue. Edmonds may be able to take a similar
approach to Harbor Square.
Councilmember Bloom asked what the zoning for Harbor Square would be in the interim. Mr. Pater
answered it could be Mixed Use IV to reflect existing uses or one of the options could be incorporated
into the interim designation. The goal is to develop a permanent designation within a few years. An
interim designation would allow the City and Port time to agree on a plan for redevelopment, reestablish a
functioning buffer, improve water quality via incentives, etc. rather than being rushed by the SMP
process.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether buffers could be established and no residential allowed as an
interim designation. Mr. Pater answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked how long the interim
designation could be in place. Mr. Pater answered Everett’s was in place longer than hoped.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether it would be preferable for the interim regulations to be more
restrictive. Mr. Pater answered not necessarily; he suggested the interim designation reflect ongoing uses
and what the City perceives will happen in the interim.
Council President Petso was unclear why an interim designation was needed and asked if the SMP could
be amended in the future if a plan were developed for Harbor Square. Mr. Pater agreed that could be
done. Council President Petso asked the purpose of an interim designation. Mr. Pater answered it
recognized the separate process for this part of the shoreline that could not be resolved in a reasonable
time and to allow the SMP to be adopted by the Council and approved by DOE.
Mr. Lien explained an interim designation was simply an option. If the Council wanted to proceed with
one of the other options, an interim designation was not necessary.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the only reason she will support an interim designation is she
anticipates WRIA 8’s plans and funding will gel within five years.
Councilmember Peterson referenced the progress WRIA 8 has made in securing funding and moving the
marsh up in priority. The exercise with the Port provided direction regarding what the Council did not
want but not what they wanted. Most everyone agrees the existing development is not desirable in the
long run. He liked the interim designation option, anticipating there will be future opportunities such as
new building techniques, understanding the impacts and how to improve impacts on a sensitive area such
Packet Page 27 of 333
as the marsh. He anticipated working together DOE, the Port, WRIA 8, Friends of the Marsh, and the City
could develop a plan and establish the marsh as a world class waterway. He also anticipated more
creativity in the future with regard to stormwater such as funding resources, treatment techniques, etc.;
pausing the process will allow the City to take advantage of changes that will occur in the next few years.
Councilmember Johnson commented the northern edge of the marsh is contained by a dike. She asked
whether changes to the dike were anticipated that could change or improve the northern edge of the
marsh. Mr. Lien answered that could be part of the discussion in the future with an interim designation.
He described the historic boundaries of the marsh, explaining it was filled over the years; the edge of the
marsh is marked by the edge of the fill. Enhancements to the marsh, daylighting Willow Creek and
removing the tide gate will return the marsh to an estuary rather than a freshwater marsh. The marsh’s
shoreline of the state designation ends at the saltwater boundary. The boundaries established by historic
fill will not change; all the historic fill would need to be removed for those boundaries to change. He did
not anticipate any changes would occur on the Unocal side of the marsh.
Councilmember Johnson observed setbacks referred to the built environment. Mr. Lien agreed, setbacks,
buffers and shoreline jurisdiction are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Enhancement will
not change the edge of the marsh, only the makeup of the marsh.
Mr. Lien asked for Council guidance/consensus to direct final changes to the SMP regarding:
• Buffers/setbacks
• Interim Shoreline Designation
• Urban Mixed Use IV
Councilmember Bloom expressed support for a 150 feet setback with a 50 foot vegetative buffer and the
Mixed Use IV shoreline environment that does not include residential.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDES A NEW URBAN MIXED USE IV WITH NO RESIDENTIAL, A
150 FOOT SETBACK AND A 50 VEGETATED BUFFER.
Councilmember Peterson asked if this was on an interim basis. Council President Petso answered that was
not her intent. Councilmember Peterson said he would not support the motion because it was too
restrictive, would not result in needed improvements and would stifle any creative thinking. He agreed a
50 foot vegetative setback was fantastic if it was not already on top of an asphalt parking lot.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out when staff returned with the final language, the Council could decide
whether to make it interim or permanent. Mr. Lien requested the Council indicate whether this was
intended to be an interim designation because that needed to be described in the SMP.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THIS BE AN INTERIM ORDINANCE. UPON
ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, YAMAMOTO, AND BUCKSHNIS
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the main motion as he felt the very restrictive standard would
defeat the purpose.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING
YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
Packet Page 28 of 333
Mr. Lien summarized the Council’s direction: a new, interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment
that applies to Harbor Square. He will incorporate the changes into the SMP document and bring the SMP
to the City Council for a public hearing and approval to submit to Ecology.
Council President Petso asked what would be done on the other side of the marsh, whether this
environment applied to that area as well. Mr. Lien answered no. On the assumption that funding
opportunities would require 150 feet on both sides of the marsh, Council President Petso asked what
should be done on the other side. Mr. Lien advised both sides of the marsh could be included in the new,
interim designation.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO INCLUDE BOTH SIDES OF THE MARSH IN THE NEW, INTERIM
DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND
YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
15. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 10, 2013
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported most of the items discussed by the committee items were either
approved on the Consent Agenda or on tonight’s agenda. The only outstanding item is the Interlocal
Agreement clarification between the City and EPFD.
Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Johnson reported on items discussed by the committee:
• Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and proposed rezone for Unocal lower
yard – no action
• Authorization for Mayor to sign professional services agreements with KPG for the 15th St. SW
Walkway, 236th St. SW Walkway, and 238th St. SW Walkway projects – schedule on a future
agenda for discussion
• Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Storm Drainage Easement
Transfer and Access Easement Grant Agreement for 1142 Vista Place –Consent Agenda
• Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer Agreement
for 645 9th Avenue North – scheduled for further discussion at the January PPP Committee
meeting.
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported on items discussed by the committee:
• Renewal of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School
District for football game security – Consent Agenda
• Supplemental Agreement (2) to the Services Agreement with Cellmark Forensics, Inc. for DNA
Testing – Consent Agenda
• Human Resources Assistant (part-time) Job Description – Consent Agenda
16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling expressed to Councilmember Yamamoto how much he enjoyed having the opportunity to
work with him during the last two years including his no nonsense, business, let’s get something done
approach.
Mayor Earling referred to a letter from Eric Laschever, K&L Gates regarding the Port’s position on
setbacks. Mayor Earling wished the Council and citizens a happy and joyous holiday.
Packet Page 29 of 333
17. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Petso reported on the Council vacancy appointment process. The vacancy will be
advertised soon; she invited Councilmembers to contact her with any comments/concerns.
Councilmember Peterson told Councilmember Yamamoto he will be missed. He thanked him for
everything he has done as a City Councilmember and a business owner active in the community as well as
his volunteer activities. He applauded Councilmember Yamamoto’s sense of humor, professionalism, and
respect for staff, citizens and fellow Councilmembers. He encouraged the public to apply for the vacancy.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wished Councilmember Yamamoto well in his future endeavors. She
wished the public a happy holiday and a lovey new year, advising the next Council meeting is January 7.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmember Yamamoto for his service. She thanked Council
President Petso for her hard work and leadership as Council President. She wished everyone happy
holidays.
Councilmember Johnson thanked Councilmember Yamamoto for his service and said she enjoyed
working with him on the Council. She recognized Councilmember Yamamoto for helping her adjust
when she was appointed. She also appreciated Councilmember Yamamoto’s leadership on the EDC.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Yamamoto for his work on the Finance Committee
and the EDC. She wished everyone happy holidays.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented this is goodbye but he will be around. He thanked the
Councilmembers, relaying that he enjoyed working with them. He wished everyone happy holidays.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m.
Packet Page 30 of 333
AM-6459 5. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Roger Neumaier Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #206030 through #206167 dated December 19, 2013 for $504,268.61 and
claim checks #206168 through #206316 dated December 31, 2013 for $1,166,526.79. Approval of payroll
direct deposit and checks #60710 through #60724 for $446,416.70, benefit checks #60708, #60725
through #60731 and wire payments of $191,180.66 for the period December 1, 2013 through December
15, 2013. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #60732 through #60745 for $453,567.56, benefit
checks #60746 through #60757 and wire payments of $376,791.95.
Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
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:2013
Revenue:
Expenditure:3,138,752.27
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $1,670,795.40
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $899,984.26
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $567,972.61
Total Payroll $1,467,956.87
Attachments
Claim checks 12-19-13
Packet Page 31 of 333
Claim checks 12-31-13
Project Numbers 12-31-13
Payroll Summary 12-15-13
Payroll Benefit 12-15-13
Payroll Summary 12-31-13
Payroll Benefit 12-31-13
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Debra Sharp 01/03/2014 11:29 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/03/2014 11:45 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/03/2014 12:36 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/03/2014 01:36 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 01/02/2014 08:34 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/03/2014
Packet Page 32 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206030 12/19/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 327980 Pest Control monthly service
Pest Control monthly service
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94
Total :79.94
206031 12/19/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 1213267 FALL PICKLEBALL SHIRTS
FALL PICKLEBALL SHIRTS
001.000.64.575.52.31.00 45.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.52.31.00 4.35
Total :50.17
206032 12/19/2013 073620 ALLWEST UNDERGROUND INC 38021 Water - New Water Main Install Supplies
Water - New Water Main Install Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 148.75
Svc Fees
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.51
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 14.13
Total :163.39
206033 12/19/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-7163865 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 31.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.99
Total :34.44
206034 12/19/2013 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 7821 E3JA/E2GB/E1JB.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBER 20
E3JA/E2GB/E1JB.Services thru November
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 267.50
E3JA/E2GB/E1JB.Services thru November
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,315.00
1Page:
Packet Page 33 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206034 12/19/2013 (Continued)073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC
E3JA/E2GB/E1JB.Services thru November
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,693.75
Total :4,276.25
206035 12/19/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 39350 INV#39350 - EDMONDS PD - VAN DOORN
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 216.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.52
Total :236.52
206036 12/19/2013 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &32028 Storm - Recycle Dump Fees
Storm - Recycle Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm - Recycle Dump Fees32030
Storm - Recycle Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 100.00
Total :220.00
206037 12/19/2013 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON AUBUCHON 17565 JOY OF ART 17565
JOY OF ART 17565
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 185.63
Total :185.63
206038 12/19/2013 002987 BUILDERS HARDWARE & SUPPLY CO S3292006.001 Dev Svc Project - Closer
Dev Svc Project - Closer
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 46.13
Dev Svc Project - Closer
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 46.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 4.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 4.38
Total :101.01
2Page:
Packet Page 34 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206039 12/19/2013 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 304120 Street/Storm/Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
Street/Storm/Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 817.05
Street/Storm/Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 817.05
Street/Storm/Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 817.05
Street/Storm/Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 817.05
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 77.62
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 77.62
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 77.62
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 77.62
Total :3,578.68
206040 12/19/2013 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON 17684 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 17684
ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 17684
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 455.00
Total :455.00
206041 12/19/2013 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 33257 1 plaque ea - Yamamoto/Petso
1 plaque ea - Yamamoto/Petso
001.000.11.511.60.49.00 136.88
Total :136.88
206042 12/19/2013 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC HP97837 NETGEAR NETWORK RACKMOUNT STORAGE UNITS
Netgear RN 4220 12-bay 24tb nas 10ge
001.000.31.518.88.64.00 14,000.00
Freight
001.000.31.518.88.64.00 175.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.64.00 1,346.67
3Page:
Packet Page 35 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :15,522.1420604212/19/2013 069813 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
206043 12/19/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 201379 CENTRASHIELD
CENTRASHIELD
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 39.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.73
Total :43.02
206044 12/19/2013 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 138.73
Total :138.73
206045 12/19/2013 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT 17804 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17804
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17804
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 43.56
Total :43.56
206046 12/19/2013 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT Rob Chave 2013 Exp.2013 travel expenses.
2013 travel expenses.
001.000.62.558.60.43.00 336.69
Total :336.69
206047 12/19/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10479 INV#10479 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONE NARCS 11/2013
104.000.41.521.21.42.00 91.57
Total :91.57
206048 12/19/2013 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2579 WINTER CRAZE POSTAGE
WINTER CRAZE POSTAGE
001.000.64.571.22.42.00 6,948.94
Total :6,948.94
206049 12/19/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2618723 ABSORBENT FOR PRESCHOOL CLEANING
ABSORBENT FOR PRESCHOOL CLEANING
001.000.64.575.56.31.00 51.84
4Page:
Packet Page 36 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206049 12/19/2013 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.56.31.00 4.92
Total :56.76
206050 12/19/2013 074382 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS IN00074840 Storm - 12" Trash Rack - Elm Pl Storm
Storm - 12" Trash Rack - Elm Pl Storm
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 331.25
8.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 28.49
Total :359.74
206051 12/19/2013 004867 COOPER, JACK F 114 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
617.000.51.522.20.23.00 334.25
Total :334.25
206052 12/19/2013 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING NOV 2013 DRY CLEANING OCT/NOV - EDMONDS PD
CLEANING/LAUNDRY OCT/NOV 2013
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 880.71
Total :880.71
206053 12/19/2013 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER 17691 FUN WITH LIZARDS
FUN WITH LIZARDS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 35.20
Total :35.20
206054 12/19/2013 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 217865 Storm - Concrete Catch Basins (shorty)
Storm - Concrete Catch Basins (shorty)
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,301.70
Concrete Catch Basins (Type P/12)
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 446.28
Freight
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 170.81
5Page:
Packet Page 37 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,968.7920605412/19/2013 063519 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC
206055 12/19/2013 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 335086 PLAN REVIEW,RITTER SHORT PLAT (PLN201200
Plan Review.Ritter Short Plat
001.000.245.963 781.13
E1AA.SERVICES THRU 11/02/13337738
E1AA.Services thru 11/02/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 15,686.38
PLAN REVIEW.SOLDIER PILE RITTER (PLN2012338374
Plan Review.Soldier Pile Ritter
001.000.245.963 114.23
Total :16,581.74
206056 12/19/2013 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY AD
CEMETERY AD
130.000.64.536.20.44.00 58.98
Total :58.98
206057 12/19/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3411 MINUTE TAKING
Council Minutes 12/10
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 201.00
MINUTE TAKING13-3412
TBD transcription of 2/5 and 8/6 Mins.
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 84.00
Total :285.00
206058 12/19/2013 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 18387 Plaza / Driftwood Players Office -
Plaza / Driftwood Players Office -
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2,020.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 191.90
Total :2,211.90
206059 12/19/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 121013 Sewer - Supplies
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 26.98
9.5% Sales Tax
6Page:
Packet Page 38 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206059 12/19/2013 (Continued)074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.56
Total :29.54
206060 12/19/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP BRANTING B 17991 SOCCER 17991 BRANTING , PEL'EL
SOCCER 17991 BRANTING , PEL'EL
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 61.00
BRANTING 17951 KINDERMUSIKBRANTING 17951
BRANTING 17951 KINDERMUSIK
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00
BRANTING ATLUA KINDERMUSIK 17953BRANTING A 17953
BRANTING ATLUA KINDERMUSIK 17953
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00
MARTINEZ, PRE-TEAM GYMNASTICS 18178MARTINEZ 18178
MARTINEZ, PRE-TEAM GYMNASTICS 18178
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00
Total :286.00
206061 12/19/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER 7
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.52
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE / METER1-00925
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.79
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER 91-01950
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.79
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-03950
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 521.17
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-05350
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 71.04
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 92371-05705
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 9237
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 64.70
7Page:
Packet Page 39 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206061 12/19/2013 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 690138971-13975
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 69013897
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 510.98
CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 24351-14000
CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 2435
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 84.54
Total :1,350.53
206062 12/19/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 EDMONDS MARSH 45 W DAYTON ST / METER 972
EDMONDS MARSH 45 W DAYTON ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 85.33
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 90 RAILROAD AVE1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 90 RAILROAD
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 554.31
PLANTER IRRIGATION 21 MAIN ST / METER 161-00875
PLANTER IRRIGATION 21 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
SUNSET PARK IRRIGATION 625 SUNSET AVE /1-02125
SUNSET PARK IRRIGATION 625 SUNSET AVE /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 290 MAIN ST / METER 71-03710
PLANTER IRRIGATION 290 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 290 DAYTON ST / METER1-03900
PLANTER IRRIGATION 290 DAYTON ST /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 101 2ND AVE N / METER1-05125
PLANTER IRRIGATION 101 2ND AVE N /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
WWTP PAGODA IRRIGATION 102 W DAYTON ST /1-05285
WWTP PAGODA IRRIGATION 102 W DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 190 DAYTON ST / METER1-05340
PLANTER IRRIGATION 190 DAYTON ST /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
8Page:
Packet Page 40 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206062 12/19/2013 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CITY PARK IRRIGATION (NORTH) 600 3RD AVE1-05650
CITY PARK IRRIGATION (NORTH) 600 3RD
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP 600 3RD AVE S / M1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP 600 3RD AVE S /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 568.69
CITY PARK IRRIGATION (SOUTH) 600 3RD AVE1-05700
CITY PARK IRRIGATION (SOUTH) 600 3RD
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 350 MAIN ST / METER 61-09650
PLANTER IRRIGATION 350 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 390 DAYTON ST / METER1-09800
PLANTER IRRIGATION 390 DAYTON ST /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 500 MAIN ST / METER 51-10780
PLANTER IRRIGATION 500 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 439 5TH AVE S / METER1-16130
PLANTER IRRIGATION 439 5TH AVE S /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 500 DAYTON ST / METER1-16300
PLANTER IRRIGATION 500 DAYTON ST /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 50.90
MUSEUM IRRIGATION 118 5TH AVE N / METER1-16420
MUSEUM IRRIGATION 118 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
CENTENNIAL PLAZA IRRIGATION 150 5TH AVE1-16450
CENTENNIAL PLAZA IRRIGATION 150 5TH
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 40.75
PLANTER IRRIGATION 575 MAIN ST / METER 71-16630
PLANTER IRRIGATION 575 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.52
PLANTER IRRIGATION 590 DAYTON ST / METER1-17475
PLANTER IRRIGATION 590 DAYTON ST /
9Page:
Packet Page 41 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206062 12/19/2013 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.52
PINE STREET PARK 610 PINE ST / METER 6161-19950
PINE STREET PARK 610 PINE ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 64.89
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1141 9TH AVE S / METE1-36255
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1141 9TH AVE S /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
Total :1,910.76
206063 12/19/2013 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 190894 INV#190894 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD
SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #8986
001.000.41.521.70.49.01 109.75
Total :109.75
206064 12/19/2013 074098 ERGO SYNCHRONUS SOLUTIONS 4045 assisting Daniel with dosages, influent
assisting Daniel with dosages, influent
423.000.76.535.80.41.22 1,320.00
Total :1,320.00
206065 12/19/2013 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG529420 NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3945
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 39.56
NEWSPAPER ADSLG530661
Ordinance 3946
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 34.40
NEWSPAPER ADLG530669
ECDC 23.40.320 modification
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 41.28
Total :115.24
206066 12/19/2013 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG529963 AT&T Mobility/AMD20130005-Hrg.
AT&T Mobility/AMD20130005-Hrg.
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 48.16
Swerk/PLN20130043.LG530264
Swerk/PLN20130043.
10Page:
Packet Page 42 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206066 12/19/2013 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 39.56
Total :87.72
206067 12/19/2013 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG529365 Legal Advertising for Disability Board
Legal Advertising for Disability Board
009.000.39.517.37.23.00 149.64
Total :149.64
206068 12/19/2013 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC EPP1001 continuation of work on pump #402 now
continuation of work on pump #402 now
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 6,300.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 598.50
Total :6,898.50
206069 12/19/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU30478 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 90.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.59
Total :99.05
206070 12/19/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0399190 Water Inventory - W-VALVEZ-08-010
Water Inventory - W-VALVEZ-08-010
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 6,107.20
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 580.18
Water Inventory - (6 Rolls)0402048
Water Inventory - (6 Rolls)
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 2,605.36
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 247.51
Water - Supplies - Meter Gaskets, Lugs,0402656
Water - Supplies - Meter Gaskets, Lugs,
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,029.61
11Page:
Packet Page 43 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206070 12/19/2013 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 97.82
Total :10,667.68
206071 12/19/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 62.25
Total :62.25
206072 12/19/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 28.64
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 28.64
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
001.000.65.519.91.42.00 14.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 74.77
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 62.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 62.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 83.73
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.52
Total :409.87
206073 12/19/2013 011480 GAYDOS, KEN GAYDOS FFC GAYDOS REIMBURSEMENT FFC CONFERENCE
CONFERENCE FEE - FED OF FIRE CHAPLAINS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 225.00
MEMBERSHIP - FED OF FIRE CHAPLAINS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00
12Page:
Packet Page 44 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206073 12/19/2013 (Continued)011480 GAYDOS, KEN
LODGING FOR CONF. - 4 NIGHTS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 641.48
SELF PARKING - 4 NIGHTS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 30.50
Total :996.98
206074 12/19/2013 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 968885968 E6MA.ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
E6MA.Electrical Supplies
129.000.24.595.70.41.00 541.23
Total :541.23
206075 12/19/2013 067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY 3266310-00 Dev Svc Project - Studs, Tracks
Dev Svc Project - Studs, Tracks
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 58.89
Dev Svc Project - Studs, Tracks
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 58.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 5.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 5.59
Dev Svc Project - Vacuum Pole3266315-00
Dev Svc Project - Vacuum Pole
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 37.45
Dev Svc Project - Vacuum Pole
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 37.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 3.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 3.56
Dev Svc Project4357854-00
Dev Svc Project
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 386.60
Dev Svc Project
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 386.60
Freight
13Page:
Packet Page 45 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206075 12/19/2013 (Continued)067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 50.00
Freight
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 41.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 41.47
Total :1,167.15
206076 12/19/2013 012560 HACH COMPANY 8595420 Pipet tips
Pipet tips
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 26.95
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.56
Total :29.51
206077 12/19/2013 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00117277-B Professional Services
Professional Services
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 9,494.89
Professional Services00120542-B
Professional Services
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 5,085.74
Total :14,580.63
206078 12/19/2013 074638 HEALY, TERESA HEALY 17807 LITTLE FISH 17807
LITTLE FISH 17807
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 287.55
Total :287.55
206079 12/19/2013 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 115 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.23.00 284.38
Total :284.38
206080 12/19/2013 074701 HIGHWIRE INC 1081 TREE GRATES
14Page:
Packet Page 46 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206080 12/19/2013 (Continued)074701 HIGHWIRE INC
TREE GRATES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3,216.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 305.52
Total :3,521.52
206081 12/19/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6035322500959949 Supplies
Supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 411.25
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 39.07
Total :450.32
206083 12/19/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1044524 FAC -Supply Line
FAC -Supply Line
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.85
FAC - Sink Parts Returns1231204
FAC - Sink Parts Returns
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -12.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -1.24
FAC - Sink Parts1282915
FAC - Sink Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.66
PW - Door Closer2034768
PW - Door Closer
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 74.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.03
Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies2037003
Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies
15Page:
Packet Page 47 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.97
Fac Maint Shop Supplies2042099
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.50
FAC - Roof Sealant2044231
FAC - Roof Sealant
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.95
PS - Sink Repair Supplies2044327
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.04
PS - Sink Repair Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.96
Street - Supplies2044360
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 8.24
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 0.78
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies2045673
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.70
Water Supplies2064386
Water Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 58.83
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.59
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Heatgun, supplies3036712
16Page:
Packet Page 48 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Heatgun, supplies
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 24.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 2.32
Library - Pipe Supply Lines and Supplies3045297
Library - Pipe Supply Lines and Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.99
FS 20 - Carpet Supplies3045351
FS 20 - Carpet Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.78
Dev Svc Project - Supplies3046457
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 2.13
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 2.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 0.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 0.20
FAC - Supplies3062462
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.65
Fac Maint - Supplies3066186
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.38
PS Courts - Screws3082089
17Page:
Packet Page 49 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
PS Courts - Screws
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.42
Water - Supplies3092198
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 37.06
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.52
Dev Svc Project - Supplies32060
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 35.63
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 35.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 3.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 3.38
Street - Lumber for 8th & Cedar40131
Street - Lumber for 8th & Cedar
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 33.08
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 3.14
Dev Svc Project - Supplies4033440
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 40.61
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 40.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 3.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 3.85
FS 16 - Supplies4036490
FS 16 - Supplies
18Page:
Packet Page 50 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.33
FAC - Outdoor Wood Supply4036581
FAC - Outdoor Wood Supply
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.88
FS 16 - Supplies4041452
FS 16 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.70
Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies4041581
Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.80
Fac Maint - Supplies4090447
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.11
Water Supplies4260388
Water Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 29.87
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.84
FS 16 - Shower Head4282716
FS 16 - Shower Head
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.70
FAC - Supplies4564837
19Page:
Packet Page 51 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.40
Library - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.73
Traffic Control - Cutting Disks4596875
Traffic Control - Cutting Disks
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 11.88
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.13
Dev Svc Project - Supplies5033276
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 31.20
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 31.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 2.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 2.96
Library - Supplies5036332
Library - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.41
FAC - Sealant5041285
FAC - Sealant
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.89
City Hall - Hand Rail Repair Supplies5043681
City Hall - Hand Rail Repair Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.24
9.5% Sales Tax
20Page:
Packet Page 52 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.26
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies5045795
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 56.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.41
Sewer - Supplies5062274
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.86
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.27
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Supplies5086458
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.23
Library - Roof Patch6035955
Library - Roof Patch
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.40
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.88
Library - Supplies6036069
Library - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.81
City Hall - Supplies6561012
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.77
Sewer - Supplies7030559
21Page:
Packet Page 53 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.70
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.54
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies7030565
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 116.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.10
Traffic - Paint Truck Cleanup Materials7043238
Traffic - Paint Truck Cleanup Materials
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 13.93
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.32
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Supplies7083490
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.61
Library - Primer73641
Library - Primer
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.84
Library - Supplies8030328
Library - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.30
City Hall - Supplies8042983
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.60
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.96
22Page:
Packet Page 54 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206083 12/19/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.57
Sewer Supplies80441
Sewer Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 57.94
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.50
Library - Supplies9035524
Library - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.76
Dev Svc Project - Supplies9064914
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 10.89
Dev Svc Project - Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 10.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 1.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 1.03
Fac Maint Shop - LED Tripod Worklite9073862
Fac Maint Shop - LED Tripod Worklite
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 99.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 9.50
FAC - Vinyl Tube9592436
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.28
FAC - Vinyl Tube
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.98
Total :1,537.50
206084 12/19/2013 070035 HORIZON FORD 98975 Unit 138 - Tank
Unit 138 - Tank
23Page:
Packet Page 55 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206084 12/19/2013 (Continued)070035 HORIZON FORD
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 249.87
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.25
Total :291.07
206085 12/19/2013 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 24728.B E3JA.TO 13-06.SERVICES THRU 11/30/13
E3JA.TO 13-06.Services thru 11/30/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 4,819.69
E1JB.TO 13-01.SERVICES THRU 11/30/1324748.A
E1JB.TO 13-01.Services thru 11/30/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,794.60
Total :6,614.29
206086 12/19/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2380603 Office Supplies
Office Supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 119.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 11.39
Total :131.23
206087 12/19/2013 068712 INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LLC E2GB.Pmt 1 E2GB.PMT 1 THRU 12/03/13
E2GB.Pmt 1 thru 12/03/13
423.000.75.594.35.65.30 98,438.20
E2GB.Ret 1
423.000.223.400 -4,494.90
Total :93,943.30
206088 12/19/2013 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000021039 Unit EQ74PO - Amber LEDs
Unit EQ74PO - Amber LEDs
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 379.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 36.08
Unit 679 - Weather Deflectors000021093
24Page:
Packet Page 56 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206088 12/19/2013 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
Unit 679 - Weather Deflectors
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 102.69
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.94
Unit eq91so - LED Amber000021114
Unit eq91so - LED Amber
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 94.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.02
Shop Supplies - 31 Series Kwik Co000021188
Shop Supplies - 31 Series Kwik Co
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 59.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.68
Unit EQ91SO - Amber LED000021396
Unit EQ91SO - Amber LED
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 284.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 27.06
Unit 26 - Light Switch000021538
Unit 26 - Light Switch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 61.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.84
Returned Fleet Brake Inventory - Police000021650
Returned Fleet Brake Inventory - Police
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 -376.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 -35.76
Fleet Brake Supply Inventory Wave Rotors000021692
Fleet Brake Supply Inventory Wave Rotors
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 173.02
25Page:
Packet Page 57 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206088 12/19/2013 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 16.44
Total :879.51
206089 12/19/2013 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E2CC.Pmt 3 E2CC.PAYMENT 3 THRU 11/25/13
E2CC.Payment 3 thru 11/25/13
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 132,783.51
Total :132,783.51
206090 12/19/2013 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 603714 Hypochlorite Solution
Hypochlorite Solution
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,629.12
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 248.03
Total :2,877.15
206091 12/19/2013 074702 JH TECHNOLOGIES INC 00036403 Leica camera
Leica camera
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 3,906.97
Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 339.06
Total :4,246.03
206092 12/19/2013 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13074514-00 PW - Furnace Part
PW - Furnace Part
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 163.76
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.55
PS - HSI Module13074778-00
PS - HSI Module
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 76.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.22
26Page:
Packet Page 58 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206092 12/19/2013 (Continued)063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY
PW - Return furnace Part - minus13074885-00
PW - Return furnace Part - minus
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -121.18
Total :154.35
206093 12/19/2013 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER SOCCER 17773 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17773
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17773
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 283.20
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17774
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 424.80
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17775
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 531.00
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17776
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 177.00
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17777
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 460.20
Total :1,876.20
206094 12/19/2013 069355 KLEINFELDER INC 829086 E3JA.TO 13-01.SERVICES THRU 11/10/13
E3JA.TO 13-01 Services thru 11/10/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 2,764.79
Total :2,764.79
206095 12/19/2013 073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 03708 Chemicals 44lb pail
Chemicals 44lb pail
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 504.17
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 47.90
Total :552.07
206096 12/19/2013 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 12092013-01 INV#12092013-01 - EDMONDS PD
25 CAR WASHES $5.03 ( INC TAX) 11/13
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 125.75
Total :125.75
27Page:
Packet Page 59 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206097 12/19/2013 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 140879 Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit for
Refund Hydrant Meter Deposit for
421.000.245.110 950.00
Total :950.00
206098 12/19/2013 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 12013-127 FUEL
FUEL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 146.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.91
RETURNED MIX OIL12013-138
RETURNED MIX OIL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -65.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -6.26
Total :88.15
206099 12/19/2013 072886 MACDONALD-MILLER FAC.SOLUTIONS JC19388 TAX FROM INVOICE JC18784
TAX FROM INVOICE JC18784
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 824.22
Total :824.22
206100 12/19/2013 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6797 E1DA.SERVICES THRU 11/30/13
E1DA.Services thru 11/30/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 8,858.83
Total :8,858.83
206101 12/19/2013 074647 MARR, JEFFREY PLN20130063 Application withdrawn. He is being
Application withdrawn. He is being
001.000.257.620 1,525.00
Total :1,525.00
206102 12/19/2013 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 113 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.29.00 8,039.25
Total :8,039.25
28Page:
Packet Page 60 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206103 12/19/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 67262796 supplies
supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 494.35
supplies67475056
supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1,226.84
various supplies67909896
various supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 363.34
Total :2,084.53
206104 12/19/2013 063773 MICROFLEX 00021636 10 & 11-13 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 305.18
Total :305.18
206105 12/19/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 180624 Propane
Propane
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 28.91
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.75
Total :31.66
206106 12/19/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 180633 VACUUM RENTAL
VACUUM RENTAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.94
MIX OIL FOR EQUIPMENT180847
MIX OIL FOR EQUIPMENT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 169.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.10
Total :219.49
206107 12/19/2013 074035 MORRIS LAW PC 2 ECDC Revisions.
29Page:
Packet Page 61 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206107 12/19/2013 (Continued)074035 MORRIS LAW PC
ECDC Revisions.
001.000.62.524.10.41.00 10,000.00
Total :10,000.00
206108 12/19/2013 074035 MORRIS LAW PC 11-29-13 C. Morris Balance due on 11/1/2013 invoice for
Balance due on 11/1/2013 invoice for
001.000.11.550.10.49.00 1,050.00
Prof Services Carol Morris Closed12-2-13 Carol Morris
Prof Services Carol Morris Closed
001.000.11.550.10.49.00 3,950.00
Total :5,000.00
206109 12/19/2013 063034 NCL 330861 Lab supplies
Lab supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 783.01
Total :783.01
206110 12/19/2013 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 47460 Sodium Bisulfite
Sodium Bisulfite
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,060.80
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 100.78
Total :1,161.58
206111 12/19/2013 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 2836 INV 2836 EDMONDS PD - PRE EMPLOY GAGNER
PRE-HIRE EVALUATION - GAGNER
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 340.00
Total :340.00
206112 12/19/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 591152 INV#591152 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
BALLPOINT PENS (CLERKS)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.48
MEMO PADS (PATROL)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.90
POST IT NOTES 3x3
30Page:
Packet Page 62 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206112 12/19/2013 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 25.94
MARKS A LOT MARKERS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.06
STENO MEMO BOOKS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.83
Total :67.10
206113 12/19/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 737128 INK CEMETERY
INK CEMETERY
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 61.72
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 5.87
PAPER LEGAL737783
PAPER LEGAL
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 39.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 3.77
Total :111.04
206114 12/19/2013 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER November, 2013 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.237.120 1,585.72
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130 33,529.16
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150 117.00
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330 72.88
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180 6,067.69
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200 6.34
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
31Page:
Packet Page 63 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206114 12/19/2013 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
001.000.237.250 3,129.28
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260 576.31
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.237.290 78.88
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.237.300 78.89
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320 115.69
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.237.170 98.16
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340 413.84
Total :45,869.84
206115 12/19/2013 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC SEPTEMBER 2013 September 2013 Hearing Examiner
September 2013 Hearing Examiner
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 522.50
Total :522.50
206116 12/19/2013 074700 OSCARSON, ALLAN OSCARSON 12132013 REFUND CLASS CANCELLED
REFUND CLASS CANCELLED
001.000.239.200 70.00
Total :70.00
206117 12/19/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.954023041763 Dev Svc Project - Paint Supplies
Dev Svc Project - Paint Supplies
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 104.44
Dev Svc Project - Paint Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 104.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 9.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 9.92
City Hall - Paint Supplies954023041764
32Page:
Packet Page 64 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206117 12/19/2013 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
City Hall - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.18
Total :253.88
206118 12/19/2013 007800 PETTY CASH 10/26/13-12/13/13 OCT26 THRU DEC 13 PETTY CASH
Refreshments for Council sponsored
001.000.11.550.10.49.00 117.46
Dish soap refill and Kleenex for Dev.
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 29.11
Holiday Breakfast decorations/supplies
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 95.27
Holiday Breakfast supplies - Cliff
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 21.56
Total :263.40
206119 12/19/2013 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-DC13 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE
Lease 11/30 to 12/30
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.26
Total :786.86
206120 12/19/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC B297255 electronic supplies
electronic supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 21.44
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 2.04
electronic suppliesB304779
electronic supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 127.23
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 12.09
electronic suppliesB327349
33Page:
Packet Page 65 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206120 12/19/2013 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
electronic supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 604.48
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 57.43
Total :824.71
206121 12/19/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC B206410 E9GA.MATERIALS
E9GA.Materials
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 824.60
Total :824.60
206122 12/19/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC B310081 Fac Maint - Apprentice Tool Set,
Fac Maint - Apprentice Tool Set,
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 109.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 12.73
Total :121.73
206123 12/19/2013 073231 POLYDYNE INC 847008 Clarifloc
Clarifloc
423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00
Total :8,184.00
206124 12/19/2013 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,513.24
Total :2,513.24
206125 12/19/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2422756 ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY
ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 213.21
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL31146525
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 43.82
Total :257.03
34Page:
Packet Page 66 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206126 12/19/2013 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 17679 FELDNKRAIS 17679
FELDNKRAIS 17679
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 252.00
Total :252.00
206127 12/19/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 88106 INV#88106 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1993 HONDA #ABD1115
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01
Total :173.01
206128 12/19/2013 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 140.83
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.519.91.47.00 27.90
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 106.03
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 106.03
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 106.03
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 106.03
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 106.05
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 149.37
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 64.98
Total :913.25
35Page:
Packet Page 67 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206129 12/19/2013 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 28455 WINTER CRAZE PRINTING
WINTER CRAZE PRINTING
001.000.64.571.22.49.00 5,547.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.49.00 527.00
Total :6,074.41
206130 12/19/2013 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY NOV 2013 INVOICE 11/30/13 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD
#136984 5 NPC 11/18/13
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 56.60
Total :56.60
206131 12/19/2013 072725 SAGACITY CUSTOM PUBLISHING 2013-5118-1 TOURISM PROMOTION AD IN WA ST VISITOR GU
Tourism ad in Washington St Visitor's
120.000.31.575.42.44.00 947.50
Total :947.50
206132 12/19/2013 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2333623 Storm - Blocks, Bricks, Supplies
Storm - Blocks, Bricks, Supplies
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,745.60
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 165.83
Total :1,911.43
206133 12/19/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 199457 INV#199457 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2002 HONDA ACCORD #ALN3069
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01
Total :173.01
206134 12/19/2013 074699 SHIFAW, WUDIE SHIFAW 12112013 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.239.200 75.00
Total :75.00
206135 12/19/2013 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV / 21371254 Fleet Shop - Pro Link, Plus Shipping
36Page:
Packet Page 68 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206135 12/19/2013 (Continued)060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL
Fleet Shop - Pro Link, Plus Shipping
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 2,414.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 229.43
Total :2,644.37
206136 12/19/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,750.43
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 328.34
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W / METER 12007-0685-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 42.00
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 93.78
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 179.38
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE /2025-1986-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 569.00
Total :3,063.10
37Page:
Packet Page 69 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206137 12/19/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDOIN WAY
9537 BOWDOIN WAY
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 510.66
SIERRA PARK 8100 190TH ST SW / METER 1002025-4064-7
SIERRA PARK 8100 190TH ST SW / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.39
Total :544.05
206138 12/19/2013 065176 SNOHOMISH CO TOURISM BUREAU Edm1213 TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD SNO CO VISITOR C
Tourism promotion award to Sno Co
120.000.31.575.42.41.00 3,000.00
Total :3,000.00
206139 12/19/2013 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER November 2013 Part 2 Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140 139.07
Total :139.07
206140 12/19/2013 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM Fleet (1) HEP A/B
Fleet (1) HEP A/B
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 131.00
Street Storm (3) HEP A/B, TDAP
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 262.50
Street Storm (3) HEP A/B, TDAP
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 262.50
Total :656.00
206141 12/19/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 disposal/recycling fees
disposal/recycling fees
423.000.76.535.80.47.65 9,908.16
Total :9,908.16
206142 12/19/2013 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L100948 NOV-13 AUDIT FEES
Nov-13 Audit Fees
001.000.39.519.90.51.00 1,687.48
Nov-13 Audit Fees
38Page:
Packet Page 70 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206142 12/19/2013 (Continued)039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 84.37
Nov-13 Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00 281.25
Nov-13 Audit Fees
423.000.75.535.80.51.00 281.25
Nov-13 Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00 281.25
Nov-13 Audit Fees
111.000.68.543.30.51.00 84.37
Nov-13 Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00 112.49
Total :2,812.46
206143 12/19/2013 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC KINDERMUSIC 17710 KINDERMUSIC 17710
KINDERMUSIC 17710
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 712.25
KINDERMUSIC 17712
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 530.05
KINDERMUSIC 17711
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 610.50
Total :1,852.80
206144 12/19/2013 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18024731 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 42.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.08
SCREWS18024805
SCREWS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.84
SCREW18024872
SCREW
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.00
39Page:
Packet Page 71 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206144 12/19/2013 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.19
PROTECTIVE COATING18025095
PROTECTIVE COATING
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.60
Total :146.46
206145 12/19/2013 072404 TELEDYNE ISCO INC So20017828 Batteries
Batteries
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 1,099.59
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 104.46
Total :1,204.05
206146 12/19/2013 074669 TIGER DIRECT INC J58105270101 sdhc card
sdhc card
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 98.52
Total :98.52
206147 12/19/2013 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 20371 CEMETERY DOOR
CEMETERY DOOR
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 205.00
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 19.47
Total :224.47
206148 12/19/2013 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 115492509-001 Water - Road Plate and Supplies
Water - Road Plate and Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,713.50
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 162.79
Total :1,876.29
40Page:
Packet Page 72 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206149 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 2985 credit card charges
credit card charges
423.000.76.535.80.49.00 1,192.33
Total :1,192.33
206150 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 5923 SUBSCRIPTION PARKING TOURISM CONFERENCE
WA St Tourism Alliance conference
117.100.64.573.20.49.00 75.00
WA St Tourism Alliance conference
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 150.00
Parking for director while attending
001.000.61.558.70.43.00 3.00
Subscription renewal to SurveyMonkey
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 300.00
Total :528.00
206151 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 2519 INV#2519 12/06/13 - EDMONDS PD - TRAININ
FOOD-INSIDE TAPE-MEHL/MCINTYRE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 5.58
MEAL-INSIDE TAPE-MEHL/MCINTYRE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 170.78
LODGING-INSIDE TAPE-MCINTYRE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 312.18
LODGING-INSIDE TAPE-MEHL
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 312.18
INV#3181 12/06/13 - EDMONDS PD - BARD3181
MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ONLINE TRAINING
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00
REG. COMBAT 1ST AID-COMPTON
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 159.24
REG.COMBAT 1ST AID-CRYSTAL
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 159.24
REG.FRONT DESK SAFETY-COLLINS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 32.99
REG. COMBAT 1ST AID/ROBINSON
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 159.24
41Page:
Packet Page 73 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206151 12/19/2013 (Continued)062693 US BANK
REG. COMBAT 1ST AID/STRUM
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 159.24
REG. INSIDE THE TAPE/MEHL
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 275.00
REG. INSIDE THE TAPE/MCINTYRE
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 275.00
HOLSTER/ROBINSON-K9 UNIT
001.000.41.521.26.35.00 103.99
WIRELESS PRESENTER
001.000.41.521.40.35.00 40.89
TLO SEARCHES 11/2013
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 9.00
INV#3314 12/06/13 - EDMONDS PD - LAWLES3314
MEAL/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 31.06
LODGING/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 276.90
INV#3520 12/06/13 - EDMONDS PD - TRAININ3520
FEDEX CHG #13.4299
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 6.25
FEDEX CHG #13-3681
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 24.13
FEDEX CHG #13-4386,4346
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 10.50
FEDEX CHGS VARIOUS CASES
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 34.04
INV#7914 12/06/13 - EDMONDS PD - THOMPSO7914
DAILY PLANNER REFILL-MACHADO
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 31.49
NIX TEST KITS "E"
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 98.31
HOT SOLO BISTRO CUPS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 91.28
RETIREMENT PLAQUE-DASH
42Page:
Packet Page 74 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206151 12/19/2013 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 93.08
CR123A BATTERIES
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 44.99
Total :3,115.58
206152 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 3470 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION
Bulkregister.com - Domain name
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 27.90
LED MONITORS, NETWORK CAMERA, PHONE, SUB5179
TigerDirect.com - ASUS VS228H-P 22" LED
001.000.31.518.88.64.00 3,212.43
Newegg.com - cell phone accessories,
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 109.00
CDW Government - AXIS M1014 Network
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 269.75
Amazon.com - iPhone 5 case
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 23.97
Experts Exchange LLC - IT Solutions
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 12.95
Atlasphones.com - Mitel Superset 4025
001.000.23.512.50.49.00 48.00
Newegg.com - Fosmon High Quality Black
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 169.80
Newegg.com - LG Internal Super Multi
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 74.95
Total :3,948.75
206153 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 4697 HEKINAN VISIT CONT.
Hekinan delegation reception @ Harbor
138.200.21.557.21.49.00 218.25
business card holder
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 5.79
Toner cartridge for fax machine, 3rd
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 78.99
9.5% Sales Tax
43Page:
Packet Page 75 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206153 12/19/2013 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 8.05
NOVEMBER & DECEMBER MAYOR'S MEETING7483
November Mayor's Meeting
001.000.21.513.10.43.00 12.00
December Mayor's Meeting
001.000.21.513.10.43.00 9.89
Total :332.97
206154 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 8913 ENG CREDIT CARD NOVEMBER 2013
Mastering AutoCAD Civil 3D 2014
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 55.74
Lambert - Boots~
001.000.67.532.20.24.00 260.51
E1JB.Neighborhood Notice Mailing thru
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 551.60
Total :867.85
206155 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 5593 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.25.514.30.49.00 162.00
Recording of Utility Liens
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 347.00
Recording of Utility Liens
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 347.00
Amazon.com - Ergotron Workstation
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 607.30
Total :1,463.30
206156 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK PARKS AND REC VISA PARKS AND REC VISA NOVEMBER
CALENDAR FOR FRANCES
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 17.49
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.64.575.56.31.00 24.51
CHRISTMAS LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 358.87
44Page:
Packet Page 76 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206156 12/19/2013 (Continued)062693 US BANK
HOTEL TAMMY LERN CONFERENCE
001.000.64.571.22.43.00 311.67
Total :712.54
206157 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 3389 AWC Elected Officials Essentials
AWC Elected Officials Essentials
001.000.11.511.60.49.00 25.00
Total :25.00
206158 12/19/2013 062693 US BANK 0378 Advertising - Capital Proj Mgr
Advertising - Capital Proj Mgr
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 345.00
Total :345.00
206159 12/19/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 30189727 Clerical Asst
Clerical Asst
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 303.01
Total :303.01
206160 12/19/2013 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20-1-12959 INV 20-1-12959 TRYKAR, EDMONDS PD
CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHY - 11/18-22/13
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
206161 12/19/2013 026510 WCIA ED-212 WCIA Training - No Show Fee
WCIA Training - No Show Fee
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
206162 12/19/2013 047960 WEAN, GREG 112 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.23.00 224.00
Total :224.00
206163 12/19/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6109 Planning Envelopes.
Planning Envelopes.
45Page:
Packet Page 77 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206163 12/19/2013 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 228.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 21.66
Total :249.66
206164 12/19/2013 065535 WESTERN FACILITIES SUPPLY 421884-00 INV#421884-00 CUST#701480 - EDMONDS PD
4MIL BLACK CAN LINERS
001.000.41.521.70.31.00 122.56
FUEL SURCHARGE
001.000.41.521.70.31.00 4.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.70.31.00 12.08
Total :139.14
206165 12/19/2013 072834 WESTERN OFFICE INTERIORS 15560 INV#15560 - EDMONDS PD
KNOLL WORKSURFACE
001.000.41.521.21.35.00 86.94
FLAT BRACKET
001.000.41.521.21.35.00 8.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.21.35.00 9.07
Total :104.52
206166 12/19/2013 063008 WSDOT RE-313-ATB31112152 E2CC.GENERAL PROJECT MGMT
E2CC.General Project Mgmt
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 71.79
Total :71.79
206167 12/19/2013 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0166843 Traffic Control - Perforated Tubes,
Traffic Control - Perforated Tubes,
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,175.17
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 76.11
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 118.87
46Page:
Packet Page 78 of 333
12/18/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
3:59:28PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,370.1520616712/19/2013 051282 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
Bank total :504,268.61137 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
504,268.61Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report137
47Page:
Packet Page 79 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206168 12/31/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 1213308 BASKETBALL SHIRTS
BASKETBALL SHIRTS
001.000.64.575.52.31.00 44.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.52.31.00 4.22
Total :48.62
206169 12/31/2013 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 13-0694 Monthly Janitorial Service
Monthly Janitorial Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00
Total :334.00
206170 12/31/2013 069156 ADVISARTS INC 12312013 CONSULT SERVICES FOR CCP 4.25 HOURS
CONSULT SERVICES FOR CCP 4.25 HOURS
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 531.25
Total :531.25
206171 12/31/2013 065568 ALLWATER INC 121213025 Water cooler and supplies rental
Water cooler and supplies rental
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 25.52
Total :25.52
206172 12/31/2013 001528 AM TEST INC 78633 ICP Scan, EPA 625 +TIC
ICP Scan, EPA 625 +TIC
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,875.00
PH Water, IC Scan, ICP Scan,FTIR Scan,78634
PH Water, IC Scan, ICP Scan,FTIR Scan,
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 395.00
Volatile +TIC, Semi Vol +TIC78635
Volatile +TIC, Semi Vol +TIC
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,040.00
EPA 624 EPA 625 ICP Metal Scan78636
EPA 624 EPA 625 ICP Metal Scan
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,380.00
ICP/MS Scan, EPA 624, EPA 62578645
1Page:
Packet Page 80 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206172 12/31/2013 (Continued)001528 AM TEST INC
ICP/MS Scan, EPA 624, EPA 625
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 640.00
Total :6,330.00
206173 12/31/2013 070976 AMERESCO QUANTUM 1 A ESCO 111 Project City Wide Lighting
ESCO 111 Project City Wide Lighting
016.000.66.518.30.41.00 98,847.15
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.41.00 9,390.48
ESCO 111 Project City Wide Lighting ~1 B
ESCO 111 Project City Wide Lighting ~
016.000.66.518.30.48.00 270,885.01
Retainage on Total Amount To date
016.000.223.400 -13,544.25
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.48.00 25,734.08
Total :391,312.47
206174 12/31/2013 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO 17751 UKULELE
UKULELE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 92.40
Total :92.40
206175 12/31/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-7175570 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 31.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.97
PARKS MAINT WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE655-7187239
PARKS MAINT WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 31.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.97
Total :68.44
2Page:
Packet Page 81 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206176 12/31/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0514344-IN ULSD #2 dyed - bulk
ULSD #2 dyed - bulk
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,771.62
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 358.30
Total :4,129.92
206177 12/31/2013 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC I004209 PS - VAV TUX Controller
PS - VAV TUX Controller
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 609.30
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.55
Total :674.85
206178 12/31/2013 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Jan 2014 AWC JANUARY 2014 AWC
January 2014 AWC
811.000.231.510 57,702.62
Total :57,702.62
206179 12/31/2013 074031 BARTH, RUTH BARTH 17761 NO FEAR DRAWING 17761
NO FEAR DRAWING 17761
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 217.80
NO FEAR WATERCOLOR
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 363.00
Total :580.80
206180 12/31/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0735400-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 564.6 Gal
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 564.6 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 871.77
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 510 Gal0736872-IN
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 510 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 788.29
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 600 Gal0739500-IN
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 600 Gal
3Page:
Packet Page 82 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206180 12/31/2013 (Continued)074307 BLUE STAR GAS
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 937.90
Total :2,597.96
206181 12/31/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 39351 INV#39351 - EDMONDS PD - CLARK
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 108.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.26
INV#39352 - EDMONDS PD - CLARK39352
S/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 135.90
SEW NAME TAGS ON SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.00
L/S/ UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 179.90
SEW NAME TAGS ON SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 30.38
Total :468.44
206182 12/31/2013 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMAN 17584 YOGA 17584
YOGA 17584
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 380.70
YOGA 17581
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 166.73
YOGA 17587
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 317.25
YOGA 17590
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 454.73
YOGA 17596
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 178.20
YOGA 17593
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 220.50
PILATES YOGA 17675
4Page:
Packet Page 83 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206182 12/31/2013 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 262.58
Total :1,980.69
206183 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13357854 INV#13357854 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD
COLOR COPIES 10/1 TO 11/30/13
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 171.60
BW COPIES 7/1 TO 11/30/13
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 349.36
COLOR COPIES 7/1 TO 11/30/13
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 457.99
MONTHLY COPIER RENTAL (4)
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 155.85
BW COPIES 10/1 TO 11/30/13 (2)
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 80.04
Total :1,796.44
206184 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13360462 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-004
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75
Total :273.74
206185 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13357851 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES C1030
Canon copier charges C1030
001.000.61.519.70.45.00 9.33
Canon copier charges C1030
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33
Canon copier charges C1030
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
5Page:
Packet Page 84 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206185 12/31/2013 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88
Total :30.65
206186 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13357855 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COPIER LEASE
Lease City Clerk's Copier
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE13357857
Recept. desk copier
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91
Total :533.35
206187 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13360463 FLEET COPIER
Fleet Copier
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14
PW ADMIN COPIER13360464
PW Office Copier for Dec 2013
001.000.65.519.91.45.00 68.55
PW Office Copier for Dec 2013
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85
PW Office Copier for Dec 2013
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for Dec 2013
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for Dec 2013
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.45.00 6.51
6Page:
Packet Page 85 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206187 12/31/2013 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59
PW Office Copier for Dec 2013
111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85
WATER SEWER COPIER13360465
Water Sewer Copier
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68
Water Sewer Copier
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71
Total :441.15
206188 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13357856 PARKS AND REC SERVICE AGREEMENT IRC5051
PARKS AND REC SERVICE AGREEMENT IRC5051
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 23.75
PARKS AND REC SERVICE AGREEMENT13357860
PARKS AND REC SERVICE AGREEMENT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 27.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 2.66
PARKS MAINT SERVICE AGREEMENT IRC1030F13360466
7Page:
Packet Page 86 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206188 12/31/2013 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
PARKS MAINT SERVICE AGREEMENT IRC1030F
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 3.14
Total :340.55
206189 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13357850 Lease Council Office Printer/Copier
Lease Council Office Printer/Copier
001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65
Total :30.65
206190 12/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13357858 Lease Planning Div Printer/Copier
Lease Planning Div Printer/Copier
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
Total :36.16
206191 12/31/2013 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 33267 Reingrave 2 Council plaques
Reingrave 2 Council plaques
001.000.11.511.60.49.00 27.38
Total :27.38
206192 12/31/2013 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 39973187 INV#39973187 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-ROSSI
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 174.19
CAR WASH FOR NARCS VEHICLE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 10.87
FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 160.01
CAR WASH FOR NARCS VEHICLE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 8.68
TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 3.54
Total :357.29
206193 12/31/2013 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1311 E9GA.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBER 2013
8Page:
Packet Page 87 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206193 12/31/2013 (Continued)065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC
E9GA.Services thru November 2013
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 17,976.08
E3GA.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBER 2013451202-1311
E3GA.Services thru November 2013
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 3,541.83
Total :21,517.91
206194 12/31/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10498 INV#10498 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD
NARCOTICS SGT OCT-DEC 2013
104.000.41.521.21.51.00 10,044.03
Total :10,044.03
206195 12/31/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2617512-1 Fac Maint - TT Dispenser
Fac Maint - TT Dispenser
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.64
Fac Maint - Versamatic Carpet VacuumW2621785
Fac Maint - Versamatic Carpet Vacuum
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 817.08
Fac Maint - Cleaner , Bleach, TT,
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 870.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 77.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 82.66
Total :1,889.37
206196 12/31/2013 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC DEC-13 C/A CITYOFED00001
Dec-13 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.00
Total :406.00
206197 12/31/2013 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E3JA.Pmt 6 E3JA.PMT 6 THRU 11/30/13
E3JA.Pmt 6 thru 11/30/13
9Page:
Packet Page 88 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206197 12/31/2013 (Continued)069529 D & G BACKHOE INC
421.000.74.594.34.65.10 132,892.18
E3JA.Ret 6
421.000.223.400 -6,068.13
Total :126,824.05
206198 12/31/2013 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E3JA.Pmt 5 E3JA.PMT 5 THRU 9/27/13
E3JA.Pmt 5 thru 9/27/13
421.000.74.594.34.65.10 118,758.60
E3JA.Ret 5
421.000.223.400 -5,422.77
Total :113,335.83
206199 12/31/2013 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 338771 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 11/30/13
E1AA.Services thru 11/30/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 7,708.80
E1CA.SERVICES THRU 11/16/13339237
E1CA.Services thru 11/16/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 8,561.36
E1CA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13339376
E1CA.Services thru 12/31/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,429.05
Total :18,699.21
206200 12/31/2013 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 11/21/13 - 12/30/13 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.237.190 399.00
Total :399.00
206201 12/31/2013 061860 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 240592 Certifications Plus Permit Fees - FAC
Certifications Plus Permit Fees - FAC
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 171.08
Boys & Girls Club (1)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 24.45
Parks Bldg (5)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 122.25
10Page:
Packet Page 89 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206201 12/31/2013 (Continued)061860 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES
City Hall (1)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 24.44
Library (1)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 24.44
Museum (2)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 48.88
FS 17 (3)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 73.32
PS (4)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 97.76
Old PW (2)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 48.88
FS 20 (2)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 48.88
MCH (1)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 24.44
PW (4)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 97.76
Sr Center (4)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 97.76
WWTP (6)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 146.64
Yost Park (5)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 122.20
FS 16 (3)
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 73.32
Total :1,246.50
206202 12/31/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3415 MINUTE TAKING
Council Minutes 12/17
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 498.00
Total :498.00
206203 12/31/2013 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 12312013 STATE LOBBYIST DECEMBER 2013
State lobbyist for December 2013
11Page:
Packet Page 90 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206203 12/31/2013 (Continued)068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL
001.000.61.519.70.41.00 2,391.25
Total :2,391.25
206204 12/31/2013 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 13-2193.2 E3FB.TO 13-02 SERVICES THRU 12/15/13
E3FB.TO 13-02 Services thru 12/15/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 36.19
E4JA.SERVICES THRU 12/15/1313-2234.3
E4JA.Services thru 12/15/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 21,752.31
Total :21,788.50
206205 12/31/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2268282 CONCRETE
CONCRETE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.24
Total :14.36
206206 12/31/2013 067703 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 09202013 FALL ADULT VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE RENTAL
FALL ADULT VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE RENTAL
001.000.64.575.52.45.00 4,440.00
Total :4,440.00
206207 12/31/2013 074679 EDMONDS FLORETUM GARDEN CLUB ESCC REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS OF FLOWER
REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS OF FLOWER
138.200.21.557.21.49.00 82.00
Total :82.00
206208 12/31/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 1213 PS - Plumbing Supplies
PS - Plumbing Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.79
Total :43.78
206209 12/31/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 12182013 SCREWDRIVER
12Page:
Packet Page 91 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206209 12/31/2013 (Continued)074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC
SCREWDRIVER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.85
SATIN NUTMEG12192013
SATIN NUTMEG
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.14
PVC1220
PVC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.30
BIT AND TAP80220
BIT AND TAP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.72
Total :46.19
206210 12/31/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / MET
LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 72.89
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 722-29118
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.79
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.79
Total :136.47
206211 12/31/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST /
WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
13Page:
Packet Page 92 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206211 12/31/2013 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79
STAM OVERLOOK PARK FOUNTAIN & IRRIGATION2-37180
STAM OVERLOOK PARK FOUNTAIN &
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.48
MEMORIAL CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH7-05276
MEMORIAL CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820
130.000.64.536.50.47.00 130.11
Total :269.96
206212 12/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 094815 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 12/21/13 -
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 327.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 31.12
Total :358.72
206213 12/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 094992 COPIER CHARGES C5051
Copier charges for C5051
001.000.61.519.70.45.00 34.05
Copier charges for C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 34.05
Copier charges for C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 34.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.45.00 3.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 3.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 3.24
14Page:
Packet Page 93 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :111.8220621312/31/2013 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
206214 12/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 94753 METER READING
11/21 to 12/21
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 11.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.06
Total :12.18
206215 12/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 094249 FLEET COPY USE
Fleet Copy Use ~
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.19
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.30
WATER SEWER COPY USE094717
Water Sewer Copy Use~
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 23.45
Water Sewer Copy Use~
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.45
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.23
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.23
PW COPY USE094719
PW Copy Use~
001.000.65.519.91.31.00 20.56
PW Copy Use~
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 11.65
PW Copy Use~
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 11.65
PW Copy Use~
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.22
PW Copy Use~
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.22
PW Copy Use~
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.22
15Page:
Packet Page 94 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206215 12/31/2013 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.31.00 1.95
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.11
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.11
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.78
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.78
Total :129.88
206216 12/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 094328 1 Building Division additional copies
Building Division additional copies
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 12.99
Total :12.99
206217 12/31/2013 071108 ENVIROCARE INTERNATIONAL INC 11384 Envirocare Project Mgmnt, Envirocare
Envirocare Project Mgmnt, Envirocare
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 30,000.00
Total :30,000.00
206218 12/31/2013 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG532042 NEWSPAPER AD
Ord. 3947-3950
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 67.08
Total :67.08
206219 12/31/2013 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG531624 Legal Notice PLN 2013 0066 Edmonds Way
Legal Notice PLN 2013 0066 Edmonds Way
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 37.84
Legal Notice PLN 2013 0070 Jacobsen'sLG532716
Legal Notice PLN 2013 0070 Jacobsen's
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 67.08
16Page:
Packet Page 95 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :104.9220621912/31/2013 009350 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
206220 12/31/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU30479 135SP SET
135SP SET
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 148.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.13
Total :162.91
206221 12/31/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0401924 Water Inventory - #0576 W-VALVEZ-08-10
Water Inventory - #0576 W-VALVEZ-08-10
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 3,303.89
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 213.20
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 27.95
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 334.12
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 43.81
Water - Supplies - Grease, Tape Wrap,
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 433.18
Water - Seaview Res - Repair Supplies0404299
Water - Seaview Res - Repair Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3,452.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 327.98
Total :8,136.53
206222 12/31/2013 067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 23765-00 Precision Digital Pro Vu Dual line 6
Precision Digital Pro Vu Dual line 6
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 532.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 50.55
Total :582.66
17Page:
Packet Page 96 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206223 12/31/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 58.69
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 118.04
Total :817.50
206224 12/31/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 45.07
Total :45.07
206225 12/31/2013 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA GAVIOLA TAEKWON-DO 17737
TAEKWON-DO 17737
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 242.50
Total :242.50
18Page:
Packet Page 97 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206226 12/31/2013 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER 17825 QIGONG 17825
QIGONG 17825
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 248.00
QIGONG 17823
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 244.50
TAI CHI 17820
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 198.00
TAI CHI 17819
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 124.00
TAI CHI 17821
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 217.00
MOVING FOR BETTER BALANCE
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 164.00
Total :1,195.50
206227 12/31/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9315890930 Dev Svc Project - Duct Diffuser
Dev Svc Project - Duct Diffuser
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 93.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 8.85
Total :101.97
206228 12/31/2013 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 970155893 716fx2-st Red Lion Controls Managed
716fx2-st Red Lion Controls Managed
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,306.75
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 124.14
Total :1,430.89
206229 12/31/2013 012355 GRCC/BAT B5606 HARRIS BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER
HARRIS BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER
001.000.64.576.80.49.00 42.00
Total :42.00
206230 12/31/2013 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 143975/1 Sewer - Sump Pump
Sewer - Sump Pump
19Page:
Packet Page 98 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206230 12/31/2013 (Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 178.64
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 16.97
Water Inventory - #0111 W-CPLGCI-10-010143976/1
Water Inventory - #0111 W-CPLGCI-10-010
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 501.24
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 116.76
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 58.71
Total :872.32
206231 12/31/2013 012560 HACH COMPANY 8617381 Petri dish with pad, COD Std Soln, DPD
Petri dish with pad, COD Std Soln, DPD
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 354.04
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 33.63
Total :387.67
206232 12/31/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1042267 DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.82
CLAMPS1042279
CLAMPS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.52
QK LK1042281
QK LK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.20
DAWN1095578
20Page:
Packet Page 99 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206232 12/31/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
DAWN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.57
LIGHTS RETURNED2250574
LIGHTS RETURNED
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -79.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -7.54
TIE DOWNS CLR LIGHTS5030922
TIE DOWNS CLR LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 179.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.05
TOOL BOX6041154
TOOL BOX
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.46
BANTAP6090957
BANTAP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.88
XMASLITE6152007
XMASLITE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 135.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.61
100 STRING TO STRING CLEAR LIGHTS6972736
100 String to string clear lights
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -62.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -5.94
21Page:
Packet Page 100 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206232 12/31/2013 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
MASLITES6973651
MASLITES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -0.23
LED LIGHTS8045217
LED LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 69.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.64
STAPLES8080197
STAPLES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.68
TOOL BOX9045066
TOOL BOX
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 39.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.79
BURY9045068
BURY
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 152.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.51
Total :742.25
206233 12/31/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2381453 POST IT FILING TABS, SPARCO REFILL BLADE
Post-it Durable File tabs & Sparco
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 53.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 5.08
SWINGLINE 747 CLASS STAPLER2382865
Swingline 747 Classic Stapler SWI74701
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 21.64
22Page:
Packet Page 101 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206233 12/31/2013 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.06
LIQUID PAPER DRYLINE CORRECTION TAPE2385173
Liquid Paper DryLine Ultra Correction
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 5.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.50
COPY PAPER2389339
Copy paper - 6 cases
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 239.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 22.79
Total :350.90
206234 12/31/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2387205 ENGLISH.DESK
Desk
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 1,527.76
Delivery & Install
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 159.39
Total :1,837.15
206235 12/31/2013 065306 INSTITUTE OF TRANSP ENGINEERS Hauss.ITE Dues HAUSS.ITE DUES 2014
Hauss.ITE Dues 2014
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 289.28
Total :289.28
206236 12/31/2013 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 11562805 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,993.32
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.68
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.01
23Page:
Packet Page 102 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,008.0120623612/31/2013 071634 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM
206237 12/31/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 485926 Unit 66 - Batteries
Unit 66 - Batteries
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 233.90
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.27
Fleet Core Fee Returned61224132
Fleet Core Fee Returned
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -55.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -5.22
Unit 891 - Battery61224687
Unit 891 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 209.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.95
Unit eq92po - Upgraded Battery61224689
Unit eq92po - Upgraded Battery
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 14.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1.33
Unit 679 - Upgrade Battery Adjustment61224785
Unit 679 - Upgrade Battery Adjustment
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.33
Total :455.51
206238 12/31/2013 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE KEARNS 17729 TAEKWON-DO 17729
TAEKWON-DO 17729
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 129.50
TAEKWON-DO 17725
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 87.50
Total :217.00
24Page:
Packet Page 103 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206239 12/31/2013 016600 KROESENS INC 17391 INV#17391 - EDMONDS PD - BROMAN
3/4 SLEEVED BLUE POLO SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 70.50
MAXIGRIP SHOES
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 62.50
BLACK JACKET
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 42.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 16.67
INV#17442 - EDMONDS PD - COLLINS17442
3/4 SLEEVED BLUE POLO SHIRT
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 22.50
S/S BLUE POLO SHIRT
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 41.00
BLACK JACKET
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 42.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.07
INV#17443 - EDMONDS PD - SCHEELE17443
3/4 SLEEVED BLUE POLO SHIRT
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 45.00
S/S BLUE POLO SHIRT
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 20.50
BLACK JACKET
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 42.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.26
INV#17444 - EDMONDS PD - JOHNSON17444
3/4 SLEEVED BLUE POLO SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 67.50
BLACK JACKET
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 42.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.45
INV#17445 - EDMONDS PD - DIEHL17445
25Page:
Packet Page 104 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206239 12/31/2013 (Continued)016600 KROESENS INC
3/4 SLEEVED BLUE POLO SHIRT
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 22.50
S/S BLUE POLO SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 41.00
BLACK JACKET
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 42.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.07
INV#17446 - EDMONDS PD - MANDEVILLE17446
BLACK JACKET
001.000.41.521.80.24.00 42.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.24.00 4.04
Total :709.56
206240 12/31/2013 073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 03709 Mini Fab 330 Polymer Make down system
Mini Fab 330 Polymer Make down system
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 51,882.50
Freight
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,689.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 6,713.08
Zetag 7878 200KG or 440 lb drum03732
Zetag 7878 200KG or 440 lb drum
423.000.76.535.80.31.51 1,364.23
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.51 129.60
Total :61,778.41
206241 12/31/2013 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 11356745 PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION
PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 2,790.00
Total :2,790.00
206242 12/31/2013 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 12013-148 FUEL CAN
26Page:
Packet Page 105 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206242 12/31/2013 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
FUEL CAN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.14
Total :24.63
206243 12/31/2013 074014 LEIDOS ENGINEERING LLC 51498 E1FM.SERVICES THRU 12/06/13
E1FM.Services thru 12/06/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 426.63
E3FA.SERVICES THRU 12/06/1351499
E3FA.Services thru 12/06/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 13,527.68
Total :13,954.31
206244 12/31/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 692303 Unit 80 - Oil Seal
Unit 80 - Oil Seal
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.58
Unit 137 - Air Filter692344
Unit 137 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.75
Unit 132 - A/Trans Filter Kit692860
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.14
Unit 132 - A/Trans Filter Kit
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.02
Unit 95 - Fleetrunner Belt, Switch692901
Unit 95 - Fleetrunner Belt, Switch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 53.58
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.09
Unit 46 - Front Wheel Seal692946
27Page:
Packet Page 106 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206244 12/31/2013 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
Unit 46 - Front Wheel Seal
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.64
Total :175.12
206245 12/31/2013 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6794 CITY PARK REVITALIZATION NOVEMBER
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION NOVEMBER
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 22,487.89
Total :22,487.89
206246 12/31/2013 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER 12172013 VOLLEYBALL MONITOR 3 HOURS
VOLLEYBALL MONITOR 3 HOURS
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 30.00
BASKETBALL MONITOR 14 HOURS
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 140.00
Total :170.00
206247 12/31/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 180285 Water - Interfund Repair Parts
Water - Interfund Repair Parts
421.000.74.534.80.98.00 14.95
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.98.00 1.42
Total :16.37
206248 12/31/2013 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 13-1427-8 E1GA.SERVICES THRU 11/30/13
E1GA.Services thru 11/30/13
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 675.23
E1GA.Services thru 11/30/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,350.46
Total :2,025.69
206249 12/31/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0362551-IN Storm - Work Gloves
Storm - Work Gloves
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 163.80
28Page:
Packet Page 107 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206249 12/31/2013 (Continued)064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 15.56
Unit EQ81WR - Logos0363776-IN
Unit EQ81WR - Logos
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 28.90
Unit EQ74PO - Logos
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 28.90
Unit EQ91SO - Logos
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 28.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 8.24
Total :274.30
206250 12/31/2013 024001 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO 7572808 Unit 9 - Keys
Unit 9 - Keys
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 54.80
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.75
Total :77.83
206251 12/31/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0509814-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 83.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 7.98
Fleet FIlter Inventory0510726-IN
Fleet FIlter Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 18.66
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.77
Total :112.39
206252 12/31/2013 074703 NEUMAIER, ROGER Dec 2013 MGR & ADMIN GROUP STATE AUDITOR MEETING
29Page:
Packet Page 108 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206252 12/31/2013 (Continued)074703 NEUMAIER, ROGER
Managers & Administrators Group - State
001.000.31.514.23.43.00 19.30
Total :19.30
206253 12/31/2013 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 47834 Sodium Bisulfite
Sodium Bisulfite
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 795.60
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 75.58
Total :871.18
206254 12/31/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-820036 SIERRA PARK RENTALS
SIERRA PARK RENTALS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35
MARINA BEACH PARK1-820898
MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,007.20
BALLINGER CREDITS1-821353
BALLINGER CREDITS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -126.54
RENTALS PINE STREET PARK1-821906
RENTALS PINE STREET PARK
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35
RENTALS CIVIC FIELD1-822450
RENTALS CIVIC FIELD
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35
Total :1,217.71
206255 12/31/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 433 Planning Board minute taker.
Planning Board minute taker.
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 512.00
Total :512.00
206256 12/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 686098 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
30Page:
Packet Page 109 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206256 12/31/2013 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 89.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 8.55
OFFICE SUPPLIES686306
Office Supplies
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 5.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 0.51
Total :104.35
206257 12/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 146648 Storm Desk Calendar
Storm Desk Calendar
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 6.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.61
Recycle - Blue Deskside Containers495716
Recycle - Blue Deskside Containers
421.000.74.537.90.49.00 68.34
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.537.90.49.00 6.50
PW - 2014 Calendars for Street Storm627691
PW - 2014 Calendars for Street Storm
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 69.90
PW - 2014 Calendars for Street Storm
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 69.90
PW - 2014 Calendars for Street Storm
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 69.90
PW - 2014 Calendars for Street Storm
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 69.90
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 6.64
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 6.64
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.64
31Page:
Packet Page 110 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206257 12/31/2013 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.64
Sewer - 2014 Calendar627878
Sewer - 2014 Calendar
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.14
Total :401.15
206258 12/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 825865 TABS AND TAG BOARD
TABS AND TAG BOARD
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 19.29
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 103.18
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 1.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.80
LEGAL PADS826002
LEGAL PADS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.71
DESK CALENDAR FOR TODD908882
DESK CALENDAR FOR TODD
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.26
Total :156.82
206259 12/31/2013 074545 OLDS-OLYMPIC INC 000511-1333401 Unit 53 - Diesel
Unit 53 - Diesel
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 345.09
LS 12 - Diesel
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 375.48
32Page:
Packet Page 111 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :720.5720625912/31/2013 074545 074545 OLDS-OLYMPIC INC
206260 12/31/2013 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-2300806 Unit 133 - Brake Pads
Unit 133 - Brake Pads
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 76.05
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.22
Unit 133 - Brake Pads, Oil Seal2-230717
Unit 133 - Brake Pads, Oil Seal
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 94.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.02
Unit 133 - Returned Brake Pads2-230862
Unit 133 - Returned Brake Pads
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -89.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -8.55
Unit 46 - Brake Pads, Rotors2-232574
Unit 46 - Brake Pads, Rotors
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 255.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.28
Total :368.62
206261 12/31/2013 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 101300330 E2CC.SERVICES THRU 10/11/13
E2CC.Services thru 10/11/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,241.81
Total :2,241.81
206262 12/31/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00069918 Unit 106 - Flow Control Valve
Unit 106 - Flow Control Valve
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 35.14
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.09
33Page:
Packet Page 112 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :47.2320626212/31/2013 002203 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
206263 12/31/2013 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 14-80510 E1FD.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBER 2013
E1FD.Services thru November 2013
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 3,663.87
Total :3,663.87
206264 12/31/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.954023041924 Fac Maint - Paint Supplies
Fac Maint - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 45.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.35
Total :50.14
206265 12/31/2013 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 20737725 Fleet Shop Tool - Plier Clamp
Fleet Shop Tool - Plier Clamp
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 44.78
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 6.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 4.90
Total :56.40
206266 12/31/2013 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-26 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 9/29/13
E7AC.Services thru 9/29/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 28,770.81
E7AC.SERVICES THRU 10/27/1320110010.000-27
E7AC.Services thru 10/27/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 25,807.89
E7AC.SERVICES THRU 12/01/1320110010.000-28
E7AC.Services thru 12/01/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 11,772.08
Total :66,350.78
206267 12/31/2013 008350 PETTY CASH PR PETTY 122013 SILVER AND WHITE PENS
SILVER AND WHITE PENS
001.000.64.575.56.31.00 2.39
34Page:
Packet Page 113 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206267 12/31/2013 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH
LERN CONFERENCE RANKINS
001.000.64.571.22.43.00 16.50
CANDY CANES AND POWDER SUGAR
001.000.64.575.56.31.00 3.99
CLEANING PADS AND SWIFFER
001.000.64.575.55.31.00 21.88
WREATH FOR CEMETERY
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 21.00
PARKING FOR SNO COUNTY MEETING
117.100.64.573.20.43.00 3.00
REFERENCE BOOK FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAMS
001.000.64.574.35.31.00 22.73
PADLOCK FOR CABINET IN CLASSROOM 302
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 5.09
END OF YEAR CERTIFICATES
001.000.64.575.55.31.00 8.96
END OF YEAR CERTIFICATE STICKETRS
001.000.64.575.55.31.00 8.10
END OF YEAR CERTICATE STICKERS
001.000.64.575.55.31.00 6.87
END OF YEAR CERTIFICATES STICKERS
001.000.64.575.55.31.00 4.38
Total :124.89
206268 12/31/2013 008475 PETTY CASH 12/5-12/31/13 CITY HOLIDAY BREAKFAST - PANCAKE BATTER
CITY HOLIDAY BREAKFAST - PANCAKE BATTER
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 45.00
WATER - 76TH AVE CONST SHUT OFF - WATER
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 5.98
WATER - CDL FEES - J KOBYLK
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 85.00
WATER QUALITY - SAMPLE CUPS FOR FLUSHING
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.46
WATER - SUPPLIES
35Page:
Packet Page 114 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206268 12/31/2013 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 28.45
WATER - CDL FEES - J DANIELS
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 85.00
FLEET UNIT 68 - LIC FEES
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 47.75
FLEET UNIT 38- LIC FEES
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 47.75
Total :350.39
206269 12/31/2013 068411 PHILLIPS 66 - CONOCO 76 3312 EPD Gas and Svc Fees
EPD Gas and Svc Fees
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 49.26
Total :49.26
206270 12/31/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC b182919 Coat over Pant
Coat over Pant
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 940.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 89.30
Fiber patch cord, liq-titeb228034
Fiber patch cord, liq-tite
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 69.71
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.62
Total :1,105.63
206271 12/31/2013 068354 POWDER COATING INC B32464 PARK BENCH SANDBLASTING
PARK BENCH SANDBLASTING
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 14.25
Total :164.25
206272 12/31/2013 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 191004 INV#191004 - EDMONDS PD
TSR X26 DIGITAL POWER MAG
36Page:
Packet Page 115 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206272 12/31/2013 (Continued)071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 209.70
TSR X26 EXTENDED DPM
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 119.85
Freight
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 32.26
INV#191222 - EDMONDS PD191222
TSR TRGT 2 PART COND BACK
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 77.70
TSR TRGT 2 PART COND FRONT
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 77.70
Freight
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 15.71
Total :552.82
206273 12/31/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON CENTER
ALARM MONITORING FRANCES ANDERSON
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 233.55
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC730531
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 25.04
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 25.04
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 22.54
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 28.80
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 12.52
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
001.000.65.519.91.42.00 11.26
37Page:
Packet Page 116 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :358.7520627312/31/2013 064088 064088 PROTECTION ONE
206274 12/31/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,418.97
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 537.14
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 492.88
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 586.67
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,144.26
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 535.16
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 341.44
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.519.91.47.00 41.65
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 158.29
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 158.29
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 158.29
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 158.29
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 158.27
38Page:
Packet Page 117 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206274 12/31/2013 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
423.000.76.535.80.47.63 917.40
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 367.74
Total :8,174.74
206275 12/31/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 152.82
Total :152.82
206276 12/31/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 87169 INV#87169 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2000 CHEV S10 #B09887F
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01
Total :173.01
206277 12/31/2013 031193 REDWINE, STEVEN LTC refund JOHN HANCOCK LONG TERM CARE REFUND
John Hancock Long Term Care refund
001.000.111.100 227.82
Total :227.82
206278 12/31/2013 070042 RICOH USA INC 91358841 Lease MPC6000 Copier/printer
Lease MPC6000 Copier/printer
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48
Lease PRO 907 EX Copier/printer91358850
Lease PRO 907 EX Copier/printer
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00
Total :1,270.48
206279 12/31/2013 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 05042-138519 Unit 12 - Install Solar Encap
Unit 12 - Install Solar Encap
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 445.44
39Page:
Packet Page 118 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206279 12/31/2013 (Continued)069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 42.32
Total :487.76
206280 12/31/2013 074083 SCHREIBER STARLING & LANE 11 FAC - ADA Improvements and Replacement
FAC - ADA Improvements and Replacement
001.000.66.518.30.41.00 2,892.00
Total :2,892.00
206281 12/31/2013 073993 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES 2-533584-460571 CHARGES & FEE FOR EMERGENCY INTERTIE
ANNUAL FEE FOR EMERGENCY INTERTIE
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 4,225.15
WATER CONSUMPTION CHARGES
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 525.42
Total :4,750.57
206282 12/31/2013 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 13-4584 Unit 106 - Vacuume Tube
Unit 106 - Vacuume Tube
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 209.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.86
Total :228.86
206283 12/31/2013 073859 SIMMONS, SHELLY SIMMONS 17745 ZUMBATOMIC 17745
ZUMBATOMIC 17745
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 176.25
SUPERSQUAD CHEER 17747
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 360.00
Total :536.25
206284 12/31/2013 073646 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 76674659 Sprinkler check
Sprinkler check
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 303.50
Total :303.50
206285 12/31/2013 036955 SKY NURSERY 218546 PLANTING MIX
40Page:
Packet Page 119 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206285 12/31/2013 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY
PLANTING MIX
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 56.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 5.32
PLANTING MIX218584
PLANTING MIX
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 56.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 5.32
PLANTING MIX AND CLYCAMEN218870
PLANTING MIX AND CLYCAMEN
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 83.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 7.91
Total :213.82
206286 12/31/2013 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/21240373 Shop Tools - Snap Ring Toolkit, Hex
Shop Tools - Snap Ring Toolkit, Hex
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 48.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 4.61
Total :53.13
206287 12/31/2013 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000346836 Q3-13 LIQUOR EXCISE TAXES
Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes
001.000.39.567.00.51.00 533.24
Total :533.24
206288 12/31/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W / METER 12002-0256-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 33.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3
41Page:
Packet Page 120 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206288 12/31/2013 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 88.90
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 12007-4860-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 166.62
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER2009-4334-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 190.96
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW /2011-5141-2
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,894.45
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 12015-8215-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 47.84
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 48.57
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 125.96
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 45.46
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.519.91.47.00 99.40
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 377.70
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
42Page:
Packet Page 121 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206288 12/31/2013 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 377.70
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 377.70
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 377.70
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 377.69
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 10002020-8787-0
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 319.58
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 122.59
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,686.34
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW /2024-2780-3
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,788.31
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 35.53
SPECIAL/FINAL INVOICE 22612 HIGHWAY 992053-0758-0
SPECIAL/FINAL INVOICE 22612 HIGHWAY 99
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 125.50
Total :15,841.45
206289 12/31/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 19827 89TH PL W
19827 89TH PL W
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.39
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK 24000 78TH AVE W /2026-2041-5
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK 24000 78TH AVE W
43Page:
Packet Page 122 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206289 12/31/2013 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.39
Total :66.78
206290 12/31/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2030-9778-7 Utilities for Maplewood substation
Utilities for Maplewood substation
423.000.76.535.80.47.61 29,375.82
Total :29,375.82
206291 12/31/2013 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 12/18/13 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES
December legislative meeting of SCC
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00
Total :35.00
206292 12/31/2013 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 12-18-13 SCC Petso/Johnson attend 12/5/13 SCC Dinner
Petso/Johnson attend 12/5/13 SCC Dinner
001.000.11.511.60.43.00 70.00
Total :70.00
206293 12/31/2013 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO January 2014 JANUARY 2014 STANDARD INSURANCE
December and January Standard Insurance
811.000.231.550 28,160.63
Total :28,160.63
206294 12/31/2013 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3323348 Water / Sewer - Locate Paint
Water / Sewer - Locate Paint
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 199.32
Water / Sewer - Locate Paint
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 199.32
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.94
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.93
Water/Sewer - Utility Locate Paint3323349
Water/Sewer - Utility Locate Paint
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.12
44Page:
Packet Page 123 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206294 12/31/2013 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
Water/Sewer - Utility Locate Paint
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.12
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.72
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.72
Total :476.19
206295 12/31/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100729220.002 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.49
Library - City Steels100729220-001
Library - City Steel
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.20
Fac Maint - Soft Bound Cod Book
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 120.82
City Hall - LED Lamps
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 87.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.69
FS 16 - SuppliesS100736115.001
FS 16 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.15
Total :326.55
206296 12/31/2013 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 42980668-001 MANLIFT
MANLIFT
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,505.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 143.01
45Page:
Packet Page 124 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,648.2120629612/31/2013 070837 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC
206297 12/31/2013 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 440011799388 C/A 440001304654
Basic e-commerce hosting 12/02/13 -
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
C/A 440001307733440011799395
Dec/2013 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
Total :69.90
206298 12/31/2013 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN 12172013 PICKLE BALL MONITOR 3 HOURS
PICKLE BALL MONITOR 3 HOURS
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 30.00
Total :30.00
206299 12/31/2013 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI TANIMURA 17688 KENDO 17688
KENDO 17688
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 203.50
KENDO 17686
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 74.00
Total :277.50
206300 12/31/2013 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50753770 Project 127 21582-13001
Project 127 21582-13001
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 31,143.00
Total :31,143.00
206301 12/31/2013 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV1139366 Fac Maint - Filters
Fac Maint - Filters
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 369.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.10
Total :404.58
206302 12/31/2013 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 47663 FAC - Gates, Posts, Hinges
FAC - Gates, Posts, Hinges
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 760.00
46Page:
Packet Page 125 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206302 12/31/2013 (Continued)041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 72.20
Total :832.20
206303 12/31/2013 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-93745 HR SUPPORT WEB MAINTENANCE
EDEN HR Support Web Maintenance 1/18/12
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 525.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 49.88
Total :574.88
206304 12/31/2013 043935 UPS 00002T4T13493 Shipment to Beck & Associations from
Shipment to Beck & Associations from
001.000.62.524.20.49.00 17.59
Total :17.59
206305 12/31/2013 062693 US BANK 2813 OReilly - Unit 91 - Supplies
OReilly - Unit 91 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 53.47
Decature - Unit 582 - Electronics
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 108.55
Magic Toyota - Unit 114 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.12
OReillys - Unit 891 - Hyd Fluid
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.08
Fleet - Good To Go Fees for Ferry to
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 30.00
OReillys - Unit 62 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.94
FEDEX - Unit 100 - Manuals
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 56.67
OReillys - Unit 46 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.14
Amazon - ASE Test Prep Books for
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 155.27
47Page:
Packet Page 126 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206305 12/31/2013 (Continued)062693 US BANK
AirGas - Fleet Shop - Compressed Gas
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 78.51
Randy's Ring & Pinion - Unit 455 -
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 376.46
OReillys - Returns - Fleet2813
OReillys - Returns - Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -72.27
Dev Svc -- Permits for Construction for3405
Dev Svc -- Permits for Construction for
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 380.50
Guardian Sec - Old PW
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00
American Direct - City Hall -
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 585.83
American Direct - PS - Steel Door
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 388.83
Bartells - City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.17
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone3546
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 30.79
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 30.78
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 57.47
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 57.46
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 32.83
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 32.83
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.21
Verizon Wireless - W/S Cell Phone
48Page:
Packet Page 127 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206305 12/31/2013 (Continued)062693 US BANK
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.20
Amazon - Street/ Storm IPad Covers
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 129.99
Amazon - Street/ Storm IPad Covers
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 129.99
Total :2,785.82
206306 12/31/2013 062693 US BANK 6045 HR Adv on Craigs list for Permit Coord
HR Adv on Craigs list for Permit Coord
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 100.00
Total :100.00
206307 12/31/2013 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0516490-WA 1 Storm, 1 Water DOT
1 Storm, 1 Water DOT
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 86.00
1 Storm, 1 Water DOT
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 86.00
Total :172.00
206308 12/31/2013 071059 VAN TASSELL, MICHELLE 07367 GLASS PUMPKINS FOR ADULT DELEGATION GIFT
GLASS PUMPKINS FOR ADULT DELEGATION GIFT
138.200.21.557.21.49.00 195.00
9.5% Sales Tax
138.200.21.557.21.49.00 17.94
Total :212.94
206309 12/31/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9716562563 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 72.96
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 171.77
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 115.88
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.64.574.35.42.00 24.32
49Page:
Packet Page 128 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206309 12/31/2013 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 57.85
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 338.87
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.58
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 70.24
Cell Service-PW Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 28.89
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 45.94
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 45.94
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 101.26
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 85.28
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 51.30
Total :1,399.08
206310 12/31/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 30216079 Clerical assistance
Clerical assistance
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 340.88
Total :340.88
206311 12/31/2013 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20-1-12968 INV 20-1-12968 ACCT 23104-001 EDMONDS PD
FTO ACADEMY - ANDREW MEHL 12/2/13
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 75.00
Total :75.00
206312 12/31/2013 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 50208 INV#50208 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1997 FORD TAURUS #AIH1825
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00
50Page:
Packet Page 129 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206312 12/31/2013 (Continued)067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01
Total :173.01
206313 12/31/2013 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9352 TREE REMOVAL YOST PARK
TREE REMOVAL YOST PARK
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 640.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 60.80
TREE REMOVAL EAST TENNIS CORTS06-9353
TREE REMOVAL EAST TENNIS CORTS
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 450.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 42.75
FIR TREE REMOVAL06-9354
FIR TREE REMOVAL
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 580.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 55.10
Total :1,828.65
206314 12/31/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6137 BUSINESS LICENSES FOLDING & STUFFING
Business Licenses - folding & stuffing
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 23.75
Total :273.75
206315 12/31/2013 074226 WOOD, LISA WOOD 17783 BELLY DANCE CLASS
BELLY DANCE CLASS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 150.00
Total :150.00
206316 12/31/2013 045565 WSPCA WSPCA-ROBINSON MEMBERSHIP - ROBINSON/HOBBS EDMONDS PD
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP
51Page:
Packet Page 130 of 333
12/31/2013
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
3:50:00PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206316 12/31/2013 (Continued)045565 WSPCA
001.000.41.521.26.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
Bank total : 1,166,526.79149 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
1,166,526.79Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report149
52Page:
Packet Page 131 of 333
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 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
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
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 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
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 132 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD
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
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades c393 E3LA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
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
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 Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
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
STR SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study c427 E3AB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 133 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
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 Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 134 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
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 c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
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
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 135 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain
STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update
STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project
FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades
WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements
STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive
WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 136 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study
STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 137 of 333
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 2012 Sewermain-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
STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 138 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
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
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study
STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive
STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades
WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
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
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 139 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
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 Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 140 of 333
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
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades c393 E3LA
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
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 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 141 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
STR SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study c427 E3AB
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 142 of 333
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
Revised 12/31/2013 Packet Page 143 of 333
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 628 (12/01/2013 to 12/15/2013)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
SICK LEAVESICK121 491.50 17,543.73
VACATIONVACATION122 722.05 27,536.82
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 119.50 4,346.32
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 81.00 2,829.72
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 8.95 574.39
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 126.25 4,310.54
Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 5.00 175.15
MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 10.00 429.48
BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 76.00 3,096.57
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 63.00 2,250.42
COMPTIME BUY BACKCOMP HOURS152 0.25 9.05
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 69.14 2,828.29
SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 3.50 126.64
VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 57.41 2,077.31
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 9.00 622.19
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 14,247.00 526,248.24
LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 56.00 2,572.54
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 17.75 671.67
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 2,172.53
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 11.00 977.24
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 246.50 14,548.42
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 17.00 1,044.51
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 808.69
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 10,135.62
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 26.75 0.00
Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 16.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 108.85 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 3.00 0.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 23.56
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 161.90
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 80.05
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 137.44
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 589.30
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 95.89
01/03/2014 Page 1 of 2
Packet Page 144 of 333
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 628 (12/01/2013 to 12/15/2013)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 923.69
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 736.66
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 834.14
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,836.73
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla 16.00 0.00
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 138.00 4,589.59
Family Medical Leave VacationVACATIONfmlv 40.00 1,028.01
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 27.00 1,280.81
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 190.11
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITY PAYlg1 0.00 1,919.19
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 1,265.29
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 4,861.08
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 350.96
Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 66.98
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 323.67
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 723.04
MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 191.78
5% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUSooc 0.00 239.28
Pregnancy Disabil/NON PAIDABSENTpdla 19.00 0.00
Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 44.66
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,655.00
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 147.00
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 290.85
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 147.00
SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 70.33 0.00
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 302.03
VACATION ADD BACKVACATIONvab 90.00 0.00
Total Net Pay:$446,416.70
$655,971.77 17,040.73
01/03/2014 Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 145 of 333
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 628 - 12/01/2013 to 12/15/2013
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
60708 12/20/2013 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 17,821.00 0.00
60725 12/20/2013 mebt AST TTEE 70,743.26 0.00
60726 12/20/2013 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,808.00 0.00
60727 12/20/2013 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00
60728 12/20/2013 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 315.83 0.00
60729 12/20/2013 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 7,117.05 0.00
60730 12/20/2013 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 2,019.50 0.00
60731 12/20/2013 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,016.57 0.00
103,277.71 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2039 12/20/2013 front FRONTIER BANK 87,688.55 0.00
2041 12/20/2013 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 164.40 0.00
2042 12/20/2013 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 50.00 0.00
87,902.95 0.00
191,180.66 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 11/3/2014
2,013.00 12.00 24 1
Packet Page 146 of 333
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 600 (12/16/2013 to 12/31/2013)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 69.16 0.00
SICK LEAVESICK121 473.00 13,189.69
VACATIONVACATION122 2,892.67 89,576.66
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 121.50 4,056.25
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 172.50 4,679.67
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 209.52 6,649.95
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 96.00 3,196.17
Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 8.00 228.76
BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 42.00 1,657.19
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 181.00 6,528.91
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 117.50 4,752.30
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 87.00 4,578.72
COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 0.00 7,000.00
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 200.00
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 12,208.20 384,523.78
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,608.94
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 186.00 7,407.88
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 2,101.44
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 16.00 1,519.65
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 154.00 8,614.92
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 14.75 970.70
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 595.38
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 74.25 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 81.50 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 6.25 0.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 23.56
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 161.90
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 80.05
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 137.44
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 589.30
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 95.89
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 923.69
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 736.66
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 834.14
01/03/2014 Page 1 of 2
Packet Page 147 of 333
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 600 (12/16/2013 to 12/31/2013)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,836.73
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 116.00 3,179.82
Family Medical Leave VacationVACATIONfmlv 9.00 276.22
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 2,386.60 75,395.67
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 190.11
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITY PAYlg1 0.00 1,919.19
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 1,265.29
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 4,861.08
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 350.96
Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 66.98
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 323.67
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 676.70
MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 191.78
5% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUSooc 0.00 239.28
Pregnancy Disabil/NON PAIDABSENTpdla 24.00 0.00
Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 44.66
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,655.00
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 147.00
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 290.85
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 147.00
SICK LEAVE BUY BACKSICKslb 512.08 7,714.91
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 302.03
Total Net Pay:$453,567.56
$662,294.52 20,310.48
01/03/2014 Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 148 of 333
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 600 - 12/16/2013 to 12/31/2013
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
60746 01/03/2014 mebt AST TTEE 79,865.34 0.00
60747 01/03/2014 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,150.00 0.00
60748 01/03/2014 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00
60749 01/03/2014 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 670.76 0.00
60750 01/03/2014 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 987.94 0.00
60751 01/03/2014 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 4,117.05 0.00
60752 01/03/2014 cope SEIU COPE 62.00 0.00
60753 01/03/2014 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,153.63 0.00
60754 01/03/2014 sdu STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 250.00 0.00
60755 01/03/2014 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 2,150.50 0.00
60756 01/03/2014 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 314.00 0.00
60757 01/03/2014 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,016.57 0.00
2045 01/03/2014 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 173,122.82 0.00
267,977.61 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2046 01/03/2014 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 17,442.00 0.00
2047 01/03/2014 front FRONTIER BANK 86,649.66 0.00
2040 01/03/2014 aflac AFLAC 4,722.68 0.00
108,814.34 0.00
376,791.95 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 11/3/2014
2,013.00 12.00 24 2
Packet Page 149 of 333
AM-6447 5. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Kyle Blackwell ($1,172.81), Jack Lanum (amount
undetermined), and Claire Hedman ($1,791,12).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Kyle Blackwell
10533 30th Dr. SE
Everett, WA 99208
($1,172.81)
Jack Lanum
7785 NE Harbor View Dr.
Poulsbo, WA 98370
(Amount undetermined)
Claire Hedman
715 NW 192nd Street
Shoreline, WA 98177
($1,791.12)
Attachments
Blackwell Claim for Damages
Lanum Claim for Damages
Hedman Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 150 of 333
Mayor Dave Earling 12/26/2013 08:15 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/26/2013 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 12/20/2013 03:46 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/26/2013
Packet Page 151 of 333
Packet Page 152 of 333
Packet Page 153 of 333
Packet Page 154 of 333
Packet Page 155 of 333
Packet Page 156 of 333
Packet Page 157 of 333
Packet Page 158 of 333
Packet Page 159 of 333
Packet Page 160 of 333
Packet Page 161 of 333
AM-6442 5. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of WSLCB December 2013 Liquor License Renewals.
Recommendation
Please approve the attached list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their WSLCB liquor
licenses for the month of December 2013.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City Clerk's Office, the Police Department, and the Mayor's Office have reviewed the attached list
and have no concerns with the Washington State Liquor Control Board renewing the liquor licenses for
the listed businesses.
Attachments
WSLCB_Dec13
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 12/18/2013 01:57 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/20/2013 12:04 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/20/2013 02:06 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/17/2013 02:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/20/2013
Packet Page 162 of 333
Packet Page 163 of 333
Packet Page 164 of 333
Packet Page 165 of 333
Packet Page 166 of 333
Packet Page 167 of 333
AM-6455 5. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution Thanking Councilmember Lora Petso for Her Service as Council President.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
This Resolution has been placed on the Consent agenda for approval.
Attachments
Petso Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 11:04 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 11:09 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 02:10 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/31/2013 10:02 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 168 of 333
Resolution
No:
A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Thanking
Council President Lora Petso for Her Service To The Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Lora Petso was elected as Council President on January 8, 2013 to serve a one-
year term . During her tenure as President she presided over many meetings that were
not only long but included countless complicated agenda items. Her tenure as Council
President included managing numerous day-to-day challenges and she did this with
diligence and proficiency. During her tenure, some, but not all, of the accomplishments
included settling the Haines Wharf litigation, adoption of the 2014 budget while at the
same time banking a 1% property tax increase and improving City service levels, and
overseeing the adoption of Robert’s Rules of Order; and
Whereas, while Council President, she sat on the following Regional Fire Authority, PFD Oversight
Committee, the PFD Task Force, as well as filling in where necessary on the Finance,
Planning, Parks, and Public Works, and Public Safety/Personnel Committees.
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that Lora Petso be applauded and thanked for serving
as Council President. The Council looks forward to her continued dedication and service to the citizens of
Edmonds.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 7th day of January, 2014.
David O. Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Packet Page 169 of 333
AM-6445 5. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Roger Neumaier Submitted By:Roger Neumaier
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Bond Counsel Contract for authorized Refunding of UTGO Bonds
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Counsel authorize the use of bond counsel per the attached engagement letter
by consent.
Previous Council Action
Finance Committee reviewed refunding proposal including use of bond council and recommended
moving forward to consent. Council approved the plan as part of the December 17th consent schedule.
Since specific authorization was not requested for the Bond Counsel contract, the City Attorney has
recommended the request be resubmitted to the City Council for authorization of the use of the
Bond Counsel.
Narrative
In 1996, the City issued $9,275,000 of UTGO Bonds to finance two fire stations and the public safety
building, following a favorable vote by the City’s citizens. In 2003, with declining interest rates, the City
issued $7,000,000 of UTGO Refunding Bonds, refinancing the 1996 Bonds.
The 2003 Bonds are callable any time after December 1, 2013, and the City has the ability to refinance
these bonds, saving the City taxpayers some money. The par amount of the 2003 Bonds that can be
refunded is $2,720,000, with an average interest rate of 3.41%. The final maturity is December 1, 2016.
The City Council has authorized moving forward with refunding. Refunding requires the participation of
bond counsel. This action requests that authorization.
Attachments
Bond Counsel Engagement Letter
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 12/20/2013 02:05 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/20/2013 03:03 PM
Packet Page 170 of 333
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/20/2013 03:04 PM
Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Started On: 12/20/2013 10:16 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/20/2013
Packet Page 171 of 333
December 17, 2013
Roger Neumaier
Finance Director
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Re: Engagement for Bond Counsel Services for 2014
Dear Roger:
As always, we appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”) from
time to time as Bond Counsel and as Special Counsel. This letter confirms our representation of the City
in connection with the proposed refunding of the City’s Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2003
and other bonds that may be issued during 2014.
Scope of Engagement and Fees. As Bond Counsel, we would expect to perform the duties set forth in
the attached “Bond Counsel Scope of Services” (Attachment 1). Each bond opinion will be based on
facts and law existing as of its date. In rendering our bond opinion, we will rely upon the certified
proceedings and other certifications of public officials and other persons furnished to us without
undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation, and we will assume continuing compliance
by the City after the Bonds are issued with applicable laws relating to the Bonds. Upon the closing of the
Bonds we will prepare and distribute to the participants in the transaction a transcript of the proceedings
pertaining to the Bonds. During the course of this engagement, we will rely on the City to provide us
with complete and timely information on all developments pertaining to any aspect of the Bonds and its
security. We understand that officials and employees of the City will cooperate with us in this regard.
For work performed as Bond Counsel, we normally charge the City a flat fee based on our standard bond
counsel fee schedule, which takes into account the size and complexity of the transaction. The fee
schedule below is used as our base for calculating fees for nonvoted limited tax general obligation bonds.
For voted bond issues, refundings, revenue bonds or other types of bonds, we take into account the
adjustments described in the paragraph following the schedule.
Issue Size Base (LTGO) Bond Counsel Fee
Under $5 million $7,800 + 2.50 per $1,000 in excess of $1MM
$5 million – $9.999 million $18,800 + 1.85 per $1,000 in excess of $5MM
$10 million – $25 million $27,050 + 1.50 per $1,000 in excess of $10MM
Over $25 million $49,750 + 1.00 per $1,000 in excess of $25MM
For voted general obligation bonds, the fee is 1.1 times the fee calculated above. For straightforward
utility revenue bonds, the fee would be 1.20 times the fee calculated according to the above schedule for
general obligation bonds. For refunding bonds, an additional charge equal to .25 times the base LTGO fee
is added. We will provide you with an updated estimate of the fee for each issue after the size and
structure of each bond issue is determined. For any interim financing (e.g., short-term bridge or
construction financing), the fee would be 80% of the amount calculated using the above formulas (and
60% for extensions involving the delivery of a legal opinion or 40% for extensions where no legal
opinion is required). For more complex financing structures involving lease revenue bonds, tax credit
Packet Page 172 of 333
bonds or other complex transactions, we would typically multiply the base fee by a factor to account for
additional complexity of the transaction to be agreed upon once the level of complexity becomes clear.
If we are requested by the City to perform additional services beyond those described in the Scope of
Bond Counsel Services, or if for any reason the financing represented by the Bonds is not closed or is
completed without the delivery of our bond opinion as Bond Counsel or our services are otherwise
terminated, we would expect to be compensated at our normal hourly rates for time actually devoted to
handling such matters for the City.
Conflicts of Interest. As you know, our firm represents many political subdivisions, companies and
individuals. It is possible that during the time that we are representing the City, one or more of our present
or future clients will have transactions with the City. From time to time, we have been consulted by the
City in matters relating to the Edmonds Public Facilities District. Although we are not currently engaged
by the District, we have in the past, pursuant to written waivers by the City and the District, represented
the District as bond counsel and on general matters. If we were to consult with the District in the future,
we would seek additional conflict waivers from both the City and the District. Additionally, from time to
time, we are asked to represent developers of property who seek permits from the City as the land use
permitting agency. Although we view this type of work as unrelated to our work relating to bond
issuances, prior to undertaking any such representation we would consult with you and obtain written
waivers when appropriate.
Furthermore, it is also possible that we may be asked to represent, in an unrelated matter, one or more of
the entities involved in the issuance of bonds by the City. For example, we may, from time to time, serve
as counsel to an underwriter or purchaser of City bonds issued by another bond issuer. We do not believe
that, if any such future representation unrelated to financing matters were to arise, it would adversely
affect our ability to represent you as provided in this letter. That is either because such matters are
typically sufficiently differentiated from the issuance of bonds so as to make such representations not
adverse to our representation of you, or because the potential for such adversity is remote or minor and
outweighed by the consideration that it is unlikely that advice given to the other client will be relevant to
any aspect of the issuance of the Bonds. If we in the future believe that any proposed representation may
adversely affect our representation of the City, we will promptly disclose such representation to the City
and, in accordance with ethical rules, seek the appropriate City consent.
If the terms of this letter are acceptable, I would appreciate it if you would have the enclosed copy of this
letter signed by you or another appropriate City official and returned to me at your convenience. We look
forward to working with all involved in this financing. Please call whenever there are questions, or if we
might be able to assist the City.
Sincerely,
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
Alice M. Ostdiek
Encl.
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Title:
Packet Page 173 of 333
BOND COUNSEL SCOPE OF SERVICES
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
A. BOND COUNSEL SERVICES
Those services which Foster Pepper PLLC will provide as bond counsel to the City (the “Issuer”) include:
1. Advising the Issuer and its consultants on legal requirements applicable to a proposed financing
and, when requested, participating with those consultants and the Issuer’s staff in structuring the
financing of the Project;
2. Reviewing the transcripts relating to the prior issuance by the Issuer of related outstanding
obligations to assure conformity of the Bonds with applicable covenants and conditions;
3. Based on facts provided by the Issuer and its consultants, performing the necessary legal analysis
to determine whether interest on the Bonds will qualify for an exclusion from gross income for
federal income tax purposes, and preparing tax exemption and nonarbitrage certificates;
4. Drafting the documents necessary to authorize the Bonds;
5. Attending certain meetings and participating in conference calls relating to the issuance and sale
of the Bonds;
6. Forwarding financing documents to bond rating agencies and bond insurers, when requested by
the Issuer, and explaining those documents to agency and insurer representatives;
7. When requested by the Issuer or its consultants, reading those portions of drafts of the official
statement, offering circular or other sales material relating to the Bonds prepared by the Issuer or
its consultants necessary to assure the accuracy only of the description of the Bonds, the source of
payment and security for the Bonds, any continuing disclosure undertaking and the federal tax
treatment of the interest on the Bonds;
8. Preparing closing papers necessary to support the issuance of the Bonds and assembling the
transcript after the closing; and
9. Subject to the completion of proceedings to our satisfaction, furnishing the firm’s approving bond
opinion regarding the validity and binding effect of the Bonds and the excludability of interest on
the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
B. OTHER SERVICES
The services described above do not include the following additional bond and project-related work for
the Issuer, which we would be pleased to perform on request. The provision of these services involves
appropriate fee arrangements.
1. The drafting or review for sufficiency of any environmental impact statements or other evidence
of compliance with the state and federal environmental laws and regulations;
2. The drafting or review for accuracy of portions of any official statement, offering circular or other
sales material relating to the issuance of the Bonds prepared by the Issuer or its consultants or
otherwise used in connection with the Bonds, other than the review of those portions of the
official statement describing the Bonds, the source of payment and security for the Bonds, any
Packet Page 174 of 333
continuing disclosure undertaking and the expected federal tax treatment of the interest on the
Bonds included in our services as bond counsel (See item A.7 above);
3. Providing advice to the Issuer or its consultants regarding the applicability of the registration
requirements under federal or state securities laws or regarding federal and state securities
disclosure requirements or due diligence review;
4. Drafting of bond purchase agreements;
5. Negotiation and drafting of repurchase agreements, investment contracts, custodial agreements,
swap agreements, credit enhancement or liquidity facilities (other than bond insurance), and
contracts, or disputes or litigation in connection therewith;
6. Preparation of supplemental opinions;
7. Attending rating agency meetings in connection with the issuance of Bonds;
8. The drafting or obtaining of state or federal legislation;
9. Drafting entity formation documents;
10. Participating in administrative proceedings, trial or appellate litigation;
11. Work in connection with seeking or obtaining governmental assistance or approvals from
governmental agencies other than the Issuer necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Bond
issue;
12. Providing services relating to public works bidding, negotiating design or construction contracts,
or carrying out the acquisition of property or the construction of the Project;
13. Representing the Issuer in Internal Revenue Service examinations or inquiries, or Securities and
Exchange Commission investigations;
14. After closing, providing continuing advice to the Issuer or any other party concerning any actions
necessary to assure that interest paid on the Bonds will continue to be excludable from gross
income for federal income tax purposes (e.g., our engagement as bond counsel does not include
rebate calculations for the Bonds or dealing with changes of use or delay in the expenditure of
proceeds);
15. Assisting the Issuer with any continuing disclosure obligations consistent with applicable
securities laws; or
16. Addressing any other matter not specifically set forth above that is not required to furnish our
bond opinion.
C. FILE MANAGEMENT
After the transaction is concluded, we will deliver to the Issuer a complete copy of the transcript of the
transaction. A transcript is delivered generally within 30 to 60 days after closing. We then close our files
regarding the matter, and our representation on the transaction is completed. Additional services after
closing would be addressed under Part B above.
Packet Page 175 of 333
AM-6463 5. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to execute contract with Pioneer Cable, Inc. in the amount of $201,598 for the
Citywide Safety Improvements Project and authorize a $22,400 management reserve for changes or
unforeseen conditions during construction.
Recommendation
Council award a contract to Pioneer Cable, Inc. in the amount of $201,598 for the Citywide Safety
Improvements Project and authorize a $22,400 management reserve for changes or unforeseen conditions
during construction.
Previous Council Action
On November 13, 2013, the Parks, Planning and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
In June 2012, the City secured a federal grant from the Highway Safety Improvement Program in the
amount of $300,000 to fully fund design and construction of the Citywide Safety Improvements Project.
The project will upgrade the traffic signal cabinets at four signalized intersections. The four intersections
are Main St/3rd Ave, 212th St/72nd Ave, 216th St/76th Ave and 100th Ave/SR104. Pedestrian countdown
displays, indicating the amount of crossing time remaining, will also be added to pedestrian heads at 14
signalized intersections throughout the City.
On November 15, 2013, the City received five bids for the Citywide Safety Improvements project. West
Coast Signal, Inc. was the lowest bidder with a bid of $191,525. Upon review of their bid documents, it
was determined that their bid was non-responsive because the Non-Collusion Declaration form wasn’t
included in their bid package. The form is required on all Federally-funded projects. The City received
a claim from West Coast Signal, Inc. that this form was included in their bid package, but was
subsequently lost by the City. The City reviewed the claim and determined it to be unfounded.
On December 13, 2013, West Coast Signal’s attorney submitted a formal bid protest and appeal claiming
that the contract should be awarded to West Coast Signal, Inc. After reviewing the bid protest, bid
documents and WSDOT specifications, the City Attorney prepared a response (Attachment 1) to the
Mayor with a recommendation to confirm that the West Coast Signal bid is nonresponsive and proceed
with the award to the next lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The Mayor issued his determination
Packet Page 176 of 333
(Attachment 2) on December 20, 2013, that West Coast Signal’s bid proposal was nonresponsive and to
proceed with awarding the contract to the next lowest responsible and responsive bidder.
The second lowest bidder was Pioneer Cable, Inc. with a bid of $201,598. The engineer’s estimate for this
project is $211,922. Please see the attached bid tabulation (Attachment 3). Staff has verified that all
construction bid documents submitted by Pioneer Cable Inc were included in their submittal and all
comply with federal contracting requirements.
Below is a summary of the estimated construction budget and the costs to be paid by the grant:
Estimated Construction Budget
Construction Contract $201,598
Construction Management & Engineering $35,000
WSDOT $1,500
Management Reserve $22,400
Total Budget =$260,498
Attachments
City Attorney's Response
Mayor's Determination
Bid Tabulation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Megan Luttrell 01/02/2014 04:08 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 01/02/2014 04:11 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 04:45 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/03/2014 10:32 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/03/2014 01:36 PM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/02/2014 12:51 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/03/2014
Packet Page 177 of 333
Packet Page 178 of 333
Packet Page 179 of 333
Packet Page 180 of 333
Packet Page 181 of 333
Packet Page 182 of 333
Packet Page 183 of 333
Packet Page 184 of 333
Packet Page 185 of 333
Packet Page 186 of 333
Packet Page 187 of 333
Packet Page 188 of 333
Packet Page 189 of 333
Packet Page 190 of 333
Packet Page 191 of 333
Packet Page 192 of 333
Packet Page 193 of 333
Packet Page 194 of 333
Packet Page 195 of 333
Packet Page 196 of 333
Packet Page 197 of 333
Packet Page 198 of 333
Packet Page 199 of 333
Packet Page 200 of 333
Packet Page 201 of 333
Packet Page 202 of 333
Packet Page 203 of 333
Packet Page 204 of 333
Packet Page 205 of 333
Packet Page 206 of 333
Packet Page 207 of 333
Packet Page 208 of 333
Project Name: Citywide Safety Improvements project
1 Contract Bond Extension 1-03.4 1 LS 500.00 $500.00 1,015.00 $1,015.00 1,544.00 $1,544.00 1.00 $1.00 0.00 $0.00 500.00 $500.00
2 SPCC Plan 1-07.15 1 LS 350.00 $350.00 500.00 $500.00 350.00 $350.00 871.00 $871.00 1,200.00 $1,200.00 500.00 $500.00
3 Mobilization 1-09.7 1 LS 9,000.00 $9,000.00 1,300.00 $1,300.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 14,261.00 $14,261.00 21,301.00 $21,301.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00
4 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1-10.5 1 LS 6,000.00 $6,000.00 5,404.00 $5,404.00 3,500.00 $3,500.00 10,787.00 $10,787.00 8,400.00 $8,400.00 13,187.00 $13,187.00
5 Off-Duty Uniformed Police Officer 1-10.5 32 HR 70.00 $2,240.00 69.55 $2,225.60 65.00 $2,080.00 77.68 $2,485.76 75.00 $2,400.00 80.00 $2,560.00
6 Owner Directed Work 8-02.3 1 EST 2,500.00 $2,500.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00
7 Traffic Signal Elements 8-20.5 1 LS 172,566.25 $172,566.25 178,580.00 $178,580.00 189,624.00 $189,624.00 194,024.00 $194,024.00 191,709.00 $191,709.00 213,775.00 $213,775.00
$192,656.25 $191,524.60 $201,598.00 $224,929.76 $227,510.00 $243,022.00
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
$211,921.88 $191,524.60 $201,598.00 $224,929.76 $227,510.00 $243,022.00
10% Contingency $19,265.63
8 Contract Bond Extension 1-03.4 1 LS 500.00 $500.00 233.74 $233.74 827.00 $827.00 1.00 $1.00 0.00 $0.00 150.00 $150.00
9 SPCC Plan 1-07.15 1 LS 100.00 $100.00 500.00 $500.00 350.00 $350.00 317.00 $317.00 800.00 $800.00 150.00 $150.00
10 Mobilization 1-09.7 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000.00 300.00 $300.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 2,028.00 $2,028.00 5,323.00 $5,323.00 3,000.00 $3,000.00
11 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1-10.5 1 LS 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,727.00 $1,727.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,364.00 $2,364.00 5,600.00 $5,600.00 1,199.00 $1,199.00
12 Off-Duty Uniformed Police Officer 1-10.5 8 HR 60.00 $560.00 69.55 $556.40 65.00 $520.00 77.68 $621.44 75.00 $600.00 80.00 $640.00
13 Traffic Signal Elements 8-20.5 1 LS 34,758.75 $34,758.75 40,787.00 $40,787.00 38,537.00 $38,537.00 23,691.00 $23,691.00 47,915.00 $47,915.00 41,524.00 $41,524.00
$38,419.00 $44,104.14 $43,734.00 $29,022.44 $60,238.00 $46,663.00
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
$42,261 $44,104.14 $43,734.00 $29,022.44 $60,238.00 $46,663.00
10% Contingency $ 3,842
11 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1-10.5 1 LS 175.00 $1,000.00 1,239.00 $1,239.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 75.00 $2,866.00 3,000.00 $3,000.00 3,375.00 $3,375.00
12 Off-Duty Uniformed Police Officer 1-10.5 4 HR 77.00 $280.00 278.20 $278.20 65.00 $260.00 52.00 $310.72 75.00 $300.00 80.00 $320.00
13 Traffic Signal Elements 8-20.5 1 LS 22,220.00 $20,200.00 54,944.00 $54,944.00 52,544.00 $52,544.00 310.00 $22,514.00 71,507.00 $71,507.00 24,671.00 $24,671.00
$21,480.00 $56,461.20 $54,304.00 $25,690.72 $74,807.00 $28,366.00
Approx.
QtyBid Item Item Description Spec.Unit
SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A (BASE BID)
Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price
SCHEDULE A – BASE BID Engineers Estimate West Coast Signal Pioneer Cable Totem Electric American Electric Services Transportation Systems
Total Price Unit Cost
WSST @ 9.5%
TOTAL SCHEDULE A (BASE BID)
SCHEDULE B - (BID ALTERNATE A1)
SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B (BID ALTERNATE A1)
WSST @ 9.5%
TOTAL SCHEDULE B( BID ALTERNATE A1)
SCHEDULE C - (BID ALTERNATE A2)
SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B (BID ALTERNATE A2)
Packet Page 209 of 333
Approx.
QtyBid Item Item Description Spec.Unit Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price
SCHEDULE A – BASE BID Engineers Estimate West Coast Signal Pioneer Cable Totem Electric American Electric Services Transportation Systems
Total Price Unit Cost
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
$ 23,628 $56,461.20 $54,304.00 $25,690.72 $74,807.00 $28,366.00
10% Contingency $ 2,148
14 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1-10.5 1 LS 1,100.00 $1,000.00 675.00 $675.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 1,195.00 $1,195.00 800.00 $800.00 1,162.00 $1,162.00
16 Traffic Signal Elements 8-20.5 1 LS 15,994.00 $14,540.00 13,533.00 $13,533.00 13,075.00 $13,075.00 14,952.00 $14,952.00 19,827.00 $19,827.00 15,525.00 $15,525.00
$15,540.00 $14,208.00 $14,575.00 $16,147.00 $20,627.00 $16,678.00
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
$17,094.00 $13,533.00 $14,575.00 $16,147.00 $20,627.00 $16,678.00
$ 1,554
WSST @ 9.5%
TOTAL SCHEDULE B( BID ALTERNATE A2)
TOTAL SCHEDULE B( BID ALTERNATE 1)
WSST @ 9.5%
TOTAL SCHEDULE B( BID ALTERNATE A2)
SCHEDULE D - (BID ALTERNATE A3)
SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B (BID ALTERNATE 1)
Packet Page 210 of 333
AM-6448 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Selection of Council President for 2014
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Selection of Council President for 2014
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 12/31/2013 10:49 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/31/2013 11:00 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/31/2013 02:01 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/27/2013 10:24 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/31/2013
Packet Page 211 of 333
AM-6449 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Selection of Council President Pro Tem for 2014
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Selection of Council President Pro Tem for 2014
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 12/31/2013 10:49 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/31/2013 11:00 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/31/2013 02:01 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/27/2013 10:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/31/2013
Packet Page 212 of 333
AM-6450 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Appointment of Committee Representatives for 2014
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Appointment of Committee Representatives for 2014
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 12/31/2013 10:49 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 10:04 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:10 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/27/2013 10:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 213 of 333
AM-6451 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Submitted By:Jana
Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution appointing a Councilmember to the Snohomish County Health District Board.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council announce the appointment of the Councilmember to
serve on the Health District Board and adopt the attached resolution.
Previous Council Action
The City Council appoints a Councilmember to serve on the Snohomish County Health District
Board each January.
Narrative
The Snohomish County Health District Board requires formal designation of its City
representative. The Councilmember designated to serve on this Board will be announced at this
evening's meeting.
Attachments
2014 Snohomish Health District Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:10 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 10:52 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:53 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/27/2013 10:27 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 214 of 333
RESOLUTION NO. ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO
THE SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD
WHEREAS, the Snohomish Health District Board requires formal designation of its City representative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the appointment of ____________________ to such Board would be in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby appoints ____________________ as its appointee to the Snohomish County Health Board for the calendar year 2014 and thereafter until such time as the Council shall make a new appointment.
RESOLVED this 7th day of January, 2014. APPROVED: _______________________________ DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________ CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 215 of 333
AM-6453 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution appointing a representative and alternate to the Snohomish County Public Transportation
Benefit Area Corporation.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council announce the appointment of City of Edmonds representatives to
the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation.
Previous Council Action
The City Council appoints representatives each January.
Narrative
The Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (also known as Community
Transit Board) requires formal designation of the City of Edmonds representatives. The appointed
representatives will be announced at this evening's meeting.
Attachments
Sno County Public Trans Benefit Area Corp 2014 Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:10 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 02:15 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 02:16 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/27/2013 10:37 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 216 of 333
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON APPOINTING
AS THE CITY OF EDMONDS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORATION BENEFIT
AREA CORPORATION AND __________________ AS ALTERNATE.
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation requires formal designation of the City of Edmonds representative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the appointment of ___________________ would be in the best interest of the City,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereby resolves as
follows:
Section 1: ______________________________________ is hereby appointed as the representative of the City of Edmonds to the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation for calendar year 2014 or until a new representative is named.
Section 2: In the event that __________________________________ is unwilling or unable to serve, _________________________________is hereby appointed as an alternate to serve on behalf of the City for calendar year 2014 or until a new alternate is named.
RESOLVED this 7th day of January, 2014. APPROVED: DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 217 of 333
AM-6456 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution Thanking Councilmember Lora Petso for her Service as Council
President.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution Thanking Councilmember Lora Petso for her Service as Council
President.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 09:29 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 09:53 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:10 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/31/2013 10:04 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 218 of 333
AM-6440 13.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn
LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Update from the Edmonds Sister City Commission.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Commission Chair Michelle Van Tassell will provide an update on the Commission's 2013
accomplishments and discuss plans for the 2014 student exchange program. She will be joined by
Commission Student Representative Michelle Rockstead.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 12/26/2013 01:26 PM
Mayor 12/27/2013 09:05 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/27/2013 09:18 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/17/2013 01:57 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/27/2013
Packet Page 219 of 333
AM-6466 14.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Planning Board Quarterly Report
Recommendation
No action is requested; this item is for information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A representative of the Edmonds Planning Board will provide the Council an update on Planning Board
business.
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/02/2014 04:00 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 220 of 333
AM-6460 15.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing and Possible Action on Planning Board Recommendation to Limit Certain Office Uses
from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street Frontages Within Downtown
Business (BD1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone (File No. AMD20130013).
Recommendation
June 8, 2011 - During the Planning Board meeting, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the
proposed amended table in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.43.020 and forward the
recommendation to the City Council. The current proposal is similar in concept to what was proposed in
June, 20111, i.e., limiting certain office uses from locating in business spaces along designated ground
floor street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone, however,
modifications to the proposal have been made since the June 8, 2011 Planning Board meeting.
June 13, 2013 – The Economic Development Commission expressed support to forward the proposal to
limit certain office uses within in the BD1 zone to the Planning Board with a statement that the EDC
supports limiting office uses in the BD1 Zone. The motion carried unanimously.
October 9, 2013 - The Planning Board unanimously approved forwarding a recommendation of approval
to the City Council for the proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43 (file number AMD20130013) as
written and amended by staff (see amendment to footnote below table 16.43-1), in addition to
recommending the City Council specifically evaluate the 90-day versus 180-day timeframe for
nonconformance.
Previous Council Action
See Attachment 3 - Chronology of Events
Narrative
Amendments to Downtown Business (BD) Zones - The Planning Board discussed four potential
amendments to the downtown BD zones beginning in March of 2011. One of the proposed amendments
to the BD1 zone included limiting certain office uses from locating along the ground floor storefronts of
designated street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone.
Attached are four primary documents related to this proposal (additional attachments include Planning
Board and City Council minutes and letters expressing positions on the proposal):
Packet Page 221 of 333
Attachment 1 - This document is titled Creating Economic Vitality - An Edmonds City Center That Is
Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social and was prepared by the Economic Development
Commission Land Use Subcommittee. It contains an executive summary which references the primary
goal of the proposal, an introduction, and references to City documents and various reasons cited by
Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal and creating an outstanding downtown. It also includes a
proposed draft amended Table referenced as Table 16.43-1 within the Edmonds Community
Development Code which highlights which uses would or would not be limited to locating along the
ground floor storefronts of designated street frontages within the BD1 Downtown Retail Core Zone. This
document has been modified (see green text) based on comments received by the Planning Board during
September 11, 2013 workshop (see below).
Attachment 2 - Chronology of Events. Because this proposal has been discussed by the City Council,
Planning Board and Economic Development Commission since early 2011, I thought it would be helpful
to provide a chronology listing the dates and/or time frames when the issue was discussed by these
entities and links to meeting agendas and minutes. Also included are references to two meetings held with
owners of property located within the BD1 Zone.
Attachment 3 - Map depicting the boundary of the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone.
Attachment 4 - As requested by property owners on May 13, 2013, a spreadsheet listing businesses
located along the ground floor street frontages within the BD 1 Zone was prepared. Business spaces
highlighted in yellow are those that would be affected under the proposal, albeit, there is no requirement
for existing businesses to vacate spaces. Only when owners choose to vacate highlighted business spaces
would the spaces need to be filled with an allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the
vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the
date a space is vacated.
September 11, 2013, the Planning Board Workshop
On September 11, 2013, the Planning Board conducted a workshop on the most recent proposal. During
the meeting, the Planning Board asked about inserting clarifying language into Edmonds Community
Development Code Section 16.43.020, Table 16.43.-1 related to real estate offices; recommended
clarifying language related to the footnote BD1 zone GFSF……… on page 8 of Attachment 1
specifically noting that buildings set back 15 feet from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone
GFSF; asked about how to address window displays; and a question was raised about applying a 90-day
non-conformance timeline versus the City’s current non-conformance timeline of 6 months, etc.
Green text within Attachment 1 are modifications to the document based on discussions and issues raised
during the September 11, 2013 Planning Board workshop. No new language has been added related to
window displays as this is an issue that relates to visibility and aesthetics as opposed to the type of uses
allowed in the BD 1 zone. Language relating to applying a 90-day non-conformance timeline to business
spaces that are vacated, vs. a 6-month non-conformance timeline, is also not included within the
document. The reason is that although the question was raised, there was no clear indication from the
Planning Board that this is what they would support. City staff believes that 90 days is not much time to
recruit businesses and the 6-month timeframe should be retained. Additionally, since one of the goals is
at a minimum to prevent the number of certain office uses from increasing within the BD1 Downtown
Retail Core zone, the current proposal accomplishes this goal.
October 9, 2013
On October 9, 2013 the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposal. One business
Packet Page 222 of 333
owner provided comments following Mr. Clifton's presentation (see attached minutes). Although the
Planning Board unanimously approved forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43 (file number AMD20130013) as written and amended by staff
(see amendment to footnote below table 16.43-1 in Attachment 1), the Planning Board also recommended
that the City Council evaluate a 90-day non-conformance timeframe versus the proposed
180-day non-conformance timeframe.
November 4, 2013
An overview of the proposal was presented by Mr. Clifton to the City Council and it was explained that
this proposal has been discussed by the City Council, Planning Board and Edmonds Economic
Development Commission (EDC) since early 2011.
During the meeting, Mr. Clifton presented the following proposed language in order to address issues
related to buildings, e.g., 543 Main Street, that might have multiple tenants on the first floor, but only one
entrance.
16.43.020.B
Exception to the BD1 GSFS - The owner of a building in the BD1 zone may apply for an exception
from the restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable
space meeting all of the following criteria:
1. The space is less the 500 square feet;
2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk;
3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g. not retail); and
4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months.
The City Council discussed the Planning Board’s recommendation to support the proposal
and Councilmember Peterson suggested a public hearing be scheduled soon in light of the 2½ years this
issue has been discussed.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Proposal Overview
Attachment 2 - Chronology of Events
Attachment 3 - BD1 Zone Map
Attachment 4 - Spreadsheet Listing Businesses Located along the Ground Floor of Designated Street
Frontages within the BD1 Zone
Attachment 5 - November 4, 2013 City Council Meeting Minutes
Attachment 6 - October 9, 2013 Planning Board Minutes
Attachment 7 - Setember 11, 2013 Planning Board Minutes
Attachment 8 - Comments Received by Planning Board - 2013
Attachment 9 - Letter from Joe Tovar (related to first comment in Attachment 8)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 10:52 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:53 AM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 01/02/2014 08:42 AM
Packet Page 223 of 333
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 224 of 333
CREATING ECONOMIC VITALITY
AN EDMONDS CITY CENTER
THAT IS ECONOMICALLY STRONG, THRIVING, LIVELY AND S0CIAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Goal: To preserve and strengthen the distinctive character and charm of downtown Edmonds
by providing opportunities for retail/entertainment oriented establishments to cluster for the
convenience of the public and to create mutually beneficial business relationships thereby
creating a dedicated area for “destination retail/entertainment”.
Discussion: Downtowns are the social, cultural and economic centers of cities. In order to
have a vibrant, lively, thriving and prosperous downtown core, the cities must encourage uses
that generate high levels of pedestrian traffic in a concentrated area within ground floor spaces
along street frontages that encourage/promote/attract specialty retail shops (housewares,
books/music, wine, food, antique, and clothing stores), personal services (hair/beauty salons),
eating and drinking establishments (bakeries, coffee shops, restaurants, bistros),
entertainment venues (music houses/theaters, art galleries, and cultural facilities) and
education centers; these types of uses reinforce the distinctive charm/character of Edmonds.
These uses also tend to have windows with interesting displays, visibility into the businesses,
and longer operating hours which add to a lively daytime and nighttime pedestrian environment
within downtowns.
A City can spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, facade
improvements, and a host of other things yet still have a lifeless downtown. After all, what
makes a downtown work as a community center is what's happening IN the buildings.
Clustering works - people are drawn to a critical mass of similar/complimentary businesses.
Retail/entertainment areas are dependent upon synergy and lively activity, not interrupted with
uses other than retail; eating; drinking; and entertainment oriented services on the ground
floor. Requiring professional office uses to locate behind ground floor retail or on the second
floor of buildings within a downtown core provides more street frontage spaces for these types
of uses, thus creating a well-defined core that generates higher levels of ground floor activity.
By focusing on clustering retail/entertainment uses and requiring office uses to locate behind
retail/entertainment or on the second floor of buildings within a specific geographic area, this
could result in the establishment of a “niche” making Downtown Edmonds competitive with
outlying areas; competitive environment in terms of attracting patrons and “local tourists”, as
well as drawing desirable establishments that help further define Edmonds’ brand.
Recommendation: Support the passage of a proposed ordinance limiting certain office uses
from locating along designated ground level street frontages (first 45 feet) of the downtown
core.
Packet Page 225 of 333
CREATING ECONOMIC VITALITY
AN EDMONDS CITY CENTER
THAT IS ECONOMICALLY STRONG, THRIVING, LIVELY AND S0CIAL
Introduction. Downtowns are the social, cultural and economic centers of cities. As such they
should maintain a wide range of uses at a compact and walkable scale while providing
appropriately designated areas for professional offices, service establishments,
retail/eating/drinking/entertainment oriented uses, and recreational amenities offering various
ranges of commodities and services. The City of Edmonds hosted a public meeting on
November 8, 2012 during which Roger Brooks, Destination Development Inc., presented
information on the topics of marketing and downtown destination development.
What makes an outstanding downtown? Mr. Brooks mentioned 20 critical ingredients and
elaborated on each; these include:
• Nearly all begin with a plan - Importance of having one
• Defining a strong brand and retail focus
• Orchestrating recruitment of “critical mass” or “clustering”
• Establishing anchor tenants
• Lease agreements include defined operating hours and days (consistency)
• People living and/or staying downtown: hotels, condos, loft apartments
• Identifying pioneers with patient money and convincing them to invest
• Starting with just one block - a “demonstration project”
• Public washrooms
• Developing gathering places
• Creating positive first impressions - Community gateways
• Designing, fabricating and installing a wayfinding system (signage)
• A good first impression – District or Neighborhood gateways
• 20/20 signage equals $$$ (blade signs?)
• Sidewalk cafes and dining
• Investing heavily in retail beautification
• Activities and entertainment
• Distinctive downtown district names
• Experiential marketing
NOTE: Ingredients highlighted in blue above tie to creating a dedicated area for
“destination retail/entertainment”.
Packet Page 226 of 333
Edmonds’ current planning documents are supportive of several critical ingredients
referenced above.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan has goals and policies which include:
• “promote downtown 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” (pg. 44).
• “define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the
strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while
protecting downtown’s identity” (pg. 45).
• “…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….” (pg. 45).
The City’s Economic Development Plan also contains goals that tie directly to some of
the 20 critical ingredients, i.e,….
• Goal 2: “revitalize the City’s business districts, balancing redevelopment,
preservation and the need for consumer amenities”
• Goal 3: “diversify the tax base and increase revenues”
• Goal 4: “strengthen the quality of life and vitality of the community for residents,
workers and visitors to enjoy”
Goal 2 Policy 2i of the City’s Economic Development Plan is more specific, i.e., “Create
synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a
“retail core” area in the downtown”.
Defining and Enhancing the Downtown Core by Establishing a Retail/Entertainment
Focus. When information provided by Mr. Brooks is combined with goals and policies
contained within City adopted plans, what stands out is the issue of defining a retail focus and
creating a critical mass or clustering within the downtown core.
In order to have a vibrant, lively, thriving and prosperous downtown core, the City must
encourage uses that generate high levels of pedestrian traffic in a concentrated area within
ground floor spaces along street frontages that encourage/promote/attract specialty retail
shops (housewares, books, wine, food, antique, clothing and music stores), personal services
(hair/beauty salons), eating and drinking establishments (bakeries, coffee shops, restaurants,
bistros), entertainment venues (music houses/theaters, art galleries, and cultural facilities) and
education centers……all of which reinforce the distinctive charm/character of Edmonds.
These uses tend to have windows with interesting displays, visibility into the businesses, and
longer operating hours which add to a lively daytime and nighttime pedestrian environment
within the Downtown.
Packet Page 227 of 333
Creating, implementing and maintaining a vibrant, lively, thriving and prosperous
downtown core. In addition to marketing, installation of physical improvements, and
recruitment of certain types of businesses, one way to enhance/strengthen the
“retail/dining/drinking/entertainment” core is to preserve ground floor space along designated
commercial street frontages for commercial retail/service oriented uses/businesses where
possible.
• The term preserve or preservation equates to possibly limiting office uses along the
ground floor of designated street frontages within Edmonds (this would apply to the
first 45 feet only measured from public rights-of-way or sidewalk). Office typically
means a building or separately defined space within a building used for a business
which does not include on-premises sales of goods or commodities. Requiring
professional office uses to locate behind ground floor retail or on the second floor of
buildings within the downtown core, e.g., land zoned BD1, would provide more street
frontage spaces for these types of uses, thus creating a well-defined core that
generates higher levels of ground floor activity and hopefully establishing a “niche”
making Downtown Edmonds competitive with outlying areas. Starting with BD1
zoned land only could serve as an initial phase, i.e., a “demonstration” and if
successful, could be expanded.
• Ultimately, the desire is to provide opportunities for retail oriented establishments to
cluster for the convenience of the public and for efficient business operations in
mutually beneficial relationships to each other, and finally to enhance and protect the
retail/entertainment oriented core of downtown from the intrusion of incompatible
activities which might impair the areas’ appearance or functioning as a convenient,
lively, and thriving retail/entertainment oriented area. It is intended that all uses in
this area maintain ground floor visibility to serve patrons on an unannounced or
drop-in basis, conduct a majority of their business face-to-face on the premises with
their customers, and maintain retail storefronts comparable to traditional retail sales
operations, including display of goods and services for sale.
There are significant reasons for supporting and maintaining a focus on
retail/eating/drinking/entertainment uses along street frontages within the BD1 zone or
downtown core area; these include:
• Clustering works - People are drawn to a critical mass of like-businesses; think food
court, gas stations or auto malls. Retail areas are dependent upon synergy and lively
activity which is interrupted when uses other than retail/eating/drinking/entertainment
oriented/service exist on the ground floor adjacent to public rights of way/sidewalks.
• There is power in “Critical Mass” - A great case study? Walnut Creek, California -
similar in size to Edmonds, 20 minutes from Oakland, and half an hour east of San
Packet Page 228 of 333
Francisco. In their downtown they have more than 85 restaurants - and you can walk
to all of them within 7 or 8 minutes. The locals hang out in their own town, and now
it's become a major destination city for ALL of Northern California. That's the power
of "Critical Mass."
• Creating a dedicated area for "destination retail/entertainment," often referred to in
planning circles as "festival retail." This is where a City can have a "restaurant row"
and many non-chain, non-franchise, businesses that are organic to Edmonds.
Included in this mix must be a couple of "anchor tenants," just like a mall.
• A City can spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees,
facade improvements, and a host of other things and still have a lifeless downtown.
After all, what makes a downtown work is what's IN the buildings. The rest is
ambiance - important - but not the ultimate reason we spend time downtown. A City
and business community MUST help orchestrate the business mix - expressing
support to establish a retail/dining/entertainment core helps dictate the kind of
businesses to recruit.
• Office uses typically close in the early evenings and weekends, creating dark,
lifeless streetscapes, thereby discouraging a pedestrian friendly environment
extending into the later evening. The resulting impression of the area is that it is not
inviting, interesting, nor friendly to walk around.
• Because Edmonds’ downtown has many one and two-story buildings and a low
height limit, Downtown Edmonds is challenged with getting the density of customers
necessary that would allow more sparse retail to survive without the synergy from a
consistent clustering of retail/service uses.
• "Charming & thriving downtowns" to which people strive to emulate: Walnut Creek,
Carmel and Palo Alto, CA, and other cities, place limits on what can take place
at/near the street level.
Assessment:
If the City Council were to support the passage of a proposed ordinance limiting uses along
designated street frontages (first 45 feet) of the BD1 zone, this should accompany a
requirement to re-evaluate the ordinance within two-three years to ensure that the ordinance is
having a positive effect on the downtown core and vicinity in general.
Packet Page 229 of 333
16.43.020 Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1
BD1
GFSF BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A A
Offices A X A A A A
Legal/Law Firms
Financial
Advising
Mortgage
Banks (without tellers)
Accounting
Counseling
Architecture
Engineering
Advertising
Insurance
Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Service uses A A* A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage
areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of
a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
storage, sales or services X
X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with
and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery,
restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service
establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet
open to the public A
A A A A A
Automobile sales and service X X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only
nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C
X A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C X A A A C
Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter
4.90 ECC1
A A A A A A
Packet Page 230 of 333
Permitted Uses Residential Uses
BD1
BD1
GFSF BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Single-family dwelling A X A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) – must be located on second floor
or behind first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights of way. A
X A A A A
Permitted Uses Other Uses
BD1
BD1
GFSF BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Bus stop shelters A A A A A A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A A
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A
X A A A A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.050 C
C C C A C
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community
parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A
A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted
use B
X B B B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility
otherwise permitted in this zone B
X B B B X
Commercial parking lots C X C C C X
Wholesale uses X X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C X C C C C
Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through
facilities) X
X C A C X
Laboratories X X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed
as a permitted use X
X X C X X
Packet Page 231 of 333
Permitted Uses
BD1
BD1
GFSF BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Day-care centers C X C C A C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes,
sanitariums X
X C C A X
Medical uses, e.g.,
Physicians
Dental
Optometrist (without retail)
Physical Therapy (without retail)
Counseling
Other similar medical services
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined
in ECDC 21.85.033 A
A A A A A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in
ECDC 21.85.033 C
X C C C A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for
current alcoholics and drug abusers X
X C C A X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C
C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D X D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X X D D D D
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
BD1 Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights of
way/sidewalk or park/plaza) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1:
Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject
to the BD1 Zone GFSF requirements.
* Services (by appointment uses) not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary
component of the business are not allowed within BD1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real
estate offices, banks (with tellers and no drive throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed.
Packet Page 232 of 333
Proposal to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street
Frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone
Chronology of Events
2011
The Planning Board discussed four potential amendments to Downtown BD zones during meetings on March 9
(minutes), March 23 (minutes), April 13 (minutes), and April 27 (minutes). One of the proposed amendments to
the BD1 zone included limiting certain office from locating along the ground floor storefronts of designated
street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone.
June 8 (minutes) - During the Planning Board meeting, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the
proposed amended table in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.43.020 and forward the
recommendation to the City Council.
July 26 (minutes) - The City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation to support
potential amendments to downtown BD Zones. The Council voted to reschedule this item and it was to be
placed on the August 9, 2011 City Council CS/DS aka Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee.
August 9 (minutes – see page 6 of August 15th Council meeting) – The City Council CS/DS aka Parks, Planning and
Public Works Committee agreed to forward to the full Council for further action; no committee
recommendation.
August 23 (minutes) - The City Council voted against limiting certain office uses from locating in
storefronts/spaces along the ground floor of designated street frontages within the BD1 Zone (2-3 vote).
September 27 (minutes) - No action was taken by the City Council; a request was made to reschedule this item
on an agenda when all Council members were present.
October 4 (minutes) - No action was taken by the City Council. This item was postponed to a future City Council
meeting.
2012
February 7 (minutes) - The City Council discussed reconsideration of this issue and expressed an interest in
studying it further during a 4th Tuesday work session, most likely in May, 2012.
August 6 (minutes) - The City Council voted to schedule this item to the August 14, 2012 Parks, Planning and
Public Works Committee as a discussion item and to reschedule before the full council at the following City
Council meeting for discussion and possible action.
August 14 – The City Council voted to support scheduling a special Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
meeting on August 20, 2013 to discuss two items, this being one of them.
Packet Page 233 of 333
August 20 (minutes) - The City Council Planning, Parks and Public Works committee discussed the issue of
limiting certain office uses from locating within ground floor storefronts along designated street frontages
within the BD1 Zone. No recommendation was made.
August 21 (minutes) – the Edmonds City Council voted to refer this issue to the Planning Board and Economic
Development Commission, more specifically, to discuss what kind of office only uses should be limited and any
other proposals the EDC and Planning Board feel are appropriate.
October 8 – Several members of the Economic Department Commission and Planning Board participated in a
field trip to the City of Kirkland, Washington to meet with Eric Shields, Kirkland Planning Director. The purpose
of the meeting/walkabout was to discuss the City’s implementation of downtown land use codes related to
mixed use zoning and in particular, limiting office uses on the ground floor near street frontages within
Kirkland’s downtown core. Mr. Shields conducted a tour of the Kirkland downtown and discussed the City’s
limitation on certain office uses within its core, answered questions from City of Edmonds representatives, and
talked about how the limitations have worked since 1990. Overall, the regulations have been working fairly
well.
2011/2012/2013 – This issue has been discussed at numerous Economic Development Commission meetings.
Following the field trip to Kirkland, the EDC Land Use Committee scheduled a few meetings to discuss this topic
and prepare an issue paper that includes an executive summary, introduction, and references to City documents
and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal. Part of the committee discussions
included providing clarity as it relates to the following three primary concerns raised during discussions at
Planning Board and/or City Council meetings, before bringing back to the full Economic Development
Commission.
• What are the proposed boundaries of a zone that would restrict office uses (see attached map)?
• More clearly define what would be allowed and not allowed in a retail only/commercial core (see
attached amended ECDC Table 16.43-1).
• Grandfathering - how long is the proposed period before a landlord has to conform to new regulations,
if amended?
2013
May 13 – Because subject proposal has a direct effect on owners of property located within the BD1 Zone,
property owners were invited to attend a meeting in the City Hall Brackett Meeting Room. Mr. Clifton provided
and overview of the proposal and talked about why the proposal is being considered by the City. Roger Brooks,
Destination Development Inc. (DDI), spoke about the benefits of clustering and power in critical mass. Property
owners were provided the issue paper prepared by the Economic Development Commission Land Use
Subcommittee which included a proposed draft amended Table referenced as Table 16.43-1 within the Edmonds
Community Development Code. Property owners were also given an opportunity to ask questions. At the
conclusion of meeting, Mr. Brooks asked property/building owners attending the meeting to express their
thoughts on this proposal. Preliminary support was expressed by several individuals and others wanted to
discuss this issue further; no one expressed outright opposition to the proposal. Additionally, a request was
made for the City to conduct an inventory of what businesses currently exist along designated ground level
Packet Page 234 of 333
street frontages in the Edmonds downtown core, i.e., BD 1 Zone; this task was completed and presented during
a second meeting with owners of property in September, 2013.
June 19 (minutes) – The Economic Development Commission expressed support to forward the proposal to limit
certain office uses within in the BD1 zone to the Planning Board with a statement that the EDC supports limiting
office uses in the BD1 Zone. The motion carried unanimously.
September 4 – Owners of property located within the BD1 Zone were invited to a second meeting in the City
Hall Brackett Meeting Room. Similar to the meeting which took place on May 13, 2013, Mr. Clifton provided an
overview of the proposal and talked about why the proposal is being considered by the City. Mr. Brooks did not
attend this meeting so Mr. Clifton highlighted Mr. Brooks’ 20 Ingredients for an Outstanding Downtown and
how several relate to subject proposal. He referenced Mr. Brooks’ comments about clustering and power in
critical mass. Property owners were also provided the issue paper prepared by the Economic Development
Commission Land Use Subcommittee which included a proposed draft amended Table referenced as Table
16.43-1 within the Edmonds Community Development Code.
As requested by property owners on May 13, 2013, a spreadsheet listing businesses located along the ground
floor street frontages within the BD 1 Zone was also provided. Business spaces highlighted in yellow are those
that would be affected under the proposal, albeit, there is no requirement for existing businesses to vacate
spaces. Only when owners choose to vacate certain business spaces would they need to be filled with an
allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it
is done within 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated.
Property owners were given an opportunity to ask questions. No statements opposed to the proposal were
made and general support was expressed by those attending the meeting.
September 11, 2013 (minutes) - The Planning Board conducted a workshop on the most recent proposal. During
the meeting, the Planning Board asked about….inserting clarifying language in the Service Uses line item within
ECDC Section 16.43.020, Table 16.43.-1 related to real estate office; recommended clarifying language related to
the footnote BD1 zone GFSF……… on page 8 of Attachment 1 specifically noting that buildings set back 15 feet
from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF; asked about how to address window displays; and
a question was raised about applying a 90-day non-conformance timeline versus the City’s current non-
conformance timeline of 6 months, etc.
October 9, 2013 (minutes) - The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposal. One business
owner provided comments following Mr. Clifton's presentation (see attached minutes). Although the Planning
Board unanimously approved forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed
amendments to ECDC 16.43 (file number AMD20130013) as written and amended by staff (see amendment to
footnote below table 16.43-1). The issue of whether a 90-day vs. 180-day timeframe for non-conformance was
discussed by the Planning Board and seemed to be a significant enough issue that the Planning Board also
recommended that the City Council evaluate the 90-day versus 180-day timeframe.
Packet Page 235 of 333
November 4, 2013 (minutes) - An overview of the proposal was presented to the City Council and it was
explained that this proposal has been discussed by the City Council, Planning Board and Edmonds Economic
Development Commission (EDC) since early 2011.
During the meeting, Mr. Clifton presented the following proposed language in order to address issues related to
buildings, e.g., 543 Main Street, that might have multiple tenants on the first floor, but only one entrance.
16.43.020.B
Exception to the BD1 GSFS - The owner of a building in the BD1 zone may apply for an exception from the
restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all
of the following criteria:
1. The space is less the 500 square feet;
2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk;
3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g. not retail); and
4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months.
The City Council conducted a discussion on the Planning Board’s recommendation to support the proposal and
Council member Peterson suggested a public hearing be scheduled soon in light of the 2½ years this issue has
been discussed.
Packet Page 236 of 333
Packet Page 237 of 333
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
A B C D E F G
Description Address Suite City State Zip
SOUND STYLES DBA JENKA INC Retail Trade 100 5TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020
GARDEN GEAR & GALLERY Retail Trade 102 5TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020
NAMAS CANDY STORE Retail Trade 102 5TH AVE N B EDMONDS WA 98020
TREASURES AND TEAS Retail Trade 102 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
ADVANCED HEARING SYSTEMS Retail Trade 104 5TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020
WOODEN SPOON LLC Retail Trade 104 5TH AVE S `EDMONDS WA 98020
CLINE JEWELERS Services 105 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
EDWARD JONES Services 107 5TH AVE N STE 101 EDMONDS WA 98020
COLE GALLERY AND ARTISTS SUPPLIES Retail Trade 107 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
RUSTY PELICAN CAFE EDMONDS INC Retail Trade 107 5TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020
COLDWELL BANKER BAIN ASSOC Services 108 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
JACK MURPHYS BAR Services 109 4TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020
THE HAGGEN FIRM LLC Services 110 3RD AVE N 201 EDMONDS WA 98020
BREAKTHROUGH PARTNERS Non Profit 110 3RD AVE N 101 EDMONDS WA 98020
SEMANTICS GALLERY LLC CLOSED Retail Trade 110 4TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020
EMBELLISHED INC Services 111 4TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 0
EDMONDS BOOKSHOP Retail Trade 111 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
EDMONDS TRAVELER INC (Savvy Traveler)Services 112 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 0
ENGELS PUB & DELI Retail Trade 113 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 0
ENGELS PUB & DELI Retail Trade 113 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 0
RED TWIG LLC Retail Trade 117 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE READING ROOM Non Profit 120 5TH AVE S SUITE C EDMONDS WA 98020
KOENIG FINANCIAL GROUP Services 120 5TH AVE S SUITE B EDMONDS WA 98020
SAETIA LLC Retail Trade 120 5TH AVE S A EDMONDS WA 98020
TWIST VINYASA YOGA Other 122 5TH AVE S STE A EDMONDS WA 98020
Canarino Gelato Retail Trade 201 5TH AVE S Suite 105 EDMONDS WA 98020
EDMONDS GLIDE TOURS-SEGWAY OF EDMONDS Services 201 5TH AVE S STE 106 EDMONDS WA 0
NOTE: Business spaces highlighted in yellow are those that would be effected by the proposal. Existing businesses are not required to relocate or
cease operations. Only when owners choose to vacate businesses would highlighted spaces need to be filled with an allowable use. Owners
would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the date a
space is vacated. Inventory current as of September 6, 2013.
Packet Page 238 of 333
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
A B C D E F G
EDMONDS VISION CENTER PS INC Retail Trade 201 5TH AVE S 102 EDMONDS WA 98020
LAS BRISAS Services 201 5TH AVE S 101 EDMONDS WA 0
SOUNDVIEW FAMILY DENTAL Other 201 5TH AVE S STE 103 EDMONDS WA 0
BANK OF WASHINGTON nce/Insurance/Real Es 202 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
CHEESEMONGERS TABLE Services 203 5TH AVE S STE 1 EDMONDS WA 98020
DUANES BARBER SHOP LLC Services 203 5TH AVE S STE 7 EDMONDS WA 98020
MILLTOWN LOUNGE Retail Trade 203 5TH AVE S STE 4 EDMONDS WA 98020
MILLTOWN NAILS & SKINCARE Services 203 5TH AVE S STE 3 EDMONDS WA 98020
OTHERWORLDS Retail Trade 203 5TH AVE S STE 2 EDMONDS WA 98020
Café' Louvre Retail Trade 210 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020
EDWARD D JONES & CO LP Services 210 5TH AVE S STE 104 EDMONDS WA 98020
WINDERMERE MORTGAGE SERVICE SERIES LLC/GH Services 210 5TH AVE S STE 102 EDMONDS WA 0
WINDERMERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/LORI GILL & nce/Insurance/Real Es 210 5TH AVE S STE 203 EDMONDS WA 0
WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/GH LLC Services 210 5TH AVE S SUITE 102 EDMONDS WA 98020
CLAIRES PANTRY Retail Trade 301 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
BANK OF AMERICA NA #353-0010108 Retail Trade 306 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
TOSHIS TERRYAKI & BURGER Services 311 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
EDWARD JONES INVESTMENTS nce/Insurance/Real Es 313 MAIN ST STE 101 EDMONDS WA 98020
CHANTERELLE SPECIALTY FOODS Services 316 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
WISHING STONE LLC Retail Trade 317 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
HOUSE WARES INC Retail Trade 318 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
IMAS STUDIO NAILS & SKIN Services 319 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
RED PETAL CAKES Retail Trade 321 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
Bill the Butcher Retail Trade 323 Main St.EDMONDS WA 98020
INTERIORS OF EDMONDS Retail Trade 326 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
SEMANTICS GALLERY II CLOSED Retail Trade 401 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
BELLISSIMO SALON-BELLISSIMO HAIR SALON INC Services 402 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
CHRISTINES Retail Trade 403 1/2 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
A.T. JEWELERS Retail Trade 403 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
DESIGNER CONSIGNOR LLC DBA REBEKAH Retail Trade 404 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
KATE ALISE BOUTIQUE LLC Retail Trade 405 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
STUNNINGLY STRANGE Retail Trade 407 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
ART SPOT Retail Trade 408 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
Packet Page 239 of 333
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
A B C D E F G
MANYA VEE SELECTS LLC Retail Trade 409 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
COMSTOCK JEWELERS INC Retail Trade 411 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
PAPERY THE Retail Trade 412 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
MAIN STREET BURGERS Other 414 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
DAPHNES CAFE Services 415 MAIN ST SUITE A EDMONDS WA 98020
Edmonds Theater Movie Theater 415 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
THAI COTTAGE RESTAURANT Retail Trade 417 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
EDMONDS BAKERY Retail Trade 418 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
TERIS TOYBOX Retail Trade 420 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
KINDER BRITCHES Retail Trade 422 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
EL PUERTO INC Retail Trade 425 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
STARBUCKS COFFEE #10764 Retail Trade 502 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
GALLERY NORTH Retail Trade 508 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
GLAZED & AMAZED LLC Retail Trade 514 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
LOFT THE Services 515 MAIN ST STE A EDMONDS WA 0
A VERY TAKI TIKI BAR & GRILL- BENNBOYS LLC Retail Trade 518 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
HOME STYLE MERCANTILE Non Profit 519 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
FABRIC OF LIFE FOUNDATION Non Profit 523 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
LONGSTAFF JOAN AND ASSOCIATES Services 524 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP EDMONDS Services 525 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
TIM SQUARED LLC- EPULO RESTAURANT Retail Trade 526 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
REVELATIONS YOGURT LLC Retail Trade 527 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
KARA NAILS Services 533 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
ARTWORKS ARIA STUDIO GALLERY Retail Trade 535 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
Christopher FRAMING & GALLERY Retail Trade 537 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
MODA HAIR CAFE & DAY SPA INC Services 538 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
EWING ELECTRIC INC Retail Trade 539 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
RELIABLE FLOOR COVERING INC Retail Trade 542 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
BEVERLY ROGERS LMP Services 543 MAIN ST STE 102 EDMONDS WA 98020
HEAVENLY HANDS MASSAGE THERAPY Services 543 MAIN ST 101 EDMONDS WA 98020
HYPNOTIC JOURNEY LLC Services 543 MAIN ST STE E EDMONDS WA 0
JACOBS MERRI LEE PHD Services 543 MAIN ST STE105 EDMONDS WA 98020
JAMIESON DIANE L PH D PS Services 543 MAIN ST 104 EDMONDS WA 98020
Packet Page 240 of 333
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
A B C D E F G
LAWRENCE MAGGIE INCORPORATED Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE 102 EDMONDS WA 98020
MERCK COUNSELING SERVICES Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE 103 EDMONDS WA 98020
NW INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCES Services 543 MAIN ST STE D EDMONDS WA 0
TONY D POOL OD Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE C EDMONDS WA 98020
TOUCHSTONE MANUAL THERAPY Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE B EDMONDS WA 98020
EDMONDS FAMILY DENTISTRY Services 545 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
STEWART FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC Services 547 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
HOPPER PATRICIA Quietude Massage Other 549 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
SWEARINGEN INC Quietude Massage Services 549 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0
NEXT TO NATURE Retail Trade 550 MAIN ST SUITE A EDMONDS WA 98020
OMBU SALON AND SPA Services 550 MAIN ST B EDMONDS WA 98020
PINK HOUSE 555 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020
Packet Page 241 of 333
SPECIAL MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 4, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i)
At 6:17 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 45 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the
executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works
Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, and City Clerk Scott
Passey. At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an
additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:13
p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:15 p.m. and led the flag salute.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Packet Page 242 of 333
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 29, 2013
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #205133 THROUGH #205250 DATED OCTOBER 31,
2013 FOR $882,783.51
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DANIEL B. LEYDE
($61.59) AND LATOYA ONEAL ($50,000.00)
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jim Underhill, Edmonds, described a serious traffic/pedestrian situation on 216th SW between Highway
99 and 73rd Place SW, a length of roadway, sidewalks and wheelchair cuts that serves a variety of people,
transportation and businesses. The section of 216th lacks the necessary and usual pedestrian and traffic
protections that support safe movement and crossing. Problems on 216th include: no street striping at the
intersections to indicate where crossings occurs, no sidewalk on the north side behind Value Village
which results in people walking in the street or on dirt pathways, no pedestrian crossing signals or sound
devices and 5 of the 7 wheelchair cuts are not ADA compliant and there are no plans to correct them. The
situation will worsen with growth expected in the already busy neighborhood. He cited the pedestrian
crosswalk on Main Street between 5th and 6th as an example of improvements the City has made, noting
the crossing width on Main Street is 16 paces and 30 paces on 216th. He urged the Council develop a
solution that addresses all the missing safety measures on 216th, summarizing it is a long-stranding
situation that requires action now.
Don Hall, Edmonds, welcomed Councilmember Yamamoto back. He referred to Agenda Item 11,
limiting uses in the BD1 zone, noting the BD1 zone is only about 6 blocks of the downtown retail area.
His wife owns a store in the BD1 zone. He referred to a Seattle Times article about a discussion at a
Downtown Seattle Chamber meeting regarding redevelopment of Rainier Square and relayed comments
by two retail strategists at that meeting that the blocks’ corners definitely do not need more banks because
they are not traffic generators and do not enhance retail vitality. He referred to another article that said
real estate offices do not generate foot traffic. He urged the Council to consider what type of businesses
will help the vitality of the downtown retail core, commenting it is not banks or real estate offices.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented on the epidemic of litter on Main Street and 5th Avenue,
including sandwich boards, directional signs, banner signs, clothing racks and promotional pieces such as
a fire truck. Sandwich boards are typically located in front of a business and usually have a business
name, menu or the business’ product. Directional signs are found at intersections to provide direction to
businesses not on Main or 5th Avenue. She was particularly annoyed by banner signs, which are big,
unsightly and plastered on walls of business building and are popular with realtors. Her inventory on
October 26 found 31 businesses represented on these signs on 5th Avenue between City Hall and Howell
and 30 on Main Street between 6th Avenue and the waterfront. She provided a list of downtown merchants
on 5th Avenue who display such signs and offered to return next week to provide a list of merchants with
signs on Main Street.
Packet Page 243 of 333
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the study done by Reid Middleton and plans for the ferry
terminal at Pt. Edwards had ferry traffic elevated over the tracks but did not include an emergency vehicle
access to the waterfront. He suggested rather than the proposal to study an existing study, only the issue
of emergency access to the waterfront needed to be studied. One of the alternatives in the Reid Middleton
study was a mid-waterfront location which he pointed out would require portions of the Antique Mall and
senior center sites. He was opposed to any effort to move the senior center and preferred to focus on a
single lane emergency access over the railroad tracks.
Nathan Proudfoot, Edmonds, explained the downtown section of Edmonds is fill and a marsh. An
undercrossing has the dangers of a Big Dig. He did not want a Big Dig in downtown Edmonds and
suggested pursing the plan to move the ferry toward Marina Beach and work with the State to include an
overcrossing. He noted an emergency access could also be used as a pedestrian access. He referred to an
email with additional information and description.
6. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: 2014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION CALENDAR
Larry Vogel, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), reported the 2014 calendar is complete
and distribution will begin tomorrow. The HPC designed the calendar and HPC Member Andy Eccleshall
did the layout. The calendar features buildings and structures on the Edmonds Historic Register of
Historic Places along with descriptions. Calendar are available free of charge, it was produced with a
Certified Local Government grant from the State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation.
He recognized the Planning Department for their assistance with obtaining the $6,000 grant; the calendar
was completed for approximately $4,600. Calendars will be available at City Hall, Log Cabin, Museum,
and local businesses. He requested calendars be limited to 20 per business and 3 per individual. He
distributed calendars to Councilmembers.
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE
CHARLES LARSEN RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 630 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES,
AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION
Senior Planner Kernen Lien advised the Charles Larsen Residence, located at 630 Main Street, has been
nominated for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places by the property owners who also
signed the authorization form. He reviewed effects of listing on the register:
• Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds
• Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner
must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission
• May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation
Mr. Lien displayed an aerial map and identified the location of the Charles Larsen house, west of the
entrance to the library parking lot, currently occupied by McDonald McGarry Insurance. He reviewed
designation criteria and how this house complies with the criteria:
• Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural
heritage of Edmonds
o The house is associated with early pioneer settlement of Edmonds
• Has integrity
o House is largely intact
o Example of American Foursquare architecture
• At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old
Packet Page 244 of 333
o Snohomish County website lists the property as built in 1901
o Museum photos of house dated 1895
• Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.a-k
a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the board patterns of
national, state or local history
o The house is associated with the early pioneer settlement of Edmonds
b. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristic of a typical period, style or method of
design or construction
o The house is an example of the American Foursquare, a style popular from the 1890s into
the 1930s.
e. Associated with lives of persons significant in local history
o Charles M. Larsen, City Marshal in 1929, 1930 – 31, and 1935 – 40, lived in the house
from around 1928 to 1960.
The HPC held a public hearing on October 10, 2013. The HPC found the nomination meets the criteria
and is eligible for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and recommends the Council
approve the ordinance. He displayed an 1895 photograph, identifying the Larsen house and Main Street.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide comment. Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion
of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3944, AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF
THE RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE CHARLES LARSEN RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 630
MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2014 REVENUE SOURCES INCLUDING PROPERTY TAXES
Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained at the request of the Council he provided the original,
recommended property tax ordinance that includes a 1% increase in property taxes in 2014 and an
alternative ordinance in which the 1% increase is banked.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her support for the original property tax ordinance. She asked Mr.
Neumaier to explain “banking” the increase. Mr. Neumaier explained property taxes in Washington State
are adjusted annually to the level they were at the prior year plus new construction. There is no
adjustment for inflation. State law allows counties and cities to impose a 1% annual increase without a
public vote. Counties and cities have the option to reserve the right to use the 1% in a future year, which
is called “banking.” In this case, the 1% is worth approximately $98,000. If the Council chose not to
impose the 1% increase in property taxes in 2014, in the future a future Council could chose to utilize the
1%. The recommended ordinance utilizes the 1% immediately; the alternative ordinance banks it for
future use by a future Council.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide comment and Mayor Earling closed the public participation
portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the reason she supported the recommended ordinance that includes
the 1% is some of the projections are moderately high such as 7% increases. She was uncertain whether
Packet Page 245 of 333
those projections were accurate so she preferred to continue to utilize the 1% property tax increase rather
than bank it for future use.
Council President Petso said she is inclined not to take the 1% increase because based on the current
projections, it is not needed this year and property owners can keep that amount. If those funds are
necessary in subsequent years for ongoing expenses, the Council can utilize the banked 1% as well as that
year’s 1%. If the City’s reserves were precarious she could understand Councilmember Buckshnis’
concern but she felt the City’s reserves could sustain a hit of $98,000 if projections are off.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for banking the 1% property tax increase,
commenting it was rare for a city to have the opportunity not to tax its citizens. Observing the City had
additional cash flow this year, she felt it was fair to not tax citizens. Councilmember Bloom concurred
with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comments.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if the City banked the property tax increase for 1 year, rather than
citizens having a 1% increase next year, they would be burdened with a 2% increase. She spoke in favor
of a level annual increase.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out use of the banked increase would require a decision by the
Council, it was not automatically implemented next year. Mr. Neumaier agreed. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas noted the Council may not ever need to use the banked increase.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the 1% will not be charged; the $98,000 is not banked. If the City
needed to increase revenue next year, the increase could be 2%. Mr. Neumaier agreed.
Councilmember Johnson welcomed the opportunity not to increase property taxes by 1%.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised this item was not scheduled for action. Mr. Neumaier explained it was
his understanding this item was for discussion and explanation of the alternative and the ordinance would
be adopted as part of amendments on November 24 or the December 3 public hearing.
Councilmember Peterson said he was quite shocked that the Council seemed to be inclined to bank this
capacity. Edmonds and other cities and counties have suffered under the Eyman initiative for over ten
years and struggled endlessly every year with a 1% increase. The City has laid off and furloughed
employees and made cuts in training and police services. When finally there is a turn in the economy, this
Council wants to turn back the 1% increase. He was surprised some Councilmembers supported banking
the 1%, noting the City was on the verge with the Mayor’s budget and Council amendments to get a
couple police officers back on the street and reinstate training that has been missing for ten years due to
budget cuts. He expressed support for utilizing the 1% increase in property taxes to make investments in
the City’s infrastructure, pointing out without the $98,000, more roads would not be repaired. He hoped
as the Council proceeded through the budget process, Councilmembers would rethink not utilizing the 1%
property tax increase.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it is her job to legislatively decide how funds should be
spent. This budget adds FTEs and resources in nearly every department. The City Council was allocated
$600,000 in the Mayor’s budget for one-time expenditures. She anticipated $98,000 could be found
somewhere in the budget to give back to citizens via no property tax increase for one year.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2014 BUDGET
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Packet Page 246 of 333
Brian Borofka, Edmonds, submitted written comments. As a follow-up to last week, he thanked the
Council and staff for acting on his suggestions to post last week’s presentation materials on the City’s
website. With regard to water, sewer and stormwater rate increases, he noted the 2014 budget included
the proposed rate increases. The Sewer Comprehensive Plan includes not only rate increases but several
line items in the budget such as decision package 34, a capital projects manager, and decision package 35,
an engineering project manager. The Sewer Comprehensive Plan includes a very high contingency, 40%,
which is outside good engineering practices and represents funds that will not be needed if projects are
properly managed.
Dave Page, Edmonds, recalled indications that the City has received over $13 million in grants this year,
yet page 16 of the budget only reflects $46,000 for 2013. Mr. Neumaier referred to the General Fund
projection on page 16, explaining the General Fund has multiple programs and departments. Most of the
grants are reflected in the Public Works section of the budget.
Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds (Esperance), said he was informed last week about the emergency access and
a $2 million request for a waterfront study. He was opposed to asking the State for tax dollars. He referred
to a book, “Slow Democracy” about the quality of decision-making, not the speed. Rather than pay a
professional $2 million for his/her opinions, he suggested involving the community to determine what
they want.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, spoke in favor of lower sewer, water and stormwater rate increases.
Edmonds is a retirement community and those on a set income must plan how they spend their money. He
preferred to get the same amount of work done over a longer period of time even though the cost may be
higher. He feared giving the Public Works Department more money than they could use because they
would find other ways to spend it. He suggested there were too many new hires in the budget and
suggested using the 1% property tax increase for chip sealing. He did not support giving the ECA grants,
stating they needed to pay their way and if they were unable to manage their budget, the City needed to
get involved in their management.
Doug Schwartz, Edmonds, observed the budget states things are improving and uses that as a basis for
fairly radical increases in expenditures. The increase in revenue, comparing the 2012 actual to the 2013
estimate, is approximately 1.9%. The budget includes a 7% increase in projected revenue for 2014 but no
justification other than things are expected to improve. The budget includes a 15% increase in
expenditures, also with no justification. He understood radical cuts were made in 2013 but did not think
everything should be turned around in 2014.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Council President Petso explained the goal is to have Councilmembers submit amendments to the Finance
Department by November 8 in order to allow adequate time for public comment and Council
consideration. She wanted to avoid a lot of last minute amendments at the meeting when the Council is
expected to act on the budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether that included Councilmembers’ input regarding decision
packages. Mr. Neumaier explained his role in this process is to be the Council’s staff. As
Councilmembers notify him of additions/deletions from the budget, he will include them in an
amendment log that is updated periodically on the City’s website. He relayed Council President Petso’s
hope to have the amendments posted sooner rather than later so that citizens can provide comment. He
clarified removing a decision package would be a budget amendment.
Packet Page 247 of 333
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the public would have another opportunity to provide
comment. Mr. Neumaier answered there would be public comment on November 26 when amendments
are discussed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether her opposition to banking the 1% property tax
increase would constitute an amendment. Mr. Neumaier explained the budget includes the revenue from
the 1% property tax increase; Council President Petso’s suggestion to bank the 1% would be a budget
amendment.
Councilmember Johnson asked staff to describe low income discounts for water, sewer and stormwater
utilities. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained citizens who meet low income definitions
according to State’s standards can qualify for a 50% or 30% discount on their total City utility. Citizens
can contact the utility bill department and complete an application for the discount.
Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers to adhere to the November 8 deadline to submit
amendments.
10. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE FOR 2014-
2019 TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 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
City Engineer Rob English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in
the CFP and components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects
with funding sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, and both contain 6-
year capital projects with funding sources.
The 2013-2018 CFP contains 3 project sections:
• General
o Parks, buildings & regional projects
• Transportation
o Safety/capacity & pedestrian/bicycle
• Stormwater
Mr. English provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department managing each fund:
Fund Description Department
112 Transportation Public Works
113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services
116 Buildings Maintenance Public Works
125 REET-2 Transportation Public Works
125 REET-2 Parks Improvement Parks & Recreation
126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation
132 Parks- Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation
421 Water Projects Public Works
422 Storm Projects Public Works
423 Sewer Projects Public Works
423 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works
112 Street Fund
Packet Page 248 of 333
Mr. English displayed a photograph and described the 5th Avenue Overlay which includes updating the
curb ramps to make them ADA compliant. He highlighted 112 Street Fund projects:
• Street Improvements
o 5th Avenue Overlay (construction)
o Signal Cabinet Improvements
o Five Corners Roundabout
o 228th Corridor Improvements
o SR99 Lighting Phase 3 Design
o 212th & 76th Avenue Improvements
o 2014 Pavement Preservation Program
• Walkway Improvements
o Sunset Avenue Walkway (Bell Street – Caspers Street)
o 238th Street Walkway (100th Avenue – 104th Avenue)
o 15th Street SW Walkway (Edmonds Way – 8th Avenue)
o 236th Street SW Walkway (Edmonds Way – Madrona Elementary)
o 3rd Avenue ADA Curb Ramps (Main Street – Pine Street)
o School Zone Flashing Beacons
• Transportation
o SR104 Corridor Study
o Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton Street and Main Street Railroad Crossings
o Transportation Comprehensive Plan Update
Mr. English highlighted Utility Fund projects:
• Water Utility Fund (421)
o 9,500 feet of Watermain Replacement (construction)
o Replacement of 3 Pressure Reducing Valves Stations (construction)
o Overlay 2,000 linear feet of roadway affected by waterline replacement projects (2014)
o 10,000 feet of Watermain Replacement (2014)
o Replacement of 2 Pressure Reducing Valves Stations (2014)
• Stormwater Utility Fund (422)
o Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Creek Feasibility Study (complete)
o Dayton Street & SR104 Drainage Alternatives Study (complete)
o Public Works Yard Pile Covers (complete)
o Lake Ballinger Model Improvements (complete)
o 238th Street Drainage Improvements (2014)
o Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction Study (2014)
o Vactor Waste Handling Facility Upgrade (2014)
o Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Creek Pre-Design (2014)
o Dayton Street & SR104 Drainage Pre-Design (2014)
• Sewer Utility Fund (423)
o Rehabilitation of 9 sewer lift stations (substantially complete)
o 300 feet of Sewer Main Replacement (complete)
o Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update (substantially complete)
o 1,500 feet of CIPP rehab for sewer mains (construction)
o 6,500 feet of sewer main replacement (2013/2014)
o 1,500 feet of CIPP rehab for sewer mains (2014)
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite highlighted 2013 Park CIP projects:
• Completion of Mathay Ballinger Park
• Completion of SR99 International District
• Beginning design development of City Park renovation
Packet Page 249 of 333
• Progress on 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, wayfinding signs
• Beginning Dayton Street Plaza
Ms. Hite highlighted a 2013 Parks CFP project:
• Continue set aside for Woodway High School Athletic Complex
Ms. Hite highlighted 2014 REET 125 funded projects:
• Additional repairs needed at Yost Pool: used 2013 $120,000 for hot water tank, asbestos removal.
Added another $120,000 next year for additional repairs (still need to replace boiler)
• Additional set aside for Woodway Athletic Complex
• Edmonds Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek: continue work with Earthcorps
• Marina Beach Park: Master plan around Willow Creek concept, playground replacement
• Meadowdale Clubhouse playground replacement
Ms. Hite highlighted Park Construction Fund 132 projects, advising this fund does not have its own
revenue source; it receives funds from grants and transfers from REET 125:
• Completion of Dayton Street Plaza
• City Park renovation: green design, will be coming to Council for budget approval
• Waterfront property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation
• 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor planning, placeholder, dependent upon securing funding
Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP schedule:
• September 10 – Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
• September 25 – Planning Board presentation and public hearing
• October 1 – City Council; Introduction
• November 4 – City Council Public Hearing
• December 2013 – Adopt CFP with Comprehensive Plan Update
Council President Petso observed adoption of the CFP is scheduled for December. She asked whether
final CIP adoption could be deferred until the budget was adopted, anticipating proposed budget
amendments could affect the CIP. Mr. English answered if there were amendments that affected the CIP,
it would be preferable to delay adoption of the CIP until after the budget was adopted.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Marilyn Lindberg, Edmonds, a resident of Sunset Avenue N, said she has never received any
information about the Sunset Avenue walkway. She first became aware of it in early October when
surveyors began their work on Sunset. A neighbor looked on Google and found a July 22, 2011 statement
that a 12½ foot user friend sidewalk on the west side with new 5-foot bike lane will be taking advantage
of the view. She pointed out Burlington Northern owns the property up to the curb on the west side of
Sunset and asked whether Burlington Northern had allowed the City any land because her measurement
of curb to curb on Sunset was 30 feet. She was uncertain how traffic would move through the area with a
bike lane and a 12½ foot sidewalk. As a resident on Sunset, she wanted an opportunity to provide input
into the walkway. She questioned how users of a sidewalk on the west side of Sunset would be prevented
from going over onto the railroad tracks and feared the residents would again be faced with Burlington
Northern proposing a fence which the residents of Sunset successfully opposed in October 1995.
Bruce Jones, Edmonds, referred to the fight in 1995 over the fence that Burlington Northern wanted to
build that was resolved through the work of his neighbors on Sunset. He referred to a rumor that the
preliminary plans show a fence and he questioned whether he and his neighbors would be required to
Packet Page 250 of 333
repeat the battle with Burlington Northern over the fence. Mr. Jones posed several questions: whether an
easement has been negotiated for a sidewalk, did Burlington Northern required a fence as a condition of
the easement, was there was a federal transportation grant for the project, had the grant been received, did
the Council feel a fence was required on the west side of sidewalk, was a fence a traffic requirement, and
could Sunset residents be involved in the process of design decision-making? Mayor Earling advised staff
would respond to questions at the conclusion of public comment.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, relayed the problem with the proposed tunnel is it accepts growth of ferry
traffic through Edmonds rather than limits it. She preferred to limit the amount of daily traffic by limiting
capacity of the terminal. The first step was taken several years ago by asking that a second slip not be
built; a slip handles approximately four ferries. The ferry system plans to maximize the fleet with 144 car
ferries. Establishing a daily limit would control growth and the remainder of the growth of northbound
traffic could be diverted to Mukilteo where a new terminal is being built and southbound traffic to
Bainbridge Island. She noted Bainbridge is a prosperous community, determined to protect their city by
converting to passenger ferries. She summarized it was a fool’s errand to accommodate infinite growth in
ferry traffic and recommended the City negotiate a limit on the capacity of the terminal.
A. R. Bridges, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset and a locomotive engineer for Burlington Northern Santa
Fe, said it is likely there would be a fence along a walkway adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. That has
happened in Richmond Beach, Steilacoom, and Tidlow to allow the railroad to show cause to watchdog
agencies such as Federal Railroad Administration and Service Transportation Board to reduce pedestrian-
railroad at-grade crossing incidents. Some of the fences have been installed in right-of-ways from Everett
to Tacoma, others are in Vancouver, Washington, and White Fish, Montana, some as high as eight feet
with no trespassing signs, and 45 degree bend barbed wire. Weeds grow through the fence, litter catches
in the fence and graffiti appears on the signs. He recommended not channeling pedestrians adjacent to a
right-of-way adjacent to the railroad tracks. He suggested only taking minor steps to improve the current
situation, noting the current users of Sunset have no problem with the existing sidewalk.
John Segelbaum, Edmonds, a Sunset Avenue property owner, agreed with the comments made by Mr.
Bridges and Mr. Jones. He relayed the primary concern of most residents on Sunset as well as Edmonds
residents overall is the fence and that issue does not appear to have been sufficiently addressed. He
suggested pulling the Sunset Walkway project from the CIP to get community input and determine
Burlington Northern’s requirements. His family has owned property on Sunset for over 50 years.
Residents on Sunset fought the battle over the fence 20 years ago and should not have to so again. The
unobstructed view is what attracts people to live on and visit Sunset Avenue. He questioned the purpose
of the Sunset Avenue Walkway project other than spending $2 million of taxpayers’ money; it appears to
be a solution in search of a problem. He anticipated the proposed project would impact pedestrian traffic,
recalling changes made to Sunset in the past, changing it from a two-way street to a one-way street, first
with parking on one side and later with limited parking on one side. Another issue is parking for
residents, guests and people visiting the area. He summarized the proposed project will have a negative
net effect due to the potential for a fence and congestion.
Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, a resident of Sunset Avenue, said this is a fabulous concept but not if it
included a fence or lighting. He noted the pedestrian congestion on Sunset already exists; there are
thousands of pedestrians on a nice spring or summer weekend, about 1/3 of them walk in the street, on the
west side or in the bike lanes. The sidewalk on the east side is 3-feet wide which is approximately half the
current standard. The walkway will complete the path from the Port to Sunset. He had not yet seen any
plans and suggested the neighbors would be supportive if the plans were shared with them.
Rick Hedges, Edmonds, a resident of Sunset, commented his family settled on Sunset in 1917. He
recalled when Sunset was made a one-way street in the mid-70s with parking on the west side, it became
Packet Page 251 of 333
a congregation point for teens which prevented emergency access and required daily police visits. The
parking on Sunset was then changed to provide view corridors. If Sunset were improved to attract more
people, he recommended all the residents on Sunset be included in planning the improvements.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the Sunset Avenue Walkway as “Five Corners style planning;”
get the money and then tell the citizens what will be done. He was certain there would have been
neighborhood meetings if this had been a parks project; it was being done differently and poorly because
it was a transportation project. He questioned the financing for this project, $159,000 from a Safe Routes
to Schools grants, asking what school qualified this walkway for those funds. Next, Mr. Hertrich spoke in
favor of emergency access over the railroad. He questioned the $2 million funding request to study
previous studies that identified Unocal site as the preferred site. Another option in the previous study was
a mid-waterfront location; he feared the impact such a project would have on the senior center property.
He suggested including funds for a public safety access to the waterfront. He pointed out only the Pt.
Edwards site has enough parking to accommodate an entire boatload of vehicles.
Nathan Proudfoot, Edmonds, inquired about infrastructure for cycling and walking.
Shirley Pauls, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, recalled when a fence was proposed previously, it was
pointed out even the lower height fence obstructed the view of someone sitting in their car. Signatures
collected from visitors to Sunset who opposed a fence found people all over the world visited Sunset. She
summarized people should be able to enjoy the view from Sunset whether they live there or only visit.
Public Works Director Phil Williams said he agreed with everything that has been said about the Sunset
project and understood the concerns and questions that were voiced. A grant offer was received and
accepted by the Council, $159,000, to begin developing concepts to build a multi-use walkway on Sunset
Avenue. He assured there is definitely no fence involved. The surveying that was done was to accurately
locate the railroad’s right-of-way. There are sizable portions of Sunset Avenue already located on railroad
property, about halfway between Caspers and Edmonds Street. Discussions have been held with the
railroad; those are not easy discussions. Burlington Northern offered the City a lease of the current street
that the City has been using for the last 70 years. The concept is to design a project within the existing
curbs. The City owns property on both ends of Sunset that could be developed outside the curb. Plans will
be discussed with residents of Sunset as well as all citizens of Edmonds.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s assertion, Mr. Williams explained the grant the City received was a
Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality (CMAQ) grant, not a Safe Routes to Schools. That grant program
is for projects that promote pedestrian opportunities and less use of vehicles. He assured there were no
plans for a fence, tall lights, or tall trees; the intent is to keep the profile very low.
Councilmember Peterson asked about the public process. Mr. Williams explained when a different source
of grant funds was sought, one meeting was held to get ideas. With information regarding available space,
concepts are being developed to fit all the elements within that space. Staff is close to advertising another
public meeting to show the concepts. He assured no specific decisions have been made; staff is
developing alternatives and ideas that would provide a multi-use pathway that could be used by bicycles,
pedestrians, rollerbladers, strollers, wheelchairs, and all modes of transportation. He agreed Sunset was
well used today; many people walk in the street. He noted the dirt pathway on the west side, which is on
railroad property for the most part, is not usable in wet weather. The intent is an all-weather, hard surface,
low profile walkway that will be constructed within the existing curb-to-curb space.
Councilmember Peterson relayed his understanding that no design is in place; by approving the CFP/CIP
the Council has not settled on a design. Mr. Williams agreed, the intent is to discuss with the community
what is possible in that location.
Packet Page 252 of 333
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she often walks her dog on Sunset. She asked how it could be
guaranteed there would not be a fence when in fact it could be a public safety issue. Mr. Williams
responded the City would not put in a project that included a fence. He could not guarantee what the
railroad might eventually like to impose on their property. He anticipated Edmonds residents would resist
any attempt by the railroad to install a fence that blocked views. In 1995, plantings were proposed along
the edge of the bluff instead of a fence, to discourage people from reaching the railroad tracks from
Sunset Avenue. He assumed someone could still reach the railroad tracks if they tried but it was not a
problem raised by Burlington Northern.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the existing dirt path will be replaced with a sidewalk. She asked
whether the vegetation would be removed. Mr. Williams answered the vegetation will not be touched; the
walkway will be constructed east of the existing curb on the west side of the street. On the ends of Sunset
there may be space for picnic tables, etc., in the center there is limited space. If the railroad insisted on
any additional security, that would be discussed at length. There are no plans for a fence along Sunset.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was born and raised in Richmond Beach a few houses from the
water. She was concerned with developing the walkway before there was buy-off from the railroad. She
envisioned liability for the railroad with the construction of a walkway that encouraged additional use.
Mr. Williams explained the walkway would not be any further west than the existing curb. The existing
issue of people walking on the dirt pathway would not be worsened; the walkway will be east of the
existing curb. The walkway would be further from the bluff and would be safer and easier to walk on. He
did not envision people choosing to step off a 12-foot wide developed walkway onto a dirt pathway; if
they did, it would be no worse than the existing condition.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas envisioned skateboards, bicycles, strollers, etc. sharing the walkway.
She was concerned how the railroad perceived the walkway. Mr. Williams referred to Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas’ comment about getting buy-off from the railroad, explaining in his experience the
railroad does not do that. The railroad is aware the City wants to do something on Sunset. Beyond double
tracks, the railroad has indicated future plans include triple tracks which would require cleaving off large
areas of the existing bluff and consume Sunset Avenue. He did not envision that would occur in our
lifetime but when Burlington Northern was asked why they need property on top of the bluff, their answer
was it allowed room for a third track. It is difficult to get Burlington Northern to say yes to anything in
writing; it was a coup to get Burlington Northern to offer the City a lease for property it has been using
for the past 70 years. Execution of that lease is awaiting a project that the citizens and Council support
and is funded.
Council President Petso asked whether the lease covers the existing street. Mr. Williams explained the
railroad right-of-way is defined by a certain distance from the oldest track. When that and the City’s street
are plotted on a map, the street overlaps the railroad’s right-of-way by approximately 8 feet for a
considerable distance on Sunset Avenue. The railroad has ignored it for many years; the City does not
have a right to a street in railroad right-of-way. The City does have rights for the pump station and the
emergency power station. Burlington Northern has been willing to consider perpendicular crossings but
not easements parallel to the tracks.
Council President Petso recalled the prior fence battle and asked whether there was a written agreement
regarding that resolution. Mr. Williams answered his research of the 1995 situation indicated it did not
conclude with a lot of definitive statements. There was a proposal to put in the plantings; the railroad
accepted it and nothing has been said since. During discussion of a walkway on Sunset Avenue with
Burlington Northern, they have not mentioned a fence. As a former railroad brakeman, he acknowledged
Packet Page 253 of 333
the railroad can do a lot when they put their mind to it including a fence but that is not part of the City’s
proposal.
Council President Petso asked whether the railroad was less likely to demand a fence if the walkway were
installed on the east side of Sunset. Mr. Williams answered he did not know, staff was being careful about
what they asked the railroad to avoid creating roadblocks prematurely. He believed there was a way to do
this project or staff would not have spent time on it.
Thalia Moutsanides, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, questioned how parking would be provided if that
much of the street were used for a walkway. There is already limited parking for residents’ guests and
people who want to enjoy the view. She feared by installing the walkway, the City would force
Burlington Northern to put in a fence.
Sally Wassall, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, asked to be included in the planning. She did not think
the proposed walkway would work well or be a good fit on Sunset Avenue. She echoed Ms. Moutsanides’
concern about parking. A lot of people walk on the sidewalk but many walk in the bike lane. She asked
whether the existing sidewalk would be removed, pointing out the street was only 32 feet wide in front of
their house.
Jim Wassall, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, expressed concern with parking for residents and the
people who walk on Sunset Avenue.
Mr. Williams responded one of the project goals is to not reduce the overall amount of parking on Sunset
Avenue. He recognized the parking is well used and a great deal of thought was given in the past to where
parking was located to maintain residents’ views. He noted there was more room to work with in the
street on the south end of Sunset, less in the center and at the north end.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
He declared a brief recess.
Amendment to the Agenda
To allow some staff members to leave the meeting, Council President Petso suggested moving Item 12 to
next week’s Finance Committee meeting, moving Item 13 to next week’s Public Safety & Personnel
Committee meeting and eliminating the Items 16 and 17. This was acceptable to the Council.
Continued Discussion on Item 10
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at one point the Sunset Walkway was called the Sunset Overlook. Mr.
Williams explained what is emphasized in the project scope depends on the source of funding. This
project is part park, part transportation facility. In the past funds have been sought from the Recreation
Conservation Office (RCO) and the City’s grant request did not score high enough because RCO saw it as
a glorified sidewalk. The CMAQ grant is related to transportation and therefore the project was called a
walkway. He explained at 12-feet wide, the project it is more than a sidewalk, it is a multi-use pathway.
Under the City’s code bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks but bicycle, rollerblades, etc. are allowed on
a multi-use pathway. He summarized the change in the name of the project was due to a change in the
funding source. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite added Sunset Overlook is a park in the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan and in the City’s park inventory. The Parks Department has been
working collaboratively with Public Works on this project to create a design that is contiguous with the
rest of the waterfront walkway so it looks like a park and not just a sidewalk and transportation project.
There is $200,000 in the CIP in 2015 for a match of grant funds. Councilmember Buckshnis asked
whether the initial plans for the overlook had gone away. Ms. Hite said they had.
Packet Page 254 of 333
Councilmember Bloom referred to Haines Wharf Park improvements, noting very few people visit that
park, yet there is an allocation of $178,000 for a walkway, $5,000 of it in 2014. Ms. Hite answered the
Haines Wharf project is a final close out of the project; there are no new improvements planned. The
settlements were paid in 2013 and funds are allocated for the one year warranty on the landscaping.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Underhill’s comments about pedestrian safety issues on 216th
Street SW and asked if roadway was included in the CFP/CIP. Mr. English did not recall a sidewalk
project on 216th Street SW and offered to research the 2009 Transportation Plan which contained a
number of ranked sidewalk projects.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton Street and Main
Street project that has $1 million allocated in 2014 and $1 million in 2014. She asked Mr. English to
comment on the Reid Middleton study, relaying her understanding that 10 alternatives were studied to
resolve conflicts at Dayton and Main Street related to the railroad crossing and the ferry and the preferred
alternative was Pt. Edwards. Mr. English answered he reviewed the study; options included mid-
waterfront, Main Street and Pt. Edwards.
In a previous discussion with Mr. English and Mr. Williams where she asked what would be studied that
has not already been studied, Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. English mentioned a grade change in
the mid-waterfront alternative. Mr. English responded that is one component of the study. The mid-
waterfront option included a grade change down into a tunnel with a slope of 3%. When David Evans &
Associates reviewed the grade separation at Main Street last year, they proposed a steeper slope of 4-6%
which provides for a shorter transition to an over or under grade separation. That slope is different than
what was considered in the Reid Middleton study. Another option David Evans pointed out was the radius
of the approach; there is potential to use smaller/tighter radii that may be different than what was
considered in the Reid Middleton study. A study would consider design features and assess different
options.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the study would consider the Main Street alternative
that was presented last year when the Council removed the project from the CIP and something different
for the mid-waterfront alternative in the Reid Middleton study. Mr. English answered it is not that
specific, it is an alternatives study; the scope will require a great deal of input from the Council and the
public. Councilmember Bloom said she was trying to figure out what else could be studied. Mr. English
answered different options could be studied such as emergency access, funding, speed the facility would
function at, cross slopes, etc.
Councilmember Bloom recalled in her discussion with Mr. English and Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams said
the State would not buy into Pt. Edwards. She and Council President Petso met with Senator Paull Shin
the next day who said they would go forward with whatever the Council could agree on. She suggested
using the funds to study an emergency vehicle overpass at Pt. Edwards. Mr. Williams referred to the
SR104 Corridor Study in the CIP; $50,000 was appropriated in 2013 to begin that study. That study and
the emergency vehicle access were seen as a component of the $2 million funding request. A tentative
project scope was prepared to ask for funding from the legislature. He explained staff was being very
careful with regard to the scope because the last time these issues were discussed, staff was criticized for
already making up their mind about the solution. Staff had not, but that was the impression because a
project had to be identified in order to apply for funding. This is another example of shaping the funding
request to the funding source.
Councilmember Bloom asked why the request could not be shaped for an emergency vehicle access. Mr.
Williams responded he was not aware of a funding source for emergency vehicle access projects. There
has been a suggestion for a single lane flyover over the railroad tracks at Pine Street that can also be used
Packet Page 255 of 333
by pedestrians. Although that location may be useful for some pedestrians, he did not expect people to
walk from downtown Edmonds to cross and then walk back to the waterfront. A single lane flyover
would have no utility in the future development of Edmonds Crossing should that occur in the future. It
seems very unlikely Edmonds Crossing will move forward for a very long time based on the State’s
plans, between 17 and 30 years from now. Edmonds Crossing was a great answer years ago and progress
was being made until the economy changed and funding disappeared. Consideration was then given to
what can be done in the next 10 years to address some of the problems with the at-grade crossing such as
emergency vehicle access, pedestrian access and ferry loading and unloading. The ferry system is a
potential partner if ferry loading/unloading is addressed. He noted the solution may not be a single
project; it may be a series of smaller projects. An alternatives analysis will identify options.
Councilmember Bloom said an emergency vehicle access is needed before the 5-10 years it will take to
do any of the projects. She suggested prioritizing emergency vehicle access in the request for funding
rather than an alternatives study. Mr. Williams answered that could be done. He noted single lane
concrete flyover at Pine Street for emergency vehicle access would be an incredibly expensive
undertaking, as much as $10-20 million, and would take years to accomplish. He suggested in addition to
the SR104 Corridor Study and the $2 million funding request in the CIP, including the emergency vehicle
access as third project. What can be accomplished will depend on funding provided by the legislature. Mr.
Clifton explained the alternatives analysis can also consider the best location for an emergency access or
pedestrian access. The alternatives analysis is nothing new; it has been discussed since 2008. He referred
to an email he sent to the City Council in 2008 regarding conversations with Washington State Ferries
(WSF) about examining minimum build alternatives to the preferred alternative contained in the EIS
Record of Decision. He had identified potential funding sources to conduct a minimum build alternative
analysis, recognizing WSF planned to remove Edmonds Crossing from their long range plan at least
through 2030. He pointed out the Puget Sound Regional Council’s 2040 Transportation Plan
acknowledges the ferry terminal in its existing location.
Councilmember Peterson observed the Reid Middleton study was conducted in 1992. He asked whether
the City could successfully obtain grant funds using a 21-year old study. Mr. Williams answered the
granting agency may want to know what has changed in the last 21 years before they would accept it as
suitable support for the grant request. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the alternatives analysis
would also identify potential funding sources. Mr. Williams answered yes. He did not anticipate $2
million would be spent on analysis and a public process; the intent was to request enough money to
conduct the study, select a short list of alternatives, provide a higher level of scrutiny to those, develop a
final CIP project, and still have funds to do preliminary design.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out this is identified in the CIP as an alternatives study; this is an
opportunity to consider a lot of alternatives. The City cannot rely on a study that is over 20 years old. He
explained administration came to the committee almost immediately after talking to the City’s lobbyist
about possible funding options as well as talking with local elected officials about funding in a State
transportation plan. He was concerned that two Councilmembers undercut the administration’s efforts and
preferred that discussions occur in public rather than an individual meeting with the Senator before
talking to the Mayor or Council. He did not anticipate the Council would reach agreement if the process
began with undercutting. He would be equally as concerned if the Council had worked out options with
the legislature and the Mayor tried to undercut the work the Council had done.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
In response to Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the mistrust issue arose in
part due to a letter regarding transportation that had not gone through the Council. Councilmember
Packet Page 256 of 333
Peterson recalled the Mayor reported that letter to the Council within a week. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas pointed out it was reported to the Council only after it was written. She supported prioritizing an
emergency access, pointing out many Puget Sound cities including Richmond Beach have bridges over
the railroad tracks that are used for emergency and pedestrian access. Recognizing that any changes
related to the ferry location are 15-20 years in the future, she asked what could be done now. Mr.
Williams answered an interim step such as a footbridge for pedestrians would be a much smaller scale
project. Another short term option would be to site an aid car on the west side of the tracks and a way to
get a couple paramedics to it if a train were blocking both crossings.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how an emergency vehicle access could be prioritized. Mr.
Williams viewed emergency vehicle access as one of the three line items. If the City received a larger
amount, the alternatives analysis could consider all the conflicts related to the railroad that will only
increase 17-20 years in the future when there are 100+ trains through Edmonds. He noted the emergency
vehicle access and/or other interim short term solutions could be accomplished while long range planning
is done. The best funding source is through the legislature rather than targeting a transportation grant.
Council President Petso said she attended a portion of a meeting with Senator Shin and representatives
from his office at Councilmember Bloom’s invitation and was not aware that any undercutting occurred.
She referred to a pedestrian access at the south end of the Port in the Comprehensive Plan that was
considered a high priority item. She asked whether the CFP/CIP needed to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave answered yes, relaying the
pedestrian access was likely in conjunction with Edmonds Crossing.
Council President Petso observed there is a significant possibility that the alternatives study will include
options that require leaving or expanding the ferry terminal at its current location, yet the Comprehensive
Plan includes a policy regarding moving the ferry terminal. She asked how that was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered expansion/moving the ferry began with WSF trying to solve a
capacity problem. The 4 No’s the Council developed in the 1990s did not address moving the ferry but
rather what they did not want to happen at the existing location – no expansion, no second slip and no
overhead loading which has since happened. The 4 No’s were in response to WSF’s proposal to expand
the existing location. Moving to Pt. Edwards solves all the problems; the difficulty is funding has
disappeared and there is a danger that nothing will happen at Pt. Edwards. If the City does nothing, it is
potentially at a disadvantage because WSDOT/WSF will eventually develop a new plan if they do not feel
the existing Pt. Edwards plan will be a reality. The City studying alternatives to develop a buildable
“Edmonds light” puts Edmonds in the driver’s seat. He noted WSDOT has the ability to play the facility
of state regional importance card which would allow them to determine where the terminal goes and how
it is configured. He assumed the 4 No’s were still the basis of the City’s policy direction.
Council President Petso assumed dedicating money to study leaving the ferry at its existing location
would be a contradiction of the existing policy. Mr. Chave answered not if the existing location does not
change. Council President Petso recalled the diagrams that were submitted last year for an underpass
project did include expanding the ferry terminal. Mr. Chave answered not to his knowledge.
Councilmember Johnson regarded the SR104 Corridor Study as very important to Edmonds as well as the
State as it is a Highway of Statewide Significance due to its connection to the marine highway system.
She was interested in a corridor study that looked at the entire length of SR104. When this was last
discussed, the Council discussed project limits that ranged from the ferry terminal to Highway 99. Her
concern with the CIP project is its limited description, an Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at
Dayton Street and Main Street Railroad Crossings. Mr. Williams referred to the rough scope for the
alternative study that was provided to Senator Shin’s office who prepared the request for legislative
funding. That scope identified the SR104 Study as part of the $2 million effort and it is already in the CIP
Packet Page 257 of 333
as a standalone effort. It was not staff’s intent to change the goals of that study but he did not anticipate it
would be a major portion of the $2 million. The intent of the SR104 Study is to consider the City’s
current and future land uses in the corridor, compatibility with the current transportation facilities and
improvements may be needed to provide a multi-modal corridor from the ferry terminal to Highway 99 or
potentially to I-5.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether the description in the CIP could be revised to include the full
range of planning opportunities. Mr. Williams said the SR104 Corridor Study could be added to the title
of the Alternatives Study.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether emergency vehicle access could also be added to the title of the
Alternatives Study. Mr. Williams suggested Emergency Vehicle Access Planning be added to the title or
listed as a separate project.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the 4 No’s, no expansion, no second slip, no overhead loading and
inquired about the fourth No. Mr. Chave answered the 4th No was no commercial facilities.
Mayor Earling clarified the proposal before the Council skillfully uses the words “alternatives analysis”
and he assured that’s all it is, an alternatives analysis. It is important for the SR104 Corridor Study to be
linked to the alternatives analysis. Over the past 6-12 months there have been discussions of tunnels,
safety overpasses, Edmonds Crossing Light, as well as ditches and trenches. The alternatives analysis
could/would include an emergency overpass. His concern with an emergency overpass was it did not
address the longer term problem. WSDOT does not plan to take up the ferry situation until 2030. By that
time, if studies are correct, there could be 80-100 trains a day traveling through Edmonds. In addition to
the safety issue of reaching the waterfront during an emergency, that many trains will shut down the west
side of the tracks 3-4 hours every day if a solution is not identified and funded. The train and the ferry
provide an opportunity to obtain both state and federal funds. He cautioned opportunities for funding were
reduced with every step the Council took away from looking at the big picture. The longer term problem
is more than emergency access; it is how to satisfy the businesses and residents on the west side of the
tracks if the west side is shut down 3-4 hours/day. He assured it was intended to be an alternatives
analysis; there was no skullduggery or under-the-table deals.
11. DISCUSSION ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO LIMIT CERTAIN OFFICE
USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR
STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD1 - DOWNTOWN RETAIL
CORE) ZONE (FILE NO. AMD20130013), AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this proposal has been
discussed by the City Council, Planning Board and Edmonds Economic Development Commission
(EDC) since early 2011. The purpose of this presentation is a workshop and to set a date for a public
hearing.
(Councilmember Yamamoto left the meeting at 10:33 p.m.)
The Planning Board packet contains six documents related to a proposal to limit certain office uses
(primarily by-appointment businesses) along designated ground level street frontages, the first 45 feet
measured from the sidewalk or open space (plaza/park, etc.) within the Edmonds Downtown Core or BD1
Zone.
1. An overview of the proposal which contains a summary, introduction, and references to City
documents and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal. The title of the
document is not the same as the title of the agenda packet, limiting certain office uses from
locating along designated ground level, street frontages (first 45 feet) of the downtown core,
Packet Page 258 of 333
because the true goal of this proposal is to create economic vitality - an Edmonds city center that
is economically strong, thriving, lively and social
2. A Chronology of Events (2½ year process) with hyperlinks to agendas when this issue was
discussed in a public meeting and minutes of those meetings.
3. A map depicting the boundaries of the BD1 Zone
4. An inventory conducted by Cindi Cruz and he in response to a May 13, 2013 meeting with
owners of property within the BD1 Zone
5. Minutes of the September 11, 2013 Planning Board workshop
6. Minutes of the October 9, 2013 Planning Board public hearing
Mr. Clifton explained this issue has been raised during past conversations with property owners and some
leasing agents and in looking at what other cities are doing to create a stronger retail/entertainment core.
Additionally, the concept or goal of creating a stronger retail core in Edmonds goes back to 2006. Goal 2,
Policy 2i of the 2006 adopted Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Create synergy for
commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a “retail core” area in the
downtown.” Downtown land use goals and strategies for many downtown areas incorporate four
prominent themes: A Central Gathering Place; Sense of Place; Connectivity; and Density (varying
degrees). To achieve these objectives, downtowns need economic development/vitality, safety, housing,
businesses, and tourism; a vibrant open door retail/service core helps advance these objectives.
With regard to a Central Gathering Place, he explained retail/restaurants/and open door service uses,
particularly independently owned, add to Edmonds’ distinctiveness because it is the most visible element
within the downtown core of Edmonds. Edmonds’ unique downtown character is defined by the diversity
and concentration of complimentary commercial uses that generate pedestrian activity and a lively social
environment that, in turn, sustain a mix of uses. Creation of a critical mass of this type of activity also
helps to increase the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. By appointment office
uses have the ability and flexibility to open in more locations within commercial areas; uses such as retail
stores, restaurants, art galleries, etc., have limited business spaces/stock and thrive best when there is a
concentration of similar uses.
With regard to public safety/less activity, Mr. Clifton explained office uses typically close in the early
evenings and weekends, thus creating less lively and darker streetscapes. The resulting impression of the
area is that it is not inviting, thriving, interesting, or friendly to walk around. A healthy retail core is also
important for maintaining safe streets in many central cities. According to Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED), businesses on the ground floor provide “eyes on the street” and deter
criminal activity. Retail, restaurants, art galleries, etc., stay open for longer periods of time than office
uses, thus providing more activity on the street beyond 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. This proposal is expected over
time to help create a more concentrated “festival retail” environment that does not close up at 5:00 or 6:00
p.m., but instead, a downtown core that invites people to hang out and enjoy the environment later into
the evening. Retail/restaurants/galleries/service uses can also help stimulate housing and business
development within downtown areas as they often provide essential services to city residents. This can be
partially attributed to the vibrancy that these uses add to downtown streets.
With regard to tourism, a strong retail/restaurant/gallery/entertainment core helps attract shoppers and
tourists. Tourists invest significant amounts of money into many city, county and state economies; in fact,
tourism is the 4th largest industry in Washington State. Tourism in turn supports businesses and their
employees. Downtown Edmonds is home to many independent retailers and restaurants, so when tourists
are shopping downtown, they are supporting the growth of smaller independent businesses. Conversely,
negative fluctuations in the retail market, can result in vacant storefronts thus affecting the street
environment and eventually weakening the vitality of the downtown core. Retail/active service issues are
a critical part of sustaining the health of downtowns.
Packet Page 259 of 333
A City and business community can help and should orchestrate the business mix – expressing support to
establish a retail/dining/entertainment or “festival retail” core helps guide the types of businesses to
recruit. This applies to the City, Chamber, Landlords and Leasing Agents. If there is no concerted effort
to fill spaces with certain uses, there is less incentive/motivation to search for the types of activities or
businesses that would help increase the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. It can
sometimes be easier to lease to a tenant that will not add to the commercial vitality of the
retail/restaurant/art gallery/boutique/service business core.
Mr. Clifton referred to the 20 ingredients of an outstanding downtown cited by Mr. Brooks, highlighting
ingredients that tie directly to this proposal:
• Nearly all begin with a plan
• Defining a strong brand and retail focus
• Starting with a demonstration project
• Developing gathering places
• Investing heavily in retail beautification
• Activities and entertainment
Mr. Clifton advised the proposal was unanimously supported by the City’s EDC on June 13, 2013. He
hosted two meetings with owners of property within the BD1 Zone; none of the property owners opposed
or spoke in opposition to the proposal, some wanted additional information such as the inventory that was
prepared.
Mr. Clifton provided Roger Brooks’ 10-10-10 rule in a minimum of 3 lineal blocks - 10 places that sell
food, 10 places that serve as destination retail, and 10 places open after 6:00 p.m.
He referred to similar provisions in other cities such as Kirkland; Escondido, California; Minneapolis; and
Encinitas, California to restrict service office/uses within the retail core.
Mr. Clifton reviewed an inventory of downtown Edmonds businesses, identifying the businesses that
would be impacted by the proposal. He clarified this proposal does not encourage or require any business
to leave. It is only when the business vacates the space and the space remains vacant over six months will
the owner be required to fill the space with an allowable use. The packet includes letters of support, two
from business owners who own buildings in the BD1 zone and two from interested citizens.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Yamamoto was not present for the vote.)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why real estate offices would be an allowed use under this
proposal. Mr. Clifton responded real estate offices are an open door type business with pictures on the
windows that attract tourists. In the absence of a consensus at the EDC, the recommendation is to allow
real estate offices. Some cities such as Kirkland allow real estate offices, others do not. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked whether an argument could be made that a financial office also has walk-in
business. Mr. Clifton answered those tend to be by appointment. The goal is to encourage open door type
businesses. This proposal also precludes bank drive-through and banks must have tellers.
Councilmember Bloom referred to 543 Main Street where five businesses are affected and five are not.
She assumed the five affected businesses were in the first 45 feet of the building. Mr. Clifton answered
yes and on the ground floor. She asked what happened if one of the affected businesses left and the owner
was unable to fill the space within 180 days. Mr. Clifton recognized that building is problematic; multiple
Packet Page 260 of 333
tenants are served by one entry point. Unless the landlord clears the entire first floor, that building will not
become retail/entertainment. He provided proposed language to address that building, the owner of the
building in the BD1 zone may apply for an exception from the restriction on offices and medical uses
within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the following criteria: the space is less
than 500 square feet, the space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk, the previous use
was a non-conforming use, and the space has been vacant for a period of more than six months.
Council President Petso asked why banks would be an allowed use. Mr. Clifton answered that was
another use that the EDC could not reach consensus on. It was decided to allow banks with tellers and to
prohibit drive-through.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding of the difference between Advanced Hearing
Systems and the Edmonds Vision Center was the Vision Center could be considered retail because they
sold glasses and sunglasses. She asked whether Advance Hearing Systems could be considered retail if
they put hearing aids and adaptive equipment in the window. Mr. Clifton illustrated how this was applied
in Kirkland; a physical therapy office sells fitness equipment in the first 30 feet with the physical therapy
behind. Edmonds Vision Center is very similar; the front portion is primarily retail. He envisioned it
would be difficult to fill that much space with hearing aids and in his experience with his mother, a
hearing aid store is a by-appointment business.
Councilmember Peterson suggested a public hearing be scheduled soon in light of the 2½ years this issue
has been discussed.
12. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT
ISSUE AND COUNCIL OVERSIGHT OF REMOVING RECEIVABLES
This item was moved to the November 12 Finance Committee meeting via action taken under Agenda
Item 10.
13. DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNCIL ATTENDANCE VIA SPEAKER PHONE
This item was moved to the November 12 Public Safety & Personnel Committee meeting via action taken
under Agenda Item 10.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported the visit from the Hekinan, Japan delegation was wonderful experience. The
delegation had a fabulous time at the Friendship dinner, the Boeing tour, shopping downtown, etc. He
thanked the host families; explaining half the delegation stayed with host families, the other half stayed at
the Harbor Inn.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Petso relayed a request for a one-hour presentation on the December 10 committee
night of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Unless she hears otherwise from Councilmembers,
she will schedule that item.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked all the organizers of the Hekinan delegation’s visit. Mayor Earling
recognized Sister City Commissioner Iyoko Okano and his Executive Assistant Carolyn LaFave for the
fabulous work they did.
Packet Page 261 of 333
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she had a great time with the Hekinan delegation. She and
Councilmember Buckshnis went with the delegation to Gallaghers to watch them bottle beer. The
Friendship Dinner and the dancing and music at the Edmonds Center for the arts were fabulous. She
thanked Ms. LaFave for her hard work.
Councilmember Johnson echoed the comments about the Hekinan delegation. She thanked everyone
involved with the delegation’s visit. The Halloween party, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, was
one of the highlights, particularly the Japanese dancing.
Councilmember Peterson reported the Chamber Halloween party was a fantastic event. He thanked Ms.
LaFave and Michelle Van Tassell, President of the Sister City Commission.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 10.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 10.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.
Packet Page 262 of 333
DRAFT
Subject to October 23rd Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 9, 2013
Chair Reed 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
John Reed, Chair
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke
Ian Duncan
Neil Tibbott
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO LIMIT CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS
SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGES (GFSF) WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD1) ZONE (FILE NUMBER AMD20130013)
Mr. Clifton informed the Board that, in addition to the required public notification, the City sent hearing notices to all
property owners within the BD1 zone. He advised that the proposal before the Board has been discussed by the City Council,
the Planning Board and the Edmonds Economic Development Commission (EDC) since early 2011. He noted that the Staff
Report contains four documents related to the proposal to limit certain office. He reviewed each of the attachments as
follows:
Packet Page 263 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 2
Attachment 1 provides an overview of the proposal, which contains a summary, introduction, and references to City
documents and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal. He noted that the title of the
document is not the same as the title of the agenda packet. The title on Attachment 1 (Create Economic Vitality – An
Edmonds City Center that is Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social) is intended to reflect the true goal of the
proposal.
Attachment 2 provides a chronology of the events that occurred during the long, 2½-year process.
Attachment 3 is a map depicting the boundaries of the BD1 Zone.
Attachment 4 is an inventory conducted by staff in response to a May 13th meeting with property owners within the
BD1 zone.
Mr. Clifton advised that his comments are intended to illustration why consideration should be given to restricting and
promoting certain uses along designated ground level street frontages within the BD1 zone. He reminded the Board that the
issue was raised, in part, as a result of past conversations with property owners and leasing agents and looking at what other
cities are doing to create a stronger retail/entertainment core. In fact, the concept or goal of creating a strong retail core in
Edmonds goes back to 2006 when the Edmonds Economic Development Plan was adopted. He specifically noted that Goal
2, Policy 2i of the plan states, “Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a
retail core area in the downtown.” He suggested that another way to phrase this goal is “How does our community open
more opportunities for retail, dining, specialty shops, entertainment venues and galleries within a concentrated area?” He
pointed out that land-use goals and strategies for many downtown areas incorporate four prominent themes: a central
gathering place, sense of place, connectivity, and varying degrees of density. He emphasized that in order to achieve these
objectives, downtowns need economic development/vitality, safety, housing, businesses, and tourism. A vibrant open-door
retail/service core will help advance these objectives. He specifically discussed the following concepts:
Central Gathering Place. Retail/restaurants and open-door service uses, particularly independently owned, add to
Edmonds’ distinctiveness because they are the most visible elements within the downtown core of Edmonds. As stated
in a 2010 email he sent to a property owner, “Edmonds’ unique downtown character is defined by the diversity and
concentration of complimentary commercial uses such as restaurant/cafes, art galleries, house wares, books, garden
supplies, specialty boutiques, hair/nail salons, etc. These uses generate pedestrian activity and a lively social
environment that, in turn, sustains a mix of uses. Creation of a critical mass of this type of activity also helps to increase
the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. While pure, by-appointment office uses have the ability
and flexibility to open in more locations within commercial areas, uses such as retail stores, restaurants, art galleries, etc.,
have limited business spaces/stock and thrive best when there is a concentration of similar uses.” The City and business
community have been working to attract businesses that will help bring life to the downtown streets during the weekend
and evening hours, and it is starting to pay off.
This message is consistent with information provided by Mr. Brooks nearly two years later (November 8, 2012) during
his presentation at the Wade James Theater regarding the “20 ingredients of an outstanding downtown.” Two of these
ingredients relate to how clustering of like-businesses works and the power in critical mass. He said Mr. Brooks
specifically highlighted that while spending millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, façade
improvements and a host of other things can help improve the physical environment, a downtown can still be lifeless.
He emphasized that what is happening inside the buildings is what makes a downtown work as a community center and
gathering place. There are beautiful streetscapes that have no street activity, which he suggested is due to lack of
businesses along the streetscape that attract people.
Public Safety/Less Activity. Office uses are typically closed in the early evenings and on weekends, creating less lively
and darker streetscapes. The resulting impression of the area is that it is not inviting, thriving, interesting or friendly to
walk around. A healthy retail core is also important for maintaining safe streets in many central cities. According to
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, businesses on the ground floor provide “eyes on the street” and deter
criminal activity. Retail businesses, restaurants, art galleries, etc., stay open for longer periods of time than office uses,
thus providing more activity on the street beyond 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. The proposal before the Board is expected, over
time, to help create a more concentrated “festival retail” environment that does not close at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. Instead,
the downtown core would invite people to hang out and enjoy the environment later into the evening.
Packet Page 264 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 3
Intensity. Retail, restaurant, gallery, and service uses can also help stimulate housing and business development within
downtown areas as they often provide essential services to City residents. This can be partially attributed to the vibrancy
that these uses add to downtown streets.
Tourism. A strong retail core helps attract shoppers and tourists who invest significant amounts of money into the city,
county and state economies. Tourism is the 4th largest industry in Washington State; and in turn, it supports businesses
and their employees. Downtown Edmonds is home to many independent retailers and restaurants. When tourists shop
downtown, they are supporting the growth of smaller independent businesses. Conversely, negative fluctuations in the
retail market, such as the absence of critical mass, can result in vacant storefronts thus affecting the street environment
and eventually weakening the vitality of the downtown core. Retail and active-service uses are a critical part of
sustaining the health of downtown.
Direction of the Downtown Core. A city and business community can help and should orchestrate the business mix.
Expressing support to establish a retail/dining/entertainment or “festival retail” core helps guide the kinds of businesses
to recruit. This applies to the City, Chamber, landlords and leasing agents. If there is no concerted effort to fill spaces
with certain uses, there will be less incentive/motivation to search for the types of activities or businesses that help
increase the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. In other words, it can sometimes be easier to
lease to a tenant that will not add to the commercial vitality of the business core. He could cite a number of successful
conversations he has had with property owners and leasing agents about leasing property in the downtown core for uses
other than office.
Once again, Mr. Clifton referred to Mr. Brooks’ “20 Ingredients of an Outstanding Downtown,” and noted that the following
are specifically tied to the current proposal:
Nearly all begin with a plan. The Economic Development Plan calls for creating a retail core and several
Comprehensive and Economic Development Plan goals and policies support this effort. These specific goals and
policies are outlined in Attachment 1.
Defining a strong brand and retail focus.
Orchestrating recruitment of “critical mass” or “clustering.” Staff recently reviewed a video from the Roger Brooks
Library regarding the concept of “critical mass.” The video talks about the power of getting like businesses in a
concentrated environment and how much synergy and livelihood that creates.
Starting with a demonstration project. Many people have asked why the City is not proposing to apply the proposed
amendment to the entire downtown core. As recommended by Mr. Brooks, staff is proposing to start small. If the
concept is successful, the boundaries can be expanded. If not, the boundaries can be pulled back.
Developing gathering places.
Sidewalk cafes and dining. He noted that the recent widening of Main Street allowed restaurants to place chairs and
tables on sidewalks, which has resulted in a more vibrant street front.
Investing heavily in retail beautification. He has promoted a program he calls, “Paint the Town,” and many property
owners have already painted their facades. More are planning to do so. This has created more of a “funky,” colorful
downtown.
Activities and entertainment.
Mr. Clifton advised that, on June 13th, the EDC expressed unanimous support for the proposal, and staff conducted meetings
with property owners in the BD1 Zone on May 13th and September 4th. Approximately 50 invitations were sent out, and over
20 people attended. He noted that, at the May 13th meeting, some property owners expressed support for the proposal, and
others wanted to continue the discussion. At the September 4th meeting, it seems most property owners supported the
proposal. He concluded that, to date, none of the property owners he has spoken with have expressed outright opposition.
Mr. Clifton advised that within his critical mass video (referenced earlier), Mr. Brooks talks about the Ten Ten Ten Rule
where cities try to get 10 places that sell food, 10 places that serve as destination retail shops and ten places that are open
after 6:00 p.m. all within three lineal blocks. Walnut Creek, California, is a good example of this concept. Although the
city’s population is only about 65,000, they have over 200 restaurants near the core of their downtown.
Packet Page 265 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 4
Mr. Clifton advised, that over the past few years, staff has conducted research to learn how other jurisdictions have
successfully implemented provisions that restrict service/office uses within their retail core areas. He specifically noted the
following:
Kirkland, Washington. In 1990, the City of Kirkland adopted a code provision that limits the uses at street level to
certain kinds of commercial uses. He recalled that members of the EDC and Planning Board met with Kirkland’s
Planning Director, who indicated that the provisions have been working well. However, he noted that they amended
their 90-day nonconformance provision to 180 days to provide more flexibility during the recession.
Escondido, California. In 2010 the Escondido City Council conducted an effort to reserve downtown storefronts for
shopping, dining and entertainment. One of the city’s specific goals was to promote a vibrant and exciting downtown
environment by establishing areas with land uses that foster an 18-hour atmosphere.
Minneapolis, Minnesota. This city’s policy is to maintain a compact core by concentrating major retail facilities within
an area designated as “Retail District.” The Retail Detail serves as the primary center of retailing activity in the
downtown.
Encinitas, California. In 2007, The Encinitas City Council unanimously supported a proposal to preserve its downtown
by restricting its ground-floor space to retail businesses.
Mr. Clifton pointed out that many cities in California have adopted similar policies including Coronado, San Diego,
Redwood City, Alameda, Arcadia, San Luis Obispo, and Walnut Creek.
Mr. Clifton referred to Attachment 4, which is a spreadsheet of existing businesses in the BD1 zone. The businesses
highlighted in yellow are those that would be impacted by the proposed amendment. He emphasized that it is not the City’s
intent to push out existing businesses that are not consistent with the proposal. These businesses would not be required to
leave. A property owner would have the ability to fill any vacant space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done
with 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated. It is not the City’s objective to push these businesses out;
rather, it is to prevent the number of certain office uses in the BD1 zone from increasing.
Mr. Clifton reviewed that the Planning Board conducted a workshop on the proposed amendment on September 11th. At that
time, they asked about inserting clarifying language into Table 16.43-1 related to real estate offices. They also recommended
that the first footnote at the end of the table should be changed to make it clear that buildings setback 15 or more feet from
the sidewalk would not be subject to the BD1 zone GFSF requirements. In addition, the Board discussed the best way to
address window displays and a question was raised about applying a 90-day nonconformance timeline versus the City’s
current nonconformance timeline of six months.
Mr. Clifton referred to Attachment 1 and noted that the modifications made as a result of the Planning Board’s discussion are
identified in green. He explained that window displays relate to visibility and aesthetics as opposed to the types of uses
allowed in the BD1 Zone, so no new language was added to the amendment. Language relating to a 90-day versus 6-month
nonconformance timeline was also not incorporated into the draft document. While the Board raised the question, there was
no clear indication that the majority of the Board supported a shorter timeframe. He expressed concern that 90-days is not
much time to recruit businesses, and he recommended the Board retain the 6-month timeframe. He summarized his belief
that, at a minimum, the proposal would accomplish the City’s goal of preventing the number of certain office uses from
increasing within the BD1 Zone. He specifically noted that one property owner only supported the proposal when he learned
of the 6-month timeframe and that his business would not be required to vacate the site when the amendment is adopted.
In addition to the changes made since the Board’s last review on September 11th, Mr. Clifton recommended that the first
footnote below Table 16.43-1 should be amended by adding the words “or park/plaza” after “sidewalk.” He noted that this
recommendation is based on a discussion he recently had with the EDC’s Land Use Subcommittee about how to address the
Old Mill Town property.
Mr. Clifton referred the Board to the following written public comments that were received regarding the proposed
amendment:
Packet Page 266 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 5
In an email dated October 3, 2013, Chris Fleck expressed support for the proposed amendment.
In an email dated October 8, 2013, Pat McDevitt voiced his support for limiting certain office uses in the BD1 zone.
In an email dated October 9, 2013, Richard Senderoff expressed support for the proposal, as well. He emphasized that,
although he serves on the EDC, he was offering his support as a citizen.
Vice Chair Stewart asked the typical length of a lease in the BD1 Zone. Mr. Clifton answered that property owners do not
share this information with him, but the typical timeframe is a minimum of five years.
Chair Reed clarified that the Board is being asked to approve the draft amendments to ECDC 16.43 found on Pages 6 through
8 of Attachment 1. Mr. Clifton explained that if the Board recommends approval, the draft changes would be forwarded to
the City Council for adoption. If the City Council supports the amendments, they would direct the City Attorney to prepare
an ordinance to formally adopt them into the ECDC.
Ray Ault, Advanced Hearing Systems, Inc., said he leases property for his business at 104 – 5th Avenue North in Edmonds.
He said that while he understands the intent of the proposed amendments, he has some questions and concerns. He asked if
another hearing business could locate on the site if he vacates the premise or if future uses would have to conform to the new
requirement. He requested clarification about why the Edmonds Vision Center would be an allowed use when his hearing
business would not.
Mr. Clifton explained that if Advanced Hearing System, Inc. vacates its site, the property owner would have a timeframe of
six months to lease the site to a similar business. If the site is not filled with a similar use within that timeframe, the property
owner would be required to adhere to the new use requirement. He explained that the hearing business is different than the
vision center because the vision center provides a retail environment at the storefront by selling glasses and sunglasses. He
reminded the Board that they had a lengthy discussion about this issue at their last meeting, when he shared the example of a
physical therapy business that is currently located in downtown Kirkland. Although physical therapy is not considered an
allowed use along the street front, the business owner met the city’s requirement by providing a retail component (exercise
equipment) at the front of the building, with the actual therapy taking place behind. He noted that hearing centers are less
retail oriented and more medical oriented. He re-emphasized that Advanced Hearing System Inc. would be allowed to
remain on the site until the business owner chooses to vacate. At that time, the site would be subject to the new code, and the
property owner would have six months to fill the space with the same or a similar use. After six months, the property owner
would be required to fill the space consistent with the new use requirement. Board Member Lovell clarified that Mr. Ault
would not be allowed to relocate his existing business to another site in the BD1 zone.
Chair Reed referred to the footnote at the bottom of Table 16.43-1, which clarifies that service uses that do not provide open-
door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business would not be allowed in the BD1 zone.
The term “open-door” can be used to distinguish between the vision center and other types of medical uses. Mr. Clifton
agreed. He also reminded the Board that only banks with tellers and no drive-thru service would be allowed in the BD1 zone.
Making note of the three written comments described earlier by Mr. Clifton, Chair Reed closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Board Member Lovell observed that the additional language added to the last footnote under Table 16.43-1 was intended to
clarify the types of service uses that would be allowed. He asked if the Board feels the language is sufficient to address the
issue clearly. Mr. Clifton explained that it would be impossible to identify all potential uses that are considered open-door.
The three examples were provided in the footnote because they were the topic of several lengthy discussions. He emphasized
the need for some flexibility, as well.
Board Member Lovell said he supports a 6-month timeframe for nonconformance rather than a 90-day timeframe. Again,
Mr. Clifton said he has heard from some property owners who are only willing to support the proposed amendment if the six-
month timeframe is included. One property owner was under the impression that his site would have to be vacated once the
amendment is adopted. Explaining the nonconformance and grandfather provisions provided him with enough assurance to
support the change. He reminded the Board that one objective of the proposal is to prevent the number of office uses in the
BD1 zone from increasing.
Packet Page 267 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 6
Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that a 6-month nonconformance timeframe seems counterintuitive to the City’s goal
of decreasing the number of service and office uses in the BD1 zone. From her perspective, it would be too easy for a
property owner to fill the space with a similar use, particularly if it will affect their bottom line. She suggested the City
provide incentives to property owners to search for a different use that is consistent with the proposed amendment. This
would create synergy and ultimately make other businesses more successful. If property owners are allowed up to six months
to lease to a similar use, the City will be stuck for at least five more years with a use that is inconsistent with its goal for the
BD1 zone. She said she would support a 90-day nonconformance timeframe.
Mr. Chave pointed out that there are very few locations that would be nonconforming based on the current proposal. If
approved, the proposal would prevent property owners from converting existing retail spaces to service or office uses. He
suggested that, in the absence of concrete incentives and mandating the change through regulations, the City has had some
success using the art of persuasion to encourage property owners to change uses. Again, he reminded the Board that only a
small percentage of properties in the BD1 zone are occupied by uses that would no longer be allowed. The goal of the
proposal is to make sure the number of office uses in the BD1 zone does not expand. He expressed concern that if the City
pushes too hard, they may face more resistance from property owners. Again, he said staff has had a lot of success with
getting property owners on board. Typically, they are willing to try when offered options.
Mr. Clifton recalled that Roger Brooks talked about how important it is for the community to help orchestrate the types of
uses they want in the downtown core. As the downtown core starts to transform, property owners will realize they can get
more rent from a retail use than an office use. Once the pieces fall together, property owners will offer even more support for
the vision. He noted that the City has already had some success with this concept, and the proposed code change would
provide more motivation.
Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that the number of businesses that would be non-compliant with the new code
provision is more than a few. She suggested that the Board include both timeframe options (90-days and 6-months) for
public hearing purposes. She also suggested that the Board raise the concept of creative incentives at the public hearing. She
specifically noted that a non-profit business improvement district or a community enhancement fund could be used to help
building owners make the transition. She suggested the Board could provide a range of options and then let the City Council
make the final decision.
Mr. Clifton agreed that Vice Chair Stewart’s comments could be included as part of the Board’s recommendation. However,
he referred to the concern raised earlier by Mr. Chave. In conversations he has had with property owners in the BD1 zone, he
saw a shift in their support when they realized they would have more flexibility. They understand the goal, and they support
it. However, he cautioned against scaring property owners away by shortening the nonconformance timeframe. If they can
keep the number of noncompliant uses from expanding, the City will have achieved success.
Mr. Clifton cautioned that it will be a challenge to apply the new code provisions to the property located at 543 Main Street,
which is currently occupied by several small counseling offices. Staff is considering options for addressing this particular
property.
Board Member White asked why the Twist Vinyasa Yoga Studio is identified as a nonconforming use based on the current
proposal. Mr. Clifton explained that the yoga studio is considered a fitness center. It is operated by appointment only, and
only members are allowed on site. Therefore, it would not be classified as an open-door service use. He noted that currently,
the site has screened all sides of the business, and there is no connection between what is happening inside the building and
the street. This results in a less lively streetscape.
Board Member Ellis asked if business owners have a clear understanding that the proposed amendments would not impact
their ability to sell a business. Mr. Clifton said he has tried to make it clear that a business owner could sell and the same use
or a similar use would be allowed to continue in its existing location.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that only 14 of the 105 businesses currently located in the BD1 zone would be
considered nonconforming based on the proposed amendment. That is not a significant number, but adding more,
Packet Page 268 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 7
particularly on Main Street would be undesirable. He agreed with Mr. Clifton that applying the proposed amendment to the
property at 543 Main Street would be difficult.
Mr. Clifton said he has been working with three business owners, in particular, who are interested in relocating to downtown
Edmonds but have been unable to find space that meets their needs. The building at 3rd Avenue and Dayton Street is too
large. He suggested that these situations lend support to the proposed amendment.
At the request of Board Member Cloutier, Mr. Clifton briefly explained why real estate offices and some banks would be
allowed in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clifton recalled that this issue was discussed at length by both the EDC and the Planning
Board. It was determined that real estate uses are somewhat open door in that people love to walk by and view the displays
and they can go inside and speak to an agent. Mr. Chave noted that he walks around Edmonds almost every day and notices
that people are frequently stopped in front of the real estate offices looking at the window displays. Mr. Clifton advised that
while banks would be considered open-door businesses, those with drive-thru facilities would not be allowed, and the banks
must have tellers.
CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 16.43 (FILE NUMBER AMD20130013) AS
WRITTEN AND AMENDED BY STAFF (SEE AMENDMENT TO FOOTNOTE BELOW TABLE 16.43-1). HE
FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY EVALUATE
THE 90-DAY VERSUS 180-DAY TIMEFRAME FOR NONCONFORMANCE. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER
SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Ellis indicated his support for a 180-day timeframe for nonconformance. However, he agreed it would be
appropriate to leave the matter up to the City Council, recognizing the different viewpoints expressed during the Board’s
discussion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION/UPDATE ON POTENTIAL ISSUES RELATED TO INITIATIVE 502 (I-502) (CANNABIS)
IMPLEMENTATION IN EDMONDS
Mr. Chave reported that on August 20th, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3938, establishing an immediate emergency
moratorium on all marijuana related business activities. The moratorium expires in February. He explained that the issue is
divided into two categories: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow the
Washington State Liquor Control Board an opportunity to complete its rule-making for the licensing of such uses and to
allow the City to study the secondary land-use impacts. He said he anticipates the State will start issuing licenses for the
production, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana in March or April, and the City needs to have appropriate
regulations in place by that time.
Mr. Chave advised that on September 3rd, the City Council had a discussion about marijuana issues, and none of the Council
Members indicated a desire to outright ban recreational marijuana. He noted that the City of Kent has taken that approach,
and they are currently being sued. Assuming the City Council’s position holds, the next step will be to adopt specific
regulations to govern the use. Any land-use amendments will come before the Planning Board for a public hearing and
recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Chave reviewed that, at one time, the Liquor Control Board recommended that recreational marijuana uses should not be
allowed to locate within a 1,000 foot distance from schools, daycares, churches, parks, etc. However, the distance would be
measured by the most common pathway between the two uses. The Federal Government pushed back, and the Liquor
Control Board is now recommending a distance of 1,000, measured as the crow flies. As currently proposed, marijuana uses
would not be allowed within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of a school, daycare, church, park, etc. He expressed his belief that
the latter approach would be the simplest to implement.
Mr. Chave referred to the map that was provided in the Staff Report to reflect the staff’s best effort to identify where the
required buffers would rule out the opportunity for marijuana uses to be sited. He said that at a recent meeting of the City
Packet Page 269 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 8
Council’s Planning, Public Works and Parks Committee it was suggested that it might make the most sense to permit
recreational marijuana uses (processing, production and retail sales) in the General Commercial (CG) and General
Commercial 2 (CG2) zones, which are located along Highway 99. Sites within this zone are accessible to most anyone. The
neighborhood commercial zones are very small and there is more chance that a restrictive use will eventually locate in the
area, making it difficult for a marijuana business to renew its license. This would be less likely to occur along Highway 99.
Mr. Chave explained that the purpose of this discussion is to introduce the issue to the Planning Board. Since it is likely that
the Board will be asked to act quickly, it is important for them to be aware of the issues. The City Council committees will
continue their discussions and provide additional direction for how they want the Board to proceed.
Mr. Chave pointed out that, technically, medical marijuana uses are not licensed or otherwise authorized by any state or
federal agencies. Therefore, the City may choose not to regulate them from a land-use standpoint. The City can just prohibit
these uses until the State or Federal Government provides regulations.
Board Member Lovell reported that he attended the first City Council meeting where this topic was discussed. The package
that was prepared for the Staff Report provides a good answer to many of the questions that were raised by the City Council.
Based on State law, the City does not have a lot of flexibility related to recreational marijuana rules and regulations. Because
he does not anticipate there will be large parcels of land on which a marijuana production or processing business could
locate, the City will likely be dealing with just retail sales. Mr. Chave disagreed. He pointed out that a production facility
could be located in a warehouse facility that accommodates indoor operations. However, he agreed that most of the spaces in
the neighborhood commercial zones are too small.
Board Member Lovell referred to a memorandum from the City Attorney, which was included in the Staff Report. In the
letter, the City Attorney cautions the City not to ban recreational marijuana business from locating in the City because it will
likely be challenged. He noted that the State has proposed guidelines for the number of recreational marijuana retail sales
locations each City should be allowed to have, and Edmonds has been allocated two. He summarized that while the City
must allow for these uses, they can limit where they are located via zoning and land use regulations. He agreed with staff’s
suggestion that these uses be limited to sites along Highway 99 in the CG and CG2 zones.
Chair Reed asked if the buffers identified on the map provided in the staff report are statutory. Mr. Chave answered that they
the buffers identified on the map are based on State law. They could potentially be enlarged, but not reduced. He reminded
the Board that most of the neighborhood commercial centers could potentially accommodate marijuana uses, but they are
small locations and it is possible a day care or other use could locate in the area that would prevent the marijuana business
from renewing its license.
Board Member Lovell noted that the staff report also provides information about the direction the state is taking regarding
taxation. Currently, a 25% excise tax would be charged, as well as an 8% sales tax on the production, processing and retail
sales. This equates to about $6.25 per gram. He concluded that it would take a significant amount of traffic to support a
marijuana business, given the high level of taxation involved. The location needs to be accessible to a large amount of
traffic, and Highway 99 fits this requirement.
Board Member Lovell asked how much of the anticipated excise tax collected from recreational marijuana production,
processing and sales would come to the City. Mr. Chave answered that it would be very little. Most would be considered
State revenue.
Mr. Chave said he anticipates the issue will come before the Board before the end of the year or at their first meeting in
January, since the moratorium ends at the end of February.
Board Member Ellis said he recently viewed a news item on television about the ability to sell recreational marijuana at
farmer’s markets. He asked if the City would address this issue in its regulations. Mr. Chave answered that this would
require a separate provision. It would not be an issue if the use is limited to CG and CG2 zones since farmer’s markets are
not allowed in these zones.
Packet Page 270 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 9
Board Member Ellis asked how the use would be regulated in the Esperance area, which is not part of incorporated Edmonds.
Mr. Chave said this area would be regulated by Snohomish County. He pointed out that, in King County, most of the retail
locations for marijuana sales will be located within cities. That is not the case for Snohomish County where nearly half of
the locations are unallocated. He noted that locations in Esperance would still have to abide by the buffer rules.
Board Member Lovell pointed out that State law prevents a single business from being a producer, processor and retailer of
marijuana. If someone chooses to establish a processing business on Highway 99, no retail sales would be allowed to occur
on the site.
Board Member Lovell asked if anyone on the Planning Board would support a proposal to ban recreational marijuana
businesses in Edmonds. No one indicated support for that approach.
STUDY SESSION ON AT&T MOBILITY AND THE BUSCH LAW FIRM’S APPLICATION TO AMEND THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL STATUS OF
EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO AND JUST AFTER
ADOPTION OF EDMONDS’ ORIGINAL WIRELESS ORDINANCE (FILE NUMBER AMD20130005)
Mr. Clugston advised that AT&T and the Busch Law Firm have applied to amend the ECDC to address the legal status of an
existing wireless communication facility that is located on the Commodore Condominiums but currently unpermitted. He
reviewed that, for a number of years, AT&T has been working with City staff to address the issue, and they are proposing the
code amendment as the best approach. He noted that minutes from the Board’s August 14th discussion were included in the
Staff Report as Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is the applicant’s proposed code amendment.
Mr. Clugston explained that the applicant’s goal is to have their facility, and their facility alone, become nonconforming by
the proposed amendment in ECDC 17.40.023. He noted that upon review of all of the wireless permits, he found that this site
is the only location where the amendment would apply. While there is an additional wireless facility on top of another
building in the bowl, it is already identified as nonconforming and the amendment would not be applicable.
Board Member Lovell asked if staff anticipates any additional exceptions down the road. Mr. Clugston answered no. He
said he reviewed permits for the past 17 years and this is the only unpermitted facility that exists in the City. The one on the
Harbor Building is nonconforming, so the change would not apply. He explained that AT&T went through the building
permit process and applied to move the antenna from the roof to the side of the building as required by code. However, after
the permit was approved, the building owner denied AT&T’s request based on comments received from residents living in
the condominium development. Staff asked if it would be possible for AT&T to relocate the antenna to the side of another
building in the downtown, but AT&T indicated this is a key building within their network in the bowl. AT&T has worked to
come up with other options to get the site permitted, and the proposed amendment is the solution they have come up with.
Chair Reed recalled that when the wireless code was last updated in 2009, the City went to great lengths to ensure that the
facilities would be as unobtrusive as possible. The proposed amendment would sidestep that requirement. He questioned if
it would be appropriate for the City to require the applicant to make every effort to comply with the new rules. Mr. Clugston
explained that this is a unique site and the only one in Edmonds with this issue. He agreed that there are other tall buildings
in the downtown where the applicant could locate the antenna on the side of the building as required by the new code.
However, the applicant has indicated that is something they just cannot do. The way their system is set up in the bowl, their
siting on the Commodore Condominiums is the lynch pin to their entire operation in downtown Edmonds. Clearly, one
option to address the problem is to declare the facility legally nonconforming.
Vice Chair Stewart recalled that when Mr. Lyons from the Busch Law Firm came before the Board previously, he mentioned
that the proposed amendment would only apply to wireless communication facilities constructed between July 12, 1997 and
August 5, 1998. However, the proposed code language states that it would apply to all wireless communication facilities
constructed prior to August 5, 1998. She asked if this change would increase the number of facilities impacted by the
change. Mr. Clugston answered that it would not increase the number of facilities impacted. As long as the end date is
August 5, 1998, it is probably not necessary to include a beginning date.
Packet Page 271 of 333
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2013 Page 10
Board Member Ellis recalled that there was a very small period of time when wireless installations were in limbo. Because
no permit was required, there is no record of their existence. The proposed amendment would only apply to facilities that
were constructed before August 5, 1998, which equates to just this one facility. He noted that the facility is not visible from
the street, and it is very difficult to identify from uphill properties, as well. In addition, he understands that the residents of
the building do not want the facility located on the side of the building as required by the current code.
The Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment for December 11th.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Reed reviewed that the October 23rd meeting will be dedicated to park issues (quarterly report, Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Plan, and Park Naming Policy). The November 13th meeting is scheduled for a continued discussion on
proposed revisions to the allowed activities provisions in the Critical Areas Ordinance and a public hearing on the reasonable
use provisions in the Critical Areas Ordinance, as well the City Council’s interim zoning ordinance. The Board would also
continue their discussion on the Westgate Plan and form-based zoning. The agenda for December 11th will include election
of 2014 officers and a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Wireless Facilities Regulations. A public hearing on
the Westgate Plan and form-based zoning has also been tentatively scheduled for December 11th.
Chair Reed advised that the Board’s next quarterly report to the City Council is scheduled for January 7th.
Board Member Lovell asked if a transportation study is being done in conjunction with the Westgate Plan. Mr. Chave
answered that the City is still working to secure funding for the study. The City Council has allocated $50,000 in the budget,
which is not enough for the extensive study that is envisioned.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Reed announced the Snohomish County Summit and Candidate’s Forum that is scheduled for October 12th from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Everett. He also announced that on October 14th, the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) and the
Senior Center will host a City Council Candidates Forum. The event convenes at 6:00 p.m. at the Senior Center.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Stewart reported on her attendance at the recent meeting of the Edmonds Tree Board where it was reported that
they are drawing up a resolution that would designate “heritage trees” in the City. They will ask the City Council for funding
to hire a consultant to draw up some definitions they need for their Tree City USA proposal. The definitions will include
terms such as pervious and impervious. They are also hoping to get funding for a GIS Study for an overlay of impervious
surfaces and tree canopy in the City to help inform future planning.
Vice Chair Stewart said she also attended the October 8th City Council Meeting at which the City Council decided to no
longer move forward with master planning for Harbor Square. Some City Council Members were in support of further
visioning as part of a more comprehensive planning effort. The City Council also continued their discussion on the Shoreline
Master Program and have scheduled another workshop.
Vice Chair Stewart urged the Board Members to use electronic copies for their packets. This would not only save paper, but
staff time and trees. Interested Board Members should contact Ms. Cunningham to have electronic documents sent to them.
They are also available on the City’s website.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Packet Page 272 of 333
DRAFT
September 25th Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 11, 2013
Chair Reed 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
John Reed, Chair
Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
Neil Tibbott
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Ian Duncan (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 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
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, advised that he is a member of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and participates
on the Land Use Subcommittee. He clarified that he was not present to speak on behalf of the Land Use Subcommittee or the
EDC, but it is fair to presume that his comments reflect the subcommittee’s discussion regarding the proposal to limit certain
office uses within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 zone. He noted that the goal of the proposal is “To preserve and
strengthen the distinctive character and charm of downtown Edmonds by providing opportunities for retail/entertainment
oriented establishments to cluster for the convenience of the public and to create mutually beneficial business relationships
thereby creating a dedicated area for ‘destination retail/entertainment.’”
Mr. Senderoff recognized the efforts of the Planning Board to put forward a similar concept for discussion in 2011. While
the City Council considered the concept, they did not take action to move it forward. It was noted that more background
information was necessary to support the concept.
Packet Page 273 of 333
Mr. Senderoff voiced his support for the current proposal. He pointed out that all of the comments he has made in various
City meetings over the past several years reflect that he is a strong supporter of traditional values in Edmonds, and he
believes the proposal falls within that realm. He said it is important to note that the the goal statement mentions the
“distinctive character and charm of Edmonds,” and the City should build on this. He observed that all candidates for City
Council positions in recent years have made the “character and charm of Edmonds” a platform of their campaign.
Mr. Senderoff clarified that the proposed change is not intended to impose upon property owners. In fact, Mr. Clifton has
taken the lead in conversations with property owners who are generally supportive of the concept. The goal of the proposal is
to put forth a program that benefits the investment potential of property owners, the success of businesses, and the
community values important to residents and tourists to downtown Edmonds.
Mr. Senderoff advised that, during their deliberations on the proposal, the EDC had lengthy discussions about the uses that
should be permitted in the BD1 zone, particularly real estate offices. The City Council discussed this issue, as well. It was
discussed that people typically stop and look at the pictures of properties for sale within the City, and this swayed the EDC’s
decision to allow real estate uses in the BD1 zone. It is also important to keep in mind that real estate will always be a
significant component of the City’s economy. While the EDC is recommending that real estate offices be allowed, the
proposed change does not specifically point that out. Instead, real estate uses would simply fall under the category of
“service.” He suggested that in order to provide clarity, a note could be added below the use table (ECDC 16.43-1) to
provide specific examples of service uses that would be allowed and disallowed. This would help clarify the issue as the
proposal moves forward to the City Council.
DISCUSSION ON PROPOSAL TO LIMIT CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES
ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD)
1 ZONE
Mr. Clifton advised that the proposal to limit certain offices uses from locating in businesses spaces along designated ground
floor street frontages within the BD1 zone has been discussed by the City Council, Planning Board and Economic
Development Commission since early 2011. He referred to the Staff Report, which contains the following documents:
• Attachment 1 is titled, “Creating Economic Vitality – An Edmonds City Center That is Economically Strong,
Thriving, Lively and Social.” The document was prepared by the EDC and provides a summary and introduction, as
well as references to City documents and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal. He
noted that while the agenda titles the proposal as “limiting certain offices uses from locating in business spaces
along designated ground floor street frontages within the BD1 zone,” the issue paper is actually titled, “Creating
Economic Vitality – An Edmonds City Center that is Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social. He
summarized that the issue paper’s title more accurately reflects the true goal of the proposal.
• Attachment 2 provides a chronology of events. Because the process has been going on for 2.5 years, he felt it would
be helpful to put together a list of all the Planning Board, City Council and EDC agendas related to the topic. The
City’s website provides links to the meeting agendas and minutes for these various meetings. In addition to these
meetings, members of the Planning Board and EDC participated in a field trip to the City of Kirkland to meet with
Eric Shields, Kirkland Planning Director. Staff also met with property owners within the BD1 zone on two
occasions to discuss the concept and solicit feedback.
• Attachment 3 is a map depicting the boundary of the BD1 zone.
• Attachment 4 is an inventory of businesses located along the ground floor street frontages within the BD1 zone. The
inventory was prepared at the request of property owners at a May 13, 2013 meeting with staff. The property
owners wanted a better understanding of how many businesses and property owners would be affected by the
proposed change. The business spaces highlighted in yellow are those that would be affected under the proposal.
Mr. Clifton said his comments are intended to explain why consideration should be given to restricting and promoting certain
uses along designated ground level street frontages within the BD1 zone. He recalled that the proposed concept was raised,
in part, as a result of past conversations with property owners and leasing agents, and looking at what other cities are doing to
Packet Page 274 of 333
create a stronger retail and entertainment core. He observed that the concept or goal of creating a stronger retail core within
the City of Edmonds actually goes back to 2006. Policy 2.i in the adopted Economic Development Plan states, “create
synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a retail core area in the downtown.”
Mr. Clifton explained that another way to phrase the proposal is “how can the community open up more opportunities for
retail dining, specialty shops, entertainment venues, and galleries within a concentrated area. He pointed out that the land use
goals and strategies for many downtown areas incorporate prominent themes: a central gathering place, a sense of place,
connectivity and density. In order to achieve these objectives, downtowns need economic development and vitality, safety,
housing, businesses and tourism. A vibrant retail service core helps advance these objectives.
Mr. Clifton stated his belief that retail restaurants and open-door service uses, particularly those that are independently
owned, add to Edmonds distinctiveness because they are the most visible elements within the downtown core of Edmonds.
As stated in 2010 email he sent to a property owner, “Edmonds’ unique downtown character is defined by the diversity and
concentration of complimentary commercial uses such as restaurants, cafes, art galleries, house wares, books, garden
supplies, specialty boutiques, etc. These uses generate pedestrian activity and a lively social environment that, in turn,
sustain a mix of uses. A critical mass of this type of activity will also help create the drawing power of a central,
commercial, retail sector. While pure, by-appointment office uses have the ability and the flexibility to open in more
locations within commercial areas, uses such as retail stores, restaurants, art galleries, etc. have limited business spaces and
stock and thrive best when there is a concentration of similar uses.
Mr. Clifton reported that the City and business community have been working to attract businesses that will help bring life to
the City’s downtown streets during the weekend and evening hours, and it is starting to pay off. He noted at a public meeting
hosted by the City of Edmonds on November 8, 2012, Roger Brooks, Destination Development, Inc., spoke of the 20 critical
ingredients of an outstanding downtown. Two of the ingredients relate to how clustering like businesses works and the
power in critical mass. Mr. Brooks noted that, “a city can spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street
trees, façade improvements, and a host of other things. While this helps improve the physical environment, a downtown can
still be lifeless.” He said he experienced this on a recent trip to downtown Phoenix where the streetscape was absolutely
beautiful, but there were very few people on the streets. He commented that what makes a downtown work, as a community
center and gathering place, is what is happening in the buildings. It is important to have businesses along the streetscape that
attract people.
Mr. Clifton pointed out that office uses typically close in the early evenings and on weekends, creating less lively and darker
streetscapes. The resulting impression of the area is that it is not inviting, thriving, interesting or friendly to walk around. A
healthy retail core is also important for maintaining safe streets in many central cities. According to the document, Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines, businesses on the ground floor provide eyes on the street and deter
criminal activity. Retail restaurants, art galleries, etc. stay open for longer periods of time than office uses, thus providing
more activity on the street beyond 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The proposal before the Board, over time, is expected to help create a
more concentrated, festival retail environment that does not close up after 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. It will result in a downtown core
that invites people to hang out and enjoy the environment later into the evening.
Regarding intensity or density, Mr. Clifton explained that retail, restaurant, art gallery, and active service uses can also help
stimulate housing and business development within the downtown areas. They often provide essential services to the City
residents living and working downtown. This can be partially attributed to the vibrancy that these uses add to the downtown
streets.
Regarding tourism, Mr. Clifton advised that a strong retail, restaurant, gallery, and active service core helps attract shoppers
and tourists. He noted that tourists invest significant amounts of money into many city, county and state economies. In fact,
tourism is the State’s fourth largest industry. It supports businesses and their employees, and downtown Edmonds is home to
many independent retailers and restaurants. When tourists are shopping downtown, they are supporting the growth of
smaller, independent businesses. Conversely, negative fluctuations in the retail market, such as the absence of a critical
mass, can result in vacant store fronts, thus affecting the street environment and eventually weakening the vitality of the
downtown core. He emphasized that retail and active service uses are a critical part of sustaining the health of the downtown.
Packet Page 275 of 333
Mr. Clifton recommended that a city and business community can help and should orchestrate the business mix. Expressing
support to establish a retail, dining, entertaining, or festival core will help guide the types of businesses the City wants to
recruit. This concept applies to the City, the Chamber, landlords and leasing agents. He highlighted that if there is no
concerted effort to fill spaces within certain areas, there will be less incentive or motivation to search for the types of
activities or businesses that would help increase the drawing power of the central, commercial retail sector.
Mr. Clifton pointed out that the proposal is directly tied to several of the items identified in Mr. Brook’s “20 Ingredients of an
Outstanding Downtown. He specifically noted the following:
• Nearly all begin with a plan. The Economic Development Plan calls for creating a retail core, and several
Comprehensive and Economic Development Plan goals and policies support this effort. (See Attachment 1)
• Defining a strong brand a retail focus. If the City can increase the critical mass, they can brand the downtown as
being a retail area. Mr. Brooks referenced Walnut Creek, CA, which is similar in size to the City of Edmonds.
There are 85 restaurants in their downtown, and they have actually branded the downtown as “The Walnut
Collection.” Anything that is purchased from Walnut Creek has this brand on it. It would be great for the City to
study this option.
• Orchestrating recruitment of “critical mass” or “clustering.” The issue paper (Attachment 1) that was created
by the EDC’s Land Use Subcommittee, references several statements by Mr. Brooks regarding the importance of
critical mass and the power of clustering.
• Start with a demonstration project. Three primary issues were highlighted throughout the process: defining the
boundary, what kinds of uses should be allowed, a grandfathering existing uses. A lot of people have suggested that
the concept be expanded to a larger geographic area. However, because the BD1 zone has the highest concentration
of retail uses, he felt the City should start by using this zone as a demonstration project. If it is successful in the
BD1 zone, it could be expanded at some point in the future.
• Develop a gathering place. Over time, as the City starts to develop a critical mass in the BD1 zone, a stronger
gathering place will be created. Sidewalk cafes and outdoor dining will increase, as illustrated by the Main Street
Project.
• Invest heavily in retail beautification. He has been pointing out the strong concentration of “beige” color to
property owners in the BD1 zone. Conversations are also taking place at the Downtown Edmonds Merchants
Association. Several buildings have been repainted recently, using colors that make the buildings “pop.”
Mr. Clifton emphasized that the Economic Development Commission unanimously supports the proposal, and they discussed
the issue at length. He also reported the he conducted two meetings with owners of property within the BD1 zone: May 13th
and September 4th. Roger Brooks was invited to attend the May 13th meeting to provide examples and reasons for creating
critical mass and what it can do to increase rents for landlords and increase retail sales for businesses. The discussion was
spirited and animated. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Brooks invited the participants to share their feelings on the
proposal. Several property owners expressed support, and others wanted to continue the conversation. No one expressed
opposition to the proposal. All of the property owners in attendance at the September 4th meeting expressed support for the
proposal. He emphasized that the proposal will not only have a positive impact on the community, but it will have a direct
affect on the people who own the properties and buildings. They deserve to be a part of the conversation.
Mr. Clifton said staff conducted a significant amount of research regarding the proposed concept. He particularly highlighted
the following:
• The City of Kirkland, a close neighbor, has restricted office uses from the ground floor in its core downtown since
1990. Members of the Planning Board and EDC met with Eric Shields, Kirkland Planning Director, and toured
downtown Kirkland. Mr. Shields reported that the concept has worked effectively in Kirkland. However, he noted
that because of the significance of the economic downturn, they provided some flexibility to their 90-day non-
conformance provision.
Packet Page 276 of 333
• The City of Escondido, CA, conducted an effort to reserve the downtown storefronts for shopping, dining and
entertainment. Their goal was and is to reserve downtown storefronts for upscale restaurants and businesses that
attract shoppers and nightlife.
• The Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, have a policy to maintain a compact retail core by concentrating major
retail facilities within an area designated as the retail district. The retail district serves as the primary center of retail
activity in the downtown. They intend to provide a continuous retail presence within the retail district by requiring
retail uses on both the street and the skyway levels. Restaurants and other entertainment uses that compliment retail
uses are also encouraged at the street and skyway levels.
• In 2007, the City of Ensenada, CA, a proposal to preserve their downtown by restricting its ground floor space to
retail businesses received unanimous support from their City Council. The proposal was to preserve the downtown
by restricting its ground floor to retail businesses.
Mr. Clifton referred to the proposed changes to Table 16.43-1, which highlights the uses allowed and not allowed in the BD1
GFSF spaces. He noted that, as proposed, businesses with drive-through facilities would be prohibited in the BD1 zone. He
said this should not be a problem for banks in the future. He heard a recent report where Bank of America will cease their
drive-through operations, and that tends to be the direction many banks are moving towards. From his perspective, drive-
through businesses should not be allowed in the downtown core; it is a significant waste of land needed for business spaces
and critical mass.
Mr. Clifton referred to the spreadsheet that lists the businesses currently located in the BD1 zone, particularly identifying
those that would be affected by the proposal. He specifically noted that banks would be allowed in the BD1 zone if they had
tellers, but not drive-through facilities. He referred to the note at the top of the inventory list and emphasized that although
several businesses would be affected by the proposal, it is important to keep in mind that existing businesses would not be
required to relocate or cease operations. It is not the City’s intent to encourage existing offices to leave the BD1 zone. Only
when owners choose to vacate businesses would these spaces need to be filled with an allowable use. Owners would have
the ability to fill the vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the
date a space is vacated.
Board Member Lovell referred to Attachment 2, which outlines a chronology of events. He noted that the first item on the
list should make it clear that the Planning Board’s discussion about potential amendments to the BD1 zone took place in
2011. He also pointed out that the proposal would simply amend Table 16.43-1, and would not provide any additional
narrative. Mr. Clifton responded that the proposal would not change the narrative in the current code. An additional column
would be added to the table to identify the uses that would and would not be permitted in the BD1 ground floor street front
(GFSF) spaces. Board Member Lovell asked if staff believes the existing narrative related to the BD1 zone would support
the proposed changes to the table. Mr. Clifton answered affirmatively. He referred to the note located below the table, which
provides a definition for the term “Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (GFSF)” as the “first 45 feet measured from
public rights-of-way.” A note was also provided to explain that services not providing open door/retail/dining/entertainment
functions as a primary component of the business would not be allowed within the BD1 GFSF areas. However, it might be
helpful to add a specific definition for what is meant by “open door.”
Chair Reed asked if the proposal would alter any of the current requirements for development in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clifton
explained that the easiest way to show what is being proposed is to create a new column in Table 16.43-1. However, the
design requirements of the BD1 zone would remain unchanged. He expressed his belief that the current proposal provides
more clarity than the proposal that went before the City Council in 2011.
Board Member Lovell requested an explanation of how the proposal would impact a property owner’s ability to provide
multi-family residential uses. Mr. Clifton answered that residential uses would not be allowed within the areas designated as
BD1 GFSF. However, residential uses would be allowed behind the 45-foot street front spaces and in the upper floors. Mr.
Chave suggested that it might be helpful to add a reference in the footnote to the applicable chapter in the code to provide
more clarity.
Packet Page 277 of 333
Mr. Clifton pointed out that the proposal would be difficult to apply to structures that are setback significantly from the
sidewalk. It might also be difficult to apply the proposal to structures that are occupied by a number of different businesses.
In these cases, it will be difficult to have the spaces vacated in any significant quantity to create retail space along the street
frontage. He suggested that perhaps a provision should be included in the proposal to address these situations.
Board Member Lovell pointed out that real estate offices were not highlighted on the inventory as uses that would be
prohibited by the proposed change. Mr. Clifton said that, as proposed by the EDC, real estate uses would be allowed. While
this is not stated outright in the proposal, it is not listed as a prohibited use, either. He suggested they may want to add some
qualifying language to make this clearer. He reminded the Board that real estate offices are typically open door service uses
that bring in customers.
Mr. Clifton said the EDC also had a significant discussion about whether or not banks should be allowed in the BD1 GFSF
areas. He explained that, as per the proposed amendment, banks would be allowed in the BD1 GFSF areas, but only if they
have tellers and no drive-through facilities.
Board Member Tibbott noted that, oftentimes, real estate offices are open beyond 6:00 p.m., and they typically have window
displays. He asked if there has been any discussion about requirements or suggestions for window displays in the BD1 zone.
Mr. Clifton said Ms. Chapin has been working to find ways to get art within windows of vacated businesses spaces that are
waiting to be filled. Mr. Chave said there is a requirement in the BD1 zone that street front windows cannot be obscured.
Board Member Tibbott suggested, and Mr. Clifton concurred, that it might be appropriate to provide some guidelines or
suggestions for displaying merchandise.
Mr. Clifton referred to Table 16.43-1 and noted that there are several categories listed for medical uses. For example,
optometry and physical therapy offices would be allowed in the BD1 GFSF areas if they include a retail component. He
reported that the City of Kirkland addressed this issue creatively when a physical therapist wanted to locate in the heart of the
downtown. The use was allowed, as long as the business provided retail items within the first 30 feet, with the massage
tables and equipment located behind. From the street, the business looks like a retail athletic store. Board Member Tibbott
asked if would be conceivable that a counseling center could have a bookstore or other items for sale in the front portion of
the building. Mr. Clifton agreed this would be possible, but highly unlikely. He also noted that nearly 100% of the
customers for a counseling business would be by appointment, and the City’s goal is to encourage open-door types of
businesses.
Board Member Tibbott noted that there was a lot of business turnover in Kirkland prior to the recession, with even more
turnover during the recession. It is his understanding that there was not enough residential traffic in that part of downtown
until additional density was created by high-rise condominiums. He asked how important it is to have residential
development in or near the downtown to support the types of activities that are desirable in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clifton
answered that residential development is very important. He announced that an application for a mixed-use development was
presented to the Architectural Design Board. The project would include retail space for the post office, as well as residential
units. Other potential residential properties are on the market, as well. He summarized that Edmonds has a high
concentration of residentially-developed properties within the downtown or in close proximity compared to other downtowns
in the Puget Sound area. He agreed that more residential development is desirable, and there are properties that can
accommodate this growth.
Board Member Tibbott asked if there have been studies to identify whether it is better to have one floor or two floors of
residential space above retail commercial development. Mr. Clifton advised that the post office proposal identifies a three-
story building. The north half would have three levels of residential units, with two levels of residential units above the post
office space. Aided by the slight grade change on the property, the applicant was able to make the proposal work within the
existing height limit. Using new construction techniques, the developer is proposing 7-inch floors and a thinner roof that is
somewhat flat.
Vice Chair Stewart suggested that the key to density is to draw the kinds of population the City needs. They always talk
about the need to bring in Generation Y (born between 1980 and 2000) and young professionals so there is activity for
younger people. She hopes that continues to be the City’s goal. The height limit makes this difficult and presents challenges
to developers who want to incorporate green elements to make projects more efficient. Mr. Clifton referred to an article that
Packet Page 278 of 333
Vice Chair Stewart forwarded to staff about what Generation Y is looking for. They are driving less, and they want to be
within a walkable distance of amenities, retail and entertainment. It is important to keep in mind that retirees want the same
things. He noted that this is spot on with the comments made to the City Council in 2005 by Mark Hinshaw. Surveys and
interviews show that this is the direction the populous is moving towards.
Vice Chair Stewart recalled that she and former Board Member Johnson did an inventory of the existing businesses in the
BD1 zone and found there were 10 health and beauty services. She asked if Kirkland allows beauty and nail salons at the
street front. Mr. Clifton said most cities, including Kirkland, do not preclude beauty salons. Most of these businesses are
open door, and many are open until 9:00 p.m. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the Board consider limiting the percentage of
beauty service businesses in the retail core to provide more space for the types of retail uses they want to encourage.
Vice Chair Stewart suggested that play areas along the street front can be very useful in providing a place for parents to
gather while their children play. Mr. Clifton said the proposal would not preclude play areas from being located in plaza
areas. However, daycare centers would be prohibited.
Vice Chair Stewart agreed with Board Member Tibbott that the Board should provide some guidance related to window
displays. While she understands the need for privacy screens, they do not encourage a pedestrian environment. Mr. Clifton
said that is just one reason why medical uses are not desirable on the ground floor in the downtown retail core. Because of
HIPAA privacy laws, patients must be screened. Placing screens up in the windows is contrary to the intent of the proposal.
Vice Chair Stewart asked if other cities allow fitness facilities on the ground floor street front within the downtown retail
core. Mr. Clifton answered that these uses are typically not allowed. He noted that the Yoga business on Main Street has
papered over all of the windows, which creates dead space for pedestrians walking along the street. It would be better for this
business to be located along the back of the building, opening the street front space for retail uses.
Vice Chair Stewart asked if property owners in other downtowns have tweaked their lease agreements to somehow encourage
the right kinds of businesses. She noted that many of the buildings in downtown Edmonds are paid for, so owners can sit
back and wait several months before they agree to lower the rents to attract the desired retail uses for the downtown. Mr.
Clifton clarified that, under the current proposal, the faster a property owner fills the space, the more flexibility he/she has. If
they wait until the six-month time frame expires, they will be required to fill the space with the uses allowed. Vice Chair
Stewart expressed concern that the proposal is not strong enough to move towards getting different uses in the spaces. She
suggested that the City could provide incentives that would encourage property owners to fill the spaces with the right kinds
of uses. Mr. Clifton said this was discussed in 2011. Because of the recession, no one wanted to tamper with the six-month
timeframe. However, the Board could recommend a reduction in the timeframe for the non-conformance provision. Mr.
Chave noted that a six-month time frame applies to all non-conformances in the City. However, the City could make an
exception that applies specifically to uses in the BD1 zone. Again, Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that the City
should be more proactive. Mr. Chave explained that, if the proposed amendment is adopted, the City would not lose ground
on the amount of retail space in the BD1 zone; they would only gain ground. Although it may be a slow process, the City
would be moving in the right direction. Mr. Clifton expressed concern that if the City shortens the timeframe for non-
conformance, the support from property owners could be reduced.
Mr. Clifton said it is important to understand that change will not happen overnight. It will only occur as business spaces are
vacated. A business that is prohibited under the new proposal may not vacate for several years. But at least the proposal
would move the City forward. He pointed out that he has been contacted by three business owners who want to locate in the
downtown core, but they cannot find the right space. They need smaller spaces, many of which are occupied by businesses
that would no longer be permitted per the proposal. The more inventory they create, the more flexibility there will be over
time. Vice Chair Stewart questioned if the larger spaces could be broken into smaller spaces. Mr. Clifton agreed that is
possible and has been done is some cases. He said he has been working with representatives of Wallace Properties, owners
of the building at 5th Avenue North and Dayton Street, to encourage them to lease the space for uses that add life and vitality
to the downtown.
Board Member Lovell recalled that when they looked at the plans to redo Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues North,
there was going to be wider sidewalks and diagonal parking on one side only. Instead, they ended up with parking on both
sides. Mr. Clifton said diagonal parking was never part of the proposal.
Packet Page 279 of 333
Board Member Lovell said he has heard that property owners are supportive, but they are not enthusiastic about the proposed
change. Mr. Clifton said that a few property owners are enthusiastic. Board Member Lovell noted that there are retailers
who want to locate in Edmonds but cannot afford the high rents. In addition, they do not need the large spaces that are
currently available. He asked if this issue was raised in staff’s discussion with property owners. Mr. Clifton answered no.
He commented that approximately 20 of the 51 property owners in the BD1 zone attended at least one public meetings.
However, he has also spoken with property owners who didn’t attend either meeting. They are very supportive and willing to
write letters. A few of the property owners who are very supportive of the proposal own multiple properties in the BD1 zone,
which carries a lot of weight.
Board Member Lovell referred to the second to the last bulleted item on Page 5 of Attachment 1, which talks about how the
large number of one and two-story buildings in downtown Edmonds and the low height limit makes it challenging to get the
density of customers necessary to allow more sparse retail to survive without the synergy from a consistent clustering of
retail/service uses. He asked if that also means that if the City allowed taller buildings, there would be a denser population in
the downtown to support a less concentrated retail core. Mr. Chave said he interprets the statement to mean that because
Edmonds doesn’t have as much density as it might, given the existing situation, synergy is that much more critical.
Chair Reed thanked the EDC for the effort they put into the proposal. He said he recently sent out a copy of the four
proposed amendments to the BD1 zone put forward by the Planning Board in 2011, which included limiting certain office
uses from locating along the ground floor of designated street frontages within the BD1 zone. He noted that, at that time, the
Board only made minor changes to Table 16.43-1. The current proposal provides a lot more information, but it also raises
some questions the Board must be clear on. For example, it may be necessary to expand the definition for “services” to be
more specific on the types of service businesses that would and would not be allowed. Mr. Clifton invited the Board to
comment on the proposed changes to Table 16.43-1. He advised that the proposed changes to the table were reviewed by the
Planning Department staff, and they made a number of comments and suggestions that were incorporated into the table.
Chair Reed expressed his belief that Attachment 1 is a good document. Mr. Clifton thanked the Land Use Subcommittee for
creating the executive summary (Attachment 1) page. It is helpful for people who don’t have time to read all of the detailed
information. Chair Reed commented that while the summary includes too much information to incorporate in the zoning
code, perhaps some of the language could be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clifton and Mr. Chave agreed that it
may be appropriate to incorporate at least some language from the document into the Economic Development Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Reed recalled Mr. Clifton’s earlier comment that it may be difficult to implement the proposal on certain properties in
the BD1 zone because they are set back a greater distance from the sidewalk. He suggested it would be appropriate to add
another footnote at the end of the table to address these situations. Mr. Clifton concurred. Mr. Chave said another approach
would be to include a provision that allows the Economic Development Director the authority to grant exceptions for unusual
configurations of existing buildings and properties. However, the exception would not apply to new construction.
Vice Chair Stewart asked if non-profit businesses would be allowed to locate in the street fronts. She also asked if religious
services would be allowed. Mr. Chave commented that it is difficult to identify allowed uses according to ownership or the
profit or non-profit status. Use must be addressed by what actually takes place in the building. Mr. Clifton agreed and
reminded the Board that the goal is to encourage open-door businesses, and some non-profit businesses meet this criteria. He
added that some religious services have associated retail components, which would be allowed.
Vice Chair Stewart indicated her support of the proposal, but she would like the Board to consider shortening the vacancy
period for non-conforming uses to three months instead of six months.
Board Member Tibbott said it sounds like staff actively keeps a list of potential tenants for businesses. If a non-conforming
use were to vacate a site, staff could provide a list of potential tenants to property owners. This would provide incentive for
property owners to fill the spaces as soon as possible. Mr. Clifton said he already provides this service. Board Member
Tibbott said it is helpful to know that the City has a plan in place, and staff is very interested and being proactive to fill the
spaces with appropriate uses. Mr. Chave said this is the critical element that makes the proposal work. If the City writes too
much into the regulations, it tends to handcuff their possibilities. Regulations that clearly indicate what is desirable yet still
Packet Page 280 of 333
provide some flexibility can be paired with marketing and outreach to form a whole. Doing one without the other will not
likely be successful.
Board Member Lovell said he agrees with the EDC’s recommendation that real estate sales office should be allowed. He
suggested that additional language should be added to the note that is located below Table 16.43-1. Mr. Clifton agreed that
this would provide greater clarity.
Board Member Ellis observed that certain types of services do not contribute to the goal of having a vibrant downtown. He
asked how they can draw the line between the businesses they want and the ones they don’t. It seems that the goal is to get
people downtown to walk from business to business. While some service uses do this implicitly, he is uncertain how others
will fit into the goal. Mr. Chave advised that the footnote below Table 16.43-1 was an attempt to describe the types of
services uses that are desirable. He agreed that additional language could be added for clarity. For example, they could
include examples. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that a footnote be added to encourage service and retail uses that have
evening business hours.
Board Member Tibbott asked if it is possible for the City to partner with a private property owner to create a gathering space
on property that is vacant or underutilized (i.e. a live music venue). He felt this type of use would create additional synergy
in the downtown core. Mr. Clifton agreed to research this opportunity and report back.
Board Member Ellis asked if staff has any feel for how much retail trade must occur before a service becomes a retail
establishment. Mr. Chave said the classification would be based on the business’s primary activity.
Mr. Clifton said he worked with the City’s Information and Technology and Financial Departments to prepare a matrix and
map for his presentation to the Chamber regarding economic development. The City’s Strategic Plan calls for finding some
way to measure whether the City codes and current business recruitment efforts are being manifested in an increase in sales
and use tax revenue. The matrix identifies property valuations and the sales and use tax revenue generated by each of the
geographic areas (downtown, Five Corners, Westgate, Highway 99, Firdale Village, and Perrinville) for 2011 and 2012. He
noted that Highway 99 generates five times the sales and use tax revenue as the downtown. He noted that the information is
available to Board Members upon request.
The Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for October 9th. Mr. Clifton indicated that a notice would be sent to all
property owners in the BD1 zone. Chair Reed agreed to meet with Mr. Chave and Mr. Clifton to review the updated draft
prior to the public hearing.
CONTINUED WORK ON THE WESTGATE PLAN
Mr. Chave said the purpose of the work session is to explore in more detail two prominent parts of the proposed form-based
code for Westgate: the amenity/open space and green factor section and the height bonus section. He specifically asked the
Board to provide direction on whether they reflect the Board’s priorities and provide the appropriate balance to achieve the
intended goals.
Mr. Chave referred to the Westgate Height Bonus Score Sheet (Item 6.5.3) and noted that at least one item in each of the
categories (housing, green building, green factor, amenity space, and alternative transportation) is required for any
development in the Westgate area. In order to obtain an additional story of height, an applicant would have to earn a total of
8 points, and the points must be spread over four different categories. A total of 12 points would be required in exchange for
an additional two stories in height. He asked the Board to provide feedback about whether or not the points required are
sufficient to obtain the additional height.
Mr. Chave said he is not sure it is beneficial to include so many detailed options in the Housing Unit Size Category. He
pointed out that most of the categories are not additive. For example, in the Green Building Category, a developer that
obtains a LEED Gold rating would not also get credit for meeting the LEED Silver requirements. However, a developer
could receive one point for each of the items in the Housing and Transportation Categories. He suggested that this needs to
be clarified.
Packet Page 281 of 333
Mr. Chave noted that the weighting is important. For example, providing an amenity space that is greater than 30% of the
total property requires a large piece of land. Therefore, the larger score (4 points) is warranted. He also said Living Building
status is very difficult to achieve, and perhaps four points is not enough. It is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more
difficult to get from LEED Platinum to Living Building. If the Board wants to encourage Living Building, they could
consider increasing the points. He noted that a developer has to meet numerous requirements to obtain Living Building
status, which includes landscaping, surfaces, etc.
Board Member Lovell recalled that three of the four quadrants at Westgate have relatively steep slopes at the perimeter. The
Board discussed the need to take advantage of the topography and allow buildings to be constructed back into the hill so that
at-grade parking could be accommodated under the buildings without penalizing the available height of the rest of the
building. However, recent development in the area placed the building away from the retaining wall to accommodate the
required fire lane. Mr. Chave clarified that the intent was never to push taller buildings into the hillside. The idea was that if
the hillside is there, having a tall building somewhere on the site would have much less impact to surrounding residents. If
the City encourages buildings to be pushed back into the slope, some of the natural buffer between the site and the residential
properties would be eliminated. Rather than encouraging developers to build back into the hillside as far as possible, they
should encourage them to retain as much of the hillside as possible. He reminded the Board of their discussion about the
desirability of having buildings located closer to the traveled way rather than pushed back. He noted that four and five-story
buildings may also require stepbacks.
Board Member Lovell asked what benefit the City would receive by allowing taller buildings at Westgate. Mr. Chave said a
lot of discussion in the Westgate Plan focuses on having greater proportions of smaller units that attract younger households
who might find an active environment more desirable. Smaller units are typically more affordable, as well. The Green
Building options would have broad benefits to the City. They are better for the climate and they put less stress on City
facilities. In addition, the Green Factor options would have direct benefits to the City by providing more green space and
landscaping, which people find attractive. Amenity space would be geared towards meeting space or public active areas,
which also benefit the community. He said the City has been encouraging charging facilities for electric vehicles to reduce
the amount of emissions. Car share, parking and bicycle options help reduce the number of vehicles or vehicle miles traveled
in the City. The intent is that the items on the list will benefit the City or the general public in some way.
Chair Reed referred to Figure 6.5-1, which identifies the parcels that are eligible for the 5th-story height bonus, as well as
areas that are not eligible for development because the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He asked if the figure should be
updated to reflect the step back requirement. Mr. Chave suggested that rather than revising Figure 6.5-1, an additional figure
could be added to identify properties that are eligible for four and five stories, and where stepbacks would be required. He
said Figure 6.5-1 is particularly important to make it clear that buildings cannot be set so far back into the hillside that the
green barrier is eroded.
Mr. Chave recalled previous discussion that the City should not necessarily force buildings to the 10-foot setback, and it
would not be a requirement. However, if buildings are setback greater than 10 feet, it is important to provide connections and
additional open space in the intervening area so at least there is still a presence or a way to get to the street front.
Again, Mr. Chave clarified that Figure 6.5-1 was intended to identify where development would not be allowed because of
steep slopes and where five-story development would be allowed. Four-story development would be allowed on any of the
other parcels within the Westgate area, except where the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He suggested that an additional
color be added to the map to identify the properties that are eligible for four-story development.
Board Member Lovell recalled that early in the planning process, two or three concepts were initially developed for
Westgate. One was centered around the concept of creating significant landscape buffers between the buildings and the
highway, particularly along SR-104. He asked if it would be appropriate to include this concept in the plan. Mr. Chave
explained that the Green Factor and Amenity Categories are meant to deal with the interstitial space around buildings. These
categories are weighted fairly heavily compared to other categories.
Mr. Chave expressed concern that the options listed in the Alternative Transportation Category are not well defined. For
example, how many electric charging stations should be required? In looking at the overall rating system, he suggested that
the most important categories are the Green Building, Green Factor and Amenity Space Categories. These are weighted
Packet Page 282 of 333
more than the other categories. If the Board believes these categories are even more important, they could increase the
scores. Another option would be to require at least one point in each of these three categories. He summarized that the
scoring system should reflect the City’s priorities.
Board Member Ellis asked who created the height bonus score sheet. Mr. Chave answered that it was created by the
University of Washington team. Board Member Ellis asked how the points were assigned to each of the credit options,
particularly those related to housing unit size. Mr. Chave said the numbers were based on available information. Board
Member Ellis noted that, as currently proposed, it appears the City wants to discourage units that are greater than 1,400
square feet. Mr. Chave agreed that the goal is to encourage smaller, affordable units in the Westgate area.
Board Member Ellis expressed his belief that some of the scores seem arbitrary. Mr. Chave agreed. For example, perhaps it
would not be appropriate to offer a point for each of the housing ranges. If the goal is to encourage affordable units, then
perhaps more points could be offered to developers who provide smaller units. Perhaps it is overkill to have so many housing
credit options. As currently proposed, an applicant could accumulate half of the needed points for an additional story just by
meeting the four credits in the Housing Unit Size option.
Board Member Ellis asked if it would be possible to encourage property owners to aggregate amenity spaces to create large
rather than small spaces on each lot. Mr. Chave answered that this would require that small properties be developed as a
group. However, large properties have flexibility to consolidate the amenity space to create a larger area. Board Member
Ellis questioned the benefit of creating a lot of small amenity spaces on the individual properties. He felt larger amenity
spaces that provide enough room for people to congregate would be more valuable. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate a
significant problem since there are not a lot of small property ownerships in the Westgate area. The language would allow a
property owner to develop one property and consolidate the amenity space on another property that is under the same
ownership.
Board Member Ellis agreed that more specificity is needed for the Alternative Transportation options. He asked if the credits
could be better related to things the City of Edmonds wants to encourage. Mr. Chave said most of the options are aimed at
discouraging people from using private cars. Electric cars would have no emissions compared to gasoline, and the
Sustainability and Transportation Elements in the Comprehensive Plan both call out the need for more charging stations. Car
share parking encourages people to share vehicles, which results in fewer cars on the road. The goal is to maximize the use
of the transportation facilities that already exist. However, he agreed that the Alternative Transportation options could be
more specific. Another issue to consider is whether it would be appropriate to allow a developer to get more than half of the
required points for an additional story by doing all of the credits in this one category.
Board Member Ellis said that as he reviewed the Height Bonus Score Sheet in preparation for the meeting, he found he had
insufficient information to judge whether or not the points proposed for the various credit options are appropriate. Mr. Chave
explained that without detailed studies looking at the economic benefit of each of the credit options, the City must rely on
experience. Once implemented, the City can keep track of what developers actually choose to get an idea of what is valuable
and what is not. He noted that it is easy to get a feel for how difficult and costly some of the credit options will be to
implement. Developers will probably not choose the more costly options unless the City offers more points. He said he
would prefer that developers focus more on the Green Building, Green Factor, and Amenity Space options and less on the
Housing Unit Size and Alternative Transportation options. Board Member Ellis said he would benefit from the Planning
staff’s input as to what credit options would be better suited to the City’s goals.
Board Member Ellis noted that the Height Bonus Score Sheet only applies to developers who are trying to obtain additional
height. Mr. Chave noted that the required options would apply to all development in the Westgate area, regardless of height.
He suggested that this should be clarified.
Chair Reed asked if there are other bonuses the City could offer besides height such as financial incentives or tax credits. Mr.
Chave said the score sheet was created specifically for the height bonus, which is where developers tend to get the most
“bang for their buck.” The only other incentive that would factor into the bottom line of a project would be parking. He
cautioned against offering tax credits.
Packet Page 283 of 333
Chair Reed recalled that the Firdale Village Plan incorporated the concept of shared parking. Mr. Chave said this concept is
not unique to Firdale Village and is available to any project in the City. The concept is outlined in the parking section of the
code.
Chair Reed suggested that rather than offering points for charging facilities for electric cars and LEED Silver ratings, perhaps
they should be required. Mr. Chave agreed that charging stations could be required for any parking lot over a certain size, but
he cautioned against making it a requirement for small parking areas, as well. He suggested that perhaps a minimum LEED
Silver rating and charging stations for electric vehicles should be required for all four and five-story buildings. The
remainder of the Board agreed that would be appropriate.
Vice Chair Stewart recalled Mr. Chave’s earlier comment about how difficult and costly it can be to obtain Passive House,
LEED Platinum and Living Building status. She suggested that perhaps the City should offer 4 points to developers to obtain
Passive House or LEED Platinum status. Living Building status is very difficult to obtain and should receive more points,
perhaps as many as 6. She pointed out that when a developer meets the requirements for any of the three highest green
building programs, they will also be fulfilling a number of other options included on the score sheet.
Board Member Ellis suggested that the point system would need to be tweaked to implement Vice Chair Stewart’s
suggestion. He pointed out that if a developer receives six points for obtaining Living Building status, he/she would only
have to obtain two more points to qualify for the additional story. As currently written, a developer must obtain points from
at least three other categories. He suggested that if the Living Building status would fulfill a number of other options,
perhaps it should be the only prerequisite for a four-story building. Mr. Chave suggested that if a developer obtains Living
Building Status, perhaps it would be appropriate to allow him/her to pick up the other required points in any category. This
would recognize that Living Building status is an expensive proposition and something the City wants to encourage.
Board Member Ellis said he does not want unintended consequences to discourage something the City really wants. Mr.
Chave explained that if they find that over time most developers are choosing credits that are less important to the City, they
could change the point system. He commented that it is difficult to be precise when weighting each of the options because
each property owner will bring their own values to the equation. The weighting has to be a combination of what the City
wants to see happen, as well as some recognition of how difficult and/or expensive it is to do.
Mr. Chave agreed to revise the Height Bonus Score Sheet based on the Board’s comments. He suggested that staff could also
solicit feedback from architects who are familiar with the concept. The Board agreed that would be helpful.
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the Green Factor Score Sheet (Appendix 5a), which was developed and has been used
successfully by the City of Seattle. He asked the Board to provide feedback regarding the proposed weighting for each of the
various factors. He noted that higher weightings recognize that some factors are more valuable than others.
Mr. Chave suggested staff could apply the score sheet to existing development in Westgate, particularly the newer
developments. He said he anticipates that most of the existing development at Westgate would receive a low score. He
briefly explained how the score sheet would be used to calculate the requirements for a given site.
Board Member Ellis asked if there are definitions for the terms used in the Green Factor Score Sheet, such as structural soil
systems. Mr. Chave answered that architects and landscapers are familiar with the terms used in the score sheet.
Mr. Chave said he can understand why vegetative walls would receive a higher score in the City of Seattle where the building
sites are very limited. Green walls are costly, if done right. However, green walls may be less important in Edmonds, which
means that the score could be lower.
Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that Seattle provides a list of additional resources that are available on their Green Factor
Website. One particular resource is the Director’s Rules (10-2011) for Landscaping and Green Factor Standards, which
provides definitions for the various terms used on the score sheet. She suggested that the City could provide a similar
document. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Engineering Department administratively adopts design standards for various
things such as pervious pavement.
Packet Page 284 of 333
Mr. Chave suggested that Item H.4 on the score sheet (landscaping and food cultivation) should be replaced with
“landscaping for habitat.” He said he does not believe that landscaping and food cultivation would be practical on business
sites. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the language be changed to “landscaping for food cultivation and habitat.”
Vice Chair Stewart suggested that Items B.6 and B.7 could be eliminated from the score sheet. She noted that there are no
large existing trees on the Westgate properties. Mr. Chave commented that if the City wants to encourage developers to plant
trees that will get large, then Items B.6 and B.7 should remain on the score sheet as options. Board Member Tibbott
commented that the intent of Item B.7 is to encourage developers to preserve existing large trees. Mr. Chave noted that any
large trees on the site will likely be located on the perimeter. He reminded the Board that the Green Factor Program could
potentially be applied to other areas in the City, and not just Westgate. The Board agreed to retain Items B.6 and B.7.
Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item C.1 and noted that 2 inches of soil does not seem sufficient for an affective green roof.
She felt the City should require a minimum soil depth of 4 inches. Before making this change, Mr. Chave suggested the
Board seek feedback from Board Member Duncan.
Vice Chair Stewart suggested that while vegetated walls (Item D) are important elements, perhaps they should not be
weighted so heavily. She also suggested that it would be appropriate to provide some examples to clarify what is meant by
approved water features (Item E). Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps Seattle’s detailed rules provide a description of this
term. He agreed to check for additional criteria.
Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item F (permeable paving) and commented that greater depths of permeable pavement should
receive a higher score. Mr. Chave agreed to solicit feedback from the City’s stormwater engineer. Vice Chair Stewart also
recommended that the Board should review the City’s plant and tree list to make sure the score sheet is consistent. Mr.
Chave pointed out that, other than a street tree list, the City does not have a plant or tree list. The University of Washington
team used Seattle’s list, which is well researched.
Board Member Lovell suggested that Item H.3 (landscaping visible to passersby from adjacent public right-of-way or public
opens spaces) should be weighted more heavily. He noted that this is a definite public benefit. Mr. Chave concurred. He
pointed out that the options in Item H are bonuses that can be added on to the elements listed in Items A through G.
Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be helpful to eliminate the decimals from the scores. She commented that it is so
much easier to work with whole numbers.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Reed briefly reviewed the Board’s extended agenda, noting that a public hearing on the proposed Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is scheduled for September 25th. He noted that the Board already received
copies of the draft plans. Also on September 25th, the Board will continue their review of the two amendments related to the
Critical Areas Ordinance.
Chair Reed reminded the Board that they previously scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the
Downtown Business (BD) 1 zone. The Board will also review the code sections related to telecommunications. He advised
that, instead a public hearing, the Board will continue their discussion regarding the Westgate Plan and form-based code. Mr.
Chave noted that the public hearing on the Westgate Plan would be pushed back to November or December. Once they
finish the review of the Westgate Plan, the Board can move forward with the Five Corners Plan.
Chair Reed noted that the second meetings in November and December have been cancelled to accommodate the holidays.
The Board will elect new officers at their December 11th meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Reed reported that the next Economic Development Commission meeting is scheduled for September 18th at 6:00 p.m.
in the Brackett Meeting Room at City Hall. At the meeting, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from Edmonds Swedish
Hospital will make a presentation regarding the hospital’s proposed plans. Board Member Lovell indicated he would not be
Packet Page 285 of 333
able to attend the meeting, and Chair Reed agreed to attend the meeting to represent the Planning Board. He also encouraged
other Board members to attend, if possible.
Chair Reed announced that he will present the Planning Board’s quarterly report to the City Council on September 24th. The
next quarterly report will not be until January 2014.
Chair Reed advised that he received a letter from the City’s Chief of Police, commending the Parks Board for their work.
The letter specifically complimented Board Member Tibbott for his presentation to the City Council regarding the
recommended new name for the SR-104 Mini Park. They were impressed with the way he presented the logic and answered
the City Council’s questions.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Tibbott reported that during the recent flash flood, one of his neighbors had 8 to 10 inches of water in his
garage and another house had 4 to 5 inches. It was found that the storm drain directly connected to the properties has no
outlet. There are only cisterns. This incident reminded him that even though the City has a storm drain system, it is limited
in some areas. He said he is curious as to the kinds of damage sustained elsewhere in the City. He reported that City crews
were out today building a berm by the storm drain system to channel the water somewhere else in the future.
Vice Chair Stewart reminded the Board that the City is hosting a free workshop for community members on September 17th
from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Edmonds Plaza Room above the library. Representatives from Rain Dog Designs will be
present to help participants learn how to design and install rain gardens that can filter pollution, reduce flooding, and add
beauty.
Vice Chair Stewart said she is currently working to find a student representative for the Planning Board. A total of four
students have submitted applications to be representatives, and two have already been assigned to work with the Economic
Development Commission and the City Council. She said she plans to interview the two remaining candidates, and she
would like another Board Member to participate.
Vice Chair Stewart announced that a representative from Built Green will make a presentation at the next Mayor’s Climate
Protection Committee meeting on October 3rd at 9:00 a.m. Planning Board members will receive formal invitations to the
meeting, and she encouraged them to attend, if possible.
Vice Chair Stewart reported that she attended the Architectural Design Board’s September 4th meeting, at which Doug Spee
provided an excellent presentation of his proposal to redevelop the current post office site. She encouraged Board Members
to attend meetings of other City boards and commissions when possible to improve communication and understand how their
responsibilities overlap.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Packet Page 286 of 333
----Original Message-----
From: joe@josephtovar-faicp.com [mailto:joe@josephtovar-faicp.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:33 AM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Clifton, Stephen
Subject: Letter to Edmonds Planning Board regarding use limitation in the BD-1 zone
Good morning. Please forward the attached letter to the Edmonds
Planning Board as part of the record for tommorow night's public
hearing. Thank you.
Joseph W. Tovar
10.10.13 Letter to
Planning Board.pdf (See Attachment 9 to view a copy of this letter)
______________________________
From: Pat McDevitt [mailto:pat@pacificflowershippers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:25 AM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Clifton, Stephen
Subject: Meeting on office space in downtown corre
Diane –
Prior to your next hearing / meeting, I wanted to send you a quick note to voice my support for
limiting certain office use in business spaces along designated ground floor street space within
the downtown retail core in Edmonds.
Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you for your service.
Pat McDevitt
(Owner of two buildings in downtown Edmonds)
518 Main Street (Taki Tiki space)
330 Dayton Street (office space)
(residence – 18211 85th Pl W – Edmonds)
C – 425-772-0848
Packet Page 287 of 333
From: Chris Fleck [mailto:thetaxman@mytaxgenius.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 9:59 AM
To: Clifton, Stephen
Subject: Re: Proposal to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated
Ground Floor Street Frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone
Hi Stephan - thanks for this. We have reviewed the proposal & support it! Count us in.
Chris Fleck
_________________________________________
On Oct 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Clifton, Stephen wrote:
Hi Chris,
As discuss, the link below will connect to the September 11, 2013 Planning Board
meeting. Please see agenda item:
a. 6098 Proposal to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated G
within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Proposal Overview
Attachment 2 - Chronology of Events
Attachment 3 - BD1 Zone Map
Attachement 4 - Spreadsheet Listing Businesses Located along the Ground Floor of Designated Stre
Zone
This will provide you links to 4 documents. Similar documents will be posted to the City's
website on the afternoon of October 4 for the October 9 Planning Board Public Hearing. If you
want to provide comments to the Planning Board, please send the to
Diane.Cunningham@EdmondsWa.gov and you can also copy me. We will make sure your
comments are forwarded to the Planning Board.
http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda_publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2013&
dsp=ag&seq=878
Take care,
Stephen
Sent from my iPad
Packet Page 288 of 333
Richard Senderoff [mailto:richsend@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:32 PM
To: Cunningham, Diane
Cc: Chave, Rob; Clifton, Stephen
Subject: Regarding the Festival Retail Proposal Public Hearing Tonight...
Dear Ms. Cunningham,
I was hoping you might forward my comments (below) to the Planning Board Members regarding
tonight’s Public Hearing on establishing a downtown festival retail focus; Public Hearing on Proposal to
Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street
Frontages within the Downtown Business (BD1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone (File No.
AMD20130013).
Unfortunately, it does not look like I will be able to attend. I hope these comments may be provided in
lieu.
Kind regards,
Rich
****************************
Dear Planning Board Members,
I appreciated your deliberations regarding the downtown festival retail proposal during your previous
workshop. In addition to my public comments made previous to that workshop, I was hoping to add
additional feedback in lieu of my attendance at tonight’s (10/9/2013) Public Hearing; unfortunately, I
have another commitment this evening.
For the record, I am an Edmonds Economic Development (EDC) commissioner and have been actively
involved in this proposal (as a member of the Land-Use/Business Incentive subcommittee). My
comments are not necessarily representative of the EDC per se. But they do reflect my personal
viewpoints and knowledge of the process leading to the proposal.
Let me start by stating simply, “Clustering works!” Clustering works, whether we’re referring to biotech-
focused industrial parks (Canyon Park; Bothell), warehouse districts with live-work artisan/start-up tech,
or retail/destination tourism (as per this proposal). “Like attracts like!” And it’s in this way that policy
makers can help businesses to help themselves, with the community benefiting from a more vital
downtown retail core.
Now, a few comments based on your previous workshop:
• I thought the workshop was helpful in pointing out clarifications that were needed regarding
allowable uses.
o I believe the changes to the proposal (noted in green) address these concerns.
• The permitted use for hair/nail salons within BD1 (which was discussed as a concern during the
workshop) was something we considered (going back and forth) extensively during our EDC
Land Use/ Business Incentives subcommittee discussions. Ultimately, we decided that the
secondary activities (shopping, eating, etc.) following these regular appointments justified
permitting their use within the context of the goals. Also, these businesses generally accept
“walk-ins” (not “by appointment only”). And these types of businesses (with open windows) can
Packet Page 289 of 333
generate pedestrian interest which is also a goal of the proposal. Folks often sneak a peek as
they walk by. Perhaps you’ve witnessed the interest generated by Rudy’s Barber Shop on
University Avenue (Seattle).
o We also had concern, as was raised, that we might end up with too many of these
establishments. But although it requires a certain degree of “faith” –in theory– it was
our opinion and hope that “market forces” would control this.
• I also understand the concern about the 180 days to re-lease non-permitted businesses. But I
think it’s most important that property owners buy into this concept. If they do and understand
that this approach will benefit them in the long-term, then I would presume that they would be
motivated to bring in permitted use businesses (regardless of the grace period). And I also
think/hope that as these transitions begin that there will be building momentum to continue the
transition…. Again, this requires a bit of “faith”.
• I have also been working on a business incentive program on the EDC. And I do think there are
some incentives that could help with this transition. For instance, I do not necessarily agree
with Mr. Chave that a temporary property tax waiver for property owners that facilitate the
transition within the 180 days doesn’t serve the City in the long term. And there could be other
types of fee waivers that facilitate new businesses to come in (traffic mitigation fees associated
with change of use, for instance). And, of course, there can be additional “out of the box”
thinking on this; I might encourage further discussion in this area. However, I think that this
should be addressed independently from this proposal as part of a “Business Incentive
Proposal”. As I mentioned, these concepts are currently being considered by the EDC Land-
Use/Business Incentives subcommittee.
• Lastly, but importantly, I was frustrated and concerned that several Planning Board members
used the workshop discussion for commentary about building heights (and residential)… in
BD1???- of all places. And this was even after Mr. Clifton pointed out that the BD1 zone already
has significant nearby residential (surrounding BD1, in fact) relative to other downtowns that
have undertaken similar initiatives; this seems very obvious to me, even without Mr. Clifton’s
comments.
o My concern is that this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with building heights. Let
me repeat that, “This proposal has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do about building
heights.” And I’m afraid that the mere mention of building heights associated with this
proposal may raise skepticism and prompt “slippery slope” comments at both the
Planning Board and the Council comments/public hearings (creating misinformation that
will negatively and inappropriately impact this proposal’s potential for passage).
With all due respect, please be mindful of the potential impact or unintended
consequences that your words may have on public opinion.
Thanks for your consideration,
Rich
Edmonds, Washington ...
A Great Place To Spend A Day
Or A Lifetime!
Richard I. Senderoff, Ph.D.
Commissioner- Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission
Steering Committee- Community Backyard Habitat of Edmonds
425-778-9746
Packet Page 290 of 333
Email: joe@josephtovar-faicp.com Tel: 425.263.2792
540 Dayton Street, #202, Edmonds, WA 98020 www.josephtovar-faicp.com
1
October 10, 2013
City of Edmonds Planning Board
121 Fifth Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Board Members:
I write to express my strong support for the proposed code amendment to
limit certain office uses from locating along the ground floor storefronts of
designated street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone.
As an Edmonds resident and frequent patron of downtown businesses, I
appreciate efforts such as this to protect and enhance the vitality and
ambience of the Downtown’s retail core.
As a land use and urban design professional with city code writing
experience for downtowns, including Kirkland and La Conner, I have found
that such a use limitation is one effective way to serve the City’s policy
objectives. By allowing existing office uses to continue, the rights and
reasonable expectations of existing businesses and land owners are
appropriately respected, while making clear that the long-term objective is
for all these spaces to transition to uses more in keeping with the vision for
this part of the community.
No one code amendment is the answer to all problems, but this specific
tool can complement the many other city and private sector actions being
taken to keep downtown Edmonds a thriving district. I urge you to
recommend that this code amendment be adopted by the City Council.
Thank you for your consideration, and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Joseph W. Tovar, FAICP
cc Stephen Clifton, AICP
Packet Page 291 of 333
AM-6457 16.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilmember Bloom and Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action on ECC Chapter 2.10 regarding Confirmation and Duties of City Officers.
Recommendation
Review the issues raised by Council, make appropriate changes, and return the item to full Council for
action.
Previous Council Action
In 2012, during the confirmation of Rob Chave as acting Development Services Director, it became clear
that chapter 2.10 ECC did not adequately address the confirmation of acting directors and whether the
City Council sought to confirm such acting appointments. On March 6, 2012, the City Council requested
that an amendment to chapter 2.10 ECC be sent to committee for review and discussion. The City Council
did not give clear direction about the amendments it wanted to see in chapter 2.10 ECC.
On March 13, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee considered proposed revisions to
chapter 2.10 ECC. The committee requested that the scope of the code update be extended beyond
chapter 2.10 ECC. Additional revisions to a large portion of Title 2 were brought to the committee for
review during the April and May 2012 committee meetings.
The City Attorney is recommending that the revisions to Title 2 be considered in smaller chunks, perhaps
one chapter at a time. Hence, only revisions to chapter 2.10 ECC has been included in the council packet.
The City Attorney reviewed the minutes from the July 2013 PS&P committee and incorporated revisions
where the committee had directed that revisions be made.
August 19, 2013 Public Safety/Personnel Committee: The Committee discussed this topic (minutes
attached).
September 17, 2013: The full Council discussed this item on 9/17/13 (minutes attached).
October 8, 2013: The Public Safety/Personnel Committee discussions this topic. Please see excerpt from
10/8/13 minutes below:
B. Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2.10 Revisions.
Action: Committee agreed to include in the Chapter 2.10 revisions for discussion of full
Packet Page 292 of 333
council the following:
(1) Reference to the RCWs that allow for discussion of qualifications of director candidate(s) in executive
session prior to Council confirmation of Mayor's appointment.
(2) Council can reduce number of candidates they interview to less than three only by a super- majority
vote.
11/12/13 Public Safety/Personnel Committee minutes' excerpt:
C. Discussion and potential action regarding Chapter 2.10
Major decision points are number of applicants Mayor must bring to Council for consideration. Other
changes agreed to by Committee although further discussion regarding reviews of job descriptions could
be warranted. Committee felt it best to change the "will" to "may" in 2.10.010 A.
Action: Move to full Council for consideration.
12/3/2013 Council Meeting: The Council recommended putting this item on an agenda in 2014.
Narrative
The attached revisions to chapter 2.10 ECC are intended as a guide to discussion of possible revisions to
this chapter.
One issue addressed in these revisions is the one that was initially in mind when the City Council referred
this matter to committee: the acting director issue. The attached revisions represent one possible approach
to the confirmation of acting directors, but the City Council has the authority to require confirmation even
of acting directors if it chooses to do so.
This item is before the full Council for discussion and potential action.
Attachments
July 9, 2013 Public Safety/Personal Committee Minutes
Aug 19 2013 Public Safety/Personal Committee Minutes
Sept. 17, 2013 Approved Council Minutes
2013-11-21 revisions to chapter 2 10 ECC
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 09:29 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 10:04 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 10:10 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/31/2013 10:07 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 293 of 333
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
July 9, 2013
Page 2 of 5
B. Reinstating Clerk Position
Judge Fair explained that case loads continue to increase in the court. As a result of the
increased work load and the fact that funds are available, he was requesting reinstating
the clerk position in Municipal Court.
Responding to questions, Judge Fair stated that funds are available in the non
departmental budget (unallocated portion of the public defender contract).
The committee members agreed to place approval of reinstating the clerk position on the
City Council Consent Agenda.
C. L & I Claims Management
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager, referred to the memo provided to the
City Council on this topic. She explained that her department analyzed options related
to managing the city’s L & I claims. The analysis came down to looking at a third party
to handle the claims. Based on the analysis, costs would be lower using a third party.
There is a fee for the services that at a minimum would be a break even cost with the
potential of significant savings.
Councilmember Peterson asked if the use of a third party would have any effect on labor
agreements. Ms. Hardie stated they are having the City Attorney’s Office check on this
issue, however, they do not believe it is a subject of bargaining. They also did an
extensive reference check of the firm being considered and all cities and counties have
been very pleased.
Responding to further questions, Ms. Hardie stated the third party would provide as
much training as needed to employees.
Committee members were supportive of moving forward to the next step.
A. Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions
Councilmember Bloom stated that she discussed a number of issues with the City
Attorney today. The first issue is regarding the title of the Chapter “Confirmation and
Duties of City Officers.” She noted that there is not a definition of a City Officer. She
made the assumption that a City Officer is a director level position or all the positions
that include over site of code and have to be approved by Council. She believes “City
Officer” needs to be defined.
Councilmember Bloom also pointed out the Chapter includes reference to the Hearing
Examiner, Executive Assistant to Council, and Mayor’s Executive Assistant. She noted
these positions are not City Officers.
Councilmember Peterson suggested the title of the chapter could be changed from the
reference to “City Officers” to referencing the positions that are included in the chapter.
After discussion, the committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to bring
back a definition of City Officer.
Packet Page 294 of 333
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
July 9, 2013
Page 3 of 5
Councilmember Bloom reported the City Attorney also suggested that the positions of
City Clerk and City Engineer be included in this Chapter because they are called out in
RCW. She agrees that it makes sense to include these positions as City Officers.
Councilmember Peterson expressed wariness that this would add city staff that Council
needs to confirm, which may cause more of the line between the legislative branch and
the executive branch to get crossed. This would be going beyond confirming director
positions.
After discussion, the committee members agreed to bring to the City Council for
discussion the addition of the City Clerk and City Engineer positions to Chapter 2.
The next issue discussed by Councilmember Bloom was related to the Hearing
Examiner being included in this Chapter. She questioned why this position is included.
(Note: This issue was further discussed later in the meeting.)
Next, Councilmember Bloom referred to language proposed for 2.10.010 A, and
recommended the following changes:
A. Whenever a vacancy occurs in one of the positions listed in this section, the city
council may will review the specifications of that position and revise it as needed
before acting to confirm a permanent appointment.
She further recommended the last sentence be removed as she does not see the need
for it.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with changing “may” to “will.” With regard to removing
the last sentence, he questioned if the City Attorney may have included it as a
protection.
Next, Councilmember Bloom referred to language proposed for 2.10.010 D, and
recommended the following changes:
D. The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the department director
City Officer positions. The city shall have the following department director City
Officer positions;
With regard to the balance of Section D., she suggested the following:
“The council shall interview the top three candidates for each position prior to the
mayor’s final selection, PROVIDED that the city council may waive the three-
interview requirement by motion and may opt to interview as few as one two
candidate(s) for any vacant position.
Councilmember Peterson disagreed commenting that if there is clearly only one qualified
candidate it would be forcing the Mayor to have an unqualified candidate be interviewed,
which would not be appropriate. It is always the council’s option to require an additional
candidate, but not always feasible. He believes the current language is fine.
Councilmember Bloom stated this topic will be added as a discussion issue before the
full council. (Note: This topic was discussed further in the meeting.)
Packet Page 295 of 333
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
July 9, 2013
Page 4 of 5
Next, Councilmember Bloom discussed 2.10.010 E., and proposed the following:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the mayor shall have the authority to
appoint, without city council confirmation, an acting director to any of the positions
set forth in subsection D, above, PROVIDED that a search is initiated immediately to
fill the vacancy, and there is budgetary authority to fill the position, AND any such
acting directorship shall expire and be deemed vacant six months after the date of
the appointment. The city council shall be given written notice about any such acting
appointments including the effective date of the appointment.
If, in that 6 month period of time, two or more suitable candidates have not been
found for Council to interview, the mayor may request an extension of an additional 3
months to continue the search. Any extension of the 6 month initial "acting
directorship" appointment shall be subject to city council confirmation."
Council President Peterson stated he wants to be sure that if the Mayor finds only two
qualified candidates that he is not able to move forward because he does not have
three.
Carrie Hite, Human Resources Reporting Director, joined the meeting at this time and
suggested the committee consider two candidates versus 3, pointing out the recent
experience in replacing positions.
After discussion, the committee agreed to the language: two or more suitable
candidates.
Additional discussion was held regarding the Hearing Examiner being included in this
Chapter. The committee concluded the City Attorney is to determine if there would be a
conflict of interest if the Hearing Examiner is hired by the City Council. In addition, it was
recommended to eliminate consideration of including the City Attorney under this
chapter.
Next, under 2.10.020, Assignment of Duties, Councilmember Bloom recommended:
The city council shall define the functions, powers and duties of the city’s directors
and employees. The mayor shall will direct, supervise, and be in charge of all
directors and employees in the performance of their functions powers and duties.
Councilmember Bloom also wanted language added that “all city officer job duties and
job descriptions shall be reviewed and updated every five years.” This would be limited
to the City Officer job descriptions. Further, she would like language added that
department directors will “assure compliance and accountability with federal, state and
local laws and regulations.”
Councilmember Bloom stated that under 2.01.050, she would like to remove “or his or
her designee.” She explained there are certain matters such as legal determinations
that should only be deferred in certain matters.
Ms. Hite pointed out that there needs to be someone who can make decisions in the
absence of the director.
Packet Page 296 of 333
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
July 9, 2013
Page 5 of 5
Councilmember Peterson suggested dropping reference to 2.10.050 in this section of the
code.
Councilmember Bloom next pointed out that 2.10.050 refers to both finance director and
community services director, however the title of the section does not reflect this.
Further, Councilmember Bloom believes the positions of Executive Assistant to the
Council and the Mayor’s Executive Assistant should not be part of this chapter as they
are not City Officers.
Committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to determine if these positions
should be in a different section of the code.
D. Discussion regarding Code of Ethics.
Committee members discussed ethics policies from Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and
Kirkland.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the policy from Bainbridge Island and would like to
include the requirement for members to “disclose a conflict of interest” as a standing
requirement at all city meetings for all officials. Councilmember Peterson commented
that he believes the Council does a good job at this disclosure; however, having it on
each agenda is a good reminder.
Further discussion occurred related to policies, including the possible consideration of a
Code of Ethics Officer.
After discussion the committee agreed to forward to the next work session of the City
Council the Bellevue and Kirkland ethics policies and the Kirkland Code of Conduct for
discussion. The committee also recommended including the statement from Bainbridge
Island related to disclosure of conflict of interest for all officials. After full Council
discussion, direction can then be given to the City Attorney on how to proceed.
Ms. Hite indicated she would bring back information on a Code of Ethics Officer.
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Packet Page 297 of 333
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
August 19, 2013
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2013
Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Joan Bloom
Councilmember Peterson
Mayor Earling
City Staff Present: Al Compaan, Police Chief
Carrie Hite, Human Resources Reporting Director
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.
1. Transfer and Hold Harmless Agreement for Police Dog Dash to Sergeant Josh
McClure
Assistant Chief Lawless explained Dash was purchased in 2006 with funding assistance from the
Police Foundation. Dash is reaching the end of his working career and with Sergeant McClure’s
recent promotion, it is an appropriate time to retire Dash. In keeping with past practice, the
proposal is to transfer Dash to Sergeant McClure for $1, along with a hold harmless agreement
releasing the City of all liability. The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and
approved as to form.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
2. Continued Discussion Regarding Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions
Mr. Taraday explained he used the minutes of the previous committee meeting to draft the
proposed changes. If the minutes did not reflect consensus on an issue, the change was not
incorporated into the Chapter 2 revisions.
2.10.010.D
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with the proposed language that would allow the
Council to waive the three interview requirement and opt to interview as few as one candidate.
Following discussion regarding the number of candidates to be interviewed, Councilmember
Bloom expressed support for the City Council interviewing the top three candidates and having
the option to interview as few as two. Councilmember Peterson supported the City Council
interviewing the top two and having the option to interview as few as one.
Packet Page 298 of 333
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
August 19, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Mr. Taraday proposed the following language for consideration by the full Council:
“D. The mayor shall appoint…The city council shall interview the top [two] [three] candidates
for each position prior to the mayor’s final selection, PROVIDED that the city council may
waive the [two] [three] interview requirement by motion and may opt to interview as few as
[one] [two] candidate(s) for any vacant position. The mayor’s …” “If in that six month period of
time, the [two] [three] suitable candidates have not been…”
Definition of City Officer
Next, Councilmember Bloom suggested defining city officer. Mr. Taraday explained the scope
of Chapter 2.10 is limited to confirmation and duties of appointive officers. The only definition
included is appointive officer; many city officers (such as the City Attorney, Councilmembers,
Mayor, Planning Board Members, etc.) are not subject to the confirmation provisions of this
chapter. The draft Ethics Code may use either city officer or official but he found no meaningful
difference between the two.
Following discussion, Mr. Taraday agreed one term should be used consistently. He preferred
“officer” to be consistent with State law. In instances where specificity is necessary, he
suggested using an adjective such as elected or appointed.
2.10.010.E
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with allowing the Mayor to appoint an acting director
without City Council confirmation and not filling the vacant position. Mr. Taraday referred to
language in this section that requires the Council be informed. Ms. Hite referred to proposed
language that limits an acting directorship to six months with potential for a three month
extension.
Mr. Taraday suggested eliminating “immediately,” commenting it may not be appropriate to
immediately conduct a search to fill a vacant position if the Mayor wants to propose
reorganization or until the Council has completed their review of the specifications of the
positions and revised as needed.
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with reorganizing whenever a director leaves.
Mr. Taraday explained when a director position is vacated, it is prudent to consider whether to
fill the position or reorganize the department. There is less legal risk in eliminating a position
when it is vacant than when it is filled. He encouraged the Council to include flexibility in the
code that contemplates various scenarios.
Mayor Earling had concerns with rewriting a job description and conducting a search at the same
time. He suggested a 30-60 day delay after a position is vacated.
Councilmember Peterson agreed it would not be appropriate to conduct a search until the
Council has completed their review/revision of the job descriptions and/or the Mayor has
considered reorganization. He said 30 days was unlikely to be enough time.
It was agreed Mr. Taraday will draft language eliminating “immediately” and providing options
for a time period for the Mayor to propose reorganization to the Council at the time a director
leaves.
Packet Page 299 of 333
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
August 19, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Section 2.10.050
Councilmember Bloom suggested not including “his/her designee” in the definition of a position.
She preferred designation be addressed elsewhere in the code or the job description.
Mr. Taraday recommended changing the title of 2.10.050 to “References.”
Section 2.10.060
Councilmember Bloom inquired about the intent of the last two sentences. Discussion followed.
Ms. Hite pointed out the Council directly contracts with the Executive Assistant to Council.
It was agreed to create a new Chapter 2.03, City Council, that would include the information in
2.10.060 regarding the Executive Assistant to Council.
Section 2.10.070
It was agreed to move the language in 2.10.070 into the chapter regarding the Mayor.
Review of Director Position Job Descriptions
Councilmember Bloom suggested reviewing director positions at least every five years in
addition to when a position is vacated. Following discussion, it was agreed to review director
positions every three years in conjunction with nonrepresented salary surveys.
Section 2.10.010.C
Committee members agreed with Mr. Taraday’s recommendation to delete 2.10.010.C, as it is
duplicative of language in 10.35.010.A.
Action: Schedule for full Council.
3. Discussion Regarding Authorization to Recruit for Development Services Director
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the current language in Chapter 2.10 requires the Council
interview the top three candidates and does not allow appointment of a current employee. She
questioned how Mayor Earling’s proposal fit with Chapter 2.10.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out the Mayor currently does not have budgetary authority to
fill the position. He suggested the options are, 1) a budget amendment and utilize the existing
process in Chapter 2.10, or 2) consider the position during 2014 budget deliberations when the
revisions to Chapter 2.10 likely will have been finalized.
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern that the Development Services Director position was
not funded in the 2013 budget. She voiced her preference to begin recruitment for the position
immediately, recognizing the selection process was likely to take several months.
Mayor Earling reviewed his proposal to permanently appoint the existing Acting Development
Services Director to the position. Mr. Chave would retain most of the Planning Manager
responsibilities and Kernen Lien, who would be assigned a new job title, would assume some of
the Planning Manager responsibilities along with his current job. This is a more financially
prudent plan and Mr. Chave is very competent and has been doing an exemplary job. He
suggested the Council could waive the current procedure.
Packet Page 300 of 333
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 17, 2013
Page 14
interested in a Code of Ethics for staff in the future, a) there already is one, and b) there is potential for
significant union issues.
With regard to a Code of Ethics, Councilmember Bloom suggested using the Bellevue Code of Ethics as a
template with the exception of the language that was proposed to be included in the Code of Conduct. She
also suggested adding #4 from Bainbridge Island’s ethics requirements for boards and commissions,
Conduct of Public Meetings, regarding disclosure of potential conflict of interest at the beginning of each
meeting.
Councilmember Bloom relayed Councilmember Peterson and she had discussed using an ethics officer
rather than the hearing examiner. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the ethics officer was an
attorney. Councilmember Bloom responded the ethics officer would be an attorney on contract that would
work on an as needed basis. Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite
explained that is a model used by several cities; no charges are incurred if there are no ethics violations.
Council President Petso said she has numerous concerns with the Bellevue Ethics Policy and was not
interested in using it as a template. For example, there was language that would have prevented her
serving as a Councilmember while her son-in-law served on the Sister City Commission. She did not
want a Code of Ethics that made that an issue. She would likely not support a Code of Ethics based on
Bellevue’s. Councilmember Bloom advised paragraph 9 in the Bellevue Code of Ethics related to
nepotism was retained for further discussion due to concerns. Council President Petso responded she was
only providing that as an example of her concerns, she had many others.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred Bainbridge Island’s ethics requirements. She did not support having
a citizen ethics board and preferred an attorney or hearing examiner. Councilmember Bloom advised
Bainbridge Island’s ethics requirements are much broader.
Councilmember Johnson suggested a Code of Ethics be created in a streamlined fashion to avoid
frivolous or unsubstantiated claims. She also supported limited time to file a claim and found two years to
file a claim extensive. She requested an estimate of the costs associated with an ethics officer. She
preferred to deal with major issues and not minor infractions.
12. DISCUSSION: EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.10 REVISIONS
Councilmember Bloom explained the current code, which requires the Mayor to present three candidates
for Council to interview for director positions, has not always been followed. She suggested City
Attorney Jeff Taraday review the proposed changes. Mr. Taraday explained he initially created a draft to
promote discussion, not necessarily advocating for a particular outcome. More recently by reviewing
committee minutes and attending a committee meeting, he was able to glean areas of committee
agreement and disagreement. The draft now contains bracketed words where alternatives are proposed
due to disagreement between committee members. In addition, after getting some big picture direction
from the committee, he drafted some language that he believed was consistent with their direction but he
was uncertain the committee had adequate time to review the revisions before they were included in the
Council packet. He highlighted the areas of disagreement between committee members that relate to the
interview requirement:
• Currently the code requires the Council interview the top two candidates. There is no language in
the code about the ability for the Council to waive that requirement; in practice the Council has
waived that requirement on a number of occasions.
• Section 2.10.010.D: The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the department
director positions of police chief, fire chief, community services director, administrative services
director, development services director, parks and recreation director, public works director, and
Packet Page 301 of 333
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 17, 2013
Page 15
human resources director appointive officers. The city council shall interview the top [two][three]
three candidates for each position prior to the mayor’s final selection appointment, PROVIDED
that the city council may waive the [two][three]- interview requirement by motion and may opt to
interview as few as [one candidate][two candidates] for any vacant appointive office. The
mayor’s appointments to all other employee positions shall not be subject to city council
confirmation. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].
Mr. Taraday relayed Councilmember Bloom’s position was there should never be fewer than two
interviews and Councilmember Peterson’s position was there may be circumstances where the Council
may, via motion to waive, be satisfied with interviewing one candidate.
Council President Petso was uncertain why an interview would be conducted if there was only one
candidate. Mr. Taraday responded the Council still has the ability to not confirm. He presented a
hypothetical scenario: the Mayor recruits and can only find one acceptable candidate. The Mayor
proposes the candidate and asks the Council to waive the requirement and to interview just one candidate.
The Council interviews the candidate, does not find him/her acceptable and does not confirm. Another
possible scenario is the Council interviews two candidates, the Mayor appoints candidate A, the Council
did not like candidate A and does not confirm the appointment. In that scenario the Mayor would not be
required to appoint candidate B just because the Council did not want Candidate A.
Council President Petso recalled a time where Council was told the Mayor had made his choice and even
if the Council did not confirm, the individual had been hired and it was a done deal. She asked if the code
needed to include language that Council confirmation was required. Mr. Taraday was uncertain how that
could have occurred under the current code. His interpretation of the statement in the code that the
appointment is subject to Council confirmation was that an appointment that was not confirmed was void.
He summarized the Council’s confirmation was a serious power and could not be ignored by the Mayor.
Councilmember Bloom explained she felt strongly about this because she believed confirmation of the
Mayor’s appointment was put in place as a check and balance of the legislative branch, the Council, on
the executive branch, the Mayor. The balance of power is meant to be righted via this process. In her
experience the code has not been followed; three candidates have not been presented for interview by the
Council and in the case of the last Finance Director, the Council did not waive their right to interview
three candidates and interviewed only two candidates. She voted against the confirmation of the Finance
Director because the Council was not presented three candidates as the code required and because she felt
her input was not considered by the Mayor because he received it after he had made his decision.
Councilmember Bloom hoped if the code were clarified it would be followed. She felt the City’s strong
Mayor form of government has resulted in a weak Council. She did not want the code to make the
Council any weaker than it already was. Allowing only one candidate to be presented completely ignored
the Council’s confirmation of the Mayor’s appointment.
Council President Petso observed throughout this chapter there has been an effort to replace “directors”
with “appointed officials.” In Section 2.10.020 the word “director” has reappeared. Mr. Taraday answered
that could be changed.
Councilmember Johnson said her comments were not regarding one administration or one director but the
issue from a broad perspective. The department director serves both the executive and legislative
branches of city government. They attend weekly Council meetings and provide information; therefore
the Council needs a strong sense of reliability and trust in the directors. The current code provides for a
well honored system of checks and balances in city government. The Council has the responsibility for
approving the job description and the candidate for department directors and should not relinquish that
responsibility and should fully participate in that process. In a perfect world she would like the Council to
Packet Page 302 of 333
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 17, 2013
Page 16
interview the top three candidates as well as review the job description. In cases where the job description
has recently been reviewed it would not be necessary for the Council to review the job description again.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was on the fence with regard to this; she understood Councilmember
Bloom’s point of view as well as Council President Petso’s comment. She recalled emailing the Mayor
prior to the appointment of the Finance Director because she did not support confirming him but because
all other Councilmembers supported him, she voted in favor of confirmation. She suggested
Councilmembers have an opportunity to provide input publicly following the interview so that
Councilmembers knew how other Councilmembers felt.
Councilmember Bloom stated Council may want to include language regarding how Councilmembers can
be involved in the interview process prior to the presentation of candidates. She suggested allowing up to
three Councilmembers to be involved in the initial interviews and if a fourth Councilmember wants to
participate, the Council will select three. She noted it is difficult for Councilmembers to ask only a few
questions and not have an opportunity to learn how other Councilmembers feel about a candidate. For
example she was not aware of Councilmember Buckshnis’ position regarding the Finance Director or
what other candidates had been interviewed by the selection team.
Mayor Earling explained he was very aware the Council wanted to be involved in the process of
interviewing the Finance Director; Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto were involved. In addition
to the Council’s reaction, he was also interested in the reaction of staff, citizens and his own reaction. He
noted it is already difficult to manage the number of people involved in the interviews.
Council President Petso liked Councilmember Bloom’s suggestion, recalling at least one Councilmember
requested an opportunity to participate and did not, for whatever reason, participate. She supported
revising the code to allow up to three Councilmembers to participate in the interview process.
Mr. Taraday reminded Council that although they may not utilize this opportunity often, the RCWs allow
the Council to discuss and evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment in executive
session. He anticipated that opportunity may alleviate some of the Council’s concerns. Councilmember
Bloom suggested reference to the RCW be included in Chapter 2.10 definitions. She was unaware that
option was available to the Council and anticipated many former Councilmembers were also unaware of
that option. Mr. Taraday agreed reference to the process could be included in Chapter 2.10.
Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s suggestion. The question was not only the
number of candidates the Council interviews but also the Council’s views regarding the candidates.
Mayor Earling referred to selection processes that have occurred in the past few years. In the selection of
the previous Finance Director Shawn Hunstock, there were at least two efforts made to find a Finance
Director that the former administration and staff were comfortable with advancing. The first two efforts
did not yield any qualified candidates. Mr. Hunstock was found in the third effort and he was the only
qualified candidate and was confirmed. He anticipated requiring a certain number of candidates could be
problematic. For example in the most recent effort to hire a Finance Director, if he had been required to
provide a third candidate, the City would have been required to fly him from Kentucky even though the
person was not a candidate he was interested in advancing. He urged the Council to provide some
flexibility with regard to reducing the number of candidates for the Council to interview.
13. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2013.
Finance Committee
Council President Petso advised most of the items the committee discussed were on tonight’s agenda. The
remaining item, Bond Counsel for Edmonds Center for the Arts Contract, included a request to restructure
Packet Page 303 of 333
Chapter 2.10
CONFIRMATION AND DUTIES
OF CITY APPOINTIVE OFFICERS
Sections:
2.10.010 Review of vacancies, appointment authority and cConfirmation process.
2.10.020 Assignment of duties.
2.10.030 Police chief.
2.10.040 Terms and extension of terms.Repealed.
2.10.050 References to director of community development.
2.10.060 Executive council assistant.
2.10.070 Mayor’s executive assistant.
2.10.005 Definitions.
A. Appointive officer. For the purposes of this chapter, “appointive officer” means
the following city officers that are appointed by the mayor and subject to city
council confirmation: all director-level positions in the city’s adopted budget,
including the police chief.
B. Specifications. For the purposes of this chapter, “specifications” means the
functions, powers, duties, compensation, and working conditions of the city’s
appointive officers.
2.10.010
Review of vacancies, appointment authority and Confirmation confirmation
process.
A. Periodically, when the city conducts a salary survey regarding its non-represented
employees, and Wheneverwhenever a vacancy occurs in one of the positions listed in this
sectionchapter, the city council will may review the specifications for the appointive
officerof that position(s) and revise it them as needed before the vacancy is filledacting to
confirm a permanent appointment. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent
the city council from reviewing such specifications at other times. The council’s revising of
a specification will not have any effect on a previously confirmed permanent appointment.
Recruitment to fill a vacant appointive office may be postponed until after the city council
acts to revise the specifications or determines them not to be in need of revision.
B. The mayor or his/her designee will review all applications and determine the persons
with the highest qualifications. Any city council member, upon request to the mayor, may
review the applications received for the a vacant position. Additionally and/or alternatively,
the city council may evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment in
executive session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g).
C. The mayor shall appoint, subject to city council confirmation, the positions of judge
and hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may be removed from his/her position for
cause, as determined by the mayorIf, on occasion of a vacant appointive office, the mayor
Comment [JT1]: Add reference to possible
discussion of qualifications in executive
session after interviews.
Comment [JT2]: New definition. This
recognizes the distinction between these
officers and other city officers (e.g., mayor,
councilmembers, city attorney, city clerk,
hearing examiner) who have a different
appointment/confirmation process.
Comment [JT3]: A definition for this term
was requested by the committee.
Comment [JT4]: I changed this back from
“may” to original “will” per committee
meeting minutes. If the review of
specifications is mandatory then it probably
doesn’t make sense to require an immediate
search to fill the vacancy.
Comment [JT5]: Changed to “may” from
“will” per committee minutes.
Comment [JT6]: This language added per
committee request made 10/8/2013.
Packet Page 304 of 333
elects to propose a reorganization of the appointive offices which would alter the
specifications of the vacant appointive office, he shall have sixty-days from the date of the
vacancy to introduce a reorganization proposal to the city council along with any necessary
accompanying budget amendment. If reorganization is proposed, recruitment to fill the
vacant appointive office may be postponed until after the city council acts upon the
reorganization proposal.The judge may be removed from his/her office for cause, as
specified in RCW 3.50.095.
D. The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the department director
positions of police chief, fire chief, community services director, administrative services
director, development services director, parks and recreation director, public works director,
and human resources director.appointive officers. The city council shall interview the top
[two ][three]three candidates for each position prior to the mayor’s final selec-
tionappointment, PROVIDED that the city council may waive the [two][three]- interview
requirement by motion [adopted by a majority plus one of the full council] and may opt to
interview as few as [one candidate][two candidates] for any vacant appointive office. The
mayor’s appointments to all other employee positions shall not be subject to city council
confirmation. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].
E. The mayor shall have the authority to appoint, without city council confirmation, an
acting director to perform the functions and duties of a vacant appointive office, subject to
the term limitations described in ECC 2.10.040.B, PROVIDED that there is budgetary
authority to fill the position. The city council shall be given written notice about any such
acting appointments including the effective date of the appointment. Acting directors shall
be compensated pursuant to applicable ordinances and personnel policies regarding acting
pay.
F. The mayor shall begin recruitment of candidates to fill vacant appointive offices no
later than thirty days after the latter of the two city council actions described in subsections
A and C, above.
2.10.020
Assignment of duties.
The city council shall define the functions, powers and duties of the city’s directors and
employees. The mayor shall direct, supervise, and be in charge of all directors and
employees in the performance of their functions, powers, and duties, except for employees
hired pursuant to chapter 2.03 ECC. Ddepartment directors shall be responsible for
carrying out all directives as assigned by the mayor, including, but not limited to, planning
and directing the activities and staff in their respective assigned departments, supervising
and evaluating the work processes and assigned staff, controlling the financial integrity of
the assigned departmental budget, and insuring the delivery of quality public services. All
department directors shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].
2.10.030
Police chief.
Pursuant to the authority of RCW 41.12.050(2), the position of police chief has been
removed exempted from civil service. The police chief shall be appointed by the mayor
subject to confirmation by majority vote of the city council. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Comment [JT7]: This language added per committee
discussion on 10/8/2013 and bracketed to show
committee’s lack of agreement.
Formatted: Highlight
Comment [JT8]: Appointive officers
Comment [JT9]: Appointive officers
Comment [JT10]: Change to appointive officers.
Packet Page 305 of 333
2.10.040
Terms and extensions of terms.Fire chief.
Repealed by Ord. 3762. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].
A. Permanent appointive officers shall serve without a definite term.
B. The authority to hold an appointive office on an acting basis (an acting
directorship) shall expire and be deemed vacant six months after the date of the
acting appointment. If, during that six month period, the administration has not
been able to generate sufficient interest from suitable candidates to satisfy the city
council interview requirement (see subsection D, above), the mayor may request
an extension of acting directorship authority from the city council, in increments
of no more than six months at a time, to allow the recruiting process to continue.
After the initial six-month term, each extension of the acting directorship shall be
subject to city council confirmation.
C. Both permanent and acting appointive officers shall be at-will positions serving at
the pleasure of the mayor.
2.10.050
References to director of community development.
Wherever references are made in the Edmonds City Code, the Edmonds Community
Development Code or any ordinance of the city to the director of community development
director, said reference shall hereafter be construed to mean the development services
department director or designee. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].Wherever references are made in the
Edmonds City Code, the Edmonds Community Development Code, or any ordinance of the
city to the administrative services director, said reference shall hereafter be construed to
mean the finance director. With the exception of Title 3 of the Edmonds City Code,
wherever references are made in the Edmonds City Code or Edmonds Community
Development Code to the community services director, said references shall hereafter be
construed to mean development services director, PROVIDED THAT references to the
community services director in Titles 7, 9 and 18 and chapters 4.68 and 17.95 shall
hereafter be construed to mean public works director.
2.10.060
Executive council assistant to council.
The executive council assistant to council shall be a contract employee hired on an annual
basis by the city council. The terms and conditions of employment for the executive council
assistant to council as well as all benefits shall be governed by the provisions of the
contract. Depending on the experience level of the particular person serving in this role, the
prefix of “senior” may be added to the title. The contract shall provide for the delegation by
the mayor of the direction of this individual to the city council president. In the event that
the mayor elects in his or her discretion not to delegate that function, the city council
reserves the right to immediately eliminate the position. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].
Formatted: Font: Bold
Comment [JT11]: This is being moved to a
new chapter 2.03 and cleaned it up to allow for
direct supervision by the council president.
Packet Page 306 of 333
2.10.070
Mayor’s executive assistant.
The position of mayor’s executive assistant shall be an at-will position with the executive
assistant serving at the pleasure of the mayor. The salary for the position is established by
the annual salary ordinance. The terms and conditions of employment as well as job duties
being set forth in a job description developed by the mayor with the concurrence of the city
council. [Ord. 3279 § 1, 1999].
Comment [JT12]: Being moved to 2.01
Packet Page 307 of 333
AM-6446 17.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorize Mayor to sign contract to award bid for City Park Spray Equipment
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign contract for City Park Spray Equipment
Previous Council Action
Council authorized expenditures and received grants for City Park Spray and Play revitalization.
Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with MacLeod Reckord for Architectural and
Engineering services for the City Park revitalization project.
Council authorized the Mayor to sign an award of bid for the Play Equipment.
Narrative
The City Park Revitalization project has been underway since January 2013. The project has several
moving parts of which I will attempt to describe in this narrative.
After a formal bidding process, MacLeod Reckord was awarded the A/E bid from Council in March
2013. Staff have been working with MacLeod Reckord to complete 90% design and bid documents for
the construction of City Park Play and Spray revitalization. There are several components of this project
that staff have either completed or will bid separately from the A/E contract in order to avoid the markup
costs and save money.
To date, the City staff have facilitated the completion of the survey and wetland delineation for this
project. In addition, staff have published formal bid processes for both the Play equipment and Spray
equipment. Council has awarded a bid for the Play equipment.
The award of bid that is at Council with this agenda request is for the Spray equipment for City Park.
Again, we opted to bid out separately for the Play equipment, Spray equipment, and construction, in order
to limit the mark up costs from a contractor. This is coming to full Council before going to Committee
because of our tight timeline to order the equipment.
Packet Page 308 of 333
The Spray equipment was published for competitive bid in October/November. The evaluation included
scoring against the criteria listed in the RFP and interviews with the top two vendors.
In February/March staff will bring to Council an award of bid for the construction component of the
project.
After these three awards of bid ( Play equipment, Spray equipment, and Construction), we will be
underway for the completion of the project.
Following is a brief budget recap for the project:
Revenues for the project currently total 1,350,000. This includes $500,000 from the Parks CIP, $500,000
from the State Recreation and Conservation Office, $270,000 from Hazel Miller Foundation, and $80,000
from Snohomish County.
The current expenditure budget at 60% design is 1,300,000. Although we have a surplus built into the
budget ( $50,000 ), preliminary budgets nearing the 90% design may reflect some increased expenditures
for utilities and the undercarriage of the spray area. As Council may recall we are designing a water reuse
system that will provide water for all the irrigation zones in City Park, flushing toilets in the restroom,
and providing a fill station for the flower program. We do not have final budgets for these yet but will
keep Council informed as we progress.
Operationally, the Play and Spray park will be maintained by the current Parks crew. The additional
operating expense we expect to realize will be in water usage for the spray park. The water routing into
the spray park will be new, but on the back end use ( irrigation, toilets, flower program) we will be saving
utility costs. We have estimated approximately $25,000 in new utility costs for the operation of the spray
component of the park.
Attachments
City Park Project Schedule
Spray Area contract
Spray area Scope
Spray RFP
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 12/27/2013 03:25 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/30/2013 02:01 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/30/2013 02:56 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 12/20/2013 01:42 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/30/2013
Packet Page 309 of 333
EDMONDS CITY PARK PLAY and SPRAY AREA REVITALIZATION
October 29, 2013
Suggested PROJECT SCHEDULE
TASK May June July
NOTICE TO PROCEED
PRE-DESIGN
Project start-up
Survey (by City)
Geotechnical Analysis and Recommendations
Archeological/ Cultural Resources
DESIGN
Design Development (60%)
Submittals / review
Construction Documents (90%)
Submittals / review
Final Documents (100%)
PERMITTING by City/ Team assist
Pre-Application
Submittal preparation
Initial Submittal/Review
Second /Re-submittal/ Review
HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMIT - City/ MR/ Enginuity
Draft concept level Engineer's report
Concept Report to DOE/ DOH/ review
Finalize Report
Pre-Application meeting with Sno. County Health Dept
Submit to Health Department/ review
BIDDING and CONSTRUCTION
Bidding including advertising
Bid Award process
Construction (3 months)
Substantial Completion by June 26th
Final Completion by July 24th
Project closeout
Construction by Owner/ manufacturer/Community Build
Demolition work by Owner and construction fencing
SPRAY PLAY and PLAY EQUIPMENT PROJECT
MR conceptual design and grading of Spray Play area
City bidding and award
Manufacturer design of spray play and play
Team coordination with manufacturers
City purchase of play and spray equipment
Estimated 10 week delivery of equipment after purchase
April May June July
20142013
April FebJanSeptOctNovDecAugust March Aug Sept
Packet Page 310 of 333
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
SMALL WORKS CONTRACT
(For Use Only on Contracts of $300,000 or less)
Contract Title: City Park Spray Area
Contract Price:
Base Amount: $145,985.38
Sales Tax (8.9%): $13,868.61
Total: $159,853.99
Contractor:
Name: Aquatic Specialty Services
Address: 1605 South 93rd Street #EF
Seattle, Washington 98108
Phone No: 206-275-0694
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Edmonds, a
Washington municipal corporation (the “City”) and Buell Recreation (the “Contractor”).
In consideration of the payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made
and performed by the parties hereto, the parties covenant and agree to the following:
SCOPE OF WORK. The Contractor shall complete all work and furnish all materials,
equipment and labor in accordance with the [ x ] Bid Proposal Letter [ ] Memorandum of
Telephone Quote, attached hereto in Attachment A and made a part hereof by this reference.
BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY. The prime contract bidder shall be qualified pursuant to RCW
39.04.350, and shall submit a completed and signed Statement of Bidder Qualification form, a
copy of which is included in Attachment A.
CONTRACT PRICE. The Contractor shall perform the work for the price set forth in
Attachment A and above. Payment shall be made after the work is accepted by the City and the
City has received copies of Affidavits of Wages Paid for the work.
DURATION OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution
by the parties. All work under this contract shall be completed by September 2014.
Packet Page 311 of 333
Page 2
PREVAILING WAGES. The Contractor shall pay prevailing wages in accordance with
chapter 39.12 RCW. A completed Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages must be
submitted to the City for the prime contractor and each subcontractor prior to the first payment.
A completed Affidavit of Wages Paid must be submitted to the City for the prime contractor and
each subcontractor prior to final payment and/or release of retainage.
LABOR AND INDUSTRIES INSURANCE. The Contractor’s industrial insurance (workers’
compensation ) premium status shall be current with the Washington State Department of Labor
and Industries prior to commencement of work under this Agreement and shall be maintained
current for the duration of the Agreement.
RETAINAGE. An amount of five percent of the contract price may be retained by the City
until all requirements are completed, including satisfactory submittal of all required Affidavits of
Wages Paid and verification of current Labor and Industries industrial insurance premium status.
CHANGES. The City reserves the right to make changes to the scope of work by issuance of a
formal written change order at a mutually agreed adjustment in contract price.
DEFECTIVE OR UNAUTHORIZED WORK. The City reserves the right to withhold
payment from the Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective or unauthorized
work includes, without limitation: work and materials that do not conform to the requirements of
this Agreement, and extra work and materials furnished without the City’s written approval. If
the Contractor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion of the work, the
City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and the Contractor shall be liable to the
City for any additional costs incurred by the City. "Additional costs" means all reasonable costs
incurred by the City, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees, beyond the maximum contract
price under this Agreement. The City further reserves the right to deduct the cost to complete the
work, including any additional costs, from any amounts due or to become due to the Contractor.
WARRANTY. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within
one year from the date of the City’s acceptance of the work. When defects are corrected, the
warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year from the date such correction is
completed and accepted by the City. The Contractor shall begin to correct any defects within 7
days of its receipt of notice from the City of the defect. If the Contractor does not accomplish
the corrections within a reasonable time, the City may complete the correction and the
Contractor shall pay all costs incurred by the City to accomplish the correction.
HOLD HARMLESS. The Contractor shall perform all work at the Contractor’s risk and the
Contractor expressly agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and
employees from any and all claims, liability, loss, or damage(s), including costs and reasonable
attorneys fees for defense of the same that the City may suffer as a result of claims, liability, loss,
or damages to any and all persons or property, costs, or judgments against the City which result
from, arise out of, or are in any way connected with the work to be performed by Contractor
under this Contract. This expressly includes any and all claims by employees, subcontractors
and assignees of Contractor for which Contractor would have immunity under the Workers
Compensation Act for purposes of this indemnification only. The foregoing waiver was
mutually negotiated by the parties.
Packet Page 312 of 333
Page 3
INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain at its expense during the term of this
Agreement general liability insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence;
automobile liability (bodily injury and property insurance) in the minimum amount of
$1,000,000; and statutory worker’s compensation. The Contractor agrees to furnish the City
with a Certificate of Insurance as proof of the appropriate insurance coverage listed above prior
to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. The Contractor shall provide the City
with additional insured endorsements naming the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and
employees as additional insured for all relevant policies called for herein.
TERMINATION. The City may terminate this Agreement for good cause. "Good cause" shall
include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events:
1. The Contractor’s refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled
workers or proper materials for completion of the work.
2. The Contractor’s failure to complete the work within the time specified in this
Agreement.
3. The Contractor’s failure to make full and prompt payment to subcontractors or for
material or labor.
4. The Contractor’s failure to comply with any federal, state, or local laws, regulations,
rules, or ordinances.
5. The Contractor’s filing for bankruptcy or being adjudged bankrupt
If the City terminates this Agreement for good cause, the Contractor shall not receive any further
monies due under this Agreement until the Contract work is completed.
DATE: January 7, 2014.
CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACTOR
By: By:
(Signature) (Signature)
Printed Name: Printed Name:
Title: Title:
Packet Page 313 of 333
Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK (Bid Proposal Letter)
STATEMENT OF BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS
Packet Page 314 of 333
Page 5
STATEMENT OF BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS TO BE DECLARED RESPONSIBLE BIDDER
PURSUANT TO RCW 39.04.350
Name of Contractor
Address:
Phone Number: Fax Number:
Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries Worker’s Compensation Account No:
Washington State Dept. of Licensing Contractor’s Registration Number:
Expiration Date:
Washington State Uniform Business Identifier No.
(Must have before UBI number before the contract is awarded.)
Number of years the contractor has been engaged in the construction business under the present firm
name above:
At the time of bid submittal, did the contractor have a certificate of registration in compliance with
Chapter 18.27 RCW?
Does the contractor have industrial insurance coverage for its employees working in Washington as
required in Title 51 RCW?
Does the contractor have an employment security department number as required in Title 50 RCW?
(provide number):
Does the contractor have a state excise tax registration number as required in Title 82 RCW? (provide
number):
Has the contractor been disqualified from bidding on any public works contract under RCW 39.06.010 or
39.12.065(3)?
Has the contractor violated the “Off-site Prefabricated Non-Standard Project Specific Items” reporting
requirements more than one time as determined by the Department of Labor and Industries?
Pursuant to RCW 39.06.020, contractor further agrees to verify responsibility criteria for each of its
subcontractors and to require each of its subcontractors to both verify responsibility criteria for its
subcontractors and include instant condition for verification requirement.
Bidder Company Name
By
Signature
Title
Date
Packet Page 315 of 333
Estimate
Date
12/18/2013
Estimate #
1895
Name / Address
City of Edmonds
1605 South 93rd Street # EF
Seattle, WA 98108
206-275-0694
P.O. No.Terms
50% Deposit 50...
Project
Terms & Conditions: Subject to Net 30, unless otherwise stated. All credit card payments
are subject to 3% processing fee. All returns are subject tp restocking fees plus freight.
Balances past due accrue 1% finance charge. If project warrants for wage adjustment,
provider is to be notified & upon advisement conditions apply to reflect the additional wage
levels. All change orders written or oral are billable time plus material. Under no
circumstances will provider be responsible for or buyer be entitled to consequential damages
arising out of any delays in performance whatever. All uncertainties are billable per term.
Warranty complies with manufacturerfor period of 1 year and claim period 4 months.
Minimum order $250.00 excluding freight.Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.5%)
Item Description Qty Price Each Total
CITY OF EDMONDS
Second Vault
EF-E-08-12-4 Wall Mounted VFD Nema 12 5HP 480V 8max amp w/o
bypass 5HP
1 2,270.10 2,270.10T
EF-E-08-12-4 Wall Mounted VFD Nema 12 5HP 480V 8max amp w/o
bypass 3HP
1 2,270.10 2,270.10T
EF-E-26-12-4 Wall Mounted VFD Nema 12 480V w/o bypass 15hp 1 2,784.15 2,784.15T
EF-E-26-12-4 Wall Mounted VFD Nema 12 480V w/o bypass 1 2,784.15 2,784.15T
Hanovia CP-2 Photon 2 CONTROL PANEL 0.00 0.00T
PMD150D1/4AW UV unit, 480V Single Phase 1 15,964.65 15,964.65T
TR140C-3 Filter, Sand 140342 Commercial Black 2 1,356.16 2,712.32T
SM-30-AO Praher 3in Multi-port Valve 2 627.00 1,254.00T
Sand Sand, 50LB #20 Silica Filter Sand (925 ea filter sand
only)
37 7.21081 266.80T
FlowVisFV-C Flowmeter, Complete including check valve body. For 2"
& 2.5" pipe
2 125.16 250.32T
3-2536-P1 Sensor,Blue Top LO FLO Paddlewheel .3-20FPS PP
5"-8"
2 300.96 601.92T
IR8S080 8" Fitting Install Saddle Strap-on Iron Buna o-ring 2 214.56 429.12T
Miscellaneous Watts Stainless Steel Y-strainer 4"2 542.50 1,085.00T
375-01472 BW Site Glass 2 72.00 144.00T
17 Shipping & Handling 1 1,500.00 1,500.00T
WaterPlay Vault
0002-6461 Activator, Sprout, DEX G.Land 1 3,191.35 3,191.35T
0002-1772 Waterwise E-26 Controller, Potable W/Up Protection by
a surge suppression device is recommended. (0002-1113
is available from Waterplay)
1 7,644.80 7,644.80T
ECU-011 Controller Reprogram, E-Series Control 2 390.99 781.98T
0000-2212 HMI, Siemens, w/ Remote Access,Upgrade 1 2,805.43 2,805.43T
C06-AG018-QC Cabinet, 18 Valve, Above Ground Util IU. Contains
pre-assembled manifold and controller BFP and PRV
valve included
1 15,744.49 15,744.49T
Page 1
Packet Page 316 of 333
Estimate
Date
12/18/2013
Estimate #
1895
Name / Address
City of Edmonds
1605 South 93rd Street # EF
Seattle, WA 98108
206-275-0694
P.O. No.Terms
50% Deposit 50...
Project
Terms & Conditions: Subject to Net 30, unless otherwise stated. All credit card payments
are subject to 3% processing fee. All returns are subject tp restocking fees plus freight.
Balances past due accrue 1% finance charge. If project warrants for wage adjustment,
provider is to be notified & upon advisement conditions apply to reflect the additional wage
levels. All change orders written or oral are billable time plus material. Under no
circumstances will provider be responsible for or buyer be entitled to consequential damages
arising out of any delays in performance whatever. All uncertainties are billable per term.
Warranty complies with manufacturerfor period of 1 year and claim period 4 months.
Minimum order $250.00 excluding freight.Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.5%)
Item Description Qty Price Each Total
17 Shipping & Handling 30day quote -firm quote will be
provided at time of order
1 1,550.00 1,550.00T
0000-2573 10" Auto Divter/Strr Sys, 30" ID TK 1 10,719.93 10,719.93T
C02-561 Fun-Guy, Dex 1 x lady bug graphic/1x turtle graphic 2 5,392.535 10,785.07T
C02-541 Spinny Squirt, DEX 1 5,215.71 5,215.71T
C02-410 Wiggly JR., DEX 2 3,592.71 7,185.42T
C02-347 Ground Spray Lily Pad 3 758.38667 2,275.16T
C02-254 Ground Spray, Pop-It 6 861.63833 5,169.83T
C02-258 Ground Spray, Tilty Pop-It 6 879.75 5,278.50T
C02-061 Gound Spray, Spray Tunnel 4 with steady Stream Nozzles 3 1,768.12667 5,304.38T
C02-168 Action Plate 2 1,114.35 2,228.70T
0002-4931 Blue Bottle, DEX 1 8,244.05 8,244.05T
0002-6164 Dew Drop, DEX 1 6,255.69 6,255.69T
0002-6165 Morning Grass 1, DEX 1 4,955.33 4,955.33T
0002-6167 Morning Grass 3, DEX 1 4,955.33 4,955.33T
0000-2301 Air Brushed, Graphic Fun Guy 1x turtle,1x lady bug 2 688.80 1,377.60T
PRICING AND PAYMENT TERMS:
• Waterplay created layouts and designs are the property
of Waterplay and are protected under copyright law.
Should the customer choose not to proceed with
the Waterplay quotation for the project, Waterplay
reserves the right to charge for the creation of the design.
Designs provided to Waterplay will remain the
intellectual property of the designer.
• Shipping and handling charges are provided as an
estimate for planning purposes only and will be
confirmed prior to time of order.
Page 2
Packet Page 317 of 333
Estimate
Date
12/18/2013
Estimate #
1895
Name / Address
City of Edmonds
1605 South 93rd Street # EF
Seattle, WA 98108
206-275-0694
P.O. No.Terms
50% Deposit 50...
Project
Terms & Conditions: Subject to Net 30, unless otherwise stated. All credit card payments
are subject to 3% processing fee. All returns are subject tp restocking fees plus freight.
Balances past due accrue 1% finance charge. If project warrants for wage adjustment,
provider is to be notified & upon advisement conditions apply to reflect the additional wage
levels. All change orders written or oral are billable time plus material. Under no
circumstances will provider be responsible for or buyer be entitled to consequential damages
arising out of any delays in performance whatever. All uncertainties are billable per term.
Warranty complies with manufacturerfor period of 1 year and claim period 4 months.
Minimum order $250.00 excluding freight.Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.5%)
Item Description Qty Price Each Total
• Should “pre-shipment” of items (e.g. anchor hardware,
templates, bases, etc.) be required, an additional shipping
fee will apply if not already noted in the
quote.
shipments are FCA Origin or FOB Origin.
• Any price quotations above noted as “Estimates” will be
confirmed prior to the time of order.
• This quotation will expire 30days from estimate date
noted at the top of the quotation. Waterplay reserves the
right to adjust any prices after the Expiry Date.
• Should a pricing error be noted during the “Quote
Valid” time period, Waterplay reserves the right to revoke
and/or revise the quotation.
• Standard payment terms are 50% to begin production
and 50% prior to shipment unless otherwise noted under
Payment Terms at the top of the quotation.
• Cheque, Wire Transfer, Irrevocable Letter of Credit or
Credit Card (note; an administrative fee of 3.5% may
apply to partial payments made via Credit Card)
are considered acceptable payment methods.
Page 3
Packet Page 318 of 333
Estimate
Date
12/18/2013
Estimate #
1895
Name / Address
City of Edmonds
1605 South 93rd Street # EF
Seattle, WA 98108
206-275-0694
P.O. No.Terms
50% Deposit 50...
Project
Terms & Conditions: Subject to Net 30, unless otherwise stated. All credit card payments
are subject to 3% processing fee. All returns are subject tp restocking fees plus freight.
Balances past due accrue 1% finance charge. If project warrants for wage adjustment,
provider is to be notified & upon advisement conditions apply to reflect the additional wage
levels. All change orders written or oral are billable time plus material. Under no
circumstances will provider be responsible for or buyer be entitled to consequential damages
arising out of any delays in performance whatever. All uncertainties are billable per term.
Warranty complies with manufacturerfor period of 1 year and claim period 4 months.
Minimum order $250.00 excluding freight.Total
Subtotal
Sales Tax (9.5%)
Item Description Qty Price Each Total
LEAD TIMES & LOGISTICS:
• Estimated lead time for Waterplay standard features and
products is 6 to 8 weeks from time of order release PLUS
applicable transit time from Waterplay to
the shipping destination, assuming all necessary
documentation and payments have been received.
• Estimated lead time for non-standard products and
features (e.g. custom features, customer requested design
modifications, etc.) is 6 to 8 weeks from time of
order release PLUS applicable transit time from
Waterplay to the shipping destination, assuming all
necessary documentation and payments have been
received, unless otherwise noted in the description above.
• All products will be carefully wrapped and packaged to
mitigate loss or damage during shipment and meet local
regulations for importation.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
• Selection of features, colours and graphics should be
carefully considered prior to ordering as Waterplay
maintains a no-return policy.
• Should an order be cancelled after production has
commenced, Waterplay reserves the right to charge a 20
percent re-stocking fee.
•All equipment is UL or equivalent rated. Because you
are purchasing and designing second vault on site a
complete UL of all equipment as a package will have to
be obtained by owner
Price only includes listed parts
Pricing good for 30 days from date of estimate
Page 4
$159,853.99
$145,985.38
$13,868.61
Packet Page 319 of 333
CITY OF EDMONDS
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Request for Bid Proposals
City Park Water Spray Park
The City of Edmonds is requesting bid proposals for the design and supply of
equipment for the Water Spray Park at City Park, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
INSTRUCTIONS & GUIDELINES Bid proposals will be received for the design and supply of equipment for the City Park
Water Spray Park for the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
Department: All bid proposals are based on the specifications included in this packet.
1. City of Edmonds will award the selection based on the guidelines below.
2. Bid proposals should be mailed or hand delivered to:
City of Edmonds
Carrie Hite
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
3. Bid proposals must be received by 10:00 a.m. on November 12, 2013, in order
to be considered.
4. The water spray park must match the Instructions and Guidelines in this bid.
5. Questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Carrie Hite in
writing at carrie.hite@edmondswa.gov.
6. Area of Work
City Park
600 3rd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA
Water Spray Park Plan
The City will purchase all features and equipment (as noted) for the spray park from the
winner of this bid. The design will be a collaborative effort with the water spray
Packet Page 320 of 333
equipment company, our landscape architect and mechanical engineer, and City staff.
The Water Spray Park system design is a flow through system (not recirculating). Water
from the spray park will be treated and re-used for park irrigation, water trucks (filling
station), and flushing of toilets at the adjacent restroom during the summer season. This
system design is expected to be completed by our Mechanical Engineer and ready for
bid by the end of 2013. We plan to bid the construction of the water spray park with the
overall park play area renovation project. The City will coordinate the delivery of the
features and equipment, and the installation with the park general contractor.
Basic Design Guidelines
Note – refer to mechanical drawings & specifications for more detailed
requirements for products included in list below
Provide secure exterior above grade vault box (boxes) for housing any above
grade equipment and controls for the system. No buildings will be provided to
house any equipment, pumps or controls.
o Vault shall be constructed of metal frame with removable panels to allow
access to equipment & panels at all 4 sides of vault.
o Vault size shall be approximately 10x10x4’.
o Vault shall be finished with weather resistant epoxy or similar finish
suitable for exterior installation.
System controls
o Spray park control panel
Panel shall control spray park functions
Provide panel with outputs for control of pumps/VFD’s for all
systems listed above.
Panel shall sequence recirculation & treatment system w/
autobackwash valves/functions, UV operation, etc.
o Electrical connections panel/junction box for spray park system (single
point electrical feed for spray park system)
Note that main pumps will be powered directly from electrical panel
at site NOT spray park panel, but will receive control inputs from
spray park panel
o VFD’s for system pumps
Provide (1) VFD for each of (4) system pumps
Water recirculation/treatment in storage tank
Irrigation system supply
Truck fill station supply
Restroom system supply
VFD’s shall be NEMA 12, with integral pump protection/monitoring
features
Spray feature manifold
o Manifold shall be mounted in equipment vault.
o Provide 1 valve/line at manifold for each water feature included with spray
pad layout
Water treatment system
Packet Page 321 of 333
o Water treatment system shall be mounted in equipment vault.
o UV water treatment unit
3.5kW medium pressure type
480v/3ph power supply (provide with transformer if necessary)
o (2) Sand filters for water treatment
Rain diverter (with integral strainer basket)
Water features for spray pad (ground sprays and vertical features)
o Spray pad layout shall be designed for flow rates between 22-140 gpm.
o Pad layout shall accommodate low-flow feature sequencing down to
approximately 22 gpm with multiple features activated
Activators for spray pad
Note that pumps & water storage tank are NOT intended to be provided or
quoted with this RFP.
What to submit with this Bid
Color presentation board (24” x 36” max) should include but not limited to:
o Attachment A: Complete manufacturer’s parts specifications;
o Attachment B: Layout drawing to scale of the proposed water spray
park features (including overspray zones) and equipment
Cost broken down in categories by but must not exceed $146,000 excluding tax:
Water features
Activators
Water filtration system include UV, filters, etc.
Diverter
Vaults boxes
Spray feature control panel & control components
VFD’s for system pumps
Engineering support and start-up for the system
Shipping costs and delivery schedule from time of order placement.
Training for parks staff on maintenance and operating systems.
List of references in Washington State
Product cutsheets for all components used in system (filters, UV, valves,
controllers, water features, etc.). Cutsheets showing multiple sizes or products
shall indicate which sizes are being provided with system.
The Bidder on this Proposal is NOT Responsible for the Following
Design or engineering of any mechanical, electrical, water service system
needed to supply the water spray park.
Spray play pad, adjacent walls, columns or stairs.
Design or engineering of other site work or general contractors work not related
to the water spray park.
Water Spray Park Bids
Packet Page 322 of 333
Maximum expenditure for all cost related to this proposal (equipment, and associated
design and engineering support) is $146,000 excluding tax. We have attached a pad
design including trench drain from our Landscape Architect. We will interview and
select the preferred company by November 21, 2013. Features and equipment will be
purchased directly by the City of Edmonds by early to mid-January of 2014. Mechanical
design and engineering is to be completed by our mechanical engineer. Coordination
with our Mechanical Engineer and Landscape Architect will be required after this
selection process in order to complete construction documents by the end of 2013.
Additional Comments
Items quoted shall be F.O.B. Edmonds, Washington 98020.
City of Edmonds reserves the right to make any minor deviations which could be
considered beneficial to the City.
WATER SPRAY PARK SELECTION
City of Edmonds will award the contract /purchase to the best proposal according to
their best judgment. We would like to get the most equipment with the best design for
the money available while meeting the low-flow and other requirements outlined in the
RFP. The review panel will be looking at the number of play opportunities, uniqueness
and overall quality of equipment. The City reserves the right to reject any or all quotes
for cause and to waive any formalities. The evaluation matrix is as follows:
Best value for cost 30 points
Creative design 20 points
Play value 20 points
Quality of equipment 20 points
References 10 points
Planned Schedule
RFP advertised October 28th, 2013
Proposals due 10:00 AM November 12th, 2013
Interviews with top two or three companies November 18th, 2013
Award/ Proposal selection November 21st, 2013
City Council final approval December 3, 2013
Complete contract December 6, 2013
Completed design/ coordination with LA/ team December 31st, 2013
Bid construction project February 2014
Completed construction July 24th, 2014
Packet Page 323 of 333
AM-6462 18.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/07/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #9 with David Evans & Associates for the Five
Corners Roundabout project.
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #9.
Previous Council Action
On July 12, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Standard Consultant
Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project.
On July 17, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #3 with David Evans &
Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project.
On October 9, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #4 with David Evans &
Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project.
On June 18, 2013, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David
Evans & Associates for additional utility, stormwater, and illumination work for the Five Corners
Roundabout project.
On November 19, 2013, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #8 with
David Evans & Associates for additional electrical services to support the art sculpture for the Five
Corners Roundabout project.
Narrative
The final design for the Five Corners Roundabout project is close to completion and the project will be
advertised for construction bids in February. During the review of the consultant’s final plans and
specifications, the City identified the following additional services to complete the documents:
Geotechnical Services – complete two borings where the proposed stormwater detention vault will
be built. The soil and groundwater information will be used to confirm shoring requirements,
structural calculations for the vault and suitability of on-site soils for backfill.
Waterline Replacement – Adjust the waterline design so new pipes and valves are not within the
central island. Develop a temporary water service plan to eliminate and/or reduce short term water
Packet Page 324 of 333
service interruptions during construction. Revise a proposed waterline service based on a recent
change to an existing water meter location. Adjust the stormwater pipe design on 84th Ave to
avoid a conflict during the placement of the new watermain.
Incorporate specifications and details for way-findings signs and concrete text inlay.
Revise the plans, specifications and estimates to incorporate the above described changes.
The additional services will provide important information and details to help contractor’s bid the project
and reduce the likelihood of changes during construction.
The total fee for the supplemental agreement is $17,219 and will be paid by the stormwater and water
utility funds and street fund. Construction is anticipated to begin in Spring 2014.
Attachments
Supplemental Agreement #9
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 01/02/2014 01:59 PM
Public Works Kody McConnell 01/02/2014 02:03 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/02/2014 02:09 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/02/2014 02:17 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/02/2014 02:18 PM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/02/2014 12:27 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/02/2014
Packet Page 325 of 333
Packet Page 326 of 333
Exhibit A-1
Five Corners Roundabout
Intersection Improvement Project
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Supplement No. 9
Prepared for:
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98005-3518
(425) 519-6500
December 30, 2013
Packet Page 327 of 333
P:\c\COED00000003\0000CON\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 9 - Waterline Redesign\Exhibit A-1_DEA Scope_Five Corners Roundabout_2013-1230.docx
City of Edmonds 1 Supplement No. 9
Five Corners Roundabout Project December 30, 2013
City of Edmonds
Five Corners Roundabout
Intersection Improvement Project
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Supplement No. 9
Introduction
Supplement No. 9 modifies the original agreement dated August 5, 2011, and Supplements 1 through 8,
with the following revisions.
Additional Task 8.0 and Task 12.0 Scope of Service items are listed below.
Section 8.0 PS&E Design
8.2 Geotechnical Services
Section 8.2 is supplement with the following:
The CONSULTANT shall conduct the following:
o Coordinate geotechnical engineering for drilling two additional borings at the proposed
stormwater detention vault.
o See attached geotechnical scope of services for other items.
8.7 Construction Documents (100% Completion Level)
Section 8.7 is supplement with the following:
The CONSULTANT shall conduct the following:
o Incorporate the City’s new way-findings signs program. The CONSULTANT shall
incorporate way-finding signs plan sheets and specifications in the project’s PS&E
document. Way-finding signs detail designs (i.e., post foundation, sign layout and details,
sign connections) are not included as part of this Scope of Services.
o Incorporate sculpture’s name into the concrete. It is assumed the artist will provide all
details and specifications for the name stamp. The CONSULTANT shall revise the plans
and specifications for this work.
Section 12.0 Waterline Design
12.5 Waterline Re-Design Per 100% Comments
The CONSULTANT shall conduct the following:
o Based on comments received at the 100% comments meeting, the CONSULTANT shall
re-design the water line so the water pipes are not under the roundabout central island.
Packet Page 328 of 333
P:\c\COED00000003\0000CON\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 9 - Waterline Redesign\Exhibit A-1_DEA Scope_Five Corners Roundabout_2013-1230.docx
City of Edmonds 2 Supplement No. 9
Five Corners Roundabout Project December 30, 2013
o The CONSULTANT shall revise the waterline plans, profiles, and notes based on the
revisions mentioned above.
o The CONSULTANT shall update the engineer’s cost estimate based on the revisions
mentioned above.
12.6 Addressing Other Waterline 100% Comments
The CONSULTANT shall revise the waterline plans, profiles, and notes based on new waterline and
sanitary sewer service information presented at the 100% comments meeting. This new information
includes:
o Side sewer service at the new stormwater detention vicinity.
o On 84th Avenue W, re-design storm pipe to avoid supporting the existing waterline due to
the length of the open trench for the storm pipe installation.
o Revise the waterline service connections along Bowdoin Way due to updated existing
water meter locations.
o Install water service meters for the temporary jump system.
o Create a new plan sheet for the temporary jump system.
Packet Page 329 of 333
P:\c\COED00000003\0000CON\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 9 - Waterline Redesign\Exhibit A-1_DEA Scope_Five Corners Roundabout_2013-1230.docx
City of Edmonds 3 Supplement No. 9
Five Corners Roundabout Project December 30, 2013
GeoEngineer’s Scope of Services
Packet Page 330 of 333
Flie No. 00138-028-00
ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT
BOWDIN WAY, 212TH STREET SW AND 84TH AVENUE W
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
GeoEngineers is pleased to present our proposed scope of services for additional geotechnical engineering
services for the Five Corners Roundabout project located at the intersection of Bowdoin Way,
212th Street SW, Main Street, and 84th Avenue W in Edmonds, Washington. Our additional geotechnical
engineering services are requested to complete two additional borings at the location of a new detention
vault and to provide an addendum memorandum. Our additional geotechnical engineering services will
include the following tasks:
1. Mark Boring Locations and Complete Utility Locate
a. Arrange for traffic control and mark boring locations in the field. We assume a street use
permit is not required for drilling the borings for this City project (the borings will take
approximately 2 to 4 hours, each).
b. Complete a site visit to meet with utility representatives and clear boring locations.
2. Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing
a. Evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the proposed detention vault
area by drilling two hollow-stem auger borings to a depth of about 25 feet. We
understand the excavation for the vault will be up to about 15 feet below the existing
pavement surface. Disturbed soil samples will be collected for laboratory testing. The
field exploration will be completed under the direction of a geotechnical engineer or
geologist from our firm. Our representative will maintain a detailed log of the exploration
and obtain samples of the various materials encountered. We assume soil cuttings will
not be contaminated and we will have the driller haul the cuttings off-site for disposal.
b. Perform laboratory tests on representative samples of the soils, including tests for
moisture content and particle size distribution.
c. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the soils based on the
results of the field exploration, laboratory testing and our experience.
3. Provide an Addendum Geotechnical Memorandum Including:
a. A summary of subsurface soil conditions encountered based on results of our previous
tasks above.
b. Confirm our previous recommendations for earthwork and site preparation including
suitability of on-site soils for reuse as backfill and subgrade preparation for the vault.
c. Confirm our previous recommendations for temporary slopes and provide geotechnical
parameters for temporary shoring and construction dewatering considerations.
d. Provide geotechnical parameters for below-grade wall design including lateral
pressures and resistance, buoyancy evaluation and allowable bearing pressures.
Packet Page 331 of 333
Supplement No. 9
Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Fixed Fee
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
City of Edmonds
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Direct
Classification Rate Hours Cost
1 Managing Professional Engr/QC (MGPE)57.00$ 15 $855
2 Professional Engineer (PFEN)42.00$ 45 $1,890
3 CADD Manager (CADM)38.00$ 1 $38
4 Sr. CADD Technician (SCAD)32.50$ 15 $488
Total Hours 76
Salary Cost $3,271
Overhead Cost @ 184.46%of Direct Labor $6,033
Net Fee @ 28.00%of Direct Labor $916
Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost $6,949
Direct Expenses Unit Each No.Cost
Reproduction: Reports reports @ $15 /report 0 $0
Reproduction: Plan Sets sets @ $10 /set 0 $0
Mail/Deliveries/Fed Ex @ $20 0 $0
Mileage miles @ $0.565 /mile 0 $0
High Definition Scanning Equip.days @ $520 /day 0 $0
Traffic Counts Vendor $0
Subtotal $0
David Evans and Associates Total $10,219
Subconsultants:Costs
GeoEngineers - Geotechnical Engineering $7,000
Subconsultant Totals $7,000
Total Costs $17,219
P:\c\COED00000003\0000CON\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 9 - Waterline Redesign\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget_Five Corners_2013-1230.xls
Page 1 of 2
Printed: 12/30/2013Packet Page 332 of 333
Exhibit E-1 Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
City of Edmonds
David Evans and Associates, Inc.1 2 3 4
Work
Element #Work Element Ma
n
a
g
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
En
g
r
/
Q
C
(
M
G
P
E
)
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
(P
F
E
N
)
CA
D
D
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
(
C
A
D
M
)
Sr
.
C
A
D
D
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
(
S
C
A
D
)
DEA DEA
direct rates:$57.00 $42.00 $38.00 $32.50 Total Total
Total Total Total Total Total Total
hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs $
8.0 PS&E Design
8.2 Geotechnical Services 4 4 $712
8.7 Construction Documents (100% Completion Level)
8.7.6 Way-Findings Signs 2 2 $356
8.7.7 Sculpture Name Concrete Imprint 2 1 3 $458
Work Element 8.0 Total 8 1 9 $1,526
12.0 Waterline Design
12.5 Waterline Re-design Per 100% Comments (Plan/Profile/Utility Conflict Resolution) 4 24 1 8 37 $4,793
12.6 Addressing Other 100% Comments
Side Sewer Design and Conflict Resolution 2 2 $262
Storm redesign along 84th to minimize open cut on waterline 1 2 3 $441
Waterline connection redesign along Bowdoin Way 1 1 $131
Temporary jump system 2 16 6 24 $3,065
Work Element 12.0 Total 7 45 1 14 67 $8,693
Direct Expenses
PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS 15 45 1 15 76 $10,219
Supplement No. 9
P:\c\COED00000003\0000CON\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 9 - Waterline Redesign\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget_Five Corners_2013-1230.xls
Page 2 of 2
Printed: 12/30/2013
Packet Page 333 of 333