2014.01.21 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
JANUARY 21, 2014
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-6516 Approval of City Council meeting minutes of January 7, 2014.
B.AM-6510 Approval of claim checks #206317 through #206461 dated January 9, 2014 for
$742,035.44 and claim checks #206462 through #206630 dated January 16, 2014 for
$3,275,046.74. Approval of payroll check #60758 for $445.64 for the period December
16, 2013 through December 31, 2013. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks
#60759 through #60771 and wire payments of $453,505.97, benefit checks #60772
through #60778 and wire payments of $200,862.79 for the period January 1, 2014
through January 15, 2014.
C.AM-6496 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Douglas C. Halbert ($2,841.36),
Tom Russell ($15,339.03), Tom Russell (17,377.82), and Larry La Porte (Amount
undetermined).
D.AM-6475 2013 November Budgetary Financial Report
E.AM-6514 Ordinance Limiting Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along
Designated Ground Floor Street Frontages Within the Downtown Business 1 (BD1 -
Downtown Retail Core) Zone.
F.AM-6469 Refunding 2003 Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bond Refunding
Ordinance
G.AM-6502 Motion to dispose of Surplus Police Property via Propertyroom.com Auction website.
Packet Page 1 of 544
H.AM-6511 Amendment of Certain Dog Licensing Fees (ECC 5.05.020)
I.AM-6512 Contract for Services with PETDATA, INC. for Dog Licensing
J.AM-6507 Adoption of ordinance implementing residential parking permit fee increase in
accordance with the 2014 adopted City budget.
K.AM-6503 Authorization for Mayor to sign a grant agreement with the Transportation
Improvement Board for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project
L.AM-6505 Authorization for Mayor to sign the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with
the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
M.AM-6500 Authorization for Mayor to Sign Interlocal Agreement with Public Hospital District #2,
Snohomish County, to Provide an Exercise Program
N.AM-6508 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer
Agreement for 645 9th Avenue North
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
5.(15 Minutes)
AM-6515
Adoption of Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 2.10 related to
Confirmation and Duties of City Officers
6.(20 Minutes)
AM-6498
Public hearing and potential action on AT&T/Busch Law Firm proposal to amend the
Edmonds Community Development Code to address the legal status of existing
wireless communication facilities that were built prior to or just after adoption of
Edmonds' original wireless ordinance (AMD20130005).
7.(30 Minutes)
AM-6499
Public hearing and potential action on clarifications to wireless regulations in ECDC
20.50 and 17.40.020 (AMD20130016).
8.(15 Minutes)
AM-6509
Presentation on the 2014 Pavement Preservation Program.
9.(15 Minutes)
AM-6517
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of January 14, 2014.
10.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
11.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
12.(15 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
13.(5 Minutes)Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 544
AM-6516 3. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
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 January 7, 2014.
Recommendation
Review and approval of draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The January 7, 2014 draft minutes are attached.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 01/07/2014 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/16/2014 04:45 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 3 of 544
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
January 7, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Thea Ocfemia, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
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 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(b)
At 6:37 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Police Chief Al
Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session
concluded at 6:48 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the flag salute.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Snohomish County Councilmember Stephanie Wright administered the oath of office to Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas.
Mayor Earling administered the oath of office to Councilmembers Peterson and Johnson.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Packet Page 4 of 544
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2013
B. 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. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KYLE
BLACKWELL ($1,172.81), JACK LANUM (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND
CLAIRE HEDMAN ($1,791.12)
D. APPROVAL OF WSLCB DECEMBER 2013 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
E. RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER LORA PETSO FOR HER SERVICE
AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
F. APPROVAL OF BOND COUNSEL CONTRACT FOR AUTHORIZED REFUNDING OF
UTGO BONDS
G. 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. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014
Mayor Earling read the procedures for election of the Council President: Edmonds City Code Section
1.02.031 states the City Council shall elect a Council President and Council President Pro Tem at the first
Council meeting of each year. Unless the Council adopts a motion directing an alternative procedure,
nominations and elections of these offices will be conducted by the City Council’s customary voice vote
process. First, he will call for nominations. No Councilmember may nominate more than one person for a
given office until every member wishing to nominate a candidate has had an opportunity to do so.
Nominations do not require a second. After nominations are closed, he will call for the vote in the order
nominations were made. As soon as a nominee receives four votes, he will declare the Council President
elected and no votes will be taken on the remaining nominees. In the event a vote on any candidate results
in a 3-3 tie, he has been advised by the City Attorney that he is entitled to break the tie pursuant to RCW
35.A.12.100. Following the election of the Council President, he will conduct the election of the Council
President Pro Tem in the same manner.
Packet Page 5 of 544
Councilmember Petso suggested not using the voice vote procedure but rather elect a new Council
President by ballot because under the voice vote procedure which an email from the City Attorney
indicated would apply unless the Council passed a motion authorizing a different procedure, voting will
be in the order of the nominations and would require Councilmembers to vote against the first candidate
nominated if they supported the second candidate nominated. She preferred the Council not vote against
any nominee but rather vote by ballot. According to Roberts Rules, voting by voice is used when an
election is not strongly contested and in her estimation, this has been a contested election. Further, it is
not generally a suitable method for electing the officers of organized societies and she considered the City
Council to be an organized society.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
ELECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 BY BALLOT. UPON ROLL CALL, THERE
WAS A TIE VOTE (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, PETSO AND
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, AND PETERSON
VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie.
MAYOR EARLING VOTED NO, AND THE MOTION FAILED (3-4).
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO NOMINATED ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON NOMINATED DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014.
There were no further nominations.
Councilmember Petso explained during her term as Council President, she owed thanks to many people
including Councilmember Fraley-Monillas who participated in Monday meetings with her and Mayor
Earling to discuss the upcoming Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas performed her duties
during 2013 in an outstanding manner and should be the next Council President.
Councilmember Peterson commented although any Councilmember was qualified and deserving of the
position of Council President, he had great confidence in Councilmember Buckshnis’ ability to work well
with administration, staff and other Councilmembers. Having served as Council President himself, he was
aware the relationship between the administration and Council was crucial. Although he had confidence
in Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ abilities, he felt Councilmember Buckshnis could lead the Council in
2014 in a very positive manner.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her reasons for supporting Councilmember Fraley-Monillas as Council
President; first, the custom established by Council that the Council President tends to be the most senior
person on the Council who had not been Council President previously and typically the Council President
Pro Tem was elected as Council President. Additionally, Councilmember Bloom explained in her two
years on Council, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas has always responded to her requests to discuss issues,
listened attentively to her opinions, never lectured or maligned her or criticized her position on any issues,
has been respectful and supportive even when they disagreed, and she has been very generous with her
time to assist her in understanding processes and issues.
Finally, Councilmember Bloom recognized the stress Councilmember Fraley-Monillas experienced
running for office while serving on the Council, made especially stressful because Mayor Earling chose to
endorse and actively support the candidate who was running in opposition to her. Despite this,
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas demonstrated a high degree of professionalism, integrity and an
Packet Page 6 of 544
astounding amount of grace in the face of the attacks from the opposition. Councilmember Bloom
summarized Councilmember Fraley-Monillas would be an excellent leader for the Council and for all
those reasons deserved to be appointed the new Council President.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3);
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie. Mayor Earling explained his primary
interest was a fully functioning government. If there were differences on the Council, he was hopeful the
sides could be brought together for a more positive working environment.
MAYOR EARLING VOTED IN FAVOR OF DIANE BUCKSHNIS, AND THE NOMINATION OF
DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 CARRIED (4-
3).
City Clerk Scott Passey announced Diane Buckshnis was elected Council President for a one year term
ending with the first meeting in 2015.
7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS NOMINATED LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION
OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014.
There were no further nominations.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS
BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso relayed she was remiss in failing to nominate Councilmember Bloom; based on
seniority and Councilmembers who had not yet served in a Council leadership role, Councilmember
Bloom would be ahead of Councilmember Johnson.
Council President Buckshnis recalled the issue of seniority was researched last year and there is nothing
in the code that addresses seniority.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3); COUNCIL
PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING
YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie.
Packet Page 7 of 544
MAYOR EARLING VOTED IN FAVOR OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON, AND THE NOMINATION
OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR
2014 CARRIED (4-3).
City Clerk Scott Passey announced Kristiana Johnson was elected Council President Pro Tem for a one
year term ending with the first meeting in 2015.
8. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2014
Committee Representative
Parks, Planning, & Public Works Councilmember Bloom and Position #6
Finance Committee Councilmembers Petso (Chair) and Johnson
Public Safety and Personnel Committee Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas
Citywide Parking Committee Position #6 and Councilmember Peterson
Community Technology Advisory Committee Position #6
Community Transit Mayor Earling and Council President Buckshnis
(Alt)
Disability Board (Appointed by Mayor)
Economic Development Commission Councilmembers Johnson and Peterson
Highway 99 Task Force Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Johnson
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Councilmembers Petso and Johnson
Lake Ballinger Work Group Councilmember Peterson
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Position #6
PFD Oversight Committee Councilmember Petso
PFD Task Force Councilmembers Peterson and Petso
Port of Edmonds Councilmember Bloom
Regional Fire Authority Councilmembers Peterson and Petso and Mayor
Earling
SeaShore Transportation Forum Position #6
Snohomish County Emergency Radio System
Governing Board
Councilmember Peterson
SNOCOM Position #6
Snohomish Health District Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
Snohomish County Tomorrow Council President Buckshnis and Councilmember
Johnson (Alt)
Salmon Recovery – WRIA-8 Council President Buckshnis
Tree Board Liaison Councilmember Bloom
Council President Buckshnis advised the Finance Committee meetings will be moved back to the Jury
Room.
9. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1311, APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION
Packet Page 8 of 544
Councilmember Petso observed the alternate last year was Councilmember Johnson and asked why it had
been changed. Council President Buckshnis responded it was changed at Councilmember Johnson’s
request.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1312, APPOINTING MAYOR EARLING AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AS THE ALTERNATE TO THE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jim Hendricks, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset Avenue, relayed the residents on Sunset Avenue support
the new walkway but would like to have further discussion regarding its construction. He suggested
removing the sidewalk on the east side to widen the right-of-way and keep all pedestrian traffic on the
new walkway on the west side and bicycles on the east side away from pedestrians. The current situation
makes it difficult for residents to enter/exit their driveways. He questioned the survey that was done,
relaying a recent survey he had done found 80% of the sidewalk is on his property. He summarized
Sunset Avenue is a beautiful place and everyone should have an opportunity to enjoy it in a safe manner.
Dave Page, Edmonds, expressed concern with the dissention on the Council. He hoped the Council
could work together for a better Edmonds and stop the sibling rivalry.
12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER LORA PETSO FOR
HER SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Councilmember Buckshnis presented Resolution 1310 thanking Councilmember Petso for her service as
Council President during 2013.
Councilmember Petso thanked everyone who assisted during her term as Council President which
includes some members of the public, City staff and Council. She gave particular thanks to
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas who was a model Council President Pro Tem; she did not interfere
unnecessarily but was there for her when she needed assistance. She also thanked Senior Council
Assistant Jana Spellman for her assistance. She echoed Mr. Page’s comments regarding the importance of
the Council working together and ensuring the guiding principle of Council decisions is what is best for
the City.
13. UPDATE FROM THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION
Michelle Van Tassell, Chair, Sister City Commission (SCC), relayed the Commission has had a very
full, fun-filled, busy 2013. She introduced Michelle Rockstead, Student Representative. Ms. Van
Tassell described highlights of 2013:
• Organization and Programs
o Rita Ikeda – Vice Chair
o Three vacancies
o Student Representative: Michelle Rockstead
• Hosted 37 member adult delegation from Hekinan, Japan, marking 25 year anniversary of Sister
City relationship
o Cultural Fair
o Halloween Celebration
o Tour of Edmonds Community College International Program
Packet Page 9 of 544
o Tour of Swedish Hospital Cancer Center
o Tour of Boeing
o Friendship Dinner (over 200 current and past local supporters of the Sister City program)
o Afternoon at Gallagher’s – brewed, bottled and labeled commemorative beer
• Assisted in recruiting, interviewing and hiring of new Assistant English Teacher (AET)
• Outreach
o Edmonds Historical Museum
o Friends of Edmonds Library
o Chamber of Commerce
o Both Rotary Clubs
o Floretum Garden Club
o Olympic Ballet
• 2014 Planning
o Student delegation July/August
o Cultural Event
o Funds building
Council President Buckshnis thanked the Sister City Commission for the great time the Hekinan
delegation had this year. She acknowledged the receipt of a very nice letter from the Commission
thanking her and her husband for their donation.
SCC Student Representative Michelle Rockstead explained her plans are to get more people involved
with the SCC especially student volunteers and assisting with the student delegation going to Hekinan in
July and the student delegation from Hekinan in August. She also plans to develop a slideshow to assist
with recruiting student volunteers and future student representatives and making connections with student
volunteers, especially Kamiak High School students.
Mayor Earling commented on his participation in the adult delegation to Hekinan and with the delegation
that visited Edmonds from Hekinan, noting the SCC is an extraordinary working committee. He thanked
the SCC for the remarkable work they do.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the SCC for a wonderful cultural exchange, remarking she was not sure
whether she enjoyed the Halloween party or the Friendship Dinner more.
Ms. Van Tassell advised there are three openings on the SCC. She agreed the SCC had nine very strong,
dedicated and devoted Commissioners. She recognized Beth Ferman and Kay Vreeland in the audience.
14. PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY REPORT
Planning Board Member Val Stewart advised she is the outgoing Vice Chair; Todd Cloutier is the 2014
Chair and Neil Tibbott is the Vice Chair. The Planning Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesday
of each month at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. Meetings are open to the public
and citizens are highly encouraged to attend so that concerns and comments are addressed early on and
incorporated into the Planning Board’s discussions before making recommendations to City Council.
The Planning Board is a group of volunteer citizens who review findings, research, conduct public
hearings and discuss matters related to land use. The Planning Board serves in an advisory capacity to the
Mayor and City Council in regional and local planning issues and ultimately forwards recommendations
to the City Council for consideration. Ms. Stewart provided highlights of recent meetings:
1. Public Hearing on Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element update for 2014-2019 to City’s
Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program for 2014-2019 (9/25/13).
Packet Page 10 of 544
• CFP is mandated by GMA and is intended to identify longer-term capital needs (not
maintenance) to implement the City’s level of service standards and growth projection. The
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is used as a budgeting tool and includes both capital and
maintenance projects.
• Proposed updates in the CFP 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.
• Planning Board recommended that these two plans be forwarded to Council for consideration
and a public hearing was held before Council in November.
2. Work session and public hearing on whether to include a definition of “reasonable economic” use
within the City’s Critical Area Regulations (9/25/13, 11/13/13).
• Council adopted Interim Ordinance 3931 in July which deleted the definition of “reasonable
economic use” from the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).
• Planning Board recommended the first sentence in the definition be retained as it provides
some direction to property owners by telling them that the applicable state and federal
constitutional provisions would apply.
• The City intends to hire a consulting team to thoroughly review the City’s existing CAO and
its consistency with BAS and current State policies at the end of this year.
3. Two work sessions on proposed amendments to Title 23 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code to bring the Critical Area Regulations into consistency with Best Available
Science (9/25/13, 11/13/13).
• Discussed potential buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development within the
already developed footprint and within areas physically separated and functionally isolated
from the critical area.
• Held a public hearing on a Council adopted interim ordinance (8/14/13) followed by a
lengthy discussion (08/28/13). Purpose of the interim ordinance was to bring existing CAO
into more consistent compliance with the Best Available Science (BAS) Report that was
developed with the 2004 CAO Update.
• In light of two pending projects, a conflict in language between the BAS and the CAO was
discovered. The discrepancy had to do with how development in previously developed
buffers is characterized in the BAS Report which talks about “developed footprint;” whereas
the CAO limits it to “structures” as opposed to “development within a previously developed
footprint.”
• Discussion topics included development thresholds, definitions, enhancement ratios and
enhancement requirements (such as stormwater and low-impact development and planting
and/or removal of vegetation to promote wildlife habitat restoration) as well as monitoring
performance and maintenance of enhancement installations.
• The overall intent of the CAO is to allow minor improvements in exchange for improving the
situation through enhancement over time. The interim ordinance expires after six months, and
the proposed amendments would make the changes permanent until the next CAO review.
• The City updates its CAO in 2015 as required by GMA. In the meantime, Planning Board is
continuing its discussions and will return to Council with recommendations on specific
language for the proposed amendment to the CAO based on the interim ordinance under
review.
4. 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 (10/9/13).
• In June 2011, after extensive discussions, the Planning Board forwarded recommendations to
Council limiting uses on the ground floor of designated street fronts in the BD-1 zones.
Aspects of this proposal had been first considered by City Council and then by the Economic
Development Commission, over the past two plus years. Planning Board recommendations
Packet Page 11 of 544
have been forwarded to Council along with a notation to specifically consider the 90-day vs
180-day timeframe for nonconformance.
• Public hearing tonight following this report, to allow any additional public comment for
Council consideration.
5. Study session and public hearing regarding AT&T Mobility and the Busch Law Firm’s
application to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code (10/9/13, 12/11/13).
• This addresses the legal status of existing wireless communication facilities that were built
prior to and just after adoption of Edmonds’ original wireless ordinance. AT&T Mobility
brought this specific site issue forward at the August 14, 2013 Planning Board meeting. A
wireless facility located on a downtown building is currently unpermitted.
• After reviewing all possible alternatives, AT&T Mobility was advised to apply for a code
amendment to allow legal nonconformity of the existing facility at that site.
• A public hearing was held on clarifications to Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
regulations in ECDC 20.50 and 17.40.020. The public hearing was extended to January 8.
6. Discussion on potential issues related to I-502 (Cannabis) implementation in Edmonds (10/913).
• On August 20, City Council adopted Ordinance 3938, establishing an immediate emergency
moratorium on all marijuana related business activities. The moratorium expires in February.
• 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 and come up with appropriate regulations when the
state starts issuing licenses for the production, processing and retail sales of recreational
marijuana this spring. Edmonds was allocated two recreational marijuana retail sales
locations.
• City Council discussed marijuana issues on September 3 and asked Planning Board to
continue working on this issue. Planning Board discussed related issues at October 9 meeting.
• Planning Board will have another work session on 1-502 Implementation on January 8, and a
public hearing is scheduled for February 12.
7. Park Update Report (10/23/13)
• Parks and Recreation/Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite reported on the progress of the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS). The City hired MIG, Inc. to assist staff in
updating the PROS Plan as well as the Community Cultural Plan; work started June 2013.
The consultants visited all of the parks, recreation, and cultural facilities and programs,
particularly noting their condition and capacity. Consultant also reviewed the City’s current
operating and capital funding for parks. A Needs Assessment was created along with
geographic mapping to determine Level of Service. There has been extensive public process.
• A team was assembled, including many citizens, to provide input and guidance which has
culminated in a draft that is now in the 60 day review period. It is currently posted on the
website for comment before being finalized in February. Board member Lovell and Stewart
are on PROS team. The goal is to have the plan finalized and adopted by March 1. There will
be a public hearing first before Planning Board and then before City Council.
8. Reviewed Park Naming Policy (10/23/13)
• Ms. Hite provided research from numerous jurisdictions to inform discussion. Board is
reviewing specific language in the Park Naming Policy and striving to come up with more
clear guidelines that include cultural services and recreation facilities. Naming rights with
conditional dollar donations were also discussed. Current policy for Park Naming involves
the public, Planning Board and City Council. Changes to the Park Naming Policy require a
public hearing before the Board and a recommendation to City Council.
• City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 22.
9. Two Work sessions on Westgate plan and form based code. (11/13/13, 12/11/13)
Packet Page 12 of 544
• Presentations and discussions of the Westgate Plan started in 2012. Two more work sessions
occurred in November and December of 2013.
• Purpose of work sessions was for the Board to review the overall approach proposed by staff
and provide feedback on three sets of plans and code changes:
o Comprehensive Plan Changes
o Code Changes to Implement the Westgate Study
o Design Standards for the Westgate Mixed Use District
• A public hearing on the Westgate Plan and Form Based Code is tentatively scheduled for
February 12, 2014.
Ms. Stewart offered special thanks to an exceptional staff and directors who work very hard to carry out
the direction of the Council and Mayor who also give so much of their time, energy, and expertise to
ensure Edmonds has an economically and environmentally sustainable future for all sectors of the
population. She also thanked the citizens of Edmonds for their participation, noting without their input the
City would not be aware of their needs and desires and therefore would not be motivated to act on them.
She urged citizens to continue to be involved and attend Planning Board meetings.
Council President Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work done by the Planning Board. She
was hopeful there would be more collaboration this year to avoid issues becoming stalled.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the Planning Board for providing the Council a quarterly report. She
also thanked Ms. Stewart for her service as the Planning Board Vice Chair.
15. 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)
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 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. A document entitled, “Creating Economic Vitality - An Edmonds City Center That Is
Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social” that addresses limiting certain office uses in
ground floor street frontages within the BD1 zone. The overview of the proposal contains a
summary, introduction, and references to City documents, and various reasons cited by Roger
Brooks for supporting the proposal.
2. A Chronology of Events (2.75 year long process) with links to agendas and minutes
3. A map depicting the boundaries of the BD1 Zone
4. An inventory Cindi Cruz and he conducted in response to a May 13, 2013 meeting with owners of
property within the BD1 Zone
5. Minutes from the November 4, 2013 City Council meeting and October 9, 2013 and September
11, 2013 Planning Board meeting.
6. Comments from four individuals supporting the proposal (two own property within the BD1
Zone).
Mr. Clifton explained this issue has been raised in part as a result of 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 at least 2006. Goal 2, Policy 2i of the 2006 adopted Edmonds Economic Development Plan
Packet Page 13 of 544
states: “Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a “retail
core” area in the downtown.” Another way to phrase this is how does our community open up more
opportunities for retail, dining, specialty shops, entertainment venues and galleries within a concentrated
area?
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, Mr. Clifton 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.
This message is consistent with information provided by Mr. Brooks in November 2012 when he spoke
about the “20 ingredients of an Outstanding Downtown.” Two of those ingredients relate to how
clustering of like-businesses works and the power in critical mass. Mr. Brooks pointed out a City can
spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, facade improvements, and a host
of other amenities, but while this helps improve the physical environment, a downtown can still be
lifeless. What makes a downtown work as a community center and gathering place is what's happening
inside the buildings. A beautiful streetscape with no street activity is often due the lack of businesses
along the streetscape that attract people.
With regard to public safety/less activity, Mr. Clifton commented 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 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., a downtown core that invites people to hang out and enjoy the
environment later into the evening whether it’s for shopping, dining, drinking, or attending other events.
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 city, county and state economies; in fact,
tourism is the fourth largest industry in Washington State. Within Snohomish County, tourism is the third
largest industry and expenditures are concentrated on restaurants, retail stores, recreation and
entertainment, accommodations and groceries. Tourism 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,
Packet Page 14 of 544
negative fluctuations in the retail market, e.g. absence of a critical mass, can result in vacant storefronts
thus affecting the street environment and eventually weakening the vitality of the downtown core.
Therefore, retail/active service uses are a critical part of sustaining the health of downtowns.
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
• Sidewalks and cafes and dining
• Investing heavily in retail beautification (Paint the Town)
• Activities and entertainment
Mr. Clifton highlighted significant milestones in the chronology:
• Proposal unanimously supported by the EDC on June 13, 2013
• Hosted two meetings with owners of property within the BD1 Zone (5/13/13 and 9/4/13)
o At May 13 meeting, preliminary support was expressed by several individuals and others
wanted to discuss this issue further; no one expressed opposition to the proposal.
o A request was made for the City to conduct an inventory of what businesses currently exist
along designated ground level street frontages in the Edmonds downtown core which was
prepared and presented at the second meeting with property owners
o At September 4 meeting, 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
Mr. Clifton provided Roger Brooks’ Ten Ten Ten Rule: in a minimum of 3 lineal blocks there needs to be
ten places that sell food, ten places that serve as destination retail, and ten places open after 6:00 p.m. Mr.
Clifton reviewed similar provisions in other cities such as Kirkland; Escondido, California; Minneapolis;
Encinitas, California; Walnut Creek, California; and San Luis Obispo, California, to restrict service
office/uses within the retail core.
Mr. Clifton referred to an inventory of downtown Edmonds that identifies businesses that would be
impacted by the proposal. He clarified this proposal does not require any existing business to leave. Only
when owners choose to vacate certain business spaces would the business spaces need to be filled with an
allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a use similar to the one that
left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated.
On September 11, and October 9, 2013, the Planning Board conducted a workshop and public hearing
respectively. The table in Attachment 1 reflects staff’s proposal as well as the Planning Board’s proposed
amendments. During the November 4, 2013 City Council meeting, an overview of the proposal was
presented and the Council asked questions about the proposal. During that meeting, he presented language
Packet Page 15 of 544
in Section 16.43.010.B that addressed issues related to buildings such as 543 Main Street that have
multiple tenants on the first floor, but only one entrance:
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.
On November 4, 2013 the City Council discussed the Planning Board’s recommendation to support the
proposal and requested a public hearing be scheduled as soon as possible. Mr. Clifton referred to
questions he has received related to real estate offices. He clarified real estate offices are an allowed use
under this proposal.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Clifton to explain why real estate offices are an allowed use.
She visits Walnut Creek annually and finds it very walkable and inviting. Mr. Clifton commented Walnut
Creek has branded their core, The Walnut Street Collection. With regard to real estate offices, Mr. Clifton
explained some cities allow them and some do not; real estate offices are considered a walk-in type
business. The intent of this proposal is to allow open door, walk-in businesses in the core.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dave Page, Edmonds, described his plans eight years ago to move his real estate, mortgage, escrow and
building companies downtown first by leasing space in Old Milltown and later an offer to purchase Old
Milltown. He eventually did not purchase Old Milltown because the cost of remodeling was too high.
Had he purchased Old Milltown, his offices would be located there today.
Fred Gouge, Edmonds, a licensed real estate broker with Coldwell Banker at 5th & Main, explained
Coldwell Banker has a lot of walk-in clientele. They inform people about Edmonds, distribute maps,
support many community events, generate revenue, and spend thousands each month advertising and
marketing Edmonds. As a commercial broker, one of the properties he leased would no longer be an
allowed use. He encouraged the Council to consider the impact on property owners of changing the
allowed uses. He also commented on the effect moving service businesses to the upper floor stories or
outside the core would have on seniors as many of the second floors in downtown core buildings are not
ADA accessible.
Wayne Purser, Edmonds, a local realtor at Coldwell Banker Bain at 108 5th Avenue South, commented
their location downtown provides a sense of local community. As a real estate company, they provide
community knowledge for people buying and selling real estate and inform about market trends, local
schools, etc. They distribute approximately 2,000-3,000 maps of Edmonds downtown and waterfront
businesses. They also distribute the Guide to Edmonds, host a Halloween Extravaganza the Sunday before
Halloween that brings 150-200 people to Edmonds, Halloween pictures, Santa photos, and provide free
wall space for artists for the Third Thursday Art Walk. Many agents volunteer at community events
including manning the buses for the Taste of Edmonds, volunteer for non-profits, the Sister City
Commission, Edmonds Community Foundation, Floretum Garden Club Board, Petanque Club and
Edmonds in Bloom. For these reasons, he supported real estate offices as an allowed use in the downtown
core.
Greg Hoff, Edmonds, advised he attended Mr. Clifton’s informational meeting and was generally
supportive of the proposal. He commented on the importance of balancing the City’s needs with the needs
Packet Page 16 of 544
and desires of property owners. Changing allowed uses via regulations is not necessarily fair to all
property owners who have invested a great deal in their income properties. He pointed out if the
regulations result in lower lease rates, it was similar to a tax on the property owner and an unintended
consequence. He agreed real estate offices were a walk-in, 24/7 Chamber of Commerce for the City. He
owns property in the BD1 zone that is leased to a real estate company; the 75 people who work there live,
work and play in Edmonds and in 2013 generated over $260 million in real estate transactions and $4.6
million in REET.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to a photograph he emailed to the Council of a bank that located in a large
retail space at the corner of 34th & Freemont, relaying his concern that could happen at 5th & Main in
Edmonds. He supported allowing real estate offices because they present an interesting storefront that
encourages pedestrians to walk in the core. He was opposed to allowing banks and/or insurance
companies in the retail core because they do not present an interesting storefront. He invited the Council
to consider how they wanted downtown to look, what they wanted to see in the storefronts and what
would encouraged them to walk in this 5-6 block area. He did not think services businesses located one
block outside the core on the ground level would be inconvenient. He thanked Councilmember Petso for
her emails regarding what businesses should be allowed.
Tom Sheehan, Edmonds, owner of 523 Main, said he was generally in favor of the concept. Five years
ago before he rented the space to The Fabric of Life, he rejected several proposals from service businesses
because that was not the type of business that belonged on Main Street. The Fabric of Life is leaving the
space and he is searching for another unique business to bring people to Edmonds. He supported the
concept of retail-type businesses on Main Street and 5th Avenue in the downtown core rather than service
businesses.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, speaking as a citizen, expressed his support for economic vitality by
creating an Edmonds City Center that is economically strong, thriving, lively and social and said the
Council can create such as a center by supporting the Planning Board’s recommendation. The City’s
Economic Development Plan offers support for the Planning Board’s recommendations. This proposal
provides an opportunity for clustering and synergy as was described during Roger Brooks’ November
2012 presentation. The Planning Board and EDC unanimously support the concept of limiting office uses
on designated street frontages in the first 45 feet in the BD1 zone. He commented on the EDC’s field trip
to Kirkland where they observed the positive effects of limiting office uses on the ground floor in the
downtown core. He also commented on property owner’s interest in the concept at Mr. Clifton’s May 13
meeting with property owners. The proposal has been under consideration for over 2½ years; he urged the
Council to support the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Johnson expressed support for the concept as recommended by the Planning Board and
EDC.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. TARADAY TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE ACTION.
Councilmember Johnson explained she was on the Planning Board in March 2011 when this discussion
began. She thanked Mr. Clifton for his tenacity, patience and deliberative process. She pointed out the
proposal includes a recommendation to consider it again in a couple years and make adjustment if
necessary.
Packet Page 17 of 544
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the public comment from members of the real estate
community and asked Mr. Clifton whether the proposal meets their needs. Mr. Clifton responded it will
meet their needs; the table in Attachment 1 indicates real estate offices are an allowed use.
Council President Buckshnis observed there are 12 businesses on the list that could eventually change.
She asked whether the reason some massage therapists were not on the list was due to their proximity to
the street. Mr. Clifton answered yes, the proposal applies only to the first 45 feet. Council President
Buckshnis agreed with the comments from Coldwell Banker realtors, noting when she visits different
cities, she often looks at the photographs of real estate for sale.
In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comment, Mr. Clifton referred to a clarifying note on
page 8 of Attachment 1, that states, Open door businesses, e.g., real estate offices, banks (with tellers and
no drive throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed uses.
Councilmember Petso recalled at the November 4 Council meeting Mr. Clifton indicated the EDC did not
have a consensus with regard to real estate offices or banks. She supported reviewing this regulation
periodically to ensure it is serving the City’s needs. She referred to a December 26, 2013 article regarding
McCall, Idaho, that states, “Another recommendation of the new downtown plan is to eliminate
restrictions on professional offices on ground floors facing the street. The current restriction is intended to
encourage retail space facing the street but downtown offices are now considered sources of customers
for shops and restaurants.” She referred to the comments regarding ADA accessibility and property rights,
noting those are issues that should be monitored. Mr. Clifton referred to page 5 of Attachment 1 that
recommends a reevaluation of the ordinance within 2-3 years. He noted changes may not occur for some
time as it will depend on when a business space is vacated.
Councilmember Peterson was glad to see this proposal coming to fruition. He recognized the work done
by the Mr. Clifton, the Planning Board, EDC and Council. Although he was previously undecided about
allowing real estate offices, friends visiting from Sydney, Australia stopped at the real estate office to
pursue the photographs.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON ECC CHAPTER 2.10 REGARDING
CONFIRMATION AND DUTIES OF CITY OFFICERS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday reviewed the unresolved issue related to the minimum number of candidates
the Council wants to interview in Section 21.10.010.D (choices are shown in brackets):
The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the appointive officers. The city council
shall interview the top [two][three] candidates for each position prior to the mayor’s appointment,
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
Mr. Taraday explained the above section specifies the number of candidates the Council wants to require
the Mayor present for interview and, when there is a deviation from that requirement, whether the
deviation should be a majority vote or a majority plus one.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the prior wording of this section was three candidates. Mr.
Taraday answered the current code states, “the city council shall interview the top three candidates for
each position prior to the mayor’s final selection.” He pointed out in practice that has not happened; when
the Council’s practice does not match the code, the code needs to be changed.
Packet Page 18 of 544
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled during her four years on the Council, in the early years the
Council interviewed three candidates. She was uncertain how the Council began interviewing less than
three. Mr. Taraday answered the current code does not provide a procedure for the Council to waive the
three interview requirement.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there have been occasions when there are fewer than three
candidates for a position. She questioned how the code could require more interviews than the number of
candidates. Mr. Taraday answered that was the problem and the reason there needed to be a process for
deviating from the requirement in appropriate circumstances. Mayor Earling asked the difference between
applicants and candidates. For example there are 20 applicants for the Development Services Director;
likely not all of them will be candidates. Mr. Taraday answered a candidate is anyone applying for a
position. In the example Mayor Earling provided, the top three out of twenty would be interviewed. He
noted there may be instances when the Mayor will recommend the Council not interview three candidates.
The code should provide a way to deviate from the requirement without violating the code.
Council President Buckshnis recalled only one person was interviewed when the City hired former
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock, two when Ms. Hite was hired and three when Mr. Williams was hired.
Her concern in the past was the Council did not interview candidates, they only confirmed the Mayor’s
selection. She agreed with the code reflecting the Council’s direction on the number of candidates to be
interviewed and a waiver procedure.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled there were three applicants for the most recent Finance Director
position but only two candidates were referred to the Council for interview. Mayor Earling explained
three people were ranked; he would not have appointed one of the candidates and he made a decision not
to fly him in from out of state for an interview. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not agree with the
Council being in the interview process but if the Council is to affirm the appointment, there should be a
sufficient number to interview.
Councilmember Petso expressed support for retaining the requirement to interview three but allow a
waiver to two with a majority plus one of the full Council. That would allow conformance of practice to
the code while also ensuring, for the Council and the public, that there is a fair representation of the top
applicants for the job.
Councilmember Peterson observed there have not been three candidates interviewed for a number of
positions under different administrations. In the example Mayor Earling provided, two candidates were
far above the third; had the Council interviewed all three and selected number three, the Mayor would not
have hired that person. He reminded it is the Mayor’s job to do the hiring; the Council’s role is
confirmation. During the Public Safety & Personnel Committee’s discussions, his position was to have
the Council interview the top two or more candidates but to not limit the Mayor to two. He supported
code language that would allow that number to be reduced by a majority vote of the Council although he
was not opposed to requiring a super majority vote. He pointed out the Council refusing to interview only
one candidate for a critical director position and requiring the selection process to be restarted could be a
disservice to the City.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the Council’s confirmation as a rubberstamp and asked why
the Council interviews candidates at all if the Council can only say yes or no and the Mayor makes the
final decision. Mr. Taraday answered confirmation is a significant power. He provided the example of
President Obama’s inability to appoint appellate court judges because the senate will confirm because of
the filibuster. The Council has that same power to not confirm an appointment; the Mayor cannot hire
without the Council’s confirmation. He clarified this code section was about giving the Council
Packet Page 19 of 544
flexibility; the Council could allow itself the flexibility of interviewing as few as one candidate and still
not confirm that appointment.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented if it is a true confirmation process, it would be better to have
more choices than less. In her 30+ years of experience in government, the appointing authority
consistently had a choice of three top candidates. She supported the Council interviewing three
candidates.
Councilmember Peterson philosophically disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. The Council
can choose not to confirm the Mayor’s appointment but if the Mayor presents three candidates for the
Council to interview, the Mayor is not obligated to hire the Council’s choice. Mayor Earling commented
two Councilmembers were included in the Finance Director interview panel and he planned to do the
same for the Development Services Director position.
Councilmember Johnson did not recall a formal confirmation vote for the Finance Director. Mayor
Earling advised there was, it was a 6-1 vote.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS,
TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION WHICH
INCLUDES BRINGING THE TOP THREE CANDIDATES AND ALSO THE PROVISION THAT
THE COUNCIL MAY WAIVE THE TOP THREE CANDIDATES BY VOTE OF A MAJORITY
PLUS ONE TO AS FEW AS TWO CANDIDATES.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Mayor Earling for including Councilmembers in the interview process
for the Finance Director. She explained the intent was to hire directors that can work with everyone. She
recognized the importance of the Council’s role in confirming an appointment, pointing out the Council
can discuss candidates in executive session. The motion is a good compromise to requiring that the
Council interview three candidates as it provides a procedure for waiving that requirement.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THE COUNCIL MAY OPT TO INTERVIEW
AS FEW AS ONE OR TWO CANDIDATES FOR ANY VACANT APPOINTIVE OFFICE.
Councilmember Petso did not support the amendment, commenting if there were not at least two people
to interview, it was not fair to the Council or the public. It also did not provide the public or the Council,
other than the Councilmembers on the interview panel, an opportunity to consider the other candidates.
Councilmember Bloom did not support the amendment, commenting she did not understand the rationale
for interviewing one candidate in front of the public.
Council President Buckshnis commented candidates were not interviewed on camera. She asked whether
that needed to be included in the code. Mr. Taraday answered yes if that was the Council’s intent.
Councilmember Bloom clarified she as not suggesting that change.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if the Council only interviewed one candidate there was no purpose
in having a confirmation process.
Councilmember Peterson clarified his amendment retained the language that a super majority vote of the
Council would be required to option to interview as few as one or two candidates.
Packet Page 20 of 544
UPON ROLL CALL, THERE WAS A TIE VOTE (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could not vote to break the tie.
AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3).
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday advised those were the only matters the Committee had not reached agreement on.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WITH
THE REVISIONS IN THE PACKET TO CHAPTER 2.10 AND AS APPROVED TONIGHT.
For Councilmember Bloom Mr. Taraday read 2.10.010.C:
If, on occasion of a vacant appointive office, the mayor 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.
Mr. Taraday explained this section recognizes the possibility when a vacancy occurs the mayor may want
to use that as an opportunity to rethink how the structure of his administration. If the mayor is considering
reorganization, it would not make sense to immediately embark on recruitment.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether reorganization would eliminate the director position. Mr. Taraday
answered it could but it could also alter the job duties of the position or the structure of administration. He
noted changing a director’s duties requires Council action.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the Development Services Director position was not budgeted and
there was no director for two years. She wanted to ensure that did not happen again. She asked whether
the proposed language would allow a position to be eliminated without coming to the Council’s attention.
Mr. Taraday answered a budget amendment is required to eliminate a position as all positions are defined
in the budget.
Councilmember Petso thanked Councilmember Bloom and Peterson for their work on these revisions.
She noted in addition to the issues discussed, there were a number of other revisions to Chapter 2.10.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT TO AWARD BID FOR CITY PARK SPRAY
EQUIPMENT
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite commented this would usually be presented to committee first;
she was presenting to the full Council due to the timeline for awarding the bid. Delaying this issue to the
January committee meeting would delay Council consideration until the third or fourth week on the
Consent Agenda; the equipment needs to be ordered mid-January. The proposed contract for the City Park
spray equipment is approximately $159,000, the amount in the original budget. She explained the play
area and the spray area equipment are being bid separately to avoid the contractor mark-up. The Council
Packet Page 21 of 544
awarded a bid for the play area a few months ago and staff will return to Council next month for award of
the construction contract.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR THE CITY
PARK SPRAY EQUIPMENT.
Councilmember Johnson commented Councilmembers often must balance competing priorities. She
referred to the $25,000 annual budget for water for the spray pad, expressing concern with the use of
water at the rate of $250/day assuming a 100 day season. She did not want to interrupt the project and
would have preferred this information had been presented at the beginning of the project. She asked Ms.
Hite to comment on the value of the project from a user standpoint and economic vitality. Ms. Hite
responded a spray park uses 50-150 gallons of water per minute to activate and add play value. Staff
worked with vendors to design a spray pad with equitable play value but that reduced water usage and
used low flow valves as well as different zones and activators.
Ms. Hite explained vendors were asked to design a spray pad that could be dialed down to 22 gallons per
minute. The $25,000 water usage in the 2014 budget is based on 22 gallons per minute for 10 hours per
day 7 days a week for 3 months in the summer. Spray pads across the nation attract many children,
families and teens; in this area spray pads see 500-600 people per day on a hot summer day. She
summarized the spray pad will attract not only Edmonds residents but people from outside the
community. City Park is a great location with parking and the capacity for a lot of people.
Ms. Hite displayed the original concept design of the spray pad area, explaining there are approximately
20 different components in the spray area. Vendors were asked to include three activators; when an
activator is pressed, the water flows. The water times out after 60 seconds and the activator must be
pushed again to active the water. One activator would turn on the entire spray pad; three activators turn on
the water by zone. The spray pad was designed with a toddler zone, a family zone and a teen zone. She
noted children can play in all the zones but zones save water by not turning on water in the entire spray
pad. There may be days the water flow can be increased to 60 gallons/minute and then turned back down
to 22 gallons/minute ; it will take a season for staff to determine the best balance.
Ms. Hite explained a water reuse system was also designed. She displayed an example of a water reuse
system, explaining water from the spray pad flows into a tank where it is filtered and stored for use for
irrigation, toilet flushing in City Park and a fill valve for the flower program truck. The spray pad
generates 22 gallons/minute or 13,200 gallons/day or 92,400 gallons/week if it is on from 10:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. She described water use in City Park:
Irrigation 83,000 gallons per week
Toilets 18,000 gallons per week
Flower Program 1,500 gallons per week
Total Water Usage 102,500 gallons/week
Spray Pad Generates 92,400 gallons/week
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $25,000 per year will be recouped via water reuse. Ms. Hite
answered that is the goal. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the system to pump water to the toilets.
Ms. Hite advised the 60% design document has been submitted for building permits; the contractor is
working on 90% design. It is a very complicated system; when it reaches 90% design, she may return to
Council regarding to costs and water table issues at City Park.
Packet Page 22 of 544
Councilmember Bloom asked how the toddlers, families and teens areas are designated. Ms. Hite
answered they are not signed. Toddlers can play in the teen area and teens can play in the toddler area,
etc. The play equipment in the toddler area is not exciting for teens. The spray pad was zoned so that
teens running and playing will not knock over toddlers. She acknowledged there will be some crossover.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there is a cost for a spray pad. Children love spray pads and
water and she anticipated it would be a great addition to the City and encourage people to visit Edmonds.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #9 WITH DAVID
EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this $17,219 is the last piece of the design. He anticipated
going to bid in February, signing a contract in March, issuing notice to proceed in April and completing
construction in 2014. That schedule required this be presented to the full Council tonight rather that at
committee. He reviewed the scope of this supplemental agreement:
• Two new soil borings where the stormwater vault will be located in the middle of 84th Avenue
north of the Five Corners intersection to collect additional geotech information ($7,700)
• Additional design of water infrastructure ($8,700). All existing water infrastructure in the
footprint of the roundabout is being replaced.
• Incorporate geotech information into the final design ($4,000)
Mr. Williams summarized this brings the total of the design and right of way contract to approximately
$467,000.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the agenda memo referred to Council action on supplemental
agreements 3, 4, 7 and 8, but nothing was said about 5 and 6. Mr. Williams commented a large, complex
project such as this starts with what is known and as the project matures, additional issues arise which
often require Council approval of additional resources. This will provide the final piece of the design
before advertising for bid in February. Mr. Williams reviewed the amounts of some of the supplemental
agreements: #1 - $2,320, #2 - $3,600, #3 - $53,400, #7 - $35,000; the others were fairly modest in size.
He noted the original contract included a management reserve that will be used to cover some of the
supplemental agreements.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could get out of the project at this point even with design
complete and if so, how much would it cost. Mr. Williams answered total for design and right-of-way is
approximately $680,000; approximately $482,000 is from grants. Councilmember Petso asked whether
the grant money would need to be repaid if the Council opted not to proceed with the project. Mr.
Williams answered if the Council could move forward with the project but chose not to, the grant funds
would need to be returned.
Council President Buckshnis expressed support for proceeding with the project, noting although some
people have complained, she has heard a great deal of support from residents in the neighborhood.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #9
WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Packet Page 23 of 544
Mayor Earling commented on the regional undertaking of the machinists approving the 777X contract. He
expressed appreciation for the compromises the machinists made, recognizing the contract is a
monumental step forward for the state economically as well as securing long term jobs. He explained a
majority of mayors in Snohomish County signed a letter requesting reconsideration of the original vote.
He recognized the leadership of Everett Mayor Stephenson, Snohomish County Executive John Lovick
and Governor Jay Inslee. He noted although there is little industry in Edmonds related to Boeing, the
contract is incredibly important to Edmonds residents who are employed by Boeing as well as Edmonds
businesses.
Mayor Earling wished everyone a Happy New Year and expressed his hope the Council could work
effectively during this next year.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Student Representative Thea Ocfemia congratulated Councilmembers Buckshnis and Johnson on their
elections as Council President and Council President Pro Tem.
Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a Happy New Year and looked forward to a productive 2014.
Council President Buckshnis relayed Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman will distribute
committee assignments tomorrow. She requested Councilmembers identify 2-3 goals they wanted to
champion this year. Goals she was interested in pursuing include the sign code and the marsh. The City
received a $200,000 grant from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for daylighting Willow Creek. She
wished everyone a Happy New Year.
Councilmember Johnson wished everyone a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was bothered by the events that occurred tonight; it was
not about her being Council President or not. The Council had the ability to put in place an interim
Council President until a seventh Councilmember could be appointed and weigh in on this important
Council decision. Although this was legal according to the City Attorney, the concept of separation of
powers is a foundation of government in this country. Most amazing to her was to have expected a fair
decision to be made by mayor who actively participated, supported, financed and appeared in ads for her
opponent during a campaign two months ago. Although some may call this politics, she found it a breach
of democracy.
21. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Packet Page 24 of 544
AM-6510 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
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 #206317 through #206461 dated January 9, 2014 for $742,035.44 and claim
checks #206462 through #206630 dated January 16, 2014 for $3,275,046.74. Approval of payroll check
#60758 for $445.64 for the period December 16, 2013 through December 31, 2013. Approval of payroll
direct deposit and checks #60759 through #60771 and wire payments of $453,505.97, benefit checks
#60772 through #60778 and wire payments of $200,862.79 for the period January 1, 2014 through
January 15, 2014.
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:445.64
Fiscal Impact:
Payroll $445.64
Fiscal Year:2014
Revenue:
Expenditure:4,671,896.58
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $4,017,082.18
Packet Page 25 of 544
Claims $4,017,082.18
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $453,951.61
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $200,862.79
Total Payroll $654,814.40
Attachments
Claim cks 01-09-14
Claim cks 01-16-14
Project Numbers 01-16-14
Payroll Summary 01-15-14
Payroll Benefit 01-15-14
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Roger Neumaier 01/16/2014 04:37 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/16/2014 04:39 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 04:41 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 04:44 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 01/16/2014 01:33 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 26 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206317 1/7/2014 074651 SNO CO CLERKS OFFICE E1AA.Andersen E1AA.ANDERSEN CONDEMNATION SETTLEMENT
E1AA.Andersen Condemnation Settlement
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 7,850.00
Total :7,850.00
206318 1/9/2014 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 3Z637312 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 130.00
INTERPRETER FEENOV13
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.00 1,286.25
INTERPRETER FEEOct13
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 1,896.32
Total :3,312.57
206319 1/9/2014 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 328167 MEADOWDALE PEST CONTROL
MEADOWDALE PEST CONTROL
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 7.12
PEST CONTROL PARKS MAINT AND SENIOR328204
PEST CONTROL PARKS MAINT AND SENIOR
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 105.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 9.98
Total :197.10
206320 1/9/2014 068201 ACTIVE NETWORK INC 4100005821 ACTIVE SERVICE 2014 RECREATION
ACTIVE SERVICE 2014 RECREATION
001.000.64.571.22.48.00 12,113.18
ACTIVE SERVICE 2014 POOL
001.000.64.575.51.48.00 1,575.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.48.00 1,150.77
1Page:
Packet Page 27 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206320 1/9/2014 (Continued)068201 ACTIVE NETWORK INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.51.48.00 149.62
Total :14,988.57
206321 1/9/2014 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND JANUARY 2014 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 1/2014 EDMONDS PD
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 1/2014
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,097.71
Total :2,097.71
206322 1/9/2014 064246 ALS LABORATORY GROUP 32-EV13120003-0 Storm - Lab Work on Vactor Grit Testing
Storm - Lab Work on Vactor Grit Testing
422.000.72.531.40.41.00 477.00
Total :477.00
206323 1/9/2014 066148 APWA APWA.2014 Shuster APWA.2014.SHUSTER MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
APWA.2014.Shuster MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 184.00
APWA.2014.DELILLA MEMBERSHIP RENEWALAPWA.2014.DeLilla
APWA.2014.DeLilla MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 184.00
APWA.2014.ENGLISH MEMBERSHIP RENEWALAPWA.2014.English
APWA.2014.English MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 184.00
APWA.2014.HAUSS MEMBERSHIP RENEWALAPWA.2014.Hauss
APWA,2014.Hauss Membership Renewal
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 184.00
Total :736.00
206324 1/9/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-7198896 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
Total :34.22
206325 1/9/2014 001441 ASCAP 500579369 2014 LICENSING FEE
2Page:
Packet Page 28 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206325 1/9/2014 (Continued)001441 ASCAP
2014 LICENSING FEE
001.000.64.571.22.49.00 330.00
Total :330.00
206326 1/9/2014 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0517920-IN Fleet - Reg Gas - 8,000 Gal
Fleet - Reg Gas - 8,000 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.11 20,849.60
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.11 3,167.52
Diesel -1140 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 3,428.66
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 454.81
BioDsl - 60 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.13 275.81
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.13 24.60
WA St Svc Fee
511.000.77.548.68.34.13 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.13 4.75
Total :28,255.75
206327 1/9/2014 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0516525-IN ULSD #2 Dyed bulk
ULSD #2 Dyed bulk
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 5,310.63
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 504.51
ULSD #2 dyed bulk0520982-IN
ULSD #2 dyed bulk
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 5,184.06
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 492.49
Total :11,491.69
3Page:
Packet Page 29 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206328 1/9/2014 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 72400 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTING
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 90.93
UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTING
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 90.93
UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTING
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 93.69
UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 313.70
UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 313.70
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.64
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.64
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.90
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS72497
UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTING
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 124.46
UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTING
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 124.46
UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTING
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 128.23
UB Outsourcing area #400 POSTAGE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 430.41
UB Outsourcing area #400 POSTAGE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 430.41
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 11.82
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11.82
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.19
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS72548
4Page:
Packet Page 30 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206328 1/9/2014 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #200 PRINTING
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 89.42
UB Outsourcing area #200 PRINTING
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 89.42
UB Outsourcing area #200 PRINTING
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.13
UB Outsourcing area #200 POSTAGE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 308.78
UB Outsourcing area #200 POSTAGE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 308.78
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.49
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.49
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.76
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS72611
UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTING
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 22.99
UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTING
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 22.99
UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTING
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 23.70
UB Outsourcing area #700 POSTAGE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 101.43
UB Outsourcing area #700 POSTAGE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 101.43
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 2.18
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2.18
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 2.26
5Page:
Packet Page 31 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,396.362063281/9/2014 070305 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
206329 1/9/2014 002100 BARNARD, EARL 118 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
617.000.51.522.20.23.00 107.84
Total :107.84
206330 1/9/2014 074136 BEYONDNET SOLUTIONS LLC 14918 DataCore SANsymphony-V annual
DataCore SANsymphony-V annual
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 6,850.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 650.75
Total :7,500.75
206331 1/9/2014 066787 BLACKPOINT IT SERVICES 64063SEA Renewal Barracuda 350 1 yr EU
Renewal Barracuda 350 1 yr EU
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,266.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 120.34
Total :1,387.08
206332 1/9/2014 073250 BMI GENERAL LICENSING 24439965 2014 LICENSING FEES
2014 LICENSING FEES
001.000.64.571.22.49.00 330.00
Total :330.00
206333 1/9/2014 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &059537 Storm - Recycle Concrete
Storm - Recycle Concrete
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 400.00
Total :400.00
206334 1/9/2014 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 302447 Water Sewer Street Storm - Gravel
Water Sewer Street Storm - Gravel
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 82.75
Water Sewer Street Storm - Gravel
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 82.75
Water Sewer Street Storm - Gravel
6Page:
Packet Page 32 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206334 1/9/2014 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 82.75
Water Sewer Street Storm - Gravel
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 82.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 7.86
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 7.86
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.86
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.87
Water Sewer Street Storm - Cushed Rock304064
Water Sewer Street Storm - Cushed Rock
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 570.82
Water Sewer Street Storm - Cushed Rock
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 570.82
Water Sewer Street Storm - Cushed Rock
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 570.82
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 54.23
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 54.23
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 54.23
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 54.22
Water Sewer Street Storm - Cushed Rock
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 570.81
Water Sewer Street Storm - Washed Sand304228
Water Sewer Street Storm - Washed Sand
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 425.04
Water Sewer Street Storm - Washed Sand
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 425.04
Water Sewer Street Storm - Washed Sand
7Page:
Packet Page 33 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206334 1/9/2014 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 425.04
Water Sewer Street Storm - Washed Sand
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 425.03
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 40.38
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 40.38
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 40.38
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 40.37
Total :4,724.29
206335 1/9/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13376358 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES C5051
Canon copier charges C5051
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35
Canon copier charges C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35
Canon copier charges C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91
Total :273.74
206336 1/9/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13357859 Contract charge for Bldg. Dept.
Contract charge for Bldg. Dept.
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.14
Total :36.16
8Page:
Packet Page 34 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206337 1/9/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13375726 Contract charge
Contract charge
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80
Total :85.80
206338 1/9/2014 003328 CASCADE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA CSO 01242013 TOURISM PROMOTION GRANT PAYMENT
TOURISM PROMOTION GRANT PAYMENT
123.000.64.573.20.41.00 1,900.00
Total :1,900.00
206339 1/9/2014 068484 CEMEX LLC 9427579383 Roadway - Asphalt
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 280.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 26.60
Roadway - Asphalt9427597999
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 175.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 16.63
Roadway - Asphalt9427616407
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 460.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 43.70
Total :1,001.93
206340 1/9/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 201997 Fleet Shop Supplies- Ground Clamp
Fleet Shop Supplies- Ground Clamp
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.52
Total :6.02
206341 1/9/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN12130998 Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide gas
Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide gas
9Page:
Packet Page 35 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206341 1/9/2014 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 58.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.51
Total :63.51
206342 1/9/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN12130997 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.55.45.00 1.12
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.64.575.55.45.00 11.75
Total :12.87
206343 1/9/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10527 INV#10527 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONE NARCS 12/2013
104.000.41.521.21.42.00 91.57
Total :91.57
206344 1/9/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10507 2ND PAYMENT JOINT M&O MEADOWDALE
2ND PAYMENT JOINT M&O MEADOWDALE
001.000.64.576.80.51.00 30,677.74
Total :30,677.74
206345 1/9/2014 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2580 E3FB.1/3 OF LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER WATER
E3FB.1/3 of Lake Ballinger/McAleer
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 11,600.00
Total :11,600.00
206346 1/9/2014 070323 COMCAST 8498310300721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE
CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE
130.000.64.536.20.42.00 119.37
Total :119.37
206347 1/9/2014 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING DEC 2013 DRY CLEANING NOV/DEC - EDMONDS PD
CLEANING/LAUNDRY NOV/DEC 2013
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 718.27
10Page:
Packet Page 36 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :718.272063471/9/2014 065683 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
206348 1/9/2014 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3283283 E2FC.AD FOR RFQ
E2FC.Ad for RFQ
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,269.20
Total :1,269.20
206349 1/9/2014 072189 DATASITE 39602 INV#39602 ACCT#61515 - EDMONDS PD
SHRED 2 TOTES 12/12/13
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 80.00
Total :80.00
206350 1/9/2014 072189 DATASITE 39446 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred & Storage City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 90.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 25.00
Total :115.00
206351 1/9/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3418 EDC MINUTETAKER 9/13 - 12/13
Minutetaker for Economic Development
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 381.00
Total :381.00
206352 1/9/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3420 INV#13-3420 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-3646
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 87.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-1329
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 258.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA13-004
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 93.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA13-005
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 231.00
Total :669.00
206353 1/9/2014 073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP 4th Qtr 2013 FAC Solar Elect System Production
FAC Solar Elect System Production
11Page:
Packet Page 37 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206353 1/9/2014 (Continued)073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 142.05
Total :142.05
206354 1/9/2014 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC 12182013 Police new hire screening
Police new hire screening
001.000.22.521.10.41.00 460.00
Total :460.00
206355 1/9/2014 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP CORDOVA 17990 CORDOVA 17990
CORDOVA 17990
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 61.00
KENNEMUR 18165KENNEMUR 18165
KENNEMUR 18165
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00
Total :136.00
206356 1/9/2014 062190 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT 12/31 DET BUY FUND POLICE DETECTIVE BUY FUND 12/31/13 PETTY
HEROIN BUY - CASE 13-4864
001.000.41.521.21.49.00 20.00
Total :20.00
206357 1/9/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 094639 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.23.512.50.45.00 4.28
COPIER MAINT094883
COPIER MAINT
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 95.88
Total :100.16
206358 1/9/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 094991 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER
Meter charges 11/30/13 - 12/30/13 B&W,
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 122.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 11.68
Total :134.65
12Page:
Packet Page 38 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206359 1/9/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 095379 COPIER CHARGES C1030
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.61.519.70.41.00 5.50
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 5.50
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 5.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.41.00 0.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.53
Total :18.08
206360 1/9/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 95025 METER READING
Meter Reading 12/30 to 1/30
001.000.25.514.30.42.00 165.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.42.00 15.71
Total :181.06
206361 1/9/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 095259-1 Monthly maintenance
Monthly maintenance
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 256.21
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 24.34
Total :280.55
206362 1/9/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 094836 1 PARKS AND REC MONTHLY SERVICE AGREEMENT
PARKS AND REC MONTHLY SERVICE AGREEMENT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 18.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 1.74
PARKS AND REC MONTHLY SERVICE AGREEMENT094990 1
PARKS AND REC MONTHLY SERVICE AGREEMENT
13Page:
Packet Page 39 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206362 1/9/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 164.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 15.66
Total :200.55
206363 1/9/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG534660 NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3951-3954
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 61.92
NEWSPAPER ADLG534662
Public Hearing
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 43.00
Total :104.92
206364 1/9/2014 064406 FBI LEEDA 8964-14 INV 8964-14 EDMONDS PD - BARKER
2014 MEMBERSHIP - BARKER
001.000.41.521.21.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
206365 1/9/2014 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 123113 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 8,470.00
Total :8,470.00
206366 1/9/2014 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 2014 PK LOT FEE TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for 2014
001.000.39.519.90.45.00 3,600.00
Total :3,600.00
206367 1/9/2014 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 230269 Dec 2013 Sec 125 processing
Dec 2013 Sec 125 processing
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 75.00
Total :75.00
206368 1/9/2014 011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08
14Page:
Packet Page 40 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206368 1/9/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 101.19
Total :359.45
206369 1/9/2014 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRAGATION
SEAVIEW PARK IRRAGATION
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 45.16
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 44.50
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE
001.000.64.575.56.42.00 73.02
CITY PARK FAX425-776-5316
CITY PARK FAX
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 54.71
Total :217.39
206370 1/9/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9329459508 Unit 14 - Coupler, Dust Plug
Unit 14 - Coupler, Dust Plug
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 37.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.52
Total :40.54
206371 1/9/2014 065055 HANSON, TODD Hanson Sick Leave Buy Back - overtime pmt
Sick Leave Buy Back - overtime pmt
111.000.68.544.70.11.00 27.30
Total :27.30
206372 1/9/2014 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 141868 Unit 448 - Housing Switch
15Page:
Packet Page 41 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206372 1/9/2014 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
Unit 448 - Housing Switch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.03
Total :46.41
206373 1/9/2014 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00120881-B Invoce for the period 11/3/2013 thru
Invoce for the period 11/3/2013 thru
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,562.90
Total :1,562.90
206374 1/9/2014 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 116 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.23.00 8.78
Total :8.78
206375 1/9/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 73781 Lime/sweet soil
Lime/sweet soil
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 263.50
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 25.03
Total :288.53
206376 1/9/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 24785 E1JB.TO 13-01.SERVICES THRU 12/22/13
E1JB.TO 13-01 Services thru 12/22/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 2,416.15
E1JB.TO 13-01 SERVICES THRU 12/26/1324788
E1JB.TO 13-01 Services thru 12/26/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 4,948.70
Total :7,364.85
206377 1/9/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2388899 OFFICE SUPPLIES
AAA batteries
001.000.61.519.70.31.00 6.16
AAA batteries
16Page:
Packet Page 42 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206377 1/9/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 6.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.31.00 0.59
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 0.58
OFFICE SUPPLIES2389399
uni-ball rollerball pens - red
001.000.61.519.70.31.00 22.68
uni-ball rollerball pens - red
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 22.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.31.00 2.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 2.15
Total :63.15
206378 1/9/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2387384 Misc. office supplies including legal
Misc. office supplies including legal
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 67.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 6.38
Misc. office supplies including2391763
Misc. office supplies including
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 198.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 18.89
Total :291.39
206379 1/9/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2379124 Office supplies
Office supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 141.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 13.42
Office Supplies2387813
Office Supplies
17Page:
Packet Page 43 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206379 1/9/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -41.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -3.98
Office Supplies2390631
Office Supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 385.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 36.59
Total :530.50
206380 1/9/2014 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 3082354 PRESCHOOL INTERNET
PRESCHOOL INTERNET
001.000.64.575.56.42.00 15.00
Total :15.00
206381 1/9/2014 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000022569 Fleet Shop - Supplies
Fleet Shop - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 29.90
Brake Parts Inventory - Wave Rotors
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 346.04
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 32.87
Total :411.65
206382 1/9/2014 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 61225188 Unit 129 - 2 Batteries
Unit 129 - 2 Batteries
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 223.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.27
Fleet Shop Supplies - Silicone733054
Fleet Shop Supplies - Silicone
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 53.93
9.5% Sales Tax
18Page:
Packet Page 44 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206382 1/9/2014 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.12
Total :304.22
206383 1/9/2014 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 605385 Hypochlorite solution SS150
Hypochlorite solution SS150
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,715.35
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 276.97
Total :2,992.32
206384 1/9/2014 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS 18029 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION 18029
WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION 18029
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 10.50
Total :10.50
206385 1/9/2014 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3755981 INV#3755981 CUST#100828 - EDMONDS PD
10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 230.80
HANDLING FEE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 51.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 21.93
Total :304.13
206386 1/9/2014 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 106 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
206387 1/9/2014 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK Lawler Tuition Reimbursement
Tuition Reimbursement
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 365.88
Total :365.88
206388 1/9/2014 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 693614 Unit 46 - Air Filter
Unit 46 - Air Filter
19Page:
Packet Page 45 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206388 1/9/2014 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.51
Unit 46 - Hydraulic Filter693615
Unit 46 - Hydraulic Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.78
Unit 105 - Oil Filter, Air Filter693864
Unit 105 - Oil Filter, Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.79
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.93
LS 12 - Filler695065
LS 12 - Filler
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 33.17
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.15
Total :96.52
206389 1/9/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 927 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE936
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32
Total :176.64
206390 1/9/2014 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 16158 Scanned 2010 building permits.
Scanned 2010 building permits.
001.000.62.524.20.49.00 396.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.20.49.00 37.70
Microfilming 2008 land use.16159
9.5% Sales Tax
20Page:
Packet Page 46 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206390 1/9/2014 (Continued)069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 51.10
Microfilming 2008 land use.
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 537.80
Total :1,023.42
206391 1/9/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 179636 Fac Maint - Work Gloves
Fac Maint - Work Gloves
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 59.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.68
Total :65.48
206392 1/9/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 181563 BLADEMETAL
BLADEMETAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 167.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.89
GLOVES181564
GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.83
Total :215.82
206393 1/9/2014 074556 MOORE, IACOFANO & GOLTSMAN INC 0036288 PROS PLAN PROF SERVICE FEES NOVEMBER
PROS PLAN PROF SERVICE FEES NOVEMBER
001.000.64.571.21.41.00 19,210.10
Total :19,210.10
206394 1/9/2014 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA33-603988 XPZ1030 BELT
xpz1030 belt stocked in North Carolina
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 42.72
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 13.85
9.5% Sales Tax
21Page:
Packet Page 47 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206394 1/9/2014 (Continued)069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 5.38
Total :61.95
206395 1/9/2014 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0364460-IN Storm - Work Gloves
Storm - Work Gloves
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 101.20
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 9.62
Total :110.82
206396 1/9/2014 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 31686 1/2014 LEOFF INSURANCE PREMIUM
LEOFF Insurance premium - January 2014
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 9,830.44
LEOFF Insurance premium - January 2014
617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,283.53
Total :11,113.97
206397 1/9/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0511062-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 15.06
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.43
Total :16.49
206398 1/9/2014 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 2857 INV 2857 EDMONDS PD - BUCKINGHAM
PRE-EMPLOY EXAM BUCKINGHAM
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 340.00
Total :340.00
206399 1/9/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-826033 HAINES WHARF RENTALS
HAINES WHARF RENTALS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77
Total :220.77
206400 1/9/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 435 HPC minutes on 12/12/13.
HPC minutes on 12/12/13.
22Page:
Packet Page 48 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206400 1/9/2014 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 112.00
Total :112.00
206401 1/9/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 899440 INV#899440 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
KLEENEX FACIAL TISSUE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 44.68
PATROL MEMO PADS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.47
Total :63.05
206402 1/9/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 833017 FLEET - 4" BINDER
FLEET - 4" BINDER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.50
Total :40.38
206403 1/9/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 733043 WEDGY PEN
WEDGY PEN
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 8.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.82
ENVELOPES979253
ENVELOPES
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 66.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 6.31
Total :82.22
206404 1/9/2014 026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE OBT 01242013 TOURISM PROMOTION GRANT PAYMENT 2013
TOURISM PROMOTION GRANT PAYMENT 2013
123.000.64.573.20.41.00 2,000.00
Total :2,000.00
23Page:
Packet Page 49 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206405 1/9/2014 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 220TH ST SW AND 84TH AVE W
220TH ST SW AND 84TH AVE W
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 14.06
820 15TH ST SW0001520
820 15TH ST SW
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.30
820 15TH ST SW0001530
820 15TH ST SW
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 46.92
SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL0026390
SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.57
5th AND ST RTE 104 SPRINKLER002930
5th AND ST RTE 104 SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.57
Total :126.42
206406 1/9/2014 074705 PACIFIC TEST AND MEASUREMENT 23516 PTX 1290 GE/Druck submersible
PTX 1290 GE/Druck submersible
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,037.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 14.41
Total :1,051.41
206407 1/9/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 163959 SOIL DUMPING FEES
SOIL DUMPING FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.50
SOIL DUMPING163960
SOIL DUMPING
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.50
SOIL DUMPING FEES163971
SOIL DUMPING FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.50
SOIL DUMPING FEES163982
SOIL DUMPING FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.50
24Page:
Packet Page 50 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :294.002064071/9/2014 027060 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
206408 1/9/2014 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 8797880 Unit 106 - Exhaust Gas Part
Unit 106 - Exhaust Gas Part
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 657.69
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 63.87
Total :736.15
206409 1/9/2014 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 14-80538 E1FD.SERVICES THRU DECEMBER 2013
E1FD.Services thru December 2013
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 603.92
Total :603.92
206410 1/9/2014 007800 PETTY CASH 10/28/13-12/31/13 10/28/13 - 12/31/13 PETTY CASH
GHS Training - Food for training/Mary
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 14.84
Holiday Breakfast Service Award
001.000.22.521.10.49.00 44.81
Holiday Brakfast decorations upplies
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 47.62
Monthly ITE Meeting - Bertrand Hauss
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 25.00
Parking, Various meetings - Rob English
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 32.43
Total :164.70
206411 1/9/2014 008400 PETTY CASH 12/31 ADMIN PC POLICE ADMIN 12/31/13 PETTY CASH
PARKING - ORG. RETAIL THEFT MTG
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 10.00
FOOD FOR ARRESTEE CASE 13-3003
001.000.41.523.60.31.00 4.37
PARKING - AUTO THEFT INVEST MTG
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 12.00
25Page:
Packet Page 51 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206411 1/9/2014 (Continued)008400 PETTY CASH
FLASHLIGHT ENGRAVING
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 4.93
TREATS FOR 10/22 POLICE FOUNDATION MTG
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.98
PARKING - SNO CO AUTO THEFT TRAINING
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 5.00
PARKING - KING CO JAIL CASE 13-3973
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 6.00
TOLL - TACOMA NARROWS - CASE 13-4399
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 5.25
WATER, COOKIES - CRIME PREV. MTG
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.98
PARKING AT KING CO JAIL CASE 13-1329
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 10.00
FUEL FOR UNDERCOVER VEHICLE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 42.92
PARKING AT SPD CASE 13-4453
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 12.00
POSTAGE TO RETURN SAMPLE VEST
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 12.35
PARKING AT DOUBLETREE INN
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 15.00
PARKING AT SNO CO - TRYKAR
001.000.41.521.21.43.00 3.00
EXPLORER POST INSURANCE FEE
001.000.41.521.22.49.00 40.00
DUCT TAPE ANIMAL CONTROL TRUCK
001.000.41.521.70.31.00 3.82
ALCOHOL WIPES - FOLDING MACHINE
001.000.41.521.70.31.00 2.73
CASHIER OVERAGE
001.000.369.80.000.00 -0.05
Total :219.28
26Page:
Packet Page 52 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206412 1/9/2014 062296 PETTY CASH 12-2013abcdefg Postage to Cert Lab
Postage to Cert Lab
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.37
Driving to L&I Everett to submit
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 26.44
supplies for washer and dish soap
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 71.10
Alka Seltzer for a Cem foaming test
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 5.74
supplies for Daniel's CEM project
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 8.39
Postage expense
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 15.15
Total :134.19
206413 1/9/2014 066796 PETTY CASH 123113 PASSPORT MAILING
PASSPORT MAILING
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 22.85
Total :22.85
206414 1/9/2014 073988 PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING W13177 5th Ave Concrete Grinding for Trip
5th Ave Concrete Grinding for Trip
111.000.68.542.61.48.00 3,994.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.48.00 379.50
Total :4,374.25
206415 1/9/2014 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2013-5435 Subscription Feed 4th quarter~
Subscription Feed 4th quarter~
001.000.22.521.10.41.00 700.00
Total :700.00
206416 1/9/2014 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 13-1129 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00 2,857.50
27Page:
Packet Page 53 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,857.502064161/9/2014 070809 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
206417 1/9/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC INV#000000142108 MARKER NIKOLSKIY
MARKER NIKOLSKIY
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 200.00
Total :200.00
206418 1/9/2014 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 88368 Unit 450 - Towing
Unit 450 - Towing
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.01
Total :173.01
206419 1/9/2014 006841 RICOH USA INC 5028775554 Meter charges for reception copier
Meter charges for reception copier
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 7.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 0.68
Total :7.79
206420 1/9/2014 074667 RUCKER, PAUL 12192013 MAILING LABELS FOR BID MEMBER MEETING
Reimbursement for purchase of mailing
140.000.61.558.70.49.00 41.59
Total :41.59
206421 1/9/2014 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY DEC 2013 INVOICE 12/31/13 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD
#137046 4 NPC 12/2/2013
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 45.28
#138149 2 NPC 12/9/2013
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 22.64
#139013 3 NPC 12/16/2013
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 33.96
#138713 4 NPC 12/30/2013
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 45.28
Total :147.16
28Page:
Packet Page 54 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206422 1/9/2014 067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC 11358 INV#11358 CUST#EE0065 - EDMONDS PD
PROPELLING CHARGE - STANDARD
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,273.20
K01 BATON ONLY
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 214.00
K01 BATON REPLACEMENT
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 105.00
37MM BARREL CLEANING BRUSH
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 24.54
Freight
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 132.00
Total :1,748.74
206423 1/9/2014 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S1-176212 Unit 32 - Glow Plug
Unit 32 - Glow Plug
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.65
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.92
Unit 5 - Oil SealS3-130435
Unit 5 - Oil Seal
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.16
Unit 5 - Brake Pad KitS3-132433
Unit 5 - Brake Pad Kit
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 123.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.71
Unit 5 - Oil Seal, See Returned PadS3-135345
Unit 5 - Oil Seal, See Returned Pad
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 264.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.10
Unit 5 - Taper Bearings (Returned)S3-136905
Unit 5 - Taper Bearings (Returned)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 57.06
29Page:
Packet Page 55 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206423 1/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.43
Unit 89 - Brake PadsS3-143042
Unit 89 - Brake Pads
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 72.41
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.88
Unit 252 - Strong ArmS3-143197
Unit 252 - Strong Arm
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.41
Unit 495 - Sensor, Fan BeltS3-143756
Unit 495 - Sensor, Fan Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 62.79
Unit 2 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 84.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.00
Unit 89 - Module KitS3-148870
Unit 89 - Module Kit
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 200.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.07
Unit 83 - Link KitsS3-150616
Unit 83 - Link Kits
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.14
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.04
Unit 132 - SwitchS3-150640
Unit 132 - Switch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 101.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.62
30Page:
Packet Page 56 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206423 1/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Unit 132 - Trans FluidS3-150779
Unit 132 - Trans Fluid
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 68.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.53
Fleet Bake Shoe InventoryS3-152206
Fleet Bake Shoe Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 115.54
Unit 447 - Auto Trans Oil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 57.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 10.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.47
Unit 649 - Water PumpS3-156216
Unit 649 - Water Pump
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 74.69
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.09
Unit 649- Anti FreezeS3-156245
Unit 649- Anti Freeze
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 68.16
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.47
Unit 335 - CoilS3-164794
Unit 335 - Coil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 46.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.44
Unit 335 Woodway - Spark PlugsS3-165431
Unit 335 Woodway - Spark Plugs
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.73
31Page:
Packet Page 57 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206423 1/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Unit 379 - SensorS3-174518
Unit 379 - Sensor
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.19
Unit 872 - RotorS3-175077
Unit 872 - Rotor
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 123.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.72
Unit 872 - PadS3-175093
Unit 872 - Pad
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 44.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.27
Fleet - ReturnsS5-144801
Fleet - Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -394.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -37.46
Fleet Brake Shoe InventoryS5-149340
Fleet Brake Shoe Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 231.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 21.95
Unit 449 - InjectorS5-160754
Unit 449 - Injector
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.88
Total :1,701.42
206424 1/9/2014 070298 SESAC INC 3784730 2014 LICENSING FEES
2014 LICENSING FEES
117.100.64.573.20.49.00 685.00
32Page:
Packet Page 58 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :685.002064241/9/2014 070298 070298 SESAC INC
206425 1/9/2014 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 89565 E2FC.SERVICES THRU 12/21/13
E2FC.Services thru 12/21/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,369.56
Total :2,369.56
206426 1/9/2014 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-279553 Shop Supplies - Bands
Shop Supplies - Bands
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 72.20
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.86
Total :79.06
206427 1/9/2014 036955 SKY NURSERY 222948 FLOWER PROGRAM
FLOWER PROGRAM
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 29.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 2.78
Total :32.07
206428 1/9/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2019-2991-6 October 22,2013 thru 12/23/2013
October 22,2013 thru 12/23/2013
423.000.76.535.80.47.00 33.39
12/1/2013 thru 12/31/20132025-7952-0
12/1/2013 thru 12/31/2013
423.000.76.535.80.47.00 8.77
Total :42.16
206429 1/9/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-6395-3 131 SUNSET AVE
131 SUNSET AVE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 513.38
50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7
50 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 165.87
100 RAILROAD AVE2021-3965-5
100 RAILROAD AVE
33Page:
Packet Page 59 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206429 1/9/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 58.12
Total :737.37
206430 1/9/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2013-1888 CREDIT ON #2013-1888 - EDMONDS PD
CR 35 HOUSING FROM 11/13 STMT
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 -2,307.90
INV#2013-1888 EDMONDS PD - DECEMBER 2012013-1888
55.5 BOOKINGS @ $94.95 - 11/13
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 5,269.73
516.08 HOUSING DAYS @ $65.94 11/13
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 34,030.31
Total :36,992.14
206431 1/9/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000328770 INV#I000328770 CUST#SSH00010 EDMONDS PD
TASK FORCE JAN-JUNE 2014
001.000.41.521.10.51.00 5,118.50
Total :5,118.50
206432 1/9/2014 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 13-122-2 Q1-14 COMMUNICATIONS
Q1-14 Communications
001.000.39.528.00.51.00 192,701.80
Q1-14 Communications
421.000.74.534.80.51.00 5,071.10
Q1-14 Communications
423.000.75.535.80.51.00 5,071.10
Q1-14 NEW WORLD ASSESSMENT13-122-2A
Q1-14 New World Assessment
001.000.39.528.00.51.00 19,816.75
Total :222,660.75
206433 1/9/2014 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 2014 Membership Dues SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 2014 MEMBERSHIP
2014 membership dues for Snohomish
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
206434 1/9/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DUMPING FEES DECEMBER
34Page:
Packet Page 60 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206434 1/9/2014 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
DUMPING FEES DECEMBER
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 569.63
Total :569.63
206435 1/9/2014 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4227485-01 Fac Maint - Painter Bib Overall - L
Fac Maint - Painter Bib Overall - L
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 37.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.52
Total :40.62
206436 1/9/2014 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100741355.001 City Park Bldg - Supplies
City Park Bldg - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 77.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.36
City Park Bldg - SuppliesS100742613.001
City Park Bldg - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.59
Fac Maint - SuppliesS100752235.001
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 856.56
City Park Bldg - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.96
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.58
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 106.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 97.11
Total :1,233.91
206437 1/9/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 30466216 Storm - Fluorescent Green Upside Down
35Page:
Packet Page 61 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206437 1/9/2014 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
Storm - Fluorescent Green Upside Down
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 427.67
Traffic - Red Paint, Screws, Washers,
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 386.18
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 40.63
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 36.69
Total :891.17
206438 1/9/2014 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 81353 PRINTING OF EVENT CALENDAR
Printing of event calendars
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 801.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 76.11
Total :877.28
206439 1/9/2014 074708 TEC EQUIPMENT INC 119714S Unit 31 - Switch
Unit 31 - Switch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 41.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.93
Total :45.29
206440 1/9/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50752635 E3FC.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBER 2013
E3FC.Services thru November 2013
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 16,571.27
Total :16,571.27
206441 1/9/2014 069576 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 111-1580124 EDMGO03
Unlimited Tax General Obligation
001.000.39.592.19.89.00 301.75
EDMLTGO07111-1580125
Washington Limited Tax General
001.000.39.592.19.89.00 176.75
36Page:
Packet Page 62 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206441 1/9/2014 (Continued)069576 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
EDMWATREF11111-1580127
Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding
422.000.72.592.31.89.00 83.64
Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding
421.000.74.592.34.89.00 175.17
Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding
423.000.75.592.35.89.00 29.78
Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding
423.000.76.592.35.89.00 3.84
Water & Sewer Improvement & Refunding
423.100.76.592.39.89.00 7.57
Total :778.50
206442 1/9/2014 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 370029 PROMOTIONAL AD IN SEATTLE TIMES ONLINE
Promotional ad in Seattle Times online
001.000.61.558.70.44.00 179.68
Total :179.68
206443 1/9/2014 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 051608 Fleet Shop - Hand Cleaner
Fleet Shop - Hand Cleaner
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.80
Total :43.80
206444 1/9/2014 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 119 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.23.00 512.38
Total :512.38
206445 1/9/2014 073284 UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO January UHC JANUARY UHC BILLING
January 2014 UHC
811.000.231.511 207,814.62
Total :207,814.62
37Page:
Packet Page 63 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206446 1/9/2014 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 101.00
Total :101.00
206447 1/9/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9717134817 C/A 571242650-00001
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 165.06
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00 56.02
iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.42.00 270.13
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.03
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept
001.000.62.558.60.42.00 95.03
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ Devlpmnt
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 470.84
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ Devlpmnt
001.000.61.519.70.42.00 75.04
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 353.08
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 116.57
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
001.000.22.518.10.42.00 40.01
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IT
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 320.41
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office
001.000.21.513.10.42.00 85.04
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept
001.000.64.571.21.42.00 55.02
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 896.42
Air cards Police Dept
38Page:
Packet Page 64 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206447 1/9/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.67
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
001.000.65.519.91.42.00 45.86
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 13.10
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 45.86
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 13.10
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 13.11
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW St Dept
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 116.02
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.02
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/ Sewer
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 101.04
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/ Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 101.03
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 95.03
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 135.04
iPad Cell Service Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 120.03
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 161.05
C/A 742016114-000019717258684
WWTP flow test modem
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 30.11
C/A 772540262-000019717263692
Lift Station access - testing
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 30.11
Total :5,045.88
39Page:
Packet Page 65 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206448 1/9/2014 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 30306534 clerical services
clerical services
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 307.29
clerical services30317400
clerical services
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 201.35
Total :508.64
206449 1/9/2014 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20-1-13022 INV 20-1-13022 CUST 23104-001 MCINTYRE P
PRE-SUPERVISION CLASS MCINTYRE
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 200.00
Total :200.00
206450 1/9/2014 047605 WA ST TREASURER 3RD QTR 13 REV EDMONDS FORFEITURES-3RD QTR 2013 REVISED
REVISED 3RD QTR 2013/FELONY PRO
001.000.237.240 560.85
Total :560.85
206451 1/9/2014 074706 WANG, HEATHER WANG 12162013 REFUND 4 HOURS UNUSED MONITOR FEES
REFUND 4 HOURS UNUSED MONITOR FEES
001.000.239.200 60.00
Total :60.00
206452 1/9/2014 074707 WASHINGTON LEGAL WORKS 101 PUBLIC DEFENDER INVESTIGATOR SERVICE
PUBLIC DEFENDER INVESTIGATOR SERVICE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 409.50
PUBLIC DEFENDER INVESTIGATIOR SERVICE102
PUBLIC DEFENDER INVESTIGATIOR SERVICE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 760.50
Total :1,170.00
206453 1/9/2014 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9358 TREE REMOVAL
TREE REMOVAL
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,400.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 133.00
40Page:
Packet Page 66 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,533.002064531/9/2014 067195 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
206454 1/9/2014 045912 WASPC 2014-00129 COMPAAN 2014 ACTIVE DUES
2014 ACTIVE DUES - COMPAAN
001.000.41.521.10.49.00 365.00
Total :365.00
206455 1/9/2014 071633 WDH BLACK ROCK 29054 IRU STRAND MAINT FEE-7100 210TH ST SW
IRU Maintenance Fee - 1 strand from
001.000.31.518.87.45.00 276.00
Franchise Fee on Fiber Lease
001.000.31.518.87.45.00 13.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.87.45.00 27.53
Total :317.33
206456 1/9/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6140 UB - #10 PRINTED WINDOW ENVELOPES
UB - #10 PRINTED WINDOW ENVELOPES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 168.33
UB - #10 PRINTED WINDOW ENVELOPES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 168.33
UB - #10 PRINTED WINDOW ENVELOPES
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 168.34
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.99
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.99
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 16.00
Total :552.98
206457 1/9/2014 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E 69679 Fac Maint - Work Shirts (5) E Matthews
Fac Maint - Work Shirts (5) E Matthews
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 106.15
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.77
41Page:
Packet Page 67 of 544
01/09/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
11:10:45AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206457 1/9/2014 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
Storm - Safety Vest (5X)E 69694
Storm - Safety Vest (5X)
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 26.99
9.2% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 2.48
Total :145.39
206458 1/9/2014 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 117 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.23.00 426.00
Total :426.00
206459 1/9/2014 071104 WIPPEL, TERESA 01012014 ADVERTISING ON MY NEIGHBORHOOD NEWS
ADVERTISING ON MY NEIGHBORHOOD NEWS
001.000.64.571.22.44.00 2,400.00
Total :2,400.00
206460 1/9/2014 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 120 LEOFF Reimbursement
LEOFF Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.23.00 584.58
Total :584.58
206461 1/9/2014 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1023 DEC-13 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,390.00
Total :13,390.00
Bank total :742,035.44145 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
742,035.44Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report145
42Page:
Packet Page 68 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206462 1/16/2014 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9450 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
421.000.74.534.80.33.00 94,618.32
Total :94,618.32
206463 1/16/2014 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC l113ex113 SERVICES ON 11.12.13 NPDES TESTING
NPDES samples to lab
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 64.17
Total :64.17
206464 1/16/2014 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 936730 CLEAN UP AT SIERRA PARK
CLEAN UP AT SIERRA PARK
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 425.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 40.38
CLEAN UP AT SIERRA PARK936731
CLEAN UP AT SIERRA PARK
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 300.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 28.50
Total :793.88
206465 1/16/2014 001528 AM TEST INC 78781 IP METALS SCAN DECEMBER
IP METALS SCAN DECEMBER
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 100.00
Total :100.00
206466 1/16/2014 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 040706-13106A Planning Board Members membership to
Planning Board Members membership to
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 450.00
Total :450.00
206467 1/16/2014 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC xr11 AMMONIA/NITRATES/PHOS NPDES TESTING
Monthly NPDES sampling
423.000.76.535.80.44.00 165.00
1Page:
Packet Page 69 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :165.002064671/16/2014 064335 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
206468 1/16/2014 060228 ANS OF WASHINGTON INC JOHNSON NOTARY ANNE JOHNSON NOTARY - EDMONDS PD
SELF INKING NOTARY STAMP
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 38.75
NOTARY SURETY BOND
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 50.00
STATE LICENSE FEE
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 30.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 4.63
Total :133.38
206469 1/16/2014 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 1895 CP PLAY AND SPRAT REVITALIZATION 1ST
CP PLAY AND SPRAT REVITALIZATION 1ST
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 72,992.69
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 6,934.31
Total :79,927.00
206470 1/16/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-7140342 WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MATS
WWTP UNIFORMS
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.16
WWTP TOWELS & MATS
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 57.42
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.46
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7140344
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.80
2Page:
Packet Page 70 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-7144710
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7144711
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
3Page:
Packet Page 71 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS655-7144712
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MATS655-7152035
WWTP UNIFORMS
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.16
WWTP TOWELS & MATS
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 63.42
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 6.03
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7152037
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.80
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-7156373
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
4Page:
Packet Page 72 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7156374
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS655-7156375
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MATS655-7163864
WWTP UNIFORMS
5Page:
Packet Page 73 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.16
WWTP TOWELS & MATS
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 57.42
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.46
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7163866
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 49.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.67
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-7168272
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
6Page:
Packet Page 74 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7168273
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS655-7168274
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MATS655-7175569
WWTP UNIFORMS
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.16
WWTP TOWELS & MATS
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 64.17
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 6.10
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7175571
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.91
9.5% Sales Tax
7Page:
Packet Page 75 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.61
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-7179875
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7179876
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
8Page:
Packet Page 76 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS655-7179877
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 25.96
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 2.47
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MATS655-7187238
WWTP UNIFORMS
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.16
WWTP TOWELS & MATS
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 57.42
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.46
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7187240
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.61
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-7191567
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
9Page:
Packet Page 77 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206470 1/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-7191568
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS655-7191569
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
Total :745.90
10Page:
Packet Page 78 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206471 1/16/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-7210610 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
Total :34.22
206472 1/16/2014 073934 ARIN SI204818 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEE 2014
Annual Membership for AS Number & IPV4
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 200.00
Total :200.00
206473 1/16/2014 001699 ASSOC OF WA CITIES 12/20/2013 2014 MEMBERSHIP FEE
2014 AWC Membership fee
001.000.39.519.90.49.00 27,153.00
Total :27,153.00
206474 1/16/2014 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S 063538 Alerton System - PW 11/1/13- 1/131/14
Alerton System - PW 11/1/13- 1/131/14
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,550.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 242.25
Total :2,792.25
206475 1/16/2014 074710 BAFUS, GUY BLD20131222 Incorrect valuation for scope of work.
Incorrect valuation for scope of work.
001.000.257.620 363.00
Total :363.00
206476 1/16/2014 074709 BARRON HEATING BLD20140015 Online permit - outside City limits
Online permit - outside City limits
001.000.257.620 85.00
Total :85.00
206477 1/16/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 739 Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 536 Gal
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 536 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 843.59
11Page:
Packet Page 79 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :843.592064771/16/2014 074307 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
206478 1/16/2014 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 7927 E3JA/E2GB/E1JB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E3JA.Services thru 12/31/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 130.00
E2GB.Services thru 12/31/13
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 937.50
E1JB.Services thru 12/31/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 16,877.25
Total :17,944.75
206479 1/16/2014 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 34564 INV#34564 - EDMONDS PD - PAULSON
S/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 203.85
CLOTH NAME TAGS FOR SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.78
INV#39348 - EDMONDS PD - VAN DOORN39348
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
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 13.10
Total :390.48
206480 1/16/2014 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14205544 for services rendered 10/25 thru
for services rendered 10/25 thru
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,819.71
Total :2,819.71
206481 1/16/2014 074251 BRUCE & CHRISTIANE ULNESS 4-10625 Customer overpayment
Customer overpayment
411.000.233.000 1,090.00
Total :1,090.00
12Page:
Packet Page 80 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206482 1/16/2014 074714 BUELL RECREATION LLC 01132014 CP PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION
CP PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 81,337.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 7,727.02
Total :89,064.02
206483 1/16/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 202009 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 45.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.27
Total :49.27
206484 1/16/2014 074166 CHILD ADVOCACY CTR OF SNO CO 0000000487 INV#0000000487 CUST#391 - EDMONDS PD
CHILD INTERVIEW SPEC 4TH QTR 2013
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 966.06
Total :966.06
206485 1/16/2014 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I13003410 Water Quality -Water Lab Analysis
Water Quality -Water Lab Analysis
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 599.40
Total :599.40
206486 1/16/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10/2013 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD - R&B FOR OCT 2013
PRISONER R&B FOR OCT 2013
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 4,590.17
CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD - R&B FOR NOV 201311/2013
PRISONER R&B FOR NOV 2013
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 2,379.58
CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD - R&B FOR DEC 201312/2013
PRISONER R&B FOR DEC 2013
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 3,116.58
CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD - R&B FOR SEPT 20139/2013
PRISONER R&B FOR SEPT 2013
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 808.25
13Page:
Packet Page 81 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :10,894.582064861/16/2014 019215 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
206487 1/16/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10519 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SKATE PARK ANNUAL
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SKATE PARK ANNUAL
001.000.64.576.80.51.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
206488 1/16/2014 066997 CITY OF MILL CREEK 2013 DVC REFUND FOR 2013 DVC COST DIFFERENCE
Refund for 2013 DV Coordinator Salary
001.000.346.50.000.00 908.37
Total :908.37
206489 1/16/2014 074319 CLASSICAL KING FM 98.1 IN-113122769 PROMOTIONAL BLOCK AD ON WEBSITE 12/02-12
Promotional block ad on King FM website
001.000.61.558.70.44.00 120.00
PROMOTIONAL RADIO ADS 12/02/13 - 12/07/1IN-113122770
Promotional radio ads 12/02-12/07/13
001.000.61.558.70.44.00 930.00
Total :1,050.00
206490 1/16/2014 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC JAN-14 C/A CITYOFED00001
Jan-14 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.00
Total :406.00
206491 1/16/2014 072848 COPIERS NW 973480 INV 973480 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD
IRC5045 LEASE 12/5/13-1/4/2014
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54
INV#973481 CUST#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD973481
BLACK COPIES 12/5/13 - 1/4/2014
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 56.51
COLOR COPIES 12/5/13 - 1/4/2014
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 74.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 12.41
14Page:
Packet Page 82 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :391.352064911/16/2014 072848 072848 COPIERS NW
206492 1/16/2014 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3283632 CONCESSION RFP
CONCESSION RFP
001.000.64.571.22.44.00 86.10
Total :86.10
206493 1/16/2014 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 339370 STORM DETENTION VAULT FOR SHAW LANE (PLN
Storm Detention Vault for Shaw Lane
001.000.245.963 427.18
E1AA.SERVICES THRU 12/28/13339576
E1AA.Services thru 12/28/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 7,292.58
E1CA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13339590
E1CA.Services thru 12/31/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 10,361.98
Total :18,081.74
206494 1/16/2014 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2013120252 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for December 2013
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00
Total :940.00
206495 1/16/2014 070121 DESTINATION MARKETING 16687 VIDEO PROJECT - SHOOT CHARGES DEC
Video shoot charges for Dec 2013
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
206496 1/16/2014 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY AD
CEMETERY AD
130.000.64.536.20.44.00 58.98
Total :58.98
206497 1/16/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3423 MINUTE TAKING
Council Minutes 1/7
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 326.70
15Page:
Packet Page 83 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :326.702064971/16/2014 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
206498 1/16/2014 064640 DMCMA 30114 Court Management Association for Joan
Court Management Association for Joan
001.000.23.512.50.49.00 150.00
Total :150.00
206499 1/16/2014 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 13-2234.4a E4JA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E4JA.Services thru 12/31/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 9,797.21
E3JA.TO 13-05.SERVICES THRU 12/29/1313-2240.2
E3JA.TO 13-05.Services thru 12/29/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 882.74
Total :10,679.95
206500 1/16/2014 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2279964 GLOVES
GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.87
Total :21.56
206501 1/16/2014 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 29040 NON-CLOR BRK PTS
NON-CLOR BRK PTS
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 95.76
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 9.10
BATTERY TERMINALS29701
BATTERY TERMINALS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 13.98
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.33
Total :120.17
206502 1/16/2014 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 262 TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD JULY-DEC 2013
Tourism promotion award for
120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,250.00
16Page:
Packet Page 84 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,250.002065021/16/2014 007775 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
206503 1/16/2014 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 116 YEARLY MEMBERSHIP DUES 2014
2014 Yearly membership dues
001.000.39.519.90.49.00 445.00
Total :445.00
206504 1/16/2014 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 010814 SEALER
SEALER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.57
Total :6.56
206505 1/16/2014 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2014-01-01 01/14 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE
01/14 Recreation Services Contract Fee
001.000.39.555.00.41.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
206506 1/16/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-10351 23823 76TH AVE W
23823 76TH AVE W
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65
Total :34.65
206507 1/16/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 093636-1 Monthly maintenance for copiers from
Monthly maintenance for copiers from
423.000.76.535.80.45.00 81.21
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.00 7.71
Total :88.92
206508 1/16/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 095427 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 11/21/13 -
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 145.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 13.79
17Page:
Packet Page 85 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :158.992065081/16/2014 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
206509 1/16/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 093645 Water Sewer Copy Use - ~
Water Sewer Copy Use - ~
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 23.01
Water Sewer Copy Use - ~
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.01
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.19
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.18
PW Copy Use - B/W 3898, Color 1136093648
PW Copy Use - B/W 3898, Color 1136
001.000.65.519.91.31.00 25.37
PW Copy Use - B/W 3898, Color 1136
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 14.38
PW Copy Use - B/W 3898, Color 1136
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 14.38
PW Copy Use - B/W 3898, Color 1136
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.15
PW Copy Use - B/W 3898, Color 1136
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.15
PW Copy Use - B/W 3898, Color 1136
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.31.00 2.41
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.37
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.37
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.96
9.5% Sales Tax
18Page:
Packet Page 86 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206509 1/16/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.96
Fleet Copy Use B/W 292, Color 55095256
Fleet Copy Use B/W 292, Color 55
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.56
Total :149.49
206510 1/16/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 095376 1 Planning C1030 copier/printer meter
Planning C1030 copier/printer meter
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 18.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 1.78
Total :20.48
206511 1/16/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 095375 1 PARKS MAINT A7078 SERVICE AGREEMENT
PARKS MAINT A7078 SERVICE AGREEMENT
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 19.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1.88
Total :21.70
206512 1/16/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 095378 1 Additional images Council Office
Additional images Council Office
001.000.11.511.60.45.00 17.56
Total :17.56
206513 1/16/2014 064013 EMERGENCY SERVICES 848-48-014-002 2014 MEMBER ASSESSMENT ESCA
2014 Emergency Services Coordinating
001.000.39.525.60.51.00 93,060.00
Total :93,060.00
206514 1/16/2014 073936 ENDURO COMPOSITES INC 49140 testing remaining carbon life
testing remaining carbon life
423.000.76.535.80.41.31 1,170.00
19Page:
Packet Page 87 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,170.002065141/16/2014 073936 073936 ENDURO COMPOSITES INC
206515 1/16/2014 066004 ESRI 92757867 ARCGIS, ARCPAD MAINTENANCE
ArcGIS & ArcPad Maintenance 1/1/14 -
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 13,400.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,273.00
Total :14,673.00
206516 1/16/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG533326 Comprehensive Plan deadline - legas.
Comprehensive Plan deadline - legas.
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 15.48
Echelbarger/PLN20130073 - notice of apLG534251
Echelbarger/PLN20130073 - notice of ap
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 73.96
AMD20130017/Pros Plan - legalsLG534637
AMD20130017/Pros Plan - legals
001.000.62.558.60.44.00 46.44
Total :135.88
206517 1/16/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG534314 E2FC.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E2FC.RFQ Advertisement
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 612.32
E1AA.DOE NOTICELG534782
E1AA.DOE Notice
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 89.44
Total :701.76
206518 1/16/2014 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC EPD1005 WWTP - SWITCHGEAR PROJECT
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 2,988.00
WWTP - SWITCHGEAR PROJECT
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 31,452.68
Total :34,440.68
206519 1/16/2014 071562 FORMA 12312013 6.25 HOURS OF DESIGN FOR WAYFINDING
6.25 HOURS OF DESIGN FOR WAYFINDING
20Page:
Packet Page 88 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206519 1/16/2014 (Continued)071562 FORMA
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 531.25
Total :531.25
206520 1/16/2014 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR104 & PINE
POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR104 & PINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 176.07
CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 118.04
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 16.43
Total :352.21
206521 1/16/2014 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER DRIVE
BEACH RANGER DRIVE
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 57.86
Total :57.86
206522 1/16/2014 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 28571 E9GA.LS #5 TESTING
E9GA.LS#5 Testing
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 235.00
E9GA.LS#4.SERVICES THRU 12/29/1329385
E9GA.LS#4.Services thru 12/29/13
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 505.00
Total :740.00
206523 1/16/2014 072515 GOOGLE INC 8639281 C/A #396392 MESSAGE DISCOVERY BILLING
Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee -
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 384.00
Total :384.00
206524 1/16/2014 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 0970155893 electronic device - ethernet switch
21Page:
Packet Page 89 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206524 1/16/2014 (Continued)012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
electronic device - ethernet switch
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,430.89
Total :1,430.89
206525 1/16/2014 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 143741/1 Water - Seaview Resivour Supplies
Water - Seaview Resivour Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,097.74
Water Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 231.98
Water Inventory - W-CLMPCI-08-060 #0070
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 287.50
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 126.25
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 27.30
Water Inventory - W-CLMPCI-08-060 #0070143911/1
Water Inventory - W-CLMPCI-08-060 #0070
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 143.75
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 13.66
Water Inventory - W-Flngbr-015-020 #0535144382/1
Water Inventory - W-Flngbr-015-020 #0535
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 677.50
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 64.36
Water Supplies - Resetters144453/1
Water Supplies - Resetters
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 293.58
Water Inventory - #381 Resetter
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 329.25
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 27.89
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 31.28
22Page:
Packet Page 90 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,352.042065251/16/2014 069733 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
206526 1/16/2014 012560 HACH COMPANY 8562271 COD Digest file
COD Digest file
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 442.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 30.47
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 44.88
Total :517.35
206527 1/16/2014 065055 HANSON, TODD HansonRefund T Hanson Refund for overtime on L & I
T Hanson Refund for overtime on L & I
111.000.68.544.70.11.00 23.40
Total :23.40
206528 1/16/2014 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3525040 Water Inventory - 17x30 Meter Box Cover
Water Inventory - 17x30 Meter Box Cover
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,130.82
Water Inventory #0435 1" Meter Setters
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 2,974.32
Water Inventory #0558 Gate Valves
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,063.44
Water Parts Supplies - Meter Boxes,
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6,799.87
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 491.01
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 645.99
Total :13,105.45
206529 1/16/2014 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00127795-B For Professional services rendered from
For Professional services rendered from
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 350.16
Total :350.16
23Page:
Packet Page 91 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206530 1/16/2014 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 53733784 HP COMPAQ ELITE 8300 COMPUTERS
HP Compaq Elite 8300 Ultra Slim Desktop
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 3,069.20
Total :3,069.20
206531 1/16/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1042215 4PK SCREWSET/KLZTOT1PRMGA
4PK SCREWSET/KLZTOT1PRMGA
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 12.98
4PK SCREWSET/KLZTOT1PRMGA
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 12.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 1.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 1.23
HUSKY 50CT, DOOR STOP, ETC.1283377
HUSKY 50CT, DOOR STOP, ETC.
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 18.93
HUSKY 50CT, DOOR STOP, ETC.
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 18.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 1.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 1.80
30 SEC 2.5 GAL, 6'ELHTCBLCSA, HOMER2031433
30 SEC 2.5 GAL, 6'ELHTCBLCSA, HOMER
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 46.70
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.44
FACILITIES STOCK SUPPLIES260722
FACILITIES STOCK SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 169.00
FACILITIES STOCK SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 16.05
24Page:
Packet Page 92 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206531 1/16/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.47
3 PK RCS, 12"TPNKNFSS3031254
3 PK RCS, 12"TPNKNFSS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.01
WIRE BRUSHES, ETC.4040051
WIRE BRUSHES, ETC.
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.20
WYE 8X6X64041822
WYE 8X6X6
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 5.99
WYE 8X6X6
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 5.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 0.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 0.57
4 MCS VISE4041824
4 MCS VISE
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 49.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 4.75
L-FLASH X 242553
L-FLASH X 2
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 5.47
L-FLASH X 2
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 5.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 0.52
9.5% Sales Tax
25Page:
Packet Page 93 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206531 1/16/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 0.52
FLEXDUCT6, ETC.42684
FLEXDUCT6, ETC.
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 24.26
FLEXDUCT6, ETC.
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 24.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 2.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 2.30
20' FG EXT7032363
20' FG EXT
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 214.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 20.33
3/4 RTD SHTG X 27043310
3/4 RTD SHTG X 2
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 52.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 5.03
WHY LOUVER, CEIL GRID8030227
WHY LOUVER, CEIL GRID
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 7.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 0.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 0.72
WHY LOUVER, CEIL GRID
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 7.63
SILVER SET X 2, 5 GAL WHITE, 5 GAL8042984
SILVER SET X 2, 5 GAL WHITE, 5 GAL
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 16.46
SILVER SET X 2, 5 GAL WHITE, 5 GAL
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 16.46
26Page:
Packet Page 94 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206531 1/16/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 1.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 1.56
3FT PIPE, NYLON TIE, ADJ90EDGEKB X 29042754
3FT PIPE, NYLON TIE, ADJ90EDGEKB X 2
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 18.32
3FT PIPE, NYLON TIE, ADJ90EDGEKB X 2
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 18.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 1.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 1.74
GATRSOCKET, FAST BAKKNIFE, ETC.9590009
GATRSOCKET, FAST BAKKNIFE, ETC.
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 47.84
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.54
Total :942.06
206532 1/16/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2044039 PAINT
PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 54.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.15
Total :59.34
206533 1/16/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 24815 ESLHA Grading permit review. $1500 per
ESLHA Grading permit review. $1500 per
001.000.62.524.20.41.00 1,500.00
Tree Cutting Peer Review-Pt. Edwards24821
Tree Cutting Peer Review-Pt. Edwards
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 1,115.50
Total :2,615.50
27Page:
Packet Page 95 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206534 1/16/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 24817 E3JA.TO 13-06.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E3JA.TO 13-06 Services thru 12/31/13
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 446.50
Total :446.50
206535 1/16/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2393309 OFFICE SUPPLIES
year-end supplies
001.000.61.519.70.31.00 170.95
year-end supplies
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 170.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.31.00 16.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 16.24
Total :374.37
206536 1/16/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2393544 Paper cups and napkins for Council
Paper cups and napkins for Council
001.000.11.511.60.31.00 27.81
Total :27.81
206537 1/16/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2391133 Office Supplies
Office Supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 72.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 6.84
Total :78.84
206538 1/16/2014 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 495035 Unit 679 - Battery
Unit 679 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 203.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.38
Total :223.33
206539 1/16/2014 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E7AA.Pmt 8 (FINAL)E7AA.PMT 8 (FINAL)
28Page:
Packet Page 96 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206539 1/16/2014 (Continued)069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC
E7AA.Pmt 8 (FINAL)
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 1,747.50
Total :1,747.50
206540 1/16/2014 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 600840 Hypochlorite solutions ss150
Hypochlorite solutions ss150
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,858.97
Total :2,858.97
206541 1/16/2014 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 30314 COURT TRAINING FOR AMBER
COURT TRAINING FOR AMBER
001.000.23.523.30.49.00 40.00
Total :40.00
206542 1/16/2014 074635 JUSTINA HARRIS KRUS December 30, 2013 Pine Street tree cutting arborist
Pine Street tree cutting arborist
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 475.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 45.13
Total :520.13
206543 1/16/2014 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD 18135 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 18135
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 18135
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 150.50
Total :150.50
206544 1/16/2014 070260 KOPP'S KOPIERS 11013 INV#11013 - EDMONDS PD
CLEAN/REPAIR SHREDDER TOP
001.000.41.521.10.48.00 200.00
Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.48.00 17.20
Total :217.20
206545 1/16/2014 067568 KPG INC 122813 E2AD.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E2AD.Services thru 12/31/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 7,336.29
29Page:
Packet Page 97 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :7,336.292065451/16/2014 067568 067568 KPG INC
206546 1/16/2014 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 01062014-01 INV#01062014-01 - EDMONDS PD
16 CAR WASHES $5.03 (INC TAX) 12/13
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 80.48
Total :80.48
206547 1/16/2014 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC E1JB.Pmt 1 Lakeside E1JB.PMT 1 THRU 12/31/13
E1JB.Pmt 1 thru 12/31/13
421.000.74.594.34.65.10 103,471.01
E1JB.Ret 1
421.000.223.400 -5,173.55
Total :98,297.46
206548 1/16/2014 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 32498 E3FH.TO 13-01 SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E3FH.TO 13-01 Services thru 12/31/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 14,883.72
Total :14,883.72
206549 1/16/2014 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 107 PUBLIC DEFENER
PUBLIC DEFENER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
206550 1/16/2014 072059 LEE, NICOLE 942 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 143.22
Total :143.22
206551 1/16/2014 074014 LEIDOS ENGINEERING LLC 51529 E3FA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E3FA.Services thru 12/31/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 5,822.51
Total :5,822.51
206552 1/16/2014 074693 LETTERWORKS SIGN DESIGN 8512 WAYFINDING SIGNS 60% COMPLETION
WAYFINDING SIGNS 60% COMPLETION
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 4,828.44
30Page:
Packet Page 98 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206552 1/16/2014 (Continued)074693 LETTERWORKS SIGN DESIGN
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 458.70
30% OF WAYFINDING SIGN POSTS COMPLETED8513
30% OF WAYFINDING SIGN POSTS COMPLETED
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 180.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 17.10
Total :5,484.24
206553 1/16/2014 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20146 expenses 11-13 EXPENSES
10-13 reimbursement for expenses - Syd
001.000.36.515.31.41.00 236.85
01-14 LEGAL FEESJAN-2014
01-14 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.31.41.00 32,000.00
Total :32,236.85
206554 1/16/2014 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 692967 Fleet Parts - Front Calipers
Fleet Parts - Front Calipers
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.42
Total :16.41
206555 1/16/2014 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6799 CITY PARK PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION
CITY PARK PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 21,604.08
Total :21,604.08
206556 1/16/2014 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6798 E1DA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E1DA.Services thru 12/31/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 11,336.07
Total :11,336.07
206557 1/16/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 905 INTERPRETER FEE
31Page:
Packet Page 99 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206557 1/16/2014 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE906
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE912
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE928
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE937
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 128.32
Total :481.60
206558 1/16/2014 074713 MAZENGIA, KERRY MAZENGIA 01062014 REFUND MEDICAL
REFUND MEDICAL
001.000.239.200 168.00
Total :168.00
206559 1/16/2014 074717 MICHAEL & KARI ANDERSON 4-20250 #401225223-803-MJ3 UTILITY REFUND
#401225223-803-MJ3 Utility refund due
411.000.233.000 320.52
Total :320.52
206560 1/16/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 181634 CUT BLADES
CUT BLADES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.42
Total :27.89
206561 1/16/2014 023870 NATIONAL REC & PARK ASSOC 29558 2014 NRPA MEMBERSHIP
2014 NRPA MEMBERSHIP
32Page:
Packet Page 100 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206561 1/16/2014 (Continued)023870 NATIONAL REC & PARK ASSOC
001.000.64.571.21.49.00 390.00
Total :390.00
206562 1/16/2014 062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 578481 Unit eq91so - Tool Boxes Supplies
Unit eq91so - Tool Boxes Supplies
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,616.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 153.52
Unit eq74po - Tool Boxes Supplies578484
Unit eq74po - Tool Boxes Supplies
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,616.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 153.52
Units eq74po & eq91so - Shelves579691
Units eq74po & eq91so - Shelves
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 234.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 44.46
Units eq74po & eq91so - Shelves
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 234.00
Total :4,051.50
206563 1/16/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-828440 HICKMAN PARK
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.88
YOST POOL RENTALS1-828452
YOST POOL RENTALS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99
CIVIC FIELD RENTALS1-834730
CIVIC FIELD RENTALS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35
Total :1,011.22
206564 1/16/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 440 Planning Board minutes on 1/8/14,
Planning Board minutes on 1/8/14,
33Page:
Packet Page 101 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206564 1/16/2014 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 288.00
Total :288.00
206565 1/16/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 946758 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 375.74
SUPPLIES962126
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 92.89
Total :468.63
206566 1/16/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 065966 USB POCKETS AND WHITE OUT
USB POCKETS AND WHITE OUT
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 30.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.93
PAPER104703
PAPER
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 190.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 18.11
Total :242.38
206567 1/16/2014 073751 OKANOGAN COUNTRY SHERIFF OKC JAIL DEC 2013 PRISONER HOUSING - EDMONDS PD - DEC 2013
INMATE HOUSING - DEC 2013
001.000.41.523.60.51.00 642.00
Total :642.00
206568 1/16/2014 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER
FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 159.92
Total :159.92
206569 1/16/2014 073221 ORCHID CELLMARK INC 010-056787 INV#010-056787 - EDMONDS PD
EVIDENCE TEST #13-1973
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00
34Page:
Packet Page 102 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206569 1/16/2014 (Continued)073221 ORCHID CELLMARK INC
EVIDENCE TEST #13-2741
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00
2 EVIDENCE TESTS #13-4142
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 610.00
3 EVIDENCE TESTS #13-2706
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 915.00
EVIDENCE TEST #13-3553
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00
EVIDENCE TEST #13-4123
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00
2 EVIDENCE TESTS #13-4288
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 610.00
EVIDENCE TEST #13-4554
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00
2 REFERENCE SAMPLES #13-4554
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 490.00
Total :4,150.00
206570 1/16/2014 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 121300191 E2CC.SERVICES THRU 12/06/13
E2CC.Services thru 12/06/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 4,079.40
Total :4,079.40
206571 1/16/2014 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 201100110.000-29 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E7AC.Services thru 12/31/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 10,092.78
Total :10,092.78
206572 1/16/2014 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20100166.001-1 E2DB.SERVICES THRU 10/27/13
E2DB.Services thru 10/27/13
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 385.73
E2DB.SERVICES THRU 12/29/1320100166.001-2
E2DB.Services thru 12/29/13
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 759.91
35Page:
Packet Page 103 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,145.642065721/16/2014 063951 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC
206573 1/16/2014 066542 PIONEER DOOR INC 39550 COMMERCIAL DOORS AND HARDWARE
COMMERCIAL DOORS AND HARDWARE
016.000.66.518.30.48.00 6,733.59
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.48.00 639.69
Total :7,373.28
206574 1/16/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC B453843 WWTP KLE 55419-SP SHLDR PCH-16 PKT ETC
WWTP KLE 55419-SP SHLDR PCH-16 PKT ETC
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.12
Total :58.97
206575 1/16/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC SC04165 E9GA.ELECTRICAL PARTS FOR GENERATOR
E9GA.Electrical Parts for Generator
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 12.37
Total :12.37
206576 1/16/2014 074715 POLLY JO PETERSON 1-27275 #4222-2165689 UTILITY REFUND
#4222-2165689 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 36.30
Total :36.30
206577 1/16/2014 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW /
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 946.54
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE200019375639
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 351.92
Total :1,298.46
206578 1/16/2014 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 1222 Fathead Acute Test . Ceriodaphnia dubia
Fathead Acute Test . Ceriodaphnia dubia
423.000.76.535.80.41.31 1,100.00
36Page:
Packet Page 104 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206578 1/16/2014 (Continued)074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB
DMRQA Study 331247
DMRQA Study 33
423.000.76.535.80.41.31 200.00
Mysid chronic Test, Topsmelt chronic1281
Mysid chronic Test, Topsmelt chronic
423.000.76.535.80.41.31 2,760.00
Total :4,060.00
206579 1/16/2014 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 1369 ACUTE TESTING
December Acute Testing for NPDES
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,100.00
Total :1,100.00
206580 1/16/2014 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-001662924 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.519.91.47.00 27.89
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 105.97
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 105.97
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 105.97
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 105.97
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 105.98
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W3-0197-0800478
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 140.67
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 149.26
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 64.98
37Page:
Packet Page 105 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :912.662065801/16/2014 061540 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197
206581 1/16/2014 006841 RICOH USA INC 5028941224 Meter charges for large copier for
Meter charges for large copier for
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 45.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 4.31
Meter charges for Engineering's color5028941225
Meter charges for Engineering's color
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 214.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 20.37
Total :284.44
206582 1/16/2014 070042 RICOH USA INC 91517622 Rent on reception copier for billling
Rent on reception copier for billling
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66
Rent on Engineering MPC6000 color91562619
Rent on Engineering MPC6000 color
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48
Rent on large copier 907EX for billing91562620
Rent on large copier 907EX for billing
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00
Total :1,301.14
206583 1/16/2014 074507 SARAH CHO 06-07 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 188.00
Total :188.00
206584 1/16/2014 037225 SCCFOA 2014 MEMBERSHIP DUES
Dues for City Clerk & Deputy Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
206585 1/16/2014 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1132340 PRINTING FORMS
Business License forms
38Page:
Packet Page 106 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206585 1/16/2014 (Continued)036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 390.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 37.09
PRINTING SERVICES1132394
Business License Renewal forms
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 384.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 36.50
Total :848.18
206586 1/16/2014 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Q1-2014 Q1-2014 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACT PAYMENT
Q1-2014 Fire Services Contract Payment
001.000.39.522.20.51.00 1,555,694.75
Total :1,555,694.75
206587 1/16/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE /
LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 328.96
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER2002-7495-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.81
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER2004-9315-3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 56.29
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER2005-9488-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 88.11
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S /2009-1385-3
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 51.38
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER2011-9222-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 36.44
LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER2014-2731-7
LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER
39Page:
Packet Page 107 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206587 1/16/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 33.39
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER2015-3292-6
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 945.84
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) /2017-1178-5
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 1,240.09
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /2020-7719-4
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,287.04
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER2022-8909-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 125.40
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER2023-5673-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 44.33
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER2024-9953-9
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 954.14
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) /2025-2918-6
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 2,507.96
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) /2025-2920-2
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 116.09
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) /2025-7615-3
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 14,557.96
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) /2025-7948-8
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 337.50
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT2047-1489-3
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 3.46
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) /2047-1492-7
40Page:
Packet Page 108 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206587 1/16/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 76.70
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 40.44
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 10.26
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) /2047-1495-0
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 139.45
Total :23,023.04
206588 1/16/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5085-1 600 3RD AVE S
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 42.69
600 3RD AVE S2006-5164-4
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,571.28
250 6TH AVE N2008-6924-6
250 6TH AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 160.86
23700 104TH AVE W2011-8453-8
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 281.38
603 3RD AVE S2013-8327-0
603 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.98
251 6TH AVE N2014-5305-7
251 6TH AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 656.04
600 3RD AVE S2021-1448-4
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 391.92
41Page:
Packet Page 109 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,139.152065881/16/2014 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
206589 1/16/2014 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 63603 SOLID WASTE CHARGES DECEMBER
SOLID WASTE CHARGES DECEMBER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 257.00
Total :257.00
206590 1/16/2014 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I000352461 2014 SERS OPERATING ASSESSMENT
2014 SERS Operating Assessment
001.000.39.525.60.51.00 99,465.00
Total :99,465.00
206591 1/16/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 DECEMBER SERVICES
December Services
423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95
Total :29.95
206592 1/16/2014 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002498142 INV#3002498142 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 0.36
Total :10.36
206593 1/16/2014 073549 STERRETT CONSULTING LLC 1301-02 Reimbursement for attending meeting
Reimbursement for attending meeting
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 472.50
Reimbursement for attending meeting
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 472.50
Total :945.00
206594 1/16/2014 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 2764296 GREENHOUSE SUPPLIES
GREENHOUSE SUPPLIES
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 475.45
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 45.17
42Page:
Packet Page 110 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :520.622065941/16/2014 040250 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING
206595 1/16/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50757507 E3FC.SERVICES THRU 12/31/13
E3FC.Services thru 12/31/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 17,013.92
E4FB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/1350757524
E4FB.Services thru 12/31/13
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 3,584.13
Total :20,598.05
206596 1/16/2014 070245 THE LIFEGUARD STORE INC INV179027 AQUATIC SUPPLIES
AQUATIC SUPPLIES
001.000.64.575.51.31.00 47.80
Total :47.80
206597 1/16/2014 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US54628 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 14.48
Total :14.48
206598 1/16/2014 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 47739 YOST PARK TENNIS CORT REPAIR
YOST PARK TENNIS CORT REPAIR
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 2,780.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 264.10
Total :3,044.10
206599 1/16/2014 070037 TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION INC E2DB.Pmt 9 FINAL E2DB.PMT 9 FINAL THRU 12/31/13
E2DB.Pmt 9 FINAL thru 12/31/13
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,809.60
Total :1,809.60
206600 1/16/2014 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-101363 ADVANCED BUDGETING LICENSING FEE EDEN
Advanced Budgeting Software License Fee
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9,500.00
Total :9,500.00
43Page:
Packet Page 111 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206601 1/16/2014 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 115838506-001 Water - Mini Excavator Rental for 1550
Water - Mini Excavator Rental for 1550
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2,117.24
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 201.15
Total :2,318.39
206602 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 2985 Washington Class C Operator Training
Washington Class C Operator Training
423.000.76.535.80.49.71 103.60
Total :103.60
206603 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 5923 COMPUTER AND MONITOR STAND
Computer and monitor workstation for
001.000.61.519.70.35.00 492.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.35.00 46.79
Total :539.32
206604 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 3181 INV#3181 01/06/14 - BARD - EDMONDS PD
REG.BULLETPROOF WARR/COMPTON
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 209.00
MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ON-LINE TRAINING
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00
CHARGER/CABLE FOR PHONES
001.000.41.521.40.35.00 41.06
SURVIVOR STOPWATCHES
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 45.82
PADLOCK FOR EXT HARDDRIVE
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 269.50
AMMO CANS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 34.80
TLO SEARCHES 12/2013
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 2.00
INV#3181 01/06/14 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
SAFARILAND BELT HOLSTER
44Page:
Packet Page 112 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206604 1/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.41.521.22.35.00 87.98
REG. ADV SUPERVISOR/HAWLEY
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 350.00
SNAGIT GOV. SOFTWARE
001.000.41.521.40.35.00 47.03
INV#3314 01/06/14 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314
STREAMLIGHT TLR-1 HR
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 3,863.16
DVD+R DISCS
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 62.97
COMMENDATION BARS/HOLDERS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 190.00
INV#3314 01/06/14 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314
FBINAA RENEWAL OF DUES 2014
001.000.41.521.10.49.00 90.00
INV#3520 01/06/14 - TRAINING - EDMONDS P3520
FEDEX CHG #13-4554
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 41.59
FEDEX CHG TO RUSS REPAIRS
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 200.55
FEDEX CHG #13-3405
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 13.67
#7914 CR FOR BROKEN ITEMS-01/06/14-THOMP7914
PARTIAL CR RETURNED DVD+R #4
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 -33.45
BAL CR RETURNED DVD+R #4
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 -65.85
PARTIAL CR RETURNED DVD+R #2
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 -48.08
BAL CR RETURNED DVD+R #2
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 -24.04
INV#7914 01/06/14 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS P7914
DVD+R DISCS (RETURNED)
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 72.12
45Page:
Packet Page 113 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206604 1/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK
TACTICAL LIGHT MOUNTS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 852.55
DVD+R DISCS (RETURNED)
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 99.30
TACTICAL BORESNAKE CLEANER
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 33.10
INV#7914 01/06/14 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS P7914
HYGIENE KITS/BLACK
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 162.42
MICROSOFT ERGONOMIC KEYBOARD
001.000.41.521.10.35.00 44.51
FORMULA 409 FOR SAGE
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.37
MICROFIBER CLOTHS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 61.07
EPSON ERC-32 CASH REG RIBBON
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 22.64
Total :6,928.79
206605 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 123113 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT APPLICATIONS
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT APPLICATIONS
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 103.00
Total :103.00
206606 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 3470 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION
Domain Name Registration -
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 27.90
HP NOTEBOOK, DESIGNJET PRINTER, 5 PORT S5179
HP Direct - Smart Buy HP ProBook 4540s
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 835.70
Office Max - 5 port Gigabit Desktop
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 32.84
HP Designjet T520 24" ePrinter -
001.000.62.524.10.35.00 800.00
HP Designjet T520 24" ePrinter -
46Page:
Packet Page 114 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206606 1/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.62.558.60.35.00 200.00
HP Designjet T520 24" ePrinter -
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 728.73
Experts Exchange LLC - IT Solutions
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 12.95
HP STORAGEWORKS CONTROLLER, KEYBOARD5179
TigerDirect.com - HP StorageWorks
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 3,042.97
TigerDirect.com - Logitech 920-004013
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 77.80
GFOA WEBINAR D SHARP8842
Government Finance Officers Association
001.000.31.514.23.49.00 25.00
Total :5,783.89
206607 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 4697 SISTER CITY TRANSPORTATION
Hobby Lobby retirement poster framing
001.000.21.513.10.41.00 105.49
Starline Coaches transportation for
138.100.21.557.21.49.00 1,130.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.41.00 10.02
Total :1,245.65
206608 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 2813 FLEET MAINTENANCE VISA PURCHASES
8.8" FORD 34-3/8" 31SPL 03 & UP CROWN
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 344.74
3/4X1" MXF SS PRESS RLF VLV
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 854.39
14OZ PASTE AND PROTECT WAX
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.18
7/80DX5 VINYL TUBE X 3
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.65
2 PIECE 1500LB CAPACITY VEHICLE WHEEL
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 66.98
47Page:
Packet Page 115 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206608 1/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK
25 FOOT CABLE
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 142.00
KEY SET
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.45
75OZ THRD SEALANT
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 7.58
30A STAINLESS POWER INLET AND EEL
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 126.51
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 56.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.71
FLEET MAINTENANCE VISA PURCHASES2813
1 LIT AGC2BP
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.09
LATE PAYMENT FEE
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 8.54
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.29
FACILITIES VISA PURCHASE CARD3405
LABOR & INDUSTRIES CIRCUIT INSPECTION
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 37.90
LABOR & INDUSTRIES CIRCUIT INSPECTION
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 37.90
BATH FAUCETS FOR FAC UPGRADE
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.88
OLD PUBLIC WORKS ALARM MONITORING
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.98
FACILITIES VISA PURCHASE CARD3405
LATE PAYMENT FEE
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 14.12
PUBLIC WORKS VISA PURCHASE3546
48Page:
Packet Page 116 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206608 1/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK
PROTECTIVE CASES FOR IPADS
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 78.56
2012 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE SOFT COVER
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 294.60
TIDE CALENDARS FOR STORM STAFF
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 14.95
REPLACEMENT SMALL APPLIANCES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 41.49
REPLACEMENT SMALL APPLIANCES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 41.48
RECYCLE BINS
421.000.74.537.90.49.00 67.35
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 11.41
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 31.93
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.537.90.49.00 6.39
NEOPRENE PROTECTORS FOR IPADS3546
NEOPRENE PROTECTORS FOR IPADS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 51.98
LATE PAYMENT FEE
001.000.65.518.20.49.00 5.18
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.94
Total :2,524.03
206609 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 5593 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CHARD
Misc. recorded documents
001.000.25.514.30.49.00 490.00
Recording of Utility Liens
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 82.50
Recording of Utility Liens
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 82.50
49Page:
Packet Page 117 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :655.002066091/16/2014 062693 062693 US BANK
206610 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 6045 Green Associate Study Guide & Core for
Green Associate Study Guide & Core for
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 183.75
Late fee
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 2.00
2014 WABO membership renewal for Leif6045
2014 WABO membership renewal for Leif
001.000.62.524.20.49.00 95.00
Total :280.75
206611 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 4675 PARKS AND REC VISA CARD
PA SUPPLIES
117.200.64.575.50.31.00 60.19
SEED FLOWER PROGRAM
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 277.21
PENS WOTS
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 456.90
SAFE FOR CEMETERY
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 2,414.00
Total :3,208.30
206612 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 3389 New iPad keyboard for Bloom
New iPad keyboard for Bloom
001.000.11.511.60.31.00 89.67
Total :89.67
206613 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 0378 ADVERTISING JOB RANGER NATURALIST
advertising job Ranger Naturalist
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00
EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR AWARD0378
Emp of the Year award
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 50.00
Advertising job Dev Svcs Dir
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00
50Page:
Packet Page 118 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206613 1/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Advertising job WWTP Lab Tech
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00
Advertising job HR Asst
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00
Advertising job Parks Maint Wk
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00
Advertising job Admin Svcs Int
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00
Advertising job Court Clerk
001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00
Total :400.00
206614 1/16/2014 062693 US BANK 8313 ENG CREDIT CARD CHARGES 12/2013
E1DA.Neighborhood Meeting Mailer
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 85.54
E1JB.Neighborhood Meeting Mailer
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 550.97
Total :636.51
206615 1/16/2014 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 3120121 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 60.90
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 60.90
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 62.73
Total :184.53
206616 1/16/2014 074716 VICTOR & VESTA SANDERS TRUST 1-31850 #4222-2182820 UTILITY REFUND DUE
#4222-2182820 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 206.47
Total :206.47
206617 1/16/2014 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 30344074 CLERICAL SUPPORT THROUGH 12.29.13
CLERICAL SUPPORT THROUGH 12.29.13
51Page:
Packet Page 119 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206617 1/16/2014 (Continued)069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 176.75
Total :176.75
206618 1/16/2014 074231 VPCI 00001280 LASERFICHE REMOTE TRAINING FOR S PASSEY
Laserfiche remote traning for S Passey
001.000.31.518.88.41.00 320.00
Total :320.00
206619 1/16/2014 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I14004830 INV#I14004830 EDM301 EDMONDS PD - DEC 20
BACKGROUND CHECKS - DEC 2013
001.000.237.100 198.00
Total :198.00
206620 1/16/2014 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9362 PRUNING PLUM TREES
PRUNING PLUM TREES
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 875.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 85.75
Total :960.75
206621 1/16/2014 026510 WCIA 20178 2014 LIABILITY/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
2014 Liability/Program Assessment
001.000.39.518.90.46.00 383,906.00
2014 Liability/Program Assessment
111.000.68.542.90.46.00 74,683.00
2014 Liability/Program Assessment
421.000.74.534.80.46.00 65,068.00
2014 Liability/Program Assessment
422.000.72.531.90.46.00 36,035.00
2014 Liability/Program Assessment
423.000.75.535.80.46.00 69,201.00
2014 Liability/Program Assessment
423.000.76.535.80.46.00 58,944.00
2014 Liability/Program Assessment
511.000.77.548.68.46.00 35,893.00
52Page:
Packet Page 120 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206621 1/16/2014 (Continued)026510 WCIA
2014 TBB LIABILITY ASSESSMENT20179
2014 TBD Liability and Program
139.000.68.542.31.46.00 2,500.00
Total :726,230.00
206622 1/16/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6153 INV#6153 - EDMONDS PD
1 REAM OF BLUE PARCHMENT PAPER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.51
PRINTING CITY LOGO, BLUE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 42.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.27
Total :72.28
206623 1/16/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6145 BUSINESS CARDS
Business Cards-Patrick Clark
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60
Business Cards-Steven Van Doorn
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60
Business Cards-Ryan Speer
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60
Business Cards-Karl Roth
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60
Business Cards-Erick Falk (Double Sided)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.16
Total :140.16
206624 1/16/2014 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 8020 INV#8020 - EDMONDS PD
ENDURA SINGLE UNIT CHARGERS
001.000.41.521.22.35.00 180.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.35.00 9.18
9.5% Sales Tax
53Page:
Packet Page 121 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
206624 1/16/2014 (Continued)068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS
001.000.41.521.22.35.00 17.98
Total :207.16
206625 1/16/2014 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 6877 FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,388.65
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 131.92
Total :1,520.57
206626 1/16/2014 065179 WSAPT TREAS / AMY DONLAN LINDAT.2014 WSAPT 2014 WSAPT membership for Linda
2014 WSAPT membership for Linda
001.000.62.524.20.49.00 35.00
Total :35.00
206627 1/16/2014 063008 WSDOT RE-313-ATB31217005 E2DB.PROJECT MGMT & INSPECTION
E2DB.Project Mgmt & Inspection
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 371.41
Total :371.41
206628 1/16/2014 063008 WSDOT RE-313-ATB31210158 E2CC.ENGINEERING SERVICES
E2CC.Engineering Services
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 48.01
Total :48.01
206629 1/16/2014 073479 WU, THOMAS 1036 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 148.39
Total :148.39
206630 1/16/2014 073079 ZONES INC S35254610101 INV#S35254610101 CUST#0058931122- EDMOND
PENTEX PERFORATED PAPER ROLLS
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 939.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 89.22
54Page:
Packet Page 122 of 544
01/16/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
1:25:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,028.422066301/16/2014 073079 073079 ZONES INC
Bank total : 3,275,046.74169 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
3,275,046.74Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report169
55Page:
Packet Page 123 of 544
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
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c426 E4FD
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
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
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 124 of 544
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
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
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
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 Abandonment 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
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 125 of 544
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
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 Transportation Study c427 E3AB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 126 of 544
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 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
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 127 of 544
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
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 Accessibility 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 Abandonment on Puget Drive
WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project
STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 128 of 544
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)
STM c426 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 129 of 544
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 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
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 130 of 544
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
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 Transportation 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 Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c426 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
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
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 131 of 544
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR 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 1/16/2014 Packet Page 132 of 544
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 Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
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 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 Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c426 E4FD
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
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 133 of 544
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
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
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 Transportation 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
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 134 of 544
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
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
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 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
Revised 1/16/2014 Packet Page 135 of 544
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 657 (01/01/2014 to 01/15/2014)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
SICK LEAVESICK121 510.25 17,485.65
VACATIONVACATION122 922.00 33,663.51
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 57.00 1,944.50
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 57.00 1,713.20
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 135.00 4,818.47
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 95.00 3,485.21
MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 10.00 381.76
JURY DUTYJURY DUTY132 20.00 710.26
BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 18.00 521.29
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 108.00 3,536.86
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 40.00 1,643.25
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 42.00 2,267.93
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 14,503.35 493,974.77
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 123.50 4,774.15
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 60.00 2,866.80
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 2.00 195.21
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 197.00 11,163.57
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 28.75 1,709.03
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 740.80
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 3,175.22
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 58.25 0.00
Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 13.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 58.25 0.00
ACCRUED VACATIONVACATION900 288.00 0.00
ACCRUED SICK LEAVESICK901 -576.00 0.00
BOOT ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS902 0.00 10,494.00
CLOTHING ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS903 0.00 3,879.17
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 23.56
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 161.90
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 137.44
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 597.57
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 95.89
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 923.69
01/16/2014 Page 1 of 2
Packet Page 136 of 544
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 657 (01/01/2014 to 01/15/2014)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
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 49.50 0.00
Family Medical Leave-Hol UsedHOLIDAYfmlh 9.00 260.65
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 70.00 2,067.15
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,123.80 38,324.43
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 190.11
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITY PAYlg1 0.00 1,935.57
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 1,265.29
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 4,861.08
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 380.42
Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 66.98
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 315.34
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 686.11
MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 191.78
5% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUSooc 0.00 242.63
Pregnancy Disabil/NON PAIDABSENTpdla 18.00 0.00
Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 44.66
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,559.12
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 147.00
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 294.93
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 147.00
SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 75.61 0.00
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 302.03
VACATION ADD BACKVACATIONvab 807.52 0.00
Total Net Pay:$453,505.97
$666,855.64 18,923.78
01/16/2014 Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 137 of 544
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 657 - 01/01/2014 to 01/15/2014
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
60772 01/17/2014 mebt AST TTEE 80,048.16 0.00
60773 01/17/2014 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,808.00 0.00
60774 01/17/2014 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00
60775 01/17/2014 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 755.76 0.00
60776 01/17/2014 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 4,167.05 0.00
60777 01/17/2014 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,212.00 0.00
60778 01/17/2014 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,019.14 0.00
94,446.61 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2048 01/17/2014 us US BANK 88,809.78 0.00
2049 01/17/2014 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 17,442.00 0.00
2052 01/17/2014 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 164.40 0.00
106,416.18 0.00
200,862.79 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 11/16/2014
2,014.00 1.00 24 1
Packet Page 138 of 544
AM-6496 3. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
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 Douglas C. Halbert ($2,841.36), Tom Russell
($15,339.03), Tom Russell (17,377.82), and Larry La Porte (Amount undetermined).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Douglas C. Halbert
14335 174th Ave. NE
Redmond, WA 98052
($2,841.36)
Tom Russell
232 4th Avenue South
#305
Edmonds, WA 98020
($15,339.03)
Tom Russell
232 4th Avenue South
#305
Edmonds, WA 98020
($17,377.82)
Larry La Porte
921 Daley Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
(Amount undetermined)
Attachments
Packet Page 139 of 544
Halbert Claim for Damages
Russell Claim for Damages-1
Russell Claim for Damages-2
La Porte Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 01/13/2014 03:59 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/13/2014 04:04 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 01/13/2014 09:46 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/13/2014
Packet Page 140 of 544
Packet Page 141 of 544
Packet Page 142 of 544
Packet Page 143 of 544
Packet Page 144 of 544
Packet Page 145 of 544
Packet Page 146 of 544
Packet Page 147 of 544
Packet Page 148 of 544
Packet Page 149 of 544
Packet Page 150 of 544
Packet Page 151 of 544
Packet Page 152 of 544
Packet Page 153 of 544
Packet Page 154 of 544
Packet Page 155 of 544
Packet Page 156 of 544
Packet Page 157 of 544
Packet Page 158 of 544
Packet Page 159 of 544
Packet Page 160 of 544
Packet Page 161 of 544
Packet Page 162 of 544
Packet Page 163 of 544
Packet Page 164 of 544
Packet Page 165 of 544
Packet Page 166 of 544
Packet Page 167 of 544
Packet Page 168 of 544
Packet Page 169 of 544
Packet Page 170 of 544
Packet Page 171 of 544
Packet Page 172 of 544
Packet Page 173 of 544
Packet Page 174 of 544
Packet Page 175 of 544
Packet Page 176 of 544
Packet Page 177 of 544
Packet Page 178 of 544
Packet Page 179 of 544
Packet Page 180 of 544
Packet Page 181 of 544
Packet Page 182 of 544
Packet Page 183 of 544
Packet Page 184 of 544
Packet Page 185 of 544
Packet Page 186 of 544
Packet Page 187 of 544
Packet Page 188 of 544
Packet Page 189 of 544
Packet Page 190 of 544
Packet Page 191 of 544
Packet Page 192 of 544
Packet Page 193 of 544
Packet Page 194 of 544
Packet Page 195 of 544
Packet Page 196 of 544
Packet Page 197 of 544
Packet Page 198 of 544
Packet Page 199 of 544
Packet Page 200 of 544
Packet Page 201 of 544
Packet Page 202 of 544
Packet Page 203 of 544
Packet Page 204 of 544
Packet Page 205 of 544
Packet Page 206 of 544
Packet Page 207 of 544
Packet Page 208 of 544
Packet Page 209 of 544
AM-6475 3. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Roger Neumaier Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Committee: Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
2013 November Budgetary Financial Report
Recommendation
N.A. For informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
Attachments
November 2013 Budgetary Financial Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Roger Neumaier 01/07/2014 06:40 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/07/2014 10:20 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/08/2014 09:56 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/08/2014 04:36 PM
Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 01/07/2014 03:45 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/08/2014
Packet Page 210 of 544
CITY OF EDMONDS
BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
NOVEMBER 2013
Packet Page 211 of 544
1
Fund
No.Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Revenues
11/30/2013
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 32,908,710$ 31,556,880$ 32,470,539$ 438,171$ 99%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 350,350 600,292 175,379 174,971 50%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 668,200 244,000 482,029 186,171 72%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 123,223 5,283,425 67,842 55,381 55%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 6,075 714 14,286 5%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,900 56,888 28,537 28,363 50%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 48,587 17,325 2,850 86%
111 STREET FUND 1,446,800 1,220,755 1,304,887 141,913 90%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 5,368,529 1,041,472 1,386,078 3,982,451 26%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 69,885 66,366 62,542 7,343 89%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 160 21 6 78%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 52,870 57,081 58,505 (5,635) 111%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 7,137 7,148 10,972 39%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 2,556 1,255 770 62%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 15,529 26,647 (7,647) 140%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 777,832 965,996 839,192 (61,360) 108%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 650,600 716,447 837,805 (187,205) 129%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 36,483 36,694 35,668 815 98%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 109,759 308,748 (85,948) 139%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,950 135,095 139,964 (20,014) 117%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,008,350 751,381 187,655 1,820,695 9%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 193 354 (126) 155%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 15,988 16,060 (1,460) 110%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 8,017 2,779 9,366 (1,349) 117%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 685,000 593,464 609,989 75,011 89%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 23,315 30,474 (8,344) 138%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,230 128,338 31 22,199 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 9,347,579 367,610 642,292 36%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - N/A 214,510 (214,510) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 21,118,645 N/A 16,109,262 5,009,384 76%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 5,240,817 N/A 4,876,207 364,610 93%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 28,202,688 N/A 25,626,061 2,576,627 91%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,115,174 N/A 926,054 189,120 83%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 1,102,228 1,313,618 48,354 96%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,400 92,962 49,731 (4,331) 110%
103,782,632$ 54,229,421$ 88,587,810$ 15,194,822$ 85%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
*Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these revenues are shown as N/A
Packet Page 212 of 544
2
Fund
No.Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 33,428,648$ 30,812,814$ 28,568,606$ 4,860,042$ 85%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 504,406 279,440 339,960 45%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 661,000 - 558,835 102,165 85%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 6,394 5,280 9,720 35%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,000 51,051 127,828 77,172 62%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,533 45,603 48,748 31,785 61%
111 STREET FUND 1,557,715 1,445,752 1,218,519 339,196 78%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 5,508,244 1,938,822 1,705,439 3,802,805 31%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 149,794 49,751 59,390 90,404 40%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - 137 - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 45,598 54,133 14,367 79%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 26,422 14,740 11,986 55%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 3,375 3,293 707 82%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 16,595 12,240 6,760 64%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,401,732 394,285 191,213 1,210,519 14%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 118,875 32,108 636,426 5%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 43,317 4,866 28,453 14,864 66%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 97,071 169,556 53,244 76%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 158,640 121,326 31,435 79%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,091,200 475,864 110,645 1,980,555 5%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND - 6,930 - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 13,737 4,255 13,274 463 97%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 685,000 593,484 609,989 75,011 89%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 128,184 - 22,130 0%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - 244,000 - - 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 9,347,579 92,264 917,638 9%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 14,865,944 N/A 11,481,190 3,384,754 77%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 5,493,271 N/A 3,541,692 1,951,579 64%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 27,151,917 N/A 20,796,140 6,355,777 77%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 272,659 N/A 82,095 190,564 30%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 1,246,670 774,183 321,189 71%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 85,937 72,500 36,290 67%
97,642,626$ 47,853,360$ 70,773,119$ 26,869,507$ 72%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
*Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A
Packet Page 213 of 544
3
Page 1 of 3
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Revenues
11/30/2013
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,781,109$ 9,483,449$ 9,487,917$ 293,192$ 97%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,775,282 2,941,496 2,939,918 (164,636) 106%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 916,103 933,601 935,428 (19,325) 102%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,913,150 4,592,416 4,867,444 45,706 99%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,706 7,173 8,852 (146) 102%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 520,417 489,194 526,935 (6,518) 101%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,475,638 1,399,486 1,409,600 66,038 96%
GAS UTILITY TAX 811,174 729,293 625,606 185,568 77%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 287,710 265,764 277,326 10,384 96%
WATER UTILITY TAX 904,613 800,536 882,082 22,531 98%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 435,016 438,796 31,204 93%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 274,600 247,843 268,115 6,485 98%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 730,910 639,275 736,280 (5,370) 101%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,529,498 1,400,800 1,272,346 257,152 83%
PULLTABS TAX 61,385 57,510 54,229 7,156 88%
AMUSEMENT GAMES 731 - 136 595 19%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 212,350 162,989 168,515 43,835 79%
PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES - - - - 0%
25,673,376 24,585,841 24,899,526 773,850 97%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,555 5,463 5,070 485 91%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 1,030 510 630 400 61%
AMUSEMENTS 6,060 5,475 4,350 1,710 72%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 627,816 634,367 668,920 (41,104) 107%
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT - - 29,531 (29,531) 0%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 95,806 90,891 86,889 8,917 91%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 8,287 11,080 11,451 (3,164) 138%
FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - - 5,000 (5,000) 0%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 214,415 251,431 261,933 (47,518) 122%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 106,297 105,149 107,931 (1,634) 102%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 18,422 21,870 24,840 (6,418) 135%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 39,274 29,800 41,950 (2,676) 107%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,500 9,308 9,773 (273) 103%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 345,436 328,131 398,511 (53,075) 115%
ANIMAL LICENSES 13,205 8,649 6,966 6,239 53%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 50,000 59,959 43,664 6,336 87%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 7,070 8,981 9,258 (2,188) 131%
1,548,173 1,571,064 1,716,665 (168,492) 111%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 1,191 - 5,119 (3,928) 430%
ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 34,000 - 34,000 - 100%
WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT 799 - 799 - 100%
WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING - - 583 (583) 0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 5,097 8,571 1,429 86%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 1,301 5,291 709 88%
DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - - 486 (486) 0%
WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT - - 4,228 (4,228) 0%
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 1,106 - 1,106 0 100%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 900 600 (600) 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 185,181 184,756 188,570 (3,389) 102%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 8,828 8,970 9,572 (744) 108%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,572 12,448 12,536 36 100%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,290 33,723 35,628 (2,338) 107%
DUI - CITIES 7,704 7,440 7,231 473 94%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 20,000 146,591 26,662 (6,662) 133%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 301,761 306,934 268,323 33,438 89%
SHARED COURT COSTS 3,030 1,500 - 3,030 0%
MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD 1,500 750 - 1,500 0%
626,962 710,410 609,304 16,158 97%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 214 of 544
4
Page 2 of 3
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Revenues
11/30/2013
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 955 1,283 (218) 120%
CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS - - 16 (16) 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 172 143 67 105 39%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 188 256 246 (58) 131%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 106 169 (97) 235%
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 2,727 1,881 2,691 41%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 3,802 4,024 476 89%
ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 5 - 5 0%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 113,386 164,099 (64,099) 164%
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - 1,460 (449) 144%
SNO-ISLE 57,236 56,174 81,668 (24,432) 143%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 10,350 10,950 (1,379) 114%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 28,605 27,797 (1,797) 107%
OCDETF OVERTIME 3,117 1,773 5,494 (2,377) 176%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.11,615 13,771 11,620 (5) 100%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 15,554 32,579 3,421 90%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 2,750 1,500 - 2,750 0%
DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - 709 (709) 0%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 483 556 (24) 105%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 52,278 50,770 (22,962) 183%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 53,388 66,824 (6,824) 111%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 82 590 (425) 358%
BOOKING FEES 5,711 4,343 6,079 (368) 106%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 4,500 6,590 (1,013) 118%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 17,042 16,304 7,672 68%
DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 33 - 67 0%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 757,957 818,033 (3,715) 100%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 286 290 206 58%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 604 576 122 82%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 3,963 4,044 316 93%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 1,583 1,630 (6) 100%
FIBER SERVICES 36,438 41,261 22,640 13,798 62%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 8,586 6,600 672 91%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 461 1,083 (870) 508%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 6,480 5,580 1,036 84%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 40,987 71,286 (33,286) 188%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 193,253 261,333 (44,876) 121%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 1,243 2,325 586 80%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,200 657 966 234 81%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 2,910 4,850 150 97%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 14,725 18,910 (6,910) 158%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 9,864 10,149 772 93%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 59,454 63,760 (7,760) 114%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 4,978 4,131 1,369 75%
LOCKER FEES 300 303 439 (139) 146%
SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 28,625 30,132 1,868 94%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 51,975 - 69,300 0%
PROGRAM FEES 780,000 655,888 660,186 119,814 85%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 125,141 110,984 4,516 96%
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 30,019 30,365 1,235 96%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 1,015 695 (35) 105%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,520,248 1,365,623 1,611,958 (91,710) 106%
4,176,428 3,789,097 4,234,720 (58,292) 101%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
Packet Page 215 of 544
5
Page 3 of 3
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Revenues
11/30/2013
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 9,140 12,350 (2,136) 121%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 26,427 32,059 (8,059) 134%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 231,897 282,634 (69,634) 133%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)20,086 17,136 24,665 (4,579) 123%
SPEEDING DOUBLE 77 38 297 (220) 386%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 900 - 2,034 0%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,002 937 1,478 (476) 148%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 32,933 46,639 (15,047) 148%
PR-HANDICAPPED 794 - - 794 0%
PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 40 - 404 0%
PARK/INDDISZONE 3,000 2,830 2,845 155 95%
DWI PENALTIES 9,200 6,974 3,896 5,304 42%
DUI - DP ACCT 415 1,500 2,623 (2,208) 632%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 356 - 8 0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 29,362 36,629 (3,629) 111%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - - 928 (928) 0%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 241 83 456 15%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 11,935 2,219 11,781 16%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,491 1,028 1,826 (335) 122%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - - 453 (453) 0%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 103,264 106,336 6,929 94%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 28,264 27,688 12,312 69%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 292 146 56 236 19%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 4,070 4,360 3,084 59%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 1,930 2,270 (1,785) 468%
526,342 511,348 592,332 (65,990) 113%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 5,436 2,720 5,280 34%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 1,145 1,502 (252) 120%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 5,123 5,016 475 91%
PARKING 8,790 10,720 9,366 (576) 107%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 140,000 140,094 159,475 (19,475) 114%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 4,585 7,025 (3,985) 231%
LEASES LONG-TERM 143,000 147,807 151,527 (8,527) 106%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 6,432 7,103 (2,603) 158%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 6,200 5,745 8,906 (2,706) 144%
PARKS DONATIONS 4,300 18,885 9,700 (5,400) 226%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 1,369 1,448 (48) 103%
POLICE CONTRIUBTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 9,231 - 9,231 - 100%
PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - - 1,235 (1,235) 0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,486 1,080 1 1,485 0%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 1,750 2,030 2,621 (871) 150%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - - 6,296 (6,296) 0%
OTHER JUDGEMENT SETTLEMENT - - 6,367 (6,367) 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 465 160 160 305 34%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 44 8 58 (14) 131%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 5,393 822 2,178 27%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 104 53 13 80%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 180 210 (28) 115%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 720 791 187 81%
NSF FEES - POLICE 91 - - 91 0%
NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 90 150 (150) 0%
FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,368 - 1,368 (0) 100%
344,632 357,106 393,152 (48,520) 114%
TRANSFERS-IN:
INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER-IN (from 121)- 32,016 12,543 (12,543) 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - In (From 104)500 - - 500 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 127)12,297 - 12,297 (0) 100%
12,797 32,016 24,840 (12,043) 194%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 32,908,710$ 31,556,882$ 32,470,540$ 436,670$ 99%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 216 of 544
6
Page 1 of 6
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES 12,082,117$ 10,892,733$ 10,941,581$ 1,140,536$ 91%
OVERTIME 426,820 372,318 392,211 34,609 92%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 193,388 185,942 175,302 18,086 91%
BENEFITS 4,120,688 3,788,241 3,815,777 304,911 93%
UNIFORMS 61,110 47,575 42,677 18,433 70%
SUPPLIES 374,244 346,864 259,195 115,049 69%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 118,955 116,063 94,269 24,686 79%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,099,165 1,394,387 1,522,830 576,335 73%
COMMUNICATIONS 204,660 165,420 156,357 48,303 76%
TRAVEL 36,742 19,952 16,295 20,447 44%
ADVERTISING 40,865 40,753 23,716 17,149 58%
RENTAL/LEASE 834,943 119,586 758,162 76,781 91%
INSURANCE 396,193 420,109 399,287 (3,094) 101%
UTILITIES 429,600 405,243 408,564 21,036 95%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 320,547 260,250 187,589 132,958 59%
MISCELLANEOUS 282,248 250,747 261,055 21,193 92%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,099,655 7,816,412 7,800,360 299,295 96%
ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE 190,000 250,000 180,000 10,000 95%
EXCISE TAXES 5,500 6,225 5,022 478 91%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,575,185 3,014,159 762,056 813,129 48%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 13,097 22,735 62,265 27%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 946,595 102,559 107,580 839,015 11%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 63,380 64,014 0 100%
OTHER DEBT - - 478 (478) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 185,614 202,175 114,141 71,473 61%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 5,000 1,125 - 5,000 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 123,093 13,353 188,447 7%
INTERFUND RENTAL 48,000 394,405 44,000 4,000 92%
33,428,648$ 30,812,813$ 28,568,606$ 4,860,042$ 85%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS 435,000$ 350,618$ 178,982$ 256,018$ 41%
IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 176,400 146,353 94,127 82,273 53%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,000 7,186 6,081 1,919 76%
MISCELLANEOUS - 250 250 (250) 0%
619,400$ 504,407$ 279,440$ 339,960$ 45%
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011)
MISCELLANEOUS 661,000$ -$ 558,835$ 102,165$ 85%
661,000$ -$ 558,835$ 102,165$ 85%
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
SUPPLIES 2,000$ -$ -$ 2,000$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 - - 2,000 0%
ADVERTISING 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 6,394 5,280 4,720 53%
15,000$ 6,394$ 5,280$ 9,720$ 35%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016)
SUPPLIES 10,000$ 573$ 919$ 9,081$ 9%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,000 10,225 19,354 646 97%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 5,000 40,253 105,690 (100,690) 2114%
MISCELLANEOUS - - 1,865 (1,865) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 170,000 - - 170,000 0%
205,000$ 51,051$ 127,828$ (90,963)$ 62%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104)
SUPPLIES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 1,857 4,702 (2,702) 235%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 1,761 6,182 (1,182) 124%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 2,471 3,099 (866) 139%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - 20 780 3%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 10,000 5,000 15,000 25%
INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 29,513 29,745 20,255 59%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 500 - - 500 0%
80,533$ 45,602$ 48,748$ 31,285$ 61%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 217 of 544
7
Page 2 of 6
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES 447,655$ 472,691$ 403,431$ 44,224$ 90%
OVERTIME 18,400 25,680 16,501 1,899 90%
BENEFITS 197,283 207,880 177,399 19,884 90%
UNIFORMS 6,000 4,810 4,097 1,903 68%
SUPPLIES 240,000 184,190 138,052 101,948 58%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 14,279 779 25,221 3%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,700 20,512 4,272 8,428 34%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 3,010 2,667 833 76%
TRAVEL 1,000 835 693 307 69%
ADVERTISING 350 - 350 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 159,134 4,316 146,065 13,069 92%
INSURANCE 87,204 93,305 87,201 3 100%
UTILITIES 267,750 208,276 207,908 59,842 78%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 12,080 24,780 20,220 55%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 6,858 1,400 6,600 18%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 4,000 1,277 1,680 2,321 42%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,650 6,600 558 28,092 2%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,015 - - 3,015 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 2,074 4,122 1,037 1,037 50%
INTEREFUND RENTAL - 175,032 - - 0%
1,557,715$ 1,445,753$ 1,218,519$ 339,196$ 78%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,272,100$ 797,548$ 784,270$ 487,830$ 62%
MISCELLANEOUS 26,428 - 26,427 1 100%
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT 378,500 53,497 41,498 337,003 11%
LAND 909,400 - - 909,400 0%
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 2,519,132 891,468 644,793 1,874,339 26%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100%
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,481 4,840 4,479 2 100%
INTERFUND SERVICES 326,000 119,267 131,770 194,230 40%
5,508,244$ 1,938,821$ 1,705,439$ 3,802,805$ 31%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES 6,970$ 2,995$ 5,779$ 1,191$ 83%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 523 723 277 72%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 119,533 36,690 39,458 80,075 33%
TRAVEL 50 10 64 (14) 128%
ADVERTISING 4,000 4,000 2,250 1,750 56%
RENTAL/LEASE 4,831 - 4,281 550 89%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,110 5,533 6,835 3,275 68%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 - - 3,000 0%
149,794$ 49,751$ 59,390$ 90,404$ 40%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,500$ 8,554$ 16,123$ (1,623)$ 111%
ADVERTISING 37,500 26,599 25,853 11,647 69%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 1,446 157 2,343 6%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 14,000 9,000 12,000 2,000 86%
68,500$ 45,599$ 54,133$ 14,367$ 79%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES 1,640$ 1,336$ 1,642$ (2)$ 100%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 555 (555) 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,086 25,086 12,543 12,543 50%
26,726$ 26,422$ 14,740$ 11,986$ 55%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000$ 3,375$ 3,293$ 707$ 82%
4,000$ 3,375$ 3,293$ 707$ 82%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 9,288$ 5,347$ 5,153$ 51%
ADVERTISING 4,500 3,865 3,905 595 87%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 3,442 2,989 1,011 75%
19,000$ 16,595$ 12,240$ 6,760$ 64%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 218 of 544
8
Page 3 of 6
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES 29,000$ 43,622$ 136,991$ (107,991)$ 472%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 337,000 76,416 20,214 316,786 6%
ADVERTISING - - 379 (379) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - - 3,399 (3,399) 0%
UTILITIES - - - - 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 185,000 1,544 30,229 154,771 16%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 750,732 172,500 - 750,732 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 100,000 100,203 - 100,000 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0%
1,401,732$ 394,285$ 191,213$ 1,210,519$ 14%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126)
MISCELLANEOUS -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 438,910 16,540 26,071 412,839 6%
LAND 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 17,550 102,335 - 17,550 0%
INTEREST 12,074 - 6,037 6,037 50%
668,534$ 118,875$ 32,108$ 636,426$ 5%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES 22,020$ 1,566$ 9,603$ 12,417$ 44%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,000 3,300 6,553 2,447 73%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 12,297 - 12,297 - 100%
43,317$ 4,866$ 28,453$ 14,864$ 66%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 31,700$ 86,973$ 26,608$ 5,092$ 84%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 171,600 - 114,251 57,349 67%
INTERFUND SERVICES 19,500 10,098 28,696 (9,196) 147%
222,800$ 97,071$ 169,556$ 53,244$ 76%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES 68,605$ 64,840$ 63,077$ 5,528$ 92%
OVERTIME 3,500 2,878 2,540 960 73%
BENEFITS 33,188 30,422 29,081 4,107 88%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SUPPLIES 7,000 3,291 2,335 4,665 33%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 23,132 12,404 7,596 62%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 200 200 800 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 1,164 1,300 112 92%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
ADVERTISING 3,000 2,886 3,214 (214) 107%
RENTAL/LEASE 5,256 - 4,818 438 92%
UTILITIES 3,800 2,659 - 3,800 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 3,178 2,357 1,643 59%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 17,336 - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL - 6,655 - - 0%
152,761$ 158,641$ 121,326$ 31,435$ 79%
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132)
SUPPLIES -$ 75,671$ -$ -$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,918,500 66,255 109,531 1,808,969 6%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - 85,143 - - 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 169,700 228,399 - 169,700 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 3,000 20,395 1,114 1,886 37%
2,091,200$ 475,863$ 110,645$ 1,980,555$ 5%
PARKS TRUST FUND (136)
INTERFUND TRANSFER -$ 6,930$ -$ -$ 0%
-$ 6,930$ -$ -$ 0%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES 500$ 1,352$ 222$ 278$ 44%
STUDENT TRIP - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 13,237 2,903 13,052 185 99%
13,737$ 4,255$ 13,274$ 463$ 97%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ 1,756$ (1,756)$ 0%
INSURANCE 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 100%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 680,000 538,548 603,234 76,766 89%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES - 49,936 - - 0%
685,000$ 593,484$ 609,989$ 75,011$ 89%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 219 of 544
9
Page 4 of 6
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND TRANSFER 22,130$ 128,184$ -$ 22,130$ 0%
22,130$ 128,184$ -$ 22,130$ 0%
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 825,372$ 9,228,000$ -$ 825,372$ 0%
INTEREST 184,530 - 92,264 92,266 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 119,579 - - 0%
1,009,902$ 9,347,579$ 92,264$ 917,638$ 0%
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES 756,455$ N/A 659,789$ 96,666$ 87%
OVERTIME 24,180 N/A 21,408 2,772 89%
BENEFITS 277,956 N/A 278,525 (569) 100%
UNIFORMS 6,840 N/A 3,859 2,981 56%
SUPPLIES 143,505 N/A 111,647 31,858 78%
FUEL CONSUMED - N/A - - 0%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,725,000 N/A 1,298,983 426,018 75%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 140,000 N/A 99,126 40,874 71%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,400 N/A 6,669 3,731 64%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 178,136 N/A 298,593 (120,457) 168%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,280 N/A 27,270 3,010 90%
TRAVEL 3,400 N/A 54 3,346 2%
ADVERTISING 560 N/A - 560 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 91,205 N/A 84,549 6,656 93%
INSURANCE 67,699 N/A 67,607 92 100%
UTILITIES 28,000 N/A 25,958 2,042 93%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 24,160 N/A 3,345 20,815 14%
MISCELLANEOUS 307,630 N/A 317,488 (9,858) 103%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 N/A 25,163 4,837 84%
INTERFUND TAXES 904,893 N/A 882,082 22,811 97%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 5,402,179 N/A 5,330,279 71,900 99%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 N/A 49,849 35,151 59%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,697,520 N/A 1,279,394 2,418,126 35%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,025 N/A - 2,025 0%
REVENUE BONDS 209,471 N/A - 209,471 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 N/A 45,839 0 100%
INTEREST 280,306 N/A 140,928 139,378 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 38,937 N/A 22,384 16,553 57%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - N/A 175 (175) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 354,368 N/A 400,181 (45,813) 113%
INTERFUND REPAIR - N/A 48 (48) 0%
14,865,944$ 11,481,190$ 3,384,801$ 77%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
*Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A
Packet Page 220 of 544
10
Page 5 of 6
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES 568,591$ N/A 476,643$ 91,948$ 84%
OVERTIME 6,000 N/A 14,452 (8,452) 241%
BENEFITS 224,231 N/A 202,839 21,392 90%
UNIFORMS 6,540 N/A 5,562 978 85%
SUPPLIES 50,000 N/A 26,726 23,274 53%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,400 N/A 2,266 2,134 51%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 599,190 N/A 653,435 (54,245) 109%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,480 N/A 1,832 1,648 53%
TRAVEL 4,300 N/A 864 3,436 20%
ADVERTISING 500 N/A - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 217,412 N/A 197,423 19,989 91%
INSURANCE 8,418 N/A 8,407 11 100%
UTILITES 10,000 N/A 7,907 2,093 79%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 11,860 N/A 6,129 5,731 52%
MISCELLANEOUS 106,100 N/A 92,128 13,972 87%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 N/A 29,564 15,436 66%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 291,600 N/A 268,115 23,485 92%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 920,902 N/A 900,328 20,574 98%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,706,900 N/A - 1,706,900 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 101,469 N/A - 101,469 0%
REVENUE BONDS 82,906 N/A - 82,906 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 N/A 32,063 1 100%
INTEREST 187,245 N/A 94,584 92,661 51%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 3,773 N/A 3,856 (83) 102%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 300,391 N/A 516,570 (216,179) 172%
5,493,271$ 3,541,692$ 1,951,579$ 64%
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,653,859$ N/A 1,395,382$ 258,477$ 84%
OVERTIME 73,000 N/A 83,838 (10,838) 115%
BENEFITS 670,069 N/A 589,146 80,923 88%
UNIFORMS 11,190 N/A 7,893 3,297 71%
SUPPLIES 482,505 N/A 243,738 238,767 51%
FUEL CONSUMED 90,000 N/A 117,409 (27,409) 130%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 3,000 N/A - 3,000 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,400 N/A 14,237 2,163 87%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,152,083 N/A 885,482 266,601 77%
COMMUNICATIONS 40,280 N/A 33,431 6,849 83%
TRAVEL 7,400 N/A 380 7,020 5%
ADVERTISING 2,500 N/A (20) 2,520 -1%
RENTAL/LEASE 133,736 N/A 120,625 13,111 90%
INSURANCE 157,117 N/A 156,092 1,025 99%
UTILITIES 931,200 N/A 819,453 111,747 88%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 90,000 N/A 139,623 (49,623) 155%
MISCELLANEOUS 211,100 N/A 184,452 26,648 87%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 290,000 N/A 106,389 183,611 37%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 470,000 N/A 438,796 31,204 93%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 10,081,639 N/A 9,595,262 486,377 95%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 141,000 N/A - 141,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 9,104,110 N/A 5,076,931 4,027,179 56%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 189,978 N/A - 189,978 0%
REVENUE BONDS 222,625 N/A - 222,625 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 143,620 N/A 143,620 (0) 100%
INTEREST 131,249 N/A 69,705 61,544 53%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 53,668 N/A 37,117 16,551 69%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - N/A 41 (41) 0%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 598,589 N/A 537,115 61,474 90%
27,151,917$ 20,796,140$ 6,355,777$ 77%
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 83,542$ N/A 82,095$ 1,447 98%
INTEREST 189,117 N/A - 189,117 0%
272,659 82,095 190,564 30%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
*Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 221 of 544
11
Page 6 of 6
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES 228,064$ 217,278$ 162,996$ 65,068$ 71%
OVERTIME 1,000 906 886 114 89%
BENEFITS 100,397 93,094 73,252 27,145 73%
UNIFORMS 1,000 586 654 346 65%
SUPPLIES 76,000 79,847 92,645 (16,645) 122%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 951 387 613 39%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 321,800 304,040 191,599 130,201 60%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 5,400 20,277 (12,277) 253%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 516 1,923 (923) 192%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,275 1,363 1,637 45%
RENTAL/LEASE 9,996 975 8,516 1,480 85%
INSURANCE 34,083 32,530 34,153 (70) 100%
UTILITIES 14,000 10,577 10,086 3,914 72%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 53,350 39,422 20,578 66%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 5,806 5,004 996 83%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,702 2,239 261 90%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 217,532 428,342 128,780 88,752 59%
INTERFUND RENTAL 10,000 9,493 - 10,000 0%
1,095,372$ 1,246,668$ 774,183$ 321,189$ 71%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS 63,000$ 49,619$ 22,041$ 40,959$ 35%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 43,790 35,253 49,290 (5,500) 113%
PROF SERVICES 2,000 1,065 1,169 831 58%
108,790$ 85,937$ 72,500$ 36,290$ 67%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 97,642,626$ 47,609,221$ 70,773,119$ 26,500,635$ 72%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 222 of 544
12
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL 273,623$ 227,633$ 252,727$ 20,896$ 92%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 240,866 207,018 215,716 25,150 90%
HUMAN RESOURCES 296,058 199,306 236,301 59,757 80%
MUNICIPAL COURT 729,506 660,964 664,592 64,914 91%
CITY CLERK 586,831 463,150 542,017 44,814 92%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,518,518 1,292,772 1,202,598 315,920 79%
CITY ATTORNEY 499,200 449,436 448,185 51,015 90%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 11,675,354 11,874,391 9,283,156 2,392,198 80%
POLICE SERVICES 9,013,653 7,904,315 8,181,471 832,182 91%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.377,764 378,873 325,900 51,864 86%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,687,894 1,455,361 1,418,595 269,299 84%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,442,517 3,037,701 3,062,541 379,976 89%
PUBLIC WORKS 1,742,705 1,480,574 1,539,011 203,694 88%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,344,159 1,181,322 1,195,797 148,362 89%
33,428,648$ 30,812,816$ 28,568,606$ 4,860,042$ 85%
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND 14,865,944$ N/A 11,481,190$ 3,384,754$ 77%
STORM UTILITY FUND 5,493,271 N/A 3,541,692 1,951,579 64%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 27,151,917 N/A 20,796,140 6,355,777 77%
BOND RESERVE FUND 272,659 N/A 82,095 190,564 30%
47,783,791$ 35,901,117$ 11,882,674$ 75%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
*Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A
Packet Page 223 of 544
13
Page 1 of 4
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 114,618$ 97,080$ 107,888$ 6,730$ 94%
OVERTIME 2,000 5,540 688 1,312 34%
BENEFITS 68,165 64,476 64,671 3,494 95%
SUPPLIES 1,000 593 308 692 31%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 49,361 57,112 (4,030) 108%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,687 2,601 399 87%
TRAVEL 2,500 879 626 1,874 25%
RENTAL/LEASE 490 422 427 63 87%
REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 - 55 1,445 4%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 6,595 18,351 8,917 67%
273,623$ 227,633$ 252,727$ 20,896$ 92%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 185,987$ 163,319$ 170,487$ 15,500$ 92%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 42,079 37,009 38,923 3,156 93%
SUPPLIES 2,000 710 1,112 888 56%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 - 109 1,391 7%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 992 850 550 61%
TRAVEL 2,000 773 664 1,336 33%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 2,240 1,865 535 78%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,975 1,704 1,296 57%
240,866$ 207,018$ 215,716$ 25,150$ 90%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 169,000$ 85,917$ 150,626$ 18,374$ 89%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 61,680 30,963 45,179 16,501 73%
SUPPLIES 2,000 1,623 3,461 (1,461) 173%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - - 100 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 39,500 68,189 22,111 17,389 56%
COMMUNICATIONS 500 334 426 74 85%
TRAVEL 500 - 572 (72) 114%
ADVERTISING 5,000 833 3,007 1,993 60%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 2,165 1,867 133 93%
REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 4,820 5,349 651 89%
MISCELLANEOUS 9,778 4,462 3,704 6,074 38%
296,058$ 199,306$ 236,301$ 59,757$ 80%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 464,471$ 420,863$ 432,068$ 32,403$ 93%
OVERTIME 100 572 16 84 16%
BENEFITS 168,526 150,168 143,586 24,940 85%
SUPPLIES 9,159 9,534 13,264 (4,105) 145%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 - 1,653 347 83%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 55,071 59,745 755 99%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,959 2,051 549 79%
TRAVEL 1,250 2,257 2,088 (838) 167%
RENTAL/LEASE 650 733 1,095 (445) 168%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 978 409 591 41%
MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 18,737 8,618 10,632 45%
INTERGOVTL SVC - 92 - - 0%
729,506$ 660,964$ 664,592$ 64,914$ 91%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 224 of 544
14
Page 2 of 4
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 305,572$ 268,951$ 329,468$ (23,896)$ 108%
BENEFITS 92,771 83,320 93,509 (738) 101%
SUPPLIES 13,760 7,569 8,344 5,416 61%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 1,560 (1,560) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 19,005 42,375 42,376 50%
COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 37,772 37,232 12,768 74%
TRAVEL 250 7 57 193 23%
ADVERTISING 3,690 20,386 3,185 505 86%
RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 14,885 14,125 10,875 57%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 8,167 8,599 (562) 107%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 3,088 3,562 (562) 119%
586,831$ 463,150$ 542,017$ 44,814$ 92%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 661,370$ 661,792$ 628,039$ 33,331$ 95%
OVERTIME 8,000 7,607 6,470 1,530 81%
BENEFITS 214,100 208,633 200,125 13,975 93%
SUPPLIES 35,700 62,862 13,624 22,076 38%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 70,589 68,587 18,913 78%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 175,850 40,960 95,814 80,036 54%
COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 55,050 46,520 12,440 79%
TRAVEL 3,300 2,330 1,017 2,283 31%
RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 4,551 7,717 1,271 86%
REPAIR/MAINT 171,750 158,881 83,266 88,484 48%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 19,517 28,684 (20,684) 359%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 - 22,735 62,265 27%
1,518,518$ 1,292,772$ 1,202,598$ 315,920$ 79%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SVC 499,200$ 449,236$ 448,185$ 51,015$ 90%
MISC PROSECUTOR - 200 - - 0%
499,200$ 449,436$ 448,185$ 51,015$ 90%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 93,785$ 1,900$ -$ 93,785$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 43,750 24,754 15,246 62%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 209,985 206,726 173,274 54%
COMMUNICATIONS - 5 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100%
INSURANCE 396,193 420,109 399,287 (3,094) 101%
MISCELLANEOUS 55,156 56,183 54,993 163 100%
INTERGOVT SVC 7,532,912 7,376,978 7,347,152 185,760 98%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 250,000 180,000 10,000 95%
EXCISE TAXES 5,500 6,225 5,022 478 91%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,575,185 3,014,159 762,056 813,129 48%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 946,595 102,559 107,580 839,015 11%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 63,380 64,014 0 100%
OTHER DEBT - - - - 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 185,614 202,175 114,141 71,473 61%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 1,125 - 5,000 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - 478 (478) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 122,258 13,353 188,447 7%
11,675,354$ 11,874,391$ 9,283,156$ 2,392,198$ 80%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 225 of 544
15
Page 3 of 4
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,206,408$ 4,743,897$ 4,702,573$ 503,835$ 90%
OVERTIME 402,720 339,434 375,007 27,713 93%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 193,388 185,942 175,302 18,086 91%
BENEFITS 1,733,917 1,649,751 1,670,197 63,720 96%
UNIFORMS 52,410 42,955 37,310 15,100 71%
SUPPLIES 94,100 72,914 56,377 37,723 60%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,205 5,252 13,717 2,488 85%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 129,431 74,363 140,680 (11,249) 109%
COMMUNICATIONS 33,592 23,338 21,031 12,561 63%
TRAVEL 16,300 10,975 8,847 7,453 54%
ADVERTISING 375 66 73 302 19%
RENTAL/LEASE 538,344 14,160 490,734 47,610 91%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,115 8,083 6,519 9,596 40%
MISCELLANEOUS 36,300 32,785 27,851 8,450 77%
INTERGOVTL SVC 496,048 405,590 411,254 84,794 83%
INTERFUND RENTAL 48,000 294,030 44,000 4,000 92%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - 780 - - 0%
9,013,653$ 7,904,315$ 8,181,471$ 832,182$ 91%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES 213,304$ 193,804$ 195,791$ 17,513$ 92%
BENEFITS 62,052 55,886 57,858 4,194 93%
SUPPLIES 1,500 1,831 682 818 45%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 65,254 108,527 53,147 12,107 81%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 1,050 1,312 178 88%
TRAVEL 2,000 24 198 1,802 10%
ADVERTISING 24,500 12,106 11,273 13,227 46%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,364 2,744 2,197 167 93%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,901 3,442 558 86%
377,764$ 378,873$ 325,900$ 51,864$ 86%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,044,346$ 973,670$ 953,668$ 90,678$ 91%
OVERTIME 1,300 3,170 1,218 82 94%
BENEFITS 361,520 341,262 336,066 25,454 93%
UNIFORMS - - - - 0%
SUPPLIES 13,000 14,150 10,018 2,982 77%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 1,100 1,557 359 741 33%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 199,600 60,067 62,468 137,132 31%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,000 4,373 3,724 276 93%
TRAVEL 1,600 998 554 1,046 35%
ADVERTISING 3,000 4,504 3,496 (496) 117%
RENTAL/LEASE 32,828 26,907 30,244 2,584 92%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 606 112 388 22%
MISCELLANEOUS 25,100 24,097 16,668 8,432 66%
1,687,894$ 1,455,361$ 1,418,595$ 269,299$ 84%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 1,007,140$ 878,900$ 885,465$ 121,675$ 88%
OVERTIME 5,000 3,781 1,199 3,801 24%
BENEFITS 365,880 307,308 325,995 39,885 89%
UNIFORMS 360 182 - 360 0%
SUPPLIES - - - - 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,000 2,698 1,002 998 50%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 5,000 2,145 840 4,160 17%
COMMUNICATIONS 6,700 4,928 5,209 1,491 78%
TRAVEL 600 521 52 548 9%
ADVERTISING - - 264 (264) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 13,408 6,182 12,287 1,121 92%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,800 895 38 1,762 2%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,300 10,082 8,092 2,208 79%
1,418,188$ 1,217,622$ 1,240,443$ 177,745$ 87%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 226 of 544
16
Page 4 of 4
Title
2013 Amended
Budget
11/30/2012
Expenditures
11/30/2013
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,769,631$ 1,643,894$ 1,588,996$ 180,635$ 90%
OVERTIME 5,000 10,218 7,468 (2,468) 149%
BENEFITS 584,326 541,092 533,514 50,812 91%
UNIFORMS 5,340 2,601 4,098 1,242 77%
SUPPLIES 131,925 104,545 90,303 41,622 68%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 3,250 33,568 2,408 842 74%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 405,297 257,431 333,414 71,883 82%
COMMUNICATIONS 28,218 20,098 22,269 5,949 79%
TRAVEL 5,942 1,186 1,621 4,321 27%
ADVERTISING 4,300 2,859 2,418 1,882 56%
RENTAL/LEASE 149,152 116,076 146,564 2,588 98%
PUBLIC UTILITY 150,000 159,129 169,824 (19,824) 113%
REPAIR/MAINT 51,845 32,013 34,846 16,999 67%
MISCELLANEOUS 77,596 66,087 82,845 (5,249) 107%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 13,097 - - 0%
INTERGOVTL SVC 70,695 33,807 41,953 28,742 59%
3,442,517$ 3,037,701$ 3,062,541$ 379,976$ 89%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 225,381$ 202,273$ 224,443$ 938$ 100%
OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0%
BENEFITS 76,157 50,042 61,052 15,105 80%
SUPPLIES 5,100 3,808 4,329 771 85%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 201 (201) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 48 50 150 25%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,200 978 1,236 (36) 103%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 10,779 2,691 3,970 6,809 37%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,600 2,067 2,081 519 80%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,400 1,045 1,206 194 86%
324,517$ 262,952$ 298,568$ 25,949$ 92%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 621,104$ 556,473$ 572,069$ 49,035$ 92%
OVERTIME 2,500 1,996 145 2,355 6%
BENEFITS 249,515 224,579 220,348 29,167 88%
UNIFORMS 3,000 1,837 1,270 1,730 42%
SUPPLIES 65,000 66,727 57,372 7,628 88%
TRAVEL - 2 - - 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 6,000 2,399 4,783 1,217 80%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - 53 (53) 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 13,000 11,855 11,896 1,104 92%
RENTAL/LEASE 44,940 22,605 41,470 3,470 92%
PUBLIC UTILITY 277,000 244,048 236,660 40,340 85%
REPAIR/MAINT 60,000 45,808 48,397 11,604 81%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,993 1,336 764 64%
1,344,159$ 1,181,322$ 1,195,797$ 148,362$ 89%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 33,428,648$ 30,812,816$ 28,568,606$ 4,860,042$ 85%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 227 of 544
17
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,217,865$ 1,217,865$ 1,818,957$ 49.36%
February 3,006,387 1,788,522 3,696,503 22.95%
March 5,077,543 2,071,156 5,680,288 11.87%
April 7,700,712 2,623,169 9,353,758 21.47%
May 15,079,389 7,378,677 16,511,968 9.50%
June 16,731,113 1,651,723 18,268,819 9.19%
July 18,659,278 1,928,165 20,092,060 7.68%
August 20,271,527 1,612,249 21,933,664 8.20%
September 21,849,835 1,578,308 23,743,625 8.67%
October 24,532,443 2,682,608 25,786,544 5.11%
November 31,251,022 6,718,579 32,470,539 3.90%
December 32,908,710 1,657,688 34,192,915 3.90%
Real Estate Excise Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 55,778$ 55,778$ 69,441$ 24.49%
February 90,478 34,700 115,535 27.69%
March 125,274 34,796 257,285 105.38%
April 181,702 56,428 311,272 71.31%
May 237,805 56,103 353,545 48.67%
June 293,909 56,104 444,366 51.19%
July 353,267 59,358 535,072 51.46%
August 420,422 67,155 613,259 45.87%
September 484,359 63,937 698,389 44.19%
October 552,822 68,463 783,021 41.64%
November 607,861 55,039 837,539 37.78%
December 650,000 42,139 895,599 37.78%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
0
6000000
12000000
18000000
24000000
30000000
36000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 228 of 544
18
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 392,903$ 392,903$ 406,956$ 3.58%
February 882,320 489,417 894,736 1.41%
March 1,238,984 356,664 1,265,893 2.17%
April 1,604,214 365,230 1,641,662 2.33%
May 2,031,089 426,875 2,155,612 6.13%
June 2,415,896 384,807 2,570,795 6.41%
July 2,803,625 387,729 2,994,986 6.83%
August 3,252,578 448,952 3,451,034 6.10%
September 3,657,014 404,436 3,901,282 6.68%
October 4,072,784 415,770 4,372,215 7.35%
November 4,526,767 453,983 4,867,444 7.53%
December 4,913,150 386,383 5,282,905 7.53%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 112,486$ 112,486$ 94,836$ -15.69%
February 229,224 116,737 220,665 -3.73%
March 336,151 106,927 303,170 -9.81%
April 429,023 92,872 369,694 -13.83%
May 504,596 75,573 437,820 -13.23%
June 561,065 56,469 473,725 -15.57%
July 603,809 42,744 505,954 -16.21%
August 634,288 30,479 530,649 -16.34%
September 661,890 27,602 552,442 -16.54%
October 691,093 29,203 575,862 -16.67%
November 739,711 48,618 625,606 -15.43%
December 811,174 71,463 686,045 -15.43%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Sales and Use Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 229 of 544
19
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 107,059$ 107,059$ 134,596$ 25.72%
February 232,047 124,988 252,444 8.79%
March 373,485 141,439 366,495 -1.87%
April 490,181 116,696 484,087 -1.24%
May 620,774 130,593 598,247 -3.63%
June 737,081 116,307 712,861 -3.29%
July 866,748 129,667 823,494 -4.99%
August 1,002,235 135,487 935,506 -6.66%
September 1,103,617 101,382 1,051,571 -4.72%
October 1,258,978 155,360 1,162,447 -7.67%
November 1,352,112 93,134 1,272,346 -5.90%
December 1,529,498 177,386 1,439,267 -5.90%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 157,586$ 157,586$ 153,240$ -2.76%
February 317,215 159,628 326,077 2.79%
March 474,628 157,413 487,478 2.71%
April 629,668 155,040 641,845 1.93%
May 770,457 140,789 787,005 2.15%
June 880,143 109,686 897,904 2.02%
July 988,232 108,088 997,566 0.94%
August 1,081,536 93,304 1,102,559 1.94%
September 1,180,052 98,516 1,202,643 1.91%
October 1,266,232 86,180 1,292,050 2.04%
November 1,372,866 106,634 1,409,600 2.68%
December 1,475,638 102,772 1,515,122 2.68%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 230 of 544
20
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 347,623$ 347,623$ 437,117$ 25.74%
February 651,849 304,227 730,089 12.00%
March 1,067,462 415,613 1,164,370 9.08%
April 1,359,550 292,088 1,452,341 6.83%
May 1,783,049 423,499 1,878,909 5.38%
June 2,093,928 310,879 2,208,023 5.45%
July 2,569,516 475,588 2,731,972 6.32%
August 2,993,552 424,036 3,181,544 6.28%
September 3,592,341 598,790 3,802,117 5.84%
October 4,018,622 426,281 4,232,074 5.31%
November 4,521,753 503,131 4,717,501 4.33%
December 4,837,500 315,747 5,046,917 4.33%
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 117,844$ 117,844$ 206,626$ -2.76%
February 579,476 461,633 650,563 2.79%
March 793,715 214,239 857,252 2.71%
April 984,066 190,351 1,041,396 1.93%
May 1,198,804 214,738 1,248,687 2.15%
June 1,389,306 190,502 1,432,755 2.02%
July 1,605,385 216,078 1,640,860 2.21%
August 2,081,108 475,723 2,083,849 0.13%
September 2,302,939 221,831 2,290,999 -0.52%
October 2,499,013 196,074 2,475,111 -0.96%
November 2,719,600 220,586 2,681,947 -1.38%
December 2,916,000 196,400 2,875,628 -1.38%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Meter Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Storm Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 231 of 544
21
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 368,573$ 368,573$ 430,475$ 16.80%
February 739,189 370,616 776,988 5.11%
March 1,192,379 453,190 1,208,782 1.38%
April 1,561,692 369,313 1,556,465 -0.33%
May 2,020,421 458,729 1,988,901 -1.56%
June 2,393,961 373,540 2,339,183 -2.29%
July 2,860,441 466,480 2,784,857 -2.64%
August 3,236,691 376,249 3,139,291 -3.01%
September 3,711,615 474,925 3,594,704 -3.15%
October 4,088,150 376,535 3,954,165 -3.28%
November 4,558,319 470,169 4,392,270 -3.64%
December 4,935,000 376,681 4,755,230 -3.64%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2013
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 232 of 544
22
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 3,256,546$ 3,256,546$ 4,106,837$ 26.11%
February 5,738,364 2,481,818 5,821,040 1.44%
March 7,983,453 2,245,089 9,553,606 19.67%
April 11,089,012 3,105,559 11,303,195 1.93%
May 13,098,374 2,009,362 13,034,788 -0.49%
June 16,418,926 3,320,551 15,541,665 -5.34%
July 19,232,001 2,813,076 19,021,011 -1.10%
August 21,718,031 2,486,030 20,865,159 -3.93%
September 24,579,013 2,860,982 24,406,144 -0.70%
October 26,916,798 2,337,785 26,254,716 -2.46%
November 29,475,100 2,558,302 28,568,019 -3.08%
December 33,428,648 3,953,548 32,399,898 -3.08%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,850,750$ 1,850,750$ 2,450,235$ 32.39%
February 2,398,875 548,126 2,488,604 3.74%
March 2,730,636 331,761 4,520,241 65.54%
April 3,893,098 1,162,462 4,569,788 17.38%
May 4,106,886 213,788 4,665,570 13.60%
June 5,908,180 1,801,294 5,464,269 -7.51%
July 6,725,281 817,101 7,050,688 4.84%
August 7,108,363 383,081 7,087,477 -0.29%
September 8,030,573 922,210 8,883,176 10.62%
October 8,418,034 387,461 8,917,486 5.93%
November 8,835,656 417,622 9,283,156 5.06%
December 11,675,354 2,839,698 12,266,677 5.06%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
0
6000000
12000000
18000000
24000000
30000000
36000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 233 of 544
23
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 20,374$ 20,374$ 15,899$ -21.96%
February 43,014 22,641 38,445 -10.62%
March 66,053 23,038 61,389 -7.06%
April 85,839 19,787 83,350 -2.90%
May 105,708 19,869 103,077 -2.49%
June 127,575 21,866 129,323 1.37%
July 152,874 25,299 152,370 -0.33%
August 175,926 23,052 178,450 1.43%
September 194,771 18,845 206,591 6.07%
October 221,092 26,321 224,897 1.72%
November 242,345 21,253 252,727 4.28%
December 273,623 31,278 285,345 4.28%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 20,358$ 20,358$ 19,244$ -5.47%
February 40,965$ 20,607$ 38,426 -6.20%
March 60,831$ 19,866$ 59,435 -2.29%
April 80,594$ 19,763$ 78,215 -2.95%
May 100,113$ 19,519$ 97,801 -2.31%
June 119,680$ 19,567$ 117,240 -2.04%
July 140,385$ 20,705$ 136,909 -2.48%
August 160,149$ 19,764$ 156,244 -2.44%
September 179,497$ 19,349$ 175,704 -2.11%
October 201,043$ 21,545$ 196,439 -2.29%
November 221,558$ 20,516$ 215,716 -2.64%
December 240,866$ 19,308$ 234,514 -2.64%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 234 of 544
24
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 22,078$ 22,078$ 19,264$ -12.75%
February 44,778 22,700 39,680 -11.38%
March 73,759 28,981 59,024 -19.98%
April 97,885 24,125 84,440 -13.73%
May 123,450 25,565 105,495 -14.54%
June 146,273 22,823 125,617 -14.12%
July 170,756 24,483 148,360 -13.12%
August 192,443 21,687 168,734 -12.32%
September 219,283 26,840 189,163 -13.74%
October 240,551 21,268 217,020 -9.78%
November 262,353 21,802 236,301 -9.93%
December 296,058 33,705 266,659 -9.93%
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 53,629$ 53,629$ 51,789$ -3.43%
February 112,880 59,251 115,326 2.17%
March 175,265 62,385 172,514 -1.57%
April 237,664 62,399 232,844 -2.03%
May 296,001 58,337 289,036 -2.35%
June 359,972 63,971 349,491 -2.91%
July 417,999 58,027 408,529 -2.27%
August 479,324 61,325 475,199 -0.86%
September 537,503 58,179 539,339 0.34%
October 599,074 61,571 601,609 0.42%
November 660,600 61,526 664,592 0.60%
December 729,506 68,906 733,914 0.60%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 235 of 544
25
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 23,903$ 23,903$ 23,455$ -1.87%
February 60,185 36,282 54,572 -9.33%
March 91,793 31,608 82,365 -10.27%
April 121,470 29,677 112,729 -7.20%
May 154,163 32,693 141,547 -8.18%
June 181,237 27,074 168,121 -7.24%
July 219,725 38,487 204,034 -7.14%
August 245,828 26,103 233,447 -5.04%
September 275,198 29,370 265,038 -3.69%
October 306,118 30,920 296,034 -3.29%
November 332,806 26,688 325,900 -2.08%
December 377,764 44,958 369,925 -2.08%
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 46,581$ 46,581$ 37,742$ -18.98%
February 92,331 45,750 83,146 -9.95%
March 145,417 53,085 132,277 -9.04%
April 190,728 45,311 174,295 -8.62%
May 246,108 55,380 211,369 -14.12%
June 293,563 47,455 255,790 -12.87%
July 344,299 50,736 299,585 -12.99%
August 388,440 44,142 359,928 -7.34%
September 438,924 50,484 409,740 -6.65%
October 482,314 43,390 495,285 2.69%
November 532,305 49,991 542,017 1.82%
December 586,831 54,526 597,537 1.82%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Community Services/Economic Development
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 236 of 544
26
Information Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 41,269$ 41,269$ 92,733$ 124.70%
February 107,231 65,962 139,675 30.26%
March 158,641 51,411 195,470 23.22%
April 207,023 48,382 243,433 17.59%
May 261,979 54,956 273,992 4.59%
June 315,391 53,412 303,287 -3.84%
July 362,173 46,782 335,108 -7.47%
August 424,531 62,358 368,611 -13.17%
September 470,769 46,238 410,614 -12.78%
October 532,119 61,350 444,839 -16.40%
November 602,123 70,004 480,220 -20.25%
December 723,534 121,411 577,050 -20.25%
Finance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 75,216$ 75,216$ 57,510$ -23.54%
February 144,311 69,095 132,734 -8.02%
March 209,175 64,864 195,061 -6.75%
April 270,041 60,866 288,223 6.73%
May 329,932 59,892 350,529 6.24%
June 399,382 69,449 419,004 4.91%
July 463,038 63,656 479,400 3.53%
August 519,830 56,793 540,681 4.01%
September 582,932 63,101 601,823 3.24%
October 654,048 71,116 662,628 1.31%
November 723,184 69,137 722,378 -0.11%
December 794,984 71,800 794,098 -0.11%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 237 of 544
27
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 41,600$ 41,600$ 45,000$ 8.17%
February 83,200 41,600 85,261 2.48%
March 124,800 41,600 110,418 -11.52%
April 166,400 41,600 163,684 -1.63%
May 208,000 41,600 192,124 -7.63%
June 249,600 41,600 245,534 -1.63%
July 291,200 41,600 284,215 -2.40%
August 332,800 41,600 324,528 -2.49%
September 374,400 41,600 360,467 -3.72%
October 416,000 41,600 396,560 -4.67%
November 457,600 41,600 448,185 -2.06%
December 499,200 41,600 488,929 -2.06%
Police
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 718,270$ 718,270$ 711,651$ -0.92%
February 1,423,370 705,100 1,406,388 -1.19%
March 2,165,758 742,388 2,104,655 -2.82%
April 2,866,310 700,552 2,792,819 -2.56%
May 3,559,969 693,659 3,483,129 -2.16%
June 4,348,505 788,536 4,227,018 -2.79%
July 5,073,362 724,857 4,972,804 -1.98%
August 5,792,849 719,487 5,693,804 -1.71%
September 6,540,466 747,617 6,439,813 -1.54%
October 7,263,252 722,787 7,221,628 -0.57%
November 8,235,360 972,108 8,181,471 -0.65%
December 9,013,653 778,293 8,954,671 -0.65%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
9000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 238 of 544
28
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 135,540$ 135,540$ 135,003$ -0.40%
February 273,132 137,592 263,070 -3.68%
March 423,545 150,413 425,710 0.51%
April 562,466 138,921 535,592 -4.78%
May 702,372 139,906 652,334 -7.12%
June 839,698 137,326 775,648 -7.63%
July 971,469 131,771 905,148 -6.83%
August 1,114,664 143,195 1,024,666 -8.07%
September 1,255,893 141,229 1,155,902 -7.96%
October 1,405,922 150,029 1,289,790 -8.26%
November 1,544,018 138,095 1,418,595 -8.12%
December 1,687,894 143,876 1,550,784 -8.12%
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 220,369$ 220,369$ 206,466$ -6.31%
February 458,913 238,545 441,862 -3.72%
March 716,059 257,146 687,221 -4.03%
April 965,334 249,275 940,767 -2.54%
May 1,222,832 257,498 1,200,892 -1.79%
June 1,540,910 318,077 1,473,023 -4.41%
July 1,933,815 392,905 1,896,279 -1.94%
August 2,326,622 392,807 2,266,919 -2.57%
September 2,634,141 307,520 2,534,360 -3.79%
October 2,883,640 249,499 2,814,463 -2.40%
November 3,116,121 232,481 3,062,541 -1.72%
December 3,422,517 306,396 3,363,668 -1.72%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 239 of 544
29
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 27,007$ 27,007$ 26,193$ -3.01%
February 52,806 25,799 53,241 0.82%
March 79,315 26,509 80,244 1.17%
April 104,820 25,505 106,672 1.77%
May 130,712 25,892 135,132 3.38%
June 156,718 26,006 162,172 3.48%
July 192,014 35,296 190,140 -0.98%
August 217,880 25,866 217,744 -0.06%
September 244,097 26,217 245,061 0.39%
October 270,921 26,824 272,136 0.45%
November 295,226 24,305 298,568 1.13%
December 324,517 29,291 328,190 1.13%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 106,672$ 106,672$ 98,355$ -7.80%
February 220,921 114,249 209,083 -5.36%
March 343,665 122,743 320,411 -6.77%
April 478,949 135,284 434,291 -9.32%
May 552,523 73,574 553,398 0.16%
June 670,350 117,826 639,087 -4.66%
July 775,460 105,110 762,458 -1.68%
August 878,941 103,481 866,245 -1.44%
September 997,041 118,100 975,946 -2.12%
October 1,099,774 102,733 1,077,731 -2.00%
November 1,211,822 112,048 1,195,797 -1.32%
December 1,344,159 132,337 1,326,385 -1.32%
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2013
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 240 of 544
30
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 116,831$ 116,831$ 116,885$ 0.05%
February 234,167 117,336 232,112 -0.88%
March 350,637 116,470 347,757 -0.82%
April 476,032 125,395 462,638 -2.81%
May 587,431 111,399 579,950 -1.27%
June 704,550 117,118 687,628 -2.40%
July 824,821 120,272 795,569 -3.55%
August 943,772 118,950 903,068 -4.31%
September 1,066,568 122,797 1,013,993 -4.93%
October 1,191,844 125,275 1,126,760 -5.46%
November 1,307,157 115,313 1,240,443 -5.10%
December 1,418,188 111,031 1,345,808 -5.10%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2013
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 241 of 544
31
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
(a)
Term Purchase Purchase Maturity / Call **Yield to Weighted
Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average
Washington State Local
Government Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 19,852,862$ Various 0.12% 0.069%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 10,000,000$ Various 0.66% 0.198%
Opus Bank Certificate of
Deposit
24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.009%
FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2013 **0.90% 0.027%
FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 12/27/2013 **0.75% 0.022%
FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 11/27/2013 **0.54% 0.016%
TOTAL 33,352,862$ 0.34%0.342%
Investment Mix % of Total
State Investment Pool 59.5% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.11%
Certificate of Deposit 1.5% Current State Pool rate 0.12%
Bonds 9.0% Blended Edmonds rate 0.34%
70.0%
(a) To maturity.
Summary
City of Edmonds
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of November 30, 2013
Packet Page 242 of 544
32
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
12/31/2012 9/30/2013 11/30/2013 Q3 YTD
001-General Fund 4,635,301$ 3,972,782$ 8,537,234$ (3,390,379)$ 3,901,933$
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 388,509 330,940 284,448 (68,144) (104,061)
011-Risk Management Fund 114,000 40,122 37,195 64,377 (76,805)
012 - Contingency Reserve Fund 5,278,152 5,343,486 5,345,994 1,507 67,842
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 - -
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,063 (3,503) (3,503) (4,475) (4,566)
016-Building Maintenance 214,026 208,001 114,735 (22,137) (99,291)
Total General Fund 10,686,910$ 9,947,688$ 14,371,962$ (3,419,250)$ 3,685,052$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$10.69 $9.95
$14.37
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dec 2012 Sept 2013 Nov 2013
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
General Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 243 of 544
33
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2012 9/30/2013 11/30/2013 Q3 YTD
General Fund 10,686,910$ 9,947,688$ 14,371,962$ (3,419,250)$ 3,685,052$
Special Revenue 4,324,145 6,439,112 5,780,289 525,211 1,456,144
Debt Service 26,229 56,722 332,080 24,566 305,851
Total Governmental Funds 15,037,284$ 16,443,522$ 20,484,332$ (2,869,473)$ 5,447,048$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$10.69
$9.95
$14.37
$4.32
$6.44
$5.78
$0.03 $0.06 $0.33 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dec 2012 Sept 2013 Nov 2013
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmental Fund Balances-By Fund Group
$15.04
$16.44
$20.48
-
6
12
18
24
Dec 2012 Sept 2013 Nov 2013
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmental Fund Balances
-Combined
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 244 of 544
34
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2012 9/30/2013 11/30/2013 Q3 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 118,537$ 98,997$ 87,114$ (17,610)$ (31,423)$
111 - Street Fund 122,981 188,938 209,349 20,325 86,368
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 384,261 838,153 64,900 19,971 (319,361)
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 432,251 438,384 435,404 11,638 3,153
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,671 17,684 17,692 5 21
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 103,792 95,514 108,164 (6,514) 4,372
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 71,500 63,578 63,908 (75) (7,592)
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,947 13,258 13,909 (576) (2,038)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 65,916 79,723 80,323 899 14,407
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,031,760 1,555,394 1,679,739 142,024 647,979
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 309,555 976,102 1,115,252 254,076 805,697
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 216,500 218,902 223,715 (5,344) 7,215
129 - Special Projects Fund 5,734 141,534 144,926 102,489 139,192
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 53,600 62,310 72,238 16,835 18,638
132 - Parks Construction Fund 396,823 652,652 473,834 (27,067) 77,011
136 - Parks Trust Fund 149,891 150,174 150,245 42 354
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 818,644 830,493 834,704 5,679 16,060
138 - Sister City Commission 8,782 17,322 4,874 8,414 (3,908)
Total Special Revenue 4,324,145$ 6,439,112$ 5,780,289$ 525,211$ 1,456,144$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$4.32
$6.44
$5.78
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dec 2012 Sept 2013 Nov 2013
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 245 of 544
35
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2012 9/30/2013 11/30/2013 Q3 YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund 14,637,482$ 14,349,609$ 19,265,553$ 2,089,787$ 4,628,071$
422 - Storm Utility Fund 8,400,457 8,991,068 9,734,972 1,301,157 1,334,515
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,316,528 40,623,288 48,146,449 (1,495,385) 4,829,921
424 - Bond Reserve Fund - (82,095) 843,959 (82,095) 843,959
411 - Combined Utility Operation - 174,073 214,510 55,681 214,510
Total Enterprise Funds 66,354,467$ 64,055,943$ 78,205,444$ 1,869,144$ 11,850,977$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$214,510
$19,265,553
$9,734,972
$48,146,449
$843,959
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
Combined Utiliyt Water Utility Storm Utility Sewer/WWTP Utility Bond Reserve
Enterprise Fund Balances as of November 30, 2013
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 246 of 544
36
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
12/31/2012 9/30/2013 11/30/2013 Q3 YTD
Governmental Funds 15,037,284$ 16,443,522$ 20,484,332$ (2,896,797)$ 5,447,048$
Enterprise Funds 66,354,467 64,055,943 78,205,444 1,869,144 11,850,977
Internal Services Fund 6,536,284 7,054,918 7,075,719 185,723 539,435
Pension Trust Fund 216,719 202,084 193,949 (11,421) (22,770)
Total City-wide Total 88,144,754$ 87,756,467$ 105,959,444$ (853,351)$ 17,814,690$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$87,114
$209,349
$64,900
$435,404
$17,692
$108,164
$63,908
$13,909
$80,323
$1,679,739
$1,115,252
$223,715
$144,926
$72,238
$473,834
$150,245
$834,704
$4,874
$30,474
$25,764
$275,842
$1 $2,000,000
General Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
Street Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Youth Scholarship Fund
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Gifts Catalog Fund
Special Projects Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Parks Construction Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Sister City Commission
L.I.D. Fund Control
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund
Governmental Fund Balances as of November 30, 2013
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 247 of 544
37
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2012 9/30/2013 11/30/2013 Q3 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 6,536,284$ 7,054,918$ 7,075,719$ 185,723$ 539,435$
Total Internal Service Funds 6,536,284$ 7,054,918$ 7,075,719$ 185,723$ 539,435$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.54
$7.05 $7.08
-
2
4
6
8
Dec 2012 Sept 2013 Nov 2013
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Balances
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 248 of 544
AM-6514 3. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance Limiting Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground
Floor Street Frontages Within the Downtown Business 1 (BD1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone.
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.
January 7, 2014 – The City Council voted unanimously to approve the proposal and requested the City
Attorney prepare an ordinance for future action.
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
Packet Page 249 of 544
Board and City Council minutes and letters expressing positions on the proposal):
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
Packet Page 250 of 544
On October 9, 2013 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 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.
January 7, 2014
The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposal during which, an overview, similar to the
one presented on November 4, 2013, was presented to the City Council by Mr. Clifton. Seven members
from the public, four of which work in the real estate industry, provided comments on the proposal. After
comments were taken and the City Council asked Mr. Clifton additional questions, the City Council
voted unanimously to approve the proposal and requested the City Attorney prepare an ordinance for
future action.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Ordinance limiting certain office uses in BD-1
Attachment 2 - Proposal Overview
Attachment 3 - Chronology of Events
Attachment 4 - BD1 Zone Map
Attachment 5 - Spreadsheet Listing Businesses Located along the Ground Floor of Designated Street
Frontages within the BD1 Zone
Packet Page 251 of 544
Attachment 6 - November 4, 2013 City Council Meeting Minutes
Attachment 7 - October 9, 2013 Planning Board Minutes
Attachment 8 - Setember 11, 2013 Planning Board Minutes
Attachment 9 - Comments Received by Planning Board - 2013
Attachment 10 - Letter from Joe Tovar (related to first comment in Attachment 9)
Attachment 11 - January 7, 2014 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk 01/16/2014 04:51 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 09:44 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/17/2014 06:01 AM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 01/16/2014 04:18 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/17/2014
Packet Page 252 of 544
ORDINANCE NO .
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.43.020 RELATING
TO LIMITING CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM
LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES ALONG
DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET
FRONTAGES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN
BUSINESS 1 (BD1 - DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE)
ZONE.
WHEREAS, the existing City of Edmonds, Washington Economic Development
Plan contains goals to foster a healthy business community that provides employment and
other economic opportunities, revitalization of the City’s business districts, balancing
redevelopment, preservation and the need for consumer amenities, diversifying the tax
base and increasing revenues, as well as strengthening the quality of life and vitality of
the community for residents, workers and visitors to enjoy; and
WHEREAS, city or town downtown centers/districts typically promote compact,
pedestrian-oriented development with a diverse mix of business, commercial,
entertainment, and other uses for workers, visitors, and residents; and
WHEREAS, Goal 2, Policy 2i of the Economic Development Plan states “Create
synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a
“retail core” area in the downtown”; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Comprehensive Plan has goals and policies which include
“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); and “….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); and
WHEREAS, currently the ECDC allows the ground floor of buildings along
designated commercial street frontages within the BD1 Zone to be used for commercial
purposes other than those tied to retail, eating and drinking establishments, theaters and
cultural facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved in year 2011, new commercial depth
requirements of 45 feet along commercial street frontages within Edmonds’ Downtown
Zones; and
Packet Page 253 of 544
WHEREAS, in 2011, the Council requested a review of a proposal to limit certain
office uses along street frontages of the BD1 Zone; and more specifically within business
spaces located within the first 45 feet of commercial street frontages of BD1 Zones
measured from public rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City held two (2) downtown community meetings with property
owners in 2013 regarding a proposal to limit certain office uses along commercial street
frontages within the BD1 Zone and provided many opportunities for the involvement of
private, public agencies, civic, education, and other community and interested groups
during the review process which took place in 2011, 2012 and 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Planning Board and City Council held public
workshops and public hearings in 2013 during which the they received and considered
written and oral comments; and
WHEREAS, there is a desire to create an active thriving downtown commercial
core that serves as the City’s primary gathering place for greater social interaction; create
a compact assembly of storefronts housing a mix of uses, short walkable blocks, and
pedestrian amenities; create a place that represents a unique, attractive, and memorable
destination for visitors and residents; and strengthen opportunities for economic vitality
and support pedestrian activity; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is intended to preserve and strengthen the distinctive
character and charm of downtown Edmonds by providing improved 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”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council introduced this ordinance at its meeting of January
21, 2014;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 254 of 544
Section 1. Section 16.43.020 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Uses,” is
hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by
this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike
through):
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall
take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof
consisting of the title.
Approved:
______________________________
_
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
______________________________
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY:____________________________
Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 255 of 544
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds,
Washington
On the 21st day of January, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. . A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of
the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.43
RELATING TO LIMITING CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS
SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 1 (BD1 - DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE) ZONE..
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ___ day of January, 2014.
CITY CLERK: SCOTT PAS SEY
Packet Page 256 of 544
Attachment A
16.43.020 Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1
BD1
GFSF(1) 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(2) 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
Packet Page 257 of 544
Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter
4.90 ECC1
A A A A A A
Residential
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
Other Uses
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 258 of 544
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
NOTES:
(1) BD1 Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet
measured from public rights of way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) 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.
(2) 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 259 of 544
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal
meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the
following criteria are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk.
Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a
curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian
streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to
the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more
than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at
least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged,
and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a
combination of at least two of the following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3932 § 6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894
§ 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
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.
Packet Page 260 of 544
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 261 of 544
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 262 of 544
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 263 of 544
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 264 of 544
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 265 of 544
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 266 of 544
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 267 of 544
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 268 of 544
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 269 of 544
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 270 of 544
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 271 of 544
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.
January 7, 2014 (draft minutes) – The City Council conducted a public hearing on this proposal during which, an
overview, similar to the one presented on November 4, 2013, was presented to the City Council by Mr. Clifton.
He explained that this proposal has been discussed by the City Council, Planning Board and Edmonds Economic
Development Commission (EDC) since early 2011.
Seven members from the public, four of which work in the real estate industry, provided comments on the
proposal. After comments were taken and the City Council asked Mr. Clifton additional questions, the City
Council voted unanimously to approve the proposal and requested the City Attorney prepare an ordinance for
future action.
Packet Page 272 of 544
Packet Page 273 of 544
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 274 of 544
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 275 of 544
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 276 of 544
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 277 of 544
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 278 of 544
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 279 of 544
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 280 of 544
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 281 of 544
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 282 of 544
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 283 of 544
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 284 of 544
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 285 of 544
• 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 286 of 544
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 287 of 544
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 288 of 544
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 289 of 544
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 290 of 544
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 291 of 544
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 292 of 544
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 293 of 544
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 294 of 544
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 295 of 544
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 296 of 544
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 297 of 544
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 298 of 544
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 299 of 544
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 300 of 544
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 301 of 544
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 302 of 544
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 303 of 544
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 304 of 544
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 305 of 544
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 306 of 544
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 307 of 544
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 308 of 544
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 309 of 544
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 310 of 544
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 311 of 544
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 312 of 544
• 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 313 of 544
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 314 of 544
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 315 of 544
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 316 of 544
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 317 of 544
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 318 of 544
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 319 of 544
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 320 of 544
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 321 of 544
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 322 of 544
----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 323 of 544
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 324 of 544
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 325 of 544
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 326 of 544
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 327 of 544
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
January 7, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Thea Ocfemia, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
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 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(b)
At 6:37 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Police Chief Al
Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session
concluded at 6:48 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the flag salute.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Snohomish County Councilmember Stephanie Wright administered the oath of office to Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas.
Mayor Earling administered the oath of office to Councilmembers Peterson and Johnson.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Packet Page 328 of 544
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2013
B. 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. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KYLE
BLACKWELL ($1,172.81), JACK LANUM (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND
CLAIRE HEDMAN ($1,791.12)
D. APPROVAL OF WSLCB DECEMBER 2013 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
E. RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER LORA PETSO FOR HER SERVICE
AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
F. APPROVAL OF BOND COUNSEL CONTRACT FOR AUTHORIZED REFUNDING OF
UTGO BONDS
G. 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. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014
Mayor Earling read the procedures for election of the Council President: Edmonds City Code Section
1.02.031 states the City Council shall elect a Council President and Council President Pro Tem at the first
Council meeting of each year. Unless the Council adopts a motion directing an alternative procedure,
nominations and elections of these offices will be conducted by the City Council’s customary voice vote
process. First, he will call for nominations. No Councilmember may nominate more than one person for a
given office until every member wishing to nominate a candidate has had an opportunity to do so.
Nominations do not require a second. After nominations are closed, he will call for the vote in the order
nominations were made. As soon as a nominee receives four votes, he will declare the Council President
elected and no votes will be taken on the remaining nominees. In the event a vote on any candidate results
in a 3-3 tie, he has been advised by the City Attorney that he is entitled to break the tie pursuant to RCW
35.A.12.100. Following the election of the Council President, he will conduct the election of the Council
President Pro Tem in the same manner.
Packet Page 329 of 544
Councilmember Petso suggested not using the voice vote procedure but rather elect a new Council
President by ballot because under the voice vote procedure which an email from the City Attorney
indicated would apply unless the Council passed a motion authorizing a different procedure, voting will
be in the order of the nominations and would require Councilmembers to vote against the first candidate
nominated if they supported the second candidate nominated. She preferred the Council not vote against
any nominee but rather vote by ballot. According to Roberts Rules, voting by voice is used when an
election is not strongly contested and in her estimation, this has been a contested election. Further, it is
not generally a suitable method for electing the officers of organized societies and she considered the City
Council to be an organized society.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
ELECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 BY BALLOT. UPON ROLL CALL, THERE
WAS A TIE VOTE (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, PETSO AND
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, AND PETERSON
VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie.
MAYOR EARLING VOTED NO, AND THE MOTION FAILED (3-4).
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO NOMINATED ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON NOMINATED DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014.
There were no further nominations.
Councilmember Petso explained during her term as Council President, she owed thanks to many people
including Councilmember Fraley-Monillas who participated in Monday meetings with her and Mayor
Earling to discuss the upcoming Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas performed her duties
during 2013 in an outstanding manner and should be the next Council President.
Councilmember Peterson commented although any Councilmember was qualified and deserving of the
position of Council President, he had great confidence in Councilmember Buckshnis’ ability to work well
with administration, staff and other Councilmembers. Having served as Council President himself, he was
aware the relationship between the administration and Council was crucial. Although he had confidence
in Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ abilities, he felt Councilmember Buckshnis could lead the Council in
2014 in a very positive manner.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her reasons for supporting Councilmember Fraley-Monillas as Council
President; first, the custom established by Council that the Council President tends to be the most senior
person on the Council who had not been Council President previously and typically the Council President
Pro Tem was elected as Council President. Additionally, Councilmember Bloom explained in her two
years on Council, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas has always responded to her requests to discuss issues,
listened attentively to her opinions, never lectured or maligned her or criticized her position on any issues,
has been respectful and supportive even when they disagreed, and she has been very generous with her
time to assist her in understanding processes and issues.
Finally, Councilmember Bloom recognized the stress Councilmember Fraley-Monillas experienced
running for office while serving on the Council, made especially stressful because Mayor Earling chose to
endorse and actively support the candidate who was running in opposition to her. Despite this,
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas demonstrated a high degree of professionalism, integrity and an
Packet Page 330 of 544
astounding amount of grace in the face of the attacks from the opposition. Councilmember Bloom
summarized Councilmember Fraley-Monillas would be an excellent leader for the Council and for all
those reasons deserved to be appointed the new Council President.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3);
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie. Mayor Earling explained his primary
interest was a fully functioning government. If there were differences on the Council, he was hopeful the
sides could be brought together for a more positive working environment.
MAYOR EARLING VOTED IN FAVOR OF DIANE BUCKSHNIS, AND THE NOMINATION OF
DIANE BUCKSHNIS FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2014 CARRIED (4-
3).
City Clerk Scott Passey announced Diane Buckshnis was elected Council President for a one year term
ending with the first meeting in 2015.
7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS NOMINATED LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION
OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014.
There were no further nominations.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS
BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso relayed she was remiss in failing to nominate Councilmember Bloom; based on
seniority and Councilmembers who had not yet served in a Council leadership role, Councilmember
Bloom would be ahead of Councilmember Johnson.
Council President Buckshnis recalled the issue of seniority was researched last year and there is nothing
in the code that addresses seniority.
UPON ROLL CALL, NOMINATION OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2014 RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3); COUNCIL
PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING
YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie.
Packet Page 331 of 544
MAYOR EARLING VOTED IN FAVOR OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON, AND THE NOMINATION
OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR
2014 CARRIED (4-3).
City Clerk Scott Passey announced Kristiana Johnson was elected Council President Pro Tem for a one
year term ending with the first meeting in 2015.
8. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2014
Committee Representative
Parks, Planning, & Public Works Councilmember Bloom and Position #6
Finance Committee Councilmembers Petso (Chair) and Johnson
Public Safety and Personnel Committee Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas
Citywide Parking Committee Position #6 and Councilmember Peterson
Community Technology Advisory Committee Position #6
Community Transit Mayor Earling and Council President Buckshnis
(Alt)
Disability Board (Appointed by Mayor)
Economic Development Commission Councilmembers Johnson and Peterson
Highway 99 Task Force Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Johnson
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Councilmembers Petso and Johnson
Lake Ballinger Work Group Councilmember Peterson
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Position #6
PFD Oversight Committee Councilmember Petso
PFD Task Force Councilmembers Peterson and Petso
Port of Edmonds Councilmember Bloom
Regional Fire Authority Councilmembers Peterson and Petso and Mayor
Earling
SeaShore Transportation Forum Position #6
Snohomish County Emergency Radio System
Governing Board
Councilmember Peterson
SNOCOM Position #6
Snohomish Health District Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
Snohomish County Tomorrow Council President Buckshnis and Councilmember
Johnson (Alt)
Salmon Recovery – WRIA-8 Council President Buckshnis
Tree Board Liaison Councilmember Bloom
Council President Buckshnis advised the Finance Committee meetings will be moved back to the Jury
Room.
9. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1311, APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION
Packet Page 332 of 544
Councilmember Petso observed the alternate last year was Councilmember Johnson and asked why it had
been changed. Council President Buckshnis responded it was changed at Councilmember Johnson’s
request.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1312, APPOINTING MAYOR EARLING AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AS THE ALTERNATE TO THE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jim Hendricks, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset Avenue, relayed the residents on Sunset Avenue support
the new walkway but would like to have further discussion regarding its construction. He suggested
removing the sidewalk on the east side to widen the right-of-way and keep all pedestrian traffic on the
new walkway on the west side and bicycles on the east side away from pedestrians. The current situation
makes it difficult for residents to enter/exit their driveways. He questioned the survey that was done,
relaying a recent survey he had done found 80% of the sidewalk is on his property. He summarized
Sunset Avenue is a beautiful place and everyone should have an opportunity to enjoy it in a safe manner.
Dave Page, Edmonds, expressed concern with the dissention on the Council. He hoped the Council
could work together for a better Edmonds and stop the sibling rivalry.
12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER LORA PETSO FOR
HER SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Councilmember Buckshnis presented Resolution 1310 thanking Councilmember Petso for her service as
Council President during 2013.
Councilmember Petso thanked everyone who assisted during her term as Council President which
includes some members of the public, City staff and Council. She gave particular thanks to
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas who was a model Council President Pro Tem; she did not interfere
unnecessarily but was there for her when she needed assistance. She also thanked Senior Council
Assistant Jana Spellman for her assistance. She echoed Mr. Page’s comments regarding the importance of
the Council working together and ensuring the guiding principle of Council decisions is what is best for
the City.
13. UPDATE FROM THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION
Michelle Van Tassell, Chair, Sister City Commission (SCC), relayed the Commission has had a very
full, fun-filled, busy 2013. She introduced Michelle Rockstead, Student Representative. Ms. Van
Tassell described highlights of 2013:
• Organization and Programs
o Rita Ikeda – Vice Chair
o Three vacancies
o Student Representative: Michelle Rockstead
• Hosted 37 member adult delegation from Hekinan, Japan, marking 25 year anniversary of Sister
City relationship
o Cultural Fair
o Halloween Celebration
o Tour of Edmonds Community College International Program
Packet Page 333 of 544
o Tour of Swedish Hospital Cancer Center
o Tour of Boeing
o Friendship Dinner (over 200 current and past local supporters of the Sister City program)
o Afternoon at Gallagher’s – brewed, bottled and labeled commemorative beer
• Assisted in recruiting, interviewing and hiring of new Assistant English Teacher (AET)
• Outreach
o Edmonds Historical Museum
o Friends of Edmonds Library
o Chamber of Commerce
o Both Rotary Clubs
o Floretum Garden Club
o Olympic Ballet
• 2014 Planning
o Student delegation July/August
o Cultural Event
o Funds building
Council President Buckshnis thanked the Sister City Commission for the great time the Hekinan
delegation had this year. She acknowledged the receipt of a very nice letter from the Commission
thanking her and her husband for their donation.
SCC Student Representative Michelle Rockstead explained her plans are to get more people involved
with the SCC especially student volunteers and assisting with the student delegation going to Hekinan in
July and the student delegation from Hekinan in August. She also plans to develop a slideshow to assist
with recruiting student volunteers and future student representatives and making connections with student
volunteers, especially Kamiak High School students.
Mayor Earling commented on his participation in the adult delegation to Hekinan and with the delegation
that visited Edmonds from Hekinan, noting the SCC is an extraordinary working committee. He thanked
the SCC for the remarkable work they do.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the SCC for a wonderful cultural exchange, remarking she was not sure
whether she enjoyed the Halloween party or the Friendship Dinner more.
Ms. Van Tassell advised there are three openings on the SCC. She agreed the SCC had nine very strong,
dedicated and devoted Commissioners. She recognized Beth Ferman and Kay Vreeland in the audience.
14. PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY REPORT
Planning Board Member Val Stewart advised she is the outgoing Vice Chair; Todd Cloutier is the 2014
Chair and Neil Tibbott is the Vice Chair. The Planning Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesday
of each month at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. Meetings are open to the public
and citizens are highly encouraged to attend so that concerns and comments are addressed early on and
incorporated into the Planning Board’s discussions before making recommendations to City Council.
The Planning Board is a group of volunteer citizens who review findings, research, conduct public
hearings and discuss matters related to land use. The Planning Board serves in an advisory capacity to the
Mayor and City Council in regional and local planning issues and ultimately forwards recommendations
to the City Council for consideration. Ms. Stewart provided highlights of recent meetings:
1. Public Hearing on Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element update for 2014-2019 to City’s
Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program for 2014-2019 (9/25/13).
Packet Page 334 of 544
• CFP is mandated by GMA and is intended to identify longer-term capital needs (not
maintenance) to implement the City’s level of service standards and growth projection. The
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is used as a budgeting tool and includes both capital and
maintenance projects.
• Proposed updates in the CFP 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.
• Planning Board recommended that these two plans be forwarded to Council for consideration
and a public hearing was held before Council in November.
2. Work session and public hearing on whether to include a definition of “reasonable economic” use
within the City’s Critical Area Regulations (9/25/13, 11/13/13).
• Council adopted Interim Ordinance 3931 in July which deleted the definition of “reasonable
economic use” from the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).
• Planning Board recommended the first sentence in the definition be retained as it provides
some direction to property owners by telling them that the applicable state and federal
constitutional provisions would apply.
• The City intends to hire a consulting team to thoroughly review the City’s existing CAO and
its consistency with BAS and current State policies at the end of this year.
3. Two work sessions on proposed amendments to Title 23 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code to bring the Critical Area Regulations into consistency with Best Available
Science (9/25/13, 11/13/13).
• Discussed potential buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development within the
already developed footprint and within areas physically separated and functionally isolated
from the critical area.
• Held a public hearing on a Council adopted interim ordinance (8/14/13) followed by a
lengthy discussion (08/28/13). Purpose of the interim ordinance was to bring existing CAO
into more consistent compliance with the Best Available Science (BAS) Report that was
developed with the 2004 CAO Update.
• In light of two pending projects, a conflict in language between the BAS and the CAO was
discovered. The discrepancy had to do with how development in previously developed
buffers is characterized in the BAS Report which talks about “developed footprint;” whereas
the CAO limits it to “structures” as opposed to “development within a previously developed
footprint.”
• Discussion topics included development thresholds, definitions, enhancement ratios and
enhancement requirements (such as stormwater and low-impact development and planting
and/or removal of vegetation to promote wildlife habitat restoration) as well as monitoring
performance and maintenance of enhancement installations.
• The overall intent of the CAO is to allow minor improvements in exchange for improving the
situation through enhancement over time. The interim ordinance expires after six months, and
the proposed amendments would make the changes permanent until the next CAO review.
• The City updates its CAO in 2015 as required by GMA. In the meantime, Planning Board is
continuing its discussions and will return to Council with recommendations on specific
language for the proposed amendment to the CAO based on the interim ordinance under
review.
4. 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 (10/9/13).
• In June 2011, after extensive discussions, the Planning Board forwarded recommendations to
Council limiting uses on the ground floor of designated street fronts in the BD-1 zones.
Aspects of this proposal had been first considered by City Council and then by the Economic
Development Commission, over the past two plus years. Planning Board recommendations
Packet Page 335 of 544
have been forwarded to Council along with a notation to specifically consider the 90-day vs
180-day timeframe for nonconformance.
• Public hearing tonight following this report, to allow any additional public comment for
Council consideration.
5. Study session and public hearing regarding AT&T Mobility and the Busch Law Firm’s
application to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code (10/9/13, 12/11/13).
• This addresses the legal status of existing wireless communication facilities that were built
prior to and just after adoption of Edmonds’ original wireless ordinance. AT&T Mobility
brought this specific site issue forward at the August 14, 2013 Planning Board meeting. A
wireless facility located on a downtown building is currently unpermitted.
• After reviewing all possible alternatives, AT&T Mobility was advised to apply for a code
amendment to allow legal nonconformity of the existing facility at that site.
• A public hearing was held on clarifications to Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
regulations in ECDC 20.50 and 17.40.020. The public hearing was extended to January 8.
6. Discussion on potential issues related to I-502 (Cannabis) implementation in Edmonds (10/913).
• On August 20, City Council adopted Ordinance 3938, establishing an immediate emergency
moratorium on all marijuana related business activities. The moratorium expires in February.
• 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 and come up with appropriate regulations when the
state starts issuing licenses for the production, processing and retail sales of recreational
marijuana this spring. Edmonds was allocated two recreational marijuana retail sales
locations.
• City Council discussed marijuana issues on September 3 and asked Planning Board to
continue working on this issue. Planning Board discussed related issues at October 9 meeting.
• Planning Board will have another work session on 1-502 Implementation on January 8, and a
public hearing is scheduled for February 12.
7. Park Update Report (10/23/13)
• Parks and Recreation/Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite reported on the progress of the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS). The City hired MIG, Inc. to assist staff in
updating the PROS Plan as well as the Community Cultural Plan; work started June 2013.
The consultants visited all of the parks, recreation, and cultural facilities and programs,
particularly noting their condition and capacity. Consultant also reviewed the City’s current
operating and capital funding for parks. A Needs Assessment was created along with
geographic mapping to determine Level of Service. There has been extensive public process.
• A team was assembled, including many citizens, to provide input and guidance which has
culminated in a draft that is now in the 60 day review period. It is currently posted on the
website for comment before being finalized in February. Board member Lovell and Stewart
are on PROS team. The goal is to have the plan finalized and adopted by March 1. There will
be a public hearing first before Planning Board and then before City Council.
8. Reviewed Park Naming Policy (10/23/13)
• Ms. Hite provided research from numerous jurisdictions to inform discussion. Board is
reviewing specific language in the Park Naming Policy and striving to come up with more
clear guidelines that include cultural services and recreation facilities. Naming rights with
conditional dollar donations were also discussed. Current policy for Park Naming involves
the public, Planning Board and City Council. Changes to the Park Naming Policy require a
public hearing before the Board and a recommendation to City Council.
• City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 22.
9. Two Work sessions on Westgate plan and form based code. (11/13/13, 12/11/13)
Packet Page 336 of 544
• Presentations and discussions of the Westgate Plan started in 2012. Two more work sessions
occurred in November and December of 2013.
• Purpose of work sessions was for the Board to review the overall approach proposed by staff
and provide feedback on three sets of plans and code changes:
o Comprehensive Plan Changes
o Code Changes to Implement the Westgate Study
o Design Standards for the Westgate Mixed Use District
• A public hearing on the Westgate Plan and Form Based Code is tentatively scheduled for
February 12, 2014.
Ms. Stewart offered special thanks to an exceptional staff and directors who work very hard to carry out
the direction of the Council and Mayor who also give so much of their time, energy, and expertise to
ensure Edmonds has an economically and environmentally sustainable future for all sectors of the
population. She also thanked the citizens of Edmonds for their participation, noting without their input the
City would not be aware of their needs and desires and therefore would not be motivated to act on them.
She urged citizens to continue to be involved and attend Planning Board meetings.
Council President Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work done by the Planning Board. She
was hopeful there would be more collaboration this year to avoid issues becoming stalled.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the Planning Board for providing the Council a quarterly report. She
also thanked Ms. Stewart for her service as the Planning Board Vice Chair.
15. 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)
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 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. A document entitled, “Creating Economic Vitality - An Edmonds City Center That Is
Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social” that addresses limiting certain office uses in
ground floor street frontages within the BD1 zone. The overview of the proposal contains a
summary, introduction, and references to City documents, and various reasons cited by Roger
Brooks for supporting the proposal.
2. A Chronology of Events (2.75 year long process) with links to agendas and minutes
3. A map depicting the boundaries of the BD1 Zone
4. An inventory Cindi Cruz and he conducted in response to a May 13, 2013 meeting with owners of
property within the BD1 Zone
5. Minutes from the November 4, 2013 City Council meeting and October 9, 2013 and September
11, 2013 Planning Board meeting.
6. Comments from four individuals supporting the proposal (two own property within the BD1
Zone).
Mr. Clifton explained this issue has been raised in part as a result of 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 at least 2006. Goal 2, Policy 2i of the 2006 adopted Edmonds Economic Development Plan
Packet Page 337 of 544
states: “Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a “retail
core” area in the downtown.” Another way to phrase this is how does our community open up more
opportunities for retail, dining, specialty shops, entertainment venues and galleries within a concentrated
area?
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, Mr. Clifton 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.
This message is consistent with information provided by Mr. Brooks in November 2012 when he spoke
about the “20 ingredients of an Outstanding Downtown.” Two of those ingredients relate to how
clustering of like-businesses works and the power in critical mass. Mr. Brooks pointed out a City can
spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, facade improvements, and a host
of other amenities, but while this helps improve the physical environment, a downtown can still be
lifeless. What makes a downtown work as a community center and gathering place is what's happening
inside the buildings. A beautiful streetscape with no street activity is often due the lack of businesses
along the streetscape that attract people.
With regard to public safety/less activity, Mr. Clifton commented 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 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., a downtown core that invites people to hang out and enjoy the
environment later into the evening whether it’s for shopping, dining, drinking, or attending other events.
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 city, county and state economies; in fact,
tourism is the fourth largest industry in Washington State. Within Snohomish County, tourism is the third
largest industry and expenditures are concentrated on restaurants, retail stores, recreation and
entertainment, accommodations and groceries. Tourism 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,
Packet Page 338 of 544
negative fluctuations in the retail market, e.g. absence of a critical mass, can result in vacant storefronts
thus affecting the street environment and eventually weakening the vitality of the downtown core.
Therefore, retail/active service uses are a critical part of sustaining the health of downtowns.
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
• Sidewalks and cafes and dining
• Investing heavily in retail beautification (Paint the Town)
• Activities and entertainment
Mr. Clifton highlighted significant milestones in the chronology:
• Proposal unanimously supported by the EDC on June 13, 2013
• Hosted two meetings with owners of property within the BD1 Zone (5/13/13 and 9/4/13)
o At May 13 meeting, preliminary support was expressed by several individuals and others
wanted to discuss this issue further; no one expressed opposition to the proposal.
o A request was made for the City to conduct an inventory of what businesses currently exist
along designated ground level street frontages in the Edmonds downtown core which was
prepared and presented at the second meeting with property owners
o At September 4 meeting, 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
Mr. Clifton provided Roger Brooks’ Ten Ten Ten Rule: in a minimum of 3 lineal blocks there needs to be
ten places that sell food, ten places that serve as destination retail, and ten places open after 6:00 p.m. Mr.
Clifton reviewed similar provisions in other cities such as Kirkland; Escondido, California; Minneapolis;
Encinitas, California; Walnut Creek, California; and San Luis Obispo, California, to restrict service
office/uses within the retail core.
Mr. Clifton referred to an inventory of downtown Edmonds that identifies businesses that would be
impacted by the proposal. He clarified this proposal does not require any existing business to leave. Only
when owners choose to vacate certain business spaces would the business spaces need to be filled with an
allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a use similar to the one that
left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated.
On September 11, and October 9, 2013, the Planning Board conducted a workshop and public hearing
respectively. The table in Attachment 1 reflects staff’s proposal as well as the Planning Board’s proposed
amendments. During the November 4, 2013 City Council meeting, an overview of the proposal was
presented and the Council asked questions about the proposal. During that meeting, he presented language
Packet Page 339 of 544
in Section 16.43.010.B that addressed issues related to buildings such as 543 Main Street that have
multiple tenants on the first floor, but only one entrance:
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.
On November 4, 2013 the City Council discussed the Planning Board’s recommendation to support the
proposal and requested a public hearing be scheduled as soon as possible. Mr. Clifton referred to
questions he has received related to real estate offices. He clarified real estate offices are an allowed use
under this proposal.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Clifton to explain why real estate offices are an allowed use.
She visits Walnut Creek annually and finds it very walkable and inviting. Mr. Clifton commented Walnut
Creek has branded their core, The Walnut Street Collection. With regard to real estate offices, Mr. Clifton
explained some cities allow them and some do not; real estate offices are considered a walk-in type
business. The intent of this proposal is to allow open door, walk-in businesses in the core.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dave Page, Edmonds, described his plans eight years ago to move his real estate, mortgage, escrow and
building companies downtown first by leasing space in Old Milltown and later an offer to purchase Old
Milltown. He eventually did not purchase Old Milltown because the cost of remodeling was too high.
Had he purchased Old Milltown, his offices would be located there today.
Fred Gouge, Edmonds, a licensed real estate broker with Coldwell Banker at 5th & Main, explained
Coldwell Banker has a lot of walk-in clientele. They inform people about Edmonds, distribute maps,
support many community events, generate revenue, and spend thousands each month advertising and
marketing Edmonds. As a commercial broker, one of the properties he leased would no longer be an
allowed use. He encouraged the Council to consider the impact on property owners of changing the
allowed uses. He also commented on the effect moving service businesses to the upper floor stories or
outside the core would have on seniors as many of the second floors in downtown core buildings are not
ADA accessible.
Wayne Purser, Edmonds, a local realtor at Coldwell Banker Bain at 108 5th Avenue South, commented
their location downtown provides a sense of local community. As a real estate company, they provide
community knowledge for people buying and selling real estate and inform about market trends, local
schools, etc. They distribute approximately 2,000-3,000 maps of Edmonds downtown and waterfront
businesses. They also distribute the Guide to Edmonds, host a Halloween Extravaganza the Sunday before
Halloween that brings 150-200 people to Edmonds, Halloween pictures, Santa photos, and provide free
wall space for artists for the Third Thursday Art Walk. Many agents volunteer at community events
including manning the buses for the Taste of Edmonds, volunteer for non-profits, the Sister City
Commission, Edmonds Community Foundation, Floretum Garden Club Board, Petanque Club and
Edmonds in Bloom. For these reasons, he supported real estate offices as an allowed use in the downtown
core.
Greg Hoff, Edmonds, advised he attended Mr. Clifton’s informational meeting and was generally
supportive of the proposal. He commented on the importance of balancing the City’s needs with the needs
Packet Page 340 of 544
and desires of property owners. Changing allowed uses via regulations is not necessarily fair to all
property owners who have invested a great deal in their income properties. He pointed out if the
regulations result in lower lease rates, it was similar to a tax on the property owner and an unintended
consequence. He agreed real estate offices were a walk-in, 24/7 Chamber of Commerce for the City. He
owns property in the BD1 zone that is leased to a real estate company; the 75 people who work there live,
work and play in Edmonds and in 2013 generated over $260 million in real estate transactions and $4.6
million in REET.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to a photograph he emailed to the Council of a bank that located in a large
retail space at the corner of 34th & Freemont, relaying his concern that could happen at 5th & Main in
Edmonds. He supported allowing real estate offices because they present an interesting storefront that
encourages pedestrians to walk in the core. He was opposed to allowing banks and/or insurance
companies in the retail core because they do not present an interesting storefront. He invited the Council
to consider how they wanted downtown to look, what they wanted to see in the storefronts and what
would encouraged them to walk in this 5-6 block area. He did not think services businesses located one
block outside the core on the ground level would be inconvenient. He thanked Councilmember Petso for
her emails regarding what businesses should be allowed.
Tom Sheehan, Edmonds, owner of 523 Main, said he was generally in favor of the concept. Five years
ago before he rented the space to The Fabric of Life, he rejected several proposals from service businesses
because that was not the type of business that belonged on Main Street. The Fabric of Life is leaving the
space and he is searching for another unique business to bring people to Edmonds. He supported the
concept of retail-type businesses on Main Street and 5th Avenue in the downtown core rather than service
businesses.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, speaking as a citizen, expressed his support for economic vitality by
creating an Edmonds City Center that is economically strong, thriving, lively and social and said the
Council can create such as a center by supporting the Planning Board’s recommendation. The City’s
Economic Development Plan offers support for the Planning Board’s recommendations. This proposal
provides an opportunity for clustering and synergy as was described during Roger Brooks’ November
2012 presentation. The Planning Board and EDC unanimously support the concept of limiting office uses
on designated street frontages in the first 45 feet in the BD1 zone. He commented on the EDC’s field trip
to Kirkland where they observed the positive effects of limiting office uses on the ground floor in the
downtown core. He also commented on property owner’s interest in the concept at Mr. Clifton’s May 13
meeting with property owners. The proposal has been under consideration for over 2½ years; he urged the
Council to support the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Johnson expressed support for the concept as recommended by the Planning Board and
EDC.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. TARADAY TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE ACTION.
Councilmember Johnson explained she was on the Planning Board in March 2011 when this discussion
began. She thanked Mr. Clifton for his tenacity, patience and deliberative process. She pointed out the
proposal includes a recommendation to consider it again in a couple years and make adjustment if
necessary.
Packet Page 341 of 544
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the public comment from members of the real estate
community and asked Mr. Clifton whether the proposal meets their needs. Mr. Clifton responded it will
meet their needs; the table in Attachment 1 indicates real estate offices are an allowed use.
Council President Buckshnis observed there are 12 businesses on the list that could eventually change.
She asked whether the reason some massage therapists were not on the list was due to their proximity to
the street. Mr. Clifton answered yes, the proposal applies only to the first 45 feet. Council President
Buckshnis agreed with the comments from Coldwell Banker realtors, noting when she visits different
cities, she often looks at the photographs of real estate for sale.
In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comment, Mr. Clifton referred to a clarifying note on
page 8 of Attachment 1, that states, Open door businesses, e.g., real estate offices, banks (with tellers and
no drive throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed uses.
Councilmember Petso recalled at the November 4 Council meeting Mr. Clifton indicated the EDC did not
have a consensus with regard to real estate offices or banks. She supported reviewing this regulation
periodically to ensure it is serving the City’s needs. She referred to a December 26, 2013 article regarding
McCall, Idaho, that states, “Another recommendation of the new downtown plan is to eliminate
restrictions on professional offices on ground floors facing the street. The current restriction is intended to
encourage retail space facing the street but downtown offices are now considered sources of customers
for shops and restaurants.” She referred to the comments regarding ADA accessibility and property rights,
noting those are issues that should be monitored. Mr. Clifton referred to page 5 of Attachment 1 that
recommends a reevaluation of the ordinance within 2-3 years. He noted changes may not occur for some
time as it will depend on when a business space is vacated.
Councilmember Peterson was glad to see this proposal coming to fruition. He recognized the work done
by the Mr. Clifton, the Planning Board, EDC and Council. Although he was previously undecided about
allowing real estate offices, friends visiting from Sydney, Australia stopped at the real estate office to
pursue the photographs.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON ECC CHAPTER 2.10 REGARDING
CONFIRMATION AND DUTIES OF CITY OFFICERS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday reviewed the unresolved issue related to the minimum number of candidates
the Council wants to interview in Section 21.10.010.D (choices are shown in brackets):
The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the appointive officers. The city council
shall interview the top [two][three] candidates for each position prior to the mayor’s appointment,
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
Mr. Taraday explained the above section specifies the number of candidates the Council wants to require
the Mayor present for interview and, when there is a deviation from that requirement, whether the
deviation should be a majority vote or a majority plus one.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the prior wording of this section was three candidates. Mr.
Taraday answered the current code states, “the city council shall interview the top three candidates for
each position prior to the mayor’s final selection.” He pointed out in practice that has not happened; when
the Council’s practice does not match the code, the code needs to be changed.
Packet Page 342 of 544
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled during her four years on the Council, in the early years the
Council interviewed three candidates. She was uncertain how the Council began interviewing less than
three. Mr. Taraday answered the current code does not provide a procedure for the Council to waive the
three interview requirement.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there have been occasions when there are fewer than three
candidates for a position. She questioned how the code could require more interviews than the number of
candidates. Mr. Taraday answered that was the problem and the reason there needed to be a process for
deviating from the requirement in appropriate circumstances. Mayor Earling asked the difference between
applicants and candidates. For example there are 20 applicants for the Development Services Director;
likely not all of them will be candidates. Mr. Taraday answered a candidate is anyone applying for a
position. In the example Mayor Earling provided, the top three out of twenty would be interviewed. He
noted there may be instances when the Mayor will recommend the Council not interview three candidates.
The code should provide a way to deviate from the requirement without violating the code.
Council President Buckshnis recalled only one person was interviewed when the City hired former
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock, two when Ms. Hite was hired and three when Mr. Williams was hired.
Her concern in the past was the Council did not interview candidates, they only confirmed the Mayor’s
selection. She agreed with the code reflecting the Council’s direction on the number of candidates to be
interviewed and a waiver procedure.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled there were three applicants for the most recent Finance Director
position but only two candidates were referred to the Council for interview. Mayor Earling explained
three people were ranked; he would not have appointed one of the candidates and he made a decision not
to fly him in from out of state for an interview. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not agree with the
Council being in the interview process but if the Council is to affirm the appointment, there should be a
sufficient number to interview.
Councilmember Petso expressed support for retaining the requirement to interview three but allow a
waiver to two with a majority plus one of the full Council. That would allow conformance of practice to
the code while also ensuring, for the Council and the public, that there is a fair representation of the top
applicants for the job.
Councilmember Peterson observed there have not been three candidates interviewed for a number of
positions under different administrations. In the example Mayor Earling provided, two candidates were
far above the third; had the Council interviewed all three and selected number three, the Mayor would not
have hired that person. He reminded it is the Mayor’s job to do the hiring; the Council’s role is
confirmation. During the Public Safety & Personnel Committee’s discussions, his position was to have
the Council interview the top two or more candidates but to not limit the Mayor to two. He supported
code language that would allow that number to be reduced by a majority vote of the Council although he
was not opposed to requiring a super majority vote. He pointed out the Council refusing to interview only
one candidate for a critical director position and requiring the selection process to be restarted could be a
disservice to the City.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the Council’s confirmation as a rubberstamp and asked why
the Council interviews candidates at all if the Council can only say yes or no and the Mayor makes the
final decision. Mr. Taraday answered confirmation is a significant power. He provided the example of
President Obama’s inability to appoint appellate court judges because the senate will confirm because of
the filibuster. The Council has that same power to not confirm an appointment; the Mayor cannot hire
without the Council’s confirmation. He clarified this code section was about giving the Council
Packet Page 343 of 544
flexibility; the Council could allow itself the flexibility of interviewing as few as one candidate and still
not confirm that appointment.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented if it is a true confirmation process, it would be better to have
more choices than less. In her 30+ years of experience in government, the appointing authority
consistently had a choice of three top candidates. She supported the Council interviewing three
candidates.
Councilmember Peterson philosophically disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. The Council
can choose not to confirm the Mayor’s appointment but if the Mayor presents three candidates for the
Council to interview, the Mayor is not obligated to hire the Council’s choice. Mayor Earling commented
two Councilmembers were included in the Finance Director interview panel and he planned to do the
same for the Development Services Director position.
Councilmember Johnson did not recall a formal confirmation vote for the Finance Director. Mayor
Earling advised there was, it was a 6-1 vote.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS,
TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION WHICH
INCLUDES BRINGING THE TOP THREE CANDIDATES AND ALSO THE PROVISION THAT
THE COUNCIL MAY WAIVE THE TOP THREE CANDIDATES BY VOTE OF A MAJORITY
PLUS ONE TO AS FEW AS TWO CANDIDATES.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Mayor Earling for including Councilmembers in the interview process
for the Finance Director. She explained the intent was to hire directors that can work with everyone. She
recognized the importance of the Council’s role in confirming an appointment, pointing out the Council
can discuss candidates in executive session. The motion is a good compromise to requiring that the
Council interview three candidates as it provides a procedure for waiving that requirement.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THE COUNCIL MAY OPT TO INTERVIEW
AS FEW AS ONE OR TWO CANDIDATES FOR ANY VACANT APPOINTIVE OFFICE.
Councilmember Petso did not support the amendment, commenting if there were not at least two people
to interview, it was not fair to the Council or the public. It also did not provide the public or the Council,
other than the Councilmembers on the interview panel, an opportunity to consider the other candidates.
Councilmember Bloom did not support the amendment, commenting she did not understand the rationale
for interviewing one candidate in front of the public.
Council President Buckshnis commented candidates were not interviewed on camera. She asked whether
that needed to be included in the code. Mr. Taraday answered yes if that was the Council’s intent.
Councilmember Bloom clarified she as not suggesting that change.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if the Council only interviewed one candidate there was no purpose
in having a confirmation process.
Councilmember Peterson clarified his amendment retained the language that a super majority vote of the
Council would be required to option to interview as few as one or two candidates.
Packet Page 344 of 544
UPON ROLL CALL, THERE WAS A TIE VOTE (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could not vote to break the tie.
AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3).
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday advised those were the only matters the Committee had not reached agreement on.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WITH
THE REVISIONS IN THE PACKET TO CHAPTER 2.10 AND AS APPROVED TONIGHT.
For Councilmember Bloom Mr. Taraday read 2.10.010.C:
If, on occasion of a vacant appointive office, the mayor 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.
Mr. Taraday explained this section recognizes the possibility when a vacancy occurs the mayor may want
to use that as an opportunity to rethink how the structure of his administration. If the mayor is considering
reorganization, it would not make sense to immediately embark on recruitment.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether reorganization would eliminate the director position. Mr. Taraday
answered it could but it could also alter the job duties of the position or the structure of administration. He
noted changing a director’s duties requires Council action.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the Development Services Director position was not budgeted and
there was no director for two years. She wanted to ensure that did not happen again. She asked whether
the proposed language would allow a position to be eliminated without coming to the Council’s attention.
Mr. Taraday answered a budget amendment is required to eliminate a position as all positions are defined
in the budget.
Councilmember Petso thanked Councilmember Bloom and Peterson for their work on these revisions.
She noted in addition to the issues discussed, there were a number of other revisions to Chapter 2.10.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT TO AWARD BID FOR CITY PARK SPRAY
EQUIPMENT
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite commented this would usually be presented to committee first;
she was presenting to the full Council due to the timeline for awarding the bid. Delaying this issue to the
January committee meeting would delay Council consideration until the third or fourth week on the
Consent Agenda; the equipment needs to be ordered mid-January. The proposed contract for the City Park
spray equipment is approximately $159,000, the amount in the original budget. She explained the play
area and the spray area equipment are being bid separately to avoid the contractor mark-up. The Council
Packet Page 345 of 544
awarded a bid for the play area a few months ago and staff will return to Council next month for award of
the construction contract.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR THE CITY
PARK SPRAY EQUIPMENT.
Councilmember Johnson commented Councilmembers often must balance competing priorities. She
referred to the $25,000 annual budget for water for the spray pad, expressing concern with the use of
water at the rate of $250/day assuming a 100 day season. She did not want to interrupt the project and
would have preferred this information had been presented at the beginning of the project. She asked Ms.
Hite to comment on the value of the project from a user standpoint and economic vitality. Ms. Hite
responded a spray park uses 50-150 gallons of water per minute to activate and add play value. Staff
worked with vendors to design a spray pad with equitable play value but that reduced water usage and
used low flow valves as well as different zones and activators.
Ms. Hite explained vendors were asked to design a spray pad that could be dialed down to 22 gallons per
minute. The $25,000 water usage in the 2014 budget is based on 22 gallons per minute for 10 hours per
day 7 days a week for 3 months in the summer. Spray pads across the nation attract many children,
families and teens; in this area spray pads see 500-600 people per day on a hot summer day. She
summarized the spray pad will attract not only Edmonds residents but people from outside the
community. City Park is a great location with parking and the capacity for a lot of people.
Ms. Hite displayed the original concept design of the spray pad area, explaining there are approximately
20 different components in the spray area. Vendors were asked to include three activators; when an
activator is pressed, the water flows. The water times out after 60 seconds and the activator must be
pushed again to active the water. One activator would turn on the entire spray pad; three activators turn on
the water by zone. The spray pad was designed with a toddler zone, a family zone and a teen zone. She
noted children can play in all the zones but zones save water by not turning on water in the entire spray
pad. There may be days the water flow can be increased to 60 gallons/minute and then turned back down
to 22 gallons/minute ; it will take a season for staff to determine the best balance.
Ms. Hite explained a water reuse system was also designed. She displayed an example of a water reuse
system, explaining water from the spray pad flows into a tank where it is filtered and stored for use for
irrigation, toilet flushing in City Park and a fill valve for the flower program truck. The spray pad
generates 22 gallons/minute or 13,200 gallons/day or 92,400 gallons/week if it is on from 10:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. She described water use in City Park:
Irrigation 83,000 gallons per week
Toilets 18,000 gallons per week
Flower Program 1,500 gallons per week
Total Water Usage 102,500 gallons/week
Spray Pad Generates 92,400 gallons/week
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $25,000 per year will be recouped via water reuse. Ms. Hite
answered that is the goal. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the system to pump water to the toilets.
Ms. Hite advised the 60% design document has been submitted for building permits; the contractor is
working on 90% design. It is a very complicated system; when it reaches 90% design, she may return to
Council regarding to costs and water table issues at City Park.
Packet Page 346 of 544
Councilmember Bloom asked how the toddlers, families and teens areas are designated. Ms. Hite
answered they are not signed. Toddlers can play in the teen area and teens can play in the toddler area,
etc. The play equipment in the toddler area is not exciting for teens. The spray pad was zoned so that
teens running and playing will not knock over toddlers. She acknowledged there will be some crossover.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there is a cost for a spray pad. Children love spray pads and
water and she anticipated it would be a great addition to the City and encourage people to visit Edmonds.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #9 WITH DAVID
EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this $17,219 is the last piece of the design. He anticipated
going to bid in February, signing a contract in March, issuing notice to proceed in April and completing
construction in 2014. That schedule required this be presented to the full Council tonight rather that at
committee. He reviewed the scope of this supplemental agreement:
• Two new soil borings where the stormwater vault will be located in the middle of 84th Avenue
north of the Five Corners intersection to collect additional geotech information ($7,700)
• Additional design of water infrastructure ($8,700). All existing water infrastructure in the
footprint of the roundabout is being replaced.
• Incorporate geotech information into the final design ($4,000)
Mr. Williams summarized this brings the total of the design and right of way contract to approximately
$467,000.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the agenda memo referred to Council action on supplemental
agreements 3, 4, 7 and 8, but nothing was said about 5 and 6. Mr. Williams commented a large, complex
project such as this starts with what is known and as the project matures, additional issues arise which
often require Council approval of additional resources. This will provide the final piece of the design
before advertising for bid in February. Mr. Williams reviewed the amounts of some of the supplemental
agreements: #1 - $2,320, #2 - $3,600, #3 - $53,400, #7 - $35,000; the others were fairly modest in size.
He noted the original contract included a management reserve that will be used to cover some of the
supplemental agreements.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could get out of the project at this point even with design
complete and if so, how much would it cost. Mr. Williams answered total for design and right-of-way is
approximately $680,000; approximately $482,000 is from grants. Councilmember Petso asked whether
the grant money would need to be repaid if the Council opted not to proceed with the project. Mr.
Williams answered if the Council could move forward with the project but chose not to, the grant funds
would need to be returned.
Council President Buckshnis expressed support for proceeding with the project, noting although some
people have complained, she has heard a great deal of support from residents in the neighborhood.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #9
WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Packet Page 347 of 544
Mayor Earling commented on the regional undertaking of the machinists approving the 777X contract. He
expressed appreciation for the compromises the machinists made, recognizing the contract is a
monumental step forward for the state economically as well as securing long term jobs. He explained a
majority of mayors in Snohomish County signed a letter requesting reconsideration of the original vote.
He recognized the leadership of Everett Mayor Stephenson, Snohomish County Executive John Lovick
and Governor Jay Inslee. He noted although there is little industry in Edmonds related to Boeing, the
contract is incredibly important to Edmonds residents who are employed by Boeing as well as Edmonds
businesses.
Mayor Earling wished everyone a Happy New Year and expressed his hope the Council could work
effectively during this next year.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Student Representative Thea Ocfemia congratulated Councilmembers Buckshnis and Johnson on their
elections as Council President and Council President Pro Tem.
Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a Happy New Year and looked forward to a productive 2014.
Council President Buckshnis relayed Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman will distribute
committee assignments tomorrow. She requested Councilmembers identify 2-3 goals they wanted to
champion this year. Goals she was interested in pursuing include the sign code and the marsh. The City
received a $200,000 grant from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for daylighting Willow Creek. She
wished everyone a Happy New Year.
Councilmember Johnson wished everyone a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was bothered by the events that occurred tonight; it was
not about her being Council President or not. The Council had the ability to put in place an interim
Council President until a seventh Councilmember could be appointed and weigh in on this important
Council decision. Although this was legal according to the City Attorney, the concept of separation of
powers is a foundation of government in this country. Most amazing to her was to have expected a fair
decision to be made by mayor who actively participated, supported, financed and appeared in ads for her
opponent during a campaign two months ago. Although some may call this politics, she found it a breach
of democracy.
21. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Packet Page 348 of 544
AM-6469 3. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
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
Refunding 2003 Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bond Refunding Ordinance
Recommendation
Pass on Consent.
Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and supported by Finance Committee on December 10th and by the Full
Council on December 17th. The Bond Counsel contract was approved by motion on January 7th
although it was also reviewed by the Council on the 10th and 17th of December.
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 Council has authorized that the City move ahead with this action. The attached ordinance executes
an action with Cashmere Valley Bank which has offered to the City the most attractive rates. Savings
from the transaction will be $44,061 in 2015 and $44,061 in 2016.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:(44,061)
Fiscal Impact:
Fiscal Year:2016
Packet Page 349 of 544
Revenue:
Expenditure:(44,061)
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
2014 UTGO refunding ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/15/2014 04:01 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/15/2014 04:22 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 10:16 AM
Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Started On: 01/06/2014 10:40 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 350 of 544
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to
contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance, sale and delivery of an
unlimited tax general obligation bond to carry out a current refunding of the
City’s outstanding Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2003,
and to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bond; fixing certain terms and
covenants of the bond; and providing for other related matters.
Passed January 21, 2014
This document prepared by:
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400
Packet Page 351 of 544
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Section 1. Definitions............................................................................................................... 1
Section 2. Findings and Determinations .................................................................................. 3
Section 3. Authorization of Bond ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Section 4. Description of Bond ................................................................................................ 3
Section 5. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bond ............................................... 4
Section 6. Form and Execution of Bond .................................................................................. 4
Section 7. Payment of Bond..................................................................................................... 4
Section 8. Funds and Accounts; Deposit of Proceeds.............................................................. 5
Section 9. Prepayment of Bond ............................................................................................... 5
Section 10. Failure To Pay Bond ............................................................................................... 6
Section 11. Pledge of Taxes ....................................................................................................... 6
Section 12. Tax Covenants. ....................................................................................................... 6
Section 13. Sale and Delivery of the Bond. ............................................................................... 7
Section 14. General Authorization and Ratification .................................................................. 7
Section 15. Severability ............................................................................................................. 7
Section 16. Effective Date of Ordinance ................................................................................... 8
*The cover page, table of contents and section headings of this ordinance are for convenience of reference only,
and shall not be used to resolve any question of interpretation of this ordinance.
Packet Page 352 of 544
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to
contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance, sale and delivery of an
unlimited tax general obligation bond to carry out a current refunding of the
City’s outstanding Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2003,
and to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bond; fixing certain terms and
covenants of the bond; and providing for other related matters.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following capitalized terms
shall have the following meanings:
(a) “2003 Bond Ordinance” means Ordinance No. 3460 of the City, passed on
July 3, 2003, authorizing the issuance of the 2003 Bonds.
(b) “2003 Bonds” means the Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds,
2003.
(c) “Acquired Obligations” means those United States Treasury Certificates of
Indebtedness, Notes, and Bonds--State and Local Government Series and other direct,
noncallable obligations of the United States of America purchased to accomplish the refunding
of the Refunded Bonds as authorized by this resolution.
(d) “Bank” means Cashmere Valley Bank of Cashmere, Washington, or its successor
or assignee.
(e) “Bond” means the bond issued pursuant to this ordinance.
(f) “Bond Counsel” means Foster Pepper PLLC, its successor, or any other attorney
or firm of attorneys selected by the City to serve as bond counsel.
(g) “Bond Fund” means the Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund of the City
created for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond.
(h) “Bond Register” means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar for
the purpose of identifying ownership of the Bond.
(i) “Bond Registrar” means the Finance Director or any successor bond registrar
selected b y the City.
(j) “Business Day” means any day that is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a day on which
commercial banks located in the State are closed for business.
Packet Page 353 of 544
(k) “City” means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State.
(l) “City Council” means the legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly
constituted from time to time.
(m) “Code” means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and
applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
(n) “Finance Director” means the Finance Director or such other officer of the City
who succeeds to substantially all of the responsibilities of that office.
(o) “Government Obligations” has the meaning given in RCW 39.53.010, as now in
effect or as may hereafter be amended.
(p) “Issue Date” means the date of initial issuance and delivery of the Bond to the
Bank in exchange for the purchase price of the Bond.
(q) “Maturity Date” means December 1, 2016.
(r) “Purchase Offer” means the letter dated January 21, 2014, setting forth certain
terms and conditions of the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bond.
(s) “Record Date” means the Bond Registrar’s close of business on the 15th day of
the month preceding an interest payment date. With respect to redemption of the Bond prior to
its maturity, the Record Date shall mean the Bond Registrar’s close of business on the date on
which the Bond Registrar sends a notice of prepayment in accordance with Section 9.
(t) “Redemption Date” means the date selected by the Finance Director that is not
less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the Issue Date, for the payment and redemption of the
Refunded Bonds.
(u) “Refunded Bonds” means the outstanding 2003 Bonds maturing on December 1 in
the years 2014 through 2016, inclusive, to be refunded with the proceeds of the Bonds.
(v) “Refunding Account” means that special account of the City established within the
Bond Fund for the Refunded Bonds to hold Bond proceeds prior to the Redemption Date.
(w) “Refunding Plan” means (i) the irrevocable deposit by the City of the Bond
proceeds into a special account within the Bond Fund, to be held by the City uninvested until the
Redemption Date; (ii) the call, payment, and redemption of the Refunded Bonds on the
Redemption Date at a price equal to the outstanding principal amount of the Refunded Bonds,
plus accrued interest to the Redemption Date; and (iii) the payment of the costs of issuing the
Bond.
(x) “Registered Owner” means the person in whose name the Bond is registered on
the Bond Register.
Packet Page 354 of 544
(y) “State” means the State of Washington.
(z) “System of Registration” means the system of registration for the City’s bonds and
other obligations set forth in Ordinance No. 2451 of the City.
Section 2. Findings and Determinations. The City takes note of the following facts
and makes the following findings and determinations:
(a) Issuance of 2003 Bonds. By the 2003 Bond Ordinance, the City issued
$7,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 2003 Bonds to carry out an advance refunding of the
City’s Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1996, of which $2,720,000 principal amount
remains outstanding.
(b) Refunding of Refunded Bonds. The City Council finds and determines that the
issuance and sale of the Bond at this time will effect a savings to the City and is in the best
interest of the City and its taxpayers and in the public interest. In making such finding and
determination, the City Council has given consideration to the fixed maturities of the Bond and
the Refunded Bonds, the costs of issuance of the Bond and the known earned income (if any)
from the investment of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Bond pending payment and
redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The City Council further finds and determines that the
money to be deposited into the Refunding Account for the Refunded Bonds in accordance with
Section 8 of this ordinance will discharge and satisfy the obligations of the City under the 2003
Bond Ordinance with respect to the Refunded Bonds, and the pledges, charges, trusts, covenants,
and agreements of the City therein made or provided for as to the Refunded Bonds, and that the
Refunded Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding under such ordinance immediately
upon the deposit of such money in the Refunding Account. The City Council therefore deems it
to be in the best interests of the City to issue and sell the Bond carrying out the Refunding Plan.
(c) Bond Sale. For the purpose of providing the funds necessary to carry out the
Refunding Plan, the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City and its taxpayers
to issue and sell the Bond to the Bank, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Purchase Offer
consistent with this ordinance.
Section 3. Authorization and Description of Bond. The City shall borrow money on
the credit of the City and issue a negotiable unlimited tax general obligation bond in the principal
amount of not to exceed $2,765,000 to provide funds necessary to carry out the Refunding Plan.
The Bond shall be dated the Issue Date, shall be issued in fully registered form and shall be
numbered R-1. Interest on the Bond shall accrue as set forth below and is payable on each June 1
and December 1, commencing June 1, 2014. Principal of the Bond is payable on each
December 1, commencing December 1, 2014. A debt service schedule describing the
installments of principal and interest on the Bond will be attached to the Bond as Exhibit A. The
final installment payment of principal of and interest on the Bond, whether on the Maturity Date
or upon prepayment in accordance with Section 9, shall be in an amount equal to the remaining
principal and interest due on the Bond.
From the Issue Date, through and including November 30, 2015, the unpaid principal
amount of the Bond will bear interest at a fixed rate of 1.00% per annum. Commencing on
Packet Page 355 of 544
December 1, 2015, through and including the Maturity Date, the unpaid principal amount of the
Bond will bear interest at a fixed rate of 1.75% per annum. Interest on the Bond shall be
calculated based on a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months.
Section 4. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bond.
(a) Registration of Bond. The Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to both
principal and interest and the ownership of the Bond shall be recorded on the Bond Register.
(b) Bond Registrar; Duties. The Finance Director shall serve as Bond Registrar for
the Bond. The Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest. The
Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the Registered Owner. When the
Bond has been paid in full, both principal and interest, the Bond shall be surrendered by the
Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar, who shall cancel the Bond.
(c) Transfer and Exchange. The Bond may be assigned or transferred only (i) in
whole to a “qualified institutional buyer” as defined in Rule 144A promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (ii) if endorsed in a manner acceptable to and surrendered to
the Bond Registrar and (iii) upon the assignee or transferee acknowledging in writing to the City
that such assignee or transferee has received information regarding the City and the Bond
sufficient to comply with the requirements of Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
(d) Bond Register. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient
books for the registration and transfer of the Bond, which shall be open to inspection by the City
at all times. The Bond Registrar shall serve as the City’s authenticating agent, registrar and
paying agent for the Bond and shall comply fully with all applicable federal and state laws and
regulations respecting the carrying out of those duties. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on
behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver the Bond should it be transferred or exchanged in
accordance with the provisions of the Bond and this ordinance, to serve as the City’s paying
agent for the Bond and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar’s powers and duties under this
ordinance and the System of Registration.
Section 5. Form and Execution of Bond.
(a) Form of Bond; Signatures and Seal. The Bond shall be prepared in a form
consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. The Bond shall be signed by the
Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and
the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. If
any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on the Bond ceases to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearing his or her manual or facsimile
signature is authenticated by the Bond Registrar, or issued or delivered by the City, that Bond
nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and
delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign bonds. The Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any
person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign
bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on its Issue Date.
Packet Page 356 of 544
(b) Authentication. Only if the Bond bears a Certificate of Authentication in
substantially the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall it be valid or
obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: “Certificate Of
Authentication. This Bond is the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Unlimited Tax
General Obligation Refunding Bond, 2014.” The authorized signing of the Certificate of
Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly
executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance.
Section 6. Payment of Bond. Both principal of and interest on the Bond shall be
payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of and interest on the Bond is
payable by electronic transfer on the interest payment date, or by check or draft of the Bond
Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing
on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The Bond is not subject to acceleration under any
circumstances.
Section 7. Bond Fund. The Bond Fund is a special fund of the City for the sole
purpose of paying principal of and interest on the Bond and other unlimited tax general
obligation bonds of the City. All amounts allocated to the payment of the principal of and
interest on the Bond shall be deposited in the Bond Fund as necessary for the timely payment of
amounts due with respect to the Bond. The principal of and interest on the Bond shall be paid out
of the Bond Fund. Until needed for that purpose, the City may invest money in the Bond Fund
temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings shall be retained in the Bond
Fund and used for the purposes of that fund.
Section 8. Use of Bond Proceeds; Call for Redemption of the Refunded Bonds.
(a) Use of Bond Proceeds for Refunding Plan. The Refunding Account is hereby
created and established as a special, segregated account or fund. The proceeds from the sale of
the Bond shall be deposited in the Refunding Account immediately upon receipt thereof and held
irrevocably in trust, and used to discharge the obligations of the City relating to the Refunded
Bonds in accordance with the 2003 Ordinance. In the event any bond proceeds remain in the
Refunding Account after the Refunding Plan has been accomplished, such proceeds shall be
deposited into the Bond Fund and used to pay interest on the Bond on the next interest payment
date.
(b) Call for Redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The City calls for redemption all of
the Refunded Bonds on the Redemption Date, at a price equal to the outstanding principal
amount of the Refunded Bonds plus accrued interest. Such call for redemption shall be
irrevocable after the delivery of the Bond to the Purchaser. The date on which the Refunded
Bonds are herein called for redemption is the first date after the Issue Date on which it is
practicable to redeem the Refunded Bonds. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to
give or cause to be given such notices as required, at the times and in the manner required,
pursuant to the 2003 Bond Ordinance in order to effect the redemption of the Refunded Bonds
prior to their stated maturity date.
Section 9. Prepayment of Bond. The City reserves the right and option to prepay the
Bond, in whole or in part on any date, with no prepayment penalty, provided that the City gives
Packet Page 357 of 544
the Registered Owner 15 days advance written notice of any prepayment. Notice of prepayment
may be rescinded by the City at any time prior to the prepayment date. Any prepayments shall
be applied first to accrued and unpaid interest and then applied to reduce the outstanding
principal amount of the Bond. After any partial prepayment, the remaining payments shall be
recalculated to reflect a reduction in the required payment amounts unless the City requests in
writing that the Maturity Date be adjusted to reflect an earlier date, in which case the revised
payment schedule shall be as mutually agreed upon, in writing, by the City and the Registered
Owner. Within seven Business Days after any partial prepayment, the Registered Owner shall
provide to the City and the Bond Registrar a revised payment schedule. The rates of interest shall
remain unchanged.
Section 10. Failure To Pay Bond. If the principal of the Bond is not paid when the
Bond is properly presented at its Maturity Date, installment payment date or date fixed for
prepayment, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on the Bond at the same rate provided in
the Bond from and after its Maturity Date, installment payment date or date fixed for prepayment
until the Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment
in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund, and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice
of that call to the Registered Owner.
Section 11. Pledge of Taxes. The Bond constitutes a general indebtedness of the City
and is payable from tax revenues of the City and such other money as is lawfully available and
pledged by the City for the payment of principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on
the Bond. For as long as the Bond is outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges that it shall, in the
manner provided by law without limitation as to rate or amount, include in its annual levy
amounts sufficient, together with other money that is lawfully available, to pay principal of and
interest on the Bond as the same becomes due. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are
pledged irrevocably for the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond and such
pledge shall be enforceable in mandamus against the City.
Section 12. Tax Covenants.
(a) Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bond. The City covenants that it
will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bond from being included in gross
income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit
any use of proceeds of the Bond or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bond that
will cause interest on the Bond to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
(b) Post-Issuance Compliance. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to
review and update the City’s written procedures to facilitate compliance by the City with the
covenants in this ordinance and the applicable requirements of the Code that must be satisfied
after the Issue Date to prevent interest on the Bond from being included in gross income for
federal tax purposes.
(c) Designation of Bond as a “Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation.” The City deems
the Bond designated as a “qualified tax-exempt obligation” for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3)
of the Code, and makes the following findings and determinations:
Packet Page 358 of 544
(1) the Bond is not a “private activity bond” within the meaning of
Section 141 of the Code;
(2) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than
private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such
calculation) which the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity
that the City controls, that derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the
City, or that issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the
calendar year in which the Bond is issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and
(3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Bond, designated by
the City as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of
the Code during the calendar year in which the Bond is issued does not exceed
$10,000,000.
Section 13. Sale and Delivery of the Bond.
(a) Approval of Purchase Offer; Delivery of Bond. The Bank has submitted a
proposal to purchase the Bond from the City under the terms and conditions of the Purchase
Offer, which by this reference is hereby incorporated herein. The City Council finds that
accepting the Purchase Offer is in the City’s best interest and therefore authorizes and directs the
Finance Director to accept the Purchase Offer on behalf of the City. The City will be responsible
for all costs of issuance of the Bond. At the discretion of the Finance Director, the amount of
Bond Counsel’s fee and other costs of issuance may be withheld from the Bond proceeds and
paid directly by the Bank on behalf of the City on the Issue Date.
(b) Preparation, Execution and Delivery of the Bond. The Bond will be prepared at
the expense of the City and will be delivered to the Bank in accordance with the Purchase Offer,
together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bond.
Section 14. General Authorization and Ratification. The Finance Director and other
appropriate officers of the City are severally authorized to take such actions and to execute such
documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to carry out the transactions
contemplated in connection with this ordinance, and to do everything necessary for the prompt
delivery of the Bond to the Bank and for the proper application, use and investment of the
proceeds of the Bond. All actions taken prior to the effective date of this ordinance in furtherance
of the purposes described in this ordinance and not inconsistent with the terms of this ordinance
are ratified and confirmed in all respects.
Section 15. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate
and severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction, all appeals having been exhausted or all
appeal periods having run, finds any provision of this ordinance to be invalid or unenforceable as
to any person or circumstance, such offending provision shall, if feasible, be deemed to be
modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity. However, if the offending provision
cannot be so modified, it shall be null and void with respect to the particular person or
circumstance, and all other provisions of this ordinance in all other respects, and the offending
Packet Page 359 of 544
provision with respect to all other persons and all other circumstances, shall remain valid and
enforceable.
Section 16. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, at an open public meeting thereof, this 21st day of January, 2014, and signed
in authentication of its passage this 21st day of January, 2014.
Dave Earling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Scott Passey
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bond Counsel
Packet Page 360 of 544
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”), hereby
certify as follows:
1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. _____ (the “Ordinance”) is a full, true and
correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
held at the regular meeting place thereof on January 21, 2014, as that ordinance appears on the
minute book of the City.
2. The Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after publication in the City’s
official newspaper, which publication date will be January __, 2014.
3. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting
and a majority of the members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance.
Dated: January 21, 2014.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Packet Page 361 of 544
AM-6502 3. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Motion to dispose of Surplus Police Property via Propertyroom.com Auction website.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that all property other than the ballistic vests be sent to Propertyroom.com for auction,
or be disposed of as noted in the attached document. Staff recommends and requests that this agenda item
be approved by Council via the Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
This item was presented to the Finance Committee on January 14th, with the Committee recommedation
that it be forwarded to full Council for approval via the consent agenda.
Narrative
From time to time the Police Department has surplus property that must be disposed of. The items listed
in the attached document are no longer used by the department because they are either outdated or no
longer servicable. The property listed will either be auctioned, destroyed, recycled, or in the case of the
ballistic vests, returned to the manufacturer for recycling.
Attachments
December 2013 Surplus Property List
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/15/2014 01:37 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/15/2014 02:22 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/15/2014 04:01 PM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 01/15/2014 11:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/15/2014
Packet Page 362 of 544
Da
t
e
As
s
e
t
/
T
a
g
#
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
r
a
n
d
Mo
d
e
l
#
S
e
r
i
a
l
#
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
Pr
i
c
e
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
Da
t
e
Es
t
.
F
M
V
(n
e
t
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
co
s
t
s
)
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Pr
i
c
e
(
i
f
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
)
I
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
M
e
t
h
o
d
Notes
8/
7
/
2
0
1
2
3
U
S
B
c
e
l
l
p
h
o
n
e
ch
a
r
g
e
r
s
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$1
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
8
4
1
-
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
2
-
2
07
2
1
4
4
4
1
/
1
4
4
4
2
E
x
p
i
r
e
d
$
7
6
1
1
0
/
2
9
/
2
0
0
8
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
3/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
8
5
4
-
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
X
t
r
e
m
e
XT
3
A
-
2
0
8
0
8
4
4
8
6
/
4
4
8
7
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$
7
6
1
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
8
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
8
/
2
0
1
3
3
7
9
0
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
X
t
r
e
m
e
XT
3
A
-
2
0
7
1
1
3
8
3
4
/
3
8
3
5
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$
7
0
7
3
/
9
/
2
0
0
7
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
7/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
5
8
5
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
5
0
6
5
9
5
7
/
5
9
5
8
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
7/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
6
1
7
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
6
0
0
2
8
7
0
/
2
8
7
2
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$
7
0
7
2
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
3
5
3
3
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
3
1
0
6
0
7
3
/
6
0
7
4
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
1
2
/
2
6
/
2
0
0
3
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
36
1
6
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
6
0
0
2
8
6
6
/
2
8
6
9
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$7
0
7
2/
1
/
2
0
0
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
26
2
2
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
B
o
d
y
N9
6
2
1
8
8
0
/
1
8
8
1
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
6/
1
/
1
9
9
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
32
5
9
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
X
T
R
E
M
E
X
T
3
A
-
1
0
1
0
0
3
4
5
9
A
/
0
1
0
0
3
46
0
A
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
3/
1
/
2
0
0
1
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
5/
1
/
2
0
1
1
36
1
9
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
6
0
0
0
4
1
5
/
0
6
0
0
0
4
16
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$7
0
7
2/
1
/
2
0
0
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
10
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
1
3
6
8
8
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
06
1
3
5
4
2
1
/
0
6
1
3
5
4
2
2
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$
7
0
7
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
89
7
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
a
n
k
M
o
d
#
1
5
U
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
r
e
a
d
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
1/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
3
4
3
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
x
t
r
e
m
e
XT
3
A
-
2
0
2
0
0
4
8
4
9
A
/
4
8
5
0
A
E
x
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
2
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
1/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
7
0
0
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
6
1
4
4
0
3
2
/
4
0
3
3
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
7
0
7
$
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
S
a
f
a
r
i
l
a
n
d
5
4
0
0
5
2
/
5
3
4
6
2
6
E
x
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
1
9
8
7
?
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
3/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
3
4
7
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
X
t
r
e
m
e
XT
3
A
-
2
0
2
0
0
5
0
8
9
A
/
5
0
9
0
A
E
x
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
3
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
2
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
6/
2
5
/
2
0
1
3
2
8
9
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
98
4
7
0
8
3
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
7/
1
/
1
9
9
8
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
3
3
6
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
2
0
0
0
7
9
5
A
/
0
2
0
0
0
79
8
A
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
2
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
2
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
38
0
0
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
7
1
4
2
2
9
7
/
2
3
0
0
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$7
0
8
6/
5
/
2
0
0
7
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
35
6
8
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
5
0
3
3
4
5
6
/
3
4
5
7
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
5/
1
2
/
2
0
0
5
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
20
2
1
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
c
h
a
n
c
e
3
2
2
Z
-
I
I
+
2
2
2
0
1
1
7
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$2
1
0
2/
2
8
/
1
9
9
1
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
4
0
8
7
7
1
5
/
7
7
1
6
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
0
2
2
8
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
3
2
2
Z
-
I
I
+
2
1
0
1
1
2
8
0
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
3
/
1
/
1
9
9
1
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
Ar
m
o
u
r
o
f
Am
e
r
i
c
a
14
9
7
5
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
2
1
5
Fl
a
c
k
V
e
s
t
2n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
Y2
W
T
46
0
6
8
1
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$
4
8
9
4
/
1
/
1
9
8
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
21
7
F
l
a
c
k
V
e
s
t
2n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
Y
2
W
T
46
0
6
8
3
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
$4
8
9
4/
2
5
/
1
9
8
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
Fl
a
c
k
V
e
s
t
2n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
Y2
W
T
45
0
2
6
8
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
PA
C
A
12
4
2
2
9
4
8
(
b
o
t
h
)
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
3
0
7
9
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
(
f
r
o
n
t
)
AB
A
16
0
2
N
-
9
6
1
9
2
5
7
-
A
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
(
f
r
o
n
t
)
2n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
Y2
+
64
1
2
5
2
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
(
b
a
c
k
)
A
B
A
10
2
-
2
N-
9
9
0
1
6
3
1
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
(
b
a
c
k
)
Un
a
b
l
e
t
o
R
e
a
d
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
(
b
a
c
k
)
Un
a
b
l
e
t
o
r
e
a
d
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
2
4
6
3
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
P
r
o
T
e
c
h
98
0
8
8
0
0
7
8
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
9
/
1
/
1
9
9
5
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
S
W
A
T
S
a
f
a
r
i
l
a
n
d
11
7
2
6
4
6
Ex
p
i
r
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
2
0
0
2
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
3
6
1
4
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
A
B
A
XT
3
A
-
2
0
6
0
0
2
8
6
7
/
0
0
2
8
6
8
E
x
p
i
r
e
d
$
7
0
7
2
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
$0
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
M
f
g
o
r
f
i
b
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
Ba
t
t
e
r
y
V
i
d
e
o
l
i
g
h
t
C
a
n
o
n
A
m
b
i
c
o
Mi
c
r
o
l
i
t
e
W
o
r
k
s
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
Ba
t
t
e
r
y
v
i
d
e
o
l
i
g
h
t
C
a
n
o
n
VL
-
1
0
L
i
W
o
r
k
s
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$
5
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
Packet Page 363 of 544
Da
t
e
As
s
e
t
/
T
a
g
#
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
r
a
n
d
Mo
d
e
l
#
S
e
r
i
a
l
#
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
Pr
i
c
e
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
Da
t
e
Es
t
.
F
M
V
(n
e
t
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
co
s
t
s
)
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Pr
i
c
e
(
i
f
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
)
I
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
M
e
t
h
o
d
Notes
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
3
0
4
0
BP
B
T
Al
c
o
-
S
e
n
s
o
r
I
I
I
10
2
7
6
7
1
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
2
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
1
/
2
0
1
1
EP
D
3
9
0
3
C
a
m
e
r
a
Ca
n
o
n
A
1
1
0
0
i
s
8
6
2
2
1
0
2
4
6
6
B
r
o
k
e
n
D
o
o
r
$1
8
8
8/
1
/
2
0
0
9
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
7/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
3
1
6
8
Ca
m
e
r
a
Vi
v
i
t
a
r
BV
3
5
D
B
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
6
/
2
4
/
1
9
9
5
$
2
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
7/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
2
7
9
2
Ca
m
e
r
a
Po
l
a
r
o
i
d
30
0
0
A
F
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
0
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
7/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
9
9
4
Ca
m
e
r
a
Mi
n
o
l
t
a
Fr
e
e
d
o
m
2
3
3
7
2
6
6
0
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
7
/
1
/
1
9
8
9
$
1
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
7/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
2
9
3
5
Ca
m
e
r
a
Po
l
a
r
o
i
d
Sp
e
c
t
r
a
A
F
k
i
t
D
8
X
J
A
Y
J
6
V
H
B
E
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
1
0
/
1
/
1
9
9
8
$1
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
7/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
3
1
2
5
Ca
m
e
r
a
Po
l
a
r
o
i
d
Sp
e
c
t
r
a
A
F
k
i
t
C
Z
9
J
H
U
R
4
V
J
B
E
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
1
0
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
$1
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
4
1
5
4
Ca
m
e
r
a
Ca
n
o
n
Po
w
e
r
s
h
o
t
A
4
9
0
1
1
2
0
6
2
0
1
4
9
7
8
Br
o
k
e
n
$
9
0
6
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
1
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
2/
1
/
2
0
1
3
4
1
9
8
Ca
m
e
r
a
Ca
n
o
n
Po
w
e
r
s
h
o
t
A
4
9
5
1
1
2
0
6
2
0
1
4
3
8
5
Br
o
k
e
n
$
1
1
8
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
8/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
9
2
9
Ca
m
e
r
a
Ca
n
o
n
A1
1
0
0
i
s
9
2
2
2
2
1
4
1
8
2
Br
o
k
e
n
$
1
4
2
2
/
1
/
2
0
1
0
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
EP
D
3
1
4
8
50
m
m
c
a
m
e
r
a
l
e
n
s
Ca
n
o
n
33
0
0
4
4
0
E
W
o
r
k
s
Un
k
n
o
w
n
1
2
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
T
h
e
s
e
g
o
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
3
1
4
9
C
a
m
e
r
a
Ca
n
o
n
E
l
a
n
I
I
E
3
0
6
3
5
4
3
W
o
r
k
s
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
1
2
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
T
h
e
s
e
g
o
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
3
1
8
5
2
8
-
8
0
m
m
c
a
m
e
r
a
le
n
s
Ca
n
o
n
38
1
1
0
0
1
W
o
r
k
s
Un
k
n
o
w
n
4/
1
/
2
0
0
0
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
Ca
m
e
r
a
b
a
g
-
1
l
g
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
P
a
c
k
Go
o
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$1
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
Ca
m
e
r
a
b
a
g
s
-
3
s
m
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
P
a
c
k
Go
o
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$1
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
EP
D
3
5
9
2
Ca
s
s
e
t
t
e
R
e
c
o
r
d
e
r
M
a
r
a
n
t
z
PM
D
2
2
1
A
1
0
4
0
5
0
8
0
0
1
0
4
7
$4
0
3
9
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
$
1
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
1/
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ch
a
r
g
e
r
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$1
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
E
P
D
2
2
5
2
Cl
o
t
h
b
r
i
e
f
c
a
s
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$1
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
E
P
D
1
4
8
Co
l
o
r
T
V
/
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
AC
/
D
C
F
A
1
2
6
1
2
0
8
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$
2
5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
De
l
u
x
e
d
i
g
i
t
a
l
Ch
a
r
g
e
r
/
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
r
As
t
r
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
11
0
Ne
w
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$
2
5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
3
3
0
9
Di
g
i
t
a
l
c
a
m
e
r
a
Ol
y
m
p
u
s
C
a
m
e
d
i
a
C
2
1
0
0
1
1
6
7
4
8
1
4
9
Do
e
s
n
'
t
w
o
r
k
$5
4
3
1
2
/
5
/
2
0
0
1
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
1
/
2
0
1
1
EP
D
3
5
7
3
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
e
r
a
C
a
n
o
n
A
9
5
42
6
3
2
5
6
6
6
1
Br
o
k
e
n
$3
2
0
20
0
5
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
1
/
2
0
1
1
EP
D
3
5
7
4
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
e
r
a
C
a
n
o
n
A
9
5
42
6
3
3
3
5
7
5
Br
o
k
e
n
$3
2
0
20
0
5
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
1
/
2
0
1
1
EP
D
3
7
7
6
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
e
r
a
C
a
n
o
n
A
9
5
42
6
3
2
8
5
0
8
Br
o
k
e
n
$3
2
0
20
0
5
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
1
/
2
0
1
1
EP
D
3
5
7
7
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
e
r
a
C
a
n
o
n
A
9
5
42
6
3
2
8
3
0
5
Br
o
k
e
n
$3
2
0
20
0
5
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
E
P
D
3
3
3
4
Di
g
i
t
a
l
V
i
d
e
o
Ca
m
C
o
r
d
e
r
Ca
n
o
n
XL
1
S
42
3
0
0
1
0
0
9
6
8
$3
,
9
1
6
2
/
1
/
2
0
0
2
$
5
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
E
D
P
2
2
3
0
Di
g
i
t
a
l
V
o
i
c
e
Re
c
o
r
d
e
r
Ol
y
m
p
u
s
W
S
-
3
1
1
M
1
0
0
1
7
4
7
9
9
W
o
r
k
s
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
Fl
a
s
h
U
n
i
t
Ca
n
o
n
S
p
e
e
d
l
i
t
e
54
0
E
Z
O
L
O
2
1
1
W
o
r
k
s
b
u
t
n
o
t
o
n
o
u
r
c
a
m
e
r
a
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$
2
5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
4/
1
/
2
0
1
1
EP
D
3
5
5
9
H
a
n
d
H
e
l
d
R
a
d
a
r
D
e
c
a
t
u
r
G
H
D
GH
D
0
3
8
9
1
Br
o
k
e
n
$6
4
1
4/
1
/
2
0
0
5
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
La
p
t
o
p
b
a
g
Ta
r
g
u
s
Go
o
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$1
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
6
1
3
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
2
9
6B
K
S
B
0
9
8
2
7
No
H
D
,
S
c
r
e
e
n
o
k
$4
,
3
9
6
2
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
6
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
6
1
1
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
2
9
6B
K
S
B
0
8
2
6
6
$4
,
3
9
6
2
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
6
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
0
8
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
4
9
6
Ba
d
T
S
,
K
B
g
o
o
d
$4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
0
9
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
5
2
5
N
o
F
1
2
k
e
y
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
F
3
7
1
0
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
5
9
3
A
u
d
i
o
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
1
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
4
5
4
G
o
o
d
s
c
r
e
e
n
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
5
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
2
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
6
3
0
S
c
r
e
e
n
p
o
o
r
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
3
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
4
1
1
G
o
o
d
s
c
r
e
e
n
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
5
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
4
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
6
0
0
M
i
s
s
i
n
g
k
e
y
s
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
5
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
4
9
3
Ba
d
T
o
u
c
h
s
c
r
e
e
n
$4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
6
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
5
8
4
Go
o
d
K
B
,
p
o
o
r
s
c
r
e
e
n
$4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
Packet Page 364 of 544
Da
t
e
As
s
e
t
/
T
a
g
#
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
r
a
n
d
Mo
d
e
l
#
S
e
r
i
a
l
#
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
Pr
i
c
e
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
Da
t
e
Es
t
.
F
M
V
(n
e
t
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
co
s
t
s
)
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Pr
i
c
e
(
i
f
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
)
I
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
M
e
t
h
o
d
Notes
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
7
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7
A
K
S
A
0
6
5
9
5
K
e
y
s
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
8
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
4
8
7
Go
o
d
K
B
,
b
a
d
T
S
$4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
1
9
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
4
9
8
Go
o
d
K
B
,
T
S
b
a
d
$4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
2
0
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
5
0
1
M
i
s
s
i
n
g
F
6
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
2
1
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
3
7
8
G
o
o
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
5
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
7
2
2
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
7A
K
S
A
0
6
4
9
5
G
o
o
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
$
4
,
1
2
6
1
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
$
1
t
o
$
1
5
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
8
3
7
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
8B
K
S
A
0
9
0
6
8
Go
o
d
K
B
,
s
c
r
e
e
n
$3
,
9
9
7
4
/
2
/
2
0
0
8
$
1
t
o
$
1
5
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
8
3
8
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
8B
K
S
A
0
9
0
7
6
S
c
r
e
e
n
g
o
o
d
$
3
,
9
9
7
4
/
2
/
2
0
0
8
$
1
t
o
$
1
5
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
8
4
9
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
3
0
8F
K
S
B
5
6
9
7
1
Go
o
d
K
B
,
$
4
,
3
0
6
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
$
1
t
o
$
1
5
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
E
P
D
3
5
9
8
La
p
t
o
p
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
a
n
a
s
o
n
i
c
CF
-
5
1
51
T
Y
A
6
2
4
1
5
B
a
d
h
a
r
d
w
a
r
e
$
2
,
9
2
1
1
1
/
7
/
2
0
0
5
$
1
t
o
$
1
0
0
Tr
a
d
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
,
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
i
f
c
a
n
'
t
t
r
a
d
e
8/
1
/
2
0
1
3
La
b
e
l
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
C
a
s
i
o
E
Z
KL
-
7
2
0
0
Wo
r
k
i
n
g
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$
2
5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
8/
1
/
2
0
1
3
La
b
e
l
T
a
p
e
Ca
s
i
o
XR
1
8
W
E
2
s
Un
o
p
e
n
e
d
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$
2
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
1
/
2
0
1
1
Pa
g
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
M
o
t
o
r
o
l
a
Al
p
h
a
M
a
t
e
2
5
0
5
1
6
E
V
N
2
5
C
P
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$
5
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
E
P
D
3
9
4
6
Po
w
e
r
S
h
o
t
C
a
m
e
r
a
C
a
n
o
n
A4
9
0
52
0
6
2
0
0
2
3
2
3
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
9
/
1
/
2
0
1
0
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
No
v
Pr
i
n
t
e
r
Ca
n
o
n
MP
7
6
0
S
5
1
2
A
0
0
3
4
9
3
1
O
b
s
o
l
e
t
e
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
11
/
1
/
2
0
1
2
Pr
i
n
t
e
r
Ca
n
o
n
PI
X
M
A
M
P
7
6
0
S
1
4
4
7
9
A
0
0
3
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
7/
1
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
3
5
4
0
Ra
d
a
r
G
u
n
De
c
a
t
u
r
Ge
n
e
s
i
s
G
H
D
0
2
4
3
5
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
9
/
1
/
2
0
0
4
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
2/
1
5
/
2
0
1
2
E
P
D
3
5
4
3
Ra
d
a
r
G
u
n
De
c
a
t
u
r
Ge
n
e
s
i
s
G
H
D
0
2
4
4
7
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
9
/
1
/
2
0
0
4
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
1/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
5
4
1
Ra
d
a
r
G
u
n
De
c
a
t
u
r
Ge
n
e
s
i
s
G
H
D
0
2
4
4
3
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
9
/
1
/
2
0
0
4
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
1
/
2
0
1
3
3
7
0
2
Ra
d
a
r
G
u
n
De
c
a
t
u
r
Ge
n
e
s
i
s
G
V
P
D
0
5
6
5
3
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
Sc
a
n
J
e
t
HP
45
7
0
C
A
M
A
Br
o
k
e
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$0
De
s
t
r
o
y
11
/
7
/
2
0
1
1
E
P
D
9
9
2
Sc
a
n
n
e
r
Re
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
PR
O
-
2
0
0
9
5
-
1
0
7
9
0
6
Ob
s
o
l
e
t
e
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
6
/
1
/
1
9
8
9
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
Su
r
v
e
i
l
l
a
n
c
e
mo
n
i
t
o
r
/
c
a
m
e
r
a
Ja
v
e
l
i
n
BM
W
1
Z
B
/
P
e
l
c
o
-
V
s
5
0
4
8
MO
O
9
0
7
9
6
/
3
0
1
1
-
1
H
Un
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
1/
1
/
2
0
1
3
TV
/
V
C
R
Sh
a
r
p
25
U
T
-
6
6
0
3
3
4
0
2
3
Cr
a
c
k
e
d
c
a
s
e
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
5/
2
1
/
2
0
1
2
VC
R
JV
C
HP
-
5
3
8
0
0
U
1
5
5
E
1
9
1
1
W
o
r
k
s
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
$5
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
B
u
r
e
a
u
t
o
s
e
l
l
Packet Page 365 of 544
AM-6511 3. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Amendment of Certain Dog Licensing Fees (ECC 5.05.020)
Recommendation
Staff recommends and requests that this agenda item be approved by full Council via the Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
This item was presented as part of the 2014 budgetary process and was included as part of a decision
package addressing the utilization of an outside vendor for all aspects of pet licensing. That decision
package was approved by Council with the approval of the overall budget.
This item was presented to the Finance Committee on January 14, 2014. During that meeting it was
recognized by Councilmember Johnson that the amount listed in the draft ordinance for the replacement
of a lost metal license tag was $1.00; this was a carryover from the original ordiance. It was further
noted that the amount the City would be charged by the vendor providing licensing services (seperate
agenda item) would be $3.90. The Committee was advised that this was an oversight when the draft
ordinance was prepared, at which time the Committee requested that the draft ordinance be amended
(ECC 5.05.020.C.2.d) to read:
d. Replacement of metal tag: $4.00.
That is the only change made after review by the Finance Committee and is reflected in the attached
ordinance.
The committee's direction was to forward to the full Council for approval via the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
As part of the 2014 budgetary process, a decision package was submitted by the Police Department that
recommended the utilization of an outside vendor for all aspects of pet licensing. This includes the
issuance of licenses via an on-line application, the receipt of all associated fees, and the mailing of annual
renewal notices to pet owners already licensed. As part of the overall proposal, it was recommended that
certain fees charged for licenses be raised as they had remained unchanged for over 25 years. That
decision package was approved as part of the overall 2014 budget. As a result, all fees are set by
Edmonds City Code, necessitating this change.
The included code language was prepared by the Edmonds City Attorney's Office, is approved as to
Packet Page 366 of 544
form, and is reflective of the proposed increases that were included in the aforementioned decision
package.
Attachments
Dog License Decision Package
Ordinance Amending Certain Dog Licensing Fees
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/16/2014 03:53 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 04:38 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 04:40 PM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 01/16/2014 02:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 367 of 544
Decision Package Request Form
Decision Package Title:
Fund Number:
Department Number/Name:
Cost Center Number:
Preparer:
Decision Package Description:
Decision Package Justification:
Decision Package Costs 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Salaries (11)- - - - -
Overtime (12)- - - - -
Benefits (23)- - - - -
Uniforms (24)- - - - -
Supplies (31)- - - - -
Small equip (35)- - - - -
Prof. Services (41)10,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660
Communication (42)- - - - -
Travel (43)- - - - -
Advertising (44)- - - - -
Rental/Lease (45)- - - - -
Repair/Maint (48)- - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - - -
Capital Equipment (64)- - - - -
Other:- - - - -
Total Expenses 10,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660
Decision Package Revenue:2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
New Revenue:39,540 40,540 40,540 40,540 40,540
Existing Resources:(28,880) (30,880) (30,880) (30,880) (30,880)
Total Revenue 10,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660
Source of New Revenue:
Animal Licensing
Assistant Chief of Police Jim Lawless
The department's animal control/ordinance enforcement officers currently process, issue and track all aspect of animal
licensing for the City of Edmonds. This requires approximately 500 hours of their combined staff time per year. A vendor has
been identified that will take over these duties at a cost equal to less than one half what is currently being expended by
undertaking this task in-house. Contracting with a vendor would free the officers up for other, non-clerical tasks that are
consistent with their positions. The current license fee structure has been in place for over 25 years without adjustment.
Under the current fee structure, and when factoring in the staff expense associated with issuing licenses, the City loses $1,738
dollars per year on the licesing function. If the City were to go with an outside vendor for licensing services and adopt a new
fee structure, $40,540 of new revenue could be generated per year. If both the contracting of licensing services and the fee
increase are adopted, there will be a significant increase in capacity to respond to animal control and parking enforcement
issues, with an overall improved efficiency within the Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Unit of the Police Department.
Cost savings realized from contracting animal licensing services and increased licensing fees. The
new revenue is assuming that we go with the outside vendor and the proposed fee increases are
implemented.
Sources of Existing Resources:
001.000
This package proposes utilizing an outside vendor for all aspects of animal licensing for the city. In addition, this package
proposes increasing animal licensing fees which have not been adjusted in 25+ years. The proposed fee increases are at the
urging, and with the support, of the Finance Director. The fee increases are as follows: Altered animals would go from a
current rate of $5 to $15; and, the senior discount rate for altered animals would go from a current rate of $3 to $5;Unaltered
animals would go from a current rate of $10 per year to $40 per year. The difference in altered and ulaltered licenses fees is in
order to encourage altering. This has been successful in that approximately 90% of the licenses issued are in fact for altered
animals. This proposed increase is slightly below the average 25 other jurisdictions throughout the state that provide pet
licenses to their citizens.
410
521.7100.410
1 Packet Page 368 of 544
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CERTAIN DOG LICENSING FEE PROVISIONS OF
ECC 5.05; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that it is appropriate to raise certain
dog licensing fees, as set forth in the City of Edmonds’ Animal Control regulations, ECC 5.05; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds wishes to revise ECC 5.05 to raise the dog licensing
fees as recommended by City staff; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection .020(C) of ECC 5.05 Animal Control is hereby amended to read
as follows (deleted text in strike-through; new text in underline):
5.05.020 Dog licensing.
…
C. License Tags Issued and Fees. The police department, or such other person, firm or
entity authorized by the city council, shall issue a dog license upon the payment of a fee
as provided for by this subsection. Upon issuance of a license, a metal tag corresponding
to the number of the application shall be furnished to the applicant.
1. The applicant shall cause the same to be attached to the dog. Tags shall not be
transferable from one dog to another.
2. The following fees shall be paid for licenses required under this chapter:
a. For spayed females or neutered males with a veterinarian certificate or signed affidavit:
an annual license fee of $5.00$15.00; provided, that a $3.00$5.00 fee shall be charged to
persons over the age of 65;
b. For dogs less than six months but over three months of age, temporary tags issued: a
license fee of $5.00. Persons over the age of 65 shall receive a rebate of $2.00 at the time
Packet Page 369 of 544
- 2 -
of relicensing, upon certification by a veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or
neutered;
c. Unspayed females and unneutered males over six months of age: $18.00$40.00;
d. Replacement of metal tag: $1.00$4.00.
3. An owner of an animal previously licensed for which a “permanent” license has been
issued under the provisions of this section as the same existed prior to December 16,
1986, shall not be required to relicense or renew said license for such animal.
…
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after
passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
Packet Page 370 of 544
- 3 -
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 371 of 544
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CERTAIN DOG LICENSING FEE PROVISIONS OF
ECC 5.05; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2014.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 372 of 544
AM-6512 3. I.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Contract for Services with PETDATA, INC. for Dog Licensing
Recommendation
It staff's recommendation and request that this item be approved by full Council via the Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
This item was presented as part of the 2014 budgetary process and was included as part of a decision
package addressing the utilization of an outside vendor for all aspects of pet licensing. That decision
package was approved by Council with the approval of the overall budget.
This item was reviewed by the Finance Committee on January 14, 2014, with the committee's direction
was to forward to the full Council for approval via the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
As part of the 2014 budgetary process, a decision package was submitted by the Police Department that
recommended the utilization of an outside vendor for all aspects of pet licensing. This includes the
issuance of licenses via an on-line application, the receipt of all associated fees, and the mailing of annual
renewal notices to pet owners already licensed. The decision package was approved by Council as part of
the overall 2014 budget process.
Attached is the contract for those services which will be completed by PETDATA, INC. The contract
has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office.
Attachments
Dog License Decision Package
Petdatacontract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/16/2014 03:53 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 04:39 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 04:40 PM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 01/16/2014 02:37 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 373 of 544
Packet Page 374 of 544
Decision Package Request Form
Decision Package Title:
Fund Number:
Department Number/Name:
Cost Center Number:
Preparer:
Decision Package Description:
Decision Package Justification:
Decision Package Costs 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Salaries (11) - - - - -
Overtime (12)- - - - -
Benefits (23)- - - - -
Uniforms (24)- - - - -
Supplies (31)- - - - -
Small equip (35)- - - - -
Prof. Services (41)10,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660
Communication (42)- - - - -
Travel (43)- - - - -
Advertising (44)- - - - -
Rental/Lease (45)- - - - -
Repair/Maint (48)- - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - - -
Capital Equipment (64)- - - - -
Other:- - - - -
Total Expenses 10,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660
Decision Package Revenue:2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
New Revenue:39,540 40,540 40,540 40,540 40,540
Existing Resources:(28,880) (30,880) (30,880) (30,880) (30,880)
Total Revenue 10,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660
Source of New Revenue:
Animal Licensing
Assistant Chief of Police Jim Lawless
The department's animal control/ordinance enforcement officers currently process, issue and track all aspect of animal licensing for
the City of Edmonds. This requires approximately 500 hours of their combined staff time per year. A vendor has been identified that
will take over these duties at a cost equal to less than one half what is currently being expended by undertaking this task in-house.
Contracting with a vendor would free the officers up for other, non-clerical tasks that are consistent with their positions. The current
license fee structure has been in place for over 25 years without adjustment. Under the current fee structure, and when factoring in
the staff expense associated with issuing licenses, the City loses $1,738 dollars per year on the licesing function. If the City were to
go with an outside vendor for licensing services and adopt a new fee structure, $40,540 of new revenue could be generated per year.
If both the contracting of licensing services and the fee increase are adopted, there will be a significant increase in capacity to
respond to animal control and parking enforcement issues, with an overall improved efficiency within the Animal Control/Ordinance
Enforcement Unit of the Police Department.
Cost savings realized from contracting animal licensing services and increased licensing fees. The
new revenue is assuming that we go with the outside vendor and the proposed fee increases are
implemented.
Sources of Existing Resources:
001.000
This package proposes utilizing an outside vendor for all aspects of animal licensing for the city. In addition, this package proposes
increasing animal licensing fees which have not been adjusted in 25+ years. The proposed fee increases are at the urging, and with
the support, of the Finance Director. The fee increases are as follows: Altered animals would go from a current rate of $5 to $15;
and, the senior discount rate for altered animals would go from a current rate of $3 to $5;Unaltered animals would go from a current
rate of $10 per year to $40 per year. The difference in altered and ulaltered licenses fees is in order to encourage altering. This has
been successful in that approximately 90% of the licenses issued are in fact for altered animals. This proposed increase is slightly
below the average 25 other jurisdictions throughout the state that provide pet licenses to their citizens.
410
521.7100.410
1 Packet Page 375 of 544
Decision Package Request Form
Decision Package Title:Animal Licensing
2 Packet Page 376 of 544
AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL LICENSING SERVICES
__________________________
THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL LICENSING SERVICES (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and
between the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter called “CITY,” and PETDATA, INC., a Texas for-profit
corporation, hereinafter called “CONTRACTOR,” as of the date last signed by a party as reflected on the signature
page of this Agreement (“the Execution Date”).
For good and valuable consideration, CITY and CONTRACTOR agree as follows:
1. SERVICES
For the consideration set forth below, CONTRACTOR agrees to provide to CITY the animal licensing services
described under “CONTRACTOR’s RESPONSIBILITIES” in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference (collectively, the “Services”), upon the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Services relate to
CITY’s licensing and registration of pets. CITY agrees to perform “CITY’s RESPONSIBILITIES” described in
Exhibit A. In the event of any conflict between any of the contents of Exhibit A and any of the provisions of the
main body of this Agreement, the provisions of the main body of this Agreement will prevail.
2. OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION
All Services shall be performed to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY, as reasonably determined by CITY’s
Administrator or other person whom CITY shall from time to time designate to monitor the performance of the
Services by CONTRACTOR. CITY agrees to promptly notify CONTRACTOR of the name and contact information
of the person who will monitor the performance of the Services on behalf of CITY, and to promptly notify
CONTRACTOR of any changes to CITY’S monitoring designee or the contact information for CITY’s monitoring
designee.
3. PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES
CONTRACTOR acknowledges that, prior to signing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR has become familiar with the
scope of the Services required under this Agreement. Subject to CONTRACTOR’s fulfillment of its obligations
under this Agreement, the means, methods, timing, and manner of performing the Services shall be within the sole
discretion of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR may perform the Services at such location(s) that CONTRACTOR
may from time to time determine, and shall not be required to perform any of the Services at a CITY location. CITY
acknowledges that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to commence the performance of the Services until the
Commencement Date, as hereinafter provided. CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible or liable to CITY or any
third party for any delays, errors or omissions in the performance of the Services or any losses or damages sustained
by CITY or any third party that are caused by (i) CITY or any of CITY’s employees or agents, (ii) the inaccuracy,
incompleteness, or other insufficiency of any data furnished by or on behalf of CITY to CONTRACTOR under or in
connection with this Agreement, or (iii) any other items furnished by or on behalf of CITY to CONTRACTOR
under or in connection with this Agreement.
4. CUSTOM SUPPLIES
If CITY requests that CONTRACTOR utilize specific supplies in connection with the performance of the Services,
such as, for example, forms, brochures, or rabies books, CITY will provide those supplies to CONTRACTOR
without charge.
Packet Page 377 of 544
5. BANK ACCOUNTS
Licensing fees and any other amounts that are collected by CONTRACTOR for the benefit of CITY under this
Agreement will be deposited into an account of one of the following types that is from time to time designated by
CITY (a “Bank Account”):
A. An account established and maintained by CITY in its name at a bank or other financial institution (a
“CITY Account”); or
B. A separate account established and maintained by CONTRACTOR at a bank or other financial institution
selected by CONTRACTOR in which will be deposited funds that relate solely to this Agreement (a “Maintained
Account”).
CITY will initially designate the type of Bank Account to be utilized hereunder in a notice that CITY will deliver to
CONTRACTOR during the Transition Phase in accordance with Section 11. CITY may thereafter change the
designation of the type of Bank Account to be utilized hereunder from time to time upon notice to CONTRACTOR,
and CONTRACTOR will have a reasonable time in order to effect any such requested change. CITY will reimburse
CONTRACTOR for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by CONTRACTOR in connection with any change in the
type of Bank Account utilized hereunder. CITY acknowledges and consents that CONTRACTOR may make an
initial deposit into a Maintained Account from CONTRACTOR’s funds in order to establish the account, which
initial deposit will be refunded or otherwise reimbursed to CONTRACTOR
6. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR
In consideration of the Services, CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to the following compensation:
A. Basic Fees.
CITY shall pay to CONTRACTOR the following fees for all animal licenses issued during the term of this
Agreement, regardless of whether they are issued by CITY, CONTRACTOR, veterinarians, or any other persons:
1) $3.90 per license for a one-year license or a replacement tag.
2) $2.00 for each additional year after year one if there are multi-year licenses.
3) $2.50 collection service fee for each late fee, if any, paid by a Licensee during the term of this
Agreement.
If the United States Postal Service increases its postage rates during the term of this Agreement, the parties agree
that CONTRACTOR may adjust its fees under this Section 6A from time to time in order to compensate
CONTRACTOR for actual increased postage costs. CONTRACTOR will notify CITY thirty days prior to the date
that any increase described in this paragraph will go into effect.
The fees paid to CONTRACTOR under this Section 6A are further subject to reasonable adjustment in the event that
CITY adds, modifies or eliminates any fees that are charged to Licensees during the term of this Agreement. CITY
and CONTRACTOR agree to negotiate any such reasonable adjustments in good faith.
As used in this Agreement, the term “Licensee” refers to any person who applies for an animal license to be issued
by or on behalf of CITY.
B. Start-Up Fee.
CITY shall pay to CONTRACTOR, a $1,000, one-time only, “Start-Up Fee”. The Start-Up Fee is due and payable
within five business days after the Execution Date. There are no Start-Up Fees for term extensions or renewals.
Packet Page 378 of 544
C. Additional Service Fees or Costs.
The following fees or cost reimbursements will apply to the extent that the corresponding services described below
are requested by CITY:
1) Cost of Bank Account. CITY will be responsible for all out-of-pocket costs related to any Bank
Account. CITY will reimburse CONTRACTOR on a monthly basis for any out-of-pocket costs for
a Bank Account that are paid by CONTRACTOR. CITY may request copies of the bank
statements for a Maintained Account at any time and CONTRACTOR will provide available bank
statements for that Maintained Account within five business days after a request is received by
CONTRACTOR.
2) Bank Deposit Mailing Fees. If CITY requires CONTRACTOR to deposit money into a CITY
Account other than at a branch located in the city where CONTRACTOR’s principal office is
located, CONTRACTOR may make any deposit to that CITY Account by means of any form of
U.S. Mail or overnight delivery service, and the actual cost to transmit the deposits to the required
bank location will be borne by CITY and included in invoices submitted to CITY for the Services.
3) Postal Box/Mail Forwarding Fee. If CITY requests CONTRACTOR to establish a local post
office box for mail collection and forwarding, CITY will pay or reimburse CONTRACTOR for
the actual costs of mail box rental, mail forwarding and postage fees.
4) Supply Fee. If CITY requests changes to supplies which it has previously approved, including but
not limited to fee or program changes, CITY will be responsible for the actual costs associated
with changing, replacing or discontinuing the use of the previously approved supplies. If CITY
terminates this Agreement for any reason other than for cause, CITY will remain responsible for
the actual cost of supplies purchased on its behalf.
5) Lock Box Fees. If CITY utilizes a lockbox, the actual fees and costs associated with the lockbox,
including the cost to forward mail to CONTRACTOR from a lockbox, shall be borne solely by
CITY.
D. Charges to Licensees.
CITY agrees that CONTRACTOR may charge and collect the following fees directly from Licensees, and
CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to retain any such fees so collected as part of CONTRACTOR’s compensation
under this Agreement, except as otherwise provided below:
1) $1.95 for each on-line transaction engaged in by a Licensee.
2) CONTRACTOR may charge a fee to a Licensee of no more than $25.00 (or, if lower, the
maximum amount permitted by applicable law from time to time in effect) for each check or other
payment from that Licensee that is returned uncollected for any reason. Any such returned item
fee related to a Maintained Account that is actually collected shall be deposited into the
Maintained Account and shall be for the benefit of CITY; otherwise the fee shall be retained by
CONTRACTOR.
7. MODIFICATIONS OF SERVICES
If CITY requests Services in addition to those described in this Agreement, and CONTRACTOR agrees to provide
those additional Services, then CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to additional compensation for those additional
Services as shall be agreed upon by CONTRACTOR and CITY in a written modification to this Agreement that is
signed by CITY and CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall not be required to perform any such additional
Packet Page 379 of 544
Services unless and until the parties have entered into a written modification of this Agreement. CITY may
determine after the Execution Date that certain portions of the Services are no longer necessary, in which event
CITY shall notify CONTRACTOR of the portions of the Services that are no longer required, and CONTRACTOR
shall be relieved of the responsibility for performing those portions of the Services. However, there shall be no
adjustment in CONTRACTOR’s compensation hereunder for any portions of the Services that CONTRACTOR is
not required to perform.
8. REPORTS
A. Reports from CONTRACTOR. Within 15 business days after the end of each calendar month during the
term hereof, CONTRACTOR will submit an animal licensing summary report for the preceding calendar month to
CITY in a format that is mutually agreed upon by CITY and CONTRACTOR. Any such report may be transmitted
electronically or by any other means.
B. Reports from CITY. Within 10 calendar days after the end of each calendar month during the term hereof,
CITY will submit a report to CONTRACTOR of all license fees that CITY has received during the preceding
calendar month from Licensees, veterinarians or any other source other than CONTRACTOR. Any such report may
be transmitted electronically or by any other means.
9. PAYMENTS
A. CITY Account Used. If and for so long as a CITY Account is utilized hereunder, the following provisions
shall apply (and the provisions of Section 9B shall be inapplicable):
Within 15 business days after the end of each calendar month, CONTRACTOR will submit to CITY an invoice with
supporting documentation for the compensation due CONTRACTOR under this Agreement for that calendar month.
CITY will pay CONTRACTOR the invoiced amount by means of check, ACH payment or other form of payment
acceptable to CONTRACTOR within 30 days after the date CONTRACTOR submits the invoice to CITY. Invoices
that are not timely paid will, at CONTRACTOR’s option, bear interest from the 30th day after the date that
CONTRACTOR submits the invoice to CITY until paid at a rate equal to the lesser of (i) 18% per annum or (ii) the
maximum annual rate of interest permitted from time to time under applicable law (or if those rates are the same,
then at the rate determined under either clause). Invoices will be submitted electronically to the e-mail address that
CITY shall from time to time provide CONTRACTOR for the submission of invoices or in such other manner as
CITY may from time to time request in writing to CONTRACTOR and that is acceptable to CONTRACTOR.
B. Maintained Account Used. If and for so long as a Maintained Account is utilized hereunder, the following
provisions shall apply (and the provisions of Section 9A shall be inapplicable):
Within 15 business days after the end of each calendar month, CONTRACTOR shall remit to CITY the residual
amount, if any, of all license fees collected by CONTRACTOR hereunder during the preceding calendar month after
deducting therefrom all fees, costs, expenses, and reimbursements due CONTRACTOR hereunder. If at any time the
funds in the Maintained Account are not sufficient to fully pay amounts due to CONTRACTOR hereunder, then
CONTRACTOR may recoup any shortfall from any subsequent payments due to CITY under this paragraph until all
sums due CONTRACTOR have been fully paid.
C. Direct Collections by CITY. If CITY collects any animal license fee or any other amount that is subject to
this Agreement directly from a Licensee, veterinarian or other source, other than CONTRACTOR, CITY may either
forward the amount collected to CONTRACTOR within fifteen business days for deposit into a Maintained
Account, if a Maintained Account is in effect, or retain the amount. In either event, CITY shall report the amount so
collected to CONTRACTOR in accordance with Section 8B so that the fee(s) due CONTRACTOR hereunder with
respect to the amount collected by CITY may be determined and paid in accordance with this Agreement.
Packet Page 380 of 544
10. TERM
The initial term of this Agreement will commence on the Execution Date and will expire at the close of business on
the last day of the 36th full calendar month after the Commencement Date, unless this Agreement is sooner
terminated in accordance with other provisions of this Agreement.
This term of this Agreement will automatically be extended for up to two additional periods of one-year each.
Subject to the limit on the number of extensions provided in the preceding sentence, the term of this Agreement will
be automatically extended for an additional one-year period upon the expiration of the then current term (as it may
have previously been extended) unless either party notifies the other party of its intention not to extend the term not
later than 90 days prior to the expiration of that then current term. If the term of this Agreement is extended in
accordance with this paragraph, then each of the basic fees payable to CONTRACTOR under Section 6A shall be
increased by a mutually agreed upon amount, which shall be not more than 3% of the then current amount for that
respective fee, throughout the period of such extension.
11. TRANSITION PHASE
The period beginning on the Execution Date and expiring at the close of business on the 60th day thereafter is
referred to as the “Transition Phase.” CONTRACTOR shall begin processing licenses within a reasonable time
following the Transition Phase subject to CITY’s timely fulfillment of its obligations under this Section 11.
CONTRACTOR, in its discretion, may begin processing licenses prior to the expiration of the Transition Phase.
CITY acknowledges that any delay in the performance of its obligations under this Section 11 may result in a delay
in the commencement of the Services. The date on which CONTRACTOR commences the processing of licenses
hereunder is referred to in this Agreement as the “Commencement Date.” CONTRACTOR shall notify CITY of the
Commencement Date within a reasonable period before or after the Commencement Date.
During the Transition Phase:
A. License Data.
CITY shall provide historical license data files consisting of licenses older than 90 days within five business days
after the Execution Date. The said historical data shall be made available to CONTRACTOR in an electronic format.
that is readily importable by CONTRACTOR.
B. Deliverables.
Within five days after request from CONTRACTOR, CITY shall provide to CONTRACTOR agreed upon supplies,
data, feedback, process information, the initial designation regarding the type of Bank Account under Section 5, and
required approvals for items such as form designs (collectively, “Deliverables”). Deliverables may be requested
throughout the Transition Phase.
C. Tags.
CITY shall purchase, at CITY’s expense, and cause to be delivered to CONTRACTOR license tags that meet
CONTRACTOR’s specifications, which have been provided to CITY.
12. PERMITS AND REQUIREMENTS
A. Permits.
CONTRACTOR shall obtain the necessary permits(s), if any, required by CITY or its governing ordinances for the
performance of the Services. CITY agrees to provide CONTRACTOR with a list of any and all such permits and to
cooperate and assist CONTRACTOR in good faith to aid CONTRACTOR in obtaining any such permits in a timely
fashion.
Packet Page 381 of 544
B. Legal Requirements.
CONTRACTOR shall, in performing the Services under this Agreement, comply with all federal, state, county, or
CITY statutes, laws, codes and ordinances, as amended, that are directly applicable to CONTRACTOR’s
performance of the Services. CITY shall notify CONTRACTOR of changes to laws, codes or ordinances affecting
CONTRACTOR’s performance of Services under this Agreement of which CITY obtains actual knowledge during
the term of this Agreement.
13. COVENANTS REGARDING DATA
CONTRACTOR agrees that it will not, without CITY’s consent, use personal data collected on behalf of CITY
other than for the performance of the Services or other uses permitted by this Agreement or under applicable law.
Further, CONTRACTOR agrees that it will not sell, or intentionally transfer or release, to any third party personal
data that CONTRACTOR has collected in performing the Services, except as may otherwise be required by this
Agreement or applicable law, and that it will take commercially reasonable measures to prevent the unauthorized
release of any such third party personal data.
Upon the termination of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR agrees to return or transfer to CITY, in a mutually
acceptable format, all animal licensing data maintained by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement within 15
business days after CONTRACTOR has received all sums due CONTRACTOR under this Agreement.
14. INDEMNITY
Subject to the limitations on CONTRACTOR’s liability set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, CONTRACTOR
agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers and employees from and against any and all claims,
lawsuits, judgments, costs and expenses for personal injury (including death), property damage or other harm for
which recovery of damages is sought, suffered by any person or persons, arising out of CONTRACTOR’s gross
negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of the Services under this Agreement. In the event of joint and
concurring responsibility of CONTRACTOR and CITY, responsibility and indemnity, if any, shall be apportioned
comparatively. The provisions of this paragraph are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and are not intended
to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, in or to any other person or entity.
15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTOR shall procure, pay for, and maintain during the term of this Agreement:
A. Commercial Liability Insurance with a minimum combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 per
occurrence, and a $2,000,000 General Aggregate Limit for all damages due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or
death to any person, and damage to property, including the loss of use thereof.
B. Workers Compensation Insurance to cover obligations imposed by federal and state statutes having
jurisdiction or employees engaged in the performance of the work or services of not less than $1,000,000 per
accident, $1,000,000 disease for each employee, and $1,000,000 disease policy limit.
CONTRACTOR shall furnish evidence of such coverage to CITY and will provide 30 days’ written notice of policy
lapse or cancellation, or of a material change in policy terms.
CONTRACTOR does not own any vehicles. However, CONTRACTOR does have coverage for non-owned vehicles
under its commercial liability policy. Therefore, CONTACTOR does not carry and shall not be obligated to carry
separate automobile liability coverage.
Packet Page 382 of 544
16. TERMINATION
A. Expiration.
If the term of this Agreement expires and is not extended in accordance with other provisions of this Agreement,
then CONTRACTOR shall be paid all amounts due CONTRACTOR hereunder with respect to all periods through
the date of termination, including CONTRACTOR’s basic fees under Section 6A with respect to animal licenses or
renewals that are in process at the time of termination.
B. For Cause.
If CONTRACTOR materially breaches this Agreement and fails to cure the breach within 30 days after CITY
notifies CONTRACTOR of the breach and specifies the details of the breach, CITY may terminate this Agreement
upon notice to CONTRACTOR. In the event of such termination, CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to payment for
all amounts due CONTRACTOR hereunder with respect to all periods through the date of termination, including
CONTRACTOR’s basic fees under Section 6A with respect to animal licenses or renewals that are in process at the
time of termination.
C. Termination of Licensing Program.
CITY may terminate this Agreement upon not less than 90 days prior notice to CONTRACTOR if CITY determines
to terminate its animal licensing program. Upon such termination, CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to payment for
all amounts due CONTRACTOR hereunder with respect to all periods through the date of termination plus an
additional amount (the “Cancellation Fee”) equal to the sum of all compensation payable to CONTRACTOR under
this Agreement for the three calendar months in which the highest monthly compensation was payable to
CONTRACTOR hereunder during the twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination (or if shorter during
the period from the Execution Date until the date of termination). The parties agree that the Cancellation Fee is
reasonable compensation to CONTRACTOR for the lost revenue that CONTRACTOR would otherwise incur as a
result of the early termination of this Agreement by CITY and is not a penalty.
17. UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES
CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for any delay or omission in the performance of any of CONTRACTOR’s
obligations under this Agreement to the extent caused by natural disaster, power outages, war, civil disturbance,
labor dispute or other cause beyond CONTRACTOR's reasonable control. To the extent CONTRACTOR is able to
do so, CONTRACTOR shall provide notice to CITY of any event described in this Section within ten (10) business
days after the occurrence of such event.
18. RECORDS/AUDIT
CONTRACTOR shall maintain in electronic form or on a database material books, records, and documents directly
related to the performance of the Services (collectively, “Records”) during the term of this Agreement and for a
period of three years thereafter. CONTRACTOR shall further maintain any Records that were either received or
originally generated by CONTRACTOR in paper form for a period of three years after the date(s) that the respective
Records were originally received or generated or until the termination, by expiration or otherwise, of this
Agreement, whichever occurs first. Any paper Records in existence at the expiration of any such three-year period
or at the termination of this Agreement shall either be shipped to CITY or destroyed, at CITY’s option and at
CITY’s expense in either case. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter, CITY
shall have the right to inspect and audit, at CITY’s expense, and upon reasonable advance notice to
CONTRACTOR, the Records that CONTRACTOR is obligated to maintain hereunder as of the time of any such
inspection or audit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Records maintained by CONTRACTOR during the term of
this Agreement that relate to any litigation, appeal, or related settlement arising under or in relation to this
Agreement shall be preserved until a final disposition has been made of such litigation. However, CONTRACTOR
Packet Page 383 of 544
shall not have any liability for disposing of paper Records in accordance with this Agreement prior to the time that
CONTRACTOR obtained actual knowledge of the existence of the litigation.
19. NOTICES
Any notice, statement, or demand required or permitted to be given hereunder by either party to the other shall be in
writing and shall be given personally or by courier, by overnight delivery service, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, or by confirmed (either machine or personal) facsimile transmission, addressed to the
recipient as follows:
Notices to CITY shall be addressed as follows:
Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police
Edmonds Police Department
250 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Fax: 425-771-0208
Notices to CONTRACTOR shall be addressed as follows:
Chris Richey, President
PetData, Inc.
P.O. Box 141929 (if mailed)
Irving, Texas 75014-1929
1850 Crown Drive, Suite 1110 (if delivered)
Dallas, Texas 75234
214-821-3106 (facsimile)
Any such notice shall be effective (a) if delivered personally or by courier, when received, (b) if sent by overnight
courier, when received, (c) if mailed, on the second business day after being mailed as described above, and (d) if sent by
confirmed (either personal or machine) written telecommunication, when dispatched. Any party may change any of its
contact information for notices upon not less than ten (10) days’ prior notice to the other party in accordance with this
Section. The provisions of this Section shall not govern the means of submission of invoices by CONTRACTOR to
CITY under this Agreement.
20. CONTRACTOR’S SYSTEM
CITY acknowledges that CONTRACTOR has developed and coordinated proprietary means and methods of performing
the Services and related know-how, skills, and property (collectively, the “System”). The System includes, among other
items, an interactive website, databases, software, and related items. The System is special and unique to
CONTRACTOR and has been developed by CONTRACTOR at great cost and expense to CONTRACTOR. CITY
acknowledges that CITY is not acquiring any rights in or to the System, and that the System is and will remain the sole
and exclusive property of CONTRACTOR. CITY further acknowledges and agrees that any information that CITY
obtains related to the use, formulation or operation of the System that is not generally known is CONFIDENTIAL, may
only be used by CITY for the limited purposes described in this Agreement, and may not be disclosed to any third parties
except as may be required under applicable law or with CONTRACTOR’s prior, express written consent in
CONTRACTOR’s sole discretion. Upon the termination of this Agreement, any information and materials, in whatever
media or format, related to the System that CITY has in its possession will be returned to CONTRACTOR or destroyed
at CONTRACTOR’s option. CITY agrees that it will not attempt to discover, duplicate, or replicate the System in any
manner.
Packet Page 384 of 544
21. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
B. Relationship of Parties.
The relationship of CITY and CONTRACTOR is that of independent contractors. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to create a partnership or joint venture between the parties, to establish a fiduciary relationship between the
parties, or to render either party liable or responsible for any debts, liabilities or other obligations of the other party.
C. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement, including any exhibits hereto, embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto, and
supersedes all oral or written previous or contemporary agreements or understandings between the parties relating to
any of the matters herein. This Agreement may not be amended or otherwise modified except in a writing executed
by both parties. The expiration or other termination of this Agreement shall not extinguish any right or remedy
existing at the time of termination.
D. Severability.
In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid,
illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other
provision thereof, and this Agreement shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had
never been contained in this Agreement.
E. Assignment; Binding Effect.
Neither party may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the transfer of CONTRACTOR’s interest in this Agreement to an affiliate of CONTRACTOR or in
connection with a merger, consolidation, sale of substantially all of CONTRACTOR’s assets, or business
combination involving CONTRACTOR shall not be deemed to be an assignment in violation of this Section,
provided that such transferee shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and, where permitted, assigns.
F. General.
All references in this Agreement to sections and other subdivisions refer to corresponding sections and other
subdivisions of this Agreement unless the context indicates otherwise. Titles appearing at the beginning of any such
sections or subdivisions are for convenience only and shall not constitute part of such sections or subdivisions and
shall be disregarded in construing the language contained in such sections or subdivisions. These words “this
Agreement”, “this instrument”, “herein”, “hereof”, “hereby”, “hereunder” and words of similar import refer to this
Agreement as a whole and not to any particular subdivision unless expressly so limited. Words in the singular form
shall be construed to include the plural and vice versa, unless the context otherwise requires. Words in any gender
(including the neutral gender) shall include any other gender, unless the context otherwise requires. Examples shall
not be construed to limit, expressly or by implication, the matter they illustrate. The word “includes” and its
derivatives shall mean “includes, but is not limited to” and corresponding derivative expressions. The term “or”
includes “and/or.” All exhibits attached to this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference. No consideration
shall be given to the fact or presumption that one party had a greater or lesser hand in drafting this Agreement. All
references herein to “$”, “dollars”, or other sums of money shall refer to U.S. Dollars. References in this Agreement
to “business days” shall refer to days other than Saturdays, Sundays, or other days on which CITY offices are
Packet Page 385 of 544
closed. Any references in this Agreement to “days” other than business days shall refer to calendar days. Time is of
the essence of this Agreement. No delay or forbearance in asserting any right or enforcing any obligation under this
Agreement shall constitute a waiver of such right or obligation.
G. Authorization.
Each of the parties represents and warrants to the other that this Agreement has been duly authorized by all
necessary corporate or governmental action on the part of the representing party and that this Agreement is fully
binding on such party.
H. Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all
of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. It shall not be necessary for each party to sign each
counterpart, and separate signature pages may be attached to any counterpart in order to make a complete
counterpart. For purposes of the execution of this Agreement or any amendment hereto or modification hereof, a
signature transmitted by facsimile, computer file or other electronic means shall be fully binding as an original
signature.
[Signature page follows]
Packet Page 386 of 544
EXECUTED by CITY and by CONTRACTOR on the respective dates set forth below to be effective as of the
Execution Date.
DONE this ____________ day of __________________, 2014.
CITY OF EDMONDS PETDATA, INC
By:_____________________________ By:________________________________
David O. Earling, Mayor
Printed Name: _______________________
Title: ______________________________
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Date Executed: ______________________
________________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Jeffrey D. Taraday, City Attorney
Packet Page 387 of 544
EXHIBIT A
Description of Services
This exhibit is attached to and a part of the above and foregoing Agreement for Animal Licensing Services
(Agreement). Terms used in this exhibit that are not defined in this exhibit but which are defined elsewhere
in the Agreement shall have the respective meanings given to them in the other provisions of the
Agreement. In the event of any conflict between any of the provisions of this exhibit and the other
provisions of the Agreement, the other provisions of the Agreement shall control.
CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Process License Applications
A. Receive and process animal license applications through the mail.
B. Provide online licensing and process applications initiated through CONTRACTOR’s
website.
C. Enter new and renewal license applications into CONTRACTOR’s proprietary database.
D. Deposit, or transmit for deposit, all receipts collected for license fees, with the exception
of those payments made via credit card, into a Bank Account.
E. Mail license tags within 10 business days after receipt of payment and complete
documentation as required by local ordinance and/or CITY policy.
F. Update license information in CONTRACTOR’S database and issue replacement tags as
needed.
G. If CONTRACTOR collects any payments due CITY from Licensees via credit card
transactions that are paid to CONTRACTOR, those payments will be deposited, or
transmitted for deposit, into a Bank Account within 15 business days after the end of the
calendar month in which collected.
2. Mail License Notices
A. Mail renewal and reminder notices for expiring animal licenses. Renewal notices will be
mailed in the month prior to the license expiration date, or as otherwise agreed upon
between CONTRACTOR and CITY.
B. Mail billing notices to pet owners who have vaccinated a pet against rabies but have not
licensed, if CITY collects rabies vaccination reports from veterinarians.
3. Customer Service for Licensing Program
A. Provide customer service to pet owners via phone, email and mail, and respond to
requests in a timely fashion.
B. Provide customer service to CITY staff, and respond to CITY requests in a timely
fashion.
C. Provide online access to licensing data to appropriate personnel via CONTRACTOR’s
proprietary website, at no additional charge.
4. Manage Reports from Authorized Registrars and Veterinary Clinics
A. Process and enter license sales records from any registrars and veterinary clinics
authorized to sell animal licenses.
1) Track tag inventories at all authorized registrars, and reconcile reports.
Packet Page 388 of 544
2) Invoice authorized registrars for licenses sold as needed
B. Process and enter rabies vaccination records from local veterinary clinics if rabies
reporting is required by CITY.
C. Follow up with delinquent clinics and registrars and report delinquent clinics and
registrars to CITY as needed.
5. Provide veterinarians and other authorized registrars with reasonable quantities of supplies
(reporting forms, applications or vaccination certificates, citizen mailing envelopes, etc.) necessary
to sell license tags and/or report rabies vaccinations to CONTRACTOR. Supplies are to be printed
in one color with the design and layout to be determined by CONTRACTOR.
6. Reporting to CITY
A. Send reports to CITY within 15 business days after the end of each month including the
number of licenses sold at each location.
B. Provide statistical reports to CITY as requested within a timely manner. Depending on
the information requested, CONTRACTOR can provide most reports within five business
days.
CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Purchase license tags to CONTRACTOR’s specifications and ship them to CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR recommends that tags be shipped directly from tag vendor to CONTRACTOR to
reduce shipping costs.
2. Report CITY license sales electronically or by mail at least monthly by the 10th calendar day of
the month for the prior month’s sales.
3. Give CONTRACTOR at least 60 days’ notice of license fee or ordinance changes.
4. Respond to CONTRACTOR inquiries in a timely fashion.
5. Provide feedback to CONTRACTOR regarding program and customer matters.
Packet Page 389 of 544
AM-6507 3. J.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Adoption of ordinance implementing residential parking permit fee increase in accordance with the 2014
adopted City budget.
Recommendation
Adopt ordinance amending ECC 8.52 related to residential and visitor parking permit fees.
Previous Council Action
On January 14, 2014, the City Council Finance Committee discussed this issue and recommended
approval of the ordinance as proposed on the next Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The 2014 adopted City budget included decision package #7, which increased the annual residential and
visitor parking permit fee from $10 to $25. In order to implement the new fee, Edmond City Code (ECC)
8.52 must be amended to reflect this change. However, ECC 8.52.060(B)(1) provides for a discounted fee
of five dollars ($5) for a visitor parking permit for an individual who holds a valid residential parking
permit. Amending this specific provision was not considered when the fee increase was first proposed.
Increasing the amount of the visitor parking permit fee would be consistent with the other changes
included in the ordinance. The attached draft ordinance reflects an increase in the discounted fee from
five dollars ($5) to ten dollars ($10) to correspond with the parking permit fee increase. Because staff did
not previously request input from Council on the visitor parking permit fee, staff requested and received
Council authorization to include the changes at the January Finance Committee meeting. It is estimated
that the fee change in the residential and visitor permit fees will result in a revenue increase of
$4,000-$5,000 annually. However, this estimate assumes the same level of permit activity as in recent
years.
Attachments
Parking Fee Increase
ECC Chapter 8.62 Parking Permits
Draft Ordinance amending parking fees
Form Review
Packet Page 390 of 544
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 04:38 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 04:40 PM
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/16/2014 10:18 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 391 of 544
Decision Package Title:#7
Fund Number:
Department Number/Name:
Cost Center Number:
Preparer:
Decision Package Description:
Decision Package Justification:
Decision Package Costs 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Salaries (11)- - - - -
Overtime (12)- - - - -
Benefits (23)- - - - -
Uniforms (24)- - - - -
Supplies (31)- - - - -
Small equip (35)- - - - -
Prof. Services (41)- - - - -
Communication (42)- - - - -
Travel (43)- - - - -
Advertising (44)- - - - -
Rental/Lease (45)- - - - -
Repair/Maint (48)- - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - - -
Capital Equipment (64)- - - - -
Other:- - - - -
Total Expenses - - - - -
Decision Package Revenue:2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
New Revenue:8,700 8,700 8,700 8,700 8,700
Existing Resources:4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600
Total Revenue 13,300 13,300 13,300 13,300 13,300
Source of New Revenue:
001
Fee increase for Residential and Visitor Parking Permits.
25 / Mayor
514.30
City Clerk's Office Fee Increase - Parking Permits
Sandy Chase
The current annual fee for Residential and Visitor Parking Permits is $10.00.It is proposed to
increase the annual fee to $25.00.
001.000.322.90.000.00 -OTR NON-BU LIC/PERMITS Fees for Residential and Visitor Parking
Permits are proposed to be increased from $10 to $25.
Sources of Existing Resources:
Packet Page 392 of 544
Chapter 8.52
RESIDENTIAL PARKING ZONE REGULATIONS
Sections:
8.52.010 Residential parking permits defined.
8.52.015 Limitation on issuance.
8.52.020 Eligibility for residential parking permits.
8.52.030 Applications for permits.
8.52.040 Residential parking permits description.
8.52.050 Use and validity of permits.
8.52.060 Visitor’s permits.
8.52.065 Visitor parking on certain streets.
8.52.070 Unlawful acts.
8.52.080 Revocation of permits.
8.52.090 Revocation – City clerk’s duties.
8.52.100 Appeal.
8.52.200 Penalties.
8.52.300 Severability.
8.52.010 Residential parking permits defined.
When properly issued and displayed, a residential parking permit (permit) shall exempt a specified
vehicle, while parked within a specific limited parking zone for which the permit was issued, from citation
for parking longer than the posted time limit for that particular zone and no other; provided, that the permit
shall not authorize parking for more than 72 consecutive hours in any one location or as specified
specifically in this chapter. The permit shall not guarantee a parking space, nor shall it exempt the vehicle
or operator from observing zones where parking is prohibited at all times, including but not limited to no
parking zones, load zones, fire zones and all other applicable regulations contained in ECC Title 8. [Ord.
3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.015 Limitation on issuance.
No permit authorized to be issued under this chapter shall be issued with respect to any commercial or
recreational vehicle over 10,000 pounds licensed gross vehicle weight or 22 feet in length except as
specifically allowed in this chapter. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.020 Eligibility for residential parking permits.
A. Eligibility. Permits may be issued only to persons who reside within the permit zone for which the
permit is issued, who own and/or have legal control of a motor vehicle and only for those motor vehicles
owned by or under the legal control of the resident. Permits may be issued to eligible persons who have
insufficient off-street parking spaces for the number of cars they own and/or control. For the purposes of
this chapter, “residence” shall be defined as the street address of the structure in which the applicant
resides as determined by the U.S. Postal Service or such other street upon which the residence fronts
Packet Page 393 of 544
and for which the applicant can present adequate evidence that the proposed alternative frontage
adequately reflects the actual orientation and location of the structure in which the applicant resides.
B. The Proof of Residence. Proof of residence shall be established by:
1. Display of a valid driver’s license reflecting a current address within the zone for which the
permit is issued; or
2. Display of a deed, lease, rental agreement or other acceptable document showing residency
within the zone for which the permit is issued.
C. Ownership of Motor Vehicle. Proof of ownership and/or control of a motor vehicle may be established
by possession of a valid registration in the applicant’s name, or by display of a valid registration
accompanied by proof that the applicant has legal use and control of the vehicle. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.030 Applications for permits.
A. Authorization of City Clerk. The city clerk is hereby authorized to issue permits to qualified residents
who own or have control of a motor vehicle, and who have insufficient off-street parking spaces.
B. Application Form. Application shall be made on forms provided by the city clerk which shall include:
1. The name, address, telephone number and license number of the applicant;
2. Make, model, color and year of the registration of the vehicle for which the permit is sought;
3. The type of document used to establish eligibility for the permit as required in ECC 8.52.020;
4. The number of off-street parking spaces available to the applicant;
5. License plate number (and state) of vehicle;
6. The number of visitor’s permits requested and issued; and
7. A statement immediately above where the applicant is to sign stating that the applicant has
been provided with an opportunity to examine this chapter and is familiar with the terms thereof.
All applications shall be signed by the applicant and notarized.
C. Limited Parking Zone Determination. The limited parking zone for which the permit is valid shall be the
designated zone in which the permit holder resides but is prohibited on Main Street from Third Avenue to
Sixth Avenue and Fifth Avenue from Bell Street to Walnut Street except between the hours of 6:00 p.m.
and 9:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday. Three zones have been created and are as follows: Red Zone –
Caspers Street to Edmonds Street and Sunset Avenue to Sixth Avenue; Blue Zone – Edmonds Street to
Packet Page 394 of 544
Dayton Street and Railroad Avenue to Sixth Avenue; Yellow Zone – Dayton Street to Pine Street and SR
104 to Sixth Avenue.
D. Fees.
1. Fees for the permit shall be $10.00$25.00 for the first vehicle, $10.00$25.00 for the second
vehicle and $10.00$25.00 for the third vehicle. No fee will be required for limited recreational
vehicle permits.
2. Fees shall be collected prior to issuance of the permit.
3. No more than three permits shall be issued to any one residence. [Ord. 3885 § 1, 2012; Ord.
3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.040 Residential parking permits description.
The permit shall contain the following information:
A. The residential permit number;
B. The expiration date of the permit; and
C. Color of permit will designate limited parking zone, as set forth in ECC 8.52.030(C). [Ord. 3885 § 1,
2012; Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.050 Use and validity of permits.
A. Display. Residential permits shall be displayed in the upper left-hand corner of the vehicle’s rear
window on the outside of the glass. Visitor’s permits shall be displayed face-up on the vehicle’s
dashboard.
B. Validity. Permits shall be valid only for the vehicle for which they are issued, only in the zone
designated and only so long as the permit holder retains the vehicle and resides at the address specified
in his or her application.
C. Expiration. Permits shall expire one year from the date of issue, so long as the permit holder retains
the permit vehicle and resides at the address specified in his/her permit application. Permits issued for a
recreational vehicle are limited to a period of 36 hours and no more than six permits may be issued for an
individual recreational vehicle in any one-year period. [Ord. 3885 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.060 Visitor’s permits.
A. The city clerk is hereby authorized to issue up to two visitor’s permits per residential address, which
shall be valid for a period of up to one year. Only one resident per residential address who can provide
the proof of residence required by ECC 8.52.020(B) is eligible to receive the two visitor’s permits. A
“visitor” is defined as a guest of a person who resides within the permit zone; provided, that the guest is
Packet Page 395 of 544
not a resident of the residential address for which the permit was issued. Only the visitor’s vehicle is
allowed to display the visitor’s permit.
B. The fee for visitor permits shall be:
1. Five dollarsTen dollars per visitor’s permit for an individual holding a valid residential parking
permit; or
2. Ten dollarsTwenty-five dollars per visitor’s permit for persons who do not hold a valid
residential parking permit.
Visitor’s permits shall be issued in conjunction with the issuance or renewal of a residential parking permit
for those individuals who hold a valid residential parking permit or for the calendar year or any unexpired
portion thereof for other qualified applicants. [Ord. 3885 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.065 Visitor parking on certain streets.
Visitor’s permits shall be issued by the city clerk to residents of Sunset Avenue, and the portion of 75th
Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road, without showing a lack of off-street parking or vehicle
ownership. Such visitor’s permits shall be issued at no cost to the applicant. Such visitor’s permits shall
be limited to two permits per household or residence. These permits shall only be valid for parking after
the posted hours on the west side of Sunset Avenue from Bell Street to Caspers Street. Such permits
shall be valid on either side of 75th Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road. All other provisions of
this chapter, where not inconsistent with this section, and the adopted parking regulations of the Revised
Code of Washington shall apply. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.070 Unlawful acts.
It shall be unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
A. To make any false or misleading statement in application for a permit;
B. To transfer the permit to another person or vehicle;
C. To fraudulently alter a permit or visitor’s permit in any respect whatsoever;
D. To improperly display the permit or visitor’s permit or to violate any terms or conditions under which the
permit or visitor’s permit was issued;
E. Use or place the permit on any other vehicle than that for which the permit is issued; or
F. To use or permit to be used a revoked or suspended permit. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.080 Revocation of permits.
Permits and/or visitor’s permits may be revoked by the city clerk for any of the following reasons:
Packet Page 396 of 544
A. The permit holder has made any false, misleading or incomplete statement in the application;
B. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter; or
C. Overissuance of permits; provided, however, that in the event of revocation for overissuance, priority
shall be given to providing one permit per dwelling unit. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.090 Revocation – City clerk’s duties.
If the city clerk finds that a permit and/or visitor’s permit should be revoked for any of the reasons set forth
in ECC 8.52.080, the clerk shall send a written notice to the permit holder at the address contained on the
application. The notice shall contain the following information:
A. Advise the permit holder that the permit and/or visitor’s permit will be revoked on a specified date
which shall be not fewer than 10 nor more than 13 days from the date of the letter;
B. Advise the permit holder that unless a written notice of appeal setting forth the reasons for the appeal
is filed with the city clerk not later than the date set forth in subsection (A) of this section, the permit will be
deemed revoked;
C. Advise the permit holder that if a written notice of appeal is filed within the required time, the date, time
and place of the hearing will be set; and
D. The reasons for the revocation. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.100 Appeal.
Upon receipt of the appeal, the mayor or his designee shall set a date for hearing within 30 days of
receipt of the notice of appeal and notify the appellant of the date, time and place of hearing. The mayor
or his designee shall render the decision within 10 days after the hearing is closed, reduce the decision to
writing and include a statement of reasons for the decision. The mayor or his designee may affirm or
reverse the revocation decision or order suspension for a specified period. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
8.52.200 Penalties.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof may be punished as set forth in ECC 5.50.020. [Ord. 3885 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3606 § 1,
2006].
8.52.300 Severability.
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase or word of this chapter, or any provision adopted by reference
in this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining
portions of this chapter. [Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
Packet Page 397 of 544
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 8.52 TO REVISE CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THAT CODE SECTION RELATING TO
PARKING PERMIT FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it
appropriate to amend Chapter 8.52 of the Edmonds City Code (“ECC”) to revise certain
provisions of that code section relating to parking permit fees, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The following subsections of Section 8.52 of the ECC Residential
Parking Zone Regulations are hereby amended to read as follows (new language underlined and
deleted language in strike through):
8.52.030 Applications for permits.
…
D. Fees.
1. Fees for the permit shall be $10.00$25.00 for the first vehicle, $10.00$25.00 for
the second vehicle and $10.00$25.00 for the third vehicle. No fee will be required
for limited recreational vehicle permits.
2. Fees shall be collected prior to issuance of the permit.
3. No more than three permits shall be issued to any one residence. [Ord. 3885
§ 1, 2012; Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
…
8.52.060 Visitor’s permits.
…
B. The fee for visitor permits shall be:
Packet Page 398 of 544
1. Five dollarsTen dollars per visitor’s permit for an individual holding a valid
residential parking permit; or
2. Ten dollarsTwenty-five dollars per visitor’s permit for persons who do not
hold a valid residential parking permit.
Visitor’s permits shall be issued in conjunction with the issuance or renewal of a
residential parking permit for those individuals who hold a valid residential
parking permit or for the calendar year or any unexpired portion thereof for other
qualified applicants. [Ord. 3885 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3606 § 1, 2006].
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Packet Page 399 of 544
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 400 of 544
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 8.52 TO REVISE CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THAT CODE SECTION RELATING TO
PARKING PERMIT FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2014.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 401 of 544
AM-6503 3. K.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a grant agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board for the
228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the grant agreement.
Previous Council Action
On January 14, 2014, the Parks, Planning and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
The City was awarded a $1,722,000 grant from the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) in November, 2013, for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. The project proposes to
construct the missing link of roadway on 228th Street SW from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th Ave W and
install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 at 228th Street SW and 76th Ave W at 228th
Street SW. The project is currently in the design and right-of-way phases. The start of construction is
subject to acquisition of the remaining right of way parcels and may begin in summer 2014 or early 2015.
The City has secured a total of $6,491,000 in federal and state funding and this grant provides the
remaining funding necessary to construct the project.
Attached is the TIB funding agreement that must be approved by the City Council. Approval of the
agreement will confirm the funding commitment and allow the City to submit construction costs for grant
reimbursement.
Attachments
TIB Grant
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 402 of 544
Engineering Robert English 01/15/2014 02:25 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 01/15/2014 03:03 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/15/2014 04:01 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/15/2014 04:23 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 10:16 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 01/15/2014 01:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 403 of 544
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
4
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
5
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
6
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
7
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
8
o
f
5
4
4
AM-6505 3. L.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with the Lake
Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign amendment.
Previous Council Action
On July 1, 2008, and September 7, 2010, Council approved a similar Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to be
implemented by the appointed City representative to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed
Forum. Both of these ILAs were one year agreements. The ILA approved in 2010 for calendar year
2011 included funding for a Federal lobbyist approved by City Council.
On January 23, 2012, Council approved a version of this ILA with an end date of December 31, 2013 that
included $1,600 to pay for Edmonds’ portion of the Forum administration costs but did not include a
$10,000 contribution toward the Forum’s Federal Lobbying efforts.
On April 3, 2013, Council approved this ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs
and the Forum’s Federal Lobbying efforts.
On January 14, 2014, the Parks, Planning and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
The current ILA expired on December 31, 2013. This First Amendment to the ILA will:
Make it effective January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015 (2 years)
Authorize funding for Forum Administrative Support up to $4,800 per year, that will be spilt
amongst the member jurisdictions
Authorize funding for Forum Lobbying efforts up to $36,000 per year, which will be split amongst
the member jurisdictions.
Currently, the Forum has three official member jurisdictions, the Cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lake
Forest Park, and Edmonds. This First amendment will build on the work done by the Forum members and
the Forum’s lobbyist. Over the past 2 years progress has been made on the recurrent flooding issue that
affects Edmonds’ residents located on the south shore of Lake Ballinger:
Packet Page 409 of 544
The design has been completed for the replacement of three culverts on McAleer Creek, the sole
outlet for Lake Ballinger
The first large culvert was replaced in 2013. The remaining two are scheduled for replacement
with foot bridges in the summer of 2014 (Mountlake Terrace has construction contract in-place)
Edmonds installed a web-based early warning system so anyone with an internet connection can
check the lake level at any time.
The Army Corps of Engineering conducted an initial project review of the situation and has
recommended some project actions.
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill has been passed by the House of
Representatives and a House-Senate conference committee began work Nov. 20 on resolving the
differences between the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (H.R. 3080) and the
Senate’s version of the water resources legislation. Our Congressional delegation indicates a
possible reform of the WRDA process that would make it easier for Forum projects to get funded.
This First Amendment to the ILA has been approved by the City Attorney.
Fiscal Impact
The 2014 City budget has $55,000 for Lake Ballinger Associated projects in the Stormwater Utility
Fund. The Councils of Lake Forest Park and Mountlake Terrace have indicated approval of this ILA
amendment. If the Edmonds City Council approves the amendment to the ILA, our costs will be capped
$1,600 per year for Forum Administration and at $12,000 for the Forum’s lobbyist. If additional
jurisdictions join the Forum (such as Snohomish County, Shoreline, or Lynnwood), the cost per year will
be less.
There is sufficient funding in this line item to fund the administrative and lobbying costs in 2014. Since
this amendment extends through 2015 and Edmonds does not, yet, have a Council-approved 2015 budget,
the ILA has the following language in Section 6.2:“…the financial obligations of each Member
Jurisdiction to fund this Agreement after December 31, 2011 are contingent upon local legislative
appropriation of necessary funds in future fiscal years…”.
Attachments
Amendment to ILA
Original ILA
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 01/15/2014 02:25 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 01/15/2014 03:03 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/15/2014 04:01 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/15/2014 04:23 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 10:16 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 01/15/2014 02:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 410 of 544
First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement
for the Governmental Jurisdictions within the
Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed
Including the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood,
Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County
This First Amendment to the Agreement (“First Amendment”) is entered into by and
among Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, and the
cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline, all
municipal corporations of the state of Washington.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Agreement, expires on December 31, 2013; and
WHEREAS, The Agreement, by its terms, may be extended for such additional
terms as the Member Jurisdictions may agree in writing; and
WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to extend the Agreement for an
additional two-year term commencing January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015
(“extended term”); and
WHERAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to provide for a new Exhibit D
(“Operating Fund Allocations”), a new Exhibit E (“Service Provider Operating Fund
Allocations”) for the extended term; and
WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to amend the Agreement on the
terms and conditions set forth in this First Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants
contained herein, the Member Jurisdictions agree to amend the Agreement as
follows:
Section 1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms when used herein shall have
the same respective meanings as are given such terms in the Agreement, unless
expressly provided otherwise in this First Amendment.
Section 2. Extension of Term. The Member Jurisdictions acknowledge and
agree that the term of the Agreement shall be extended by an additional two-year term,
Packet Page 411 of 544
commencing January 1, 2014 and remain in effect through December 31, 2015 (“New
Term”), unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions in the Agreement.
Section 3. Replacement of Exhibit D and Exhibit E. Member Jurisdictions
acknowledge and agree that Exhibit D and Exhibit E to the Agreement shall be replaced
respectively with new Exhibits, Exhibit D1 (“Operating Fund Allocations”) and Exhibit E1
(“Service Provider Operating Fund Allocations”), which are attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
Section 4. Method and Duty to File First Amendment. Member Jurisdictions
shall, upon execution of this First Amendment to the Agreement, post this First
Amendment on its official website in accordance with RCW 39.34.040 and RCW
39.34.200.
Section 5. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of
which together shall constitute the same instrument and, collectively, constitute the
entire First Amendment.
Section 6. Conflict; No Further Modification. In the event of any conflict
between the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the terms and conditions of this
First Amendment, the terms and conditions of this First Amendment shall prevail.
Section 7. Remaining Terms of Agreement. Except as specifically set forth in
this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement and Exhibits
shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
Section 8. Effective Date of Amendment. This First Amendment shall become
effective upon its execution by Member Jurisdictions, as authorized by each
jurisdiction’s legislative body.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Member Jurisdictions hereto have executed this First
Amendment on the dates indicated below:
Approved as to Form: CITY OF EDMONDS
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: ___________ Date: _________________
Packet Page 412 of 544
Approved as to Form: CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: ___________ Date: _________________
Approved as to Form: CITY OF LYNNWOOD
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: ___________ Date: _________________
Approved as to Form: CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: ___________ Date: _________________
Approved as to Form: CITY OF SHORELINE
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: ___________ Date: _________________
Approved as to Form: SNOHOMISH COUNTY
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: ___________ Date: _________________
Packet Page 413 of 544
EXHIBIT D1
OPERATING FUND ALLOCATIONS
Packet Page 414 of 544
Table 1
Service Provider Operating Fund Allocation 2014-2015
Allocation shall be equal percentage for each (current) Member Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
Original members 5 members 4 members 3 members
Edmonds 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33%
Snohomish County 16.67% 20.00% 25.00%
Lake Forest Park 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33%
Mountlake Terrace 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33%
Lynnwood 16.67%
Shoreline 16.67% 20.00%
Packet Page 415 of 544
EXHIBIT E1
SERVICE PROVIDER OPERATING
FUND ALLOCATIONS
Packet Page 416 of 544
Administrative Support Service Provider Needs Listing
The Forum wishes to retain the City of Mountlake Terrace as the Administrative Support
Service Provider. The Forum has suggested quarterly meetings at a minimum for the
current agreement period with other meetings held as needed. The Service Provider
needs listing allows for four quarterly meetings and up to four additional meetings per
year.
Duties Hours/Quarter
Year
1. Attend and take notes at monthly Forum Meeting 5 20
2. Arrange for room reservations, provide materials for meetings 5 20
3. Compile and produce minutes from the Forum meetings 10 40
4. Generate draft agenda for the Forum Meeting - 3 12
coordinate with the chair and co-chair on meeting agenda
5. Coordinate e-mail contacts through the Forum distribution list 1 4
6. Assists with cities web site maintenance 6 24
7. Maintains documents record for Forum activities 6 24
8. Prepares News Releases on Forum updates 4 16
Total 40 160
Additional Duties may be added as needs develop
Provider Support through the City of Mountlake Terrace
Administrative Support for 2014 $4,800
Administrative Support for 2015 $4,800
This listing assumes services are provided at 40 hours a quarter are
allocated for a total of 160 hours for each of the 2014 and 2015 calendar
years. Each Member Jurisdiction’s cost percentage of the Administrator
Support Provider is listed in Exhibit D Table 1.
Packet Page 417 of 544
Federal Government Relations Service Provider Needs Listing
The Member Jurisdictions wish to retain and employ a Federal Government
Relations Service Provider, Johnston Group, for the term of the agreement
period (January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015) to provide federal government
relation services for the Forum in order to increase its visibility with its
congressional delegation and compete for federal funding. The Johnston Group
scope of services is attached at the end of this exhibit.
The total cost for each year of the agreement shall not exceed the amounts listed
for 2014 and 2015 below.
Government Relations Support through the Johnston Group:
For 2014 $36,000
For 2015 $36,000
The Member Jurisdiction’s cost percentage of the Federal Government Service Provider
is listed in Exhibit D Table 1.
Packet Page 418 of 544
Appendix A
Scope of Services
The Consultant (“The Johnston Group”) shall provide the scope of services listed below
for the Client (“Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum”). The scope of
services may include, but not be limited to, the following activities:
Support Federal Funding for the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum
• Work with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum to identify the
funding needs and get detailed information about priority projects contained in
the Forum’s Capital Improvement Plan.
• Review Forum planning documents and budget to ascertain the full range of
Forum initiatives and determine which Forum projects are eligible for support
through the existing federal funding programs.
• Advise the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum about which
projects ought to be prioritized for federal grants, directed federal spending via
appropriations and authorization bills.
• Assist the Forum with its engagement with the Seattle office of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and utilize the delegation to bolster this relationship to
result in funding for the Forum.
Prepare and Support the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum within
WRDA Consideration and Potential Funding Opportunities
• Advise the Forum about the creation of collateral materials for federal funding
requests.
• Work with the Forum to identify potential supporters for project requests and
secure letters of endorsement.
• Coordinate formal submission of appropriations requests, if applicable, and
ensure compliance with all deadlines.
• Work with Forum on the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization
and seek federal funds to support the Forum’s activities.
Packet Page 419 of 544
• Determine legislative tactics Congress may utilize to enact federal
appropriations bills and implement a strategy to preserve funds targeted for the
Lake Ballinger Watershed Forum.
• Contact key congressional staff to obtain support for the Forum’s federal
funding requests and respond to any questions or concerns as appropriate.
• Assist congressional staff in the preparation of letters of request to relevant
House and Senate oversight, authorization and appropriations committees and
subcommittees.
• Monitor the budget and appropriations process throughout the year with regular
legislative updates provided to the Forum.
D.C. Lobbying Meetings
• Schedule meetings in Washington, D.C. with Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek
Watershed Forum representatives and Congressman Larsen, Congressman
McDermott, Representative DelBene and Senators Murray and Cantwell. We
also may schedule meetings with other members of the delegation as relevant.
• Include the D.C.-based liaison for Washington State Governor Inslee as a part of
our D.C. meetings and outreach strategy if appropriate to do so.
• Identify and prepare key congressional staff for federal funding and policy
requests and meetings with Forum representatives and elected officials.
• Attend and facilitate meetings in Washington, D.C.
• Prepare Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum officials for
congressional meetings.
• Follow up to all meetings as appropriate.
• Ensure that district and D.C. based key staff in each delegation office are aligned
in support of Forum’s goals.
• Maintain regular communication with key legislative staff and elected officials
throughout the year in support of the Forum’s funding and policy agenda.
• Ensure the delegation is prepared to engage federal Agencies in support of the
Forum as necessary and as appropriate.
Packet Page 420 of 544
• Ensure the delegation is prepared to swiftly respond in the event of a flooding
event to coordinate disaster relief and support.
• This proposal assumes two annual trips to Washington, D.C. for the Lake
Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
Involvement of Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Member Staff and
Elected Officials
• Issue monthly activity reports to Forum representatives detailing specific actions
taken on the Forum’s behalf.
• Engage the Forum’s elected officials and staff as necessary to contact Members
of Congress and their staff as appropriate in support of the funding requests.
• Counsel the Forum about locally-based lobbying activities to further the Forum’s
legislative and federal funding priorities, potentially including meeting in North
King County / South Snohomish County with members of the federal delegation,
participation in congressional sponsored events in Washington State and the
continued involvement of district based congressional staff in Forum meetings.
• Draft correspondence as appropriate for the Forum to send to Congress on
policy issues and other legislative concerns.
• Work to include Forum elected leadership in delegation based policy
discussions as they develop and as appropriate.
Delegation Engagement with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum
• Solicit support from each Member of Congress that we are seeking support from
(i.e. Congressman Rick Larsen, Congresswoman DelBene, Congressman Jim
McDermott, Senator Patty Murray and Senator Maria Cantwell) for our federal
funding and policy requests.
• Maintain year-long direct engagement with targeted Members of Congress and
their staff.
• Prioritize a visit to the Watershed by district congressional staff to get a firsthand
look at the Forum’s projects and have an in-depth discussion about the Forum’s
funding and policy needs.
Grant Funding Strategy
• Solicit support from the Governor and the congressional delegation for the
relevant Forum grant applications.
Packet Page 421 of 544
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
2
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
3
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
4
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
5
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
6
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
7
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
8
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
9
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
0
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
1
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
2
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
3
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
4
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
5
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
6
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
7
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
8
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
9
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
4
0
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
4
1
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
4
2
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
4
3
o
f
5
4
4
AM-6500 3. M.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Renee McRae
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to Sign Interlocal Agreement with Public Hospital District #2, Snohomish
County, to Provide an Exercise Program
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with Public Hospital District #2, Snohomish
County.
Previous Council Action
The Finance Committee reviewed the Interlocal Agreement at the January 14 meeting and forwarded it to
the January 21 Council consent agenda.
Narrative
On November 1, 2013, we submitted a Building Healthy Communities Fund grant application to the
Verdant Health Commission. The request was for $39,513 to upgrade the fitness room at the Frances
Anderson Center with cardio, muscle strength and flexibility equipment.
Our grant was approved, and this interlocal agreement allows us to accept the funds and move forward
with the purchase of the equipment and the development of programming to help seniors to live healthy
and active lives.
Attachments
Interlocal w PHD2
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/16/2014 01:33 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 01:53 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 03:54 PM
Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 01/14/2014 04:16 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 444 of 544
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE AN EXERCISE PROGRAM
This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter, “Agreement”) is made between Public Hospital
District No. 2, Snohomish County, Washington and the City of Edmonds to provide an Exercise
Program.
1. PARTIES
1.1 Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County, Washington, a public
hospital district formed under Chapter 70.44 RCW, is hereinafter referred to as “PHD2”;
1.2 The City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, is hereinafter
referred to as “City”; and
1.3 Hereinafter, PHD2 and the City are each referred individually as a “Party”
and collectively as the “Parties”.
2. PURPOSE AND PROGRAM
2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City to provide an Exercise
Program (“Program”) for the benefit of PHD2 residents.
2.2 The Program will provide opportunities for area residents to participate in
an exercise program to improve their health. The program will have a particular focus on
helping seniors with cardio, strength and flexibility to help seniors to live healthy and active
lives.
3. AUTHORITY
Chapter 39.34 RCW, Interlocal Cooperation Act, permits Washington State public
agencies to enter into agreements to engage in cooperative activities. PHD2, a public hospital
district, and the City, a Washington municipal corporation, are both Washington public agencies.
4. TERM AND TERMINATION
4.1 The Program shall commence on or about February 1, 2014, and continue
through January 31, 2016.
4.2 The Agreement shall become effective upon the date this Agreement is
executed by the Parties.
4.3 The Agreement shall terminate upon PHD2’s receipt of the final report
generated by the City and accepted and approved by PHD2, which is scheduled for February 15,
2016.
Packet Page 445 of 544
4.4. Either Party may terminate the Agreement for any reason upon sixty (60)
days written notice to the other Party. If the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this provision,
the City shall dispose of all assets acquired pursuant to the Agreement and remit to PHD2 the
funds from such sale, less the costs of the sale. If the Agreement terminates pursuant to Section
4.3 above, the assets purchased pursuant to the Agreement shall be handled as set forth in
Section 6.2, below.
5. OBLIGATIONS OF PHD2
5.1 PHD2 will fund the Program provided by the City based on the following
budget:
Funds from PHD2
Fitness room equipment purchases including cardio, muscle
strength, and flexibility equipment needed for exercise program
$39,513
Total $39,513
5.2 PHD2 shall pay the City for Program costs in one lump-sum payment of
$39,513 on February 15, 2014. No additional payments by PHD2 are scheduled for the Program.
6. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY
6.1 The City shall install new exercise equipment and provide associated
programming using the equipment and facility in Edmonds on or before February 15, 2014. The
Program shall provide opportunities for area residents to participate in strength, cardio,
flexibility, and other health and wellness activities. The program will have a particular focus on
helping seniors to live healthy and active lives.
6.2 PHD2 Program funds in the amount of $39,513 shall be used by the City
to upgrade its exercise equipment. Purchases of equipment using PHD2 Program funds must
remain dedicated to the Program’s purpose for the useful life of the equipment. If the assets are
disposed of prior to the end of their useful life, any surplus funds, after the cost of sale, shall be
remitted to PHD2. The City shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the equipment.
6.3 The City shall track and measure the results of the Program, including the
number of participants using the equipment through the program and the number of organized
classes scheduled using the equipment.
6.4 The City shall submit progress reports of activities carried out under the
Program, including summaries of outcomes and results and financial reports detailing use of the
funds, in accordance with the following schedule:
Packet Page 446 of 544
Date due to PHD2 Type of report
August 1, 2014 6-month progress report
February 1, 2015 Annual report and financial statements
February 15, 2016 2nd annual report and financial statements
6.5 The City shall maintain records of receipts and expenditures and make its
books available to PHD2 at any time, upon reasonable notice, during regular business hours.
6.6 The City shall use the Program funds provided by PHD2 only for the
Program. Any unused Program funds remaining at the termination of this Agreement shall be
refunded to PHD2 on or before February 15, 2016.
6.7 The City recognizes that PHD2 is a public agency subject to audit by the
Washington State Auditor. The City shall provide PHD2 with any public record(s) in its
possession that PHD2 requests be provided to the Washington State Auditor, to the State of
Washington, or to the Federal Government.
6.8 The City shall comply with all local, state and federal laws including, if
applicable, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).
6.9 During the term of this Agreement, the City shall consider suggestions by
PHD2 for modifications to the Program that may result in more favorable health outcomes of the
participants.
6.10 The City shall give credit (logo or language) to PHD2 in its publicity
vehicles for the Program, including, but not limited to, programs, news releases, print
advertising, electronic advertising and facility signage. Credit should also be given to PHD2 in
any newspaper interviews about the Program enhancements. Electronic
communications/websites should also include a link to PHD2’s website. The use of PHD2’s
logo, when appropriate, is encouraged. PHD2 can provide black-and-white or color versions in
digital format.
7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
7.1 Relationship of the Parties and No Third Party Beneficiary. The
relationship created between PHD2 and the City is strictly that of independent contractors. The
Agreement creates no partnership or joint venture between the Parties, nor any separate legal or
administrative entity, nor may any officer or employee of one Party be considered to be an
employee or agent of the other. Further, the Agreement provides no rights to any third party and
may not be relied on by any other person or entity.
7.2 Administration. The Agreement shall be administered jointly by PHD2
and the City under the supervision of PHD2’s Superintendent and the City’s Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services Department’s Recreation Manager.
Packet Page 447 of 544
7.3 Applicable Law. The Agreement is entered under the laws of the State of
Washington. Any litigation arising from this Agreement must be filed in Snohomish County
Superior Court.
7.4 Liability and Insurance. The City will indemnify, defend and hold PHD2
harmless from any claims, lawsuits or other actions, and judgments arising in any way from the
Exercise Program provided under this Agreement. The City will maintain a liability insurance
policy of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence during the term of this Agreement.
7.5 Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement is complete and
integrates all understandings between the Parties. No amendment or other change to the
Agreement will be binding on either party unless agreed to in writing and signed by each Party.
7.6 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction rules any part of this
Agreement to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement will still be in full force and effect.
7.7 Force Majeure. Neither Party will be in default or liable for failure to
perform its obligations under this Agreement if that failure is due to causes beyond its reasonable
control including, but not limited to, acts of God, acts of terrorism, fires, floods, windstorms
earthquakes, labor disputes or governmental acts.
7.8 Notices and Reporting. Any notice or reporting required or otherwise
given under this Agreement will be considered delivered or given when actually delivered or
forty-eight (48) hours after being deposited in the U.S. Mail as certified mail addressed to the
following:
To PHD2:
Carl Zapora, Superintendent
Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County
PO Box 2606
Lynnwood, WA 98036
To The City of Edmonds
City of Edmonds
Attn: Renée McRae, Recreation Manager
700 Main Street
Edmonds WA 98020
7.9 Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned without the written
consent of the other Party. Each Party may consent to or decline a request for assignment by the
other Party at the sole discretion of the Party from which consent is requested.
Packet Page 448 of 544
7.10 Duty to File Agreement with County Auditor. The City shall, within ten
(10) days after this Agreement is executed by both Parties, file this Agreement with the
Snohomish County Auditor or, alternatively, list it by subject on its website or other
electronically retrievable public source as provided in RCW 39.34.040.
PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
By: _________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Carl Zapora, Superintendent
CITY OF EDMONDS
By: _________________________________________ Date: ___________________
David O. Earling, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 449 of 544
AM-6508 3. N.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer Agreement for 645
9th Avenue North
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of Agreement.
Previous Council Action
On January 14, 2014, the Parks, Planning and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
On December 10, 2013, staff presented this item to the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds owns a sanitary sewer main through the subject parcel and adjacent parcel to the
north as shown in Attachment 2. The subject parcel is currently being developed and the parcel to the
north is vacant land.
In 1987, the sewer mainline/easement was provided to the City during development of the Aloha Plat.
The sewer mainline has remained dry since 1987 and no maintenance has been required by the City. If
this plat had been developed today, the sewer mainline and easement would have remained private
because the mainline offers no benefit to the City. This is due to the fact that the site conditions only
allow for the subject parcels to be connected to the sewer mainline.
The recent development has also installed private power and communication utilities adjacent to the
sewermain within the City’s easement. The developer did not obtain City approval prior to installing the
private utilities and they could hinder the City’s ability to maintain the sewermain in the future. The
property owners have agreed to accept ownership of the sewermain.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Proposed Asset Transfer Agreement
Attachment 2 - Plat Map Showing Location of Easement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 450 of 544
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 01/16/2014 04:23 PM
Public Works Kody McConnell 01/17/2014 08:38 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/17/2014 08:39 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/17/2014 08:40 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/17/2014 08:42 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 01/16/2014 11:10 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/17/2014
Packet Page 451 of 544
Return Address:
City Clerk
City of Edmonds
121 - 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
ASSET TRANSFER AGREEMENT
Transferor: City of Edmonds
Owners and Transferees: Critchlow Homes Inc
Property Address: 818 Aloha Street
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel No for Lot 9: 00756500000900
Owners and Transferees: Paula A Trost & John Wiskerchen
Property Address: 645 9th Ave North
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel No for Lot 10: 00756500001000
WHEREAS, the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation (the
“City” and “Transferor”) and Paula A Trost and John Wiskerchen, owners of the real property
located at 645 9th Ave North and Critchlow Homes Inc, owners of the real property located at
818 Aloha Street, referenced above as (the “Owners” and “Transferees”), have determined that
it is beneficial to all parties to transfer ownership rights in certain assets associated with such
real property from the City to the Owners; and
WHEREAS, such assets are in the form of a sewer main and non-exclusive utility
easement described and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (the “Assets”); and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to officially document the transfer of the Assets and each
party’s rights and responsibilities relating thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the benefits to accrue to the Owners
and the City herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the City hereby permanently conveys and transfers to the Owners, and the
Owners hereby accept, all rights, title and interest of every nature held by the City in the Assets.
Utility systems located within the easement as described and depicted in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and shared between Lots 9 and 10,
shall be the collective responsibility of the owners of Lots 9 and 10, and the cost of said
maintenance, repair, and/or reconstruction shall be borne jointly between the owners of Lots 9
and 10, except that no owners/transferees shall be responsible for said maintenance, repair
and/or reconstruction of that portion of that commonly used utility system located upstream
from the point of connection of that respective lot owner.
The Assets hereby transferred are located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE
OF WASHINGTON.
DATED this ________ day of ________________, 2014.
Packet Page 452 of 544
TRANSFEREE: TRANSFERRORS:
___________________________________ __________________________________
Paula A Trost Dave Earling, Mayor, City of Edmonds
___________________________________
John Wiskerchen ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
__________________________________
Critchlow Homes Inc. Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
On this day personally appeared before me Paula A. Trost, to me known to be the individual
described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he signed the
same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF , 2014
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
On this day personally appeared before me John Wiskerchen, to me known to be the individual
described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she signed the
same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF , 2014
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
On this day personally appeared before me
, to me known to be the of the corporation that
executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free
and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and
that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF , 2014
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
Packet Page 453 of 544
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
5
4
o
f
5
4
4
AM-6515 5.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Jeff Tarraday Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Adoption of Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 2.10 related to Confirmation and
Duties of City Officers
Recommendation
That the City Council move to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.10 ECC, while specifying in its
motion which version of Attachment A is proposed for adoption.
Previous Council Action
After deliberating various possible amendments to Chapter 2.10 ECC at the committee level, the City
Council, on January 7, 2014, directed that the City Attorney prepare an ordinance to adopt the version of
Chapter 2.10 that is shown on Attachment A, version 1.
Narrative
Attached to this agenda memo is a proposed ordinance to adopt the amendments to Chapter 2.10 ECC,
along with a new Chapter 2.03 that is necessary to provide a location for one section that is being moved
out of Chapter 2.10 and an amendment to ECC 2.01.020 that is necessary to provide a location for another
section that is being moved out of Chapter 2.10.
Note that there are two versions of Attachment A included with this memo. Version 1 is the version that
the City Council requested by motion on January 7, 2014. Version 2 is an alternative version that the
Mayor is proposing, in light of the Finance Director’s recent resignation. Version 2 contains additional
language (highlighted in yellow) that would allow the Mayor to bring forth candidates from the previous
recruitment cycle if the vacancy occurs within 9 months. In addition, it allows City Council to confirm an
appointment based on a recent previous round of interviews when an appointive office (such as the
position of Finance Director) becomes vacant again within nine months of the city council’s previous
confirmation.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Ordinance amending ECC Chapter 2.10
Attachment 2 - Attachment A v1
Attachment 3 - Attachment A v2
Packet Page 455 of 544
Attachment 3 - Attachment A v2
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/16/2014 04:39 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/17/2014 08:51 AM
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/16/2014 04:20 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/17/2014
Packet Page 456 of 544
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.10 OF THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO CONFIRMATION OF
CERTAIN MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS AND PORTIONS OF
CHAPTER 2.01 AND 2.03 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS TO THE CITY
COUNCIL AND MAYOR.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.12.090 states that the mayor shall have the power of appointment
of all appointive officers and employees; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.12.090 further states that confirmation by the city council of
appointments of officers and employees shall be required only when the city charter, or the
council by ordinance, provides for confirmation of such appointments; and
WHEREAS, the city council has previously provided for the city council’s confirmation
of director level mayoral appointments in chapter 2.10 of the Edmonds City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has undertaken an effort to update certain portions of the
Edmonds City Code that have not been updated for many years; and
WHEREAS, the update is necessary to, among other reasons, conform the code to the
city council’s actual practice in confirming mayor appointments and to make provisions for
certain confirmation scenarios that the previous code did not address; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 2.10 of the Edmonds City Code, formerly entitled “Confirmation and
Duties of Officers,” is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in strike-through).
Packet Page 457 of 544
Section 2. A new chapter 2.03 entitled, “City Council,” is hereby added to the Edmonds
City Code to read as follows (similar language was previously codified in ECC section
2.10.060):
Chapter 2.03
CITY COUNCIL
2.03.010 Executive assistant to council.
Executive assistant to council.
The executive 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 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.
Section 3. ECC section 2.01.020 formerly entitled “References to mayor’s administrative
assistant,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is
shown in strike-through; similar language was previously codified in ECC section 2.10.070):
2.01.020 Mayor’s executive assistantReferences to mayor's administrative 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.On and after January 1, 1984, the office of the
mayor's administrative assistant is hereby abolished. All references in ECC 2.01.030 to the
mayor's administrative assistant shall refer to the mayor or designee.
Packet Page 458 of 544
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 459 of 544
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.10 OF THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO
CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN MAYORAL
APPOINTMENTS AND PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 2.01
AND 2.03 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED
TO THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS TO THE CITY
COUNCIL AND MAYOR..
.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2014.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
Packet Page 460 of 544
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 per-
sons 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).
Packet Page 461 of 544
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 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 threethree candidates for each position prior to the
mayor’s final selectionappointment, PROVIDED that the city council may waive
the three-interview requirement by motion adopted by a majority plus one of the
full council and may opt to interview as few as 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 appointive
officers and employees. The mayor shall direct, supervise, and be in charge of all
appointive officers and employees in the performance of their functions, powers, and duties,
except for employees hired pursuant to chapter 2.03 ECC. Appointive officersdepartment
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].
Packet Page 462 of 544
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].
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.
The executive council assistant 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
as well as all benefits shall be governed by the provisions of the contract. 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 func-
Packet Page 463 of 544
tion, the council reserves the right to immediately eliminate the position. [Ord. 3279 § 1,
1999].
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].
Packet Page 464 of 544
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 per-
sons 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).
Packet Page 465 of 544
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 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 threethree candidates for each position prior to the
mayor’s final selectionappointment, PROVIDED that the city council may waive
the three-interview requirement by motion adopted by a majority plus one of the
full council and may opt to interview as few as two candidates for any vacant
appointive office; AND FURTHER PROVIDED that, when an appointive office
becomes vacant, or is about to become vacant, again within nine months of the city
council’s confirmation of the last mayoral appointment to that office, the city
council may waive an additional round of interviews, by motion adopted by a
majority plus one of the full council, and proceed immediately to confirming the
appointment of a candidate interviewed by the city council during the most recent
recruitment for that 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, PROVIDED THAT such recruitment shall not be
necessary where the city council opts to make an immediate confirmation pursuant
to a prior round of interviews as set forth in subsection D, above.
2.10.020 Assignment of duties.
The city council shall define the functions, powers and duties of the city’s appointive
officers and employees. The mayor shall direct, supervise, and be in charge of all
Packet Page 466 of 544
appointive officers and employees in the performance of their functions, powers, and duties,
except for employees hired pursuant to chapter 2.03 ECC. Appointive officersdepartment
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].
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
Packet Page 467 of 544
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.
The executive council assistant 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
as well as all benefits shall be governed by the provisions of the contract. 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 func-
tion, the council reserves the right to immediately eliminate the position. [Ord. 3279 § 1,
1999].
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].
Packet Page 468 of 544
AM-6498 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing and potential action on AT&T/Busch Law Firm proposal to amend the Edmonds
Community Development Code to address the legal status of existing wireless communication facilities
that were built prior to or just after adoption of Edmonds' original wireless ordinance (AMD20130005).
Recommendation
Approve the proposed code language in Exhibit 1 and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The applicant(s) will be present to explain their proposal. The language unanimously recommended for
approval by the Planning Board in Exhibit 1 was reworded prior to their December 11, 2013 public
hearing by the City Attorney for clarity to make it more consistent with existing code. The original
language proposed by the AT&T/Busch Law Firm is included with a cover letter explaining the proposal
in Exhibit 2.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Proposed code language
Exhibit 2 - ATT cover letter and language
Exhibit 3 - Planning Board minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/14/2014 02:41 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/15/2014 01:28 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/15/2014 01:38 PM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 01/14/2014 01:38 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/15/2014
Packet Page 469 of 544
17.40.023 Amnesty for certain long-existing wireless communication facilities.
A. Any wireless communications facility that was established prior to August 5,
1998 and does not conform to the current standards of chapter 20.50 ECDC shall be
treated as a legal nonconforming wireless communications facility regardless of
whether the original establishment of that wireless communication facility complied
with applicable code that existed at the time of such establishment.
B. The owner of such a facility must present substantial evidence that
conclusively demonstrates that the wireless communications facility existed
on or before August 5, 1998.
C. All maintenance and alterations may be made in accordance with ECDC
17.40.020.
Packet Page 470 of 544
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
1
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
2
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
3
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
4
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
5
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
6
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
7
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
8
o
f
5
4
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
9
o
f
5
4
4
x
x
x
x
Packet Page 480 of 544
Packet Page 481 of 544
Packet Page 482 of 544
Packet Page 483 of 544
Packet Page 484 of 544
Packet Page 485 of 544
AM-6499 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing and potential action on clarifications to wireless regulations in ECDC 20.50 and 17.40.020
(AMD20130016).
Recommendation
Approve the proposed code changes in Exhibit 1 and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
This code amendment is separate from the one proposed by the AT&T/Busch Law Firm
(AMD20130005).
The current wireless code in Chapter 20.50 ECDC was adopted in 2011 after a year-long rewrite process.
Since that time, staff identified several sections that needed to be revised to improve internal consistency
and resolve confusion.
The Busch Law Firm also brought to staff's attention changes to federal law regarding wireless facilities
that needed to be addressed at the local level. Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 provided the wireless industry with additional flexibility regarding modification of
existing wireless telecommunication facilities. Specifically, the City may not deny, and shall approve, any
eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station. An eligible facilities request
includes any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves:
co-location of new transmission equipment; removal of transmission equipment; or replacement of
transmission equipment. As it turns out, this change applies not only to conforming sites but also to
nonconforming sites as well. As a result, language is proposed for regulating nonconforming wireless
communication facilities in the nonconforming chapter (ECDC 17.40).
An annotated redline/strike-out version of the proposed changes is included as Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 2 contains the minutes from three Planning Board meetings: November 13, 2013 when the project
was introduced; December 11, 2013 when the public hearing was opened; and, January 8, 2014, the date
to which the public hearing was continued to allow opportunity for additional work.
Packet Page 486 of 544
Exhibit 3 is the 6409 language and interpretation of the language by the FCC. As was discussed at the
Planning Board hearing, the FCC is currently in rule-making to clarify what was intended by recent
wireless updates and guidance on Section 6409. It is anticipated that phrases like "substantial change" and
what constitutes a "wireless tower or base station" will be clarified. Staff will propose additional
clarifications to ECDC 20.50 going forward as applicable.
Exhibit 4 contains comments from the Busch Law Firm regarding the proposed code changes. As during
the 2010-2011 wireless rewrite, Busch Law Firm staff provided valuable assistance and input during this
project.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - proposed code language
Exhibit 2 - Planning Board minutes
Exhibit 3 - 6409 language and FCC interpretation
Exhibit 4 - Busch Law Firm comments
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/16/2014 10:58 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 01:52 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 03:54 PM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 01/14/2014 03:20 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 487 of 544
Page 1 of 25
Chapter 20.50
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Sections:
20.50.010 Purpose.
20.50.020 Applicability.
20.50.030 Exemptions.
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
20.50.050 General siting criteria and design considerations.
20.50.060 Permit requirements.
20.50.070 Application requirements.
20.50.080 Review time frames.
20.50.090 Building-mounted wireless communication facility standards.
20.50.100 Structure-mounted wireless communication facilities standards.
20.50.110 Monopole facility standards.
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
20.50.130 Modification.
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
20.50.150 Maintenance.
20.50.160 Definitions.
20.50.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless
communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not
unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications
marketplace in the city. The purpose of this chapter may be achieved through adherence to the following
objectives:
1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless
communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on aesthetics,
environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and
safety of persons and property;
2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless
telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and
regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers;
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the extent
possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal;
4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and allow
wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional
Packet Page 488 of 544
Page 2 of 25
requirements of the telecommunications industry as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission;
5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas;
6. Encourage and, where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors and, as a
primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable structures to the
greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact on the city;
7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse
visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design,
landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, and through
assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative
siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the city;
8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the city to use
city property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other public needs, as
a means to generate revenue for the city;
9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services
to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no
longer inspected for safety concerns and building code compliance, and provide a mechanism
for the city to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed as
necessary to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger;
11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through strict compliance
with state building and electrical codes; and
12. Provide a means for public input on wireless communication facility placement, construction
and modification.
B. In furtherance of these objectives, the city shall give due consideration to the zoning code, existing
land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of communication
towers and antennas.
C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property
values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunications
services in the city. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The provisions of this chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the
effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to
unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services.
Packet Page 489 of 544
Page 3 of 25
D. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city ordinance,
this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions
and regulations of the city.
E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the city
shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into
account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing,
supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The city shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application in accordance with this title, this chapter, the adopted Edmonds
comprehensive plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations.
F, Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 provided the wireless
industry with additional flexibility regarding modification of existing wireless telecommunication
facilities. Specifically, the City may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a
modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical
dimensions of the tower or base station. An eligible facilities request includes any request for
modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves: co-location of new transmission
equipment; removal of transmission equipment; or replacement of transmission equipment. Any
changes proposed to nonconforming wireless communication facilities must meet the criteria in ECDC
17.40.020.J.
[Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.020 Applicability.
A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communication facilities shall comply with the provisions of this
chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede all other review process,
setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
B. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) according to Chapter 20.15A ECDC unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC
197-11-800. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
C. For existing sites only, to the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the
appearance intended by the original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping,
camouflage, concealment techniques, mounting configuration, or architectural treatment.
20.50.030 Exemptions.
The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter:
A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation.
B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers.
Comment [c1]: 6409 reference
Comment [c2]: Pabst 12/18 language edited
Packet Page 490 of 544
Page 4 of 25
C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC
16.20.050(D).
D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC 16.20.050(E).
E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone.
F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and commercial
zones.
G. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment, transmission
structure, or transmission equipment enclosures; provided, that the equipment, structure or enclosures
maintain compliance with the standards of this chapter. If the cost of repair of a legally nonconforming
equipment, structure and/or enclosure exceeds 50 percent of the fair market value of the equipment,
structure and/or enclosure, the repair shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
HG. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit application
need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until five business days after the
completion of such emergency activity. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
A. The following wireless communication facilities are prohibited in Edmonds:
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations:
1. All residential zones (single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF));
2. Downtown waterfront activity center;
3. Public (P) and open space (OS) zoned parcels; and
4. Within the city rights-of-way. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.050 General siting criteria and design considerations.
A. The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication providers to use existing sites or more
frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers. To
that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for wireless communication
facilities:
Comment [c3]: Maintenance is not an
exemption. Nonconforming language clarified in
ECDC 17.40.020.J
Packet Page 491 of 544
Page 5 of 25
1. Co-location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon which the
facility would be located;
2. Co-location, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or structure;
3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one;
4. A new pole or structure altogether.
B. Co-location shall be encouraged for all wireless communication facility applications and is implemented
through less complex permit procedures.
1. To the greatest extent technically feasible, applicants for new monopole facilities shall be
required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier.
2. Any wireless communication facility that requires a conditional use permit (CUP) under the
provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility
requiring a CUP, unless the submitted engineering information clearly indicates that the
requested site is needed in order to provide coverage for the particular provider and other siting
options have been analyzed and proven infeasible.
C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible beyond the
boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 5.30 ECC, Noise Abatement and
Control. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to
construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The
city may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant.
D. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless
communication facility within the city shall have a valid business license issued annually by the city. Any
person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required to obtain a business
license on an annual basis.
E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may be located
on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication
facilities.
F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular
maintenance of the proposed facility.
G. Finish. A monopole may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar material. The
pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to any applicable standards of
the FAA or FCC. A monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable
standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness.
Packet Page 492 of 544
Page 6 of 25
H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures,
screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and built environment.
I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than monopoles shall
be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so
as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible.
J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other
government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are permitted, the
city shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to
the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any monopole. If FAA guidelines
would require a strobe, the location shall be denied unless no other site or combination of sites would
provide adequate coverage in accord with FCC requirements.
K. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary
structure or facilities equipment enclosure.
L. Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to contain
the required equipment and a reserve for required co-location.
M. Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will not
result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC standards, including FCC Office of
Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the director
determines the wireless communication facility, as constructed, may emit radio frequency emissions that
are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission uncontrolled/general population standards in
the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC
Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas
accessible by the general population, the director may require post-installation testing to determine
whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and
mitigation shall be borne by the applicant.
N. Landscaping and Screening.
1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and softened
through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole, facility equipment
compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the antenna is mounted flush on an
existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an
existing structure, no landscaping is required. The director or his designee may reduce or waive
the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view,
when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other
features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where
the visual impact of the facility would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots
Packet Page 493 of 544
Page 7 of 25
not capable of subdivision and natural growth around the property perimeter provide a sufficient
buffer.
2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with Chapter 20.13
ECDC. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be
used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The
following requirements apply:
a. Type I landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet
enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without
landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure.
b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the perimeter of the
enclosure.
c. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant.
d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts with
other surrounding utilities.
3. When landscaping is used, the applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to ECDC
20.13.040.
4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or wood
fencing materials are preferred. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.060 Permit requirements.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this
chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as otherwise
provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of this title
and ECDC Title 18.
B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be
permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as
shown in Table 20.50.060(B)(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director
shall have the authority to determine what permits are required for the proposed facility. The conditional
use permit types referenced are described in Chapter 20.01 ECDC.
Packet Page 494 of 544
Page 8 of 25
Table 20.50.060(B)(1)
– Permit Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities
Type of Wireless Communication Facility
Permits Required
Building Permit
Conditional
Use Permit
(CUP)
Right-of-
Way
Permit
Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on
an existing structure or monopole X
X
(as
applicable)
New Sstructure-mounted facilities involving structure
replacement to obtain additional height (excluding
co-location on existing monopole)
X
(as applicable)
X
(Type II)
X
(as
applicable)
New Mmonopole facilities (structure pole complies
with height requirement of the underlying zone in
ECDC Title 16)
X
X
(as
applicable)
New Mmonopole facilities (structure pole exceeds
maximum height of zone in ECDC Title 16) X
X
(Type III-B)
X
(as
applicable)
C. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private property
shall be reviewed and evaluated by the director, or his designee. The director of public works or his/her
designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are located partially or fully
within the city rights-of-way. Regardless of whether the director or the director of public works or their
respective designees are reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
D. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the
applicable design standards by the director or his designee.
E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body
with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation
Administration, etc.).
F. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication
facility which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by the
Edmonds Community Development Code.
Comment [c4]: Clarify what permits are needed
Packet Page 495 of 544
Page 9 of 25
G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for
variances under Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on
the exceptions set forth in this chapter.
H. Third Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically
based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided
utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna
configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third
party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a
permit. The city may at its discretion require third party engineering and technical review as part of a
permitting process. The costs of the technical third party review shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third party expert
review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review
of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a
review of the applicants’ methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a
subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the
expert review, the city may require changes to the proposal. The third party review shall address
the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the applicant; and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city.
I. Any decision by the director or the director of public works shall be given substantial deference in any
appeal of a decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a
wireless communication facility.
J. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the director, director of public works, or
hearing examiner without the approval of the city.
K. Co-location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to
increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase to the height
of a nonconforming monopole is allowed. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
Packet Page 496 of 544
Page 10 of 25
20.50.070 Application requirements.
In addition to the requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, and those associated with the permit types
referenced in ECDC 20.50.060, the following information must be submitted as part of a complete
application for a wireless communication facility permit in the city of Edmonds:
A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co-location analysis
indicating the alternative locations and technologies considered;
B. Existing wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s existing facilities
and wireless coverage in the area;
C. Proposed wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s wireless
coverage with the proposed facility;
D. Site information on scaled plans, including:
1. Site plan;
2. Elevation drawings;
3. Undergrounding details, as applicable;
4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in accordance with
Chapter 20.13 ECDC), as appropriate;
E. Photos and photo simulations showing the existing appearance of the site and appearance of the
proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints;
F. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050(C)), if applicable;
G. Radio frequency emissions report for the proposed facility, which shall not be reviewed further by the
city;
H. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision. [Ord. 3845
§ 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.080 Review time frames.
A. Co-Located Facilities (Building- and Structure-Mounted).
1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building
or engineering permit, the city shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the
date the application is determined to be complete. The city shall have 30 days from the date of
filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the city shall
inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete.
Packet Page 497 of 544
Page 11 of 25
The city shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of
completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such decision shall be final and
appealable only to superior court under the Land Use Permit Act.
2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the
city and the applicant if circumstances warrant.
3. For purposes of this section, “co-located facilities” includes any of the following types of
facilities:
a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing monopole, building or structure for
the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes; or
b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a monopole. For
purposes of this section, “substantial increase in the size of a monopole” means:
i. The mounting of the proposed antenna on the monopole would increase the existing
height of the monopole by more than 10 percent or by the height of one additional
antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20
feet, whichever is greater; provided, however, that the mounting of the proposed
antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to avoid
interference with existing antennas;
ii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than
the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to
exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter;
iii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to
the body of the monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than
20 feet, or more than the width of the monopole at the level of the appurtenance,
whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed
the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to shelter the antenna from
inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the monopole via cable; or
iv. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the
current monopole site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned
property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related
to the site; or
c. Facilities that are a part of a distributed antenna system; provided, that the distributed
antenna system connects to an existing tower or antenna. A “distributed antenna system,”
for the purposes of this section, is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected
Comment [c5]: Redundant
Comment [c6]: Exact language exists in
definition 20.50.160.D
Packet Page 498 of 544
Page 12 of 25
to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or
structure.
B. New Monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use permit shall
meet the requirements of Chapter 20.05 ECDC. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.090 New Building-mounted wireless communication facility standards.
A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall be
grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed toward the
center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from public views using
radio frequency-transparent panels. Building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted
with nonreflective colors to match the existing surface where the antennas are mounted.
B. Height. The following requirements shall apply:
1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (As Identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan). For
buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas shall be flush-
mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the building on which it is mounted.
For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of the zone
provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural
style and material. Flush-mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the
city right-of-way if a right-of-way use agreement is established with the city. Antennas shall not
project into the right-of-way by more than two feet and shall provide a minimum clearance height
of 20 feet over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building-mounted
facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine feet above the top of the roof on which the facility
is located. This standard applies to all buildings regardless of whether they are at or above the
maximum height of the underlying zone. Such antennas must be well integrated with the existing
structure or designed to look like common rooftop structures such as chimneys, vents and
stovepipes.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures for building-mounted wireless communication facilities
shall first be located within the building on which the facility is located. If an equipment enclosure within
the building is reasonably unavailable, then an equipment enclosure may be incorporated into the roof
design provided the enclosure meets the height requirement for the zone. If the equipment can be
screened by placing the equipment below existing parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If
screening is required, then the screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color,
architectural style and material. Finally, if there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure
on the ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks
of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
Packet Page 499 of 544
Page 13 of 25
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of the
rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables are visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent property,
they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building.
Acceptable Building-Mounted WCF
Unacceptable Building-Mounted WCF
[Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.100 New Structure-mounted wireless communication facilities standards.
A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such as utility
poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks, shall be designed to blend with these structures
and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner.
1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned city rights-of-way
adjacent to single-family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirement:
a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family
zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State
Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding
residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code.
Packet Page 500 of 544
Page 14 of 25
2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with nonreflective
colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure.
B. Height.
1. The maximum height of structure-mounted wireless communication facilities shall not exceed
the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights-of-way are unzoned);
provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six feet above the top of the
structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed. Antennas and related
equipment shall be mounted as close as practicable to the structure. This includes installation of
facilities on structures built at or above the maximum height allowed in a specific zone, so long
as the diameter of any portion of a wireless communication facility in excess of the allowed
height does not exceed the shortest diameter of the structure at the point of attachment. The
height and diameter of the existing structure prior to replacement or enhancement for the
purposes of supporting wireless communication facilities shall be used to determine compliance
with this subsection.
2. Only one extension is permitted per structure.
3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical
separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole
replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless
carriers to comply with the electrical utility’s requirements for separation between their
transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the enclosure is
within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other feasible option but to
locate the equipment enclosure above ground on private property, the equipment must be enclosed within
an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance
with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color
scheme of the structure which supports the antennas.
E. Only wireless communication providers with a valid right-of-way use agreement shall be eligible to
apply for a right-of-way construction permit, which shall be required prior to installation of facilities within
the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits specified in this chapter.
Comment [c7]: Modifies a confusing diameter
requirement.
Packet Page 501 of 544
Page 15 of 25
Acceptable Structure-Mounted WCF
Unacceptable Structure-Mounted WCF
Packet Page 502 of 544
Page 16 of 25
[Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.110 New Monopole facility standards.
A. New monopoles are not permitted within the city unless the applicant has demonstrated that:
1. Coverage Objective. There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication
facility will eliminate such gap in service; and
2. Alternatives. No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative
technologies not requiring a new monopole in the city, can accommodate the applicant’s
proposed wireless communication facility; and
3. Least Intrusive. The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to
remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and
regulations set forth in this chapter, this title, and the comprehensive plan, the least intrusive
upon the surrounding area.
Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible Co-Location Opportunity)
Packet Page 503 of 544
Page 17 of 25
Acceptable Monopole WCF
B. All monopole facilities shall conform to the following site development standards:
1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees,
existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities.
2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help
conceal the facility.
3. Equipment Enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located
underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be underground. If
there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment
must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying
zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the
color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas.
C. Review Criteria. The hearing examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the
maximum height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per Chapter 20.05 ECDC), and shall
determine whether or not each of the above standards is met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the
Type III-B conditional use permit requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage
objective;
2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the geographic
area that meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage objective
(regardless of the geographical boundaries of the city);
Packet Page 504 of 544
Page 18 of 25
3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be
extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to meet its
coverage objective;
4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the
applicant’s proposed antenna and ancillary facilities;
5. That the applicant’s proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with
antennas on the existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures would
cause interference with the applicant’s proposed antenna;
6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable.
Costs of alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be
presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and
7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and
structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological
evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly
demonstrate the evidence required.
D. Zoning Setback Exceptions.
1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks
identified in ECDC Title 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks
may better achieve the goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view.
2. The director or hearing examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve
modifications to be made to setbacks when:
a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the
facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic
considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or
b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or
c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a
greater distance from residentially zoned properties.
3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required under
the State Building Code or Fire Code.
4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is submitted.
[Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
Packet Page 505 of 544
Page 19 of 25
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
A. The installation of a “cell on wheels” or COWs and the installation site shall comply with all applicable
laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, and codes, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Fire
Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code.
B. COWs may only be used in the immediate aftermath of declared emergencies in the city of Edmonds in
order to provide temporary wireless service. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely
removed from the installation site within 30 days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined
by the mayor. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.130 Modification.
The applicant and/or co-applicant may apply to alter the terms of a conditional use permit (CUP) by
modifying specific features of the wireless communication facility. If any of the following changes are
proposed or occur, s Such modifications must be submitted to the city as a new CUP application. This
provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of a wireless communication facility (WCF), as described
in ECDC 20.50.030(G). [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless
communication facility, such carrier will notify the director by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of
abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to
abandonment or discontinuation of operations.
B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication facility shall be
considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of operations.
C. Within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically
remove the wireless communication facility. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening, cabling and the
like from the subject property.
2. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the city.
3. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre-permit condition, except that
any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility operator may remain in place.
4. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this section,
the city shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the facility.
Costs for removal of the wireless communication facility shall be charged to the wireless
communication facility owner or operator in the event the city removes the facility. [Ord. 3845 § 2
(Att. A), 2011].
Comment [c8]: Strike to better agree with
definition in 20.50.160.B
Packet Page 506 of 544
Page 20 of 25
20.50.150 Maintenance.
A. The applicant shall maintain the WCF to standards that may be imposed by the city at the time of
granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity, and
landscaping.
B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the city of Edmonds may undertake enforcement
action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.160 Definitions.
A. “Antenna” means a device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio frequency
signal. Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: omni-directional (or “whip”),
directional (or “panel”), parabolic (or “dish”), and ancillary antennas (antennas not directly used to provide
wireless communication services).
B. “Cell-on-wheels (COW)” are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the
installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies.
C. “Co-location” means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or
structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes.
D. “Distributed antenna system (DAS)” is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected to a
common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure.
E. “Guyed tower” means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by
diagonal cables.
F. “Lattice tower” is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or
bars to support antennas and related equipment.
G. “Licensed carrier” is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build and
operate a commercial mobile radio services system.
H. “Monopole” means a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the
ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities. Antenna(s) may be externally mounted
(visible antenna) or internally mounted (no visible antennas).
I. “Satellite earth station antenna” includes any antenna in any zoning district that:
1. Is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite
services, and that is one meter or less in diameter;
Packet Page 507 of 544
Page 21 of 25
2. Is two meters or less in diameter in areas where commercial or industrial uses are generally
permitted;
3. Is designed to receive programming services by means of multi-point distribution services,
instructional television fixed services, and local multi-point distribution services, that is one meter
or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and
4. Is designed to receive television broadcast signals.
J. “Unlicensed wireless services” means the offering of telecommunications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-
home satellite services.
K. “Wireless communication facility (WCF)” means an unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception
of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides services which
include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile radio services, and any other
service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the following components:
1. Antenna;
2. Mount;
3. Equipment enclosure;
4. Security barrier.
L. “Wireless communication facility (WCF), building-mounted” means a wireless communication facility
mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those antennas mounted on existing monopoles.
M. “Wireless communication facility (WCF), camouflaged” means a wireless communication facility that is
disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed or lattice tower,
or placed within an existing or proposed structure.
N. “Wireless communication facility (WCF), equipment enclosure” means a small structure, shelter,
cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless
communication signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency generators.
O. “Wireless communication facility (WCF), monopole” means a wireless communication facility not
attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.030. Does not
include co-location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole.
P. “Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment” is all equipment ancillary to a wireless
communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors.
Packet Page 508 of 544
Page 22 of 25
Q. “Wireless communication facility (WCF), structure-mounted” means a wireless communication facility
located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers,
and/or tanks.
R. “Wireless communication services” means any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless telecommunications services
consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio
services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and similar services that
currently exist or that may be developed in the future. [Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
21.05.005 Accessory antenna device.
Accessory antenna device is an antenna including, but not limited to, test mobile antennas and global
positioning (GPS) antennas which are less than 12 inches in height or width, excluding the support
structure.
Comment [c9]: Definition should have been
removed during 2010 rewrite
Packet Page 509 of 544
Page 23 of 25
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site
development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards
due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application
of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to the other provisions of this
section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be presumptively
nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the
accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after
January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation of the city of
Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained and continued, unless
required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or altered in any
manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building except as expressly provided in
subsections (C) through (I) of this section.
C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by
reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, or
the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a council-approved historical survey meeting the
standards of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. “Restoration” means
reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the same visual design appearance and
materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and consistent with the
requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction of all such
historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted.
2. Solar Energy Installations on Buildings That Exceed Existing Height Limits. A rooftop solar energy
installation mounted on a nonconforming building that exceeds the existing height limit may be
approved as a Type II staff decision if:
a. The installation exceeds the existing roof height by not more than 36 inches.
b. The installation is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar access while
limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties.
3. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development
and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building, shall be
permitted.
Packet Page 510 of 544
Page 24 of 25
4. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural improvements in commercial and
multifamily zones may encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access easement or
public right-of-way not more than 30 inches. Minor architectural improvements may also be permitted
in nonconforming side or rear yard setbacks only if they intrude not more than 30 inches nor one-half of
the distance to the property line, whichever is less. “Minor architectural improvements” are defined as
and limited to bay windows, eaves, chimneys and architectural detail such as cornices, medallions and
decorative trim. Such improvements shall be required to obtain architectural design review. Nothing
herein shall be interpreted to exempt such improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire
Codes.
5. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety
regulations shall be permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure be moved horizontally for any reason for
any distance, it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot coverage requirements
for the zone in which it is located. Provided, however, that a building or structure may be moved on the
same site without full compliance if the movement reduces the degree of nonconformity of the building
or structure. Movement alone of a nonconforming building or structure to lessen an aspect of its
nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring the building or structure into compliance
with other bulk or site development standards of the city applicable to the building or structure.
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal
to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be
reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development
Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building
official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its
former size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is
initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015
et seq. within one year of the date such damage occurred. This right of restoration shall not apply if:
1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the
owner’s agent; or
2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or
the owner’s agents.
G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in
use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or
reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections (B), (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only
if, the following conditions are met:
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or structure.
“Footprint” shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in
Packet Page 511 of 544
Page 25 of 25
which the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar
features; and provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by
more than 10 percent and is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and
construction after complying with current codes.
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No
nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use
under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such
remodel or reconstruction.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to
nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building
envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and
structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as
a Type II staff decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than to the
hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC
20.07.006.
H. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling
unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property
that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the
annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing
evidence.
I. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing
residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the BD5
zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses
permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor
elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030(B).
J. The antenna and related equipment of a nonconforming Wireless Communication Facility may be
completely replaced with a new antenna and related equipment, provided that, upon replacement, the
applicant shall use the best available materials to enhance the appearance of the antenna and related
equipment and/or screen it from view in a manner that improves the visual impact or the conspicuity of
the nonconformity.
Comment [c10]: Lyons’-proposal modified by
Board
Packet Page 512 of 544
DRAFT
Subject to January 22nd Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 8, 2014
Chair Cloutier 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
Todd Cloutier, Chair
Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair
Ian Duncan
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke (excused)
Madeline White, Student Representative (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Frances Chapin, Arts and Cultural Services Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Lovell noted that there has been increased discussion in the media and comments from the public, expressing
displeasure with the design of the buildings that have recently been constructed in the Westgate area. He noted that, as
currently drafted, the proposed form-based code for Westgate only addresses building type. He suggested the code should
also address building design.
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.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON CLARIFICATIONS TO WIRELESS REGULATIONS IN ECDC 20.50 AND
17.40.020 (FILE NUMBER AMD20130016)
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board conducted a public hearing on proposed changes to the Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities (WTF) regulations (ECDC 20.50 and 17.40.020) on December 11th. The intent of the proposed changes is to make
the code consistent with Section 6409 of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012. The Board continued the hearing to January 8th in order to work on additional refinements. He
Packet Page 513 of 544
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
January 8, 2014 Page 2
referred to the updated code language (Exhibit 8) and reviewed the following changes that were made based on Planning
Board direction.
1. The word “new” was added before “structure-mounted facilities” in Table 20.50.060(B)(1). This change was based on
the Busch Law Firm’s suggestion described in Bullet 1 of Exhibit 4.
2. The changes originally proposed in ECDC 20.50.080(A)(3)(b) as contained in Exhibit 1 were removed. Although the
changes were intended to make the language more consistent with Section 6409, staff did not believe the proposed
language met the expected intent.
3. ECDC 17.40.020(J) was reworded to reflect the Board’s suggested language, which provides more flexibility to both
staff and applicants to address replacement antennas and equipment on existing sites in the best way possible. The
proposed language was provided by the Busch Law Firm. As currently proposed, the language would read, “The
antenna and related equipment of a nonconforming Wireless Communication Facility may be completely replaced with a
new antenna and related equipment, provided that, upon replacement, the applicant shall use the best available
materials to enhance the appearance of the antenna and related equipment and/or screen it from view in a manner that
improves the visual impact or the conspicuity of the nonconformity.”
4. The Busch Law Firm recommended design/appearance language for ECDC 20.50.020(C) (Exhibit 7), which would
apply to existing sites and require that replacement equipment be similar to existing equipment. Staff was generally
comfortable with the language, with some minor modifications (Exhibit 8). As currently proposed, the language would
read, “For existing sites only, to the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance
intended by the original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping, camouflage, concealment
techniques, mounting configuration, or architectural treatment.”
Mr. Clugston concluded his report by referring to a letter from Ken Lyons, Busch Law Firm, dated January 8th, expressing
support for the draft amendments as currently proposed.
No one in the public indicated a desire to address the Board, and the hearing was closed.
Board Member Lovell suggested that the language in ECDC 17.40.020(J) should be further modified by inserting the words
“methods and” before “materials. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Stewart commended Mr. Clugston for his hard work and attention to detail when preparing the draft WTF
amendments. She also thanked Mr. Lyons from the Busch Law Firm for working with staff to come up with changes that
work for the City and the providers.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.50 AND 17.40.020 (FILE
NUMBER AMD20130016), AS PROPOSED IN ATTACHMENT 8 AND INCLUDING THE ONE CHANGE TO
ECDC 17.40.020(J). BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY CULTURAL DRAFT PLAN PRESENTATIONS
Ms. Hite introduced Ryan Mottau and Lauren Schmitt, consultants from MIG, Inc., who were present to review the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) and Community Cultural (CC) Plans. She noted that the process for creating the draft
plans involved extensive public outreach, and Planning Board Members Stewart and Lovell participated on the PROS Plan
Advisory Team (PAT). The PROS Plan was published in early December, and the CC Plan was published in early January.
At tonight’s meeting, the consultant will provide a brief overview of the plan, review the comments that have been received
to date, and invite questions and comments from the Planning Board in preparation for a public hearing on January 22nd. It is
anticipated that the two plans will be presented to the City Council on February 4th, with a public hearing before the Council
on February 25th.
Packet Page 514 of 544
x
x
x
x
Packet Page 515 of 544
Packet Page 516 of 544
x
x
x
Packet Page 517 of 544
Packet Page 518 of 544
Packet Page 519 of 544
x
x
x
x
x
Packet Page 520 of 544
Packet Page 521 of 544
x
x
Packet Page 522 of 544
PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU OFFERS GUIDANCE ON
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6409(a) OF THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND
JOB CREATION ACT OF 2012
DA 12-2047
January 25, 2013
On February 22, 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Tax Act)1 became law.
Section 6409(a) of the Tax Act provides that a state or local government “may not deny, and shall
approve” any request for collocation, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing
wireless tower or base station, provided this action does not substantially change the physical dimensions
of the tower or base station.2 The full text of Section 6409(a) is reproduced in the Appendix to this Public
Notice.
To date, the Commission has not received any formal petition to interpret or apply the provisions of
Section 6409(a). We also are unaware of any judicial precedent interpreting or applying its terms. The
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has, however, received informal inquiries from service providers,
facilities owners, and state and local governments seeking guidance as to how Section 6409(a) should be
applied. In order to assist interested parties, this Public Notice summarizes the Bureau’s understanding of
Section 6409(a) in response to several of the most frequently asked questions.3
What does it mean to “substantially change the physical dimensions” of a tower or base station?
Section 6409(a) does not define what constitutes a “substantial[] change” in the dimensions of a tower or
base station. In a similar context, under the Nationwide Collocation Agreement with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the
Commission has applied a four-prong test to determine whether a collocation will effect a “substantial
increase in the size of [a] tower.”4 A proposed collocation that does not involve a substantial increase in
1 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, H.R. 3630, 126 Stat. 156 (enacted Feb. 22,
2012)(Tax Act).
2 Id., § 6409(a).
3 Although we offer this interpretive guidance to assist parties in understanding their obligations under Section
6409(a), see, e.g., Truckers United for Safety v. Federal Highway Administration, 139 F.3d 934 (D.C.Cir. 1998), the
Commission remains free to exercise its discretion to interpret Section 6409(a) either by exercising its rulemaking
authority or through adjudication. With two exceptions not relevant here, the Tax Act expressly grants the
Commission authority to “implement and enforce” this and other provisions of Title VI of that Act “as if this title is
a part of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).” Tax Act § 6003.
4 47 C.F.R. Part 1, App. B, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, § I.C
(Nationwide Collocation Agreement).
Packet Page 523 of 544
2
size is ordinarily excluded from the Commission’s required historic preservation review under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).5 The Commission later adopted the same
definition in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling to determine whether an application will be treated as a
collocation when applying Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934.6 The Commission has
also applied a similar definition to determine whether a modification of an existing registered tower
requires public notice for purposes of environmental review.7
Under Section I.C of the Nationwide Collocation Agreement, a “substantial increase in the size of the
tower” occurs if:
1)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of
the tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation
from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, except that
the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph
if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; or
2) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the
standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four,
or more than one new equipment shelter; or
3) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the
body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or
more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is
greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set
forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to
connect the antenna to the tower via cable; or
4) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current
tower site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the
tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
Although Congress did not adopt the Commission’s terminology of “substantial increase in size” in
Section 6409(a), we believe that the policy reasons for excluding from Section 6409(a) collocations that
substantially change the physical dimensions of a structure are closely analogous to those that animated
the Commission in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement and subsequent proceedings. In light of the
Commission’s prior findings, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to look to the existing definition of
“substantial increase in size” to determine whether the collocation, removal, or replacement of equipment
5 See 16 U.S.C.§470f, see also 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1307(a)(4) (requiring applicants to determine whether proposed
facilities may affect properties that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places).
6 See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review
and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as
Requiring a Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994, 14012, para. 46 & n.146
(2009) (2009 Declaratory Ruling), recon. denied, 25 FCC Rcd. 11157 (2010), pet. for review denied sub nom. City
of Arlington, Texas v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.), cert. granted, 113 S.Ct. 524 (2012); 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(c)(1)(B); National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Proposed Tower Registrations,
WT Docket No. 08-61, Order on Remand, 26 FCC Rcd. 16700, 16720-21, para. 53 (2011).
Packet Page 524 of 544
3
on a wireless tower or base station substantially changes the physical dimensions of the underlying
structure within the meaning of Section 6409(a).
What is a “wireless tower or base station”?
A “tower” is defined in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement as “any structure built for the sole or
primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities.”8 The Commission
has described a “base station” as consisting of “radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial cable, a regular and
backup power supply, and other associated electronics.”9 Section 6409(a) applies to the collocation,
removal, or replacement of equipment on a wireless tower or base station. In this context, we believe it is
reasonable to interpret a “base station” to include a structure that currently supports or houses an antenna,
transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a base station.10 Moreover, given the
absence of any limiting statutory language, we believe a “base station” encompasses such equipment in
any technological configuration, including distributed antenna systems and small cells.
Section 6409(a) by its terms applies to any “wireless” tower or base station. By contrast, the scope of
Section 332(c)(7) extends only to facilities used for “personal wireless services” as defined in that
section.11 Given Congress’s decision not to use the pre-existing definition from another statutory
provision relating to wireless siting, we believe the scope of a “wireless” tower or base station under
Section 6409(a) is not intended to be limited to facilities that support “personal wireless services” under
Section 332(c)(7).
May a state or local government require an application for an action covered under Section
6409(a)?
Section 6409(a) states that a state or local government “may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible
facilities request….” It does not say that a state or local government may not require an application to be
filed. The provision that a state or local government must approve and may not deny a request to take a
covered action, in the Bureau’s view, implies that the relevant government entity may require the filing of
an application for administrative approval.
8 See Nationwide Collocation Agreement, § I.B.
9 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, WT Docket No. 10-
133, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including
Commercial Mobile Services, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd. 9664, 9481, para. 308 (2011).
10 See also 47 C.F.R. Part 1, App. C, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National
Historic Preservation Act Review Process, § II.A.14 (defining “tower” to include “the on-site fencing, equipment,
switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets associated with that Tower but not installed as part of
an Antenna as defined herein”).
11 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). “Personal wireless services” is in turn defined to mean “commercial mobile services,
unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.” Id. § 332(c)(7)(C)(1).
Packet Page 525 of 544
4
Is there a time limit within which an application must be approved?
Section 6409(a) does not specify any period of time for approving an application. However, the statute
clearly contemplates an administrative process that invariably ends in approval of a covered application.
We believe the time period for processing these applications should be commensurate with the nature of
the review.
In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission found that 90 days is a presumptively reasonable period
of time to process collocation applications.12 In light of the requirement of Section 6409(a) that the
reviewing authority “may not deny, and shall approve” a covered request, we believe that 90 days should
be the maximum presumptively reasonable period of time for reviewing such applications, whether for
“personal wireless services” or other wireless facilities.
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau contact: Maria Kirby at (202) 418-1476 or by email:
Maria.Kirby@fcc.gov.
-FCC-
For more news and information about the Federal Communications Commission
please visit: www.fcc.gov
12 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. at 14012-13, paras. 46-47.
Packet Page 526 of 544
5
APPENDIX
SEC. 6409. WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT.
(a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.
(1) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law
104–104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any
eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘eligible facilities
request’’ means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves —
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C)replacement of transmission equipment.
(3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to
relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Packet Page 527 of 544
December
11,
2013
City
of
Edmonds
Development
Services
Department
Attn:
Michael
Clugston,
Associate
Planner
121
5th
Ave
N
Edmonds,
WA
98020
VIA
EMAIL
RE:
Planning
Board
Public
Hearings
–
Text
Amendments
to
ECDC
20.50,
17:40
AMD2013-‐0005,
AMD2013-‐0016
Dear
Michael:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
two
proposed
amendments
to
the
City’s
Wireless
Communications
Facilities
(“WCF”)
regulations.
These
comments
are
submitted
on
behalf
of
AT&T.
Legal
Status
of
WCF:
AT&T
initiated
the
first
amendment
(AMD2013-‐0005)
to
clarify
the
legal
status
of
wireless
facilities
that
were
built
prior
and
immediately
following
the
adoption
of
the
City’s
first
WCF
ordinance
on
July
12,
1996.
We
understand
that
the
City
Attorney
has
suggested
alternative
language
that
accomplishes
the
same
objective
as
our
original
proposal.
Accordingly,
we
support
the
changes
suggested
by
the
City
Attorney
and
request
that
the
Planning
Board
recommend
approval.
Upgrades/Modifications
of
Existing
Facilities:
The
City
proposes
to
update
(ADM2013-‐0016)
its
WCF
regulations
to
reflect
the
new
federal
collocation
law
–
Section
6409,
“Middle
Class
Tax
Relief
and
Job
Creation
Act
of
2012”
(“Section
6409”),
which
is
intended
to
streamline
the
process
for
upgrades
and
modifications
to
existing
facilities.
We
generally
support
the
proposed
amendments,
however,
we
suggest
a
few
changes
to
clarify
some
of
the
provisions
and
reduce
potential
conflicts:
• Table
20.50.060(B)(1):
We
suggest
modifying
the
language
describing
“Structure-‐
mounted
facilities
involving
structure
replacement
to
obtain
additional
height”
to
only
apply
to
new
facilities,
and
not
existing
facilities
that
are
being
modified
pursuant
to
Section
6409.
This
provision
was
intended
to
apply
to
utility
pole
replacements
in
the
public
ROW,
where
existing
utility
poles
would
have
to
be
replaced
to
accommodate
wireless
facilities.
However,
as
written,
it
would
appear
that
a
Conditional
Use
Permit
would
be
needed
to
increase
the
height
of
other
kinds
of
facilities
(monopoles,
etc.)
that
would
be
subject
to
Section
6409.
Packet Page 528 of 544
• §20.50.130:
We
suggest
this
provision
be
modified
slightly
to
clarify
that
only
“substantial
changes,”
as
defined
by
Section
6409
(noted
in
§20.50.080(A)(3)(b))
would
be
subject
to
a
new
Conditional
Use
Permit
application.
• §17.40.020(J):
We
suggest
this
provision
be
modified
to
allow
for
the
addition
of
new
antennas/equipment,
consistent
with
Section
6409,
and
that
Staff
be
provided
the
flexibility
to
approve
modifications
that
do
not
otherwise
substantially
increase
visual
impacts.
The
new
paragraph
would
read
as
follows:
“J.
The
antenna
and
related
equipment
of
a
nonconforming
Wireless
Communication
Facility
may
be
completely
replaced
with
a
new
antenna
and
related
equipment
that
occupies
a
substantially
similar
air
space
as
the
old
antenna
and
related
equipment,
provided
that,
upon
replacement,
the
applicant
shall
use
the
best
available
materials
to
enhance
the
appearance
of
the
antenna
and/or
screen
it
from
view
in
a
manner
that
does
not
substantially
increase
the
visual
impact
or
the
reduces
the
extent
and/or
conspicuity
of
the
nonconformity.”
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
and
the
Board’s
consideration
of
our
requests.
If
you
have
any
questions,
feel
free
to
contact
me
at
(206)
227-‐0020
or
at
ken.lyons@wirelesscounsel.com.
Sincerely,
Ken
Lyons
Jurisdictional
Relations
Director,
PNW,
LTE
cc:
Cindy
Manheim,
AT&T
Michael
van
Eckhardt,
AT&T
Roy
Willy,
AT&T
Ken
Seymour,
AT&T
Rich
Busch,
Busch
Law
Firm,
PLLC
File
Packet Page 529 of 544
1
Clugston, Michael
From:Meridee Pabst <meridee.pabst@wirelesscounsel.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:44 PM
To:Clugston, Michael
Cc:Ken Lyons
Subject:Edmonds Section 20.50.080/Maintaining appearance with changes
Hello Mike,
Ken Lyons asked me to forward you an example of language used by other jurisdictions to maintain design/appearance when
Section 6409 modifications are made to wireless facilities.
Several jurisdictions have chosen to adopt a qualification to the substantial change test such as the following:
To the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance intended by the
original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping, camouflage, concealment techniques,
mounting configuration, or architectural treatment.
This language would be appropriate in Section 20.50.080(A)(3)(b) to address the Planning Board's concerns about the
application of Section 6409 to rooftop facilities and other building- and structure-mounted facilities.
Please let us know if you have any questions or need clarification. We look forward to seeing your next draft.
Have an enjoyable holiday,
Meridee Pabst
Busch Law Firm PLLC
93 S. Jackson St. #75604
Seattle, WA 98104-2818
meridee.pabst@wirelesscounsel.com
425-628-2660 Direct
360-567-5574 Wireless
Packet Page 530 of 544
AM-6509 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on the 2014 Pavement Preservation Program.
Recommendation
The item is being presented for information.
Previous Council Action
On January 14, 2014, the Parks, Planning and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be presented to the City Council.
Narrative
Staff will provide an overview of the 2014 pavement preservation program. Attached is a map showing
the selected streets and the type of pavement preservation to be used on each street.
Attachments
2014 Pavement Preservation Map
100th Ave Pictures
2nd Ave Pictures
72nd Ave Pictures
73rd Ave Pictures
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 01/16/2014 12:28 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 01/16/2014 12:34 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 01/16/2014 01:33 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 01:52 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/16/2014 03:54 PM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 01/16/2014 11:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/16/2014
Packet Page 531 of 544
2014 Pavement Preservation Program
Chip Seal on 2nd Ave N.
from Bell St. to Caspers St.
Chip Seal on 72nd Ave. W
from OVD to 176th St. SW
Chip Seal on 73rd Ave. W
from OVD to 179th St. SW
2" Overlay on 76th Ave. W
from 174th St. SW to 173rd St. SW
2" Overlay on Hillcrest Pl.
from Main St. to end of street
2" Overlay on 224th St. SW
from 76th Ave. W to Hwy. 99
2" Overlay on 100th Ave. W
from SR-104 to 238th St. SW
Overlay (project funded by
Water Utility Fund)
Overlay project
Chip seal project
2" overlay on 211th Pl. from
80th Ave. W to end of street
Overlay project
(2015 construction)
7 6 t h A v e W
Main St
196th St SW
Pine St
6 6 t h A v e W
8 4 t h A v e W
220th St SW
8 8 t h A v e W
208th St SW
7 4 t h A v e W
6 8 t h A v e W
9 t h A v e N
Bowdoin Wy
212th St SW
Dayton St
1 0 0 t n Av
e
W
N 205th St/244th St SW
3 r d A v e S
Lund's Gulch Rd
O l y m p i c A v e
5 t h A v e S
200th St SW
168th St SW
8 0 t h A v e W
224th St SW
T i m b e r L n
9 5 t h P l W
7 5 t h P L W
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
ale Rd
2 3 1 s t St SW
240th St SW
N 205th St/244th St SW
8 0 t h A v e W
§¨¦I-5
¯99
¯104
¯524
City of EdmondsMapbook
2" overlay on OVD
from 76th Ave. W to
~ 200' west of 76th Ave. W
2" overlay on 220th St. SW
from 84th Ave. W to Hwy. 99
Packet Page 532 of 544
Packet Page 533 of 544
Packet Page 534 of 544
Packet Page 535 of 544
Packet Page 536 of 544
Packet Page 537 of 544
AM-6517 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:01/21/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of January 14, 2014.
Recommendation
For information.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Copies of the meeting minutes are attached for the following City Council committee meetings:
01-14-14 Finance Committee
01-14-14 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
01-14-14 Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Attachments
01-14-14 Finance Committee minutes
01-14-14 Parks Planning & Public Works Committee minutes
01/14/14 Public Safety & Personnel Committee minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 01/16/2014 09:43 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/17/2014 06:01 AM
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/16/2014 04:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/17/2014
Packet Page 538 of 544
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
January 14, 2014
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Petso Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Councilmember Johnson Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Public Present Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Dave Page
Ron Wambolt
Bruce Witenberg
Councilmember Petso called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
A. Police Surplus Property
ACOP Lawless explained the items on this list are no longer serviceable; the vests have exceeded
their 5-year working life. Committee members requested the printer be recycled if possible.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda.
B. Amendment of Certain Dog Licensing Fees (ECC 5.05.020)
ACOP Lawless explained the increase in the license fees and use of an outside vendor was approved
by the Council as part of a budget decision package. Pet licensing fees not been increased for over
20 years. Committee members requested Section 5.05.020.C.2.d be amended to change the fee for
replacement of a metal tag from $1 to $4 as the vendor’s charge is $3.90.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda.
C. Contract for Services with PETDATA, Inc. for Dog Licensing
ACOP Lawless explained this is the contract for services for pet licensing. This vendor is used by
several other agencies throughout Puget Sound. This is PETDATA’s standard contract with Edmonds
specific amendments; the contract was reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney. ACOP
Lawless responded to questions regarding the contract term, severability, current cost of pet licensing
and budget impact.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda.
D. 2013 November Budgetary Financial Report
Mr. Neumaier reviewed the 2013 November, highlighting the following:
• General Fund revenues YTD are 99% of budget and $800,000 higher than last year at this
point
• General Fund expenditures YTD are 85% of budget
• REET revenue was predicted in early 2013 to be $900,000 at year-end, appears will be close
to that.
Mr. Neumaier referred to the Summary of Investment Portfolio and recommended increasing the
amount in the Snohomish County Investment Pool from $10 million to $20 million as the return is
significantly higher and could generate an additional $50,000 in revenue. It is within his authority to do
but he wanted to notify the committee. It was agreed Mr. Neumaier would email all Councilmembers;
if no concerns are expressed, he will proceed. If there are concerns, he will schedule a discussion
with full Council. It was also agreed to include Additional Cash as a separate line item on the
Investment Portfolio Summary Report.
Packet Page 539 of 544
Mr. Neumaier responded to Council questions regarding 2013 under-expenditures and balances in
the REET funds. He will research and respond regarding the source and intended use of funds in
Fund 117: Municipal Arts Acquisition.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda.
E. 2013 General Fund Revenue Analysis through 11/30
Mr. Neumaier reviewed the 2013 General Fund Revenue Analysis through 11/30, highlighting the
following:
• Surplus property tax revenue was due to sales
• Sales tax is $350,000 over budget
• Of $32.8 million budget, project will end the year with $34.2 million, a surplus of $1.3 million
Mr. Neumaier responded to questions regarding the cumulative collection of other taxes, leasehold
excise tax, 2013 under-expenditures, and 2013 budgeted revenue.
Action: For Information only.
F. Ordinance Implementing Residential Parking Permit Fee Increase in Accordance with
the 2014 Adopted City Budget
Mr. Neumaier explained the Council passed a decision package to increase parking permit fees from
$10 to $25. During implementation, a $5 discounted fee was discovered; staff proposes increasing it
to $10. The committee requested staff reword and clarify the justification statement in the agenda
memo. Councilmember Johnson will inform Council Parking Committee liaison Councilmember
Peterson of the change.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda.
G. Interlocal Agreement with Public Hospital District No.2, Snohomish County to Provide
an Exercise Program
Ms. McRae explained this is a grant for new equipment in the Frances Anderson Center weight room.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda.
H. Public Comments
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, asked why January actual collected and cumulative collection for sales tax
on the Revenue Analysis were not the same. Mr. Neumaier will make a correction.
Dave Page, Edmonds, asked whether the City forecasts grants. Mr. Neumaier described the difficulty
forecasting grants.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, requested the Finance Committee bring the Council a policy to inform
the public about the amount and the recipient when action is taken following an executive session to
approve a settlement. He also recommended, 1) informing the public about attorney expenditures that
are over the amount budgeted such as special counsel, and 2) showing all attorney fees in one place
in the budget.
Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Packet Page 540 of 544
D R A F T M I N U T E S
Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee Meeting
January 14, 2014
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member, Diane Buckshnis Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Stephen Clifton,Community Services and Economic
Development Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Director
The committee convened at 6:00 p.m.
A. Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and proposed re-zone for Unocal
lower yard.
Council member Buckshnis raised questions about whether this proposal relates to proposed
buffers and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Messrs. Chave and Clifton stated that the
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and re-zone for the Unocal lower yard is a separate
issue and discussions on shoreline buffers and building setbacks are part of the SMP review.
ACTION: Council member Buckshnis requested this item be moved to the February 11, 2014
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee. She also requested that the letters from
Washington State Department of Transportation and Chevron be included in the agenda
packet.
B. Authorization for Mayor to sign a grant agreement with the Transportation Improvement
Board for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
Mr. English provided information on the TIB grant and how the funding will be used in the
construction phase.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
C. Authorization for Mayor to sign Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with KPG
for the 236th St. SW Walkway project Professional Service Agreements for the 15th St. SW
Walkway and 238th St. SW Walkway projects.
Mr. English briefly reviewed the scope of each project and how all three projects were funded by
the Safe Routes to School Grant Program.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
D. Discussion and potential action regarding modifying or terminating Sunset Walkway
Project.
Mr. Williams answered questions related to the BNSF right of way, stormwater improvements,
proposed cross section on the north end of Sunset, raised pedestrian table, parking and funding.
ACTION: Continue discussion at the February PPP committee meeting.
Packet Page 541 of 544
E. Authorization for Mayor to sign the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with the
Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
Mr. Williams provided background on the original Interlocal Agreement and why the Amendment
is necessary to continue progress on the work that has been done over the past two years.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
F. Quarterly Public Works Project Report
Councilmember Buckshnis asked questions about several projects and requested a presentation
to the City Council on certain projects in the report.
ACTION: Item will be presented to the City Council.
G. Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer
Agreement for 645 9th Avenue North.
Mr. Williams outlined reasons why the sewer main is being transferred from the City to the
property owners. The reasons include saving costs on future operations and maintenance and
the property owner recently installed power and communication utilities within the City’s
easement.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
H. Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Deed of Dedication for
321 2nd Ave N
Mr. English reviewed the purpose for the street dedication and why the five foot easement is
necessary for the new sidewalk constructed by the property owner.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
I. Discussion on the 2014 Pavement Preservation Program.
Mr. Williams discussed the type of pavement preservation methods that will be used and the
streets that have been selected for the 2014 program.
ACTION: Item will be presented to the City Council.
J. Public Comments
Sally Wassall repeated her opposition and brought up the issue of the railroad system and the
federal funding and amount of train traffic that is expected in the future.
Jim Wassall repeated his opposition and brought up the issue of parking and there is no parking
enforcement on Sunset. He also discussed the liability issue of when a woman drove her car over
the bank and wanted to sue the City.
Thalia Moutsanides brought up the loss of 10 parking space issue and where would her visitors to
her home park. She also stated that people park cars wherever they want regardless if parking
space or not.
Steve Bernheim stated that the reasons given provide no reason to stop the project as it is a public
amenity and serves as a tourism issue. Parking enforcement has nothing to do with the project nor
does brining up lawsuits as anyone can sue the city. He stated he was in total support of moving
this project forward as it was about Edmonds and the people of Edmonds and tourism.
Packet Page 542 of 544
Roger Hertrich brought up about the ownership of the street and that bikes and pedestrians are an
accident waiting to happen and that this type of mixed use is a concern for public safety. Also for
bikers traveling north, again concern for public safety as there would be no designated path.
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm.
Packet Page 543 of 544
MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
JANUARY 14, 2014
6:00 P.M.
Elected Officials Present:
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Peterson
City Staff Present:
none
The Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Peterson was selected as chair.
A. Discussion and potential action on resolution adopting policy regarding Councilmember
participation by speakerphone or other technology
Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas agreed that this item should go back to full Council for
approval with some discussion on a few items:
1) That no teleconference can be used for any quasi-judicial proceedings.
2) If calling in for a public hearing, that the Councilmember must call in for the entire public
hearing, including any public comment.
3) Council can determine if a Councilmember must call in for the entire meeting, but both
Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas felt that should not be the case.
4) Both Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas felt it was ultimately the Council
president's responsibility to approve any requests from Councilmembers to call in, noting
there had been no excessive use, and certainly no abuse of calling in to meetings in the
past.
Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas briefly discussed the search for a consultant for Council
training on conflict resolution. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas planned to contact state agencies for
information. Councilmember Peterson planned to write Jeff Taraday to ask a question regarding
executive session.
There was no audience comment and no one else in attendance.
Action: Send to full Council for discussion and approval.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m.
Packet Page 544 of 544