2021-10-05 City Council - Full Agenda-29811.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Op E D
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
s71. ,HvREGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
OCTOBER 5, 2021, 7:00 PM
THIS MEETING IS HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT,
VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE
FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE
ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE
AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND.
WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.
IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED
LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH)
PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE
HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATIONS
1. Indigenous Peoples Day Proclamation (5 min)
2. Arts Commission Annual Report (20 min)
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Agenda
October 5, 2021
Page 1
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2021
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2021
3. Approval of claim and payroll checks.
4. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Travis Johnson
5. Draft Bond Ordinance
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
Council Student Representative Interview (10 min)
Budget Scheduling and Coordination (15 min)
Amendment to City's Agreement with South County Fire (90 min)
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
October 5, 2021
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Indigenous Peoples Day Proclamation
Staff Lead: Mayor Nelson
Department: Community Services
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
On September 19, 2017 the City Council passed Resolution 1393, providing for the following:
Section 1. The second Monday in October, currently recognized as a federal holiday known as
Columbus Day, will be known in the City of Edmonds as Indigenous Peoples Day.
Section 2. The City Council and Mayor encourage residents, businesses, organizations and public
institutions in Edmonds also to memorialize and celebrate Indigenous Peoples on the second
Monday of October.
Section 3. The City Council and Mayor encourage residents, businesses, organizations and public
institutions in Edmonds to take steps to acquire a more complete and balanced history of this
continent's and region's development since the arrival of European settlers, including an
understanding of the contributions made by Indigenous Peoples, together with the hardships
and sacrifices endured by Indigenous Peoples.
Since that time no official observance of, or activities related to, Indigenous Peoples Day have occurred
in Edmonds.
Staff Recommendation
No action required.
Narrative
Mayor Nelson wishes to proclaim the following in observance of the upcoming Indigenous Peoples day
on October 11, 2011:
1. The City of Edmonds wishes to extend its heartfelt gratitude to the former and current Coast
Salish peoples of the Edmonds and Puget Sound region for their ever-present and ongoing, invaluable
contributions to our community;
2. The City of Edmonds acknowledges that the Edmonds community exists and coexists on lands
inhabited and taken care of by Coast Salish peoples for time immemorial; and
Packet Pg. 3
4.1
3. For the first time in its history as an incorporated city, the City of Edmonds will officially observe
and celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day on October 11, 2021; and
4. The Mayor and City Council encourage all residents of Edmonds to learn more about this
region's Coast Salish peoples, past and present, not only on this Indigenous Peoples Day 2021, but
throughout the year; and
5. To help facilitate greater community awareness, appreciation and learning, the City has created
a webpage containing links to numerous and multimedia resources related to this region's Indigenous
People, which can be found at https:Hedmondswa.gov/indigenous; and
6. Given the continuing restrictions and precautions stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic,
organized, in -person celebrations of Indigenous Peoples Day 2021 are not possible, yet the Mayor and
City Council are committed to more robust, in -person observances of Indigenous Peoples Day in future
years
Full Proclamation is attached.
Attachments:
20211001093346
Packet Pg. 4
4.1.a
City of Edmonds * Office of the Mayor
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
DAY 2021
WHEREAS, Indigenous Coast Salish peoples, including Snohomish, Tulalip,
Suquamish, S'Klallam, Snoqualmie, and other tribes, inhabited the Puget Sound region that
includes the shorelands and uplands of Edmonds for thousands of years, using the area
now known as Edmonds to harvest salmon, shellfish and land -based resources; and
WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples of the Puget Sound region enjoyed and exhibited a
rich, diverse culture and enduring spirit that continues to be present and celebrated to this
day in Edmonds and throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, Indigenous culture is enshrined in sovereign tribal nations throughout
the region, memorialized in case law that recognizes historic fishing and water rights, and is
celebrated and recounted in the statewide "Since Time Immemorial" curriculum required
since 2015 in the public schools; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds values the historic and contemporary contributions
made to this community by all our region's past and present Indigenous Peoples; and
WHEREAS, the residents and elected leaders of the City of Edmonds embrace an open
and affirming community that celebrates diversity and rejects oppression of minority
peoples, including Indigenous Peoples; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds wishes, and has begun, to develop relationships and
community partnerships through outreach, invitation and communication with the
Packet Pg. 5
4.1.a
Indigenous People of the Puget Sound area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is committed to promoting respect for, and
understanding of, the region's indigenous community, their long history, and their
continuing contribution to contemporary society; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the foregoing, the Edmonds City Council passed
Resolution 1393 on September 19, 2017 providing for the following:
Section 1. The second Monday in October, currently recognized as a federal holiday
known as Columbus Day, will be known in the City of Edmonds as Indigenous Peoples
Day.
Section 2. The City Council and Mayor encourage residents, businesses, organizations
and public institutions in Edmonds also to memorialize and celebrate Indigenous
Peoples on the second Monday of October.
Section 3. The City Council and Mayor encourage residents, businesses,
organizations and public institutions in Edmonds to take steps to acquire a more
complete and balanced history of this continent's and region's development since the
arrival of European settlers, including an understanding of the contributions made by
Indigenous Peoples, together with the hardships and sacrifices endured by
Indigenous Peoples.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, MAYOR MIKE NELSON, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM:
1. The City of Edmonds wishes to extend its heartfelt gratitude to the former and
current Coast Salish peoples of the Edmonds and Puget Sound region for their ever-present
and ongoing, invaluable contributions to our community;
2. The City of Edmonds acknowledges that the Edmonds community exists and
coexists on lands inhabited and taken care of by Coast Salish peoples for time immemorial;
and
3. For the first time in its history as an incorporated city, the City of Edmonds will
officially observe and celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day on October 11, 2021; and
4. The Mayor and City Council encourage all residents of Edmonds to learn more about
this region's Coast Salish peoples, past and present, not only on this Indigenous Peoples
Day 2021, but throughout the year; and
2
0 CITY OF EDIVIDNIDSO I Packet Pg. 6
4.1.a
S. To help facilitate greater community awareness, appreciation and learning, the City
has created a webpage containing links to numerous and multimedia resources related to
this region's Indigenous People, which can be found at https:Hedmondswa.gov/indigenous;
and
6. Given the continuing restrictions and precautions stemming from the COVID-19
pandemic, organized, in -person celebrations of Indigenous Peoples Day 2021 are not
possible, yet the Mayor and City Council are committed to more robust, in -person
observances of Indigenous Peoples Day in future years
PROCLAIMED this 5th day of October, 2021
Mike/Nelson, Mayor
3
* CITY OF EIDIVIONDSO I Packet Pg. 7
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Arts Commission Annual Report
Staff Lead: Frances Chapin
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) was established by City Council in 1975 (Ordinance 1765). The
seven -member, volunteer commission is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council. The
Commission is charged with advising and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, and
as appropriate, to other boards and commissions of the City on areas pertaining to the arts, including
representing the City in art matters, encouraging and aiding programs for cultural enrichment, and
providing advice and assistance in the field of art, aesthetics and beautification. The mission of the Arts
Commission is to ensure that the arts are integral to our community's quality of life, economic vitality,
and central identity.
Staff Recommendation
No action required.
Narrative
The impact of COVID-19-related meeting restrictions and other complications over the past 18 months
meant that the EAC did not make a presentation in 2020. The 2019 annual report is attached. The
presentation to be made by Arts Commission Chair Rhonda Soikowski at the 10/05/21 Council meeting
will primarily include highlights from EAC activities in 2020, as described in the attached 2020 annual
report, and will also highlight information on activities in 2021 and the ongoing impacts of the
pandemic.
Attachments:
2019 annual report CC
2020 EAC annual report Edited
Packet Pg. 8
PERFORMING ARTS
Dmitry Matheny Group at City Park
Katrina Shakti teaches audience member
belly dancing moves during Summer
Concerts at Hazel Miller Plaza
Presented seven free
Summer Concerts in City
Park, featuring diverse
Sunday afternoon
performances sponsored
for over ten years by
Lynnwood Honda and
Acura of Lynnwood.
Presented twelve free
concerts at Hazel Miller
Plaza at 12:30 on
Tuesdays and 5-6:30pm
Thursdays, sponsored by
the Hazel Miller
Foundation since 2013.
Approximately 4,000
people of all ages
attended the Summer
Concerts.
Partnered with Edmonds
Center for the Arts to
assist in sponsoring
performers for the free
Kidstock! event and
outreach including,
including belly dancing
Belly dancing workshop with Bella Gaia's workshop (pictured), and
Irina Akulenko
Kevin Spencer film
presentation.
Indigenous Plazmakers at Music at the
Library April program
Learning about stringed instruments at
Wintergrass Preview instrument "petting zoo"
Partnered with Sno-Isle
Edmonds Library and
Friends of the Edmonds
Library to present the
fourth season of Music at
the Library. The series
offers seven free monthly
music related events in
the Plaza Room, October
through April.
The February Music at
the Library Wintergrass
Preview presentation
attracted about 100
people to listen to music
by Cascade Mountain
Boys, with an
opportunity to join an
open jam session led by
band members after the
concert.
2019 COMMISSIONERS
Tanya Sharp, Chair
Rhonda Soikowski, Vice -Chair
Lesly Kaplan, WOTS Committee Chair
Marni Muir
Patricia Oneill
Beverly Shaw-Starkovich
Ashley Song
2019 STAFF
Frances White Chapin, Arts & Culture Manager
Laurie Rose, Arts Program Specialist
CITY OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Dept.
Frances Anderson Center
700 Main St I Edmonds WA 98020
425-771-0228 1 eac@edmondswa.gov
edmondsartscommission.org
Facebook.com/edmondsartscommission
Twitter.com/edmondsarts
F
w
2019
Annual Review
edmonds 4.2.a
ARTS COMMISSION
Founded in 1975, the mission of the City c
Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is to ensur
that the ants are integral to our community'
quality of life, economic vitality, and centr:
identity.
LITERARY ARTS
The 34th Write on
Sound Writers'
Conference (WOTS
sold out with over
registrants. Nation.
recognized, the evt
generated about 61
overnight stays, wi
participants from 1
states.
It featured keynote
speaker Charles
Keynote Charles Johnson signing his book at Johnson; a full day
the conference reception preconference writ
workshops; and ov
30 weekend sessions. Community sponsorships inch
Edmonds Theater for the keynote venue; Writing
Contest awards by Patricia Thorpe & Heather Kraus
RBC Wealth Management; reception/hospitality by
Windermere Real Estate/Edmonds; on site bookshc
Edmonds Bookshop; hospitality by Walnut Street
Coffee; and dine-arounds hosted by EPIC Group Wri
The 22nd annual Best
Book I Ever Read Poster
Contest for third graders
was presented in
partnership with Friends
of the Edmonds Library
and Edmonds School
District. Forty winning
poster entries were
exhibited at the FAC and
over 150 students and
families attended a
presentation by
Edmonds children's book
author Kizzie Jones and
illustrator Scott Ward.
Student contestant poses with certi<
and winning poster
Packet Pg. 9
0
a�
3
c
C
Q
c
0
N
rn
E
E
0
U
N
Q
VISUAL ARTS
Four Exhibit Spaces featured diverse work by local and
regional artists in six to eight -week solo and group shows.
Short film "Le Confrontation" by E-W HS student
Mia Herr was a featured work in the Youth Digital
Art exhibit
Edmonds Historical Museum exhibit of sign
makers tools of the trade and former
downtown signs in the EAC Display Case
Exhibit of student
show in the McDevitt
Youth Art Display
featured digital art
and video by seven
Edmonds teens with
equipment funded by
Edmonds Arts Festival
Foundation.
EAC Display Case exhibits
included Belltown
Bookarts (ArtWorks),
Edmonds Historical
Museum, and ARTSpot's
365 Drawing -a -day group
show.
Joint exhibits with the EAF
Gallery included Sculptors
Workshop,
Coast Salish artist TyJuvinel and
Seaview Weavers. Library shows
featured work by Jacob Smithers,
Victoria Galbraith, Don Wesley,
Meredith Regal, selections from
the City's Hekinan collection,
Junior Duck Stamp contest WA
winners, Judith Rayl, and
photographs in partnership with
Puget Sound Bird Fest.
ARTS ASSISTANCE
Carved hat by Coast Salish artist
Ty Juvinel
Provided assistance and information services to artists,
arts organizations and the community. Email quarterly
Arts Bulletin e-newsletter to over 1000 and WOTS e-
news to over 2200 recipients. Awarded $21,200 to nine
local arts organizations through EAC recommended
awards for Tourism Promotion to the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee. Promotion funds to support cultural
tourism through promotion outside of Edmonds were
awarded to Olympic Ballet Theatre, Cascade Symphony,
Edmonds Driftwood Players, Edmonds Art Studio Tour/
EAFF, Frank DeMiero Jazz Fest, Jazz Connection, Art Walk
Edmonds, Cascadia Art Museum, and Sno-King Chorale.
PUBLIC ART
"Welcome, Immigrants" by Elise Koncsek, Civic Park fence, 6th Ave. N.
Presented six temporary art installations on three City
fences through the On the Fence program, which provides
public art opportunities for emerging and established
artists and youth whose works reflect core values of
inclusivity and social discourse. Installations at Civic Field,
the Frances Anderson Center Field, and 2nd & Dayton, Art
Works, fence included work by artists Elise Koncsek; Mona
Smiley -Fairbanks & Mimi Sturman; Angie Hinojos Yusuf;
Seattle P rocrasti knitters, and Don Wesley.
"Polka Dots" by Seattle Procrastiknitters, Civic Park fence, 6th Ave. N.
The EAC Participated with consultants and the community
on a master planning process for Civic Park, identifying
potential art opportunities at the new
park. Determined funding and defined
processes for Civic Park project and for The Arts Mean Business!
a second project on the grounds of the Community Impact: 2000-2019
Edmonds Library entry.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
& PARTNERSHIPS
The EAC regularly partners
with organizations to support
and promote Edmonds arts
programs, arts education,
and cultural tourism in a
variety of ways. Partners
include Edmonds Arts
Festival/Foundation (visual
art exhibits, public art
Poet Judith Adams at Edmonds
acquisition and public art
Library during Write on the Sound
maintenance); Edmonds
Center for the Arts (arts education and free Kidstock!
event); Edmonds School District (Best Book); Sno-Isle
Library and Friends of the Edmonds Library (exhibits,
WOTS poetry reading, Best Book, Music at the Library);
Bird Fest (photo exhibits); EPIC Group Writers (after
hour activities at WOTS); and local businesses.
Assisted with organization of Arts & Heritage Day at
the state capitol, and organized the Arts & Humanities
month proclamation presented at City Council.
The City public art collection includes 34
outdoor artworks plus 25 unique flower
pole sculptures and over 100 pieces
exhibited indoors. Printed a new Public
Art Walking Tour brochure, and created
an online map. Provided annual
maintenance for exterior sculptures
with funding assistance from Edmonds
Arts Festival Foundation.
Edmonds constituents with Senator Liias on Arts & Heritage
Day in Olympia
In 2000, $6,000 in Lodging Tax funds was awarded for Tourism Promotion to
six local organizations. In 2019 EAC awarded $21,200 for Tourism Promotion to
nine organizations. In 2000, Write on the Sound (WOTS) was a two-day
conference with 182 attendees, most from Washington state, and a net revenue
of $6,050. In 2019 the three-day conference sold out with 271 registered
participants, 9% from out of state, and the net revenue was $22,600. Revenues
from WOTS support other EAC programs, supplementing the annual allocation of
$15,000 from the City General Fund for Arts Commission programs. The
allocation was established in 1985 and has not increased since then. In 2019,
57% of EAC revenue was from earned income and contributions, and 43% from
governmental sources.
CREATIVE DISTRICT I 4.2.a
Certified by the State at the end of 2018, goals for the
year included establishing a 19 member Advisory
Committee for the Edmonds Creative District selected
City Council, Mayor and Commissions to broadly repre
the creative sector in downtown Edmonds. The
representative from the Arts Commission is Ashley Sor
City staffing for the Edmonds Creative District is provid
through a collaboration between Economic Developmt
and Cultural Services.
ArtsWA Creative District training workshop
The Creative District advisory committee focused effor
on branding and creation of a logo for future advertisil
concept development for the 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor which included an initial neighborhood meeti
and compiling information on creative sector business(
2019 EAC PROJECTS & PROGRAMS
Revenue Expenses
48% Earned Income 46% Events and Programs*
9% Contributed/Donations
9% General fund
22% Lodging Tax Funds
12% Public Art*
*Revenue for Public Art varies from year
to year, depending on eligible City
construction projects and private donations.
5% Supplies and Equipment
43% Marketing
6% Public Art
*Staffing for the Arts Office is through Parks
Recreation and Cultural Services Dept.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 10 1
PERFORMING ARTS/FILM
Five free online
Hazel Miller Plaza
Summer Concerts,
sponsored by the
Hazel Miller
Foundation, were
presented via the
Ion McFaron Duo online concert City's YouTube and
cable television channels. Summer Concerts in
City Park were canceled due to restrictions.
The EAC partnered with Edmonds Center for
the Arts to assist in sponsoring performers for
the free Kidstock! event and outreach. Also
partnered with Sno-Isle Edmonds Library and
Friends of the Edmonds Library to present the
fifth season of Music at the Library. The series
offered free monthly music related events in
the Plaza Room, October 2019 through
February 2020, before the cancellation of the
remainder of the season in March. The
February Wintergrass Preview presentation
attracted approximately 100 people to enjoy
music by Cliff Perry & Friends with an
opportunity to join an open jam session led by
band members after the concert.
A new Winter Film Series: Interpreting
WINTER FILM SERIES
Interpreting Literature for New Audiences
am
=II
1
a�
n Febg Sun Febz3 _
mOF aS�RNWR
Literature for New Audiences featured four
films in the Plaza Room with discussion of the
books on which they were based following
each screening.
edmond '.Z.b
ARTS COMMISSION
Founded in 1975, the mission of the Cit
of Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is t
ensure that the arts are integral to OIL a
community's quality of life, economi
vitality, and central identity.
c
c
LITERARY ARTS
Mh
E
E
_ o
in
plpp%'-
dr.
Zoom session during Write on the Sound
The 36th annual Write on the Sound writes
conference (WOTS) was presented as an
online event due to pandemic restrictions.
featured keynote speaker Jane Friedman;
full day of pre -conference writing workshol
with Donald Maas and Rachel Weaver; and
three days of online sessions by publishing
industry professionals. Community
sponsorships included Writing Contest awa
by Patricia Thorpe & Heather Krause/RBC
Wealth Management and an online booksl
hosted by Edmonds Bookshop, plus an onli
Open Mic event hosted by EPIC Group
Writers.
The annual Best Book I Ever Read Poster
Contest for third graders, annually held in
March and April, was canceled due to
pandemic restrictions.
Packet Pg. 11
, ",N- _
VISUAL ARTS
Edmonds Library Art Wall February group exhibit featured
underwater photography of Puget Sound habitats.
Four Exhibit Spaces featured diverse work by
local and regional artists in rotating solo and
group shows in January and February. The
remaining 2020 exhibits were canceled in
March. Exhibit of student show in the
McDevitt Youth Art Display featured paintings
by Quinlon Merrin. EAC Display Case exhibit
included carving by John Dewhirst and Paul
Hudson. Joint exhibits with the EAF Gallery
included Sculptors Workshop, and the
Edmonds Library shows featured work by
Judith Rayl and an Underwater Photography
Group show.
ARTS ASSISTANCE
Provided assistance and
information services to Negand
artists, arts organizations and E,,40,Speeches
the community. EAC
sponsored a free workshop
by Artist Trust on Writing
Artist Statements. Emailed
quarterly Arts Bulletin e-
newsletter to over 1000, and
WOTS a -news to over 2200 recipients.
Awarded $25,120 to 11 local arts
organizations through EAC recommended
Tourism Promotion awards from Lodging Tax
funds to support cultural tourism events and
activities which attract visitors to Edmonds.
PUBLIC ART
Presented temporary art
installations on three City
fences through the On the
Fence program, which
provides public art
opportunities for
emerging and established
artists to create visuals
"Orcas"by Heather Rae which stimulate
on Main Street conversation about issues
of community interest including environmental
concerns, social justice, and sense of place.
Installations at Civic Field, the Frances Anderson
Center Field, and 2nd & Dayton, ArtWorks,
fence included work by artists Heather Rae,
Mona Smiley -Fairbanks,
Sophia Munic, and
Christabel Jamison.
Parks staff installs new
flower pole artwork,
The City public art
collection includes 34
outdoor artworks plus 28
unique flower pole
sculptures, 4 new ones
installed in 2020, and over
100 pieces exhibited in
public buildings.
"Magical Day, by Issued a Call f,
TsovinarMuradyan and
facilitated
the first stage of artist selection
for Civic Park, conducting an
online selection process with the
panel to select five finalists for
future interviews —process on
hold until project is rebid in
2021. Project on the grounds of
the Edmonds Library entry
postponed due to reduced staff
availability with focus on
pandemic safety requirements.
)r Artists
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
& PARTNERSHIPS
The EAC regularly partners with organizations
to support and promote Edmonds arts
programs, arts education, and cultural
tourism in a variety of ways. Partners include
Edmonds Arts Festival/Foundation (visual art
exhibits, public art acquisition and public art
maintenance); Edmonds Center for the Arts
(arts education and online We Speak spoken
word event); Sno-Isle Library and Friends of
the Edmonds Library (exhibits, WOTS poetry
reading, Best Book, Music at the Library); Bird
Fest (photo exhibits); EPIC Group Writers
(after hour activities at Write on the Sound);
and local businesses. Assisted with
organization of Arts & Heritage Day at the
state capitol, and recognition of Arts &
Humanities month in October.
21st District constituents with Senator Marko Liias on
Arts & Heritage Day in Olympia, February 2020
COMMUNITY IMPACT: PANDEMIC
For 2020 EAC increased the total amount of available funding for
Tourism Promotion grants, but organizations were hampered in their
ability to utilize the funds as venues and live events/performances were
shut down in March. EAC revenues for the year were down about 30%
and donations decreased as a result of the pandemic. Expenses were
also reduced as programs such as Concerts in the Parks and Music at the
Library were cancelled. Write on the Sound conference revenues,
typically used to support EAC programs, were down almost 40%.They
supplement the annual allocation, established in 1985, of $15,000 from
the City General Fund for Arts Commission programs.
EDMONDS CREATIVE DI
Certified by the State at the end of 2018, Cit)
staffing for the Edmonds Creative District is
provided through a collaboration between th
Economic Development Department and the
Cultural Services Division. G
a
The Creative District advisory committee
focused efforts on branding, marketing, and
concept development for the 4th Avenue r_
Cultural Corridor. Q
A virtual community open house with online o
survey was held in August to gather commui N
preferences for concept development in the E
next stage of schematic design for 4th Ave. o
U
r`I`N
Q
E D M O N D S
CREATIVE
-nIBTDII[T-
Which of the street
sections do you prefer?
BUILT -TO -STANDARDS
2020 EAC PROJECTS & PROGRAMS
Revenue Expenses
36% Earned Income 58% Events and Programs*
6% Contributed/Donations 1% Supplies and Equipment
12% General fund 34% Marketing
22% Lodging Tax Funds
24% Public Art*
*Revenue for Public Art varies from year
to year, depending on eligible City
construction projects and private donations.
7% Public Art
*Staffing for the Arts Office is through Parks
Recreation and Cultural Services Dept.
Packet Pg. 12 1
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2021
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
09-28-2021 Draft Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 13
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
September 28, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Councilmember Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Susan Paine, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Council President Pro Tern
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 6:45 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Council President Paine.
The Council utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council then convened in Executive Session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.3 0.11 0(l)(i).
ADJOURN
At 7:00 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 14
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2021
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
09-28-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 15
7.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
September 28, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Dave Turley, Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Zack Richardson, Stormwater Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern
Paine. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge
the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection
with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, with the exception of Mayor
Nelson, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT
Economic Development & Community Services Director Doherty explained the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) was established pursuant to City Council -approved amendments to Chapter 10.75.
The nine -member, volunteer board is appointed by the Mayor and City Council.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 16
7.2.a
The Commission is charged with advising and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council,
and as appropriate, to other boards and commissions of the City on strategies, programs or activities
intended to generate economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue.
Topics of study may be referred to the Commission by the Mayor or City Council, or independently
generated by the commission. The commission is also charged with providing an annual report to City
Council.
Given the vagaries of COVID-19-related meeting restrictions and other complications over the past 18
months, the EDC did not make a presentation in 2020. Tonight's presentation is intended to provide an
overview of the activities the EDC has been engaged in since 2019 and activities it is considering
undertaking over the next 12 to 18 months. The EDC is interested in Council and Mayor input regarding
these proposed activities. In addition, they look forward to any ideas or suggestions Council and/or the
Mayor may have regarding their proposed activities for the next 12 to 18 months.
Mr. Doherty introduced EDC Chair Nicole Hughes and Vice Chair Kevin Harris. He referenced a written
summary that was provided to Council today via email.
EDC Chair Hughes reviewed:
• EDC Overview and Focus - 2020/2021
o EDC Purposes
■ Advise the Mayor and Council on ideas, strategies, programs or activities intended to
support economic vitality
o Visibility: How We Work
■ Project committees focused on priority areas explore ideas related to areas of interest
- Neighborhood Business Districts
- Edmonds Business Booster Website
- Waterfront Business District Opportunities
- Parking and Shuttle
- Data and Comms (internal)
o Strategic Topics
■ Economic Resilience
■ Revenue Growth
■ Balance ALL Geographic Business Areas
■ Diversity and Equity across Different Business Types
■ Recognizing the Intersection between Community Health and Economic Health
EDC Vice Chair Harris reviewed:
Updates/Impacts
o EDC has diverse experience and perception of economic development
o COVID and reorganizing the team
o Project Workgroups
■ Neighborhood Business Districts - identify strategies to attract business activities to all
districts. Perrinville, Firdale, Healthcare Dist., International Dist., Downtown, Waterfront
Zone, Five Corners, Highway 99
■ Edmonds Business Booster Portal - create a navigation platform for business start-ups
and development. Steers entrepreneurs and business scalers to training, mentoring and
coaching support.
■ Waterfront Business Zone Opportunities - collaborate with the Port and Waterfront to
diversity business activity in the Waterfront Zone
■ Parking and Shuttle - explore ways to address the long-term impact of population and
business growth on the city's parking inventory.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 17
7.2.a
■ Data and communications — internal resource to assist data -driven projects and support
communications processes between the EDC, Edmonds officials and partners.
Chair Hughes reviewed:
• Ideas in early consideration (from the EDC retreat, the public, conversations with
Councilmembers, etc.)
o Develop vision for vitality across all business geos
o Cohesive brand development and marketing for different geos
o Strategies to attract visitors through non-traditional arrivals
o Mobility between different areas of Edmonds
o Children's Museum and recreation
o City facilities available in Uptown renewal zone
o Attract corporate satellite workspaces
o Downtown Preservation District
o Leverage the best of Walkable Downtown
o Promoting small business expansion along Highway 99 and International Dist.
o Support the arts across different districts
• Working Together/How to Engage with EDC
o Meet regularly with your appointed Commissioner
o Contact Vivian Olson (Council liaison to EDC)
o Contact Nicole Hughes (Chair) or Kevin Harris (Vice Chair)
o Contact Patrick Doherty
o Visit us at a monthly EDC meeting as our guest — 3' Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
Public comments are welcome and agenda items can be created to explore specific ideas
Chair Hughes welcomed the Council's input on the list of ideas as well as other ideas.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked how Vice Chair Harris addressed the elephant in room, parking.
Parking has been an issue for a long time; there have been parking committees off and on in the past. She
asked if a downtown preservation district was the same as a historic district. She supported having
parking looked at especially in conjunction with the streateries and Walkable Edmonds because many
people are opposed to Walkable Edmonds. Although some people think we are moving into an era where
no one needs to park and we will be riding bikes or taking the shuttle, sooner or later the issue of parking
will need to be addressed especially with increasing ferry traffic and increasing tourism with the Creative
District.
Councilmember Olson thanked all the members of the EDC, commenting they are an amazing group of
people and the community is lucky to have them serving. With regard to the list of ideas, the items that
affect business districts and business owners need to be considered first and foremost. With regard to
prioritization, she was excited about developing all the neighborhood business districts. Each one already
has an identity of sorts, in almost all cases it could be bolstered and made more of a thing to make it more
of an attraction and something the neighbors would take pride and excitement in claiming it as their own
as well as cross marketing between districts. She was surprised to hear someone at the Ranch Market say
they had never been to the downtown or waterfront area. That raised her awareness that that may be true
of all neighborhood districts, that there are places people go and they do not know what other areas of the
City have to offer. Cross branding between the districts would be a real opportunity.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented she hadn't realized it had been two years since the EDC made a
presentation to the Council. She recalled about a decade ago when she was on the EDC for a number of
years, one of the things they looked at was form based code at Five Corners. It was implemented for
Westgate, but Five Corners was put on hold. That project was initiated by the EDC under former
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 18
7.2.a
Community Development Director Stephen Clifton and Planning Manager Rob Chave in conjunction
with the University of Washington. She suggested more work be done on that. Echoing Councilmember
Buckshnis' comment, she wished the EDC had been asked or been more involved in evaluating Walkable
Main Street and the streateries. It may be appropriate to look back on the successes and failures, the
impact on different business types, etc. and it would be a great way to engage with local businesses on
lessons learned.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she loved the idea of a downtown preservation district; she is on the
Historic Preservation Commission and would to love to talk to anyone interested in that. She was also
passionate about parking and the shuttle, recalling at one time there were discussions about a trolley to
connect the waterfront with the downtown area. There were also discussions about parking time limits to
address ferry riders parking downtown for long periods of time. There has been talk about a ferry
reservation system for over a decade; if that ever comes to fruition, it could have a beneficial impact
because it would give people time to explore the waterfront, downtown, Five Corners and all of Edmonds.
She looked forward to talking to EDC members in the future. She also liked the work being done on the
Creative District, noting the EDC could have a lot of important input into that.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine expressed appreciation for how well the presentation was put together. She asked
that the presenters send the list of nine ideas to the Council so they could provide input on them. She
appreciated the effort to provide Council the ability for dialogue and ensure there was enough Council
buy -in on projects the EDC wanted to pursue. The Council will get back to the EDC after they review the
ideas and possibly provide additional ideas.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how often commissioners are expected to contact the Mayor or
Councilmember that appointed them. Chair Hughes said there is not a specific expectation, it is left up to
the commissioners although they are encourage to do it on a regular interval, at least once a year, twice a
year, or quarterly. VC Harris said Councilmember may have different expectations about how often they
want to be updated.
With regard to people living in east Edmonds not going downtown or to the waterfront, Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas said with traffic, it takes 15-20 minutes to drive downtown and going downtown is not a
priority for probably 50% of the people living on Highway 99 who can reach Lynnwood or Shoreline in
10 minutes. Connections to downtown, the Creative District, etc. are not priorities for people living in
east Edmonds because they do not go down there very often due to the distance.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson commented she supported a lot of the ideas on the list and she will
get back to the commission with her input in the future.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 12, EXECUTIVE SESSION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 42.30.110(1)(F) TO RECEIVE AND EVALUATE COMPLAINTS
AND CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the City Attorney had been consulted to ensure this meet the legal
threshold. Councilmember Olson answered it had been. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he was provided
a copy of the complaint and it was sufficient for Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) purposes.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 19
7.2.a
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY-MONILLAS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON, AND MAYOR PRO
TEM PAINE VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tern Paine invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. She
noted there is a continued public hearing later on the agenda; this agenda item is for comments not related
to the public hearing.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented on the Edmonds tree ordinance passed earlier this year. They
love trees; they purchased a steep 1.2 acre property filled with trees and would like to build three homes
amongst them but doing so requires removal of some trees. The City has taken their property rights and
the value of their trees, forcing them to buy each tree back for $3300-$12,000 before allowing a permit to
divide the property, pay for tree and root removal and build homes that fund the City's tax base. She
recalled hearing a Councilmember say that trees should be saved at all costs; it isn't at all costs, it hasn't
cost the City a thing. The City has only target them and other families who seek to divide property to
build much needed homes in single family zoned residential areas. This Council discriminates against
hardworking people who assume the risk to fulfill the community's housing needs and have lowered
property values by the assumed worth of the trees. Not only is the Council extorting over $100,000 for
their trees, but have delayed their application by yet another year with the application moratorium and
changing permit goalposts which make it difficult for their engineers, arborists and architects to keep up.
This is precious time taken from them to live closer to assist her sweet 86-year old parents who were 81-
years old when this process began.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the City is listed as fully participating in the Washington Growth
Management Act. This Council has violated the following GMA initiatives in the past year, 1) encourage
development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an
efficient manner, 2) reduce sprawl, 3) applications for both state and local government permits should be
processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability, and 4) private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of land owners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. The term taking comes from the final clause of the 5'
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Washington State has a similar clause in section 16
of Article 1 of the state constitution as does Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan. It is based on the premise
that when government action reduces the value of property, the governmental entity that has taken that
action, whether by ordinance, zoning, regulation, legislation or any other regulatory action, must pay the
property owner compensation for the reduced value of the property. She urged the Council to abide by the
laws of the country, state and city as the rest of the community has to. She asked the Council to give them
back their trees and make this right before Edmonds taxpayers have to pay and compensate for these
illegal actions in a court of law. She urged the Council to please listen and help them.
Cynthia Gutierrez Sjoblom, Edmonds, said constituents are requesting Council return to Chambers;
they approve of a hybrid version for those who feel more comfortable saying at home with cameras on. It
was her understanding that the number of COVID hospitalizations were down and in general the numbers
were dropping. On behalf of Edmonds citizens, she requested volunteers from the community be allowed
on the task force; some people are uncomfortable with how the task force was initiated. She understood
allowing citizens on the task force was rejected by Shannon Burley, an employee who should not be
deciding on this very important matter, but instead handled by the Council. She referred to her email
regarding a complaint process used by the Snohomish County Council; the City does not need to reinvent
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 20
7.2.a
the wheel and must have a process for filing formal complaints for Code of Conduct violations. There is
no point having a Code of Conduct if it is not enforced and since this matters to constituents, it should
matter to Councilmembers. Otherwise people will resort to the hate and bias portal. She recommended
creating a baseline for standards for those receiving housing services from the City; services should be
reserved for people who are drug and alcohol free. She did not support eliminating car lanes for bike
lanes, anticipating there would be a lot of bike accidents due to people unaccustomed to seeing bikes on
9' and Edmonds Way. She thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for helping hold the line there.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding park inequity and asked the City to consider Civic Center and
other parks appropriately and accurately within the PROS Plan update. City code identifies that
community parks are designated to provide opportunities for the immediate community with a maximum
service range of 1-2 miles, likely less in the case of Civic Center due to the lack of parking. She objected
to the insinuation that this park serves the entire city; doing so only seeks to obscure the lack of resources
provided to east Edmonds communities and that public event spaces are only provided for the benefit of
downtown businesses. With regard to electrical vehicle standards, she shared comments she previously
provided to the Planning Board. She hoped the City would not create exceptions for businesses and
development to pay for upgrades to the electric system in conjunction with electric vehicle standards.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the SR-99 corridor has underdeveloped electric infrastructure to accommodate the
City's proposed electrical vehicle standards, an area the City has targeted for low income development.
Highway 99 is an area of concern for utility upgrades because it is a 7 of 10 for environmental health
disparities, 9 of 10 for environmental exposures and 7 of 10 for socio and economic factors based on the
Washington Health Disparities Mapping. Nine of 10 means that only 10% of communities in Washington
have more environmental exposures than this area. The environmental exposures in the SR-99 corridor
are primarily due to vehicle emissions.
Ms. Seitz continued, it is more important that electric vehicle investments happens in the SR-99 corridor
than any other area of the City for purely public health reasons. The City's desire to site low income
development here in conjunction with the exemptions will delay this investment, prolong negative
exposures and result in a lower building standard for this area than the rest of the City. There is an
agreement that this type of development follows growth but she did not understand how investment in
electrical infrastructure would happen when exemptions are written into the code and there are no plans
for the utility to upgrade the system in this area. Although Highway 99 is not mentioned, the existing
conditions and lack of infrastructure and the City's desire for low income development will mean
exemption will impact this area. She acknowledged having no exemptions will delay development which
is why she suggested the City should seek partnerships so the fundamental electric system upgrades will
occur. The City should have planted trees along the corridor long ago to help address pollution; this is
another fundamental way the City can address public health needs of this area of the City.
Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, relayed she recently made a report to the hate portal and recommended the
City "step up the game on this site" because she never received confirmation of her submission or heard
anything back from the City. To ensure her report of hate, bias, threatening and deliberate aggression
toward her were on public records, she repeated her report to the hate portal and expected it to be
investigated by the City for hate actions that do not arise to the level of crimes. She requested the names
mentioned be a permanent part of the government list. She provided her report, "During public comments
on 9/7/21, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas flashed a loser sign at me while making comments
to the Mayor and Council. She proceeded to also call my comments hate speech which is untrue and
hateful in itself. She called me out by name twice, referred to my comments as hate speech and falsely
claimed my comments said she was drunk. This is hateful and degrading behavior. It is threatening to me,
my safety and my reputation. It slandered me and showed bias against me for speaking truth at a public
meeting, also violating the Code of Conduct of the Council. City electeds that show this kind of hate and
bias toward a constituent carries heavier weight than that coming from other citizens. She did this on
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 21
7.2.a
public record and can be witnessed by everyone who chooses to watch it. This hateful, threatening and
bias behavior should be addressed by the City. Adrienne further accused me of making up stories in a
reply to a letter to the editor on 9/13/21 in My Edmonds News slandering me. This was done as she spoke
for the entire Council, signing it as such. That puts this slander on public record. I am also now reporting
bias, slander and hate coming towards me, a citizen, from the entire City Council she is supposed to
represent. If these reports need to be separated into two reports in this portal, please advise and I will
resubmit. I await your investigation into this. Thank you." Ms. Strong asked to be informed how this
investigation is proceeding because she has not heard anything from the City. She hoped the Council
votes to meet in person again at future meetings.
Kirsten Paust, Edmonds, said they have lived in the Bowdoin corridor for a year and also own a home
on Main Street. She urged the Council to give strong consideration to the parking situation associated
with Yost for the residents who live on Bowdoin. Having lived on both Main Street and Bowdoin, they
are very different neighborhoods and have different home styles. On Bowdoin, many houses do not have
garages and rely on street parking. Events at Yost Pool or at the park seriously limited parking in the area,
also putting constraints on parking for homeowners. With any bike lane considerations or choices that are
made, she urged the Council to find alternate parking arrangements, recalling that an option for additional
parking was being considered. Parking would be hugely valuable to residents in the area and would
improve usage of Yost Park and the facilities there which are so dear and treasured by the community.
She also recommended vehicle travel lanes not be removed in the Westgate/Edmonds Way area for bike
lanes. Real improvements have been made in the speed and safety of vehicle and transit which she wanted
to retain.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
6. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RANDALL J.
HODGES PHOTOGRAPHY
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. 2021 SEPTEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT
Finance Director Dave Turley reviewed
• There are 5 requests tonight, detailed decision packages begin on packet page 137
• If approved, budget amendment would increase forecast revenues by $85,528 and increase
budgeted expenditures by $181,457
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 22
7.2.a
Budget Amendments
o Unfreeze salary and benefits for new Deputy Director of Administrative Services position
o Request budget authority to transfer the remaining year-end balance out of the Firemen's
Pension Fund into the General Fund. The purpose of the Firemen's Pension Fund was to pay
insurance and healthcare benefits for firefighters employed by the City who were employed
before 1970. Four people remain in this plan. A statewide play was implemented in 1970 to
cover retirees. The City receives approximately 1/3 of the required amount from a state fire
insurance premium tax. The state auditor determined this is no longer considered fiduciary
money and should be account for in the General Fund.
o This budget amendment is to request the budget authority to transfer the remaining year-end
balance out of the Memorial Street Tree Fund. This fund has been dormant for several years
and we would like to move the remaining balance into the recently created Tree Fund so that
these funds can be utilized by the City.
o Add the City's new Urban Forest Planner salary and wages to the 2021 budget. This position
was approved on June 22, 2021.
o Request budget authority to transfer $25,000 from the General Fund into the Risk
Management Fund to pay small settlements
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled during the presentation to the Finance Committee there was an
amendment related to the bond receivable that was not included in this amendment. Mr. Turley explained
it was presented to the Finance Committee two weeks ago as the intent was to have it approved before the
budget book was prepared. The amendments did not fit on last week's agenda and because the budget
book has already been printed, there is no advantage to making that budget amendment at this time. It was
included in the budget book as an estimate.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to transferring $25,000 into the Risk Management Reserve Fund,
recalling the Finance Committee recommended policies and procedures be established for making
payments, replenishing the fund, etc.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4234, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4230 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
With regard to the Memorial Tree Fund, Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked if there were any contingencies or
stipulations related to the ordinance authorizing the collection of those funds. Mr. Turley said he looked
up the fund today; there were two purposes, donations for a specific memorial tree, and donations to
benefit the urban forest and trees in general. The second purpose fulfills the purpose of the new fund.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine expressed support for the budget amendment.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODE (ECDC 18.30)
UPDATE
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Stormwater Engineer Zack Richardson and City
Engineer Rob English. He explained this information was first presented to Council in July; a public
hearing was held last week and continued to this week. He reviewed:
• What's Changing?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 23
o Most changes are updates to match Ecology reorganization and/or to provide clarity where
staff have experienced commonly missed or misinterpreted information by manual users &
designers.
o See 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes (agenda packet)
■ Direction from Ecology (Orange) = Ecology prescribed/required
■ Direction from Staff (White) = City -proposed clarification, reorganization, or update
without substantial change/impact
■ Direction from Staff (Green) = Staff -proposed change with potential impacts
o Department of Commerce and SEPA approval required prior to formal Council adoption.
• Change #1: New connections of existing hard surfaces
o Old: Current code allows for connection of existing hard surfaces on case -by -case basis with
a focus on maintaining City pipe capacity.
o New: Revision proposed to require new connections of existing hard surfaces to be treated
like new hard surfaces requiring full drainage mitigation.
■ This is specific to new connections; where residents have an existing connection, they are
permitted to replace the connection in -kind without any mitigation requirements.
o Rationale: These new connections of existing surfaces are still new or altered impacts to the
City system and any surfaces water they drain to; they should be mitigated for as new
impacts.
o Potential Impacts: Affects a very small number of applicants. For the handful that would be
impacted, this could potentially be the most -costly change proposed this year. Full drainage
design and BMP implementation for these size projects can cost between $6,000 to $20,000.
However, the impacts of allowing every pre -drainage code residence or business to connect
to our system could result in a continuation of the negative impacts from historic unmitigated
development and detrimental to our ability to manage the capacity of our systems.
• Change #2: Removing Edmonds Way as a direct discharge basin
o Old: Current code recognizes the Edmonds Way drainage basin as a partial direct discharge
basin with reduced requirements for LID (MR 45) and flow control (MR #7)
o New: City proposes revisions to remove all exemptions for the Edmonds Way basin, resulting
in equal application of drainage code requirements to the Edmonds Way basin.
o Rationale: The Edmonds Way drainage pipe (WSDOT) is known to overflow to the Edmonds
Marsh under certain conditions; since this demonstrates a capacity issue and now discharges
to a non -manmade water body, the direct discharge exemption should no longer apply.
o Potential Impacts: This change removes a discount which previously existed in one specific
basin within Edmonds and brings projects within Edmonds Way to be equal in cost to other
projects through in the City. The additional cost is generally limited to increases in volume
for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP
implementation. Larger projects which trigger full flow control (MR 47) will have the most
significant cost increases. Small SFR projects can expect between $500 and $2000 cost
increase, but larger (15,000 SF) commercial/multifamily projects could see increases of
$20,000 to $50,000.
Change #3: Increasing protection of Perrinville Creek
o Old: Current code applies the drainage code uniformly to all areas of City, including the
Perrinville Creek Basin.
o New: City proposed revisions to increase the retrofit requirement for LID and increase the
flow control standard within the Perrinville Creek basin (only).
■ Retrofit (applies to existing unmitigated surfaces to remain): 25% _> 50%
■ Flow control: Match 50-year peak => Match 100-year peak (ie. King County Level 3
Standard)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 24
o Rationale: The Perrinville basin has been greatly affected by past development and needs
enhanced protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways
and the retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek..
o Potential Impacts: Both changes result in additional cost that is generally limited to increases
in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and
BMP implementation. The flow control component will only impact larger projects with
minimal impacts on large project budgets; estimated to add between $12,000 and $16,000 for
a larger (15,000 SF) commercial development. The retrofit requirement has the potential to
impact homeowners who are expanding existing homes, but minimally; estimated to add
$400 to $600 for a SFR project which keeps most of the existing home (2,500 SF).
Change #4: Detention preferred over perforated pipes
o Old: Current code adopted the Ecology BMP list for MR #5 and then added an Edmonds -
specific detention BMP to the end of the list, making its priority less than that of a perforated
pipe connection.
o New: Staff proposed revisions to elevate the Edmonds -specific detention BMP to be
considered before a perforated pipe connection.
o Rationale: Perforated pipe connections are only used when infiltration has been found
infeasible for very specific reasons, and when broad infiltration is infeasible, perforated pipes
usually will not work very well either and they may well get proposed in undesirable
locations where instability and failure could result. Our modeling comparisons have shown
detention to provide significantly better outcomes.
o Potential Impacts: Neary all projects within Edmonds over 2,000 SF of impervious would
have to provide stormwater detention, at a minimum. Additional cost is generally limited to
increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage
design and BMP implementation. Detention systems, as compared to a perforated pipe
system, may add between $500 and $4,000 for a larger SFR project (5,500 SF).
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Richardson to explain how Change #4 would improve stormwater impacts. Mr.
Richardson explained perforated pipe connections is the lowest BMP on the list and it is generally used in
a place where it has already been decided that regular infiltration is not a good idea and has been ruled
out, often due to a safety concern. A perforated pipe connection creates a gap that sometimes results in a
system that proposes infiltration where it was not desirable. In addition, the uniform size means the
amount of mitigation provided in an area that is already known not to infiltrate well is very minimal.
Much better protection is provided with detention tank standards.
Mr. Williams said in addition to the above changes, the remaining changes are reorganizational changes
by Ecology or clarification of standards. He continued his review:
• What Comes Next?
o SEPA review underway (-60-days)
o Department of Commerce review underway (60-days)
■ additional changes can be made based on public comment and/or Council review and
submitted to Department of Commerce for review
o This public hearing
■ Held now to avoid conflicts with budgeting process
o Brought back for formal approval pending Commerce & SEPA approval.
o Questions/concerns: Zachary.Richardson@edmondswa.gov
Mr. Williams clarified staff was not seeking approval tonight but rather input on changes to the current
version of the draft code. Those changes can be incorporated and sent to the Department of Commerce for
review and later this year or early next year, the changes to the code can be adopted.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 25
7.2.a
Mr. Williams apologized for confusing some residents as was evident by the number of emails that were
received. The changes to the code will have these effects, 1) bring the City into compliance with Ecology
requirements, and 2) the more substantive impacts staff is recommending would improve the stormwater
code and speed the transition to lower impact from stormwater to natural resources from development
projects. A lot of people think this is a once in a lifetime change to the stormwater code; that is not the
case, the City can make changes to the stormwater code following this same process anytime the Council
wishes so this does not have to be the end -all -be-all or result in a perfect code. This hearing is about these
changes but further changes can be discussed in the future such as considering how to incorporate the
Salmon Safe recommendations into the code when those are available.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Salmon Safe funding was approved in the budget ten months ago
and asked when the contract was signed. Mr. Williams said he was not sure there was a contract yet. Mr.
Richardson said the Parks Department is handling that. Mr. Williams relayed it was a decision package in
the 2022 budget. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled it was approved via a decision package last year.
Mr. Williams said he was uncertain about the funding but work not begun and is scheduled to be
completed in 2022. Councilmember K. Johnson requested a more definitive answer be provided after
tonight's meeting.
Councilmember K. Johnson said many of the problems with Perrinville Creek, which have been known
for 20 years, are due to upstream runoff. Therefore, it would be advantageous to have an interlocal
agreement (ILA) or common understanding between Edmonds and Lynnwood regarding Perrinville
Creek. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson noted the requirement to update the stormwater
code is 10 months out and rather than repeating this process, she suggested working on an ILA and
understanding with Lynnwood before this is due so there would be stronger development regulations for
the upstream area. Mr. Williams commented Edmonds is also part of the upstream area although not as
many acres as Lynnwood, but a lot of the acreage in Lynnwood is in the park and the developed areas are
similar. He agreed Lynnwood was a significant player in the basin. Once Edmonds' code is adopted with
these changes, the intent would be to approach Lynnwood and suggest they entertain including the same
requirements in their development code.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested starting that process earlier rather than later. Mr. Williams agreed,
but that does not need to stop approving these changes in Edmonds code. These changes can have
immediate impact in Edmonds and provide a product that can be presented to Lynnwood for their
consideration. Councilmember K. Johnson recognized it was a balancing act, there is a desire to have
these changes apply to Edmonds as soon as possible, but the process would need to be reinitiated to
incorporate the results of the Salmon Safe evaluation. Mr. Williams said it could be that the Lynnwood
issues would be ripe at the same time as the Salmon Safe changes and could be handled in a combined
process, but they also occur at different times. The process of holding a public hearing and making
changes to the code can occur any time it is justified. He preferred to adopt the changes now, reach out to
Lynnwood for a more formal review on their part, and when the Salmon Safe output is available, evaluate
it and decide what changes need to be made.
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson clarified if the Council approved the changes sooner rather than
later, any application submitted would have to meet these updated requirements. Mr. Williams answered
yes. Mr. Richardson said the proposal was for the changes to begin on January 1; if it was delayed until
the NPDES deadline, that wouldn't happen until July. Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said
approving this now, whether or not it is perfect or there are additional things that could be added, means
the additional protections are in place for any applications that are received and that happens six months
sooner. Mr. Williams agreed.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 26
Councilmember Buckshnis said a number of emails and public comments have been received. She asked
why the SEPA was not provided in as part of the packet. Mr. Richardson answered the SEPA process is a
separate process and is not part of the public hearing. There is a link on the City's website.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email from Lora Petso regarding an anti -degradation policy in
WAC 173-200 that the Edmonds code does not address. Mr. Williams said he read that carefully and
disagreed with the analysis at first blush, although he had not had an opportunity to discuss it with the
City Attorney. He agreed there was an anti -degradation policy at the state level; Ms. Petso works with the
Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) Board who have strong feelings about infiltration and
direct underground injection of stormwater based on some experience in the past couple years and
OVWSD has fought that issue with the state. The state sets UIC rules, not the City of Edmonds; and
although the project involved in that debate was in Edmonds, it was up to the state to regulate. This code
does not have anything to do with that.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Richardson to comment on Ms. Petso's email on packet page 384 and the
injection of the word "hard" into the sentence. Mr. Richardson said he only skimmed the emails as he just
returned from vacation two hours ago. That battle is bigger than the City; Ms. Petso is hinting at
something occurring at the state level. Ecology was challenged on almost exactly that same wording and
the water and sewer districts are reaching a settlement with Ecology. Their issue with hard surfaces was
Ecology's addition of hard surfaces to a statement. There are thresholds for non -hard surfaces, pollution
generating pervious surfaces, as well. There are few places where that occurs, primarily schools and parks
and fertilization of lawns. There are other thresholds for that and mechanisms for requiring treatment of
pervious areas that are considered pollution generating and there is a definition and requirements for
pollution generating pervious surfaces. Ecology manages the UICs and this update provides new guidance
regarding deep injection which are the issues of concern.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she had concerns with this code in its current state and it was her
understanding it had already been submitted to the Department of Commerce and Ecology for approval.
Mr. Williams clarified Ecology reviews the code but does not approve it; only the Department of
Commerce approves it. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Council would ever see the SEPA. Mr.
Williams noted it was only a checklist. Mr. Richardson said a SEPA checklist was prepared and the SEPA
DNS (Determination of Non -Significance) could be included as an attachment when the code comes back
to Council for final adoption; staff expects a DNS. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ms. Petso's
email which opined it was not a DNS.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled what happened with the tree code and wanted to get the stormwater
code right due to is importance. Mr. Richardson suggested contacting Kernen Lien with SEPA specific
questions. Councilmember Buckshnis requested staff provide Council the SEPA checklist. She questioned
whether there would be a DNS, noting she understood Ms. Petso's logic.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing.
Janelle Cass, Edmonds, relayed her understanding of the amount of work that has gone into updating the
stormwater plan and she was grateful for Councilmembers Distelhorst and Buckshnis raising the issue
that SEPA needs to be accomplished prior to making a final decision. Because SEPA is meant for
decision -makers and public involvement, she felt the public hearing put the cart before the horse. The
SEPA checklist and DNS was dated September 22', a day after the public hearing, and the public has
until October 6t1i to submit comments on the SEPA checklist. She suggested delaying approval to ensure
the process was cleaner and less confusing for the public.
Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, requested all public comments submitted in writing for the public hearing
be read aloud and to ensure the Council is following all laws as they consider this code update. She hoped
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 27
7.2.a
the hearing would not conclude without having read several comments that were submitted. Reading the
written comments would give listeners additional advice and information and it was her understanding
that that was supposed to be part of standard practice during Council meetings.
John Lyons, Edmonds, President, Shellabarger Creek Homeowners Association, said his comments
relate to Shellabarger Creek which runs through a section of their property. Like Perrinville Creek,
flooding of this section of Shellabarger Creek has gotten considerably worse in the last four years he has
lived there. He referred to an email he sent to the Council, Mayor and Public Works Director last week
and appreciated receiving responses from three Councilmembers and the Public Works Director. He
asked that that email be made part of the record of this meeting. He explained whenever there is rain for
any significant time, debris carried by stormwater rushing down Shellabarger Creek from the hillside
above blocks the entrance to a culvert that runs under 5t' Avenue. The creek turns into a lake that rises
steadily, threatening to flood their building and eventually 5t' Avenue South along with anything in its
path west of 5t' Avenue including Ace Hardware and the Pancake House. The Public Works team, who
have been very responsive, have a very difficult time clearing the debris, falling into the flood water at the
culvert entrance. It is clear based on the depth of the water and the position of the grate well below the
street that at some point it will be impossible for someone with a rake to clear the debris. It is a matter of
time before a major flood event occurs. He requested, 1) rather than individual residents, condo owners or
businesses trying to address this problem, the City
take ownership, 2) the City be proactive in addressing the problem before the damage in Perrinville Creek
occurs which could include 51' Avenue, utilities under 5t' Avenue, other buildings, businesses and condos,
and 3) the City develop a comprehensive plan to analyze and fix the problem.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, expressed concern that the Council had not received sufficient information on
the severity of stormwater issues in Edmonds. There are problems in all the creeks, in many residences
that are flooded in various parts of Edmonds. Although this is an update to the stormwater code pertaining
to new development, he did not see how the Council could comment on the sufficiency of that without
knowing what's being done to address all the current problems from past development. He assumed the
SEPA analysis would address some of this, but the SEPA document was not even presented to the
Council as part of this decision package. State law requires cities prepare SEPA documents as part of the
decision process. The Council is making a decision and it is totally inappropriate for staff to say it is a
separate process; it should be part of the process so the Council has all the information. An environmental
assessment must be done. He was troubled by the fact that a scope of work was prepared over a year ago
for the Salmon Safe certification analysis and now a year later the contract hasn't been issued. He
wondered if that was an intentional delay so the stormwater code amendment could be done without
addressing some of the real issues.
Mr. Scordino thought staff would have latched onto the Salmon Safe certification analysis, an
independent expert review that could be used to update the code. Instead staff is putting that off to the
future, the same response residents always hear, yet problems continue. He was frustrated because this
stormwater issue, as he mentioned to Mr. Williams some time ago, was clearly defined in 1998 in a report
to the City on the severity of what was happening on Perrinville Creek and would result in flooding of
lower residences. No one can say that wasn't predicted; it was predicted 20 years ago. He was also
troubled that nothing has been said about the Perrinville restoration plan which should also be taken into
account in the stormwater code update. The Mayor promised that in March but nothing has been seen.
The public feels they are being kept in the dark about what is happening related to stormwater issues
which is not right. The Council needs to hear this information before they give a green light.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, thanked the Council for continuing the public hearing on the stormwater code,
as it is an extremely serious issue for Edmonds and needs careful attention. She echoed Mr. Scordino's
comments. Perrinville Creek is just one very visible example of the City's stormwater problems. Citizens
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 28
7.2.a
deserve to know how the tragic destruction of Perrinville Creek will be dealt with and those with flooded
home and yards especially deserve answers. Emergency flood control such as dumping truckloads of dirt
at the mouth of a former salmon -bearing stream cannot continue. The City must look at the big picture,
the entire watershed and the cause of flooding. Prevention is always the most effective treatment. For
instance, how can City policies on tree removal mitigate stormwater runoff damage. Preventative
measures must be a major part of the stormwater code. To the comment that Edmonds does not have
control over the stormwater because Lynnwood is part of the problem, she was glad to hear staff was
planning negotiations with Lynnwood and agreed that needed to be part of the plan. Not as visible as
flooding is the content of stormwater that runs through streams into Puget Sound. Lora Petso has pointed
out possible violations of pollution control laws in this stormwater proposal; this is a major concern and
must be addressed. Edmonds needs a clear plan to reduce toxins and other chemicals in stormwater. These
are all big issues and need to be part of the stormwater plan. Edmonds citizens are counting on City
government and staff to improve practices.
Dave Barnes, General Manager, Olympic View Water & Sewer District, relayed the District's objection
to the issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance as part of the SEPA process regarding the City's
update to the stormwater management code as they were not part of the distribution list. OVWSD
reserves the right to further supplement its comments related to the DNS issued by the City.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Paine closed the public hearing. She advised no
Council action was required tonight. Mr. Williams said staff was interested in Council input.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not have enough information and did not want to pass the code
simply to pass it. She wanted to have the SEPA information, to include OVWSD in the DNS and was
interested in what Ms. Petso had to say. She agreed public comments should be read into the record.
Sufficient information has been received from scientists and people who know more than she does and
she would like to get answers for them. She referred to the project thresholds which state within the
Perrinville basin, the retrofit value shall increase from 25% to 50%. She asked why 50% was selected
versus 40%, 60%, 70% or 100%. Mr. Williams said staff s recommendation was to double the rate at
which existing hard surfaces are incorporated into BMPs for stormwater; it could be higher or lower.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a question from a resident regarding whether Perrinville homeowners
will be expected to pay for some of the repairs/restoration. Mr. Williams agreed that phraseology created
some confusion. Changes are proposed in the rate at which existing hard surfaces are required to do full
mitigation in the Perrinville basis and that will cost money on development projects in the Perrinville
basin, more than in other parts of the City. The Perrinville basin is a unique circumstance, a critical area,
and the intent is for people in the Perrinville basin, whether in Lynnwood or Edmonds, to recognize that it
that more would be done there than in other places. It was not intended to punish anyone financially in the
Perrinville basin but get a more rapid transition to BMPs on new development.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to public comments about Shellabarger Creek, noting Shell Creek
flooded last year. Mr. Williams said these changes will improve conditions and the management of
stormwater in Shellabarger and Shell Creek and other areas of Edmonds. To those who are complaining
about flooding, these changes help to address that and more changes could be entertained over time.
These are not a step backward, the changes are not intended to provide actual solutions or capital projects
in Shell or Shellabarger Creek or any of the basins, they are simply changing the rules for development so
that the upper parts of the basins where the stormwater is generated will get less over time. It is not the
end -all -be-all of stormwater regulations that will solve all the City's flooding problems. He recognized
residents are frustrated by flooding; staff is too. Not all the stormwater problems are the result of
development but development can be part of the answer. Stormwater problems are also caused by
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 29
7.2.a
changing storm patterns and additional flows that increase velocity and erosion which increases sediment
that fills in areas that otherwise could hold more water.
Mr. Richardson advised the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update will also begin this year which will
provide some of the information that the public is expecting.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not disagree that an improved stormwater code was needed but she wanted
to ensure it was pragmatically addressed. No one likes flooding. It is helpful to have good information
and consistent packets.
If it was accurate that SEPA had already closed, Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked if it was possible to reopen
it for additional comments. Mr. Richardson said he would defer those comment to Kernen Lien. The 60
day comment period is still open. It is very typical for code updates to have parallel processes, one with
Council and the other with SEPA. He apologized for not including the SEPA checklist in the packet.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained SEPA is intended to inform decision makers, the Council in this
case. The Council is not making a decision tonight and will have that information before voting on an
ordinance. For future reference, it is true SEPA encourages that information be circulated and provided at
the earliest possible stage in the process so there isn't too much momentum behind a decision before the
environmental consequences of that decision are known. In this case, there is a DNS so at least in the
City's opinion there are no significant environment impacts associated with the proposal. It is always
important to get information out early, and particularly important in an EIS situation. Mr. Williams said
these changes actually have a positive environmental impact which is why the DNS is justified. Some
may wish the changes were more aggressive or had more impact and they could be modified to do that.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine said in reading the code, the proposed changes are more protective. She took
constructive notice that there are seven stream basins through Edmonds that run through downtown,
Perrinville, Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek, areas that are more highly impacted due to the climate
crisis. She was grateful the City will be updating its Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. She requested trees
be treated as essential stormwater infrastructure because in a rain event, a large conifer can soak up 500
gallons of water. She understood from an engineer's point of view a tree is not permanent but everything
helps. Mr. Williams said that sounds complicated; he has not seen a model for that but staff will
immediately begin searching for one. He wondered if that could be a good part of the Salmon Safe
certification. Mayor Pro Tern Paine recalled one of the Council's regular commenters suggested looking
at the King County stormwater modeling.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine declared a brief recess.
3. HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY SIGNS
In light of the time and the amount of discussion Councilmember K. Johnson said 45 minutes would not
be enough time for this item and she preferred to delay it to a future meeting.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine preferred to continue with this item as there were consultants present.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE
WHEN IT CAN BE GIVEN PROPER ATTENTION. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this is an important piece of moving forward with the
redevelopment of Highway 99 and she did not want it repeatedly pushed off for other agenda items.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 30
Public Works Director introduced Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss City Engineer Rob English
and the project team Jim Howard and Rachel Dotson, HBB.
Mr. Hauss explained this is a follow-up to the August 24' presentation to Council on the Edmonds
Highway 99 Gateway sign options for the north and south ends of the corridor. The public was surveyed
in August and approximately 50 people responded. There was also a community workshop and a task
force meeting. At the August 24' meeting, the Council requested more public input and survey responses.
A second press release was done in late August as well as posted on the City's Facebook site requesting
additional feedback. The second round of the survey closed September 15' and there were an additional
330 responses.
Ms. Dotson reviewed:
Project Location
o North gateway location: 212' Street
o South gateway: 205' at Edmonds -Shoreline city limits
Analysis - South
o Location: Lawn area within WSDOT limited access in front of Campbell Nelson
o Survey Feedback
■ Which south Gateway sign type do you prefer?
■ South Sign A: Vertical
- 47% preferred (was 40%)
■ South Sign B: Horizonal
- 52% preferred (was 60%)
■ Examples of vertical and horizontal configurations
Analysis - North
o Location: Back of sidewalk in front of Magic Toyota and smaller sign in median between
208' and 212' Streets
o Survey Feedback
■ Which north Gateway sign type do you prefer?
■ North Sign A (median): Vertical
- 25% preferred (was 25%)
■ North Sign B (median + back of sidewalk): Vertical
- 32% preferred (was 32%)
■ North Sign C: (back of sidewalk) Vertical
- 21 % preferred (was 21 %)
■ North Sign D: (back of sidewalk): Horizontal
- 22% preferred (was 22%)
Survey Feedback
o What should the Gateway signs say?
■ Welcome to Edmonds
- 70% preferred (was 63%)
■ Welcome to Uptown Edmonds
- 6% preferred (was 7%)
■ Welcome to Edmonds
- 2% preferred "kind" or "artistic," "beautiful, "City of," "picturesque," or "evergreen"
(was 5%)
■ Other?
- 4% preferred Scenic Edmonds," "Welcome" in many languages or "It's an Edmonds
Kind of Day" (was 9%)
■ Edmonds
- 17% preferred (was 16%)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 31
7.2.a
o What should the letter style be?
■ Edmonds
- 38% preferred (was 46%)
■ Edmonds
- 62% preferred (was 54%)
o North Gateway Character
■ Business
■ Multicultural
■ Commercial
■ Industrial
o South Gateway Character
■ Commercial
■ International
■ Welcoming
o Gateway Character & Inspiration
■ 55% Natural Elements (was 55%)
■ 34% Modern (was 33%)
■ 32% Sustainability (was 35%)
■ 27% Sculptural Art (was 33%)
■ 26% Light (was 35%)
■ 26% Color (was 31%)
■ 24% Culture (was 33%)
■ 23% Future & Vision (was 31%)
■ 22% Contemporary (was 20%)
■ 18% Traditional (was 14%)
■ 15% History (was 8%)
■ Other suggestions
- Welcoming
- Integrative to environment, useful in some way, make noise when rained on
- Inclusive
- Solar powered lighting
- Native history
- Mountains and Sound
- Vibrant
o Should the North and South Gateway signs match?
■ 71 % (was 66%) they should match each other
■ 21 % (was 19%) they should each be unique
■ 8% (was 15%) Other
o Should the Gateway signs match other signs in Edmonds?
■ 51 % (was 47%) prefer similar elements to other signs but overall should be unique
■ 22% (was 22%) prefer similar to Welcome to Downtown Edmonds sign
■ 22% (was 22%) prefer similar to Edmonds Wayfinding signs
■ 6% (was 9%) Other
o Sign Character
■ Traditional Gateway character
- 18% (was 14%)
■ Modern Gateway Character
- 55% Natural Elements (was 55%
- 34% Sustainability (was 33%)
- 32% Modern (was 35%)
■ Contemporary Gateway Character
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 32
7.2.a
- 27% Sculptural Art (was 33%)
- 26% Light (was 35%)
- 26% Color (was 31 %)
Discussion
o South Gateway Alternatives
■ South Sign A
- Size and shape: Vertical
■ South Sign B
- Size & shape: Hybrid Vertical/Horizontal
o North Gateway Alternatives
■ North Sign A (median + architectural element at back of sidewalk)
- Size and shape: Vertical with architectural element at back of sidewalk
■ North Sign B (median)
- Size & shape: Vertical
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the car dealership on the south end indicated they were more
interested in a horizontal sign. Mr. Williams said the survey results were 52% and 48%. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas recalled the car dealership was concerned a vertical sign would block the dealership and
was more interested in a horizontal gateway sign. She noted the south sign would affect the car dealership
more than just about anything on the highway. Ms. Dotson said the car dealership's representative will be
involved in the upcoming stakeholder meeting and a separate meeting will be held with him as well.
Ms. Dotson continued her review:
• Process
o Project timeline
■ Background & Site analysis - May early April 2021
- Task Force Meeting #1
■ Gateway Visioning - Summer 2021
- Task Force Meeting #2
- Task Force Meeting #3
- City Council Meeting #1
- WSDOT Art Plan Review
■ Concept Alternatives - Autumn 2021
- Task Force Meeting #4
- Community Workshop #2
- Task Force Meeting #5
- City Council Meeting #2
■ Construction Documentation - Winter 2021
- 90% Construction Documents
- WSDOT Art Plan Approval
- 95% Construction Documents
- 100% Construction Documents
■ Construction - 2022
Ms. Dotson explained the next presentation to Council will include landscaping, actual sign concepts,
lighting, daytime and nighttime views, etc. At that point, further feedback from the public will be sought
via an online survey. Mr. Howard advised there would be 3-4 options for each of the north and south
signs.
Councilmember Olson expressed her thanks for all the work that went into the presentation and getting
additional feedback, finding it helpful to see what remained consistent and what changed based on
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 33
7.2.a
additional input. She was unsure how difficult it would be to reach those areas, but suggested it may be
possible to extend the flower basket program as the vertical element.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine requested comments stick to the agenda item. Councilmember Olson said she was
providing input on the Highway 99 gateway signs.
Councilmember Olson continued, suggesting the flower pole could be the vertical element in the hybrid
sign if that would be an option to reach it for watering. With regard to the north sign with the architectural
element on the side, she wondered how much value that added and at what cost. It may be slightly
preferable to just the vertical sign in the middle, but people in the survey were not asked if they would
preferred it if there was an additional cost. She did not think the architectural element on the side added
much and there would be an additional cost.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there had been a determination from WSDOT about using median
for a vertical element. Mr. Howard answered WSDOT said it would be acceptable. Councilmember K.
Johnson asked if consideration had been given to moving the north gateway sign further north where
Edmonds began such as in front of the old PUD building where there would not be so much visual
distraction with the car dealership. Mr. Howard answered three different north location were evaluated.
Given that there was so much competition with the Toyota sign further north, that corner did not lend
itself to two signs in such close proximity.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the old PUD location in Edmonds was considered. Mr. Howard said
the PUD building is directly south of the proposed location. Mr. Hauss said the proposed location is on
the northern end of the old PUD site. Mr. Williams advised the car dealership and the old PUD site are
owned by the same property owner. The proposed location is the furthest north and closest to the city
limits. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the team for opening the survey again which resulted in a
tremendous number of additional responses.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said further north of that location is Lynnwood not Edmonds. This
location is far north in Edmonds as it could go. With regard to flower baskets, they are only good for three
months of the year and could be considered as redevelopment of Highway 99 occurs, but she was unsure
that a location in the middle of Highway 99 would be appropriate. She appreciated the team reopening the
survey, commenting she was present when a lot of input was provided at the Edmonds Uptown Market
from people who live in the area. That was a great place to do the survey and to talk to people who live in
the area.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the next step was developing designs based on the survey responses.
Ms. Dotson explained 3-4 options for each sign location would be developed for the public to vote on.
They will work with the steering committee and WSDOT throughout that process. Councilmember
Buckshnis said she was really impressed with the number of people who completed the survey. Ms.
Dotson clarified there will be one more survey after the design concepts are developed.
It was the consensus of Council to authorize development of further conceptual designs.
4. COUNCIL VOTE TO RETURN MEETINGS TO VIRTUAL PLATFORM IN LIEU OF IN -
PERSON MEETINGS
Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, the packet says instead of in -person in Council
Chambers, but that is not the option under discussion. Mayor Pro Tern Paine clarified the decision is a
hybrid versus strictly virtual.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 34
7.2.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking if the Council had voted to return to
hybrid meetings versus in -person or Zoom. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said the Council voted to return to
virtual only meetings.
Councilmember Olson said the Council had previous voted to go to hybrid meetings and then voted to go
to virtual. At this point, the decision is whether to remain virtual or return to hybrid.
Councilmember Distelhorst said at last week's Alliance for Housing Affordability meeting which
includes jurisdictions across the county, another mayor asked whether any Councils were meeting in -
person and the answer was negative; all 15 cities represented at that meeting are all continuing to meet
virtually based on public health guidance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to an Associated Press article in today's Herald that states
COVID numbers are looking better in Washington. That is a good thing but it does not mean it is good
enough for everyone return in -person. The article addressed the number of hospitalizations and the high
percentage of critical hospitalizations. The most recent information is 92-93% of COVID-related deaths
are people who are unvaccinated. Her biggest problem is the City cannot require people who come into
Council Chambers to be vaccinated and cannot asked them their vaccination status because it could be
viewed as withholding their ability to participate in government. She was not super comfortable at this
point getting together in close quarters without preventative things that are occurring in other locations
such as airlines, restaurants, etc. She anticipated restrictions will continue to increase until more people
get vaccinated. She anticipated all Councilmembers were vaccinated; she has had three shots. She was
uncomfortable not knowing whether people in Chambers had been vaccinated and summarized she was
not sure whether it was worth her life.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson said she researched what surrounding cities are doing; as of last
week Shoreline, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Everett are all meeting virtually.
According to the Health District the numbers have plateaued but there were at the highest so while
plateauing is good, it is not out of the weeds. Plateauing does not mean transmission rates are not still at
an all-time high, that ERs are not full, or that healthcare professionals are not overburdened. It also
doesn't mean that Edmonds overreacted and is an anomaly; all the surrounding cities are meeting
virtually right now. She was confident in the decision the Council made a month ago and continuing to
meet virtually given the facts of what is going on and decisions that surrounding cities have made, that it
is best to continue meeting virtually while waiting for the numbers to not only plateau but drop to a
transmission rate that is acceptable for meeting in person.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented people are going to Mariner games, football games, going out to
dinner, and going out. She supported a hybrid model, and although the City is doing its best, there are
citizens who want to be heard who do not like to call in and not be seen, noting a thousand things can be
learned from a person's face. She believed citizens should be listened to, pointing out Port Townsend
reads all their public comments into record. She was in favor of a hybrid model, commenting
Councilmembers can decide whether to attend in person or not.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled when the Council decided to meet virtually, three Councilmembers
wanted to stay with a hybrid, Councilmembers Buckshnis, Olson and Fraley-Monillas, and she and three
other Councilmembers wanted to go virtual, Councilmember Distelhorst, Council President Pro Tem L.
Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem Paine. She recalled the first hybrid meeting where 75 people attended, very few
wore masks and there was no social distancing. Her reaction was to the delta variant and her concern that
the space was not controlled. After that vote, she heard from many constituents and Councilmembers who
convinced her to go back to the hybrid model because anyone who is fearful for their life can attend
virtually and anyone who is comfortable attending may do so, both Councilmembers and the public. She
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 35
summarized she now supports a hybrid model, believing it will help the community and provide two
options for Councilmembers, continue to attend virtually or attend in person.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine said remaining in the virtual world adds layers of protection for the community.
Councilmember and staff ensure productive meetings are held in the virtual environment. No other
governmental agencies are meeting in person; this is not an overreaction but an effort to continue to meet
in a safe manner. There is still a high level of occupancy in the area ICUs, it is a terrible disease and she
would hate for anyone to be impacted by it.
Councilmember Olson said the Council knows how to gather safety and should do that using the air
filtration systems the City has invested in, wearing masks, providing and encouraging the use of hand
sanitizer, and spacing out seats in Council Chambers. If businesses and schools are open, it seems
counterintuitive that the government, fully funded by taxpayers, would not be open. As a taxpayer, she
was not comforted by the fact that no other governments were open, that is inappropriate and she
considered Council meetings to be an essential service. She reiterated the Council knew how to gather
safely.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was glad to hear that some are feeling safe meeting in person.
She was concerned about having staff present in the room. Without knowing the public's vaccination
status, that is a very dangerous situation to put staff in which is why most cities are not meeting. She
understood constituents' comments, but if the Council returned to live meetings it should be required that
all Councilmembers are present, not some present and some not. As was pointed out to her lately, if
someone was sick they should stay home and not participate virtually. Having a combination of virtual
and live confuses the situation and makes it very difficult to make decisions. She was also concerned with
putting staff in danger at live meetings. She assured her life was not worth going live because after having
lung cancer and essentially only one lung, she cannot go on a ventilator so if she gets COVID and has to
be hospitalized, she will die. Although she originally voted to stay live, the more she has heard about
giving people a choice whether or not to be present, she wondered what was the point.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, stating the vote was not whether to be live versus
online, the vote was hybrid or virtual. Mayor Pro Tern Paine said she understood that and ruled point not
taken.
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said to the best of her knowledge, the air filtration system in
Council Chambers had not been updated to COVID standards, the windows do not open, and even at the
meeting where more people wore masks, they removed them to speak. She recalled attending virtually in
Spring 2020 from the protection of her own home and watching staff be inundated by the public not
wearing masks and coming into their space. People have different values and space requirements and they
may not respect staff. She found it offensive for the Council to vote for a hybrid model and probably stay
home because it was safest, knowing what that would do to staff. If it was safest for Councilmembers to
stay home, that same safety needs to be provided for staff members. The statement that everybody can
make their own decisions is not necessarily the case.
Councilmember K. Johnson said if the Council chooses to remain virtual, she requested IT figure out a
way for people making public comments and speaking during public hearing to be seen by the Council.
Many other entities display speakers but Edmonds Council only hears them.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion. If the Council
remains virtual, it is important for the public to be seen when speaking.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 36
7.2.a
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR 20 MINUTES UNTIL 10:20. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she appreciated staff but the city hasn't closed down and people are out
and about. She suggested if people are getting too close to the City Clerk, a barrier could be put up. She
was unsure how people could protect themselves other than wearing a mask. She summarized the
numbers have stabilized and she supported a hybrid approach because people want to come back to
Council and have their voices heard.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed according to the Snohomish Health District, the area of exposure
is 8-10 feet.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CONTINUE TO MEET VIRTUALLY FOR ONE MONTH AND REVISIT AT AN
APPROPRIATE COUNCIL MEETING AT THE END OF OCTOBER.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND
FRALEY-MONILLAS, MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L.
JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON
VOTING NO.
9. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS
OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Olson referred to an article in My Edmonds News regarding the concerns of some of the
City's frontline workers. She thanked them and all the frontline workers, most of them in Parks and
Public Works, for their efforts on behalf of the community and recognized and appreciated their sacrifice.
She requested the Administration look at all the COVID safety practices such as how many people are in
the cab of a truck and ensure that everything possible is done to keep these workers safe.
Councilmember Olson reminded that the last of the six budget town halls is Thursday, September 30 at 6
p.m. at Hickman park. If a dozen or so people attend, the total for the town halls will be over 50. She
looked forward to hearing residents' spending priorities for 2022.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson reminded on Thursday as part of National Suicide Prevention
Month, Wendy Burchill, Snohomish Health District will do QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) suicide
prevention training. Further information can be found at WeCare.Edmondswa.gov.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to a City staff email that showed up in My Edmonds News,
commenting she would have preferred to hear about it live versus hearing about it on social media. The
Council was not notified of the problems and her empathy would have definitely been toward staff. Her
son's father works for WSDOT and when COVID was very contagious and people weren't vaccinated, he
drove in a truck alone, and cleaned the truck with Clorox wipes when he got in and out. There are things
the City can do to include compensation for that level of work. She wished staff had reached out to the
Council instead of reaching out to the media. There is a way to resolve this and she looked forward to
having further discussions about it.
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson's comments regarding Wendy
Burchill's QPR training. He saw it last year and felt it was very valuable for people of all ages and he
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 37
7.2.a
encouraged the public to attend on Thursday evening. He thanked the community panelists who
participated in the Suicide Prevention Panel last Thursday evening. He looked forward to the City posting
the recording so it could be shared more widely in the community.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Olson for the informative event at Seaview Park. She
relayed a neighbor's comments that she was very impressed by the discussions. She expressed
appreciation for the input she has received from citizens at the town halls. She announced Halloween
Howl on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. T-shirts will be sold as well as a costume competition at 1 p.m.,
Senior Animal Control Officer Shoemake will answer questions, and OLAE will pay for dog licenses for
the first 10 people.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine commented she looked forward to a busy week with the suicide prevention QPR
and the budget meet ups which have been well attended. With regard to the article in My Edmonds News,
she agreed the frontline crews have not had the same opportunity to work from home. She was hopeful
that the Administration would look at options. She expressed appreciation for the work staff has been
doing non-stop, recognizing that their work -life balance has not been in sync with other employees and
she was hopeful that a way could be found to make it right.
Councilmember K. Johnson echoed the thanks to Councilmember Olson for providing an opportunity for
discussion about the budget. There are usually 1-2 people involved in budget discussions;
Councilmember Olson's town halls have increased that at least 25 fold. The town halls have been a
wonderful thing and should be done every year. With regard to the article in My Edmonds News, she was
concerned that so many people were unhappy and believed the Administration should take steps to meet
with them and address their concerns.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating the Council can go into executive session and if
extra time is needed, come out and say additional time is needed.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the meeting time needs to be extended for as long as the Council thinks
will be needed for executive session. The executive session can be extended by having someone come
out, but the actual Council meeting cannot be extended during executive session. He recommended
extending the meeting now so the Council did not have to go in and out of public and executive session.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked the length of the executive session. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said 30
minutes.
City Clerk Scott Passey said the link to the executive session was the same for all executive sessions.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO EXTEND 10:40
P.M.
Mr. Taraday clarified if the Council meeting was extended to 10:40 and not all that time was needed for
the executive session, the meeting could be adjourned earlier. If the Council announced the executive
session would go until 10:40, then the Council would need to wait until then to adjourn. He suggested
extending the executive session in increments, but extending the Council meeting in one fell swoop.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested the link to the executive session Zoom be sent to her via text as her
server was down.
At Councilmember Distelhorst's request, Mayor Pro Tem Paine restated the motion:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 38
7.2.a
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:40.
MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MAYOR PRO TEM
PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE AND EVALUATE COMPLAINTS OR
CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(F)
At 10:16 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Paine announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to
receive and evaluate a complaint against a public officer or employee per RCW 42.30.110(1)(f). The
executive session is scheduled to last until approximately 10:30 p.m. Elected officials present at the
executive session were Councilmembers K. Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Olson, Paine,
Distelhorst, and L. Johnson. City Attorney Jeff Taraday was also present. The executive session
concluded at 10:30 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 39
7.2.a
Public Comment for 9/28/21 Council Meeting:
Please Note: Comments submitted for inclusion for the 9/21/21 Public Hearing were
inadvertently left out; please scroll down to see those comments below.
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 6:09 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Michelle Dotsch
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Continuation of Public Hearing 9/28/21 on ECDC 18.30
Thanks, Michelle. This alone should invalidate this process and require them to START OVER.
How much of this obfuscation and jacking us around should we be expected to take?
Joan Bloom
From: Danielle Hursh
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:28 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment on Virtual Meetings
Dear Edmonds City Council Members,
Please consider this public comment regarding tonight's meeting and public hearing on
whether or not to continue to have Council meetings virtually.
I would implore you to keep these meetings virtual.
I am immune compromised, with an auto -immune disease AND I am on an immune suppressing
medication for the auto -immune disease. Attending a Council meeting in person would be a
huge risk for me, even though I am vaccinated. Having these meetings conducted virtually
allows me to "attend" and participate, whereas I would not be able to if done in person.
Additionally, it is just not safe in general to have large, indoor, in person meetings at this time
It is the safest, wisest option to continue these virtually for the time being. For EVERYONES
safety.
Furthermore, for long term planning, please consider continuing these meetings as virtual or a
virtual/inperson hybrid. My spouse is disabled and it is not easy for them to attend in person
events during covid times or not. The virtual option has opened up an opportunity for them to
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 40
7.2.a
view these meetings now, whereas they had not been able to before the virtual option due to
covid. Having the virtual option really is an accessibility accommodation in my spouse's
situation.
Thank you for you consideration.
Sincerely,
Danielle Hursh
Edmonds, WA
From: "votepetso (null)"
Date: September 21, 2021 at 18:38:40 PDT
To: mike. nelson @edmondswa.eov
Cc: Adrienne Monillas <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>, Vivian Olson
<vivian.olson@edmondswa.gov>, Diane Buckshnis <diane.buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>, Susan
Paine <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>, Luke Distelhorst <Juke.distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>,
Laura Johnson <laura.iohnson@edmondswa.gov>, kristiana.iohnson@edmondswa.gov
Subject: Public hearing on stormwater
Please accept these comments for the public hearing record, and for the SEPA record.
Please continue the hearing so further comments may be made.
Please prevent further water from reaching our neighborhood. Previously we had a couple of
homes with flooding issues during winter rains, now we have more, including my property.
Detain the water on site until the ground can accomodate the flow.
Also, please ask about item d on packet page 384. It looks like the insertion of the word "hard"
may change the treatment of crumb rubber playfields and other pollution generating pervious
surfaces (defined on packet page 369). It used to say we can't discharge untreated stormwater
from pollution generating surfaces to ground water. Now the protection is limited to "hard"
surfaces. This seems likely to contaminate the ground water that reaches our streams (including
those used to supply drinking water) and eventually discharge to puget sound.
If you push staff to explain the rational and potential impact of this change, then continue the
public hearing, interested citizens could provide comment at the second hearing with a better
inderstanding of the effect of discharging untreated stormwater from pollution generating
pervious surfaces to ground water.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 41
7.2.a
Why would you change the code to allow the discharge of polluted water to groundwater???
Around here, most groundwater hits the clay layer, then the streams, then the Sound.
Lora
From: michelle dotsch
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 20214:54 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Continuation of Public Hearing 9/28/21 on ECDC 18.30
I would like to address the packet inconsistencies on this continuation of the SAME
Public Hearing on ECDC 18.30 from 9.21.21.
The one I will give as an example is in the 9.21.21 Packet with the same Title of "2022
Stormwater Management Code (ECDC 18.30) Update Presented by Zachary Richardson,
Stormwater Engineer" starting on Page 463.
Every page after that is different from the 9.21.21 presentation packet on this same Public
Hearing.
If you look specifically at Page 469 from the 9.21.21 packet it is written:
"Staff Opinion: The Perrinville has been beaten up by past development and needs better
protections. The change in
flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit requirement attempts
to rectify some of the past
abuses on the creek. Staff believe its fair to ask the residents who have directly benefitted from
the impacts on the creek to chip in a little extra towards its recovery."
In today's Packet which is a CONTINUATION of the same exact Public Hearing of 9.21.21, from
today's 9.28.21 Packet Page 331 it is completely different and now is re -written to:
"Rationale: The Perrinville basin has been greatly affected by past development and needs
enhanced protections.
The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit
requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek."
I had referenced the 9.21.21 information in a comment on MEN from the public hearing and
another citizen today told me they could not find it in today's packet.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 42
7.2.a
It is so confusing for a citizen to have to figure out in such a short amount of time what is new
information, same or edited information. I do believe the same information should be included
for tonight's CONTINUATION of the exact same public hearing at this time for all parties.
How would anyone know they now need to re -read this 9.28.21 packet in full to know if this
Public Hearing information is different from the same Public Hearing information provided to
them from last week as this section shows it was altered.
That would involve reading all the pages from the Public Hearing packet information from
9.21.21 to now read ANOTHER how many pages and try to compare between the 2 as to find
what has changed to be able to competently comment at this continuation of the same public
hearing?
How can the public be asked to participate in such a confusing and inconsistent process
tonight?
AFTER the final date of the continuation of the same public hearing from 9.21.21, only THEN
would any new or updated information be included. Is that not the proper process for a public
hearing to make it fair for the public to have access to the same information as the Council,
Administration and Staff?
Otherwise could this now be 2 different public hearings we are having and not the continuation
of the same one? What are the rules of a public hearing and are they being followed? Who is
ultimately responsible to make sure this is being carried out properly?
Michelle Dotsch
Edmonds Resident
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 3:45 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) Public Hearing
Council,
Thank you for continuing this public hearing. Please include my comments in the public record
and in the SEPA record. I am writing to urge Council to delay finalizing the Stormwater
Management Code for the following reasons:
(1) As Lora Petso stated in her public comments for this evening, the SEPA Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) is in error:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 43
7.2.a
"The SEPA DNS is in error, as it indicates the proposal does not violate any laws. In fact, the
proposal violates WAC 173-200, particularly the antidegradation policy in 173-200-030. The
policy links to the Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) and the Water Resources Act (RCW
90.54)."
(2) The "Salmon Safe Certification" process should be completed prior to finalizing the
Stormwater Management code.
Per Joe Scordino, this would "provide an independent review and verification of the City's
environmental practices for protecting water quality and habitat. The process included an
expert review of the City's Stormwater Management Policies and Practices relative to protecting
the health of the watersheds in Edmonds."
(3) The Perrinville watershed is in serious trouble, causing flooding for many homeowners. This
watershed continues to be impacted by development by Lynnwood. Agreements with Lynnwood
should be finalized.
Per Joe Scordino, "The stormwater flow from winter rainfall events in Edmonds and Lynnwood,
which are predicted to be more frequently intense due to climate change, has destroyed
Perrinville Creek and caused repeated flooding of Edmonds residences."
And, "what changes can be made to stormwater management and practices in Edmonds and
Lynnwood to resolve (or at least minimize) the excess stormwater problems occurring from past
development and roads?"
(4) The public should have an opportunity to review the SEPA document, which was not included
in the staff's presentation. It's concerning that this document was not included for public review.
(5) Staff believes that residents should "chip in" towards Perrinville Creek recovery. What is
meant by this? How is it "fair" that certain residents would pay "a little extra" toward a creek's
recovery?
On p. 469 of the 9-21-21 Council packet:
"Staff Opinion: The Perrinville has been beaten up by past development and needs better
protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the
retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek. Staff believe its
fair to ask the residents who have directly benefitted from the impacts on the creek to chip in a
little extra towards its recovery."
(6) Lack of transparency by the COE in making all public comments available to the public in a
timely manner.
Excerpt from minutes of the first public hearing, pg. 42 in Council's packet, 9-28-21:
"City Clerk Scott Passey answered they would be part of the public record and are entered into
the minutes. Councilmember Olson reiterated her surprise that there were no public comments
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 44
7.2.a
during the public hearing since there was great deal of interest via email. Due to possible
technology issues, she suggested continuing the public hearing to next week."
Despite this statement by the City Clerk, the only comments from last week's public hearing on
the Stormwater Management code "entered into the minutes" in your packet this evening are
from Joe Scordino and Ken Reidy. I am aware of two comments that were not included in your
packet. I'm guessing there are others.
(7) The Stormwater Management Code does not need to be finalized until July 2022. Given the
seriousness of the issues raised, why would you rush approval?
Please ensure that the above issues, and any others presented to you, are resolved in advance of
approving this code.
Regards,
Joan Bloom
Former Edmonds City Council member
From: Marjorie Fields
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 12:47 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa
Subject: stormwater code hearing
Hello Council friends,
Thank you for continuing the hearing on the city stormwater code. As you know, this is an extremely
serious issue for our city and needs careful attention.
Perrinville Creek is just one very visible example of our stormwater problems. Citizens deserve to know
how the tragic destruction of Perrinville Creek will be dealt with, and those with flooded homes and
yards especially deserve answers. We can't afford to continue emergency flood control such as
dumping truckloads of dirt on the mouth of a former salmon -bearing stream. The city must look at the
big picture —the entire watershed and causes of flooding.
Prevention is always the most effective treatment. For instance how could city policies on tree removal
mitigate stormwater runoff damage? Preventive measures must be a major part of the stormwater
code.
We keep hearing that Edmonds doesn't have control of stormwater because Lynnwood stormwater is
part of the problem. Negotiations with Lynnwood therefore need to be part of the plan.
Not so visible as flooding is the content of stormwater that runs through our streams into Puget
Sound. Lora Petso has pointed out violations of pollution control laws in the Stormwater proposal being
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 45
7.2.a
considered here. This is a is a major concern and must be addressed. Edmonds needs a clear plan to
reduce the toxins and other chemicals in our stormwater.
These are big issues and need to be part of our city stormwater plan. Edmonds citizens are counting on
our city staff and government to improve our practices.
I am planning to speak at the hearing as well as submitting this in writing, in hopes that my comments
will be on the record and are heard by the public. So please pardon the repetition.
Thanks for your work on this,
Marjie Fields
From: votepetso (null)
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:33 AM
To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen
<Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Monillas, Adrienne<Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane
<Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson,
Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura
<Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>;
Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Stormwater Public Hearing and SEPA
Please include these, and my prior comments, in the record for the Stormwater public hearing,
and in the SEPA record.
These comments are submitted as an individual, not as a commissioner for Olympic View Water
and Sewer District.
The SEPA DNS is in error, as it indicates the proposal does not violate any laws. In fact, the
proposal violates WAC 173-200, particularly the antidegradation policy in 173-200-030. The
policy links to the Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) and the Water Resources Act (RCW
90.54).
"WAC 173-200-030(2) The antidegradation policy is as follows: (a) Existing and future beneficial
uses shall be maintained and protected and degradation of groundwater quality that would
interfere with or become injurious to beneficial uses shall not be allowed.... (c) Whenever
groundwaters are of a higher quality than the criteria assigned for said waters, the existing
water quality shall be protected, and contaminants shall not be allowed to enter such waters . .
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 46
7.2.a
This provision requires knowing both the quality of the existing groundwater, and the State
ground water standards, and assuring that stormwater discharged meets the standards. The
proposed code doesn't even consider the standard, much less apply it.
As we have some very high quality groundwater, even some used for drinking water with a
formally designated Well -Head Protection Area, it is absurd for Edmonds to disregard this policy
in the stormwater code.
As most groundwater in the area eventually reaches a stream or the Sound, disregarding this
policy is also detrimental to the streams and the Sound.
Please improve this code and implement the antidegradation standard.
Lora Petso
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 7:29 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael
<Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen
<Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the September 28, 2021 City Council Meeting
A little over a year ago, I submitted Public Comments under the following Heading:
Public Comments for September 1, 2020 City Council meeting -remember all persons
attending the meeting must be able to hear each other at the same time
Despite that, citizens of Edmonds were subjected to a Public Hearing on September 21, 2021,
where much confusion was exhibited by City Councilmembers as to how many Public
Comments had been received. Several citizen names were mentioned as having submitted
Public Comments in writing. I submitted Public Comments in writing, but my name was not
mentioned. None of the content of the written comments was disclosed.
It is my understanding that when the decision has been made to allow public comment, such as
when Public Notice has been provided for a Public Hearing, all persons attending the meeting
must be provided the ability to hear each other at the same time. I believe remote members of
the public must be able to contemporaneously hear all discussion, including public comments
submitted by other citizens.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 32
Packet Pg. 47
7.2.a
The fact that the City Council has chosen to not provide your constituents the ability
to contemporaneously hear all discussion, indicates City Council lacks the willpower to
properly conduct Virtual City Council meetings.
Please address your historical conduct at once. Please hold accountable those responsible for
City Council's failure to provide your constituents the ability to contemporaneously hear all
discussion.
If you continue to conduct virtual meetings, please consider what the City of Sea Tac does:
The City Council for the City of Sea Tac has provided the following Written Public
Comment opportunities:
Submit Written Public Comment on any topic or Public Hearing Comment as applicable:
-Submit Email/Text comments by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting to the following email:
Public Comments on any topic: PublicCommentC@seatacwa.gov
Public Hearing Comments, as applicable: PublicHearingComment@seatacawa.gov
-Written comments on any topic will be provided to the City Council and mentioned by
name and subject during the meeting.
-Written Public Hearing Comments will be read into the record, up to 5 minutes in length.
-Written comments will be placed on the City's website for viewing after the meeting.
-Public comments submitted to an email address other than the ones provided above, or
after the deadline, will not be included as part of the record.
Why does Edmonds City Government fall so far short of what the City of Sea Tac has done as
it relates to Written Public Comment? Especially when better treatment has been requested
for months and months.
Remember when I provided you another example - the City of Anacortes use of e-comments
As documented in my Public Comment for July 14, 2020 City Council Meeting:
The Governor's proclamation states
that meetings must provide the ability for all persons attending to hear each other at the sam
e time.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 33
Packet Pg. 48
7.2.a
Why hasn't Edmonds City Council made a greater effort to see that Written Public
Comments are heard?
Please also hold accountable the parties responsible for the provision of false, misleading,
inaccurate, or incomplete City Council Agenda Packets. Thank you.
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 6:50 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael
<Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen
<Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the September 28, 2021 Public Hearing for Stormwater
Management code (ECDC 18.30) update
City of Edmonds government provided notice that, on September 21, 2021, City Council would
hold a Public Hearing for the Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update. The Public
Notice informed that Public Comments for the Public Hearing could be submitted in writing to a
specific City of Edmonds email address. I did so, along with an unknown number of other
citizens.
Much confusion was exhibited during the September 21, 2021 Public Hearing as to how many
Public Comments had been received. Several citizen names were mentioned as having
submitted Public Comments in writing. I submitted Public Comments in writing, but my name
was not mentioned. None of the content of the written comments was disclosed. How are
citizens supposed to know what fellow citizens had to say about the matter? I also have no way
of knowing how many Councilmembers were aware of the Public Comments submitted in
writing for the Public Hearing.
It is my understanding that when the decision has been made to allow public comment, such as
when Public Notice has been provided for a Public Hearing, all persons attending the meeting
must be provided the ability to hear each other at the same time. I believe remote members of
the public must be able to contemporaneously hear all discussion, including public comments
submitted by other citizens.
Per MRSC: The essence of the legislative process is the give and take of different interests, and
the search for a compromise that is acceptable to the majority.
It is critical that the compromise is not based on the provision of false, misleading, inaccurate,
or incomplete information to City Council prior to its vote.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 34
Packet Pg. 49
7.2.a
The September 21, 2021 Public Hearing was continued to September 28, 2021. Incredibly, all
public comments submitted for the September 21, 2021 public hearing were not included as an
Attachment to the September 28, 2021 agenda item continuing the Public Hearing. I asked
Council President Susan Paine to please make sure an Attachment including all Public
Comments made for the September 21, 2021 Public Hearing is added to Council's Agenda
Packet asap. Susan Paine has not responded to my email.
All of this is true even though my September 21, 2021 Public Comments started off as follows:
As a reminder, the City of Sea Tac reads Written Public Hearing Comments into the record, up
to 5 minutes in length. Why doesn't the City of Edmonds do that?
Please hold accountable the parties responsible for the confusion exhibited during the
September 21, 2021 Public Hearing as to how many Public Comments had been received.
Prior to updating the Stormwater Management code, please answer the following questions:
1. When the City claims it needs property for a public purpose such as stormwater overflow,
why does it leave that property in private hands? Why did the City not buy or condemn
the property that was later sold to Donna Breske? Had the City done so, the Breske family's
horrible experience with the City of Edmonds would never have been possible.
2. How did City Water, sewer and storm utilities get located partially within a 60-
ft planned right-of-way in the Seaview Woods area? Did the placement of City Water, sewer
and storm utilities within the "planned right-of-way" open the right-of-way or is a right-of-
way only opened when it is improved so that it can be used for ingress/egress?
3. When the City discovers a stormwater pipe has been installed without permit in an
unopened right-of-way, can the City require the fee title owner to grant the party that installed
the pipe an easement during a street vacation process? Why would the City do that instead of
requiring the party to remove its pipe installed without permit?
4. Can the City divest ownership of publicly owned stormwater facilities to a private property
owner such as was done as part of the Westgate Chapel street vacation?
5. If the City accepts a bond to finalize a plat, does the City have a duty to use the related bond
to finish the required plat improvements so neighboring property owners will not be impacted
by stormwater flowing onto their property?
6 Does the City's Stormwater System establish a connection to navigable waters of the USA
allowing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a Nationwide Permit to fill a wetland located
in Edmonds? Please know the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has claimed this in the past and
issued a permit to fill a wetland located in Edmonds. Does Edmonds City Council need to adopt
legislation making it more difficult for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do this again in the
future?
Thank you for answering all these questions prior to updating the Stormwater Management
code.
Ken Reidy
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 35
Packet Pg. 50
7.2.a
From: votepetso (null)
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 7:59 PM
To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen
<Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Monillas, Adrienne<Adrienne.Mon illas@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane
<Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson,
Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura
<Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>;
Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Stormwater SEPA and public hearing comments
Please include these, and my prior comments, in the record for the Stormwater public hearing,
and in the SEPA record.
These comments are submitted as an individual, not as a commissioner for Olympic View Water
and Sewer District.
Thanks for continuing the public hearing. Please vote to make changes to the proposal and then
do another hearing once the changes are complete. Please also require another SEPA review,
once changes are made. Right now the SEPA comment period is set to end October 6, but
changes will not be complete at that time. An appeal, if any, must be filed by October 13, but
changes will not be complete then either.
This cart before the horse approach violates both GMA and SEPA processes!
Thanks for the follow up on my earlier questions. It seems easiest to change ECDC
18.30.060D(6)d on packet page 245 to read "any pollution -generating surface, including but not
limited to, pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS), pollution -generating impervious surface
(PGIS), and polution-generating pervious surface (PGPS)". Each of those terms is specifically
defined in our code on pages 229-230, and this change would not interfere with whatever staff
is up to with other uses of "hard surface". It would restore that section to its prior standard of
protecting groundwater from any pollution -generating surfaces, including crumb rubber.
Without this change our policy is backward and illegal, and, depending on details, would violate
some or all of the following: RCW 90.48, WAC 173-200, WAC 173-218, and 40 CFR144.12. The
SEPA is erroneous in stating the proposal does not violate any laws.
A related fix is needed to the definition of "vehicular use", as that is relied on directly or
indirectly by all three defined pollution -generating surfaces (PGHS), (PGIS), (PGPS). The
exceptions should be modified so that there is no exception for "restricted access fire lanes,
and infrequently used maintenance access roads". Such designations are too easy to abuse in
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 36
Packet Pg. 51
7.2.a
practice, and thus violate the above cited laws. One such, which can be found at the new
Madrona School, is over 1/10th of a mile in length, and is open weekdays, and used for parking,
deliveries, garbage trucks, etc.
I took this photo this morning, on my way to a meeting (no stake out, it is just a busy
maintenance road and/or fire lane). Note the yellow delivery truck on the far left, and the two
parked cars in the distance.
Also, please tighten up the definition of PGIP to add regulation of any roof, or any roof over a
specified size. It is now well recognized that any roof is a pollution generating surface,
particularly after a wildfire event.
Again, failure to do so is a violation of the above cited laws, and probably of additional laws
specific to surface waters.
Also, the State storm water manual allows consideration of cumulative impacts from future
development. Do it, and protect those of us who already flood.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 37
Packet Pg. 52
7.2.a
If I get time to review this tomorrow I will send additional comments. The draft is dated July,
2021. Is there some notice I missed, that would have allowed me more time? Did this go
through a Council Committee?
If I have failed to send this to the correct e-mail addresses, please forward them for me as I
wish to be a party of record for the SEPA and the public hearing. The SEPA notice mentions Mr.
Lien, and I cannot find the public hearing notice on the City web page. Please assist if I have this
wrong.
Lora Petso
From: joe scordino
Sent: Monday, September 27, 20214:20 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Cc: CityCouncil@LynnwoodWA.gov
Subject: Public Hearing on Edmonds Stormwater Code and involvement of Lynnwood
To: Edmonds City Council
What the public (and Council) needs to know in order to comment on the sufficiency of the
proposed changes to the stormwater code is:
Will it actually change the continuing and increasing stormwater damage occurring in
Edmonds? If so, by how much?
If not, are there additional changes that could be made to the stormwater code to make it more
effective in eliminating additional discharges into storm drains? What about changes to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, the development code, and the tree removal ordinance?
Further, what changes can be made to stormwater management and practices in Edmonds and
Lynnwood to resolve (or at least minimize) the excess stormwater problems occurring from
past development and roads? Is a Lynnwood diversion pipe needed?
The stormwater flow from winter rainfall events in Edmonds and Lynnwood, which are
predicted to be more frequently intense due to climate change, has destroyed Perrinville Creek
and caused repeated flooding of Edmonds residences. Other creeks in Edmonds and the
salmon in them also are being damaged by excess stormwater.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 38
Packet Pg. 53
7.2.a
When is Edmonds going to start addressing this REAL crisis? Are negotiations with Lynnwood
underway?
[the Perrinville Creek stormwater catastrophe was predicted over 20 years ago in a 1998
Report to the City which said "Urban development has resulted in higher flows in Perrinville
Creek that have increased stream power .... The erosion by Perrinville Creek, if left unchecked,
poses a threat to homes, to Talbot Road, and to the Burlington Northern Railroad."
The public saw a glimmer of hope when Mayor Nelson committed to a Perrinville Creek
Restoration Plan that would be presented to the Edmonds City Council for review and direction,
WITH public input. BUT, over six months later, NOTHING has been presented to Council except
a request for $3.5M for Perrinville Creek with no detail on what it would be used for.
The City also had an opportunity to get an independent, EXPERT assessment of stormwater
management in Edmonds so that the expert advice could be used in the Perrinville Restoration
Plan, this stormwater code update, and overall City practices to resolve excess stormwater
problems. BUT, almost a year has passed since a Scope -of -Work was prepared with the
Salmon -Safe organization, and NO contract/agreement has yet been issued for this EXPERT
stormwater advice.
The Council needs to have the Mayor and City staff address all of the above BEFORE giving staff
a green light to proceed with their proposed update to the stormwater code. Commitments
from Lynnwood are essential to this process.
Further, there were MANY written public comments for last week's public hearing that the
Edmonds City Council needs to discuss BEFORE just "moving on" with the agenda item on
stormwater code.
And, why wasn't the SEPA document included in the agenda so the Council could obtain public
comments on that too during the public hearing (and hopefully actually read and listen to
constituent input AND actually discuss each comment as part of the public hearing)?
From: Olson, Vivian
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 12:20 AM
To: Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Ken Reidy
Subject: All sent- include with documentation of the hearing?
Hi- all that came to council addresses have now been forwarded. I did not send the ones (like
Ken's) which included the public comments email address as the conversation at meeting
indicated that those were captured.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 39
Packet Pg. 54
7.2.a
I hope it is possible to include with the online version so all citizens can see what all others
have written prior to the continued hearing as it is my understanding that that is the
requirement.
Vivian
From: James Ogonowski <lames.m.ogonowski@hotmail.com>
Date: September 25, 2021 at 8:50:17 PM PDT
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Storm Water Management
Dear City Council members,
Thank you for taking up the discussion on the storm water situation in our city. Rather than
making a public comment, I'd just like to share with you some first-hand observations and a
suggestion or two.
I live at the bottom of Perrinville Creek, directly across from the catch basin which connects the
creek to Puget Sound. The catch basin used to be directly fed only by the creek. However, back
in (approximately) 2012, the city made a change by adding a storm water pipe to the catch
basin, redirecting storm water and thus increasing inflow at the catch basin significantly. Ever
since that modification, the local storm water flooding situation has worsened.
There are two restrictions to water flow along Perrinville Creek which contribute to the
flooding. The culvert under Talbot Rd. and the culvert under the railroad tracks to the
Sound. The significant rain event we had last December actually sent the creek over its banks
and flooding across Talbot Rd., temporarily closing the road all because of the restricted water
flow under the road by the size of the culvert. The flooding around the catch basin itself is due
to the undersized culvert under the railroad tracks to the Sound.
The amount of water flowing from the Perrinville basin in combination with the amount of flow
added by the modification to the catch basin simply exceeds the capacity of the piping to the
Sound. As simple as that. Sediment carried down the creek is a contributing factor, however
not the root cause. Other preventative measures can be made along the creek itself to address
the sediment issue.
I seem to continually hear about Lynnwood's responsibilities here as well, and I
agree. However, I have never seen them recognize or cooperate on this issue. A resolution
asking them to do something is worthless and a waste of your time. What I haven't heard much
about is how to work with BNSF to get a larger culvert under the tracks. NO amount of
mitigation or changes at the catch basin will stop the flooding unless a larger pipe leads to the
Sound. City Staff seems to think otherwise and is proposing a foolish approach as they did
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 40
Packet Pg. 55
7.2.a
when they directed more water to the catch basin in 2012. This will be money wastefully
spent.
Nothing in the proposed Storm Water Management Code update will alleviate the Perrinville
Creek situation. "Enhanced protections" will do nothing for a problem which is here and
now. As an engineer, this is a simple physics problem with a simple solution. Let's stop wasting
our time and money on solutions which won't work.
Jim Ogonowski
Edmonds
From: "votepetso (null)" <votepetso@aol.com>
Date: September 21, 2021 at 6:38:48 PM PDT
To: "Nelson, Michael" <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Cc: "Monillas, Adrienne" <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>, "Olson, Vivian"
<Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>, "Buckshnis, Diane"<Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>,
"Paine, Susan" <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>, "Distelhorst, Luke"
<Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>, "Johnson, Laura" <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>,
"Johnson, Kristiana"<kristiana.iohnson@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public hearing on stormwater
Please accept these comments for the public hearing record, and for the SEPA record.
Please continue the hearing so further comments may be made.
Please prevent further water from reaching our neighborhood. Previously we had a couple of
homes with flooding issues during winter rains, now we have more, including my property.
Detain the water on site until the ground can accomodate the flow.
Also, please ask about item d on packet page 384. It looks like the insertion of the word "hard"
may change the treatment of crumb rubber playfields and other pollution generating pervious
surfaces (defined on packet page 369). It used to say we can't discharge untreated stormwater
from pollution generating surfaces to ground water. Now the protection is limited to "hard"
surfaces. This seems likely to contaminate the ground water that reaches our streams (including
those used to supply drinking water) and eventually discharge to puget sound.
If you push staff to explain the rational and potential impact of this change, then continue the
public hearing, interested citizens could provide comment at the second hearing with a better
inderstanding of the effect of discharging untreated stormwater from pollution generating
pervious surfaces to ground water.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 41
Packet Pg. 56
7.2.a
Why would you change the code to allow the discharge of polluted water to groundwater???
Around here, most groundwater hits the clay layer, then the streams, then the Sound.
Lora
From: John Lyons
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:11 PM
To: Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; English, Robert
<Robert.English @edmondswa.gov>; Richardson, Zachary
<Zachary.Richardson@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn
<Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Stormwater Threat to 5th Avenue South
To: Phil Williams, Public Works & Utilities Director
Robert English, City Engineer
Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer
Edmonds City Council
Mayor Mike Nelson
Subject: Stormwater Threat to Sth Avenue South
Watching heavy storm events since moving into the Shellabarger Creek Condominium building
(525 5th Avenue South / 504 Holly Drive) four years ago, I've grown increasingly alarmed by the
erosion and flooding of Shellabarger Creek, which crosses the south side of our
property. Storm events have been increasing in severity and frequency every year, and I fear
the result will be a situation similar to the one seen with Perrinville Creek, this time occurring in
a busy residential, business, and traffic area on 5th Avenue South in the Edmonds
Bowl. Hopefully, we have time to take remedial action now, before there is serious damage to
homes, multi -family buildings, businesses, or to 5th Avenue itself.
Whenever there is heavy rainfall for any extended time, a torrent of muddy water loaded with
debris of all kinds rushes downhill from far above us crossing many properties and gathering
strength as it flows from above 7th Ave under Hemlock Way and Homeland Drive until it pours
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 42
Packet Pg. 57
7.2.a
into the meandering section of Shellabarger Creek beside our building. This causes two basic
problems:
1. Erosion of the creek bed. Rapid flow of storm runoff down Shellabarger Creek east
of 5th Avenue South is eroding the creek bed. In a single storm event in December,
2020, it carved away a six-foot section of the embankment near our parking lot. The
stormwater carries a heavy load of silt and debris down the creek toward a large culvert
under 5th Avenue South. Some of this massive amount of silt undoubtedly ends up in
Edmonds Marsh impacting sensitive wildlife habitat.
2. Flooding. Debris carried by stormwater blocks the grate at the entry to the culvert
under 5th Avenue South, which causes formation of a virtual lake on the east side of 5th
Avenue that on multiple occasions has risen alarmingly close to the commercial
properties on the ground floor of our building. The Edmonds Public Works team has
been responsive and proactive in attempting to remove debris from the grate to relieve
the water backup. However, on a number of occasions I and my neighbors have
watched Public Works team members struggle, slip and fall into the roiling water at the
culvert entry. This will become unworkable and clearly unsafe as storms become worse.
In addition, the condition of the culvert and subsurface soil around the culvert where it
passes beneath the Ace Hardware / Pancake Haus parking lot and businesses is a
concern, with any subsurface erosion eventually leading to possible subsidence of
pavement and building foundations as well as damage to utilities running below the
street.
Our association in the past brought in large rocks to try to prevent erosion of the creek bed on
our property, but these rocks were quickly carried away by subsequent flooding. It is clearly
beyond the capability of our small association to address this issue in any effective
way. Property owners west of 5th Avenue are at risk, as is the City itself to the extent that 5th
Avenue and utilities may be flooded or damaged by erosion and subsidence.
I'm enclosing a few photos of the erosion and flooding that we've seen. We are asking the City
of Edmonds to take responsibility for coordinating and addressing this issue as a matter of high
priority. To a greater or lesser extent much of Edmonds may, most likely will, be impacted by
flooding, and 5th Avenue South is particularly important as a major access route and business
area.
A possible approach might include steps such as these:
1. Geotechnical and hydrological assessments
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 43
Packet Pg. 58
7.2.a
a. There was a sinkhole in this area that was repaired in 2003-2004. This
required repair of the culvert, repair of utilities underneath 5th Avenue South,
repair of the street surface, repair of the Petosa's (now Ace's) parking lot, and a
number of multi -day street closures.
b. What is the current condition of the soil around the culvert entry on the
east side of 5th Avenue South? Is it stable? Is it saturated?
C. What is the condition of the culvert itself? It runs below the Ace parking lot
and presumably some portion of the building that houses Ace and Pancake
Haus. Can a remote camera inspection be done? Can test holes be dug to assess
the soil around the culvert?
d. What does the water flow down the long hill above the Edmonds Bowl look
like? Could the flow be slowed or redirected before it reaches the Bowl?
e. What does the water flow look like between 5th Avenue South and the
Edmonds Marsh? Is silt carried by flood events likely to hamper recovery efforts
for the marsh?
2. Scope assessment
a. What are the impacts above (east) and below (west) of 5th Avenue? For
example, units in the 3rd Avenue Condominiums next to City Park have
experienced flooding from Shellabarger Creek in the past year.
b. The culvert under 5th Avenue South may be most problematic, but there
are other culverts both above and below 5th Avenue (e.g., running under
Homeland Drive and Hemlock Place). What happens at those culverts during
heavy storms?
3. Climate assessment
a. Has the City of Edmonds maintained records of local flooding over past
decades? What do those records indicate in terms of trends and the scope of the
problems of flooding and erosion?
b. What do climate models suggest about the frequency and severity of
storms and atmospheric river events such as the Pineapple Express?
C. What are other communities in the Pacific Northwest doing to prepare for
future severe weather events and to mitigate future flooding, soil erosion, and
mudslides? What plans does the City of Edmonds have?
4. Short-term remediation plan
a. Can anything be done to reduce erosion and flooding in the short run that
doesn't require long lead times or high costs?
b. More proactive clearing at and around culverts? Large rocks to slow flow
and reduce erosion and silting? Other ideas?
5. Long-term remediation plan
a. Develop a longer -term remediation plan (including, for example,
budgeting, financing, consulting, and updating City codes) working in conjunction
with appropriate local, state & federal organizations.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 44
Packet Pg. 59
7.2.a
b. This issue clearly goes beyond what the City of Edmonds can do on its own,
but the City, rather than individual residents and businesses, should be
responsible for engaging in a coordinated manner with other accountable
authorities.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
John Lyons, President, Shellabarger Creek Condominium Owners' Association
Aerial view of 525 5th Ave South. Shellabarger Creek is just above the building. The Ace
Hardware & Pancake Haus parking lot is on the right.
Erosion caused by a single storm in late December, 2020.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 45
Packet Pg. 60
a
7.2.a
City worker attempting to clear the culvert grate, which is far below where he's standing, as
flooding water approaches our building foundation.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 46
Packet Pg. 61
7.2.a
From: Marjorie Fields
Date: September 21, 2021 at 3:43:03 PM PDT
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "Nelson, Michael"
<Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Stormwater hearing
Stormwater seems to be a major problem for Edmonds, and I see that the city is trying to solve
some of them.
However, it would have been so much better if the update could be based on the expert review
of city water quality by the Salmon Safe organization — a review that is in the city plan for this
year but has not yet occurred.
In your response to the proposed update, I ask that the Council specifically mandate that input
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 47
Packet Pg. 62
7.2.a
from the Salmon Safe review be incorporated into stormwater management practices as soon
as that information is available.
Thank you for all you do,
Marjie Fields
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 48
Packet Pg. 63
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Approval of claim and payroll checks.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #249270 through #249400 dated September 30, 2021 for $973,645.73.
Approval of clothing allowance checks #64818 through #64820 dated September 24, 2021 for Law
Enforcement Commissioned Employees in the amount of $1,343.16 per union contract.
Staff Recommendations
Approval of claim and payroll checks.
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.
Attachments:
claims 09-30-21
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-30-21
payroll summary 09-24-21
Packet Pg. 64
7.3.a
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249270 9/30/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
0
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
CM-2-1520
RETURNING EXTRA PAIR OF BOOT
ui
RETURNING EXTRA BOOTS - DUNF
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
-129.9�
10.1 % Sales Tax
U
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
-13.1 ' o
INV-2-13164
INV-2-13164 - EDMONDS PD- GREE
L
SAFARILAND ID PANEL
a
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0(
HEATPRESS EDMONDS PD
ea
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0(
2 NAME TAPES
U
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.0( o
2 VELCRO
'R
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( o
10.1 % Sales Tax
Q.
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
4.6E Q
INV-2-13165
INV-2-13165 - EDMONDS PD - WEIE
BIANCHI 7205 INNER BELT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
25.5( M
V2 TACTICAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
179.9, N
DANNER STIKER BOOTS
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
229.9E fd
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
43.9� y
INV-2-13287
INV-2-13287 - EDMONDS PD - VICK,
E
8 COG - 16 PATCH REMOVE/INSTAL
t
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
48.0( r
8 NEW NAME TAPES
Q
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 11.3,
INV-2-13288 INV-2-13288 - EDMONDS PD - GREI
OC SPRAY POUCH
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249270 9/30/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
249271 9/30/2021 078588 ADELSMAN, HEDIA
249272 9/30/2021 077610 ALBA PAINTING & COATINGS
249273 9/30/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC
249274 9/30/2021 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
DBL CUFF CASE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
MOLLE RADIO CASE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Total
2006115.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Tota I :
G16
CITY HALL - PAINT EXTERIOR, STU
CITY HALL - PAINT EXTERIOR, STU
001.000.66.518.30.48.10
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.10
Tota I :
091521005
WWTP: 9/15/21 ACCT: COEWASTE:
Acct COEWaste:-
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota I :
21-0907
YOST PARK TREE SERVICE
YOST PARK TREE SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
7.3.a
Page: 2
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 3
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249275
9/30/2021
001528 AM TEST INC
123442
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A0013038-13C
SAMPLE #21-A0013038-13042
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
N
355.0(
123544
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A0011368
SAMPLE #21-A0011368
U
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
110.0( p
123545
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A0012228-122
SAMPLE #21-A0012228-12234
a
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
435.0(
123546
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A0012367-123
SAMPLE #21-A0012367-12368
E
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
80.0( TU
123547
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A0012798-127
SAMPLE #21-A0012798-12799
0
—a
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
80.0( o
123548
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A0012716-127
Q.
SAMPLE #21-A0012716-12720
a
Q
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
355.0(
Total :
1,415.0( N
249276
9/30/2021
078622 ANDERSEN, CHRISTINA
2006155.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
M
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
a)
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Total:
224.0(
249277
9/30/2021
077543 ANOVER, CAROLYN
2006114.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl'
;
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
608.0( E
Total:
608.0( u
r
249278
9/30/2021
001634 AQUA QUIP
1414308-1
WWTP: PO 661 CHLORINE TABLET
r
Q
Picked up at Lynnwood Store.-
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
377.9 ,
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
39.6�
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 4
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249278
9/30/2021 001634 001634 AQUA QUIP
(Continued)
Total :
417.6E
249279
9/30/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
65600000112207
WWTP: 9/22/21 UNIFORMS,TOWEL
N
Mats/Towels $47.88 + $4.99 tax = $5
m
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
52.8 , v
3 lab coats @ $17.each = $0.51 + tax
c
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.5E
656000112215
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
a
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
63.4,
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
6.5� 12
656000112218
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
-
10.4% Sales Tax
O
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.0, >
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
L
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
29.5E a
Total :
156.01 Q
249280
9/30/2021 071377 ARGUELLES, ERIN
WMS ARGUELLES
WALKABLE MAIN STREET CONCEF
N
WALKABLE MAIN STREET CONCEF
C?
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
990.0( c
Total:
990.0(
249281
9/30/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
121907
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 716
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
50.0� y
UB Outsourcing area Printing 716
E
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
50.0� U
UB Outsourcing area Printing 716
fd
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
51.6" Q
UB Outsourcing area Postage 716
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
154.7(
UB Outsourcing area Postage 716
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
154.6�
10.25% Sales Tax
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249281 9/30/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
249282 9/30/2021 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
249283 9/30/2021 078600 BEEBE, ELYSE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 5
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
5.1 ,
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
5.1
10.25% Sales Tax
U
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
5.2E p
121959 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 664
a
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
46.4,1
UB Outsourcing area Printing 664
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
46.4,1 .
UB Outsourcing area Printing 664
fd
U
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
47.8 � o
UB Outsourcing area Postage 664
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
R
149.5� o
UB Outsourcing area Postage 664
Q.
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
149.5� Q
10.25% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
4.7E N
10.25% Sales Tax
M
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
4.7E M
10.25% Sales Tax
N
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
4.9- E
Total :
931.1:.2
U
73959 ROUGH BOX - WILLIAMSON
ROUGH BOX - WILLIAMSON
E
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 627.0( t
Total : 627.0( r
r
2006128.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP Q
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200 196.0(
2006151.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200 224.0(
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249283
9/30/2021
078600 078600 BEEBE, ELYSE
(Continued)
Total :
420.0(
249284
9/30/2021
076260 BELAIR, ROGER
10009 10013 PCKLBALL
10009 10013 PICKLEBALL CLINIC If`
N
10009 PICKLEBALL CLINIC INSTRU
m
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
187.5(
10013 PICKLEBALL CLINIC INSTRU
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
o
187.5(
Total:
375.0( a
249285
9/30/2021
078603 BENN, ALEXANDRA
2006132.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
E
001.000.239.200
258.0E 'R
Total:
258.0( u
4-
0
249286
9/30/2021
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
1267667
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 634.80 GF
'R
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 634.80 GF
0
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
L
1,368.3z 0-
1268509
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 674.40 GF
Q
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 674.40 GF
.�
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,457.0� N
Total :
2,825.4; M
249287
9/30/2021
075025 BRANDING IRON LLC
13536
DIVERSITY COMMISSION FILM SEF
Diversity Commission Poster Printing
y
E
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
135.0E 2
Ream Cutting
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
4.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
E
E
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
14.4E �
Total :
153.4E
r
Q
249288
9/30/2021
078589 BRIDEAU, CLAIRE
2006116.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
196.0(
Tota I :
196.0(
249289
9/30/2021
072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
9825 YOGA
9825 YOGA INSTRUCTION
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249289 9/30/2021 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
249290 9/30/2021 078598 BROWN, SALLIE
249291 9/30/2021 078601 BRUNDAGE, BECCA
249292 9/30/2021 078609 BURNS, CANDACE
249293 9/30/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
249294 9/30/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9825 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Tota I :
2006126.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
2006129.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Tota I :
2006138.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Tota I :
27332518
COUNCIL CANON MONTHLY CHART
Monthly contract charge
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
27332526
INV 27332526 - EDMONDS PD
9/21 -CONTRACT - 3AP01257
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
9/21 -CONTRACT - 3AP01253
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
Total
K590911
HPE ARUBA OUTDOOR POLE/WALI
HPE Aruba Outdoor Pole/Wall Short I
7.3.a
Page: 7
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
249294
9/30/2021
069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
(Continued)
512.000.31.518.87.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.48.00
K739516
MS EA VISIO P2 GCC P/USER
MS EA VISIO P2 GCC P/U - 10/1/21
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total
249295
9/30/2021
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
CG102335
PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE
PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
LY308892
INV 308892 - CUST 2948000 - EDMC
REFILL CO2 & HAZMAT CHARGE
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
Total:
249296
9/30/2021
078596 CLARK, APRIL
2006124.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
249297
9/30/2021
078627 CLEMENT, GERALDINE
2006163.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
249298
9/30/2021
078613 COHEN, MELISSA
2006143.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
7.3.a
Page: 8
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 9
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249298
9/30/2021
078613 078613 COHEN, MELISSA
(Continued)
Total :
224.0(
249299
9/30/2021
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS
8498310300732547
PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE
N
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
m
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
2.3(
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
o
11.0£
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
f°
a
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
11.0£
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
11.0£ E
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
R
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
10.61 4-
Total:
46.1f o
�a
249300
9/30/2021
076577 CWT LLC
35686
CESCL RE -CERTIFICATION - M. JOI
o
CESCL RE -CERTIFICATION - M. JOI
Q-
a
422.000.72.531.90.43.00
360.0( Q
Total :
360.0(
N
249301
9/30/2021
064531 DINES, JEANNIE
21-4116
CITY COUNCIL, FINANCE, PPW Mll`
M
pspp, finance, ppw, city council minut
c
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
651.6(
Total :
651.6( .
M
249302
9/30/2021
076172 DK SYSTEMS
25481
CITY HALL - BI ANNUAL MAINTENAI
CITY HALL - BI ANNUAL MAINTENAI
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
m
5,866.5< E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
610.1- r
26598
CITY HALL - REPAIRS
Q
CITY HALL - REPAIRS
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
2,614.6(
PREVAILING WAGE AFFIDAVIT
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
20.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249302 9/30/2021 076172 DK SYSTEMS
249303 9/30/2021 078628 DUSCH, TYSON
249304 9/30/2021 071842 EATON CORPORATION
249305 9/30/2021 078604 EDDLEMON, NIZA
249306 9/30/2021 007625 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL
249307 9/30/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total:
2006166.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
57710005
WWTP: PO 498 CENTRAL PANEL U
PO 498 CENTRAL PANEL UPGRADE
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
materials
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
2006133.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI'
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
2006112.009
REFUND: CLEANING HOURS AFTEI
REFUND: CLEANING HOURS AFTEI
001.000.239.200
Total:
2581
PM: BATTERIES, ORGANIZERS, LAI
PM: BATTERIES, ORGANIZERS, LAI
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2596
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES/ NUTS & BO
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES/ NUTS & BO
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.3.a
Page: 10
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249307 9/30/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
249308 9/30/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 11
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
N
3.6,
2598
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
U
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
13.9� p
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1.4E a
2601
PM: GUTTER SCRAPER, GUTTER 5
PM: GUTTER SCRAPER, GUTTER 5
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
15.5E .
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.6, o
2603
PM: PLASTER, RIVETS
'R
PM: PLASTER, RIVETS
o
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.11 Q.
10.4% Sales Tax
C
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.9�
2604
PM: GARDEN SPRAYER
N
PM: GARDEN SPRAYER
o
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
M
19.9E d)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.0E E
Total :
151.1( .�
3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
d
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
58.6( t
3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
r
Q
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
443.3�
3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 109.8,
3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher
249308
249309
249310
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Date Vendor Invoice
9/30/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
3-07709
3-09350
3-09800
3-29875
3-38565
6-01127
6-01130
6-01140
9/30/2021 075475 EDMONDS WOODWAY MUSIC BOOSTEF WMS EWHS
9/30/2021 078623 ESCAREZ, MARIA FRANCESCA 2006156.009
7.3.a
Page: 12
PO # Description/Account Amoun
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9,
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
t
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 58.6(
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
o
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
109.8, a
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
sa
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.91 E
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.91 o
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
>
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 C
Q.
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
53.9z
WWTP: 9/15/21 METER 2088: 200 21
Q
9/15/21 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20
N
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
263.5E c
WWTP: 9/15/21 METER 9439: 200 Z
M
200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439
c
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
23.7E
WWTP: 9/15/21 METER 5010484: 2C
9/15/21 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5(
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
2,645.2E
Total:
3,928.51,
t
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
U
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
r
Q
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
1.150.0(
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.0(
Total : 1,350.0(
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 13
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249310
9/30/2021
078623
ESCAREZ, MARIA FRANCESCA
(Continued)
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Tota I :
224.0(
249311
9/30/2021
076939
ESSENTRICALLY FIT LLC
10054 ESSENTRICS
10054 ESSENTRICS CLASS INSTRI
10054 ESSENTRICS CLASS INSTRI
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
172.5(
Total :
172.5(
249312
9/30/2021
009350
EVERETT DAILY HERALD
EDH938350
LEGAL DESCRIPT: ENGMANN - BIN
Legal Descript: Engmann - Bike Park
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
35.0(
EDH938351
LEGAL DESCRIPT: ERIC ENGMANI
Legal Descript: Eric Engmann - Vehi(
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
46.2(
EDH938653
LEGAL DESCRIP: PLN2021-0042 -S
Legal Descrip: PLN2021-0042 -SHIP
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
44.8(
EDH938691
LEGAL DESCRIP: PLN2021-0052 - 1
Legal Descrip: PLN2021-0052 - Llen
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
40.6(
Tota I :
166.6(
249313
9/30/2021
009815
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
0998729
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
321.4E
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
33.4<
Tota I :
354.8(
249314
9/30/2021
078624
FLEITAS, CHIEKO
2006160.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI
001.000.239.200
258.0(
Tota I :
258.0(
249315
9/30/2021
075871
FLOW TECHNOLOGIES INC
1321
SEWER - INTSTALL T LINER TO REI
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249315 9/30/2021 075871 FLOW TECHNOLOGIES INC
249316 9/30/2021 078605 FOTHERGILL, VANESSA
249317 9/30/2021 078629 FRANKO, NICHOLE
249318 9/30/2021 078617 GALE, GINA
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
2006134.009
2006139.009
2006168.009
2006149.009
249319 9/30/2021 072585 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 118016467
249320 9/30/2021 076542 GRANICUS
144094
PO # Description/Account
SEWER - INTSTALL T LINER TO RE
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
Total
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI'
001.000.239.200
Total
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES/ PARTITIONS
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES/ PARTITIONS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
CIVIC STREAMING, AGENDA & MIN
civic streaming, agenda and minutes
7.3.a
Page: 14
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 15
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249320
9/30/2021
076542 GRANICUS
(Continued)
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
1,417.5-
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
147.41'
Tota I :
1,564.9'
249321
9/30/2021
078198 GRIFFITH, CAITLIN
2006167.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Total :
224.0(
249322
9/30/2021
078625 GRUENWALD, RACHEL
2006161.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
258.0(
Total :
258.0(
249323
9/30/2021
078618 GUTIERREZ, REMY
2006150.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
448.0(
Tota I :
448.0(
249324
9/30/2021
078610 HALEY, JENNY
2006140.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
193.0(
Tota I :
193.0(
249325
9/30/2021
074804 HARLES, JANINE
284603
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
300.0(
Total :
300.0(
249326
9/30/2021
078611 HAUGEN, ELENA
2006141.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
168.0(
Tota I :
168.0(
249327
9/30/2021
078606 HAUSER, TANYA
2006135.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 16
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249327
9/30/2021
078606 HAUSER, TANYA
(Continued)
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
N
448.0(
Total:
448.0(
U
249328
9/30/2021
078612 HERMSEN, ASHLEY
2006142.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl'
o
001.000.239.200
168.0( a
Total :
168.0( -o
c
�a
249329
9/30/2021
078607 HJORT, SHELBY
2006136.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
E
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
M
001.000.239.200
224.0( ,u
Total:
224.0( o
249330
9/30/2021
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1023157
PUBLIC WORKS - FLOOR SUPPLIE
R
o
PUBLIC WORKS - FLOOR SUPPLIE
L
Q-
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
a
29.9E Q
10.3% Sales Tax
.,
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3.0� N
1023177
CITY PARK - SUPPLIES FOR THOM'
M
CITY PARK - SUPPLIES FOR THOM'
c
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
43.9 ,
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.5 TU
1024488
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - SUF
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - SUF
m
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
72.6E E
10.3% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.4E r
1251008
PUBLIC WORKS - FLOOR SUPPLIE
Q
PUBLIC WORKS - FLOOR SUPPLIE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-46.9 ,
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-4.8z
1251757
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES VOLT
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 80
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249330 9/30/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 17
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES VOLT
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
N
-5.9 ,
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-0.6" u
1623083
SEWER - SUPPLIES
p
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
6.4E m
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
0.6 , ca
24525
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
E
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
R
U
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
105.8z o
10.3% Sales Tax
'R
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.9( o
24556
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
Q.
10.3% Sales Tax
C
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5 1
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
92.9, cn
3012318
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
M
d)
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
c
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
y
27.8( E
10.3% Sales Tax
M
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.8E u
3015495
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
c
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
E
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
30.9z u
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
r
3.1 f Q
3024225 WATER - SUPPLIES/ CONCRETE M
WATER - SUPPLIES/ CONCRETE M
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 179.8E
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.5<
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 81
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249330 9/30/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 18
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
4012171
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES FOR ROOM 112
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES FOR ROOM 112
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
259.1 ,
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
26.6� p
4022858
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ PAIM
>,
10.3% Sales Tax
a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.8-
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ PAIM
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
104.9' .
4024005
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
64.8z 'R
10.3% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.6£ Q.
5022674
MUSEUM - SUPPLIES (RETURNED)
C
<
MUSEUM - SUPPLIES (RETURNED)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
41.9z N
10.3% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
M
4.3,
5081224
MUSEUM - SUPPLIES
MUSEUM - SUPPLIES
E
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
41.9z .�
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.3, c
523031
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
m
E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.9z
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
47.9,
5250699
MUSEUM SUPPLIES RETURNED
MUSEUM SUPPLIES RETURNED
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-41.9z
10.3% Sales Tax
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 19
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249330 9/30/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-4.3,
5521967
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES
m
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
t
65.9" u
10.3% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.7� `5%
7022436
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
a
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
14.3 j
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.4E TU
7023756
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES FOR E
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES FOR
o
—a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
88.9, o
10.3% Sales Tax
Q.
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.1 E Q
8023641
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
�-
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
94.8E o
10.3% Sales Tax
M
rn
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.7 1
8513192
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES/ LED STRING LI(
E
E
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES/ LED STRING LI(
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
169.4<
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
17.4E E
Total:
1,643.1F
�a
249331 9/30/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET
0552294662
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
Q
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
275.0(
0552325515
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
352.0(
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 83
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 20
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249331
9/30/2021
061013 061013 HONEY BUCKET
(Continued)
Total :
627.0(
249332
9/30/2021
073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
3507003
WWTP: PO 667 TRASH LINERS / C(
PO 667 TRASH LINERS / COPY PAI
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
274.5
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
28.5!
Total :
303.0E
249333
9/30/2021
077390 ISHIGAKI USA LTD
1591
WWTP: PO 544 LIP SEAL
PO 544 LIP SEALS
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
7,909.4(
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
416.1 ,
Total :
8,325.5:
249334
9/30/2021
075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS
6654
FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
Oct-2021 Fiber Optics Internet
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
590.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
61.3(
Total:
651.3E
249335
9/30/2021
078593 KOROSTELEV, ANDREI
2006121.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Tota I :
224.0(
249336
9/30/2021
078626 KUROSE, RIKA
2006162.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
258.0(
2006169.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
258.0(
Total:
516.0(
249337
9/30/2021
017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
0048734
PROF. SERV FOR BLDG FOR BLD2
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 84
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 21
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249337
9/30/2021
017135
LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
(Continued)
Prof. Sery for BLDG for BLD2021-09E
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
500.0(
0049043
PROF SERV FOR BLDG FOR BLD2(
Prof Sery for BLDG for BLD2021-098
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
2,330.0(
0049054
WWTP: PROF SRV THRU 9/22/21 F
PROF SRV THRU 9/22/21 FOR C51
423.100.76.594.39.41.00
1,947.5(
Total :
4,777.5(
249338
9/30/2021
078620
LARSON, ELLEN
2006153.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Tota I :
224.0(
249339
9/30/2021
078631
LE TRONG, ISOLDE
2006176.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI'
001.000.239.200
70.0(
Tota I :
70.0(
249340
9/30/2021
078614
LEGGETT, ALEXANDRA
2006144.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
168.0(
Total :
168.0(
249341
9/30/2021
075159
LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER
October Cigna
OCTOBER CIGNA PREMIUMS
October Cigna Insurance Premiums
811.000.231.550
12,745.2,
Total :
12,745.2:
249342
9/30/2021
078630
LOSIC, DANIJELA
2006174.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
200.0(
Tota I :
200.0(
249343
9/30/2021
078615
LOZINSKI, YELENA
2006145.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 22
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249343
9/30/2021
078615 LOZINSKI, YELENA
(Continued)
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
168.0(
Tota I :
168.0(
249344
9/30/2021
074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO
047949 01
PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
39.6!
10.4% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
4.1 ,
Total :
43.7,
249345
9/30/2021
078594 MARTIN, JENNIFER
2006122.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
258.0(
Total :
258.0(
249346
9/30/2021
078608 MCKIMMIE, HEATHER
2006137.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
224.0(
2006170.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Total :
448.0(
249347
9/30/2021
078599 MYERS, DARIA
2006127.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
168.0(
Tota I :
168.0(
249348
9/30/2021
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0775609-IN
WWTP: P66 SYNCON
P66 SYNCON
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
5,461.6,
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
568.0
Total :
6,029.6:
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 86
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249349
9/30/2021
078582 NEWHOUSE, COURTNEY
2006147.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
168.0(
Tota I :
168.0(
249350
9/30/2021
078062 NILSEN, APRIL
2006146.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Total :
224.0(
249351
9/30/2021
078590 NOELCK, CHANTALLE
2006117.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
196.0(
Tota I :
196.0(
249352
9/30/2021
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
051704
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CHEMICAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
895.5
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
93.1
Tota I :
988.7'
249353
9/30/2021
072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
3685-160423
UNIT 121 - PARTS/ GREASE
UNIT 121 - PARTS/ GREASE
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
11.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.2E
3685-160749
UNIT 121 -PARTS/ AIR FILTER
UNIT 121 -PARTS/ AIR FILTER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
52.5�
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5.4(
Total :
71.2;
249354
9/30/2021
065051 PARAMETRIX INC
29473
WWTP: THRU 8/28/21 DESIGN SER
THRU 8/28/21 DESIGN SERVICES
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 87
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249354 9/30/2021 065051 PARAMETRIX INC
249355 9/30/2021 027450 PAWS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.100.76.594.39.41.00
29474
WWTP: THRU 8/28/21 CONSTRUCT
THRU 8/28/21 CONSTRUCTION SEF
423.100.76.594.39.41.00
29475
WWTP: THRU 8/28/21 ON CALL SEF
THRU 8/28/21 ON CALL SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
AUG 2021
AUG 2021 - EDMONDS PD
10 RECD $207 - $35 CRIED X 3
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
Total:
249356 9/30/2021 070431 PITNEYBOWES EASYPERMIT POSTAGE 8000 9090 0618 6873
249357 9/30/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
200000704821
200002411383
200007876143
200009595790
200011439656
200016558856
POSTAGE
postage
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
Total :
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
7.3.a
Page: 24
Amoun
1,255.0( ui
m
t
12,219.6, u
0
L
2,998.7E a
16,473.31, c
�a
E
M
1,965.0( ,-
1,965.0( o
�a
0
L
Q
a
259.6z Q
259.6'
N
O
M
82.8- y
E
2,351.4(;
c
m
E
41.2( U
�a
r
Q
278.2E
84.1
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 88
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249357 9/30/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 25
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
N
59.3f
200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
230.9, p
200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
a
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
82.9-
200019375639
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
87.0E TU
200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST /
o
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
M
38.0" o
200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
Q.
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
a
Q
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
5.8E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
N
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
22.2E o
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
22.2E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
E
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
22.2E .�
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
22.2E c
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
E
E
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
22.2E u
200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
Q
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 72.1
220027305568 WWTP: 8/19-9/21/21 200 2ND AVE!
8/19-9/21/21 200 2ND AVE S, #WST-
423.000.76.535.80.47.63 45.7E
Total : 3,571.W
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
249358 9/30/2021 070789 QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES INC 64811
249359
249360
249361
249362
9/30/2021 078648 QUANTICO TACTICAL INCORPORATED 16299
9/30/2021 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB
9/30/2021 078587 RAWSON, JACOB
4310
2006113.009
9/30/2021 076687 REBUILD -IT SERVICES GROUP LLC 11548
PO # Description/Account
WWTP: CERTIFY WEIGHTS
CERTIFY WEIGHTS
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total :
INV 16299 - EDMONDS PD - SWAT
DEF STICKER LEFT
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
DEF STICKER RIGHT
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
DEFENSE TARGET IV
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
DEFENSE TARGET STICKER LH
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
DEF TARGET STICKER HP
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
DEF TARGET STICKER CHEST
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
DEFENSE TARGET STICKER II
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
Freight
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
Total
WWTP: DMRQS STUDY 41
DMRQS STUDY 41
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total ;
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
WWTP: SKIMMING FLAG & DEVICE
SKIMMING FLAG & DEVICE
7.3.a
Page: 26
Amoun
N
239.7,'
239.7E
U
0
16.5( a
16.5(
E
19.7E R
U
16.5(
R
25.0( QCL
25.0( Q
N
19.7E o
M
a)
13.0(
152.0( E
c
200.0( m
200.0( t
U
�a
Q
224.0(
224.0(
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 90
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 27
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249362
9/30/2021
076687
REBUILD -IT SERVICES GROUP LLC
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
18,743.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
1,949.2,
Total:
20,692.2 ,
249363
9/30/2021
078602
REYES, KELSEY
2006130.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
196.0(
2006131.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
196.0(
Tota I :
392.0(
249364
9/30/2021
078591
RICHARDSON, VICKIE
2006118.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI'
001.000.239.200
196.0(
Total :
196.0(
249365
9/30/2021
064769
ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-033489
UNIT 6 - BATTERY
UNIT 6 - BATTERY
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
105.3�
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.9E
Total :
116.3!
249366
9/30/2021
065044
ROTARY CLUB OF EDMONDS
PWB-210002
PUBLIC WORKS BANNER PROGRA
Rotary Club of Edmonds - Oktoberfes
111.000.322.40.000.00
200.0(
Total :
200.0(
249367
9/30/2021
074256
RYDIN DECAL
385540
PARKING PERMIT DECALS
parking permit decals
121.000.25.542.65.31.00
1,146.8`,
Tota I :
1,146.8!
249368
9/30/2021
078584
SCOVILLE, CHRISTINE
2006109.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 91
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
249368
9/30/2021
078584 SCOVILLE, CHRISTINE
(Continued)
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Tota I :
249369
9/30/2021
075391 SIDEWALK CINEMA
340643
OUTDOOR MOVIE NIGHTS 2021
OUTDOOR MOVIE NIGHTS 2021
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
249370
9/30/2021
065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY LLC
9747 SKYHAWKS
9747 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTIOI`
9747 SKYHAWKS SOCCER CAMP II
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
9748 SKYHAWKS
9748 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTIOI`
9748 SKYHAWKS SOCCER CAMP II
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Total
249371
9/30/2021
077593 SMITH, DANIELLE
2006165.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
2006171.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Tota I :
249372
9/30/2021
078616 SMITH, ELANA
2006148.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
Total
249373
9/30/2021
077815 SMITH, KASSANDRA
2006164.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
7.3.a
Page: 28
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 92
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249373 9/30/2021 077815 077815 SMITH, KASSANDRA
249374 9/30/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 29
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
224.0(
200202547
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
N
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
m
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
15.4E
200260271
YOST POOL
—
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,638.9(
a
200348233
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
�a
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
39.7E
E
200386456
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
R
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
41.6E
200398956
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
>
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
o
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
841.6E
a
200468593
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
Q
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
193.2<
c
200611317
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
C?
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
c
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
121.9"
200638609
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
E
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
188.81
200714038
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
22.6E
u.
200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
Q
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
20.1 z
200865202
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
57.1
201197084
SEAVIEW PARK
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 93
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249374 9/30/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 30
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
N
24.5E
201236825
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
150.51 p
201265980
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
>,
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
137.1 £
201327111
PINE ST PARK
PINE ST PARK
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
20.0 TU
201374964
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
o
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
�a
17.9, o
201551744
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
Q.
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
a
Q
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1.062.3E
201572898
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
N
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
c
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
44.81
201594488
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
N
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
19.1
201751476
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
51.2(
201782646
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / I\
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\
r
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 20.0' Q
201942489 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 75.3<
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 286.2E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 94
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 31
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249374 9/30/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
286.2E ^
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
Y
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
286.2E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
U
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
286.2E p
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
>,
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
286.2E m
202250627
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
c
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
19.4E .
202291662
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
o
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
5,155.3, R
202439246
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
o
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
Q.
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,820.6< Q
202807632
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
16.9, o
203652151
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
121.7z E
220216386
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
58.9E
222704280
WWTP: 8/18-9/17/21 METER 10001�
t
8/18-9/17/21 METER 1000135381: 2(
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
U
21,175.7E �a
Total :
34,604.7z Q
249375 9/30/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2021-7009
INV 2021-7009 EDMONDS PD - INM,
INMATE MEDS - AUG 2021
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
3,527.7z
Total :
3,527.7z
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 95
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249376 9/30/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
249377
249378
249379
249380
249381
249382
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
1000570397
9/30/2021 072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 5136
9/30/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE Oct-21
9/30/2021 078417 SOLOMON ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT WMS SOLOMON
9/30/2021 077080 SULLIVAN, MATTHEW JAMES
9/30/2021 078387 SULLIVAN-TARAZI, ODILE
9/30/2021 078585 TING, ELISABETH
WOTS CONTRACT
WOTS CONTRACT
2006110.009
7.3.a
Page: 32
PO # Description/Account Amoun
1000570397 - CUST SSH00095 - EDP
8/19 GUN RANGE USE 9.51-IRS @$E
ui
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
807.5(
8/20 GUN RANGE USE 9.5HRS @$E
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
t
807.5( U
8/23 GUN RANGE USE 7HRS @ $8E
0
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
L
595.0( >%
8/24 GUN RANGE USE 10HRS @ $E
a
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
850.0(
Total:
3,060.0(
E7FG SERVICES THRU 12/31/2020
R
E7FG SERVICES THRU 12/31/2020
4-
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
769.9, o
Total:
769.9, >
0
L
OCT-2021 FIRE SERVICES CONTR)
Q-
a
Oct-2021 Fire Services Contract Payr
Q
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
654,236.4,
Total :
654,236.4: c
M
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
c
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
y
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
500.0( .
Total:
500.0( TU
WOTS MANUSCRIPT CRITIQUES Al
WOTS MANUSCRIPT CRITIQUES Al
E
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
140.0( U
Total :
140.0( r
Q
WOTS NONFICTION WRITING CON
WOTS Contract for Professional
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
130.0(
Total :
130.0(
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 96
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 33
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249382
9/30/2021
078585 TING, ELISABETH
(Continued)
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI'
001.000.239.200
144.0(
Tota I :
144.0(
249383
9/30/2021
078621 TRAN, KARENA
2006154.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
258.0(
Total :
258.0(
249384
9/30/2021
076419 TRUE NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP
G00139
YEARLY MAINTENANCE FOR WINC
YEARLY MAINTENANCE FOR WINC
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
4,950.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
514.8(
Total :
5,464.8(
249385
9/30/2021
070774 ULINE INC
138938705
WWTP: PO 665 CABLE TIES
PO 665 CABLE TIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
480.0(
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
18.7,
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
51.8 ,
Total :
550.6'
249386
9/30/2021
077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER
146221
STORM - DUMP FEES
STORM - DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
360.0(
Tota I :
360.0(
249387
9/30/2021
044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR
1080146
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
141.7E
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
141.7(
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 97
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
249387 9/30/2021 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR (Continued)
249388 9/30/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
PO # Description/Account
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
Total
9889024119 C/A 571242650-0001
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc
001.000.61.557.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Dev Svcs
001.000.62.524.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
001.000.31.514.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
001.000.22.518.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Human Sen
001.000.63.557.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Park Admin
7.3.a
Page: 34
Amoun
N
146.0E
429.5
U
0
639.41 a
36.1(
E
148.9E fd
U
4-
772.0E o
R
306.& Q.
a
270.6� Q
N
1,473.5, o
M
0)
226.7 1
E
121.8( c
m
E
64.0E
�a
r
r
50.2, Q
413.7
100.4z
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 98
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249388 9/30/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 35
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.64.571.21.42.00
50.2,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
361.1 <
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec
U
001.000.64.571.22.35.00
220.7E 0
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec
>,
001.000.64.571.22.42.00
140.4E m
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD
c
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
2,488.6E
Air cards PD
E
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
1,212.7z R
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning
o
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
220.7E -R
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning
>
0
001.000.62.558.60.42.00
411.5 � Q.
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
a
a
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
N
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
7.6' M
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
Q,
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
26.6z N
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
E
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
7.6' fd
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
U
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
7.6'
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street
E
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
166.3z U
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Fleet
fd
r
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
50.2, a
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/SeWe
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
70.2<
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewe
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
70.2,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 99
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 36
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249388
9/30/2021
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
340.5(
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
486.4,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
156.1; p
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
265.1, a
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
c
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
265.1 �
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
E
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
659.8 TU
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Disco
0
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
40.0' R
Total:
12,413.61 0
L
249389
9/30/2021
078592 WALLACH, MIKE
2006119.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl'CL
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
<
001.000.239.200
196.0( N
Total :
196.0( c
M
249390
9/30/2021
071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES
BLD2021-0999
BLDG REFUND - JOB CANCELLED
c
BLDG Refund - job cancelled
y
001.000.257.620
52.0( -9
Total:
52.0( Z
249391
9/30/2021
078619 WAYMIRE, KATY
2006152.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOI'
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
E
001.000.239.200
t
224.0( u
2006172.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
r
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
Q
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Total :
448.0(
249392
9/30/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
12258658
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 100
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 37
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249392
9/30/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,326.0( ui
10.4% Sales Tax
�c
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
137.9(
12438882
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
U
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
p
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
11945.2(
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
202.3(
12438883
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
195.6( TU
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
20.31 R
12438884
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
o
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
Q.
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
81.0E Q
10.4% Sales Tax
�-
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8.4< N
Total :
3,916.8: M
249393
9/30/2021
073552 WELCO SALES LLC
8114
INV 8114 - EDMONDS PD
a)
2 B/C SET UPS - BENNETT&SHOEN
y
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
30.0(
B/C - BENNETTE,SHOEMAKE&MITE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
62.5,
B/C- MORRIS,SANCHEZ&TRIMBLE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
62.5, t
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
r
13.0( Q
Total :
168.0'
249394
9/30/2021
069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS
0000048494
TRAFFIC - SCOOL ZONE FLASHER;
TRAFFIC - SCOOL ZONE FLASHER;
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
1,468.7(
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 101
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 38
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249394
9/30/2021
069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
152.7,1
Total:
1,621.51
249395
9/30/2021
078595 WHITCOMB, CRISTINA
2006123.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Total :
224.0(
249396
9/30/2021
078597 WILLIAMS, ALYSSA
2006125.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
168.0(
Tota I :
168.0(
249397
9/30/2021
063008 WSDOT
RE 41 JZ0186 L017
E20CE SERVICES THRU 8/2021
E20CE SERVICES THRU 8/2021
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
239.7<
Tota I :
239.7:
249398
9/30/2021
078586 YI, MICHELLE
2006111.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
001.000.239.200
348.0(
Total :
348.0(
249399
9/30/2021
070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC
21-EDM0009
SEP-2021 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
18,062.5(
Total :
18,062.5(
249400
9/30/2021
011900 ZIPLY FIBER
253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
31.1 ,
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
162.7-
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
302.1 ,
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 102
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249400 9/30/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
131 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
131 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 39
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
253-012-9189 WWTP: 9/25-10/24/21 AUTO DIALEF
9/25-10/24/21 AUTO DIALER - 1 VO
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.5E
253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE U
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
o
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.8, `5%
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
a
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
36.9(
253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
E
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
47.0, R
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
o
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
87.3E
425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
R
o
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
Q.
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
73.8( Q
425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA)
�-
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA)
N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
139.1' o
425-771-5553
WWTP: 9/25-10/24/21 AUTO DIALEF
9/25-10/24/21 AUTO DIALER - 1 BU
o
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
130.9E E
509-022-0049
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
26.4,
Total :
1,099.0E
Bank total :
973,645.7: u.
r
r
Total vouchers : 973,645.7: Q
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 103
vchlist
09/30/2021 11:14:40AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
7.3.a
Page: 40
Amoun
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 104
7.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
' STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21FB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
IL""MM9019
Storm Maintenance Project
c525
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
2019 Traffic Calming
j038
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
9 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STIR
2020 Overlay Program
1042
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
F—STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming _
i048
EOAC
STIR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STIR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
_
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
051
E21CA
STR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
i062
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21CC
KSTM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
STIR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
059
STIR
2022 Overlay Program
i063
_40022
E22CA
Sewerline Overlay Program
i065
C
STIR
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
i066
E22CD
STIR
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
i064
E22CB
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i00
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
WR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
th Ave Overlay (196th
i052
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wei
i025
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
NOWCitywide
Bicycle Improvements Project
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
c488
E6GB
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 105
7.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
IL WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E41FE
L FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
c564
E21 FE
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfro@Wnnector
c478
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
Im Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
ke Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s0l l
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
017
E6DD
ir STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
wr
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
ff"STM
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c563
E21 FD
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
E21 GA
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
SWR
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
E21GB
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
rSTR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c49
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STIR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th
i044
E9DC
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E71MA
WRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E71MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E71MA
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 106
7.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STIR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
EOCC
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
EEV2020
Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EODC
i05O
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessme
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design) low
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
STIR
ElCA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
LSTIR
E20CB
A i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
rSTM
E20FC
Iff c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STIR
E21AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
E21 AB
i0
2021 Guardrail Installations
STIR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
_
E21 CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i06O
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
E21 DA
iO58
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
E21 DB
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
E21 FB
175th St. SW Slope Stabiliz
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
STM
E21 FD
c563
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replant Project
STM
E21 FE
c564
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
SWR
E21 GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Proj
SWR
E21 GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
WTR
E21JA
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
E22CA
2022 Overlay Program
STIR
E22CB
i064
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
fR
E22CC
i
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
STIR
E22CD
i066
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
E3DB
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Av
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 107
7.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
' FAC
E41VIB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab _
STIR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
ILSTIR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
STIR
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
IrSTM
E5FD
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modification
WTR
E5J13
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
STIR
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
E6DA
38th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
E6
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
Eal"qWAudible
Pedestrian Signals
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
LSTIR
E7CD
i0ga
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STIR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
PRK
lWw
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
IL PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STIR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
MMMMMm
E8DB
i033
Curb Ramps
STIR
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
E8FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods St
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacemen
UTILITIES
E8J13
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
WSTR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
^dmiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
E9FA
allinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 108
7.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR
ElCA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
PRK
E71VIA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
SWR
EBGA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM
EBFB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
WTR
EBJA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
EBFC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
SWR
E21 GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
STM
E21FB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
SWR
E21 GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
STM
E21 FD
c563
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
STM
E21 FE
c564
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 109
7.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STIR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STIR
EBAB
i028
220th Adaptive
STIR
EBCA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
EBCC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STIR
EBDB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
STIR
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9DA
iO4O
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STIR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STIR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EODB
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
STIR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
STIR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
EOCC
i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
STIR
E21 AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
STIR
E21AB
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STIR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
WTR
E21 CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21 CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
E21 DB
i062
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
STIR
E22CA
i063
2022 Overlay Program
STIR
E22CB
i064
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
STIR
E22CC
i065
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
STIR
E22CD
i066
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
ESGB
s0l l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
EBJB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 110
7.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Protect
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STM
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c563
E21 FD
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
STM
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
c564
E21 FE
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
STR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 111
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
7.3.b
Funding Protect Title
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall
STR ADA Curb Ramps
STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR Bikelink Project
STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR Minor Sidewalk Program
STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR Trackside Warning System
STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force
STR 2022 Overlay Program
STR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program
STR 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
STR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
STR 2020 Waterline Overlay
STR 220th Adaptive
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates
WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement
WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
Protect Engineering
Accounting Protect
Number Number
c368 E1CA
i031 EBCC
i025 E7CD
i033 EBDB
i040 E9DA
i024 E7AB
c474 ESDA
i050 EODC
i026 E7DC
i015 E6AB
c478 ESDB
i058 E21 DA
s014 E6AA
i017 E6DD
i055 E20CE
c354 E1DA
c470 ESAA
i044 E9DC
i061 E21 DB
i063 E22CA
i064 E22CB
i065 E22CC
i066 E22CD
i053 EOCC
i028 EBAB
c516 EBGA
i06O E21CC
c488 E6GB
s0l l ESGB
c461 E4GC
c548 EOGA
c559 E21 GA
c562 E21GB
s02O EBJB
solo ESNA
c523 EBJA
i043 E9CB
c498 E7JA
i059 E21 CB
c482 ESJB
c561 E21JB
c473 ESKA
c549 EOJA
c558 E21JA
s026 EOJB
c446 E4HA
c481 ESHA
Revised 9/30/2021 Packet Pg. 112
7.3.c
Hour Type
903
Hour Class
MISCELLANEOUS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,075 (09/24/2021 to 09/24/2021)
Description
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
Hours Amount
0.00 1,462.50
0.00 $1,462.50
Total Net Pay: $1,343.16
09/30/2021
Packet Pg. 113
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Travis Johnson
Staff Lead: NA
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Travis Johnson
Narrative
Travis Johnson
250 5th Ave N
($208.15)
Attachments:
Johnson, Travis - Claim for Damages - for council
Packet Pg. 114
7.4.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Please take note that Travis Johnson
who currently resides at
mailing address
home phone # , work phone # and who resided at
against Edmonds PD
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: Unknown
Date Claim Form
Received by City
same
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is , is claiming damages
in the sum of $ 208.15 arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: Edmonds PD
DESCRIPTION:
TIME: Unknown
1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage.
Case 2021-5866: Edmonds PD recovered personal property from burglary. I confirmed ownership of personal items through
emails (pictures proved I had marked with Sharpie "T.Johnson" on my items), Edmonds PD retained personal items as evidence,
after a considerable amount of time with no updates, I reached out to Edmonds PD to schedule pickup. When I arrived on Friday
9/17 at Edmonds PD, I was disappointed to learn the 20v Dewalt Drill DCD791 and two 20v batteries were mistakenly given to
another victim from the burglary. Edmonds PD was unable to retrieve my personal property and provided me this form to file a
claim. Replacement cost via Amazon.com is $208.15. Sheets attached. (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
Mike Bard, Lynnette Mandeville & Brittany Johnsen with Edmonds PD are the officers on the case assisting me with retrieving my
stolen property.
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company?
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
License Plate #
Type Auto: _
Yes X No
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
Driver License #
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page t of 2
Packet Pg. 115
7.4.a
This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the
attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a
court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature o la" ant
Or
Signature of Representative
09/23/2021
Date and place (residential address, city and county)
Date and place (residential address, city and county)
Print Name of Representative Bar Number (if applicable)
Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5tn Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
E
I
U
c
0
1n
c
z
0
c
m
E
z
U
0
r
Q
Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 116
7.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Draft Bond Ordinance
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
On August 10, 2021 the Edmonds City Council approved the refunding of certain outstanding bonds, as
well as issuing new bonds to help fund capital projects. At a date in the near future Staff will bring a final
Bond Ordinance to Council for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Please review the attached draft ordinance. Staff will be available if Councilmembers have questions
between tonight and when the final Bond Ordinance is brought to Council for formal approval.
Narrative:
On August 10, 2021 the Edmonds City Council approved the refunding of certain outstanding bonds, as
well as issuing new bonds to help fund capital projects. Namely, three separate items were approved:
A. Refunding of outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds - 2011
B. Advance refund and restructure a portion of the City's Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding
Bonds - 2021 (on behalf of the Edmonds Public Facilities District)
C. Issue new bonds for Civic Field and other capital improvements
City staff has been working diligently with our bond counsel and bond advisors to move the process
along. One of the steps in issuing and refunding bonds is the passing by Council of a Bond Ordinance. In
an effort to be fully transparent, and to avoid bringing this Ordinance forward at a later date and asking
Council to approve it that same evening, a DRAFT Ordinance is being included in your packet tonight.
This will give Councilmembers ample time to review it before we bring it to Council at a future meeting
for final approval. No presentation or discussion is needed at this point, and approving this as part of the
Consent Agenda does not constitute the approval of this ordinance as anything more than a Draft.
However, by including it as part of the official record for tonight's council meeting, it will be available for
Councilmembers as well as members of the public to review fully.
Attachments:
Draft 2021 Bonds bond ordinance
Packet Pg. 117
7.5.a
FP DRAFT 9/30/21
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 on V
more series of limited tax general obligation improvement and refunding
for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (1) to finance impr v to
Civic Park and other capital projects, (2) to refund certain outstand' g er and
sewer revenue bonds of the City, (3) to refund certain outstandin ited tax
general obligation bonds of the City, and (4) to pay the costs ofA ance and sale o
of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to cert in terms and
covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representative to approve m°
the final terms of the sale of the bonds; authorizing the ion and delivery of
an amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Devel o the Edmonds Centre c`
for the Arts; and providing for other related matte
c
E
Passed [, 2021 -°a
0
o
O
m
AC N
Or o
NI
This document prepared by: o
Foster Garvey P. C.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400 a
AQ
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 118
7.5.a
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Page
Section1. Definitions............................................................................................................... 1
Section 2. Findings and Determinations.................................................................................. 6
Section 3. Purpose and Authorization of Bonds ............................... ... 7
Section 4. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative ...... .. 8
Section 5. Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds .............................................. 8
Section 6. Form and Execution of Bonds ........................................................ N�............. 9
Section 7. Payment of Bonds......................................................................... .................. 10
Section 8. Funds and Accounts; Deposit of Proceeds ............................ ............................. 10
Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Purchase of Bonds ......... .............................. 11
Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds ............................................ V........................................ 12
Section 11. Security for the Bonds ................................. ?.... ... 12
.............................................
Section 12. Tax Covenants; Designation of Tax-Exem 9onds as "Qualified Tax -
Exempt Obligations." .............................. . !......................................................... 13
Section 13. Refunding or Defeasance of the................................................................ 13
Section 14. Refunding Plans............................................................................................. 14
Section 15. Sale and Delivery of the nV............................................................................ 17
Section 16. Official Statement; o•tti ing Disclosure........................................................... 17
Section 17. Amendatory Ord' nc s....................................................................................... 18
Section 18. Amendme ty PFD Interlocal Agreement .............................................. 18
Section 19. General Au rization and Ratification................................................................ 18
Section20. ;fece abiiity........................................................................................................... 19
Section 21. ' e Date of Ordinance................................................................................. 19
Exhibi 'Parameters for Final Terms
Exhi Form of Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure
F 1i Form of Second Amendment to County PFD Interlocal Agreement
* 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.
a
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 119
7.5.a
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 one or
more series of limited tax general obligation improvement and refunding bonds
for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (1) to finance improvements to
Civic Park and other capital projects, (2) to refund certain outstanding water and)
sewer revenue bonds of the City, (3) to refund certain outstanding limiteAAa
general obligation bonds of the City, and (4) to pay the costs of issuance ails e
of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certaCet
ea and
covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representatio approve
the final terms of the sale of the bonds; authorizing the execution nelivery of
an amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Development oft onds Centre
for the Arts; and providing for other related matters.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDM ASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS: C�
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this of `dice, the following capitalized terms shall
have the following meanings: e
(a) "2011 Bond Ordinance " in nV%Ordinance No. 3863, passed on December 6, 2011.
(b) "2011 Bonds" mea tity's Water and Sewer Improvement and Refunding
Revenue Bonds, 2011, issued pursu t to the 2011 Bond Ordinance.
(c) "2011 Rede,X ate" means, unless otherwise specified in the Bond Purchase
Contract, December 1, 2021�
(d) "2%1 Refunded Bonds" means the 2011 Refunding Candidates selected by the
2
Designated Repr tative to be refunded with the proceeds of the 2011 Refunding Bonds.
(e) ` N011 Refunding Bond" means each Bond issued to carry out the 2011 Refunding
Plan.
"2011 Refunding Candidates " means the 2011 Bonds stated to mature in the years
AQrough 2027, inclusive, 2029, and 2031.
(g) "2011 Refunding Plan " means:
(1) the deposit with the registrar for the 2011 Bonds (or, if so
determined by the Designated Representative, with the Refunding Trustee) of
proceeds of the 2011 Refunding Bonds (together with other money of the City, if
so determined by the Designated Representative);
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 120
7.5.a
(2) the purchase by the Refunding Trustee of Acquired Obligations (if
so determined by the Designated Representative) and the application of the
principal of and interest on any such Acquired Obligations and any other such
money of the City to the call, payment, and redemption of the 2011 Refunded
Bonds on the 2011 Redemption Date at a price equal to the principal amount of the
2011 Refunded Bonds plus accrued interest; and
(3) the payment of the costs of issuing the 2011 Refunding Bonds and.
the costs of carrying out the foregoing elements of the 2011 Refunding Plan. 6�,
(h) "2012 Bond Ordinance " means Ordinance No. 3862, passed on Dece , 2011.
(i) "2012 Bonds " means the City's Limited Tax General Obligati eluding Bonds,
2012, issued pursuant to the 2012 Bond Ordinance.
(j) "2012 Redemption Date" means December 1, 2022.
(k) "2012 Refunded Bonds" means the 2012 Refun ing Candidates selected by the
Designated Representative to be refunded with the proceeds o 12 Refunding Bonds.
(1) "2012 Refunding Bond" means each Bond to carry out the 2012 Refunding
Plan. Z
(m) "2012 Refunding Candidates", m4he portions of the 2012 Bonds stated to
mature on December 1 in the following prinlallymounts in the following years:
A� Principal
a Amount
2 $400,000
$� 022 430,000
O 2023 455,000
2024 480,000
2025 510,000
2026 310,000
(n) 12 Refunding Plan " means:
(1) the deposit with the Refunding Trustee of proceeds of the 2012
funding Bonds (together with other legally available funds, if so determined by
_, ) the Designated Representative);
(2) the purchase by the Refunding Trustee of Acquired Obligations;
(3) the application of the principal of and interest on such Acquired
Obligations and other such money of the City to the payment of principal of and
interest on the 2012 Refunded Bonds when due up to and including the 2012
Redemption Date and the call, payment, and redemption of the then -outstanding
2
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 121
7.5.a
2012 Refunded Bonds on the 2012 Redemption Date at a price equal to the principal
amount of such 2012 Refunded Bonds plus accrued interest; and
(3) the payment of the costs of issuing the 2012 Refunding Bonds and
the costs of carrying out the foregoing elements of the 2012 Refunding Plan.
(o) `Acquired Obligations" means the United States Treasury Certificates of
Indebtedness, Notes, and Bonds —State and Local Government Series and other direct, non,ai44ble
obligations of the United States of America purchased to carry out the 2011 Refunding PI (if so
determined by the Designated Representative) and the 2012 Refunding Plan. "
(p) `Authorized Denomination" means $5,000 or any integral multipl eof within
a maturity of a Series. O
c
(q) "Beneficial Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the Qw of any beneficial =a
interest in the Bond, and includes any person who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, o
arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise has or shares (1) voting power that includes c
the power to vote, or to direct the voting of, the Bond, and/or (2) investment power that includes m
the power to dispose, or to direct the disposition of, the Bond
c
(r) "Bond" means each bond issued pursuantfor the purposes provided in this
ordinance. (D,,
(s) "Bond Counsel" means the firm of �� er Garvey P.C., its successor, or any other `o
attorney or firm of attorneys selected by thq CA3 with a nationally recognized standing as bond
counsel in the field of municipal finance. v �°i
(t) `Bond Fund" mean eVxited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund, 2021, of the
City created for the payment of theacipal of and interest on the Bonds. m°
N
(u) `Bond Purcb ontract" means an offer to purchase a Series, setting forth N
certain terms and conditions the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Series, which offer is
authorized to be accepted by the Designated Representative on behalf of the City, if consistent o
with this ordinanc . In the case of a competitive sale, the official notice of sale, the Purchaser's
bid, and the a dN the City shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract for purposes of this
ordinance.
v) Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Registrar for the a
pure entifying ownership of each Bond.
�(w) "City" means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State.
(x) "City Council" means the legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly
constituted from time to time.
(y) "Code" means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and
applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 122
7.5.a
(z) "County PFD" means the Snohomish County Public Facilities District.
(aa) "County PFD Interlocal Agreement" means the Interlocal Agreement for
Development of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts, dated November 4, 2002, by and among the
City, the Edmonds PFD, the Snohomish County PFD, and the County, and recorded under County
recording number 200211060003, as amended by the First Amendment thereto, Addendum No. 1
thereto, Addendum No. 2 thereto, and Addendum No. 3 thereto, and as it may hereafter be
amended in accordance with its terms.
1
(bb) "DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, or its
nominee.
(cc) "Designated Representative" means the officer of the City aW P40
in Section 4
to serve as the City's designated representative in accordance with RCW 3 46..
(dd) "Edmonds PFD" means the Edmonds Public Facilities D4sict. O
c
(ee) "Final Terms" means the terms and conditions f the sale of a Series, including m°
the amount, date or dates, denominations, interest rate or rate dates, final maturity,
redemption rights, price, and other terms or covenants, including mmimum savings for refunding o
bonds (if the refunding bonds are issued for savings purposes).
(ff) "Finance Director" means th+Finec irector of the City or any other City
official who succeeds the duties now delegateoffice, or the designee of such officer. o
(gg) "Fiscal Agent" means the f CNI agent of the State, as the same may be designated 0
by the State from time to time. � �
U
c
(hh) "Government Obl' ns " means direct obligations of, or obligations the payment m°
of principal of and interest on ,chic are unconditionally guaranteed by, the United States of N
America. 0CD
Ni
(ii) "Intergover ental Payments "means the amounts received by the City from the o
Edmonds PFD an the County PFD under the County PFD Interlocal Agreement.
as
0j) su Date " means, with respect to a Bond, the date of initial issuance and delivery
of the Bon too Purchaser in exchange for the purchase price of the Bond.
a
"Letter of Representations " means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations
betwe d he City and DTC, dated August 6, 1996, as it may be amended from time to time, and
any s1ccessor or substitute letter relating to the operational procedures of the Securities
Depository.
(11) "MSRB " means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
(mm) "Municipal Advisor" means Northwest Municipal Advisors of Bellevue,
Washington, or any other municipal advisor then appointed and acting as municipal advisor to the
City.
4
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 123
7.5.a
(nn) "Official Statement" means an offering document, disclosure document, private
placement memorandum, or substantially similar disclosure document provided to purchasers and
potential purchasers in connection with the initial offering of a Series in conformance with
Rule 15c2-12 or other applicable regulations of the SEC.
(oo) "Owner" means, with respect to a Bond and without distinction, the Registered
Owner and the Beneficial Owner.
(pp) Project" means improvements to Civic Park and other capital projects, as eemed
necessary and advisable by the City. Incidental costs incurred in connection with carryi ut and
accomplishing the Project, consistent with RCW 39.46.070, including costs of issu nd sale
of the Project Bonds, may be included as costs of the Project. O
(qq) "Project Bond" means each Bond issued to finance the ProjCt
�a
(rr) "Project Fund" means the fund or account designated reated by the Finance
Director for the purpose of carrying out the Project. *110 o
m
(ss) "Purchaser" means, with respect to a Series, th ial institution or institutions
L
selected by the Designated Representative to serve as purchas ' a private placement, underwriter o
or placement agent in a negotiated sale, or awarded as th�essful bidder in a competitive sale
of the Series.
E
(tt) "Rating Agency " means any n� recognized rating agency then maintaining o
a rating on the Bonds at the request of the Ci V
0
(uu) "Real Estate Excise Taxes eans the proceeds of the real estate excise taxes
imposed by the City under RCW 8 .41.01k.
m°
(vv) "Record Date" means the Registrar's close of business on the 15th day of the N
month preceding an interest ent date. With respect to redemption of a Bond prior to its CD
maturity, "Record Date" means a Registrar's close of business on the date on which the Registrar
sends the notice of redemption in accordance with Section 9. o
(ww) "nding Trust Agreement" means a refunding trust or escrow agreement
between the ->an the Refunding Trustee, dated the Issue Date, providing for the carrying out
of the 201 t.#eNtiding Plan (if so determined by the Designated Representative) and the 2012
Refiandina MaA.
i (Xx) "Refunding Trustee" means U.S. Bank National Association, serving as refunding
tru to carry out the 2011 Refunding Plan (if so determined by the Designated Representative)
and the 2012 Refunding Plan.
(yy) "Registered Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name the
Bond is registered on the Bond Register. For so long as the City utilizes the book -entry only system
for the Bonds under the Letter of Representations, "Registered Owner" means the Securities
Depository.
5
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 124
7.5.a
(zz) `Registrar" means the Fiscal Agent, or any successor Registrar selected by the
City.
(aaa) `Rule 15c2-12" means Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
(bbb) "SEC" means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
(ccc) "Securities Depository" means DTC, any successor thereto, any su e
securities depository selected by the City that is qualified under applicable laws and regul t' his to
provide the services proposed to be provided by it, or the nominee of any of the fore
(ddd) Series means a series of the Bonds issued pursuant to this o i ace.
(eee) "State " means the State of Washington.
(fff) "System of Registration " means the system of regis f r the City's bonds and
other obligations set forth in Ordinance No. 2451 of the City.
p (ggg)
"Tax -Exempt" means, with res p ect to a Bond ii'ferest on the Bond is intended
as of the Issue Date, to be excluded from gross income f-� ral income tax purposes.
..
(hhh) "Term Bond" means each Bond dpWated as a Term Bond and subject to
mandatory redemption in the years and amoun t h in the Bond Purchase Contract.
(iii) "Undertaking" means the u_Agejtaking to provide continuing disclosure entered
into pursuant to Section 16. 0�10:)
Section 2. Findings a terrminations. The City takes note of the following facts
and makes the following findinq an determinations:
(a) Authority ect. The City is in need of certain improvements to Civic Park
and other capital projects. City Council therefore finds that it is in the best interests of the City
to finance the Project.
(b) 'A jthaKty to Finance Project. Pursuant to applicable law, including chapters 35.37,
39.36, 39.44, 6, and 39.52 RCW, the City is authorized to issue general obligation bonds for
the purpose the Project.
Refunding of 2011 Refunded Bonds. The City Council finds that it is in the best
i e s of the City and its taxpayers to issue the 2011 Refunding Bonds to carry out the 2011
Re ding Plan if, in the determination of the Designated Representative, a savings will be effected
by the difference between the principal and interest cost over the life of the 2011 Refunding Bonds
and the principal and interest cost over the life of the 2011 Refunded Bonds but for such refunding,
as set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council further finds that a 2011 Refunding Plan approved by
the Designated Representative in accordance with this ordinance will discharge and satisfy the
obligations, pledges, charges, trusts, covenants, and agreements of the City under the 2011 Bond
Ordinance as to the 2011 Refunded Bonds, and the 2011 Refunded Bonds shall no longer be
6
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 125
7.5.a
deemed to be outstanding immediately upon the deposit of the money specified in the 2011
Refunding Plan with the registrar for the 2011 Bonds (or, if so determined by the Designated
Representative, with the Refunding Trustee).
(d) Authority to Carry Out 2011 Refunding Plan. Pursuant to applicable law, including
chapters 35.37, 39.36, 39.44, 39.46, 39.52, and 39.53 RCW, the City is authorized to issue general
obligation bonds for the purpose of carrying out the 2011 Refunding Plan.
"II
(e) Refunding of 2012 Refunded Bonds. The Edmonds PFD, as obligor on tl�e 2
Refunded Bonds, has requested that the City carry out the 2012 Refunding Plan to modify debt
service requirements. The City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the and its
taxpayers and of the Edmonds PFD and its taxpayers to issue the 2012 Refundin I s to carry
out the 2012 Refunding Plan to modify debt service requirements. The City tc 1 further finds
that a 2012 Refunding Plan approved by the Designated Representative in cc rdance with this
ordinance will discharge and satisfy the obligations, pledges, charges, trusts, covenants, and
agreements of the City under the 2012 Bond Ordinance as to the 2 Si� nded Bonds, and the
2012 Refunded Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstandin upon the deposit
of the money specified in the 2012 Refunding Plan with the Re g Trustee.
(f) Authority to Carry Out 2012 Refunding Pl suant to applicable law, including
chapters 35.37, 39.36, 39.44, 39.46, 39.52, and 39.53 RC�he City is authorized to issue general
obligation bonds for the purpose of carrying out the �efunding Plan.
(g) Debt Capacity. Based on the
authorized to be issued pursuant to this ordiV
the City for general municipal purposes
4frWing facts, the principal amount of Bonds
is within the amount permitted to be issued by
a vote:
(1) The assessedk*u on of the taxable property within the City as ascertained
by the last preceding assessmen foNCity purposes for collection in the calendar year 2021 is
$11,648,792,913. 0
(2) AsA December 31, 2020, the City had limited tax general obligation
indebtedness outstandin (consisting of bonds, loans, and a nonexchange financial guarantee) in
the principal amo)y� 9,741,038, which was incurred within the limit of up to 11/2% of the value
of the taxable within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote
($174,731,891
'(3) As of December 31, 2020, the City had no unlimited tax general obligation
outstanding.
Y Section 3. Purpose and Authorization of Bonds. The City is authorized to borrow
money on the credit of the City and issue negotiable limited tax general obligation improvement
and refunding bonds evidencing indebtedness in one or more Series in aggregate principal amount
not to exceed the amount set forth in Appendix A to provide funds necessary to finance the Project,
carry out the 2011 Refunding Plan, and carry out the 2012 Refunding Plan. The proceeds of the
Project Bonds shall be deposited as set forth in Section 8(b) and shall be used to carry out the
Project, or a portion of the Project, in such order of time as the City determines is advisable and
practicable. The proceeds of the 2011 Refunding Bonds shall be deposited as set forth in Section 14
7
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 126
7.5.a
and shall be used to carry out the 2011 Refunding Plan. The proceeds of the 2012 Refunding Bonds
shall be deposited as set forth in Sections 14 and shall be used to carry out the 2012 Refunding
Plan.
Section 4. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative. The
Finance Director, or the Assistant Finance Director in the absence of the Finance Director, is
appointed as Designated Representative and is authorized and directed to conduct the sale of the
Bonds in the manner and upon the terms deemed most advantageous to the City, and to ve
the Final Terms of each Series, with such additional terms and covenants as the Deed
Representative deems advisable, within the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, which is^� % ed to
this ordinance and incorporated by this reference.
Section 5. Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds. O
(a) Registration of Bonds. Each Bond shall be issued only in r gi Terred form as to both
principal and interest and the ownership of each Bond shall be recojdethe Bond Register.
(b) Registrar; Duties. The Fiscal Agent is appointed Ainitial Registrar. The Registrar
shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registrationtransfer of the Bonds, which
shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the
City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions
of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's ing agent for the Bonds, and to carry out
all of the Registrar's powers and duties under th' o ance and the System of Registration. The
Registrar shall be responsible for its represe contained in the Registrar's Certificate of
Authentication on each Bond. The Registrar 7nay ecome an Owner with the same rights it would
have if it were not the Registrar and, to t (p fit permitted by law, may act as depository for and
permit any of its officers or director t was members of, or in any other capacity with respect
to, any committee formed to prote hts of Owners.
(c) Bond Register;
�f er and Exchange. The Bond Register shall contain the name
and mailing address of ea tered Owner and the principal amount and number of each Bond
held by each Registered O er. A Bond surrendered to the Registrar may be exchanged for a Bond
or Bonds in any Authori,ped enomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same
Series, maturity, d interest rate. A Bond may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner
provided ther Ian urrendered to the Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost
to the Owner o r nsferee. The Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange any Bond or transfer
registered ship during the period between the applicable Record Date and the redemption
date. ZN
d) Securities Depository; Book -Entry Only Form. If a Bond is to be issued in book-
ent form, DTC shall be appointed as initial Securities Depository and the Bond initially shall be
registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of DTC. Each Bond registered in the name
of the Securities Depository shall be held fully immobilized in book -entry only form by the
Securities Depository in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations.
Registered ownership of any Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository may not be
transferred except: (i) to any successor Securities Depository; (ii) to any substitute Securities
Depository appointed by the City; or (iii) to any person if the Bond is no longer to be held in book-
8
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 127
7.5.a
entry only form. Upon the resignation of the Securities Depository, or upon a termination of the
services of the Securities Depository by the City, the City may appoint a substitute Securities
Depository. If (i) the Securities Depository resigns and the City does not appoint a substitute
Securities Depository, or (ii) the City terminates the services of the Securities Depository, the
Bonds no longer shall be held in book -entry only form and the registered ownership of each Bond
may be transferred to any person as provided in this ordinance.
Neither the City nor the Registrar shall have any obligation to participants of any Se^tics
Depository or the persons for whom they act as nominees regarding accuracy of any ecords
maintained by the Securities Depository or its participants. Neither the City nor the Re ' kar shall
be responsible for any notice that is permitted or required to be given to a Register 'wner of a
Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository except such notice as ' fired to be
given by the Registrar to the Securities Depository.
Section 6. Form and Execution of Bonds.
(a) Form of Bonds; Signatures and Seal. Each Bondt e prepared in a form
consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. Bond shall be signed by the
Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures manual or in facsimile, and
the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof slN impressed or printed thereon. If
any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears > Bond ceases to be an officer of the
City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearin al or facsimile signature of such officer
is authenticated by the Registrar, or issued or de ' e y the City, the Bond nevertheless may be
authenticated, issued, and delivered and, when enticated, issued, and delivered, shall be as
binding on the City as though that person h co inued to be an officer of the City authorized to
sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signe� ehalf of the City by any person who, on the actual
date of signing of the Bond, is an off ems' e City authorized to sign bonds, although such officer
did not hold the required office on safe Date.
(b) Required Stater, it on 2012 Refunding Bonds. Each 2012 Refunding Bond shall
include on such Refundi 0 Q;Bond and in any Official Statement for the sale of any such 2012
Refunding Bond substantliNy the following statement, as required by Section CA of the County
PFD Interlocal Agreement:
e �012 Refunding Bonds are obligations of the City, payable from
ments transferred to the City by the Edmonds PFD, from certain real
tate excise tax receipts, and from other money of the City legally available
therefor. The PFD Allocation Bonds are not obligations of the Edmonds
PFD, the County or the County PFD.
The Edmonds PFD, the County, and the County PFD are political
subdivisions of the state of Washington separate from the City. All
liabilities incurred by the City incurred in connection with the Edmonds
PFD shall be satisfied exclusively from the assets, credit, and property of
the City and no creditor or other person shall have any right of action against
or recourse to the Edmonds PFD (except to the extent of required payments
under the County PFD Interlocal Agreement), the County PFD, the County,
9
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 128
7.5.a
or any of their respective assets, credit or services on account of any debts,
obligations, liabilities, or omissions of the City.
The County PFD is a municipal corporation organized under
RCW 36.100.010 and Amended Ordinance No. 01-041 of Snohomish
County. Amended Ordinance No.01-041 expressly provides: "All
liabilities incurred by the [County PFD] shall be satisfied exclusively from
the assets, credit, and property of the [County PFD] and no creditor or other.
person shall have any right of action against or recourse to the County, it
assets, credit, or services on account of any debts, obligations, liabilities
omissions of the [County PFD]."
(c) Authentication. Only a Bond bearing a Certificate o �entication in
substantially the following form, manually signed by the Registrar, shall be li or obligatory for
any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: "Certificate of A hentication. This Bond
is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Li it x General Obligation
[Improvement and] [Refunding] Bonds, [Series and other designat escribed in the Bond
Ordinance." The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentic shall be conclusive evidence
that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, aut1w , and delivered and is entitled
to the benefits of this ordinance.
Section 7. Payment of Bonds. Principal 94V& interest on each Bond shall be payable
in lawful money of the United States of America ri al of and interest on each Bond registered
in the name of the Securities Depository are e in the manner set forth in the Letter of
Representations. Interest on each Bond not i�st red in the name of the Securities Depository is
payable by electronic transfer on the intexpayment date, or by check or draft of the Registrar
mailed on the interest payment date, egistered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond
Register on the Record Date. The C� V� of required to make electronic transfers except pursuant
to a request by a Registered Owper iiTwriting received on or prior to the Record Date and at the
sole expense of the Registere er. Principal of each Bond not registered in the name of the
Securities Depository is upon presentation and surrender of the Bond by the Registered
Owner to the Registrar. Th onds are not subject to acceleration under any circumstances.
I
Section 8 Funds and Accounts; Deposit of Proceeds.
(a) d Fund. The Bond Fund is created as a special fund of the City for the purpose
of paying pal of and interest on the Bonds. All amounts allocated to the payment of the
princ' of nd interest on the Bonds shall be deposited in the Bond Fund as necessary for the
ti ment of amounts due with respect to the Bonds. The principal of and interest on the
d shall be paid out of the Bond Fund. Until needed for that purpose, the City may invest
mo y 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 the Bond Fund.
(b) Project Fund. The Project Fund is authorized to be created as a fund of the City
for the purpose of paying the costs of the Project. Proceeds received from the sale of the Project
Bonds shall be deposited into the Project Fund and used to pay the costs of the Project, including
costs of issuance and of the Project Bonds. If so provided in the Refunding Trust Agreement,
10
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 129
7.5.a
proceeds of the Project Bonds to be used to pay costs of issuance and sale of the Project Bonds
may be deposited with the Refunding Trustee for that purpose. Until needed to pay such costs, the
City may invest those proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings
shall be retained in the Project Fund and used for the purposes of the Project Fund, except that
earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement (if applicable) may be withdrawn from the
Project Fund and used for those tax or rebate purposes.
Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Purchase of Bonds. ,,,��N
(a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption at th �G n of
the City on terms acceptable to the Designated Representative, as set forth in the B chase
Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A. O
(b) Mandatory Redemption. Each Bond that is designated as a T Pond in the Bond
Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit an except as set forth
below, shall be called for redemption at a price equal to the stated pri c' ount to be redeemed,
plus accrued interest, on the dates and in the amounts as set forth in e nd Purchase Contract.
If a Term Bond is redeemed under the optional redemption provAns, defeased, or purchased by
the City and surrendered for cancellation, the principal amo� e Term Bond so redeemed,
' defeased, or purchased (irrespective of its actual redemp &,od rchase price) shall be credited
against one or more scheduled mandatory redemption in a lnents for that Term Bond. The City
shall determine the manner in which the credit is to�*ocated and shall notify the Registrar in
writing of its allocation prior to the earliest m a redemption date for that Term Bond for
which notice of redemption has not already bee n.
" ;;F
(c) Selection of Bonds for Re "Won; Partial Redemption. If fewer than all of the
outstanding Bonds are to be redeeme • option of the City, the City shall select the Series and
maturities to be redeemed. If fewe n 111 of the outstanding Bonds of a maturity of a Series are
to be redeemed, the Securities pepArsitory shall select Bonds registered in the name of the
Securities Depository to be reAkNed in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and the
Registrar shall select all 01
Bc#ids to be redeemed as specified by the Designated Representative
in such manner as the Cit irects and as the Registrar shall determine. All or a portion of the
principal amount of aryl Bond that is to be redeemed may be redeemed in any Authorized
Denomination. I s than all of the outstanding principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon
surrender of tya'It Bo d to the Registrar, there shall be issued to the Registered Owner, without
charge, a n w d (or Bonds, at the option of the Registered Owner) of the same Series, maturity,
and interes in any Authorized Denomination in the aggregate principal amount to remain
outstay
y
(d) Notice of Redemption. Notice of redemption of each Bond registered in the name
of Securities Depository shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations. Notice
of redemption of each other Bond, unless waived by the Registered Owner, shall be given by the
Registrar not less than 20 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-
class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register
on the Record Date. The requirements of the preceding sentence shall be satisfied when notice has
been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by an Owner. In addition, the
redemption notice shall be mailed or sent electronically within the same period to the MSRB (if
11
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 130
7.5.a
required under the Undertaking), to each Rating Agency, and to such other persons and with such
additional information as the Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall
not be a condition precedent to the redemption of any Bond.
(e) Rescission of Optional Redemption Notice. In the case of an optional redemption,
the notice of redemption may state that the City retains the right to rescind the redemption notice
and the redemption by giving a notice of rescission to the affected Registered Owners at any time
on or prior to the scheduled optional redemption date. Any notice of optional redemption, t is
so rescinded shall be of no effect, and each Bond for which a notice of optional redempdlh as
been rescinded shall remain outstanding.
(f) Effect of Redemption. Interest on each Bond duly called for redem hall cease
to accrue on the date fixed for redemption, unless either the notice of o redemption is
rescinded as set forth in subsection (e) of this Section, or money suf ie to effect such c
redemption is not on deposit in the Bond Fund or in a trust account establishe to refund or defease o
the Bond. 'S �s �
0
(g) Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to chase any or all of the Bonds 0°
offered to the City or in the open market at any time at any p.ric ce;able to the City plus accrued
interest to the date of purchase.
Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds. If thegpal of any Bond is not paid when the 0
Bond is properly presented at its maturity or dat x or redemption, the City shall be obligated
to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate d in the Bond from and after its maturity or `o
date fixed for redemption until that Bond, oth principal and interest, is paid in full or until c
sufficient money for its payment in full ' deposit in the Bond Fund, or in a trust account
I
established to refund or defease the,19
kNrnd the Bond has been called for payment by giving
notice of that call to the Registere n . 0
m
Section 11. Securi he Bonds. c
N
I
(a) Pledge o es. The Bonds constitute a general indebtedness of the City and are L
payable from tax revenues f the City and such other money as is lawfully available and pledged o
by the City for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds. For so long as any of the
CD
Bonds are out tandir)g, the City irrevocably pledges that it shall, in the manner provided by law E
within the con 'tutional and statutory limitations provided by law without the assent of the voters,
include in nual property tax levy amounts sufficient, together with other money that is a
lawfu v ' able, to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. The
fu� credit, and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the prompt payment of the
pr ci a of and in
on the Bonds, and such pledge shall be enforceable in mandamus against
the City.
(b) Payment of the 2011 Refunding Bonds. Without limiting the provisions of
subsection (a) of this Section, the City intends that principal of and interest on the 2011 Refunding
Bonds be paid from Net Revenue of the Water and Sewer Utility, as such terms are defined in and
in accordance with, the ordinances of the City authorizing the issuance of its outstanding water
and sewer revenue bonds, including Ordinance No. 4197, passed on October 13, 2020.
12
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 131
(c) Additional Pledge to the 2012 Refunding Bonds. As required by the County PFD
Interlocal Agreement, the City expressly pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on
the 2012 Refunding Bonds the following resources, in the following order: (1) the
Intergovernmental Payments received by the City under the County PFD Interlocal Agreement as
a result of the sales tax collected by the Edmonds PFD; (2) the Real Estate Excise Taxes; and
(3) the Intergovernmental Payments received by the City under the County PFD Interlocal
Agreement as a result of the sales tax collected by the County PFD.
Section 12. Tax Covenants; Designation of Tax-Exem t Bonds as " ualifi -
Exempt Obligations."
a Preservation o Tax Exemption or Interest on Tax -Exempt Bonds City will
() .f p f p Y
take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds fr I�lg included in
gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take an ac on nor make or c
permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated proceeds of the Bonds o
that will cause interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds to be included in gWs5' me for federal income
tax purposes. The City will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirements of section 148 of the c
Code are applicable to the Tax -Exempt Bonds, take all action ecessary to comply (or to be
re Wm
treated as having complied) with those requirements in coith the Tax -Exempt Bonds.
c
(b) Post -Issuance Compliance. The Finance�ector is authorized and directed to
review and update the City's written procedures to A�iitate compliance by the City with the
covenants in this Section and the applicable requirements of the Code that must be satisfied after
the Issue Date to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income °
for federal tax purposes. v 7 c
i
(c) Designation of Tax- .I< onds as "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligations." A �
Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds ma signated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the c
purposes of section 265(b)(3) of tie de, if the following conditions are met: 00
(1) the r�does not constitute "private activity bonds" within the meaning Ni
of section 141 of the Code, 2
0
(2)4C the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than
private activi on and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) that E
the City and a entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that the City controls, that
derives its Mrity to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that issues tax-exempt a
obligkttltsjbehalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which the Series is issued
wilj.Wd $10,000,000 (or such other amount that may on the Issue Date be in effect under
the Ve); and
(3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Series, 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 Series is issued does not exceed $10,000,000 (or such other
amount that may on the Issue Date be in effect under the Code).
Section 13. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding
bonds pursuant to State law or use money available from any other lawful source to carry out a
13
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 132
7.5.a
refunding or defeasance plan, which may include (a) paying when due the principal of and interest
on any or all of the Bonds (the "defeased Bonds"); (b) redeeming the defeased Bonds prior to their
maturity; and (c) paying the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If the City sets aside in a special
trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption or defeasance (the "trust
account"), money and/or Government Obligations maturing at a time or times and bearing interest
in amounts sufficient to redeem, refund, or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their
terms, then all right and interest of the Owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this
ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds all
cease and become void. Thereafter, the Registered Owners of defeased Bonds shall have N` ht
to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds solely fro W trust
account and the defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding. In that event ity may
apply money remaining in any fund or account (other than the trust account) e ed for the
payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purpose.
c
Unless otherwise specified by the City in a refunding or def sance plan, notice of
L
refunding or defeasance shall be given, and selection of Bondsa partial refunding or
defeasance shall be conducted, in the manner prescribed in this ordijce for the redemption of
m
Bonds. b„
Section 14. Refunding Plans.
lans. •'�,
�
(a) Appointment of Refunding Trustee. ank National Association is appointed
as Refunding Trustee.
0
(b) Use of 2011 Refunding Bon Pr ceeds. The proceeds of the sale of the 2011
c
Refunding Bonds shall be deposited imme upon the receipt thereof with the registrar for the
�i
2011 Bonds (or, if so determined by iiX�' ignated Representative, with the Refunding Trustee)
and used to discharge the obligati e City relating to the 2011 Refunded Bonds under the
o
2011 Bond Ordinance by providi fo the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the 2011
00
Refunding Plan. As determi y the Designated Representative, such obligations shall be
c
discharged fully by eithe i t ayment when due by the registrar for the 2011 Refunded Bonds
CMi
of the amount required t0 paid by the 2011 Refunding Plan or (ii) to the extent practicable, the
L
Refunding Trustee's sijtultaneous purchase of Acquired Obligations, bearing such interest and
maturing as to p ipal and interest in such amount and at such time so as to provide, together
with a beginn' Lc��as balance, if necessary, for the payment of the amount required to be paid by
the 2011 efu�..7`'lg Plan. Any such Acquired Obligations shall be listed and more
E
particularly
described i exhibit to be attached to the Refunding Trust Agreement, but are subject to
a
substigi s set forth in subsection (d) of this Section. Any 2011 Refunding Bond proceeds or
olie su*h money deposited with the Refunding Trustee not needed to carry out the 2011
R-Nokng Plan shall be returned to the City as soon as practicable after the Issue Date and
deposited in the Bond Fund to pay interest on the Bonds on the first interest payment date.
(c) Use of 2012 Refunding Bond Proceeds. The proceeds of the sale of the 2012
Refunding Bonds shall be deposited immediately upon the receipt thereof with the Refunding
Trustee and used to discharge the obligations of the City relating to the 2012 Refunded Bonds
under the 2012 Bond Ordinance by providing for the payment of the amounts required to be paid
by the 2012 Refunding Plan. To the extent practicable, such obligations shall be discharged fully
14
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 133
7.5.a
by the Refunding Trustee's simultaneous purchase of Acquired Obligations, bearing such interest
and maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times so as to provide,
together with a beginning cash balance, if necessary, for the payment of the amounts required to
be paid by the 2012 Refunding Plan. Such Acquired Obligations shall be listed and more
particularly described in an exhibit to be attached to the Refunding Trust Agreement, but are
subject to substitution as set forth in subsection (d) of this Section. Any 2012 Refunding Bond
proceeds or other such money deposited with the Refunding Trustee not needed to carry out the
2012 Refunding Plan shall be returned to the City as soon as practicable after the Issue Da1�d
deposited in the Bond Fund to pay interest on the Bonds on the first interest payment date�.'�
(d) Substitution of Acquired Obligations. Prior to the purchase of cquired
Obligations by the Refunding Trustee, the City reserves the right to substi er direct,
noncallable obligations of the United States of America ("Substitute Oblige" for any of the c
Acquired Obligations and to use any savings created thereby for any lawful i purpose if, (i) in
the opinion of Bond Counsel, the interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds, th OI I Refunded Bonds, '2
L
and the 2012 Refunded Bonds will remain excluded from gross inco e or federal income tax
purposes under sections 103, 148, and 149(d) of the Code, and (ii) such s4bstitution will not impair m
the timely payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Reding Plan, as verified by a
nationally recognized independent certified public accountinc
After the purchase of the Acquired Obligations b S�Iefanding Trustee, the City reserves
the right to substitute therefor cash or Substitute O ons subject to the conditions that such
cash or Substitute Obligations will be sufficient a out the 2011 Refunding Plan and the 2012
Refunding Plan, that such substitution will not the Tax -Exempt Bonds, the 2011 Bonds, or .°a
the 2012 Bonds to be arbitrage bonds wiAi he meaning of section 148 of the Code and c
regulations thereunder in effect on the dat bf�luch substitution and applicable to obligations issued .0
on the issue dates of the Bonds, the, onds, and the 2012 Bonds, as applicable, and that the
City obtain, at its expense: (i) a verifiidn by a nationally recognized independent firm acceptable m°
to the Refunding Trustee confirming tffat the payments of principal of and interest on the Substitute
Obligations, if paid when due, and any other money held by the Refunding Trustee will be N
sufficient to carry out the 201 ?Vefunding Plan and the 2012 Refunding Plan; and (ii) an opinion 1
of Bond Counsel that the disposition and substitution or purchase of such Substitute Obligations, o
under the statutes, les, and regulations then in force and applicable to the Tax -Exempt Bonds,
will not cause e ' terest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds, the 2011 Refunded Bonds, or the 2012
Refunded B to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and that such
dispositio n bstitution or purchase is in compliance with the statutes and regulations
applica e t e Tax -Exempt Bonds. Any surplus money resulting from the sale, transfer, other a
disp or redemption of the Acquired Obligations and the substitutions therefor shall be
r a rom the trust estate and transferred to the City to be used for any lawful City purpose.
(e) Administration of Refunding Plan. The Refunding Trustee is authorized and
directed to purchase the Acquired Obligations (or Substitute Obligations), if so directed by the
Designated Representative, and to make the payments required to be made by the 2011 Refunding
Plan (if so determined by the Designated Representative) and the 2012 Refunding Plan from the
Acquired Obligations (or Substitute Obligations) and money deposited with the Refunding Trustee
pursuant to this ordinance. All Acquired Obligations (or Substitute Obligations) and the money
deposited with the Refunding Trustee and any income therefrom shall be held irrevocably,
15
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 134
7.5.a
invested, and applied in accordance with the provisions of the 2011 Bond Ordinance (if so
determined by the Designated Representative) and the 2012 Bond Ordinance, this ordinance,
chapter 39.53 RCW and other applicable statutes of the State, and the Refunding Trust Agreement.
(f) Authorization for Refunding Trust Agreement. The Finance Director is authorized
and directed to execute and deliver to the Refunding Trustee a Refunding Trust Agreement setting
forth the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the Refunding Trustee in connection with
carrying out the 2011 Refunding Plan (if so determined by the Designated Representative) ai%the
2012 Refunding Plan. �'�,
(g) Authorization for Replacement 2012 Bonds. The City may issue repl t 2012
Bonds in principal amounts reflecting the principal amount of the 2012 Refunde ds and the
2012 Bonds to remain outstanding. The replacement bonds shall be pr' xecuted, and
authenticated as provided in the 2012 Bond Ordinance. c
L
(h) Calls for Redemption of Refunded Bonds. The City c ll 2011 Refunded Bonds O
for redemption on the 2011 Redemption Date. Such call for redemp s 11 be irrevocable after 0
the delivery of the 2011 Refunding Bonds to the Purchaser. T City calls the 2012 Refunded 0°
Bonds stated to mature after the 2012 Redemption Date for r on on the 2012 Redemption 2
Date. Such call for redemption shall be irrevocable after tl ery of the 2012 Refunding Bonds
to the Purchaser. The proper City officials are authorized directed to give or cause to be given
such notices as required, at the times and in the ma+quired by the 2011 Bond Ordinance to
effect the redemption prior to their maturity of jil Refunded Bonds and by the 2012 Bond
Ordinance to effect the redemption prior to thei ity of the 2012 Refunded Bonds. °
0
(i) Findings with Respect to 2 efunding Plan. Prior to approving the sale of the
2011 Refunding Bonds, the Designat d sentative shall make the following determinations in
writing if in the judgment of the D a d Representative the following conditions are satisfied: 0
(1) the savings that will be effe ed s measured by the difference between the principal and 00
interest cost over the life of th 1 Refunding Bonds and the principal and interest cost over the c
life of the 2011 Refunded Bon , but for such refunding) shall be equal to at least the percentage Ni
savings set forth in Exhibit*, and in making such determination, the Designated Representative L
shall give consideration► to the fixed maturities of the 2011 Refunding Bonds and the 2011
Refunded Bond e costs of issuance of the 2011 Refunding Bonds, and the known earned
income from e i estment of the proceeds of the 2011 Refunding Bonds, if any, pending
redemptio of 2011 Refunded Bonds; and (2) the 2011 Refunding Plan will provide sufficient
funds to di ge and satisfy the obligations of the City under the 2011 Bond Ordinance, and in a
maki determination, the Designated Representative may rely upon a verification by a
natiort recognized independent certified public accounting firm or a certification of the
Muuipal Advisor.
0) Finding with Respect to 2012 Refunding Plan. Prior to approving the sale of the
2012 Refunding Bonds, the Designated Representative shall determine in writing that the 2012
Refunding Plan will provide sufficient funds to discharge and satisfy the obligations of the City
under the 2012 Bond Ordinance, and in making such determination, the Designated Representative
may rely upon a verification by a nationally recognized independent certified public accounting
firm.
16
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 135
7.5.a
Section 15. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds.
(a) Manner of Sale of Bonds; Delivery of Bonds. The Designated Representative is
authorized to sell each Series by private placement, negotiated sale, or competitive sale in
accordance with a notice of sale consistent with this ordinance, based on the assessment of the
Designated Representative of market conditions, in consultation with appropriate City officials
and staff, Bond Counsel, the Municipal Advisor, and other advisors. In determining the method of
sale of a Series and accepting the Final Terms, the Designated Representative shall tak 'nto
account the factors that, in the judgment of the Designated Representative, may be ex p to
result in the lowest true interest cost to the City.
(b) Procedure for Private Placement or Negotiated Sale. IfJated
esignated
Representative determines that a Series is to be sold by private placement sale, the
Designated Representative shall select one or more Purchasers with which n otiate such sale.
The Bond Purchase Contract for each Series shall set forth the Final erms. The Designated
Representative is authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Contract,`o if of the City, so long
as the terms provided therein are consistent with the terms of this ordinance.
(c) Procedure for Competitive Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that
a Series is to be sold by competitive sale, the Designated Representative shall cause the preparation
of an official notice of bond sale setting forth parameters for the Final Terms and any other bid
parameters that the Designated Representative deem appropriate consistent with this ordinance.
Bids for the purchase of each Series shall be rec e�k the time or place and by the means as the
Designated Representative directs. On the da time established for the receipt of bids, the
Designated Representative (or the designee the esignated Representative) shall open bids and
shall cause the bids to be mathematically led. The Designated Representative is authorized to
award, on behalf of the City, the wi 'bid and accept the winning bidder's offer to purchase
the Series, with such adjustment he aggregate principal amount and principal amount per
maturity as the Designated Rep r seriTative deems appropriate, consistent with the terms of this
ordinance, and the official nQof sale, the Purchaser's bid, and the award by the City shall
constitute the Bond Pq ociaW Contract for purposes of this ordinance. The Designated
Representative may reject aNy or all bids submitted and may waive any formality or irregularity in
any bid or in the bi ding`process if the Designated Representative deems it to be in the City's best
interest to do so4lkall bids are rejected, the Series may be sold pursuant to negotiated sale or in
any manner p de y law as the Designated Representative determines is in the best interest of
the City, c 3is t with this ordinance.
,4COL'I,Y Preparation, Execution, and Delivery of the Bonds. The Bonds will be prepared at
City Aense and will be delivered to the Purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase
Co tr ct, together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bonds.
Section 16. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure.
(a) Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The Designated Representative
shall review and, if acceptable to the Designated Representative, approve the preliminary Official
Statement prepared in connection with the sale of each Series to the public or through a Purchaser
as a placement agent. For the sole purpose of the Purchaser's compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of
17
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 136
7.5.a
Rule 15c2-12, the Designated Representative is authorized to deem that preliminary Official
Statement final as of its date, except for the omission of information permitted to be omitted by
Rule 15c2-12. The City approves the distribution to potential purchasers of the Bonds of a
preliminary Official Statement that has been approved by the Designated Representative and if
applicable, deemed final, in accordance with this subsection.
(b) Approval of Final Official Statement. The City approves the preparation of a final
Official Statement for each Series to be sold to the public or through a Purchaser as pla, ent
agent, in the form of the preliminary Official Statement that has been approved and, if ap e,
deemed final in accordance with subsection (a) of this Section, with such modific and
amendments as the Designated Representative deems necessary or desirable, ' further
authorizes the Designated Representative to execute and deliver such final Offs 'i atement to
the Purchaser if required under Rule 15c2-12 or the Bond Purchase Contrac . pity authorizes
and approves the distribution to purchasers and potential purchasers of tl B nds of that final
Official Statement.
(c) Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosur6mcessary to meet the
requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to the Purchaser acting as a
participating underwriter for a Series, the Designated Refire tative is authorized to execute a
written undertaking to provide continuing disclosure fovNNnefit of holders of the Series in
substantially the form attached as Exhibit B to this ordina , which is incorporated herein by this
reference. n� �►+
Section 17. Amendatory Ordinance I
e City may supplement or amend this
ordinance for any one or more of the followil D rposes without the consent of any Owners:
(a) To add covenants dements that do not materially adversely affect the
interests of Registered Owners, or urrender any right or power reserved to or conferred upon
the City; or
(b) To cure an mbiguities, or to cure, correct, or supplement any defective provision
contained in this ordinanc V a manner that does not materially adversely affect the interest of the
Registered Owners.
Sectio $. 7 Amendment of County PFD Interlocal Agreement. The Mayor is
authorized an erected, on the City's behalf, to execute and deliver an amendment to the County
PFD Interl greement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C.
ion 19. General Authorization and Ratification. The Designated Representative
of er appropriate officers of the City are each individually authorized to take such actions and
to cute 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 each Series to the Purchaser and for the proper application, use, and
investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. 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.
18
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 137
7.5.a
Section 20. 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 provision with respect to
all other persons and all other circumstances, shall remain valid and enforceable. ��++.���
Section 21. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect.4; a in
force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law and is
not subject to referendum. 0Nr
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of Ce Vity of Edmonds,
Washington, at an open public meeting thereof, this day of A— , 2021.
N6*t
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Scott Passey
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
or, Mike Nelson
AQ.�
��
.. C-4�
FOSTER GARVEY P.C.
Bond Counsel
19
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 138
7.5.a
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS
(a) Principal Amount.
The Bonds may be issued in one or more Series. The
Project Bonds shall not exceed the aggregate principal
amount of $6,500,000. The 2011 Refunding Bonds shall
not exceed the aggregate principal amount rg red to
carry out the 2011 Refunding Plan. The 2012 ding
Bonds shall not exceed the aggregate pri 11 amount
required to carry out the 2012 Refundin
(b) Date or Dates.
Each Bond shall be dated the IssieRt, which date may
not be later than one year after�►ffective date of this
ordinance.
(c) Denominations, Name.
The Bonds shall be issue thorized Denominations
and shall be numbereAeparately in the manner and shall
bear any name a tional designation as deemed
necessary A ropriate by the Designated
Representativzr
(d) Interest Rate.
Eac o� all bear interest at a fixed rate per annum
(c on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of
t}�ely 30-day months) from the Issue Date or from the
.� recent date for which interest has been paid or duly
o • rvided for, whichever is later. One or more rates of
interest may be fixed for the Bonds. No rate of interest for
any J may Project Bond exceed 5.25% and the true interest
Y
cost to the City for the Project Bonds may not exceed
(e) Payment Datps. Interest shall be payable semiannually on dates
acceptable to the Designated Representative,
commencing no later than one year after the Issue Date.
Principal payments shall commence on a date acceptable
to the Designated Representative and shall be payable
annually thereafter at maturity or in mandatory
redemption installments, on dates acceptable to the
Designated Representative.
A-1
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 139
7.5.a
(f) Final Maturity. The Project Bonds shall mature no later than the date that
is 21 years after the Issue Date. The 2011 Refunding
Bonds shall mature no later than six months after the final
stated maturity of the 2011 Refunded Bonds. The 2012
Refunding Bonds shall mature no later than December 1,
2041.
(g) Redemption Rights. The Designated Representative may approve i4 kBond
Purchase Contract provisions for the op^ and
mandatory redemption of Bonds, subject to k llowing:
(1) Optional Redemption. Any may be
designated as being (A) sub' t edemption at the
option of the City prior t is aturity date on the
dates and at the prices se fort in the Bond Purchase
Contract; or (B) nSS��t �Su ' ct to redemption prior to
its maturity date. Ifa�,'�'a -Exempt Bond is subject
to optional redeon prior to its maturity, it must
be subjectto A&demption on one or more dates
occurrin� ore than 101/z years after the Issue
Date.�
(2) 4atory Redemption. Any Bond may be
rgnated as a Term Bond, subject to mandatory
v redemption prior to its maturity on the dates and in
the amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract.
SThe
(h) Price. � purchase price for each Series may not be less than
95% or more than 140% of the stated amount of
principal
0 the Series.
(i) Other Terms an`j'onditions.
(1) No Series may be issued if it would cause the
indebtedness of the City to exceed the City's legal
debt capacity on the Issue Date.
(2) The Designated Representative may determine
whether it is in the City's best interest to provide for
bond insurance or other credit enhancement, and
may accept such additional terms, conditions, and
covenants as the Designated Representative may
determine are in the best interests of the City,
consistent with this ordinance.
(3) The Designated Representative may determine
which, if any, of the Bonds are to be Tax -Exempt
Bonds.
A-2
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 140
7.5.a
(3) The Designated Representative may specify that the
2011 Redemption Date is other than December 1,
2021.
(4)
The 2011 Refunding Bonds shall produce a
minimum net present value savings to the City and
its taxpayers of at least 3.00% (as a percentage of
the 2011 Refunded Bonds). Net press value
savings means the aggregate different A, een
(i) annual debt service on the 2011 Re JAOd Bonds,
less (ii) annual debt service on the, efunding
Bonds (including expenses r 'j*kO to costs of
issuance of the 2011 Refu finds), discounted
to the Issue Date using Ve yield on the 2011
Refunding Bonds a�he discount rate, plus
(iii) excess cash, if tributed to the City on the
Issue Date allocablthe 2011 Refunding Bonds,
and less (iv) theunt of additional money of the
u e* t City cont6be 2011 Refunding Plan, if any,
on the I!Z�e Oate.
A-3
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 141
7.5.a
EXHIBIT B
Form of
UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
City of Edmonds, Washington
Limited Tax General Obligation [Improvement and] [Refunding] Bonds, [Series]
The City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), makes the following written Underc g
for the benefit of holders of the above -referenced bonds (the "Bonds"), for the sole uGose of
assisting the Purchaser in meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rulg, fsll�-12, as
applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds. Capitalized terms used b1*LWot defined
below shall have the meanings given in Ordinance No. of the City (thgi*BQ Ordinance").
(a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and NoMe of Listed Events.
The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either dir ct °� through a designated
agent, to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by i`"9RB, accompanied by
identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB:
(i) Annual financial information and operati `da-t�of the type included in the final
official statement for the Bonds, as describn paragraph (b)(i) ("annual financial
information"); �CD►+
(ii) Timely notice (not in excess of'� mess days after the occurrence of the event)
of the occurrence of an o the ollowin events with respect to the Bonds:
Y � g p
(1) principal and interest pa t delinquencies; (2) non-payment related defaults,
if material; (3) unsched claws on debt service reserves reflecting financial
difficulties; (4) un d draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial
difficulties; (5) su sti ion of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to
perform; (6) ad tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of
proposed determinations of taxability, Notice of Proposed Issue (IRS
Form 5701 EB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the
tax status. o the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the
B s; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if material; (8) bond
Nis ther than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds), if material,
9 tender offers; (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property
curing repayment of the Bonds, if material; (11) rating changes; (12) bankruptcy,
,[Z insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City, as such "Bankruptcy Events"
are defined in Rule 15c2-12 (13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or
acquisition involving the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of
y the City other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive
agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement
relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material;
(14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a
trustee, if material; (15) incurrence of a financial obligation of the City or obligated
person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority
rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the City or obligated
B-1
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 142
7.5.a
person, any of which affect security holders, if material; and (16) default, event of
acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under
the terms of the financial obligation of the City or obligated person, any of which
reflect financial difficulties. The term "financial obligation" means a (i) debt
obligation; (ii) derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as
security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation; or (iii)
guarantee of (i) or (ii). The term "financial obligation" shall not include municipal
securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the .MSRB
consistent with Rule 15c2-12. N�,
V
(iii) Timely notice of a failure by the City to provide the required a mancial
information described in paragraph (b)(i) on or before the d ecified in
paragraph (b)(ii). �` c
v
(b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual
financial information that the City undertakes to provide in paragra,4,J :
o
(i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements pApared (except as noted in the 0°
financial statements) in accordance with applicable io,2nerally accepted accounting
principles applicable to local government dnits of the State such as the City, as
such principles may be changed from tim o Came; (2) general obligation debt that
has been authorized and the amount nding; (3) assessed valuation for that
fiscal year; (4) assessed valuatio o e fiscal year regular ad valorem property
tax levy rate amount rate limit ati Md percentage of tax collected during the fiscal °
year; and (5) amount of geneVfu d revenues from other major tax sources; c
MO
(ii) Shall be provided not n the last day of the ninth month after the end of each
fiscal year of the C' u ently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal c
year may be chan ed required or permitted by State law, commencing with the 00
City's fiscal ye 'ding December 31, 20_; and c
NI
.r
(iii) May be pro ed in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by 2
specific Vference to documents available to the public on the Internet website of
th SRB or filed with the SEC.
E
If not mitted as part of the annual financial information described in paragraph (b)(i),
the City wi� ide or cause to be provided to the MSRB audited financial statements, when and a
if availAle.
yAmendment of Undertaking. This Undertaking is subject to amendment after the
ri offering of the Bonds without the consent of an holder of an Bond or of an broker,
p D' g Y Y � Y
dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, Rating Agency, or the MSRB, under
the circumstances and in the manner permitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City will give notice to the
MSRB of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief
statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial
information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial
B-2
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 143
7.5.a
information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of
information to be provided.
(d) Beneficiaries. This Undertaking shall inure to the benefit of the City and the holder
of each Bond, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person.
(e) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this Undertaking shall
terminate upon the retirement or legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the, 6kty's
obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if the provisions of Rule 15c2-12 thatjkfTfre
the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of th� s for
any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of Bond Counsel delivered to the City, ,� e City
provides timely notice of such termination to the MSRB.
c
(f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon pr cticable after the
City learns of any failure to comply with this Undertaking, the City will pr cee with due diligence
to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the Cityer obligated person to O
comply with this Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect o nds. The sole remedy c
of any holder of a Bond shall be to take action to compel the ' or other obligated person to 0°
comply with this Undertaking, including seeking an order cific performance from an 2
appropriate court. c
(g) Designation of Official Responsible QWdminister Undertaking. The Finance
Director or the designee of the Finance Direct i e person authorized to take such further
actions as may be necessary, appropriate, or co t to carry out this Undertaking in accordance
with Rule 15c2-12, including the following
((��tio
(i) Preparing and filing the U; financial information undertaken to be provided;
(ii) Determining whether y event specified in paragraph (a) has occurred, assessing
its materiality, W'l re necessary, with respect to the Bonds, and preparing and
disseminatufa anrequired notice of its occurrence;
(iii) Determining hether any person other than the City is an "obligated person" within
the eanmg of Rule 15c2-12 with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such
rs an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of
ed events for that person required under Rule 15c2-12;
v) "Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants, including
municipal advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out
_4Q
this Undertaking; and
(v) Effecting any necessary amendment of this Undertaking.
B-3
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 144
EXHIBIT C
Form of
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF THE EDMONDS CENTRE FOR THE ARTS
C-1
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 145
7.5.a
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 [ ], 2021, as that ordinance appears on the mute
book of the City. 61�
I
2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throug%Vnce.
Rrneeting
and a majority of the members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the
3. The Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days a er p �lication in the
City s official newspaper, which publication date is [, 2021.
Dated: [], 2021.
CITY OF ED S, WASHINGTON
Cit.Zl &, Scott Passey
A,;�;
FG:54375381.2 Packet Pg. 146
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Council Student Representative Interview
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
Each year, the Edmonds City Council appoints a high school junior or senior to serve as Student
Representative for the school year.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Council conducted an application process from August to September. The 2020-2021 Student
Representative, Brook Roberts was the only applicant this year. The Council is asked to conduct a short
interview and reappoint Brook Roberts to the position of Council Student Representative as a senior for
the 2021-2022 school year.
Attachments:
Brook Roberts Application —Redacted 2021
Packet Pg. 147
8.1.a
2021-2022 Edmonds City Council Student Representative Application
Student Representative Resaonsibilities:
Attend Edmonds City Council meeting during the 2021-2022 academic year 9/1/21— 8/31/22. The
Council has four Council Meetings per month and are held on Tuesdays from 7:00 p.m. to
approximately 10:00 p.m. Sometimes meetings go beyond 10:00 p.m. You are not required to stay
past 10:00 p.m. It is preferable that the Student Representative attend all four meetings.
You may be asked to comment during the meeting or at the end of the meeting when the Council
and Mayor make comments (you can choose to pass). Sometimes you will see an "Executive
Session" listed on the agenda. Executive sessions are not open to the public and the student
representative cannot attend these meetings. You cannot vote on any issue.
The Council receives an agenda packet on Friday for upcoming Tuesday meeting. If you have a
laptop or other device (iPad, etc.), you may view the agenda on the City's web page by going to
www.edmondswa.gov, clicking on the "Government" down arrow and selecting City Council, then
click "Agendas."
Term of appointment:
The appointment term is September through August. The term is predicated on your attendance
record as well as preparation and participation in meetings.
What is expected of the Student Representative?
• You will be assigned a city email address; please use it when communicating about Council
business. It is also subject to public records disclosure.
• Take an interest in your local government and community.
• Become acquainted with the agenda and the contents of the agenda packet for all
meetings; be willing to participate in Council discussions (when asked) and bring your
point of view to the table along with the views of fellow students.
• Acceptance of the appointment means staying for the entire term of the appointment and
provide appropriate notice to the City Council if you must resign. Illness or unforeseen
circumstances are taken into consideration if a Student Representative does not attend
meetings.
Eligibility:
Students shall reside within the Edmonds city limits, and must be entering grades 11 through 12,
or be of equivalent age if not enrolled in a traditional school program. You do not have to attend
high school in the Edmonds School District.
Mail application to: Edmonds City Council 121 5t" Ave. N. Edmonds WA 98020; or Email to:
Maureen.iudge@edmondswa.gov
Packet Pg. 148
8.1.a
2021-2022 Edmonds City Council Student Representative Application -
Due Sf 30/21 by Spm
Name: brook Roberts
Birth Date: 05 / 10 04
Home Phone #: Cell Phone M (425)-
Address: Edmonds, WA Zip Code: 98020
Email: brook.roberts@)edmondswa.gov 1 bro.robert
Names of Parents)/Guardian(s):- John and Hannah Roberts
Parents)/Guardian(s) Phone #: John's is (425)- and Hannah's is (425)-
What school will you attend next year? Shorewood High School Grade? 12
Please type your answers to the following questions; please feel free to use extra pages far your
answers:
1. What volunteer/work experience or extracurricular activities have you been involved
in that may contribute to your success as an Edmonds City Council Student
Representative?
Please see the attached form.
2. What personal strengths/skills will you contribute to the success of your role as the
Edmonds City Council Student Representative?
Please see the attached form.
3. What issue impacting the Edmonds community are you most passionate about?
Please see the attached form.
Student Signature:
Parent/Guardian Signature:
Packet Pg. 149
8.1.a
1. What volunteer/work experience or extracurricular activities have you been involved in that
may contribute to your success as an Edmonds City Council Student Representative?
I've spent the past (almost) three years volunteering for the city on the Youth Commission and
as the Council's Student Representative for the past year. These experiences have provided me
with the knowledge of the workings of municipal government and stressed the importance of
collaboration with others. Within my involvement, I have been a part of multiple projects such
as Edmonds' yearly suicide prevention month and the pronouns inclusion request, while
creating tools to engage Edmonds' citizens in municipal government further and empower the
underrepresented to make their voices heard.
At my high school, I am currently an officer in the Tri-M chapter. This society recognizes
students for their musical and academic achievements while providing leadership and service
opportunities. In this role, I have worked tirelessly to engage with fellow students from across
the music program and start initiatives that benefit all music groups in the long run. With HB
1660 coming into effect, which ensures that all FRLP-eligible students activity fees are covered, I
am working to ensure that the budget of our groups is utilized in the most efficient way possible
not only to continue to secure equity for students in the music department but also to set up
future students to have a budget where they can afford to do trips, more extensive projects, etc.
I also served as the Neuroscience Club's President over the past year, now stepping down to
pursue other projects. Still, in that role, I spearheaded developing a comprehensive introduction
to neuroscience course to supplement other biological science courses that don't include
neuroscience. In addition, we have continued to present about neurodiversity and combat the
stigma against it while building a solid core of students that are advocates and lifelong learners.
Lastly, I am now serving my class as a Senator in the Student Government. I ran for the position
because I always felt like an outsider to ASB and no longer wanted to feel that way. Likewise, I
didn't want others to feel that way either. In this position, I am working to include and engage
with those who have never felt like ASB has catered to or served them by fostering discussions
among the student body about our needs and the extent to which ASB can support them. I
stepped up because I was tired of waiting for the change; I wanted to be the change.
Outside of school, I work in the fast-food industry, where my work has been primarily focused
on onboarding and developing effective training methods for new hires. Over the past four
months, I have trained approximately fifteen people, all of which have been high performers. In
addition, I take pride in how I have individually adapted the training curriculum to each person's
needs to create the best outcome for them, the store, and the company.
With that said, I would deploy the skills that I've learned from the projects I have completed in
the past (community engagement, budget utilization, creating inclusive practices) in anything
that Council looks at or takes on. I refuse to sit on the sidelines and wait for Edmonds to become
a better place for everyone. Instead, I will actively be the catalyst for change.
Packet Pg. 150
8.1.a
2. What personal strengths/skills will you contribute to the success of your role as the Edmonds
City Council Student Representative?
I live by the quote, "Service above self", as I said last year in my application for the same position.
Nothing has changed, I realize that each day, I must put others before me. I plan on using the
following strengths to my advantage to serve others in the highest capacity that I am able:
• Extended knowledge of city government, of which I am willing to help spread, as I believe it is
critical that all citizens of Edmonds understand how to make their voices heard in critical
decisions, create connections with their elected officials, and push for real change to make their
lives better.
o My desire to learn more about pertinent issues facing the city, the ECDC, and the city
code.
• Coming to meetings prepared with a marked -up agenda, ready to take notes from what citizens
say during the public comment period and trying to put myself in their perspectives. I take this
attitude and approach to everything I do in life.
• Creativity in finding ways to engage populations and groups who have been underrepresented.
If selected for this role, I am going to engage with youth -led clubs at local high schools and
youth organizations to hold the city accountable for being at the forefront of equitable, fair, and
inclusive policies.
• Unafraid of calling out injustices and inequities when I see them, using my voice, privilege, and
platform to initiate change.
• Acting with honesty, integrity, and compassion in every action I take.
• Thinking critically and willingness to research issues that face the youth and citizens of Edmonds
to find policy that addresses all concerns of the stakeholders.
3. What issue impacting the Edmonds community are you most passionate about?
Affordable housing. As someone who will be moving out when I turn 18, 1 am now scouring the
internet for affordable places to live in our city. But I can't find any because it is simply no longer
affordable to live in Edmonds. Even making $22/hour and working approximately 30 hours/week
(which comes out to—$34,000), 1 would still be rent burdened if I was to rent the cheapest
apartment currently available, which happens to be—$1,200/month. That's about 42% of my income
going to rent before taxes are accounted for. When I look at my situation, I can't help but think of
the many other families and individuals in a similar case. We can't keep doing this to our citizens.
The council needs to continue looking at the Housing Commission's recommendations and be
steadfast in providing flexible zoning options to allow more homes to be built. As the Youth
Representative, I will support all work being done and provide my analysis of how a housing/zoning
decision could impact future renters and homeowners from the youth perspective.
Packet Pg. 151
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Budget Scheduling and Coordination
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
This will be a brief presentation and discussion of the timetable for working on the 2022 Budget.
Upcoming dates include:
10/19/21 (Tuesday) Presentations on Decision Package Requests, operating and capital (90 minutes)
10/26/21 (Tuesday) Presentation of CIP/CFP
11/1/21 (Monday) Public Hearings on Budget, Property Taxes, and CIP/CFP
11/4/21 (Thursday) Council Budget Deliberations
11/16/21 (Tuesday) Adoption of the CIP/CFP, Public Hearing on the Budget, Council Budget
Deliberations
11/23/21 (Tuesday) Council Budget Deliberations and targeted date for Adoption of the Budget
Staff Recommendation
No recommendation, for presentation and discussion only.
Narrative:
At the Council Budget Retreat held in May, one of the things that was asked for was for staff to bring
more structure and clarity around the budget schedule. The purpose of my presentation tonight is
to attempt to do just that. After this presentation I hope that the budget calendar and schedule over
the next seven weeks will be clear to everyone, and I will continue to do this as we move along
through the process. I will also talk about the Decision Packages and some other things are included
in your budget book, in an effort to avoid confusion down the road.
Attachments:
Budget Calendar
Packet Pg. 152
8.2.a
2021 OCTOBER
SUNDAY
CALENDAR YEAR CALENDAR MONTH FIRST DAY OF WEEK
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Mayor's Budget
Message, Budget Books
(Tonight)
Available
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(Committee Night)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Decision Package
Presentations
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
CIP Presentation
31
r
Q
Packet Pg. 153
8.2.a
2021 NOVEMBER SUNDAY
CALENDAR YEAR CALENDAR MONTH FIRST DAY OF WEEK
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
01
02
03
04
05
06
Budget Public Hearings,
(No Meetings - Election
Budget Deliberation
CIP Presentation
Day)
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
(Committee Night)
VETERAN'S DAY
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Public Hearing,
Deliberations, CIP
Adoption
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Deliberations and
Budget Adoption (5o
THANKSGIVING
HOLIDAY
Days)
28
29
30
(No Meetings - 5th
Tuesday)
Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 154
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/5/2021
Amendment to City's Agreement with South County Fire
Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday
Department: City Attorney's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
South County Fire (SCF) has issued a notice that requires some amendment to the city's interlocal
agreement with them. SCF proposed an amendment that would require additional expenditure of
approximately $2.25M per year. In response, the mayor is recommending one of two options, either of
which would require additional expenditure of approximately $1.5M per year: Option 1) adding one 24-
hour two -person unit to the City's existing service level; or Option 2) adding two 12-hour two -person
"peak activity" units to the City's existing service levels. The city council should consider the pluses and
minuses of each option and give high level direction to the mayor on which option it prefers either at
this meeting or a subsequent meeting. This direction needs to be given by the end of October to comply
with the agreement. After the direction is given, an amended agreement incorporating the council's
preference would be brought back to the council for adoption.
Narrative
Establishing appropriate service levels for fire and emergency response is one of the most important
policy matters that a city council could be asked to vote on. The fundamental questions for policy
makers are these:
• how much emergency preparedness can a city afford to provide?
• and how does that city prioritize emergency preparedness compared to other needs of the
community?
As a city adds resources to its fire department, it adds preparedness. As a city withdraws resources, it
reduces preparedness. No city can add enough resources to be fully prepared for every emergency
scenario. City resources are limited and emergency preparedness is expensive. But it is also one of the
most important services that local government provides. Because there is no scientifically correct
answer as to the right amount of city resources to devote to emergency preparedness, it is
fundamentally a matter of legislative discretion. As councilmembers, you will each need to consider and
eventually take a vote to determine the right amount of preparedness to purchase for your city.
We will now explain the background that causes you to face this decision right now.
Packet Pg. 155
8.3
The City of Edmonds operated its own fire department through 2009. In 2010, it began contracting with
Snohomish County Fire District 1 (FD1) to provide fire and emergency medical services to the city
pursuant to an interlocal agreement. From 2010 through 2016, the interlocal agreement with FD1 called
for Edmonds' fire stations to be staffed 24/7 with nine firefighters and two firefighter/ paramedics, for a
total of eleven firefighters on duty at any given time. There were three firefighters located at each of the
city's three fire stations. In addition, the two paramedics were based in downtown Edmonds at station
17. We understand that the city also provided eleven firefighters on duty 24/7 when it ran its own fire
department in 2009.
In 2017, Mayor Earling proposed, and the city council approved, an amendment to the interlocal
agreement that changed the staffing model. The 2017 amendment reduced the total number of
firefighters on duty at any given time from eleven to nine, with three at each station. One of the three
firefighters at each station is required to be a paramedic. So, the total number of paramedics increased
from two to three. While certain assumptions would need to be made in calculating the cost savings
created by these changes, we believe it reasonable to assume that the savings exceeded one million
dollars per year. Of course, that cost savings did render the city less prepared for certain emergencies
that would have required a large dispatch. After all, Edmonds had four units capable of emergency
response from 2010 (and earlier) through 2016. But from 2017 through today, it has only had three
units.
During the negotiations leading up to the changes that took effect in 2017, FD1 expressed concern
about the reduction in the total number of Edmonds units that could respond at any given time.
Specifically, FD1 expressed concern that the 2017 changes would result in the need for units from
neighboring stations to respond into Edmonds, effectively amounting to a subsidy being provided by the
neighboring fire stations in Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood. To address those concerns, the parties
agreed upon some formulas that could be used to determine whether one community was using
fire/EMS resources from another community in a disproportionate manner. These formulas are
incorporated into the 2017 ILA.
One of these formulas is called the neighboring unit utilization factor or NUUF. The other is called the
transport balance factor or TBF. Because the NUUF and TBF are highly correlated, for the purposes of
brevity, we will only explain the NUUF in this agenda memo. (The entire ILA is attached as an exhibit for
anyone who wants to read more about the TBF.)
NUUF measures the amount of time that Edmonds units respond to calls for service outside of Edmonds
and then compares that to the amount of time that non -Edmonds units respond to calls for service in
Edmonds. The purpose of the NUUF is to determine whether those two things are roughly in balance.
Under the agreement, balance is achieved when those two amounts of time are within ten percent of
one another. The NUUF is quite far out of balance and has been for a while. In other words, the NUUF
indicates that non -Edmonds units are responding into Edmonds significantly more than the other way
around.
Recognizing this imbalance, on June 2, 2021, South County Fire (SCF), the successor to FD1 under the
interlocal agreement, issued what is called a Threshold Notice. A copy of the Threshold Notice is
attached. The purpose of the Threshold Notice is to demand that the city take Remedial Measures to
bring the NUUF and the TBF back into balance.
The administration has had several meetings with SCF since the Threshold Notice was issued. SCF has
Packet Pg. 156
8.3
proposed certain Remedial Measures. See June 16, 2021 letter, attached. Specifically, SCF would like the
city to add one 24-hour two -person unit and one 12-hour two -person unit or peak activity unit (PAU).
The 24-hour unit alone would essentially replace the unit that was removed in 2017 (although it
probably would not be returned to Station 17). So, the addition of a 24-hour unit and a 12-hour unit, as
proposed by SCF, would increase the level of preparedness beyond where it had been prior to 2017. The
SCF proposal would cost the city an additional $2.25M per year, approximately.
Mayor Nelson does not support the SCF proposal. He does, however, support increasing the level of
service. The mayor is seeking city council feedback on two alternatives. Either of Mayor Nelson's two
alternatives would have roughly the same cost: an additional $1.5M per year. He supports that financial
commitment, but is weighing and seeking feedback on how that additional commitment to the fire
service should be implemented.
One option would be to add a 24-hour two -person unit similar to the one that was cut in 2017, although,
again, it likely would not be located at Station 17. Alternatively, in lieu of the 24-hour unit, the city could
add two 12-hour two -person PAUs. We will refer to this option as the 2PAU option. There are pluses and
minuses of each alternative.
As between Mayor Nelson's two proposals, SCF has a strong preference for the 24-hour unit, because it
would add an additional resource at all times of day. A nighttime fire, for example, while infrequent, is
highly resource intensive when it occurs. The 24-hour unit adds a measure of preparedness for such
incidents, while the 2PAU option does not.
The advantage of the 2PAU option, on the other hand, is that it adds resources during the times of
greatest need. While we would defer to SCF for exact figures, we understand that roughly 70% of all
calls for service occur during the twelve peak hours. So, adding two units to address the peak would
appear to be adding resources when they are most in need. (It stands to reason that with a slight
staggering in the schedules of the two PAUs, these additional resources could probably capture a
percentage even higher than 70% of the calls, but we would still need to verify that with SCF.) In any
case, reasonable minds can differ over what type of preparedness is the best type for Edmonds. So, the
city council will ultimately need to indicate whether it has a preference. We need to know the council's
preference before we are required to designate the city's Remedial Measures at the end of October
2021.
Representatives of South County Fire will be present during the discussion of this agenda item and
would likely make some remarks and/or be available to answer questions.
Attachments:
2017 Restated ILA signed
2021-06-02 threshold notice
2021-06-16 letter from Chief Hovis re proposed remedial measures
2021-09-14 CityofEdmonds_RFE
2021-09-17 RFA to COE letter from FC Hovis to Mayor Nelson
Contract Original 2010
2009-11-02 City Council - Public Minutes-1410
2017-01-24 agenda memo
2017-01-24 City Council - Public Minutes-1839
2016-12-13 City Council - Full Minutes-1790
Packet Pg. 157
8.3
2016-12-06 City Council - Full Minutes-1787
2020 compliance report
2021-03-23 City Council - Full Minutes-2780
Packet Pg. 158
8.3.a
REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
THIS REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLGCAL AGREEMENT ("Restated ILA") by
and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington
municipal corporation (the "District") and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the "City")
is for the provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS).
WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through a
Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most elected
officials in Southwest Snohomish County; and
WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the City and
the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and District and their
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City and District entered into an Interlocal
Agreement (the "Agreement") for the District to provide fire and emergency medical services to
the City beginning January 1, 2010;
WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a First Amendment dated April
17, 2012 to address a fire boat; and
WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a Second Amendment
approved on January 27, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of the
Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the District and
the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the public in the most
efficient manner possible; and
WHEREAS, the parties have analyzed the performance of the Agreement during the
period of 2010 — 2016 (the "Introductory Period") and have determined that is in their mutual
interests and the interests of their respective stakeholders to revise and update the Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the District and City now wish to revise and restate the Agreement as
provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows:
0. DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Restated ILA.
Packet Pg. 159
8.3.a
Adjustment Year: The year in which a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is
effective between the District and the local chapter of the IAFF. When a new CBA has
retroactive effect, the Adjustment Year shall be the date to which the CBA is retroactively
applied. For example, if a CBA expires on December 31, 2014 and a new CBA is
executed on December 1, 2016 but made retroactive to January 1, 2015, the Adjustment
Year would be 2015.
b. Assigned: As used in the definitions of Unit Utilization Factor and Neighboring Unit
Utilization Factor, the term "Assigned" shall describe the period of time in seconds from
dispatch time to clear time, when the Unit becomes available to respond to another call.
c. City: City of Edmonds.
d. City Fire Stations: Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire Station 20.
e. Commencement Date: January 1, 2010.
f. Contract Payment: The amount that the City shall pay to the District pursuant to this
Restated ILA.
g. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
Edmonds Unit: An Edmonds Unit is any Unit based at one of the City Fire Stations with
the exception of the Battalion Chief.
i. Effective Date: February 1, 2017.
j. Esperance: "Esperance" refers to the entirety of the contiguous unincorporated area
that is completely surrounded by the City of Edmonds and commonly known as
Esperance.
Esperance Offset: The amount of tax revenue and fire benefit charges, if fire benefit
charges are imposed in the future, to be received by the District from Esperance for the
year in which the Contract Payment is calculated. The Esperance Offset shall not drop
below $1,117,150 (the amount derived by multiplying the 2017 Esperance Assessed
Value of $565,469,115 by the District's 2017 tax rate of $1.97561714741 divided by
1,000) even if the actual tax revenue received by the District drops below that amount as
a result of reductions in assessed valuation or tax rate. The Esperance Offset for any
given year shall not exceed $1,117,150, multiplied by the compounded percentage
increase in City Station Personnel Costs from 2017 to the year for which the Esperance
Offset is being calculated. For example, if City Station Personnel Cost increases 3%
from 2017 to 2018 and 4% from 2018 to 2019, the 2019 cap for the Esperance Offset
would be $1,197,516 and be calculated as follows:
Packet Pg. 160
8.3.a
$1,117,150 x 1.03 = $1,150,664 x 1.04 = $1,196,691
I. District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
m. Firefighters: Full-time, compensated employees, captains, firefighters, emergency
medical technicians, and/or paramedics.
n. Insurance: The term "insurance" as used in this Restated ILA means either valid
insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or carrier approved to
do business in the State of Washington by the Washington State Insurance
Commissioner or valid self-insurance through a self-insurance pooling organization
approved for operation in the State of Washington by the Washington State Risk
Manager or any combination of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if
both are approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington.
o. Law: The term "Jaw" refers to state and federal statutes and regulations. Unless
expressly identified herein, City ordinances, codes and resolutions shall not be
considered "law."
p. Material Breach: A Material Breach means the District's failure to provide minimum
staffing levels as described within this Restated ILA, the City's failure to timely pay the
Contract Payment as described within this Restated ILA, or the City's or District`s failure
to comply with other material terms of this Restated ILA.
q. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E.
r. Negotiation Threshold. A designated occurrence or condition that requires the parties
to renegotiate the Restated ILA.
s. Non -Edmonds Unit: A Non -Edmonds Unit is any Unit stationed at any station other
than the City Fire Stations.
t. Transport Balance Factor: See Exhibit E.
u. Unit: A Unit is a group of Firefighters that work together and are based at the same
station. Where a station is staffed by three firefighters at any one time, that station shall
be considered a Unit. Where a station is staffed by five or more firefighters at any one
time, without counting the Battalion Chief or Medical Services Officer, that station shall
be deemed to have two Units and the District shall clearly allocate the Firefighters at that
station in such a manner that the two Units at that station can be clearly distinguished for
the purposes of determining the Unit Utilization Factor for each Unit.
v. Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E.
Packet Pg. 161
8.3.a
w. Wind -Up Period: Except in the context of Material Breach as defined in Section 10.2,
the two years immediately following notice of termination under 11.2.
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Services Provided. The District shalt provide all services necessary for fire suppression,
emergency medical service, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and
disaster response (not including an Emergency Operations Center, which is provided by
the City at the time of this Restated ILA) to a service area covering the corporate limits of
the City of Edmonds. In addition, the District shall provide support services including, but
not limited to, fire marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public
information, and fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal
and risk management pertaining to the operations and delivery of the District's services.
1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District shall provide training and
education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in accordance with
State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District shall offer professional
development and educational and training opportunities for unrepresented and civilian
employees.
1.3 City Fire Chief, The District Fire Chief shall be designated as the City Fire Chief for
purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code.
1.4 District Fire Chief Designates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate an
individual to sere as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel to support
the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and partially funded
by the City (See Exhibit A), subject to the City's right to provide its own fire inspectors
pursuant to Section 2.8.2, below.
2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICESISTAFFING
2.1 Battalion Chief. A Battalion Chief shall continue to be available for response within the
City twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week as during the Introductory
Period. The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency
incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
2.2 Fire Station Staffing. The City Fire Stations shall each be staffed twenty-four (24) hours
per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2)
firefighters, at least one of whom shall be a firefighter/paramedic. Any increase in
staffing above this level shall not increase the Contract Payment unless the increase
occurs through an amendment of this Restated ILA.
2.2.1 The parties shall renegotiate this Restated ILA upon the occurrence of any of the
following Negotiation Thresholds:
4
Packet Pg. 162
8.3.a
a. When the Unit Utilization Factor ("UUF") at any one of the City Fire Stations
exceeds 0.250;
b. When the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor ("NUUF") is out of balance as
defined in this Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a
renegotiation any earlier than January 1, 2018..
c. When the Transport Balance Factor (TBF} is out of balance as defined in this
Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a renegotiation earlier
than January 1, 2018.
d. When the Esperance Offset drops by ten percent (10%) or more over any
consecutive three (3) year period.
2.2.2 The District shall provide written notice to the City ("Threshold Notice") whenever
any of the foregoing Negotiation Thresholds occurs. Within thirty (30) days of issuance
of a Threshold Notice, the parties shall meet to renegotiate this Restated ILA. Such
negotiations shall include, at least the following topics:
(i) Methodologies intended to reduce the UUF substantially below 0.250 or
to balance the NUUF or TBF, as applicable (collectively "Remedial
Measures"). Remedial Measures may include, but shall not be limited to,
changes to the staffing mix and/or levels, adding another Unit; changing
fire response plans in CAD, and/or implementing other service changes;
and
(u) Adjusting the Contract Payment to account for the District's increased
cost in employing the selected Remedial Measures.
(iii) Where the Threshold Notice pertains to subsection 2.2.1(d), topics of
negotiation shall include increasing the amount of the Esperance Offset
andlor reducing staff and/or reducing overhead charges that are billed to
the City.
2.2.3 The District shall identify various Remedial Measures that are likely to
expeditiously achieve the applicable goals in Section 2.2.2(i). The City may opt to
identify and notify the District about alternative Remedial Measures. After consulting with
the District, the City shall select one or more of the Remedial Measures and shall
provide written notice of same within one hundred twenty (120) days following the
issuance of the Threshold Notice (the "Negotiation Deadline"). The City's selection shall
be subject to mediation under paragraph 18.1 if the Di strict finds the City's selection to
be ineffective or inappropriate, but it shall not be subject to arbitration under paragraph
18.2. Any disputes regarding the cost impacts of the City's selection shall be subject to
the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the Contract
Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive to the
earlier of the Negotiation Deadline or the date that the Remedial Measures were initially
employed. If the City fails to designate one or more Remedial Measures by the
Negotiation Deadline, such failure shall be deemed a Material Breach.
Packet Pg. 163
8.3.a
2.2.4 The parties shall endeavor to execute an amendment prior to the Negotiation
Deadline. If the parties cannot agree upon an amendment to this Restated ILA before
the Negotiation Deadline, either party may terminate the Restated ILA pursuant to 11.2,
PROVIDED THAT during the ensuing two-year Wind -Up Period, the District shall be
authorized to increase service levels at the City Fire Stations as it deems necessary, and
FURTHER PROVIDED THAT the marginal increase in the Contract Payment resulting
from any such ❑istrict-imposed service level increases during the Wind -Up Period shall
be shared equally by the parties during the Wind -Up Period.
2.3 Shift Arrangements. The City prefers that the following shift arrangements apply to
personnel assigned to stations within the City: no Firefighter shall start a 24-hour shift at
any of the City Fire Stations if that Firefighter has just completed a 48-hour shift at a City
Fire Station or any other fire station in the District without having taken a rest day
between shifts. The District commits that it will undertake in good faith, pursuant to
Chapter 41.56 RCW, to negotiate successfully for those arrangements, to be
implemented.
2.4 Review of Service Delivery Objectives. The parties acknowledge that the service
delivery objectives adopted in 2006 ("Response Objectives") have never been met in
their entirety, even when the City had its own fire department. During the Introductory
Period, the parties contracted for a particular staffing level at the City Fire Stations. It has
been recommended that the parties move toward a performance -based contract where
the City pays for a particular level of service that is measured by service delivery
objectives (e.g. response time) instead of a particular number of positions. The parties
would like to continue to evaluate this recommendation, but acknowledge that it would
take significant additional work to implement such a change, not the least of which
includes adoption of achievable performance standards. The City and the District agree
to work toward adoption of a revised set of service delivery objectives in the first quarter
of 2018.
2.4.1 Turnout Time. The District has adopted a standard of 2 minutes and 15 seconds
on 90% of all calls. Failure to meet this standard shall not be deemed a Material Breach.
If this standard is not being met during calendar year 2017 for the City Fire Stations, the
District shall provide the City, no later than December 31, 2017, with a report containing
the following information: (i) a list of possible measures that could be implemented to
improve Turnout Time, (ii) the estimated cost of each measure (if reasonably available)
and (iii) estimates concerning the amount that turnout time could be reduced with each
measure.
2.5 Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance with chapter
35.103 RCW. In addition to the regular quarterly report content and the content required
by law, the annual report shall contain the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor for each of
the following jurisdictions: Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The annual report shall
contain the total number of seconds that City Fire Stations responded to calls in
Woodway and the total number of automatic aid responses from Shoreline into
R
Packet Pg. 164
8.3.a
Edmonds. The annual report shall, to the extent practicable, also state the amount of
transport fees that the District sought to recover from incidents occurring within the City
and Esperance, respectively, and the amount of those fees that were actually recovered.
If the District has data that identifies the number of seconds during which two or more
Units were Assigned to different calls at the same time, it shall include that data in the
annual report.
2.5.1 Quarterly Reporting. In addition, the District shall provide a quarterly report to the
City Clerk, no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. The quarterly report shall
contain the Unit Utilization Factor for each of the City Fire Stations, the Transport
Balance Factor, as well as the turnout time, travel time, and overall response time.
2.6 [section relocated for clarity]
2.7 Criteria -Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and ❑istrict that
the dispatch of Units during emergencies is determined by criteria -based dispatch
protocols of the dispatch centers and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). Nothing herein
shall require the District to respond first within the City as opposed to other areas served
by the District. The City and District recognize that responses to emergencies skull be
determined by the District based upon dispatch protocols; the location of available Units
and the District's operational judgment, without regard to where the emergencies occur.
2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Restated I LA, service level changes
may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party. Additionally, either party
may desire to change the service level, including but not limited to, those services
identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2 Standards for Services/Staffing.
When a service level change is mandated by law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council
as part of the City's chapter 35.103 RCW Response Objectives, or is mutually agreed to
by the parties, the City and the District shall renegotiate the Contract Payment at the
request of either party, If the parties are unable to reach agreement within one hundred
twenty (120) days after the change is mandated or mutually agreed, the matter shall be
subject to the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the
Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive
to the date that the service level change was initially employed, Failure of either party to
participate in, or comply with, the Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or
18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach.
2.8.1 The City acknowledges that the District may be required by law to notify and
bargain with the local chapter of the IAFF any level of service changes made pursuant to
this section 2.8.
2.8.2 The City reserves the right to remove the Fire Inspector services from this
Restated ILA upon one year's written notice to the District, in which case the Contract
Payment shall be equitably reduced, PROVIDED THAT in no case shall such notice be
provided less than 90 days prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year, AND FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT the City shall consult with the District regarding the impacts of a
Packet Pg. 165
8.3.a
proposed removal of the Fire Inspector services at least 94 days in advance of the City
providing such notice, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT if the City exercises this
option, it shall provide fire inspection services using one or more inspectors with current
or previous firefighting experience.
2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should consistently deviate
from the City's Response Objectives, as they may be amended from time to time by the
City, the District Fire Chief and the City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer
to address the cause, potential remedies, and potential cost impacts.
3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS
3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of three existing City Fire
Stations and shall make them available for use by the District pursuant to the terms set
forth in Exhibit B. The parties acknowledge that none of these three fire stations are
ideally located and that the City could be better served by two ideally located fire
stations. The parties also acknowledge that the internal configuration of the City's three
stations contributes to slower turnout times than could be achieved with new stations
built according to current standards. In light of the above, the parties contemplate that
the City may opt to replace the three current fire stations with two new fire stations for
use by the District during the term of this Restated ILA. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of the Restated ILA and Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B
shall control with respect to fire stations and fixtures contained therein, PROVIDED
THAT Exhibit B shall be amended in the event that the City moves to a two -station
service, and FURTHER PROVIDED THAT nothing in Exhibit B shall be construed to
prevent the City from moving to a two -station service; and FURTHER PROVIDED, that
the cost of providing turn key fire stations with equivalent technology to current fire
stations shall be borne entirely by the City.
3.1.1 In the event the City decides to replace or relocate any of the City Fire Stations,
the City shall provide notice to the District concerning the location, design and layout of
the new City Fire Stations, the time frame for completion, and any other information
reasonably requested by the District to plan for the transition. Not later than thirty (30)
days following such notice, the parties shall meet to discuss the impact of any such
changes on this Restated ILA and to negotiate an amendment to this Restated ILA to
address such impacts. The parties recognize that there may be initial cost impacts that
are not ongoing, and the parties agree to negotiate these as well. The parties shall
endeavor to execute an amendment no later than one hundred twenty (120) days
following such notice to address such initial cost impacts. If the parties cannot agree
upon an amendment to this Restated ILA within such time, either party may invoke the
Dispute Resolution procedures.
P
Packet Pg. 166
8.3.a
3.2-3.3 [Completed. Deleted for clarityf
4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS
4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall pay the District a sum referred to as the
Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The annual total amount of the
Contract Payment shall be determined according to Exhibit C. The Contract Payment
shall be paid in equal monthly installments by the 10" day of each month. Failure to pay
monthly installments in a timely manner shall be considered a Material Breach as
defined in the Definitions section of this Restated ILA.
4.1.1 If a service level change requiring an adjustment in the Contract Payment occurs
on a date other than January 1, the Contract Payment shall be adjusted on the effective
date of the service level change, and the monthly installment payments shall be adjusted
accordingly.
4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. Each year, no later than September 1, the District shall
submit to the City an invoice for the ensuing year, including any revision to the Contract
Payment for the ensuing year.
4.2.1 Annual Percent Increase Based on Labor Costs. The cost of City Station
Personnel identified in Exhibit C shall be adjusted annually pursuant to the negotiated
labor collective bargaining agreement between the District and the local chapter of the
IAFF ("CBA"}, provided that, notwithstanding the actual terms of the CBA, the City
Station Personnel cost in Exhibit C shall increase from one labor agreement to the next
no more than the greater of (i) the median increase in the total cost of compensation
(i.e., combined cost of wages and benefits) of comparable fire agencies, (ii) the increase
in the Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton
metropolitan area for the twelve (12) month period ending June 30, or (iii) the
percentage increase in compensation awarded by an interest arbitrator. The phrase
"comparable fire agencies" shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the
Employer and Union through the collective bargaining process or the comparables
accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration proceeding.
4.2.1.1 The parties recognize that the cost of the District's community paramedic
program is currently covered by grants. At the time the grants expire, the City may opt to
continue the community paramedic program in which case Exhibit C shall be revised to
add an equitable share of the cost of such community paramedics, taking into account
the other jurisdictions that are served by the community paramedics. If the City opts not
to continue with the program, the community paramedic program will not be continued
within the City limits after the grant term ends.
1 The Parties acknowledge that a number of actions described in the Agreement have been completed.
For clarity and conciseness, those provisions are removed and replaced with the words "Completed.
Deleted for clarity."
Packet Pg. 167
8.3.a
4.2.2 Adjustment Date Not Met. If a new CBA between the District and IAFF Local
1828 has not been finalized by September 1 of the final year of the then -effective CBA,
the City Station Personnel costs and the Indirect Operating Costs for the ensuing year
shall be adjusted following execution of the new CBA and shall be retroactive to January
1 of the Adjustment Year. For example, as of the date of this Restated ILA, the last CBA
expired on December 31, 2014; thus, the Adjustment Year is 2015. In such instances,
the District shall send the City (directed to the City Clerk), no later than September 1 of
each year for which a CBA has not yet been executed for the ensuring year, a range
within which the Contract Payment for the ensuing year is likely to fall, which range shall
be informed by the current status of negotiations between the District and IAFF Local
182B. To enhance the District's ability to provide the City with a predictable range for the
Contract Payment, the District shall, to the extent practicable, commence negotiations
with IAFF Local 1828 no later than July 151 of any year in which a CBA is expiring, if a
new CBA has not been executed by November Vt of the year in which a CBA is expiring,
the District shall notify the City of the economic issues on which the parties have not
reached tentative agreement.
4.2.3 Documentation of Labor Costs. Upon executing a new CBA, the District shall
provide supporting documentation sufficient to allow the City to confirm that the labor
costs have not increased more than the limits set forth in Section 4.2.1, including
comparable agency compensation data used by the parties or the interest arbitrator to
establish new compensation levels.
4.3 -4.4 [sections relocated and renumbered for clarity]
4.5 Indirect Operating Cost Portion of Contract Payment. The District shall determine the
Indirect Operating Cost portion of the Contract Payment according to the following:
• Overhead shall be ten percent (10%) of the cost of the City Station Personnel cost;
■ Equipment maintenance and operation, medications, and supplies shall be ten
percent (10%) of the City Station Personnel cost;
■ Fire Marshal allocation of fifty percent (50%) of wage and benefit cost of the position,
and Fire Inspector at one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of wage and benefit
cost of the position (See Exhibit A); and
• Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement
Schedule —Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D.
The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Operating Costs; plus any
additional amounts due to annexations as provided in Section 4.6, less the "Esperance
Offset", shall constitute the Contract Payment for the ensuing year.
4,6 Annexation. The City's Urban Growth Area contains property within the boundaries of
the District. Should the City seek to annex portions of the District, the District will not
oppose the annexation. In the event the City annexes portions of the District other than
Esperance, the Contract Payment shall be increased by an amount calculated by
applying the then current District levy rate and emergency medical services levy rate to
10
Packet Pg. 168
8.3.a
the assessed value of the annexed area, plus revenue from a Fire Benefit Charge, if
imposed, that the District would have received from the annexed area in the year in
which the Contract Payment is calculated. The increase in the Contract Payment shall
occur on the first month on which the District is no longer entitled to collect non -
delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2).
4.6.1 Esperance Annexation. If the City annexes all of the area commonly referred to
as "Esperance", the District will support the annexation. Whenever any portion of
Esperance is annexed, the Esperance Offset attributable to the annexed area shall no
longer be used to reduce the calculation of the Contract Payment at such time as the
District is no longer entitled to collect non -delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area
pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2).
4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is a material
and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing services under this
Restated ILA because the District was required to comply with a legislative or regulatory
decision by an entity other than the City, then at the request of either party, the City and
District shall seek to renegotiate this Restated ILA and the Contract Payment to fully
compensate the District for actual costs incurred according to the methodology in Exhibit
C. An example of a significant increase in cost would be if the state required that fire
engines be staffed with four firefighters per engine instead of three. If the City and
District are unable to successfully renegotiate the Contract Payment in this context
through good faith negotiations, then the complete Dispute Resolution provision of this
Restated ILA shall apply. Failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the
Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material
Breach. Nothing herein prevents either party from terminating the Restated ILA
pursuant to Section 11.2, whether before or after exercise of the Dispute Resolution
provisions of this Restated ILA.
4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District shall charge fees for the basic life support and
advanced life support transports that it performs. As the EMS service provider for the
City, the District shall receive and pursue collection of all Transport Fees in accordance
with District policy for transports that originate within the City limits. The District shall
remit the amount so received to the City, less an administration fee not to exceed the
actual cost of collection on a quarterly basis. The District shall be responsible for, and
agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, reasonable documentation and/or
reports to the City.
4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates for
increased service or reporting by the District without fully compensating the District for
actual costs incurred.
5. CITY EMPLOYEES
5.1-5.8 [Completed. Deleted for clarity].
11
Packet Pg. 169
8.3.a
5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District harmless
from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel, which arise out of, or
relate to, the time prior to the Commencement Date, provided, however, that the indemnification
shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District's actions under the Agreement or
the Restated ILA.
6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES)
6.1 — 6.5 [Completed. Deleted for clarity].
6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current information
regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule attached in Exhibit
D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase new rolling stock or
otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City.
6.7 Public Safety Boat. Title to the City Public Safety Boat known as Marine 16 (the
"Vessel") has been transferred to the District. The District's use of Marine 16 for training
and emergencies as a county -wide asset is described in the First Amendment to
InterlocaI Agreement for Use of Rescue and Fire Boat. Exhibit H to the Agreement is
hereby deleted.
6.7.1 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
6.7.2 The District assumes responsibility for maintenance and repairs to the Vessel.
However, upon the District's request, the City agrees to provide maintenance and repair
services for the Vessel in exchange for receipt from the District of the City's normal
hourly shop rates for labor,
6.7.3 The Apparatus Replacement Schedule (Exhibit D to the Agreement and the
Restated ILA) is amended to include the Outboard Motors of the Vessel for as long as
the Vessel is in operation. The amended Apparatus Replacement Schedule is attached
hereto. The Contract Payment shall reflect the addition of the Outboard Motors to this
schedule.
6.7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
6.7.5 Use of the vessel by the City of Edmonds Police Department shall continue as
agreed to before this Restated ILA. The City is solely responsible for maintaining and
Certifying its operators.
6.7.5.1 The City's use of the Vessel is at the City's risk. The City acknowledges
that the District is making no representations or warranties concerning the Vessel.
Further, if the City uses the Vessel without a District operator, the City agrees to be
solely responsible for all damage or loss to the Vessel and its apparatus while the
Vessel is within the City's control and/or possession.
6.7.5.2 The City agrees to release the District from any claims associated with
any training provided to it. The City further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the
12
Packet Pg. 170
8.3.a
District harmless from any and all claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out
of the City's use and operation of the Vessel.
6.7.5.3 The City specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be
granted under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW as to
any claims by its employees arising from the use of the Vessel.
7. EQUIPMENT
7.1 — 7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
S. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor and/or their
designees, shall act as administrators of this Restated ILA for purposes of RCW
39.34.030. During the term of this Restated ILA, the District Fire Chief shall provide the
Mayor with quarterly written reports concerning the provision of services under this
Restated ILA. The format and topics of the reports shall be as set forth in Section 2.5.
The District Fire Chief shall present an annual report covering the previous calendar
year to the Edmonds City Council prior to March 1, and at such meeting the Chief shall
request, and the City Council shall schedule, the Joint Annual meeting provided for in
section 8.2.
8.1.1 The parties agree to meet on a quarterly basis to address the performance of the
Restated ILA. It is expected that these quarterly meetings will be attended by at least
one City Council member, the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Finance Director, the District
Fire Chief and at least one Commissioner from the District.
8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section 8.1 above, the
Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1 Commissioners shall have a joint
annual meeting after, but within 30 days, of the annual report at a properly noticed place
and time to discuss items of mutual interest related to this Restated ILA.
8.3 Representation on_Infergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the City on
intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of services under this
Restated ILA as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City reserves the right to
represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the City and the District are not
aligned or whenever any matter relates to the appropriation of or expenditure of City
funds beyond the terms of this Restated ILA.
9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS
9.1 BEM, SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships with other
entities or agencies including the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) (or
successor), Snohomish County Communications Center (SNOCOM) (or successor), and
Snohomish County Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) (or successor). The City
shall maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or agencies
13
Packet Pg. 171
8.3.a
and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its behalf. At the
discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on behalf of the City on
various committees, boards, and/or commissions as requested, as appropriate, and/or
as agreed to by mutual agreement of the parties. The parties shall meet to address any
changes to the foregoing entities that result in a change to the City's representation or
financial obligations.
9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The District shall assume any of the City's remaining
contractual responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid.
9.3 Full Informations as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to coordinate their
individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that the services under this
Restated ILA will be provided in an efficient and cost effective manner. The City and
District agree to keep each other fully informed and advised as to any changes in their
respective relationships with those entities or agencies, whether or not those changes
impact the City and/or the District obligations shall be provided to the other party in
writing in a timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed
changes in relationships or obligations.
10, TERM OF AGREEMENT
10.1 20-Year Agreement. The Effective Date of this Restated ILA shall be February 1, 2017.
The Commencement Date of the Agreement was January 1, 2010, This Restated ILA
shall continue in effect until December 31, 2030, unless terminated earlier as provided in
section 11. After December 31, 2030: this Restated ILA shall automatically renew under
the same terms and conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless
terminated as provided in section 11.
10.2 Material Breach and Wind -Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this Restated
ILA, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree otherwise,
continue to perform their respective obligations under this Restated ILA for a minimum of
twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the "Wind -Up Period") provided,
however; that the Wind -Up Period shall be (i) ninety (90) days if the Material Breach
involves the City's failure to make the Contract Payment or (ii) 180 days if the City fails
to timely select a Remedial Measure following the District's issuance of a Threshold
Notice; provided further, that during the Wind -Up Period, the City and District shall
coordinate their efforts to prepare far the transition to other methods of providing fire and
EMS service to the City. The City shall be responsible for all Contract Payment
installments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind -Up Period.
11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS
11.1 (Completed. Deleted for clarity]
14
Packet Pg. 172
8.3.a
11.2 Termination — Notice. In addition to terminating this Restated ILA for a Material Breach,
either party may terminate this Restated ILA at any time by providing the other party with
two (2) years written notice of its intent to terminate.
11.3 Termination Costs_ Except as otherwise provided herein, the costs associated with
terminating this Restated ILA shall be borne equally between the parties, or in the event
of a Material Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following
circumstances, the cost of termination shall be apportioned as provided below.
11.3.1 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event
that this Restated ILA is terminated due to a change in law or by mutual agreement,
each party shall bear its own costs associated with the termination.
11.3.2 Regional Fire Protection Service Authority. In the event that the District,
along with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire
Protection Service Authority Planning Committee (`RFA Planning Committee") as
provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and subject
to mutual approval of the District and other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City
an opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the
opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed as a
Material Breach on the part of the City. In the event that a Regional Fire Protection
Service Authority (RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and
emergency medical services is created, inclusive of District, the District's powers and
duties under this Restated ILA shall be assigned to the RFA as the District's successor -
in -interest as provided by RCW 52.26.100,
11.3.2.1 If the District forms a RFA with any other agency, the parties shall
confer to determine whether any efficiencies have resulted from the creation of the RFA
that could warrant reconfiguring the service provided to the City.
11.4 [reserved]
11.5 [reserved]
11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate their
respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to terminate this
Restated I LA and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs of termination.
11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City and
District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as part of the
Agreement shall be purchased by the City as described below. This provision shall not
apply to the formation of an RFA in which both the City and the District are participants.
11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock in use by the District at the City
Fire Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at a price that considers
the fair market value of the asset and any adjustments to fair market value that would be
15
Packet Pg. 173
8.3.a
fair and equitable, including, for example, City contributions to apparatus replacement,
costs incurred by the District for acquisition, maintenance, and repair, depreciation, etc.
11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment in use by the District at the City Fire
Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at fair market value.
11.7.3 tCompleted. Deleted for clarity]
11.7.4 District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold the City
harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by District personnel, which
arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were employees of the District,
PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall not apply to any claims arising as
a result of the City's actions during the term of the Agreement or the Restated ILA.
12, DECLINE TO MERGE
12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement with any
other fire district or agency that is functionally equivalent to a merger, the City may opt to
terminate this Restated ILA without prejudice or penalty. To exercise this option the City
shall provide written notice to the District of its intent to end the Restated ILA. Such
notice shall be provided not more than ninety (90) days after receiving written notification
from the District in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 that the District
intends to merge with another entity.
12.11A Not a Material Breach. The City's decision to terminate under 12.1 does not
constitute a Material Breach of the Restated 1LA and none of the penalties associated
with a Material Breach shall apply to the City.
12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The City's notice shall provide an effective date of termination
which shall be no more than twelve (12) months after the City officially notifies the
District of its termination, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, and the costs of
termination shall be split evenly between the parties.
12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Restated ILA
because of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction,
the City's exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7.
13. [deleted]
14. TOWN OF WOODWAY
14.1 Service to Woodway. The City may, in accordance with the terms herein, subcontract
with the Town of Woodway to have the District provide fire and emergency medical
services to the Town of Woodway. The City shall consult with the District in advance of
entering into any such subcontract, and the District shall have the opportunity for input
into any issues that may affect service and/or the cost of providing service. The City
shall provide advance written notice to the District of at least twelve (12) months prior to
any commencement of such service. The City's subcontracting of the District's service to
15
Packet Pg. 174
8.3.a
Woodway shall not be considered an unfunded mandate, and no change in the Contract
Payment shall result from such a subcontract, provided that the City is not requesting
additional staff to serve Woodway. Any and all payments from such a subcontract with
Woodway shall be paid to the City of Edmonds only. The District agrees not to compete
with the City of Edmonds in such negotiations_
14.1.1 If the City is requesting additional staff to serve Woodway, the parties shall
renegotiate the Contract Payment retroactive to the date that the District begins
providing the additional staff. If the parties have not executed an amendment prior to the
commencement of service to Woodway, either party may invoice the Dispute Resolution
procedures in Section 18.1 and 18.2; provided, however, that any adjustment to the
Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive
to the date that the District begins providing the additional staff to serve Woodway. In
this context, failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the Dispute
Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach.
14.1.2 The City of Edmonds right to subcontract with the Town of Woodway constitutes
the consideration for the City's agreement to incur the additional 9.13% in Exhibit C
initially attributable to Woodway under the Agreement.
14.1.3 At the City's request, the District agrees to work with Shoreline Fire Department
to adjust automatic aid responses into the Town of Woodway.
14.1.4 In the event that the Point Wells development is to become part of the service
area for the District, such event shall be deemed a "Negotiation Threshold", and the
negotiation provisions of 2.2.3 - 2.2.4 shall apply.
15. [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the City and
District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing
herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing bodies of each party.
Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District shall have the sole discretion
and the obligation to determine the exact method by which the services are provided
within the District and within the City unless otherwise stipulated within this Restated
I LA.
16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it without
regarding to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the operational
judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and obligations of Sections 2.4
through 2.8.
16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth herein
or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the other.
17
Packet Pg. 175
8.3.a
17. INSURANCE
17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Restated ILA, each Party shall
maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy
insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and equipment if
any, and "policy" shall be understood to include insurance pooling arrangements or
compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). The City shall
maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for accidents occurring on City
owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than five -thousand
dollars ($5,000.00). The District shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against
liability arising out of work or operations performed by the District under this Restated
ILA in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a
deductible of not more than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The phrases "work or
operations" and "maintenance and operations" shall include the services identified in
Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire Marshal and the District Fire
Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and any obligation covered by Exhibit 6,
Section 9.
17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it has
maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents and
occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment claims, labor grievances,
and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more
than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The City will hold harmless the District and its
insurance provider for any such claims lawsuits or accusations that occurred prior to the
Commencement Date.
17.3 Claims of Former District Employees. The District represents and warrants that it has
maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and occurrences
which may have occurred during the time period prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement, including but not limited to injuries, employment claims, labor grievances,
and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more
than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party's insurance coverage is not voided, each party
agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including reasonable
attorneys' and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out of the negligent
and intentional acts or omissions of such party's officers, officials, employees and
volunteers in connection with the performance of the Agreement or the Restated ILA.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the
Agreement and the Restated ILA.
18
Packet Pg. 176
8.3.a
17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Restated ILA, and except in
the event of breach of this Restated ILA, the District and the City do hereby forever
release each other from any claims, demands, damages or causes of action arising prior
to the Commencement Date and related to damage to equipment or property owned by
the City ar District or assumed under the Agreement or the Restated ILA. It is the intent
of the City and District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above.
18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
It is the intent of the City and District to resolve ail disputes between them without
litigation. In the event that any dispute between the City and District cannot be resolved
by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then the dispute resolution
provision of this Restated ILA shall apply. Excluded from these dispute resolution
provisions are issues related to the legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to
make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, establish levels of
service or staffing under Section 2 of this Restated ILA and Chapter 35.103 RCW and
other policy matters that state law vests with the City Council. The above exclusions
from the dispute resolution process shall not abridge the right of the District to pursue an
increase in the Contract Payment as a result of any decision which, itself, is not subject
to the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Restated ILA. Nothing herein shall prevent
either party from providing notice of termination of the Restated ILA pursuant to Section
11,2 prior to completion of the dispute resolution processes described below; however,
such notice shall not affect any obligations to proceed with the Dispute Resolution
provisions.
18.1 Mediation. Upon a request by either party to mediate a dispute that is subject to the
Dispute Resolution provisions, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator. If the
City and District cannot agree upon a mediator within ten (10) business days after such
request, the City and District shall submit the matter to the Judicial Arbitration and
Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be appointed. This requirement
to mediate the dispute may only be waived by mutual written agreement before a party
may proceed to litigation as provided within this Restated ILA. Except for unusual
reasons beyond the reasonable control of either party, mediation shall be completed
within ninety (90) days after the mediator is selected. Any expenses incidental to
mediation, including the mediator's fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District.
18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in resolving any dispute
subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions through mediation, either party may
demand binding arbitration as provided herein, unless the nature of the dispute is not
subject to arbitration pursuant to other provisions of this Restated I LA.
18.2.1 The arbitration shall be conducted by JAMS in Seattle, Washington or other
mutually agreeable dispute resolution service. The dispute shall be governed by the
selected arbitration service's Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. The parties
shall agree on a JAMS arbitrator with twenty (20) days from the date the matter is
submitted to JAMS. In the event that the parties fail to agree on a JAMS arbitrator within
19
Packet Pg. 177
8.3.a
such time, then JAMS shall be asked to submit the names of at least three arbitrators.
Each party shall have ten (10) days after receiving the list to strike one name from that
list. JAMS shall select the arbitrator from the names on the list that have not been struck
by either party. The parties may agree on another arbitrator in JAMS or another person
at any time. In the event that JAMS is unable or unwilling to provide an arbitrator and the
parties cannot otherwise agree, then either party may request the Snohomish County
Superior Court to designate an arbitrator.
18.2.2 At any arbitration involving the Contract Payment, the arbitrator shall, as nearly as
possible, apply the analysis used in this Restated ILA and supporting Exhibits to adjust
the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate from such analysis and use principles
of fairness and equity, but should do so sparingly.
18.2.3 Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any binding arbitration
session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any subsequent mediations or
arbitrations.
18.2.4 The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon both parties, subject
only to the right of appeal as provided in RCW 7.04; provided, however, that in arriving
at such decision, neither of the parties nor the arbitrator shall have the authority to alter
this Restated ILA in whole or in part.
18.2.5 The arbitrator cannot order either party to take action contrary to law.
18.2.6 The substantially prevailing party, if any, in any binding arbitration action shall be
entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
18.3 Litigation. For disputes that are not subject to binding arbitration, either party may file an
action in Superior Court. Jurisdiction and venue for such actions shall lie exclusively in
Superior Court for Snohomish County, Washington, Each party expressly waives the
right to a jury trial. The party substantially prevailing in any such action ❑r proceeding
shall be awarded its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.
19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals which
may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by
electronic mail (provided a read receipt is obtained by the sender), sent by nationally
recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail,
sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
District Secretary: City Clerk:
Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 City of Edmonds
12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5t" Avenue North
Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020
K11
Packet Pg. 178
8.3.a
Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from time -to -time
designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete
upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile transmission of any signed
original document and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission shall be the
same as delivery of an original document.
19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in the Restated ILA shall preclude the City and
the District form entering into contracts for service in support of this Restated ILA.
19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Restated ILA shall not be construed to provide any benefits
to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Restated ILA
shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine.
The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as
necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Restated ILA.
19.4 Entire Agreement. The entire agreement between the City and District hereto is
contained in this Restated ILA and exhibits thereto. This Restated ILA supersedes all of
their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with respect to this
transaction. This Restated ILA supersedes the Agreement except where provisions
have expressly been omitted for clarity and conciseness. Only those exhibits referenced
in this Restated ILA shall continue to be effective.
19.5. Amendment. This Restated ILA may be amended only by written instrument approved
by the governing bodies of the City and District subsequent to the date hereof.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the formulas for NUUF, UUF, and
TBF may be changed administratively by mutual agreement of the parties if executed by
the Mayor and Council President (for the City) and the District Fire Chief (for the District)
in the event that a significant change occurs which would affect such formulas (e.g. RFA
is formed, changes in dispatch technology); provided however, that any changes to the
formulas shall be consistent with the underlying intent.
Dated this jjday of IPR-
017
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE ECTION DISTRICT NO. 1
BY:
By:
21
By:
Packet Pg. 179
8.3.a
Approv j to farm:
By.
_ (fiz?
❑isthc om
CITY DP EDMONDS
By:
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attomey
22
Attest:
r
a
Packet Pg. 180
8.3.a
►ARMi
Approved as to farm:
By:
District Attorney
CITY O INION1
By: Attest: -
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attorney
22
Packet Pg. 181
8.3.a
EXHIBIT A
1W:1 VITIl:T-"1:►1WAN 9]4Ia411►14;1=19311t97.7
1 In consultation with the City, the District Fire Chief shall designate an individual to serve as
City Fire Marshal, and ensure the assignment of necessary personnel to support the needs
and functions of the Fire Marshal as specified in the International Fire Code, City ordinances,
and other fire service -related national, state, and local standards adopted and/or followed by
the City-
2- As employees of the District, the City Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector shall perform all of
the customary roles and duties associated with their positions: fire prevention; fire
investigation; code development, application, interpretation, and enforcement, permit
processes; plans review; records retention, response to public records requests and other
legal summons; fire and life safety public education; and other duties as assigned in the City
and throughout the jurisdictional areas served by the District.
3. The City agrees to pay fifty percent (50%) of the annual personnel cost (wages and benefits)
of {providing one (1) Fire Marshal, and one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the annual
personnel cost (wages and benefits) of providing one (1) Fire Inspector.
4. The City Engine Company Inspection Program shall be maintained in its current form unless
modified by mutual agreement of the parties.
5. The City agrees to provide office space, office furnishings, computers, fax, copier,
printer, telephone landlines, and postal support for the use of the Fire Marshal and Fire
Inspector in Edmonds City Hall,
6. All fees collected for Fire Permits/Special use, Fire Plan Checks, and Construction
Inspections shall be retained by the City.
23
Packet Pg. 182
8.3.a
I WA MIM:1
USE OF FIRE STATIONS
For as long as the Restated ILA remains in effect, the City hereby grants to the District exclusive
use and possession of premises for use as fire stations on the terms and conditions described
below.
Three Fire Stations. The City shall provide use of the three fire stations located at 8429 -
196'h Street Southwest, 275 - 6'h Avenue North, and 23009 - 881h Avenue West in the
City of Edmonds, Washington, PROVIDED THAT the City reserves the right to substitute
these stations with new stations as further described in the Restated ILA.
2. Compliance with Applicable Codes. The fire stations provided by the City shall be
compliant with all applicable codes, including without limitation, the applicable provisions
of the Edmonds City Code and applicable Washington State Standards and regulations
(currently WAC 296-305-06501 et seq.).
3. No Use Charge. No use charge shall be assessed to the District. The parties agree that
the rights and contractual obligations contained within the Restated ILA constitute
adequate consideration for District use and possession of the premises.
4. Utilities and Services. The City shall ensure the supply of all utilities necessary for the
use of the premises, to include: water, sewer, garbage, heating, air conditioning,
electrical power, telephone and information tech noIogylsystem data lines.
4.1
Cost for Utilities. The District shall be responsible for the cost of all utilities used
on the premises, except for those utilities supplied by the City. if a separate meter is
unavailable for any utility that the District is responsible to pay, then the cost shall be
equitably apportioned to the District in a manner agreeable to both parties.
5. Conditions and Repairs. The City agrees to keep the premises and the buildings in good
condition and repair as reasonably requested by the District for use as fire stations
during the term of this Restated ILA at its own expense. The City shall at all times keep
the buildings suitably equipped as fully functioning and operational fire stations.
6. Improvements, Upon District request, the City shall install such reasonable
improvements as are normal and customary in connection with District use of premises
set forth herein. The City shall pay for such improvements.
24
Packet Pg. 183
8.3.a
7. Removal of Personal Property Upon Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this
Restated ILA, the District shall remove all non -fixed equipment and personal property
placed upon the premises by the District during the period of this Restated ILA unless
those items are subject to repurchase by the City as provided in the Restated ILA. Any
personal property not removed from the fire stations within 66 days after termination of
this Restated I LA shall become the property of the City.
8. Maintenance of Premises.
8.1 Maintenance of the buildings, the premises and all improvements thereon is the
sole responsibility of the City. Such responsibility includes without limitation, repair of
walls, floors, ceiling, interior doors, interior and exterior windows and fixtures, sidewalks,
landscaping, driveways, parking areas, walkways, building exterior and signs,
8.2 City shall maintain in good condition the structural parts of the fire stations and
exterior buildings and structures which shall include emergency lighting, fences,
enclosures, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, foundations, bearing and exterior wails,
subflooring and roof, roof -mounted structures, unexposed electrical, plumbing and
sewerage systems, including those portions of the systems lying outside the premises,
exterior doors, apparatus bay doors, window frames, gutters, downspouts on the
building and the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system servicing the premises.
8.3 All janitorial services for routine cleaning of the buildings shall be the
responsibility of the District.
8.4 All grounds maintenance of the premises, to include fencing, enclosures, gates,
landscape, stairs, rails, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drains, and water retention structures
shall be the responsibility of the City.
9. Insurance and Financial Security.
9.1 The parties agree that the City shall not be responsible to the District for any
property loss or damage done to the District's personal property occasioned by reason
of any fire, storm or other casualty whatsoever beyond the control of the City. The
District shall insure its personal property located on the premises.
9.2 The District shall not be responsible to the City for any loss or damage to the
buildings or premises that is not caused by the sole negligence of the District, The City
shall insure the premises and buildings against such loss or damage. The District shall
repair any damage to the buildings caused by its sole negligence
9.3 In the event of a casualty loss that renders the premises reasonably unsuitable
for the use set forth herein, the City shall provide the District with another suitable
location(s) for the District until such time as the premises have been repaired. The cost
25
Packet Pg. 184
8.3.a
of repairs, and the costs of relocation between the premises and the substitute
locations), shall be borne by the City.
10. Indemnification for Environmental Claims: Each party shall indemnify and hold the other
party harmless from any and all claims, demands, judgments,
orders, or damages resulting from the release of hazardous substances on the premises
caused in whole or in part by the activity of the indemnifying party, its agents,
employees, licensees or invitees. The term "hazardous substances" shall mean any
substance heretofore of hereafter designated as hazardous under the Resource
Conservation and RecoveryAct, 42 U.S.C.Sec. 6901 et sea.; the Federal Water
Pollution Ccntroi Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 et seg.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
2001 et_ _ seg.; the Comprehensive Environmentai Response Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9501 et. Seq.; or the Hazardous Waste Cleanup -Model
Toxic Control Act, RCW 70.105D all as amended and subject to all regulations
promulgated thereunder.
11. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Each party agrees to protect,
save, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other party, its officers,
employees and agents from any and all demands, claims, judgments, or
liability for loss or damage arising as a result of accidents, injuries, or other
occurrences on the premises, occasioned by either the negligent or willful
conduct of the indemnifying party, regardless of who the injured party may be.
12. Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this Restated ILA or any extension
thereof, whether by expiration of the stated term or sooner termination thereon as
provided in the Restated ILA, the District shall surrender to City the premises peaceably
and quietly.
13, Default and Remedies.
13.1 Failure of the City to perform repairs or maintenance
to the buildings or premises as described in 8 above within a reasonable
period after notice by the District shall constitute a Material Breach under the terms of
this Restated ILA. For purposes of this Restated ILA, a reasonable period shall be
construed to mean five (5) business days, for repairs and maintenance that could
feasibly be performed in such time.
13.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if the nature of the repair constitutes an
operational, safety, and/or security emergency which materially affects District use of the
premises or building for their intended purpose, the City shall perform the repair as soon
as possible regardless of the day or hour and no later than forty-eight (48) hours after
receiving notification from the District.
13.3 If the City fails to timely perform the repair or maintenance under the conditions
described above after notification, the District may have such repair or maintenance
performed at City expense. The cost of the repair or maintenance shall be forwarded to
the City, which shall pay the cost within thirty (30) days after notice. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary, the City shall not be in breach of any repair or maintenance
26
Packet Pg. 185
8.3.a
obligation herein if the repair cannot be completed within the time set forth herein so
long as the City is diligently pursuing completion of the repairs.
27
Packet Pg. 186
EXHIBIT C
CONTRACT PAYMENT
8.3.a
Station Costing Model
Station Personnel (FTEs)
FTE Battalion Chiefs
FTE Captains
FTE Firefighter/Paramedics
FTE Firefighters
Firefighter/Paramedics-12 Hour
Firefighters-12 Hour
2017
5ta 16, 17, 20 All Cross Staffed\ALS
Average Wage &
Benefits per
FTE Position
2.424 1 186,248
13.746
161,593
18.000
147,936
9,492
133,343
147,936
133,343
Total Positions 41.239
FTE Factor 4.582
Station Staffing 9,600
a
ADD: Administrative Overhead 10%
Maintenance & Operations 10%
Apparatus Replacement 2017
TOTAL SUPPRESSION/EMS CONTRACT COST
2017 Esperance AV 565,469,115 Esperance Est. Property Tax Revenue
ADD:
Additional Staff Paid Separately by the Contracting Agency
Fire Chief
Assistant Chief
Deputy Chief
Department Manager
Executive Assistant
Manager
Professional/5pecialist
Admin Assistant
Technicians
Fire Marshal
Deputy Fire Marshal jinspector]
Count
Total Labor Costs I
per Position
451,465
2,221,260
2,662,854
1,265,692
270
127
127
062
23
(1,11 ?,ISO)
7,114,436
254,227
213,009
199,030
0.500 203,408 101,704
1.250 169,958 212,448
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS
TOTAL FIRE/EMS SERVICES COST
Cost of living increases based on CPI-W, not Comps
1 314,152 1
..7
Q
28
Packet Pg. 187
8.3.a
EXHIBIT D
APPARATUS REPLACEMENT
29
Q
Packet Pg. 188
8.3.a
EXHIBIT E
Definitions Subject to Administrative Amendments Pursuant to Article 19.5
1. NEIGHBORING UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor or NUUF
is the method used by the parties to determine how much time Units associated with one
jurisdiction are Assigned to calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service
across a number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because those various
jurisdictions make payments to the District for those services, Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor
is relevant even where a District Unit is dispatched to a call that is still within an area served by
the District but outside of the normal area served by that Unit.
NUUF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the
nearest thousandths:
l►Loll] M
total seconds that non -Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls in Edmonds over the
previous calendar year
total seconds that Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls outside of Edmonds over
the previous calendar year
Formula_ Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of seconds
that non -Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds (not including Esperance, unless
Esperance is annexed) over the previous calendar year. The denominator shall equal the total
number of seconds that Edmonds Units are assigned to calls outside of Edmonds (Esperance
shall be considered "outside of Edmonds" for the purpose of this calculation unless Esperance
is annexed) over the previous calendar year.
Calculation: Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated separately for the City of
Lynnwood (stations 14 and 15 combined) and any non. -Edmonds unit within the District, e.g.,
Station 19, for as long as Lynnwood and the District are not part of the same Regional Fire
Authority.
Determination of Whether NUUF is in Balance: Unlike the Unit Utilization Factor, the NUUF
need only be calculated on an annual basis after the completion of each calendar year. NUUF
shall be considered balanced if the NUUF falls somewhere between 0.900 and 1.1 00. For
example; if Lynnwood's Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds that total 1,000,000 seconds
during a calendar year, and Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total
1,095,000 seconds during a calendar year, the NUUF for that year would equal 0.913 and would
be considered in balance. If, on the other hand, the numerator were to remain the same; but the
30
Packet Pg. 189
8.3.a
Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total 880,000 seconds, the NUUF for that
year would equal 1.136 and would be considered out of balance.
Special Calculation for 2017: Since this Restated ILA takes effect after January 1, 2017, the
2017 NUUF shall be calculated proportionally for that portion of 2017 following the Effective
Date.
2. TRANSPORT BALANCE FACTOR. Transport Balance Factor (TBF) is the method used by
the parties to determine how frequently Units associated with one jurisdiction transport patients
resulting from calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service across a
number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because Edmonds is entitled to receive
transport fee revenue for all District transports resulting from calls in Edmonds regardless of
whether the transport is performed by an Edmonds Unit or a non -Edmonds Unit, Transport
Balance Factor is relevant to whether transport fees are being distributed in an equitable
manner. TBF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the
nearest thousandths:
TBF =
number of transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds
over 6 months
number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of Edmonds
over 6 months
Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of
transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds (not including
Esperance, unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period. When an
Edmonds Unit and a non -Edmonds Unit both respond to a call in Edmonds and the non -
Edmonds Unit transports the patient, that call may not be counted in the numerator,
even if the Edmonds Unit responded with a non -transport vehicle. The denominator shall
equal the total number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of
Edmonds (Esperance shall be considered "outside of Edmonds' for the purpose of this
calculation unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period.
Determination of Whether TBF is in Balance: TBF shall be considered "balanced" if the
TBF €ails somewhere between 0.900 and 1.100. While TBF is intended to be analyzed
by looking back over the previous six months, during 2017, a special quarterly TBF shall
be calculated that looks at TBF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method
accordingly. The quarterly analysis shall be performed beginning with the second quarter
31
Packet Pg. 190
8.3.a
of 2017. The quarterly TBF is intended to give the District the ability to analyze the effect
of minor dispatch adjustments before TBF could result in a Threshold Notice being
issued.
3. UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR
UUF =
Unit Utilization Factor or UUF is the method used by the parties to determine how busy a
particular Unit is. Unit Utilization Factor is determined by converting the following fraction
to a decimal rounded to the nearest thousandths:
number of seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month
period
31,536,000
Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of
seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month period. The
denominator shall always be 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in a twelve-month
period). Because this contract initially contemplates exactly one Unit at each station, with
each station having multiple apparatus types, the total number of seconds a Unit is
Assigned to all calls shall be the total for all apparatus types used by that Unit. The
activity of the Battalion Chief and Medical Services Officer shall not be counted in the
numerator for any unit. For example, if, over the previous twelve-month period, Engine
20 was Assigned to calls totaling 72,089 seconds, and Ladder 20 was Assigned to calls
totaling 229,320 seconds, and Medic 20 was Assigned to calls totaling 4,008,640
seconds, then the calculation for UUF would be made as follows:
4,310,049
UUF = = 0.1366 (rounded to 0.137)
31,536,000
Frequency of Calculation: Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated as soon as possible
after the end of each quarter, looking back over the previous twelve-month period.
While UUF is intended to be analyzed by looking back over the previous twelve months,
during the each of the last three quarters of 2017, a special UUF shall be calculated that
looks at UUF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method accordingly. The
quarterly analysis during 2017 is intended to keep data from the service delivery model
prior to the Effective Date from contaminating the data applicable to the Restated ILA.
32
Packet Pg. 191
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
12425 Meridian Ave S, Everett WA 98208
tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249
www.southsnofire.org
June 2, 2021
City of Edmonds
Attention: Mayor Mike Nelson
Edmonds City Hall
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Threshold Notice Pursuant to Revised and Restated Interlocal Agreement
for Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Dear Mayor Nelson:
I have been asked by the Governing Board of South County Fire to reach out to you in
connection with the above referenced Interlocal Agreement (the "ILA") which was
originally entered into between the City and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1.
The ILA was subsequently assigned from Fire District No. 1 to South County Fire on
October 1, 2017, upon formation of the regional fire protection service authority.
The ILA identifies two factors that are intended to remain in balance, i.e., within a
10% variance. These two factors are designated as the Neighboring Unit Utilization
Factor (NUUF) and the Transport Balance Factor (TBF).
As explained in Exhibit E to the ILA, the NUUF is used to determine how much time
Units associated with one jurisdiction (e.g., South County Fire) are assigned to calls in
another jurisdiction (e.g., the City). The TBF is used to determine how frequently a
Unit associated with one jurisdiction transports patients resulting from calls in
another jurisdiction. Exhibit E to the ILA contains formulas for calculating the NUUF
and TBF. Both factors are considered balanced if the calculation falls between .900
and 1.100.
Pages 22 and 25 of South County Fire's 2020 Annual Report that we presented to you
and City Council on February 23, 2021 showed that the NUUF and TBF are both out of
balance. Our most recent figures indicate that the NUUF is 157% for Units from
Mountlake Terrace and 252% for Units from Lynnwood, and the TBF is 1.135.
Whenever either of these factors is unbalanced, South County Fire is required to issue
a "Threshold Notice" to the City to start the process of evaluating potential Remedial
Measures to bring these factors back into balance. Please consider this letter the
"Threshold Notice" contemplated by Section 2.2.2 of the ILA. This same Section of the
SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD • MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
8.3.b
Packet Pg. 192
8.3.b
RE: Threshold Notice Pursuant to Revised and Restated Interlocal Agreement
for Fire and Emergency Medical Services
ILA contemplates that South County Fire and the City will meet within thirty (30)
days of issuing this Threshold Notice to determine the following:
a. Methodologies intended to re -balance the NUUF and TBF. Remedial Measures
may include, but shall not be limited to, changes to the staffing mix and/or
levels, adding one or more Units, changing fire response plans within the
computer -aided dispatching (CAD) model, and/or implementing other service
changes; and
b. Adjusting the Contract Payment to account for South County Fire's increased
cost in employing the selected Remedial Measures.
Our staff has been evaluating potential Remedial Measures, and we intend to forward
recommendations to you in advance of our meeting. I would also like to proceed with
scheduling a meeting with you to discuss our suggestions on potential Remedial
Measures and associated cost impacts. Since the ILA provides for this meeting to be
held within thirty (30) days of this notice, we should schedule this meeting no later
than July 2, 2021. Please let me know your availability.
After this meeting occurs, the ILA provides the City with a ninety (90) day period to
select Remedial Measures. We will, of course, remain available during that time, as
needed, to assist the City in its decision -making process.
We look forward to working with you to bring the NUUF and TBF into balance. In the
meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thad Hovis
Fire Chief
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 193
8.3.c
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
12425 Meridian Ave 5., Everett WA 98208
tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249
www.southsnofire.org
June 16, 2021
City of Edmonds
Attention: Mayor Mike Nelson
Edmonds City Hall
1215th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 9820
SUBJECT: Proposed Remedial Measures Pursuant to Section 2.2.3 of the Revised and
Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (ILA)
Dear Mayor Nelson:
This letter is written in follow up to the Threshold Notice provided to the City of Edmonds
(the "City") on June 2, 2021. Section 2.2.3 of the ILA indicates that SCF will identify
various Remedial Measures which are likely to expeditiously achieve a balancing of the
Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF) and Transport Balance Factor (TBF). We have
a meeting scheduled on June 30, 2021 to discuss potential remedial measures.
This letter is written to satisfy South County Fire's obligations under Section 2.2.3 of the
ILA and to make our meeting on June 30 more productive. We hope the information
herein will be useful to you as your team prepares for this meeting.
In order to evaluate which Remedial Measures should be employed, we used 2019 (pre -
pandemic) response data and evaluated the following:
• All responses within the City
• Responses of City units outside the City
• Non -City units responding within the City
• Day vs. night responses
• Non -City units transporting in the City
• City units transporting outside the City
We are happy to provide the full accounting of this information in advance of our meeting
if you would like to review the raw data.
We believe that the Remedial Measures most likely to expeditiously achieve a balancing
of the NUUF and TBF consist of the following:
SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD • MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
Packet Pg. 194
8.3.c
SUBJECT: Proposed Remedial Measures Pursuant to Section 2.2.3 of the Revised and
Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (ILA)
1. Add a 24-hour transport unit. The exact station of operation would be at the
discretion of the Fire Chief, as would be his/her determination as to the best use
of resources for response and to fulfill terms of the ILA. This additional unit will
add depth to the City's service area coverage and will put less reliance on stations
from outside the City. Station 19 (Mountlake Terrace) and Stations 14 & 15
(Lynnwood) are stations that cover responses into the City's service area. This will
positively affect the Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood NUUF and the TBF.
2. Increase daytime (0800-2000 hours) response capability by adding a 12-hour
peak activity unit (PAU) within the City. We evaluated the data and considered
other factors:
• Support stations (second, third, and fourth due)
• Proximity to Puget Sound
• Lack of Fire/EMS support from the West (Puget Sound) and South
(Woodway)
• Effective force/weight of response
We recommend that the PAU be assigned at one of the City fire stations. The PAU may be
located at an alternate site at the discretion of the Fire Chief and his/her determination as
to the best use of resources for response and to fulfill the terms of the ILA. This PAU will
help address the lack of Fire/EMS support from both the West and South. It would also
allow the current City fire stations to have better reliability, be less reliant on the support
from the stations located in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace, and help bring both the
NUUF and TBF into balance.
The cost associated with these changes would be as follows:
The current cost of the ILA in the budget, which includes an estimated COLA for labor in
2021 (which still needs to be negotiated) is $9,014,750. The cost of adding the 24-hour
transport unit, which would take staffing from nine (9) to eleven (11) FTEs is $1,501,212.
The cost of adding the 12-hour PAU would be an additional $750,606. These cost
calculations are based on the current staffing cost formula in the ILA, which uses station
staffing as the basis with M&O and administrative overhead added. See the table below
for a breakdown of cost:
2021
Current 9 FTEs 11 FTEs 12 FTEs
ILA Cost $ 9,014,750 $ 10,515,962 $ 11,266,568
City cost increase $ 1,501,212 $ 2,251,818
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 195
8.3.c
SUBJECT: Proposed Remedial Measures Pursuant to Section 2.2.3 of the Revised and
Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (ILA)
Edmonds Current
MART %[ 1G
Proposed Remedial Measures
If you have any questions about these proposed Remedial Measures in advance of our
meeting, please feel free to contact me.
We look forward to meeting with you on June 30, 2021.
Sincerely,
r
Thad Hovis
Fire Chief
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 196
8.3.d
/nc. ISCP
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY HALL - THIRD FLOOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0247 - fax (425) 771-0252
www.edmondswa.gov
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
September 14, 2021
Chief Thad Hovis
South County Fire
12425 Meridian Avenue South
Everett, WA 98208
By email to: thovis@southsnofire.org
MIKE NELSON
MAYOR
RE: Request for Extension of Negotiation Deadline Under Interlocal Agreement
Dear Chief Hovis:
As you know, we have been meeting regularly with representatives of the South County Fire
RFA ever since the City received the RFA's June 2, 2021 Threshold Notice pursuant to the terms
of our ILA. The ILA contemplated that 120 days would be a sufficiently long period for the City
to designate Remedial Measures. Under the ILA, if the City fails to designate one or more
Remedial Measures by the 120-day Negotiation Deadline, such failure would be deemed a
Material Breach.
As mayor, I do not have the unilateral authority to execute an amendment to the ILA
incorporating the City's designated Remedial Measures. So, I will need to work with the city
council to gain their approval. But I can commit to you that I will be proposing to the city
council that the City agree to amend the ILA to add Remedial Measures that include either an
additional 24-hour two person unit, or two additional peak activity units. While I cannot
guarantee city council approval of these Remedial Measures, I hope that my past opposition to
decreasing service levels persuades you that I will lobby for these Remedial Measures in
earnest.
Having said that, I would like to have additional time to work with the city council before
formally designating the City's Remedial Measures and without triggering a Material Breach
under the ILA. Therefore, I'm requesting that the RFA grant the City a 30-day extension of the
Negotiation Deadline in the ILA. This extra time would hopefully allow me to convince the city
council that Remedial Measures along the lines of what I have outlined above are the best next
step for the City's relationship with the RFA.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 197
8.3.d
Please let me know as soon as possible whether the RFA agrees to this extension request. In the
absence of such an extension, the City would still make its designation of Remedial Measures in
a timely manner, but my ability to deliver an amended ILA could be compromised by not giving
the city council adequate time to digest these proposed changes.
Kind regards,
�,/ikeNelson
Mayor
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Packet Pg. 198
8.3.e
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208
tel (425) 551-1200 • fox (425) 551-1249
www.southsnofire.org
September 17, 2021
Edmonds City Hall
Attn: Mayor Mike Nelson
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: 30-Day Extension
Mayor Nelson:
We received your September 14, 2021 letter in which you requested that South County Fire grant the
City a 30-day extension in which to identify a Remedial Measure as contemplated by Section 2.2.3 of the
Revised and Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (the "ILA"). The
current deadline to identify a Remedial Measure is September 30, 2021. Accordingly, a 30-day
extension would result in a revised deadline of October 30, 2021. Since that day falls on a Saturday, the
actual deadline would be November 1, 2021.
As I indicated during our meeting on September 9, 2021 the authority to grant an extension under the
ILA rests with the Governing Board. I have now had an opportunity to discuss your request with the
Governing Board. The Board appreciates your efforts to date in discussing the information we have
provided and working through the issues with our team. The Board also understands the realities of the
situation, i.e., that you need the support of the City Council in order to execute an amendment to the
ILA to incorporate a Remedial Measure.
The Governing Board has authorized me to communicate that South County Fire will agree to a 30-day
extension. In consideration of granting the City's request, the Governing Board requests that the City
Council allow me and Chief Eastman the opportunity to briefly address the City Council. The purpose of
this would be to make a short presentation on the issues that led to South County Fire's issuance of the
Threshold Notice and the Remedial Measures that we have proposed. We would, of course, be willing
to take questions from Council members at the conclusion of our presentation.
We trust that this request will be looked upon favorably, and we look forward to hearing from you as to
when we might be able to address the City Council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
Thad Hovis, Fire Chief
Packet Pg. 199
1
8.3.f
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington municipal corporation (the
"District") and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the "City") is for the
provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS).
WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through
a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most
elected officials in Southwest Snohomish County;
WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the
City and the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and
District and their stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the City and District have a long-term relationship for providing
Mutual and Automatic Aid toward the delivery of fire and emergency medical service;
and
WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with the District to provide fire and
emergency medical services to the City and the District desires to so provide these
services; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of
the Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the
District and the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the
public in the most efficient manner possible.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows:
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 1 of 21 November 2, 2009
® SJ "7
-a2,o/a -/v de-70,
Packet Pg. 200
8.3.f
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Services Provided. The District shall provide all services necessary for fire
suppression, emergency medical service, hazardous materials response,
technical rescue, and disaster response to a service area covering the corporate
limits of the City of Edmonds as are provided by the City of Edmonds. In addition,
the District shall provide support services including, but not limited to, fire
marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public information, and
fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal and risk
management pertaining to the operations and delivery of fire department
services.
1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District will provide training
and education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in
accordance with State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District
will offer professional development and educational and training opportunities for
unrepresented and civilian employees.
1.3 _City Fire Chief. The District's Fire Chief shall be designated the City Fire Chief for
purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code.
1.4 District Fire Chief Desi Hates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate
an individual to serve as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel
to support the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and
partially funded by the City (See Exhibit A),
2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICES/STAFFING
E
2.1 Battalion Chief. The City Battalion Chief unit shall be staffed with a minimum of
a
o
one (1) Battalion Chief twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
o
The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency
N
76
incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
c
2.2 Fire Station Staffing. Fire Station 16 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per
L .
2
day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2)
i
firefighter/emergency medical technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station
c
17 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with
U
a minimum of one (1) fire captain, and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical
technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station 20 shall be staffed twenty-four
(24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire
captain and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical technicians or
a
firefighter/paramedics.
2.3 Paramedic unit. The City Medic unit wm b-e sta ffea witn a rniniiiiurn o
firefighter/paramedics as currently provided.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 2 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 201
8.3.f
2.4 Level of Service. The District shall provide the same level of service as currently
provided by the City, which is consistent with the City response objectives per the
City's Chapter 35.103 RCW Fire Department Compliance Plan (previously SHB
Compliance Plan 1756) approved by the Edmonds City Council on November 28,
2006. If these response objectives are amended to provide an increased level of
service, the District will make reasonable efforts to meet them, provided that
funding is adequate.
2.5 Annual Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance
with the City's RCW 35.103 Fire Department Compliance Plan.
2.6 Staffing Exceptions. Exceptions to on duty staffing levels may occur in unusual
circumstances such as where there is a significant emergency event(s) in the
District, the City, or other areas which are under a contract for service or
auto/mutual aid agreement with the District. Unusual circumstances and
significant emergencies that affect personnel, equipment, infrastructure and/or
may include, but are not limited to, natural or man-made disasters, a significant
incident, or series of escalating incidents significant to a specific location, multiple
locations, and/or with area or region -wide impact.
2.7 Criteria -Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and
District that the dispatch of units during emergencies is determined by criteria -
based dispatch protocols of the dispatch centers, and automatic and/or mutual
aid agreements. Nothing herein shall require the District to respond first within
the City as opposed to other areas served by the District. The City and District
recognize that responses to emergencies shall be determined by the District
based upon dispatch protocols, the District's operational judgment, and without
regard to where the emergencies occur.
2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Agreement, service level
o
changes may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party.
N
Additionally, either party may desire to change the service level, including but not
c
limited to, those services identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2
T
Standards for Services/Staffing. When a service level change is mandated by
0
law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council as the City's response objectives as
required by RCW 35.103, or is mutually agreed to by the parties, the City and the
District will renegotiate the contract payment at the request of either party.
U
Provided that before renegotiation, the District must notify the Union, IAFF 1997,
of the alleged change requiring a change in the level of service and thereafter
negotiate with the Union the impact/affects of such change on the terms and
conditions of employment of bargaining unit personnel.
cc
a
2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should
consistently exceed the current level of City services, the District Fire
Chief and City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer to address
the cause and potential remedies. In no circumstance will a meet and
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 3 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 202
8.3.f
confer process be prejudicial to the rights of the parties under this
agreement, or upon the Union, IAFF 1997, to bargain any and all
impacts/effects relating to any remedy incident to the increased response
time.
3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS
3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of existing City fire
L
stations. The City shall provide three City fire stations or replacement fire stations
for use by the District during the term of this Agreement and as described in
Exhibit B. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and
c
Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B shall control with respect to fire stations and
U
fixtures contained therein.
c
3.2 Fire Station Furnishings. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum purchase
of fire station furnishings that are not built-in or fixed, and consumable and
3
disposable supplies within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this
Agreement. The District shall accept ownership of furnishings that are not built-in
or fixed in "as is" condition but only if the individual furnishing or ensemble are in
a condition acceptable to the District.
a
3.3 Purchase Price. The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed
In
was determined by applying a 15-year depreciation schedule to the estimated
U
purchase prices of individual furnishings or ensembles. The purchase price for
the estimated consumable and disposable supplies that will be in the fire stations
on the Commencement Date of this Agreement is based on the acquisition price.
E
The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed with appropriate
=
depreciation applied, and the price of consumable and disposable supplies is
E
identified in Exhibit J.
4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS
0
o
4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall annually pay the District a sum referred
to as the Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The amount of the
Contract Payment shall be determined according to Exhibit C. The Contract
Payment shall be paid in equal quarterly installments by January 15, April 15,
July 15 and September 15. Failure to pay quarterly installments in a timely
manner shall be considered a material breach as defined in the Definitions
section of this Agreement.
4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. The Contract Payment shall be adjusted each
year no later than September 1.
4.3 Annual Percent Increase Based on Labor Costs. The District shall submit to the
City an annual revision to Exhibit C of this Agreement, which shall identify the
Contract Payment for the ensuing year(s). The cost of City Station Personnel
identified in Exhibit C shall be adjusted as changes occur by the percentage
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 4 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 203
8.3.f
increase in labor costs resulting from the negotiated labor agreement between
the District and IAFF Local 1997; provided that the personnel cost shall increase
from one labor agreement to the next no more than the greater of (i) the median
increase in compensation of comparable fire agencies, (ii) the increase in the
Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton
metropolitan area for the 12-month period ending June 30, or (iii) the percentage
increase in compensation awarded by an interest arbitrator. The phrase
"comparable fire agencies" shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the
Employer and Union through the collective bargaining process or the
comparables accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration
proceeding.
4.4 Adjustment Date Not Met. If the labor agreement between the District and IAFF
Local 1997 has not been finalized by December 31 of the year prior to the
upcoming contract for service year, the District Station Personnel costs and the
District Indirect Costs will be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement but
will be retroactive to January 1 and paid by the City within 30 days of execution
of the labor agreement.
4.5 Annual Indirect Operating Cost Adjustments. The District shall adjust the
Contract Payment costs consisting of Indirect Operating Costs determined by the
following:
• Overhead which shall be 10 percent of the cost of the City Station Personnel
cost;
• Station equipment/maintenance/operation, which shall be 10 percent of the
City Station Personnel cost;
• Fire Marshal allocation at 75 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position,
and Fire Inspector at 100 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position
(See Exhibit A); and
• Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement
Schedule — City Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D.
The District Indirect Costs identified in Exhibit C shall then be adjusted based
upon the specified percentage of the increased cost of City Station Personnel.
The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Costs shall be the
Contract Payment for the ensuing year.
4.6 Annexation. The City's Urban Growth Area does contain property within the
boundaries of the District; however, this provision shall not apply to the
annexation of "islands" as referenced in RCW 35,13.182. Should the City seek to
annex portions of the District, the District will not oppose the annexation. In the
event the City annexes portions of the District, the Contract Payment shall be
increased and shall be calculated by applying the then current District levy rate
and emergency medical services levy rate to the annexed property. The
increased amount shall be added to the Contract Payment as a base for
calculations in future years.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 5 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 204
8.3.f
4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is
a material and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing
services under this Agreement or an increase in such costs as a result of
a legislative or policy decision that is exempt from the dispute resolution
provisions of Sections 18.1 and 18.2, then at the request of either party,
the City and District shall renegotiate this Agreement and the Contract
Payment to fully compensate the District for actual costs incurred
according to the methodology in Exhibit C. In the event that the City and
District are unable to successfully renegotiate this Agreement through
good faith negotiations, then the Dispute Resolution provision of this
Agreement shall apply.
4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District understands and acknowledges that the City
presently charges fees for basic life support and advanced life support transports
occurring within the City. As the EMS service provider, the District shall receive
and collect all Transport Fees in accordance with District policy for transports that
originate within the City limits. The District shall remit these amounts, less an
administration fee not to exceed the actual cost of collection, to the City
according to the quarterly schedule in Section 4.1. The District shall be
responsible for, and agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, all
necessary or requested documentation and/or reports to the City.
4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates
for increased service by the District without fully compensating the District for
actual costs incurred.
5. CITY EMPLOYEES
5.1 All City Employees Become District Employees. The District shall become the
employer of all City Fire Department employees, including administrative and
unrepresented uniformed, IAFF members, SEIU members, and civilian
employees of the City Fire Department on the Commencement Date of this
Agreement between the City and the District. The City and District recognize that
during the term of the Interlocal Agreement, the uniformed City Fire Department
employees will be integrated into Local 1997 of the IAFF. Labor -represented
employees will continue in their current positions and job assignments as
recognized by the District, or as agreed through collective bargaining prior to the
implementation of this Agreement. Administrative uniformed employees may be
reassigned to job positions that meet the needs of consolidating the two
organizations. Any civilian City Fire Department employee who is reassigned to a
new position shall be entitled to wages and benefits consistent with, or greater
than, the current wages and benefits provided by the City for such employee's
former position. City personnel shall receive the District's compensation levels
and benefits as of the Commencement Date of this Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 6 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 205
8.3.f
5.2 Seniority and Rank. Any IAFF member of the City Fire Department shall assume
employment with the District with complete seniority and rank intact. No
additional probationary periods or testing shall be required of any current IAFF
member under the Employees of Merged or Contracted Organization's article of
the Local 1997 Collective Labor Agreement. For purposes of seniority, the "hire
date" of a City Fire Department employee will be the earliest such employee's
hire date(s) with Fire District 1, Medic 7, or the City of Edmonds.
5.3 Transfer of Sick and Vacation Leave. Sick and vacation leave of City employees
shall be transferred and maintained as attached in Exhibit E. The City shall pay
to the District the current value of accrued vacation leave banks as of the date of
the transfer. The City shall also pay the cash -out value of City sick leave banks in
accordance with applicable Union contract or City policy. "Cash -out value" shall
be based on termination by layoff due to lack of work by the City as of the date of
the transfer. The District and City may agree to credit this obligation against
monies owed by the District under this Agreement. These payments are intended
to close out the City's obligations with respect to transferred, accrued leave
banks and the provisions of 5.9 shall not apply to unanticipated costs or
increases associated with the transferred leave banks such as, but not limited to,
increases attributable to changes in statutory or case law relating to the payment
of such banks, their impact on overtime requirements or changes in pension law,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if a transferred employee retires within two (2)
years of the date of the transfer and the Washington State Department of
Retirement Systems (DRS) treats any portion of the leave bank payouts as
excess compensation, the City shall be liable for its proportionate share of such
excess compensation cost as determined by DRS. "Proportionate share" shall be
determined based on the last wage paid by the City and the leave payout cap in
effect as of the date of the transfer and the excess compensation assessment
attributable thereto.
5.4 Layoff Language. For the provisions of layoffs or reduction in force, there shall be
three established Seniority Lists attached as Exhibit F.
• Blended Seniority List consisting of the former members of IAFF Local
1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) and the members of IAFF Local 1997
(Snohomish County Fire District 1 Firefighters).
• Non -Blended Seniority List of IAFF local 1997 (District Firefighters) prior to
the Commencement Date of the Interlocal Agreement between the District
and the City.
• Non -Blended Seniority list of IAFF Local 1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) prior
to the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City.
5.4.1 Layoff Within First 60 Months of Contract. If a reduction in force becomes
necessary within the first 60 months of this Agreement, the reductions in force
shall be initiated utilizing the Blended Seniority List from the most senior to the
least senior giving each member the first right of refusal. In the event that the
said reduction in force is not accomplished through the Blended Seniority List,
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 7 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 206
8.3.f
the reduction in force shall be incurred upon the least senior members of the
jurisdiction causing the reduction in force. The reduction will be based on the
Seniority Lists established prior to the Interlocal Agreement between the District
and the City.
5.4.2 New Employees. Employees hired after the date of this Interlocal Agreement will
be placed on the bottom of the Blended List and will be first subject to layoff.
5.5 Promotional Language and Probationary Period. The parties agree that two of
three Company Officer promotions required to convert the three -platoon City work
schedule to the District four -platoon work schedule will be made from a
promotional list established by the Edmonds Civil Service Commission and consist
solely of eligible pre -Commencement Date City employees.
5.6 Company Officer Promotion Process. The parties agree that the City Company
Officer promotion process shall occur prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement.
5.7 Probation Process for Newly Promoted Company Officers. The parties agree
that newly -promoted City Company Officers transferring employment to the
District on the Commencement Date shall serve the probationary period of the
IAFF 1997 collective labor agreement and District policy, procedures, and
performance standards for Company Officers.
5.8 Im act of A regiment. Each party has undertaken to collectively bargain the
impact of this Agreement upon the respective labor unions which represent each
party's employees. The City and District further acknowledge that the integration
of City employees into the District's organizational structure has been in
conjunction with the respective labor unions which represent each party's
employees, and that the City and District will have reached agreement with
existing labor unions, and with each other, that the seniority rights of City
Personnel will remain intact and will transfer to their employment with the District,
5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District
harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel,
which arise out of, or relate to, the time prior to the date that such City personnel
became employees of the District; provided, however, that the indemnification
shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District's actions under the
Interlocal Agreement.
6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES)
6.1 Purchase Rollin_ Stock, tock. The District shall purchase the City Fire Department's
rolling stock 'apparatus and vehicles). The Dlstnct shall accept title and
ownership of such rolling stock in "as is" condition but only if each individual unit
is in a condition reasonably acceptable to the District.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 8 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 207
8.3.f
6.2 Transfer of Title. The City and District shall cooperate and execute such
documents which are necessary to accomplish the transfer of title.
6.3 Rolling Stock Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump
sum purchase of City rolling stock within 30 days after the Commencement Date
of this Agreement, specifically for the ladder (1), engines (3), medic unit (1), aid
units (4), utility (1), the 1938 Ford fire engine (1), and six vehicles.
6.4 Purchase Price. The purchase price of each piece of rolling stock shall be the
retail price determined by Fire Trucks Plus, Inc.; or by the Kelly Blue Book; the
acquisition cost of the 1938 Ford Fire Engine; plus the delivered, set-up and
lettered cost of two 2009 Ford E-450s Aid Units manufactured by Braun and
identified in Exhibit G.
6.5 Rolling Stock Records. The sale of rolling stock includes all service and
maintenance, records, and shop manuals for each purchased unit.
6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current
information regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule
attached in Exhibit D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase
new rolling stock or otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City.
6.7 Public Safety Boat. The Public Safety Boat, acquired with a Department of
Homeland Security grant as a county -wide asset and known as Marine 16,
remains the property of the City. Use by the District of Marine 16 for training and
emergencies as a county -wide asset is described in Exhibit H.
7. EQUIPMENT
7.1 Purchase Equipment. The District shall purchase City Fire Department
equipment identified in Exhibit I. Equipment is divided into two categories — (1)
that on the Fire Department Attractive Asset List, and (2) that equipment on-
board rolling stock. There is no duplication between the two lists. The District
shall accept ownership of equipment in "as -is" condition but only if each
individual piece of equipment or ensemble is in reasonably acceptable condition
as determined solely by the District.
7.2 Equipment Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum
purchase of City equipment within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this
Agreement.
7.3 Purchase Price. (1) The purchase price for items on the Asset List was
i _ i _ ._.__ _ _ _ _ dpp1..i-_a L ,L-liie 4— 46.pbo
determinedFJyiyity sL-aiyiniUCP1VUCXL1Uii w uiV ur 1aQc nrino imin nc
and/or estimated present value for each individual item. Straight-line depreciation
is calculated by taking the value of the asset and dividing it by the expected life
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 9 of 21 November 2, 2009
0
0
N
76
c
0`
L
0
U
�.i
c
E
0
a
Packet Pg. 208
8.3.f
span, then multiplying the expected life span by the age of the asset (value /
years = yearly depreciation x age = depreciation amount). (2) The price for
equipment on -board rolling stock was determined by applying five years of
depreciation based on a ten-year average replacement schedule to the purchase
price of individual items using fire service reference materials including Galls, Life
Assist (EMS hard and soft gear), PMI (technical rescue equipment), and Heiman
Fire Equipment. This equates to 50 percent depreciation to all equipment. The
purchase price and depreciation of each piece of equipment or ensemble is
identified in Exhibit I.
7.4 Equipment Records and Warranties. The sale of equipment includes all service
and maintenance records, and shop manuals. Wherever permitted under the
terms of a contract to purchase a vehicle or equipment transferred to the District
or a warranty relating thereto, the City hereby transfers and assigns its interest
under such warranties to the District. In the event that only the City may exercise
the warranty, the City will cooperate with and use its best efforts to enforce any
warranty regarding equipment provided to the District.
8. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor
and/or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for
purposes of RCW 39.34.030. During the term of this Agreement, the District Fire
Chief shall provide the Mayor with quarterly reports concerning the provision of
services under this Agreement. The format and topics of the reports shall be
agreed upon by the District Fire Chief and the Mayor. Additionally, two District
Board Commissioner members and two City Council members, along with the
District Fire Chief and the Mayor, shall meet at least once per calendar year, on
or before April 1, for the purpose of communicating about issues related to this
Agreement. The District Fire Chief and the Mayor shall present a joint annual
report to the Edmonds City Council prior to July 31.
8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section
8.1 above, the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1
Commissioners shall meet prior to April 1 of each calendar year at a
properly noticed place and time to discuss items of mutual interest related
to this Agreement.
8.3 Representation on Intergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the
City on intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of
services under this Agreement as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City
reserves the right to represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the
City and the District are not mutual or whenever any matter relates to the
apprvpriatlon %f or expendeture of City f"�n�J� la„nYOnrlM the term- of this L�grPement,
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 10 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 209
8.3.f
9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS
9.1 ESCA, SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships
with other entities or agencies including the Emergency Services Coordinating
Agency (ESCA) for all City; Snohomish County Communications Center
(SNOCOM) for Fire, Police, and Public Works; and Snohomish County
Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) for Fire and Police. The City shall
maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or
agencies and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its
behalf. At the discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on
behalf of the City on various committees, boards and/or commissions as
requested, as appropriate, and/or as agreed to by mutual agreement of the
parties.
9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The City and District currently have individual
responsibilities and contractual obligations under their respective agreements
with other fire agencies. The District shall assume the City's contractual
responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid. At
such time as these agreements are renegotiated and re -executed, the District will
represent the City's interests and shall be signatory to the agreements on behalf
of the City.
9.3 Full Information as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to
coordinate their individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that
the services under this Agreement will be provided in an efficient and cost
effective manner. The City and District agree to keep each other fully informed
and advised as to any changes in their respective relationships with those
entities or agencies, whether or not those changes impact the City and/or the
District obligations under this Agreement. Notice of any change in the
relationship or obligations shall be provided to the other party in writing in a
timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed changes
in relationships or obligations.
9.4 Dispute Resolution. In the event that any dispute between the City and District
cannot be resolved by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then
the dispute resolution provision of this Agreement shall apply.
10. TERM OF AGREEMENT
10.1 20-Year Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon its
execution by the City and District. The Commencement Date of this Agreement
shall be January 1, 2010. This Agreement shall continue in effect for a period of
twenty (20) years from the Commencement Date, until December 31, 2030,
Ur1e5S terminate -a' earlier as provided
herein. After 'the initial, twenty, (71.1) dcouoir
term, this Agreement shall automatically renew under the same terms and
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 11 of 21 November 2, 2009
a
Packet Pg. 210
8.3.f
conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless terminated as
provided herein.
10.2 Material Breach and Wind -Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this
Agreement, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree
otherwise, continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement
for a minimum of twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the
"Wind -Up Period"); provided, however, that the Wind -Up Period shall be 90
(ninety) days if the Material Breach involves the City's failure to make the
Contract Payment; provided further, that during the Wind -Up Period, the City and
District shall coordinate their efforts to prepare for the transition to other methods
of providing fire and EMS service to the City. The City will be responsible for all
payments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind -Up Period.
11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS
11.1 First Five Years. The City and District acknowledge that in entering into this
Agreement, significant financial and personnel resources have been expended.
Therefore, neither the City nor the District may terminate this Agreement within
the first five (5) years following the Commencement Date except for a Material
Breach of this Agreement which the breaching party fails to cure within a
reasonable amount of time after receiving written notice from the non -breaching
party. The City's and the District's intent by this section is to provide both service
stability to citizens and job security to employees.
11.2 Years Six Through Twenty. In addition to terminating this Agreement for a
Material Breach, either party may terminate this Agreement after the first five (5)
years from the Commencement Date by providing the other party with two (2)
years written notice of its intent to terminate during any period of extension.
Notice under this provision may only be given once five years have elapsed after
the Commencement Date.
11.3 Termination Costs. The costs associated with terminating this Agreement shall
be borne by the party who elects to terminate, or in the event of a Material
Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following circumstances, the
costs of termination shall be apportioned.
11.4 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event that this
Agreement is terminated due to a change in law, each party shall bear its own
costs associated with the termination; or, in the event that the City and District
mutually agree to terminate this Agreement, each party shall bear its own costs
associated with the termination.
'11.5 Regional Fire Psotectign Service Authorit in the event that the District, Glon^y
with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire
Protection Service Authority Planning Committee ("RFA Planning Committee") as
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 12 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 211
8.3.f
provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and,
subject to approval of the other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City an
opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the
opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed
as a material breach on the part of the City as defined in the Definitions section
of this Agreement. In the even that a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority
(RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and emergency
medical services is created, inclusive of the City and District, this Interlocal
Agreement will be terminated on the effective date of such Agreement, and
neither the City nor the District shall be considered to have committed a material
breach as defined in the Definitions section of this Agreement.
11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate
their respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to
terminate this Agreement and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs
of termination.
11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City
and District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as
part of this Agreement shall be returned to the City as described below. This
provision shall not apply to the formation of a RFA in which both the City and the
District are participants.
11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock sold under this agreement, or
equivalent apparatus and vehicles in use by the District at the time of termination
shall be purchased back using the same process, methods, and conditions under
which the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the
parties.
11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment sold under this agreement, or
equivalent equipment in use by the District at the time of termination shall be
purchase back using the same process, methods, and conditions under which
the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
11.7.3 Rehire Personnel. In the event of termination within the first five (5) years of this
Agreement by either party for any reason, the City shall rehire the personnel laid
off by the District, up to fifty-four (54) personnel transferred with no loss of
compensation and accumulated benefits. Accrued vacation and sick leave banks
shall be transferred to the City and the District shall pay to the City the current
cash value of the leave banks as determined under the same procedures set
forth in Section 5.3 of this Agreement.
11.7.4 Former District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless from any and all dernanas, ciauiis, or autlunIS uy IV111reU U1QL111-II
personnel, which arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were
employees of the District, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 13 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 212
8.3.f
not apply to any claims arising as a result of the City's actions during the term of
the Agreement.
12. DECLINE TO MERGE
12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement
with any other fire district that is substantially equivalent to a merger, the City
may decline to be included, and elect to end the Agreement without prejudice or
penalty. The terms and conditions of that termination include written notice
provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 to the District of the
intent to end the Agreement not more than 90 days after receiving written
notification provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 from the
District that the District intends to merge with another entity.
12.1.1 Not a Material Breach. The City decision to not merge does not constitute a
Material Breach of the Agreement and none of the penalties associated with a
Material Breach shall apply to the City.
12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The Agreement will end not more than 12 months after the City
officially notifies the District that it declines to be merged, unless otherwise
agreed to by the parties, and the costs of termination shall be split evenly
between the parties.
12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Agreement because
of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction,
the City exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7.
13. CITY FIRE DONATION FUND
13.1 Disposition of Fire Donation Funds. Effective on the Commencement Date of this
Agreement, the amount of funds in the Fire Department Donation Fund on
December 31, 2009 shall be forwarded to the District 1 to acquire fire and life
safety tools and equipment not otherwise affordable through the regular budget
process. Tools and equipment subsequently acquired with Donation Fund
monies by the District will be assigned to Edmonds Fire Stations and apparatus
but shall be used without restriction throughout the District service area.
14. TOWN OF WOODWAY
14.1 No Impact on this Agreement. The provision of fire and emergency medical
services to the Town of Woodway by the District has no organizational or
financial impact on the Agreement between the City and the District or the terms
and conditions of said Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 14 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 213
8.3.f
15. CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
15.1 Civil Service Commission Notification. The City acknowledges that the City of
Edmonds Civil Service Commission has been officially advised of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the
City and District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms
herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing
bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District
shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method
by which the services are provided within the District and within the City unless
otherwise stipulated within this Agreement.
16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it
without regard to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the
operational judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and
obligations of Sections 2.4 through 2.8.
16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth
herein or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the
other.
17. INSURANCE
17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Agreement, each Party shall
maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy
insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and
equipment if any, and "policy" shall be understood to include insurance pooling
arrangements or compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority
(WCIA). The City shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for
accidents occurring on City owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an
amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a
deductible of not more than $5,000. The District shall maintain an insurance
policy insuring against liability arising out of work or operations performed by the
District under this Agreement in an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The
phrases "work or operations and "maintenance and operations" shall include the
services identified in Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire
Marshal and the District's Fire Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and
any obligation covered by Exhibit B, Section 9.
17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it
has maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 15 of 21 November 2, 2009
a
Packet Pg. 214
8.3.f
and occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of
the Interlocal Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment
claims, labor grievances, and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at
all times in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The City will hold
harmless the District and its insurance provider for any such claims, lawsuits or
accusations that occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the Interlocal
Agreement,
17.3 Claims of Former District Employees, The District represents and warrants that it
has maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and
occurrences which may have occurred during the time period prior to the
Commencement Date of the Agreement, including but not limited to injuries,
employment claims, labor grievances, and other work -related claims. Such
insurance was at all times in an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000.
17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party's insurance coverage is not voided,
each party agrees to defend and hold harmless the other party, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out
of the negligent and intentional acts or omissions of such party's officers,
officials, employees and volunteers in connection with the performance of this
Agreement. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, and
except in the event of breach of this Agreement, the District and the City do
hereby forever release each other from any claims, demands, damages or
causes of action related to damage to equipment or property owned by the City
or District or assumed under this Agreement. It is the intent of the City and
District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above.
18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
18.1 Mediation. It is the intent of the City and District to resolve all disputes between
them without litigation. Excluded from mediation are issues related to the
legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to make budget and
appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, or establish levels of service under
Section 2.4 of this Agreement and Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the
City Council shall not be subject to review by a mediator; however, this shall not
abridge the right of the District to pursue an increase in the Annual Contract
Payment as a result of such decision. The City and District shall mutually agree
upon a mediator. Any expenses incidental to mediation, including the mediator's
fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District. If the City and District cannot
agree upon a mediator, the City and District shall submit the matter to the
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 16 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 215
8.3.f
Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be
appointed. This requirement to mediate the dispute may only be waived by
mutual written agreement before a party may proceed to litigation as provided
within this agreement.
18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in renegotiating the
Contract Payment after having completed mediation, the City and District shall
submit the matter to binding arbitration with the foregoing arbitration service.
Excluded from binding arbitration are issues related to the legislative authority of
the Edmonds City Council to make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions
to contract, or establish levels of service under Section 2.4 of this Agreement and
Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the City Council shall not be subject to
review by an arbitrator; however, this shall not abridge the right of the District to
pursue an increase in the Annual Contract Payment as a result of such decision.
The arbitration shall be conducted according to the selected arbitration service's
Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. At this arbitration, the arbitrator
shall, as nearly as possible, apply the analysis used in this agreement and
supporting Exhibits to adjust the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate
from such analysis and use principles of fairness and equity, but should do so
sparingly. Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any
binding arbitration session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any
subsequent mediations or arbitrations.
18.3 Prevailing Party. In the event either party herein finds it necessary to bring an
action against the other party to enforce any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof or any instrument executed pursuant to this Agreement by
reason of any breach or default hereunder or there under, the party prevailing in
any such action or proceeding shall be paid all costs and attorneys' fees incurred
by the other party, and in the event any judgment is secured by such prevailing
party, all such costs and attorneys' fees of collection shall be included in any
such judgment. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies exclusively in
Snohomish County, Washington.
19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals
which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder,
shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered
personally, sent by facsimile, sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery
service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail, sent by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
District Secretary: City Clerk:
Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 City of Edmonds
12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5th Avenue North
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 17 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 216
8.3.f
Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020
Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from
time -to -time designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be
deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile
transmission of any signed original document and retransmission of any signed
facsimile transmission shall be the same as delivery of an original document.
19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
City and the District from entering into contracts for service in support of this
Agreement.
19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any
benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this
Agreement shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the
Public Duty Doctrine. The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and
execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of
this Agreement.
19.4 Entire Agreement. This entire agreement between the City and District hereto is
contained in this Agreement and exhibits hereto; and this Agreement supersedes
all of their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with
respect to this transaction. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument executed by the City and District subsequent to the date hereof.
Dated this 3 day of ovc-,1k, 2009
SNOHOMISH C❑ N'
By:
Com ' sio r
By:
Commissioner
By:
Commissioner
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT N
Commissioner
l�
Commissioner
Attest:
District Secretary
... ::
FLWjW1
.S■ ply q
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 18 of 21 November 2, 2009
a
Packet Pg. 217
8.3.f
CITY OF E MONDS
By: 4��Z�
City Mayor
Approved a t
)5�
By:
City Attar
Attest--,,G• 'd.
City Clerk
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 19 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 218
8.3.f
Definitions
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Agreement.
a. Cam: City of Edmonds.
b. City Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of the City of Edmonds
C. City Fire Department: The Edmonds Fire Department.
d. City Fire Stations: Currently, Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire
Station 20.
e. Commencement Date: The date at which the performance and
obligations of the City and District as contained herein begin.
City Personnel: The employees of the City of Edmonds Fire Department
as of the Commencement Date who are transferring employment to the
District.
g. Contract Payment: The annual amount that the City will pay to the District
pursuant to this Agreement.
h. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
Effective Date: The date this Agreement is executed by the City and
District.
District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection
District No. 1.
k. Firefighter/EMS Personnel: Full-time, compensated employees,
firefighters, emergency medical technicians, or paramedics
Grid Cards: The electronic file within the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
System, which is used to determine fire station response order for Fire
District 1.
M. Insurance: The term "insurance" as used in this agreement means either
valid insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or
carrier approved to do business in the State of Washington by the
Washington State Insurance Commissioner or valid self-insurance through
a self-insurance pooling organization approved for operation in the State
of Washington by the Washington State Risk Manager or any combination
of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if both are
approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 20 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 219
8.3.f
n. Material Breach: A Material Breach means: the District's failure to provide
minimum staffing levels as described within this Agreement; the City's
failure to timely pay the Contract Payment as described within this
Agreement, or the City's or District's failure to comply within this
Agreement concerning the City's fire stations, equipment and/or
apparatus.
o. Wind -Up Period: The 12 months immediately following formal notification
of a Material Breach by either party except as defined in Section 10.2.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 21 of 21 November 2, 2009
Q
Packet Pg. 220
8.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 2, 2009
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session
to receive legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation. 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 Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis,
Wambolt, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson. Olson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott
Snyder, Attorney Stephanie Croll, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson
announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. At 7:15
p.m., Mayor Haakenson again announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in
executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:25 p.m.
The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, REMOVING ITEM 9 FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114982 THROUGH #115132 DATED OCTOBER 29,
2009 FOR $518,862.77.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 1
Packet Pg. 221
8.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
To those who may question why Community Transit was implementing Swift when they were facing
challenges to their capital and operating budget, she explained Swift was underway before the budget
crisis occurred. Over half of Swift's capital funding came from other sources including federal, state and
local and via a partnership with Everett. A series of grants, partnership funds and fare revenues will pay
approximately 90% of Swift's operating costs through 2012.
She explained Swift is Community Transit's future; not only a major transit improvement on Highway
99, Community Transit's busiest corridor, this higher frequency service is what they intend to bring to
Snohomish County's other congested corridors via a network of Swift lines in the future.
Council President Wilson commented he found it an honor to be appointed to the Community Transit
Board and regretted that time devoted to the City's budget and his day job had affected his ability to
participate.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4. IN ADDITION TO
CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1, THIS OPTION INCLUDES
SELLING APPARATUS (ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT), AND KEEPING FIRE
STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES.
Mayor Haakenson suggested staff respond to questions submitted yesterday and today by a
Councilmember and a citizen.
Councilmember Bernheim asked why response times were identified in minutes and seconds in Edmonds'
contract with Fire District 1 for fire service to Esperance but in the proposed contract for fire service, Fire
District 1 was required only to maintain the current level of service. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg answered
the Esperance contract was between the City and Fire District 1 for the City of Edmonds Fire Department
to provide fire service to Esperance, an unincorporated area in Fire District 1. Under the proposed
contract, Fire District 1 would provide fire service to Edmonds. The standards referred to by
Councilmember Bernheim addressed how the City provided service to Esperance under four levels of
service. The proposed contract with Fire District 1 references RCW 35.103, codification of Senate House
Bill 1756, that requires Fire Departments in the State of Washington to adopt standards of response. The
Edmonds City Council adopted the 11 standards in RCW 35.103 in November 2006. Staff has provided
three reports to the Council regarding the Fire Department's performance in meeting those standards. He
summarized RCW 35.103 was referenced in Section 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8 and the contract actually referenced
11 standards.
Mr. Snyder commented this had been a subject of some negotiation between Fire District 1 counsel and
himself. One of the main reasons this contract was different was because the State statute was adopted
after the Esperance contract was approved and prior to the date the proposed contract was drafted. His
intent was to ensure the Council would retain its ability to set the standards and not be locked in by
contract. For example, if the Council wanted to amend the standards by increasing or decreasing levels of
service, the Council would have that right independent of the contract. Fire District 1 wanted the ability
to recover the cost if additional staffing was required to meet the amended response time.
Councilmember Bernheim questioned whether requiring Fire District 1 to meet current levels of service
was too vague and whether the 11 response time standards should be stated instead. Mr. Snyder reiterated
his intent for the Council to retain the legislative discretion to amend the standards as they wished rather
than establish them as a contract term that would be subject to renegotiation. Councilmember Bernheim
pointed out the response times referred to current levels of service and he questioned what the current
levels of service were. Mr. Snyder responded they were the levels the Council had adopted as the City's
service standards.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 3
Packet Pg. 222
8.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
Councilmember Orvis commented that in addition to specifying levels of service, deployment was also
identified as three firefighters at each fire station, a battalion chief and two dedicated medics. Chief
Tomberg agreed.
Staff responded to the following questions posed via email from George Murray:
1. Litigation — If there should be some law suits in relation to fire operations, who is responsible? Is the
town of Edmonds liable and in what ways? I remember the litigation after the warehouse fire in
Seattle when several firemen lost their lives and their families sued Seattle.
Chief Tomberg responded the employer would be responsible in the event of litigation; the
firefighters' employer would be Fire District 1 under the proposed contract. Items 16, 17 and 18 on
page 15 and 16 of the Interlocal Agreement states the City and District are independent municipal
governments, and addresses insurance and dispute resolution. Mr. Snyder explained claims by former
City employees relating to actions taken while the individuals were City employees were the City's
responsibility; once transferred, employees' claims would be defended by the entity that employed
them. If the contract were terminated and the employees transferred back, the City would be
responsible for claims after they transferred back and Fire District 1 would indemnify the City from
claims made prior to that date. He summarized the entity employing and directing the employee was
responsible for liability.
2. Personnel — Why does the city need a fire marshal and a fire inspector when the Fire District is
taking on responsibility for fire service? Do towns in the Fire District have these two positions on
their town staffs? (e.g. MLT & Brier) Are they essential?
Chief Tomberg responded Fire Marshal responsibilities in the unincorporated area of Snohomish
County were the responsibility of the Snohomish County Fire Marshal's office, not Fire District 1. If
Fire District 1 did not serve cities under contracts for service such as Brier and Mountlake Terrace, it
would not have a Fire Marshal. Fire District 1 has a Fire Marshal to serve Mountlake Terrace and
Brier because like Edmonds, they were served by a Fire Marshal before they joined the District and
cities require fire marshal services. Mountlake Terrace and Brier pay Fire District 1 for fire marshal
services. In the Fire District l/Edmonds Interlocal Agreement, Edmonds pays via the contract for a 3/4
time Fire Marshal and a full-time Fire Inspector. Currently the City pays for two full-time positions.
3. Contract — (See attached numbers) Are the numbers shown for the "Contract" projections for
"Option 4" the ones which will be billed to Edmonds? The attached numbers were taken from a page
given me entitled, "Fire District I Contract Proposal — City Operational Savings ", lines named Fire
Budget and Fire Contract.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines responded the amounts listed in the spreadsheet Option 1 v Option 4
are the amounts that are projected to be the contract payment to Fire District 1 that will be billed to
Edmonds.
4. Uneven growth rates. The attached numbers grow at different growth rates (see attachment). I had
thought the expense growth rates would be the same over the years. Why are they different?
Mr. Hines responded the analysis compared 2007 actuals to the 2008 budget. With regard to expense
growth rates being the same over the years, Mr. Hines responded growth rates would be generally the
same but rarely were they the same year-to-year. For example growth in the Edmonds Fire
Department budget was projected to be 3.15% in 2011, 3.87% in 2012, and 3.93% in 2013.
Councilmember Bernheim commented lower growth rates were projected under the proposed contract
than for the Edmonds Fire Department. Mr. Hines answered the contract was based on salaries,
overtime and benefits; the City's Fire Department budget was composed of many other variables in
addition to labor such as uniforms, protective clothing, supplies, small equipment, professional
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 4
Packet Pg. 223
8.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
services, communication, travel, rental and lease, rental and maintenance, etc. Councilmember
Bernheim pointed out in the proposed contract both overhead and equipment were pegged to labor
increases per Exhibit C. Mr. Hines pointed out another variable was Fire District 1's actions to keep
the price down; Fire District 1 may be artificially reducing the price to get the City's business.
5. Annexation — What are the criteria for establishing and changes in billing if annexations occur? I
understand Edmonds has had over 60 and there is one underway now.
Chief Tomberg responded annexations were addressed in Section 4.6 on page 5 of the Interlocal
Agreement. Mr. Snyder explained if property was annexed by the City, the cost of the contract would
be recalculated based on the additional population.
6. Deannexation — How will reductions be treated?
Chief Tomberg was unclear how deannexation would occur.
7. Technology — Every 5 years it's a new world in Technology. This can be a savings and/or expensive.
Today Edmonds deals with it in consultation with other fire departments How will this be handled in
future?
Chief Tomberg answered technology would continue to be addressed with other Fire Departments
and in Snohomish County as it is today. The Fire Department participates in many coordinated
technology efforts including the SnoCom CAD system, the records management system, patient care
reporting, radio purchases, etc. via SERS, SnoCom and ESCA.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented most citizens felt this should be decided via a public vote. He
expressed concern with the participation of some Councilmembers, questioning whether they were parties
of interest. He commented on an area that was interested in annexing to Mountlake Terrace.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
5. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1
CONTRACT, OPTION 4.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF OPTION 4 (CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1,
SELLING APPARATUS [ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT], AND KEEPING FIRE
STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES, AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT WITH FIRE
DISTRICT 1.
Councilmember Orvis commented the initial proposal was to sell the land and via discussion the Council
decided although contracting with Fire District 1 was a good idea, selling the land was not. He clarified
under Option 4 the City retained the land and fire stations, sold the apparatus and contracted for fire
service personnel with Fire District 1. He was satisfied the service levels were guaranteed because
deployment was identified in the contract and in addition to meeting the City's service requirements, fire
stations must continue to be staffed in the manner they are today. The savings in 2010 will be over
$900,000. He was impressed with the improvements in service such as fewer holes in service due to fire
training, overhead that was service -related rather than administrative -related, the availability of CPR
classes and car seat checks, and the availability of a public liaison officer. With regard to increasing costs,
he felt the proposed contract had more restrictions on cost control than the City's own Fire Department.
He summarized the cost of fire service would increase regardless of whether the City had its own Fire
Department or contracted with Fire District 1.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 5
Packet Pg. 224
8.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
Mayor Haakenson clarified the contract, if approved, would be effective January 1, 2010.
Councilmember Peterson echoed Councilmember Orvis' comments, noting Edmonds was taking an
important step in regionalization. Edmonds was part of a larger community with regard to public safety
and other services. The contract would provide better service to the community and save the City money
as well as allow the City to work more closely with neighboring cities and jurisdictions on important
issues.
Councilmember Olson's aid read a statement from Councilmember Olson that stated she was voting for
Option 4 because it made the most sense after listening to all the experts. This seemed like a great
opportunity for the City.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he had been involved in the Fire District 1 discussions since they
began in May including meetings with Fire District 1, City staff, the Firefighters Union as well as several
discussions and public hearings at the City Council. He also spent a considerable amount of time
analyzing the numbers on his own. The questions he has raised since May have been satisfactorily
answered. He expressed support for Option 4 for two primary reasons; first it will reduce the City's
deficit over the next 7 year planning period by $10 million. Under Option 1 expenses will exceed
revenues by $21.1 million over 7 years; under Option 4 expenses will exceed revenues by only $10.4
million or $10.7 million less. The City's budget will still be in deficit and a levy lid lift will be required
in 2010. Second, service levels will be maintained and he believed gradually enhanced over the coming
years because firefighters would be better trained and morale would improve. He pointed out the
compound annual growth rate of expenses over the 7 year period under Option 1 was 4.08% versus 3.86%
with Option 4.
Council President Wilson commented he would support the motion. He commented the service level
issue was not compelling enough; the primary increase was eliminating holes in service due to training.
With regard to the financial benefit, he acknowledged the numbers pointed in a positive direction, noting
the numbers had varied over the past several months and he was hopeful the recent numbers were
accurate. The primary reason he supported the contract for service was to increase the morale of the Fire
Department employees. This was also an opportunity to place fire service on stable footing; in the future
any budgets cuts would be made to parks or police or a levy would be necessary. He concluded this was
not his ideal situation; he preferred to consider either a Fire District or reverse annex into Fire District 1.
He was hopeful the City did not regret this decision in 10 years.
Councilmember Bernheim commented there had been a lot of questions asked and answered, it had been
a great process and he was satisfied everyone was reaching a well -considered decision. He was confident
the level of service for residents would remain the same, a top priority even above the morale of the Fire
Department employees. With regard to regionalization, he was not convinced about the importance of
regionalization; he felt the City had an obligation to provide fire and police services. He expressed
concern that citizens lost complete voting power over the Fire District 1, a philosophical issue that had not
been adequately addressed. The City's fire service was being turned over to a contractor and voters in the
unincorporated areas of Snohomish County would elect Commissioners that would interpret the contract.
Councilmember Bernheim acknowledged fire service cost a great deal and annual increases have been
substantial. He pointed out much of the City's fiscal crisis was because tax income had not kept pace
with the cost of providing fire service. He preferred to keep the fire service in-house and continue to
manage it. He pointed out the firefighters union's primary reason for supporting the contract with Fire
District 1 was to stabilize funding. He noted the contract pegs overhead, equipment maintenance and
purchase of new equipment to labor costs which he feared would increase more than it would otherwise.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 6
Packet Pg. 225
8.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
He expressed concern that Fire District 1 may be artificially holding the price down, comparing it to the
FIOS offer of $29.95 for six months which obligated consumers without a guarantee regarding future
prices. He feared the City would be in dire straits in 10 years, worrying how to pay for the fire service
because the cost of the contract had increased.
Councilmember Bernheim concluded this issue originated due to the fiscal crisis and as an alternative to
the levy, not the need to improve the City's fire service. In his view the City was giving up control of its
fire service, a fundamental city responsibility to a Fire District whose Commissioners were elected by
voters outside the City without any guarantee of price control and it was only a stop gap measure.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM
VOTING NO.
Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, applauded the Council for vetting this issue
well. He commented regionalizing fire service had been 20 years in the making, an effort that had been
halted at the political level in the past. He commended the Council for putting politics aside, considering
the issue, doing their due diligence and reaching a decision. To the Edmonds citizens, Mr. Hoover
commented they did not take the Fire Department's 105 year history lighting. He expressed the Fire
Department's appreciation for the citizens' support over those 105 years. He thanked everyone who
provided public comment and looked forward to serving the community as a regional Fire Department for
the next 105 years.
6. REPORT TO WASHINGTON CONSORTIUM REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL
OF VERIZON NORTHWEST INC. TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATION CORPORATION —
WORKSHOP.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained tonight's meeting was
one of two scheduled meetings regarding the transfer of control from Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier
Communications Corporation. Tonight's public workshop was an opportunity for the Council to ask
questions and learn about the proposed franchise transfer. On November 2 the public will have an
opportunity to speak and the City Council will have an opportunity to take action. He introduced Verizon
representatives Raymond Deed, Doug Steading, and Milt Gomad and Frontier Communications Chairman
Ann Burr.
Mr. Clifton reviewed the history of the transfer:
• In August, 2008 - City authorized and granted a Franchise Agreement to Verizon Northwest Inc.
• May 13, 2009 - Verizon announced plans to divest its local wireline communications system to
Frontier Communications Corporation.
• May 19, 2009 - City received a Request for Transfer of Control (Verizon to Frontier).
• Set in motion certain federal requirements and deadlines:
o City (Franchise Authority) has 30 days in which to review Form 394 to determine whether all
necessary information has been provided and is complete.
o City Council has 120 days to take action on request.
o Determine if the Transferee is legally, technically, and financially capable to operate a
Franchise.
Next he reviewed transfer request actions:
• June, 2009 — A Multi -Jurisdictional Consortium was formed.
o Share in legal and technical expertise to analyze transfer of the franchise.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 7
Packet Pg. 226
8.3.h
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/24/2017
Fire District 1 Interlocal Agreement (45 min.)
Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The City of Edmonds had its own fire department for approximately 105 years when the city council
voted on November 2, 2009 to enter into a long-term interlocal agreement (ILA) with Snohomish County
Fire District 1 (FD1) to provide fire and emergency medical services to the city. A copy of the ILA is
attached to this memo as Attachment D. FD1 began providing that service on January 1, 2010.
The Woodway Issue: For the first four years of the contract (2010-2013), FD1 also provided fire and EMS
service to Woodway under a contract. The ILA between FD1 and Edmonds allocated the cost
responsibilities for staffing fire stations 16, 17, and 20 (the Edmonds stations) as follows:
Edmonds = 77.79%
FD1 (because Esperance is within FD1's taxing district) = 13.08%
Woodway = 9.13%
Woodway, however, was not a party to the City's contract with FD1. So, the Woodway portion of the
above cost allocation might have been more of an assumption or aspiration than a reality. On January 1,
2014, Woodway stopped contracting with FD1 and began contracting with the Shoreline Fire District.
Woodway's switch to Shoreline created the prospect of a long-term financial deficit for the fire district's
operation of the Edmonds stations. That condition persists today, almost three years after Woodway
terminated its relationship with FD1. If the present staffing levels were to be continued into 2017,
Woodway's missing share of the cost of operating the Edmonds stations would be $706,266 in 2017
alone. Woodway's absence did not result in any layoffs or cost reductions. And Edmonds continued to
pay 77.79% as it had originally agreed to pay. This left the fire district responsible for 22.21% of the cost
of operating the Edmonds stations. On July 22, 2016, the fire district board adopted by motion a policy
"to seek through negotiation of the cost associated with the operations of all contract city fire stations."
The district cannot unilaterally change the 77.79% allocation of the costs to Edmonds. But we interpret
the board's motion to indicate that the current arrangement is not sustainable and that the ILA would
likely be terminated if the City refused to negotiate a different cost allocation.
The district is willing to allocate all of the tax revenue that it collects from Esperance ($1,117,150 in
2017) to the operation of the Edmonds stations. If Edmonds takes responsibility for the remainder while
also adopting the proposed service changes, Edmonds' allocation of the cost of operating the Edmonds
stations would 83.06%. If Edmonds takes responsibility for the remainder but does not make any
changes to the service, Edmonds' allocation of the cost of operating the Edmonds stations would be
85.55%.
Packet Pg. 227
8.3.h
The Retroactive Invoice Issue: In August of 2014, having recently executed a collective bargaining
agreement with the firefighters union, IAFF local 1828, the District sent the City of Edmonds a $1.67
million invoice for retroactive labor costs under the new CBA. The invoice was retroactive to January 1,
2013. The invoice caused some controversy. And that controversy caused the City to take a close look at
its ILA with FD1. The city council ultimate agreed to pay the invoice on January 27, 2015.
Fitch & Associates Analysis: As part of its effort to thoroughly analyze the FD1 ILA, the City engaged
Fitch & Associates to review the service provided by the District and suggest area where the City might
want to make changes. Steve Knight from Fitch & Associates made a presentation to the city council on
February 23, 2016. The presentation and discussion lasted for about 50 minutes. Fitch & Associates also
prepared an executive summary and data report which were completed in April 2016. Among various
recommendations, Fitch analyzed the status quo as well as several options that the City could consider
in determining whether to make changes to the status quo. On December 13, 2016, the City Council
selected Alternative 2 as the basis to finalize negotiations with the District.
Alternative 2
0 3 firefighters at each station;
0 1 paramedic at each station (1 of the 3 firefighters)
§ Total paramedics on duty citywide = 3
Terms of the Proposed ILA: Alternative 2 has several advantages over the other alternatives including
the status quo. Alternative 2 employs more paramedics than any of the other alternatives, including the
status quo. It also distributes them geographically throughout the city by assigning one paramedic to
each station instead of having all the paramedics operate out of station 17. This should allow at least
one paramedic to respond more quickly to 911 calls by reducing travel time to the incident. Alternative
2 also saves the city a significant amount of money compared to the status quo. The 2017 cost of
Alternative 2 is $7,427,818. The status quo would cost an additional $1,361,275.
Key Deal Points of the ILA: In addition to the staffing mix discussed above, we have highlighted below,
several deal points that we find significant about the proposed ILA. The complete ILA is set forth in
Attachment A. Note that the language of the ILA is still being refined and none of these deals points
should be considered approved by either party at this point.
Woodway (see Section 14): Because the city is essentially being asked to absorb the 9.13% that
the parties had hoped would be paid by Woodway, the district is agreeing to allow the city to
subcontract the district's services to Woodway in hopes of the city being able to recoup some of
that lost revenue at some point in the future.
Negotiation Thresholds (see Section 2.2.1): It is anticipated that call volume will eventually
increase to the point where it may become necessary to add service or make other changes. For
that reason, the parties have agreed upon three metrics that the parties will monitor on an
ongoing basis, any one of which would trigger a new round of negotiations when the metric
exceeds the threshold set forth in the agreement. The metrics have been named Unit Utilization
Factor (UUF); Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF); and Transport Balance Factor (TBF).
Each of these is defined in Exhibit E of the ILA with a mathematical calculation.
Esperance Offset (see Sections 4.5, 4.6, and definitions): The parties were not able to identify
the source or methodology behind the 13.08% cost share that was allocated to FD1 for service
of Esperance. Instead of continuing to use what now seems like an arbitrary percentage, the ILA
Packet Pg. 228
8.3.h
contemplates simply that all the FD1 tax revenue from Esperance would be allocated to offset
the cost to Edmonds of operating the Edmonds stations.
City Retains Authority to Set Level of Service In Most Circumstances (see Sections 2.2.2 through
2.2.4 : Language has been added to clarify that the City retains the legislative discretion to
establish the level of service for Edmonds in most circumstances.
Turnout Time (see Section 2.4.1): The City will continue to pursue improvements in turnout
time. While the District does not commit to making improvements in turnout time, it does
commit to understanding what prevents it from making improvements.
Retroactive Invoices (see Section 4.2.2): The City will receive timely invoices even in years for
which the CBA has not yet been finalized, in which case the invoices will set forth reliable
estimates of the eventual Contract Payment. This will allow the City to set money aside and plan
for the forthcoming retroactive invoices.
Staff Recommendation
We recommend that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed ILA.
Attachments:
Revised and Restated ILA
120116 Cross Staffed
ILA redlined against 2016-12-02
COE FD1 ILA 2009
Packet Pg. 229
8.3.i
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 24, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Johnson.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 230
8.3.i
Harbor Square. Another of the students' recommendations was tree box filters including recommended
locations. Tree box filters are helpful because they are underground, do not disturb the sidewalks and
allow water to go into the soil and roots and be filtered before entering the stormwater system. Another
recommendation was a large bioswale by Highway 104 and porous pavement as well as native plant
revegetation. Earth Corp is already doing some revegetation around the marsh. She encouraged anyone
with information about incentives, grants or rebates that would be helpful in getting this done at Harbor
Square to contact SOM.
6. ACTION ITEM
1. FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Interlocal Agreement with FD1 is coming to Council for
consideration and action. He reviewed information provided in the Council packet:
Attachment A: Clean proposed version of Interlocal Agreement
Attachment B: Station Costing Model (revised today)
Attachment C: Redlined version of Interlocal Agreement showing changes made since 12/02/16
Attachment D: Existing Interlocal Agreement
He highlighted significant revisions made since the Council last reviewed the Interlocal Agreement:
• Station Costing Model (Attachment C): Revised to reflect 2017 Esperance assessed value
• Three formulas, 1) Unit Utilization factor, 2) Neighboring Unit Utilization factor and 3)
Transport Balance Factor, which are assessed periodically to determine whether to renegotiate the
Interlocal Agreement, were moved to Exhibit E.
o If formulas need to be revised in the future; easier to revise if in an exhibit
• Section 2.2.1: Added a negotiation threshold, Esperance Offset drops by 10% or more over any
consecutive three-year period.
o District's revenue significantly affected by assessed valuation; significant drop in assessed
value results in reduced revenue. In times of significant drops in AV, District may need to lay
off staff (usually administrative staff).
• Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4: most difficult pieces of entire agreement; address what happens when a
reopener occurs
o The District proposes mitigation factors and the City proposes mitigating factors/changes and
if the parties do not reach agreement, the City gets to select the remedial measure.
■ Selection is subject to mediation if the District is unhappy with the City's selection but
not arbitration. Arbitrator could not force a particular level of service
- Exceptions:
1) If parties agree on remedial measure but not on the cost, the cost of the remedial
measure can be subject to arbitration
2) If the District does not like the City's selection, in an extreme case, the District
could terminate the contract. If that happens, triggers a 2-year wind up period.
During 2-year wind-up period, the District would be able to choose the remedial
measure and the parties would share the incremental cost of the remedial
measure. Unlikely to reach that point, more likely would agree on remedial
measure.
Section 2.3: The Council requested language prohibiting 72 hour shifts in Edmonds. FD1's labor
lawyers concerned about strength of that language. Language in Section 2.3 states the City prefers
firefighters not work 72-hour shifts in Edmonds.
o District leadership does not have complete control over this issue. Will need to be negotiated
with the union and could be the subject of interest arbitration
Section 14: City has the right to subcontract fire and EMS services to Woodway
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 4
Packet Pg. 231
8.3.i
o The District requires the City consult with them and accept input prior to entering into a
subcontract with Woodway.
o No change in the contract payment unless City requests additional staff. Requesting
additional staff reopens Interlocal Agreement.
o Historically the City served Woodway with the existing three stations.
o Whether or not the City is serving Woodway, Interlocal Agreement is still subject to same
thresholds (unit utilization factor).
Section 19.5: Allows Mayor and Council President to agree on a change to the formulas. Any
other amendment to the agreement would come to City Council.
o Example: Formulas contemplate Lynnwood and FD1 are two different jurisdictions. If
Lynnwood and FD1 enter into a regional fire authority (RFA), the formulas may need to be
tweaked to reflect the two entities are now one entity.
If the Council agrees with the proposed Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Taraday requested a motion to
approve. FD 1 confirmed if the Interlocal Agreement was approved by Council tonight, they would be
able to make the change by February 1, 2017. If the Agreement is not approved tonight, the date will be
delayed.
Mayor Earling asked about the FD1 Board's meeting to consider the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Taraday
answered assuming the Council approves the Interlocal Agreement tonight, the District Board will have
opportunity to take action at their meeting on Thursday.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Taraday for the time and effort he has put into the agreement,
commenting he was not a fan of it. He referred to Section 3.1, use of City fire stations, a new
development in this agreement that has not been talked about, yet reading this agreement, that appears to
be the next priority. He read Section 3.1, "The parties acknowledge that none of these three fire stations
are ideally located and that the City could be better served by two ideally located fire stations" and asked
where that idea came from. Mr. Taraday answered it definitely came from Fitch & Associates and District
leadership shares the opinion about the poor location of the fire stations.
Councilmember Nelson referred to language in Section 3.1 that the location of the three stations,
"contributes to slower turnout times." Mr. Taraday said some the City's fire stations are old; if a new fire
station were built, it would be laid out differently in light of current regulations. The District has
developed an extensive capital facilities plan that included timing personnel exiting the stations. Some
stations have challenges that do not allow firefighters to exit as quickly as they could if they were ideally
designed.
Councilmember Nelson recalled seeing reference to that in the Fitch report. He referred to a map that
showed moving Stations 16 and 20 five to six blocks and eliminating Station 17. He expressed concern
with eliminating a fire station and saying response time to downtown Edmonds would increase when
there is no downtown fire engines or paramedic. Mr. Taraday answered it was conceivable that new fire
stations could be built/relocated and still have three. A full study has not been done about that issue; this
is at the very conceptual level. Because there was thought that maybe it could be done with two stations,
it was included in the Interlocal Agreement. The number of fire stations and the number of units or
firefighters are completely independent. If the Agreement is approved, there will be 9 firefighters working
24/7 in Edmonds. There could be nine firefighters working in two stations instead of three stations. If the
travel times were adequate, there may be operational advantages to having nine firefighters in two station.
He emphasized this was at the very conceptual level and really had not been extensively reviewed.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to definitions in the existing contract that refer to Firefighter/EMS
Personnel and the new contract states only Firefighters. She asked if all Firefighters were EMS personnel.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 5
Packet Pg. 232
8.3.i
Mr. Taraday relayed the definition of Firefighter, "full-time compensated employees, captains,
firefighters emergency medical technicians and/or paramedics."
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Sections 4.3 and 4.4 were moved to Exhibit E. Mr. Taraday
answered Sections 4.3 and 4.4 were relocated in the December draft; the definitions were moved to
Exhibit E. Section 4.4, Adjustment Date Not Met, is now in Section 4.2.2.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if any FD1 Commissioners participated in the negotiations. Mr.
Taraday answered Commissioners Meador and Board Chair McGaughey were present for most of the
negotiations. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Agreement still includes an annual presentation as
well as quarterly meetings. Mr. Taraday said the quarterly meetings are with representatives of the
Council; the Council President may want to appoint representatives to attend quarterly meetings.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to Section 2.3, Shift Arrangements, which states the City prefers
personnel not work 72 hour shift due to fatigue issues. However, the last sentence in that section states,
"The District commits that it will undertake in good faith, pursuant to Chapter 41.45 RCW, to negotiate
successfully for those arrangements, to be implemented." He expressed concern the statement indicated
the District may not be successful in achieving this. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the District does not
have complete control over this issue and would need to bargain it. If they are not able to reach
agreement, the issue can be taken to interest arbitration to have an arbitrator to rule that 72-hour shifts
should not be allowed. There are comparable jurisdictions that the District could reference to justify its
case; for example Lynnwood does not allow 72-hour shifts. In the end, it is not something the District can
do unilaterally and would need to bargain it and it was subject to interest arbitration under State law.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested removing "successfully" because although the District commits to
undertake in good faith, it may not happen. Including "successfully" presumes it will be successful in
achieving the goal of the negotiation. Mr. Taraday said he interprets the sentence as the District will try to
reach an agreement using their best efforts and good faith. Councilmember Teitzel said if the City
Attorney felt the language was acceptable and the other party knows what it meant, he was comfortable.
Mr. Taraday said he was comfortable with the existing language.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Sections 3.1, Use of City Fire Stations, recalling FD1
Commissioners told the Council a few years ago that the fire stations were not in the best location and if
they had unlimited amounts of money, they would build new fire stations in different places but it was
talked about as a 20 year goal. She asked if there were any current plans to reduce the number of fire
stations. Mr. Taraday answered the extent of the plan is in the document; it is an idea at this point.
Certainly, if money were no object, it would be great to have ideally located fire stations but there is a
cost to that. It would be up to the City Council to decide if they were interested in taking that on.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said since it is a theory, it may have been better not to include that
section. Mayor Earling said he has no interest or intent to explore the relocation of fire stations in the
City. He viewed it much like the Edmonds multimodal station near the Port which is unlikely to happen
for 2-3 decades. Although the language is included in the Agreement, no one is interested in pursuing it.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said including the language in the Agreement draws attention to it. Mr.
Taraday said the language in the Agreement looks into the future; it is the type of agreement that may be
in effect for decades and tries to anticipate as many issues as possible.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AS PRESENTED BY MR. TARADAY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 6
Packet Pg. 233
8.3.i
Councilmember Nelson commented there is a difference in what he read in the report and what he sees
happening on the ground. He recently spent a second day in the field with the professionals who provide
fire and EMS care, not the number crunchers, but the first responders who treat citizens. What he saw was
concerning; in just one day, there were five requests to send Edmonds units north to cover other stations
because the rest of FD1 was unavailable. The hope is that other stations can cover Edmonds, but they
can't. He relayed hearing on the fire radio dispatch in response to battalion chief's request for another
paramedic, "Medic 14 not available, cross -staffed." He clarified that meant the one paramedic at that
station was not available because he was out on a fire call. This is what happens when the paramedics are
split up all over the City, asking them to respond to fire as well as medical calls. That response will be
heard over and over in Edmond with these cuts because 70% of calls are basic life support (BLS), not
advanced life support (ALS). Paramedics will be busy responding to BLS calls when ALS calls come in.
Councilmember Nelson commented, in addition, twice that morning all four Edmonds fire units were out
on calls and not available to respond to any additional calls in Edmonds. What will happen when only
three Edmonds units will be available with thee cuts? He believed everyone wants the best fire service but
doing more with less should be a last resort when it comes to public safety, especially while every other
City department is growing. There is a difference between not wanting to pay more and needing to pay
more. Healthcare demands are increasing every year and much of it has shifted squarely on first
responders. He has heard, "we're backed into a corner, we have no choice," commenting we always have
a choice. If the Council really wanted to, they could find the funding.
Councilmember Nelson questioned what other contract services the City has, a fair question if the primary
motivation is financial. For example, why does the City spend $42,000/month to contract for legal
services when the City could hire an in-house City Attorney. Nine in ten residents surveyed last year felt
safe in Edmonds and want safety to be a top priority in the coming years. He believed this agreement
would jeopardize their safety; two fewer firefighters and EMTs on duty means less people to respond to
emergencies He asked that the Council wait and find a different way to fund fire costs, put a fire/EMS
levy forward if necessary and not make these cuts to these vital services, prioritize saving lives over
saving money.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling recognized the hours Mr. Taraday and Finance Director Scott James spent on the
Agreement, commented it had been a pleasure to work with them. He was provided several briefings and
had an opportunity for input but the work they did and the cooperation from the FD1 lawyer, while heated
sometimes, resulted in a very positive outcome. Mr. Taraday commented they learned a lot.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
7. STUDY ITEMS
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)
Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is the continuation of the SMP update. The City Council sent
proposed alternatives to Ecology in October 2016 and January 10, 2017, Ecology responded to Edmonds.
Ecology representatives, David Pater and Joe Burcar, are here to present their response.
Joe Burcar, SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, reviewed:
• Chronology
o June 27, 2016 Ecology issued conditional approval with several required changes and one
recommended change.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 7
Packet Pg. 234
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 13, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
N. Bickar, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Johnson requested Items 4.4, Board & Commission Reappointments, and Item 5.2,
Dale Hoggins Proclamation, be postponed to a future meeting. Councilmember Teitzel requested Item
7.3, Revision to the January 3, 2017 Extended Agenda, be added to the agenda. City Clerk Scott Passey
advised the Extended Agenda is a planning tool and requests can be submitted to him.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, POSTPONING ITEMS 4.4, BOARD &
COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS, AND ITEM 5.2, DALE HOGGINS PROCLAMATION, TO
A FUTURE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2016
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 235
8.3.j
services are cut and EMTs and paramedics are shifted around so they are not available downtown, he
questioned what happened the next time someone walked in needing help. He recognized the electeds
have a tough job building and balancing a budget, but figured the last thing they would do would be to cut
public safety. He was ashamed and embarrassed and said there are other ways to cut the fat. He
questioned the Council raising taxes and then cutting fire service, questioning what was next — raising
water rates and telling him he can only use five gallons a day. Edmonds is growing and more services are
needed; the Council should look to the future and add firefighters, EMTs and equipment, not make cuts to
balance the budget. He was not in favor of raising taxes and preferred the Council figure out to make the
money work. As a business owner outside Edmonds, he suggested some fat could be cut from the City's
second floor.
7. ACTION ITEMS
AWARD OF EDMONDS VETERAN'S PLAZA PROJECT
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite requested the Council award the bid to K-A Construction for
construction of the Veteran's Plaza. The Council packet contain a memo outlining previous action,
current bids that ranged from $290,000 - $472,000 and engineer's estimate of $285,000. She recalled the
Council bids previously rejected bid a few months ago at staffs requests when bids were $450,000 -
$700,000. The citizen committee has been working hard to raise money to construct the Veteran's Plaza;
to date they have raised $505,000. A donation in the amount of $4500 was received in the last two days as
well as commitments for $16,000, reducing the deficit of $67,000 to $47,000. Committee Co -Chair Maria
Montolvo has indicated a donor has committed $50,000 if it is needed. The Committee assures they are
committed to raising the rest of the funds and would like to have the bid awarded so that construction can
begin in January with the project completed in time for Memorial May.
Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, Co -Chair, Veterans Plaza Committee, representing the Edmonds Veterans
of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Vietnam Veteran of America, as well as all veterans past, present
and future, relayed their excitement about building this park plaza to honor and remember all veterans
past present and future.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR THE EDMOND VETERAN'S PLAZA TO K-A
CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZE A 10% MANAGEMENT RESERVE FOR UNFORESEEN
CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
Councilmember Tibbott said after reviewing the drawings, he was impressed with receiving a bid that
meets the objectives. He was supportive of the bid award and looked forward to completing the project
next year.
Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo, recalling the herculean effort to raise $8500 for the K-9 statue. She
thanked the veterans and other donors, commenting the plaza will be fabulous and she looks forward to its
completion. Mr. Clyborne recalled a Marine Corp saying, "when the going gets tough, the tough get
going." The community got it done, and have a plan for any discrepancy that arises. He pointed out
fundraising began approximately seven months ago and raised $475,000. Fundraising stopped because it
was believed there was enough but was restarted when more money was needed, raising another $45,000.
He assured any discrepancy could be handled.
Councilmember Nelson commented although he was sure the discrepancy could be handled, but if it
couldn't, he was certain the City would find a way to help out. He thanked Mr. Clyborne and all the
veterans for their service. He was sorry the Veteran's Plaza could be done sooner and looked forward to
its completion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 10
Packet Pg. 236
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Taraday explained this is a follow-up to last week's presentation. He reminded the Council what the
project with Fitch Associates was tasked with considering:
• If you were designing the Edmond Fire Department from scratch today, based on the data that
you have today, what would you design?
• How many firefighters would you plan to employ?
• Of those, how many would be paramedics?
Factors to consider include:
Geography of the City and FD1
o Map identifying the stations that Edmonds pays to operate 16, 17 and 20 and the other FD1
and Lynnwood stations.
Type of demand for service
o Primary demand is EMS
■ EMS 55.2%
■ EMS-ALS:30.3%
■ Fire related 9.8%
■ Service 4.6%
■ Special Ops 0.2%
Frequency of demand for service
o Unit hour utilization by unit analysis indicates using 1/3 of the capacity provided by 11
firefighters in 3 stations today = 0.10 utilization rate
0 0.30 = IAFF standard utilization rate
o Consultant concluded actual usage is 0.10%, indicating there is a lot of capacity available in
the system
Equity among the various neighborhoods
o Currently only 2 paramedics for entire City, operating in the same unit at Station 17
o Currently the next closest paramedics are at Lynnwood Station 14 and Mountlake Terrace
Station 19
o Takes only one paramedic call to completely wipe out paramedic services in the City
■ If two heart attacks happen at the same time, the second one waits for either Lynnwood
or Mountlake Terrace to respond
o Under Mayor Earling's recommended proposal, Alternative 2, paramedic proximity improved
with one paramedic located at Stations 16, 17 and 20 as part of a cross -staffed unit
■ Allows for the possibility of three dispatches requiring a paramedic capability
■ Paramedics often double dispatched, but it is not always necessary
- Dispatcher can decide whether double dispatch necessary
Means to evaluate the service over time
o Utilization of 0.25% at any one of three station is the threshold to trigger negotiations with
FD1 to bring utilization rate to a more reliable rate.
Cost (last but not least)
o $1.36 million difference in cost between current staffing and the recommended proposal
Mr. Taraday explained the issue of cost is frustrating for the City and probably for FD1 because neither
party is fully in control of what they pay firefighters because are subject to interest arbitration which
means FD 1 cannot say how much they will pay firefighters. FD 1 does not have the same ability to control
costs that a typical employer has; under State law, labor unions such as IAFF have a lot of power to set
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 237
8.3.j
compensation levels according to what other agencies are paying. As a result, it costs a lot to maintain a
Fire Department.
Mr. Taraday highlighted the proposed action:
• Motion to direct City attorney to bring back for final action an ILA that contemplates use of Fitch
Alternative 2.
o ILA not ready for approval yet; FD1 and the City still have work to do.
o Helpful for both negotiating teams to get direction/confirmation that the Council supports the
proposed alternative staffing model
■ If the Council does not support the proposed alternate, that will change the negotiations.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK FOR FINAL ACTION AN ILA THAT
CONTEMPLATES THE USE OF FITCH ALTERNATIVE 2.
Councilmember Mesaros commented tonight the Council heard testimony from citizens about the
importance of emergency medical services. He supports the proposal because it increases EMS services,
increasing from two paramedics to three. Several audience members commented on how quickly
emergency services arrived and he pointed out if that were a paramedic call, a second call may have to
wait for a unit from Lynnwood or Mountlake Terrace; this solve that problem.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in 2009 Lora Petso, Adrianne Fraley-Monillas and she were citizen
advocates opposed to selling the City's Fire Department to FDL They were later selected to assist with
selecting the consultant who would help the Council understand. FD1 Commissioners have said they will
sever the contract with Edmonds if Edmonds does not pay Woodway's share of the cost. A very diligent
and pragmatic process has taken approximately 14 months to complete. The Fitch report is a fresh set of
eyes. FD 1's report, done in February 2016, says about the same thing as Fitch's report. If citizens are
interested in a public safety levy, she will lead that charge, commenting that is what should have been
done in 2009.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said one of objections when the previous Council and Mayor sold the
Fire Department was that the cost would eventually be higher. Although it was easy to say the savings
was only $1.36 million, she questioned where cuts could be made to provide those funds — police, roads?
She pointed out certain revenue sources must be used for certain expenditures. Fire and Police are paid
from the General Fund, a huge cost to the City. The first -year savings are $1.36 million. FD1 firefighters
haven't negotiated their contract this year and she expected costs to increase next year. The City needs to
have some control while still providing a good or same level of service that has been provided in the past.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who Mr. Taraday has been negotiating with and whether it was
with the labor union or the FD1 Commission. Mr. Taraday answered the negotiating team was two FD1
Commissioners, FD1 Chief, Assistant Chief and FD1's attorney. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
who negotiated with the union. Mr. Taraday answered FD1 leadership. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
asked if the FD1 Commissioner had discussed Alternative 2 with Local 1828. Mr. Taraday answered he
did not think there had been a formal conversation, certainly union membership was aware of the
proposal. FD1 does not need union permission to make this change.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there was potential that staffing issues, layoffs, etc. could be
addressed during FD1 and Local 1828' negotiations. Mr. Taraday answered when FD1 and the union
bargain a contract, many issues are considered, not the least of which is compensation. He reiterated
compensation was driven by comparable fire agencies. FD1 may have aspirations to pay a certain amount,
but in the end under State law they pretty much have to pay what the comps show. Although the City is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 238
8.3.j
limited in increasing the levy 1%/year, the interest arbitrators are not limited and can and do award more
than a 1% increase in compensation. The system is set up in a manner that costs will exceed revenue.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday said under the City's current arrangement with FD1,
the City pays for certain minimum staffing levels. FD 1 can assign additional staff to the Edmonds stations
but that does not commit Edmonds to pay for the additional staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
if FD I would need to return to the City if they decided to add staff to the Edmonds fire stations. Mr.
Taraday said he watched the FDI Board meeting on Wednesday; it is extremely unlikely that the Board
would assign staff to Edmonds stations without Edmonds committing to pay for it. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas said she was disturbed by the lack of communication between the Commission and their
labor union, envisioning this may not have been as dramatic if there had been better communication.
Councilmember Tibbott requested staff describe the increase in the EMS levy, where those funds come
from, how they are used, and why that is not enough to cover the current level of service. Finance
Director Scott James responded the 2017 EMS levy is $3,9790,000; the cost for EMS services far
surpasses that levy amount. The EMS levy cannot be raised without a vote. Councilmember Tibbott
observed approximately $4 million is the most that can be raised via the EMS levy and the additional
amount comes from other sources. Mr. James said the cost of Alternative 1 is $7,400,000 which includes
fire service, Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, apparatus replacement, etc. As Mr. Taraday indicated,
approximately 85% of the services provided are EMS. Applying that 85% to the total cost, approximately
$6 million is for medical -related responses.
Councilmember Tibbott summarized taxes have been raise the maximum allowed by law. Mr. James
agreed, they had been raised to the maximum amount without a vote. He explained EMS is limited to
$050/$1000 assessed value by State law; the 2017 levy will be approximately $0.48/$1000 which is still
not enough to cover EMS services.
Councilmember Tibbott referenced the tax increase voters in Snohomish County approved for fire
protection. Mr. James explained FDI citizens approved an increase; Edmonds is not in FD1 so that
increase does not affect City residents. Residents of Esperance are affected by the increase as are other
properties in FD 1 outside of Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott observed the new ILA with FD 1 would
allow the City to receive funds from Esperance to offset costs. Mr. James said the $7.4 million includes
all costs for the three stations, less the EMS taxes generated by the Esperance area, $1,117,000. The
remainder, $4,727,000 is paid by the City of Edmonds.
Mr. Taraday pointed out under the original agreement with FD1, 13.08% of the three -station cost was
allocated to Esperance; if that were applied to the new levy amount, the $1,117,000 the City receives to
offset the cost via the Esperance property tax revenue would not be enough to pay for 13.08% of the
status quo system delivery model, essentially meaning Edmonds would be subsidizing Esperance
fire/EMS services. Under Alternative 2, the property tax revenue received from Esperance more or less
equals the 13.08% share.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about the revenue source for the former Medic 7 stationed at Stevens
Hospital. Mr. James answered it was his understanding it was the EMS levy and compensation from the
partner cities. He offered to email Councilmembers that information.
Councilmember Teitzel pointed out there have been comments that service in Edmonds will be cut but it
was his understanding there will be no cuts; the 2 FTEs from 11 to 9 would be reallocated elsewhere in
FDL Mr. Taraday agreed, pointing out FDI operates 12 fire stations, 3 of which are in Edmonds. It was
his understanding there is enough need in the employment applicant pool that the proposed changes could
be absorbed elsewhere in FD 1 and there would not be any layoffs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 13
Packet Pg. 239
Councilmember Teitzel asked about FD1's plans to reallocate those two position and whether they would
possibly allocate one to the Mountlake Terrace fire station thereby improving response time on an ALS
call in the Lake Ballinger area. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding Station 19 currently has 3
firefighters on duty at a time. He asked if Councilmember Teitzel's question was whether FD 1 might
increase that to 4. Councilmember Teitzel answered possibly. Mr. Taraday answered the discussions with
FD 1 leadership have not gotten into that level of detail. FD 1 is the expert on how to deploy crews.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if the two reallocated firefighters could potentially be used to improve
mutual aid response from a station outside Edmonds to an Edmonds call. Mr. Taraday said he could not
speculate regarding how FD1 would reassign those firefighters. Edmonds will not lose any paramedics,
the two existing paramedics will be in different units and a third paramedic will be added.
Councilmember Teitzel observed when the original FD 1 model was developed, Woodway was part of it.
In January 2014 Woodway joined Shoreline Fire and their call demand was shifted to Shoreline. He asked
if the departure of Woodway created excess capacity especially in Stations 17 and. Mr. Taraday did not
know how much call volume was associated with Woodway but whatever that volume was, its absence
represents a reduction in demand.
Councilmember Nelson pointed out there are currently three paramedics on duty in the City of Edmonds
at times, one at Station 20 and the two at Station 17. Mr. Taraday agreed that occasionally happens.
Councilmember Nelson commented because he likes to do his homework, he met with FD1 Chief
Reading, Lynnwood Fire Chief Cockrum, rode on the fire rescue boat and fire engine 16 and responded to
multiple medical calls. He toured the City's oldest and most populated buildings, learning their unique
risks to fire danger. He researched the National Fire Protection Associations standards and even the
consultants' reports for other cities. The Council may think the consultant give them everything they need
to know to make cuts but he questioned what they really knew about the information presented like the
recommendation to remove the downtown fire engine and have less firefighters at night, the graph that
indicates most emergency calls do not happen at night. For example there are very few fire calls at night.
He looked this up and compared it to the national average and it matches. However, something the
consultant's graphs do not show that the national graph do is that although 20% of all fires happen at
night, they account for 52% of all home fire fatalities. He questioned whether the Council really wanted
to downgrade the fire service from a report that downplays fire dangers and suggested telling that to the
families of the four people who died in fires in Everett last winter, the mother who lost her three children
to a fire in Centralia this March, the 15 business owners in downtown Bothell who lost everything this
summer.
Councilmember Nelson continued, the City's firefighter are heroes, but they are not superheroes; they are
mere mortals called upon to do extraordinary tasks. They cannot do their job to protect us with one hand
tied behind their back. One person can do CPR chest compressions 120 times/minute for only so long
before they physically tire out and have to stop; stopping means death. Another person has to replace
them; it is a physically demanding job to save lives. Our firefighters cannot keep us safe if they do not
have a sufficient amount of people and equipment. So are we really enhancing our fire services. The
International Association of Fire Chief s website has webinars on best practices and new developments
from experts. He listed titles of webinars, Track Fire Department Training with a Purpose, Statistical
Methods in Fire Service, Community Risk Reduction, Critical Success Factors for Fire and Rescue
Leaders, Must -Have Policies for Every Fire Department, Fire Prevention Risks in Local Communities and
Critical Questions Every Fire Chief Should Ask Their City/County Managers, a webinar by the
consultants, Stephen Knight and Bruce Moeller, where they state the most important questions for a fire
chief involve understanding the economic and political realities facing your agency, understanding the
economic motivators for requests for efficiencies, developing a framework for navigating the economic
realities of change in your agency. He pointed out that was who the Council was basing the type of fire
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 14
Packet Pg. 240
8.3.j
service the community needs; their job is to give cities cover to make cuts. That is why it matters how the
problem is framed.
Councilmember Nelson said if the Council thinks we should operate as a business, which some
Councilmembers do, then looking for efficiencies is perfectly logical. The Finance Director says this
makes good business sense. The fire consultant looks for return on investment and the City Attorney cite
financial savings. But if the Council is looking for efficiencies as part of a business model, every city
department would fail looking through that lens. As a professor of economics in Forbes Magazine
recently wrote, does it makes sense to run government like a business? The short answer is no. Efficiency
in the private sector means profit. The problem is that not everything profitable is of social value and not
everything of social value is profitable. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corp, Police Department,
Fire Department, libraries, parks, public schools are social value yet they could not exist if they were
required to be profitable. Imagine maintaining the military by selling subscriptions door-to-door. Profit is
the realm of business while unprofitable but socially useful tasks are the responsibility of government.
Somewhere along the way the Council has forgotten what its role is. The Council's function is not
maintain a profit for shareholder; its role is to protect citizens from all injuries however small, large,
likely or unlikely. It has always been expensive to save lives and it always will be.
Councilmember Nelson continued, there is a reason the City Council is tasked with this choice, not the
FD 1 board, not the fire chief, not the consultants. The Council must decide the level of safety for the
community, how much a life is worth to protect. He asked whether this proposal was really the best way
forward for fire service. He believed it was not and believed cutting the number of firefighters and having
only three emergency vehicles available instead of four was very risky. He believed increasing demands
on the paramedics and sharing with neighboring cities will not benefit Edmonds. He believed not holding
FD 1 administration accountable to respond to emergencies with the minimum amount of people within a
specific time like every other city in the country is inexcusable. He believed Edmonds could do better,
find a better way to pay for the best fire service the City can afford. He believed the Council should
prioritize saving lives over saving money and hoped the Council would join him in opposing these cuts.
Council President Johnson recalled testimony about families concerned about protecting their loved ones
and concerns about safety and agreed safety was the number one priority. As her parents aged, she called
the Fire Department on several occasions, many times because she needed assistance picking her parent
up from the floor and fortunately four trips to the hospital that were considered basic life support. One
dreadful call required advanced life support and every second meant the difference between life and
death. She appreciated the work firefighters do and she was a happy customer. Having said that, she
believed having three paramedics cross -trained with firefighters was better than one two -paramedic team.
For that reason she will support the proposal with the idea it will be monitored and possibly there could
be a levy in the future or a different combination of personnel.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wished Councilmember Nelson was here in 2009 when the City sold
the Fire Department. She emphasized there was a reopener in the ILA. Although Fitch found there was an
underutilization, FD1 is doing a good job. If the City maintains the status quo, FD1 Commissioners have
said they will sever the contract. The City and FD 1 both had reports prepared and both say about the same
thing. If the community is interested in a levy, she will help. She noted one of the issues was firefighters
want a 72-hour work day and some Councilmember do not support that.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Councilmember Nelson left the meeting at 8:59 p.m.
8. STUDY ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 241
8.3.k
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
Special Meeting
December 6, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
This item was delayed to a future meeting.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: MOVE
ITEM 10.2, 2017 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, TO NEW ITEM 6.3, AND ITEM 9.1, ADOPTION OF
THE 2017 BUDGET & USE OF REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FUNDS, TO FOLLOW ITEM 6.3.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 242
8.3.k
on the single track. Double tracks would allow trains to go both directions at the same time, resulting in
the activation of a horn for trains traveling north and southbound at the same time. How often that would
occur would require further study but he did not anticipate the number of horns would increase. The
location of the horns will work with double tracking.
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether input had been sought from other communities on Puget Sound
that have installed trackside warning systems. Mr. Williams answered several have been installed near
Lakewood; they are very happy with their operation. Councilmember Teitzel how asked how to ensure
train engineers did not blow their horn manually where entering a zone with a trackside warning system.
Mr. Williams said under FRA rules, engineers have the right to blow their horn if they see fit to do so.
Likely the only time that would happen is if they passed the whistle board and the signal system was not
working or there was something on the track. They are not obliged to do so and are encouraged not to
unless they feel it is necessary. Councilmember Teitzel concluded there would not be the same number of
manual horn blasts plus the trackside warning signals. Mr. Williams said a manual horn would be a rarity,
not a normal activity.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Council President Johnson why she wanted to postpone action for
a week. Council President Johnson said in general, a public hearing is an opportunity to get public input.
Councilmembers also collect information via other methods and delaying a week after the public hearing
provides the Council extra time before making a decision. Although no one spoke at tonight's public
hearing, she and many others are concerned about the return of salmon to the marsh. She did not want to
offend any dog owners or dogs and realized the dog park was a community asset beyond Edmonds, but it
was important to have a thoughtful opportunity to consider whether the amendment is needed.
Consideration may need to be given to monitoring the water for pH. She sees a potential conflict between
dogs and salmon and wanted an extra week for the public to weigh in.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented the Interlocal Agreement with Fire District 1 (FD1) has been in
the works for some time. He introduced Finance Director Scott James and Dr. Stephen Knight, Fitch &
Associates, who was hired to advise the City. The Interlocal Agreement in the packet is the Mayor's
proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with FD L The Council makes the decision whether to
proceed and there are other options if the Council is not satisfied with the Mayor's proposal.
As background, Mr. Taraday explained the City entered into an agreement with FD1 for fire and EMS
services in 2009 and service officially began January 1, 2010. For the first five years of that agreement,
neither party could terminate. Now the agreement is terminable by either party upon two year's notice. In
August 2014 the City received an invoice for $1.67 million attributable to a recently completed collective
bargaining agreement between FD 1 and the union. The agreement was retroactive to 2013 which resulted
in a large invoice. The invoice was somewhat of a surprise to the City; the City agreed to pay the invoice
but decided to take a closer look at fire service in general. As the City needed expertise to assist with that,
staff began researching fire and EMS consultants in April 2015; the City Attorney and Finance Director
invited five firms and a local fire chief to interview and narrowed consultants to three for interviews by
the Mayor and Councilmembers Buckshnis, Fraley-Monillas and Petso in May 2015 and ultimately Fitch
& Associates was selected to guide the City through this process.
Mr. Taraday explained the City and Fitch & Associates agreed on a scope of work and signed a contract
on June 17, 2015. Dr. Knight made a presentation to Council in February 2016 of several different
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 243
8.3.k
options for configuring fire and EMS service including the status quo. Fitch & Associates finalized its
report in April 2016 and that information was used to begin discussions with FD1 this summer. He was
hopeful the Council would approve of the proposed Interlocal Agreement and take final action next week.
Mr. Taraday displayed a map of FD1, identifying the three fire stations previously operated by City of
Edmonds until the City began contracting with FD1 in 2010, Stations 16, 17 and 20. Because the City
contracts with FD1, the City is essentially being served by an entity with a much larger area so
occasionally Station 19 and Lynwood Station 14 also serve the City. The primary sources of service are
Stations 16, 17 and 20. He described the status quo:
• Station 16: cross staffed engine and aid unit (EMT), total 3 staff members
• Station 17: cross staffed engine and aid unit (EMT) plus a dedicated paramedic unit with 2
paramedics, total 5 staff
• Station 20: cross staffed engine and aid unit (EMT), total 3 staff members
• Total staff on duty citywide 24/7: 11 including 2 paramedics
Mr. Taraday said one of the questions that prompted the City to consider if service improvements could
be made was "What if two ALS calls occur at same time?" He referred to the map of stations, identifying
the paramedic unit at Station 17, no paramedics at Station 16 or 20, explaining with two paramedics on
the same unit, one call wipes out the City's paramedic capabilities which was not viewed as a good
system design. Most of FD1 has a paramedic at each station.
Another question the City considered was how busy are Edmonds fire stations under the status quo? Mr.
Taraday displayed a Unit Hour Utilization by Unit chart, included in Fitch & Associates report to the
City, that measured the unit hour utilization for service at the three Edmonds stations. The utilization
threshold established by the International Association of Firefighters is 0.30; Edmonds stations are at 0.10
or lower utilization, which basically says the current fire stations are not that busy. He assured this was
not criticism of FD1 or firefighters, they do a great job which was confirmed by Fitch & Associates. This
analysis appears to indicate there is some excess capacity. The Interlocal Agreement established 0.25 unit
utilization as a negotiation threshold for when the contract could be revised. Over time it is assumed call
volumes will continue to increase to a point where service needs to be added to ensure firefighters are not
too busy.
Mr. Taraday explained Alternative 1, converting the 24-hour Medic 17 to a peak hour unit, is not being
pursued as this issue is being litigated between FD1 and the union. The union is opposed to part-time
paramedic units and want all paramedic units to work 24-hour shifts.
Alternative 3, which removed the engine from Station 17, reducing the number of engines in Edmonds
from 3 to 2, is also not being pursued. The City has a three -engine capability today and will have three
engine capability under the Mayor's proposed agreement.
Mr. Taraday reviewed Alternative 2, the recommended proposal:
• Station 16: Engine/medic — 3 staff
• Station 17: Engine/medic — 3 staff
• Station 20: Engine/medic — 3 staff
• Total staff on duty citywide 24/7: 9 including 3 paramedics
He displayed a pie chart illustrating the number of incidents, pointing out 30.3% of all calls to FD1 are
EMS/ALS. It was felt the City would be better served by adding paramedic to all stations. In addition to
the advantage of adding a paramedic to each station, there is a financial advantage of going from 11 total
staff to 9, a savings of $1.36 million in 2017. If the City wanted to retain the status quo, another $1.36
million would need to be identified in the budget. He clarified the additional $1.36 million to retain the
status quo includes an assumption that FD1 would no longer be willing to continue with the current
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 244
8.3.k
arrangement where the City only pays 77.79% of the cost of staffing Edmonds stations. Under the
original Interlocal Agreement with FD1, the cost of operating the three stations was planned to be split
per the following formula:
• Edmonds: 77.79%
Woodway: 9.13
Esperance (FD1): 13.08%
Mr. Taraday reviewed several issues addressed in the agreement:
Woodway
Woodway no longer contracts with FD1 so the revenue that was contemplated in the original agreement is
not being paid by Woodway. It could be argued that is FD1's problem, not Edmonds'. That is true in the
short term but the contract is terminable by FD1 upon two years' notice. FD1 leadership team has made it
clear to the City's negotiating team that the current 77.79% is not sustainable or acceptable going
forward. Technically FD1 probably could be forced to honor that arrangement for two years; however, it
would be invite a different relationship with FD1 and likely result in a notice of termination shortly
thereafter, requiring the parties to return to the bargaining table and a similar proposal. No one wants
there to be a question about who is providing fire service long term; the prospect of a terminal notice
should not be entertained with any seriousness. The FD1 negotiating team has agreed that if Edmonds can
bring Woodway back, the City has the right to subcontract with Woodway. He clarified the FD1 Board
has not yet approved the proposed agreement.
Negotiation Thresholds
The agreement also includes negotiation thresholds that identify when to renegotiate, 1) unit utilization
factor (0.20), 2) neighboring unit utilization factor (how often is Edmonds getting service from Station 14
or 19 or other stations) and 3) transport balance factor (outside Edmonds FD1 unit responds to Edmonds
and transports but does not receiving transport fee).
Out of Balance Transport Fees
The proposed agreement includes a provision if transport fees are out of balance, a portion is withheld
until balanced.
Esperance Offset
Under the original agreement FD1 paid 13.08% to service that area. FD1 is willing to transfer all the
fire/EMS tax revenue collected in this unincorporated area to Edmonds via an offset in the City's payment
to FD 1.
City Retains Authority to Set Level of Service
Language has been added to clarify that the City always retains the legislative discretion to establish the
level of service for Edmonds.
Turnout Time
Fitch & Associates recommended reducing the turnout time in Edmonds stations closer to the national
standard. FD1's standard is 2:15 which is not being met; FD1's turnout time is 2:51. District leadership is
interested in improvement but there are potential financial impacts to improving turnout time. Once a
dollar amount is determined, that information can be presented to the Council and FD1 and the City can
discuss who bears that cost and/or if the turnout standard should be changed.
Retroactive Invoices
The City will receive an invoice on September 1 that establishes a reliable estimate of the eventual
contract payment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 13
Packet Pg. 245
8.3.k
Outstanding Issues
The agreement includes language in Section 2.3 that FD1 may not be able to agree to. The current
firefighters' shift is 24 hours and the schedule is one day on, one day off, one day on and five days off.
Firefighters may trade days which results in straight 72 hour shifts. This was an issue for the City's
negotiating team due to public safety concerns with working a 72-hour shift. Language in the contract
states staff in Edmonds can only work a maximum 48-hour shift and if necessary, work a third day in
another jurisdiction. This may need to be bargained and because the union does not want to give up the
ability to have a 72-hour shift, FD 1 may not be able to agree to this provision in the agreement.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Earling relayed that
Council President Johnson, Mr. Taraday and he agreed to allow 30 minutes for testimony; due to the
number of audience members present, he asked how many audience members planned to testify. In
addition to 3 on the sign -in sheet, 8-9 indicated they wished to speak. Mayor Earling advised each would
be allowed 3 minutes to testify.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, thanked the Council for reviewing emergency services to ensure the
community is covered with superior service. As the mom of an EpiPen child, emergency services and
response time are vital. Before taking camping trips, they locate emergency services and the hospital and
have altered plans based on their availability. One of the deciding factors in purchasing a home in
Edmonds was the proximity to emergency services and the hospital. The decision made in 2009 to
contract with FD 1 was beneficial to the City; during 2009 negotiations, the Council made it clear they
would not accept lowering the level of service, even as the City cut other costs due to the recession. After
reading the proposal, she wondered what had changed. Rather than analyzing if a prudent decision was
made in 2009, the review is geared toward cutting costs. Option 2 is a 20% reduction in FTE, going from
11 to 9, although it is packaged as enhancing service through cost cutting. She supported enhancement
which may include reallocation of ALS personnel but enhancement via cost cutting reduction in personnel
is rhetoric that has been tried before, often resulting in less than positive results. In this case, less than
positive results could mean delayed response time and possibly death. Edmonds is growing, increasing
the demand on emergency services and adding traffic which increases response time. The City is in a
good financial position but that will not always be the case and she respected future planning. Cuts should
begin at the bottom with less serious services, not at the top with vital life-saving services. The City
currently has superior service including a 64% heart attack survival rate, one of the top in the nation. She
understood that Option 2 adds additional life-saving personnel but it cuts three fire/BLS trained personnel
which will have an effect on service. She concluded this was not an enhancement, it was a reduction, a
reduction she was not comfortable with and one she urged the Council to reconsider.
Sally Merk, Edmonds, a downtown resident for 29 years, expressed support for maintaining and
possibly increasing fire station personnel. As Mr. Hoover noted in his comments to My Edmonds News,
this pre-2001 standard is very inadequate. In 1997, she called 911 after her husband appeared to be having
a heart attack, administering CPR while her 4-year old watched. The medic unit arrived 7 minutes later to
her home 2'/z blocks from Station 17 because they were at another call. Going back to those standards
could increase the risk of lives lost and another 4-year could lose a parent.
Brian Borofka, Edmonds, said his brother-in-law is a firefighter and he appreciates the training, skills
and risk firefighters take. Having said that, he referred to a letter to Council expressing his and his wife's
support for Alternative 2. After reading the materials prepared by Mr. Taraday and Mr. James and
reviewing the Fitch report, they believe Alternative 2 provides a precautionary approach that provides an
adequate level of service as well as a monetary reduction. An in -home survivor of cardiac arrest, he
assured he did not make that recommendation lightly. Looking at the risks and the needs the City faces,
he and his wife recommend moving forward with Alternative 2.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 14
Packet Pg. 246
8.3.k
David Williness, Edmonds, City of Kirkland firefighter, relayed Option 2 is a bad choice for the City.
The City currently has four emergency response units in service; the recommendation is to reduce that to
three, a significant reduction in available emergency resources. He was satisfied with either a dedicated
medic unit or spreading medics between units, however reducing the four unit system to three units was a
bad idea. This staffing change affects his family's ability to receive emergency medical and fire
suppression services as well as affects firefighters in the City. Not having enough firefighters at a fire
makes it more dangerous for the responding firefighters. He expressed support for maintaining current or
increasing staffing levels. As an Edmonds taxpayer, he would put his dollars behind that support.
A. J. Johnson, representing the firefighters, said when a study is commissioned and the original question
is how to cut costs in public safety instead of what is the best public safety service we can afford, the
result is a flawed study. Over the last week, he has corresponded with most Councilmembers and he
appreciated their responses. However when Councilmembers reply that the proposed plan is an increase
in service, he said they were 100% wrong. Edmonds' population as well as call volumes have increased
over the past six years. He questioned the choice to cut public safety services, pointing out that as cities
around Edmonds are planning for future population growth and trying to meet the needs of their citizens
by adding staff to their Fire Departments, Edmonds is doing the exact opposite. Edmonds' location on
Puget Sound is unique because another jurisdiction cannot respond from the west, making it very
important to appropriately staff the downtown station. FD1 is proud of having one of the highest cardiac
arrest survival rates. Fire personnel are not against single medic staffing but they are opposed to reducing
staffing from 11 to 9. He urged the Council to reconsider.
Drew Gardner, Edmonds, a firefighter/EMT on Whidbey Island, was shocked and saddened to learn
about the proposed fire and medical service cuts the Mayor proposed. His department on Whidbey Island
serves a population less than half Edmonds' population; they have two fully staffed medic units as well as
engines and aid units that operate within the district 24/7/365. Over the last four years, the department has
had a 25% increase in calls due to increasing residential population, similar to Edmonds and the rest of
Western Washington. Their department is considering ways to add more positions to meet the increase in
call volume and meet the community's needs. He urged the Council to think about Edmonds citizens'
needs first; reducing first responder staffing is not an appropriate solution in balancing the City's budget.
The City needs fire and medical services staffing maintained at current levels or increased at Stations 16,
17 and 20 to best serve the citizens of Edmonds. As a taxpayer, he urged the Council to consider his
comments.
Jolanda Matheson, Edmonds, referred to her email to Council stating her concern and appreciated the
responses from Councilmembers Buckshnis and Mesaros. Although the proposal increases paramedics
from two to three, she was concerned about the reduction in EMTs from six to three. She viewed this as a
decrease in service and she did not understand why it would be done when the City's revenues are better
than they were six years ago.
Jim Matheson, Edmonds, said he served on the National Academy of Science Study of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster. Fukushima Daiichi played the statistics; statistically a tsunami would not happen
so they did not prepare. A reactor to the north that prepared for disaster was undamaged and people
sheltered there when the town was destroyed by a tsunami. He expressed concern with the methodology,
relaying that at Fukushima Daiichi three reactors melted down; fire engines could not drive across the
yard due to debris. Instead of a statistical response, he preferred to see disaster testing. He referred to a
lecture at the library regarding the Cascadia Fault and suggested researching what would be needed in the
event of an earthquake or train disaster. He feared being blindsided by a disaster when the study only
considered business as usual. He referred to the Oakland fire and the amount of resources that would
require. He suggested the recommendation be pressure tested against possible disaster scenarios to see
which configuration performed best.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 247
8.3.k
Blaire Lynn Scrouse, Edmonds, explained they moved to Edmonds 8'/z years ago from West Virginia
because their son required extensive medical coverage; services unavailable on the east coast were
available at Children's. Her son has 13 different diagnoses including autism and loves the Fire
Department. When they came to this area, they did not expect to stay long; the last five years have been in
Edmonds. When looking for a house, they drew a 20-minute circumference around Children's Hospital.
They spent the next two years in an ambulance, at Children's emergency room, living at Children's or
living in fear when they went out. Moving from Mountlake Terrace which has a great fire department,
they were told how wonderful the Edmonds Fire Department was. She suggested the Council imagine a
child having a seizure lasting over 10 minutes and no longer breathing and the ambulance, paramedics
and firefighters cannot get their quick enough. She emphasized the importance of the Fire Department and
the disservice the Council is doing to the community. She tells people to come to Edmonds because she
believes it's a great place to live but the Council needs to prove they believe it's a great place to live by
not making this proposed change.
Susanna Martini, Edmonds, said she relies on the Fire and Police Departments to help her whenever
something goes wrong. She and her 9-year old daughter were proud to live in Edmonds and although she
does the best she can in her wheelchair, she could not image a life without the support of the Fire
Department. She lives on 3rd Avenue and drove her wheelchair to tonight's meeting. She urged the
Council to look into their hearts and think about raising taxes; she assured she and other taxpayers would
be willing to pay more to support the Fire Department. Firefighters mitigate the public's trauma and she
could not image how strong they have to be to deal with other human being's life and death and major
traumas. As an Edmonds resident, she urged the Council to think about what is happening and keep these
wonderful firefighters in Edmonds.
Strom Peterson, Edmonds, said when he was on the Council in 2009, citizens' number one priority was
not to reduce service in Edmonds. The Council heard that and worked with FD1 and Local 1828 to ensure
service was not reduced and that has proven to be an excellent model to date. Reorganizing staff within
stations is one thing, but reducing the number of staff from 11 to 9 is a reduction in service. After
spending a day training with firefighter, he saw the incredible amount of human power required for even
simplest call. The trains through the City represent impending disaster on the waterfront as does increased
traffic, homelessness, drug addiction and mental health. Cutting public safety is a disservice to the
firefighters as well as the citizens of Edmonds and the surrounding jurisdictions that the City has
interlocal agreements with. He was impressed by the speakers tonight who give a personal and historic
perspective. As the Council looks at the long term, he suggested looking at the possibility of future
regionalization of fire service. If/when those negotiations happen, Edmonds needs to be negotiating from
a position of strength, ensuring Edmonds has the fire service the City wants and the citizens demand.
Mayor Earling declared brief recess.
10. STUDY ITEMS
1. DISCUSSION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Taraday advised that FD 1 Board Chair FD 1 Jim McGaughey and Assistant Chief Brad Reading were
present as resources.
Councilmember Teitzel asked the difference between an EMT and a paramedic with regard to what they
can/cannot do in an advance life service incident such as a severe coronary. Dr. Knight said basic life
support (BLS) EMT can provide lower level acuity treatment plan such bandaging, stopping bleeding,
CPR, etc. Across the country, the trend is to allow BLS to provide greater levels of care than they could
20 years ago. A paramedic provides advanced life support (ALS) and critical interventions such as
inserting respiratory tubes, intratracheal intubation, pharmaceutical medicines and IVs, shocking patients,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 16
Packet Pg. 248
8.3.k
etc., A paramedic provides more capabilities than BLS; the higher the acuity or the more serious a
medical event is, the greater the need for intervention at the paramedic level.
Councilmember Teitzel provided a scenario of someone in north Meadowdale having a critical medical
event and an EMT is dispatched who does not have capability for injections, defibrillation, etc. and
dispatching a paramedic from Station 17 would take several minutes. Dr. Knight said defibrillation can
even be done by a lay person now automatic external defibrillators. The general premise is if a patient
needs ALS care in a timely manner, EMTs would be unable to provide that. However, under the current
system, plenty of treatment can be provided prior to the paramedic level. Councilmember Teitzel
commented response time of a medic is improved via a better distribution of paramedics and they could
cover BLS as well as ALS functions better than they are today. Dr. Knight agreed the overall coverage for
ALS would be vastly improved with a three station model.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to comments during public testimony regarding the ability to raise taxes
to provide more resources to maintain or increase resources for fire services. Finance Director Scott
James explained the deadline to raise property taxes for 2017 was November 30.
Councilmember Mesaros provided a scenario where the paramedic unit at Station 17 is on a call and an
issue arises in downtown Edmonds requiring ALS. Currently Station 14 or 19 would respond; he asked
their typical response time for paramedic support. Mr. Knight said that information is in the report but it
will be longer than with the current station plan. Councilmember Mesaros assumed that response time
would be greatly improved if there were paramedics at Station 16 and 20. Dr. Knight agreed.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to an email he received indicating an Edmonds citizen had gotten a
response from Shoreline; he was unaware the City had an interlocal agreement with Shoreline to provide
service in south Edmonds. Mr. Taraday explained Edmonds has auto aid agreements with all surrounding
jurisdictions except Woodway who does not have any fire/EMS services. Councilmember Mesaros asked
how often Edmonds provides support for other cities. Mr. Taraday agreed there are times when that
occurs; the question is with all the paramedics concentrated at Station 17, they are not as able to quickly
provide service further east. He assumed the City's paramedic response to other jurisdictions may be
limited by virtue of where paramedics are currently located. He suspected by distributing paramedics
evenly with one at each station, Edmonds would be in a better position reciprocate for ALS responses to
neighboring jurisdictions the same as Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace (FD1 Station 19) does with their
paramedics.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if there was a map of EMS calls in a year. Mr. Taraday advised there was
a map for 2014 available at City Hall.
Councilmember Nelson asked who was on the negotiating team for FED1. Mr. Taraday answered the
team has been Board Chair McGaughey, Commissioner Meador, Chief Cockrum, Assistant Chief
Reading, and FD 1's attorney. Councilmember Nelson asked who was on the City's negotiating team. Mr.
Taraday answered it has been primarily himself and Mr. James with consultation with Mayor Earling and
Dr. Knight. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday if he had any firefighting experience Mr. Taraday
answered absolutely not. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. James if he had any firefighting experience.
Mr. James said he did not. Councilmember Nelson observed the City was relying on Dr. Knight for
firefighting experience. Mr. Taraday said when they felt any fire expertise was needed, they consulted
with Dr. Knight. Board Chair McGaughey and Commissioner Meador are also former firefighters.
Councilmember Nelson said they are looking out FD1's interests. Mr. Taraday said they are looking out
for FD1's interests at a certain level but all firefighters are interested in protecting public safety. For
example, when Alternative 3 was originally proposed, the District essentially refused to pursue it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 17
Packet Pg. 249
8.3.k
Councilmember Nelson asked Dr. Knight if he was a medical doctor. Dr. Knight responded he was not;
his Doctorate is in curriculum and instruction with a minor in research and measurement, his Masters is in
public administration, Bachelors in fire and safety engineering and he was a firefighters in St. Petersburg,
Florida for 22 years. Councilmember Nelson commented the negotiations had been pursued privately with
no Councilmembers present.
Councilmember Nelson asked who showed up when an ALS call was received near Station 16 and Station
16 was available. Mr. Taraday answered Station 16 would be dispatched because it is the closest vehicle
and if it was an ALS call, a second unit from Station 17 if they were available. Councilmember Nelson
observed currently there were four units in the City; under the proposal there would be three units. With
one paramedic call, staffing was down to one available unit. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on whether
one or two units are dispatched. Councilmember Nelson asked if the standard was to have two paramedics
respond. Mr. Taraday answered it was standard if they are available and he recalled one of the FD1
negotiators said 90% of the time one paramedic is sufficient and only in a rare instance are two
paramedics needed versus a paramedic and 1-2 EMTs. Councilmember Nelson asked if standard policy
was to dispatch two paramedics. Mr. Taraday answered that is the standard for a medic call but it is not
required.
Councilmember Nelson provided another scenario, a BLS call near Station 16 for a broken arm and
Station 16 is available and asked who responds. Mr. Taraday answered under the new proposal, Station
16 would be dispatched. Councilmember Nelson observed under that scenario, a paramedic is responding
to a BLS call, leaving two stations to respond to an actual ALS call. Councilmember Nelson summarized
these scenarios illustrate the impact of reducing the units from four to three. Mr. Taraday said in the most
recent scenario, there would still be two paramedics available. Currently if there Station 17 paramedics
respond to a call, there are no paramedics available in the City; one ALS call wipes out the entire
paramedic crew. Councilmember Nelson pointed out under the proposal, ALS units would be responding
to BLS calls in Edmonds as well as in Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Brier, whereas now Station 17
is out of the way, inconvenient and responds primarily to Edmonds. Mr. Taraday explained FD1
dispatches according to automatic vehicle locator, always sending the closest unit.
Mayor Earling appreciated that Councilmember Nelson wanted detailed information but it appeared he
was grilling the lawyer. He welcomed general questions but not the debate that would result from trying
to poke holes in the agreement. Councilmember Nelson pointed out Mr. Taraday is an attorney. Mr.
Taraday welcomed the inquiry, assuring no one was trying to hide any of the details about the proposed
change. Councilmember Nelson was asking important questions and he had no problem answering them.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was part of the consultant selection team; the reason for hiring a
consultant was to have someone help the City understand. She asked the credentials of the people that
helped develop options, prepare the report, etc. She assured then-Councilmember Petso, Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas and she left no stone unturned regarding qualifications when interviewing. Dr. Knight
said he began as a firefighter/paramedic and worked his way up the ranks through division chief of
training, division chief of operations and division chief of EMS during his career and retired as an
assistant chief. St. Petersburg is a quasi -metro size department, running about 60,000 calls a year, an ISO
Class I department that is going through accreditation. He also worked for the accreditation group for the
Commission on Fire Accreditation International through the Center of Public Safety Excellence for about
10 years while still with the fire service completing his degrees. He has been doing consulting full-time
for approximately three years.
Other members of the team that assisted include Dr. Bruce Moller, originally a police officer outside
Chicago, who became the fire chief for Broward County, Florida which merged 13 different
municipalities and the ambulance system, then a fire chief of a city similar to Edmonds' size, then serving
as the city manager for 5-6 years before becoming assistant county administrator over public safety in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 18
Packet Pg. 250
another large county with a population of 1 million and 70 fire stations. The quantitative analysis was
done by Dr. Gong Wong who has a PhD in operations research, finance was done by one of the budget
director personnel from Miami Dade Fire Rescue and Guillermo Fuentes, the partner who oversaw the
study, ran Montreal's EMS system, the 5th largest system in the world.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Edmonds was not Dr. Knight's first client. Dr. Knight said in
accreditation and consultant he has done studies for approximately 30 cities and counties. Fitch &
Associates currently has 13 projects in motion and has been doing public safety consulting for 30 years,
has done work in all 50 states, 12 countries and every continent except Antarctica. Councilmember
Buckshnis said Fitch's executive summary and data report is included in the packet. She clarified the City
can no longer do the status quo because the status quo includes Woodway (Exhibit C) and Edmonds
likely will be out of FD1 in two years. Mr. Taraday relayed the FD1 Board passed a motion last summer
indicating they intended to negotiate all the contract cities in a manner to recoup the full cost of the
service. He suggested Board Chair McGaughey could answer that question.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the amount of Woodway's share that the City would take on. Mr. James
answered the contract gives the City the ability to subcontract with Woodway. Councilmember Buckshnis
pointed out that was not an issue yet because Woodway would need two years to get out of their contract
with Shoreline. If the Council moves forward with an alternative, the City must pay Woodway's share,
approximately $983,000. Mr. James said the cost is based on 2014 because FD1 has not settled the
contract with its labor unit. The current estimate is $800,000 and he estimated the status quo would be in
the high $800,000s.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Alternative 2 was actually a hybrid, recalling an alternative was
considered where firefighters would stabilize and FD1 would provide transport. Mr. Taraday said that was
a supplemental medic unit that FD1 was originally considering. FD1 still needs to get over a hurdle with
the union who is opposed to less than 24 hour shifts and does not want to allow peak hour medic units.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who in management negotiates for the teamsters for Edmonds.
Mr. Taraday answered HR Director Hardie and Sharon Cates, Lighthouse Law Group. Public Works
Director Phil Williams said he also participates. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Ms.
Cates or Ms. Hardie had experience working in the sewage treatment plant. Ms. Hardie said no.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said negotiators depend on the people they are negotiating with to get
information. She asked who negotiates for the Police Department. Ms. Hardie said she currently serves as
the lead, Ms. Cates, Chief Compaan and Assistant Chief Lawless also participate. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked if Ms. Cates or Ms. Hardie had any experience with animal control. Ms. Hardie answered
not that she was aware of. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the chiefs had ever done animal
control. Ms. Hardie answered it was possible. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how staff
determined the best way to negotiate a contract; did they assume what the animal control officer did or
did they find out from the other side. Ms. Hardie answered it is a process, working with the management
team as well as the union.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the City will never have people in negotiations who have done
every job. She appreciated Dr. Knight's ability to answer questions and provide technical information. It
was her understanding the fire commissioners have been very helpful to the City in providing
information. She asked whether the City negotiates the effects of a reorganization with Local 1828. Mr.
Taraday answered no, the City does not have a contract with Local 1828, FD1 does. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked who negotiates with Local 1828. Mr. Taraday answered it was his understanding
negotiations was done by a lawyer but he was unaware who was on the negotiating team.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed FD1 commissioners have some experience in fire services. Mr.
Taraday answered two commissioners do. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed when FD1 is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 19
Packet Pg. 251
8.3.k
negotiating with Local 1828, there is some experience at the table. Mr. Taraday assumed one of the chiefs
or one of the commissioners is involved in negotiations but he did not know anything about their
negotiation process or who was on the team. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized it is not
abnormal in a negotiation process for one side not to have experience in every aspect.
Council President Johnson recalled Mr. James stating Woodway's cost was in the high $800,000s and it
was previously stated FD1 was not interested in carrying that cost and all the costs must be covered by the
contract cities. She felt it was a burden for Edmonds to cover the cost of another jurisdiction, Woodway.
The proposal includes a provision whereby if Woodway returns to FD1, Edmonds could collect their
contribution. Woodway would need two years to end their current contract with Shoreline. She asked if
there had been any discussion about sharing the cost of Woodway with FD1 during the interim so it is not
entirely the City's burden. That would result in a significant savings for Edmonds, up to $400,000/year.
Mr. Taraday responded the primary focus in the negotiation was to contract for the right to subcontract to
Woodway. That was felt to be an appropriate tradeoff given the additional cost the City was being asked
to incur. There are other ways to approach problem and find a solution. He displayed the map of FD 1 and
the three Edmonds stations, pointing out the only FD1 territory anywhere near these three stations is
Esperance. The ask would be to for FD 1 to pay a share of these three stations which exceeds the amount
attributable to Esperance. The City's strategy was to focus on trying bring Woodway back and acquire the
right through negotiations to subcontract to Woodway so that Edmonds is in the driver's seat and has a
higher likelihood of bringing the Woodway dollars back to help finance the three stations.
Council President Johnson appreciated that in the long run but in the short term, it could cost the City
$1.6 million ($800,000/year for the 2 years until Woodway gets out of their contract with Shoreline) to
pay for service Woodway is not receiving. Mr. Taraday responded under Alternative 2, Woodway's share
was $602,000/year. The City has the ability to stand on the existing contract rights and see what happens.
Council President Johnson recalled Mr. Taraday saying that would result in the same negotiations. Mr.
Taraday agreed that was his prediction. Council President Johnson accepted his analysis but was
interested in reducing the cost so it was not a burden to Edmonds. One of the ways would be to share it
with FD1 over the next two years. Mr. Taraday said that is essential what the City would be doing if a
decision was made to stand on the existing contract rights.
Council President Johnson asked if there was something in between that would only cost Edmonds half
the amount to subsidize Woodway. Mr. Taraday said that was not pursued in negotiations, the focus in
negotiations was the right to subcontract to Woodway. The City has the right to stand on the contract
language and theoretically ride it out for two years. What happens at the end of two years is unknown; he
did not foresee FD 1 would let that ride for two years. Council President Johnson understood the team
negotiated the right for Woodway funds go into Edmonds General Fund but Woodway cannot do that
without defaulting on their agreement with Shoreline. As a result, the cost of Woodway's contribution
would be borne entirely by Edmonds for the next two years. Mr. Taraday agreed, commenting it could be
argued that was appropriate given the areas served by Stations 16, 17 and 20.
Mr. Taraday pointed out these issues dovetail nicely in that the City's utilization rate is currently quite
low. The thinking was it would take some time to bring Woodway back but meanwhile, given these unit
utilization rates, the City could pursue Alternative 2 while Woodway is brought back and the utilization
will slowly increase. He anticipated by the time utilization rates reached the point where capacity needed
to be added, it was likely Woodway would be back and essentially whatever service was needed could be
added with Woodway's revenues to help pay for it.
Council President Johnson asked the cost to Edmonds for the next two years to pay Woodway's portion.
Mr. Taraday answered their share of the station labor costs under Alternative 2 are $602,000/year.
Council President Johnson commented that was almost the cost of reorganizing Station 17.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 20
Packet Pg. 252
8.3.k
Councilmember Nelson referred to the comparison of labor contracts to this interlocal agreement,
pointing out that was comparing apple to oranges. Labor contracts and job classifications are not
comparable to the type of fire service the City wants, fire engines and paramedic and how they operate,
call times, turnout times, etc. He referred to Mr. James' October 2014 comments in My Edmonds News
that Edmonds has a unique service model that other cities do not, a dedicated paramedic unit. Dedicated
paramedic unit costs more and it's possible Edmonds could receive the same level service without the
extra expense. That's good common sense. Councilmember Nelson pointed out Mr. James was talking
about getting rid of Medic 17 before Fitch conducted the study and now the recommendation was to get
rid of Medic 17. Mr. James explained when the City received the retro bill, it opened the door for
discussion about how to mitigate this huge cost. FD 1 offered to change the paramedic service, indicating
there was no study showing the levels of service Edmonds was providing. When Edmonds signed the
contract with FD1, it was a prescriptive move, the existing levels of service. He recalled Medic 7 was
originally operated through Stevens Hospital; when Medic 7 disbanded, Edmonds took on the paramedic
service without benefit of a study substantiating the need for a dedicated paramedic unit at Station 17.
Then -Chief Widdis acknowledged without benefit of a study, the City may be over capacity and one way
to save money would be to reallocate the paramedic to three stations, essentially disbanding 17.
Councilmember Nelson said the primary reason this idea came up was the cost. Lynnwood has a
dedicated paramedic; FD1 has a dedicated paramedic unit, Medic 11, the busiest medic in the district; and
King County has world renowned Medic 1. Mr. James said the demands in those areas are different than
Edmonds. He referred to standards of coverage in the contract, FD1 has been unable to meet many of the
fire response standards, and the contact indicates FD1 will work on those standards. Mr. Taraday said
those standards have historically not been met by the City's Fire Department or by FD1. He was unclear
where those standards came from as they do not appear to be realistic, similar to FD1's adopted standard
turnout time of 2:15 and their actual is 2:41. There is always an effort to reach the standard but they are
frequently not met and he did not have an explanation for that.
Councilmember Nelson observed the contract was proceeding with the idea that the standards for fire
response have not been met in the past and there are no plans to meet them in the future. Mr. Taraday said
FD1 will do the best job possible to respond quickly. Councilmember Nelson pointed out there is nothing
holding them accountable. Mr. Taraday said there was discussion about moving to performance based
standards; one of Fitch's overarching recommendations was instead of prescribing the number of
positions, to move to a pay for performance based standard. Everyone thought that was a good idea but a
lot of work would be required to develop a realistic performance based standard, one that was so
consistently achievable that if it was not met, there would be a financial consequence. The parties are not
in position to do that now but no one is abandoning that effort and ultimately want to get to that.
Councilmember Nelson wanted to reach that sooner than later.
Councilmember Nelson said the issue has always been about cost. In reading the Fitch study he
repeatedly saw phrases such as realize savings, original cost productions, financial beneficial, fiscal
analysis, value based analysis, explore fiscal efficiencies, no cost option, equivalent value, at no cost,
minimal no cost options, provide the greatest return on investment, contain costs, reduction in
expenditures, significant fiscal benefit, fiscal advantage, cost free. He compared the report to a stock
prospective due to the number of references to return on investment. He was concerned the primary issue
seemed to be cost. He referred to the cost for Woodway, $1.36 million and the $700-800,000 Edmonds
would be on the hook for. Mr. Taraday referred to Exhibit C that would apply under proposed Alternative
2. Woodway's share of station staffing cost was calculated by multiplying Station Staffing Cost,
$6,601,270, by 9.13%. Woodway's share of the total is calculated by multiplying the total
Suppression/EMS Contract Cost $8,231,586 by 9.13%. He agreed it was a lot of money.
Councilmember Nelson proposed a scenario, in two years Woodway no longer contracts with Shoreline
and agrees to subcontract with Edmonds and asked how much money that represented. Mr. Taraday said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 21
Packet Pg. 253
8.3.k
the City gets to decide; he anticipated it would be slightly less than what Shoreline charges Woodway
today. Councilmember Nelson commented that large amount may only exist for 1-2 years and it would be
significant less to have the status quo assuming the City subcontracts with Woodway. Mr. Taraday said
his assumption was not necessarily that the City would fully recoup what was formally known as
Woodway's share, the 9.13%, because that may not be a price Woodway was willing to pay. He
suggested Edmonds would be in a position to drive a bargain that Woodway would be hard pressed to
refuse.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the UHU chart and asked how current it was. Dr. Knight answered
2014. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was any indication of increase in the past two years. Dr.
Knight answered overall growth was fairly flat in the last two years, less than 2%. He acknowledged two
years was a short snapshot. Typically Fire Department's increase 3-5%/year nationally so 5% is a more
reasonable projection. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Woodway was part of the service area in 2014.
Dr. Knight answered no.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how the proposed configuration of ALS at three stations compared to other
stations in FD1. Board Chair McGaughey answered with the exception of Station 11 in the far north, FD1
has a paramedic and EMTs at every station. Councilmember Tibbott asked how many firefighters that
represented. Assistant Chief Reading said every station has a minimum of one paramedic, a captain, and
an EMT, sometimes two paramedics depending on staffing. Station 11 near Mariner High School has five
staff, a dedicated medic unit with a minimum one EMT and one paramedic and an engine with three
people including one medic. Station 10 and 21 have peak activity units 12 hours/day to assist with call
load and they each have a paramedic and a firefighter. Councilmember Tibbott asked how FD1 was able
to have 12-hour shifts at those stations. Assistant Chief Reading answered with great difficulty, they are
currently bargaining that with the labor group.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how well Alternative 2 would service Edmonds as it related to having ALS
distributed around the City and response times. Assistant Chief Reading answered distributing paramedics
among stations is done in the rest of the district and the Commission feels that is a better way to provide
the service. Conversely, any time a unit is eliminated, it reduces staffing within the City.
Councilmember Tibbott commented there would also be a reduction in the service area. Assistant Chief
Reading advised Woodway has not been part of the service area since 2012. Councilmember Tibbott
commented the City is looking for a way to right size forces. Distributing ALS services may be a way to
serve the City in a superior way. Assistant Chief Reading said ALS at every station is the way FD1 is
configured and they feel it provides a good level of service. The City's service level is determined by the
City Council and FD 1 tells the City how much that costs.
Councilmember Tibbott was concerned about the possibility of increased population particularly if
Woodway returned. Of the three existing stations, two appear to be in great locations and one is not the
best. He asked which of the three would be the best location for a fourth unit or was there another location
for a fourth unit. Assistant Chief Reading said near Stevens Hospital would be a good location for a
medic unit, either a peak unit or a full-time unit due to the call load in that area.
Assuming continued growth of residential and commercial on Highway 99, Councilmember Tibbott
asked what future service requirement could be anticipated in 5-10 years. Assistant Chief Reading said
there are openers in the contract as Edmonds grows. One of the issues with taller development is ladder
response and dedicated ladders. Edmonds has a cross -staffed ladder aid car at Station 20. There may be a
need for a dedicated later at some point in the south end to help with high-rises.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was elected on the first day the City no longer owned its
Fire Department. She agreed the issue was cost; hiring Fitch & Associates was the result of the City's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 22
Packet Pg. 254
receipt of a $1.9 million bill and the Council's interest in determining whether there was a better way of
doing business. Early discussions included the City restarting its own Fire Department and the associated
costs, contracting with another Fire Districts such as Lynnwood. Where the discussion finally landed was
figuring out what to do and maintaining FD1. The biggest issue is Woodway and she was unsure the
contract would have been renegotiated if Woodway had not left. FD1 negotiated a contract with
Woodway that allowed them an easy out. There were no provisions in the contract that Edmonds would
pick up the cost of Woodway if they left. Woodway leaving also impacted the $1.9 million bill the City
received.
One of the options is a public safety levy to fund the Fire and Police Departments. Cuts have been made
to the Police Department in the past and before FD 1 took over the Fire Department, there were cuts to the
Fire Department due to a lack of funds to pay for services. Costs are increasing; labor costs are
approximately 80% of the Fire and Police Department budgets. She anticipated the only way to cover the
increasing cost was a public safety levy. In the past, the City put a three-part levy on the ballot; all three
failed because the City did a poor job publicizing them. The City needs to find ways to provide public
safety, roads, and basic necessities such as stormwater and water via a public safety levy. If the City
wants rich services in police or fire, there needs to be a funding mechanism. Citizens are not paying
enough in taxes to afford really good, safe, secure public safety.
Councilmember Buckshnis said to her it was not about the financial analysis but understanding how
firefighters work. In 2009 she was a citizen proponent of not selling the City's Fire Department to FDL
She disagreed the Fitch report read like a prospectus; it talks about the number of Edmonds incidents,
percentage of fire incidents, average calls, what firefighters do. This is a very emotional situation and
because she is not a firefighter, she needed to understand how hard firefighters work, the number of calls,
etc. The annual reports FD1 provides do not provide the details that the Fitch report provided. She
encouraged the public to read Fitch's final report which provides the Council the tools to make good
decisions. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out FD1's attorney is also present tonight. She assured this
has been a collaborative effort for a long time; the Council is trying to trying to figure out the best thing
for the City and the firefighters in the short and long term.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed he was impressed with FD1 and the quality of service they provide. If the
Council approved the reduction of two staff in Alternative 2, he asked whether those individuals could be
reassigned within FD1 or would there be a reduction in head count at FD1. Mr. Taraday said his
understanding is those positions are easily absorbed elsewhere in the District and no one would lose their
job as a result of this change.
Mayor Earling asked whether staff planned to meet with the FD1 representatives again before next week.
Mr. Taraday said no meeting is scheduled, but he anticipated some edits from FD1 on the last draft.
Assuming the City Council is in favor of this proposal, ideally final action would be taken next week. He
requested the Council provide a sense of whether they wanted to continue with Alternative 2 and staff
will bring the agreement back next week for a motion on the contract and any amendments. It was his
understanding FD1 has requested the Council reach agreement so the new agreement could be effective
January 1, 2017. Mr. Taraday suggested Councilmembers pose any technical fire response type questions
tonight as Dr. Knight will not be present next week.
Dr. Knight commented as an outsider to the process, he commended the Council for their transparent,
open process. The team worked with City staff, met with Councilmembers, worked with Chief Widdis to
ensure FD1 had advance notice of anything that was presented publicly, and a presentation was made to
the FD1 Board. The reported looked at the services, applauded FD1 on providing high level services and
found no deficiencies in the service delivery models, but identified potential opportunities for changing
the status quo. He recognized this change was challenging and emotional. The Council could be assured it
had been done in a highly professional and transparent manner.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 23
Packet Pg. 255
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether it was absolutely imperative that the agreement be in
place by January 1, 2017. Mr. Taraday said he could not speak for what FD1 would do if the agreement
was not in place this month. A fair amount of the details in the agreement assume service starts under the
new model on January 1, 2017 so significant redrafting would be required if it did not. He discouraged
delaying the approval of the agreement for a few weeks without a compelling reason and was uncertain
what additional information would be needed as the report was quite thorough. He understood it was a
difficult decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have a discussion with Council about a
public safety levy anticipating a levy could be completed in a year. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas' thought was to proceed with the levels in Alternative 2 and if a levy passed, the City
could add service. If the levy did not pass, the voters will be saying they do not want to pay for a higher
level of service. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her thinking.
Mr. Taraday said a final draft will be presented to Council for possible action next week.
3. 2016 4TH QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mr. James reviewed the 4th Quarter Budget Amendment:
6 Decision Packages
o Additional costs identified in the replacement of Frances Anderson Center band shell -
$62,275
o Bond refunding savings - $367,000
o Deputy City Clerk out of class pay - $4,120
o Waterfront Access Study - $50,000
o City did not receive a grant from Snohomish County Tourism — $40,000
o Economic Impact Study of the arts in Edmonds - $20,000
$888,526 in revenues
$1,032,008 in expenditures
$143,482 decrease in fund balance
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO APPROVE THE 4TH QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PROSECUTOR'S CONTRACT RENEWAL
Human Resources Director Mary Ann Hardie advised the current contract expired at the end of 2015 with
a 1-year extension to December 31, 2016. HR along with Sharon Cates, Lighthouse Law Group, has been
negotiating the prosecutor's contract with Zachor Thomas. This will renew the contract for two years with
a $50,000 increase in 2017 and a $58,000 increase in 2018. Procedural changes in the court, in the
indigent defense standards, and caseloads has result in increased prosecution service costs. It is further
recommended that the City publish an RFP for prosecutor services by the end of 2017 or early 2018.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled when the City renewed the City Attorney's contract, a process for
evaluating their performance was established. He suggested doing the same for the prosecuting attorney
and to include the evaluation system in the RFQ. Ms. Hardie agreed.
Councilmember Tibbott said one of the messages he heard was the system has changed and there are
more requirements. New information tonight was the State Supreme Court requires the defense attorney
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 24
Packet Pg. 256
8.3.1
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
CITY OF EDMONDS
2020
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2006, the City of Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133,
adopting the performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in the Washington
State Legislature Substitute House Bill 1756, as the Edmonds Fire Department's emer-
gency resource deployment and response time objectives.
On November 2, 2009, the City of Edmonds City Council approved an Interlocal Agree-
ment with Snohomish County Fire District 1 (SCFD1) transferring Fire and Emergency
Medical Services responsibilities to SCFD 1. NOTE: As of October 1, 2017, Snohomish
Countv Fire District 1 became South Countv Fire (RFA) and is referred to as South
County Fire in this compliance report. Section 2.5 of the Interlocal Agreement requires
South County Fire to report to the City performance standards as identified in RCW
35.103. The following constitutes this reporting requirement:
2020 COMPLIANCE REPORT CONTENTS
As required by SHB 1756, the 2020 Compliance Report includes four Sections:
• Section 1: Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 2.12 Fire Department.
• Section 2: South County Fire Policy Statements.
• Section 3: Comparison of 2019 response times to each adopted response stand-
ard.
• Section 4: An explanation of why Council -adopted standards were not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet adopted standards, and
steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compli-
ance.
SECTION1.........................................................................................2
SECTION2.........................................................................................3
SECTION3.........................................................................................4
SECTION4.........................................................................................8
Packet Pg. 257
8.3.1
SECTION 1
EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.12
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Sections:
2.12.010 Fire service.
2.12.020 Pre-existing rights and obligations not impaired.
2.12.010 Fire Service.
Fire service is provided to residents of the City of Edmonds by and through a contract with South
County Fire. Whenever any reference is made in the provisions of the Edmonds City Code (ECC)
or Edmonds Community Development Code to "fire chief," "fire marshal," "fire department," or any
other reference to a firefighter or fire services, such term shall include, for the provision of admin-
istrative or other day-to-day fire services, to reference the fire chief, fire marshal and firefighting
services performed for the City by contract by South County Fire.
A. The officials of South County Fire, when performing services by contract to the citizens of
the City of Edmonds and to the city in its corporate capacity, shall exercise any and all
rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of this code
to the same extent and in the same manner as if performed by an employee of the City.
B. Employees of South County Fire shall not be entitled to any wage or benefit provision of
this code, including but not limited to Chapters 2.06 and 2.35 ECC. The Edmonds civil ser-
vice system shall remain in effect, but no employee of South County Fire shall have re-
course to the Civil Service Commission following the termination date of fire department
employees by the City. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
2.12.020 Pre -Existing Rights and Obligations Not Impaired.
The City Council's determination to contract or not contract for fire services with South County
Fire and the provisions of this chapter shall not impair any existing vested right or vested obliga-
tion created under the provisions of state law or under Chapter 2.50 ECC, Firemen's Relief and
Pension System, Chapter 2.60 ECC, Reserve Fire Fighters' Relief and Pensions Act, Chapter
2.70 ECC, Retirement System, and Chapter 10.30 ECC, Disability Board, as well as the City's
MEBT plan. The rights of any person under such system vested prior to the transfer of fire service
responsibility by contract shall remain in full force and effect and are not impaired by either such
or the adoption of this chapter. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
2
Packet Pg. 258
8.3.1
SECTION 2
POLICY STATEMENTS
The Fire Department maintains written policy statements that establish the
following:
1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Municipal Code 2.12.
X meets requirement does not meet
2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in the Inter -
local Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
X meets requirement does not meet
3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the SCF
Organizational Chart approved by the Fire Chief.
X meets requirement does not meet
4. The number of Fire Department employees on duty daily in 2019, at the Edmonds
stations, is 9 personnel as outlined in the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emer-
gency Services, and as adopted by South County Fire Board of Fire Commissioners
as part of the 2019 SCF Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed in the
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services, and in the 2020
South County Fire Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
Packet Pg. 259
8.3.1
SECTION 3
STANDARDS of RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER)
To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events
of "brain death" or "flashover" occur, the Fire Department is required to establish re-
sponse -time objectives and compare the actual department results on an annual basis
against the established objectives. The comparison began in 2007 with a comparison of
the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the levels of
response. This year, actual 2020 response time data is compared against the originally
established, Council -adopted 2006 standard. The following section provides the compar-
ison:
Turnout time for all emergency incidents:
Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time
standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the turn out time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of the Fire
Department incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:34 minutes/seconds.
2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
Inrident-
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire sup-
pression incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of fire sup-
pression incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within 6:50
minutes/seconds of response time.
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 15 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 8:39
minutes/seconds of response time. There were 4 incidents in 2020 (5:00, 6:49,
7:25, and 8:39).
4
Packet Pg. 260
8.3.1
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 9:00 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 18 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 12:00
minutes/seconds of response time. There were 3 incidents in 2020 (8:07, 9:44,
and 12:00).
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher -
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical inci-
dent, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the first -arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the
scene within 6:31 minutes/seconds of response time.
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit
to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency
medical incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the Advanced Life Support (two Paramedics) unit
arrive at the scene within 6:13 minutes/seconds of response time.
5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a
Packet Pg. 261
8.3.1
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time. 100 percent of haz-
ardous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Op-
erations level personnel arrive at the scene within 11:01 minutes/seconds of
response time. There were 4 incidents in 2020 (2:47, 4:08, 6:20, and 11:01).
5A2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of hazard-
ous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Techni-
cian level personnel arrive at the scene within X:XX minutes/seconds of re-
sponse time. There were zero incidents in 2020.
5B1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a
technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the
time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 7:13 minutes/seconds of response
time.
5B2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately
trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to
6
Packet Pg. 262
8.3.1
a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 15:45 minutes/seconds of response
time. There were four incidents in 2020. (14:09, 14:54, 13:37, and 15:45)
6. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine inci-
dent:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine
incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of marine
incidents had trained and equipped firefighting personnel arrived at the scene
within 10:24 minutes/seconds of response time. There were four incidents in
2020. (00:40, 06:42, 05:07, and 10:24)
7
Packet Pg. 263
8.3.1
SECTION 4
COUNCIL -ADOPTED STANDARDS NOT MET
SHB 1756 requires an explanation when Council -adopted standards are not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, and the steps nec-
essary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET
The Council -Adopted 2006 performance standards that were not met in 2020 are:
2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
Incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 6:50
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident
Established: 7:45
Actual: 8:39
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Established: 9:00
Actual: 12:00
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher -
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Established: 5:15
Actual: 6:31
5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 11:01
5131. Response time of the first-arrivina aDparatus with aDDroDriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 7:31
8
Packet Pg. 264
8.3.1
5B2. Response time of the first-arrivina aaoaratus with aoarooriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident
Established: 12:00
Actual: 15:45
Packet Pg. 265
8.3.m
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
March 23, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATION
1. INTELLECTUAL/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AWARENESS MONTH
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming the month of March as Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities Awareness month in Edmonds, Washington, and asking its residents to recognize and include
in all activities our community members with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Chris Brandt, AtWork!, thanked the City for recognizing that people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities have much to contribute to Edmonds by proclaiming March Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities Awareness Month. AtWork! has supported over 300 people in getting good jobs that matched
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 266
8.3.m
their strengths and abilities. In the last couple of years, AtWork! has expanded to provide services in
Snohomish County and are working hard to support people with disabilities who live here to be fully
included as equal citizens and are looking forward to doing more work in Edmonds. They get people jobs
and support them to utilize their talents to be top notch employees and help businesses get their essential
work done.
Ms. Brandt explained during the pandemic, job coaches supported people with disabilities, many of whom
are essential workers in grocery stores, restaurants and other small businesses, to keep their jobs, to learn
how to use PPE and to learn new techniques for pandemic safety and protocols. Now that the state is phase
3, AtWork! is supporting more people returning to work every day and working with local businesses to
identify their needs and match them with the interests, strengths and dreams of persons with disabilities
who really want to work hard to make a difference in addition to helping communities build inclusive
workforces. As Edmonds proclaims, being included, making a contribution, and having a full and
meaningful life are important to everyone. AtWork! supports people with disabilities to find their place
within the community where they can be part of things, a club, a senior center, a volunteer group, an
employer, a business, and they are excited to continue to find those places in Edmonds and to bring the
robust richness of opportunity, relationships, inspiration and hope that true inclusivity promises.
Shayne Nagel, Director, ARC Snohomish County, was honored and thankful for this opportunity by
Mayor Nelson and Edmonds City Council. ARC is the resource of first choice for individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families regardless of their disability and at all stages of life. There are
10 ARCs in Washington State and 650 around the country. In Washington State, ARCS fiscal investment
ranks 41 st in the country, so the support that individuals receive is not great. Many people do receive support,
but there are also 1200 people waiting for help. The proclamation is a great step towards Edmonds looking
at the importance of people with developmental disabilities and providing support to them. ARC provides
many resources and support to families desperate to receive support services. The support ARC provides is
important for every member of the family including siblings, mom, dad, etc. which is why the proclamation
is so important. She raised her daughter who has severe autism in Edmonds and while it felt there would
never be a chance for her to be independent, they finally got there and she is doing well. Her daughter was
why she got involved with ARC and to ensure in Edmonds and across the county and country that
opportunities are being provided to the most vulnerable.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her son Dominic, now 29 years old, continues to lives at home
because placement is currently not an option because there is there isn't a placement option for someone
with his skills. She appreciated the City recognizing Intellectual Disabilities Month, and that the City plans
to look for opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to work for the City. Her son is currently
cleaning COVID; he is good at it and it works well for him. She appreciated the City and the community
looking at creating more jobs for people with intellectual disabilities. She noted the Cheesemonger was
always good at hiring people with intellectual disabilities, but the owners, Maria Montalvo and Strom
Peterson, are closing their shop. She had high hopes that other businesses in Edmonds would be interested
in having people with intellectual disabilities work for them. She thanked Mayor Nelson for the
proclamation, commenting it shines a light on the people with disabilities in the City. She commented her
son pays attention to the issues and votes.
Ms. Nagel commented independence is important but it is also important to feel included in your
community. She suggested when you see a family or a parent, ask if they need a hand. Ms. Brandt suggested
saying hi, how are you doing today?
5. JOINT MEETING
1. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING - SOUTH COUNTY FIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 267
8.3.m
Thad Hovis, Fire Chief, South County Fire, said he appreciated the Council having the proclamation on the
agenda, recognizing this important issue affects many in the local communities; he and two other chiefs
have children with lifelong developmental disabilities. He introduced Assistant Chiefs Jason Isotalo and
Mike Fitzgerald; Deputy Chiefs John Chalfant, Bob Eastman, and David Wells; IT Manager Mike
Vermeulen; HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck; and South County Fire Board of Commissioners Greg Urban
(Chair), Chris Teofilak (Vice Chair), Drew Burnett, David Chan, Jim Kenny and Bob Meador.
(Commissioner Mark Laurance was not present.).
Chief Hovis explained tonight's presentation will provide answers the Council asked during the
presentation of the 2020 annual report and the 2020 City of Edmonds annual compliance report last month
as well as a brief update on COVID-19 vaccination efforts in Edmonds. He reviewed:
• Vaccination Update
o Adult family homes: All 23 adult family homes that SCF was assigned in Edmonds are fully
vaccinated with first and second doses.
o Homebound individuals: South County Fire, in partnership with the City of Edmonds Human
Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services divisions identified homebound
individuals. More than 30 homebound residents have been vaccinated and more to follow in
the coming weeks.
o Today we assisted the National Guard to vaccinate more than 60 residents at Ballinger Court
senior living.
o Up next: We will conduct pop-up clinics, in partnership with Homage, at Plaza 44 and other
older adult communities in the City of Edmonds.
SCF staff responded to questions asked at the February 23, 2021 presentation:
How many female firefighters are employed by South County Fire? How does that compare with the
national average?
SCF HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck reviewed:
Diversity Overview
o Progress since the formation of the RFA.
■ Increase in female firefighters
■ Increase in firefighters of color
■ Increase in overall diversity: sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, disabilities,
etc.
o Low turnover rates among uniformed staff*
■ 92% of departures have been for retirement or medical
■ 1 female and no non -white employees have departed for reasons other than medical.
o Firefighters Hires
FD1: 2014-2017
(prior to formation of RFA
South County Fire
since formation of SCF
-5% female
-12% female
-10% non -white
-21% non -white
■ FD1 - 2014-2017
- White, male - 95%
- Non -white, female - 5%
■ SCF - Since 2017
- White, male -70%
- Non -white, female - 30%
o South County Fire vs. National Average
SCF Firefighters National Avg
Career Firefighters
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 268
8.3.m
7% female 4% female
10% non -white 18% non -white
o Captains/MSOs
■ Female compared to non -white
- 2017
• 1.5% female
• 0% non -white
• 6% female
• 4.5% non -white
o Continuous Efforts
■ Continue analysis
■ Source b Candidate Pool *Interviews *Hired
■ Track new hire level of success
■ Analyze, modify, test again
o Leadership and promotions
Chief Hovis recognized the elected Board of Commissioners for their support of the diversity initiative and
the work done by Ms. Hollenbeck and her team.
When does Edmonds assist with response to hell) other stations outside the citv? Please show the number
of exchanges of services between cities.
• Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF)
2018
2019
2020
Mountlake Terrace
133%
130%
157%
Lynnwood
202%
210%
252%
RFA
148%
162%
197%
o Neighboring fire units respond into Edmonds more than Edmonds units respond into
neighboring jurisdictions
■ Mountlake Terrace units: 57% more into Edmonds
■ Lynnwood units: 152% more into Edmonds
■ RFA units: 97% more into Edmonds
Deputy Chief Bob Eastman explained in the updated agreement signed in 2017, a matrix was added that
calculates the total time in seconds that a unit is on responses within the City of Edmonds and takes the
units within the City, Stations 16, 17 and 20, and calculates the total time those units were on task within,
for example, the geopolitical boundaries of Mountlake Terrace to develop a ratio. The same is done for
Lynnwood and since the RFA was added, the difference between the City of Edmonds units coming into
the RFA and the RFA units going into the City of Edmonds. Part of the renegotiated contract with Edmonds
was a reduction of two responders on duty and a dedicated medic unit. His understanding, although he was
not part of the negotiations, was Lynnwood was an independent fire department at the time, and there was
an effort made to ensure decisions made did not negatively impact the City of Lynnwood and there needed
to be a way to measure that. It is not at the incident level, but the time units spend on task. The RFA units
were added because one station can predominately be a unit that comes in to support an Edmonds station
just due to proximity. Dispatch sends the closest appropriate unit based on GPS and Automatic Vehicle
Location (AVL) regardless of jurisdiction or station service area to best serve citizens.
Deputy Chief Eastman acknowledged the Lynnwood number in the above comparison is very high but in
SCF's opinion, that does not tell the whole story which is why the RFA number was added. When looking
at the number of units Edmonds has and the number of units the RFA has, some of that is to be expected
when there is an incident that requires a lot of equipment. Edmonds has three units and three staffed stations;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 269
commercial structure fires, residential fires, rescues, and the most critical ALS patients are staff intensive.
Commercial and residential fires require 15 and 18 people on scene and the most critical ALS patients need
11 people on scene. He summarized NUUF can be confusing, other things have to be considered in
conjunction with it as it is just one piece of a bigger puzzle.
How does Edmonds compare to other cities and RFA stations on response times?
Deputy Chief Eastman reviewed:
• Station Response Times
o Percentage of all calls within 8 minutes or less 2018, 2019, 2020
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2018
69.13
78.14
71.15
73.84
83.45
82.44
78.31
82.08
69.68
68.26
70.64
76.17
71.53
69.69
2019
69.23
77.29
67.48
74.13
80.73
82.71
72
79.73
72.58
66.80
69.5
71.5
72.3
6598
2020
56.42
66.19
54.37
62.18
68.1
75.13
56.4
63.32
58.56
54.41
52.17
59.19
60.37
57.4
o Response time percentages dipped in 2020 due to change in dispatch criteria. SCF has returned
to the rapid method of dispatch.
o Numbers are expected to return to 2018 and 2019 levels in 2021.
• Response time on 90 percent of calls in this category
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2018
9:55
9:15
9:45
9:35
8:39
8:55
9:10
8:53
9:54
10:09
9:56
9:29
9:47
10:05
2019
9:59
9:25
9:49
9:13
8:58
9:02
9:36
9:16
9:47
10:22
9:51
9:45
10:03
10:49
2020
10:37
10:907
10:39
10:20
9:55
9:24
10:33
10:17
10:31
10:54
11:02
10:38
10:31
11:16
o Response times are somewhat related to where stations are located
o Some stations have better response time
■ For example Lynnwood Station 15 is in the center of Lynwood in a high density area and a lot
of calls are within close proximity to the station
o Some stations have slightly longer response times
■ For example Station 23 has slightly longer response times because it is located in a more
residential area.
• Response times
o Percentage of calls within 8 minutes or less in 2020
Brier
Edmonds
Lynn
MLT
County
51.97%
56.19%
73.05%
55.67%
60.31%
■ Numbers in 2020 are approximately 10-15% lower due to COVID A
■ Anticipate higher percentage within 8 minutes in 2021
o espouse times on 90 percent of calls in this category in 2020
Brier
Edmonds
Lynn
MLT
County
11:02
10:40
9:40
10:43
10:32
■ Numbers in 2020 are 30-60 seconds longer due to COVID
■ Anticipate reduction in times in 2021
Standards in the contract are not being met. Is there a plan to address this?
Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in Edmonds with staffing prior to January 2017: daily station
staffing of 11
• 3 fire stations within Edmonds
o Station 16 (196t1i)
■ Houses an engine, battalion chief and aid unit
■ 4 personnel on duty including 3 firefighter jump crew/cross staffed
o Station 20 (Esperance)
■ Houses ladder truck cross -staffed with aid unit
■ Backup engine
o Station 17 (downtown)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 270
8.3.m
■ 5 personnel on duty
- 2 person dedicated medic unit
- 3 person jump/cross staffed crew that staffed engine or aid car depending on which
was dispatched
o Marine Unit at Port
• Daily staffing in Edmonds decreased under the current contract, dropping from 11 to 9
o With change in contract in 2017, paramedics in paramedic unit redeployed to all three fire
stations, 16, 17 and 20
Under the current ILA and the contract revised in 2017, the initial term between Edmonds and SCF is 20
years so the contract extends to 2030. To change it would require conferring to address those issues. Fire
station locations cannot be moved; personnel could be added to stations.
Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in the RFA, explaining a lot of changes have been made within
the RFA in areas that are not under contract. FD1 used Citygate and Associates in the past to do a staffing
analysis. Since the formation of RFA, staffing has been raised in Lynnwood and unincorporated areas. He
identified "big houses" in the RFA, stations that house a lot of firefighters. Some stations have 5, 6, 7 or 8
personnel but those are not in Edmonds. When units are dispatched via the countywide dispatch agency,
they are dispatched based on AVL which sends the closest unit to the emergency, they generally come from
the bigger stations. Two more personnel have been added at Station 14, 10 and 11 so the daytime staffing
is 62 and nighttime is 56.
As someone who grew up in 20700 block of 86t1i Place West, Chief Hovis pointed out there is no Woodway
fire department, they contract with Shoreline and there is no fire station in Woodway and there is no fire
service coming from the west. To address staffing issues, have more personnel available when calls come
in, and decrease overall response times equates to personnel, availability and apparatus. With the Sound
Transit Link extension and development occurring in Mountlake Terrace, and Station 19 getting very busy,
Mountlake Terrace has had some initial conversations with SCF about what increased staffing would look
like in Mountlake Terrace.
Chief Hovis explained SCF has formed an Intergovernmental Committee composed of SCF staff, three fire
commissioners and the local union president. The committee was formed due to the RFA's interest in the
contract cities, Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace, formally joining the RFA just as the City of
Lynnwood did in 2017 when the RFA was formed. He and one commissioner from the intergovernmental
committee have had an initial meeting with the executive of each contract city to relay the RFA's great
interest in the city joining the RFA. That meeting was to get a better understanding of each city's current
or future interest in joining the RFA rather than contracting for service like Brier and Mountlake Terrace
have done since 2005 and like Edmonds has done since 2010. The RFA will be having discussions later in
2021 and in 2022 with the cities of Brier and Mountlake Terrace because their initial 20-year contracts end
in 2024. The RFA's desire is for both cities to formally join the RFA by 2024 or earlier. Although the City
of Edmonds' initial 20-year contract term ends in 2030, the RFA looks forward to having these same
discussions with the City of Edmonds well before 2030 if the City is interested in doing so.
Chief Hovis recognized the valued partnership between the two organizations for the past 11 years. He
thanked Edmonds for virtually hosting SCF tonight. As someone who has spent the majority of his life in
Edmonds and grew up here, he appreciates the leadership at the Council and Mayor levels and what they
are to the City.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for all SCF was doing with regard to vaccinations in
the City and all the other programs as well as for their thorough and comprehensive presentations. He
thanked Ms. Hollenbeck for her presentation and the data based on questions asked at SCF's previous
presentation. He asked if the percentages were based on the 283 uniformed firefighters. Ms. Hollenbeck
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 271
8.3.m
said overall hiring is based on the candidate pool and the MSO/captains is the percentage of captains and
MSOs but overall it is based on the 283 firefighters.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the commissioners for attending and Chief Hovis for the presentation.
She referred Chief Hovis' response to her email and her discussions with him and City Attorney Jeff
Taraday today. She recalled in 2009, before she was on the Council, standards for the contract were
developed by former Fire Chief Tomberg, former Councilmember Plunkett and others. She recalled when
personnel was changed based the 2017 Fitch report, the intent was to reanalyze the standards in a year or
so based on new data and the new contract but that was not done. It may be advantageous to develop a
committee to look at the standards to determine if they are still relevant or need to be changed. She asked
Chief Hovis his thoughts on that. Chief Hovis agreed continuously analyzing the needs of the community,
especially 11 years after the initial agreement, there was no better time than the present. He will leave what
that looks like to the Council and Mayor and it could be discussed internally with SCF and commissioners.
Councilmember Olson thanked SCF for their presentation and for answering questions in advance. With
regard to the cost reduction of 9.13% for the Town of Woodway, she said it made sense that there was an
offset and Woodway was paying that at one time, but now that Woodway is not being serviced by SCF,
why should Edmonds absorb the price Woodway used to pay when there is no service provided to
Woodway. Deputy Chief Eastman reiterated he was not part of the negotiations when the agreement was
renegotiated in 2017, but his understanding was that in those conversations, the 9.13% was attributed to
Woodway during the initial agreement, the reduction in the three station cost went away and the only
reduction now in the contract is Esperance, the unincorporated area protected by Station 20 and the 9.13%
is no longer a reduction in the three station cost. The flip side was the City of Edmonds wanted the ability
to subcontract to the Town of Woodway in the future and if that was successful, there would be an exchange
of dollars. The City would collect those funds, not the RFA (or FD 1 at the time) and it would not be
considered a change in service delivery responsibility, SCF would automatically do it as part of the
agreement. He was unaware of the conversations that drove that.
Chief Hovis said Mr. Taraday was part of those negotiations and could be a resource for the Council.
Councilmember Olson summarized even if it hadn't been a good deal, the deal was already negotiated and
therefore a moot point. Chief Hovis agreed since the Town of Woodway has elected to get their fire service
from King County Fire District 4, known as Shoreline Fire Department.
Council President Paine thanked SCF for the level of detail in their presentation. She observed the labor
contract was resolved at the end of last year and asked when the next labor agreement was coming up and
how would that impact the contract. Chief Hovis advised the impacts once those contracts are negotiated
are listed in the current ILA. Negotiations will begin with IFF Local 1828 later this month and into April
for a successor agreement. The prior agreement was through December 31, 2020. Council President Paine
asked him to keep the City posted. Chief Hovis assured he would.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked all the fire commissioners and fire staff who took the time to attend
the virtual meeting, noting she appreciated the cooperation between the agencies. Chief Hovis commented
he and Commissioner Chan enjoy serving with Councilmember K. Johnson on the Sno9l l Board.
Chief Hovis introduced Karl Fitterer, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Melissa Blankenship, Executive Assistant
to the Board of Commissioners, and thanked them for their efforts.
Commissioner Chan commented the violence in last two weeks makes him sick to his stomach. The top
priority of government service is to protect and keep citizens safe. When he was sworn in as a fire
commissioner, he promised to do his best to protect the safety of all his constituents in South County Fire
including the residents of contract cities like Edmonds. The recent harassments and attacks on Asian
Americans have been extremely dangerous and upsetting. Public servants and elected officials can no longer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 272
8.3.m
be silent and tolerate hate crimes. He asked everyone to join him in denouncing these acts of violence, to
give support and comfort to Asian Americans within the community who are now living in fear. Standing
up to racists and bullies is not political, it is just human decency and our obligation. He asked attendees to
raise their hands and promise to speak out against all violence.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Denise & Mark [no last name given] said it has been a disappointing week for the City. The citizens of
Edmonds lost a dedicated professional in Chief Lawless. As Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and
Distelhorst run campaigns to retain their seats on Council, she said many people will question their
leadership and decision -making on behalf of the citizens. Elected officials are supposed to represent citizens
and many spoke out loud and clear about who they wanted for their chief but their ears were closed. She
wished them good luck with their campaigns.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, a former Citizens Housing Commissioner, thanked the City for the opportunity
to serve on the CHC and said he learned a lot. He thanked his fellow commissioners; a diverse membership
that served the City well. However, he was disappointed in the process used to reach the CHC's
recommendations. The CHC used a legislative process to solve problem, a process that was foreign to him
and that he did not think served the commission very well. It was a tool in the City's toolbox that is used
all the time but if there is only a hammer in the toolbox, everything looks like nail. He felt the CHC was
using a hammer to solve something that was not a nail and didn't really know what problem they were
trying to solve. Personally, he would have created a vision statement for the City, developed a set of guiding
principles or values as a starting point and then the process would be subservient to that vision. The CHC
ended up with non-integrated ideas and no clear goal of what they were trying to achieve. The legislative
process was misused, the CHC was siloed into committees that prevented cross -collaboration in public
meetings. A true legislative process documents majority and minority opinions that are sent forward out of
the commission. That was not done so the Council is left with a set of recommendations without any of the
background data or information available to the CHC. He invited the Council to reach out to him, he has
plenty of recommendations as the process moves forward.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested Item 8.3 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER.
3. REPORT ON BIDS AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2021
OVERLAY PROGRAM
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 273