2013-06-18 City Council - Public Agenda-1500'4- o
0 -c9
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
JUNE 18, 2013
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call
2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. AM-5865 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2013.
B. AM-5859 Approval of claim checks #202585 through #202721 dated June 13, 2013 for
$1,006,525.45.
C. AM-5844 Approval of 2013 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi.
D. AM-5869 April 2013 Monthly Financial Report
E. AM-5860 Special Event Contract for Bastille Day
F. AM-5862 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles.
G. AM-5848 Contract award for the FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project.
H. AM-5849 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet, Inc. for the
228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
I. AM-5855 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans &
Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Project.
J. AM-5856 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the
Cavalry Chapel property for the Five Corners Roundabout Project.
K. AM-5863 Authorization for Mayor to sign acceptance of additional Coordinated Prevention Grant
Funding.
L. AM-5858 Authorization to contract with Summit Law Group to provide legal services related to a
union grievance.
M. AM-5870 Authorization to contract with Carol Morris to provide legal services related to the Point
Edwards Building 10 closed -record appeal.
N. AM-5834 Resolution thanking Walker Kasinadhuni for his service as a Student Representative.
O. AM-5868 Ordinance adopting 2012 International Building and Fire Codes
4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
5. (5 Minutes) Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Walker Kasinadhuni Student Representative
AM-5835
6.
(90 Minutes)
Closed record review of an appeal (File No. APL20130001) of the Hearing Examiner's
AM-5861
final decision on Tom and Lin Hillman's critical areas and setback variances (File No.
PLN20120033) for a new residence to be located at 1139 Sierra Place. Appellants:
Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown, & Candy Brown.
7.
(30 Minutes)
Public Hearing on the Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019)
AM-5850
8.
(5 Minutes)
Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 - Citizens Economic
AM-5873
Development Commission.
9.
(15 Minutes)
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of June 11, 2013.
AM-5866
10.
(5 Minutes)
Mayor's Comments
11.
(15 Minutes)
Council Comments
12. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
13. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
AM-5865
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:
06/18/2013
Time:
Consent
Submitted By:
Sandy Chase
Department:
City Clerk's Office
Review Committee:
Type:
Action
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2013.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
06-11-13 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:44 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 11:48 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/13/2013 11:37 AM
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
3. A.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
June 11, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
*(Arrived at 6:06 p.m.)
1. ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED (6-0).
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6-0).
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as
follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202434 THROUGH #202584 DATED JUNE 6, 2013
FOR $461,109.90. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60214
THROUGH #60232 FOR $450,623.94, BENEFIT CHECKS #60233 THROUGH #60244
AND WIRE PAY.MENTS OF $198,581.58 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16, 2013 THROUGH
MAY 31, 2013.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2013.
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2013
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she pulled this item to abstain as she was absent from the May 28,
2013 meeting.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 11, 2013
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
APPROVE ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
ABSTAINED. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one present in the audience who wished to make comment.
4. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i), AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(b)
At 6:04 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) and labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated
that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury
Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of
meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and
Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas arrived at 6:06 p.m.
Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Police Chief Al
Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite, and
City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:35 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council
Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session
concluded at 6:46 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:47 p.m.
5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling had no report.
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis encouraged everyone to attend the Edmonds Arts Festival this weekend,
commenting the festival is put on entirely by volunteers.
Council President Petso wished Councilmember Fraley-Monillas a happy birthday.
Councilmember Johnson announced a public meeting regarding the Dayton Street & SR 104 Drainage
Alternative Study will be held June 20 from 6:00 — 8:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room.
7. ADJOURN TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
With no further business, the Council meeting adjourned to Council Committee meetings at 6:49 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 11, 2013
Page 2
AM-5859
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Roger Neumaier
Department: Finance
Review Committee:
Type:
Action
Tnfner"Ofinn
Submitted By:
3. B.
Nori Jacobson
Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #202585 through #202721 dated June 13, 2013 for $1,006,525.45.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Year:
Revenue:
Expenditure:
2013
1,006,525.45
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $1,006,525.45
Claim Checks 06-13-13
Proiect Numbers 06-13-13
Inbox
Reviewed By
Finance
Roger Neumaier
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda
Sandy Chase
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Form Review
Date
06/13/2013 11:58 AM
06/13/2013 01:32 PM
06/13/2013 02:32 PM
06/13/2013 02:33 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 06/13/2013 09:30 AM
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202585
6/12/2013
006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
06072013
2013 LAB ACCREDITATION WWTP
Lab accreditation fees for 2013
423.000.76.535.80.51.00
800.00
Total:
800.00
202586
6/13/2013
074261 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES
37338925
E7AA.SERVICES THRU 4/26/13
E7AA.Services thru 4/26/13
112.200.68.595.33.41.00
839.33
Total:
839.33
202587
6/13/2013
000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT
9333
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl-
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl-
421.000.74.534.80.33.00
126,187.48
Total:
126,187.48
202588
6/13/2013
001528 AM TEST INC
75678
WWTP - LAB SERVICE - MERCURY.
WWTP - LAB SERVICE - MERCURY
423.000.76.535.80.41.31
200.00
Total:
200.00
202589
6/13/2013
064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
WP42
WWTP - NPDES SAMPLES FOR LAI
WWTP - NPDES SAMPLES FOR LAI
423.000.76.535.80.41.31
165.00
Total:
165.00
202590
6/13/2013
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
655-6845024
UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT
UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
97.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
9.25
Total:
106.67
202591
6/13/2013
064343 AT&T
425-776-5316
PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
45.36
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202591
6/13/2013
064343 064343 AT&T
(Continued)
Total:
45.36
202592
6/13/2013
064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC
1003996
FS 17 - Velocity Sensor Inlet Filters,
FS 17 - Velocity Sensor Inlet Filters,
016.000.66.518.30.31.00
446.40
Freight
016.000.66.518.30.31.00
8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00
43.17
1004005
FS 17 - ZZZ-0570 Part
FS 17 - ZZZ-0570 Part
016.000.66.518.30.31.00
368.10
Freight
016.000.66.518.30.31.00
17.00
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00
36.59
Total:
919.26
202593
6/13/2013
069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC
COE0513
Background checks - employment
Background checks - employment
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
540.00
Tota I :
540.00
202594
6/13/2013
066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC
3381
CEMETERY DISPLAY AD
CEMETERY DISPLAY AD
130.000.64.536.20.44.00
108.00
Total:
108.00
202595
6/13/2013
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
0703571-IN
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 630.8 C
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 630.8 C
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
993.81
0740186-IN
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 500 Ga
Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 500 Ga
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
789.50
Total:
1,783.31
202596
6/13/2013
073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC
7074
E3JA.SERVICES THRU MAY 2013
Page: 2
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 3
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202596
6/13/2013
073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC
(Continued)
E3JA.Services thru May 2013
421.000.74.594.34.41.10
19,374.75
Total:
19,374.75
202597
6/13/2013
002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC
IL50197
Unit 91- Samurai Supplies
Unit 91- Samurai Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
456.96
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
41.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
47.34
IM65619
Unit 18 - Supplies
Unit 18 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1,081.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
26.21
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
105.19
Total:
1,758.19
202598
6/13/2013
072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
BROCKMAN MAY 2013
PILATES 17446
PILATES 17446
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
467.46
YOGA 17119
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
139.95
YOGA 17116
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
371.70
YOGA 17108
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
359.55
YOGA 17111
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
407.14
YOGA 17114
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
504.45
YOGA 17105
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
198.45
Page: 3
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 4
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202598
6/13/2013
072005 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
(Continued)
Total:
2,448.70
202599
6/13/2013
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
12775785
CANON CONTRACT CHARGES
Contract charges for C5051
001.000.61.519.70.45.00
83.35
Contract charges for C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
83.35
Contract charges for C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
83.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.45.00
7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
7.91
Total:
273.74
202600
6/13/2013
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
RN05130991
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.64.575.55.45.00
11.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.55.45.00
1.12
Total:
12.87
202601
6/13/2013
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
RN05130992
WWTP - CYLINDER RENTAL
WWTP - CYLINDER RENTAL
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
58.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
5.51
Total:
63.51
202602
6/13/2013
066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC
23432891
COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW - Final "Prop Tax'
001.000.65.519.91.45.00
42.60
Total:
42.60
Page: 4
vchlist
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 5
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202603
6/13/2013
019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
M&O
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEA
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEI
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
27,602.00
Total:
27,602.00
202604
6/13/2013
019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
10115
INV#10115 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS
VERIZON PHONE NARCS 05/2013
104.000.41.521.21.42.00
91.52
Total:
91.52
202605
6/13/2013
074461 CLARK, YVONNE
CLARK 06042013
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.239.200
50.00
Total:
50.00
202606
6/13/2013
071680 CODE 4 LLC
052713
INV#052713 - EDMONDS PD
S&W M&P15A CARBINE, 5.56MM
104.100.41.521.21.35.00
6,984.00
MAGPUL PMAG, 5.56 MM
104.100.41.521.21.35.00
156.00
TACTICAL TAILOR QR, M4
104.100.41.521.21.35.00
240.00
Freight
104.100.41.521.21.35.00
15.00
9.5% Sales Tax
104.100.41.521.21.35.00
702.53
052713
INV#052713 - CREDIT FOR FIREARI
CR FOR 21 FIREARMS TRADED -IN
104.100.41.521.21.35.00
-2,785.00
9.5% Sales Tax
104.100.41.521.21.35.00
-264.58
Total:
5,047.95
202607
6/13/2013
073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC
JUN-13
C/A CITYOFED00001
Jun-13 Fiber Optics Internet Connect
001.000.31.518.87.42.00
407.20
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202607
6/13/2013
073135 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC (Continued)
Total:
407.20
202608
6/13/2013
062891 COOK PAGING WA
9077759
WATER WATCH PAGER
WATER WATCH PAGER
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
4.25
Total:
4.25
202609
6/13/2013
072848 COPIERS NW
INV875355
INV#INV875355 ACCT#HMH636 - E[
MO COPIER RENTAL 05/05-06/04/1
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
226.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
21.54
INV875896
INV#INV875896 ACCT#HMH636 - E[
BLACK COPIES 05/05 - 06/04/13
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
69.35
COLOR COPIES 05/05 - 06/04/13
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
93.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
15.49
Total:
426.87
202610
6/13/2013
069529 D & G BACKHOE INC
E3JA.Pmt 1
E3JA.PAYMENT 1 THRU 5/31/13
E3JA.PMT 1 thru 5/31/13
421.000.74.594.34.65.10
338,418.34
E3JA.Ret 1
421.000.223.400
-15,452.89
Total:
322,965.45
202611
6/13/2013
061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03
335583
INV#335583 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATION RADAR #08527
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
FUELSURCHARGE
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
8.08
335584
INV#335584 - EDMONDS PD
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202611 6/13/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 (Continued)
CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-03836
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
335585
INV#335585 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-03890
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
335586
INV#335586 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-12646
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
335587
INV#335587 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-12654
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
335588
INV#335588 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-14955
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
335589
INV#335589 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-14984
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
335591
INV#335591 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE RADAR GHS-08722
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
Page: 7
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 8
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202611
6/13/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03
(Continued)
335592
INV#335592 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE RADAR GHS-08723
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.13
Total:
750.12
202612
6/13/2013 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PWTF-111217
LOAN #PP09-951-014
Pr Pmt CTED 2009 Water Comprehei
421.000.74.591.34.78.00
20,000.00
PWTF-156595
LOAN #PW-04-691-031
Pr Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station
421.000.74.591.34.78.65
25,838.97
Int Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station
421.000.74.592.34.83.65
1,550.33
PWTF-176401
LOAN #PW-05-691-015
Pr Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Station
423.000.75.591.35.78.66
72,295.21
Int Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Statior
423.000.75.592.35.83.66
4,598.62
PWTF-81725
LOAN #PW-02-691-019
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
423.000.75.591.35.78.61
36,450.00
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
423.000.75.592.35.83.61
1,822.50
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
423.100.76.591.39.78.61
34,875.00
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
423.100.76.592.39.83.61
1,743.75
PWTF-87622
LOAN #PW-02-691-PRE-123
Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improverr
112.506.68.591.95.78.62
18,143.28
Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improven
112.506.68.592.95.83.62
907.16
PWTF-87654
LOAN #PW-04-691-029
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202612
6/13/2013
069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
(Continued)
Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improverr
112.506.68.591.95.78.63
21,176.47
Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improven
112.506.68.592.95.83.63
1,270.59
PWTF-89346
LOAN #PW-04-691-030
Pr Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp
422.000.72.591.31.78.64
32,062.50
Int Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp
422.000.72.592.31.83.64
1,923.75
PWTF-97976
LOAN #PW-06-962-012
Pr Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilizati
112.200.68.591.95.78.67
32,881.58
Int Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilizat
112.200.68.592.95.83.67
2,301.71
Total:
309,841.42
202613
6/13/2013
047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
2013050374
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for May 2013
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
940.00
Total:
940.00
202614
6/13/2013
064531 DINES, JEANNIE
13-3365
INV#13-3365 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-0897
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
372.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-1200
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
75.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-1738
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
135.00
Total:
582.00
202615
6/13/2013
064531 DINES, JEANNIE
13-3367
MINUTE TAKING
6/4 Council Minutes
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
234.00
Total:
234.00
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202616
6/13/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC
613
SIMPLE GREEN
SIMPLE GREEN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
0.47
Total:
5.46
202617
6/13/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
ABRAR JANOO 17199
ABRAR JANOO 17199
ABRAR JANOO 17199
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
52.00
AQSA JANOO 17202
AQSA JANOO 17202 SWIM
AQSAJANOO 17202 SWIM
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
52.00
ARIBA JANOO
ARIBA JANOO 17207
ARIBA JANOO 17207
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
52.00
JANOO 17199
JANOO 17199
JANOO 17199
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
52.00
JANOO 17202
JANOO 17202 SWIM LESSONS
JANOO 17202 SWIM LESSONS
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
52.00
JANOO 17207
JANOO 17207
JANOO 17207
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
52.00
JANOO 17214
JANOO 17214
JANOO 17214
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
52.00
RAMINEZ 16886
ALVAREZ RAMINEZ TAEKWONDO 1
ALVAREZ RAMINEZ TAEKWONDO 1
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
58.00
VARGAS 16951
VARGAS 16951 KLS PRE -SOCCER
VARGAS 16951 KLS PRE -SOCCER
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
59.00
Total:
481.00
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202618
6/13/2013
038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER
2013-06-01
06/13 RECREATION SERVICES COP
06/13 Recreation Services Contract F
001.000.39.555.00.41.00
5,000.00
Total:
5,000.00
202619
6/13/2013
008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
209941
INV#209941 CLIENT #3713 - EDMOI'
AMOXICILLIN FOR IMP#8868
001.000.41.521.70.31.00
17.60
TRAMADOL FOR IMP#8868
001.000.41.521.70.31.00
17.00
MOMETAMAX OINTMENT-IMP#8868
001.000.41.521.70.31.00
58.00
EXAM IMP#8868
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
55.00
BOARDING IMP#8868
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
81.00
MEDICATION ADMINIST. IMP#8868
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
30.00
AMOXICILLIN FOR #8869
001.000.41.521.70.31.00
14.80
RIMADLY CHEWS FOR IMP#8869
001.000.41.521.70.31.00
30.90
EXAM IMP#8869
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
55.00
BOARDING IMP#8869
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
20.25
MEDICATION ADMINIST. IMP#8869
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.70.31.00
13.15
Total:
404.70
202620
6/13/2013
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
0881381
PARKS MAINTA7078 MAINT AGREE
PARKS MAINTA7078 MAINT AGREE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
17.96
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 11
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202620
6/13/2013
008812
ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1.71
Total:
19.67
202621
6/13/2013
008812
ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
088024
COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
3.06
Total:
3.06
202622
6/13/2013
008812
ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
087944
COPIER CHARGES C5051
Copier charges C5051
001.000.61.519.70.45.00
61.07
Copier charges C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
61.07
Copier charges C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
61.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.45.00
5.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
5.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
5.80
Total:
200.57
202623
6/13/2013
063953
EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C
22003
FS 17 - Leak Test Trane Chiller
FS 17 - Leak Test Trane Chiller
016.000.66.519.00.48.00
265.00
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.519.00.48.00
25.18
Total:
290.18
202624
6/13/2013
066378
FASTENAL COMPANY
WAMOU28764
TAPS
TAPS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
23.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.25
Page: 12
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 13
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202624
6/13/2013
066378
066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
(Continued)
Total:
25.89
202625
6/13/2013
066378
FASTENAL COMPANY
WAMOU28547
Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
95.49
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.07
WAMOU28558
Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
14.78
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1.40
WAMOU28658
Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.89
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1.03
Total:
132.66
202626
6/13/2013
074459
FAY L BARTELS
2-06900
#607054 UTILITY REFUND
#607054 Utility Refund due to estimai
411.000.233.000
55.22
Total:
55.22
202627
6/13/2013
009815
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
2623295
Sewer - LS 12 - Supplies
Sewer - LS 12 - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
98.87
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.39
Total:
108.26
202628
6/13/2013
069940
FIRST ADVANTAGE SBS
265218
INV 265218 ACCT ODY900JJM EDM
CREDIT CHECKS - 2
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
21.00
Total:
21.00
202629
6/13/2013
074457
FREDERICK BROOKS
8-44500
#650285 UTILITY REFUND
Page: 13
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202629
6/13/2013
074457 FREDERICK BROOKS
(Continued)
#650285 Utility Refund due to seller
411.000.233.000
28.50
Total:
28.50
202630
6/13/2013
011900 FRONTIER
425-744-1681
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
41.65
425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
40.99
425-775-1344
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN
001.000.64.574.35.42.00
54.44
425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
110.75
Total:
247.83
202631
6/13/2013
072515 GOOGLE INC
6302714
C/A#396392 MESSAGE DISCOVER'
Internet Anti -Virus & Spam Maint Fee
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
367.00
Total:
367.00
202632
6/13/2013
012199 GRAINGER
9138000832
Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
35.78
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
3.42
9138264354
Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
336.92
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
32.00
9152584893
Shop Supplies
Shop Supplies
Page: 14
vchlist Voucher List Page: 15
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202632
6/13/2013
012199 GRAINGER
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
86.20
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
8.20
9152992773
Shop Supplies
Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
94.47
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
8.97
Total:
605.96
202633
6/13/2013
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
2261517
WWTP - BATTERIES, WALLPLATE, '
WWTP - BATTERIES, WALLPLATE, '
423.000.76.535.80.31.22
73.77
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22
7.01
4284656
WWTP - PEG BOARD, CEDAR BOAT
WWTP - PEG BOARD, CEDAR BOAT
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
171.97
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
16.34
7034145
WWTP - KD WHITEWOOD STUD, H
WWTP - KD WHITEWOOD STUD, H
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
35.06
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
3.33
8035881
WWTP - POLY SHEETS, PALLET, LI
WWTP - POLY SHEETS, PALLET, LI
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
405.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
38.51
Total:
751.39
202634
6/13/2013
072041 IBS INCORPORATED
536266-1
Shop Supplies - Particulate Respiratc
Shop Supplies - Particulate Respiratc
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
24.95
Page: 15
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 16
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202634
6/13/2013
072041
IBS INCORPORATED
(Continued)
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
3.26
Tota I :
37.54
202635
6/13/2013
073548
INDOFF INCORPORATED
2290323
office supplies
office supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
24.00
supplies - paper (share cost)
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
12.65
supplies - paper (share cost)
001.000.61.519.70.31.00
12.65
supplies - paper (share cost)
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
12.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
3.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.519.70.31.00
1.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
1.21
Total:
67.85
202636
6/13/2013
061546
INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY
941720
Sewer - LS 12 - Fuse's (6)
Sewer - LS 12 - Fuse 's (6)
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
125.88
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
11.96
Total:
137.84
202637
6/13/2013
069040
INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
000011392
Fleet - Battery Sticks (2) (returned)
Fleet - Battery Sticks (2) (returned)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
111.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.57
Page: 16
vchlist
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 17
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202637
6/13/2013
069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
(Continued)
000012090
Unit 43 - Vulcan Light
Unit 43 - Vulcan Light
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
190.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
18.05
000012183
Unit 681 POL - 6V Batteries
Unit 681 POL - 6V Batteries
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
137.69
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
13.08
000013003
Fleet Brake Inventory - Wave Rotors
Fleet Brake Inventory - Wave Rotors
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
519.06
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
49.31
Total:
1,049.00
202638
6/13/2013
065873 ITE WASHINGTON STATE SECTION
Hauss.ITE 2013
HAUSS.ITE CONFERENCE 2013
Hauss.ITE Conference 2013
001.000.67.532.20.49.00
125.00
Total:
125.00
202639
6/13/2013
074451 JAMES GRIFFIN
2-34810
#40113126-806 UTILITY REFUND
#40113126-806 Utility Refund - recei%
411.000.233.000
139.63
Total:
139.63
202640
6/13/2013
074453 JAMES O'HANLON
4-05675
#4245-2029611 UTILITY REFUND
#4245-2029611 Utility Refund due to
411.000.233.000
113.95
Total:
113.95
202641
6/13/2013
074450 JONATHAN & PAMELA BAKER
3-10225
#S13-00159-JBFS UTILITY REFUND
#S13-00159-JBFS Utility Refund due
411.000.233.000
54.30
Page: 17
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 18
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202641
6/13/2013
074450
074450 JONATHAN & PAMELA BAKER (Continued)
Total:
54.30
202642
6/13/2013
016600
KROESENS INC
13580
INV#13580 CUST#1320 - EDMONDS
DANNER PATROL BOOTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
229.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
21.76
Total :
250.76
202643
6/13/2013
017050
KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
06042013-01
INV#06042013-01 - EDMONDS PD
29 CAR WASHES @$5.03 (INCTX) 0
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
145.87
Total :
145.87
202644
6/13/2013
074449
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
BLD20130548
Online permit, outside city limits.
Online permit, outside city limits.
001.000.257.620
85.00
Total:
85.00
202645
6/13/2013
074462
LANE, ERIN
LANE 06032013
ONE HOUR MONITOR FEE REFUNC
ONE HOUR MONITOR FEE REFUNC
001.000.239.200
15.00
Total:
15.00
202646
6/13/2013
067725
LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER
805000310015
Unit 11 - Radial Repair
Unit 11 - Radial Repair
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
30.25
Parts
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
6.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
3.53
Total:
40.73
202647
6/13/2013
074452
LESLIE CAPUSAN
1-21380
#00633-001361210 UTILITY REFUNI
#00633-001361210 Utility Refund due
411.000.233.000
213.54
Page: 18
vchlist Voucher List Page: 19
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202647
6/13/2013
074452 074452 LESLIE CAPUSAN
(Continued)
Total:
213.54
202648
6/13/2013
068619 LINDA SWENSON
1247
FALL 2013 CRAZE COVER PHOTO
FALL 2013 CRAZE COVER PHOTO
001.000.64.571.22.49.00
122.50
Total:
122.50
202649
6/13/2013
018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
679746
Unit 63 - Fuel, Oil and Hydraulic
Unit 63 - Fuel, Oil and Hydraulic
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
71.68
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
6.81
679818
Unit 57 - Hydraulic Filter
Unit 57 - Hydraulic Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
49.27
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.68
679826
Unit 57 - Air Filter
Unit 57 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
21.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.06
679875
Unit 63 - Air Filter
Unit 63 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
22.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.11
680212
Unit 4 - Oil Filters
Unit 4 - Oil Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0.31
680345
Unit 33 - Seals
Unit 33 - Seals
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.00
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 19
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 20
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202649
6/13/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0.86
680346
Fleet - Return Sandpaper Roll
Fleet - Return Sandpaper Roll
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-172.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-16.39
680351
Unit33 - Bearing Cones
Unit33 - Bearing Cones
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
30.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.86
680559
Unit 91- Rubberized Undercoat
Unit 91- Rubberized Undercoat
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
8.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0.80
680593
Fleet - Seat belt
Fleet - Seat belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
55.15
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5.24
680959
Unit 83 - Seat Belt
Unit 83 - Seat Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
29.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.84
680964
Fleet Return - Seat Belt
Fleet Return - Seat Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-55.15
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-5.24
681291
Unit 124 - Air Filter
Unit 124 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
17.64
Page: 20
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 21
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202649
6/13/2013
018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
(Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.68
681338
Unit 124 - Hydraulic Filter
Unit 124 - Hydraulic Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0.86
681461
Unit 9 - Bulb
Unit 9 - Bulb
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
17.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.62
681708
Unit 97 - Air Filter
Unit 97 - Air Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0.90
Total:
138.43
202650
6/13/2013
074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO
001308-00
SUPPLIES PARKS
SUPPLIES PARKS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
383.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
36.46
Total:
420.30
202651
6/13/2013
019582 MANOR HARDWARE
474490-00
BIG TOP -PILE COVER MATERIALS
Plate Washer 1/2 3x3 HDG
422.000.72.594.31.41.20
125.00
Powers 1/2x10 SIDS Bit
422.000.72.594.31.41.20
15.00
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.594.31.41.20
13.30
Total:
153.30
Page: 21
vchlist
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 22
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202652
6/13/2013
069362 MARSHALL, CITA
1288
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
88.32
1289
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
88.32
1292
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
88.32
Total:
264.96
202653
6/13/2013
019920 MCCANN, MARIAN
53
LEOFF reimbursement
LEOFF reimbursement
009.000.39.517.37.29.00
8,464.50
Total:
8,464.50
202654
6/13/2013
072223 MILLER, DOUG
MILLER MAY
GYM MONITOR MILLER 6/5/2013
GYM MONITOR MILLER 6/5/2013
001.000.64.575.52.41.00
35.00
Total:
35.00
202655
6/13/2013
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
168263
LIFT GENIE
LIFT GENIE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
335.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
31.83
168773
GAS CAP
GAS CAP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
0.66
Total:
374.51
202656
6/13/2013
072833 MVP
MAY 2013
MAY 2013 - EDMONDS PD
CD OF POLICE AWARDS CEREMO
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
180.00
Page: 22
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 23
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202656
6/13/2013
072833 MVP
(Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
17.10
Total:
197.10
202657
6/13/2013
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0497820-IN
Unit 106 - Filters
Unit 106 - Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
28.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.69
0497976-IN
Unit 9 - Filter
Unit 9 - Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
38.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3.62
Total:
72.68
202658
6/13/2013
074458 NORTH AMERICAN FILTRATION CO
31384
POOL COVER
POOL COVER
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
2,098.74
Freight
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
179.00
Total :
2,277.74
202659
6/13/2013
025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS
52715
Fleet Shop - Black Pro -Wrap
Fleet Shop - Black Pro -Wrap
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
87.12
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
7.83
Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
8.74
Total :
103.69
202660
6/13/2013
061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
1-666986
HICKMAN PARK RENTALS
HICKMAN PARK RENTALS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
587.88
Page: 23
vchlist Voucher List Page: 24
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202660
6/13/2013
061013
NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
(Continued)
1-669756
RENTALS MATHAY PARK
RENTALS MATHAY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
184.77
1-673988
RENTALS CIVIC FIELD
RENTALS CIVIC FIELD
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
112.35
Total:
885.00
202661
6/13/2013
025690
NOYES, KARIN
000 00 379
Planning Board minutes for 5/8/13.
Planning Board minutes for 5/8/13.
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
288.00
Total:
288.00
202662
6/13/2013
063511
OFFICE MAX INC
018698
KLEENEX
KLEENEX
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
44.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
4.24
Total :
48.92
202663
6/13/2013
063511
OFFICE MAX INC
959256
INV#959256 ACCT#520437 250POL
DVD+R RECORDABLE DISCS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
35.56
CD-R RECORDABLE DISCS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
34.26
PHOTO PAPERFOR LAB
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
25.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
6.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
2.47
Total :
104.90
202664
6/13/2013
063511
OFFICE MAX INC
929002
Water Quality - HP Toner
Water Quality - HP Toner
Page: 24
vchlist Voucher List Page: 25
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
202664 6/13/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Invoice
(Continued)
4I'I:1111101
202665 6/13/2013 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER May, 2013
PO # Description/Account
Amount
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
140.85
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
13.39
PW Office Supplies - Pens, HighlightE
PW Office Supplies - Pens, HighlightE
001.000.65.519.91.31.00
65.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.519.91.31.00
6.21
Total :
225.83
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI•
Emergency Medical Services & Traun
001.000.237.120
1,844.55
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130
33,683.02
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150
166.50
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330
115.54
Judicial Information Systems Accounl
001.000.237.180
6,538.27
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200
214.21
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250
3,614.58
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260
688.88
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.237.290
37.77
Multi -Model Transportation
001.000.237.300
37.78
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320
183.34
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
Page: 25
vchlist Voucher List Page: 26
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202665
6/13/2013
070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
(Continued)
001.000.237.170
244.52
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340
655.47
Total:
48,024.43
202666
6/13/2013
073751 OKANOGAN COUNTRY SHERIFF
OKC JAIL MAY 2013
EDMONDS INMATE HOUSING MAY
31 INMATE HOUSING DAYS - MAY 2
001.000.41.523.60.51.00
1,658.50
INMATE MEDICATION
001.000.41.523.60.31.00
1.29
Total:
1,659.79
202667
6/13/2013
073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC, PLLC
MAY 2013
Hearing Examiner services for May 21
Hearing Examiner services for May 21
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
710.88
Total:
710.88
202668
6/13/2013
064645 OLYMPIC MECHANICAL INC
BLD20130602
Online permit, applicant did not get
Online permit, applicant did not get
001.000.257.620
75.00
Total:
75.00
202669
6/13/2013
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
3117
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
625.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
59.47
Tota I :
685.42
202670
6/13/2013
073987 OSMONSON, SHANNON
OSMONSON 16796
LITTLE FISH 16796
LITTLE FISH 16796
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
502.20
Total:
502.20
202671
6/13/2013
002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
00067879
Sewer - Service Kit
Sewer - Service Kit
Page: 26
vchlist Voucher List Page: 27
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202671
6/13/2013
002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
85.00
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
11.28
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.15
Total:
105.43
202672
6/13/2013
027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
954023036977
FAC - Paint and Supplies
FAC - Paint and Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
88.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8.37
Total:
96.51
202673
6/13/2013
073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC
04255
INV 04255 EDMONDS PD - MAY 201
PERSONNEL EVALUATION PROFILI
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
60.00
Total:
60.00
202674
6/13/2013
063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC
20100166.000-23
E2DB.SERVICES THRU 6/2/13
E2DB.Services thru 6/2/13
132.000.64.594.76.41.00
1,454.43
Total:
1,454.43
202675
6/13/2013
074455 PHONON LLC
4-17100
#605997 UTILITY REFUND
#605997 Utility Refund due to estimal
411.000.233.000
27.50
Tota I :
27.50
202676
6/13/2013
073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT
06052013
POSTAGE FOR CITY METER
250-00303 Postage for City Meter
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
8,000.00
Total:
8,000.00
202677
6/13/2013
074441 PLANTE, KEN
REF 6-2013
REFUND LICENSE FEES - EDMONE
REFUND LATE FEES CHARGED
Page: 27
vchlist Voucher List Page: 28
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202677
6/13/2013
074441 PLANTE, KEN
(Continued)
001.000.322.30.000.00
30.00
REFUND TAG FEE/NON SR FEES
001.000.322.30.000.00
7.00
Total:
37.00
202678
6/13/2013
071023 POINT EDWARDS LLC
Pt Edwards.Refund
POINT EDWARDS-TRAFFIC MITIGA
Point Edwards -Traffic Mitigation Fee
112.502.68.595.64.49.00
26,427.15
Total:
26,427.15
202679
6/13/2013
072993 PRIMACIO, GEORENE
PRIMACIO 16878
PRIMACIO 16878
PRIMACIO 16878
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
165.00
Total:
165.00
202680
6/13/2013
071911 PROTZ, MARGARET
PROTZ 17044
FELDENKRAIS 17044
FELDENKRAIS 17044
001.000.64.575.54.41.00
404.00
Tota I :
404.00
202681
6/13/2013
070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
13-407
COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
3,318.75
Total:
3,318.75
202682
6/13/2013
030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
00000136675
INSCRIPTION HUANG
INSCRIPTION HUANG
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
240.00
Total:
240.00
202683
6/13/2013
070042 RICOH USA INC
89140067
Rent on reception NP171SPF
Renton reception NP171SPF
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
30.66
89183458
Rent on Engineering MPC6000
Rent on Engineering MPC6000
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
443.48
Page: 28
vchlist Voucher List Page: 29
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202683
6/13/2013
070042 RICOH USA INC
(Continued)
89183461
Rent on R907EX large copier for billir
Rent on R907EX large copier for billir
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
827.00
Total:
1,301.14
202684
6/13/2013
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
1-879157
Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core
Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
356.66
1-879768
Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core
Unit 304 - Refurbished Motor Core
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
398.00
Tota I :
754.66
202685
6/13/2013
069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN
7911
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
600.00
Total:
600.00
202686
6/13/2013
071467 S MORRIS COMPANY
MAY 2013
INVOICE 05/31/13 ACCT#70014 - EE
#123677 10 NPC 05/06/13
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
113.20
#762300 2 NPC 05/20/13
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
22.64
Total:
135.84
202687
6/13/2013
072725 SAGACITY CUSTOM PUBLISHING
2013-3633
TOURISM AD IN SEATTLE VISITOR
Tourism ad in Seattle Official Visitor
120.000.31.575.42.44.00
1,732.00
Total:
1,732.00
202688
6/13/2013
074463 SANCHEZ, YVETTE
SANCHEZ 06112013
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.239.200
63.00
Total:
63.00
202689
6/13/2013
074454 SANDRA NELSEN
4-37325
#4245-2068838 UTILITY REFUND
Page: 29
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 30
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202689
6/13/2013
074454 SANDRA NELSEN
(Continued)
#4245-2068838 Utility Refund due to
411.000.233.000
179.75
Total:
179.75
202690
6/13/2013
074431 SEATTLE ASBESTOS TEST LLC
201311694
YOST POOL WATER SAMPLE TEST
YOST POOL WATER SAMPLE TEST
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
850.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
80.75
201311747
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
550.00
Total :
1,480.75
202691
6/13/2013
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
03-227328
Unit 24 - Brake Line Kit
Unit 24 - Brake Line Kit
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
56.07
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5.33
03-228451
Unit 454 - Automatic Oil
Unit 454 - Automatic Oil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
115.20
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.94
03-228721
Unit 88 - Brake Shoes and Drums
Unit 88 - Brake Shoes and Drums
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
191.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
18.24
03-229201
Unit 411 - Battery
Unit 411 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
84.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
8.03
03-229445
Unit 104 - Screen Assembly
Page: 30
vchlist Voucher List Page: 31
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
202691 6/13/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued)
Unit 104 - Screen Assembly
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
17.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.65
03-230099
Unit 104 - Trans Fluid
Unit 104 - Trans Fluid
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
81.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
7.73
03-230215
Unit 776 - Break Rotors
Unit 776 - Break Rotors
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
171.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
16.28
03-230558
Unit 649 - Rear Axle Oil, Oil Additive
Unit 649 - Rear Axle Oil, Oil Additive
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
210.86
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
20.03
03-230729
Unit 37 - Element Assembly
Unit 37 - Element Assembly
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
53.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5.06
03-230801
Unir 37 - Element Assembly
Unir 37 - Element Assembly
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
12.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.21
03-230891
Unit 25 - Element Assembly, Battery
Unit 25 - Element Assembly, Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
97.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.24
Page: 31
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 32
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202691
6/13/2013
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
(Continued)
03-231277
Fleet Brake Fluid Stock
Fleet Brake Fluid Stock
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
19.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
1.90
03-231973
Unit 95 - Battery
Unit 95 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
78.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
7.47
05-462994
Fleet Returns - Brake Line Kit
Fleet Returns - Brake Line Kit
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-57.77
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-5.49
05-465060
Fleet Return - Element Assembly
Fleet Return - Element Assembly
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-53.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-5.06
Total:
1,182.00
202692
6/13/2013
073859 SIMMONS, SHELLY
SIMMONS 16858
SUPERSQUAD 16858
SUPERSQUAD 16858
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
360.00
ZUMBATONIC
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
180.00
Total:
540.00
202693
6/13/2013
071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC
52207121
FLOWER PROGRAM
FLOWER PROGRAM
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
839.60
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
79.76
Page: 32
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 33
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202693
6/13/2013
071725 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC
(Continued)
Total:
919.36
202694
6/13/2013
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2003-2646-0
1000 MAIN ST
1000 MAIN ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
31.27
2022-5063-5
930 9TH AVE N
930 9TH AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
31.27
Total:
62.54
202695
6/13/2013
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2025-7952-0
WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE
WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
8.69
Total:
8.69
202696
6/13/2013
063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2013-1620
INV#2013-1620 - EDMONDS PD
MAY BOOKINGS - 67.33 @ $94.95
001.000.41.523.60.51.00
6,392.98
MAY HOUSING - 404.83 @ $65.94
001.000.41.523.60.51.00
26,694.49
MAY WORK RELEASE - 34 @ $44.3
001.000.41.523.60.51.00
1,506.54
Total:
34,594.01
202697
6/13/2013
070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
May 2013
Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140
930.89
Tota I :
930.89
202698
6/13/2013
037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT
CEDM 316970
Fleet HEPA/B Vaccine
Fleet HEPA/B Vaccine
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
131.00
Total:
131.00
202699
6/13/2013
038100 SNO-KING STAMP
53081
ZULAUF.REPLACE BANDS AND INl<
Zulauf.Replace Bands and Ink Pad or
001.000.67.532.20.49.00
29.69
Page: 33
vchlist Voucher List Page: 34
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202699
6/13/2013
038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
(Continued)
Total:
29.69
202700
6/13/2013
074167 SOURCE NORTH AMERICA CORP
1088039
Fleet Fuel Island - Chip Keys
Fleet Fuel Island - Chip Keys
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
85.50
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
6.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
8.72
Total:
100.50
202701
6/13/2013
009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
3248569
Sewer - Supplies
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
231.01
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
21.94
Total:
252.95
202702
6/13/2013
074456 STEPHEN & CAROL WILLOUGHBY
3-06405
#649342 UTILITY REFUND
#649342 Utility Refund - received
411.000.233.000
159.60
Total:
159.60
202703
6/13/2013
071585 STERICYCLE INC
3002279759
INV#3002279759 CUST#6076358 - E
MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
10.36
Total:
10.36
202704
6/13/2013
073629 TDS AKA BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS
801-17149
Unit 8 - Tires (2)
Unit 8 - Tires (2)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2,426.31
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
230.31
Total:
2,656.62
202705
6/13/2013
063796 TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED INC
273610
INV#273610 - EDMONDS PD
ANNUAL MAIN AGMT CANON DR75
Page: 34
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 35
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202705
6/13/2013
063796 TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED INC
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.11.41.00
480.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.41.00
45.60
Total:
525.60
202706
6/13/2013
073049 TEC-WORKS INC
12331
COARSE WAVELENGTH DIVISION P
Transition Networks CWDM-M947LC1
001.000.31.518.88.35.00
3,848.32
Freight
001.000.31.518.88.35.00
14.02
Total:
3,862.34
202707
6/13/2013
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1822381
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3923
001.000.25.514.30.44.00
27.52
1822584
NEWSPAPER ADS
Hillman Critical Areas & setback vari.
001.000.25.514.30.44.00
39.56
1822586
NEWSPAPER ADS
Six Yr. Trasnpt, Impr. Plan
001.000.25.514.30.44.00
36.12
Total:
103.20
202708
6/13/2013
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1821277
5th Av Vet/PLN20130027 Legals.
5th Av Vet/PLN20130027 Legals.
001.000.62.558.60.44.00
79.12
1821983
Farmers Market/AMD20130004 Lega
Farmers Market/AMD20130004 Lega
001.000.62.558.60.44.00
32.68
1822724
Parker/PLN20130030 Legals.
Parker/PLN20130030 Legals.
001.000.62.558.60.44.00
99.76
1822725
Lindberg/PLN20130031 Legals.
Lindberg/PLN20130031 Legals.
001.000.62.558.60.44.00
72.24
Page: 35
vchlist Voucher List Page: 36
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202708
6/13/2013
009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD
COMPANY (Continued)
Total:
283.80
202709
6/13/2013
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
360202
FS 17 - Lav Faucet
FS 17 - Lav Faucet
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
245.15
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
24.32
Total:
280.29
202710
6/13/2013
068407 TROUT UNLIMITED
EDMONDS SALMON 1712�
BEGINNING FISHING FOR KIDS 17'
BEGINNING FISHING FOR KIDS 17'
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
242.00
Total:
242.00
202711
6/13/2013
043935 UPS
00002T4T13223
Shipping - document
Shipping - document
001.000.22.518.10.42.00
25.76
shipping - document Rohde
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
6.28
Total:
32.04
202712
6/13/2013
062693 US BANK
5923
PARKING, SUPPLIES, APA CONFER
Parking fees while attending meeting:
001.000.61.558.70.43.00
9.00
APA Conference for Director on
001.000.61.558.70.49.00
415.00
Supplies for poster for Business Expc
001.000.61.558.70.31.00
15.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.558.70.31.00
1.47
Total:
440.97
202713
6/13/2013
062693 US BANK
5179
Amazon - Cisco Networking All-in-Oni
Amazon - Cisco Networking All-in-Oni
Page: 36
vchlist Voucher List Page: 37
06/13/2013 7:49:04AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
202713 6/13/2013 062693 US BANK
202714 6/13/2013 062693 US BANK
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
001.000.31.518.88.31.00
30.41
TigerDirect.com - Uninterruptible Pow
001.000.31.518.88.35.00
381.90
Network Solutions - Web address ren
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
184.95
Experts Exchange - IT Solutions Onlir
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
12.95
HP Services - Mobile Windows keybo
001.000.11.511.60.48.00
54.87
APC RBC2 Battery Cartridge #2 for C
001.000.31.518.88.31.00
51.01
5848 WFOA2013 CONFERENCE REGIST
Washington Finance Officers Associa
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
425.00
Tota I :
1,141.09
3644 AET MAILING
USPS AET mailing
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
44.95
Pentel rolling writer pens
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
12.29
Index dividers
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
7.49
desktop calculator
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
19.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
3.78
3686 JUNE ADVISORY GROUP
Coffee traveler for Advisory meeting
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
12.95
Parking for Mayor's conference
001.000.21.513.10.43.00
20.00
Lunch for Ron Cone
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
31.27
Page: 37
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 38
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202714
6/13/2013
062693 US BANK
(Continued)
Mayor's Lunch
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
11.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
1.23
Total:
165.25
202715
6/13/2013
072792 US MARSHALS SERVICE
9363
INV 9363 ACCT 1495 EDMONDS PD
EXTRADITION FLIGHT - 4/30/13 FOI
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
1,865.31
Total:
1,865.31
202716
6/13/2013
065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
113009243
INV#I13009243 EDM301 - EDMOND7
BACKGROUND CHECKS MAY 2013
001.000.237.100
412.50
Total:
412.50
202717
6/13/2013
045912 WASPC
INV024952
INV024952 EDMONDS PD - WASPC
SPRING CONF REG - COMPAAN
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
300.00
SPRING CONF REG - LAWLESS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
300.00
SPRING CONF REG - ANDERSON
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
300.00
Total:
900.00
202718
6/13/2013
073552 WELCO SALES LLC
5925
WINDOW ENVELOPES
WINDOW ENVELOPES
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
70.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
6.70
Total:
77.20
202719
6/13/2013
073018 WILCO-WINFIELD
123470
PROLFIC DG
PROLFIC DG
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,144.12
Page: 38
vchlist
06/13/2013
7:49:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 39
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
202719
6/13/2013 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD
(Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
108.69
Total:
1,252.81
202720
6/13/2013 074460 WSU FOUNDATION
WSU FOUNDATION
HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT PLE
Pledge for Health Impact Assessment
001.000.11.550.10.49.00
5,000.00
Total:
5,000.00
202721
6/13/2013 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
0162588
PARKS (NO DOGS SIGNS)
PARKS (NO DOGS SIGNS)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
89.40
Freight
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.45
Total:
108.94
137
Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total :
1,006,525.45
137
Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers :
1,006,525.45
Page: 39
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
c327
EOLA
FAC
Senior Center Roof Repairs
c332
EOLB
General
SR99 Enhancement Program
c238
E6MA
General
SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
c372
ElEA
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PM
Interurban Trail
c146
E2DB
PM
Marina Beach Additional Parking
c290
EBMB
PM
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
c321
E9MA
STM
2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
c382
E2FE
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STM
NPDES
m013
E7FG
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
c339
E1 FD
STM
Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
c341
E1 FF
STM
Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
c349
E1 FH
STM
Stormwater GIS Support
c326
EOFC
STM
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
c336
E1 FA
STM
Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
c307
E9FB
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
c381
E2FD
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STR
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
c329
EOAA
STR
2009 Street Overlay Program
c294
E9CA
STR
2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
c343
E1AB
STR
226th Street Walkway Project
c312
E9DA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STR
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
c245
E6DA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
STR
Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
c256
E6DB
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
STR
Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
c265
E7AA
Revised 6/12/2013
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
STR
Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
c268
E7CB
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
SWR
2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
c369
E2GA
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
SWR
Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
c347
E1GA
SWR
Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
BNSF Double Track Project
c300
EBGC
SWR
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
c301
EBGD
SWR
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
c298
EBGA
SWR
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
c142
E3GB
SWR
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
c304
E9GA
WTR
Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
c370
E1GB
WTR
2010 Waterline Replacement Program
c363
EOJA
WTR
2011 Waterline Replacement Program
c333
E1JA
WTR
2012 Waterline Overlay Program
c388
E2CA
WTR
2012 Waterline Replacement Program
c340
E1JE
WTR
2013 Waterline Replacement Program
c397
E3JA
WTR
5th Avenue Overlay Project
c399
E2CC
WTR
76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
c344
E1JB
WTR
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
c324
EOIA
WTR
Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
c345
E1JC
WTR
Main Street Watermain
c375
E1JK
WTR
OVD Watermain Improvements
c141
E3JB
WTR
Pioneer Way Road Repair
c389
E2CB
WTR
PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
c346
E1JD
Revised 6/12/2013
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
WWTP
N/A
c385
WWTP Switchgear Upgrade
EOAA
c329
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM
EOFC
c326
Stormwater GIS Support
KWTR
EOIA
c324
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR
EOJA
c363
2010 Waterline Replacement Program
OLAr
c32
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC
EOLB
c332
Senior Center Roof Repairs
S
ers Roundabout (212th Street Sa@ 84th Avenue W)
STIR
E1AB
c343
2011 Residential Neiahborhood Traffic Calmina
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Wal
SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM
E1 FA
c336
SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM
E1 FF
c341
Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
tormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM
E1 FM
c374
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
E1 FN
rrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR
E1GA
c347
2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
Waterlitormwater Revenue Requirements Update
nowSewer,
WTR
E1JA
c333
2011 Waterline Replacement Program
76th Ave W Waterline Extension with nwood
WTR
E1JC
c345
Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
1111�PRV
Station 11 a Bandon
WTR
E1JE
c340
2012 Waterline Replacement Program
E1JK
In Street Watermain
STIR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
9th Avenue Improvement Project
STIR E2AC
c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
E2AD
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
WTR E2CA
c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
Pioneer Way Road Repai
STIR E2CC
c399 5th Ave Overlav Proiect
STM E2FA
STM E2FC
Revised 6/12/2013
c378 North Talbot Road Draina
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Funding Number
STM E2FE
SWR E2GB
EYA
STM E3FB
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
c369J&12 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c406 1%013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
AW E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reductrofit Sfudy
STM EYD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
orthstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements * _
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
OVD Watermain Improvements W
STIR E61DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General
E6MA
c238
SR99 Enhancement Program
E7AA
Main Street LightipiLand Sidewalk Enhancements
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
_
E7CB
hell Valley Emergency Ak.
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES
E7MA
15ayton Street Plaza
SWR
E8GA
c298
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08)
E8GC
NSF Double Track Project
SWR
E8GD
c301
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
PM
E8MA
ourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM
E8MB
c290
Marina Beach Additional Parking
2009 Street Overlay Program
STIR
E91DA
c312
226th Street Walkway Project
c307
Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
SWR
E9GA
c304
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 6/12/2013
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
WTR
c141
E3JB
OVD Watermain Improvements
SWR
c142
E3GB
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM
c146
E2DB
Interurban Trail
General
c238
E6MA
SR99 Enhancement Program
STIR
c245
E6DA
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STIR
c256
E6DB
Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STIR
c265
E7AA
Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STIR
c268
E7CB
Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM
c276
E7MA
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
c282
EBMA
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM
c290
EBMB
Marina Beach Additional Parking
STIR
c294
E9CA
2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR
c298
EBGA
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR
c300
EBGC
BNSF Double Track Project
SWR
c301
EBGD
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR
c304
E9GA
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM
c307
E9FB
Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
STIR
c312
E9DA
226th Street Walkway Project
PM
c321
E9MA
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR
c324
EOIA
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM
c326
EOFC
Stormwater GIS Support
FAC
c327
EOLA
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STIR
c329
EOAA
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC
c332
EOLB
Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR
c333
E1JA
2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM
c336
E1 FA
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM
c339
E1 FD
Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR
c340
E1JE
2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM
c341
E1 FF
Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR
c342
E1AA
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STIR
c343
E1AB
2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR
c344
E1JB
76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR
c345
E1JC
Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
Revised 6/12/2013
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Project
Accounting
Funding Number
WTR c346
SWR c347
STM c349
STIR c354
WTR c363
STIR c368
SWR c369
WTR c370
General c372
STM c374
WTR c375
STM c376
STM c378
STM c379
STM c380
STM c381
STM c382
WWTP c385
WTR c388
WTR c389
SWR c390
STIR c391
STIR c392
WTR c397
SWR c398
STIR c399
STIR c404
STIR c405
STM c406
STM c407
STM c408
STM c409
STM c410
STIR i005
Revised 6/12/2013
Enaineerin
Protect
Number
E1JD
E1 GA
E1FH
E1 DA
EOJA
E 1 CA
E2GA
E1GB
E 1 EA
E1FM
E1JK
E1FN
E2FA
E2FB
E2FC
E2FD
E2FE
N/A
E2CA
E2CB
E2GB
E2AA
E2AB
E3JA
E3GA
E2CC
E2AC
E2AD
E YA
E3FB
E3FC
E3FD
E3FE
E7AC
Project Title
PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
Sunset Walkway Improvements
2010 Waterline Replacement Program
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
Main Street Watermain
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WWTP Switchgear Upgrade
2012 Waterline Overlay Program
Pioneer Way Road Repair
Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
Transportation Plan Update
9th Avenue Improvement Project
2013 Waterline Replacement Program
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
5th Ave Overlay Project
Citywide Safety Improvements
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding Number
Number Project Title
STM m013
E7FG NPDES
Revised 6/12/2013
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
STR
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
c329
EOAA
STR
2009 Street Overlay Program
c294
E9CA
WTR
2010 Waterline Replacement Program
c363
EOJA
STR
2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
c343
E1AB
WTR
2011 Waterline Replacement Program
c333
E1JA
STM
2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
c382
E2FE
SWR
2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
c369
E2GA
SWR
2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
c347
E1GA
WTR
2012 Waterline Overlay Program
c388
E2CA
WTR
2012 Waterline Replacement Program
c340
E1JE
STM
2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
c406
E3FA
STM
2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
c407
E3FB
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
WTR
2013 Waterline Replacement Program
c397
E3JA
STR
226th Street Walkway Project
c312
E9DA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
5th Ave Overlay Project
c399
E2CC
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1 CA
WTR
76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
c344
E1JB
STR
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
c245
E6DA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
SWR
Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
WTR
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
c324
EOIA
SWR
BNSF Double Track Project
c300
EBGC
STR
Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
c256
E6DB
STR
Citywide Safety Improvements
c404
E2AC
SWR
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
c301
EBGD
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
STM
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
c409
E3FD
WTR
Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
c345
E1JC
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
FAC
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
c327
EOLA
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
Revised 6/12/2013
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
STR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
PM
Interurban Trail
c146
E2DB
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
c381
E2FD
SWR
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
c298
EBGA
STR
Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
c265
E7AA
WTR
Main Street Watermain
c375
E1JK
PM
Marina Beach Additional Parking
c290
EBMB
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES
m013
E7FG
SWR
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
c142
E3GB
WTR
OVD Watermain Improvements
c141
E3JB
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
E3FC
WTR
Pioneer Way Road Repair
c389
E2CB
WTR
PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
c346
E1JD
STM
Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
c339
E1 FD
PM
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
c321
E9MA
FAC
Senior Center Roof Repairs
c332
EOLB
SWR
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
c304
E9GA
WTR
Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
c370
E1GB
STR
Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
c268
E7CB
General
SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
c372
ElEA
General
SR99 Enhancement Program
c238
E6MA
STM
Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
c341
E1 FF
STM
Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
c349
E1 FH
STM
Stormwater GIS Support
c326
EOFC
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
c336
E1 FA
WWTP
WWTP Switchgear Upgrade
c385
N/A
STM
Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
c307
E9FB
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
Revised 6/12/2013
PROJECT NUMBERS
(Phase and Task Numbers)
Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division
Phase
Title
ct
Construction
ds
Design
pl
Preliminary
sa
Site Acquisition & Prep
st
Study
ro
Right -of -Way
Task
Title
196
Traffic Engineering & Studies
197
MAIT
198
CTR
199
Engineering Plans & Services
950
Engineering Staff Time
970
Construction Management
981
Contract
990
Miscellaneous
991
Retainage
stm
Engineering Staff Time -Storm
str
Engineering Staff Time -Street
swr
Engineering Staff Time -Sewer
wtr
Engineering Staff Time -Water
prk
Engineering Staff Time -Park
AM-5844
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted By: Sandy Chase
Department:
Review Committee:
Type:
City Clerk's Office
Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of 2013 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi.
Recommendation
Committee Action:
3. C.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2013 Taxicab Opearator's License for North End
Taxi.
Previous Council Action
Taxicab Operator's Licenses are issued annually.
Narrative
Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 requires that the City Council approve Taxicab Operator's Licenses. A
copy of the license application for North End Taxi is attached.
In addition, the Police Department reviewed the application, vehicles and drivers, and recommended the
applicant be allowed to continue through the application process.
Attachments
2013 Taxicab Operator's License Application - North End Taxi
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 06/11/2013 03:17 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/12/2013 03:37 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/11/2013 03:05 PM
Final Approval Date: 06/12/2013
Of LD.tij� CIVE
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICATION — TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE
Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 MAY 2 8 2013
Name of taxicab business:
Tac—T�ey Inc nBA Morth End Taxi TV
CTTV
Name of Applicant: Linda `T Ilawley Driver's License No.:
First Name Aliddlelnitial last
Address: 16409 20th Avenue West
Street Address
Lynnwood, TPA 98037
City State Zip
Place of Birth: Tacoma, WA Date of Birth:
Please list name and address changes that have occurred within the last two years preceding the current information:
Previous Employment for Past Two Years:
Employer:
Tac—Key Inc Address: 16409 20th AVe- West, Lynnwood
Telephone Number: 4 2 5 — 7 7 5 — 9 9 9 9 Dates of Employment. 12 /15 / 7 5 thru current
Employer: _ Address:
Telephone Number: Dates of Employment:
Attach additional sheet if necessary.
Previous Record as a Taxicab Driver or Operator:
Have yo fiver be lice wed as to e driver r o erator? Xe Yes 6 No If yes, explain:
ling Fount r Saea't e, 1°yt'nwood
Where:Edmonds, yi cake- Terrace., Everett W}1en_12/15/75 thru current
Has this license ever been suspended, revoked, or denied? 8 Yes v 6 No If yes, for what cause:
Record of Conviction:(Note: All criminal, driving and all other court histories will be checked)
Have you ever been convicted of or forfeited bail for a crime, including all traffic offenses, for the preceding five years?
6 Yes 6 No If yes, give a detailed account of the charge, the approximate date, the name of the Court, and the final
disposition of the charge or charges:
Information on Vehicles to be Operated:
List of vehicles is on file in the City
Make: Clerk's Office.
Vehicle Identification No.:
Make:
Vehicle Identification No.: Vehicle License No.:
Make: Year: Model:
Vehicle Identification No.: Vehicle License No.:
Make: Year: Model:
Vehicle Identification No.: Vehicle License No.:
Attach additional sheet if necessa?yt
RIB
List of Proposed Drivers (MUST BE KEPT CURRENT): List of drivers is on file in the City
Name: Clerk's Office.
Address:
Date of Birth:
Name: Driver's License Number:
Address:
Date of Birth:
Name: Driver's License Number:
Address:
Date of Birth:
.4ttach additional sheet if necessary.
Financial Status of Applicant:
List any and all unpaid judgments and the nature of the transaction or acts giving rise to such judgment:
Please attach Proof of Insurance as required by EC Sect�ion�4.60.100.
�:�
Signature of Applicant: r Date:
Subscribed and sworn before e this 1�2 day of 200 ;7_ 01
NOTARY PUBLIC(Signature)
STATE OF WASHINGTON Al LkDW i
MARK LUDWIG not ame
My Appointment Expires1 NOTARY PUBLIC
NOVEMBER 12, 201 S �/ l�- e �o%b My appointment expires:
ISSUANCE OF LICENSE
FEES:
Initial Application Fee for Taxicab Operator's License (for investigation)..............................................................
$100.00
Plus for each taxicab to be operated in the City of Edmonds ................ .......... $ 0.00
Or after June M the fee for each taxicab shall be..................................................................................
$15.00
Plus for each driver ($5 licensing fee plus $20 investigation fee)... ................................................................
$25.00
Renewal for Taxicab Operator's License (for each taxicab to be operated in the City of Edmonds) .........................
$30.00
For each previously licensed driver...................................................................................................................$5.00
New drivers pay the $5 licensing fee and the $20 investigation fee...............................................................
$25.00
TOTAL FEES PAID:
TREASURER'S RECEIPT NU ER: t J:,r .,n $� i. 0 3 - �18�c�3_oL:�lg_zwgf�v �'9k
C 1q.-O'VI G�%9�-00le OVV
f 1 D 1()-mil r jUvvi2
CONDITIONS: Yes ❑ No If yes, describe:
City Clerk: Date:
_cnoe
METER RATES RATE
METER DROP $2m5O
MILEAGE PR
MEE $2m 0
WAIT TIM MIENPR
.60
EXTRAOVER
EACH PASSENGER
EXCLUDNG CHILDRCHILDREN R�2 ■ � O
ACORD,, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
°12/06/20° 2
PRODUCER Phone: (206)420-4270
Key Insurance, LLC
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
5200 Southcenter Blvd Suite 110
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
Tukwila, WA 98188
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
NAIC #
INSURER A Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co
INSURED
Tac Key Inc.
DBA North End Taxi
INSURER B.,
16409 20th Avenue West
INSURERC:
Lynnwood, WA 98037
INSURER D:INSURERS
COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INSR ADD1 POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LTR INSRO TYEE OF IN UPANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE IMMIDDIM LIMITS
GENERAL LIABILITY
EACH OCCURRENCE
S
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS MADE F—IOCCUR
DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES Ea occurence
S
MED EXP Any oneperson)
S
PERSONAL BADVINJURY
S
GENERAL AGGREGATE
S
GEN'LAGGREGATELIMITAPPLIESPER-
PRODUCTS -COMP/OPAGG
$
POLICY F1 TAI=
A
N
AUTOMOBILE
LIABILITY
ANYAUTO
CA00040250
112/0312012 12/03/2013
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident)
$ 350,000
BODILY INJURY
I (Per person)
X
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULEOAUTOS
S
BODILY INJURY
(Per accident)
HIRED AUTOS
NON-OWNEDAUTOS
S
PROPERTY DAMAGE
(Per accident)
S
GARAGE UAB11M
AUTO ONLY- EA ACCIDENT
S
OTHER THAN EA ACC
S
ANY AUTO
S
AUTO ONLY: AGG
EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY
EACH OCCURRENCE
S
OCCUR CLAIMS MADE
_
AGGREGATE
$
S
$
DEDUCTIBLE
S
RETENTION $
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
&STATU- OTH-
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNER/E(ECUTNE
EL EACH ACCIDENT
S
E.L. DISEASE- EA EMPLOYEE
S
OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED?
If yes, describe under
SPECIAL PROVISIONS below
I
E.L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
S
OTHER
�
I
A
UIM
CA00040250
12103,2012 1-03/2013
1001300
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Evidence of insurance per the attached list of vehicles
01 a:ll l [;I LeLl
City of Edmonds Civic Center
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
A anon 1! MnnA /neI
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL
IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
n, APVYor% P/l00ll0AT7f ki 11000
Printed by KKY on December 06, 2012 at 11:39AM
AM-5869
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Roger Neumaier
Department: Finance
Committee:
Subiect Title
April 2013 Monthly Financial Report
Recommendation
N.A. For informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
April 2013 Monthly Financial Report
Inbox
Finance
City Clerk
Mayor
Finalize for Agenda
Form Started By: Sarah Mager
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Reviewed By
Roger Neumaier
Sandy Chase
Dave Earling
Sandy Chase
Submitted By: Sarah Mager
Type:
Tnfnrm atinn
Attachments
Form Review
Information
Date
06/13/2013 01:38 PM
06/13/2013 02:32 PM
06/13/2013 02:34 PM
06/13/2013 02:38 PM
Started On: 06/13/2013 01:31 PM
3. D.
APRIL 2013
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
r117C 1$9"
General Fund activity through April brought a deficit of $2.3 million to fund balances, while the first quarter
brought a deficit of $4.2 million. The general fund deficit change from March to April is due mainly to tax revenue
received in April.
Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through April. These include Natural Gas
Tax (45% of budget), Electric Utility Tax (43% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (46% of budget), Amusements (72% of
budget), Franchise Fees (average of 42% of budget), General Business License (84% of budget), Non -Resident
Business License (69% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Tax (48% of budget).
At the end of April, 33% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures are on track with 34% of
budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all departments are at 33% of budget, and Overtime is at 25% of
budget.
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
GENERAL
FUND
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL
----
12/31 /2012
Q1
4/30/2013
Q1
YTD
001-General Fund
$ 4,829,369
$ 956,051 $
2,880,308
$ (3,873,318) $
(1,949,061)
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
387,319
294,688
266,128
(92,631)
(121,191)
011-Risk Management Fund
244,000
-
-
(244,000)
(244,000)
012 - Contingency Reserve Fund
5,283,425
5,284,522
5,284,868
1,097
1,443
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD
55,859
55,859
55,859
(0)
(0)
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
1,064
945
955
(119)
(110)
016-Building Maintenance
213,999
213,551
213,495
(448)
(504)
Total General Fund
$ 11,015,035
$ 6,805,616 $
8,701,611
$ (4,209,419) $
(2,313,424)
General Fund
14
12 $11.02
10 $8.70
8 $6.81
❑ General
c
c 6 -
Fund
4 -
2
Dec2012 Mar2013 ADr2013
1
APRIL 2013 DASHBOARD
YEAR TO DATE TREND
COMPARED TO
PROJECTIONS
REFERENCE
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
General Fund Revenue
Positive
21.66%
Page 9
Sales & Use Tax Revenue
Positive
2.59%
Page 10
Gas Utility Tax Revenue
V Negatived
-13.64%
Page 10
Telephone Utility Tax Revenue
Neutral 110
1.05%
Page 11
Electric Utility Tax Revenue
Neutral 110
1.59%
Page 11
EXPENDITURES
General Fund Expenditures
Page 12
NON -GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Real Estate Excise Tax
Positive
65.97%
Page 9
Key to revenue trend indicators:
Positive =Positve variance of> 2% compared to projections.
44 Neutral 110, =Variance of -1 % to +2% compared to projections.
Warning =Negative variance of-1% to 4% compared to projections.
TNegativeT =Negative variance of >-4% compared to projections.
2
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
Combined governmental fund activity through April brought a deficit of $834,065 to fund balances. The General
Fund was responsible for a deficit of $2.3 million, the special revenue funds for an increase of $1.5 million, and
the remaining was due to an increase of $5,923 in the debt service funds.
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances
- Combined
14 18
12 $14.56
$11.02
$13.72
10
$11.74
$g 70 General 12
c 8 Fund c
$6.81 (Special
6 Revenue
$5.00 Debt 6
4 Service
$3.53
2
- L . 2 $0.02
Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 Dec2012
Mar2013 Apr2013
3
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND
BALANCES
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
----
ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31 /2012
Q1
4/30/2013
Q1 YTD
General Fund
$
11,015,035
$
6,805,616 $
8,701,611
$
(4,209,419) $ (2,313,424)
Special Revenue
3,530,072
4,921,020
5,003,508
1,390,948 1,473,436
Debt Service
11,014
16,935
16,937
5,921 5,923
Governmental Funds
$
14,556,121
$
11,743,571 $
13,722,056
$
(2,812,550) $ (834,065)
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
Activity in all special revenue funds year-to-date
brought an increase of $1.5 million.
The graph below shows the
total fund balances for all nineteen special revenue
funds as of December 2012, March 2013, and the current
ending balance as of April 2013.
Special
Revenue Funds
6
$4.92
$5.00
5
4
N
0 3
Specia I
Revenue
2
1
Dec2012
Mar2013
Apr2013
4
FUND
BALANCES
CHANGE
IN FUND
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
----
ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL
----
Special Revenue
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
Utility Fund Activity through April brought a deficit of $285,103 in the Enterprise Funds.
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
Enterprise Funds- Fund Balances
43,942,247 43,697,210
,592
+421- Water Utility Fund
43,056,304
t422 - Storm Utility Fund
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
7,
Dec 2012 Mar 2013 Apr 2013
26
0
ENTERPRISE
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31 /2012
Q1
4/30/2013
Q1
YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund
$ 12,322,592
$ 12,698,431
$ 12,682,626
$
375,839 $
360,034
422 - Storm Utility Fund
7,552,075
7,800,453
7,792,880
248,378
240,805
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
43,942,247
43,697,210
43,056,304
(245,037)
(885,943)
Enterprise Funds
$ 63,816,914
$ 64,196,094
$ 63,531,811
$
379,180 $
(285,103
$47, 800,000
$ 37, 800,000
$ 27, 800,000
$17, 800,000
$7,800,000
$(2,200,000)
Enterprise Fund Balances as of April 30, 2013
Water Utility Fund Storm Utility Fund
Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
5
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
At the end of April, 33% of the year had expired. Year-to-date activity brought a deficit of $872,736 to the City -
Wide fund balances, bringing the total to $84.2 million. Of the year-to-date deficit, a deficit of $822,140 was
generated by governmental funds, a deficit of $210,813 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, an increase
of $208,859 was generated by Internal Service Funds, and a deficit of $48,643 was generated by the Pension
Trust Fund.
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND BALANCES
BALANCES
CITY-WIDE
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31/2012
Q1
4/30/2013
Q1
YTD
Governmental Funds
$ 14,556,121
$ 11,743,571 $
13,733,981
$
(2,812,550) $
(822,140)
Enterprise Funds
63,816,914
64,253,540
63,606,101
436,626
(210,813)
Internal Services Fund
6,463,723
6,598,033
6,672,582
134,310
208,859
Pension Trust Fund
216,693
177,991
168,050
(38,702)
(48,643)
City-wide Total
j $ 85,053,451
$ 82,773,134 $
84,180,715
j $
(2,280,317) $
(872,736)
Governmental Fund Balances as of April 30, 2013
Limited Tax G.O. Bond Fund
$681
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
.1 $22,241
Business Improvement District Fund
$11,925
Sister City Commission
$8,649
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
1 $921 612
Parks Trust Fund
$150,089
Parks Construction Fund
1 $8,26,530
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
$46,093
Special Projects Fund
$13,792
Gifts Catalog Fund
$227 97
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
$61 ,737
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
1,261,840
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
$66,098
Youth Scholarship Fund
$14,846
Employee Parking Permit Fund
1 $75,750
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
$116,690
Memorial Street Fund
$17,674
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
$418, 99
Combined Street Const/Improve
$73 514
Street Fund
$110,621
Drug Enforcement Fund
$133,205
General Fund
8 701,611
$1
$ 2,000,000
Q
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS OVERVIEW
Internal Service Fund activity through April brought an increase of $208,859. We began the year with a fund
balance of $6.5 million and currently
at the end of April; we see an ending fund balance
of $6.7 million.
Internal Service Fund Balances
6.46
$6.60 $6.67
6
5
4
511-Equipment Rental Fund
3
2
1
Dec2012
Mar2013 Apr2013
7
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
INTERNAL SERVICE
BALANCES
----
ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31 /2012
Q1
4/30/2013
Q1
YTD
511 -Equipment Rental Fund
$
6,463,723
$
6,598,033
$
6,672,582
$
134,310 $
208,859
Internal Service Funds
$
6,463,723
$
6,598,033
$
6,672,582
$
134,310 $
208,859
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Agency/Issuer
Investment Ty
Washington State Local
Investment Pool
Government Investment Pool
Opus Bank
Certificate of
Deposit
FHLMC
Bonds
FHLMC
Bonds
FFCB
Bonds
TOTAL
City of Edmonds
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of April 30, 2013
(a)
Term Purchase
Purchase
Maturity/ Call*
Yield to
Weighted
(months) Date
Price
Date
Maturity
Average
Various
$15,027,724
Various
0.17%
0.135%
Investment Mix
State Investment Pool
Certificate of Deposit
Bonds
(a) To maturityor call date, whichever occurs first.
24
9/17/2012
500,000
9/17/2014
0.60%
0.016%
60
12/28/2012
1,000,000
6/28/2013
0.90%
0.049%
54
12/27/2012
1,000,000
6/27/2013
0.75%
0.040%
45
12/19/2012
1,000,000
3/19/2013
0.54%
0.029%
0.27% 0.270%
% of Total Summary
81.1 % Current 6-month treasury rate 0.08%
2.7% Current State Pool rate 0.17%
16.2% Blended Edmonds rate 0.27%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund
2013
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 1,216,011 $
1,216,011
$ 1,818,957 49.58%
February
3,001,808
1,785,798
3,696,503 23.14%
March
5,069,810
2,068,001
5,680,288 12.04%
April
7,688,984
2,619,174
9,354,134 21.66%
May
15,056,423
7,367,439
June
16,705,631
1,649,208
July
18,630,860
1,925,229
August
20,240,653
1,609,794
September
21,816,557
1,575,904
October
24,495,080
2,678,522
November
31,203,426
6,708,346
December
32,858,589
1,655,163
General Fund
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
tActuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 21.66% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
*The variance listed above is due to the several general fund revenue line items that are tracking ahead of budget at the end of April.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax
2013
Real Estate Excise Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
55,653 $
88,310
129,657
187,545
241,350
303,047
363,652
430,206
492,808
555,912
604,828
650,000
1200000
55,653 $ 69,441 24.77%
32,657 115,535 30.83% 1000000
41,347 257,285 98.43%
800000
57,887 311,272 65.97%
53,805 600000
61,697
60,605 400000
66,554
200000
62,602
Real Estate Excise Tax
63,105 0
48,916 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
45,172 ---*--Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 65.97%listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
*The variance shown above is due to a larger number of sales transactions than were expected.
O
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax
2013
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD Variance
Sales and Use Tax
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
Actuals % 6000000
January
$ 390,013
$ 390,013
$ 406,956 4.34% 5000000
February
884,364
494,351
894,736 1.17%
4000000
March
1,235,989
351,625
1,265,893 2.42%
April
1,600,252
364,263
1,641,662 2.59% 3000000
May
2,031,316
431,064
June
2,414,769
383,453
2000000
July
2,801,571
386,802
1000000
August
3,255,906
454,335
September
3,657,629
401,723
0
October
4,069,329
411,700
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
November
4,525,665
456,336
December
4,913,150
387,485
--4--Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 2.59% listed above, is a
Year End Projected Variance.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax
2013
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD Variance
Gas Utility Tax
Budget Forecast
Budget Forecast
Actuals %
900000
January
$ 112,509
$ 112,509
$ 94,836-15.71% 800000
February
230,573
118,064
220,665 -4.30% 700000
March
338,041
107,468
303,170-10.32% 600000
April
428,064
90,023
369,694-13.64%
500000
May
504,039
75,974
400000
June
561,033
56,994
July
602,742
41,709
300000
August
632,326
29,584
200000
September
659,759
27,432
100000
October
688,968
29,210
0
November
738,628
49,660
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
December
811,174
72,546
---Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of-13.64% listed above, is
a Year End Projected Variance.
*The Budget Forecast is taken from a five
year average. Due to higher revenues in 2008-2009, the variance from forecast to actual is is greater.
10
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax
2013
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
95,577 $
229,350
376,493
479,057
608,761
713,226
853,959
989,418
1,092,061
1,256,775
1,349,920
1,529,498
l0uk"W
95,577 $
134,596
40.82%
1400000
133,773
252,444
10.07%
1200000
147,142
366,495
-2.66%
102,564
484,087
1.05%
1000000
129,705
800000
104,465
600000
140,733
400000
135,459
102,643
200000
164,714
0
Telephone Utility Tax
93,146 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
179,578 tActuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 1.05% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax
2013
Flectric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
151,925 $
151,925 $
153,240
February
320,049
168,124
326,077
March
474,600
154,551
487,478
April
631,769
157,169
641,845
May
769,731
137,963
June
882,641
112,909
July
989,535
106,895
August
1,081,971
92,436
September
1,180,465
98,494
October
1,265,812
85,346
November
1,372,881
107,070
December
1,475,638
102,757
10umut)
0.87/ 1400000
1.88
2 71% 1200000
1.59 % 1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
*The variance of 1.59% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
Electric Utility Tax
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--#---Actuals/Trend Budget
11
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund
2013
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals i F General Fund
January
$ 3,211,752 $
3,211,752
$4,106,837 27.87%
February
5,660,240
2,448,488
5,821,040 2.84%
March
7,874,761
2,214,521
9,553,606 21.32%
April
10,938,142
3,063,381
11,303,195 3.34%
May
12,920,118
1,981,976
June
16,195,870
3,275,752
July
18,970,269
2,774,399
August
21,423,098
2,452,829
September
24,244,769
2,821,671
October
26,551,229
2,306,460
November
29,074,901
2,523,672
December
32,959,503
3,884,602
18000000
12000000
6000000
*The variance of 3.34% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
Oa
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
tActuals/Trend Budget
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental
2013
Non -Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals r Non -Departmental
14000000
January $
1,818,292 $
1,818,292
$ 2,450,235
34.75%
12000000
February
2,358,291
539,999
2,488,604
5.53%
March
2,684,562
326,271
4,520,241
68.38%
10000000
April
3,827,781
1,143,219
4,569,788
19.38%
8000000
May
4,037,949
210,168
June
5,809,316
1,771,367
6000000
July
6,611,919
802,602
4000000
August
6,990,130
378,211
September
7,896,141
906,011
2000000
October
8,278,209
382,068
0
November 8,689,214 411,005 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
December 11,467,569 2,778,355
---0--Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 19.38%listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
*The variance shown above is due to the 2nd quarter Fire District #1 payment made in March 2013.
12
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City
Council
2013
City Council
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
Actuals
City COUriCIl
300000
Office of Mayor
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
�Actuals/Trend Budget
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Human
Resources
2013
Human Resources
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD
Variance
Human Resources
Budget Forecast
Budget Forecast
Actuals
%
300000
January
$ 21,417
$ 21,417
$ 19,264
-10.05%
250000
February
43,437
22,020
39,680
-8.65%
March
71,550
28,113
59,024
-17.51% 200000
April
94,953
23,403
84,440
-11.07%
May
119,752
24,799
150000
June
141,891
22,139
July
165,641
23,750
100000
August
186,678
21,037
50000
September
212,715
26,036
+00-4
October
233,346
20,631
0
November
254,495
21,149
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
December
287,190
32,695
tActuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of-11.07% listed above, is
a Year End Projected Variance.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court
2013
Municipal Court
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD
Variance
Budget Forecast
Budget Forecast
Actuals
Municipal Court
800000
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Economic Development/Community Services
2013
Economic Development/Community Services
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget
Forecast
Actuals
400000
Economic Development/Community Services
600000
City Clerk
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
�Actuals/Trend Budget
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services
2013
Information Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
1000000
January $
41,302 $
41,302 $
92,733
124.53%
February
107,298
65,997
139,675
30.17%
800000
March
158,751
51,453
195,470
23.13%
April
207,167
48,416
243,433
17.51%
600000
May
262,166
54,999
June
315,619
53,452
400000
July
362,425
46,806
August
424,811
62,386
200000
September
471,078
46,267
October
532,480
61,402
0
Information Services
November 602,576 70,096 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
December 723,534 120,958 +Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 17.51 % listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
*The variance shown above is due to purchase of the new Broadcast System, as well the temporary contract work for Information Services..
Finance
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance
2013
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
1000000
January $
72,772 $
72,772 $
57,510
-20.97%
February
139,622
66,850
132,734
-4.93%
800000
March
202,376
62,753
195,061
-3.61%
April
261,262
58,886
288,223
10.32%
600000
May
319,205
57,944
June
386,389
67,183
400000
July
447,973
61,584
August
502,922
54,949
200000
September
563,970
61,048
October
632,771
68,802
0
Finance
November 699,652 66,881 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
December 768,484 68,832
Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 10.32% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance
*The variance shown above is due to overtime and temporary contract work utilized until the permanent Finance Director position was filled.
16
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney
2013
City Attorney
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD
Variance
Budget Forecast
Budget Forecast
Actuals
500000
City Attorney
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services
2013
ent Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % Development Services
January $
130,011 $
130,011 $
134,416 3.39%
February
261,991
131,980
262,483 0.19%
March
406,268
144,277
425,124 4.64%
April
539,522
133,254
535,005 -0.84%
May
673,721
134,199
June
805,445
131,724
July
931,841
126,396
August
1,069,195
137,354
September
1,204,663
135,468
October
1,348,572
143,909
November
1,481,034
132,462
December
1,619,042
138,008
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
4 wo-
o
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of -.84% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation
2013
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
218,823 $
218,823 $
206,466 -5.65%
February
455,695
236,872
441,862 -3.04%
March
711,038
255,343
687,221 -3.35%
April
958,565
247,527
940,767 -1.86%
May
1,214,257
255,692
June
1,530,104
315,847
July
1,920,254
390,150
August
2,310,306
390,052
September
2,615,670
305,363
October
2,863,419
247,750
November
3,094,270
230,851
December
3,398,517
304,247
1500000
1000000
500000
0
*The variance of -1.86% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
Parks & Recreation
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actuals/Trend Budget
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works
2013
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
27,007 $
27,007 $
26,193
-3.01%
February
52,806
25,799
53,241
0.82%
March
79,315
26,509
80,244
1.17%
April
104,820
25,505
106,672
1.77%
May
130,712
25,892
June
156,718
26,006
July
192,014
35,296
August
217,880
25,866
September
244,097
26,217
October
270,921
26,824
November
295,226
24,305
December
324,517
29,291
400000
Public Works
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of 1.77% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance
2013
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
106,672 $
220,921
343,665
478,949
552,523
670,350
775,460
878,941
997,041
1,099,774
1,211,822
1,344,159
1400000
106,672 $
98,355
-7.80%
1200000
114,249
209,083
-5.36%
122,743
320,411
-6.77%
1000000
135,284
434,291
-9.32%
800000
73,574
117,826
600000
105,110
400000
103,481
118,100
200000
102,733
0
Facilities Maintenance
112,048 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
132,337 --#---Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of -9.32% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
19
e ri
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering
2013
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
114,876 $
230,249
344,770
468,067
577,602
692,761
811,020
927,980
1,048,722
1,171, 901
1,285,284
1,394,458
1400000
114,876 $
116,885
1.75%
1200000
115,373
232,112
0.81%
114,522
347,757
0.87%
1000000
123,296
462,638
-1.16%
800000
109,535
115,159
600000
118,259
400000
116,960
120,742
200000
123,179
0
Engineering
113,383 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
109,174 --#--Actuals/Trend Budget
*The variance of -1.16% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance.
20
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
No.
Title
2013 Adopted
Budget
4/30/2013
Revenues
Variance
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 32,858,589 $
9,354,134 $
(23,504,455)
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
350,350
91
(350,259)
011
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
418,200
220,100
(198,100)
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
123,223
1,443
(121,780)
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
15,000
691
(14,309)
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
56,900
59
(56,841)
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
20,175
17,240
(2,935)
III
STREET FUND
1,406,800
456,437
(950,363)
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
6,223,755
762,877
(5,460,878)
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
59,891
6,563
(53,328)
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
27
5
(22)
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
52,870
15,897
(36,973)
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
18,120
5,687
(12,433)
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
2,025
14
(2,011)
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
19,000
12,348
(6,652)
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
662,600
311,571
(351,029)
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
650,600
311,380
(339,220)
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
20,483
18,661
(1,822)
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
222,800
166,187
(56,613)
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
119,950
32,761
(87,189)
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND
2,010,350
143,231
(1,867,119)
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
228
216
(13)
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD
14,600
3,875
(10,725)
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
3,517
2
(3,515)
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
645,000
202,657
(442,343)
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND
-
11,925
11,925
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
22,130
5,916
(16,214)
213
L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND
22,230
7
(22,223)
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
1,009,902
-
(1,009,902)
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
-
74,291
74,291
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
10,625,680
1,773,207
(8,852,473)
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
3,486,716
1,182,378
(2,304,338)
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
11,020,123
2,731,502
(8,288,621)
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,361,972
461,053
(900,919)
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
45,400
52
(45,348)
% Received
28
0
53
1
5
0
85
32
12
11
18
30
31
1
91
75
31
1
21
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
No.
Title
2013 Adopted
Budget
4/30/2013
Expenditures
Variance
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 32,959,503
$ 11,303,195 $
(21,656,308)
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
619,400
121,283
(498,117)
Ol l
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
661,000
464,100
(196,900)
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
15,000
800
(14,200)
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
205,000
563
(204,437)
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
80,033
2,658
(77,375)
Ill
STREET FUND
1,557,715
459,962
(1,097,753)
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
6,324,984
212,270
(6,112,714)
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
139,800
8,906
(130,894)
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
-
-
-
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
68,500
5,106
(63,394)
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,726
1,429
(25,297)
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
4,000
1,113
(2,887)
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
19,000
2,249
(16,751)
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
1,286,500
34,623
(1,251,877)
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
668,534
-
(668,534)
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
32,317
7,163
(25,154)
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
222,800
12,586
(210,214)
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
152,761
40,262
(112,499)
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND
2,093,200
3,054
(2,090,146)
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
-
-
-
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
4,600
135
(4,466)
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
645,000
202,657
(442,343)
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
22,130
-
(22,130)
213
L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND
-
-
-
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
1,009,902
-
(1,009,902)
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
9,201,851
1,413,173
(7,788,678)
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
4,565,772
941,573
(3,624,199)
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
16,830,109
3,617,445
(13,212,664)
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,095,372
252,195
(843,177)
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
108,790
48,694
(60,096)
$ 80,620,299
$ 19,157,193 $
(61,463,106)
% S
31%
22
CITY OF EDMONDS
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - S UMMARY
Fund
1/1/2013
2013
2013
4/30/2013
No.
Title
Beg. Balance
Revenues
Expenditures
Difference
End. Balance
001
GENERALFUND
$ 4,829,369
$ 9,354,134
$ 11,303,195
$ (1,949,061)
$ 2,880,308
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
387,319
91
121,283
(121,191)
266,128
011
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
244,000
220,100
464,100
(244,000)
-
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
5,283,425
1,443
-
1,443
5,284,868
013
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.
55,859
-
-
-
55,859
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
1,064
691
800
(109)
955
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
213,999
59
563
(504)
213,495
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
11,015,035
9,576,517
11,889,941
(2,313,423)
8,701,611
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
118,622
17,240
2,658
14,583
133,205
III
STREET FUND
114,146
456,437
459,962
(3,525)
110,621
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
(477,093)
762,877
212,270
550,606
73,514
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
421,142
6,563
8,906
(2,343)
418,799
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
17,669
5
-
5
17,674
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
105,899
15,897
5,106
10,790
116,690
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
71,492
5,687
1,429
4,258
75,750
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
15,945
14
1,113
(1,099)
14,846
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
55,999
12,348
2,249
10,099
66,098
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
984,892
311,571
34,623
276,948
1,261,840
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ
308,357
311,380
-
311,380
619,737
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
216,473
18,661
7,163
11,498
227,971
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
(139,809)
166,187
12,586
153,600
13,792
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
53,593
32,761
40,262
(7,500)
46,093
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND
686,352
143,231
3,054
140,178
826,530
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
149,873
216
-
216
150,089
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD
817,737
3,875
-
3,875
821,612
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
8,781
2
135
(132)
8,649
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
-
202,657
202,657
-
-
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND
-
11,925
-
11,925
11,925
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
3,496
5,916
-
5,916
9,412
213
L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND
22,234
7
-
7
22,241
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
(15,397)
-
-
-
(15,397)
234
LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,
681
-
-
-
681
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
-
74,291
-
74,291
74,291
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
12,322,592
1,773,207
1,413,173
360,034
12,682,626
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
7,552,075
1,182,378
941,573
240,805
7,792,880
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
43,942,247
2,731,502
3,617,445
(885,943)
43,056,304
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
6,463,723
461,053
252,195
208,859
6,672,582
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
216,693
52
48,694
(48,642)
168,050
TOTALALLFUNDS $ 85,053,451 $ 18,284,457 $ 19,1579193 $ (872,736) $ 84,1809715
We are currently using the estimated 2012 ending fund balance numbers for funds 421, 422, and 423.
These will be updated when actuals are in; due to the change in how these funds are structured.
23
This page is intentionally left blank.
24
Title
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2013 Adopted 4/30/2013
Budget Revenues
Variance
Page 1 of 3
%Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX
$ 9,781,109 $
1,885,738 $
(7,895,371)
19%
EMS PROPERTY TAX
2,775,282
584,313
(2,190,969)
21%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX
916,103
185,918
(730,185)
20%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES✓USE TAX
4,913,150
1,641,662
(3,271,488)
33%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX
8,706
3,880
(4,826)
45%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST
520,417
185,249
(335,168)
36%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
1,475,638
641,845
(833,793)
43%
GASUTILITYTAX
811,174
369,694
(441,480)
46%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX
287,710
99,793
(187,917)
35%
WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX
904,613
271,544
(633,069)
30%
SEWER UTILITY TAX
470,000
155,496
(314,504)
33%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX
274,600
104,112
(170,488)
38%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX
730,910
196,078
(534,832)
27%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
1,529,498
484,087
(1,045,411)
32%
PULLTABS TAX
61,385
24,510
(36,875)
40%
AMUSEMENT GAMES
731
100
(631)
14%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX
212,350
53,966
(158,384)
25%
PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES
-
-
0%
25,673,376
6,887,984
(18,785,392)
27%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE
5,555
4,400
(1,155)
79%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI
1,030
300
(730)
29%
AMUSEMENTS
6,060
4,350
(1,710)
72%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST
627,816
167,992
(459,824)
27%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER
95,806
43,825
(51,981)
46%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK
8,287
5,710
(2,577)
69%
FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO
-
5,000
5,000
0%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE
214,415
52,692
(161,723)
25%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE
106,297
89,650
(16,647)
84%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE
18,422
7,245
(11,177)
39%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE
39,274
27,050
(12,224)
69%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE
9,500
9,773
273
103%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS
345,436
99,995
(245,441)
29%
ANIMAL LICENSES
13,205
4,370
(8,835)
33%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT
50,000
3,909
(46,091)
8%
OT R NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S
7,070
3,601
(3,469)
51 %
DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE
-
-
-
0%
1,548,173
529,862
(1,018,311)
34%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST
1,191
-
(1,191)
0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT
10,000
1,480
(8,520)
15%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT
6,000
776
(5,224)
13%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT
-
250
250
0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX
185,181
-
(185,181)
0%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION
8,828
4,562
(4,266)
52%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE
12,572
3,134
(9,438)
25%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS
33,290
17,090
(16,200)
51%
DUI - CITIES
7,704
3,597
(4,107)
47%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX
20,000
-
(20,000)
0%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
301,761
89,450
(212,311)
30%
SHARED COURT COSTS
3,030
-
(3,030)
0%
MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD
1,500
-
(1,500)
0%
591,057
120,339
(469,218)
20%
25
Title
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2013 Adopted 4/30/2013
Budget Revenues
Variance
Page 2 of 3
%Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS
1,065
266
(799)
25%
D/M COURT REC SER
172
14
(158)
8%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN
188
47
(141)
25%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS
72
68
(4)
95%
PHOTOCOPIES
4,572
1,075
(3,497)
24%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
4,500
1,501
(2,999)
33%
ASSESSMENT SEARCH
5
-
(5)
0%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
100,000
31,160
(68,840)
31%
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES
1,011
-
(1,011)
0%
SNO-ISLE
57,236
36,542
(20,694)
64%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES
9,571
3,500
(6,071)
37%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
26,000
-
(26,000)
0%
OCDETF OVERTIME
-
1,800
1,800
0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
11,615
-
(11,615)
0%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
36,000
11,770
(24,230)
33%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
2,750
-
(2,750)
0%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES
532
382
(150)
72%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
27,808
13,304
(14,504)
48%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
60,000
16,300
(43,700)
27%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI
165
-
(165)
0%
BOOKING FEES
5,711
1,796
(3,915)
31 %
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
5,577
2,130
(3,447)
38%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
23,976
4,343
(19,633)
18%
DUI EMERGENCY AID
67
-
(67)
0%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE
814,318
412,923
(401,395)
51%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING
496
35
(461)
7%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI
698
180
(518)
26%
CRIM CONV FEE CT
4,360
1,516
(2,844)
35%
CRIM CONV FEE CN
1,624
412
(1,212)
25%
FIBER SERVICES
36,438
10,960
(25,478)
30%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES
7,272
2,400
(4,872)
33%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
213
394
181
185%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
6,616
1,740
(4,876)
26%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE
38,000
23,985
(14,015)
63%
PLAN CHECKING FEES
216,457
73,743
(142,714)
34%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
2,911
650
(2,261)
22%
PLANNING 1%INSPECTION FEE
1,200
75
(1,125)
6%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW
5,000
3,395
(1,605)
68%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY
12,000
4,960
(7,040)
41%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
10,921
3,691
(7,230)
34%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES
56,000
-
(56,000)
0%
GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES
5,500
2,274
(3,226)
41%
LOCKER FEES
300
-
(300)
0%
SWIM CLASS FEES
32,000
(32,000)
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH
69,300
-
(69,300)
0%
PROGRAM FEES
780,000
253,643
(526,357)
33%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
115,500
51,634
(63,866)
45%
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM
31,600
-
(31,600)
0%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
660
-
(660)
0%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
1.520.248
575.683
(944.565)
38%
26
Title
C ITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2013 Adopted 4/30/2013
Budget Revenues
Variance
Page 3 of 3
%Received
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY
10,214
3,182
(7,032)
31%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
24,000
8,290
(15,710)
35%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION
213,000
78,135
(134,865)
37%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)
20,086
5,979
(14,107)
30%
SPEEDING DOUBLE
77
77
(0)
100%
NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
2,034
-
(2,034)
0%
OTHER INFRACTIONS'04
1,002
725
(277)
72%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES
31,592
14,946
(16,646)
47%
PR -HANDICAPPED
794
-
(794)
0%
PARKING INFRACTION LOC
404
-
(404)
0%
PARK/INDDISZONE
3,000
733
(2,267)
24%
DWI PENALTIES
9,200
301
(8,899)
3%
DUI - DP ACCT
415
667
252
161%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN
8
-
(8)
0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03
33,000
10,000
(23,000)
30%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT
-
74
74
0%
OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN
539
61
(478)
11 %
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03
14,000
(2,320)
(16,320)
-17%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT
1,491
532
(959)
36%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN
-
57
57
0%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS
113,265
32,244
(81,021)
28%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT
40,000
7,706
(32,294)
19%
COURT INT ERP RET ER COST S
292
36
(257)
12%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY
7,444
2,630
(4,814)
35%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES
485
1,510
1,025
311%
526,342
165,565
(360,777)
31%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST
8,000
144
(7,856)
2%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES
1,250
387
(863)
31%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS
5,491
1,080
(4,411)
20%
PARKING
8,790
3,160
(5,630)
36%
SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS
140,000
19,962
(120,038)
14%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL
3,040
2,440
(600)
80%
LEASES LONG-TERM
143,000
56,937
(86,063)
40%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION
4,500
1,007
(3,493)
22%
OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES
6,200
1,125
(5,075)
18%
PARKS DONATIONS
4,300
7,500
3,200
174%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS
1,400
200
(1,200)
14%
PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES
-
1,235
1,235
0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE
1,486
-
(1,486)
0%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY
1,750
1,592
(158)
91%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY
-
358
358
0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION
465
40
(425)
9%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
44
1
(43)
2%
OTHER MISC REVENUES
3,000
2,572
(428)
86%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT
66
2
(64)
3%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
182
30
(152)
16%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT
978
233
(745)
24%
NSF FEES- POLICE
91
-
(91)
0%
NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT
-
90
90
0%
334,033
100,092
(234,031)
30%
TRANSFERS -IN:
INSURANCE RECOVERIES
-
-
-
0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER -IN
-
-
0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER- In (From 121)
25,086
(25,086)
0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 127)
12,297
(12,297)
0%
37,383
-
(37,383)
0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
$ 32,858,589 S
9,354,134 $
(23,503,045)
28%
27
This page is intentionally left blank.
W:3
Title
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
HOLIDAY BUY BACK
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
INSURANCE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE
EXCISE TAXES
INT ERFUND TRANSFER (009,111,112,116)
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES
OTHER DEBT
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
INTERFUND SERVICES
INTERFUND RENTAL
LEO FF-MEDIC AL INS. RESERVE(009)
BENEFITS
IN HOME LTC CLAIMS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011)
MISCELLANEOUS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIPTFUND (014)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ADVERTISING
MISCELLANEOUS
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
DRUG INFO RCEMENTFUND (104)
SUPPLIES
FUEL CONSUMED
SMALL EQUIPMENT
COMMUNICATIONS
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVTL SVC
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2013 Adopted
4/30/2013
Budget
Expenditures
$ 12,069,872 $
3,930,021 $
415,100
104,360
193,388
802
4,094,462
1,346,853
61,110
17,596
374,244
92,342
117,050
44,869
1,949,484
466,491
204,660
60,969
36,742
2,711
40,865
5,845
834,943
274,526
396,193
397,566
414,600
147,082
320,547
128,079
279,880
94,109
8,099,655
3,893,689
190,000
-
5,500
993
1,325,185
255,078
85,000
22,735
946,595
-
64,014
-
-
478
185,614
-
5,000
-
201,800
-
48,000
16,000
$ 435,000 $ 79,011 $
176,400 35,901
8,000 6,081
- 290
Variance
(8,139,851)
(310,740)
(192,586)
(2,747,609)
(43,514)
(281,902)
(72,181)
(1,482,993)
(143,691)
(34,031)
(35,020)
(560,417)
1,373
(267,518)
(192,468)
(185,771)
(4,205,966)
(190,000)
(4,507)
(1,070,107)
(62,265)
(946,595)
(64,014)
478
(185,614)
(5,000)
(201,800)
(355,989)
(140,499)
(1,919)
290
$ 661,000 464,100 (196,900
$ 2,000 $ - $ (2,000)
2,000 - (2,000)
1,000 - (1,000)
10.000 800 (9.200)
Page 1 of 6
% Used
33%
25%
0%
33%
38%
24%
30%
7%
14%
33%
100%
35%
40%
34%
48%
0%
18%
19%
27%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
18%
20%
76%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
$ 10,000 $
- $
(10,000)
0%
20,000
70
(19,930)
0%
5,000
493
(4,507)
10%
170,000
-
(170,000)
0%
205,000
563
(34,437)
0%
$ $
- $
-
0%
2,000
1,523
(477)
76%
5,000
-
(5,000)
0%
2,233
1,134
(1,099)
51%
800
-
(800)
0%
20,000
-
(20,000)
0%
50,000
-
(50,000)
0%
29
Page 2 of 6
Title
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
INSURANCE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
INTERFUND TRANSFER
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT
COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112,117)
LAND
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
INTERFUND SERVICES
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERFUND TRANSFER
MEMO RIAL S TREET TREE FUND (118)
SUPPLIES
HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ADVERTISING
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 117, 132)
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001)
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS
TO URISM PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SVC
ADVERTISING
MISCELLANEOUS
C TTY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2013 Adopted
4/30/2013
Budget
Expenditures
$ 447,655 $
138,785 $
18,400
6,487
197,283
59,726
6,000
3,520
240,000
39,829
26,000
-
32,700
4,071
3,500
832
1,000
-
350
-
159,134
52,450
87,204
87,201
267,750
64,254
25,000
2,313
8,000
405
4,000
89
31,665
-
074
_
Variance
(308,870)
(11,913)
(137,557)
(2,480)
(200,171)
(26,000)
(28,629)
(2,668)
(1,000)
(350)
(106,684)
(3)
(203,496)
(22,687)
(7,595)
(3,911)
(31,665)
(2.074)
% Used
31%
35%
30%
59%
17%
0%
12%
24%
0%
0%
33%
100%
24%
9%
5%
2%
0%
0%
0%
$ 1,152,100 $
96,675 $ (1,055,425)
8%
378,500
- (378,500)
0%
909,400
- (909,400)
0%
3,502,300
75,590 (3,426,710)
2%
72,203
- (72,203)
0%
4,481
- (4,481)
0%
306,000
40,005 (265,995)
13%
$ 4,200 $
18 $
(4,182)
0%
1,000
-
(1,000)
0%
116,700
4,473
(112,227)
4%
50
12
(38)
24%
4,000
3,700
(300)
93%
550
-
(550)
0%
300
-
(300)
0%
10,000
702
(9,298)
7%
3.000
(3,000)
0%
$
$
$
0%
$
$
-
0%
$ 14,500
$
$
(14,500)
0%
37,500
5,006
(32,494)
13%
2,500
100
(2,400)
4%
14,000
-
(14,000)
0%
68,500
5,106
(63,394)
7%
$ 1,640
$
874
$
(766)
53%
-
555
25,086
-
(25,086)
0%
$ 10,500 $ 1,697 $
4,500 553
a nnn -
(8,803) 16%
(3,948) 12%
(4,000) 0%
30
Page 3 of 6
Title
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ADVERTISING
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132)
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
INTERFUND SERVICES
REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126)
MISCELLANEOUS
TRANSFER TO FUND 231
LAND
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
INTEREST
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001)
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
INTERFUND SERVICES
C ENIL'=Y MAINTENANC FIIMPRO VEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
INTERFUND SERVICES
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
INTERFUND SERVICES
PARKS TRUST FUND (136)
INTERFUND TRANSFER
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES
STUDENT TRIP
MISCELLANEOUS
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DIS TRIC T (139)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INSURANCE
INTERFUND TRANSFER
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2013 Adopted
4/30/2013
Budget
Expenditures
$ 29,000 $
23,098 $
337,000
1,876
-
148
185,000
9,500
635,500
-
100,000
-
438,910
-
200,000
-
17,550
-
12,074
-
668,534
-
$ 14,020
$
1,013 $
6,000
6,150
12,297
-
32,317
7,163
$ 31,700
$
- $
171,600
-
19,500
12,586
222,800
12,586
$ 68,605
$
23,058 $
3,500
371
33,188
10,511
1,000
-
7,000
373
20,000
2,385
1,000
-
1,412
466
500
-
3,000
251
5,256
1,752
3,800
-
500
-
4,000
1,094
1,907,500 1,940
182,700
3.000 1 A 14
Variance
(5,902)
(335,124)
148
(175,500)
(635,500)
(100,000)
(438,910)
(200,000)
(17,550)
(12,074)
(668,534)
(13,007)
150
(31,700)
(171,600)
(6,914)
(210,214)
(45,547)
(3,129)
(22,677)
(1,000)
(6,627)
(17,615)
(1,000)
(946)
(500)
(2,749)
(3,504)
(3,800)
(500)
(2,906)
(1,905,560)
(182,700)
(1.886)
% Used
80%
1%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
7%
103%
0%
22%
0%
0%
34%
11%
32%
0%
5%
12%
0%
33%
0%
8%
33%
0%
0%
27%
0%
0%
26%
0%
0%
0%
0%
37%
$ $
- $
-
0%
-
-
0%
$ 500 $
2,600
1,500
- $
-
135
(500)
(2,600)
(1,366)
0%
0%
9%
4,600
135
4,466
3%
$ $
5,000
640,000
1,756 $
5,000
195,902
1,756
-
(444,098)
0%
100%
31%
645,000 S
202,657
(442,343)
31%
31
Title
INTERFUND TRANSFER
LID GUARANTY FUND (213)
INTERFUND TRANSFER
2012 LTGO DEBTSERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
INTEREST
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
FUEL CONSUMED
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
INSURANCE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
INTERFUND TAXES
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117,414)
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
REVENUE BONDS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
INTEREST
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
INTERFUND SERVICES
INTERFUND REPAIR
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2013 Adopted
4/30/2013
Budget
Expenditures
$
22,130 $
- $
22,130
-
$
825,372 $
- $
184,530
-
1,009,902
-
$
756,455 $
237,867 $
24,180
7,052
285,866
98,402
6,840
2,836
143,505
19,916
1,725,000
287,250
140,000
33,515
10,400
269
173,136
56,517
30,280
12,899
3,400
-
560
-
91,205
30,796
67,699
67,607
28,000
16,022
24,160
667
307,630
110,509
30,000
10,079
904,893
271,544
927,500
-
85,000
-
2,532,580
-
2,025
-
209,471
-
45,839
-
280,306
-
16,553
-
-
175
349,368
149,204
-
48
Variance
(22.1
(825,372)
(184,530)
(518,588)
(17,128)
(187,464)
(4,004)
(123,589)
(1,437,750)
(106,485)
(10,131)
(116,619)
(17,381)
(3,400)
(560)
(60,409)
(92)
(11,978)
(23,493)
(197,121)
(19,921)
(633,349)
(927,500)
(85,000)
(2,532,580)
(2,025)
(209,471)
(45,839)
(280,306)
(16,553)
175
(200,164)
48
Page 4 of 6
% Used
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
31%
29%
34%
41%
14%
0%
17%
24%
3%
33%
43%
0%
0%
34%
100%
57%
3%
36%
34%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
43%
0%
32
Title
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2013 Adopted 4/30/2013
Budget Expenditures
Variance
Page 5 of 6
%Used
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 568,591 $
185,539 $
(383,052)
33%
OVERTIME
6,000
2,789
(3,211)
46%
BENEFITS
232,141
75,758
(156,383)
33%
UNIFORMS
6,540
3,841
(2,699)
59%
SUPPLIES
50,000
9,194
(40,806)
18%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
4,400
164
(4,236)
4%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
599,190
231,273
(367,917)
39%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,480
420
(3,060)
12%
TRAVEL
4,300
654
(3,646)
15%
ADVERTISING
500
-
(500)
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
217,412
70,941
(146,471)
33%
INSURANCE
8,418
8,407
(11)
100%
UTILITES
10,000
3,182
(6,818)
32%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
11,860
5,797
(6,063)
49%
MISCELLANEOUS
106,100
35,041
(71,059)
33%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
45,000
16,763
(28,237)
37%
INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
291,600
104,112
(187,488)
36%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112, 117)
237,766
-
(237,766)
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1,458,400
-
(1,458,400)
0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
101,469
-
(101,469)
0%
REVENUE BONDS
82,906
-
(82,906)
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
32,063
-
(32,063)
0%
INTEREST
187,245
-
(187,245)
0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
83
83
0%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
300,391
187,615
(112,776)
62%
4,565,772
941,573
(3,624,199)
21%
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 1,653,859 $
517,620 $
(1,136,239)
31%
OVERTIME
73,000
38,312
(34,688)
52%
BENEFITS
677,979
210,921
(467,058)
31%
UNIFORMS
11,190
6,884
(4,306)
62%
SUPPLIES
482,505
83,968
(398,537)
17%
FUEL CONSUMED
90,000
62,986
(27,014)
70%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE
3,000
-
(3,000)
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
16,400
2,044
(14,356)
12%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,024,236
421,769
(602,467)
41%
COMMUNICATIONS
40,280
11,802
(28,478)
29%
TRAVEL
7,400
-
(7,400)
0%
ADVERTISING
2,500
-
(2,500)
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
133,736
43,928
(89,808)
33%
INSURANCE
157,117
156,092
(1,025)
99%
UTILITIES
931,200
389,854
(541,346)
42%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
90,000
41,641
(48,359)
46%
MISCELLANEOUS
211,100
72,559
(138,541)
34%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
290,000
42,648
(247,352)
15%
INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
470,000
155,496
(314,504)
33%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 414, 423)
1,125,280
-
(1,125,280)
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
141,000
-
(141,000)
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
7,924,700
1,173,021
(6,751,679)
15%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
195,602
-
(195,602)
0%
REVENUE BONDS
222,625
-
(222,625)
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
138,939
-
(138,939)
0%
INTEREST
125,421
-
(125,421)
0%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
16,551
-
(16,551)
0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
41
41
0%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
574,489
185,859
(388,630)
32%
16,830,109
3,617,445
(13,212,664)
21%
33
Page 6 of 61
Title
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
FUEL CONSUMED
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
RENT AL/LEASE
INSURANCE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
INTERFUND SERVICES
FIRI M EN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
PROF SERVICES
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
C rTY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2013 Adopted
4/30/2013
Budget
Expenditures
$ 228,064 $
48,517 $
1,000
886
100,397
23,398
1,000
356
76,000
19,066
1,000
-
321,800
48,932
8,000
576
1,000
931
3,000
431
9,996
3,097
34,083
34,153
14,000
4,784
60,000
17,557
6,000
2,466
2,500
119
217,532
46,927
10.000
-
$ 63,000 $ 13,504 $
43,790 34,021
2,000 1,169
Variance
(179,547)
(114)
(76,999)
(644)
(56,934)
(1,000)
(272,868)
(7,424)
(69)
(2,569)
(6,899)
70
(9,216)
(42,443)
(3,534)
(2,381)
(170,605)
(49,496)
(9,769)
(831)
% Used
21%
89%
23%
36%
15%
7%
93%
14%
31%
100%
34%
29%
41%
5%
22%
0%
21%
78%
58%
34
Title
CITY COUNCIL
OFFICE OF MAYOR
HUMAN RESOURCES
MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY CLERK
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CITY ATTORNEY
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
POLICE SERVICES
COMMUNITY SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PARKS & RECREATION
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
Title
WATER UTILITY FUND
STORM UTILITY FUND
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2013 Adopted
Budget
273,623 $
238,374
287,190
729,506
586,831
1,492,018
499,200
11,467,569
8,931,185
373,314
1,619,042
3,398,517
1,718,975
1,344,159
32.959.503 $
4/30/2013
penditures
83,350 $
78,215
84,440
232,844
174,295
531,656
163,684
4,569,788
2,792,819
112,729
535,005
940,767
569,310
434,291
11.303.195 $
Variance
(190,273)
(160,159)
(202,750)
(496,662)
(412,536)
(960,362)
(335,516)
(6,897,781)
(6,138,366)
(260,585)
(1,084,037)
(2,457,750)
(1,149,665)
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN S UMMARY
2013 Adopted
Budget
$ 9,201,851 $
4,565,772
16,830,109
$ 30,597,732 $
4/30/2013
.penditures
1,413,173 $
941,573
3,617,445
5,972,190 $
1
Variance
(7,788,678)
(3,624,199)
(13,212,664)
(24,625,542)
% Used
% Used
30%
33%
29%
32%
30%
36%
33%
40%
31%
30%
33%
28%
33%
32%
34%
15%
21%
21%
20%
This page is intentionally left blank.
36
Page 1 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2013 Adopted
4/30/2013
Title
Budget
Expenditures Variance
%Used
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES
$ 114,618
$ 39,372 $
(75,246)
34%
OVERTIME
2,000
222
(1,778)
11%
BENEFITS
68,165
23,144
(45,021)
34%
SUPPLIES
1,000
88
(912)
9%
PROFESSIONAL SVC
53,082
18,788
(34,294)
35%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
780
(2,220)
26%
TRAVEL
2,500
358
(2,142)
14%
RENTAL/LEASE
490
147
(343)
30%
REPAIRS✓MAINT
1,500
-
(1,500)
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
27,268
450
(26,818)
2%
273,623
83,350
(190,273)
30%
O FFIC E O F MAYO R
SALARIES
$ 183,722 $
61,995 $
(121,727)
34%
OVERTIME
-
-
-
0%
BENEFITS
41,852
13,931
(27,921)
33%
SUPPLIES
2,000
804
(1,196)
40%
PROFESSIONAL SVC
1,500
29
(1,471)
2%
COMMUNICATION
1,400
255
(1,145)
18 %
TRAVEL
2,000
282
(1,718)
14%
RENTAL/LEASE
2,400
630
(1,770)
26%
REPAIR/MAINT
500
-
(500)
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
3,000
288
(2,712)
10%
238,374
78,215 S
(160,159)
3307o
HUMAN RES O URC ES
SALARIES
$ 169,000 S
52,929 $
(116,071)
31%
OVERTIME
-
-
-
0%
BENEFITS
6L680
15,992
(45,688)
26%
SUPPLIES
2,000
1,115
(885)
56%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
100
-
(100)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC
32,000
6,394
(25,606)
20%
COMMUNICATIONS
500
120
(380)
24%
TRAVEL
500
100
(400)
20%
ADVERTISING
5,000
1,388
(3,612)
28%
RENTAL/LEASE
2,000
631
(1,369)
32%
REPAIR/MAINT
6,000
5,349
(651)
89%
MISCELLANEOUS
8 410
423
(7,987)
5%
287,190
84,440
(202,750)
29%
MUNICIPAL C O URT
SALARIES
$ 464,471 $
149,982 $
(314,489)
32%
OVERTIME
100
-
(100)
0%
BENEFITS
168,526
49,401
(119,125)
29%
SUPPLIES
9,159
3,162
(5,997)
35%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,000
1,003
(997)
50%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
60,500
24,385
(36,115)
40%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,600
552
(2,048)
21 %
TRAVEL
1,250
757
(493)
61 %
RENTAL/LEASE
650
319
(331)
49%
REPAIR/MAINT
1,000
304
(696)
30%
MISCELLANEOUS
19,250
2,980
(16,270)
15%
729,506
232,844
(496,662)
32%
37
Title
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2013 Adopted 4/30/2013
Budget Expenditures Variance
Page 2 of 4
%Used
CITY C LERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 305,572
$ 100,993 $
(204,579)
33%
BENEFIT S
92,771
30,698
(62,073)
33%
SUPPLIES
13,760
2,433
(11,327)
18%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
84,751
8,291
(76,460)
10%
COMMUNICATIONS
50,000
18,162
(31,838)
36%
TRAVEL
250
-
(250)
0%
ADVERTISING
3,690
2,122
(1,568)
57%
RENTAL/LEASE
25,000
5,331
(19,669)
21%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
8,037
4,795
(3,242)
60%
MISCELLANEOUS
3,000
1,470
(1,530)
49%
586,831
174,295
412,536
30%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES
$ 682,370 $
223,289 $
(459,081)
33%
OVERTIME
4,000
3,013
(987)
75%
BENEFIT S
220,100
68,088
(152,012)
31 %
SUPPLIES
35,700
9,064
(26,636)
25%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
87,500
37,827
(49,673)
43%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
126,350
66,489
(59,861)
53%
COMMUNICATIONS
58,960
17,100
(41,860)
29%
TRAVEL
3,300
-
(3,300)
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
8,988
3,008
(5,980)
33%
REPAIR/MAINT
171,750
71,900
(99,850)
42%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
9,143
1,143
114%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
85,000
22,735
(62,265)
27%
1,492,018
531,656
(960,362)
36%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SVC
$ 499,200 $
163,684 $
(335,516)
33%
MISC PROSECUTOR
-
-
-
0%
499,200
163,684
(335,516)
33%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES
$ 136,000 $
- $
(136,000)
0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT
40,000
12,434
(27,566)
31 %
PROFESSIONAL SVC
380,000
81,036
(298,964)
21%
COMMUNICATIONS
-
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
3,600
3,600
-
100%
INSURANCE
396,193
397,566
1,373
100%
MISCELLANEOUS
55,156
40,165
(14,991)
73%
INTERGOVT SVC
7,532,912
3,778,439
(3,754,473)
50%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT
190,000
-
(190,000)
0%
EXCISE TAXES
5,500
993
(4,507)
18%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
1,325,185
255,078
(1,070,107)
19%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
946,595
-
(946,595)
0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES
64,014
-
(64,014)
0%
OTHER DEBT
-
-
-
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
185,614
-
(185,614)
0%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS
5,000
-
(5,000)
0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
-
478
478
0%
INTERFUND SERVICES
201,800
-
(201,800)
0%
11,467,569
4,569,788
(6,897,781)
40%
38
Page 3 of 4
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Title
SALARIES
OVERTIME
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
BENEFIT S
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SVC
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVTL SVC
INT ERFUND RENTAL
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN
SALARIES
BENEFIT S
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SVC
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFIT S
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
MINOR EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SVC
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
ENGINEERING
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFIT S
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
MINOR EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SVC
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
2013 Adopted 4/30/2013
Budget Expenditures Variance %Used
$ 5,169,010 $
1,707,771 $
(3,461,239)
33%
400,000
98,250
(301,750)
25%
193,388
802
(192,586)
0%
1,728,703
593,704
(1,134,999)
34%
52,410
15,439
(36,971)
29%
94,100
27,145
(66,955)
29%
14,300
3,244
(11,056)
23%
95,200
21,403
(73,797)
22%
33,592
6,268
(27,324)
19%
16,300
1,069
(15,231)
7%
375
36
(339)
10%
538,344
178,317
(360,027)
33%
16,115
2,618
(13,497)
16%
35,300
10,503
(24,797)
30%
496,048
110,250
(385,798)
22%
48,000
16,000
(32,000)
33%
8,931,185
2,792,919
(6,139,366)
31%
$ 213,304 $
71,283 $
(142,021)
33%
62,052
20,815
(41,237)
34%
1,500
204
(1,296)
14%
800
-
(800)
0%
60,804
17,489
(43,315)
29%
1,490
485
(1,005)
33%
2,000
-
(2,000)
0%
24,500
-
(24,500)
0%
2364
751
(1,613)
32%
500
-
(500)
0%
4,000
1,703
(2,298)
43%
373,314
112,729
(260,585)
30%
$ 1,032,549 $
382,092 $
(650,457)
37%
1,300
25
(1,275)
2%
358,465
124,624
(233,841)
35%
-
-
-
0%
13,000
2,480
(10,520)
19%
1,100
-
(1,100)
0%
145,600
6,384
(139,216)
4%
4,000
1,498
(2,502)
37%
1,600
12
(1,588)
1%
3,000
1,367
(1,633)
46%
32,828
10,803
(22,025)
33%
500
-
(500)
0%
25,100
5,722
(19,378)
23%
1,619,042
535,005
1,084,037
33%
$ 1,007,140 $
332,460 $
(674,680)
33%
5,000
947
(4,053)
19%
342,150
119,093
(223,057)
35%
360
-
(360)
0%
-
-
-
0%
2,000
403
(1,597)
20%
5,000
840
(4,160)
17%
6,700
1,524
(5,176)
23%
600
10
(590)
2%
-
264
264
0%
13,408
4,468
(8,940)
33%
1,800
-
(1,800)
0%
10,300
2,629
(7,671)
26%
1,394,458
462,638
(931,820)
33%
39
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Title
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
MINOR EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SVC
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENTAL/LEASE
PUBLIC UTILITY
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVTLSVC
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
PUBLIC UTILITY
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
FUEL CONSUMED
MINOR EQUIPMENT
COMMUNICATIONS
RENT AL/LEASE
PUBLIC UTILITY
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
2013 Adopted 4/30/2013
Budget Expenditures Variance %Used
$ 1,745,631 $
519,272 $
(1,226,359)
30%
-
1,881
1,881
0%
584,326
180,564
(403,762)
31 %
5,340
1,691
(3,649)
32%
131,925
31,205
(100,720)
24%
3,250
1,820
(1,430)
56%
405,297
51,264
(354,033)
13%
28,218
9,367
(18,851)
33%
5,942
124
(5,818)
2%
4,300
668
(3,632)
16%
149,152
50,023
(99,129)
34%
135,000
45,894
(89,106)
34%
51,845
24,439
(27,406)
47%
77,596
17,557
(60,039)
23%
70,695
5,000
(65,695)
7%
3,398,517
940,767
(2,457,750)
28%
$ 225,381 $
80,084 $
(145,297)
36%
200
-
(200)
0%
76,157
21,688
(54,469)
28%
5,100
2,126
(2,974)
42%
200
15
(185)
8%
1,200
493
(707)
41%
500
-
(500)
0%
10,779
1,428
(9,351)
13%
2,600
837
(1,763)
32%
1,000
-
(1,000)
0%
1,400
-
(1,400)
0%
324,517
106,6 22
(217,845)
33%
$ 621,104 $
208,498 $
(412,606) 34%
2,500
23
(2,477) 1 %
249,515
72,679
(176,836) 29%
3,000
466
(2,534) 16%
65,000
12,514
(52,486) 19%
-
-
0%
6,000
572
(5,428) 10%
13,000
4,365
(8,635) 34%
44,940
15,070
(29,870) 34%
277,000
100,351
(176,649) 36%
60,000
18,675
(41,325) 31%
2,100
1,078
(1,022) 51 %
1,344,159
434,291
909,868 32°0
32,959,503 11,303,195 (21,656,308) 34%
40
AM-5860
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted By: Renee McRae
Department: Parks and Recreation
Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works
Type:
Action
Tnfnrmntinn
Subject Title
Special Event Contract for Bastille Day
3. E.
Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the special event contract for Bastille Day in Edmonds.
Previous Council Action
The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee reviewed the contract at the June 11 meeting and
forwarded it to the June 18 Council consent agenda.
Narrative
The Edmonds Petanque Club is holding a new event this summer - Bastille Day in Edmonds - a
celebration of French Bastille Day with a petanque tournament, music, food and wine. This event is
taking place at the Civic Center Field on July 14.
This first year event is on a smaller scale and has the ability to grow into a larger multi -day event
dependent upon community interest.
Attachments
Bastille Day Contract
06-11-13 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Minutes
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Fonn Started By: Renee McRae
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Form Review
Date
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
06/13/2013 11:45 AM
06/13/2013 11:48 AM
Started On: 06/13/2013 09:54 AM
CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND
EDMONDS PETANQUE CLUB
July 13-14, 2013
The following agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between CITY OF EDMONDS ("City"), and
Edmonds Petanque Club ("EPC") (collectively, the "Parties").
WHEREAS, EPC has proposed to hold a public event known as Bastille Day in Edmonds (or "Event");
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Event provides distinct benefits to the City by showcasing
the City while providing a unique recreational opportunity for its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such an event enhances tourism and promotes economic
development as well as providing an opportunity for good clean fun to its citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set
forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
City Responsibilities:
1.1 City shall provide use of surfaces on Civic Center Field hereinafter referred to as the
"City -Provided Site" on Saturday, June 13, 2013 from 3pm-5pm for lining the field and on Sunday, June
14, 2013 from 9am-5pm for the Event. The provisions of this Agreement relate only to the City -
Provided Site. City shall inspect the Civic Center Field facilities before and after the Event.
1.2 City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other
sound source and require that the volume be reduced if it exceeds the safety limits recommended by the
Snohomish County Department of Health or levels set forth in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds.
1.3 City shall provide two additional garbage containers and one recycle container for the
Event.
1.4 City shall provide access to power at the west end of the stadium. EPC shall be
responsible for providing appropriate power cords sufficient for its uses.
1.5 City shall install Bastille Day street banners as provided by EPC at approved sites. EPC
shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee.
2. EPC Responsibilities:
In addition to the above and in consideration of the use of the facilities and services above described,
EPC agrees to the following:
2.1 EPC accepts the condition of the Civic Center Field as it currently exists.
2.2 EPC shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability
insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per
occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. City shall
be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of
the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The
insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. The
City shall be named as an insured on EPC's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy
shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that EPC's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any
insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of EPC's
insurance and shall not contribute to it. EPC shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the
required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers
with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
2.3 EPC agrees that the Event is a public event. EPC further agrees that areas constituting
the City -Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement are traditional public forums. As a result,
EPC shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public at the City -Provided Site during the
Event to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference.
2.4 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single -use plastic
checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to carry out cooked food or
provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. EPC will encourage its vendors to comply with the
purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever
practicable.
2.5 EPC shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees,
arising from or in connection with EPC's performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to
the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a
waiver by EPC of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully
effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement.
2.6 The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in
Chapter 70.160 RCW (hereinafter the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25
feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and employees of any
vendor at the Event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the
provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or
contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. EPC warrants that it will comply with the smoking
ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring
compliance during the Event described in this Agreement.
2.7 EPC shall provide any and all security services necessary to reasonably secure the area
and facilities provided. City shall have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services
nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by EPC or the participants in this Event.
2.8 EPC shall ensure that all boothsibeer garden/wine garden have the necessary state and
local permits for serving and selling alcohol. EPC agrees to use its best efforts to prevent service of
alcohol to minors, including segregation of the beer garden/wine garden and checking identification in
accordance with common practice. EPC shall obtain any copyright licenses necessary for presenting
licensed live and recorded music.
2.9 EPC shall contract for one additional sani-can and wash station at Civic Center Field.
These may be placed on site the Friday night preceding the Event. Maintenance and removal of, and
damage to, sani-cans, is solely the responsibility of EPC. EPC shall provide extra paper supplies for
sani-cans and existing City portable toilets in the event there is a shortage of such supplies.
2.10 EPC shall obtain all required approvals for food handling and serving to the general
public through the Snohomish County Health Department. EPC shall provide City with a written
statement from that department that all requirements have been met and necessary permits issued.
2.11 EPC shall advise all participating vendors of the terms and conditions of this Agreement
and shall insure that vendors maintain all insurance, licenses and permits required by local, state and
federal law for the duration of the Event.
2.12 Upon completion of the Event, EPC shall make adequate provisions for the cleanup of all
sites provided under the terms of this Agreement so as to restore them to the same state of cleanliness as
existed the morning prior to the Event. A final inspection of the Event area shall be conducted by a
designated City official to determine if all areas are clean and returned to their original condition.
2.13 EPC shall pay City all permit fees for the above -mentioned facility use ($100) prior to
Wednesday, June 16, 2014. The fees are subject to change if requests for additional services are made by
EPC.
2.14 EPC shall pay City a cleaning/damage deposit of $1,000.00 prior to Wednesday, June 16,
2013. The deposit shall be refunded to EPC if, upon inspection, all is in order, or a prorated portion
thereof as may be necessary to reimburse City for supplies, losses or cleaning costs. In addition, EPC
shall be responsible for any damages, labor and/or materials required to repair damage to City property.
2.15 Colored banners or flags may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk
designated for the American flag program.
2.16 Neither EPC nor any of its officers, agents, or employees shall discriminate in the
provision of service under this Agreement against any individual, partnership, or corporation based upon
race, religion, sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by federal, state
or local law.
2.17 If the tent area exceeds 400 square feet, EPC shall contact the Edmonds Fire Marshal at
Fire Prevention Services (425) 775-7720 for an inspection of the tent area prior to the opening of the
Event to the general public, at or before 9:00 a.m., June 14, 2013, as the Parties shall agree. EPC shall
correct all fire safety related problems prior to the opening of the Event. If such problems are not
corrected, City may at its sole discretion cancel the Event or prohibit the attendance of the general public
in certain areas, if in the opinion of the Fire Marshal, and at the sole discretion of City, any violation or
other condition that threatens life, health or property has not been corrected.
2.18 A Class K fire extinguisher will be required if griddles or BBQ appliances are used for
cooking. If cooking is taking place in a tent, the tent will have to be labeled fire resistant.
2.19 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other facilities used in the Event may
be inspected and reviewed by the Fire Chief, Police Chief, Building Official and Parks and Recreation
Director or their designees to determine that such facilities comply with State and local law, as well as to
insure that no lasting damage shall be done to any public facility or property.
3
3. Miscellaneous.
3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby,
and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or
oral, between the Parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the
provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred
except in writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce
this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the
Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue.
3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental
authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due
to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to
any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time
reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay.
3.3 Termination. The City shall have the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to
unilaterally terminate this Agreement should the same become necessary to protect public health, safety
or welfare; in which case, the City shall provide written notice of the same to EPC.
3.4 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in
fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent,
employee or representative of EPC shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. EPC
alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives
and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
DATED this day of
CITY OF EDMONDS:
David O. Earling, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
2013.
EDMONDS PETANQUE CLUB:
Michelle Martin, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Elected Officials Present:
Council Member Kristiana Johnson
Council Member Diane Buckshnis
The Committee convened at 6:45 p.m.
A. Special Event Contract for Bastille Day
Staff Present:
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
ACTION: The Bastille Day Contract was forwarded to the City Council consent agenda.
B. Park Impact Fee Study direction.
A discussion of the following three options for a Park Impact Fee was held:
Residential vs. Commercial: if Council chooses to do residential only, the formula would
bump those rates up 20%. Both Council members like the idea of having both residential
and commercial.
2. Phasing: Is Council interested in phasing this in or not, and at what schedule? Both Council
members voiced their interest in 50% for the first year; phase in over two years.
3. Low Income Housing exemption: yes or no? There are some implications if we offer low
income housing exemptions: (1) It is not consistent with the transportation impact fees; there
is no low income housing exemption. (2) If we exempt low income housing, then the City will
have to pay it. (3) Options include for nonprofits only, or nonprofit and for profit (but will
require them to keep the prices low). (4) Define low income as 80% of the County's median
household income.
Both Council members voiced their interest in choosing no exemption.
C. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet for
channelization plan, right-of-way acquisition, and access management work on the 228t"
St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
The Committee reviewed the proposed Supplement and did not have questions.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes
June 11, 2013
Page 2
D. Briefing on Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019)
Mr. English reviewed changes that were made to the proposed Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program and answered Councilmember questions.
Both Council members discussed defining the 104 study to confine it to the Westgate area that
would be in conjunction with the Westgate sub -area plan.
ACTION: Item scheduled for a public hearing on June 18, 2013.
E. FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project Award
The Committee reviewed the proposed Supplement and did not have questions.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
F. Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer
utility rate increases.
Mr. Williams provided a brief summary of the draft 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan. He
discussed the capital and maintenance needs for the sewer collection system and the
wastewater treatment plant. He also reviewed the City's current sewer rate and how this rate
compares with other cities in Snohomish and King Counties.
ACTION: A presentation on the proposed Sewer Comprehensive Plan will be made in July.
G. Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution.
Mr. Williams outlined the remaining schedule in issuing and securing a bond to pay for capital
infrastructure improvements for the City's sewer, water and stormwater utilities.
ACTION: The item will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting.
H. Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments.
Mr. Williams discussed possible strategies for utility rate adjustments to pay for capital
infrastructure improvements for the City's sewer, water and stormwater utilities.
ACTION: Staff will develop and present options for future rate adjustments to the City
Council.
Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans Associates
for the Five Corners Roundabout Project.
Mr. English provided the proposed fee for Supplement #7 and answered Councilmember
questions about lighting and the project schedule.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
J. Public Comments
None.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.
AM-5862
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Phil Williams
Department: Public Works
Submitted By: Kody McConnell
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subiect Title
Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles.
3. F.
Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to sell at auction two (2) surplus City
vehicles.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles
and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items.
The following vehicles are ready to be surplussed:
Unit # 128-WTR 2002 Ford F-250 Utility Truck VIN# IFTNX205X2EL51077
Unit # 648-POL 2009 Ford Crown Victoria VIN# 2FAHP71V09X132648
Fiscal Year: 2013
Fiscal Impact
Revenue: $7,500
Fiscal Impact:
Monies will be deposited into the B-Fund replacement account.
Inbox
City Clerk
Mayor
Finalize for Agenda
Form Started By: Kody McConnell
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Form Review
Reviewed By
Date
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
Dave Earling
06/13/2013 11:45 AM
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 11:48 AM
Started On: 06/13/2013 11:23 AM
Expenditure:
AM-5848
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time:
Submitted By:
Department:
Jim Stevens
Public Works
Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works
Type:
Action
"information
Subject Title
Contract award for the FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project.
Recommendation
3. G.
Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Approve the award of the contract for the FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project to Moon Construction.
The recommended contract value includes Additive Alternate #1, per the narrative below. The addition of
sufficient contingency to this amount will bring the project budget to a total of $134,131.
Previous Council Action
This project is already listed in the 2013 CIP and is within the budget anticipated there, as well as within
the current spending authority for Fund 016 ($205,000) for 2013. At last week's PPPW Committee
meeting, this agenda item was approved for review and action by the full Council as part of the consent
agenda.
Narrative
A little over a year ago, staff identified the two locker rooms adjoining the Frances Anderson Center
Gymnasium as being non -compliant with current accessibility requirements. Because there are no
equivalent facilities available at any reasonable distance from the gym, staff determined it was necessary
to undertake a construction project to remedy this situation. This project will take these locker rooms out
of service between August 19th and October 18th and will provide essentially a complete reorganization
of internal spaces. The work includes demolishing and rebuilding interior locker room walls, and
purchasing and installing new fixtures, oriented with sufficient clearances such that the rooms will
become fully accessible as currently defined in code.
Because this project was estimated to be well within an appropriate value to qualify, the City used its
procedures to seek quotes directly from 5 selected firms listed in the MRSC Small Works Roster
subcategory of General Contracting - Building Contractor. Four bids were received and opened in the
City Clerk's Office Conference Room on May 30, 2013. The bid recap sheet is attached to this agenda
item. The low bidder is Moon Construction, of Lynnwood, and they have informed the City that they are
fully prepared to undertake this project. On June 3, 2013, the City finished checking the references of this
firm and a summary of the results is also attached to this agenda item.
The winning bid was $97,736 for the base work, with another $8,781 for Alternate #1. This alternate will
allow the complete refinishing of the floors in both locker rooms, rather than only patching cuts that must
be made in the concrete flooring to accommodate plumbing changes. With sales tax, this comes to a
recommended total contract value of $116,636. Because this area of the Frances Anderson Center dates
from 1947, and because the work is critically tied to making changes to old plumbing, staff recommends
establishing a contingency amount of 15% of this contract value, for an additional $17,495. This brings
the total allotment requested for this project budget to $134,131.
Attachments
FAC Bid Recap
Reference Checks
Form Review
Inbox
Reviewed By
Date
Public Works
Phil Williams
06/13/2013 11:45 AM
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 11:47 AM
Mayor
Dave Earling
06/13/2013 11:56 AM
Finalize for Agenda
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 01:31 PM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens
Started On: 06/12/2013 11:55 AM
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
ABSTRACT OF QUOTESfBIDS (AUTHORIZATION DATE: N/A
BID TABULATION SHEET
OPENING DATE: 5-30-13
AWARD DATE: TBD
Supplies or Sen•ices:
FAC Accessibility Upgrades
Originating Office: Public Works
Department: Public Works
NAME OF BIDDERS:
Remarks
1
2
3
4
Mark Construction
Moon Construction
Northwestern Const.
Mike Werlich Const.
ITEM
1 BASE BID (Inc. trench & shore)
143,000.00
97,736.00
162,713.00
184,043.00
2 ALTERNATE #1
12,000.00
8,781.00
5,900.00
5,964.00
WA State Sales Tax
13,585.00
9,284.92
15,457.74
17,484.09
TOTAL BASE BID
156,585.00
107,020.92
178,170.74
201,527.09
Bid De osit
Bond
Bond
Bond
Bond
Bid Signed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rec'd Addenda if Required
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Is this product a WA State Contract item? Yes No XXX
Indicate vendors from above listing who have previously provided services or products to the City and indicate whether the results were satisfactory or unsatisfactory:
Recommended Awardee: I CERTIFY THAT ALL BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION WERE OPENED,
READ AND RECORDED ACCORDING TO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.
Low Bid That Is Unacceptable: —
Agent for the City of Edmonds:_��L•-
Note: Indicate N/A in each of the above categories that does not apply to the bid being presented
EXCEi.DATAIADMEMBID9
Moon Construction Reference Checks - Completed 6-3-13
Project
Entity and Contact
Job Quality*
Budget Control*
Timeliness*
Overall Rating*
Comments
Very good company. Small
(2 projects at WWTP):
COE: Pamela
contractors do not always
come with knwowledge and
Aeration Basin;
Randolph, WWTP
experitse to work in treatment
Switchgea r Wa I kway
Manager
2
1
2
1
plant setting.
Service Center at
LWSD, Support
"Superior small contractor,
honest and willing to work with
Services, Misc.
Lake Washington SD:
you and your architect. Cliff
Projects
Brian Berard
1
1-2
1-2
1-2
Moon is very knowledgable."
Very happy with performance,
don't often find small
contractor like Moon, good
Elevated Track Sound
Sound Transit: Justin
work on rush job with tight
Mitigation and others
Garrod
1
1
1
1
constraints
* 1= excellent, 5 = worst
AM-5849
3. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss
Department: Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works
Submitted By: Megan Luttrell
Type: Action
Information
Subiect Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet, Inc. for the 228th St. SW
Corridor Improvement project.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet, Inc.
Previous Council Action
On August 2, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Standard Consultant
Agreement with Perteet on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
On October 16, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Supplemental
Agreement #1 with Perteet on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
On June 11, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the June 18, 2013 Council meeting.
Narrative
The project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St SW from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th
Ave W. and install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 / 228th St. SW and 76th Ave. W. /
228th St. SW. The center median will be extended on a portion of SR99 to restrict left turns and improve
safety. Sidewalk and bike lanes will be included along the new section of 228th St. SW. The section of
228 th St. SW from 80th Ave W to 1,000 feet east of 72nd Ave. W will be overlaid. A raised median with
decorative elements will also be installed along SR-99.
The proposed Supplement covers the professional services to complete the channelization plans, right of
way acquisition phase, and access modifications along 76th Ave. W at 22625 Hwy 99. The design fee for
Supplement No. 2 is $24,547 and will be paid by grant funds.
The City secured a federal transportation grant for $4,233,000 to complete the design, right of way
acquisition, and construction. No local match is required for this grant. The City has received a total of
$4,769,000 in federal grant funds to complete this project.
The design and right of way phases are scheduled for completion in early 2014 and construction is
tentatively scheduled to begin in spring 2014.
Attachments
Supplemental Agreement No. 2
Form Review
Inbox
Reviewed By
Date
Engineering
Robert English
06/12/2013 04:51 PM
Public Works
Phil Williams
06/13/2013 11:45 AM
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 11:47 AM
Mayor
Dave Earling
06/13/2013 11:54 AM
Finalize for Agenda
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 01:31 PM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell
Started On: 06/12/2013 01:50 PM
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
-'A Washington State
Department of Transportation
Supplemental Agreement
pp g
Organization and Address
Perteet, inc.
Number 2
2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900
Everett, WA 98201
Original Agreement Number
Phone: (425) 252-7700
Project Number
Execution Date
Completion Date
August 11, 2011
April 30, 2014
Project Title
New Maximum Amount Payable
City of Edmonds 228t" Street S.W. Corridor
$ 535,387
Improvement Project
Description of Work
Additional services as detailed in Exhibit A-1, Scope of Work, attached.
The Local Agency of CITY OF EDMONDS desires
to supplement the agreement entered into with PERTEET, INC.
and executed on August 11, 2011
and identified as Agreement No.
provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement.
The changes to the agreement are described as follows:
Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read:
All
Supplemental services are as covered by Exhibit A-1. Scope of Work, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement.
Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion
of the work to read: April 30, 2014
Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows:
These additional services as set forth in this SupDlemental Agreement No. 2 will cause an increase to the contract maximum in
The amount of Twenty -Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty -Seven Dollars ($24,547) for a new contract maximum of Five
Hundred Thirty -Five Thousand Three Hundred Eiahty-Seven Dollars ($535,387) as referenced in Exhibit E-1, attached hereto.
as set forth in the attached Exhibit A-1, and by this reference made a part of this supplement.
If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and
return to this office for final action.
By: Perteet, Inc. By:
Consultant Signature
Crystal L. Donner
DOT Form 140-063 EF
Revised 912005
Approving Authority Signature
Date
Exhibit A -I
Scope of Services
City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor Improvements
Supplemental Agreement No. 02
Task I -- Project Management
Assuming that there are no stops in design, the current project schedule indicates that the design phase will be
completed by the end of February 2014. The intent of this supplement is to cover the additional nine months of
project management support.
Work Elements:
• Weekly communications with the client
• Facilitate monthly project coordination meetings
• Prepare monthly progress reports
• Manage subconsultant activities.
Assumptions:
• Notice to proceed on all design elements will be granted by May 5, 2013.
• No stops in design work are anticipated.
Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Work Plan (2 hard copies)
• Project Schedule (MS Project Format) PDF (12 updates)
• Project Kickoff meeting agenda and minutes
• Nine (9) coordination meeting agendas and minutes
• Nine (9) progress reports and invoices
Task 3 — Channelization Plan for Approval (Supplemented)
The intent of this task is to address additional channelization plan for approval comments and to address
Edmonds' desire to construct a raised median along Highway 99.
Work Elements:
• Revise Channelization Plan for Approval
• Update the Project Analysis if required
Assumptions:
• This work is limited to WSDOT and Edmonds review comments received to date
• No other work besides revising the channelization plan section showing the revised median will be
performed.
Deliverables:
• Revised Channelization Plan for Approval (one typical section plan sheet)
DOT Form 140-063 EF
Revised 912005
Task 8 — Right -of -Way Acquisition (Supplemented)
The intent of this task is to provide additional technical design support to the negotiation team.
Work Elements:
• Technical design support
• Revised right-of-way plan
Assumptions:
• None
Deliverables:
• Negotiation graphics
• Revised right-of-way plan
Task 23 — Access Modifications (New)
The intent of this task is to reconfigure the northern biofiltration swale along 76th Avenue SW so that the 76
gas station northern access point shall remain open.
Work Elements:
• Modify drainage design
• Update Drainage Report
• Modify channelization plans
• Modify paving plans
Assumptions:
• Based on our initial investigation, Perteet believes that the 76 gas station can remain open. The actual
location will remain the same.
• This access point will be limited to vehicles exiting and heading south bound along 76th Avenue SW.
Construct this exit only access drive so that it is 15 feet wide.
Deliverables:
• Revised Drainage Report
• Revised Drainage plans
• Revised channelization plans
• Revised paving plans
SCHEDULE
A time extension to April 30, 2014 is requested to complete the design phase of the project.
DOT Form 140-063 EF
Revised 912005
MANAGEMENT RESERVE RELEASES
The following management reserve releases have been issued and are now incorporated as part of the contract.
MRR #I 3/8/2012
$5,634 Geotechnical Infiltration Rates and RIW Exhibits
MRR #2 5/ 15/2012
$3,094 Survey Utilities & NEPA EJIRevisions
MRR #3 5/15/2012
$5,900 Noise & Channelization Support
MRR #4 10/24/2012
$5,924 AMEC Cultural Resource Assessment
Management Reserve Budget
= $35,000
Management Reserve Balance = $14,448
DOT Form 140.063 EF
Revised 9/2005
Exhibit E- t
Project: 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements - Supp No. 2
Client: City of Edmonds
Hourly Costs Pius Fixed Fee Estimate
Classification
Hours
Rate
Amount
Sr. Associate
68
60.10
$4,056
Lead Engineer 1 Mgr
14
46.63
$653
Lead Engineer 1 Mgr
36
50.00
$1,800
Lead Technician/Designer
46
35.00
$1,610
Accountant
5
33.50
$151
Clerical
5
26.73
$120
Total Direct Salary Costs
174
$8,390
Overhead @
162.58%
$13,640
Fixed Fee @
30.00%
$2,517
Total Labor Costs
$24,547
Expenses
Total Expenses
In -House Costs
Total In -House Costs
Subconsultants
Total Subconsultants
Management Reserve
Total Other Costs
Reimbursables
Amount
0
Qty Rate Amount
0
Subconsultants
Cost Markup Amount
0 4
Other
$0.00
$ 0.00
CONTRACT TOTAL $24,547.00 .
Rates shown reflect the typical compensation rate of employees assigned to the billing category listed. Each category may
have multiple employees assigned to that billing category and each employee may have a different hourly rate of pay.
Employee compensation is subject to adjustment in June of each calendar year.
Prepared By: Darrell C. Smith
DOT Form 140-063 EF
Revised 912005
Date: May 29, 2013
AM-5855
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss
Department: Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works
Submitted By: Megan Luttrell
Type: Action
Information
Subiect Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans & Associates for the Five
Corners Roundabout Project.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans & Associates.
Previous Council Action
On July 12, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Standard Consultant
Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project.
On July 17, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #3 with David Evans &
Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project.
On October 9, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #4 with David Evans &
Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project.
On June 11, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the June 18, 2013 Council meeting.
Narrative
The proposed supplemental agreement includes the following revisions / additions to the plans,
specifications, and estimates:
• Additional work on Franchise utility plans due to the removal of one of the Comcast poles along
212th St. SW
• Addition of several vaults within the project limits for the City of Edmonds underground fiber
optic line
• Water quality treatment change from filterras to filter cartridges, resulting in changes to the
drainage plans, profiles, details, and the Storm Drainage Technical Information Report (TIR)
• Illumination work, resulting in modifications to the Illumination plans / detail
The total cost of the supplemental agreement is $35,831 and will be paid through grant and local funding.
The design and right of way acquisition phase are scheduled for completion in Fall 2013 and the
construction phase is scheduled to begin in Spring 2014.
Supplemental Agreement #7
Inbox
Reviewed By
Engineering
Robert English
Public Works
Phil Williams
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda
Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Attachments
Form Review
Date
06/13/2013 11:39 AM
06/13/2013 11:45 AM
06/13/2013 11:47 AM
06/13/2013 11:54 AM
06/13/2013 01:31 PM
Started On: 06/12/2013 04:05 PM
Washington State
TAf Department of Transportation
Supplemental Agreement
p p g
Organization and Address
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Number 7
415 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98005
Original Agreement Number
Attn: Victor Salemann
ElAA/c342
Phone: (425) 586-9761
Project Number
Execution Date
Completion Date
DEA Project No. COED0000-0003
8/5/2011
3/31/2014
Project Title
New Maximum Amount Payable
Five Corners Roundabout
$ 441,524.00
Description of Work
Five Corners Roundabout - Provide engineering design services including preparing a topographic base map; environmental
documents; project design documentation; PS&E construction bid documents; determination of right-of-way needs;
preparation of a right-of-way plan, parcel exhibit(s), and legal descriptions(s); performing right-of-way acquisition services;
and project management services to improve the level of service of the existing intersection.
The Local Agency of City of Edmonds
desires to supplement the agreement entered into with David Evans and Associates. Inc.
and executed on
8/5/2011
and identified as Agreement No. ElAA/c342
All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement.
The changes to the agreement are described as follows:
Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read:
See Fxhihit A-1 for the ,Scope of Services
11
Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for
completion of the work to read: There is no change to the comnletion _datc_
III
Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows:
The Snpnlement 7 total is , 35,831 (See Fxhihit F.-1)_ The New Maximum Amrnmt Pa�gahle. is . 44 524
as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement.
If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces
below and return to this office for final action.
By: By:
5a
Consultant Signature
Approving Authority Signature
DOT Form 140-063 EF
Revised 9/2005
Date
Exhibit A-1
Five Corners Roundabout
Intersection Improvement Project
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Supplement No. 7
Prepared for:
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98005-3518
(425) 519-6500
June 10, 2013
City of Edmonds
Five Corners Roundabout
Intersection Improvement Project
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Supplement No. 7
Introduction
Supplement No. 7 modifies the original agreement dated August 5, 2011, and Supplements 1 through 6,
with the following revisions.
Section 2.0 Project Management and Quality Control
2.1 Project Management and File Management
The assumptions of Section 2.1 are supplement with the following:
Duration of the project will an additional 3 months, for a total of 21 months.
An additional 3 monthly meetings with the City shall occur at City offices.
Section 7.0 Utility Coordination
7.2 Utility Conflict Resolution
Section 7.2 is supplemented with the following:
Prepare for and attend one additional utility coordination meeting; prepare meeting agenda and
records, and distribute to all attendees.
Revise Comcast utility design on 212th due to pole being removed from design base.
Incorporate utility trench design with new Edmond's communication fiber vaults.
Section 8.0 PS&E Design
8.3 Storm Drainage Technical Information Report
Section 8.3 is supplemented with the following:
The CONSULTANT shall update the final Storm Drainage Technical Information Report to include the
use of either storm filter cartridges or stormceptor system for water quality treatment in lieu of the
Filterra system previously designed.
P:IcICOED000000031000000N10030ContractlSupplementslSupplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical DesignlExhibit A-1 DEA Scope Five Comers Roundabout 2013-0610.doc
City of Edmonds 1 Supplement No. 7
Five Corners Roundabout Project June 10, 2013
Assumptions:
• One submittal of the Drainage TIR will be provided to the City to include the storm filter
cartridges for water quality. No other changes to the previous final Drainage TIR will be
required.
Deliverables:
• Final Drainage TIR, two (2) copies (hard copy only).
8.7 Construction Documents (100% Completion Level)
Section 8.7 is supplement with the following:
The CONSULTANT shall conduct the following:
• Revise the 90% drainage plan, profiles, and details to accommodate the use of storm filter
cartridges or stormceptor system for water quality.
• Update revised storm crossing elevations on water profiles.
• Illumination:
o Run breaker, load, and conduit calculations due to the additional GFCI receptacles at
tree, luminaire, and central island locations.
o Revise illumination plans and details; and luminaire, wiring, and breaker schedules due
to new decorative luminaire style and addition of GFCIs.
o Provide spare conduit on plans for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon.
• Update design specifications based on project revisions and updated City front end forms and
WSDOT GSPs/Amendments.
• Update project cost estimate based on project revisions.
8.8 Assistance During Bid Period
Section 8.8 is supplement with the following:
Bid Support
The CONSULTANT shall provide bid support and assist the CITY in answering questions from
prospective bidders during the bid process. The CONSULTANT shall attend the pre -bid meeting.
Bid Addendums
The CONSULTANT shall prepare addendums to the contract documents during the bid period. This task
is limited to 30 hours.
P:IcICOED000000031000000N10030ContractlSupplementslSupplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical DesignlExhibit A-1 DEA Scope Five Comers Roundabout 2013-0610.doc
City of Edmonds 2 Supplement No. 7
Five Corners Roundabout Project June 10, 2013
Supplement No. 7
Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Fixed Fee
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
City of Edmonds
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Direct
Classification
Rate
Hours
Cost
1 Project Manager (PMGR)
57.00
70
$3,990
2 Managing Professional Engr/QC (MGPE)
$
57.00
10
$570
3 Professional Engineer (PFEN)
$
42.00
129
$5,418
4 CADD Manager (CADM)
$
38.00
8
$304
5 Sr. CADD Technician (SCAD)
$
32.50
10
$325
6 Administrative Assistant (ADMA)
$
26.75
18
$482
7 Exec. Administrator (EXAD)
$
31.00
11
$341
Total Hours
256
Salary Cost
$11,430
Overhead Cost @
184.46%
of
Direct Labor
$21,083
Net Fee @
28.00%
of
Direct Labor
$3,200
Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost
$24,283
Direct Expenses
Unit
Each
No.
Cost
Reproduction: Reports
reports @
$15 /report
0
$0
Reproduction: Plan Sets
sets @
$10 /set
0
$0
Mail/Deliveries/Fed Ex
@
$20
0
$0
Mileage
miles @
$0.565 /mile
210
$119
High Definition Scanning Equip.
days @
$520 /day
0
$0
Traffic Counts Vendor
$0
Subtotal
$119
David Evans and Associates Total $35,831
Page 1 of 1
P:\c\COED00000003\OOOOCON\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical Design\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget Five Corners_2013-0610.xls Printed: 6/10/2013
Supplement No. 7
Exhibit E-1 Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
City of Edmonds
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Work
Element #
Work Element
it
0
m
o
d
o
N
y w
° C7
'50
@ 0)
w
Q
c
0)
w
3
.mow
o LL
a`
Q
U
Q
U
m
.E
Q�
U
U)
y
N
Q
t`
ca
�a
Q Q
0
a
m
Q
x
w
DEA
DEA
direct rates:
$57.00
$57.00
$42.00
$36.00
$32.50
$26.75
$31.0o
Total
Dollars
Total Total Total
hrs hrs hrs
otal Total Total Total
hrs hrs hrs hrs
Total
hrs
Total $
no Esc.
2.0
Proj. Management and Quality Control
2.1
Project Management and File Management (3 additional months)
6
6
12
$1,570
2.4
Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices (3 additional)
3
3
3
9
$1,076
2.5
Coordination with the City
3
3
6
$928
2.6
Project Kick-off and Progress Meetings (3 additional)
9
12
3
24
$3,428
.0 Total
21
7.0
Utility Coordination
7.1
Utility Coordination (one additional meeting)
4
6
2
12
$1,667
7.2
Utility Conflict Resolution
7.2.1
Comcast Update
1
2
3
$441
7.2.2
Edmond's Communication Vault Update
Work Element 7.0 Tota11MMMMMMM
PSBE Design
2
4
6
21
$881
8.0
8.3
Storm Drainage Technical Information Report (TIR)
8.3.2
Final (TIR) Report
2
2
12
4
4
028
8.7
Construction Documents (100% Completion Level)
8.7.1
Update Drainage Plans/Profiles/Details
4
4
24
4
36(E$4,g81
8.7.2
Illumination Updates
4
4
28
2
38
$5,302
8.7.3
Design Specifications
12
8
20
$2,912
8.7.4
Project Cost Estimate
4
6
10
$1,500
8.8
Assistance During Bid Period
8.8.1
Bid Support and Pre -Bid Meeting
10
16
26
$3,881
8.8.2
Bid Addendums
6
16
8
30
$4,118
4
8
184
Direct Expenses
8
$119
PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS
70 10 129 8 10 18 11
256
$35,831
Page 1 of 1
P:\c\COED00000003\000000N\0030Contract\Supplements\Supplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical Design\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget Five Corners _2013-0610.xis Printed: 6/10/2013
AM-5856
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss
Department: Engineering
Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works
Type:
Action
Tnfnrmntinn
Submitted By:
3. J.
Megan Luttrell
Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the Cavalry Chapel
property for the Five Corners Roundabout Project.
Recommendation
Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the Right -of -Way and Easement documents for the Cavalry
Chapel property.
Previous Council Action
On March 12, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and
recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
The City has reached an agreement with the owner of the Cavalry Chapel to purchase 1,143 square feet of
right of way and 1,349 square feet of temporary construction easement for the Five Corners Roundabout
project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $33,534 and this cost will be funded
by a federal transportation grant and a 13.5% local match (112 Street Fund). The Cavalry Chapel property
is located on the southeast corner of the intersection.
AttarhmPntc
Calvary Chanel Barizain & Sale Deed
Temp Construction Permit
Improvements Permit
Driveway Reconstruction Permit
Real Property Voucher
Form Review
Inbox
Reviewed By
Date
Engineering
Robert English
06/13/2013 04:30 PM
Public Works
Kody McConnell
06/14/2013 08:32 AM
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
06/14/2013 08:33 AM
Mayor
Dave Earling
06/14/2013 08:54 AM
Finalize for Agenda
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell
Final Approval Date: 06/14/2013
Sandy Chase
06/14/2013 09:03 AM
Started On: 06/12/2013 04:30 PM
Return Address:
City of Edmonds
121 — 5" Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Bertrand Hauss
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
Grantor: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
Grantee: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington
Abbreviated Legal: Ptn of Lots 1 & 2, Hawarden Tracts, V 14, P 69
Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
THE GRANTOR, Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood, a Washington non-profit
corporation, for and in consideration of Twenty -Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty and
N01100ths and Other Good and Valuable Consideration ($27,450.00) and underthreat of
the exercise of eminent domain, bargains, sells and conveys to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a
Washington municipal corporation, the real property described in Exhibit "A" and "Exhibit
"A-1" and depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "B-1" herewith attached and made a part
hereof, and any after -acquired interest therein, to the same extent and purpose as if the
rights granted herein had been acquired by eminent domain under the laws of the State of
Washington.
SUBJECT TO all rights, restrictions, reservations, easements, conditions,
covenants, rights -of -way, mineral leases, mineral reservations, and mineral conveyances of
record.
The lands herein described contain an area of 1,143 square feet, more or less, the
specific details concerning all of which are to be found in that certain map of definite
location now of record and on file in the Office of the City Engineer in Edmonds,
Washington, and entitled Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project.
It is understood and agreed that delivery of the deed is hereby tendered and that the
terms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon the City of Edmonds unless
and until accepted and approved by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, as indicated
by the signature of the City Major, below.
Page 1 of 3 Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00
The Grantor(s) hereby request(s) the Assessor -Treasurer of said County to set -over to the
remainder the lien of all unpaid taxes, if any, affecting the real property hereby conveyed, as
provided by RCW 84.60.070.
Dated this day of ^ / , 20/_�
Accepted and Approved by Grantor
Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
By.'>'
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
Accepted and Approved by Grantee
CITY OF EDMONDS (MAYOR)
0
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Bv:
Office of the City Attorney
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED
BV:
Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk
Page 2 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 004674-000-001-00
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} SS.
County of }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
W ., � -� V ; �, « u-. ',— and � l' —ta C� -�T 14 -- t_� (is/are)
the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they)
signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the �7 r �, , a., -1 and
KZ`�, . ( k" --- of Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free
and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: � -- \ z 3_ 3
,eeeeeeAas
IOHN S. McmASTERS
NOTARY PUBLIC N,am typed or printed) �o-
"TATE OF WASHINGTON .�I TARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
COMMISSION EXPIRES Residing at '- +-% --
AUGUST �-- ra
7 My appointment expires: 1:�,j f !
Page 3 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 004674-000-001-00
EXHIBIT A
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARENT PARCEL:
LOTS I AND 2, HAWARDEN TRAC'°TS, AS PER PLATRECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS,
PAGE 69, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
TRIG H T OFNVAY AQ21J SITION:
A PORTION OF TIIE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT TIIL MONUMENTED SOUTH QUAR'TI R CORNER OF SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
THENCE SOUTH 0036'50" WESTALONG THE CL;NTI=:RUNE OIa 84"" AVE WEST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 30.28 FEET;
THENCE SOUTB 89023' 10" EAST FOR A DISTANCE O 30.00 FEET TO THE IN ERSI C '[JON OIL
HE EAST MARGIN OF SAID 84'"' AVE T WEST AN17'I'I-II' SOUTH MARGIN OF 212"' S'I'IdE'ET
SW AND TIME TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
'lHENCI SOUI'I-I 0°36'50" WEST ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN FOR A DiSTANCE OF 41.99
FEET TO A POINT ONTI-114 ARC OF A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE; WHOSE' CENTER BEARS
SOUTI165°26'31" 1 AS't HAVING A RADIUS OF 51.50 PBET;
THENCE NORTIIERLY ALONG THE, ARC OF, SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 49°03'03" FOR A DISTANCE OF 44,09 TO A POINT ON AN ARC OF A COMPOUND CURVE
TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 287.00 FEET,
TIII NCE EASTERLY RLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVI TI-IROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE' OF
14037'05" FOR A DISTANCE OF 7312 Frl `I';
1"H NCE NOR`11i 82"22'58" I= AST FOR A DISTANCE OF 2.54 F ET TO TI-ll SOU T1I MARGIN OIL
212""' STRI ls'C SW;
TI-JE,NCENORTIT 98051'32" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 106.51
FI�ET'I'O THI: TRUE POINT OF 13F.GINNING.
CONTAINING 1,133 SQUARE FFRT, MORE OR LESS.
SITUATE IN Tl1F. CITY OF EDMONDS, SN0110MISI-1 COUNTY, WASHING'TON,
I 100,
L L tffiD--
EXHIBIT A-1
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARENT PARCEL:
LOTS 1 AND 2, HAWARDEN TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED 1N VOLUME 14 OF PLATS,
PAGE 69, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION:
A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT THE MONUMENTED SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
THENCE SOUTH 880'51'32" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 21f" STREET SW AND THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19 FOR A DISTANCE OF
236.23 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 1 °08'28" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH MARGIN
OF 212"' STREET SW AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 88°51'32" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.00
FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 1008'28" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 88051'32" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF .10.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 1008'28" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FEET TO THE SOUT14 MARGIN OF
212"" STREET SW AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING '10 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B'4
L a
FOUND CONCRETE
MON WITH BRASS — —
RIVET IN CASE
20+00 ROW ACQUISITION
STA 20+30.26, _
30, 00' LT 212TH ST S
S88'51'32"E
N
o
3'23'10"W B
30.00'
N
00
N
3 21t00
F-
00 30,
0
30'
5'
/ J
PARCEL. # G` y
1 -� e nnnnn n nn �
vv-r5 � -ruww � v�
h�cti.
EDMONDS LUTHERAN
CHURCH
TPOB
TEMP CONST.
ESM T a 1a 2a ,�
STA 20+72.27, LEGEND
1020
30.00' LT RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
AREA
® TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT AREA
— — — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
5' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
22 00 I
I
I
I
FOUND CASED
MON
I�
EXHIBIT B
OA1E. 11-9-12 bMGNI g)a
Fm COE00003 /avEM02cped0003 DRAW 9jo
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S0036'50"W
41.99,
L2
N82`22'58"E
2.54'
L3
N88'51'32"W
106.51'
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
DELTA
RADIUS
LENGTH
Cl
49`03'03"
51.50'
44.09'
C2
14°37'05"
287.00'
73.22'
FIVE CORNERS
rr,AV,. EVAN. RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISTION
AND AS80C1ATE8 ino.
1826 W. Manne Via. uAm E.R. 2911 EDMONDS LUTHERAN CHURCH
Everettw-hhpWn 052Ul
Pone: Q5.259A099
FOUND CONCRETE
MON WITH BRASS
RIVET W CASE
9 212TH ST S- — S88'51'32"E 2663.16
30 236.23'
L20+000
30, o 6
o n
cis L1
w—_.._— -- — -- ---L7 L3 L2T
ITPOB
EDMONDS LUTHERAN
CHURCH
EXHIBIT B-1
STA 22+36.23,
130,00' RT
I
I t�
4'
[[yy I
I
0 io 20 40
FOUND
,s 2° CASED
3° z9 MON
46+63.16
LEGEND
r,--/] RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISITION
AREA
EXISTING RIGHT —OF —WRY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S88'51'32"E
10.00'
L2
S01 `08'28"W
1.00'
L3
N88'51'32"W
10.00'
L4
N01 `08'28"E
1.00'
DATE; 11-9-12 DESM 91,n MMMDAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES tNa.
1640 W. Mamw'4— DA-,Suite 200
r4L• COEUO°03 / s�EMOBcCO�W3 oRnwN: g)a E..n W-hi'.0-9E201
Pt._ 425.259.4099
FIVE CORNERS
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISTION
EDMONDS LUTHFRAN CHURCH
City of Edmonds
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
Property Address: 8330 — 212t" St SW
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00
Property Owner: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
The undersigned, Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood, a Washington non-profit Corporation,
for themselves and for their heirs, successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as
"GRANTOR", for and in consideration of the promises set forth below and the improvements to the
City's Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project, hereby convey and grant to the
City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereafter together referred
to as "the City", a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the "Temporary Construction Easement")
over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTORS' property as depicted in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Temporary Easement Area"), for the purpose of
building the Five Corners Roundabout Intersection. The GRANTOR further grants the use of the
property immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement Area for the purpose of performing this
work. Work will include necessary construction activities of the project, and incidental items
necessary to restore the property to a condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work
shall be completely borne by the City.
The GRANTOR and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and
agree as follows:
1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the
surface of the above -described property to substantially its original condition, except as
modified by the subject project.
2. Access to the GRANTORS' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's Five
Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project.
3. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is
signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City's final acceptance of
this project by the Edmonds City Council.
4. This Temporary Construction Easement is valid for twelve months from the start of
construction and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR without giving the City forty-five (45)
days' advance written notice.
5. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights
and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary
Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect.
6. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
and their respective tenants, licensees, invitees, and employees (collectively, the
"Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities,
damages, actions, proceedings, expenses and costs (including reasonable attorneys'
fees) arising out of or resulting from the use of the Grantor Property under this Temporary
Construction Easement and the related Improvements Permit and Driveway Reconstruction
Permit by the City and/or its successors, assigns, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and
employees (the "Indemnifying Parties"), provided, however, an Indemnified Party shall not
be indemnified to the extent that any such claims, demands, losses, liabilities, damages,
actions, proceedings, expenses and costs are suffered or incurred by such Indemnified Party
as a result of the negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnified Party and the
foregoing defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligation shall not extend to and in no
event shall the Indemnifying Parties be liable with respect to any pre-existing hazardous
substances in, on or under the Indemnified Parties' property. If and to the extent that this
Agreement is subject to Section 4.24.115 of the Revised Code of Washington, it is
agreed that where such liability, claim, damage, loss or expense arises from the
concurrent negligence of the Indemnifying parties and an Indemnified Party, the
Indemnifying Parties' obligations of indemnity under this Section with respect to such
Indemnified Party shall be effective only to the extent of the negligence of the
Indemnifying Parties. Solely for the purpose of effectuating the indemnification
obligations hereunder, and not for the benefit of any third parties (including employees of
the parties), each party specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted
it under applicable federal, state or local worker compensation acts or other employee
benefit acts. The parties acknowledge that the foregoing waiver has been specifically and
mutually negotiated between the parties.
DATED this day of �'� / 20
Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
Byi� 1�7
Printed Name:h✓,,,_��77
Title:
Date: Z 3- /
Phone Number (Optionao
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Edmonds
Printed Name:
Title:
I
By: III I/ ,-u-_A__�
Printed Name:
Title: , r�
Date:
Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} SS.
County of }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sc- d --A- V ; V, C.'V- -4— and
(is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said
person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is
/they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the
and �N're �--\'j f— of Calvary Chapel
Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes
mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: .��- ' \ ,,
JOHN S. MCMASTERS
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COMMISSION EXPIRES
Name (typed or printed): -j V—
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at S, -'-�k, '-, r"�'
My appointment expires: �Ea f 4 I --,-u I Z:
ISM\.11 i -,
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARENT PARCEL:
LOTS I AND 2, HAWARDEN TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS,
PAGE 69, IN SNOHOMISII COUNTY, STATE OF WASIIINGTON,
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT:
A PORTION OF THE ABOV1 DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY
Dl3SCIZIBI3D AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MONUMENTED SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
THENCE SOUTH 0036'50" WEST ALONG THE CliN'I'ERI_,INI� OF 84""' AVE WEST FOR A
DISTANCE OF 30.28 FELT;
THENCE SOUTH 89023' 10" BAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TT) TIlE INTERSECTION OF
THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID 84"' AVE WEST AND'I'III SOUTH MARGIN OF 212""' STREET
SW;
THENCE SOUTT1 0036'50" WITS"T ALONG SAID EAST MAR(AN FOR A INSTANCY,'. OF 42.0I
F1: E'f 'TO'THE'I'RIJE POINT OF 131iGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0036'50" WEST ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN FOR A
DISTANCE OF 122.88 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89023' 10" EAST' FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEE I';
THE.NCE NORTH 0°36'50" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 121.80 hI:;I:"I"TO A POINTON TI1E ARC
OF A. NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE WIIOSE CENTF"R BEARS SOUTH 64"10'03" EAST HAVING
A RADIUS OF 46.50 FEET;
`I'llENCE 1 ASTERLY ALONG T'I-IE ARC OI� SAID CUIZVI;'ITWOUGH A CENTRAI, ANGLE OF
47046'34" FOR A :DISTANCE' OF 38.77 FEET TO A POINTON THE ARC OF A COMPOUND
CURVE TO'l HE, RIGII`h HAVING A RADIUS OF 282.00 FELT;
TII]:;NCE I AST'I RI'.,Y ALONG VEIN ARC OF SAID C,UIZVE T"HROUGII A CENTRAL ANGLE, OI-�
14°40'22" FOR A DISTANCE OF 72,22 FEET:
THENCE? NORTH 81055' 13" EAST I�OR A DISTANCE OF 2.39 FEET;
TIIl NCIs SOUTH 88°51'32" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.84 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 1 "09'40" EAST FOR A DISTANCE' OF 5.00 FEET" "I'O TII_F,, SOUTH MARGIN OF
SAID 212""t STREET SW;
THENCE NORTII 88051'32" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.11
FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 81 °55' 13" WEST FOR A DISTANCE; OF 2.54 FEET" TO A POINT ON THIS ARC
OF A NON 'TANGENTIAL CURVI: WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 1 °46'23" EAST IIAVING A
RADIUS OF 287.00 FEET;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A. CENTRAL ANGLE OF
14037'02" FOR A DISTANCE OF 73.22 FEET "TO A POINT ON'1`HE ARC OF A COMPOUND
CURVE TO THE LEFTHAVING A RADIUS OF 51.50 FEET;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
49003'03" FOR. A DISTANCE OF 44.09 FEET TO TI-IE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 1.,349 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
SITUATE 1N TIIE CITY OF 1 DMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
i
��J J
`sT FOUND CONCRETE
MON WITH BRASS `
RIVET IN CASE
ROW ACQUISITION
20+0o STA 20+30.26,
30.00' LT 212TH ST S _
4 S88`51'32"E
cc
CD
n 30'
89'23' 10"W L3
30.00' 7-/ �/71 T/T' 7� L2 — — — — -
5.
yrjl �OJ PARCEL. # , J
00467400000100
oo EDMONDS LUTHERAN
CHURCH
21 00 TPOB
TEMP CONST.
ESMT
Q STA 20+72.27, o 10 20 Q
30' 30.00' LT LEGEND
OD E-2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
AREA
® TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT AREA
(! — — — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
I o 5' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S00°36'50"W
41.99'
L2
N82°22'58"E
2.54'
L3
N88°51'32"W
106.51'
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
DELTA
RADIUS
LENGTH
Cl
49°03'03"
51.50'
44.09'
C2
14°37'05"
287.00'
73.22'
EXHIBIT B FIVE CORNERS
DATE.- 11 —,2 ���,, 9ja AN AVID EVANS RIGHT—OF—WAY ACQUISTION
a88CCIaTE9 INC—
FIE; COED0003 / svEM02coed0003 DRA15N: g ja 1620 W. Marine View Drive, Suite 200 E D M O N D S L U TH E R A N CHURCH
Everett Wastdntm 98201
Ph.— 425.259.4099
City of Edmonds
IMPROVEMENTS PERMIT
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
Property address: 004674-000-001-00
Property owner / Grantor: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
The City of Edmonds (hereafter "City") has undertaken a public works construction
project (hereafter "Project") in the vicinity of property owned by Calvary Chapel
Edmonds/Lynnwood, a Washington non-profit corporation, (hereafter "Owner") located at 8330
— 212th St SW, Edmonds, WA (hereafter "Property"). The City agrees to perform certain work
on the Property to facilitate the construction of the Project.
1. Scope of Permit. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Owner hereby
grants to the City, its contractors or assigns, subject to the conditions
hereafter set forth, a temporary Improvements Permit over the following
described property:
Property description: Portion of Lots 1 and 2, Hawarden Tracts, as per plat recorded in
Volume 14 of Plats, page 69, in Snohomish County, Washington
Assessor's Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00
1.1. Driveway Reconstruction. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors
or assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, this temporary Improvements
Permit to enter upon the Property and perform work for the purposes of reconstructing a
portion of Owner's existing driveway, so as to conform to the Project improvements.
The reconstruction of Owner's driveway shall occur on the portion of Owner's Property
approximately shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by this
reference.
Any portion of Owner's driveway lying within the City road right-of-way shall be paved.
Reconstruction of Owner's driveway outside the City road right-of-way shall be equal in
kind to the existing driveway on private property.
Select One: ❑ Accepted ❑ Rejected �Ej Not Applicable
Page 1 of 3
1.2. Utility Undergrounding. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or
assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, a temporary Improvements Permit
over Owner's Property to trench and relocate aerial utility lines from the right-of-way to
connection point(s) as determined by the City. Work may include but is not limited to
pavement, landscaping and other ground surface removal, excavating, conduit
installation, and conduit attachment to buildings. Undergrounding shall be provided to
reestablish existing electrical service; any system upgrades are the responsibility of the
Owner.
Select One: ❑ Accepted ❑ Rejected ❑' Not Applicable
1.3. Utility Undergrounding. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or
assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, a temporary Improvements Permit
over Owner's Property to trench and relocate a catch basin and storm drain facility from
the right-of-way to connection point(s) as determined by the City. Work may include but
is not limited to pavement, landscaping and other ground surface removal and
excavating approximately shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference.
Select One: ❑ Accepted ❑ Rejected E] Not Applicable
1.4. Property Restoration. The Owner hereby grants to the City, its contractors or
assigns, subject to the conditions hereafter set forth, a temporary permit to enter upon
said parcel of land and work on the land for the purposes of restoring a portion of
Owner's remaining property so as to conform to said improvements The property
restoration shall occur on the portion of Owner's land approximately shown on Exhibit
"A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.
Select One: 0 Accepted ❑ Rejected ❑ Not Applicable
2. Conditions. This Improvements Permit is granted and accepted subject to the
following conditions:
a. This Improvements Permit shall not be revoked by the Owner without giving
the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice..
b. Upon completion of the construction work associated with the Project, the City
shall leave the Owner's Property in substantially the same condition it was in
on the day work commenced.
Owner shall not obstruct, or allow any tenant or third party to obstruct, or, in
any manner prevent or interfere with the performance of the work described
in paragraph 1.
d. If the City is not allowed to enter the Property for the purposes accepted
above, the Owner agrees to complete this work at a later date at the Owner's
expense.
Page 2 of 3
e. The Owner grants permission to the City, its contractors or assigns, the right
to access the Property beyond the shown limits of the Improvements Permit
area, as necessary to construct necessary improvements.
This Improvements Permit shall expire upon the City's completion of the
construction work on the Property.
DATED this 2- 3 day of o , 20
Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
By: "4* kv, By:
Printed N a me: l�� f'� tz` l.� « Printed Name:��
Title: Title: jJ,C C.c} —
Date: Date: ` 2
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Edmonds
Date
Printed Name:
Title:
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} SS.
County of }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
A- and ' �- Vy, � (is/are)
the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they)
signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the P3-%a- S and
r-- of Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free
and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: sr—^ \ z-:!�,
kAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAA
JOHN S. MCMASTERS
NOTARY PUBLIC N Ttyped or printed):
STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
COMMISSION EXPIRES Residing at y�\-,,,� �� n^, sA e • S
My appointment expires: -23 f yr
Page 3 of 3
��. 6,0
0 10 20 40
. ,.,- :.. :. •. 1
.,,
'
,. ............
LEGEND
RIGHT—OF—WAY
PARCEL.
MBER
00467400000100
PROPER
OWNER
CALVARY CHAPEL OF EDMONDS
PARCEL I RE A
1.02 AC (- 4.4,431 SF)
ROW AC UISITION AREA
1,143 SF
PARCEL ' REA REMAINING
0.99 AC (-43,288 SF)
,TEMPOR..RY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT (TCE) AREA
1,349 SF
ii 5.0'
-
f
P:\c\COE000000003\0400CAD\TT\DWG\Exhlblts\ROW Exhibits Flve Comers Roundabout — ROW Exhlbits.dwg
CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION
FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RIGHT-OF-WAY EXHIBIT FEDERAL AID NO. CM-2512(007)
Est 1890 DRAWN BY: K. POTUZAK DATE: 3/07/2013 SCALE: AS NOTED SHT: 1 OF 1
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
Property Address: 8330 2121h Street SW
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 004674-000-001-00
Property Owner: Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
The undersigned, Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood ,a Washington non-profit corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "GRANTOR", for and in consideration of improvements to be
constructed on the Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project, hereinafter
referred to as "THE PROJECT", hereby convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, including but
not limited to its employees, officers, officials, agents and contractors and their subcontractors,
hereinafter referred to as "the City", a driveway reconstruction permit over, under, in, along,
across and upon the GRANTORS' property, which is identified above, for the purpose of
reconstructing the sidewalk and driveway, per City plans for THE PROJECT and applicable
local codes. Without limitations, the grant of this Driveway Reconstruction Permit shall include
the use of and access to GRANTORS' property for the purpose of performing necessary work to
complete the aforementioned plans and code, such as excavating, compacting, shaping, and
grading of sidewalk and driveway sections on or adjacent to GRANTORS' property, and other
miscellaneous construction activities. The City shall be responsible for its own costs of
construction.
Furthermore, the GRANTORS and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually
covenant and agree as follows: E
1. The City shall, upon completion of the work, remove all debris and restore the surface of
the above described property to a condition equal to or better than that which existed as
of the date of this Agreement.
2. Access to GRANTORS' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's Five
Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project.
3. The Grantor accepts and approves the City's plans for THE PROJECT, including but not
limited to its impacts and effects on and to the GRANTORS' property.
4. This Driveway Reconstruction Permit shall terminate upon completion of the sidewalk /
driveway work.
5. This Driveway Reconstruction Permit shall not be revoked by the GRANTOR without first
giving the City forty-five (45) day' advance written notice.
DATED this S day of 204;2
Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
Printed Name: lam'! i`�` l -- �.�` Printed Name: �Y
Title: Title:
Date: Date: '3 ? ,
15�`2J-- 6"'2 2 - 7
Phone Number (Optionao
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Edmonds
Date
Printed Name:
Title:
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} SS.
County of }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
� >" V%, V �-4- and �� \,, ��� � —5 (is/are)
the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that`( e/she/they)
signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the me—<- �- ,-5 K ---► and
of Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood to be the free
and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED:
1tiLLAAAAAAAAMA
'OHN S. MCMASTERS
;, OTARY PUBLIC Name (typed or printed):
`'' ATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
(COMMISSION EXPIRES `Residing at
7 �UGU T 17 My appointment expires: t ` c
`ST
FOUND CONCRETE
MON WITH BRASS —
RIVET IN CASE
TPOB
20+00 ROW ACQUISITION
STA 20+30.26,
30.00' LT
— — —
212TH ST S
_
S88°51'32"E
00
N
Pw�
M
30,
89'23'10"W L3
L2
30.00' j��� j7 71 — — — — -
Ih///
Pn 1 p/vri # u . � J
A 670!1Q0/10
coN
EDMONDS LUTHERAN
CDCHURCH
3
21
00 TPOB
I �
TEMP CONST.
ESMT
0 10 20 40
STA 20+72.27,
LEGEND
30 30.00' LT
I °0
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
AREA
® TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT AREA
— — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
o
Ln
5'
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
I o
I N
I
1 22
00 I
I I
I I
FOUND CASED
MON
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S00°36'50"W
41.99'
L2
N82°22'58"E
2.54'
L3
N88°51'32"W
106.51'
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
DELTA
RADIUS
LENGTH
Cl
49°03'03"
51.50'
44.09'
C2
14'37'05"
287.00'
73.22'
I I
EXHIBIT B FIVE CORNERS
DALE •11-9-72 ocSRra: gjD O )AVID EVAN8 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISTION
ASSOCIATES,No.
FILE COED0003 / svEM02coed0003 DRANK: 9Ja 1620 W. Marine Ve Drive, Suite 200 E D M O N D S LU TH E R A N CHURCH
Everett Me Nnymn 98201
Phone: 425.259.4099
-� City of Edmonds
Real Property Voucher
Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project
Claimant
Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
8330 212th Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98026-7442
8330 — 212th St SW
Project Parcel No. 004674-000-001-00
A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as fully set
forth in the Statutory Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement, dated
Lands Conveyed Fee: 1,143 SF (m/1) $27,450.00(R)
Temporary Construction Easement: 1,349 SF (m/1) 3,300.00(R)
Improvements: Lawn 1,450.00
Statuary Evaluation Allowance 1,334.00
Total $33,534.00
1 have been informed that if there is a mortgage or lien on my property, the mortgage company or
Iienholder may require that all or a portion of the proceeds from this transaction be applied towards
principal reduction of the outstanding lien balance. If necessary, the City of Edmonds will deposit the
funds from this transaction into escrow for the purpose of clearing title of the purchased land. The escrow
company will disburse the funds according to the requirements of the Mortgage Company or Iienholder.
I/we hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper charges
against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and that I/we am/are
authorized to sign for the claimant.
Calvary Chapel Edmonds/Lynnwood
By:i
Printed Name: 1
Title:
Date: —/?
By: i
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
Mirk` rSderson, Flight -of -Way Consultant
Date:
Place Sign e,-/M
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
Place Signed:
AM-5863
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Phil Williams
Department:
Committee:
Public Works
Finance
Submitted By: Kody McConnell
Type: Action
Information
3. K.
Subiect Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign acceptance of additional Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign an amendment accepting additional Coordinated
Prevention Grant funding.
Previous Council Action
On January 23, 2012, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Recycling Grant Agreement between
the City of Edmonds and the Washington State Department of Ecology for 2012-2013.
Narrative
The City's recycling coordinator implements a solid waste prevention program primarily funded by a
Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant. The Department of Ecology has raised the City's
grant share for this agreement by $5,730 to a total of $40,074. In order to accept this additional grant
award, the City's enterprise utility fund will need to expend $1,910 to match the additional award.
Fiscal Year: 2013
Fiscal Impact
Revenue: $5,730
Fiscal Impact:
No impact on General Fund. Expenditures are from enterprise utility fund.
Edmonds 2013 CPG Amendment
Inbox
City Clerk
Mayor
Finalize for Agenda
Fonn Started By: Kody McConnell
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Attachments
Expenditure: $1,910
Form Review
Reviewed By
Date
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
Dave Earling
06/13/2013 11:44 AM
Sandy Chase
06/13/2013 11:48 AM
Started On: 06/13/2013 11:23 AM
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. G1200260
I' �A'/_*&IM 111 1
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Amendment Purpose: This amendment will increase the state grant share to cover staff time for full
implementation of the Public Outreach and Education Task, described in the agreement scope of work.
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the agreement is amended as follows:
1. The total maximum eligible cost for this agreement increases by $7,640 from $45,792 to $53,432.
2. The state grant share for this agreement increases by $5,730 from $34,344 to $40,074.
3. The revised budget for this agreement is as follows:
CATEGORY -TOTAL CATEGORY
COST
CURRENT BUDGET:
AMENDMENT
BUDGET CHANGES:
TOTAL MAXIMUM
ELIGIBLE COST:
Waste Reduction and Recycling
$45,792
+/$7,640
$53,432
1. Public Outreach and Education
$45,792
+/$7,640
$53,432
TOTAL MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST
$45,792
+/$7,640
$53,432
FUND SOURCE: (LTCA)
Maximum Eligible Cost: $53,432
FUND
GRANT PERCENT (%)
STATE GRANT
SHARE
Local Toxics Control Account (LTCA)
75 %
$40,074
MATCH REQUIREMENT
MATCH PERCENT (%)
LOCAL SHARE
Cash Match
25 %
$13,358
4. The effective date of this amendment is January 1, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
Agreement No. G 1200260
Coordinated Prevention Grant Program
City of Edmonds
5. All other terms andconditions of the original agreement and any amendments remain in full force
and effect
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Grant Amendment:
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Laurie G. Davies
Program Manager
Waste 2 Resources
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY
Assistant Attorney General
CITY OF EDMONDS
Date Authorized Official
Print Name of Authorized Official
Title
Date
Page 2 of 2
AM-5858
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted By: Carrie Hite
Department:
Review Committee:
Type:
Parks and Recreation
Action
Information
3. L.
Committee Action: Cancel
Subject Title
Authorization to contract with Summit Law Group to provide legal services related to a union grievance.
Recommendation
Council authorize the Mayor to contract with Summit Law Group in an amount not to exceed $7,000 to
provide legal services related to a union grievance.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
This request is for Council to authorize the Mayor to engage with Summit Law Group for assistance with
a potential litigation matter. This authorization is not to exceed $7,000.
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Carrie Hite
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Form Review
Date
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
06/13/2013 11:46 AM
06/13/2013 11:48 AM
Started On: 06/13/2013 09:27 AM
AM-5870
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Department:
Review Committee:
Type:
City Clerk's Office
Action
Information
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
3. M.
Sandy Chase
Subject Title
Authorization to contract with Carol Morris to provide legal services related to the Point Edwards
Building 10 closed -record appeal.
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to contract with Carol Morris in an amount not to exceed $5,000 to provide legal
services related to the Point Edwards Building 10 closed -record appeal.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
This request is for Council to authorize the Mayor to contract with Carol Morris to provide legal services
related to the Point Edwards building 10 closed -record appeal. This authorization is not to exceed $5,000.
Inbox
Mayor
Finalize for Agenda
Form Started By: Sandy Chase
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Dave Earling 06/13/2013 02:31 PM
Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 02:33 PM
Started On: 06/13/2013 01:55 PM
AM-5834
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Council President Petso
3. N.
Submitted By: Jana Spellman
Department: City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution thanking Walker Kasinadhuni for his service as a Student Representative.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Resolution thanking Walker Kasinadhuni for his service as Student Representative to the Edmonds City
Council.
Attachment: Resolution
Kasinadhuni Resolution
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 06/12/2013
A++arhmgin +e
Form Review
Date
06/12/2013 03:36 PM
06/12/2013 03:45 PM
06/12/2013 05:01 PM
Started On: 06/06/2013 10:54 AM
Re OlUtIOU
No: 1292
A 1Resolution of the Edmonds City CouncifCommending
Walker Xasinadhuni
for.Ifis Service as a Student representative on the Edmonds City Councif
Whereas, •p Wafker Yasinadhuni, a student at Meadowdale High School, volunteered to serve as
a Student Representative of the Edmonds City Council; and
I I
Whereas, - Wacker,, served as a student member of the City Council from March 12 to June 18,
2013; and
Whereas, 9I,Lr. Xasinadhuni was interested in learning what issues and questions the City of
Edmonds faces today and to find out what active role he could assume surrounding these
issues; and
Whereas, he was conscientious in his attendance at meetings and very observant of the issues
before the Council;
Now, Therefore, Be It resolved, that the City Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes
to Wacker in his future endeavors and express the hope that he will continue to
contribute to the democratic process of government in the City of Edmonds and
elsewhere.
Now, Therefore, Be It Passed, Approved, andAdopted this 18th day of June, 2013
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Lora Petso, Council President
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
AM-5868
3. O.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: Consent
Submitted By: Leif Bjorback
Department: Building
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance adopting 2012 International Building and Fire Codes
Recommendation
Adopt the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1)
Previous Council Action
Council held a public hearing on 6/4/2013 and directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance for Council
consent approval.
Narrative
The proposal is to amend Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code adopting the 2012
International Building and Fire Codes. Following council approval on June 4, the city attorney has drafted
the necessary ordinance. See Exhibit 1.
AttnrhmPnfe
Ordinance Amending ECDC Title 19
Exhibit A to Ordinance Amending ECDC Title 19
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Leif Bjorback
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Form Review
Date
06/13/2013 01:32 PM
06/13/2013 02:32 PM
06/13/2013 02:33 PM
Started On: 06/13/2013 12:12 PM
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 19 ECDC TO
INCORPORATE THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
AND FIRE CODE UPDATES AND TO USE A HEARING
EXAMINER IN LIEU OF A BOARD OF APPEALS.
WHEREAS, the 2012 International Building Codes (see RCW 19.27.031), as amended
by the State, become effective statewide on July 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.040 authorizes cities to amend these codes as they apply within
the city as long as minimum performance standards of the codes and the objectives enumerated
in RCW 19.27.020 are not diminished; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Building
Codes" is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in strike through).
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Im
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 19 ECDC TO
INCORPORATE THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES AND TO USE
A HEARING EXAMINER IN LIEU OF A BOARD OF
APPEALS.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2013.
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
3
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Edmonds Community Development Code
19.00.000
Title 19
BUILDING CODES
Chapters:
19.00
Building Code.........................................................................................
3
19.05
Residential Building Code.....................................................................
16
19.10
Building Permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas ......
17
19.15
Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code ....................................................
31
19.20
Plumbing Code.......................................................................................
32
19.25
Fire Code................................................................................................
33
19.30
Energy Code...........................................................................................
39
19.35
Repealed.................................................................................................
39
19.40
International Property Maintenance Code .............................................
40
19.45
International Code Council Performance Code .....................................
41
19.50
International Existing Building Code ....................................................
41
19.55
Electrical Code.......................................................................................
42
19.60
Moving Buildings..................................................................................
43
19.65
Marinas..................................................................................................
44
19.70
Fees................................................................................................... 46/48
19.75
Street Names and Address Numbering ..................................................
50
19.80
AoaFd of Appeals...................................................................................
52
19.85
Penalties.............................................................................................. 56.1
19.90
Limitation of Benefited and Protected Classes ......................................
57
19.95
Conversion Condominiums...................................................................
57
Exhibit A to Ordinance
Chapter 19.00
BUILDING CODE
Sections:
19.00.000 Purpose.
19.00.005 Referenced codes.
19.00.010 Conflict between codes.
19.00.015 Administrative provisions.
19.00.020 International Building Code adopted.
19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments.
19.00.030 Architectural design review — Optional vesting.
19.00.040 Excluding nonconforming religious building from certain requirements.
19.00.000
Purpose.
The purpose of the codes and regulations adopted in this title is to provide minimum standards to
safeguard life, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design,
construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and
structures within the city of Edmonds. It is not the purpose or intent to create or designate any
particular class or group of persons to be especially protected or benefited, nor is it intended to cre-
ate any special relationship with any individual. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
19.00.005
Referenced codes.
Where the following codes are referenced within any of the codes adopted and amended in this
title, they shall be substituted as follows:
A. "International Building Code" shall mean the building code as adopted and amended in this
title.
B. "International Residential Code" shall mean the residential building code as adopted and
amended in this title.
C. "International Mechanical Code" shall mean the mechanical code as adopted and amended in
this title.
D. "International Fuel Gas Code" shall mean the fuel gas code as adopted in Chapter 19.27 RCW
and in accordance with the mechanical code as adopted and amended in this title.
E. "International Fire Code" shall mean the fire code as adopted and amended in this title.
F. "Uniform Plumbing Code" shall mean the plumbing code as adopted and amended in this title.
G. "Washington State Energy Code" shall mean the energy code as adopted and amended in this
title.
H. The "National Electrical Code" shall mean the electrical code as adopted and amended in this
title.
I. "International Existing Building Code" shall mean the existing building code as adopted and
amended in this title.
J. "International Property Maintenance Code" shall mean the property maintenance code as
adopted and amended in this title.
K. "International Code Council Performance Code" shall mean the performance code as adopted
and amended in this title. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
19.00.010
Conflict between codes.
In case of conflict among any of the codes referenced in ECDC 19.00.005 asnd adopted and
subsequently "amended by this chapter, the first named code shall govern over those
following. In case of conflicts between other codes and provisions adopted by this chapter, the code
or provision that is most specific, as determined by the building official, shall apply. [Ord. 3796
§ 1, 2010].
19.00.015
Administrative provisions.
The administrative provisions contained in Chapter I of the International Building Code as
adopted and subsequently amended by this chapter shall be used as the general administrative
provisions for the codes listed in ECDC 19.00.005(A), (B), (C), (D) and (F), unless otherwise
.nd ed required to meet the purpose of the code.. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
19.00.020
International Building Code adopted.
The International Building Code (IBC), 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code
Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-50 WAC, and
as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters E, G, H,
I and J. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
19.00.025
International Building Code section amendments.
The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows:
A. Section 104.3, Notices and Orders, is amended to read:
The building official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with
this code. The building official is also authorized to use Chapter 20.110 ECDC for code
compliance in addition to the remedies provided for in this code.
B. Section 105.1.1, Annual Permit, is deleted.
C. Section 105.1.1, Demolition Permits, is added and shall read:
Before the partial or complete demolition of any building or structure (interior or exterior), a
demolition permit shall be obtained from the building official. The permit fee is established
pursuant to Chapter 19.70 ECDC. The applicant shall also post with the city, prior to permit
issuance, a performance bond, or frozen fund, conforming to Chapter 17.10 ECDC herein,
in an amount to be determined by the building official to satisfy all city requirements no
later than 180 days after the issuance of the permit. The demolition performance bond or
frozen fund shall not be released until the building official determines the following
requirements have been completed:
1 Cap Abandoned Sanitary Sewers. Septic tanks shall be pumped, collapsed and removed
and/or filled with earth, sand, concrete, CDF or hard slurry.
2 Knock Down of Concrete Foundation Walls, Porches, Chimneys and Similar Structures.
Concrete, bricks, cobbles and boulders shall be broken to less than 12-inch diameter.
Debris left on site shall conform to IBC Section 1804.2 for clean fill.
3 Construction debris, vegetation, and garbage attributable to the demolition shall be
removed from the site and from unopened street right-of-way within 30 days of written
notice. No debris of any kind may be placed or maintained on street right-of-way (including
alleys) without a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 18.60 or 18.70 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code.
4 Repair of any damage to, and restoration of, any public property to substantially original
conditions, i.e., alley, street, sidewalk, landscaping, water meter, utilities, rockeries,
retaining walls, etc , in accordance with this code and the City's engineering requirements.
5 Grading of Site Back to Original Topography Grades. Basements shall be filled and
compacted to 90 percent as verified by a special inspector. "Structural fill" is defined as any
fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils need to support loads with-
out unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill shall be clean and free draining,
placed above unyielding native site soils and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
modified proctor, per ASTM D1557.
6 Temporary erosion control shall be installed and maintained per Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
D. Section 105.1.2, Annual permit records, is deleted.
E. Section 105.2, Work exempt from permit, is replaced as follows:
Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant
authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this
code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. It is the applicant's responsibility to
comply with bulk zoning code standards per ECDC Title 16 and storm water management
provisions per Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Permits shall not be required for the following unless
required by the provisions of ECDC Title 23 or limited or prohibited by the provisions of
Chapter 19.10 ECDC:
1. Building (general):
(a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds,
playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post)
does not exceed 120 square feet, with a maximum eave of thirty (30) inches.
(b) Fences not over six (6) feet high; provided a permit is not required by Chapter 17.30
ECDC.
(c) Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five (5) feet nine (9) inches high.
(d) Retaining walls 4 feet (1,219 mm) in height or less measured vertically from the finished
grade at the exposed toe of the retaining wall to the highest point in the wall,
I Supporting a surcharge; or
II Impounding Class I, 11, III -A liquids; or
III Subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
(e) Rockeries.
(f) Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 500 gallons
and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed two (2) to one (1).
(g) Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over
any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route, provided a permit is
not required by Chapter 18.60 ECDC.
(h) Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops and similar finish work.
(i) Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.
Q) Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes.
(k) Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to an occupancy in which the pool walls are
entirely above the adjacent grade and the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons. Hot
tubs and spas less than 5,000 gallons, completely supported by the ground.
( ) Grading less than fifty (50) cubic yards (placed, removed or moved within any 365-day
period) unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
( ) Repair of appliances which do not alter original approval, certification, listing or code.
( ) Replacement or adding new insulation with no drywall removal or placement.
( ) Replacement or repair of existing gutters or downspouts.
( ) The following types of signs are exempt from permit requirements except that
dimensional size and placement standards shall comply with Chapter 20.60 ECDC:
I. Replacing the panel on a previously permitted existing wall cabinet or pole sign,
11. Repainting an existing previously permitted wood sign,
111. Painted or vinyl lettering on storefront windows,
IV. Governmental signs, campaign signs, official public notices, and signs required by
provision of local, state, or federal law,
V. Temporary signs announcing the sale or rent of property and other temporary signs as
described in ECDC 20.60.080,
VI. Signs erected by the transportation authorities, and temporary seasonal and holiday
displays.
2. Mechanical:
(a) Portable heating, ventilation, cooling, cooking or clothes drying appliances.
(b) Replacement of any n+n— part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such
equipment unsafe.
(c) Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not
interconnected to a power grid.
(d) Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by
this code.
(d) Portable evaporative cooler.
(f) Self-contained refrigeration systems containing ten (10) pounds or less of refrigerant or
that are actuated by motor of one (1) horsepower or less.
3. Plumbing:
(a) The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided that the
replacement of defective material shall be done with new material and a permit obtained
and inspection made.
(b) Reinstallation or replacement of approved prefabricated plumbing fixtures that do not
involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves or pipes.
4. Residential permit exemptions:
In addition the following exemptions apply for single family dwellings:
(a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds,
playhouses and similar uses; provided the floor area (measured to the exterior wall or post)
does not exceed 200 square feet, with a maximum eave of twelve (12) inches and maxi-
mum height of fifteen (15) feet. Vehicle storage structures, such as garages and carports,
are not exempted except as set forth in ECDC 19.05.010 (E)(33) for canopies.
(b) Window awnings supported by an exterior wall and do not project more than fifty-four
(54) inches from the exterior wall and do not require additional support. ECDC Title 23
provisions shall not apply to such awnings.
(c) Sport courts less than 2,000 square feet.
(d) Dock repair of individual decking members. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply.
(e) Replacement or repair of existing exterior siding. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not
apply.
(f) Replacement or repair of existing window or doors provided; no alteration of structural
members is required, the replacement would not require installation of safety glazing, the
installation does not fectinvolve required egress Feq irement indow:. ECDC Title 23
provisions shall not apply.
(g) Minor like -for -like drywall repairs not involving fire -rated assemblies.
( ) Replacement or repair of individual decking, joists, Stair stair treads, or intermediate
rails. ECDC Title 23 provisions do not apply.
(i) Uncovered platforms, decks, patios, not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not
more than thirty (30) inches above grade at any point. are not attached to a dwell;nr and
do not serve the exit door required by IRC Section R311.4.
0) Canopies, as defined in ECDC 17.70.035, accessory to a single family dwelling, with a
floor area measured to the exterior wall or post not to exceed 200 square feet, for covered
storage, carport or similar use.
(k) Reroof overlays, except that all existing layers of roofing must first be removed if the
existing material is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos tile, or where the existing
roof has two or more applications of any type of roofing.
F. Section 105.3.2, Time limitation of permit application, is amended to read:
1. Applications, for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of
application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may
thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official.
2. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not
exceeding 180 days prior to such expiration date.
3. No application shall be extended more than once for a total application life of 360 days
.nis sectic . In order to renew action on an expired application,
the applicant shall submit a new application, revised plans based on any applicable code
or ordinance change, and pay new plan review fees.
4. The Building Official may extend the life of an application if any of the following
conditions exist:
(a) Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is in progress; or
(b) Any other City review is in progress; provided, the applicant has submitted a complete
resaonse to Citv reauests or the Buildina Official determines that uniaue or unusual
circumstances exist that warrant additional time for such response, and the Building Official
determines that the review is proceeding in a timely manner toward final City decision; or
(c) Litigation against the City or applicant is in progress, the outcome of which may affect
the validity or the provisions of any permit issued pursuant to such application.
G. Section 105.3.3, Fully complete application, is added and reads:
In accordance with the provisions of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, an applicant's rights
shall vest when a fully complete building permit application is filed. A fully complete building
permit application is an application executed by the owners of the property for which the
application is submitted or the duly authorized agent(s) for such owners, containing each
and every document required under the terms of these ordinances and the IBC and is
substantially complete in all respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or revisions may
be required and are frequently made in the course of any building application review
process, and such minor revisions or changes shall not keep an application from being
deemed complete if a good faith attempt has been made to submit a substantially complete
application containing all required components. Where required, the application and
supporting documents shall be stamped and/or certified by the appropriate engineering,
surveying or other professional consultants. A fully complete building permit application
shall be accompanied by all fees, including but not limited to
plan review fees required under the provisions of this chapter and code.
H. Section 105.3.4, Concurrent review, is added and reads:
An applicant may submit an application for building permit approval and request plan
review services concurrently with, or at any time following, the submittal of a complete
application for any necessary or required discretionary permit approval or discretionary
hearing; provided, that any building permit application submitted concurrently with an
application for discretionary permit or approvals shall not be considered complete unless
the applicant submits a signed statement, on a form approved by the director, which
acknowledges that the building permit application is subject to any conditions or
requirements imposed pursuant to the review and approval of any necessary or required
discretionary permit or approvals. The applicant shall solely bear the risk of building permit
submittal with discretionary permit approval. If, after discretionary approval, the building
permit plans are modified or amended to comply with conditions or restrictions required by
any discretionary permit or approval, the applicant shall be solely responsible for any and
all costs which result therefrom, including but not limited to additional full plan review fees;
provided further, that any applicant -initiated changes made after the original plan review is
complete shall also require payment of full plan review fees.
I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read:
1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after
issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00. (2).
2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be
extended, ui ncaa a icy ai c aaavuiaLcu vvni 1 a Ni ii 1 iai y vuuun iy Nci 11 nL ivi a iai He
_.,;tion project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit:
Demolition permits required by ECDC 19.00.030;
Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC;
Mechanical permits;
Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits;
Grading, excavation and fill permits;
Water service line permits;
Plumbing permits;
Gas piping permits;
Deck and dock permits;
Fence permits;
Re -roof permits;
Retaining wall permits;
Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits;
Sign permits;
Shoring permits;
Foundation permits.
3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension
for an additional year. if the plans and speGii�fiica+i�;nr the permit extension applioatinn
are the sarne as the plans and speGifiGations submitted fer the eriginal permit appliGation
-r-I -"rovided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by
the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees
shall be charged at a rate of one hafE uarte the original building permit fee to extend the
permit.
4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total
period of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year
expiration, an extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1)
required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension,
the permit shall be extended
.mac shall be— rrr� fir #ho rem'iininn work based on the
� __.. _..,_.._. _.., ..._r__,._. ���rarr-vim 'arS
number of required inspections remaining for the projeGt for all Gity departments.
Permit
fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the
permit.
5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of
three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of
permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be
required, with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of
the prior permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an
appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC
20.07.004 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final
decision.
6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that
modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred since the
original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would significantly promote
public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of a new permit.
K. Section 107.3.3, Phased approval, is amended to read:
1. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction as part of a
development before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure
have been approved provided architectural design board approval has been granted and a
fully complete permit application for the entire building or structure has been submitted for
review.
2. Phased approval means permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued
separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city engineer
and fire marshal, when applicable. No phased approval permit shall be issued unless
approved civil plans detailing the construction of all site improvements including, but not
limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm
drainage have been signed as approved by the city engineer.
3. With such phased approval, a performance bond shall be posted with the city pursuant
to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the estimated cost of construction to city standards for
the improvements.
L. Section 108, Temporary Structures and Uses, is deleted.
M. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read:
In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and
prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5
shall be submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building
official shall require an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and
sealed by a State licensed land surveyor.
N. Section 113, Board of Appeals, is deleted and replaced by Chapter 19.80 ECDC.
O. Section 501.2, Address Identification, is amended to read:
Approved numbers or addresses shall be installed by the property owner for new and
existing buildings in such a position as to be clearly visible and legible from the street or
roadway fronting the property. Letters or numbers on the building shall be a minimum six
(6) inches in height and stroke a minimum of .75 inch of a contrasting color to the building
base color. Where public or private access is provided and the building address cannot be
viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other approved sign or means shall be
used to identify the structure. This means of premises identification does not preclude
approved identification also affixed to structure.
P. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads:
Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated
floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do
not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a
structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure
either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been
damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement
of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code
specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which
are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as
historic places, may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation.
Q. Section 3103, Temporary Structures, is deleted.
R. Section 3108.1.1, Radio, television and cellular communication related equipment and
devices, is added and reads:
A permit shall be required for the installation or relocation of commercial radio, television or
cellular tower support structures including monopoles, whip antennas, panel antennas,
parabolic antennas and related accessory equipment, and accessory equipment shelters
(regardless of size) including roof mounted equipment shelters.
S. Section 3109.1, Applicability and maintenance, is amended to read:
1. Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas of all occupancies shall comply with the
requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this code.
2. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a swimming pool, hot tub or spa in a clean
and sanitary condition and all equipment shall be maintained in a satisfactory operating
condition when the swimming pool, hot tub or spa is in use. A swimming pool, hot tub or
spa that is neglected, not secured from public entry and/or not maintained in a clean and
sanitary condition or its equipment in accord with manufacturers recommendations shall be
determined to be a hazard to health and safety and shall be properly mitigated to the
satisfaction of the building official.
T. Section 3109.3, Public Swimming Pools, is deleted.
U. Section 3109.4, Residential Swimming Pools, is deleted.
V. Section 3109.6, Location and Setbacks, is added and reads:
Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas shall meet requirements of the zoning code of the city
of Edmonds.
1. Minimum setbacks are measured from property lines to the inside face of the pool, hot
tub or spa as required by the zoning code for accessory structures.
2. All other accessory buildings and equipment shall meet the normally required setbacks
for accessory structures in the zone in which they are located.
W. Section 3109.7, Tests and cross -connection devices, is added and reads:
1. All swimming pool, hot tub and spa piping shall be inspected and approved before being
covered or concealed.
2. Washington State Department of Health approved cross connection devices are required
to be provided on potable water systems when used to fill any swimming pool, hot tub or
spa.
X. Section 3109.8, Wastewater disposal, is added and reads:
A means of disposal of the total contents of the swimming pool, hot tub or spa (including
partial or periodic emptying) shall be reviewed and approved by the public works director.
1. No direct connection shall be made between any swimming pool, hot tub or spa to any
storm drain, city sewer main, drainage system, seepage pit, underground leaching pit, or
sub -soil drain.
2. A sanitary tee (outside cleanout installed on the main building side sewer line) shall be
provided for draining of treated water into the city sanitary sewer system.
Y. Section 3109.9, Inspection requirements, is added and reads:
The appropriate city inspector shall be notified for the following applicable inspections:
1. Footing, wall, pre -form, pre-gunite, erosion control, underground plumbing, sanitary
extension and cleanout, mechanical pool equipment, gas piping, mechanical enclosure
location, cross connection and final inspection.
2. An initial cross connection control installation inspection is required by the city cross
connection control specialist prior to final installation approval.
3. All backflow assemblies shall be tested by state certified backflow assembly testers
upon initial installation and then annually thereafter. Copies of all test reports shall be
submitted to the city water division for review and approval.
Z. Section 3403.2.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads:
Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated
floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do
not increase the ground floor areas; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a
structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure
either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been
damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement
of a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code
specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which
are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as
historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent.
AA. Appendix E, Accessibility Requirements, is amended by deleting Sections E107, E108,
El10 and El 11.
BB. Appendix G, Flood -Resistant Construction, is amended by addition of new section:
Section G301.1(4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not
available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals
and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is
less.
CC. Appendix H, Signs, is amended as follows:
1. Section H101.2, Signs exempt from permits, is replaced by subsection (E)(1)(q) of this
section.
2. Section H101.2.1, Prohibited signs, is added and reads as follows:
a. It is unlawful for any person to advertise or display any visually communicated message,
by letter or pictorially, of any kind on any seating bench, or in direct connection with any
bench.
b. All signs not expressly permitted by Chapter 20.60 ECDC.
c. Signs which the city engineer determines to be a hazard to vehicle or pedestrian traffic
because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or pose a hazard to a pedestrian
walkway or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage. Such signs
shall be immediately removed at the request of the city engineer.
d. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly
posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to
immediate removal and confiscation per ECDC 20.60.090.
3. Sections H104, Identification, H106.1.1, Internally illuminated signs, H107, Combustible
materials, H108, Animated devices, H109.1, Height restrictions, and H110, Roof signs, are deleted.
[Ord. 3845 § 6, 2011; Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
19.00.030
Architectural design review — Optional vesting.
In addition to the vesting rights created by RCW 19.27.095 and ECDC 19.00.015, an applicant
for development as defined in ECDC 20.10.010 and subject to architectural design board (ADB)
review may, at the applicant's option, file a fully complete augmented architectural design review
application (hereinafter "augmented ADB application") and vest rights including applicable permit,
development and impact fees under the provisions of the ECDC and the State Building Code as
adopted and amended by the city of Edmonds, this title as then in effect, to, but only to, the extent
that the application provides full and detailed information necessary to confirm the particular
regulation to be vested. The burden is on the applicant to provide such detail.
A. A fully complete, augmented application for architectural design review shall consist of a
complete application for architectural design review, executed by each and every property owner of
record of the development site or their duly authorized agent(s), accompanied by the following:
1. All fees required by ordinance, including impact mitigation fees, to be deposited at the time
such State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements become final.
2. A site plan showing the current zoning of the development site, the footprint of all
proposed structures, the total square footage and use of each floor, all setbacks required by either
the zoning code or State Building Codes, proposed parking configurations, and exits.
3. Elevation drawings showing the original grade of the site, any proposed alterations to
grade, the proposed height of the structure and the number of stories.
4. A letter executed by all owners of record or their duly authorized agent(s) detailing the
proposed use in sufficient detail to determine whether the proposed use complies with the zoning
code then in effect and with the building code then in effect to determine type of construction and
occupancy classifications of the IBC and IFC as those codes then in effect.
5. A building permit application, as described in IBC Section 105.3 as the same exists or is
hereafter amended, and all building permit and plan review fees as established and set forth in
Chapter 19.70 ECDC; provided, that the plans required by IBC Section 107, as the same exists or is
hereafter amended, and other engineering documents, plans or drawings required by ECDC Title 18
may be submitted within 90 days of final ADB approval, or final approval on appeal.
B. Upon filing of the augmented ADB application, the applicant shall be deemed fully vested as
if a fully complete building permit application had been filed; provided:
1. The burden shall be upon the applicant to supply all material required by the provisions of
this section and as necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter 20.10 ECDC. The applicant may
supplement the original application in the event an application is deemed incomplete by the
development services director or designee. Vesting shall occur only when the application is deemed
complete by the development services director. Failure to supplement an incomplete application
within 90 days of final ADB approval shall result in forfeiture of all fees paid and no vesting right
shall attach.
2. The application shall expire along with all rights vested 180 days following the date of
application if final architectural design approval is not received.
a. The development services director or designee may issue an extension for an additional
period, not exceeding 180 days, upon written request by the applicant(s) or their agent(s). Such
request for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration of the original application time period. An
extension shall be granted if the architectural design board has not yet considered the application or
an appeal thereof is pending.
b. The time period shall run concurrently with the periods established by ECDC 19.00.025
as the same exists or is hereafter amended. No application shall be extended more than once. In
order to renew an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit all required information
and pay a new plan review fee.
3. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of state law and regulation and this code
regarding SEPA review. Review periods or delays occasioned by SEPA shall stay the time periods
set by this chapter.
4. Following final ADB approval, the applicant shall file the plans and information required
by IBC Section 107. It is anticipated that minor adjustments and changes may and are usually
required to the plans submitted as a result of the plan review and administrative process; provided,
that the following changes shall not be considered "minor" and shall forfeit vesting rights, and shall
require the filing of a new application:
a. Any substantial change not required by the terms of ADB approval.
b. Any increase in height or total square footage or any change which would change the
occupancy classification for the purposes of the State Building Code.
5. Any decision of the city staff regarding the application stated in this section and its
interpretation shall be considered a Type I decision appealable only to the superior court of
Snohomish County by Land Use Petition Act.
C. The rights vested by ECDC 19.00.025(G) (Section 105.3.3 of IBC as amended) and this
section refer only to zoning and building code rights protected by RCW 19.27.095.
D. These sections shall not be interpreted to create vesting rights not protected by RCW
19.27.095 and shall not be interpreted as a further limitation on the administrative obligations and
legislative powers of the city. By way of illustration and not limitation, this chapter does not limit:
1. The city council's authority to create local improvement districts.
2. The city council's authority to legislate life safety requirements that are not required to
recognize existing vested rights.
3. Environmental and shorelines review and mitigation procedures. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
19.00.040
Excluding nonconforming religious building from certain requirements.
Existing legal nonconforming churches, synagogues, mosques and other buildings used for
religious observance (hereinafter "church" or "churches") are hereby excluded from any
requirement of the State Building Code which would be triggered by a change of use as specifically
limited and set forth herein:
A. This change in use exclusion is limited solely to a change in use for the provision of
emergency housing to the homeless and other indigent persons. The term "emergency" shall mean
the housing of indigent and homeless persons when the ambient temperature is forecast by the
National Weather Service to be below 33 degrees for a four-hour overnight period or when wind
chill, violent storms or other inclement conditions present a direct threat to the lives of homeless
and other indigent persons without shelter. Such danger could include, but is not limited to, the
threat presented by carbon monoxide poisoning for persons attempting to take shelter in cars or
other vehicles with the motor running.
B. In order to claim this exclusion, a church shall:
1. Be a legal nonconforming structure prior to the provision of emergency housing for the
homeless and indigent. In the alternative, a church may establish that it has previously provided
overnight housing to members of its congregation or the public in emergencies, for educational,
religious or other purposes.
2. Maintain a "fire watch." The term "fire watch" shall mean the maintenance during all times
when indigent housing services are provided of a watch by paid staff or volunteers who shall, on
premises, monitor for fires or violations of no smoking prohibitions. At least one fire monitor shall
be provided for each eight persons housed.
3. Provide an operational smoke detection system.
4. Prohibit the smoking of tobacco or similar products on the premises and prohibit the use of
any open flame in the area in which the homeless or indigent persons are temporarily housed.
5. Maintain clear and unobstructed means of egress. Exits must not be locked in the direction
of egress unless a special egress control device is installed in accordance with the building code.
C. The application of this exclusion is intended to fulfill the city's obligation to provide
flexibility and consider reasonable alternatives in the application of the rigid requirements of the
State Building Code. The building official is directed to avoid technical inflexibility, to consider the
use of any reasonable alternative which would provide the minimum protections required either
under the State Building Code or this exclusion and to be flexible when considering alternative
approaches to the specific requirements set forth above. All decisions by the building official shall
be in writing and articulate the public interest to be served as well as an analysis of the alternatives.
D. These provisions are for the purpose of providing for and promoting the health, safety and
welfare of the general public. See Chapter 19.90 ECDC, Limitation of Benefited and Protected
Classes. [Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
Chapter 19.05
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE
Sections:
19.05.000
International Residential Code adopted.
19.05.010
Chapter 1 not adopted.
19.05.020
Section amendments.
19.05.030
Manufactured home installation standards.
19.05.000
International Residential Code adopted.
The International Residential Code (IRC), 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International
Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-51
WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix
Chapters A, B, C, G K, R and S. [Ord. 3819 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3796 § 2, 2010].
19.05.010
Chapter 1 not adopted.
Chapter 1 is not adopted, except as provided for in 19.00.015. See ECDCT9.00�.015. [Ord. 3796
§ 2, 2010].
1 A ()5 ()1 5
Other Chapters not adopted.
Chapters 11, 20, 21, and Part VII Plumbing and Part VIII Electrical are not adopted. See 19.20
for adopted Plumbing Code and 19.55 for adopted Electrical Code.
19.05.020
Section amendments.
The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows:
A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following
criteria:
1. Ground Snow Load = 25 psf
2. Wind Speed(d) = 85 mph
3. Topographical effects(k) = No
4. Seismic Design Category(f) = 32D1
5. Weathering(a) = moderate
6. Frost Line Depth(b) = 18 inches
7. Termite(c) = slight to moderate
8. Winter Design Temp(e) = 27 degrees F
9. Flood Hazard(g) = NFIP adoption 3/26/74. FIRM maps 11/8/99
10. Ice Shield Underlayment(h) = not required
11. Air Freezing Index(i) = 0-1000
12. Mean Annual Temp(j) = 50 degrees F
B. Section R324, Automatic fire sprinkler system, is added and reads:
An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for buildings containing five (5) or more
attached dwelling units. Refer to ECDC 19.25.040.
C. Appendix S — Section AS107.1, Fire Sprinklers. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system
shall be installed in new one -family and two-family dwellings and townhouses exceeding 3,000
square feet of fire area, and in accordance with Appendix R. No m edifieations will be made to this
thr-esho t prieftoHe—xacede eyele update o Yaly 1, 2 [Ord. 3819 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3796
§ 2, 2010].
19.05.030
Manufactured home installation standards.
A. Permit Regulations.
1. Chapter 296-150M WAC, as currently promulgated together with any future amendments
thereof, or future additions thereto, is hereby adopted. The building official is authorized to issue
building permits and collect permit fees for the installation of all manufactured homes that meet the
requirements of this chapter, to inspect the installation of manufactured homes, and enforce all
violations of this chapter.
2. All references to "installation permits" in Chapter 296-150M WAC, as herein adopted by
reference, shall refer to building permits issued for the installation of manufactured homes.
3. Fees for the installation of a manufactured home shall be set forth in Chapter 19.70 ECDC.
All other applicable development fees shall also be imposed as with any other single-family
residence.
4. Mobile homes shall be permitted only within designated mobile home parks.
5. Pursuant to added RCW 35.21.897, 35A.21.310, 36.01.220, and amended RCW 35.63.160
and 1998 c 239 s 1, homes built to 42 USC Sections 5401 through 5403 standards (as amended in
2000) shall be regulated for the purposes of siting, in the same manner as site -built homes, factory -
built homes, or homes built to any other approved state construction.
6. Manufactured homes to be placed within the city shall not be older than three calendar
years from the date of complete permit application submittal. The applicant is required to provide
the vehicle identification number (VIN) information.
7. All spaces measured from the underside of the home to finished grade shall be enclosed
with a decorative skirting.
8. Manufactured homes shall be thermally equivalent to the current State Energy Code.
9. The minimum manufactured home size shall be at least two fully enclosed parallel sections
each not less than 12 feet wide by 36 feet long.
10. Coated metal, tin, or vinyl roofing material is not permitted.
11. Manufactured homes shall comply with all other development standards of this code.
[Ord. 3796 § 2, 2010].
Chapter 19.10
BUILDING PERMITS — EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD
AREAS
Sections:
19.10.000 Statement of purpose and application.
19.10.010 Section amendments.
19.10.020 Definitions.
19.10.030 Minimum required application submittals.
19.10.040 Site posting notice, disclosures, declarations, covenants and waivers.
19.10.050 Site bonds and contractor general public liability insurance.
19.10.060 Review to determine compliance with engineering practice and best available
science.
19.10.070 Issuance and denial of permits.
19.10.080 Site access, professional/special inspection, monitoring during construction
and final geotechnical report.
19.10.000
Statement of purpose and application.
A. This chapter has been enacted in order to provide both substantive and procedural
provisions relating to the issuance of permits within designated earth subsidence and
landslide hazard areas of the city. It shall be the policy of the city that no permit shall be
issued for any site which is found to be unsuitable for improvement due to excessively steep
slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, instability or unsuitable topography for the
particular permit requested for issuance. When development occurs on an unstable site, an
unreasonable risk of danger may exist to the public, to public improvements or to adjacent
property owners. If such a site can be stabilized through the construction of on -site
improvements, that risk may be reduced.
B. The construction of professionally designed structures addressing the risks of earth
movement, and employing feasible attendant measures (including but not limited to
drainage improvements, specially designed foundations, retaining walls, removal of over-
burden and other improvements designed to minimize the risk of earth movement, prevent
avoidable damage to structures, safeguard adjacent properties, limit risk to inhabitants, and
to stabilize the structure in the event of movement) may mitigate and reduce the risk of
earth movement on individual properties. Nothing herein shall relieve an owner of any
obligation imposed by the State Building Code or city ordinance to take all reasonable and
practical measures available to reduce or eliminate the risk or hazard.
C. The IRC/IBC, as promulgated by the state of Washington and required to be adopted
by the city, does not specify a standard regarding lot stability. Since the city's request for an
interpretation of the International Building Code by the State Building Code Council to
designate an acceptable level of lot stability was denied, and because the city wishes to
comply with state law requiring that the issuance of building permits be a ministerial and
not a discretionary act, the provisions of this chapter have been adopted in order to provide
reasonable certainty in the permit issuance process. The purpose of these provisions is not
to lessen the minimum requirements of the current adopted building code, but rather to
define its requirements for city implementation.
D. These provisions have been adopted in order to establish a policy that permits shall not
be issued for any site where a substantial risk of earth subsidence and landslide hazard exist
unless:
1. The risks can be defined with reasonable scientific certainty and found to be within
acceptable limits as determined in accordance with this chapter.
2. Any hazard associated with the site is scientifically ascertained and fully disclosed
through the permit process.
3. Notice of any risk is given to future purchasers through the land records of Sno-
homish County.
4. Any risks associated with construction and habitation are assumed by the builder
and future owners of the site.
5. Adequate indemnification is provided by the builder, and the owner, of the site in
order that the general public not assume or bear any portion of the costs or liability associ-
ated with the builder's investigation, design and construction as well as the continuing
maintenance of the site by the property owner.
E. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this chapter or the IRC/IBC, all
applications for permits received for any site, any portion of which lies within an earth
subsidence and landslide hazard area, shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter. In
addition to all other requirements of these sections, the restrictions and provisions of this
chapter shall apply to all building, grading, fill and excavation permits (herein "permits").
Minor permits such as plumbing, mechanical, re -roof and interior alterations are exempt
from the requirements of this chapter.
F. All applications for permits under this chapter shall disclose within the geotechnical
report whether or not any part of the site lies within or adjacent to an earth subsidence and
landslide hazard area or within a critical area as defined by the city's environmentally criti-
cal areas title. The building official may require preliminary investigation by a geotechnical
engineer for any applicant whose property lies within or lies adjacent to a known earth
subsidence landslide hazard area, or within a known hazard area, or areas with steep slopes
or unusual topography or which has a history of earth movement in order to assist the
building official in determining whether these provisions should be applied.
G. Nothing in this chapter should or shall be interpreted to guarantee issuance of a permit
with respect to any property unless the requirements of the IRC/IBC as amended and
interpreted by this chapter have been met. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.010
Section amendments.
The provisions of this section amend the 2003 Edition of the IRC/IBC and all subsequent
revisions adopted by RCW 19.27.031 as the State Building Code as previously amended by
Chapter 19.05 ECDC. All prior substantive amendments have received the approval of the
State Building Code Council. All provisions of the IRC/IBC which conflict with this
chapter shall be deemed amended hereby, and any ambiguity created shall be resolved in
favor of the specific provision or general intent of said chapter. In addition to the
amendments of the IRC/IBC by its alteration, improvement and correction to incorporate
the chapter, the following specific code provisions are amended and the substantive and
procedural requirements of this chapter are amended by the correction and alteration of the
following sections of the IRC/IBC:
A. Chapter 1, Administration.
1. Section R105.1.1 Permit review applicability. Any permit requested for a site lying
in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as defined
by ECDC 19.10.020(F) shall be processed and acted upon in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC.
2. Section R105.2 Work exempt from a permit. ECDC 19.00.
exemptions ,u,, -, , , , , �, ..\„/, -„1, , , and and ECDC
19. 'I-025E(,J' exemptions A(a), S(c), (h' and shall not apply in any
area designated as an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as defined in
ECDC 19.10.020(F).
3. Section R105.3.2 Time limitation of permit application.
a. Applications, for which no permit is issued within two (2) years following the date
of application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for
review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building
official.
b. The building official may not extend the time for action by the applicant on an
expired application. In order to renew action on an expired application, the applicant
shall submit a new application, revised plans based on current adopted codes and
pay new plan review fees as well as any outstanding peer review fees incurred to
date.
4. Section R105.5 Permit expiration and extension.
a. Every permit issued under the provisions and development standards of Chapter
19.10 ECDC shall expire by limitation two (2) years after issuance, except as
provided in ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)(b).
b. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an
extension for a third and final year. If the plans and specifications for the permit
extension application are the same as the plans and specifications submitted for the
original permit application and provided there has been at least one (1) required
progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension,
the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one half the
original building permit fee to extend the permit.
c. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a
total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the
original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new
building permit shall be required, with full fees, in order for the applicant to complete
work. The issuance of a new permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or
building codes. Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval
is stayed in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, the time limit periods
imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision.
d. The building official shall reject requests for permit extensions if modifications or
amendments to the applicable zoning and building codes have occurred since the
original issuance of the permit, and modifications or amendments would
significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the
issuance of a new permit.
5. Section R105.5.1 Recommence work on an expired permit.
a. In order to recommence work on an expired permit, a new permit application with
full fees shall be submitted to the building official.
b. New permit applications shall be reviewed under current zoning and building
codes in effect at the time of complete application submittal. If a new permit is
sought to recommence work on an expired permit, the new permit shall be vested
under the codes in effect at the time of complete application for the new permit, not
the expired permit. When additional plan review is required, plan review fees shall
be charged. When applicable, peer review and peer review fees shall be assessed.
6. Section R106.3.3.1 Phased approval.
a. The building official may require sequencing of construction phases or activities
such as the installation of shoring or temporary erosion control remedies and/or
drainage systems, well in advance of grading or foundation construction on a time
frame consistent with geotechnical recommendations and peer review. As part of
the sequencing process, the building official may impose permit conditions that
address site work sequencing to include but not be limited to: limiting all excavation,
drainage systems and foundation installation to the drier season between May 1st
and September 30th.
b. When permit conditions such as groundwork are limited by the building official on
a particular project, the applicant's geotechnical engineer may submit a letter
detailing geotechnical recommendations that portions of work may progress. The
letter shall include a detailed work schedule submitted by the general contractor
specifying work to be done, timeline, provisions for monitoring and equipment to be
used. Any such recommendation shall be based upon best available science and
be consistent with standard geotechnical engineering practice. The building official
may require a peer review prior to a decision which provides concurrence regarding
at least the following issues:
i. Duration of work,
ii. Type of equipment to use,
iii. Additional temporary erosion and sediment control provisions required, and
iv. Applicability of special inspections, and similar issues.
c. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction before the
entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure have been
approved provided peer review approval has been granted. Phased approval
means separate permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued
separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city
engineer, and city public works director, when applicable. No phased approval
permit shall be issued unless approved civil plans detailing the construction of all
site improvements (including, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved
streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm drainage) have been signed as
approved by the city engineer. With such phased approval, a performance bond
shall be posted with the city pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the
estimated cost of construction to city standards for the improvements.
B. Chapter 2, Definitions.
1. Section R202 and IBC 202 are hereby amended to include the definitions set
forth in ECDC 19.10.020, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set
forth.
C. Chapter 4, Foundations.
1. Section R401.1 General Exception 3. Any permit requested for a site lying in
whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area shall be
processed and acted upon in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.10
ECDC.
D. IBC Chapter 16, Structural design.
1. Section IBC 1601.1.1 Scope. Setting forth the requirements of Chapter 19.10
ECDC, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
E. IBC Appendix J, Grading.
1. Section IBC Appendix J 101.1.2, Scope. Setting forth the requirements of
Chapter 19.10 ECDC, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
[Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.020
Definitions.
The following terms, when used within this chapter, shall have the following definitions:
A. "Architect" shall mean a person licensed to practice architecture by the state of Wash-
ington.
B. "Best available science" shall be determined in accordance with the criteria estab-
lished in WAC 365-195-900, et seq.
C. `Bluff' shall mean any slope 10 feet in height or greater inclined at greater than one
unit vertical in one unit horizontal or 100 percent slope.
D. "Building official" shall mean the building official of the city of Edmonds.
E. "Director" shall mean the director of development services as well as any authorized
representative of the director.
F. "Earth subsidence and landslide hazard area" shall mean any area of the city which, by
reason of excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability or topogra-
phy, has a risk of earth subsidence and landslide hazard in excess of normal allowances.
The earth subsidence and landslide hazard area is a subcategory of "landslide hazard area"
(a geologically hazardous area) as defined in city of Edmonds environmentally critical areas
title (ECDC Title 23). The hazard area designated as the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence
Landslide Hazard Area in the 2007 report of Landau Associates and as may be amended in
future adopted earth subsidence and landslide hazard maps are hereby incorporated by this
reference and made a part of this chapter as fully as if herein set forth and may be provided
in a summary text form. Future adopted landslide hazard maps shall be incorporated by
reference upon adoption by ordinance.
Areas designated on the adopted North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard
Areas Map, or any future adopted landslide hazard map, as having a risk of earth subsidence
or landslide hazard, areas with slopes as designated in ECDC 23.80.020, areas which
exhibit geologic characteristics of earth movement, or any other area identified as having a
history of earth movement shall be presumed to have such risk and shall be considered to be
an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area. Applicants for permits in such areas shall
submit a geotechnical report and complete plan set submittal as required by this chapter to
the building official for review.
The presumption of risk shall be rebuttable and the decision of the director or building
official that any area lies within, or adjacent to, such earth subsidence and landslide hazard
area shall be appealable as a staff decision to superior court in accordance with the Land
Use Petition Act.
Copies of the reports and maps shall be maintained in the offices of the building official
and shall be available for inspection during all normal working hours. Individual copies of
the reports and map may be obtained by the public upon the payment of the cost of
reproduction.
G. "General contractor" shall mean a bonded, insured and registered contractor in the
state of Washington. A general contractor shall maintain state -required bonding and shall
carry general public liability insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000. The general
contractor shall have a current valid state contractor's license with the state of Washington
and a city of Edmonds resident or nonresident business license, whichever is applicable.
H. "Geologist" means a practicing geologist licensed in the state of Washington with at
least four years' experience as a licensed geologist in responsible charge, including experi-
ence with landslide evaluation.
I. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a
professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of pro-
fessional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge, including
experience with landslide evaluation.
J. "Landslide hazard areas" means areas mapped or otherwise defined by the city of
Edmonds as environmental critical areas or geologically hazardous areas.
K. "Land surveyor" means a person who holds a Washington State land surveyor's
license.
L. "Lead design professional" means the person designated by the applicant to oversee
and coordinate the permit review process on behalf of the applicant.
M. "Plan set submittal" means a complete application pursuant to ECDC 19.00.015
including:
1. Vicinity map.
2. Topography map and survey.
3. Civil plans including grading, temporary erosion and sediment control, storm drain-
age, utilities and site improvements.
4. Tree cutting/land clearing plans.
5. Geotechnical report.
6. Architectural and structural plans with design calculations, stamped and signed by
licensed design professionals of the state of Washington.
N. "Site" means the entire area within the boundaries, as described in a legal description,
of the property that is to be developed under the permit for which the applicant has applied.
O. "Stable" shall mean that the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adja-
cent properties, from soil instability is minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the
reports developed under the requirements of ECDC 19.10.030 and the proposed
development will not increase the potential for soil movement.
In the event that any site has an underlying risk of movement based upon deep-seated
earth movement or large-scale earth failure which is not susceptible to correction by on -site
improvements, such hazard shall not render a site proposed for single-family residences to
be presumed unstable for the purpose of this provision if the geotechnical engineer of record
and recommendation of any peer reviewer confirm the risk of probability of earth
movement is 30 percent or less within a 25-year period.
In order to meet the definition of "stable" the geotechnical report shall include identified
hazards for the property and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce or correct the
hazards along with measures taken to mitigate potential impacts from the remaining
hazards, including all on- and off -site measures taken to correct or reduce the risk. These
shall be fully disclosed to the applicant and future owners, heirs and assigns in the covenant
required to be executed in accordance with provisions of this chapter, in which case the
defined risk may be approved as an acceptable condition.
P. "Steep slope" shall be defined and calculated pursuant to Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
Q. "Storm event" means one inch or greater precipitation in a 24-hour period as reported
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
R. "Structural engineer" means a person licensed to practice structural engineering by the
state of Washington.
S. "Structural fill" shall mean any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the
fill soils are intended to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing.
Structural fill should be clean and free -draining and should be placed above unyielding
native site soils compacted in accordance with an approved geotechnical report prepared
utilizing best engineering science. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.030
Minimum required application submittals.
A. The applicant shall submit a complete plan set submittal and permit application and
specifications for the proposed development as defined in ECDC 19.10.020(M) and this
chapter.
B. An earth subsidence and landslide hazard area permit submittal checklist shall be
adopted at the direction of the director and shall be provided to all persons inquiring re-
garding building permit applications or development permits in the designated earth
subsidence and landslide hazard area of North Edmonds. The submittal checklist shall in-
clude but not be limited to the requirements contained in city public handouts, written pol-
icies, adopted maps, reference maps, summary reports, minimum geotechnical report guide-
lines, and the following:
1. North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Map.
2. Vicinity map.
3. Topographic map and survey.
4. Civil plans (i.e., grading, temporary erosion and sediment control, storm drainage,
utilities and site improvements).
5. Tree cutting/land clearing plan.
6. Geotechnical report.
7. Owner and professional declarations.
8. Detailed architectural and structural plans with structural calculations and specifi-
cations.
9. Bonds, covenants and contractor public liability insurance in accordance with the
detailed requirements stated below.
If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, a letter or a report shall
be provided to the director stamped by the appropriate licensed design professional, with
sufficient information or data to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable. The director may
utilize appropriate licensed consultants to determine if generally accepted engineering
practice requires submission of an application requirement. When consultants are used to
determine if generally accepted engineering practice requires submission of an application
requirement, the cost of review shall be paid by the applicant.
C. A copy of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Map shall be
included in the submittal checklist materials.
D. The vicinity map shall be suitable for locating the site and include information related
to existing conditions on or near the site, based on the topographic map and survey and shall
designate all known landslide masses, or debris flows or mud flows on or near the site
which could threaten proposed structures within 100 feet, as referenced, noted, described or
discussed in the geotechnical report.
E. The applicant shall submit a topographic map and survey prepared and stamped by a
licensed land surveyor, prior to studies and evaluations by the geotechnical engineer, and
shall show:
1. Map scale, north arrow, legal description, tax account parcel numbers, easements,
and lot property lines.
2. Existing grade contour lines, at two -foot intervals.
3. All distances between existing structures on the site and approximate distances of
existing habitable structures on adjacent sites within 50 feet of property lines (all adjacent
sites which could affect or be affected by the proposed development shall be shown).
4. Lowest footing or basement slab elevation of existing and proposed structures on
the property and on adjacent properties to the extent that such information is reasonably
available, and proposed finish floor elevations.
5. The location of existing sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage facilities, septic tanks,
drain fields, wells, piezometers, private drainage systems, underground storage tanks,
subsurface drains, and other sewer/drainage facility components on, and adjacent to, the site
to the extent such information is reasonably available.
6. The location of all existing underground utilities on, and adjacent to, the site
including, but not limited to, telephone, cable television, gas, electric and water utilities,
vaults, fire hydrants and other cables, wires, meters and drainage pipes to the extent that
such information is available.
7. A separate topographical drawing shall be submitted showing proposed grade
contours at two -foot intervals. This drawing shall include the bottom of proposed footing
elevations including all stepped footing elevations.
F. Civil -engineered plans shall be prepared and stamped by a state of Washington
licensed civil engineer pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.30 ECDC and current
adopted city stormwater manual. Geotechnical report recommendations affecting civil plans
shall be incorporated into the design and detailed on the plans and shall include:
1. Storm drainage plan with storm drainage calculations.
2. Provisions for building pad and foundation drainage.
3. Temporary erosion and sediment control with drainage and maintenance provisions,
and/or other sediment control assemblies.
4. Permanent erosion control with drainage and maintenance provisions.
5. Fill/soil stockpile limitation provisions, specific location, height, protection and
maintenance.
6. Slope protection plans, rockeries, retaining walls, ecology blocks, keystone block
walls, soldier pile walls, and soil nail walls.
7. Utilities and site improvements.
8. Grading plans, temporary and permanent shoring plans, top and toe of slope set-
backs, driveway slope.
G. In lieu of the procedural requirements of Chapter 18.45 ECDC, a tree cutting/land
clearing plan shall be submitted when significant trees are proposed to be removed. A
significant tree is a tree with a trunk diameter of six inches or greater measured four feet
from the ground. No significant tree shall be removed until the permit is approved.
A detailed landscape plan may also be required in order for the city to evaluate long-term
erosion control measures. The plan shall comply with all requirements of the ECDC relating
to tree clearing and critical areas review, if applicable. The director may require the project
geotechnical engineer's concurrence regarding an approval of a tree cutting/land clearing
plan when slope stability is at issue.
H. Included in the permit submittal checklist shall be general and specific soils and geo-
technical information, details or analysis required pursuant to IBC 1802. The applicant shall
retain a geotechnical engineer to prepare a report and evaluation of the subsurface soil
conditions on the site to include:
1. The geotechnical report shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices, under the supervision of, and signed and stamped by,
the geotechnical engineer. A geologist may be required to be part of the geotechnical
consulting staff. The report shall reference the Landau Associates Summary Report (2007)
as a technical document reviewed as part of the geologic analysis for the project and discuss
all items listed in the permit submittal checklist and shall make specific recommendations
concerning development of the site.
2. The opinions and recommendations contained in the geotechnical report shall be
supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review,
conducted by the geotechnical engineer. The report shall be based on best available science.
3. The report shall include an analysis of material gathered through appropriate
explorations, such as borings or test pits to a minimum depth of six feet below the proposed
lowest footing or pile, an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the
supervision of the engineer in accordance with the standards adopted by the American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable standards. The report must
provide subsurface data to support the engineer's conclusions regarding slope stability.
Edmonds Community Development Code
19.10.040
4. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be
reviewed and approved by a geologist. It shall be the responsibility of the geotechnical
engineer to assure that the geologist meets the qualifications listed in ECDC 19.10.020. A
letter of concurrence from the geologist shall be included in the report.
5. Based upon the North Edmonds Landslide Area Geology and Slide Mechanisms
map and table found in the Landau Associates Summary Report (2007), any lot which
contains any portion of any hazard zone or is adjacent thereto (regardless of whether the
proposed building pad is located within any hazard area) shall specifically consider within
the geotechnical report the following types of typical hazard zones and shall specifically
note if the hazard is, or is not, present on the site. The report shall address hazards from
encroaching landslide materials, hazards from ground failure in material that has not previ-
ously failed, and hazards from ground failure in previously failed material. For each land-
slide hazard identified on a property, the geotechnical engineer shall identify the types of
specific processes associated with the hazard and include design features to reduce such
hazards and mitigate impacts.
6. For properties containing or adjacent to bluffs, the geotechnical engineer shall, as a
part of the building permit process, provide analysis of the rate of retreat of the bluff pre-
pared by a geologist and estimate the bluff retreat amount and regression rate for periods of
25 and 125 years. The geotechnical engineer shall address the effects of bluff retreat on the
stability of structures and/or improvements. A "structure" is defined as:
a. A building intended for human habitation,
b. A building, structure or other improvement whose stress or weight, collapse or
movement would endanger public safety in the event of slope failure, and
c. Any improvement on the site which is necessary to mitigate danger to public
safety or provide stability.
If the bluff retreat rate analysis shows that the rate of retreat of the bluff is such that
any structure or improvement constructed pursuant to the building permit would be unrea-
sonably endangered or reasonably could be anticipated to be endangered by landslide or
earth subsidence during its normal useful life, the application shall be denied.
7. Geotechnical letter addressing the provisions of Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
I. The applicant shall submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report,
detailed structural plans with corresponding calculations prepared and stamped by the
structural engineer of record. When architectural plans incorporate such structural details,
said plans shall be stamped and signed by the structural engineer of record. All other archi-
tectural plans may be prepared by an architect, designer, builder or lay person.
J. The applicant shall submit documentation of required bonds, frozen funds or adequate
instrument of credit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the contractor's general public
liability insurance pursuant to ECDC 19.10.050.
K. The applicant shall submit declarations, disclosures, covenants and waivers as
required by ECDC 19.10.040. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.040
Site posting notice, disclosures, declarations, covenants and waivers.
A. Notices of permit submittal application with the city shall be posted pursuant to ECDC
20.03.002. Such notices shall be conspicuously posted and maintained at each street
frontage. Notice of permit issuance or denial shall be conspicuously posted as required
above. Upon each posting a 10-day appeal period shall commence. Appeals shall be to the
Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, and no
other appeal shall be permitted.
19.10.040
B. At permit application submittal, the applicant shall submit a written declaration with
the permit application that includes the statement that the accuracy of all information is
warranted by the owner/applicant in a form which relieves the city and its staff from any
liability associated with reliance on such submittals.
The declaration shall also state that the owner/applicant understands and accepts the risk
of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that the owner/applicant will
advise in writing any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers or
residential lessees of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of
the area.
The owner/applicant shall also acknowledge that he, she or they understand and accept
the need for future monitoring and maintenance of the property as described in the final
geotechnical report when future monitoring and maintenance may affect slope stability over
time. While an application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the city,
all conclusions shall be those of the owner/applicant and his or her professionals.
C. The plan set submittal shall include a disclosure letter from the geotechnical engineer
and civil engineer who prepared the geotechnical report and civil plans, stating that in his or
her judgment the plans and specifications submitted for the project conform to the
recommendations in the geotechnical report, and that the risk of damage to the proposed
development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimized subject to the
conditions set forth in the report, and the proposed development will not increase the
potential for soil movement.
"Minimized" shall mean that the applicant has utilized best available science and com-
monly accepted engineering and architectural practice to minimize, to the extent possible,
the risks associated with development of the property.
The geotechnical engineer shall review the erosion and sediment control plan and provide
a statement about the adequacy of the plan with respect to site conditions and report find-
ings. The geotechnical engineer's statement shall also include an identification of landslide
hazards applicable to the site, the on -site measures taken to correct or reduce the hazards, as
applicable, and measures taken to mitigate potential impacts from the remaining hazards.
For sites where the hazards are not mitigated or where the risks from deep-seated or
large-scale earth movement cannot be practically reduced by individual lot owners, the
geotechnical engineer shall prepare a statement identifying what design measures will be
taken to mitigate the risk to structures, adjacent properties, and inhabitants in the event of
deep-seated or large-scale movement. The statement shall specify any risks from earth
movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures and render an opinion as to
whether the site will be stable within the meaning of this chapter following installation of
all proposed improvements. The statement will clarify to current and future owners what
measures were installed to reduce risks and what hazards could not be addressed by
individual lot development.
D. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer shall be
provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on
the plans, site conditions or other supporting data. If the geotechnical engineer who reviews
the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical report,
the new engineer shall, in a letter to the director accompanying the plans and specifications,
express agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the geotechnical report
and state that the revised plans and specifications conform to the new recommendations.
Edmonds Community Development Code
19.10.050
E. The plan set submittal shall include a disclosure letter or notation on the design
drawings by the structural engineer of record stating that he has reviewed the geotechnical
report(s), that he understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to
the owner/applicant the risk of loss due to slides on the site, and that he has incorporated
into the design the recommendations of the report and established measures to reduce the
potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any risk of earth movement refer-
enced in the report. The statement shall note any risks, hazards, and potential problems from
earth movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures.
F. The owner shall execute a covenant (in a form provided by the city) to be submitted
with the application (with necessary fee) to be filed with the Snohomish County auditor.
The director shall cause such completed covenant to be so filed. A copy of the recorded
covenant shall be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall be a covenant running with
the land, which shall at a minimum include:
1. A legal description of the property.
2. A statement explaining that the site is in a potential earth subsidence and landslide
hazard area, that the risk associated with the development of the site is set forth in permit
file No. with the city of Edmonds building department, that conditions or prohi-
bitions on development may have been imposed by the city in the course of permit issuance,
and referencing any features in the design which will require maintenance or modification
to address anticipated soil changes. The covenant may incorporate by reference the
statements and conditions to be observed in the form proposed by the owner/applicant's
geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer as approved after the
review set forth in ECDC 19.10.060.
3. A statement waiving and promising to indemnify and hold harmless the city of
Edmonds, its officers and employees from any claims the owner/applicant and his/her
successors or assigns may have for any loss or damage to people or property either on or off
the site resulting from soil movement and arising from or out of the issuances of any
permit(s) authorizing development on the site, as well as due to any act or failure to act by
the indemnitor, its agents or successors, in interest under or following issuance of the
permit.
4. The date of permit issuance and permit number authorizing the development. [Ord.
3817 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 36, 2009; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.050
Site bonds and contractor general public liability insurance.
A. Site Bonding Requirements.
1. A surety bond, in an amount to be determined by the director, executed by a surety
company authorized to do business in the state of Washington shall be posted by the
owner/applicant or general contractor to assure the restoration of any areas on the site, or in
the surrounding area, disturbed or damaged by slides during construction, and to ensure
completion of the work authorized by the permit, or, if the work is not completed, to assure
that the site will be restored to a safe and stable condition at least equal to the safety and
stability of the site prior to commencement of work under the permit. The bond will be
exonerated upon occupancy approval of the building permit by the building official.
2. In lieu of the surety bond, the owner/applicant or general contractor may propose to
file a cash deposit or an instrument of credit with the director in an amount equal to that
which would be required in the surety bond, and similarly conditioned.
B. Public Liability Insurance. The general contractor of record shall carry general public
liability insurance effective through final occupancy in the minimum amount of $1,000,000,
and which shall name the city as an additional named insured, against the injury, death,
property damage and/or loss arising from or out of the city's involvement in the permitting
process for the project.
19.10.060
C. Homeowner Insurance. The city strongly recommends that each property owner
maintain policies of liability insurance, adequate to provide sufficient funds, to indemnify
and hold harmless third parties in the event of earth subsidence or landslides emanating
from or across the owner's property. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.060
Review to determine compliance with engineering practice and best
available science.
A. The city shall require professional peer review of the plan set submittals accompany-
ing the permit application by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, geologist, and/or struc-
tural engineer as may be necessary and determined by the building official or director, in
order to determine whether the plan set submittals were prepared in accordance with gen-
erally accepted engineering practice or the practice of the particular engineering or design
specialty and are based upon best available science. The full cost of such peer review shall
be paid in full by the owner/applicant within 30 days of billing by the city. Failure to make
timely payments shall result in a stay of city plan review services on the application.
B. This requirement may be selectively waived at the discretion of the director, provided
the applicable project geotechnical engineer, civil engineer or structural engineer provides
written concurrence, determination, details, facts and/or data that individual site conditions
warrant an exemption from outside peer review. Once waived, the building official shall not
be required to inquire further into the adequacy of any report, plans, or data, but rather may
rely upon the submittals as warranted by the owner/applicant as reviewed by the city's
consultant. Nothing herein shall relieve the owner/applicant of the obligation to submit a
complete application fulfilling all the requirements of this chapter and the IRC/IBC.
C. The final recommendation of the peer review regarding whether a submittal complies
with generally accepted practice and/or is based on best available science shall be binding
upon the building official. Such recommendation may be appealed to superior court under
the Land Use Petition Act. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.070
Issuance and denial of permits.
A. Permit Issuance. The following requirements must be satisfied before a permit will be
issued:
1. An approved geotechnical report has been submitted and approved.
2. Plans and specifications have been submitted incorporating the recommendations of
the geotechnical report and said plans have been approved.
3. The required declarations, disclosures, covenants and waivers have been submitted
and approved.
4. Required bonds, cash deposits and public liability insurance have been posted with
the city.
5. When peer review has been required, all submittals have been determined to have
been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice.
6. Peer review concurrence for permit issuance has been received by the building
official.
7. All other provisions of ECDC Titles 16, 18 and 20 have been reviewed and
approved by the appropriate city official.
B. Permit Denial. The following criteria shall result in the denial of issuance of permit:
1. Building, grading and excavation permits for construction on land which the direc-
tor finds to be unsuitable for improvement due to excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory
foundation support, instability or unsuitable topography, or
2. The resulting development would increase the potential of soil movement resulting
in an unacceptable risk of damage to adjacent properties or an unreasonable risk of damage
to the proposed development, or
3. Excessive flooding, seepage, high water table, or inadequate drainage, or
4. If the bluff retreat rate analysis shows that the rate of retreat of the bluff is such that
any structure or improvement would be unreasonably endangered or reasonably could be
anticipated to be endangered by landslide or earth subsidence during its normal useful life,
the application shall be denied. A "structure" is defined as:
a. A building intended for human habitation,
b. A building, structure or other improvement whose stress or weight, collapse or
movement would endanger public safety in the event of slope failure, and
c. Any improvement on the site which is necessary to mitigate danger to public
safety or provide stability, or
5. Other hazardous conditions posing an unreasonable risk to public health, safety, or
welfare, or
6. Where the noted site dangers or geologic hazards are not minimized to the extent
possible by the use of best available science and generally accepted engineering and archi-
tectural practice, or
7. If the applicant's geotechnical engineer determines that there is a greater chance
than 30 percent in a 25-year period that landslide damage on site will occur.
C. In making a determination of permit denial, the director shall consider not only the
land which is the subject of the application, but in addition, the surrounding area which
would be adversely affected if the permit were granted. Permit denial shall be made in
writing to the owner/applicant when the site cannot be rendered "stable" as defined in
ECDC 19.10.020(0). This decision and other preliminary determinations as referenced
herein shall be appealable to Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land
Use Petition Act. No other appeal shall be permitted. The appeal period shall commence
upon the date of mailing of any preliminary or final decision, or upon posting, if posting is
the only notice a party with standing receives under the terms of this chapter.
D. Prohibitions. Because of the relationship of groundwater to stability, the discharge of
collected surface water or stormwater to the ground surface or subsurface is prohibited on
sites within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area. In addition, the following con-
struction, buildings, or improvements are hereby prohibited within the earth subsidence and
landslide hazard area:
1. Swimming pools or hot tubs.
2. Ponds or other artificial impoundments of water.
3. Watering or irrigation systems.
4. Temporary or permanent stockpile of fill on top or bottom of slopes.
5. Rockeries.
E. Waiver. The prohibitions established in subsection (D) of this section shall apply
unless the property owner requests a waiver based upon the written analysis of a geotechni-
cal engineer which clearly establishes that the proposed improvement will have no reason-
able likelihood of triggering or otherwise contributing to any landslide hazard or earth
subsidence risk either on the site or in the neighboring earth subsidence or landslide hazard
area.
In any review or appeal of the director's or building official's denial of a waiver to con-
struct an otherwise prohibited improvement, the burden of proof shall always be upon the
applicant to establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence that no such risk will be cre-
ated by the improvement. Any geotechnical engineering report provided in any review shall
consider not only the risk incurred due to or during construction of the otherwise prohibited
improvement, but also the potential impacts due to failure to maintain the improvement,
damage through reasonably foreseeable events such as earthquakes or other acts of God, or
the reasonably foreseeable negligence of the owner or future owners. The director may
utilize peer review consultants. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.10.080
Site access, professional/special inspection, monitoring during construction
and final geotechnical report.
A. Site Clearing and Grading. The owner/applicant or contractor shall secure the building
official's approval before entering an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area site with
excavating or other grading and clearing equipment to clear, remove trees or grade for any
purpose including the creation of access to the site.
The building official may condition such access approval if site conditions are warranted
and when discretionary approval permits are required. As part of the approval process the
building official may impose conditions that address site work issues; such measures could
include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier
season between May and the end of September, or sequencing activities such as the
installation of drainage systems well in advance of construction.
Requests for early site access in advance of building permit approval or in the time period
between October Ist and April 30th for any purpose shall be submitted to the building offi-
cial accompanied by written concurrence of the owner/applicant's geotechnical engineer of
record.
The building official may utilize peer review consultants to determine whether the
request is based on generally accepted engineering practice and is reasonable with regard to
time -frame to complete the work, types of equipment proposed to perform the work, length
of exposure of slopes, and adequacy of site monitoring and temporary erosion control
measures. When such peer review is utilized, the applicant is responsible for the peer review
fee.
B. Reporting Authority. The owner/applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to
monitor the site during construction. The owner/applicant shall preferably retain the
geotechnical engineer who prepared the final geotechnical report in the plan set submittal
and who has reviewed the approved plans and specifications.
If a different geotechnical engineering consultant is retained by the owner/applicant, the
new geotechnical engineer shall submit a letter to the director stating that he or she has read
all reports and recommendations and reviews to date and state whether or not he or she
agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original geotechnical report and peer
review comments. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the new geotechnical
engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions or changes to the
original recommendations that would affect the approved plans.
C. Construction Monitoring, Special Inspections.
1. Inspection Requirements. During the period from October 1st to April 30th, when
on site, the owner/applicant or designated erosion sedimentation control (ESC) site
supervisor shall perform erosion and sedimentation control inspections. Records of installed
ESC facilities shall be maintained by the erosion and sedimentation control supervisor and
copies of all ESC records shall be provided to city inspectors upon request.
ESC facilities on inactive sites (sites where no work will be performed for more than
three consecutive days) shall be inspected weekly by the erosion and sedimentation control
supervisor. During all other times of the year, weekly inspections by the ESC site supervisor
are required and shall be recorded.
2. Weekly Field Reports. The geotechnical engineer shall monitor, during construc-
tion, compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report including: site
excavation, shoring, temporary erosion control, soil support for foundation, piles,
subdrainage installation, soil compaction and other geotechnical aspects of the construction.
Unless otherwise approved by the director, the specific recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report shall be implemented by the owner/applicant. Omissions or deviations
from the approved geotechnical report and civil plans shall be highlighted to the city in a
separate report. All reports shall be submitted to the city on a weekly basis for review.
Failure to submit required reports may result in the issuance of a stop work order.
Edmonds Community Development Code
19.10.080
3. Storm Events. During all work periods, special inspections shall be performed after
"storm events" as defined in ECDC 19.10.020(Q). The storm event report shall be provided
within one week of the event.
D. Final Construction Report. The geotechnical engineer of record shall prepare a final
written report to be submitted to the building official stating that, based upon his or her pro-
fessional opinion, site observations and final site grading, the completed development sub-
stantially complies with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and with all
geotechnical-related permit requirements as shown on the approved plans.
"Substantially complies" means that the completed development offers at least the level
of stability and safety, on- and off -site, as was afforded by the original recommendations
and report. Recommendations to the owner/applicant shall be included in the report for
future monitoring and maintenance of the property including drainage, tightlines, catch
basins, berms, retaining wall drainage, hazard mitigation improvements, slopes, bluffs,
vegetation, and permanent erosion control that affect slope stability over time. Occupancy
of the residence shall not be granted until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the
building official. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
Chapter 19.15
MECHANICAL CODE AND FUEL GAS CODE
Sections:
19.15.000
International Mechanical Code adopted.
19.15.005
Amendments.
19.15.010
International Fuel Gas Code adopted.
19.15.015
Amendments.
19.15.000
International Mechanical Code adopted.
The International Mechanical Code (IMC), 2009-2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in
Chapter 51-52 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter is hereby adopted. [Ord.
3796 § 3, 2010].
19.15.005
Amendments.
Chapter 1 is not adopted, except as provided for in 19.00.015.E e Errs 19.00.015.
[Ord. 3796 § 3, 2010].
19.15.010
International Fuel Gas Code adopted.
The International Fuel Gas Code, 2009-2012 Edition, published by the International Code
Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-52
WAC inclusive of NFPA 54 and 58, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby
adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 3, 2010].
RM REM MT� go
.. ._. . .
19.20.000
Chapter 19.20
PLUMBING CODE
Sections:
19.20.000 Uniform Plumbing Code adopted.
19.20.005 Amendments.
19.20.010 Evidence of potable water.
19.20.000
Uniform Plumbing Code adopted.
The Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2OW2012 Edition, published by the International
Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, as amended by the Washington State
Building Code Council in Chapter 51-56 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this
chapter, provided that any provisions that affect fuel gas piping are not adopted, is hereby
adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 4, 2010].
19.20.005
Amendments.
A. Chapter 1 is not adopted, except as provided in 19.00.015.
C. Seet 1016, Sand intereepters, is deleted.
D. Seetion 1017, Oil and flammable liquids intefeeptofs, is del
E. Chapter 12, Fuel piping, is deleted.
F. Chapter 15, Firestop protection, is deleted. [Ord. 3796 § 4, 2010].
19.20.010
Evidence of potable water.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for new development, the building official
shall require substantive evidence of an adequate potable water supply from the purveyor of
water to the site for which a building permit is requested. For those areas lying within the
service area of the city of Edmonds water utility, the notification from a duly authorized
representative of the city's water utility shall be sufficient; provided, nothing herein shall be
interpreted to prevent the city or any of its water purveyors from declaring a moratorium or
other water emergency limiting or otherwise restricting the availability of adequate potable
water. Applicants relying on a well shall provide a copy of applicable state approval for the
appropriation and a current test of water quality by a qualified laboratory. [Ord. 3796 § 4,
2010].
19.20.010
Chapter 19.25
FIRE CODE
Sacfinnc-
19.25.000 International Fire Code adopted.
19.25.005 Section amendments.
19.25.010 Department of fire prevention.
19.25.015 Definitions.
19.25.020 Permits.
19.25.025 Charges for fire review and inspection.
19.25.030 Modifications, interpretations and appeals.
19.25.035 Automatic sprinkler systems.
19.25.036 Dwelling fire sprinkler systems and connection fees.
19.25.040 Fire protection water supplies.
19.25.045 Charges for water mains and hydrants.
19.25.050 Mains and service lines.
19.25.055 Location of public hydrants.
19.25.060 Location of private hydrants.
19.25.065 Hydrant specifications.
19.25.070 Penalties.
19.25.000 International Fire Code adopted.
Under the statutory authoritv of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074. the International Fire Code (IFC
2012 Edition, as published by the International Code Council including amendments set forth in
Chapter 51-54A WAC, and subsequently revised by this chapter, is hereby adopted including
reference standards of the National Fire Protection Association and Appendix Chapters B. and C.
19.25.005 Section amendments.
The following sections of the IFC have been added, amended, deleted or replaced as follows:
A. Chapter 1 Administration.
1. Section 102.5 Application of Residential Code. Adopted as originally set forth in IFC
(notwithstanding revisions thereto by the state building code council).
2. Section 103.1-.2 Department of Fire Prevention. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.010.
3. Section 104.8 Modifications. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.030.
4. Section 104.10.1 Assistance from other aaencies. Police and other enforcement aaencies shall
have the authority to render necessary assistance in the investigation of fires and enforcement
and hazardous conditions of this code when requested by the fire marshal.
5. Section 105.1.1 Permits required. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.020.
6. Section 108 Board of appeals. Replaced by Chapter ECDC.
7. Section 109.4 Violation Penalties. Replaced by ECDC 19.25.070.
B. Chapter 5, Fire Service Features.
Section 503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads. The following sections are adopted as originally set
forth in the IFC:
1. Section 503.1 Where required.
2. Section 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities.
3. Section 503.1.2 Additional access.
4. Section 503.1.3 High -piled storage.
5. Section 503.2 Specifications.
6. Section 503.3 Marking.
7. Section 503.4 Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads.
C. Chapter 56, Explosives and Fireworks.
Section 5601.1.3 Fireworks. Replaced by Chapter 5.27 ECC.
D. Chapter 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquids.
Sections 5704.2.9.6.1 (outside) and 5706.2.4.4 (inside) Locations where above -ground tanks are
prohibited. Class I and II flammable liquids in aboveground storage tanks are restricted for the
protection of residential districts and shall be no more than 1,000 gallons capacity in residential
zones designated by the city.
E. Chapter 61 Liquified Petroleum Gases.
Section 6104.2 Maximum capacity within established limits. The maximum capacity for each
installation is restricted for the protection of residential districts within the city and shall be no
more than 500 gallons water capacity in residential zones designated by the city.
F. Chapter 36 Marinas. Replaced in entirety by Chapter 19.65 ECDC.
19.25.010 Department of fire prevention.
A. There is established in the city a department of fire prevention supervised by the fire marshal or
deputy chief of fire prevention acting under the supervision of the fire chief. The function of the
department shall be the implementation, administration and enforcement of the provisions of this
code.
B. An annual report shall be provided to the mayor containing proceedings under this code, with
other statistics as the fire chief and mayor wish to include. The fire marshal may also recommend
any changes to the code. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 2010L
19.25.015 Definitions.
A. Whenever the term "fire code official" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the fire marshal or deputy
chief of fire prevention.
B. Whenever the word "jurisdiction" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the city of Edmonds.
C. Whenever the term "legal representative of the jurisdiction" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the
city attorney.
D. Whenever the term "police" is used in the IFC, it shall mean the city of Edmonds police
department. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.020 Permits.
A. Operational permits required under the city's fire code and regulated by the city shall be issued
by the fire marshal. The application for the permit shall be accompanied by the full application fee in
order to vest rights under the permit and to constitute a complete permit application. The permit fee
shall be set by the city council annually by resolution or on such review cycle as the council, in its
discretion, shall determine. All permits shall be renewed annually unless the specific time period is
set forth when the permit is aranted. No permit shall be transferable and each permit shall be issued
on a single job, transaction, owner, or occupancy basis, except that the fire marshal is authorized to
consolidate permits for a single location, building, or unit.
B. In the event that the activitv. location or risk associated with the activitv reauires a fire
inspection in excess of the time estimated within the permit fee (one hour) an inspection fee equal to
the actual cost to the city of providing the inspection shall be charged pursuant to ECDC 19.25.025.
[Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.025 Charges for fire review and inspection.
A. Certain licenses and permits issued by the city include a fire department inspection. The cost of
the permit may include an estimate of the normal time associated with the fire inspection. Where the
permit does not include such an estimate, or when the estimate of time established within the
ordinance is exceeded by the actual time spent inspecting a premises, location or activity, the actual
cost of conductina the inspection shall be charged. The administrative services director is authorized
to establish on an annual basis, in conjunction with or immediately following the budget process, a
fee for the hourly charge associated with the provision of services by reasonable classifications of
fire marshal and fire inspector.
B. The permittee shall pay the actual charges of inspection, in addition to the permit fee associated
with such activity. Licenses and permits requiring the actual payment of inspection charges include,
but are not limited to, public amusement licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 4.32 ECC, cabaret
dance licenses issued pursuant to Chaster 4.48 ECC. adult entertainment facilitv licenses issued
pursuant to Chapter 4.52 ECC, business licenses pursuant to Chapter 4.72 ECC, and aircraft
landing licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 4.80 ECC.
C. No charge shall be levied against any department or agency of the city of Edmonds operating_
within the city's general fund..
19.25.030 Modifications, interpretations and appeals.
A. The fire marshal shall have the authority to modify any of the provisions of the IFC or this chapter
on written application by the owner, lessee, or his duly authorized agent when there are practical
difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the code. Approved modifications, including alternative
materials and methods, shall observe the spirit of the code, preserve fire- and life -safety, secure the
public health, and do substantial justice. A signed copy of approved modifications shall be promptly
given to the applicant.
B. Details of actions granting modifications and related interpretations shall be recorded and
preserved in the records of the department of fire prevention to aid in conformance and uniform
application of related codes. ordinances. and standards.
C. Whenever the fire marshal disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for, or
when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of
the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the
decision of the fire marshal to the hearings examiner. Such appeals shall be governed by the
rocedures set forth in Chapter ECDC..
19.25.035 Automatic sprinkler systems.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and maintained throughout every building
constructed under the International Residential Code containina five or more attached dwellin
units. Residential or quick response standard sprinkler heads shall be used in accordance with their
approved listing in the dwelling. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.036 Dwelling fire sprinkler systems and connection fees.
A. Where dwelling fire sprinkler systems are required to be installed in a dwelling (building_
containing one or two dwelling units) constructed under the International Residential Code (IRC). a
single water connection may provide fire protection and domestic services through combination
water lines utilizing an integrated fire and plumbing flow -through piping system described in IRC
Appendix R (WAC 51-51-60105).
B. Automatic sprinkler systems installed pursuant to subsection (A) of this section shall not be
subject to the cost differential from general facility charges for connection to the public water system
when an up -sized meter is required to meet the design flow rate for, and is solely attributable to, the
installation of the automatic sprinkler system. All other costs, including the expense of a larger
meter, a general facility charge attributable to the meter sized for the domestic service alone, and
other permits and fees, shall remain the responsibility of the owner.
C. When automatic sprinkler systems designed for life safety and installed pursuant to subsection
(A) of this section are integrated and dependent upon the domestic water supply of the residential
dwelling unit, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the service connection and
paying for an adequate supply of water to the residential dwelling unit. [Ord. 3819 § 3, 20101.
19.25.040 Fire protection water supplies.
All fire hydrant, water main and appurtenance installations shall meet the provisions of this chapter
as well as other applicable plans, standards and codes adopted by the city of Edmonds, as a
condition of approval of subdivisions and building permits. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.045 Charges for water mains and hydrants.
A. For private development, owners shall be responsible for the replacement (upgrade) of the
existing public main (including fire hydrants and appurtenances) to city standard when identified by
the city engineer as a condition of development approval. The city will pay the difference in material
costs only between six inches and the size that is required to be installed only when the existing_
system is a looped system.
B. A hydrant use permit issued by the public works director is required in order for any person or
entity other than fire department personnel to draw water from any fire hydrant.
C. The installation of water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances to properties not previously
served shall be sized in accordance with the city's water comprehensive plan, built to city standard
and shall be at the benefited property owner's or developer's expense.
D. Oversized water mains required for special use demands relating to a particular property or
development shall be installed at the developer's or property owner's expense.
E. If the water mains installed pursuant to subsections (C) and (D) of this section provide service or
benefits to properties other than owned by the water main installer, latecomer agreements may be
arranaed between the citv and the installer for the construction and dedication of the water facilities
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 35.91 RCW. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.050 Mains and service lines.
A. All public hydrants in single-family areas shall be supplied by not less than six-inch looped water
mains. All hydrants in areas other than single-family residential shall be supplied by not less than
eight -inch looped water mains. Dead-end water mains to hvdrants shall be at least eiaht inches in
diameter, with the exception of mains up to 50 feet long which may be no less than six inches in
diameter.
B. The service line from the water main to the hydrant shall be no less than six inches in diameter.
Any service lines over 50 feet in length from water main to hydrant shall be no less than eight inches
in diameter.
C. When city streets, or state highways having water mains in the public right-of-way, are improved
to permanent street or highway improvement standards, any water mains in the public right-of-way
of said streets or hiahways that are substandard as to size or material accordina to applicable citv
standards shall be replaced with ductile iron water mains conforming to applicable city standards
and plans. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.055 Location of public hydrants.
A. Public hydrants are those owned by the city.
B. All public fire hydrants shall be installed at street intersections where possible. Public hydrant
spacing shall be measured along vehicle access routes.
C. In areas zoned for single-family residential use, public hydrants shall be spaced no more than
600 feet apart. If dead-end streets, or driveways, singly or in combination, are over 300 feet long,
additional public hydrants shall be installed so that the public hydrant spacing is not over 600 feet.
D. In areas other than single-family residential, public fire hydrants shall be spaced an average of
300 feet apart. If dead-end streets or driveways, singly or in combination, are over 150 feet long,
additional public hydrants shall be installed so that the public hydrant spacing is not over 300 feet.
[Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.060 Location of private hydrants.
A. A private hydrant is privately owned, but is subject to the use of the city for inspection and testing
at reasonable times, and for fire suppression at any time. All private hydrants shall be connected to
the citv water main throuah a Drivatelv owned and maintained double detector check valve
assembly.
B. All buildings except single-family dwellings that are located so that a portion is more than 200 feet
from a street. as measured alona vehicle access routes. shall have Drivate fire hvdrants located at
the building. Single-family dwellings with a fire -flow calculation area greater than 4,800 square feet
may require a private hydrant.
C. Buildings having required fire flows of 3,000 gallons per minute may have fire hydrants on one
side of the building only. There shall never be fewer than two fire hydrants for any building larger
than 5,000 square feet in the first floor area including covered parking and storage. When the
reauired fire flow is 3.000 aallons Der minute or areater. the fire hvdrants shall be served by a
looped main around the building or complex of buildings.
D. Fire hydrants shall be spaced on an average 300 feet around the perimeter line, 50 feet out of the
buildings. All hydrants shall be placed in locations accessible to fire department vehicles adjacent to
fire apparatus access roads. The fire marshal shall determine the location of fire hvdrants dependina
on utility, topography and building location for maximum fire protection. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.065 Hydrant specifications.
A. The installation of flush type hydrants (hydrants entirely below grade) is prohibited.
B. Fire hydrants shall have two two -and -one -half -inch hose outlets and one four -and -one -half -inch
pumper outlet. All outlets' ports shall have national standard thread. Additionally, the pumper outlet
shall be provided with a four -inch Storz adapter. Fire hydrants shall meet the American Water Works
Association Standard No. C-502 and current city standards.
C. Fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with generally accepted
engineering practices and city standards, and to the approval of the city engineer, who shall also
approve the selection and use of all pipe fittings and valves. There shall be a foot valve installed
between the service main and the hydrant sufficient to permit the repair and replacement of the
hydrant without disruption of water service. The foot valve shall be installed to city standards. The
location of all such valves installed shall be properly and accurately marked on as -built plans or
drawings with generally acceptable engineering detail, two copies of which shall be furnished to the
public works department. Valves shall be furnished with a standard valve box.
D. Hvdrants shall stand plumb. be set to established street arade with the lowest outlet of the
hvdrant at least 18 inches above the adiacent finished arade and at least 36 inches of clear area
around the hydrant for clearance of hydrant wrench on both outlets and on the control valve. The
pumper port shall face the street, as determined by the fire marshal.
E. Where reasonably necessary to protect a hydrant from damage, the fire marshal may require
hydrants to be protected by two or more posts, eight inches in diameter by five feet long, made
either of reinforced concrete or steel.
F. If there presently exist fire hydrants which do not conform to these requirements, they shall be
replaced with conforming hydrants upon redevelopment or the timetable established by the city's
comprehensive Dian.
G. No person shall plant any vegetation, erect any structure or perform any action which results in
the obstruction of a fire hvdrant for a distance of 50 feet alona the immediate route of approach. The
owner -occupant of any area in which a hydrant is located shall be responsible for removing weed
and tree growth from around the hydrant for a distance of not less than five feet. The purpose of this
section is to maintain clear approach and visual area around the hydrant.
H. The installation of the fire hydrants and mains may be accomplished by city capital contract,
developers (as a condition of development) or public works department employees. All installations
are to be approved by the city engineer.
I. Following the installation of fire hydrants, all pipes, valves and hydrants shall be pressure tested,
purified, flushed and sampled to meet the requirements of the American Water Works Association
Standard No. C-502. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
19.25.070 Penalties.
A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of the IFC including those standards of the
National Fire Protection Association specifically referenced in the IFC as adopted and amended
herein or fails to comply therewith, or who violates or fails to comply with any order made
thereunder, or who builds in violation of any detailed statement of specifications or plans submitted
and approved thereunder, and from which no appeal has been taken, or who fails to comply with
such an order as affirmed or modified by decision of the citv's hearinas examiner. or by a court of
competent jurisdiction, within the required time, shall severally for each and every such violation and
noncompliance, respectively, be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable as provided in ECC
5.50.020.
B. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation nor permit it to
continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or defects
within a reasonable time: and when not otherwise specified. each day that prohibited conditions
exist or are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. The application of the above penalty
shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions. [Ord. 3798 § 1, 20101.
Edmonds Community Development Code 19.30.000
Chapter 19.30
ENERGY CODE
Sections:
19.30.000 State Energy Code adopted.
19.30.000
State Energy Code adopted.
The Washington State Energy Code, 2OW2012 Edition, as adopted and amended by the
Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-11 WAC, is hereby adopted. [Ord.
3796 § 5, 2010].
Chapter 19.35
VENTILATION CODE
(Repealed by Ord. 3796)
19.40.000
Chapter 19.40
INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
Sections:
19.40.000 International Property Maintenance Code adopted.
19.40.005 Amendments.
19.40.000
International Property Maintenance Code adopted.
The International Property Maintenance Code, 2-009 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 6, 2010].
19.40.005
Amendments.
A. Section 102.3, Application of other codes, is amended to read:
Repairs, additions or alterations to a structure, or changes of occupancy shall be
done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the codes listed in
19.00.005. Nothing in this code shall be construed to cancel, modify or set aside
any provision of the ECDC.
B. Section 106, Violations, is deleted and replaced as follows:
Violation of any provisions of this code are subject to the Civil Violation — En-
forcement procedures in Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
C. Sections 108.2, Closing of vacant structures, 108.3, Notice, 108.4, Placarding, 108.5,
Prohibited occupancy, 108.6, Abatement methods, and 108.7, Record, are deleted and
replaced by the provisions of Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
D. Section 111, Means of Appeal, is deleted and replaced by ECDC 20.110.040(C).
E. Section 302 is deleted.
F. Section 303 is deleted.
G. Section 308 is deleted.
H. Section 309 is deleted. [Ord. 3796 § 6, 2010].
Edmonds Community Development Code 19.45.000
Chapter 19.45
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL PERFORMANCE CODE
Sections:
19.45.000 International Code Council Performance Code adopted.
19.45.000
International Code Council Performance Code adopted.
The International Code Council Performance Code, 2009-2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, is hereby adopted. [Ord. 3796 § 7, 2010].
Chapter 19.50
INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE
Sections:
19.50.000 International Existing Building Code adopted.
19.50.000
International Existing Building Code adopted.
The International Existing Building Code, 2009-2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in
Chapter 51-50 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along
with Appendix Chapter A (Guidelines for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings) and
Resource A (Guidelines on fire ratings of archaic materials and assemblies). [Ord. 3796 § 8,
2010].
19.55.000
Chapter 19.55
ELECTRICAL CODE
Sections:
19.55.000 National Electrical Code adopted.
19.55.005 When code effective.
19.55.010 Nonliability.
19.55.015 Conflicts — How resolved.
19.55.000
National Electrical Code adopted.
Under the statutory authority of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, the National Electrical
Code, 2008-2011 Edition, as published by the National Fire Protection Association, is
hereby adopted as the electrical code for the city of Edmonds subject to the amendments
made herein. The State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries, Electrical
Inspection Section, Rules and Regulations for Installing Electric Wiring and Equipment and
Administrative Rules, 2008 Edition, is hereby adopted as part of the electrical code of the
city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.55.005
When code effective.
If the state of Washington, through its duly designated electrical inspector or inspectors,
for any reason fails to continue to inspect electrical installation, license the same or provide
the standards, the provisions of the Edmonds electrical code as amended shall be applicable
to all electrical installation in the city as if the state of Washington had not exercised
jurisdiction of any kind. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.55.010
Nonliability.
This chapter shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of any person
owning, operating or installing any electrical equipment for damages to anyone injured by a
defect of the equipment, nor shall the city or its agent be held as assuming any such liability
by reason of the inspection under this code or the certificate of inspection issued by the
building department. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.55.015
Conflicts — How resolved.
If there is any conflict between the electrical code of the city, the National Electrical
Code and/or the rules and regulations as set forth by the state of Washington for electric
wires and equipment, then the conditions, requirements, provisions or terms which provide,
in the opinion of the building official, for the greatest public safety shall be observed and
shall control. [Ord. 3796 § 9, 2010; Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
Edmonds Community Development Code 19.60.010
Chapter 19.60
MOVING BUILDINGS
Sections:
19.60.000
Permit required.
19.60.005
Applicability.
19.60.010
Application requirements.
19.60.015
Pre -move inspection requirements and building upgrades.
19.60.020
Correction of defects.
19.60.000
Permit required.
Any person who proposes to move an existing building into or through the city of
Edmonds shall, before the move, apply for and obtain a moving permit from the building
official. A moving permit is separate from, and in addition to, any and all other permits
required to bring the moved building into compliance with current adopted codes and city
regulations. Separate permit approvals for grading, shoring, foundation, remodeling, repair
or alteration may be imposed to bring the building to current adopted code standards and
zoning compliance for height and setbacks. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.60.005
Applicability.
Buildings or structures moved into or within the city shall comply with the provisions of
this code including the current adopted editions of the following codes: International
Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, Interna-
tional Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Washington State Energy Code, Ventilation
T,,,aoo Air- Quality Co State Historic Building Code, Unif6fffl Heusi„ "International
Property Maintenance Code, and applicable state WAC amendments. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.60.010
Application requirements.
A. In order to obtain permits to move any building through, along, or across the streets or
any public place within city limits, the building official shall determine permit submittal
requirements which, at a minimum, shall contain:
1. Proposed route;
2. Location of any overhead utility lines or traffic signals along with their height along
the route; and
3. Dimensions of building proposed to be moved.
B. The permit application shall be reviewed by the building official, public works
director, police chief, traffic engineer, fire department and any other affected city
department. If the proposed moving will unduly interfere with the rights of the public as
determined by the city engineer or designee, the permit shall be denied. Denial of the
application by one department shall constitute denial of the permit by the city.
C. A performance bond or frozen fund, pursuant to Chapter 17.10 ECDC, in an amount to
be determined by the building official shall be posted prior to permit issuance guaranteeing
the completion of all required site development improvements or site clean-up and/or repair
of damage to public property no later than 180 days after the permit is issued. The bond or
frozen fund will be exonerated upon final project approval provided all required site
restoration and/or improvements are installed, inspected and approved to city standards.
D. The moving contractor shall be state licensed and carry general public liability
insurance for the amount no less than $1,000,000, valid during entire building moving
operations, and the insurance policy shall name the city as an additional named insured,
against the injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from or out of the city's
involvement in the permitting process for the project.
E. As a condition of obtaining a moving permit, the moving contractor shall assume all
liability for any damage to public property by such moving operations. Repair of damage to
any public property improvement shall be completed under a valid permit within 30 days of
date of notice. Emergency repair work performed by city crews to repair damage to public
improvements shall be charged against the moving contractor. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.60.015
19.60.015
Pre -move inspection requirements and building upgrades.
A. Upon application and payment of the building moving permit fee, the building official
shall notify coordinate a date and time to perform a pre -move inspection with the applicant.
of the dateand time of his pfe ,r o eEtien The pre -move inspection shall be made at
the original location of the building before it is moved.
B. The applicant shall remove from the building as much of the interior wall and ceiling
coverings as is necessary in the judgment of the building official to conduct a thorough
inspection of the wiring, plumbing and structural features of the building. The building
official shall determine what structural, energy, ventilation, plumbing, mechanical and life -
safety upgrades shall be imposed on any building moved into or within city limits in
compliance with current adopted codes. Designated historic buildings are also subject to
provisions of Chapter 19.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.60.020
Correction of defects.
If, at or after the time of the inspection, the building official notifies the applicant that any
portion of the building, electrical wiring or rough plumbing is in any way in violation of the
ordinances of the city of Edmonds, so that compliance will require a replacement of any
parts or materials used, then any defective parts or materials shall be removed from the
building before it is moved. Any corrections required to comply with the ECDC, IBC and
IRC shall be completed and inspected before final approval and occupancy is granted. [Ord.
3651 § 1, 2007].
Chapter 19.65
MARINAS
Sactinnc-
19.65.000 Application.
19.65.005 Building code — Compliance required.
19.65.010 Desian live loads.
19.65.015 Materials.
19.65.020 Area and location requirements.
19.65.025 Fire Protection Standard adopted.
19.65.030 Fuel floats.
19.65.000 Application.
The provisions of this chapter apply to the construction, changes, repair and use of a small boat
marina orovidina covered floatina boat mooraae within the citv. A marina is a basin of safe
anchorage providing moorage for small vessels. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101.
19.65.005 Buildina code — Compliance reauired.
All construction on or in connection with a marina shall comply with all the provisions of this title
including permits, permit fees and penalties and all other applicable ordinances of the city and other
applicable laws. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101.
19.65.010 Design live loads.
A. Decks. Float decks shall have a design live load of at least 40 pounds per square foot minimum.
B. Roofs. The roof structures shall have a design live load of at least 25 pounds per square foot
minimum.
C. Ramps. The ramps to floats shall have a design live load of at least 40 pounds per square foot
minimum. [Ord. 3798 F4 2, 20101.
19.65.015 Materials.
A. Roofs. Roof coverinas shall be noncombustible.
B. Floats. Floating structures and floats shall be material of a type approved by the building official.
[Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101.
19.65.020 Area and location requirements.
A. Length of Floats. The maximum length of any combination of floats shall be 500 feet from the
shore end of the aanaolank to the outer end of the main float. A main float is a center or side float
connected by a ramp to the shore, being fixed laterally by a system of piling but allowed to move
vertically, and may have finger floats connected at intervals.
B. Length of Roofs. The maximum length of any roof over floats shall be 400 feet, measured along a
main float. At least 75 percent of the exterior walls shall be open. The maximum area covered shall
be 30,000 sauare feet over anv sinale main float area.
C. Separation. The minimum separation of covered moorage shall be 20 feet.
D. Floats, piers, and walkways shall provide an aisle not less than 44 inches in width.
E. Slips and mooring spaces shall be individually identified by an approved numeric or alphabetic
designator that shall be posted at each space. Signs indicating the space designators located on
finger piers and floats shall be posted at the base of all piers, finger piers, floats and finger floats.
[Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101.
19.65.025 Fire Protection Standard adopted.
A. The "Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatvards." 2006 Edition, of the National Fire
Protection Association Publication No. 303 is hereby adopted to provide the minimum acceptable
level of safety to life and property from fire and electrical hazards at marinas and boatyards. The
most restrictive requirements from all codes and adopted standards may apply. In the event of any
conflict between provisions of the fire and electrical codes of the city of Edmonds as adopted by this
title, the fire and electrical codes shall prevail.
B. Access and Water Supply. Piers shall be provided with fire apparatus access roads and water -
supply systems with on -site hydrants where required by the fire marshal. The maximum distance
from any point on a float system to an approved fire hydrant shall be 600 feet, except for fuel floats
there shall be 300 feet.
C. Emergency Operations Staging Areas. Approved areas on piers and ashore shall be provided for
the staging of emergency equipment. These areas shall be posted with approved signage to keep
clear for emergency operations. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 20101.
19.65.030 Fuel floats.
A. Fuel floats shall be constructed of gas -resistant flotation material and shall be separated from
other floats by at least 80 feet of open water.
B. All fuel storaae tanks shall be located underaround.
C. All fuel lines shall be provided with flexible connections from shore to floating facilities.
D. Fire extinguishers shall be provided near fuel dispensers as approved by the Edmonds fire
department.
E. Gangplank access from shore to fuel floats shall be within 175 feet of fuel dispensers.
F. Fresh water taps shall be available on fuel floats.
G. All portions of a fuel float shall be located within 300 feet of a fire hydrant.
H. Mooraae at anv fuel float shall be prohibited and unlawful except durina the shortest time
necessary to take on fuel. Moorage shall be unlawful at any fuel float at any time the fuel pumps are
not open for business and physically attended by the fuel pump proprietor, his agent, employee or
port tenant trained to a fire department approved environmental and safety standard. It shall be the
independent responsibility of the fuel pump proprietor, vessel operator, and vessel owner to comply
with this subsection and each said person or class of persons shall be subject to the penalties of
ECC 5.50.020 for any and all violations hereof.
I. All fuel spills shall be reported immediately in accordance with local, state and federal
requirements. [Ord. 3798 § 2, 2010].
Chapter 19.70
FEES
Sections:
19.70.000
197n 005
Scope.
Payment f fees.
19.70.010
Schedule of permit fees.
19.70.015
Establishing building construction valuation.
19.70.020
Work commencing before permit issuance.
19.70.025
Refunds.
19.70.000
Scope.
Fees associated with this title including plan review, permit, inspection and related devel-
opment or mitigation fees are established by this chapter and as set forth in ECDC
15.00.020. Fees may be altered pursuant to city Resolution 997. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
..
Up 0i ON
19.70.010
Schedule of permit fees.
For buildings, structures, grading, gas, mechanical and plumbing systems or alterations
requiring a permit, a fee for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with this
chapter and ECDC 15.00.020. Fee schedules are on file in the city clerk's office.
A. Plan Review Fee. Before accepting a set of plans and specifications for plan review,
the building official shall collect the full plan review fee. Plan review fees shall be in addi-
tion to, and a percentage of, the required per-
mit fee as calculated pursuant to ECDC 19.70.015.
B. Permit Fee. Before issuing a building permit and releasing approved plans, the build-
ing official shall collect the full building permit fees including supplemental required permit
fees, inspection fees and any additional plan review fee or violation compliance fee,
development fee or mitigation fee outstanding at the time of permit issuance. Building con-
struction valuation shall be determined by ECDC 19.70.015.
C. Inspection Fee. Inspection and reinspection fees shall be paid prior to any inspection
by city staff. Inspection fees are established and set forth in this chapter.
D. Related Development or Mitigation Fees. The payment of the fee for construction,
alteration, removal or demolition done in connection, or concurrently with, the work autho-
rized by a building permit shall not relieve the applicant or holder of the permit from the
payment of other fees that are prescribed by law. Fees for other permits or related
development fees shall be as set forth in ECDC 15.00.020. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.70.015
Establishing building construction valuation.
The applicant for a permit shall provide an estimated building construction valuation at
time of application. Building construction valuation for the purpose of calculating permit
fees shall include total value of work including fair -market labor and materials with equip-
ment needed to complete the work, including but not limited to all construction work for
which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing,
heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent
equipment. If, in the opinion of the building official, the building construction valuation is
underestimated on the application, the building official shall assign a building construction
valuation. Permit valuation for new construction shall be based on square footage building
construction valuation as established by the building official. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.70.020
Work commencing before permit issuance.
Any person who commences any work regulated by this title including work on a build-
ing, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits
shall be subject to a violation compliance fee established by the building official pursuant to
the city's fee schedule adopted by resolution that shall be in addition to the required permit
fees. The violation compliance fee shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or
subsequently issued. The payment of such violation compliance fee shall not exempt any
person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty
prescribed by law. Violation compliance fees are set forth in this chapter. [Ord. 3651 § 1,
2007].
19.70.025
Refunds.
The building official may authorize refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erro-
neously paid or collected. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than
80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in
accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than
80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan
review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done. The
building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee on an expired permit. �a'Pepon written applieation filed by the original pefmit4ee no latef than 180 days after- the date 0
fee aymem�Any application for a refund must be made in writing and describe the
circumstances to justify. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
Chapter 19.75
STREET NAMES AND ADDRESS NUMBERING
Sections:
19.75.000 Adoption of street name map and criteria.
19.75.005 Adoption of property and building numbering system and criteria.
19.75.010 Other street names and premises numbers prohibited.
19.75.000 Adoption of street name map and criteria.
A. There is hereby established a uniform system of designating street names/numbers in the city of
Edmonds. The street names/numbers are those depicted on that map entitled, "official street map,"
a copy of which has been authenticated by the mayor of the city and the attestation of the city clerk.
The map and all explanatory matter on the map is re -adopted and affirmed and by this reference is
incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Official street name/number desianations are the
responsibility of the city engineer.
B. Pursuant to ECDC 18.50.030. anv chanae to the name or number of anv street on the official
street map shall be by action of the city council approving an ordinance changing the official street
map.
C. The city engineer shall maintain and update the official street map and shall designate/approve
public and private street names/numbers in accordance with this chapter. All approved street
names/numbers shall be forwarded to the United States Postal Service (USPS), public and private
utilities, law enforcement agencies, emergency services providers, and other persons of new or
corrected street names/numbers. The city engineer shall develop policies and guidelines for street
names and numbers in accordance with the following guidelines.
1. New street designations shall be in accordance with the Snohomish County grid system
and the official street map.
2. When descriptive street names (as opposed to numerical street designations) are allowed
by subsection (C)(1) of this section, preference shall be for descriptive names with logical
relationship to locale or aeoaraphic area, and avoidance of private individual names.
3. Facilitation of map reading and indexing to assist in rapid location of streets and addresses.
4. Avoidance of multiple and/or alternative names for single street sections and requirement
of selection of a primary street designation to assist in the Enhanced 9-1-1 grid system for
emergency services dispatching_
5. Any other appropriate and applicable standards concerning street and street designations
as well as current department of public works policies, guidelines, or rules for naming public
streets as determined by the director. [Ord. 3651 & 1. 20071.
19.75.005 Adoption of property and building numbering system and criteria.
A. There is hereby established a uniform system for numbering properties, buildings and primary_
structures in the city of Edmonds. The official building and property address map depicting all issued
property address numbers is maintained by the building official or designee. The building official
assigns, maintains and corrects addresses for the city of Edmonds and shall notify the United States
Postal Service (USPS), emergency services providers and other persons of new or corrected
arlrrmccac
B. Addresses shall conform to the numerical and system established by Enhanced 9-1-1. The
number utilized by each building or property shall be that number within the system assigned by the
building official. Addresses are assigned based on the location of the driveway access or house
frontage to a street and only one address is allowed per building on any lot. Numbers assigned
during any previous numbering system that fit within the grid system are hereby ratified and shall
remain in full force and effect.
C. The buildina official shall reauire anv address not in conformance or anv address that poses a
problem or confusion for safety and emergency response be changed within 30 days of written
notification from the city of Edmonds.
D. All owners or occupants of all buildinas and structures in the citv of Edmonds. other than
or other similar buildings or structures of a secondary nature to the primary building or structure,
shall affix and maintain the officially designated premises number to the building or structure
pursuant to ECDC 19.00.025(0). When topography or vegetation may obscure vision from the
street. the numerals shall be affixed as to be reasonably visible from the street.
E. Where anv commercial buildina, multiple-familv residential structure, or other similar structure has
more than one entrance serving separate occupants, a suite designation or apartment number shall
be assigned to each entrance serving a tenant or resident in addition to the number assigned to the
principal entrance of the building or structure. The unit designations shall be progressive as
assigned in the progressive direction of the street and per the property numbering system approved
by this code.
F. All requests for a building or property address change shall be made in writing to the building
official and all of the followina conditions shall be present in order for the reauest to be approved:
1. An obvious error shall exist (i.e., the buildina was addressed off a street not associated with
the site, the building or property addresses are out of sequence, duplicate address exists),
etc.
2. The existing address could delay fire, police or emergency services from finding the
location in an emergency.
3. The fire department agrees the address change is necessary. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 20071.
19.75.010 Other street names and premises numbers prohibited.
It is unlawful for any owner or occupant of any premises, building or structure to display a street
name or premises number other than those officially designated pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter, subject to penalties per Chapter 5.50 ECC and Chapter 20.110 ECDC. [Ord. 3651 § 1,
20071.
Chapter 19.80
BOARD OF APPEALS
Sections:
19.80.000 Purpose and applicability.
19.80.005 Application and fee.
19.80.015 B ^,.a of appef ^Hearing examiner procedures.
19.80.020 Powers and duties of the beardhearing examiner.
19.80.025 Appeals from decisions of the hearing examinerbea-rd.
19.80.030 Snohomish County regional board of appeals.
19.80.000
Purpose and applicability.
A. All properly filed appeals pursuant to the adopted codes of this title shall be heard by
the hearing examinerboar- of appeals efeate'' by this ehaptef. The hearing examiner bear -
shall have no authority to review administrative decisions or grant modifications to the
provisions of any administrative chapter as adopted by this title, nor can the hearing
examiner bear waive a code requirement.
B. The term "building code official" refers to the building official or fire marshal in
exercise of authority over applicable building and fire codes from this chapter.
BC. The hearing examiner board of appe sshall hear appeals from the building -code
official's interpretation of the adopted building codes, determinations of suitable alternative
methods and materials, and any other appeal delegated to a boar' of appeals pursuant to the
state building codes and this code, including but not limited to the International Building
Code, the International Residential Code, the International Fire Code, the International
Property Maintenance Code, -IIU a „^;,,teethe State Histerz^^' Building Code,
the T nifef, (ode etheAbateme-nt of Daarg s u,,;',h 's, the International Fuel Gas
Code, the International Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code and any and all
other codes adopted pursuant to the direction and authority of Chapter 19.27 RCW.
CD. The provisions of the state building codes as adopted by the city are not intended to
prevent the use of any material, alternate design or method of construction not specifically
prescribed by this code, provided any alternative has been approved and its use authorized
by the , ttildiag7code official or on appeal or request for review by the beam E)
app€alshearing examiner. rn�651 § 1�2007].
E. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to hearing examiner proceedings under
Title 20 ECDC (land use hearings) unless such a hearingis s required to be combined with a
hearing under this chapter, in which case the provisions of this chapter shall only pply to
the Title 19 portions of that combined hearing.
19.80.005
Application and fee.
An application for appeal shall be filed with the ui code official upon a
departmental form within 10 days of the date of formal written decision. The application
shall be accompanied by the required fee as set forth in Chapter 19.70 ECDC and shall be
complete in all aspects before the hearing shall be scheduled. Failure to supplement an
incomplete application within 10 business days of filing shall constitute an incomplete
application and the administrative recourse of appeal shall be denied. rn�651 § 1�2007].
.,
PRIM
.
.
M .
M-
-
- -
MM •
WO
. �iT�!�Elll:lf�Efff!T�STS!lIEiFE!lI:�ESTf/�Ef�i�..
9�1
W.
I.
MIME
• x.
19.80.015
Hearing examiner procedures.
,
shall be appointed to thfee yeaf tefms. Following initial tefms, subse of all
shall sefve mofe than thfee eonseetitive ffill tefms, of a total of ofe than nine eonseel-Alive
lend
B. Regttlaf Meetings. Regulaf meetings may be held onee eaeh month, of as often as may
the boafd be polled dttfing voting at the meeting. Seven membefs of the boafd shall eonsti
C. Speeial Meetings. Speeial meetings may be held by the ehaifma-n and at sueh times as
Any speeial meeting held at the fequest of an appellant shall be paid f6f by the appellant in
quomm t speeial eti
D. Exeetttive Sessions. Exeetitive sessions of the boafd may be ealled pufstiant to the
State Open Publie Meetings law by the ehaifman of the viee ehaifman of the boafd and afe
not open to the r„blie The building o eial shall ttend as seefet
EA. Public Notice. Public notice shall be given of all meeti-,gshearings. Upon written
receipt and confirmation of a complete appeal of a request, notice shall be sent to the fire
department, the health department, the city attorney and the owner of the real estate and
parties within 100 feet affected by the request. No hearing shall be scheduled until 15 days
after the required hearing notifications are mailed. Meetings -Hearings shall be open to the
public. The appellant, the appellants' representative, the buildiag- official, and any
person whose interests are affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
FHB. Department/Interested Party. At any public fneeti ig--hearing a representative of the
city building and fire department and any other interested party may appear in person, by
agent or by attorney, offer evidence and testimony and cross-examine witnesses. All
evidence and testimony shall be presented publicly. The beafd hearing examiner may take
judicial notice of facts to the same extent and in the same manner as courts of record and
may consider relevant facts within the personal knowledge of any member of the board that
are stated into the record by such member.
14C. Recording. All meeti ags-hearings befefe *h,o --,e ,.,a shall be recorded.
1. Compensation. The board shall Feeeive no eempensation fegar-diess of numbef or type
of eases hoary
of their- tefms only fef just ea -use. Any membef! who is una-vailable f6f thfee e0fiseetitive
lain..
nd veting on stieh fnattef!s • r� � 651 § 1, 2007].
19.80.020
Powers and duties of the hearing examinerboard.
A. The hearing examiner board shall adopt rules and procedures governing all
proceedings consistent with the provisions set forth herein. The rules and regulations shall
include meeting location, meeting time, procedures, contents of a complete appeal
application and time to be allotted for each case.
B. Subject to the limitations enumerated herein, the hearing examiner boafd have
and may exercise the following powers:
1. The hearing examiner boafd shall have no authority relative to the interpretation of
the administrative provisions of any of the state building codes, nor shall the hearing
examiner bombe empowered to waive any requirement of any such code.
2. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to permit the hearing examiner beafdto hear any
appeal, nor any request for deviation of design or alternative methods with respect to any
property lying within a recognized landslide hazard and earth subsidence area or which is
otherwise subject to the requirements of Chapter 19.10 ECDC including effecting map
changes.
3. The hearing examinerbeard, on review, may approve the use of any material,
alternate design or method of construction providing that it finds that the proposed design is
satisfactory and complies with the provisions of this code and that the material, design, or
method is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the
applicable code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and
sanitation. The decision of the building code official shall not be overturned unless the
hearing examiner beafdshall find that the following conditions exist:
a. That the appellant properly applied for an appeal;
b. That sufficient evidence, proof or testing reports were submitted by the appellant
that substantiated claims of equivalency;
c. That the proposed modification or alternate will not weaken the general purpose
of the adopted code;
d. That the proposed modification or alternate will be in harmony with the spirit
and purpose of the adopted code;
e. That the proposed modification or alternate will not adversely affect the public
health and safety;
£ That the proposed modification or alternate will not adversely affect the struc-
tural integrity of the building; and
g. That the proposed modification or alternate will not adversely affect the fire
safety of the building.
4. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any notice or order
made by the building code official and/or fire marshal in the enforcement of the adopted
codes in this title. The hearing examiner board shall have the power to stay the enforcement
of any order issued by the building and/or fire prevention department unless the building
ode official and/or fire mafshal certifies that a stay of the order or denial would, in the
opinion of the building code official and/or- fire mar-sha1, cause imminent peril to life or
property. A stay shall not constitute hearing examiner beapproval, shall be personal to
the appellant and not transferable, and shall be subject to the terms and conditions imposed
by the hearing examinerbear-d. Any determination or order of the building and/or fire
department shall be presumed to be correct until evidence is introduced that would support a
contrary determination.
5. Whenever the owner or legally responsible person of an alleged unsafe building,
structure, utility or other condition does not agree with the order from the building code
official and/or fire marshal as to the correction to be made, he shall have the right to appeal
to the hearing examiner bewithin 10 days from the date of said order. In his appeal, the
appellant shall state how he proposes to make the unsafe building, structure, utility or other
condition safe and the hearing examiner beard -may require the appellant to submit detailed
engineering analysis or recommendations, accompanied by plans and specifications
prepared by a state licensed architect or registered professional engineer, as prescribed in
this adopted code. The hearing examinerboard, in hearing such appeals, may require
substantiating data concerning the removal or other remedial steps to be taken to render the
unsafe building, structure, utility or other condition safe. In any matter in which an order or
notice relating to an unsafe building, structure, utility or other condition is appealed, the
building and/or fire department may certify to the hearing examiner bethat the unsafe
building, structure, utility or other condition could become an imminent hazard, in which
case the hearing examiner beafd shall schedule a meeti i-g-hearing within five business days
to hear said appeal.
C. Burden of Proof.
1. The appellant bears the burden of proof in any proceeding before the hearing
examinerboar-d. If there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of
this code or evidence that any material or construction does not conform to the requirements
of this code, the appeal from the decision of the building code official shall be denied.
2. The hearing examiner beafd-may continue any proceeding in order to permit the
appellant to provide proof of compliance through tests conducted in accordance with
general engineering practice and best scientific evidence. Such tests shall be made by the
appellant and at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified by the
applicable building code or by other recognized testing standards. If there are not
recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, testing methods shall
utilize generally accepted engineering practice and best scientific method. Reports of such
tests shall be retained and made a part of record of the proceedings.
D. Decision of the hearing examinerBea .
1. The hearing examiner board shall render formal written decisions within 10 days of
the date of the hearing. Every decision of the hearing examiner board shall be based upon
findings of fact and every finding of fact shall be supported in the record of its proceedings.
A mere finding or recitation of the enumerated conditions unaccompanied by findings of
specific facts shall not be deemed findings of fact and shall not be deemed compliance with
the code. The building code official shall take immediate action in accordance with the
decision of the hearing examinerboa-rd.
2. Copies of the decision shall be forwarded to the appellant, a copy shall be placed in
the appeal file and copies shall be made available to any person as a matter of public
information. Decisions shall be filed with the building or fire department as a matter of pub-
lic record.
3. In the exercise of the powers described above, the hearing examiner beard —may
reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the order, requirements, decision or
determination appealed from the hearing examinerboar-d, may impose conditions or
requirements as deemed necessary and may hold cases in abeyance until proper information
needed by the hearing examiner beads supplied. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
M INS.
I
OPINION
MI.
.�
�I
19.80.025
Appeals from decisions of the hearing examinerhoard.
A. The filing of a land use petition for review shall not stay proceedings upon the
decision appealed but the court may grant a stay in accordance with the Land Use Petition
Act.
B. All decisions of the hearing examiner beard are appealable by Land Use Petition Act
to Snohomish County superior court. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
Chapter 19.85
PENALTIES
Sections:
19.85.000 Applicability.
19.85.000
Applicability.
The provisions of all adopted codes within this title shall be subject to penalties as
described herein.
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or other organization to erect, construct,
enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or
maintain any building or structure in the city, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in
violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person, firm, corporation or other
organization violating any of the provisions of this title as adopted herein, or other provision
of this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be deemed guilty of a separate
offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the
provisions of this title herein is committed, continued or permitted, and upon the conviction
thereof of such violation, and each violation thereof such person, firm, corporation or other
organization, and the officers, directors and managers thereof shall be punishable as set
forth in ECC 5.50.020 and Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city to seek any other
available civil, statutory or common law remedies. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
Chapter 19.90
LIMITATION OF BENEFITED AND PROTECTED CLASSES
Sections:
19.90.000 Limitation of benefited and protected classes.
19.90.000
Limitation of benefited and protected classes.
The building and supplemental codes adopted by this title are for the purpose of pro-
viding for and promoting the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Nothing in
this title shall be interpreted to create or otherwise establish any particular class or group of
persons who will or would be especially protected or benefited by the adoption of any code
in this title. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
Chapter 19.95
CONVERSION CONDOMINIUMS
Sections:
19.95.010
Definitions.
19.95.020
Relocation assistance.
19.95.030
Violations.
19.95.040
Civil penalty.
19.95.050
Enforcement.
19.95.010
Definitions.
The following words and phrases used in this chapter shall have the meaning set forth in
this section:
A. "Condominium" means real property, portions of which are designated for separate
ownership and the remainder of which is designated for common ownership solely by the
owners of those portions. Real property is not a condominium unless the undivided interests
in the common elements are vested in the unit owners, and unless a declaration and a survey
map and plans have been recorded pursuant to this chapter.
B. "Conversion condominium" means a condominium (1) that at any time before creation
of the condominium was lawfully occupied wholly or partially by a tenant or subtenant for
residential purposes pursuant to a rental agreement, oral or written, express or implied, for
which the tenant or subtenant had not received the notice described in subsection (2) of this
definition; or (2) that, at any time within 12 months before the conveyance of, or acceptance
of an agreement to convey, any unit therein other than to a declarant or any affiliate of a
declarant, was lawfully occupied wholly or partially by a residential tenant of a declarant or
an affiliate of a declarant and such tenant was not notified in writing, prior to lawfully
occupying a unit or executing a rental agreement, whichever event first occurs, that the unit
was part of a condominium and subject to sale. "Conversion condominium" shall not
include a condominium in which, before the effective date of the ordinance codified herein,
any unit therein had been conveyed or been made subject to an agreement to convey to any
transferee other than a declarant or an affiliate of a declarant.
C. "Declarant" means any person who:
1. Executes as declarant the document, however denominated, that creates a condo-
minium by setting forth the information required by RCW 64.34.216 and any amendments
to that document; or
2. Reserves any special declarant right in the declaration; or
3. Exercises special declarant rights or to whom special declarant rights are trans-
ferred; or
4. Is the owner of a fee interest in the real property which is subjected to the declara-
tion at the time of the recording of an instrument pursuant to RCW 64.34.316 and who
directly or through one or more affiliates is materially involved in the construction, mar-
keting, or sale of units in the condominium created by the recording of the instrument; or
5. Undertakes to convert, sell, or offer for sale units in a conversion condominium.
D. "Director" means the development services director or his designee.
E. "Notice of conversion" means the 90-day notice pursuant to RCW 64.34.440(1)
required to be given by the declarant or his agent to residential tenants and subtenants in
possession of a portion of a conversion condominium.
F. "Person" means a natural person, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, trust,
association, or other legal entity.
G. "Tenant" or "subtenant" means any person who occupies and has a leasehold interest
in a rental unit under a lawful rental agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied.
H. "Unit" means a physical portion of the condominium designed for separate ownership,
the boundaries of which are described pursuant to RCW 64.34.216(1)(d). [Ord. 3651 § 1,
2007].
19.95.020
Relocation assistance.
A. Declarant shall pay relocation assistance of $500.00 per unit to tenants and subtenants
who elect not to purchase a unit and who are in lawful occupancy for residential purposes of
a unit, and whose monthly household income from all sources, on the date of the notice of
conversion, was less than an amount equal to 80 percent of the monthly median income for
comparably sized households in the Seattle -Everett Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area,
as defined and established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
B. The household size of a unit shall be based on the number of natural persons actually
in lawful occupancy of the unit on the date of the notice of conversion.
C. The tenant or subtenant actually in lawful occupancy of the unit shall be entitled to the
relocation assistance.
D. Relocation assistance shall be paid on or before the date the tenant or subtenant
vacates and shall be in addition to any damage deposit or other compensation or refund to
which the tenant is otherwise entitled. Unpaid rent or other amounts owed by the tenant or
subtenant to the landlord may be offset against the relocation assistance.
E. Rights of tenants and subtenants set forth in the notice of conversion pursuant to RCW
64.34.440(1) must set forth tenants' and subtenants' right to relocation assistance as pro-
vided in this section. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.95.030
Violations.
It shall be a violation of this chapter for a declarant to fail or refuse to comply with the
provisions of this chapter. Each tenant and subtenant who is subjected to a violation of the
provisions of this chapter shall constitute a separate violation. Each day of violation shall
constitute a separate violation. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.95.040
Civil penalty.
Any person who fails or refuses to comply with the provisions or requirements of this
chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $100.00 per violation per day
from the date that the violation is first committed until the declarant complies with the
requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
19.95.050
Enforcement.
A. Tenants and subtenants subjected to violations of the provisions of this chapter, or
their agents, may file a complaint with the director. The director is authorized and directed
to receive complaints and conduct such investigations as are deemed necessary such as
contacting declarants and seeking explanation for apparent violations.
B. Whenever it is determined that there has been a violation of this chapter, the director is
authorized to pursue, at the director's discretion, enforcement of the code pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 20.110 ECDC. [Ord. 3651 § 1, 2007].
AM-5835
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/2013
Time: 5 Minutes
Submitted For: Council President Petso
Department: City Council
Review Committee:
Type: Action
Tnffher"0 finn
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Walker Kasinadhuni Student Representative
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Walker Kasinadhuni Student Representative
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 06/12/2013
Form Review
Date
06/12/2013 03:36 PM
06/12/2013 03:44 PM
06/12/2013 05:01 PM
Started On: 06/06/2013 10:56 AM
5.
Jana
Spellman
AM-5861
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:
06/18/2013
Time:
90 Minutes
Submitted By:
Jen Machuga
Department:
Planning
Review Committee:
Type:
Action
Information
Subject Title
Committee Action:
71,
Closed record review of an appeal (File No. APL20130001) of the Hearing Examiner's final decision on
Tom and Lin Hillman's critical areas and setback variances (File No. PLN20120033) for a new residence
to be located at 1139 Sierra Place. Appellants: Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown,
& Candy Brown.
Recommendation
Possible options for the City Council's decision on the appeal are discussed in the June 7, 2013 letter
from Jeff Taraday and Beth Ford with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC, which is included as Attachment G.
The Council may affirm, modify, reverse, or remand the Hearing Examiner's decision. Refer to the June
7, 2013 letter from Lighthouse Law Group PLLC (Attachment G) for further discussion on the Council's
options.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Tom and Lin Hillman submitted a consolidated application on August 1, 2012 for setback and critical
areas variances for the construction of a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place under File No.
PLN20120033. The subject site is currently vacant and is located within the Single -Family Residential,
RS-12 zone. Due to the presence of various critical areas and associated critical area buffers throughout
the majority of the site, the site has major development limitations. Mr. and Mrs. Hillman requested a
setback variance to reduce the minimum required street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for the residence
and 3 feet for a retaining wall, and to reduce the minimum required western side setback from 10 feet to 3
feet for a retaining wall. A Category 3 wetland and its associated buffer cover approximately the western
two-thirds of the site. A Type Np stream is located on the northern side of the western approximate half
of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern side of the site. In addition to
the requested setback variances, Mr. and Mrs. Hillman requested a critical areas reasonable use variance
because the strict application of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations would deny all reasonable
economic use of the property.
A hearing on the consolidated setback and critical areas variance application was held before the Hearing
Examiner on March 14, 2013. The Hearing Examiner issued an initial decision on March 28, 2013, of
which the City and applicant requested reconsideration. Following an order on the reconsideration issued
by the Hearing Examiner on April 16, 2013 and receipt of comments from parties of record, the Hearing
Examiner issued a final decision upon reconsideration on April 24, 2013, which was mailed to all parties
of record on April 25, 2013. A timely appeal by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown, and
Candy Brown was received on May 8, 2013 (File No. APL20130001).
Variances are Type III-B decisions which are appealable to the City Council as a closed record appeal. A
closed record appeal means an administrative appeal on the record to the City Council, following an open
record public hearing on a development project permit application when the appeal is on the record with
no new evidence nor information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005.B.
Only parties of record are allowed to testify at the closed record appeal. ECDC 20.07.003.B defines
parties of record as:
• The applicant;
• Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application;
• Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open
record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision). Persons who have only signed
petitions are not parties of record; and/or
• The City of Edmonds.
Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.07.005.A, closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at
the open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner, which includes the written decision of the Hearing
Examiner, copies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape
recording of the proceedings. ECDC 20.07.005.1) also provides appellants an opportunity to submit
written arguments, and parties of record and the applicant an opportunity to respond to those written
arguments on a prescribed time line.
Staff has developed a web page that contains all of the information related to this closed record appeal.
This web page is linked from the City Council's web page and is available directly at
http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city-council/agendas/closed-record-review.html. This web page
contains the record on appeal (including links to three videos that were shown at the public hearing), the
appeal received, and the written arguments related to the appeal. No official transcript of the March 14,
2013 hearing was prepared; however, a link to the audio recording of this hearing is provided on the
above web page.
The official written record on appeal for the Hillman variance application is included as Attachment
A. The written record on appeal has been Bates Stamped with sequential numbers (0001 to 0294) to help
the City Council and parties of record identify and reference specific sections of the record. It shall be
noted that three videos that were shown by a party of record at the March 14, 2013 hearing as well as the
audio of the hearing itself are also considered to be part of the record on appeal; however, these files
cannot be attached to the City's agenda software. Please refer to the web page above to access these files.
The letter of appeal by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown, and Candy Brown is included
as Attachment B. The written arguments, responses, and rebuttals allowed for by ECDC 20.07.005.D
that have been received to date have been included as Attachments C through H. It shall be noted that
the applicant has an opportunity to submit a written surrebuttal, which is due on June 14, 2013 at 4:30
p.m. If the applicant submits a surrebuttal prior to this deadline, it will be attached to the web page listed
above since it will be too late to add the surrebuttal to this agenda memo.
All files attached to this agenda memo and on the above mentioned web page are available for review at
the Planning Division, located on the second floor of City Hall at 121 5th Ave. N. Office hours are
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m and Wednesday from 8:00 a.m. to
noon.
Attachments
Attachment A: Written Record for Hillman Variance Application (PLN20120033)
Attachment B: Appeal by Schroeder, Beighle, & Brown (APL20130001)
Attachment C: Written Argument from Appellant, received 5/31/13
Attachment D: Written Response from Alvin Rutledge, received 5/30/13
Attachment E: Written Response from David Thorpe, received 5/30/13
Attachment F: Written Response from Tom and Lin Hillman, received 6/7/13
Attachment G: Written response from Lighthouse Law Group PLLC, received 6/7/13
Attachment H: Written Rebuttal from Appellant, received 6/12/13
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jen Machuga
Final Approval Date: 06/14/2013
Form Review
Date
06/13/2013 04:57 PM
06/14/2013 08:59 AM
06/14/2013 09:03 AM
Started On: 06/13/2013 11:20 AM
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Tom and Lin Hillman
FINAL DECISION UPON
RECONSIDERATION
PLN20120033
INTRODUCTION
This Final Decision Upon Reconsideration replaces the final decision issued for the
above -captioned matter that issued on March 28, 2013. The requested variance and
reasonable use requests remain approved. Condition 1 of the March 28, 2013
decision is modified to provide more specific direction on the relocation of the home.
Condition 2, requiring stormwater monitoring, is removed.
The applicants are requesting a street setback variance, a side yard variance and two
critical areas reasonable use variance requests to construct a single-family home at
1139 Sierra Place. The setback variances are necessary to provide separation from an
on -site wetland and the reasonable use variances are necessary because it is not
possible to build a single-family home on the subject lot without encroaching into a
wetland and a stream buffer. In the street setback variance request, the applicants
seek to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for placement of the
residence. In the side yard variance request, the applicants seek to reduce a side yard
setback from 10 to 3 feet for placement of a retaining wall. The reasonable use
variance involves a request to building within a stream and wetland buffer as well as
the wetland itself. The setback variances are approved. The reasonable use variance
is approved for the encroachment within the wetland and stream buffers.
The conditions of approval require further staff investigation for authorization of the
encroachment into the wetland itself. There is insufficient evidence in the record to
determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as
required by the variance criteria. Direct encroachment into a wetland, as opposed to
its buffers, potentially involves a significant impairment of wetland functions.
Further information is needed to determine whether the direct encroachment of this
proposal should or can be avoided.
Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0001 ATTACHMENT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORAL TESTIMONY
Staff Presentation
Ms. Jennifer Machuga, associate planner, stated the site is at 1139 Sierra Place. The
site is currently a vacant lot in a single-family residential RS 12 zone, and the property
owners Tom and Lin Hillman are proposing to construct a new single-family residence
on the site. As seen in the attachments in the staff report, development of the site is
very limited by the existing critical areas on the property. There is a category three
wetland across the middle of the property, and the minimum required fifty -foot
wetland buffers cover the majority of the project site. There is also a non -fish bearing
type NE stream on the northern side of the site, and the minimum required fifty -foot
stream buffer overlaps the wetland buffers. There is also an erosion hazard area
located on the eastern portion of the site. Due to the location of these critical areas
throughout much of the site, development of the site is really impossible without some
impact to these critical areas and their buffers.
Ms. Machuga said the city code has a provision for when a site is so encumbered by
critical areas and their associated buffers that it is not possible to develop the site in
such a way that it complies with the city critical area codes. This provision, the
Critical Areas Reasonable Use Variance, allows for exceptions to the requirements to
the critical areas code in order to allow the development of the site in such a way that
has the least possible impact on the critical areas while still allowing the applicant
reasonable use of that property. The applicants, the Hillmans, are requesting Critical
Areas Reasonable Use Variance because they feel that the strict application of the
critical area codes would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. The
applicant is also requesting a Setback Variance to reduce the minimum required street
setback from twenty-five feet to twelve feet for the residents and to reduce that street
setback to three feet for retaining wall. They have also proposed to reduce the
minimum required western side setback from ten feet to three feet for retaining wall
while the house would comply with the side setback requirements. These proposals
have been consolidated onto one application and are being reviewed as a Type 3B
decision.
Ms. Machuga testified that the applicant has provided project plans, a wetland report,
and a geotechnical report, all of which are included as attachments to the staff report.
There was a previous critical areas variance that was approved on this site for the
previous owner, and that variance authorized the home to be constructed on the
eastern side of the site, allowing the road to cut through the wetland area. It was found,
however, that locating the house on the western side of the site had less impact on the
critical areas than going with what was previously approved. Therefore, the proposed
residence would be in the south west side of the site. The proposed building on the site
would be 2,174 square feet and would include a 570 square feet garage, almost 1,600
square feet living space on the first floor, and a little over 1,000 square feet living
space on the second floor. In order for the Setback Variance to be approved, the
Hearing Examiner must find that all six required criteria in ECDC 20.85.010 are met.
Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0002
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
These criteria include that the site must have special circumstances that would deprive
the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity, that
the approval of the variance would not grant a special privilege, that the approval of
the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the zoning
ordinance, that the variance would not be significantly detrimental to public health,
safety, and welfare, and that the variance is the minimum necessary to allow the
property owner rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. This is
discussed in detail in the staff report.
Ms. Machuga stated that the request for this setback variance appears to be consistent
with the required criteria, because the purpose of the requested setback variances is to
pull the house further to the south-western corner of the site for minimal impact on the
critical areas. The size of the proposed house appears consistent with the size of the
neighbouring houses. The requested variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan and with zoning ordinances. It does not appear that reducing the setbacks for
construction of the home would be detrimental, and it appears that these are the
minimum variances necessary to construct a home comparable to other homes in the
neighbourhood. For the Critical Areas variance to be approved, the Hearing Examiner
must find that the proposal is consistent with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.210 A2 and
B. These criteria include that the application of the critical areas regulations would
deny all reasonable economic use of the property, that no other reasonable economic
use of the property would have less impact on the critical areas, that the proposed
impact on the critical areas is the minimum necessary, that there are special conditions
on the property, that the inability to derive reasonable economic use from the property
is not the fault of the applicant, that the variance would not grant the applicant any
special privilege, that the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to public
health, safety, and welfare, that the proposal minimizes net loss of critical areas
function and volume, that the proposal is consistent with all other applicable
regulations and standards, and that the approval is based on best available science. The
staff report goes into detail analysing these required criteria and determined they are
met. The site has special circumstances due to the location of the critical areas, and
the presence of these critical areas is not due to any actions of the property owner. The
size of the proposed home is consistent with the size of the neighbouring homes, thus
the allowing the variance would not be granting a special privilege, and the mitigation
plan detailed in the wetland report is based on the best available science and includes
measures to enhance the wetland, the stream, and the buffer areas.
Ms. Machuga noted that on February 26, 2013 the city issued a determination of non -
significance concerning the storm water system, and the period for comments and
appeals ended on March 12, 2013. No appeals were received. The city provided public
notice consistent with the requirements for ECDC 20.03, and they received a few
public comments. One major concern brought up in the comments dealt with drainage.
The engineering division found that the proposed project is compliant with the
wetland report, but they will conduct a full review of the storm water system during
the building permit application review.
Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The attachments from the staff report and the staff report itself were entered as
exhibits. A letter from the PUD was entered as an exhibit. The city received a few
comments, including (1) an e-mail from Mr. David Thorpe dated March 11, 2013, (2)
a letter from Mr. Todd Brown dated March 12, 2013, and (3) an e-mail from Kevin
Fagerstrom, dated March 11, 2013. These were entered as exhibits in addition to an e-
mail from Robert Chave dated March 12, 2013.
Ms. Machuga stated that the applicant could address whether they considered putting
more living space on the second floor and over the garage to avoid further
encouragement on the critical areas. There is a twelve foot distance from the street in
order to leave enough space for the detention room, but the applicant might better
address that question.
Applicants
Ms. Lin Hillman explained that they originally wanted to build a one-story house, but
they had several discussions with the city and with neighbours and decided to have a
second floor in order to shrink the footprint. The storm drainage pipe is two feet and
requires five feet on either side, which is why they needed twelve feet between the
house and the street; they tried to place the storm drainage pipe as far from the stream
as possible. There is evidence of the previous owner degrading the critical area, and
nobody seems concerned with caring for the critical space, but her family hopes to
improve the existing condition and to put a fence around the remaining wetland to
prevent pickup trucks from backing in to dump debris.
Ms. Hillman said that they have talked to several neighbours about the issues, and the
primary concern seems to be drainage. In the past, during high rainfall events, the
culvert pipes have become clogged, and the city public works people had to come to
dig out the sediment, rocks, etc. inside it. Their surveyor suggested that their proposal
for the property include a plan to add a metal grid from preventing large debris from
getting into the pipes, which would mitigate the clogging problem. The Department of
Fish and Wildlife liked the idea. She also sent applications for approval to the
Department of Ecology and the Army Corp of Engineers.
Public Comments
Mr. Todd Brown, who lives at 1135 Sierra Place up the access lane, said that the
variances are concerning to the neighbourhood because, one, he thinks factual
inaccuracies and strategic omissions in the planning documents; two, the applicants
have failed to get written permission from the adjacent property owners, which the
city requires; three, he thinks there are insufficient mitigation measures; and, four, he
thinks that there are alternative interpretations of the city code regarding the best use
of the property. He said correct drainage was the most important issue. The stream is
prone to flooding, and the proposed plan increases the risk that flooding poses to
access to the lane, to the house at 1111 Sierra Place to the west, and to other properties
downstream. There could potentially be risk to the city from flood damage. Both
Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0004
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
culverts are technically private, and the city has not yet obtained written permission
from the property owners at I I I I Sierra Place for this project.
Mr. Brown said the code requires the approach that least impacts wetlands and most
closely mimics natural water flow, but the aerial photos provided in the staff report to
indicate water flow direction are factually incorrect. Additionally, he said that
attachment ten is incorrect in stating that the wetland on the I I I I property is charged
solely from its own springs and stream. He also wanted to dispute the claims that the
southwest culvert was not viable. He himself has seen water flowing in and out, and he
thinks they must have been digging in to the wrong spot when looking for the output.
The culvert has never really been backed up. On top of that, he thinks a trash rack
would be ineffective in preventing a blockage due to the soil types in the area. The
review of neighbourhood homes strategically omitted the nearest home at 1130 Sierra
Place directly across from the property. His house is 2,050 square feet, including the
basement, but is on a 1,400 square foot plot, which means a smaller house is possible.
There are other reasonable uses for the property, too, such as putting a small wood
shop. Mr. Brown also cites esoteric reasons, considering this is the last undeveloped
wetland on Olympic Avenue. Habit construction would permanently change the
wildlife, and cutting down the trees in the area is inconsistent with the Edmonds
personality. Mr. Brown said he and his wife have seven at least sixty different bird
species on the site as well as a beaver.
Mr. Brown added that he thought it would be a shame for the variances to be approved
simply because a lot of time has been put into the project, and how the cheap price at
which the land was purchased is evidence that this property is not meant for a project
like the proposed.
Mr. Steve Schroder, 1142 Vista Place, showed an aerial photograph in which you
could see the proposed property in relation to his house as well as to where Mr. Brown
lives. He said he is opposed to the development, because he believes there are simply
pieces of land in Edmonds that are not suitable for development. The area for the
proposed project is a wonderful oasis that should not be disturbed. He said that the
adjacent lots were sold for around half a million dollars, but this property was
purchased for only $75,000. Additionally, the development would actually encroach
on the wetlands, never mind the buffer. He said that the $5,200 proposed for plans to
mitigate the encroachment is hardly sufficient. He questioned why the codes make
exceptions for areas that supposedly deny all reasonable economic use, because those
areas ought to be preserved as they are. The reduction of the street setback from
twenty-five to twelve is an example of how the variances ought to be applied, but that
is the only proper application of the variances.
Ms. Ina Fernandez said that she has lived in the area for thirty-five years, and she is
concerned about the water flooding across the street to the mailboxes, which has
happened in the past. She opposes the proposed plan as too dangerous with concern to
flooding.
Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0005
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. Sherry Zinner, who lives at 1027 Carol Way, showed a video that she took of the
area during a rainfall in December. She said that this reveals the large volume of water
that comes down from the property at 1139 Sierra Place. This water was not being
caught by the storm water system. She said that she consulted Mike Johnson at Storm
Water Management about an ankle-deep stream that has started to form in her
backyard during the heavy rain season for the last few years. He made the
determination that this was not a problem for which the city is responsible; it is a
private civil matter dealing with private properties. She said she is concerned,
therefore, with how the proposed development project will actually handle the
drainage risks. The last few development projects on wetland areas are what caused
the current flooding in her backyard. Trying to redirect the storm water flow, which
the proposed development will do, poses an unpredictable risk, and she does not want
an experiment that might adversely affect her private property to be under the control
of private property owners rather than of the city. The storm water flow is already
overwhelming, and she does not want to risk an increase in flow.
Mr. David Thorpe, who lives at 2117 Shell Valley Road, said he was concerned
particularly with the reduction of the critical areas buffer from fifty to zero.
Additionally, he pointed out that there are slope issues; they are less than forty percent
but should be considered nonetheless. He said that in Shell Valley the citizens
encouraged the city to build an emergency access road that cut through the wetland,
and this development destroyed the wetland. The wildlife has disappeared. He said he
does not want to deny people to build, or to use their property, but wetlands are rare in
the city, and every remaining wetland ought to be preserved.
Ms. Katherine Erikson, who lives at 615 Twelfth Avenue North, which is upside the
Sierra Place property, said that she cannot speak to issues surrounding drainage, but
she wanted to address one concern the Hillmans raised. She personally has witnessed
the dumping on the property that Ms. Hillman mentioned, and she agrees that
someone, either the government or a private property owner, ought to address that
issue. The property needs someone to look after it.
Staff Rebuttal
Ms. Jennifer Lambert, engineering technician for the city, stated that the city is very
much aware of the storm water concerns. In regards to the drainage plans, at this
phase, they are looking simply at whether it is feasible to put in a drainage system that
meets the current city storm water requirements. According to the wetland resources
person, the natural drainage flow eventually goes into the stream, thus using the south-
west culvert for overflow makes the proposed drainage plan feasible. The trash rack
was supposed to be an added protective matter; the city does, in fact, maintain that
culvert.
Ms. Lambert said the written approval from I I I I Sierra Place to use the south-west
culvert is required only if wetland resources showed that the water was naturally
draining there and the applicant wanted to install some sort of storm water system that
Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0006
2
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
used the culvert. But at this time, that usage of the south-west culvert is to mimic
existing conditions, thus at this time nothing is changing, therefore written permission
is not required. Answering a question from the Hearing Examiner, she said that a
development with over 2,000 square feet is required to install some sort of storm water
management system. The Hearing Examiner also asked whether encroaching on the
wetlands would impair the storm water functions of the wetland, and Ms. Lamburgh
referred to the Wetland Resources consultant.
Ms. Andrea Bachman, the senior ecologist at Wetland Resources, said the wetland was
classified as a slope wetland, a kind that is generally less functional in retaining water
than a flatter wetland. In fact, the proposed development will encroach on the area in
the wetland that is least useful in retaining storm water.
The Hearing Examiner asked her why she thought they could not move more living
space to the second floor to minimize encroachment, but she could not speak to that.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Lin Hillman testified that the issue of the wetland mitigation plan only calling for
$5,000 worth of plants was only the initial mitigation. She said the report also calls for
annual monitoring and continued mitigation as necessary. She said the property was
originally listed for $150,000, and the price they paid for it had a lot to do with their
negotiations with her bank. Her family thought they could do a good job maintaining
the property, which has been severely neglected. They see themselves as custodians of
the wetland rather than as developers of the property.
Ms. Hillman said the standard to which their development being held is reasonable.
The standard does not say you have to avoid building in a critical area or together, or
you have to build the smallest house possible in a box shape; the neighbouring houses
are not held to that standard, and neither are they. The storm drainage maps from the
city indicate that there are two options for sending storm water. One is the stream,
which is what they have chosen to do. The other is a storm line that is across the street.
If they ran a pipe from their property over to the line, the pipe would be running
uphill, and tapping into the line further down the street would be extremely disruptive.
The neighbours have suggested they use the southern culvert pipe, but that is not in the
city's storm map, which is why she does not think using that pipe for anything other
than overflow is appropriate. Their storm drainage mitigation plans would turn a flood
into a trickle and would meet the requirement for storm water retention. The city
mandates concerning growth management would support three houses on this
property, thus the one small house they plan to build meets the balance between
growth and preservation that is required. Additionally, Edmonds does not have in
place a way to address the upkeep of a wetland on a larger scale. The state says that
larger wetland preservation is best, but their recommendations are for a one hundred
feet buffer that, if drawn around this stream, would touch neighbouring houses that
have been built.
Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0007
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Tom Hillman added that they are allowed reasonable use of their property, thus
they should have the ability to make their house the size they want within reason.
They are looking to make a reasonably sized house with as minor a footprint as
possible.
EXHIBITS
All 27 attachments listed on page 19 of the staff report were admitted into evidence as
Exhibits 1-27. At hearing on March 15, 2013 the following exhibits were also
admitted:
Exhibit 28 the staff report
Exhibit 29 letter from the PUD
Exhibit 30 e-mail from Mr. David Thorpe dated March 11, 2013
Exhibit 31 letter from Mr. Todd Brown dated March 12, 2013
Exhibit 32 e-mail from Kevin Fagerstrom, dated March 11, 2013
Exhibit 33 e-mail from Robert Shave dated March 12, 2013
Exhibit 34 an aerial photograph from Mr. Steve Schroder
Exhibit 35 an aerial map from Ms. Sherry Zinner
Exhibit 36 Letter from Ms. Sherry Zinner
Exhibit 37 April 8, 2013 Reconsideration Request from City
Exhibit 38 April 8, 2013 Reconsideration Request from Applicants
Exhibit 39 April 9, 2013 Notice of Requests for Reconsideration
Exhibit 40 April 10, 2013 Applicant Modification to Reconsideration Request
Exhibit 41 April 16, 2013 Order on Reconsideration
Exhibit 42 April 19, 2013 Todd Brown Reconsideration comments
Exhibit 43 April 21, 2013 Cheri Zehner Reconsideration comments
Exhibit 44 April 22, 2013 Alan Rutledge Reconsideration comments
Exhibit 45 April 21, 2013 David Thorpe Reconsideration comments
Exhibit 46 April 22, 2013 Applicant Reconsideration comments
Exhibit 47 April 23, 2013 City Reconsideration reply
Exhibit 48 April 23, 2013 Applicant Reconsideration reply
Exhibit 49 Declaration of Mailing of Order on Reconsideration
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicants are Tom and Lin Hillman.
2. Hearing. A hearing was held at 3:00 pm on March 15, 2013 at the
Edmonds City Council meeting chambers.
2.5. Reconsideration. Timely requests for reconsideration were filed
by the applicants and the City on April 8, 2013. Notice of the requests was sent by
the City to all parties of record on April 9, 2013. The applicants submitted a
Variance P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0008
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
modification to their reconsideration request on April 9, 2013 and that date is
considered the date of the reconsideration requests for purposes of the ECDC
20.06.010(G) ten day decision deadline. An Order on Reconsideration, setting an
initial comment deadline of April 22, 2013, was mailed out to all parties of record on
April 16, 20131. Five comment letters were received. As authorized by the Order on
Reconsideration, replies to the reconsideration comments were submitted by the
applicant and the City on April 23, 2013.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants are requesting a street setback
variance, a side yard variance and a critical areas reasonable use variance request to
construct a single-family home at 1139 Sierra Place. The proposed residence
contains a total living area of 2,623 square feet, with a footprint of 2,174 square feet.
The subject lot is 0.93 acres in size.
The purpose of the setback variances is to locate the residence and associated
improvements further out of the critical areas and buffers than what otherwise might
be possible. In the street setback variance request, the applicants seek to reduce the
street setback from 25 feet required by ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS zone to 12 feet
for placement of the residence. In the side yard variance request, the applicants seek
to reduce a side yard setback from 10 feet required by ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS 12
zone to 3 feet for placement of a retaining wall.
The applicants cannot build a single-family home on their property without approval
of a reasonable use variance. A Category III wetland and its associated buffer cover
approximately the western two-thirds of the site and extend off -site to the north and
the south. The only part of the property not encumbered by the wetland or its buffer
is the eastern third of the property, which could only be accessed by a driveway built
through the wetland and buffers. A Type Np non -fish bearing stream is located on
the northern side of the western approximate half of the site. Additionally, an erosion
hazard area is located on the eastern side of the site with enough of a slope to make
development of the eastern portion of the site challenging.
In the reasonable use variance request, the applicants seek to construct their proposed
home within the 50 foot buffer of a Category III wetland imposed by ECDC
23.50.040(F)(1)(c) in addition to construction within the wetland itself, which is
prohibited by ECDC 23.50.040(B). The Category III wetland is about a half -acre in
size. The total area of permanent wetland impact will be 1,790 square feet while the
total area of permanent buffer impact will be 3,920 square feet.
1 In her reconsideration comments, Ms. Zehner expressed concern with the fact that she only had a few days to respond. She
received the Order on Reconsideration in the mail on April 18, 2013 and comments were due April 22, 2013. The reason for the
short time frame is because ECDC 20.06.010(G) requires a final decision within ten days of the receipt of a request for
reconsideration. This means there is only ten days to review the request(s), prepare and mail an Order on Reconsideration, await
the comments in response to the Order, review those comments and write a final decision. It should also be noted that comment
from the adjoining property owners was not required for a ruling on the reconsideration requests. The four days is the most that
could be provided given the short time frames imposed by City code for reconsideration review.
Variance P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0009
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The reasonable use variance request also seeks to encroach into a stream buffer. A
Type Np stream traverses the northern portion of the subject property. ECDC
23.90.040(D)(1) requires a fifty foot buffer for Type Np streams. The applicants
propose to build their home within 25 feet of the stream.
A consolidated application for a critical areas reasonable use variance and rear
setback variance was submitted by prior owners of the property, Darryl and Shari
Lewis, under File No. PLN20040008 (the site was referred to at that time as 1142
Sierra Place). For the Lewis application, the residence was proposed to be located on
the eastern portion of the property with an access driveway running generally along
the southern side of the site, going through a portion of the wetland. The project site
plan from the Lewis variance application is included for reference as Attachment 14.
Additionally, a table comparing the critical areas impacts of the subject application to
the Lewis variance prepared by the applicant is included within Table 2 of the
"Critical Areas Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan" (Attachment 8).
A building permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20080237 for the
single-family residence approved under the Lewis variance application (File No.
PLN20040008). That building permit application expired, and a second building
permit application was submitted under File No. BLD20100196. That building
permit application also expired and was never issued.
The Hillmans purchased the property in April of 2011 (according to Snohomish
County Assessor's records), and came up with a new design and location for the
proposed residence on the southwestern portion of the subject site in an attempt to
take the existing critical areas and topographical constraints better into account. The
Hillmans submitted a consolidated application for the requested street and side
setback variance and critical areas reasonable use variance on August, 1, 2012.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject site is located within a single-
family residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The site is one of the few undeveloped
parcels in the area and is completely surrounded by parcels that are currently
developed with single-family residences.
5. Adverse Impacts. With the extensive mitigation required by the
conditions of approval, there are no adverse impacts associated with the requested
variances. Impacts are more specifically addressed below.
A. Stormwater Impacts. One of the two impacts of greatest concern is stormwater
impacts. Neighboring property owners provided compelling information on
significant flooding problems in the vicinity of the project. However, the proposed
home has been placed in an area designed to minimize disruption of on -site drainage
patterns and the City's stormwater regulations will ensure that there are no off -site
impacts.
Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As noted in the critical area study, Ex.8, the location of the home is optimized to
minimize stormwater impacts. The existing drainage on the site consists of a
southeasterly to northeasterly flow pattern, following a downslope gradient from the
high point of the property to the lowest elevation of the stream bed in its northwestern
corner. The proposed single-family home for the property is located in the southwest
corner of the site, where it will not interfere with the natural flow pattern of the
upslope portions of the lot; the bulk of the site will remain undisturbed and continue to
drain towards the stream in the present manner. Part of the home will encroach into a
wetland and it is recognized that an important wetland function is to retain stormwater,
which helps prevent flooding. However, the wetland report notes that the on -site
wetland has a severely limited potential to provide flood control functions because of
its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded. The minor
encroachment into the wetland should not have any significant impact on the limited
flood storage capacity of the wetland. The critical area study also concludes at page 9
that the proposal will not "create flooding issues in downstream systems".
As confirmed by City engineering staff during the hearing, the City's stormwater
regulations require a stormwater system that will retain pre -development stormwater
volumes, velocities and discharge locations. Consequently, if the regulations satisfy
their objectives there should be no stormwater impacts to adjoining properties.
Further, City engineering staff have thoroughly reviewed the proposal and the
comments made by concerned neighbors during the hearing process and have not
found any need for additional stormwater mitigation.
The March 28, 2013 decision required a three year monitoring plan to assure that the
City's stormwater regulations did indeed prevent any increases in stormwater runoff as
maintained by the applicants and the City. The purpose of the monitoring plan was to
alleviate well justified anxieties by adjoining property owners that the proposal would
contribute to flooding problems on their property. The adjoining property owners
ably demonstrated during the hearing that their properties were subject to significant
and regular flooding. Given that wetlands and stream buffers can serve to store flood
waters during rain events, the filling of those areas as proposed by the applicants could
exacerbate those flooding problems. A monitoring program would serve as an iron-
clad assurance to the neighbors that the stormwater mitigation required by the City
would prevent any adverse impacts as assured by the applicants' consultants and City
engineers.
Although a monitoring plan under these circumstances is certainly a reasonable means
of responding to neighborhood concerns, the need for such a monitoring plan is
ultimately not supported by the evidence in the record. Since the monitoring plan has
been contested by both the applicants and the City, there is no legal basis to require it.
Although neighboring property owners have shown that they have flooding problems,
it is somewhat debatable whether those flood waters originate or first traverse the
applicants' property. More importantly, there is no evidence that the proposal as
mitigated will exacerbate these flooding problems. As previously noted, the critical
areas report concludes that the proposal will not create any flooding problems and City
Variance P. 1 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0011
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
staff have not found any need for additional stormwater mitigation. The critical areas
report was written by a wetland ecologist and City staff have training and experience
in stormwater engineering. The City's stormwater regulations are based upon decades
of engineering science and have been designed to prevent any increase in off -site
storm -water flows. Mr. Brown has raised some good technical issues regarding
maintenance of the culverts and the need for a trash rack. The conditions of approval
require City engineering staff to consider these comments when evaluating the final
drainage system design. Beyond Mr. Brown's comments, there is no expert evidence
or otherwise to rebut the conclusions of the applicant and city experts that the proposal
will not create adverse stormwater impacts on adjoining properties.
It is recognized that the City's stormwater regulations only require maintenance of
pre -development maintenance rates of up to a 10-year, 24-hour storm event only. This
does leave the possibility that the proposal could result in an increase in off -site run-
off for larger storm events. As noted in the reconsideration order, compliance with the
City's stormwater regulations does not in all cases satisfy the variance and rezone
criteria for ensuring that approval doesn't adversely affect neighboring properties.
However, the City's stormwater regulations do set a legislative standard on acceptable
stormwater impacts and standard should be followed absent a showing of unique
circumstances that the regulations are ineffective for the development in question.
The subject property is fairly unique in the extent of critical areas on the property.
However, as previously noted the wetland do not have any significant flood storage
capacity because of its lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become
ponded. The proposed encroachment into the wetland is relatively minor. There is no
evidence that this minor encroachment into a wetland with minor storage capacity
would have any significant impact on flooding that exceeds the 10-year storm events,
nor could that reasonably be inferred from the record. For these reasons, the
administrative record does not support the extra -ordinary measure of stormwater
mitigation beyond that required by the City's stormwater regulations, including a
monitoring plan.
B. Wetland Impacts. The second major impact of concern is the impacts to
wetlands. The proposal will not adversely affect wetlands. The wetland report
concludes at p. 8 that "the proposed development is expected to reduce the level of
existing functions on the site somewhat". In order to mitigate for the wetland
encroachment, the applicant proposes to enhance 15,560 square feet of the wetland,
for an 8:1 ratio. The applicant also proposes to enhance 2,410 square feet of buffer in
the northwestern corner of the property for a 0.5:1 ratio. With this mitigation, the
wetland report concludes that there will be no net loss of wetland function. The report
2 In their reconsideration request the applicants request that the condition requiring consideration of
Mr. Brown's concerns during engineering review be stricken because they are not supported by City
code. Condition No. 3 clearly required consideration of those concerns "when reviewing and applying
the City's stormwater regulations". Any requirements imposed by the City staff would be based upon
an application of City stormwater standards to the information provided by Mr. Brown and would,
consequently, be based upon City code. All conditions imposed upon this proposal are firmly rooted in
the requirements of City development standards.
Variance p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0012
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was prepared by Andrea Bachman, a senior wetland ecologist working for Wetland
Resources, Inc. The City's regulations require that wetland reports be either prepared
by a qualified professional who is either a City selected wetlands consultant operating
under a three party agreement between the applicant, city and consultant, or that the
consultant's work be subject to peer review. See ECDC 23.40.090. Given the
qualifications of the wetlands consultant, the safe -guards for objective review and the
absence of any evidence supporting contrary determinations, it is determined that there
will be no net loss of wetland function.
C. Stream Impacts. No significant adverse impacts to the on -site stream are
anticipated as a result of the request buffer reduction from 50 to 25 feet. ECDC
23.90.040.D.1 establishes a standard buffer width of 50 feet for Type Np streams.
However, if the applicant were to provide a 50-foot stream buffer, this would push the
residence further east into the Category 3 wetland. Thus, as part of the requested
critical area variance, a balance is needed between potential impacts to the stream and
potential impacts to the wetland. The applicant has proposed reducing the stream
buffer to 25-feet, while allowing for a stormwater outfall pipe to be located within this
buffer in order to directly discharge into the stream. The critical areas code does not
specify a minimum ratio of stream buffer enhancement when reducing the buffer
below the standard 50-foot buffer required for a Type Np stream and for a stormwater
outfall pipe directly discharging into the stream. In the case of the subject lot, the
entire area of proposed reduced stream buffer entirely overlaps the wetland and/or
wetland buffer. As such, mitigation associated with the impacted wetland and wetland
buffer will also mitigate for the impacted stream buffer. The applicant's proposal to
provide mitigation at a ratio that is twice the minimum required for the portion of the
wetland that is to be disturbed helps to compensate for this overlap in stream and
wetland buffers. The critical areas report, p. 9, concludes that the proposed
enhancement plan will improve stream buffer functions. There is no evidence to the
contrary.
D. Setback Variance Impacts. There are no adverse impacts discernible from the
record that would result from the requested street and side yard variances. The staff
report notes that "due to the topography of the surrounding area, it does not appear
that the proposed residence would significantly impact existing views of Puget
Sound." Despite heavy opposition from neighboring property owners, no one has
raised any concern about potential view impacts and there is nothing in the record to
suggest that would be a problem. Given these facts, it is determined that the proposal
will not create any adverse view impacts. The side yard setback will not noticeably
diminish the passage of light and air, as the eastern half of the property adjoining to
the west is undeveloped and encumbered by a wetland. City staff have also not raised
any concerns over site distance impacts or other traffic issues with the street setback
variance request.
6. Minimum Variance. The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the
request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area
regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be almost entirely
Variance p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0013
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
avoided by limiting the building footprint to 1,600 square feet, inclusive of garage
space. The need to encroach into 1,790 square feet of Class III wetland is based upon
the applicants' desire to have vaulted ceilings and a driveway that could be larger than
necessary to serve the property. Almost of the living space and the garage could be
located within the footprint proposed outside of the wetland if the applicant fully built
out the second story of the proposed home in lieu of vaulted ceilings.
As noted in the staff report, the proposed living area of 2,623 square feet appears to be
average, if not smaller than those of existing residences within the vicinity, as
demonstrated by the sizes of other homes in the area tabulated by the applicant in
Table 3 of Ex. 8. As identified by comments from Todd and Candy Brown, Ex. 23,
one outlier not identified in Table 3 is the Mallot home, located across the street with
living space of 2,063 square feet.
If only a buffer encroachment were proposed, as opposed to encroachment into the
wetland itself, the size of the proposed home would clearly be considered a minimum
variance request given the larger sizes of surrounding homes. However, a significant
complicating factor in this application is that it appears that the encroachment into the
wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the
vaulted ceiling space with additional living space. The only reasons for not fully using
second floor living space presented by the applicant were that they have a preference
for first floor living space as they grow older and they want to avoid a boxy
appearance for their home. The author of the wetland report, Andrea Bachman, was
not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid
encroachment into the wetland. These are not sufficient reasons to justify an
encroachment into wetlands.
The concern over encroachment into wetlands is premised upon the understanding that
encroaching into a wetland can cause significantly greater harm than limiting
encroachments to buffer areas. The primary function of a wetland buffer would
appear to be protection of a wetland from adjoining development, although it is
recognized that a buffer has its own significance in the provision of habitat that is
unique to wetland boundaries. Although a priority for building within buffers over
wetlands themselves is a reasonable inference to make, this priority is not expressly
imposed in the City's wetland regulations and there is no scientific evidence in the
record to support this priority. Consequently, the conditions of approval will require
the wetland consultant to address whether developing in the buffer would create
significantly more damage to wetland functions than limiting development to the
wetland buffer by prohibiting the proposal from encroaching into the wetland.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
Variance p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type III -
A.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designations. The area is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-
12).
3. Review Criteria and Application. Variances to street and side yard
setback requirements are set by ECDC 20.85.010, quoted below and applied through
corresponding conclusions of law. Variances to critical area wetland buffers are
governed by ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2) and 23.40.210(B). Applicable criteria are quoted
in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this
section can be made.
ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special
circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.
a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal
to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be
necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a
scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any
factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same
property;
4. The criterion is met for the street and side yard variances because the
objective of the variances is to displace the footprint of the single-family home as far
as possible from the Category III wetland and its buffers, which is solely attributable
to the critical areas on the property.
ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would
not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
Variance p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0015
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5. As noted in the staff report, similar setback variances have been approved
for a couple other homes in the vicinity of the project in order to enable the
construction of a single-family home within a critical area. In a broader sense,
setback variances would likely be granted to anyone seeking to build a single-family
home in the RS district vicinity if it would reduce otherwise unavoidable wetland
impacts.
ECDC 20.85.101(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the comprehensive plan;
6. The requested setback variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan for the reasons outlined at p. 8 and Section VII of the staff report, adopted and
incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which
the property is located;
7. A single-family home is a permitted primary use in the RS-12 district.
Approval of the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning
ordinance and the RS-12 district.
ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
same zone;
8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposal. Consequently the criterion is met.
ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
9. As discussed in FOF No. 3, the purpose of the variance is to maximize the
distance of the proposal from the Category III wetland and so should be considered
the minimum necessary to enjoy the same development rights as others in the vicinity
with the same zoning. The size of the home, which is referenced in the staff report
under the analysis of the criterion quoted above, is irrelevant since any reduction in
building size would not result in any reduction of the setback encroachment. Any
reduction in home size should be used to increase the separation from the wetland.
ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(a): The application of this title would deny all reasonable
economic use of a property or subject parcel;
"Reasonable economic use(s)" is defined pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320 as follows: "The
minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal
Variance p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0016
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due
process. `Reasonable economic use" shall be liberally construed to protect the
constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, the minimum reasonable use
of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one
single-family residential structure. Determination of "reasonable economic use" shall
not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a
more profitable use of the site. "
10. Application of the critical areas ordinance would deny the applicants minimum
reasonable use of their property if not variance is granted. A minimum reasonable use of
the subject property is a single family home. The definition of reasonable use quoted
above makes it clear that minimum reasonable use is a single-family home for a lot that
meets all bulk requirements, such as minimum lot size, setbacks, and lot width. Were it
not for the critical areas at the project site, the subject lot is easily large enough to
accommodate a single-family home that satisfies all minimum bulk requirements. No
single family home could be built upon the subject property without encroaching into a
critical area or a critical area buffer. The only options for the applicants are to either
build the home into the wetland and stream buffers and potentially the wetland itself as
currently proposed, or to build a driveway through the wetland and its buffer as proposed
in the previously approved variance.
ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(b): No other reasonable economic use of the property
consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on
the critical area;
11. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 11, a single-family home is defined
as a minimum reasonable use for the subject property. As a minimum reasonable use, no
other type of reasonable use could be required for the property unless it allowed for a
greater economic return on the property. As outlined in ECDC 16.20.010, more intense
uses allowed for the subject property include uses such as churches and schools. None of
these types of uses could be construed as creating less impact to critical areas. If the
"other" reasonable use referenced in the criterion above encompasses different project
design as opposed to different types of uses, then as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6
there is an open question as to whether impacts could be further reduced by building
upwards into the second floor as opposed to outward into the wetland. Project design
appears to be more directly addressed in the next criterion and at any rate project design
is addressed in the conditions of approval to ensure that the design minimizes impacts to
the wetland.
ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(c): The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum
necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property;
12. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 and Conclusion of Law No. 11, there is
an open question as to whether the home has been designed to minimize impacts to the
on -site wetland. The conditions of approval require further staff investigation and
redesign of the project to the extent necessary to mitigate project impacts. According to
the testimony of Mr. Brown, the applicants only had to pay $75,000 for their lot whereas
other lots in the vicinity average approximately $500,000. Although Mr. Brown did not
provide any hard data to substantiate his cost estimates, his assertions were undisputed by
the applicants and it is fair to conclude that the purchase price of the applicants' property
was substantially reduced as a result of the wetland and stream. As discussed in the
Variance p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0017
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Order on Reconsideration, investment backed expectations are one of the factors involved
in assessing reasonable use. If the living space and garage is limited to the footprint
identified in Condition No. 1 of this decision, the applicants would still have 2,600 square
feet of living space. This would be 1,200 square feet less than the average living space
available to other homes that the applicants identified in the vicinity, but given the
significantly reduced land value this would still qualify as reasonable use if there was an
appreciable environmental benefit to not building within the wetland.
ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(d): The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic
use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of
the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor;
13. The use limitations of the property are all directly attributable to the on -site
critical areas and not to any actions by the applicant. However, the applicant's need for
first floor living space due to advancing age is personally attributable to the applicants
and cannot serve as justification for the currently proposed house design.
ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(e)3: The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the
public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site;
14. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned there are no
significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal and, therefore, the proposal does
not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
development proposal site.
ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(f): The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and
values consistent with the best available science; and
15. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B) and (C), the proposal will not
create any net loss of critical area functions and values. This determination was based
upon the study of a qualified wetland biologist, who in turn based her mitigation and
assessment upon several scientific studies identified at p. 19 of her report. The scientific
studies and the opinions and analysis of the wetland biologist qualify as best available
science as defined in ECDC 23.40.310 because the biologist is professionally trained and
works for a reputable company selected by the City and the studies she relied upon have
been prepared by state and federal agencies such as the Washington State Department of
Ecology, the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(g): The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations
and standards.
16. The applicant has sought and is being granted variance requests to street
and side yard setback requirements that the proposal will not meet. Compliance with
all other applicable regulations and standards will be assessed and enforced during
building permit review.
3 In response to the many assertions of the applicants that additional stormwater conditions are not
based upon code, this provision would be one such source of code authority in addition to ECDC
23.40.210(B)(5) as referenced in the applicants' 4/21/13 reconsideration comments .
Variance P. 18 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0018
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ECDC 23.40.210(B)(1): Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to
the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other
lands in the same district;
17. As testified by several neighbors, the subject property is unique in its
abundance of critical areas.
ECDC 23.40.210(B)(2): The special conditions and circumstances do not result from
the actions of the applicant;
18. See COL No. 13.
ECDC 23.40.210(B)(3): A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would
deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and
the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such
rights;
19. See COL No. 10.
ECDC 23.40.210(B)(4): Granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or
buildings under similar circumstances;
20. The applicants simply seek to build a reasonably sized single-family home on
a lot large enough for that purpose. That is a right enjoyed by all other property owners
in the vicinity and is not a request for a special privilege.
ECDC 23.40.210(B)(5): The granting of the variance is consistent with the general
purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the
associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and
21. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no adverse impacts
associated with the proposal and it will not create any net loss in wetland or stream
unction while also providing for reasonable use of the property. Given these factors the
property the granting of the variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
critical areas ordinance and is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity.
ECDC 23.40.210(B)(6): The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best
available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures
necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat.
22. As noted in COL No. 15, the granting of the variance is based upon best
available science and as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, there is no fish habitat
associated with the proposal.
Variance P. 19 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0019
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECISION
The street, side yard and critical area reasonable use variance stream and wetland
requests are approved, subject to the following conditions and modifications:
1. As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified wetland biologist,
who can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether removing the proposed
wetland encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland
functions. If there is any appreciable environmental benefit to avoiding the
proposed wetland encroachment, the building footprint for the home, inclusive of
the garage, will be limited to the squared building space (including the west bay
window) depicted in Ex. 4, Sheet 2, excluding the garage area and the room
appended to the north of the garage to the extent it encroaches into the wetland.
The southeast wetland encroachment of this living space is authorized. The
driveway shall be located outside the wetland. Retaining walls may be built into
the wetland to the extent necessary to support the home and driveway. If the
driveway cannot be built to City standards without encroaching more than a foot
into the wetland, the applicants may build the home as proposed with the 1,790
square foot encroachment.
2. City engineering staff shall consider the stormwater comments of Todd Brown in
Ex. 31 and the stormwater concerns summarized in the testimony section of this
decision when reviewing and applying the City's stormwater regulations.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit and all other required local, state, and
federal permits prior to commencing work on the subject site.
4. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes.
The applicant must show full compliance with all applicable regulations and
standards that are not part of the approved variance at the time of building permit
application review.
5. The applicant shall complete mitigation as detailed in the "Critical Area Study
and Wetland Mitigation Plan" dated November 27, 2012 by Wetland Resources,
Inc. (Attachment 8).
6. The existing man-made trench located along the west property line shall remain
in place as a potential overflow channel for any stream high water event. In
addition, the subject proposal shall not inhibit the usage of the existing
southwestern storm drainage culvert.
7. During the building permit process, the applicant will be required to install a trash
rack at the northwestern stream inlet if determined necessary by City staff and
secure all applicable permits for all work within the stream and associated buffer.
The applicant will also be required to revise the storm easement such that the
easement encompasses the creek.
Variance p. 20 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0020
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the
date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the
owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the
city approves the application.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2013.
� � ::: �" - e-
Phi I R.01hreehts
Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council
as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the
issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may
be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by
ECDC 20.06.010.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Variance p. 21 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0021
Applicant's Comments in Response to Public Comment Letters Submitted in
Response Hearing Examiner's Order for Reconsideration dated April 16, 2013
Date: April 23, 2013 m'
k�
To: Planning Director, City of Edmonds
From: Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants, 1139 Sierra PI, Edmonds qk/4fO ?�13
City of Edmonds File: PLN20120033 — Variance Approval with Conditions
Applicant's Comments Regarding Letters from Brown and Zehner:
Points raised in these letters appear to be, in large part, introduction of new testimony in the form of
undocumented hearsay and opinions presented after the close of the hearing, and as such should not be
admissible, in keeping with the Hearing Examiner's order that "No new evidence shall be allowed and
all comments must be based upon evidence admitted into the record prior to the close of the hearing on
March 15 [14], 2013." We could rebut their comments point by point, but not without introducing new
evidence.
If the Hearing Examiner does admit these letters, we would like to go on record as disagreeing with
their conclusions, especially with respect to the drainage issues. In accordance with the purpose of the
city's stormwater regulations, we believe our proposed stormwater detention system, installed in
accordance with the City of Edmonds drainage code 18.30.00, will actually improve drainage by
holding some of the runoff on -site and releasing it slowly into the stream in a controlled fashion, thus
regulating the rate of flow onto the street from our property during storm events.
Applicant's Comments Regarding Letters from Rutledge and Thorpe: None.
We believe the above information to be true.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra P1 04/23/13
Page 1
0022
1 11
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION
'oe. 1 09-
April 23, 2013
Mr. Phil Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
Sent via email
SUBJECT. Response to Comments on Order on Reconsideration
Hillman Variances - File No. PLN20120033
Dear Mr. Olbrechts,
The Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration issued on April 16, 2013 regarding Tom and Lin
Hillman's variance application (File No. PLN20120033) allowed for all parties of record to submit
written comments by 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 2013. Comments were received from five parties and
were sent to the Hearing Examiner via email on April 22, 2013. The comments sent to the Hearing
Examiner include the following:
- Letter from Todd Brown, received 4/19/13
- Email from David Thorpe, received 4/21/13
- Letter from Cheri Zehner, received via email 4/21/13
- Letter from Alvin Rutledge, received 4/22/13
- Letter from Tom and Lin Hillman, received 4/22/13
As allowed for by the Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration, the City and applicant may
respond to the above comments by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2013. In response to the comments raised,
the City would like to offer the following.
With regards to stormwater flows at the subject site, the City has relied on the statements and
documentation of a licensed professional Wetland Ecologist. As provided in Attachment 8 of the
City's Report and Recommendations to the Hearing Examiner dated March 7, 2013, the Wetland
Ecologist has indicated that stormwater from the subject site flows to the northwest culvert. It is the
applicants responsibility to show compliance with stormwater codes with a city -prescribed design
that attempts to match the post -development stormwater runoff rates with the pre -development
stormwater runoff rates from the property up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm event only. As stated by
the Wetland Ecologist and the neighbors, during heavy rain events the stream may overflow along
the west property line and outfall via the southwest culvert. As the culvert is only used as an
overflow outlet in both pre and post development conditions, there is no approval needed by the
owners of I I I I Sierra Pl.
City Engineering staff wishes to reiterate that monitoring of the proposed site stormwater
management system to verify that it fully prevents any increase in stormwater discharges to
0023
neighboring properties is problematic. Flow onto the Hillman property in part comes from the City's
storm system that discharges into the stream. This stream receives stormwater runoff from an area of
at least 16 acres, encompassing 40+ lots and City right-of-way that were developed largely before
stormwater management was required. In addition, the site is also subject to groundwater seepage
from the surrounding upstream area and surface runoff from adjacent parcels, which may influence
the surface water flows that come off the Hillman property.
In closing, Planning and Engineering Division staff confirms its position made in the City's April 8,
2013 request for reconsideration and respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner
reconsider/clarify the findings and conclusions of the decision on the Hillman variance request in
addition to Conditions #1 and #2 and add clarification of the City's appeal procedures.
Sincerely,
r
Jennifer Machuga Jennifer Lambert
Associate Planner Engineering Technician
Page 2 of 2
Reconsideration dated April 16, 2013
Date:
To:
From:
City of Edmonds File:
April 22, 2013
Planning Director, City of Edmonds
is Order for
APR 2 2013
OOUWER
Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants, 1139 Sierra PI, Edmonds
PLN20120033 — Variance Approval with Conditions
CID
Referenced Documents in the Record (referenced by Attachment Numbers to the
Planning Division Report and Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, dated March
7, 2013, hereinafter "City's Staff Report')
Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration, dated April 16, 2013 ("H.E. Order")
Applicant's Request for Reconsideration of Variance Decision by Hearing Examiner, dated April
8, 2013 ("Applicant's Reconsideration Request")
Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision, dated March 28,
2013 ("H.E. Decision")
Planning Division Report & Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner dated March 7, 2013,
with 27 attachments ("City's Staff Report")
Attachment 3: Variance Request, latest revision dated February 11, 2013 ("Variance Request")
Attachment 4: Project Plans (Sheet 1, revision 1 dated 1/14/13 and Sheet 2, latest revision
dated 2/11/13 ("Whole Site Plan" and "Site Plan")
Attachment 5: Sheet 2: Drainage, Grading & TESC dated 2-13-13 ("Drainage Plan")
Attachment 6: Partial Topography Survey by Lovell- Sauerland and Associates, Inc., latest
revision dated 7-18-12 ("Survey")
Attachment 8: Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan by Wetland Resources, Inc.,
dated November 27, 2012 ("WRI Study")
Attachment 10: Applicant's Response Letter, dated January 14, 2013 including its attached site
plan of 1111 Sierra Place ("Applicant's Letter of January 14, 2013" and "1111 Sierra Place Site Plan")
Attachment 11: Applicant's Response Letter, dated February 11, 2013 ("Applicant's Letter of
February 11, 2013")
Attachment 14: Site Plan from Lewis Variance Application ("Lewis Site Plan")
Attachment 18: Site Plan from Viking Properties Critical Areas Variance Application ("Viking
Properties Site Plan")
Attachment 20: Engineering and Planning Division Requests for Additional Information dated
8/16/12, 10/23/12 and 2/1/13 ("City's Letters" of same dates)
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13
Page 1
0025
Attachment 23: Comments from Todd and Candy Brown of 1135 Sierra Place, dated September
12, 2012 and September 25, 2012 (`Brown Letters" of same dates)
Attachment 27: Comment Letter from Cheri Zehner of 1027 Carol Way, dated November 2,
2012 ("Zehner Letter")
Exhibit 31 (from Hearing of March 14, 2013): Letter from Todd Brown ("Brown Letter of
March 12, 2013")
Edmonds Community Development Code (" BCDC")
Storm Water Code Supplement to ECDC Chapter 18.30, dated April 20, 2010 ("Stormwater
Code")
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, 2012
edition ("DOE Manual")
Note: Wording shown in [brackets] and underlined emphasis are ours.
1. Condition 1: Justification for Filling of Wetlands
A. H.E. Order, page 3, line 6: "The applicant failed to justify the proposed filling of wetlands under
the city's reasonable use criteria."
B. H.E. Order, page 3, line 18: "The final decision on this case recognizes that staff may have already
considered all of these factors and expressly states that no further inquiry or modification of the project
is necessary if that is the case."
C. H.E. Order, page 4, line 5: "...identify evidence in the record that supports a determination that the
wetland should be filled as proposed."
D. City's Letter of 10/23/12, page 2, item 5: raised the question of second floor space and asked about
design alternatives that might reduce the footprint. We responded with Applicant's Letter of January
14, 2013, item 2 (on the first and second page), item 5 (on the fourth page) and item 3 (on the sixth
page) with descriptions of some of the numerous design alternatives that had been considered.
E. City's Staff Report, page 3: "In order to provide a clear record of the applicant's current proposal,
the previous versions of the project plans and reports that were replaced by the applicant with revised
versions have been excluded from this staff report."
F. WRI Study, Table 3: Shows neighboring house sizes with an average Floor 1 of 2288 square feet
and Floor 2 of 1435 square feet (not including garage areas).
G. 1111 Sierra Place Site Plan: Shows wetland impact 3,080 sq. ft., and shows driveway and portions
of building encroaching into the category 3 wetland itself. Also shows wetland enhancement and
restoration areas.
H. Site Plan, distance from westernmost point of existing wetland boundary to the west wall of the
house is scalable at roughly 25', about the same as the width of the garage, not including any allowance
for setback or retaining walls.
I. Site Plan also shows required 5' minimum separation between storm detention pipes and house.
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 2
J. Drainage Plan shows the lowest point of the proposed storm drainage system at 211', the invert
elevation (bottom of pipe) for the proposed 6" diameter pipe outfalling at the stream bank, with the rest
of the systems' invert elevations higher up to achieve the slopes for downhill flows. Catch basin CB#3
at the low point of the proposed driveway (near the 218' existing grade contour line) has an invert
elevation of 213.65' (or 2.65' higher than the outfall). The driveway low point is shown at 218.55' (top
of CB#3). The contour line at the southwest corner of the building is 214' (or 4' lower than at the
present driveway low point), making a driveway at this location too low to achieve downhill flow via
the storm drainage system.
K. Site Plan, Foundation Detail BWS shows storm detention pipe constraints of 5' separation from the
building's wall, 2' minimum cover and 1:2 maximum slope of fill soil, in combination with the location
of the existing drainage ditch, necessitating placement of the house wall at least 16' east of the west
property line at the detail cut location.
L. City's Staff Report, page 5-6: "The proposal takes the environmental constraints of the property
into account by locating the residence on the southwestern portion of the site, as far out of the critical
areas and associated buffers as possible. As such, the proposal is consistent with the applicable goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan related to residential development."
M. WRI Study, page 8: "The applicant has carefully considered the house design and size. The total
footprint and living space is considerably more modest that [than] those of the surrounding properties
(see Table 3). The research and design work clearly demonstrate that the proposed development is the
minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property."
N. City's Staff Report, page 10: "It does not appear that any other reasonable economic use of the
property consistent with the underlying zoning and the City's Comprehensive Plan would have less
impact on the on -site critical areas and their associated buffers."
O. City's Staff Report, page 13: "In fact, it would be incredibly difficult to develop the site in such a
way that would not include a portion of the residence to be located within the wetland itself,
particularly when taking the location of the stream into account as well.
P. City's Staff Report, page 9: quoting ECDC 23.40.320 definition, "'Reasonable economic use' shall
be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant."
Q. City's Staff Report, page 10: "Minimum necessary:.... Given the special circumstances of the site,
the comparison of the residence to the sizes of those in the neighborhood, and documentation within
the critical areas reports, the requested critical areas variance appears to be the minimum necessary to
allow a reasonable economic use of the subject site."
Regarding justification for partial loss of wetland area, reference is made here to the applicable
excerpts from ECDC Chapter 23.50 included in Appendix A of this document, and the following
quotes.
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 3
0027
R. WRI Study, page 13: "Based on anticipated conditions, proper implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures will result in a net increase of wetland and buffer functions over time through
vegetative enhancement."
S. WRI Study, page 7: "...the overall impact [associated with the proposed home construction] is
relatively low when compared to the low level of function offered by the wetland upslope of the
proposed development."
T. City's Staff Report, page 10: "The purpose of the mitigation plan (Attachment 8) is to replace and
improve the functions and values of the impacted on -site critical areas and associated buffers to the
greatest extent possible."
U. WRI Study, page 12: "The applicant has addressed the permanent loss of wetland through wetland
fill by proposing enhancement per City of Edmonds Code requirements, and all other potential impacts
have been addressed."
V. H.E. Order, page 4, line 20: quoting City's Comprehensive Plan, page 83: "The natural drainage
system (i.e. streams, ponds, and marshes) shall not be filled or permanently culverted except where no
alternative exists."
W. WRI Study, page 1 of the Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington (attached at the back of the
document) classifies this wetland as a category III sloped wetland without special characteristics
including bog or marsh. The study proposes partial filling of the wetland, and no filling of the stream.
X. WRI Study, pages 5 & 6, Pre -disturbance Wetland Functions Assessment: "The on -site wetland is
hydrogeomorphically (HGM) classified as a slope wetland because it is located on a hillside and
contains groundwater seeps that "daylight" and flow through the wetland without being impounded.
Slope wetlands do not improve water quality or control floodwaters to the same extent as depressional
or riverine wetlands because they lack the physical characteristics to be able to impound surface water
for treatment and/or flood control."
Y. WRI Study, page 6, Hyrdologic Control: "While this wetland functions to maintain base flows for
the on -site stream, it holds a low capacity for reducing peak flows. Similar to water quality functions,
the on -site wetland has a severely limited potential to provide flood control functions because of its
lack of depressional features and lack of ability to become ponded."
. Condition : ,Justification for Eliminating Stormwater Monitoring
A. H.E. Order, page 4, lines 13 & 14: "The code basis for this monitoring condition are the reasonable
use and variance criteria that require the minimization of impacts to surrounding properties and the
public health, safety and welfare".
B. ECDC 23.40.210.135 states this condition: "The granting of the variance is consistent with the
general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the
associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property."
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 4
C. City's Staff Report, page 8, item 5: "The proposed residence should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity."
D. WRI Study, page 9: "The proposed development will not be hazardous to public health, safety, or
welfare. The project has been carefully designed to minimize site impacts to the greatest extent
possible. It will not affect water quality or create flooding issues in downstream systems."
E. Stormwater Code, volume 1, page 42, paragraph 5.7.3.2, Simplified Sizing Approach: "A pre -sized
approach for sizing flow control BMPs has been developed for small site projects in Edmonds with
between 2,000 and 10,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface area." DOE Manual,
Volume I, Section 2.4.1: Minimum Requirement #6 regarding flow control (a storm water detention
system) is only required on sites that create at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. The city
of Edmonds has adopted more stringent requirements as allowed by the DOE Manual Volume I,
Section 1.6.2 "Federal, State, and local government agencies with jurisdiction can require more
stringent measures that are deemed necessary to meet locally established goals, State water quality
standards, or other established natural resource or drainage objectives."
F. Stormwater Code, volume 3, page 3-43, table 4.5.2, Maintenance Standards, No. 5 — Catch Basins,
describes facility -specific maintenance standards... "intended to be conditions for determining if
maintenance actions are required as identified through inspection."
G. H.E. Order, page 4, lines 16 & 17: "However, in this case surrounding property owners have
presented evidence that the stormwater issues in their vicinity are unique and severe."
H. Brown Letter of March 12th, 2013, 3rd page: "I am happy with the current state of the north stream —
since it's been on the city's culvert maintenance watch list it has weathered some very severe rainstorms
without obstructing. The expense and disruption of installing a trash rack is unnecessary to keep the
stream safe from flooding."
I. Zehner Letter (Ms. Zehner also presented a video showing rainwater flows in the street at the March
14, 2013 hearing): "Disturbances of this wetland area will cause more flooding of properties to the
west of Olympic Avenue .... The flooding events are documented through Stormwater Management (See
Mike Johnson).... After extensive investigation, Mr. Johnson concluded that the issue was not regarding
public street run-off. He said that it was an issue with private property groundwater and storm water
and that it was a civil matter." and "The City of Edmonds knows this is a critical wetland area that
retains thousands of gallons of water, and prevents flooding of lower elevations...."
J. WRI Study, page 5 & 6: "Slope wetlands do not improve water quality or control floodwaters to the
same extent as depressional or riverine wetlands because they lack the physical characteristics to be
able to impound surface water for treatment and/or flood control .... the on -site wetland has a severely
limited potential to provide flood control functions because of its lack of depressional features and lack
of ability to become ponded." and page 9: "It [the project] will not affect water quality or create
flooding issues in downstream systems."
K. WRI Study, page 12: "A relatively small area of wetland (just over 10 percent) will be filled
...through this proposal. The portion to be filled is saturated only in the wettest time of the year,
thereby currently offering limited stormwater control functions. Therefore, through properly
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 5
implemented mitigation measures, no significant loss of stormwater control functions is expected.
Any loss of this function can be achieved through [offset by] the proposed stormwater detention
design and wetland enhancement. All collected stormwater will drain to a detention feature that drains
to the on -site stream. Woody species planted within the wetland areas upslope of the new house will
slow the hydrologic flow through the wetland and buffer, thereby creating some resistance and hence
improvement to hydrologic control functions on the site.
The proposed development, including retaining walls and footing drains will be located within
the outermost part of the wetland, which is the transitional (least wet) part of the subject wetland.
Because the wetland's primary source of hydrology is from natural springs/seeps upslope from the
proposed development, it appears unlikely that the proposed development and associated retaining wall
and footing drains would result in loss of natural hydrology within the wetland. Due to the direction of
flow and careful engineering it is also appears that the proposed site design would not result in over -
watering the wetland. Based on these anticipated conditions, no significant drainage impacts are
expected as part of this project .... The applicant has addressed the permanent loss of wetland through
wetland fill by proposing enhancement per City of Edmonds Code requirements, and all other potential
impacts have been addressed."
Regarding Comments in Applicant'sRequest •r Reconsideration dated
April;
Item C. Attachment 6: Survey shows invert elevations of 208.68 and 208.87, respectively, for the
south and north existing culvert inlets.
Item E. Brown Letter of March 12, 2013: "Ralph Mallot's... house footprint is approximately 1400
square feet." Whole Site Plan shows a proposed area of main floor (house footprint) of 1596 sf.
(Numbers do not include garages.)
We appreciate the opportunity to call to your attention those items in the record which we see as
significant in making our case for approval of this variance without conditions # 1 and #2.
We have demonstrated due diligence and conscientious investigation of alternatives, and have
concluded along with the city staff and wetland biologist that there is no reasonable use of the property
in question that does not involve a wetland encroachment aspect. It is a matter of degree, and the 11 %
we have requested is minimal and not detrimental to the overall functions and values the wetland
provides; the net result will be an increase in those functions and values (including the flow control
aspects) once our 15,560 square feet of mitigating enhancements are in place. The footprint of a house
designed entirely out of the wetland would be unreasonably small, and its driveway placement would
be too low in elevation to allow its storm detention system to drain downhill to the stream.
The city of Edmonds' stormwater design standards are already more conservative than those required at
the State level, and their storm drainage infrastructure was presumably designed by those standards to
accommodate all the anticipated drainage in the built -out area. In our opinion, a flow -monitoring study
of our one lot would be overkill and not result in a better design for this lot, as well as place an undue
hardship on a single property owner in terms of cost and time delay. If the city determines there are
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 6
storm drainage deficiencies in the whole area, then perhaps a more regional analysis would be
appropriate when staff time and budget allow.
We will continue to try to optimize our design with consideration to all of the discussions presented to
date in anticipation of our upcoming building permit application submittal.
We believe the above information to be true.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 7
0031
23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands.
A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed
activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical
areas.
E. Category 3 and 4 Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts
may be permitted in Category 3 and 4 wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved
critical areas report and mitigation plan.
23.50.050 Mitigation requirements — Wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic
functions.
[Mitigation strategies include.]
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
B. Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions
affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar
wetland functions as those lost, except when:
1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site -specific function assessment,
and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions...
G. Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation.
1. Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded
wetlands... Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical areas report that identifies
how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will
adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site.
Applicant's Comments for 1139 Sierra PI 04/21/13 Page 8
0032
Machuga, Jen
From: David Thorpe <dethorpe@frontier.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:00 PM
To: Machuga, Jen
Subject: PLN20120033
Ms. Machuga, I agree with "no new evidence". All parties involved understood the process and that must be
maintained.
Thank you, David Thorpe
0633
4/22/2013
City of Edmonds
Att: Ms. Machuga
Planning Division
121-5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Wa
98020
RE: Order on Reconsiderson
RE: PLN 20120033
RE: A.
B.
D.
Had to leave early, One of the kind
oral comment should be considered
if another hearing held.
Party of record signed (note) sign-up
sheet. on March 15, 2013
CC: file
Resident
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lk Ballinger Wv
Edmonds, Wa
425-776-7130 P/F
Machuga, Jen
From: Cheri Zehner <c.zehner@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:08 PM
To: Machuga, Jen
Subject: Comments on Request for Reconsideration File No. PLN20120033
Attachments: Request for Reconsideration PLN20120033.pdf
Hi Jen,
Please find attached my comments on the Request for Reconsideration. I don't know what the deal is but we did
not receive the Notice until last Thursday, April 18th. This only gave us a couple of days to prepare a
response. Don't you think at least a week's notice would be reasonable?
Thanks, Cheri
Cheri Zehner, MPH
industrial Hygienist
Indoor Air Quality Management
www.cherizehner.com
0635
h � i hner, MPH 1027 Carol Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
Industrial Hygienist (206) 799-6382
i Indaer A& QwalityMa ejt ►�C4t www.cherizehner.com
April 21, 2013
Mr. Phil Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. Olbrechts,
RE: Comments on Request for Reconsideration/Clarification re File No. PLN20120033
We received copies of the two requests for consideration on April 181h, giving us one businesses
day to prepare our response regarding this issue. It appears that the City does not concern itself
with due process. Please find below my comments on the two requests submitted.
Comments on Tom and Lin Hillmans request for reconsideration.
Comment 413: The videos submitted by me show a remarkable stream of storm -water running
down Sierra Place, not intercepted by the storm drain located up hill of the stream on Olympic
Avenue, and the stream of water turning north on Olympic Avenue not being intercepted by any
storm drain. This condition begs the question, where does the water go. The video submitted only
documented surface water. The water impacting our property is coming out of the ground in the
backyard at 703 Olympic Avenue directly west and downhill from the Hillman property at the
intersection of Sierra Place and Olympic Avenue. The Hillmans state that the water from their lot
does not drain into ours. The Hillmans do not know that their surface or groundwater does not
drain onto our property, and nor does the City.
Comment F: Hillmans stated that they share their neighbors' concerns that drainage issues are a
major priority for development in this area and that they have communicated this. Other than a
couple of pleasantries at the hearing, the Hillmans have not contacted us. Our property has
flooded every year since 2007, usually in the first week of December at about 2:OOAM. Are the
Hillmans concerned enough to be part of our bailing team about 2:OOAM?
Comments on the City of Edmonds' Request for Reconsideration
Condition #2, Staff Response 1: The City states that in order to perform a storm -water monitoring
program there needs to be baseline data of the current water discharge from the property. The
City states that obtaining the data would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive, given that the
flow is diffused off the wetland into the stream. As a property owner suffering from the
consequences of indiscriminant and unmonitored land development in the Daly Place and Sierra
Place area, I find it reprehensible that the City considers it too expensive a project to
40e
monitor/control storm and ground water and is inadvertently putting the onus on one private
property owner to pony up the funding to hire a hydrologist to save their house.
Condition #2, Staff Response 2: The staff commented that the City's regulations attempt to match
the post development storm -water runoff rates from the property with the pre -development storm -
water run-off rates from the property up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm event only. This comment
contradicts the statements made in Response 1. The staff stated that they do not have baseline
data, so how can they know what post development rates are acceptable.
Summary Reauest
If the City does not have baseline data on storm or groundwater flow in the Sierra Place and Daly
Place areas, which are the headwaters of Hindley Creek, then how can the City allow the
development of the property in this area? These areas are critical wetlands. Apparently the City
chooses to ignore this determination. I am disgusted with the City's lack of concern regarding the
storm and ground water's devastating impact on property owners to the west and north of Sierra
Place and Hindley Place.
I think that the variance should be rescinded, or in lieu of it being rescinded, that the building permit
not be issued until the City completes at three year monitoring plan of storm and ground water flow
from the Hillman property and the surrounding headwaters of Hindley Creek. Then the City will
have some baseline data. City staff are welcome to visit our property the first week of December to
view and measure the volume of water that threatens to flood our basement.
As a public health professional, I have embraced the concept of the precautionary principle.
Basically, the principle means that if you don't know that something is safe you don't employ it.
Essentially, don't use the public as a guinea pig. Please don't allow our property to be used in an
experiment to find out what happens to the storm and groundwater diverted from the Hillman
property.
Sincerely,
Cheri Zehner, MPH
0037
April 19, 2013 APR 19 201
To: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, City of Edmonds DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
From: Todd Brown, party of record
Subject: Comments in response to reconsideration requests re: PLN20120033
Dear Jen,
Per the recent Order on Reconsideration from Mr. Olbrechts dated April 16, 2013,1 would like
to provide this written response to the April 8, 2013 reconsideration requests.
Points 1 and 2 regard buffer encroachments and storm water. In the city staff rebuttal Jennifer
Lambert describes the conditions which would require written approval from the 1111 owners
before a variance can be granted —that is, if it was shown that water naturally drains into the
SW culvert and the applicants wanted to install some sort of storm water system that used the
culvert. This is exactly the condition. Integral to the applicants' storm water drainage scheme is
an overflow plan, as required by the city - the man-made ditch leading to the SW culvert as a
route for overflow during high water events. During these events the north stream will be
diverted to the SW culvert, substantially altering the water flow, thus requiring written
permission from 1111. This is discussed more in point C below.
The on -site drain system is designed to only accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
Given recent weather pattern changes and the unique, severe conditions on this site it seems
reasonable to consider requirements for less frequent storm events. And if the city can't show,
through some monitoring plan, that this drainage plan will be safe, then the request should be
denied.
The applicants' hired wetland ecologist didn't rebut the claim that the alternate drainage plan
through the SW culvert was the best for the site, a position she held earlier.
The applicants suggest in point 3 that flooding fears are unsubstantiated and are not
enforceable review standards. While I took no pictures or videos of the flooding culvert, my
wife and neighbors also witnessed these events. The city's Public Works department has
records, both of when work was conducted to clear the blocked culvert and when preventive
maintenance was performed. Also, I had at least 2 conversations with crew members, once
when they were clearing the culvert and again as they were performing their culvert
surveillance. I believe these substantiate our flooding concerns.
I would like to clarify point 4, which regards the trash rack. In my presentation at the hearing I
referred to Attachment 10, point 6 (a), dated January 14, 2013 from the applicants. In it they
say "...including debris removal which the current proposal hopes to reduce the need for by
installing a trash rack..." If you review the recording of that hearing you will hear me say from
my written notes "A trash rack may be ineffective in preventing culvert blockage based on the
soil type of this property." My opinion was formed after speaking to the culvert crew as they
described the lay of the land and what they had removed from the blocked culvert. I'm unsure
what contradictions the applicants are referring to. Comments from the city's culvert cleaning
experts seem like applicable standards for review. 1 go on to say at the hearing "I think we
deserve much more than just a hope that it will work." I would like to reiterate that — given the
huge amount of water flow during heavy rainstorms, I would like to rely on more than the
applicants' hopes that it will work to prevent our lane from being washed out.
At the hearing the applicants did not rebut most of my testimony. In speaking with Tom Hillman
after the hearing he said the reason was that I had made no legally rebuttable claims. From
their request for reconsideration it now seems they were surprised by my comments. I would
note that my written comments were submitted to the city before the required deadline, which
allowed almost 3 days of review before the hearing.
In point A the applicants state that our property does not receive runoff from their site. While
that's true, our concern is not for our own property; rather, our access to it should the lane be
flooded. They describe the 1111 owner as being helpful and agreeable "...to provide any
necessary easements at the appropriate time." While that may be true, I maintain his written
permission is still needed, as required by the city, and the appropriate time is during these
variance requests proceedings.
Point B regarding the home video is inaccurate. The video shows water rushing west, down
Sierra Place, in the open culvert on the north side of the road in front of 1111. This water is
easily traceable to the applicants' property. Olympic Avenue does not have any open culverts or
ditches, which can be confirmed by the city.
Point C again regards the culverts. The applicants state that the most water they've observed at
the SW culvert's inlet is "... a small puddle." With this I agree. However, through our almost
daily excursions past this culvert to our mailbox over the past 8 years, we have witnessed
running water there every time it rains. A review of the site topography shows that most of the
water from this property flows to the north stream — a point the applicants have made and to
which I agree. A review of the topographic maps, though, shows that the water which falls on
the proposed building site flows towards that SW culvert. This is the source of the flow we see
during and after rainstorms and the water they wish to divert to the north stream. That it only
accumulates a small puddle is further testament to the drainage value of this culvert. At the
hearing the applicants said they had looked for the SW culvert outlet using some electrical
culvert -finding device. In their request for reconsideration they describe snaking "a steel tape
through it and found it dead -ended..." Knowing how flexible and prone to kinking these devices
are, it seems that inserting a flexible steel measuring tape or electrical wire fish tape are not the
most reliable methods for determining culvert patency. That it's not on the city's storm water
system map seems like an easy fix — add it, especially since the 1111 owners are willing.
Point D regards trees. A neighbor's conversation with Kat Ericson indicates Kat's tree opinions
were misrepresented and that she doesn't support the tree removal plan. My conversations
with Ida Fernandez indicate the same misrepresentation.
Point E considers local house comparisons. While it's true they reviewed all of the lots directly
abutting their property, many of these cannot even be seen from the proposed building site.
They are higher up the hill, not accessible from the applicants' property, on completely
different streets and are considered a different neighborhood. The intent of the comparison
should be to look at other homes in the neighborhood — those on Sierra Place.
Finally, I appreciate their ongoing concerns about drainage issues. Like them, we will also
continue our diligence in reviewing these issues. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, YiY
Z
Todd Brown
1135 Sierra Place
Edmonds, WA
From:
Phil Olbrechts
Sent:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:14 AM
To:
Machuga, Jen
Subject:
RE: Hillman Reconsideration Order
And of course the City and the Hillmans can reply to any public comments that come in by the April 22 deadline.
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto.
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:09 AM
To: 'Machuga, Jen'
Subject: RE: Hillman Reconsideration Order
They've already been mailed out to all parties.
From: Machuga, Jen jmailto:Jen.Mach ugaCcbedmondswa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:47 AM
To: 'Phil Olbrechts'
Subject: RE: Hillman Reconsideration Order_
Hi Phil,
Could you please double check the dates in Item D under the "Order on Reconsideration" heading? I believe it is meant
to state the following: If any public comments (i.e. not those from staff or the applicant) are received by April 22, 2013,
the applicant and/or staff may reply to those comments by 5:00 pm, April 23, 2013.
Also, are you going to be mailing this out to all parties of record, or do we need to send it out?
Thank you,
Jen
Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 ext. 1224
Jen.Machug_a@edmondswa.gov
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:58 AM
To: Machuga, Jen
Subject: Hillman Reconsideration Order
1-1117-119
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Tom and Lin Hillman
Order on Reconsideration
PLN20120033
The City and the Applicant have requested reconsideration of the final decision on the
above -captioned matter. The reconsideration requests are based upon the mistaken
impression that new evidence can be considered after the close of the hearing. The
rule against consideration of new evidence significantly affects the arguments made
in the reconsideration requests as well as the remedies sought in those requests. For
those reasons all parties of record (anyone who participated in the hearing) will be
given an opportunity to comment on the reconsideration requests taking into account
the "no new evidence" rule. Comments are due April 22, 2013. Details on
submission are provided at the end of this order under "Order on Reconsideration".
Background
A final decision on the above -captioned matter was issued on March 28, 2013. Both
the City and the Applicant submitted requests for reconsideration on April 8, 2013.
The requests for reconsideration were mailed to all parties of record by the City on
April 9, 2013. The applicants submitted a modification to their request on April 10,
2013, which stated as follows:
We hereby retract the portion of the last sentence of item D regarding tree
removal that included the names of two of our neighbors. We did not
receive their permission to use their names and regret that we included
them.
The April 10, 2013 is accepted as part of the applicants' reconsideration request.
The requests for reconsideration primarily focus upon Conditions No. 1 and 2 of the
final decision in this matter, which address wetland filling and stormwater controls,
respectively. Other matters were also addressed in the reconsideration request. There
is no need for additional argument on those additional matters and they will be
addressed in the final Decision on Reconsideration.
Order on Reconsideration P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0042
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
No New Evidence Rule
Although there has not yet been a court opinion that directly addresses the issue, it is
widely recognized and accepted that no new evidence is permitted once a hearing is
closed. This requirement derives from the Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.7013
RCW. RCW 36.70B.050(2) provides that a permit application shall be subject to no
more than one "open record hearing". An "open record hearing" is defined by RCW
36.70B.020(3) to constitute a hearing that creates the administrative record for the
review of a permit application. As further detailed in the definition, the administrative
record is composed of the "...testimony and submission of evidence and
information...". Judicial review of a permitting decision is limited to this
administrative record, subject to some limited exceptions. See RCW 36.70C.120.
The purpose of the one hearing rule is to reduce the considerable amount of time and
expense involved in multiple public hearings as well as to reduce public confusion as
to when and how to provide timely comments on land use proposals. See RCW
36.7013.010. For this reason, when a hearing is announced as closed that is the end of
the hearing and no new evidence can be considered from that point forward. There are
four reasons for this interpretation: (1) allowing new evidence after the close of a
hearing would serve to completely undermine the one hearing limitation, by opening
the door to multiple additional hearings under the guise of "re -opening" the initial
hearing; (2) in order to further the objective of reducing public confusion, the
announcement of the close of a hearing should serve as a reliable assurance to the
public that no new evidence will be considered so that from that point forward hearing
participants no longer need to be vigilant about monitoring the decision making
process to rebut newly admitted evidence; (3) permit decisions must be based upon the
administrative record only since the courts reviewing those decisions limit their
consideration to the administrative record -- the announcement that a hearing is closed
serves as an announcement that the compilation of the administrative record is
completed and that no new evidence will be considered; and (4) the consideration of
new evidence after the close of a hearing would probably be considered to qualify as
an ex parte communication that is prohibited by the appearance of fairness doctrine.
See RCW 42.36.060.
"No New Evidence" and Condition No. 1
The "no new evidence" rule sometimes presents a dilemma in situations where the
administrative record contains insufficient information to support a finding of
compliance with applicable permit criteria. The applicant has the burden of proof in
establishing that all criteria are satisfied and a permit cannot be approved unless a
finding can be made that all criteria are satisfied. Consequently, when the
administrative record does not contain enough evidence to establish compliance with a
permit criterion, the permit cannot be approved. The natural inclination under such
circumstances is to request additional information from the hearing parties, but such a
request would be barred by the "no new evidence rule". Denial of the permit
Order on Reconsideration p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0043
2
9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application in many cases is the only option.
Denial due to insufficient information is a harsh result given that the permit may
actually comply with applicable permit criteria. The reversal can be avoided through
the adoption of conditions of approval that require staff verification of limited
information and/or minor modifications to the proposal as necessary to assure
compliance with permitting criteria. That is why Condition No. 1 was imposed in this
case.
Condition No. 1 was imposed because the applicant failed to justify the proposed
filling of wetlands under the City's reasonable use criteria. Under the city's critical
area regulations, an encroachment into a wetland should arguably only be authorized
as a measure of last resort where no other options for reasonable use of land are
available. In this case it gppears that most, if not all, of the portion of the home
encroaching into the home could be moved to the second floor of the home in lieu of
the proposed vaulted ceilings. The wetland encroachment could potentially be further
reduced by displacing the home further to the north into the stream buffer. The only
justification provided in response to the examiner's repeated inquiries on this issue
was that the applicants wished to avoid an odd shaped home and that they needed a
rambler as they advanced in age (despite the fact that the home already has a second
story). Neither of these reasons comes close to supporting a finding that the filling of
a Class III wetland is necessary for reasonable use of the land.
Although the applicants did not provide any adequate justification for the filling of a
wetland, it is very possible that such justification exists. It is possible that further
encroachment into the stream buffer would cause more environmental damage than
avoiding wetland fill, or perhaps the displacement of living space to the second floor
would make little difference because almost all of the proposed fill would still be
needed for a safe driveway. There may well be other very good reasons for retaining
the design "as is". Those reasons are just not evident in the record. The final
decision on this case recognizes that staff may have already considered all of these
factors and expressly states that no further inquiry or modification of the project is
necessary if that is the case.
As noted in the City's request for reconsideration, the delegation of some fact finding
to the conditions of approval as contemplated in Condition No. 1 is problematical
because the notice and appeal process for the staff s implementation of conditions of
approval differs from that which applies to the original variance and reasonable use
decisions. That argument is of limited persuasiveness because the implementation of
any condition of approval requires some interpretation and fact finding by staff. The
issue is ultimately a matter of degree, where a condition of approval could delegate so
much decision making authority to staff that it violates code provisions that require the
examiner rather than staff to make the final decision.
For Condition No. 1 staff have essentially argued that they have been delegated too
much decision making authority because the condition is not sufficiently specific.
Order on Reconsideration p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0044
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Condition No. 1 is more specific than the reasonable use criteria that staff were
comfortable in applying for their staff recommendation. Condition No. 1 also restricts
the staff s decision making authority to moving the limited portion of the home
located in the Class III wetland to the second story of the home or further northward.
It is debatable whether or not the parameters of Condition No.I do in fact constitute an
improper delegation of authority. If staff is correct in this position, there are three
remaining options: (1) deny the application; (2) formulate a more specific condition
that doesn't improperly delegate decision making authority; or (3) identify evidence in
the record that supports a determination that the wetland should be filled as proposed.
The consideration of new evidence as suggested by staff in their reconsideration
request is not an option since that would violate the "no new evidence" rule.
In regards to providing for a more specific condition, staff suggested in its
reconsideration request that the examiner identify how much space should be
displaced out of the wetland. This cannot be done without knowing the design options
for the driveway, the impacts to the stream buffer and the amount of space available
for development on the second floor of the home.
Condition No. 2 — Stormwater Monitoring
In their request for reconsideration, the City and applicants have made some
compelling arguments for the elimination of the stormwater monitoring condition.
The code basis for this monitoring condition are the reasonable use and variance
criteria that require the minimization of impacts to surrounding properties and the
public health, safety and welfare. The home, and hence its associated stormwater
impacts, could not be built as proposed but -for the approval of the variance and
reasonable use applications. The City has adopted extensive stormwater regulations
that are usually found adequate to address stormwater impacts. However, in this case
surrounding property owners have presented evidence that the stormwater issues in
their vicinity are unique and severe. The proposal could exacerbate this situation by
allowing the placement of a home in buffers and critical areas that are in part protected
by the City's critical area regulations in order to prevent adverse stormwater impacts.
The City's comprehensive plan recognizes this function by providing at p. 83 that "the
natural drainage system (i.e. streams, ponds, and marshes) shall not be filled or
permanently culverted except where no alternative exists."' The requirement of a
monitoring plan to ensure that the City's stormwater regulations effectively addresses
this fairly unique situation is an arguably reasonable means of ensuring that approval
of the variance doesn't adversely affect the public or surrounding properties.
Applicant's Presentation of New Evidence in Reconsideration Request
In their reconsideration request the applicants submitted numerous comments that
1 Legal authority, such as City regulations, court opinions and adopted comprehensive plan policies,
are not subject to the "no new evidence" rule. Examiners are allowed to take "judicial notice" of legal
authority.
Order on Reconsideration p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0045
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appear to contain information that was not submitted into the record. The applicants
claim that this additional information was necessary in order to address documents
that they did not have time to review at the hearing. However, the applicants did not
object to entry of the documents into the record when they were admitted as exhibits
nor did they request any additional time for review and comment prior to the close of
the hearing. For these reasons, the applicants were given a fair opportunity to review
all exhibits entered into the record and no additional evidence may be submitted
subsequent to the close of the hearing. Any evidence submitted after the close of the
hearing is barred from consideration.
Investment Backed Expectations
COL No. 10 of the final decision on this matter noted that the purchase price is
irrelevant under the City's definition of reasonable use. For clarification, this
conclusion was addressing the issue of whether a home should be considered a
minimum reasonable use for the Hillman property. Under the City's reasonable use
definition, the applicants are entitled to build a home on their property no matter how
little they spent in purchasing the property. However, the purchase price is still a
relevant consideration on the size of the home. "Investment backed expectations" (i.e.
purchase price) is one factor considered in assessing reasonable use and takings and
due process claims. See Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907
(1990); Buechel v. D.D.E., 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994). The applicants may be at somewhat
of a disadvantage in arguing that they are entitled to a home of comparable size to
others in their neighborhood if they paid significantly less than their neighbors for
their property because of the presence of wetlands and their sole reason for filling
those wetlands is house size.
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
A. All persons (including the applicants and the City) who have submitted written or
oral comment on the above -captioned Hillman variance and reasonable use
requests prior to the close of the hearing may provide a written response to the
April 8, 2013 reconsideration requests from the City and applicants as well as this
reconsideration order. Any such written responses are due by 5:00 pm, April 22,
2013 and should be received by Jen Machuga at the City of Edmonds.
B. Comments may be submitted to Ms. Machuga by email at
Jen.Machuga(ab,edmondswa.gov, or delivered or mailed to her at City of Edmonds,
Planning Division, 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020.
C. No new evidence shall be allowed and all comments must be based upon evidence
admitted into the record prior to the close of the hearing on March 15, 2013.
D. If any public comments (i.e. not those from staff or the applicant) are received by
March 15, 2013, the applicant and/or staff may reply to those comments by 5:00
pm, April 23, 2013.
Order on Reconsideration p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0046
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E. Comments shall be limited to the reconsideration issues pertaining to Condition
No. 1 (wetland filling) and Condition No. 2 (stormwater monitoring) of the final
decision on this matter.
F. In its reconsideration response due April 22, 2013, the applicants are also invited
to identify the evidence in the record it used to make its comments in its April 8,
2013 reconsideration request. As previously noted, any information not taken
from the record of this proceeding cannot be considered.
Dated this 16th day of April, 2013.
Ph, h_ oibrcci s
Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Order on Reconsideration p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
0047
Machuga, Jen
From:
Lin Hillman <LinHillrnan@comcast.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:25 PM
To:
Machuga, Jen
Cc:
Tom Hillman
Subject:
Reconsideration of PLN2012033 Hearing Decision
Attachments:
RetractMemo041013.doc
Hi Jen,
Could you please include the attached as part of the record during this reconsideration period? Do I need to bring in a
signed hard copy to the office or is this emailed one okay?
Thanks,
Lin
Memorandum
Date: April 10, 2013
Regarding: PLN20120033: Decision of March 28, 2013
and Reconsideration Request Dated April 8, 2013
Notice of Retraction
To: Planning Director, City of Edmonds
Requestors: Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants
15915 74th PI W, Edmonds WA 98026
(425) 745-4669
LinHillman@comcast.net
Retraction of Portion of Request for Reconsideration
We hereby retract the portion of the last sentence of item D regarding tree
removal that included the names of two of our neighbors. We did not
receive their permission to use their names and regret that we included
them.
Sincerely,
Tom and Lin Hillman
UT'' OF EDMONDS
121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 . Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
{hC. l89"
Notoce of Requests for Reconsideration
Date: April 9, 2013
To: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicant
Parties of Record of File No. PLN20120033
Interested Parties of File No. PLN20120033
Subject: Requests for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Decision on
the Hillman Variance, File No. PLN20120033
Two requests for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Tom and Lin
Hillman's variance application for a new single-family residence at 1139 Sierra Place (File No.
PLN20120033) were filed on April 8, 2013 pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 20.06.010. One request for reconsideration was made by the applicant and one request was
made by the City. Both requests are enclosed with this notice.
This notice of request for reconsideration is being sent to the Hearing Examiner, applicant, and
parties of record of the subject application according to the requirements of ECDC 20.06.010.F. The
notice is also being sent to interested parties of the subject application as a courtesy. Pursuant to
ECDC 20.06.010.G.1, the time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of
record once the Hearing Examiner's decision on the requests for reconsideration is issued.
Any questions may be directed to the Planning Division at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Jeri Machuga
Associate Planner
Enclosures: Request for Reconsideration by Tom and Lin Hillman, filed 4/8/13
Request for Reconsideration by City, filed 4/8/13
Cc: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Tom and Lin Hillman
Ida Fernandez
Cheri Zehner
Adam and Emily Fountain
Todd and Candy Brown
Stephen Schroeder and Cheryl Beighle
David Thorpe
Katherine Ericson
Alvin Rutledge 0050
IT M-n • • • - TU • •' - on
Examiner
Date:
Regarding:
To:
4�'
PLN20120033: Decision of March 28, 2013 1V
Planning Director, City of Edmonds
Requestors: Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants
15915 741h PI W, Edmonds WA 98026
(425) 745-4669
LinHillman@comcast.net
We ask that reconsideration include the following:
1. The opinion of wetland biologist Andrea Bachman of Wetland
Resources, Inc. which was emailed to Jennifer Machuga of the Planning
Department on Friday, April 5, 2013 in response to condition 1. We believe
this addresses the issues and the condition should be removed.
(Additionally we feel that the part of this condition that directs staff to
"displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the second story of
the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as
reasonably possible" is both vague and unenforceable. It is not staff's role
to perform redesign functions, nor to presume what level of reduced
encroachment the hearing examiner would view to be reasonable.)
2. Revision of condition #2 to indicate a code source for the requiring of a
stormwater monitoring program for a single-family residential project as
well as a performance standard to which it should be held, or elimination of
this condition.
3. Revision of condition #3 to limit city engineering staff's application of
stormwater regulations to the appropriate code sections and city policies.
Neighbors' unsubstantiated claims and letters describing their no -growth
opinions and flooding fears are not enforceable review standards.
4. Removal of condition #8 requiring trash rack installation. Our proposing
of - stream •-• was in direct response to Mr. Brown's
previously stat-• concern• - culvert blockage • potential
0051
overflow, but we are willing to remove it from our plans should city
engineering staff s review determine it is either unneeded or in any way
detrimental to the flow of the stream. This should be determined during
staff review subsequent to our building permit submittal. Mr. Brown's
opinions that the proposed trash rack is both "unnecessary to keep the
stream safe from flooding" (page 3) and "insufficient to prevent culvert
obstructions" (page 4) are contradictory and not standards for review.
During the hearing, documents were entered into the record which were not
part of the packet of exhibits distributed prior to the hearing, and we had
neither seen nor read until they were given to us at the hearing itself. We
were not given sufficient time to prepare an adequate rebuttal to the points
made in these documents written by the neighbors. Therefore we would
like to make herewith the following points of clarification and rebuttal to the
comments generated by the neighbors:
A. Both Mr. Brown and Mr. Schroeder own properties that are upslope of
the proposed project and would not receive runoff from our site. Mr.
Hachler of the immediately neighboring 1111 Sierra Place directly to the
west and downslope of the property has been very helpful and agreeable to
our proposed development. He granted access to his property for our
investigation of drainage issues and offered to provide any necessary
easements at the appropriate time.
B. The home video shown at the hearing showed rainwater flows
northward along Olympic Avenue that were coming from the south, not
from our property. Our lot does not drain to theirs.
C. The existing culverts under the lane accessing neighboring properties to
the north have invert elevations within 2-1/2 inches of each other. The
northwest (streambed) one is at 208.87' and the southwest at 208.68',
which led us to believe that runoff from our lot could drain either way. The
most water we have observed at the southwest culvert's inlet over the 2
years we have owned the property is a small puddle. On the other hand,
the northwest culvert in the streambed has always had an ongoing flow.
We abandoned our idea of using the southwest culvert when we snaked a
steel tape through it and found it dead -ended, and also discovered it was
not included in the city's stormwater system map. The map showed the
northern streambed stormwater path as well as a storm pipe line across the
street in the neighbors' front yard under a rockery built over the city right-of-
0052
way. We decided the streambed discharge was less disruptive and more in
keeping with the existing flow path.
D. The location of our proposed residence requires tree removal of
primarily older and smaller alders, many of which are leaning and pose
falling hazards. The largest one we intend to take out is a 40-inch maple
which is a stump. We have made continuing efforts to retain both the 42-
inch cedar in the middle of the stream buffer as well as the 36-inch maple
at the buffer's edge, keeping our building envelope as far out of the drip
lines (canopies) of these trees as we could. The hearing examiner's
suggestion of moving the house further northward into the stream buffer
ignores these significant trees. Additionally, two of the neighbors
(Fernandez and Ericson) have verbally expressed their agreement with our
proposed tree removal.
E. Our comparison of the building footprints and square footages of living
spaces and garages of neighboring properties considered all of the lots
immediately abutting ours. Our proposal showed a smaller size than all of
them. The Mallot house across the street, and other homes further away
were not included. We agree that the Mallot home is smaller than our
proposal. However, including it in the analysis would still show that our
proposal is smaller than the average of all the homes nearby, and therefore
still reasonable. We do not claim, nor do we need to show, that we are
proposing the smallest house in a 300-foot radius, nor in the R-12 zone.
F. We wish to reiterate that we share the neighbors' concerns that drainage
issues are a major priority for development in this area, and we have
communicated this to them. We are prepared to continue our diligence in
studying the issues, requirements and best available science and
engineering practices to apply to this project.
We believe the contents of this request to be true. Thank you for your
reconsideration.
Sincerely,
Tom and Lin Hillman
0053
Fwd: Sierra Place property, Edmonds
mailbox:///C:/Email/mail.comcast.net/Sent?number=528646...
Subject: Fwd: Sierra Place property, Edmonds
From: Lin Hillman <LinHillman @comcast.net>
Date: 4/5/2013 8:50 AM
To: "Machuga, Jen" <Jen.Mach uga@edmondswa.gov>
CC: "Lambert, Jennifer" <jennifer.lam bert@ci.edmonds.wa.us>
Hi Jen,
Here's Andrea's opinion regarding the decision.
Lin
Original Message
Subject:Sierra Place property, Edmonds
Date:Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:19:40 -0700
From:Andrea Bachman <andrea@wetlandresources.com>
To:Lin Hillman <LinHillman @comcast.net>
Hi Lin,
This is regarding the question of whether encroaching into the on -site
Category III wetland causes significantly more damage to the wetland
functions than building within its buffer. The buffer in consideration is the 25'
wide upland area between the proposed house and the on -site Type Np
stream. While this area is both a wetland and stream buffer, it was specifically
retained for protection of the stream. In considering all ecological functions
provided on this site, it is my opinion is that the current proposal is likely to be
the least damaging alternative.
On this particular site, buffers provide functions that are as important as
wetland functions. If the house were constructed closer to the stream, it
would be difficult to replace lost stream buffer functions, especially water
quality and erosion control functions. Since the on -site slope wetland offers
moderately low levels typical wetland functions, impacts to water quality
improvement functions are expected to be minimal and can be easily
mitigated through a proposed enhancement plan and stormwater plans.
Potential impacts to mature evergreen trees should be considered as well.
1 ..4?7 A /n 1'1n90 4n.1^ AWN
rwu: sierra riace property, numonus
maiioox:///t.:/ nmau/ maii.comcast.net/3encrnumber=bzbb4b...
There is a 42" western red cedar tree between the proposed house and
stream that shall be retained by the current project proposal. This tree is of
greater value than the immature red alder and mixed native and non-native
shrub community within the wetland impact area. This mature cedar tree has
potential to provide valuable habitat for a variety of small mammals and birds.
It also provides stream bank protection and water temperature control
functions. Constructing a new house any closer to the stream would certainly
result in detrimental impacts to this tree.
In the highly unlikely case that a "reasonable" development could actually
achieve 100% avoidance of the on -site wetland, the result would still be zero
buffers along the wetland and stream. Based on the conditions of this site,
building closer to the stream to avoid wetland impacts would likely cause
greater detrimental impacts to stream functions and values than the current
proposal to impact the wetland. Sacrificing a small part of this on -site wetland
to maintain an adequate stream buffer appears to be the best option for this
site.
I hope this helps. Please contact me if you have any other questions.
Andrea Bachman
Senior Wetland Ecologist
Wetland Resources, Inc.
9505 19th Ave SE, Suite 106
Everett, WA 98208
Phone: 425.337.3174
Fax: 425.337.3045
0055
2 of 2 4/A/9012 10-17 AM
;iT�tiT���7► r�7►1��'
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION
`nc. I S9,
April 8, 2013
Mr. Phil Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
Sent via email and mail
SUBJECT. Request for Reconsideration/Clarification of Hearing Examiner's Decision
Hillman Variances - File No. PLN20120033
Dear Mr. Olbrechts,
The City's Planning and Engineering Divisions are in receipt of the decision dated March 28, 2013
regarding Tom and Lin Hillman's requested setback variances and critical areas reasonable use
variance for the construction of a new single-family home at the property addressed 1139 Sierra
Place (File No. PLN20120033). Staff has reviewed the decision and is respectfully requesting
reconsideration/clarification pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.06.010 related to the findings and conclusions of the decision, Conditions #1 and #2, and the
City's appeal procedures.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010, parties of record may file a request for reconsideration of the Hearing
Examiner's decision within 10 calendar days of the Hearing Examiner's written decision. Since 10
calendar days from the date of your decision (March 28, 2013) ended on a Sunday (April 7, 2013),
ECDC 20.06.010.0 extends the deadline for requests for reconsideration to the next business day,
which is today (April 8, 2013).
The following includes a detailed explanation of staff s request for reconsideration/clarification as
related to the findings and conclusions stated within the decision, Condition #1, Condition #2, and
the City's appeal procedures:
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions
The first paragraph in the introduction of the decision summarizes the requested setback and
critical areas variances; however, a portion of the request was omitted from this description. The
requested street setback variance is to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for
placement of the residence and to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 3 feet for a retaining
wall. This is in addition to the requested side setback variance to reduce the side setback from 10
feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall. Additionally, the introduction states that the reasonable use
variance is approved for the encroachment within the wetland buffer, but it does not state
whether it is also approved for encroachment within the stream buffer and within the wetland
itself.
Within the Findings of Fact (at the top of Page 9), the street setback variance request is stated as
being a request to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 10 feet for the residence, but the
request to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 3 feet for a retaining wall is omitted. The
applicant requested to reduce both the street and western side setbacks to 3 feet for the
construction of retaining walls associated with the development. Additionally, within the
description of the reasonable use variance request on Page 9 and throughout the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law sections of the decision, the request to reduce the stream buffer is not
specifically addressed.
Staff would like clarification and confirmation from the Hearing Examiner that the portions of
the proposal not specifically discussed within the findings and conclusions of the decision (i.e.
the reduced street setback to 3 feet for a retaining wall and the reduced stream buffer) have been
approved as part of the decision.
Condition #1
Staff is requesting reconsideration/clarification of Condition #1 of the decision, which reads as
follows: "As discussed in FOF No. 6, staff shall consult with a qualified Wetland biologist, who
can be Andrea Bachman, to determine whether encroaching into the Category III wetland of the
subject property causes significantly more damage to wetland functions than building within its
buffer. If that is the case, staff shall displace as much of the wetland encroachment into the
second story of the proposed home and further northward into the buffer as much as reasonably
possible to reduce the encroachment into the wetland. The side yard variance granted by this
decision may be extended further northward in order to accommodate any redesign of the
proposal. Staff may waive the requirement for a redesign of the proposal if the environmental
benefits of the redesign are nominal and the burden upon the applicant is substantial. "
Staffs Response: In reviewing Condition #1, staff finds that this condition would be very
difficult to administer, particularly because no quantitative measurement for compliance with this
condition is provided. The condition states that staff may waive the requirement for a redesign if
the environmental benefits of the redesign are nominal and the burden upon the applicant is
substantial; however, this is not a quantifiable measurement. Additionally, displacing some of
the wetland encroachment further northward would move the project further into an already
reduced stream buffer. Staff needs a more quantifiable basis for implementing this condition, or
possibly this issue needs to be remanded in order for the Hearing Examiner to take additional
testimony in order to adequately determine if the proposal complies with all applicable criteria.
Staffs decision on compliance with a condition such as Condition #1 would not be done until
review of the building permit application, which does not have a public notice requirement.
Additionally, building permits are only subject to LUPA appeal, while variances are appealable
to the City Council. Since the allowed encroachment into the critical areas and associated buffers
would not be determined until the building permit phase of the process, the neighbors would face
different noticing and appeal processes during the building permit phase than they do now under
the variance application review. Also, with no public notice requirements, interested parties may
miss their appeal opportunity of the building permit.
Possible Alternative Condition: If the Hearing Examiner finds that it is necessary for the
applicant to reduce the encroachment into the wetland, staff suggests that Condition #1 be revised
to provide a quantitative measurement for compliance. For example, the Hearing Examiner
Page 2 of 5
0057
could specify the amount of square footage that must be displaced from the first floor to the
second floor and/or the Hearing Examiner could specify a measurable area within the wetland
that cannot be impacted by the development. Alternatively, the Hearing Examiner could remand
this issue to take additional testimony in order to determine if the proposal complies with all
applicable criteria.
Condition #2
Staff is requesting reconsideration/clarification of Condition #2 of the decision, which reads as
follows: "If no stormwater monitoring plan is required by the City's stormwater regulations, the
applicant shall prepare a three stormwater monitoring plan that verifies that the stormwater
system fully prevents any increase in stormwater discharges to neighboring properties. City staff
shall require improvements to the stormwater system to the extent that the system fails to prevent
increases in stormwater run-off to neighboring properties. The monitoring plan shall be subject
to the approval of City engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
proposal. "
Staff s Reading of Condition #2: The City's stormwater regulations do not require a stormwater
monitoring plan. This being the case, the Hearing Examiner is requiring a stormwater
monitoring plan (to be Approved by the Engineering Division) to verify that the proposed
stormwater system fully prevents any increase in stormwater discharges to the neighboring
properties compared to the pre -development condition. Further, the condition states that City
staff shall require improvements to the stormwater system to the extent that the system fails to
prevent increase in stormwater runoff to neighboring properties. This monitoring plan shall be in
place for a three-year period.
Staff s Response: Staff feels that implementation of this condition is not feasible due to the
following:
1) The request to compare the amount of water leaving the site after development would imply
that there is data available or easily attainable for the amount of water that leaves the pre -
developed site. In order to determine if there is an increase in stormwater discharges from
the subject property, there needs to be a baseline assessment of what the discharges are in the
current pre -developed conditions. Obtaining this data is extraordinarily difficult and
expensive given it is diffused flow off the wetland into the stream.
2) For a single-family residence with impervious surfaces between 2,000 square feet(sf) and
5,000 sf, a stormwater management system is required that meets the current City of
Edmonds' stormwater regulations. The City's regulations attempt to match the post -
development stormwater runoff rates from the property with the pre -development stormwater
runoff rates from the property up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm event only.' Any larger event
will result in more runoff than the pre -development flows. (Note that the City of Edmonds
requirements in this regard are more stringent that the current Department of Ecology
regulations.)
1 The event that has a 10% chance of being exceeded in any given year.
Page 3 of 5
Possible Alternative Condition: If it is determined by the Hearing Examiner that the City's
stormwater regulations are not stringent enough, then City staff requests that the Hearing
Examiner consider conditions that are measurable and can be administered. An alternative
condition to Condition #2 is to increase the design of the stormwater management system to a
larger storm event, such as a 25-year, 50-year or 100-year, 24 hour event. This will require the
applicant to provide more on -site storage of stormwater flows from the developed property prior
to discharging to the stream.
Appeal Procedures
When issuing the decision on the subject request for reconsideration, staff asks that the Hearing
Examiner provide clarification on the City's appeal procedures. On Page 12 of the decision,
ECDC 20.85.020 is referenced, which states that the Hearing Examiner shall review variances as
Type III -A decisions. Additionally, ECDC 23.40.210.0 states that the Hearing Examiner shall
also review critical areas variance application as Type III -A decisions. These two code sections,
however, are in conflict with the permit type and decision framework of ECDC 20.01.003, which
lists variances as Type III-B decisions. This conflict was missed during an update to the ECDC;
however, it was the intention that variances would be reviewed as Type III-B decisions, which
are appealable to the City Council. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.000.13, the provisions of this title
supersede all other procedural requirements that may exist in other sections of the city code.
Therefore, whenever there is a conflict between the text of the ECDC related to the decision type
and the table of ECDC 20.01.003.A, the table prevails. As such, the Hearing Examiner's
decision on the setback variances and critical areas reasonable use variance is a Type III-B
decision. When issuing the decision on the subject reconsideration request, please clarify that the
decision is subject to the appeal procedures applicable to Type III-B decisions (appealable to the
City Council) so that all parties of record are clear on the appropriate appeal measures.
I have reviewed this request for reconsideration with the Planning and Engineering Divisions and
believe the content of this request to be true and accurate. City staff respectfully requests that the
Hearing Examiner reconsider/clarify the findings and conclusions of the decision on the Hillman
variance request in addition to Conditions #1 and #2 and add clarification of the City's appeal
procedures.
Thank you for your time. If you have any questions on the City's request for reconsideration, please
contact me at Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov or (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Machuga
Associate Planner
CC: File No. PLN20120033
City of Edmonds Tom and Lin Hillman Ida Fernandez
Planning & Engineering Divisions 15915 — 74th Pl. W 1133 Sierra Pl.
121 — 5th Ave. S Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Page 4 of 5
Cheri Zehner Adam and Emily Fountain Todd and Candy Brown
1027 Carol Way 602 — 12th Ave. N 1135 Sierra Pl.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Stephen Schroeder & Cheryl Beighle
1142 Vista Pl.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
David Thorpe
21117 Shell Valley Rd.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Katherine Ericson
P.O. Box 757
Edmonds, WA 98020
Page 5 of 5