2015.02.10 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 2015
6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(30 Minutes)Executive session regarding collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(b)
STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 10, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of the Agenda
4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-7476 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2015.
B.AM-7472 Approval of claim checks #212723 through #212836 dated February 5, 2015 for
$406,731.29.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61480 through #61489 for $499,411.09,
benefit checks #61490 through #61500 and wire payments of $439,268.90 for the pay
period January 16, 2015 through January 31, 2015.
C.AM-7470 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from MiaLisa Anderson (amount
undetermined) and from John Nesmith ($332.80).
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
Packet Page 1 of 312
6.(30 Minutes)
AM-7461
Edmonds Downtown BID Assessment Rate Structure Discussion
7.(15 Minutes)
AM-7469
Discussion of 2015 Yost Pool Operations
8.(10 Minutes)
AM-7413
Naming of Fire Station #16.
9.(10 Minutes)
AM-7468
Discussion of an ordinance amending the 2015 Budget for Carryforward items
previously discussed and approved by Council during the 2014 Budget Year.
10.(30 Minutes)
AM-7462
Discussion on Draft Utilities Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
11.(10 Minutes)
AM-7440
Police Uniform Vendor Contract Renewal
12.(20 Minutes)
AM-7475
Presentation of an Interlocal Agreement with Mountlake Terrace for the 228th St. SW
Corridor Improvement Project.
13.(15 Minutes)
AM-7467
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
14.(5 Minutes)
AM-7460
Authorization to Purchase Freightliner Vactor 2100 CB Vacuum Truck
15.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
16.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
17.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
18.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 312
AM-7476 4. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2015.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attachment 1 - 2-03-2015 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Attachments
02-03-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 02/06/2015 08:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/06/2015
Packet Page 3 of 312
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 3, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(C) AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I)
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated
that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury
Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of
meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and
Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were
City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite, Recreation
Manager Renee McRae, and City Clerk Scott Passey. Councilmember Bloom left the executive session at
6:48 p.m. and returned at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember Mesaros left the executive session at 6: 59 p.m. The
executive session concluded at 7:03 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Packet Page 4 of 312
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2015
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #212618 THROUGH #212722 DATED JANUARY 29,
2015 FOR $700,446.27
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM AMANDA BOSAW
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED)
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
SHANNON & WILSON FOR THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE WILLOW
CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT, TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL WORK FOR THE
EDMONDS MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, AND TO REDUCE THE FLOODING
AT DAYTON ST. AND SR104
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Earling for speaking at the Kiwanis Club today. Mayor
Earling will make a State of the City Address at the Edmonds Theater on February 12 at 8:30 a.m. He
noted there are a lot of issues in the City which Mayor Earling will explain.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT UTILITIES ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Development Services Director Shane Hope provided background on Comprehensive Plans:
• Provide long term community planning and public process
• Required under State GMA
• Cannot be amended more than once/year (with certain exceptions)
• Must be implemented by local government through budget and other activities
Edmonds Existing Comprehensive Plan:
• Has multiple elements
• Required by State law to have major review and updated by mid-2015
• Reviewed in spring 2014 for consistency with current State law
o Found mostly to be in compliance, with need for some updating
She reviewed the update process:
• Moving forward with draft updates, element by element
o Public meetings of Planning Board, followed by City Council, for each element
• Proposed Comprehensive Plan changes are mainly aimed toward cleanup and updating, not major
policy changes
• No final decision until whole Comprehensive Plan can be consider
• City Council makes final decision on adoption Comprehensive Plan update – summer 2015
Ms. Hope described the draft utilities element:
• Addresses City utilities
o Water
o Sewer
Packet Page 5 of 312
o Stormwater
o Solid waste
• References City’s water, sewer and stormwater plans
• Provides a brief background and goals and policies for solid waste
o Solid waste handled differently because it does not have its own plan
She provided a summary of the proposed changes:
• Description added about water, sewer and stormwater utilities with reference to adopted utility
plans
• Update proposed to storm and surface water goals and policies
• Updated language proposed for:
o Solid waste section
o “Other utilities” section
Ms. Hope described the Planning Board’s involvement:
• Reviewed utilities element information
o December 10, 2014
o January 2014
• Discussed draft and recommended minor changes be brought to Council (included in draft being
considered now)
• Acknowledged some fine-tuning may still be needed
Next steps include:
• February 3 public hearing for the draft Utilities Element
• February 10 City Council Study session on draft utilities element
• Other public input, including
o February 25 open house, 5 to 7 p.m., City Hall 3rd floor
• Continuing work and public meetings on various draft Comprehensive Plan element
• Refinement of draft language on all elements
• Public hearing on full draft Comprehensive Plan updated scheduled for June
Councilmember Bloom referred to language on page 1, “The Edmonds City Council made a decision after
the approval of the 2010 Water System Plan to adopt a rate structure that has been designed to fund from
current rate revenues a very long range program of replacing its aging network of water mains rather than
using debt financing to fund that program. As a result rates have been adjusted in each of three recent
years to get closer to that goal. The plan is to examine the utility’s financial capacity after the third year of
this effort and make a decision whether or not to continue that rate adjustment for the remaining three
years.” She suggested for transparency including the date of that decision, the amount of the rate increase,
when the rate increases will be imposed and the date it will be reviewed. Ms. Hope advised that
information is outdated and needs to be updated.
Public Works Director Phil Williams advised the first of the three rate increases occurred January 2014,
the second occurred January 2015 and the third will occur January 2016. When the 2016 budget is
developed, staff will return to Council to discuss the policy, report on how it has worked and provide the
Council an opportunity to revisit it. Ms. Hope advised a general idea of the timing will be included.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the rate increases would be included. Mr. Williams relayed the rate
increased adopted by Council were approximately 8-9% on water and sewer and 4.3% for stormwater.
Councilmember Bloom referred to solid waste goal B.1, “Investigate the requirement for city-wide
mandatory garbage collection, combined with recycling services.” Mr. Williams responded typically in
dense urban environment mandatory service of some type service would be expected. It could be a very
Packet Page 6 of 312
reduced service; many cities have a mini can rate to make the service very affordable, but no one has the
option of not having garbage service. Not having garbage service often leads to code enforcement issues,
hoarding, odors, vermin, etc. To avoid those issues it is worthwhile to re-examine whether there should be
a mandatory service level for solid waste similar to water and sewer.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A which includes
“preserve and enhance critical areas” and asked if there would be a definition of enhance critical areas.
Ms. Hope answered probably not in the Comprehensive Plan. Other sections talk about enhancing critical
area and the code and code update will also address it. Councilmember Bloom asked if there would be
reference to the definition. Ms. Hope advised types of enhancement could be referenced.
Councilmember Petso requested staff take a second look at Solid Waste Goal C.1 which states the City
will continue the Waste Prevention and Recycling Program. She recalled that program was jointly funded
with another jurisdiction and has significant budgetary implications. She preferred to change “the” Waste
Prevention and Recycling Program to “a” program to provide some budget flexibility and so that a
Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be required.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested clarifying Solid Waste Goal 3.D, “Establish a city-wide Buy
Recycled policy.” Ms. Hope suggested changing “establish” to “consider” in that goal and some others.
Mr. Williams clarified the intent of city-wide was City government wide; City facilities and operations
would have a policy regarding purchasing choices.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present
who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing.
Mayor Earling advised Council review of the draft Utilities Element is scheduled on next week’s study
session. He encouraged Councilmembers to submit questions to staff prior to the study session.
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON DRAFT ORDINANCES TO
CONSOLIDATE AND MODIFY ANIMAL REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the City Council had a study session last week to
review the proposed changes. The Planning Board reviewed the ordinances and recommend approval.
Assistant Chief of Police Lawless recalled he reviewed the proposed changes with Council at last week’s
study session and described the intent of the changes to consolidate all animal regulations in a single
place. The packet also includes responses to questions the Council raised at the January 27 meeting.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said it appears in reading the ordinance, the same regulations apply if
an animal barks for 20 minutes in an hour at night and or during the day. ACOP Lawless agreed,
explaining other portions of the noise ordinance address hours. The goal was to keep things as consistent
as possible in applying the ordinance as it relates to hours, fines, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas
said there is a difference between noises at night and during the day because of the potential to disturb
sleep.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed she spoke with Dr. Bernstein at lengthy about his issue. She noted a
neighbor could call the police for a dog barking intermittently for 20 minutes or continuously for 10
minutes.
Councilmember Petso referred to staff’s suggestion to delete “within one hour” as it applied to
intermittent barking. She asked whether that would allow intermittent barking of 20 minutes to be
potentially actionable whether it occurred within one hour or not. ACOP Lawless said that was correct.
Packet Page 7 of 312
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, said this was an opportunity to balance the rights of pet owners and their
neighbors. He spoke in favor of the proposal, but pointed out a problem in Section 5.05.115, allowing
dogs to bark 10 minutes continuously or 20 minutes intermittently. He recognized all dogs bark and they
should but 10-20 minutes of howling, yelping, whining, crying, screaming was very intrusive and
interferes with the neighbors’ ability to enjoy their homes. A reasonable solution would be to define what
constitutes barking, howling and yelping. That would allow everyone to enjoy their pets and their
environment without intrusion and in peace and tranquility. He provided a recording of dogs barking at
9:45 p.m. He summarized continuous howling and barking was not the same as a dog occasionally
barking.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested contacting the King County Sheriff and Shoreline who have
experienced barking problems in neighborhoods where dogs bark at all hours.
Hearing no public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation of the public hearing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the Dr. Bernstein’s recording of dogs barking and asked
how the policy addressed that sort of ruckus occurring during the night. ACOP Lawless referred to
Section 5.05.115.B.5, “Any animal which howls, yelps, whines, barks or makes any noises in such a
manner as to disturb any person or neighborhood to an unreasonable degree, taken to be continuous noise
for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent noise that totals a period of twenty (20) or more
minutes in one (1) hour…” He explained there is a common understanding of howl, yelp, win and bark;
other sounds are addressed by the language “any noise in such a manner.” With regard to the length of
time, he pointed out that is an “or” statement, a situation does not need to meet both thresholds. The goal
is to address situations that occur throughout the City, not just one particular situation or neighborhood
and to balance the regulations with the rights of dog owners. Several other jurisdictions’ ordinances were
researched in the process of drafting the proposed language and staff worked closely with the City
Attorney’s office to develop language that works for pet owners and the neighbors as well as is
enforceable and pass judicial muster and not be so ambiguous as to be overthrown.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how the excessiveness of the barking is determined, recognizing
an officer may not be able to stay at a home waiting for a dog to bark. She asked whether a citizen needed
to make a recording. ACOP Lawless answered it will be situational; sometimes when officers arrive, the
dogs are still barking. Ninety-nine percent of the time knocking on the neighbor’s door and telling them
their dogs are disturbing the neighbor is effective. Unfortunately there are certain situations where that
does not work. Citizens have made recordings which would provide evidence.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the proposed language would tighten up the code
regarding what is considered a nuisance. ACOP Lawless answered yes. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked whether a citizen should make a recording of an animal making excessive noise before
calling the police. ACOP Lawless agreed a recording would be beneficial. Animal control officers handle
the majority of these calls as officers are handling emergencies. Animal control may have more time to
observe and hear the noise before taking enforcement action. The current code does not afford that
opportunity; the revisions will.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council discussed the keeping of poultry and covered animals at
the study session. She referred to Resolution 3655 and asked whether that language will need to be
rescinded. ACOP Lawless answered no, that is old language; the definition of poultry still remains.
Packet Page 8 of 312
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3988, (ATTACHMENT 1), AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTERS
5.05 , 5.30, 16.20, 16.30 AND 17.35, TO CONSOLIDATE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS
DEALING WITH ANIMAL CONTROL INTO CHAPTER 5.05, TO AMEND THE ANIMAL
NOISE PROVISION OF SECTION 5.05.115, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5.05.115; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE “WITHIN ONE HOUR” FROM SECTION 5.05.115.B.5.
Councilmember Petso explained when the citizen email was forwarded to staff, ACOP Lawless suggested
one possible way to tighten the concern about intermittent barking was to delete “within one hour” so that
intermittent barking that occurred over 70 minutes would still be considered a nuisance and enforcement
could be pursued. ACOP Lawless explained one of concerns with the “within one hour” language was
when the hour starts.
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with the removal of “within one hour” as there would be no
limit. ACOP Lawless agreed there could be a concern with not having a time period for intermittent. The
one hour language was found in other jurisdictions’ ordinances.
Councilmember Petso was not concerned about not specifying a time period as she doubted anyone would
complain if a dog barked intermittently for 20 minutes over a 2 week period.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented a dog typically is a problem or not. It is obvious in talking with
Dr. Bernstein that he has a problem neighbor. Most people get upset with a dog’s continuous barking,
even dog owners. If a dog is continuously barking, there is something wrong with the dog or the situation.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmembers for their clarifications as she does not have a dog or a
barking dog in her neighborhood.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3989 (ATTACHMENT 2), AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.30 TO DEFINE
“FREQUENT, REPETITIVE OR INTERMITTENTLY CONTINUOUS” IN SECTION 5.30.020,
TO AMEND LANGUAGE REGARDING CITIZEN COMPLAINTS IN SECTION 5.30.140, AND
TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.30 IN
SECTION 5.30.150; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND ITEM E TO REMOVE “IN ONE HOUR.” MOTION CARRIED (5-1),
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015
BUDGET FOR CARRYFORWARD ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND APPROVED BY
COUNCIL DURING THE 2014 BUDGET YEAR
Packet Page 9 of 312
Finance Director Scott James reviewed the proposed Carryforward Budget Amendment:
• 2015 Carryforward Budget Amendment is for items not completed in 2014
• 27 decision packages describing each carryforward item
• The Carryforward Budget Amendment will roll the unexpended 2014 budget into the 2015
budget
• All items were previously approved by Council
He summarized the 2015 Carryforward Budget Amendments:
• Revenues increased $1,198,124
• Expenditures increased $3,558,360
• Ending fund balance decreased $0
Mr. James recommended Council approval of the 2015 Carryforward Budget Amendment.
Mayor Earling advised there is one amendment that was not included in packet. Mr. James explained not
all the information was finalized in time to bring it to Council as part of this amendment. The amendment
is related to the Pavement Preservation Program. Last year staff anticipated spending $940,000 in 2014;
approximately $194,000 was left over. That amendment will be presented to the Council at next week’s
study session.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3990, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3985 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. POTENTIAL ACTION ON EXECUTION OF GROWING TRANSIT COMMUNITIES COMPACT
AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council recently reviewed information related to
Growing Transit Communities (GTC) Program, a regional program that operates through the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC), comprised of cities, counties, agencies and organizations to work on
implementing over a longer term a GTC strategy. The GTC strategy is a plan in a broad sense of how to
provide for better transit access, make areas were transit is an option more walkable, etc. A lot of work
has already been done; Edmonds did not participate initially because the focus in the early stage was
communities with a planned light rail stations. Joining the GTC compact is a nonbinding, good faith
agreement to carry forward some of the goals. There is a great deal of opportunity for individual
community decisions and it is not a mandate for planning for transit but recognizing opportunities for
transit in the future. By signing onto the GTC compact, the City is able to be a voting member on the
committee.
She recommended the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the GTC Compact and appoint a
representative and alternate to the Regional Transit-Oriented Development Advisory Committee. The
next meeting is February 6.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE GROWING TRANSIT COMMUNITIES
COMPACT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas requested any Councilmembers interested in serving contact her and
she will provide that information to Ms. Hope tomorrow.
Packet Page 10 of 312
10. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL UPDATE OF COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEWS AND
APPOINTMENT PROCESS
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained she developed the proposed process using Council
consensus from the previous study session. She reviewed the Candidate Interview and Voting Process in
Attachment 1:
Prior to the Interview Meeting:
Staff will provide either a paper or electronic copy of all application materials for each candidate, along
with a list of candidates and their interview times. At least 2 business days prior to the scheduled
interview meeting, Councilmembers will submit two questions each to the Council President, who may
also submit a question for a total of 12 questions.
Process to determine the interview order of candidates
The applicants’ order of appearance is determined by random selection by the Council Executive
Assistant and City Clerk. Council may call applicants with independent questions prior to interview.
Councilmember Bloom asked the rationale for submitting two questions in advance. She recalled when
the Council interviewed over 20 candidates last time, Councilmembers were good about stating the same
question each time. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered it was so everyone would have an
opportunity to ask questions. During the last process former Councilmember Peterson and she felt some
Councilmembers asked numerous questions and other Councilmembers did not have time to ask
questions. This process allows everyone to participate. If Councilmembers have questions for individual
candidates, those can be asked as time permits. Councilmembers are encouraged to contact applicants
with independent questions.
Councilmember Bloom asked if the intent was a questionnaire that would be submitted to candidates prior
to the interview. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered no, the candidates had already answered a
questionnaire. This would be a list of questions provided to each Councilmember for the purpose of
asking questions during the interview. Councilmember Bloom did not recall that was a problem during
the last interviews. She understood the rationale for having questions well-formed and stating the same
question each time but did not understand why they needed to be submitted prior to the interviews.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated it was to give everyone an opportunity.
In response to Councilmember Bloom’s question, Councilmember Mesaros said it would be helpful to
know what questions other Councilmembers plan to ask so Councilmembers did not ask the same
question.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not understand the objection to submitting questions.
Councilmember Bloom explained she spends a lot of time forming the questions she most wants
answered. She did not think there would be duplicate questions. Councilmember Buckshnis remarked
there were no duplicate questions last time. Councilmember Bloom commented even when there are
duplicate questions on the same issue, Councilmembers ask in different ways because Councilmembers
have different interests. She saw no reason for having a questionnaire prepared in advance. The Council is
considering not taping the interviews to prevent applicants from watching in advance and being prepared.
Not having a list of questions prepared in advance protects the privacy of questions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified she did not say Councilmembers would get the list of
questions in advance. Her intent was to distribute the questions the evening interviews are conducted.
Former Councilmember Peterson and she were attempting to address the problem with the process that
resulted in 57 votes last time. She recommended giving this proposal a try.
Packet Page 11 of 312
Councilmember Petso requested the following wordsmithing which was acceptable to the Council:
• At least 2 business days prior to the scheduled interview meeting, Councilmembers will submit
two questions each to the Council President, who may also submit a two questions for a total of
12 questions.
• Council may call contact applicants with independent questions prior to interview.
Councilmember Johnson suggested deleting the sentence, “Council may contact applicants with
independent questions prior to interview,” finding it an unnecessary statement. Councilmember
Buckshnis said it was common sense that Councilmember would contact applicants. Councilmember
Petso clarified no one would object if she met with and/or emailed candidates. It was the consensus of the
Council to delete the sentence.
Councilmember Bloom reserved her right not to submit questions in advance.
Councilmember Johnson did not think it was necessary to submit questions in advance.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
REMOVE THE SENTENCE RELATED TO SUBMITTING QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WHICH WAS
AGREEABLE TO COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
CHANGE THE SENTENCE TO READ “…COUNCILMEMBERS WILL MAY SUBMIT TWO
QUESTIONS…”
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reviewed Attachment 1, page 2 and Councilmembers made revisions
as follows:
Open Public Interview Meeting:
For fair and open process the interviews will not be live streamed but will be played after interviews are
completed. Interviews for a vacant City Council position will be conducted in an open public meeting.
Each interview of an applicant/candidate will be no longer than 40 minutes in length as follows:
1. Only the applicant being interviewed will be allowed in Council chambers; the other applicants
will be may waiting in an area to be determined by the City Clerk. After completing their
interview, each applicant may remain in Council Chambers.
2. The applicant may make an opening statement to the City Council.
3. The City Council will ask a predetermined set of questions which must be responded to by the
applicant. Each applicant will be asked and will answer the same set of questions.
4. After pre-determined questions are asked, and as time permits, Councilmembers may engage in
an informal question and answer period in which they may ask and receive answers to
miscellaneous questions. (each councilmember will ask question and applicant will have 2
minutes for response)
5. Applicant will have the opportunity for a closing statement.
6. The City Council may reduce the 40 minute interview time if the number of applicants exceeds six
(6) candidates, or alternatively, the Council may elect not to interview all of the applicants if the
number exceeds six (6) candidates. The decision as to which applicants to interview will be based
on the information contained in the application and/or supporting materials, which may include
endorsements, letters of reference, etc.
7. At the conclusion of the interviews, the City Council may adjourn into an Executive Session to
discuss the qualifications of the applicants. However, all interviews, deliberations, nominations
and votes taken by the City Council shall be in an open public session.
Packet Page 12 of 312
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the wording of Paragraph 7, suggesting the Council
may wish to adjourn to executive session on another day. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the
intent was to explain the Council could adjourn into executive session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said
the Council could adjourn into executive session at the conclusion of the interviews or at another time.
Councilmember Johnson commented there is no privilege afforded the Council for the discussion in
executive session. Mr. Taraday clarified there is no Public Records Act exemption the covers the notes
taken in such an executive session.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reviewed Attachment 1, page 3:
Executive Session
The City Attorney should facilitate the discussion of determining each candidate’s strengths and
weaknesses to determine qualifications. Councilmembers may share their individual rankings of
candidates. The Council shall not conduct any straw polls or voting during the Executive Session. At the
completion of the discussion, Council adjourns the Executive Session and reconvenes the public meeting.
Councilmember Johnson was not comfortable with Councilmembers sharing individual ranking of
candidates during the Executive Session as that seems to contradict straw poll or voting during the
Executive Session. Mr. Taraday agreed that was a fair point; the Council can use the Executive Session to
point out candidates’ strengths and candidates they found particularly qualified without providing
ranking. It was agreed to delete that sentence.
Council President Fraley-Monillas began reviewing Reconvening the Public Open Meeting for Voting –
Option A.
1. Each Councilmember shall submit a signed written ballot nominating their top five candidates to
the City Clerk. Once all ballots are submitted, the Clerk will read aloud the Councilmember’s
name and their selections. The Council will, by consensus, agree to eliminate 5 candidates
receiving the fewest votes.
Councilmember Petso recalled there was not a consensus at the study session to use this process. She was
opposed to this form of voting, recalling she provided the City Attorney selection process as an example
where the Council began eliminating firms and reached a point where Councilmembers were required to
choose between Lighthouse and Ogden Murphy Wallace only to find a significant number preferred the
third choice. She preferred Option B.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred Option B, recalling Councilmember Mesaros was not one of the top
5 candidates.
Councilmember Bloom strongly supported Option B. She did not agree with limiting Councilmembers to
the top 5 candidates as there may be less than 5 top candidates. This process is different than the last time
as there are only 10 candidates to interview this time.
It was the consensus of the Council to utilize Rules for Nomination/Election to Fill Council Vacancy
(current rules) - Option B. Council President Fraley-Monillas reviewed Option B:
Nominations
Each Councilmember may nominate one candidate from the list of applicants by placing an “X” beside
the name of the applicant of his or her choice on the form supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and
by signing the nomination form. The City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of the
nominations and of the Councilmember nominating each candidate.
Packet Page 13 of 312
The Election
Each Councilmember may vote for one candida t e by placing an “X” beside the name of the candidate of
his or her choice on the ballot supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and by signing the ballot. The
City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of each ballot and who voted for each
candidate.
A Deadlock
A deadlock occurs after each Councilmember votes the same way on three consecutive ballots. In the
event the City Council should deadlock, then previous nominations are declared null and void and the
Council may begin a new round of nominations.
• Nothing in this policy shall prevent the City Council from reconvening into Executive Session to
further discuss the applicant/candidate qualifications.
• The Mayor shall declare the nominee receiving the majority vote as the new Councilmember and
he or she shall be sworn into office by the City Clerk at the earliest opportunity or no later than
the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting and will complete the unexpired term for the
Position.
• If the City Council does not appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy within 90 days of the
declared vacancy, the Revised Code of Washington delegates appointment powers to Snohomish
County. (RCW 42.12.070(4))
At Mr. Taraday suggestion, the Council agreed to delete the above three bullets as they are matters of
State law.
Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized there are 10 applicants; 2 interview dates have been
scheduled, February 17 and 18; and deliberations are scheduled on March 3. There are other items
scheduled on the February 17 agenda.
Councilmember Mesaros preferred to do all interviews in one evening. He suggested 30 minute
interviews starting at 5:00 p.m. on February 17 would only take 2½ hours. Council President Fraley-
Monillas suggested 30 minutes did not allow much time for questions and answers or opening/closing.
She preferred 40 minute interviews on 2 days.
Councilmember Bloom also preferred to conduct all the interviews on one day. If the interviews are
conducted on two days, she did not support allowing candidates to sit in on other interviews when they
have completed their own.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed 30 minute interviews for 10 applicants would take 5 hours.
As there is other business on the February 17 agenda, Councilmember Petso suggested having 4
interviewing on February17 and 6 on February 18.
Councilmember Johnson recalled when she was appointed the interviews were 30 minutes which seemed
sufficient. Councilmember Mesaros recalled the interviews were 30 minutes last time. Council President
Fraley-Monillas advised 30 minute interviews would only allow Councilmembers 5 minutes for questions
and answers and no time for the candidates to make opening and closing statements.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed some people talk a lot. She suggested 40 minute interviews in 2
nights or 30 minute interviews in 1 night. She preferred to conduct all the interviews one day even if it
was a Saturday.
Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred 40 minute interviews. She said interviews on two nights had
already been advertised and could not be changed.
Packet Page 14 of 312
It was the consensus of the Council to conduct 40 minutes with 4 interviews on February 17 beginning at
5:00 p.m. and 6 interviews on February 18 beginning at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Scott Passey pointed out the
Court will be using the room until 4:30 p.m. on February 18.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO DO 40 MINUTE INTERVIEWS ON FEBRUARY 17 AND 18 AS HAS BEEN
PUBLISHED AT A TIME THAT MEETS WITH THE COURT AND COUNCIL.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated her preference to conduct all the interviews on one night. She felt that
could be accomplished with 30 minute interviews, particularly with Councilmembers contacting
candidates prior to the interviews. Councilmember Johnson agreed.
MOTION ENDED IN A TIE VOTE (3-3), AND THE MOTION FAILED.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO DO 30 MINUTE INTERVIEWS OF ALL CANDIDATES ON FEBRUARY 17. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the interviews could be changed to one night when it has
already been advertised that they will be held on two nights. Mr. Taraday answered yes, this is the
Council’s process.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether former Councilmember Peterson and Council President Fraley-
Monillas had discussed how to avoid 30-50+ ballots. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered the
method they proposed was intended to streamline the previous process but the Council chose to use the
current process.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reminded of his State of City Address on February 12 at 8:30 a.m. in the Edmonds
Theater. There will be two guest presenters, Diana White, President of the Edmonds School Board; and
Rick Steves, a prominent business owner.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Student Rep Eslami thanked the Council for their discussion regarding the voting process; he enjoyed
watching it. He was bummed the Seahawks lost.
Councilmember Bloom asked when Council Committee Reports would be on the agenda. She recalled it
had been scheduled on the last Council meeting of the month. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she
will work with the City Clerk.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Mayor Earling be out of town and on vacation for the Super Bowl
like he was last year.
Councilmember Johnson advised the February 25 open house for the Comprehensive Plan at City Hall
will include the preliminary transportation report for the SR 104 study at Westgate.
Councilmember Mesaros commented it was disheartening to watch the Seahawks game on TV. On his
flight from Phoenix this morning, a majority of passengers attended the Super Bowl and were also
disheartened.
Packet Page 15 of 312
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented she spent the Super Bowl in San Francisco with 49er fans.
The Super Bowl will be held in San Francisco next year and she has already reserved a room. Her flight
this morning was also full of Seahawk fans and was not a joyful flight.
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Packet Page 16 of 312
AM-7472 4. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #212723 through #212836 dated February 5, 2015 for $406,731.29.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61480 through #61489 for $499,411.09, benefit checks
#61490 through #61500 and wire payments of $439,268.90 for the pay period January 16, 2015 through
January 31, 2015.
Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:1,345,411.28
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $406,731.29
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $499,411.09
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $439,268.90
Total Payroll $938,679.99
Attachments
Claim cks 02-05-15
Project Numbers 02-05-15
Payroll Summary 01-31-15
Packet Page 17 of 312
Payroll Summary 01-31-15
Payroll Benefit 01-31-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 02/05/2015 11:57 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/05/2015 12:02 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/05/2015 12:58 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/05/2015 01:02 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/05/2015 10:12 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/05/2015
Packet Page 18 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212723 2/5/2015 072627 911 ETC INC 31025 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Monthly 911 database maint
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00
Total :100.00
212724 2/5/2015 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 13-23511 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.00 130.00
INTERPRETER FEE13-24583
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 65.00
Total :195.00
212725 2/5/2015 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 42219673 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING
Temporary help week ending 1/23/15 - C
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,351.16
Total :1,351.16
212726 2/5/2015 068201 ACTIVE NETWORK INC 4100104671 P&R 2015 SUPPORT/MAINT FOR CLASS
P&R 2015 SUPPORT/MAINT FOR CLASS
001.000.64.571.22.48.00 10,799.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.48.00 1,025.98
Total :11,825.95
212727 2/5/2015 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 41222 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
service with parts on HV15RS(B601)
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 383.75
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 36.45
Total :420.20
212728 2/5/2015 075145 ALLSTAR HEATING AND AIR COND Bus Lic Refund DUPLICATE PAYMENT NON-RES BUSINESS LICEN
Non-Resident Business License refund -
001.000.257.310 50.00
1Page:
Packet Page 19 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :50.002127282/5/2015 075145 075145 ALLSTAR HEATING AND AIR COND
212729 2/5/2015 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 2499659 PS - Bi Mo Maint Agreement
PS - Bi Mo Maint Agreement
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 108.41
Total :108.41
212730 2/5/2015 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 264703-1514 APA MEMBERSHIP FOR DOHERTY 2015
APA membership dues for 2015 for
001.000.61.557.20.49.00 438.00
Total :438.00
212731 2/5/2015 071491 ANDERSON SPECIALTIES LLC 8005 Plaza - Safety Post
Plaza - Safety Post
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 295.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.03
Total :323.03
212732 2/5/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987843228 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 74.16
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.05
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987843229
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02
Total :122.39
212733 2/5/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 79309 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 151.15
2Page:
Packet Page 20 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212733 2/5/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 151.15
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 155.74
UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 549.93
UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 549.92
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 14.36
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 14.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 14.79
Total :1,601.40
212734 2/5/2015 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0115 Pre-Employment background checks
Pre-Employment background checks
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 50.00
Total :50.00
212735 2/5/2015 002100 BARNARD, EARL 5 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
617.000.51.517.20.23.00 1,468.60
Total :1,468.60
212736 2/5/2015 071348 BERGERABAM 309226 Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design
Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design
016.000.66.518.30.41.00 8,823.35
Total :8,823.35
212737 2/5/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 220307 Unit 455 - Repairs
Unit 455 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 129.55
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet Page 21 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212737 2/5/2015 (Continued)074307 BLUE STAR GAS
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 12.31
Fleet Auto Propane 350.5 Gal3317
Fleet Auto Propane 350.5 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 308.62
Fleet Auto Propane 317.4 Gal3341
Fleet Auto Propane 317.4 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 280.28
Fleet Auto Propane 252.1 Gal3364
Fleet Auto Propane 252.1 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 198.59
Total :929.35
212738 2/5/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 13950 INV#13950 - EDMONDS PD - PLOEGER
S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 118.00
NAME TAGS - GOLD
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 29.64
INV#13951 - EDMONDS PD - MOORE13951
S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.00
NAME TAGS FOR SHIRTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 31.83
S/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 82.00
INV#13994 - EDMONDS PD - LAWLESS13994
L/S TRASITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 64.00
4Page:
Packet Page 22 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212738 2/5/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR
S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 59.00
S/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 82.00
NAME TAGS - GOLD
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 16.00
EMBROIDERED COLLAR BRASS (GOLD)
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 20.00
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 178.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 39.81
INV#13995 - EDMONDS PD - MACK13995
L/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 64.00
L/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 89.00
NAME TAG
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 8.00
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 178.00
CONTEMP SUMMER PANTS
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 130.00
DUTY JACKET/FLEECE LINER
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 375.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 80.18
INV#13996 - EDMONDS PD - HAUGHIAN13996
L/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.00
S/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 82.00
NAME TAG
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00
5Page:
Packet Page 23 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212738 2/5/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00
DUTY JACKET W/ FLEECE LINER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 375.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 67.17
INV#13997 - EDMONDS PD - BORST13997
L/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.00
S/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 82.00
NAME TAG
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00
DUTY JACKET W/FLEECE LINER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 375.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 67.17
INV#13998 - EDMONDS PD - SPEER13998
DUTY JACKET W/FLEECE LINER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 375.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.63
Total :4,050.43
212739 2/5/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14558741 CANON COPIER CHARGES
Canon copier charges for C5051
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35
Canon copier charges for C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35
Canon copier charges for C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29
9.5% Sales Tax
6Page:
Packet Page 24 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212739 2/5/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91
WWTP - COPIER RENTAL14558742
Copier Rental - January 2015
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80
Total :359.54
212740 2/5/2015 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 19581 ADVENTURES IN 19581 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR F
19581 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 405.63
19584 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR F19584 ADVENTURES IN
19584 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 38.50
Total :444.13
212741 2/5/2015 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC RX16575 APC Smart UPS RT 6000VA Rack Twr 208 -
APC Smart UPS RT 6000VA Rack Twr 208 -
001.000.31.518.87.35.00 4,305.55
Total :4,305.55
212742 2/5/2015 068484 CEMEX LLC 9430086587 Roadway - Asphalt
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 287.80
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 27.35
Roadway - Asphalt9430094529
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 288.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 27.41
Roadway - Asphalt9430102038
Roadway - Asphalt
7Page:
Packet Page 25 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212742 2/5/2015 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 233.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 22.19
Total :886.75
212743 2/5/2015 063242 CITY OF MARYSVILLE JAN 22 2015 INV JAN 22 2015 - AARON GREENMUN, EDMOND
CISM - PEER TO PEER CLASS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 30.00
Total :30.00
212744 2/5/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2739330 PM CREW NEUTRAL DISINF CLEANER
PM CREW NEUTRAL DISINF CLEANER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 68.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.53
Fac Maint - TT, SuppliesGW2741004
Fac Maint - TT, Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 279.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.52
PM ACCLAIM, BOWLMOPNW2739330
PM ACCLAIM, BOWLMOP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 232.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.10
Fac Maint - Towels, Hand Soap, SafeNW2741004
Fac Maint - Towels, Hand Soap, Safe
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 224.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.36
Total :881.97
212745 2/5/2015 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC FEB-15 C/A CITYOFED00001
Feb-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.00
8Page:
Packet Page 26 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :406.002127452/5/2015 073135 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC
212746 2/5/2015 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JAN 2015 DRY CLEANING DEC/JAN - EDMONDS PD
CLEANING/LAUNDRY DEC/JAN 2015
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 840.41
Total :840.41
212747 2/5/2015 072700 CURVATURE LLC 495881 MAINTENANCE FOR CISCO SWITCHES
Maintenance for Cisco switches Item #
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,376.42
ASA 5510 SECURITY PLUS LICENSE FIBER ENH498608
ASA 5510 Security Plus License w/HA,
001.000.31.518.87.35.00 722.70
Total :2,099.12
212748 2/5/2015 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3296572 RFP CITY PARK LEGAL AD CITY PARK SPRAY
RFP CITY PARK LEGAL AD CITY PARK SPRAY,
125.000.64.576.80.41.40 83.60
Total :83.60
212749 2/5/2015 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 170360 City Hall - Elevator Cert Renewal
City Hall - Elevator Cert Renewal
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 154.20
Total :154.20
212750 2/5/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3522 01/27/2015 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
01/27/2015 City Council Minutes &
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 349.80
Total :349.80
212751 2/5/2015 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 01312015 STATE LOBBYIST FOR JANUARY 2015
State lobbyist for January 2015
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 4,300.00
Total :4,300.00
212752 2/5/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2987067 PM SCREWS, CEDAR, HEM/FIR YOST BRIDGE RE
PM SCREWS, CEDAR, HEM/FIR YOST BRIDGE
9Page:
Packet Page 27 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212752 2/5/2015 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 165.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.68
Total :180.77
212753 2/5/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 44314 CEMETERY LUBRICANT, OIL
CEMETERY LUBRICANT, OIL
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 64.43
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 6.12
PM OIL44315
PM OIL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 46.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.41
Total :121.40
212754 2/5/2015 007850 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 5301 HORT 107 DILL 5301 HORT 107 DILL CLASS REGISTRATION
5301 HORT 107 DILL CLASS REGISTRATION
001.000.64.576.80.49.00 468.44
Total :468.44
212755 2/5/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / METE
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 73-03575
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 294.35
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / METE3-07525
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / METE3-07709
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 23-09350
10Page:
Packet Page 28 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212755 2/5/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 76.88
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / METER3-09800
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.02
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 63-29875
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
Total :563.33
212756 2/5/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 109601 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.23.523.30.48.00 116.81
P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027109613 1
P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 95.64
Total :212.45
212757 2/5/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH610237 E4GA.AD SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIF
E4GA.Ad for SEPA Determination of
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 58.48
Legal Descrip: PLN 2014.0074EDH610690
Legal Descrip: PLN 2014.0074
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 70.52
Legal Descrip: PLN 2014.0072 and 73 -EDH611235
Legal Descrip: PLN 2014.0072 and 73 -
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 91.16
ORDINANCE 3987 AMEND CEMETERY BOARDEDH612058
Amending Cemetery Board Ordinance 3987
001.000.25.514.30.41.40 22.36
Legal Descrip: Port of Edmonds - ~EDH612110
Legal Descrip: Port of Edmonds - ~
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 68.80
Total :311.32
11Page:
Packet Page 29 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212758 2/5/2015 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 13115 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00
Total :20,000.00
212759 2/5/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 66.02
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE & PM IP425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE
001.000.64.571.29.42.00 58.33
PARKS MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX)
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.95
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.11
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
12Page:
Packet Page 30 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212759 2/5/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02
Total :930.20
212760 2/5/2015 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19628 TAEKWON-DO 19628 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE
19628 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 448.50
Total :448.50
212761 2/5/2015 073821 GEODESIGN INC 0115-050 E4JA.SERVICES THRU 1/23/15
E4JA.Services thru 1/23/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 822.90
Total :822.90
212762 2/5/2015 072515 GOOGLE INC 3165850757 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908
Google Apps - Jan-2015
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 438.48
Total :438.48
212763 2/5/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9639679274 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 462.30
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 43.92
FAC - Mounted Ball Bearings9648464130
FAC - Mounted Ball Bearings
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 216.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.52
YOST POOL BOILER CHEMICAL FEEDER9648464148
YOST POOL BOILER CHEMICAL FEEDER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 129.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.26
Total :884.11
212764 2/5/2015 012560 HACH COMPANY 9199183 Water Quality - Chlorine Tester sets
13Page:
Packet Page 31 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212764 2/5/2015 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
Water Quality - Chlorine Tester sets
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 613.80
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 41.37
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 62.24
Total :717.41
212765 2/5/2015 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197306 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR JANUARY 2015
Photography for January 2015
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
212766 2/5/2015 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 150822 Unit 679 - Solenoid, Retainer
Unit 679 - Solenoid, Retainer
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 87.26
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.29
Unit 35 - Latch151178
Unit 35 - Latch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 49.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.74
Total :150.19
212767 2/5/2015 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 8 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,428.80
Total :1,428.80
212768 2/5/2015 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE-2015_0130 COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING FOR TOURISM
Communications and marketing consultant
120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,000.00
Reimbursement for purchase of tourism
120.000.31.575.42.49.00 81.57
14Page:
Packet Page 32 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212768 2/5/2015 (Continued)074966 HIATT, ELLEN
Reimbursement for mileage to Visit
001.000.61.558.70.43.00 19.26
Total :1,100.83
212769 2/5/2015 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 19557 UKELELE 19557 UKELELE INSTRUCTOR FEE
19557 UKELELE INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 343.89
Total :343.89
212770 2/5/2015 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25652 E4JA.TO 13-06 SERVICES THRU 1/24/15
E4JA.T.O. 13-06 Services thru 1/24/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 916.70
Total :916.70
212771 2/5/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2573078 Office supplies - DSD
Office supplies - DSD
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 57.37
Office Supplies - DSD2575029
Office Supplies - DSD
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 261.30
Office Supplies - DSD2575721
Office Supplies - DSD
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 177.44
Office supplies2575804
Office supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 74.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 7.10
SUPPLIES2576515
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 547.80
Total :1,125.71
212772 2/5/2015 074652 JAMIE KIM 12714 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
15Page:
Packet Page 33 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212772 2/5/2015 (Continued)074652 JAMIE KIM
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
212773 2/5/2015 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13089333-00 YOST POOL POT FEEDER
YOST POOL POT FEEDER
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 769.33
Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 69.48
Total :838.81
212774 2/5/2015 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD 19665 DIGITAL PHOTO 19665 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE
19665 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 44.00
Total :44.00
212775 2/5/2015 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3878819 INV#3878819 ACCT#100828 - EDMONDS PD
10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 237.30
HANDLING FEE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 55.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.54
Total :315.04
212776 2/5/2015 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE 19593 TAEKWON-DO 19593 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE
19593 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 21.50
19597 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE19597 TAEKWON-DO
19597 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 230.00
Total :251.50
212777 2/5/2015 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 1015-149 CEMETERY REWIND SPRING
CEMETERY REWIND SPRING
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 51.60
16Page:
Packet Page 34 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212777 2/5/2015 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 4.90
PM FUELD FILTER, AIR FILTER, SPARKPLUGS,1015-157
PM FUELD FILTER, AIR FILTER,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.19
Total :104.79
212778 2/5/2015 074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC 2015-304 SAP IMPLEMENTATION CONSULTANT FOR JANUAR
SAP implementation consultant for
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 437.50
Total :437.50
212779 2/5/2015 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 898471 Street - Surface Grinder Parts
Street - Surface Grinder Parts
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 47.96
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 4.56
PM REPOWER, FUEL, SPARK899575
PM REPOWER, FUEL, SPARK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 86.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.24
Total :147.54
212780 2/5/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1553 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 86.90
INTERPRETER FEE1554
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
INTERPRETER FEE1599
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 86.90
17Page:
Packet Page 35 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :260.702127802/5/2015 069362 069362 MARSHALL, CITA
212781 2/5/2015 074322 MICRO PRECISION CALIBRATION STL-17486 Water Quality - Calibration Fee for
Water Quality - Calibration Fee for
421.000.74.534.80.48.00 64.00
Total :64.00
212782 2/5/2015 072223 MILLER, DOUG 1/7-1/28 GYM MONITOR 1/7/15-1/28/15 GYM MONITOR
1/7-1/28 GYM MONITOR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 140.00
Total :140.00
212783 2/5/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 204463 PM SPARK PLUGS, FUEL FILTERS, CHIP GUARD
PM SPARK PLUGS, FUEL FILTERS, CHIP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 309.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.39
Total :338.80
212784 2/5/2015 066553 MISTER T'S TROPHIES 102534 Employee of the Year Awards/Plaques
Employee of the Year Awards/Plaques
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 203.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 19.33
Total :222.78
212785 2/5/2015 022009 MOTOROLA INC 13048381 INV#13048381 ACCT#1011249259 0001 EDMOND
7/800 SINGLE BAND RADIOS-TRAFFIC
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 5,112.00
PALM PHONE
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 162.00
2 YR SFS LITE
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 474.00
REMOTE MOUNT MOTORCYCLE
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 900.00
ADVANCE KEY SYSTEM
18Page:
Packet Page 36 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212785 2/5/2015 (Continued)022009 MOTOROLA INC
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 11.25
SMARTZONE OPERATOR APX
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 3,375.00
AUXILARY SPKR 7.5 WATT
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 135.00
05 CONTROL HEAD
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 972.00
ANT 3DB LOWPRO MCYC 762-870
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 96.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.548.68.35.00 1,067.62
Total :12,305.62
212786 2/5/2015 023870 NATIONAL REC & PARK ASSOC 29558 GRP MEMBERSHIP MEMBER ID #29558 2015 GROUP MEMBERSHIP
MEMBER ID #29558 2015 GROUP MEMBERSHIP
001.000.64.571.21.49.00 390.00
Total :390.00
212787 2/5/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0395918-IN Storm - Supplies
Storm - Supplies
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 23.85
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2.27
Total :26.12
212788 2/5/2015 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3539237 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
617.000.51.517.20.23.00 1,310.62
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 9,032.24
Total :10,342.86
212789 2/5/2015 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1030792 Unit 32 - Double Acting Hoist Pendant
Unit 32 - Double Acting Hoist Pendant
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 468.00
19Page:
Packet Page 37 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212789 2/5/2015 (Continued)068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.06
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 45.51
Total :524.57
212790 2/5/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1116673 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77
WILLOW CREEK HONEY BUCKET2-1116946
WILLOW CREEK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
Total :336.42
212791 2/5/2015 070306 OBERG, WILLIAM 4 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,536.79
Total :1,536.79
212792 2/5/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 138533 INV#138533 ACCT#520437 250POL - EDMONDS
FILE POCKET PARTITION (H & F)
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 24.75
ANGLED STEP SORTERS (H)
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 15.74
PARTITION COAT HOOKS (H & F)
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 30.69
MONITOR STANDS (H & F)
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 37.20
RUBBER BANDS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.16
MARKS A LOT MARKERS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.06
CD/DVD SHARPIER MARKERS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 64.55
CDR RECORDABLE DISCS
20Page:
Packet Page 38 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212792 2/5/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 82.85
SHARPIE MARKERS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.15
9X12 CATALOG ENVELOPES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 54.62
2015 DESK CALENDAR (FROLAND)
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 10.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 11.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 14.01
PW Offices Supplies- Markers162317
PW Offices Supplies- Markers
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 56.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 5.34
P&R SUPPLIES & PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES222893
P&R KLEENEX, PAPER, PENS, RUBBER BANDS
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 189.54
PRESCHOOL LAMINATE LEGAL SHEETS
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 15.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 18.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 1.47
PW Office Supplies730776
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 17.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.68
Total :677.67
212793 2/5/2015 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER January, 2015 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
21Page:
Packet Page 39 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212793 2/5/2015 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.237.120 1,035.81
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130 22,634.84
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150 130.00
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330 30.46
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180 3,759.82
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200 73.36
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250 2,030.62
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260 377.54
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.237.290 17.77
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.237.300 17.79
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320 48.37
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.237.170 53.47
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340 173.37
Total :30,383.22
212794 2/5/2015 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION
HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.83
HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN & SPRINKL0060860
HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN &
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 86.84
22Page:
Packet Page 40 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :103.672127942/5/2015 026200 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
212795 2/5/2015 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS06279G215 PW Elevator Maint Service Contract from
PW Elevator Maint Service Contract from
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,584.07
Total :3,584.07
212796 2/5/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 186888 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 119.00
Storm Dump Fees186893
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 119.00
Total :238.00
212797 2/5/2015 075150 PALMER COKING COAL COMPANY LLP IN037955 PM CIVIC FIELD TRACK CINDERS
PM CIVIC FIELD TRACK CINDERS
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,164.21
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 110.60
Total :1,274.81
212798 2/5/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC G018658 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
switches and fuses
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 225.27
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 21.40
Total :246.67
212799 2/5/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 214563 American Messaging - Water/Sewer Pager
American Messaging - Water/Sewer Pager
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 5.99
American Messaging - Water/Sewer Pager
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 5.99
Total :11.98
212800 2/5/2015 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME
23Page:
Packet Page 41 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212800 2/5/2015 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,429.29
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 151.92
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 544.08
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,006.74
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 452.40
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 652.73
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,388.37
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 478.34
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 264.29
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 570.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 34.34
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 130.48
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
24Page:
Packet Page 42 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212800 2/5/2015 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 130.48
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 130.48
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 130.48
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 130.49
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
423.000.76.535.80.47.63 1,194.41
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 276.63
Total :10,096.11
212801 2/5/2015 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-1042 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00 2,722.50
Total :2,722.50
212802 2/5/2015 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000151991 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-THOMPSON
SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-THOMPSON
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00
SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-FARR00000151992
SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-FARR
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00
SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-EISENZIMMER00000151993
SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-EISENZIMMER
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00
Total :300.00
212803 2/5/2015 075031 REECE, CARLY 1/13-1/27 VOLLEYBALL 1/13/15-1/27/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
1/13/15-1/27/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 105.00
1/8/15-1/29/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT1/8-1/29 GYM ATTEND
25Page:
Packet Page 43 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212803 2/5/2015 (Continued)075031 REECE, CARLY
1/8/15-1/29/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 100.00
Total :205.00
212804 2/5/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 5034237332 Additional Images DSD Ricoh MP171SPF
Additional Images DSD Ricoh MP171SPF
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 7.47
Total :7.47
212805 2/5/2015 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.9 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,861.33
Total :1,861.33
212806 2/5/2015 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2358267 Roadway - Cold Patch Asphalt
Roadway - Cold Patch Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 991.80
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 94.22
Total :1,086.02
212807 2/5/2015 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E3GA.Pmt 6 E3GA.PMT 6 THRU 1/27/15
E3GA.Pmt 6 thru 1/27/15
423.000.75.594.35.65.30 116,963.52
Total :116,963.52
212808 2/5/2015 075115 SKAGIT RIVER GUIDE SERVICE LLC 19724 SKAGIT RIVER 19724 SKAGIT RIVER GUIDE SERVICE FEE
19724 SKAGIT RIVER GUIDE SERVICE FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 219.16
Total :219.16
212809 2/5/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0436851 PM A.C. TERRACE BED MULCH
PM A.C. TERRACE BED MULCH
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 29.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 2.76
26Page:
Packet Page 44 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212809 2/5/2015 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY
PM FERTIL-MULCH FLOWER PROGRAMT-0437106
PM FERTIL-MULCH FLOWER PROGRAM
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 700.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 66.50
Total :798.26
212810 2/5/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 74.25
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 1002003-8645-6
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 124.49
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME2004-2241-8
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,800.94
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 652.23
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER 10002006-7801-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.39
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / METE2012-6598-0
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 436.99
PINE ST PARK2013-2711-1
PINE ST PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.98
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / M2013-7496-4
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 44.36
CEMETERY BUILDING2015-5730-3
CEMETERY BUILDING
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 391.41
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 102015-6343-4
27Page:
Packet Page 45 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212810 2/5/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 52.19
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / METE2015-9448-8
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 39.53
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY2016-1027-6
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.30
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER2016-5690-7
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 421.67
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W /2017-0375-8
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 57.48
415 5TH AVE S2017-6210-1
415 5TH AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 49.46
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.92
CEMETERY WELL PUMP2021-6153-5
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 153.85
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH2024-2158-2
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 416.47
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 102042-9221-3
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 173.16
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA2044-6743-5
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 89.67
Total :6,097.74
212811 2/5/2015 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER January 2015 Crime Victims Court Remittance
28Page:
Packet Page 46 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212811 2/5/2015 (Continued)070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140 592.01
Total :592.01
212812 2/5/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2074990-01 Storm - B Clemens - 5 Work Jeans,
Storm - B Clemens - 5 Work Jeans,
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 304.35
9.2% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 28.00
Street - T Bach - 5 Work Jeans,2075840-01
Street - T Bach - 5 Work Jeans,
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 332.95
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 30.63
Street - B Sanders - 5 Work Jeans,2075955-01
Street - B Sanders - 5 Work Jeans,
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 344.50
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 31.69
Street - C Hiatt - TShirts, Sweatshirt4246960-01
Street - C Hiatt - TShirts, Sweatshirt
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 117.45
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 11.16
Street - Return 1 T Shirt (C Hiatt)4246968-01
Street - Return 1 T Shirt (C Hiatt)
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 -15.35
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 -1.46
Storm - P Johnson - 5 Work Jeans, T's,4247022-01
Storm - P Johnson - 5 Work Jeans, T's,
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 352.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 33.48
Storm - M Johnson - 5 Work Jeans,4247099-01
29Page:
Packet Page 47 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212812 2/5/2015 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
Storm - M Johnson - 5 Work Jeans,
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 357.15
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 33.93
Storm - J Whatmore - 5 Work Jeans,4247134-01
Storm - J Whatmore - 5 Work Jeans,
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 315.30
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 29.95
Total :2,306.13
212813 2/5/2015 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002902649 INV#3002902649 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD
MEDIUM BOX DISPOSAL
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 51.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 1.92
Total :53.44
212814 2/5/2015 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1376 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES JANUARY 2015
Social media services for January 2015
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00
Total :300.00
212815 2/5/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11431062 Traffic - Supplies
Traffic - Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 219.72
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 20.87
Unit 21 - Pipe11432299
Unit 21 - Pipe
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.60
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.04
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.58
30Page:
Packet Page 48 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :258.812128152/5/2015 040917 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
212816 2/5/2015 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER 1/6-1/27 PICKLEBALL 1/6/15-1/27/15 PICKLEBALL MONITOR FAC
1/6/15-1/27/15 PICKLEBALL MONITOR FAC
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 40.00
Total :40.00
212817 2/5/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50869183 WWTP - C411: FACITLITY, TASK 5.14
C411-task order 5.14
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 852.68
Total :852.68
212818 2/5/2015 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV1299455 City Wide- Filter Supplies
City Wide- Filter Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 547.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 51.98
Total :599.18
212819 2/5/2015 067904 TRENCHLESS RESOURCES INTL INC 20150301 COURSE TUITION - NASSCO PACP STAFF
COURSE TUITION - NASSCO PACP STAFF
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3,375.00
COURSE TUITION - NASSCO PACP STAFF
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 3,375.00
Total :6,750.00
212820 2/5/2015 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 7 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,258.80
Total :1,258.80
212821 2/5/2015 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-122388 2015 EDEN SUPPORT MAINTENANCE
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 5,598.90
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 34,084.48
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
31Page:
Packet Page 49 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212821 2/5/2015 (Continued)063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
001.000.22.518.10.48.00 7,300.22
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
001.000.41.521.11.48.00 762.67
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
421.000.74.534.80.48.00 7,846.07
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
423.000.75.535.80.48.00 7,846.07
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
422.000.72.531.90.48.00 7,846.06
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 5,878.89
2015 EDEN SUPPORT MAINTENANCE045-122874
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance - CAFR
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 1,704.00
2015 EDEN SUPPORT MAINTENANCE045-125424
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance -
001.000.22.518.10.48.00 492.75
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance - Sales045-125685
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance - Sales
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 161.88
2015 EDEN SUPPORT MAINTENANCE GASB045-125951
2015 EDEN Support Maintenance - GASB
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 -1,926.08
Total :77,595.91
212822 2/5/2015 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE PO Box 2008 2015 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
2015 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 498.66
2015 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 498.66
2015 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 498.68
Total :1,496.00
212823 2/5/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9739348502 C/A 571242650-0001
32Page:
Packet Page 50 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212823 2/5/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 220.42
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.99
iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.42.00 1,132.28
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.17
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development
001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.20
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ
001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.21
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 503.57
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.38
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.20
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.20
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 286.38
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office
001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept
001.000.64.571.21.42.00 124.89
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 918.90
Air cards Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.27
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept
001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.59
33Page:
Packet Page 51 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212823 2/5/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.60
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.59
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.60
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 115.99
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.19
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 82.10
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 82.10
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.24
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.25
iPad Cell Service Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 120.03
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 161.19
Total :5,908.15
212824 2/5/2015 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E3GA.Ret 6 E3GA.RET 6.WA FED #316-400163-2.THRU 1/2
E3GA.Ret 6.WA Fed #316-400163-2.thru
423.000.75.594.35.65.30 5,596.34
Total :5,596.34
212825 2/5/2015 045515 WABO 29647 WABO Training for Building Staff,
WABO Training for Building Staff,
001.000.62.524.20.49.00 1,500.00
34Page:
Packet Page 52 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,500.002128252/5/2015 045515 045515 WABO
212826 2/5/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-026 Street - 6th & Dayton - Remove Hanger
Street - 6th & Dayton - Remove Hanger
111.000.68.542.71.48.00 140.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.48.00 13.30
Street - 100th Ave W - Remove Deady FirI15-029
Street - 100th Ave W - Remove Deady Fir
111.000.68.542.71.48.00 600.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.48.00 57.00
Total :810.30
212827 2/5/2015 071359 WASSER CORPORATION INV000005649 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
MC Luster paint
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 162.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 15.44
Total :177.84
212828 2/5/2015 068227 WCCFA 2015 MEMBERSHIP 2015 VOTING MEMBERSHIP DUES
2015 VOTING MEMBERSHIP DUES
130.000.64.536.20.49.00 253.35
Total :253.35
212829 2/5/2015 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E80453 Street/Street - Rain Ware
Street/Street - Rain Ware
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 33.73
Street/Street - Rain Ware
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 33.72
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 3.11
9.2% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 3.10
Street/Storm - Rain WareE80467
35Page:
Packet Page 53 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212829 2/5/2015 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
Street/Storm - Rain Ware
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 256.31
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 23.58
Total :353.55
212830 2/5/2015 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 6 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,258.80
Total :1,258.80
212831 2/5/2015 075148 WILL & REBECCA STOUT 2-33225 #4221-2356785 UTILITY REFUND
#4221-2356785 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 65.03
Total :65.03
212832 2/5/2015 064170 WSRA 300000476 Annual Renewal 2015 - S Fisher
Annual Renewal 2015 - S Fisher
421.000.74.537.90.49.00 225.00
Total :225.00
212833 2/5/2015 066289 WSTOA 114 INV 114 NORTH SOUND METRO SWAT TEAM RENE
TEAM MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 2014
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 100.00
Total :100.00
212834 2/5/2015 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1040 JAN-15 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,930.96
Total :13,930.96
212835 2/5/2015 068180 ZERO WASTE WASHINGTON 2015 Membership Annual Membership 2015 - S Fisher
Annual Membership 2015 - S Fisher
421.000.74.537.90.49.00 75.00
Total :75.00
36Page:
Packet Page 54 of 312
02/05/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
9:49:05AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212836 2/5/2015 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0174094 Traffic - Supplies
Traffic - Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 265.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 13.72
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 26.48
Total :305.20
Bank total :406,731.29114 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
406,731.29Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report114
37Page:
Packet Page 55 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 56 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 57 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 58 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 59 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
ENG E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 60 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 61 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail
General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program
STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza
PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project
PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support
FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 62 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain
STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update
STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project
FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements
STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park
WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project
STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 63 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program
WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC c444 E4LA Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals
STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays
ENG c453 E4DA Train Trench - Concept
STR c454 E4DB SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM c455 E4FE Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR c456 E4GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM c459 E4FF Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR c460 E4JC 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR c461 E4GC Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR c462 E4CD 220th Street Overlay Project
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 64 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 65 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 66 of 312
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
Revised 2/4/2015 Packet Page 67 of 312
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 740 (01/16/2015 to 01/31/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28
10% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS00c1 0.00 256.35
NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 95.00 0.00
NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 16.00 0.00
SICK LEAVESICK121 641.50 22,235.97
VACATIONVACATION122 815.75 30,299.50
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 50.00 1,708.63
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 53.50 1,599.08
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 166.00 5,945.82
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 35.50 1,347.99
Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 37.75 1,097.04
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 120.00 4,503.95
FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACKHOLIDAY154 13.00 367.44
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 89.64 3,886.98
SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 538.00 15,049.76
VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 553.38 15,590.38
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 13.00 694.46
COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 7,000.00
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 100.00
COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 694.93
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 15,215.50 534,760.01
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,267.58
LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS193 66.00 1,933.12
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 101.25 4,314.68
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 36.00 1,780.08
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 16.00 1,436.03
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 249.00 15,809.18
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 32.25 2,018.19
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 813.46
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 2,901.60
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 87.50 0.00
Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 17.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 120.75 0.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70
02/05/2015 Page 1 of 3
Packet Page 68 of 312
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 740 (01/16/2015 to 01/31/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Accreditation 1% Part TimeMISCELLANEOUSacp 0.00 0.00
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17
Repayment AgreementREGULAR HOURScell 0.00 -60.96
Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 516.16
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 965.68
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 780.22
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 718.40
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,639.11
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla 60.00 0.00
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,203.80 42,200.07
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 95.43
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,760.37
LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 407.75
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 822.00
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,513.34
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 157.65
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 302.98
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 873.74
Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 86.45
MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 200.50
5% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUSooc 0.00 120.00
Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 46.65
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,683.52
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 153.70
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 504.43
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 153.70
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78
02/05/2015 Page 2 of 3
Packet Page 69 of 312
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 740 (01/16/2015 to 01/31/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Total Net Pay:$499,411.09
$743,871.08 21,147.07
02/05/2015 Page 3 of 3
Packet Page 70 of 312
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 740 - 01/16/2015 to 01/31/2015
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
61490 02/05/2015 dlni DEPARTMENT OF L & I 453.10 0.00
61491 02/05/2015 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,173.00 0.00
61492 02/05/2015 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00
61493 02/05/2015 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 808.33 0.00
61494 02/05/2015 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00
61495 02/05/2015 cope SEIU COPE 82.00 0.00
61496 02/05/2015 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,557.78 0.00
61497 02/05/2015 sc SNOHOMISH COUNTY COURT 684.93 0.00
61498 02/05/2015 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 879.00 0.00
61499 02/05/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 1,499.51 0.00
61500 02/05/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 91,854.81 0.00
102,137.56 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2175 02/05/2015 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 194,692.16 0.00
2176 02/05/2015 aflac AFLAC 5,187.23 0.00
2179 02/05/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 30,512.50 0.00
2180 02/05/2015 us US BANK 100,439.71 0.00
2181 02/05/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,157.60 0.00
2182 02/05/2015 awc AWC 1,093.64 0.00
2183 02/05/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00
337,131.34 0.00
439,268.90 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 12/5/2015
Packet Page 71 of 312
AM-7470 4. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from MiaLisa Anderson (amount undetermined) and from
John Nesmith ($332.80).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
MiaLisa Anderson
Montclair C/O Condominium Management
P.O. Box 98459
Des Moines, WA 98198
(amount undetermined)
John Nesmith
20036 Burke Avenue N.
Shoreline, WA 98133
($332.80)
Attachments
Anderson Claim for Damages
Nesmith Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 02/04/2015 04:12 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/05/2015 07:36 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 02/04/2015 02:32 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/05/2015
Packet Page 72 of 312
Packet Page 73 of 312
Packet Page 74 of 312
Packet Page 75 of 312
Packet Page 76 of 312
Packet Page 77 of 312
Packet Page 78 of 312
Packet Page 79 of 312
Packet Page 80 of 312
Packet Page 81 of 312
Packet Page 82 of 312
Packet Page 83 of 312
Packet Page 84 of 312
Packet Page 85 of 312
Packet Page 86 of 312
Packet Page 87 of 312
Packet Page 88 of 312
Packet Page 89 of 312
AM-7461 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Patrick Doherty
Department:Community Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Downtown BID Assessment Rate Structure Discussion
Recommendation
Mayor and staff recommend that City Council place the item for action on the 2/17/15 Council meeting
agenda.
Previous Council Action
As part of its initial approval of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID, aka
"Edmonds Downtown Alliance") on 1/15/13 the City Council approved the current two-tiered assessment
rate structure.
On November 10 and 18, 2014, during consideration of the EDBID's proposed 2015 Work Plan and
Budget, a request was made for additional information and potentially renewed consideration of the
assessment rate structure.
Information was provided at the December 9, 2014 and January 6, 2014 Council meetings.
Minutes of all of these recent meetings, plus the related attachments, are attached here.
Narrative
During Council review of the EDBID's proposed 2015 Work Plan and Budget, three items were initially
raised for further discussion: the assessment rate structure, potential expansion of boundaries, and the
collections policy for rate fee payment delinquencies. Only the assessment rate structure was chosen by
City Council for further discussion.
Consequently, City Council has requested a summary of the history of the EDBID's assessment rate
structure, comparison with other BIDs in the State, and a legal analysis vis-à-vis State statutory provisions
and relevant case law. This information is intended to inform a discussion about potential changes to the
assessment rate structure.
Attached is a detailed memo outlining the BID assessment rate history, legal analysis, discussion of
BID benefits, and a conclusion.
The conclusion is reprinted here as a summary:
Packet Page 90 of 312
The Mayor and staff have thoroughly analyzed the issues related to the EDBID’s assessment rate
structure and conclude that the current, two-tiered rate structure recognizes the variable levels of direct
and indirect benefit to “open door” and “by appointment” businesses in a fair, reasonable and legally
defensible manner. Further, the rate difference between the tiers is substantial, providing a significantly
lower rate to “by appointment” businesses. Lastly, the corresponding rates are relatively low as compared
with other BIDs in the State, and the increment of only $5/month per tier ensures that no rate-payers see
an excessive assessment over others.
With the EDBID’s creation only two years ago, and in light of the substantial body of work necessary for
a complex organization to go from start-up to implementation, the EDBID has done a commendable job in
its short initial period. Much more is anticipated from the EDBID, as evidenced by their
Council-approved 2015 Work Plan.
For the above-stated reasons, the Mayor and staff believe that the EDBID assessment rate structure is fair
and reasonable at this point in time and that it is too early in the EDBID’s existence to dismantle said
structure and attempt to formulate a different assessment structure.
Attachments
Memo to Council in BID Rate Structure History
Legal Opinion on BID Rate Structure
EdmondsDowtownAlliance_2015_Final_Workplan
August 7 2014 letter from Malgarin re BID assessments
Mayor Earling response to Malgarin
Council minutes 11-10-14
Council minutes 11-18-14
Council minutes 12-09-14
Council minutes 01-06-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/03/2015 02:06 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/03/2015 02:22 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/03/2015 02:31 PM
Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 02/03/2015 09:57 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/03/2015
Packet Page 91 of 312
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: PATRICK DOHERTY, ECO. DEV. & COMMTY. SRVCS. DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA RATES
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2015
_____________________________________________________________________________________
BID Assessment Rate Structure History
During the years leading up to Council consideration and ultimate approval of the Edmonds Downtown
Business Improvement District (EDBID, aka Edmonds Downtown Alliance or “Ed!”) on January 15, 2013,
a great deal of research was conducted regarding all aspects of BID formation, including rate structures.
Many other BIDs in the State were researched, including at least half a dozen in Seattle, as well as BIDs
in other Washington communities. In addition, the merchants who proposed the BID engaged the
professional services of Brian D. Scott, an expert in BID formation in Washington, who provided advice
on the formation of the BID, its assessment rate structure and other pertinent issues. As a result of this
research it was determined that assessment rate structures vary widely across the State, including such
variables as: gross retail sales, gross business income, floor area of business, square footage of parcel,
assessed property value, parking spaces, hotel rooms, and even just flat fees.
In addition, the legal parameters were researched, not only the competent State statute (RCW
35.87A.010), but also most recent case law. The key take-away from this research was that a BID’s rate
structure should reflect the variable benefit that could accrue to different types of members, such as
retail, “open-door” businesses versus by-appointment or “closed-door” businesses, as determined by
each community’s legislative body.
In tandem with this research, the proponents discussed and researched potential programs and
activities the Edmonds BID could engage in and how large a corresponding annual budget should be in
order to accommodate them. It was decided that a roughly $80-90,000 annual budget seemed to
correspond with BIDs of other communities of similar size, plus appeared to provide sufficient resources
to carry out a reasonable level of programming and activities.
Another important factor considered with respect to the rate structure was simplicity – both in terms of
administration and understandability.
With these various factors in mind, the BID proponents concluded the following with regard to the
parameters for their proposed assessment rate structure:
Packet Page 92 of 312
• Rates should be structured in two tiers to reflect the two basic types of businesses: retail,
“open-door” businesses and by-appointment or “closed-door” businesses. In addition, the
lower tier should be substantially lower than the upper tier.
• Assessment based on business area by square footage appeared to be the easiest to administer
and most directly related to business activity and impact. Other bases, such as business income,
gross sales, property value, etc., appeared to be overly intrusive and difficult to adminster.
• Assessment of businesses only – and not property owners – seemed to provide the most direct
relationship between BID benefits and beneficiaries. Property owners may or may not be active
members of the Downtown Edmonds business community and would likely pass along any
assessment to business tenants in their triple-net lease provisions.
• The rates should be held to the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable overall BID budget.
The proposed rates were compared with other state-wide rates and were found to be within the
lower range.
• In order to facilitate ease of administration, square-footage-based assessment should be in
ranges rather than an exact per-square-foot assessment, the latter requiring detailed as-built
records and potentially inviting squabbles over exact business area.
• In order to minimize concern over the relative rates among tiers, each tier’s rate was proposed
as no more than an additional $5 per month higher than the tier below it. Rates range from
$30/month to $50/month for “open-door” businesses and $10/month to $30/month for “by
appointment” businesses.
In addition, a provision was proposed that was intended to ease the transition to BID assessment for
new businesses. Recognizing that new businesses often struggle during the first year, a provision was
proposed, and approved by City Council, to exempt new businesses from paying the BID assessment
during their first year.
Legal Analysis
Recently City Councilmembers requested that the BID’s rate structure be reviewed for legal consistency
with applicable case law.
Attached is a separate memo from City Attorney Jeff Taraday regarding the legal questions raised
recently by City Councilmembers. Specifically Mr. Taraday opines on the relevant language from BID-
related case law regarding the issue of assessment rates and benefits to various types of businesses. The
competent case law is City of Seattle v. Rogers Clothing for Men, Inc., 114 Wn.2d 213, 220, 787 P.2d 39,
43 (1990). In addition, a question was raised about the potential legal relevance of a Los Angeles County
Superior Court case regarding a Downtown Los Angeles BID.
In very brief summary, in the Rogers Clothing case the court upheld the City of Seattle’s assessment rate
structure for the BID in question, citing that it is solely up to the legislative body (i.e., the City Council) to
determine the relative levels of benefits to be ascribed to different kinds of businesses and their
corresponding assessment rates, recognizing at a minimum that there may be differential levels of
Packet Page 93 of 312
benefit with correspondingly different levels of assessment. No specific guidance is elucidated regarding
the delineation of these distinctions. Furthermore, the court ascribes substantial deference to the
legislative body’s public process and decision-making in this regard. Lastly, regarding the Los Angeles
case, there is no legal relevance to the Downtown Edmonds BID given that 1) California statutory
provisions with regard to BIDs are quite different from Washington statutory provisions, and 2) a
Superior Court decision in California is of no precedential value to a Washington matter.
Given that the Edmonds City Council identified a distinction in potential benefits to “open door” versus
“by appointment” businesses and formulated the assessment rate structure correspondingly, it appears
that these City Council actions comport both with State statutory provisions and the relevant case law.
Please see Mr. Taraday’s memo for details.
Benefits Discussion
Although the rate structure is split into two tiers that reflect the notion that “open-door” and “by
appointment” businesses may experience different levels of benefit from the BID’s programs and
activities, the notion of “benefits” has continued to be a topic of recent discussions.
In particular, there have been suggestions that certain classes of business may not experience benefits
at all.
While retail establishments offering goods and services to the public may experience more direct
benefits resulting from promotional campaigns, events, and/or other street-level amenities and
enhancements, there is a body of indirect benefits that accrue to all businesses in the BID area.
Downtown Edmonds is an environment that provides three key elements that draw and support all
kinds of businesses: attractions, amenities and ambience. Be they retail establishments, professional
services, personal or health services, administrative or consultant offices, the attractions, amenities and
ambience of Downtown Edmonds benefit them all. There is a wide array of options available to business
owner to site a business – from office buildings in the Highway 99 Corridor to leafy office complexes in
other suburban locales, often at lower cost than Downtown Edmonds locations. That being the case,
why, then, would a business owner choose to locate his/her business in Downtown Edmonds, very likely
at higher cost? Arguably the answer lies in the allure of the attractions, amenities and ambience that
Downtown Edmonds provides. Even if a business sees no walk-in business, the walkable environment,
ready access to goods and services, wide assortment of eating and drinking establishments, overall
charm and historic character, as well proximity to the waterfront provide amenities to its employees and
visitors. Indeed, the ability to attract and hold employees is very likely higher in such an amenity-rich
environment over a location in an auto-oriented, cookie-cutter suburban office park.
This notion is borne out in a recent study by the NAIOP, Commercial Real Estate Development
Association (Preferred Office Locations: Comparing Location Preferences and Performance of Office
Space in CBDs, Suburban Vibrant Centers and Suburban Areas, November 2014) where it was
Packet Page 94 of 312
determined that office tenants prefer amenity-rich “live, work, play” locations over single-use office
parks by a margin of 83 percent to 17 percent. A key quotation from the report states:
“…any company wanting to attract and retain young, educated workers who prefer live, work,
play locations needs to locate in a compact, mixed-use, walkable place…”
Downtown Edmonds provides precisely this type of environment, one that is attractive to a wide array
of constituents, be they shoppers, diners, culture-goers, office workers, business owners or visitors.
Pursuant to the foregoing analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that any efforts aimed at maintaining,
promoting and/or enhancing the attractions, amenities, and ambience of Downtown Edmonds will
result in both direct and indirect benefits to any businesses that rely on or are supported by shoppers,
diners, culture-goers, office workers or visitors. Further, the Edmonds Downtown BID was expressly
established to achieve these objectives. Consequently, BID assessments, especially formulated in tiers
to recognize a split between direct and indirect beneficiaries, are justified both legally and substantively
in that they provide for the maintenance and enhancement of a wide range of amenities that result in
benefits to businesses throughout the BID area.
Conclusion
The Mayor and staff have thoroughly analyzed the issues related to the EDBID’s assessment rate
structure and conclude that the current, two-tiered rate structure recognizes the variable levels of direct
and indirect benefit to “open door” and “by appointment” businesses in a fair, reasonable and legally
defensible manner. Further, the rate difference between the tiers is substantial, providing a significantly
lower rate to “by appointment” businesses. Lastly, the corresponding rates are relatively low as
compared with other BIDs in the State, and the increment of only $5/month per tier ensures that no
rate-payers see an excessive assessment over others.
With the EDBID’s creation only two years ago, and in light of the substantial body of work necessary for
a complex organization to go from start-up to implementation, the EDBID has done a commendable job
in its short initial period. Much more is anticipated from the EDBID, as evidenced by their Council-
approved 2015 Work Plan.
For the above-stated reasons, the Mayor and staff believe that the EDBID assessment rate structure is
fair and reasonable at this point in time and that it is too early in the EDBID’s existence to dismantle said
structure and attempt to formulate a different assessment structure.
Packet Page 95 of 312
Date:
January
30,
2015
To:
Patrick
Doherty
From:
Jeff
Taraday
Re:
Law
related
to
showing
of
benefit
for
EDBID
You
asked
me
to
provide
you
with
a
very
short
summary
of
the
relevant
language
from
BID
case
law
pertaining
to
benefit.
You
also
asked
us
to
review
an
article
about
a
BID
in
Los
Angeles
to
determine
whether
it
had
any
bearing
on
the
Edmonds
Downtown
BID.
City
of
Seattle
v.
Rogers
Clothing
for
Men,
Inc.,
114
Wn.2d
213,
220,
787
P.2d
39,
43
(1990),
is
one
of
the
only
cases
to
interpret
Washington’s
BID
laws.
It
involved
a
challenge
to
a
BID
in
Downtown
Seattle
that
raised
six
separate
issues
that
are
set
forth
below:
ISSUE
ONE.
Does
the
City
of
Seattle
ordinance
in
question
exceed
the
statutory
authority
granted
to
the
City
by
RCW
35.87A?
ISSUE
TWO.
Is
the
purpose
for
which
the
assessment
is
levied
a
benefit
to
businesses
within
the
contemplation
of
RCW
35.87A.010
et
seq.
and
article
7,
section
9
of
the
Constitution
of
the
State
of
Washington?
ISSUE
THREE.
Are
the
benefits
delineated
by
the
ordinance
“special”
or
local
benefits
to
the
assessed
property
as
contrasted
with
general
benefits
which
inure
to
the
entire
community?
ISSUE
FOUR.
Which
party
to
this
litigation
had
the
burden
of
proving
that
the
assessments
did
not
substantially
exceed
the
benefit
and
was
such
burden
carried?
ISSUE
FIVE.
Is
the
assessment
a
“special
tax”
which
is
invalidly
assessed
against
only
a
portion
of
the
property
within
the
City's
jurisdiction
in
violation
of
the
uniformity
requirement
of
article
7,
section
1
(amend.
14)
of
the
Constitution
of
the
State
of
Packet Page 96 of 312
Washington?
ISSUE
SIX.
Does
Seattle
City
Ordinance
113105
violate
constitutional
equal
protection
guaranties?
City
of
Seattle
v.
Rogers
Clothing
for
Men,
Inc.,
114
Wn.2d
213,
220,
787
P.2d
39,
43
(1990).
Of
the
six
questions
addressed
in
Rogers
Clothing,
we
focus
issues
1,
2,
and
4
because
they
seem
most
relevant
to
the
questions
that
are
being
raised
by
councilmembers
and
certain
businesses
in
the
BID.
ISSUE
ONE:
In
Rogers
Clothing,
the
store
owners
argued
that
by
calculating
assessments
based
on
square
footage,
the
ordinance
violated
the
statute
by
failing
to
indicate
factors
showing
the
special
benefit.
The
court
rejected
that
claim
with
this
explanation:
“This
statute
(RCW
35.87A.080)
authorizes
the
City
to
make
a
reasonable
classification
of
businesses,
‘giving
consideration
to
various
factors
such
as
...
square
footage
of
the
business
...
or
any
other
reasonable
factor
relating
to
the
benefit
received’.
(Italics
ours.)
The
ordinance
did
classify
businesses
within
the
Business
Improvement
Area
into
a
number
of
classifications
based
upon
type
of
use
and
square
footage.
The
statute
also
provides
that
“[t]he
special
assessments
need
not
be
imposed
on
different
classes
of
business,
as
determined
pursuant
to
RCW
35.87A.080,
on
the
same
basis
or
the
same
rate
...”
The
ordinance
tracks
the
statute
by
classifying
property
pursuant
to
RCW
35.87A.080
based
upon
type
of
use
and
square
footage
and
then
proceeds
under
RCW
35.87A.090
to
apply
different
rates
to
the
different
classifications
of
property.
The
type
of
use
(hotel,
parking
lot,
retail
business)
is
a
reasonable
factor
relating
to
the
benefits
received
from
the
maintenance
and
the
marketing
programs.
Apportionment
of
special
assessments
based
upon
square
footage
of
property
has
often
been
upheld.
We
conclude
that
the
ordinance
carefully
follows
the
authorizing
statute,
does
not
exceed
its
delegated
power
and
does
not
violate
it.”
City
of
Seattle
v.
Rogers
Clothing
for
Men,
Inc.,
114
Wn.2d
213,
222-‐23,
787
P.2d
39,
44
(1990)
(emphasis
added).
The
assessment
methodology
used
for
the
EDBID
is
based
on
two
factors:
square
footage
of
the
business
and
type
of
use
(open
door
vs.
by
appointment).
Given
how
Packet Page 97 of 312
similar
this
assessment
method
is
to
the
one
upheld
in
Roger’s
Clothing,
it
is
highly
likely
that
the
courts
would
uphold
Edmonds’
methodology
if
it
were
to
be
challenged.
ISSUE
TWO:
In
Rogers
Clothing,
the
store
owners
also
argued
that
because
the
BID
benefits
were
derived
from
services
rather
than
capital
improvements
they
were
not
“benefits”
within
the
meaning
of
Const.
art.
7,
§
9.
The
Rogers
Clothing
court
responded
that
“in
large
part
the
character
of
the
improvement
rested
in
the
discretion
of
the
municipality.
…
Whether
RCW
35.87A
and
Seattle
City
Ordinance
113015
supply
the
proper
kind
of
benefits
for
special
assessment
purposes
is
primarily
a
legislative
question,
at
least
so
long
as
the
assessment
does
not
exceed
the
benefit
to
the
property.
…
The
ordinance
before
us
provides
for
decorating
and
beautifying
public
places
in
the
retail
core
area,
sponsoring
public
events,
advertising,
maintaining
information
and
directional
signing
for
pedestrians,
improving
public
relations,
sweeping
and
cleaning
sidewalks,
cleaning
and
erasing
graffiti,
maintaining
flowers
and
greenery,
providing
and
cleaning
litter
receptacles
and
providing
additional
security.
…
Although
not
all
of
these
services
are
permanent,
they
are
actual,
physical
and
material
as
opposed
to
speculative
or
conjectural.
…
We
conclude,
therefore,
that
as
a
general
proposition
the
determination
of
what
kind
of
a
benefit
will
support
a
special
assessment
is
a
decision
best
left
to
the
legislative
process
so
long
as
the
assessment
is
for
a
local
improvement
and
does
not
exceed
the
benefit
to
the
property.
Such
benefits
existed
in
this
case.”
City
of
Seattle
v.
Rogers
Clothing
for
Men,
Inc.,
114
Wn.2d
213,
223-‐26,
787
P.2d
39,
45-‐46
(1990)
(emphasis
added).
When
one
considers
the
benefits
provided
by
the
EDBID,
it
appears
that
there
is
substantial
overlap
with
the
type
of
benefits
that
were
provided
by
Seattle
and
upheld
in
Rogers
Clothing.
Given
the
legislative
deference
afforded
by
the
courts
on
this
issue,
it
is
unlikely
that
benefits
outlined
by
the
Edmonds
ordinance
would
be
overturned
by
the
courts.
Of
course,
the
city
council
can
always
review
the
EDBIDs
purposes
and
work
program
periodically
to
renew
its
legislative
determination
that
the
EDBID
is
benefitting
the
business
owners
being
assessed.
Packet Page 98 of 312
ISSUE
FOUR:
The
store
owners
in
Rogers
Clothing
also
challenged
the
amount
of
assessment
apportioned
to
each
piece
of
property,
arguing
that
the
City
failed
to
demonstrate
that
the
benefit
conferred
upon
the
store
owners'
businesses
exceeded
the
amount
of
the
assessments
on
those
properties.
The
court
noted
several
presumptions
that
the
store
owners
failed
to
overcome
in
making
this
challenge.
“The
presumptions
relevant
to
this
case
include:
(1)
the
burden
is
upon
the
one
challenging
the
assessment
to
prove
its
incorrectness
as
it
is
presumed
the
City
has
acted
properly
and
legally;
(2)
the
assessment
is
presumed
to
be
a
benefit;
(3)
the
assessment
is
presumed
to
be
no
greater
than
the
benefit;
(4)
it
is
presumed
that
an
assessment
is
equal
or
ratable
to
an
assessment
upon
other
property
similarly
situated
and
that
the
assessment
is
fair;
and
(5)
evidence
of
appraisal
values
and
benefits
is
necessary
to
rebut
these
presumptions.”
Rogers
Clothing,
at
229.
Because
the
store
owners
in
Rogers
Clothing
offered
no
appraisal
evidence,
their
challenge
failed.
Similarly,
Edmonds
has
not
been
provided
with
the
kind
of
appraisal
evidence
that
would
support
a
challenge
to
the
EDBID
assessments.
And,
because
the
EDBID
assessments
are
so
small
(ranging
from
$120
to
$600
per
year),
we
think
it
would
be
difficult
for
an
appraiser
to
render
a
convincing
opinion
that
the
assessment
exceeded
the
benefit.
The
store
owners
in
Rogers
Clothing
also
argued
that
the
trial
court
failed
to
find
a
“benefit”
because
it
only
found
an
“opportunity
to
benefit”.
But
“courts
have
not
required
benefit
measured
only
by
the
property's
present
use.
As
Professor
Trautman
explains,
“[p]roperty
cannot
be
relieved
from
the
burden
of
an
assessment
simply
because
its
owner
has
seen
fit
to
devote
it
to
a
use
which
presently
may
not
be
specifically
benefited
by
the
improvement.”
Trautman,
Assessments
in
Washington,
40
Wash.L.Rev.
100,
119
(1965).
Inherent
in
this
concept
of
benefit
based
upon
a
different
use
of
the
property
is
the
idea
that
“benefit”
includes
the
“opportunity
to
benefit”
from
the
improvement
so
long
as
the
opportunity
is
not
merely
speculative.
City
of
Seattle
v.
Rogers
Clothing
for
Men,
Inc.,
114
Wn.2d
213,
229-‐32,
787
P.2d
39,
47-‐49
(1990)
(emphasis
added).
Given
that
“benefit”
should
not
be
viewed
only
through
the
lens
of
the
present
use,
to
the
extent
that,
for
example,
some
of
the
“by
appointment”
businesses
were
to
complain
of
benefits
that
only
benefitted
the
“open
door”
businesses,
notwithstanding
the
lower
assessment
rate
charge
to
“by
appointment”
businesses,
it
still
may
be
difficult
for
those
“by
appointment”
businesses
to
succeed
Packet Page 99 of 312
with
a
challenge
in
court.
In
a
summary,
the
Rogers
Clothing
case
contains
language
that
will
generally
support
whatever
legislative
determination
is
made
regarding
the
assessment
rate
structure
and
the
type
of
benefits
to
be
provided.
There
are
many
different
ways
in
which
one
could
structure
the
EDBID
assessments,
and
the
deferential
standard
articulated
by
the
court
suggests
that
most
of
them,
including
the
current
method,
would
be
upheld
on
review.
LOS
ANGELES
CASE:
We
have
been
provided
with
and
asked
to
review
a
news
article
about
a
Los
Angeles
area
BID
that
was
successfully
challenged
for
failure
to
comply
with
California
law.
This
news
article
does
not
add
anything
to
our
analysis
because:
1)
it
appears
to
only
involve
California
law,
which
does
not
apply
to
the
EDBID;
and
2)
we
could
not
find
a
reported
appellate
decision
from
this
matter,
so
it
is
doubtful
that
the
case
has
any
precedential
value,
even
in
California.
Please
let
us
know
if
you
would
like
us
to
elaborate
on
any
of
the
analysis
in
this
memo.
4838-‐5183-‐9498,
v.
1
Packet Page 100 of 312
EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE
FINAL 2015 WORK PROGRAM & PLAN
As amended and approved by City Council 11/18/14
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared pursuant to
Edmonds City Ordinance 3909, Section 3.75.120
Packet Page 101 of 312
As amended and approved by City Council 11/18/14
The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance is to encourage, promote and
participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions for the mutual
benefit of businesses in the district and the city of Edmonds.
Per Ordinance 3909, the scope of work includes:
A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social
media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists,
historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events
B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment
enhancements
C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy &
communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture
D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking
management & mitigation
E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research,
business recruitment
F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs
INTRODUCTION
The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District, now doing business as Ed! Edmonds
Downtown Alliance (the “Alliance”), was approved on January 15, 2013 under Ordinance 3909. The
following is the third year work program and plan for the district, effective from approval by Edmonds
City Council through December 31, 2015. It includes a description of the Alliance, proposed services,
sources of funding, annual budget and allocations.
PROPOSED 2015 SERVICES
The services to be provided in this plan include items required for the promotion and
enhancement of the Alliance and to meet the needs identified by members of the Alliance.
The services are not intended to take the place of, but add to or supplement those services
provided by the City and/or other Edmonds based organizations. The services will be
executed under the direction of the Alliance Members Advisory Board.
A. Non‐profit Organization
The Members Advisory Board formed a non‐profit organization incorporated under
Washington law and received Section 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service
as a public charity. The Alliance will begin working with the City to discuss potential
contracting arrangements between the City and the Nonprofit Corporation for executing
the responsibilities, including independent financial review. In addition, the Alliance
may engage the services of a local attorney and/or tax specialist, pro bono and partially
Packet Page 102 of 312
As amended and approved by City Council 11/18/14
compensated, to assist with legal matters, including filing of taxes and reports for
Section 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service.
B. Administration
The Alliance Board may contract with an individual(s) to provide general administration
regarding the operations and maintenance of the Alliance.
Operating expenses will include, but are not limited to, supplies and insurance, post
office box rental, mailings to members, and web domain and hosting fees. Legal,
accounting and professional services will be contracted on an as‐needed basis. When
appropriate, pro‐bono services will be used.
C. Assessment and Evaluation
The Alliance recognizes the important responsibility it has to its members to
demonstrate effective and efficient use of Alliance resources. As such, the Alliance will
include reasonable and appropriate program assessment and evaluation efforts within
its work plans. This may include internal and external initiatives such as member
surveys, market research, third party or independent impact analysis, etc.
D. Member Engagement and Outreach
Creating a collaborative and effective business district is a high priority for the Alliance.
Communications to members will take place regularly and in a cost‐effective manner. A
member meeting will be held in April 2015 to elect board members and as a forum to
seek input into the mission and activities of the Alliance. The Alliance has moved to
electronic notifications, other than by request, the annual member meeting and ballot
mailings, to save member resources.
E. Friends of Ed! ‐ Business and Civic Collaboration and Outreach
Partnering with existing organizations in Edmonds will help to strengthen the mission of
the Alliance and the shared objectives of our partner organizations. The Alliance will
continue to maintain a comprehensive list of organizations, known as the Friends of Ed!
and will coordinate a bi‐annual meeting to discuss community priorities.
F. Marketing
Currently, the Alliance is in the process of finalizing website design and branding and
implementing our umbrella share program. In 2015, the Alliance anticipates continuing
marketing outreach efforts internally and externally by exploring additional visual
Packet Page 103 of 312
As amended and approved by City Council 11/18/14
branding campaigns and products. Ideas include: newsletter template, new business
welcome kit, print ads, window clings, tote bags, and a specific targeted marketing
campaign for “local first” advertising.
G. Professional Business Resources
Being mindful of by‐appointment members’ needs, the Alliance will offer services as
determined to be beneficial to the members. Examples include, but are not limited to,
business directories, professional services, seminars, and assistance with social media,
search engine optimization, etc.
In 2015, the Alliance will begin planning, research and implementation of an electronic
physical downtown directory that includes all member businesses.
H. Parking
Members of the Alliance parking committee will continue working in concert with city
efforts related to parking.
Based on 2014 committee research, underutilized parking spaces and areas where
parking is difficult have been identified. Potential solutions to be explored in 2015
include: better signage and visual identification for existing public parking and after
hours parking lot availability.
The committee will continue to identify solutions, including better walkability and
education of business owners regarding employee permit parking areas.
I. Appearance and Environment
Research projects and costs related to enhancing the appearance of the Alliance District.
Projects may include, but are not limited to, the umbrella program, adding additional
garbage/recycling cans, identifying public restroom options, crosswalk safety and
beautification, installation of new and fewer 3 hour parking signs, improved alley way
appearance and walkability, programs to encourage building owners to think beyond
beige color palates for buildings and enhancing vacant storefront appearance.
J. Small Grants Program
The Alliance is working on creating a pilot Small Grants Program to help harness the
power of our local business community. The program will utilize a grassroots
approach to identifying projects and allocating funds for approved grants as long as
they fall within the Alliance's mission and scope of work provided in Ordinance
Packet Page 104 of 312
As amended and approved by City Council 11/18/14
3909. The Alliance board is working on finalizing the Grant criteria, eligibility, process,
requirements and timeline in 2014. Each proposed grant will be reviewed by City staff
for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and Edmonds City Code 3.75.030 prior to award of
a grant.
K. 2016 Work Plan and Budget
The Alliance Advisory Board will prepare a 2016 work program, plan and annual budget
to present to Edmonds City Council in October 2015.
II. PROPOSED SOURCES OF FUNDING
A. Assessments
Assessments will be collected in accordance with Ordinance 3909.
B. Grants and Donations
The 501(c)(3) organization formed by the Alliance may pursue and accept grants and
donations from private institutions, the City, other public entities or individuals and
other non‐profit organizations, in accordance with State and Federal law.
III. ANNUAL BUDGET
A. Budgeted Revenue
The projected assessments collected for 2015 will be approximately $89,000.
B. Budgeted Expenditures
In accordance with the scope of work as approved in Ordinance 3909, it is anticipated
that the budgeted expenditures for the 2015 operating year of the Alliance will be as
follows:
Administration $ 17,000
Marketing $ 22,000
Engagement and Outreach $ 5,000
Professional Business Resources $ 10,000
Small Grants Program $ 10,000
Appearance & Environment $ 20,000
TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES $ 84,000
Packet Page 105 of 312
As amended and approved by City Council 11/18/14
C. Unallocated Funds
An unallocated fund balance is projected. The Alliance reserves the right to use
unallocated funds as necessary.
D. Subsequent Budgets
The Alliance shall establish for each fiscal year after the first year a proposed budget for
expenditures. Such proposed budgets shall: i) reasonably itemize the purpose for which
monies are proposed to be expended by the Alliance; and (ii) set forth the total amount
proposed to be expended. A proposed budget, whether for the first year or for
subsequent years, shall be referred to as the “Budget.”
E. General Provisions
i. The Alliance shall make no expenditures other than in accordance with and
pursuant to a Budget for which a total Annual Budget amount has been
approved by the City.
ii. In the event that in any given fiscal year the sources of funding and/or reserves
held over from the previous year do not equal the total annual budget amount,
the Alliance may choose to eliminate some expenditures in order to balance the
budget.
iii. The Alliance, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, will provide a detailed financial
report in accordance with Ordinance 3909, as amended.
Packet Page 106 of 312
1
XÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwAXÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwAXÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwAXÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwA
Studio: 420 5th Ave. S., Suite 107, Edmonds, WA 98020
Brent Malgarin, G.G. (206) 355-5065 elegantgems@gmx.com
Thursday, August 07, 2014
To the Edmonds City Council,
Subject: Excessively high rate assessed on Edmonds BID “Members”
The following are facts, not opinion.
At the Edmonds City Council meeting January 15, 2013, page 6, “Ms. Stiller summarized the
goal was to create an affordable rate structure. The most any business in downtown Edmonds
would pay is $600/year. The proposed Edmonds assessments are about 10% of what the West
Seattle and University District BIDs assesses businesses. The idea is if everyone pays a little,
everyone will benefit a lot.” (highlight emphasis added) As a citizen I expect testimony
presented at a City Council meeting to be factual, under Washington State Law
RCW35.87A.060 it is classified as “evidence”.
Since the “University BIA” was cited as an example of a BID (they call theirs a BIA), let us
examine the facts, about the University BIA (UBIA).
First, they are assessing their multi-family and residential units, businesses and hotel/motels
just as the law mandates, RCW 63.34.304 “O”, which Edmonds did not do in violation of
several RCW’s.
The following is the University District BIA’s new 2014 application for the UBIA, their old
UBIA, city ordinance # 122212, 120304 and 118412, dating back to 1996, have always
included assessment(s) on all properties, businesses, and hotels/motels within their BIA area.
The other fascinating fact is they understand that the BID/BIA statute was never intended to be
a permanent cash generating machine, it has a term of length.
“PETITION TO ESTABLISH:
University District Business Improvement Area
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SEATTLE:
We, the owners and operators of the businesses, multi-family residential and
mixed-use projects (collectively, "Ratepayers") located within the proposed
District, hereby petition the City of Seattle to establish a five year
Parking and Business Improvement Area (BIA) as authorized by the RCW Chapter
35.87A, within the boundaries described in Exhibit A for the purpose of
providing programs and other services which improve the general economic
climate and enhance the environment of the University District in Seattle.
Packet Page 107 of 312
2
This proposal is intended to replace the existing BIA that was authorized by
the Seattle City Council on November 25, 1996 with Ordinance Number 118412.
The existing BIA has been doing business as the “University District BIA”
since that time. This proposal has two parts: first, to adopt a new business
plan for five years; and second, to expand the BIA’s boundaries to include
the entirety of the district.”
(highlighted emphasis added)
The following is from the University BIA website (udistrictpartnership.org).
“Business Improvement Areas (BIA) Legislation
The UDistrictFund will be governed pursuant to the Revised Code of the State of Washington,
Chapter on “Parking and Business Improvement Areas”, 35.87A." The law includes provisions
that:
•Allows BIAs to finance services ranging from security to cleaning, marketing to parking
management, planning to special events.
•Allows revenue for improvements and services to be raised from a special assessment
based upon benefits received from improvements and services.
•Requires petition support from property owners and/or businesses representing more than
60% of the assessments to be paid.
•Once the BIA is adopted, the assessment is mandatory to all Ratepayers according to the
BIA ordinance. A BIA is a private sector initiated mechanism to manage a downtown or
neighborhood business district. It is Funded by an assessment on properties and/or
businesses that is imposed by the City Council at the request of the Ratepayers. A BIA
assessment is similar to the “Common Area Maintenance” fees found in suburban shopping
malls, office parks, and planned residential communities. These funds are used to improve
specific areas through increased maintenance, additional safety initiatives, design
improvements, special events, transportation and parking, and other activities selected and
managed by the local BIA Board to benefit the district.” (highlighted emphasis added)
The following is the 2012 rate structure for the University BIA: From the Seattle City website,
old pricing (( )) and 2012 CPI adjusted pricing.
“I. Retail/commercial uses
Ground Floor.... (( $.114 )) $.12 sq. ft.
Upper Floor.... (( $.057 )) $.06 sq. ft.
Below Ground Floor.... (( $.057)) $.06 sq. ft.
II. Commercial Parking.... (( $5.72 )) $5.92 / space
III. Full Service Hotels/Motels .... (( $11.44 )) $11.84 / room
IV. Apartments.... (( $5.72 )) $5.92 / unit
V. Property Owners.... (( $.057 )) $.06 sq. ft.
(e) A minimum assessment of (( $110 )) $113.85 (( (One Hundred Ten Dollars) )) will
be applied to every business, organization, and property within the BIA boundaries.
(highlighted emphasis added)
(f) The total assessment upon any single business site within the BIA shall not initially
exceed (( $11,000 )) $11,385 (( (Eleven Thousand Dollars) )) annually.”
The maximum EDBID assessment on a business of 5000+ square feet is $600.00 per year,
which equates to $ 0.12 psf. Ms. Stiller gave testimony to the ECC that the EDBID was only
“10% of the University BIA”, when in fact it is exactly the same on a per square foot basis,
(exclusive of property owners and the others defined in the UBIA area).
Packet Page 108 of 312
3
When the UBIA minimum assessment is added with their assessment of 5000 sq. ft. their
combined total assessment would total ($113.85 + $ 486.12= $599.97 per year). Personal
communications with Sheila Hartshorne, City of Seattle BIA Director, “The $113.85 is the
minimum assessment, so if your square footage is over 949 sq ft you would be paying the
higher amount, either the minimum of $113.85 or $113.88 based on 949 sq ft. The $0.12/sq ft
is not in addition to the minimum assessment.”
Their assessment from 1-948.75 sq feet is included in the base rate of $ 113.85. The
University BIA can go up to $ 11,385.00 per year, that is achieved strictly by multiplication of
massive square footage and the inclusion of property ownership as they have some very large
buildings in the UBIA. The UBIA has a pedestrian and auto traffic count that makes
downtown Edmonds look like a small rural town outside Winlock, as such the UBIA can
support their level of assessment, Edmonds can not.
Let us examine our EDBID and the UBIA on a comparative square foot basis, an apples to
apples comparison. Another mathematical fact, if you take the UBIA minimum assessment of
$113.85 per business and divide it by $0.12 per square foot, this equates to 948.75 square feet,
which I will venture to say is larger than the vast majority of foot-prints (square footage) of
businesses within the EDBID. They also did not develop classes of businesses, from personal
experience, a wrongful death attorney makes more in one case, than 90% of most businesses in
Edmonds will make in a full year of gross sales, so why a decreased rate? An upstairs office in
the UnivBIA (450 sq feet) is assessed $113.85, in Edmonds it is $ 120.00 per year, fairly close.
The assessment level of 948.75 square feet in the UBIA is $ 113.85, in the Edmonds BID it is
$ 420.00 (“open door”) ($0.45 per square foot) or $ 180.00 (appointment)($0.19 per square
foot) for the same square footage!! In this particular example our “open door” is only 369%
more expensive. Our cheapest level of assessment is more expensive than their assessment at
948.75 square feet.
Let’s look at one more point, let’s assume the 313 businesses in Edmonds all paid the
University BIA minimum of $ 113.85, the total yearly assessment would be $ 35,635.05, not
the approximately $89,000+ the EDBID is assessing!
The assessments in Edmonds penalize small businesses owners and small offices:
“Open Door” “Appointment”
0-499 sq.ft is $ 0.73 per square foot 0-499 sq.ft is $ 0.24 per square foot
500-999 sq ft is $0.42 per square foot 500-999 sq ft is $0.18 per square foot
1000-1999 sq ft is $ 0.24 per square foot 1000-1999 sq ft is $ 0.12 per square foot
2000-4999 sq ft is $ 0.11 per square foot 2000-4999 sq ft is $ 0.06 per square foot
5000+ sq ft is $ 0.12 per square foot. 5000+ sq ft is $ 0.08 per square foot.
Do to the fact the City has never released any numbers, there is no way to make any
comparison, but there are not that many businesses of size (large square footage) in Edmonds, I
imagine this is why the excessive fee….. for being a small business. There is no other way to
say this, but the ECC accepted “facts” from people on an agenda, you were presented
mendacities, and it worked. Anything was said to get the City Council to vote...yes, and adopt
the Edmonds BID.
Packet Page 109 of 312
4
Now 23 businesses are threatened with, or being sent out for collections based on false
information? While some businesses in Edmonds pay 369% more than the University BIA?
How is that fair to businesses?
To all Edmonds City Council members, this is a prime example of reacting to a “feel good”
project, rather than doing any independent research. I know you have a lot on your plate, but
this was a tax on businesses, the livelihood of many people.
This unfortunate outcome has caused harm to every business in Edmonds, because a thorough
and accurate examination of the facts would have never allowed the Edmonds BID to be
enacted into Ordinance # 3909.
I have done my homework, months of it.
Many business owners are being harmed thru and from this mandated and egregious level of
assessment.
There is no remedy under the law, as the testimony given to the Edmonds City Council is
classified as “evidence” under RCW35.87A.060, and the “evidence” was nothing but a
mendacity, the Edmonds BID is based on lies. There is no remedy to correct this fact under the
law.
The only solution is the closure of the Edmonds BID.
Sincerely,
Brent Malgarin, G.G.
Packet Page 110 of 312
Packet Page 111 of 312
Packet Page 112 of 312
Packet Page 113 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 1
Special Meeting
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
Study Session
November 10, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Diane Buckshnis, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev. & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Deb Sharp, Accountant
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Peterson.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2014
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211337 THROUGH #211468 DATED NOVEMBER 6,
2014 FOR $1,747,604.72. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#61259 THROUGH #61271 FOR $466,539.20, BENEFIT CHECKS #61272 THROUGH
#61280 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $398,232.21 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OCTOBER 16,
2014 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2014
Packet Page 114 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 2
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOSTEIN E.
KALVOY ($383.00)
D. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
CITY VEHICLES AND SELL A SCRAP CAR TO PICK-N-PULL
E. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
CITY EQUIPMENT
F. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
CITY VEHICLES
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, relayed Dave Page, who was unable to attend tonight shared his views on the
following: they would like to have a public hearing after the Council discusses budget when further
information is available regarding amendments, etc. He recalled that had been past practice, last year
there were three opportunities, two discussion periods during which public comment was taken and public
hearing. He expressed concern there been little Council discussion regarding the budget or proposed
changes to the budget.
Phil Lovell, Edmonds, spoke regarding the proposed concept of a train trench for the BNSF tracks
through the waterfront area. He relayed his background, registered civil engineer, retired 11 years ago as a
vice president from the 4th largest general contractor in the United States, a 37-year career with a
company that specializes in general contracting, construction management and procurement, heavy
construction, consulting, insurance and risk management in both public and private arenas. While retired
he remains active in the industry in various consulting, advisory and educational capacities. A train trench
is very expensive, most challenging from an engineering standpoint and does not solve all Edmonds’
waterfront traffic problems. It does not address the ferry queuing problem; a better solution would be to
add a down ramp to the west side of the tracks within the current Edmonds Crossing concept. That plan
would meet most of the needs without tearing up the town to build it. He urged the Council to study as
many track crossing ideas as possible before supporting one solution/concept. Such studies must be
expanded to include input from other significant stakeholders such as the county, state, railroad, Port,
WSDOT, environmental authorities, WSF, and commercial interests in that area. He urged broader
studies considering all major aspects long with pros, cons and feasibility. The recently completed study of
the train trench by an outside professional consulting group, available on City’s website under News of
Interest, covers many of environmental and engineering challenges that must be addressed and provides a
rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate. He studied and wrote on the same subject last July; he also
had a ROM estimate prepared by his former employer which estimate falls within the cost range in Tetra
Tech report. He offered to assist the City and Council in any way he could with regard to this issue.
Brent Malgarin, referred to July 27, 2011 KOMO News where it was stated the committee working to
establish the Business Improvement District (BID) has reached 50% of signatures needed to present to the
City Council. RCW 35.87A.020, Legislative Authority, states only the City Council can start a BID.
RCW 35.87A.030 states an initiation petition or resolution methods can be used to start a BID. Seattle
started a BID in the Pioneer Square area with the support of 60%; and the Council subsequently changed
it to the resolution method via Seattle Resolution 31481. Edmonds Resolution 1284 states RCW
35.87A.030 authorizes the City Council to initiate a BID by resolution in lieu of petition. A petition was
presented but struck down by the resolution method. The petition was presented to the Clerk November
21 and the Council held its meeting on November 27. If only the City Council can request the resolution
method; he questioned how Resolution 1284 was considered by the Council before the Council had an
opportunity to review the petition. Resolution 1285 reaffirms the resolution method. Ordinance 3909
Packet Page 115 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 3
refers to the petition but because it had been struck down, it was irrelevant. The ordinance does not state
that Edmonds was pursuing a BID by the resolution method nor was the public notified that the Council
was pursuing a BID by resolution method. RCW 35.87A.060 states 50% of the people if they know the
method of resolution can protest and stop it; since no one was informed of the resolution method, it was
not protested. There are no City records to refute that.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the City hire Mr. Lovell part-time as he is well educated on the
subject, and he admired his tenacity and interest in the subject. He recalled on October 28 Councilmember
Johnson distributed a portion of a restoration plan that identified the possibility of relocating the senior
center parking lot to restore the beach habitat. While a wonderful thought, that idea puts the possibility of
a new senior center building in jeopardy because the building needs a lot of parking; the Edmonds Senior
Center Feasibility Study states the need for 100 parking spaces. He did not favor eliminating the parking
lot to restore the beach. With regard to the Sunset Walkway, he pointed out it is still listed as a
combination pathway but most people do not want bicycles and skateboards mixed with pedestrians on a
pathway. There is not enough room on Sunset Avenue to do everything that is planned; the new parking
design is dangerous for backing and there is no place for bicycles because the bicycle lane was
eliminated. He summarized a problem was created in trying to create something else.
Council President Buckshnis read an email from Ken Reidy, Edmonds, that asked the Council to
consider the following: 1) budget the entire amount needed to complete the rewrite of the ECDC as soon
as possible, no later than December 31, 2015, and 2) budget the appropriate amount to also complete the
entire rewrite of the ECC no later than December 31, 2015. Both should be contingent on a well-
documented plan of action that clarifies how the work will be completed and who is responsible for
completion and regular progress updates should be required. He suggested contracting the work out to a
firm that specializes in writing great codes and recommended considering the process used by Lake
Oswego, Oregon, when they faced similar challenges. The rewrite will increase efficiency and pay for the
related cost. The City must establish a legal foundation that supports a high level of government service.
A critical component of this legal foundation is a comprehensive, accurate, consistent and easy to
administer code. He questioned why issues such as Westgate were prioritized prior to correcting the legal
foundation of the code, a code known to be a mess going back to at least 2000. He referred to a June 23,
2012 email to the City Council and Planning Board in which he requested updating, clarifying and
correcting the code be an extremely high priority. The condition of the code has resulted in much waste of
public and private resources and will continue to do so. He urged the Council to make rewriting code a
priority, reiterating it was to have been addressed long ago.
5. PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2015
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained the City Council
approved the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) in January 2013. One of the
requirements was that they present a work plan and budget for the following year by October 1 which was
accomplished.
Pam Stuller, EDBID Advisory Board Member, provided a list of the Advisory Board Members:
• David Arista, Arista Wine Cellars
• Robert Boehlke, Housewares
• Natalie-Pascale Boisseau, Innate Radiance Acupuncture
• Juliana Van Buskirk, Edward Jones
• Cadence Clyborne, HDR Engineering
• Sally Merck, Merck Counseling
• Paul Rucker, Saetia
• Mary Kay Sneeringer, Edmonds Bookshop
Packet Page 116 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 4
• Jordana Turner, Edmonds Massage and Bodywork
• Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee
• Kim Wahl, Reliable Floors
Ms. Stuller reviewed the 2014 Work Plan Implementation:
• Non-profit 501(c)3 status from IRS
• Brand creation, name and logo
• Optimized website – hope to launch later this month
• Collaboration – Edmonds Community College, Edmonds-Woodway High School IB, and
Friends! Lunch
• Member Engagement – annual meeting, email and mail outreach, small grant program
• Appearance & Environment – signage
• Encourage walkability – courtesy umbrellas in 40 locations
• Direct Mail Holiday Campaign, free Saturday holiday trolley, free family holiday movies and
other holiday activities
• Business Resources – business seminar
She provided visuals including a sample website, illustrations, logo and umbrellas.
Cadence Clyborne, Treasurer, EDBID Advisory Board, presented the 2015 Proposed Work Plan:
• Non-profit Organization and Agency Agreement
o Begin conversation with the City in 2015 regarding potential agency agreement between the
City and the 501(c)3 to provide management and administrative services for the EDBID
• Administration
o Website hosting
o Hiring part-time administrative person
o Legal
o Accounting
o Supplies
• Assessment & Evaluation
o Research effective analysis tools to evaluate programs that have implemented to ensure
providing benefit
• Member Engagement and Outreach
o Annual meeting in April
• Friends of Ed!
o Biannual meetings with organizations who have a vested interest in the downtown core to
improve efficiency and avoid redundancy
• Marketing
o Brand rollout
o Market totes for farmers market
o New business welcome kit
o Window clings
o Consistent messaging
o Potential Local First campaign
• Professional Business Resources
o Seminars to help members with web optimization and social media
• Parking
o Explore ideas and solutions
o Focus on walkability versus drivability
o Signage to existing and afterhours parking
o Educating businesses about where park
Packet Page 117 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 5
• Appearance & Environment
o Vitality of core
o Possible projects the EDBID could partner on include:
Public restrooms
Crosswalk safety
Beautification
Improved alley appearance
Vacant storefront improvement
• Small Grants Program
o Projects that fulfill the mission of the Alliance and scope of work
o Not intended to promote individual businesses or members
o Researching best way to implement such a program and whether it is feasible
• Research Potential Boundary Adjustment
o Ordinance allows up to a 10% adjustment annually
o Research a potential adjustment and determine interest in potential new members
o City Council decision
Ms. Clyborne reviewed 2015 proposed budgeted expenditures:
Estimated revenue $89,000
Estimated expenditures
• Administration 17,000
• Marking 22,000
• Member Engagement & Outreach 5,000
• Professional Business Resources 10,000
• Small grants 10,000
• Appearance and environment 20,000
• Total Estimated Expenditures $84,000
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how a boundary adjustment would be created, whether businesses
would come to the EDBID or the EDBID would go to them or both. Ms. Clyborne answered the
ordinance allows up to a 10% increase and it must be contiguous with the existing boundaries. The
EDBID would determine an area to target and then do outreach to those businesses to determine if there is
significant support for becoming part of the EDBID. If there is support, the EDBID would come to the
City Council with that research. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether there was a requirement
for a certain percentage of interest in joining the EDBID. Ms. Clyborne answered that has not yet been
vetted and is one of the reasons it is in the work plan. Discussions have been that it would be a majority of
business owners.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed the budget for the small grants program also covered hiring
someone. Ms. Clyborne the $10,000 is to fund grants that members apply for to do projects that promote
the scope of work and mission of the EDBID. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she misunderstood
and thought the small grants program was to apply for grants.
Councilmember Johnson expressed her appreciation for the hard work done over past two years and
recognized a number of EDBID members in audience. She noted there was a great deal of overlap
between the Strategic Action Plan and many of the EDBID’s activities which will help lighten Mr.
Dougherty’s workload.
Council President Buckshnis agreed the EDBID had done a good job but expressed concern about their
accounting. She requested the EDBID provide the Council a comparison of the current and past budget
and actuals in a regular financial format. She noted the 501(c)3 must be a separate set of books. Ms.
Packet Page 118 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 6
Clyborne assured that information was available and can be provided to the Council as well as included in
future annual presentations.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many members there are in the EDBID. Ms. Stuller answered there
are slightly less than 350. Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Johnson’s comments, it is
great to see this group coming together and working to improve the downtown and promote business and
a place where people can enjoy doing their commerce.
Councilmember Petso referred to public comment tonight regarding whether the City provided public
notice that the EDBID would be formed via the resolution method. She asked whether that notice was
required and whether it was provided. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the BID process can start
either with a petition or a resolution. While there was a substantial effort put into collecting signatures for
a petition, it was realized in course of the review of those signatures that it would not meet the legal
standard for a petition and it was recommended the process be initiated by resolution which the Council
did with Resolution 1284. Resolution 1285 stated the intent to initiate a BID, set forth the proposed uses
and projects, estimated the levy rate, estimated the budget at $86,000, and established a public hearing for
January 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. To his knowledge the public hearing was advertised as required. Following the
public hearing, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3909 in which the petition method is mentioned in
the first whereas clause but the second whereas clause references Resolution 1284 and the third whereas
clause references Resolution 1285. Ordinance 3909, which formed BID and created new Chapter 3.75,
was adopted by the City Council in early 2013.
Councilmember Petso referred to the small grant program and asked if the grants are provided for things
the BID could have done anyway, items that are consistent with their mission, whether it was simply an
accounting entry. She asked whether the existence of small grant program created a legal problem for the
City or the EDBID. Mr. Taraday answered the EDBID has to spend money for the purposes set forth in
Chapter 3.75.030; as long as that is done, they are in compliance with the law. Mr. Doherty relayed he
counseled Pascale Boisseau, who is overseeing the small grant program, to stay away from direct grants
to property owners or business owners for their own projects and to stay with general programs/projects
that fulfill the EDBID purposes and mission. There was discussion at a EDBID meeting that the volunteer
board members have only so much bandwidth to take on projects; if a business owner wanted to take on a
project such as more flowers, musicians during holidays/summer, or something else that was not currently
offered, they could offer to spearhead the program and request funding from the EDBID. He summarized
it was more than accounting; it was capacitating another member to do something that fulfills the
EDBID’s mission.
Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Taraday to explain the effect of the resolution method on the operation
of the EDBID from a legal standpoint. Mr. Taraday answered the method of initiation, whether petition or
resolution, makes no difference. Either method of initiation still requires the next step, a resolution of
intention to establish, a hearing and adoption by ordinance. In his opinion it was a distinction without a
difference; it was not a meaningful distinction whether it was initiated by a petition or resolution. He
recalled working with former Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton,
who wanted to convey to the City Council that while some of the signatures were not usable for legal
purposes, there was substantial community support for the BID and that was the reason for the reference
to the petition and the signatures gathered notwithstanding the fact that the BID was being initiated by
resolution.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the City was wholly and totally responsible for the
functioning of the EDBID. Mr. Taraday read from the statute, the legislative authority of the City shall
have sole discretion as to how the revenue derived from the special assessments is to be used within the
scope of the purposes. Councilmember Bloom commented if the Council has sole discretion, it would
Packet Page 119 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 7
behoove the Council to look at the work plan very carefully to ensure it reflects the wishes of the
membership that are being assessed.
Councilmember Bloom recalled when the auditors were here, she asked who was responsible for the
EDBID budget and for publishing the budget due to a question asked by an EDBID member regarding
why the budget was not published on the EDBID website. Her understanding was the auditor said the
EDBID is not an independently functioning body from the City. Finance Director Scott James answered
that was his understanding. Councilmember Bloom asked what that meant from Mr. James’ perspective.
Mr. James responded similar to this year, the EDBID presented their 2014 budget and work plan to the
City Council. It was his understanding the 2014 budget was ratified by the Council, giving the EDBID
budget authority, via their presentation to the Council. He assumed that was the EDBID’s intent tonight
by presenting their estimated revenue and estimated expenditures.
Council President Buckshnis requested Mr. Doherty rewrite the agenda memo for next week’s agenda to
make it easier to read and describe the potential amendments and the EDBID’s responses. She suggested
any other questions also be added to the agenda memo.
Council President Buckshnis relayed a question from citizens whether there is a conflict of interest for
Councilmembers who are members of the EDBID. Mr. Taraday responded the relationship between a
Councilmember’s business, the EDBID and the vote to approve the EDBID’s budget are so tangentially
related that it would not violate the special benefit rules that prohibit votes on contracts.
Councilmember Johnson observed there has been a great deal of discussion about a public restroom in the
downtown area. If it were funded by the EDBID, it would take five years of their budget to accomplish.
She asked whether there had been any discussion at the executive level about downtown restrooms,
recalling a recent presentation at the Economic Development Commission (EDC) that identified
approximately ten public restrooms on the parameter of EDBID. Ms. Stuller explained John Dewhirst,
EDC, presented to the EDBID. The EDBID sees this as a great opportunity to collaborate on a directory
of public restrooms and/or businesses that are willing to share their restrooms publicly. The EDBID is
interested in researching other creative solutions rather than building a new structure. If there were a push
to construct public restrooms, the EDBID would be interested in contributing but it would not be a sole
function of the EDBID. There are many businesses willing to share their restrooms with customers.
Councilmember Johnson suggested a signage program with a restroom logo.
Council President Buckshnis suggested the EDBID not get involved in capital programs of that nature and
did not expect the EDBID to be responsible for constructing downtown restrooms.
Although she appreciated the comment that the small grant program will not benefit individual
businesses, Councilmember Petso said it is not actually in any of the documentation. She requested the
Council be notified when the specifics of the grant program are developed. Ms. Stuller agreed that would
be done.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on as an agenda item on a future agenda.
6. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Police Chief Al Compaan explained the agreement with Snohomish County is a three year agreement that
would take effect January 1, 2015. There is an option for two additional three year terms with a
commensurate rate adjustment over the term of the agreement. The City does the majority of its bookings
with Snohomish County and it is an important part of the City’s overall criminal justice effort. The budget
for jail and prisoner care in the 2015 budget is $650,000 in Non-Departmental.
Packet Page 120 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 8
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether any of the cost is recouped for people who use the
facilities. Chief Compaan answered generally no; some is recouped via work release or home monitoring.
Councilmember Petso asked the percentage increase in costs under the new contract. Chief Compaan
answered the rates are delineated in the agenda memo, an increase in booking fees and daily housing fees.
The 2014 budget was $486,000; the 2015 budget is $650,000. Councilmember Petso asked whether that
entire increase was linked to the Snohomish County contract. Chief Compaan answered yes.
Councilmember Petso asked whether he was confident of the justification for the increases. Chief
Compaan answered the City is subject to what Snohomish County presents. Snohomish County has had
tremendous costs in prisoner medical and mental health care. To be proactive, Snohomish County is
trying to increase the overall level of care in an effort to mitigate deaths or serious medical issues in the
jail.
Councilmember Petso observed it was a very large percentage increase and asked whether there were
options. Chief Compaan advised the next agenda item is an option.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained if a person is on Medicare or Medicaid that coverage stops
when they are incarcerated. For example, people with a mental health diagnosis who have been receiving
medication, etc. while in the community, their insurance stops when they are incarcerated and medical
care is the responsibility of the jail. She noted this may be different than it was before.
It was the consensus of the Council to continue discussion regarding this agenda item as part of the next
agenda item.
7. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH YAKIMA COUNTY
Chief Compaan commented this is a similar contract for jail services with Yakima County; the rates are
significantly lower but there are logistics with transporting prisoners to/from the Yakima County Jail. The
intent would be to use the Yakima County Jail for more long term commitments such as in excess of 10-
14 days because it logistically is not worth transporting prisoners for commitments shorter than that. The
Yakima County rate under the terms of this one-year contract is $54.75/day with no booking fee;
Snohomish County’s general housing rate is $84/day and a booking fee of $115 for each prisoner. He
summarized the Yakima County contract would provide significant saving and would be utilized for
longer term commitments.
Councilmember Petso observed the Snohomish County contract represented a 34% increase. She asked
whether the contract included an annual increase. Chief Compaan answered the contract with Snohomish
County sets out the rates for the 3-year term of the agreement. If the agreement is renewed, there is an
escalator of 90% of the CPI for the subsequent renewal terms.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether Yakima County had the capability for video arraignment. Chief
Compaan answered no, that should not be necessary because the case will have already been adjudicated.
Mayor Earling advised Snohomish County informed the City that there would be substantial increases for
all cities that utilize their services due to issues in the jail over the past couple years. Chief Compaan
advised the rates at the Snohomish County Jail are still less expensive than King County.
Council President Buckshnis recalled this was brought up at the Snohomish County Cities meeting. She
relayed the increase was related to providing medical and mental health services.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule Agenda Items 6 and 7 on next week’s Consent Agenda.
Packet Page 121 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 9
8. REVIEW & POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF UPDATED RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE MANAGEMENT
POLICY
Public Works Director Williams suggested following discussion the Council advise of any requested
changes to the policy and staff will provide a clean copy at the Council’s next business meeting for
action.
Mr. Williams explained there are numerous references to trees in the Code. The definition of a street tree
was unclear and the Tree Board recently provided a recommendation. Designated street trees covered by
the Street Plan are limited to the downtown bowl. The issue tonight is related to trees located in City’s
rights-of-way that not designated street trees, miscellaneous trees located in the rights-of-way that happen
to grow there or were planted by property owners. The right-of-way is the area from edge of pavement to
where the property owner has taken responsibility with their landscaping.
A resolution in place since 1978 established guidelines for the trimming and removal of trees in the right-
of-way but only authorize three reasons for trimming or removing a tree located in the right-of-way, all
related to impacts the tree has on public infrastructure such as a waterline, road, sidewalk, etc. There is
nothing in the policy that authorizes trimming or removing a tree if it is damaging or affecting private
property or infrastructure such as sidewalk, driveway, lawn, a foundation, etc. The Tree Board began
discussing this over a year ago. The proposed policy is the Tree Board’s recommendation to the Council.
Mr. Williams proposed three changes to the Tree Board’s recommendation:
1. The Tree Board identified a tree in the right-of-way that this policy would apply to as a tree 6
inches or more in diameter. The 3rd bullet, of Section 1 Permit Required identifies any trimming
of a tree over a height of 8 feet above the ground as measured from the downslope side of the
tree. A tree 6 inches in diameter will certainly be over 8 feet tall. He recommended this bullet
regarding height be removed as requiring a permit for trees 8 feet in height would result in
regulating nearly every tree in the right-of-way.
2. Section 4, Review add “(as appropriate)” following the list of departments.
3. Section 5, Replanting. Revise the title to read, “Trees approved for removal are to be replaced as
follows:”
Mr. Williams highlighted the second bullet in Section 5, City staff/consulting arborist to review
recommended tree replacement ratio and make a final determination on appropriate replacement ratio for
the site.
He described the process for trimming/removing a tree in the right-of-way: obtain a right-of-way permit,
pay a minor or full right-of-way permit depending on the size of the tree and have an arborist write a letter
stating one of the necessary criteria have been met. Staff will confirm the necessary criteria have been met
and take steps as appropriate. It could be that removal is not necessary; root pruning or other less
aggressive approach could address the issue. If a permit is issued, the homeowner hires a qualified tree
service to trim/remove the tree. Under this policy a homeowner can obtain a permit do the work
themselves if the action is only trimming, the branches will not fall in the improved section of the right-
of-way and no power equipment will be used. He emphasize this would be a significant improvement; the
code rewrite will pull together all the parts of the Tree Code.
Council President Buckshnis viewed the trimming of a tree over 8 feet differently; her neighbors have
trimmed very large trees simply to improve their view. She preferred that provision remain in the policy.
She agreed those trees were over 6 inches in diameter. Mr. Williams answered if the tree was over 6
inches in diameter, they would be required to obtain a permit to trim or remove the tree. Most of the time
a tree 6 inches in diameter would be over 8 feet.
Packet Page 122 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 10
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Buckshnis to retain the bullet regarding the 8-foot
tree in the code if it was assumed every 6 inch diameter tree would be over 8 feet in height. Mr. Williams
explained if that is retained, a permit, arborist letter, etc. would be required to remove a 1-inch tree that is
8 feet in height, a significant effort by the homeowner. Councilmember Bloom suggested changing the
wording to over 8 feet above the ground and 6 inches in diameter.
Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification regarding replanting. Mr. Williams explained the Tree
Board provided a recommended replacement, recognizing replacement would not always be appropriate.
This is general guideline for tree replacement but if the arborist and the City agree it would not be
appropriate, the property owner would not be obliged to replant. Mr. Williams recognized tension
between the title of the table, “Trees approved for removal are to be replaced as follows” and the bullet
that follows that states “City staff/consulting arborist to review recommended tree replacement ratio and
make a final determination on appropriate replacement ratio for the site.”
Councilmember Bloom relayed one of the Tree Board’s goals is to increase the City’s canopy cover due
to the many benefits associated with it; Edmonds has a lower canopy cover than even Seattle. The Tree
Board wanted a replacement schedule to ensure removal of a large tree removed would require
replacement by tree(s) that add to the canopy cover and be a correct tree for that particular area. She noted
in many instances the trees are inappropriate for the location and that is the reason they need to be
removed. She felt the replanting schedule was appropriate and suggested allowing a tree to be planted
elsewhere on the individual’s property. Mr. Williams envisioned the arborist, staff and the homeowner
would determine an appropriate location for the replacement tree(s).
Councilmember Bloom referred to other options Mr. Williams mentioned such as root trimming, etc.,
asking whether that would be addressed by the arborist. Mr. Williams agreed it would. Councilmember
Bloom asked whether that would be included in the code, recalling the Tree Board’s intent was that trees
not be removed if the issue could be addressed in another manner. Mr. Williams assured the intent is to
save the tree in its existing location if roots can be trimmed and the tree remain healthy and structurally
sound. The City will rely heavily on certified, professional arborists to make that call and he was
confident arborists will look for less aggressive solutions first.
Councilmember Bloom asked who paid for the certified arborist to do the assessment, observing the City
currently does not have an arborist. Mr. Williams advised this policy does not apply to tree
trimming/removal done by the City. If staff identifies a tree that is unhealthy, a sight hazard or damaging
the infrastructure, staff will initiate its removal. This policy addresses a tree that was damaging private
property and the initiator would be the property owner who would pay the permit fee, hire the arborist to
write the letter for review by staff before a decision was made. Councilmember Bloom observed the
reference to City staff and consulting arborist is the review of the arborist’s report. She hoped the City
would eventually have a City arborist. Mr. Williams agreed that would be a future recommendation. The
code rewrite that will pull together all the tree regulations will be accompanied by some resource requests
from staff.
Councilmember Petso asked the cost of a right-of-way permit. Mr. Williams answered a minor right-of-
way permit is $115; a full right-of-way permit is $380. Councilmember Petso asked how the right-of-way
was defined; observing some trees in the right-of-way may be in an area landscaped by the homeowner.
Mr. Williams answered most property owners have a good idea where the property line is; instead of
leaving untended real estate between the edge of the pavement and the property line, often property
owners will improve that area. To the extent there are trees in that area that interfere with the right-of-
way, the City can initiate trimming/removal. A permit would be required if the homeowner wants to have
a tree trimmed/removed. There may be occasions when it is unknown whether the tree is in the right-of-
way or on private property although typically power lines, etc. will provide an idea whether the tree is in
Packet Page 123 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 11
the right-of-way or on private property. Councilmember Petso observed the intent was to apply this policy
to trees in the right-of-way regardless of what the homeowners may have done over the years.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the asterisked comment at the end of Section 3, “Removal or
trimming of trees located in City rights-of-way designed to enhance views from abutting properties will
not be approved,” pointing out tree trimming for view enhancement would not be approved. Mr. Williams
commented removal of a tree that is damaging infrastructure may also enhance views; that sentence refers
to instances where the primary reason for altering the tree would be to supplement views.
Councilmember Johnson recalled an example provided to the Parks, Planning & Public Works
Committee, a mature cedar in the public right-of-way that was intruding onto a homeowner’s lawn. Mr.
Williams agreed there was not a definitive answer. Enormous trees have roots that affect the
homeowner’s yard, drop needles and block sun from the yard and house. He referred to the last bullet
under necessary criteria in Section 3, which provides some latitude, “The tree has outgrown its location, is
nearing the end of its healthy life, and should be replaced by a smaller, location appropriate tree.” He
agreed there were examples of massive Redwood trees that may be affecting the homeowner’s property. It
would be incredibly expensive to remove such a tree and if the tree was healthy, there may be tension
between the public’s interest and the private interest.
Council President Buckshnis suggested revising the 3rd bullet, Section 1 Permit Required to read, “Any
trimming of a tree over a height of eight feet (8’) above the ground as measured from the downslope side
of the tree and 6 inches in diameter.”
It was the consensus of the Council for staff to make the requested modification and schedule review and
approval on a future agenda.
9. DEVELOPMENT CODE MAJOR UPDATE
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained staff has requested the funds previously allocated
by the City Council and not spent in 2014 to be carried forward into 2015 to continue the code update.
The Council can also consider adding funds in 2015 to complete more of the update.
She described what has been accomplished to date: approximately $40,000 of the $150,000 allocated in
2014/2015 has been spent and $110,000 remains. In addition the Council allocated $80,000 over that 2-
year period for the critical area regulations and Best Available Science report; that is underway and will
continue into 2015. The Council also allocated $25,000 for the Tree Code and a $10,000 grant was
obtained; those funds are expected to be expended by the end of 2014 and recommendations forwarded to
the Council. Carol Morris, a legal consultant, reviewed the City’s code, wrote memos with suggestions
and questions, suggested reorganization for chapters, and pointed out legal processes that needed to be
considered. Those ideas can be incorporated into the next phase of the code update.
Ms. Hope explained in the seven months she has been with the City she has generally reviewed the
Development Code, heard from others about the gaps and perceived problems and reviewed Ms. Morris’
work. Next steps include preparing the code and public process which cannot be completed before the end
of 2014. She proposed carrying forward the what remains of the $110,000 into 2015, recognize things that
have been done and keep moving forward and for the Council to determine whether they wanted to add
funds to the budget. The Planning Board has had several discussions about the code update this year; they
suggested developing objectives, principles and high priorities for the code update. The packet includes a
memo from the Planning Board regarding the code rewrite with regard to the public process, principles,
and key objectives. Principles identified by the Planning Board include:
• Consistency with current state law
• Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 124 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 12
• Predictability
• Some flexibility
• Recognition of property rights
• Clear, user-friendly language and format
• Enforceability
Objectives identified by the Planning Board include:
• Ensuring reasonable and clear processes for all actions
• Providing expanded and up-to-date set of definitions
• Encouragement of appropriate development
• Protection of critical areas and shorelines
• Recognition of diverse neighborhoods and their characteristics
• Encouragement of pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly access
• Encouragement of low impact stormwater management (consistent with Ecology rules)
The Planning Board and the City Council have expressed interest in addressing key code provisions such
as subdivisions, Planned Resident Development (PRD), nonconformance, appeals, variances, zoning
amendments, criteria for conditional uses, and many other issues that are either not clear or in different
areas of code or are confusing such as off street parking, trees, bicycle facilities, street and sidewalk
restoration standards, accessory dwelling units, multifamily residential, notice procedures, etc. She
recognized all 300 chapters could not be reviewed with what remains of the $150,000 which is the reason
for Council discussing whether to allocate additional resources and whether it should be allocated this
year or another year.
Councilmember Petso asked for clarification of the $110,000; whether it is in included in the draft budget.
Ms. Hope answered there is $85,000 carried forward into the 2015 budget; the intent is to spend $25,000
this year. If that is not accomplished, a budget amendment will be proposed in the first quarter.
Councilmember Petso observed additional funds would be above and beyond the $85,000. Ms. Hope
answered yes, if that was the Council’s desire.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the rewrite would be done in a manner so that the code was
logical and created a system so that another rewrite would not be required in the future. Ms. Hope agreed
that was the intent, acknowledging codes will need to be revised in the future as changes occur over time.
The intent is to have a more integrated code organized in a consistent, thoughtful manner.
Councilmember Mesaros pointed out key to that will be ensuring new ordinances are consistent and do
not create conflicts with previous decisions.
Council President Buckshnis observed it will cost $500,000 to do the entire code rewrite, the Council
already allocated $150,000 and the estimate for professional services is another $300,000. Ms. Hope
agreed that could be the cost if the Council wanted to do everything at once in 1-2 years. The proposal is
to utilize Ms. Morris’ work and issue an RFQ for the remaining $110,000. Any additional funds would be
the Council’s choice to allocate. Council President Buckshnis asked what chapters would be addressed.
Ms. Hope answered at least the ones she identified such as subdivision, etc. There are portions of items in
various chapters. All the chapters cannot be addressed for that amount; however, some chapters do not
need to be changed in substance or, like the building code, is updated every three years based on State
law.
Council President Buckshnis referred to the public comment that nothing had been done, relaying her
belief a lot had been done. She asked Ms. Hope what she has done in the past in other jurisdictions. Ms.
Hope advised there are some issues that need to be addressed sooner such as the tree policy, consolidating
how animals are addressed in the police code and the development code, etc., as well as how to
Packet Page 125 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 13
reorganize the code. Some cleanup items have been presented to the Council such as the definition of a
legal lot and innocent purchaser.
Council President Buckshnis asked whether the City could hire someone full-time to rewrite the code and
whether that would be cheaper than a consultant. Ms. Hope answered it could be cheaper but would take
longer whereas a consulting firm has numerous people who can work on it at once. Either way could
work; the City would probably get more punch with a consultant. Council President Buckshnis asked
what was done in Mountlake Terrace. Ms. Hope advised a consultant was hired for certain pieces and
other sections were addressed in a logical framework.
Councilmember Bloom asked how long it took Mountlake Terrace to complete the entire process. Ms.
Hope answered about ten years. Councilmember Bloom relayed her primary concern was a code rewrite
has been needed since it was first discussed in 2000. There was an allocation of $300,000 for a code
rewrite in 2005 which she was told was put back into the General Fund and only a couple chapters were
rewritten. She wholeheartedly supported allocating the full $300,000. She recognized the budget was tight
but she was concerned that having code that was difficult for staff to enforce, contradictory and not
consistent was actually costing the City more. She did not want to wait ten years for the code rewrite to be
completed. She supported allocating the necessary funds to complete the rewrite in 2015, suggesting it
funded in the budget, not from the $250,000 allocated to Council projects.
Councilmember Johnson observed $40,000 was spent in 2013-2014 for Ms. Morris for some high level
review and chapter reorganization. She asked whether Ms. Morris completed any chapter rewrites. Ms.
Hope answered she completed a few but they were not written specifically for Edmonds and do not
necessarily not work for Edmonds. Some pieces of the chapters she wrote can be used.
Councilmember Johnson observed there was $85,000 carryover and $25,000 left this year, observing that
would accomplish approximately 1/3 of what Councilmember Bloom recommended. Ms. Hope advised
the $300,000 is in addition to the existing allocation.
Councilmember Petso recalled when the City first started working with Ms. Morris, the intent was the
code rewrite would not include policy changes; it would simply redo existing code. She asked whether
that was still the plan. Ms. Hope answered yes, although some things may arise that are not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan or State laws have changed. Councilmember Petso requested as issues are
come up, they be identified as either, 1) technical corrections to remove inconsistency, or 2) policy
changes. Ms. Hope agreed there would be explanation for any proposed changes.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. He advised Item 13 would be rescheduled to a future meeting.
10. PRESENTATION REGARDING LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDED 2015 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty distributed a summary of the
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s (LTAC) 2015 work program and budget which he explained is
different than previous years. The use of lodging tax is prescribed by State law. Cities over 5,000 that
impose a lodging tax must appoint a LTAC. All use of lodging tax revenue must reviewed by the LTAC,
the LTAC provides a recommendation to the City Council. This will clarify for the auditor that all the
steps related to the LTAC review and approval and the Council’s review and approval have been
followed.
He explained 25% of the lodging tax revenue is allocated towards arts and cultural events that promote
tourism. He referred to a list of those programs in the summary. The application for each event is included
Packet Page 126 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 14
in the Council packet. The remaining 75% of lodging tax revenue is available for general tourism
promotion activities, programs and services. He identified the uses of those funds:
• Snohomish County Tourism Bureau
• Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center
• Edmonds Center for the Arts Season Brochure Arts/Culture/Tourism Ad
• Puget Sound Bird Fest
• Advertising/marketing for tourism
• Professional services for tourism and arts/culture/events marketing and website implementation
o $1,000/month contract with consultant Ellen Hyatt
• Edmonds hosting the “RevitalizeWA 2015” Conference in May, organized by Washington State
Trust for Historic Preservation and the Main Street Program (funded from the fund balance)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the $1,000/month budget for Ellen Hyatt. Mr. Doherty
advised it would be to maintain the new tourism website, the Facebook page and other social media,
updating copy and imagery for the art advertising program, creating a strategic plan for getting the best
bang for the buck for advertising, and pitching stories related to Edmonds.
Council President Buckshnis recalled $2,500/quarter budgeted in the social medial policy. Mr. Doherty
explained the City’s social media presence is different than the tourism related social media. The City’s
social media presence and outreach is related to art, City functions, etc. This is specific to Visit Edmonds.
The $1,000/month will cover 20 hours/month.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Mr. Doherty for presenting this so clearly. She relayed the LTAC
unanimously supported this recommendation. She supported having Ellen Hyatt’s efforts funded by
lodging tax revenue.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many hotel properties there are in Edmonds and the number of hotel
rooms. Mr. Doherty answered there are 6-7 hotels; he did not know the number of rooms but the annual
projected revenue $90,000.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on a future Consent Agenda.
11. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
Finance Director Scott James reviewed changes made to the budget since it was presented:
Budget
Book
Page #
Description
Cash
Increase
(Decrease)
General Fund
39 Executive Assistant Schedule Salary Step Increase ($4,314)
43 Advertising Expense ($4,200)
86 Small Equipment (Reduce DP #13) $2,200
26 Business Licenses & Fees (Increase Animal License Fee Revenue $27,770
26 Public Safety (Increase Grant Revenue from Dept. of Justice) $3,970
36 Public Safety (Increase Woodway Law Protection Revenue) $7,500
45 City Attorney ($87,440)
Medical Plan Savings $295,393
Impacts to General Fund Ending Cash $ 32,926
Fund 111 Street
Medical Savings $10,896
Packet Page 127 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 15
Impacts to Fund 111 Ending Cash $10,896
Fund 112 Street Construction
163 Construction (DP #36) ($100,000)
163 Interfund Services (DP #36) ($6,000)
Impacts to Fund 112 Ending Cash ($106,000)
Fund 120 Hotel/Motel Tax
94 Professional Services (increase budget per LTAC recommendation) $15,000
Impacts to Fund 120 Ending Balance $15,000
Fund 126 REET 1
166 Construction $200,000
166 Land ($200,000)
Impacts to Fund 126 Ending Cash $0
Fund 130 Cemetery Fund
Medical Savings
Impacts to Fund 130 Ending Cash $1,727
Fund 132 Parks Construction
168 Land $1,300,000
168 Construction ($1,300,000)
168 Construction $200,000
Impacts to Fund 132 Ending Cash ($200,000)
Fund 421 Water Utility Fund
Medical Savings $19,871
Impacts to Fund 421 Ending Balance $19,871
Fund 422 Storm Utility Fund
Medical Savings $11,151
Impacts to Fund 422 Ending Balance $11,151
Fund 423 Sewer Fund
Medical Savings $31,870
Impacts to Fund 423 Ending Balance $31,870
Fund 511 Equipment Rental Fund
Medical Savings $4,660
Impacts to Fund 511 Ending Balance $4,660
Mr. James reviewed challenges:
Budget
Book
Page #
Department Description Amount
New Ongoing Public Safety Costs for the General Fund
59 Non-Dept’l Fire District 1 Services Contract $978,000
59 Non-Dept’l Prisoner Care $163,950
59 Non-Dept’l ESCA/SERS $9,300
59 Non-Dept’l SNOCOM $45,332
Impacts to General Fund Ending Cash $1,196,582
Mr. James advised the City continues to meet with Fire District 1 (FD1) regarding the service contract.
Mayor Earling advised the Council will have an executive session regarding the FD1 issue next Tuesday.
Council President Buckshnis asked what percentage the $978,000 represents and what it was based on.
Mr. James responded it was 13%. The $978,000 is an accumulation of costs. When FD1 present their bill,
they started with the base in 2009; FD1 negotiated a contract in 2010 in which they incurred higher cost
Packet Page 128 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 16
but those increases were not passed on to the City. FD1 subsequently ratified their 2013-2014 contract
which raised the base to at least $970,000 more, beginning in 2015. FD1 is still negotiating their 2015
contract. Council President Buckshnis observed this represents what is believed to be the settlement
amount for retroactive pay as well as 2015. Mr. James answered those are separate issues. The
retroactivity was slight more than 26% for the 2013-2014 union contract. Council President Buckshnis
referred to the bill for $1.6 million and asked if the City would pay an additional 13%. Mr. James
answered yes. When FD1 settled its contract, it raised the base which is $978,000 higher. FD1 also
expects the City to assist with the retroactive pay.
Councilmember Mesaros observed the City will be paying $1.6 million plus $978,000, actually $2.5
million. Mayor Earling clarified the $1.67 million is the amount FD1 has billed the City for retroactive
pay; the $978,000 is a guestimate of the increase in next year’s budget. Mr. James relayed FD1 has
acknowledged the retroactivity bill is very large and have offered to accept quarterly installments over
two years. He advised there may be room for negotiation on the retroactivity amount; the City has
presented its case.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled former Finance Director Neumaier set aside funds for the
increase. Mayor Earling responded the amount set aside was not enough. Mr. James advised the total cost
for FD1 in the 2014 budget was $6.5 million; the City currently pays $6,220,000. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas whether there was a set aside in 2014 budget for the FD1 contract. Mr. James advised the budget
included $6.5 million for FD1; he was not aware of any other set aside other than the contingency reserve.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the $45,000 for SNOCOM. Mr. James advised that is
their increased cost. New World may be operational next year which will include extra costs. In
SNOCOM’s approved 2015 budget, Edmonds’ allocation increased by $45,000 from $888,000 to
$934,000. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed frustration that she has heard New World will be
coming every year for the past five years. Mr. James agreed it was frustrating for all sides.
Councilmember Petso relayed some of the changes have ongoing impacts, others are one year
adjustments. She requested the Strategic Outlook be updated to reflect the changes.
Mr. James continued his review of challenges:
Budget
Book
Page #
Department Description Amount
General Fund
59 Non-Dept’l In 2016 Transfer to 617 Firemen’s Pension Fund S/B increased by: $10,000
59 Non-Dept’l In 2016 transfer to 009 LEOFF Fund S/B increased by: $100,000
59 Non-Dept’l In 2016 Transfer to 012 Contingency Fund S/B increased by: $442,800
Impacts to General Fund Ending Cash $552,800
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed Councilmember Bloom and she have served on this board for
the past few years and have advocated not to take money away from these programs. The biggest issue is
as LEOFF members age, their needs increase to include in home care which is very expensive, as much as
$70,000/person/year. There are 27 LEOFF members. Mr. James advised Finance is aware and concerned
about it. This proposal is to begin the discussion regarding a fund balance policy.
Council President Buckshnis relayed only $300,000 was spent last year and the estimated increase was
$70,000. She did not object to the proposal or considering a policy. Mr. James advised the $533,000 was
carried forward to bring the balance to over $700,000.
Packet Page 129 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 17
Councilmember Petso observed there were 27 people in the LEOFF 009 and asked how many are in the
617 Firemen’s Pension Fund. Mr. James answered 4.
Mr. James reviewed proposed Council allocations from the $250,000:
Proposal
#
Description Cash Increase
(Decrease)
1 Veterans Park Design ($10,000)
2 Train Trench Study ($90,000) & Peer Review ($10,000) ($100,000)
3 Highway 99 Study and Planning ($100,000)
4 Planned Action EIS (2015 Phase 1 $75,000, 2016 Phase 2 $75,000) ($75,000)
5 Council Meeting Video Taping ($6,500)
6 Building & Facility Maintenance Needs Study ($20,000)
Subtotal of Allocations ($311,500)
Amount Requests Exceed Balance to Allocate ($61,500)
Councilmember Petso asked the target geographic location for the planned action EIS. Councilmember
Johnson answered Highway 99. Councilmember Petso suggested she, Councilmember Johnson and Ms.
Hope discuss this, relaying that a study area of that size was inconsistent with what she thought a planned
action EIS was. Ms. Hope relayed it was her understanding $100,000 was proposed to be allocated for
planning and standards for the Highway 99 corridor. Up to an additional $75,000 would be allocated for
an EIS particularly related to traffic, environment, and aesthesis for a total of $175,000. A planned action
EIS is a subarea plan and the size can vary. A special study is done for that area in which standards are
analyzed and identified, etc. and an EIS is crafted for that option and 1-2 other options. The SEPA work
will also be done. It is advantageous for development to have the EIS and SEPA done up front.
For Council President Buckshnis, Ms. Hope advised both a subarea plan and a planned action become
part of the Comprehensive Plan, eliminating the need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
Council President Buckshnis asked what area of Highway 99 would be analyzed. Ms. Hope advised that
would be worked out in the next stage. Council President Buckshnis asked how the amount was
determined. Ms. Hope answered $150,000 is a typical amount for a planned action. Council President
Buckshnis asked whether the amount could be reduced to $50,000. Ms. Hope advised that could be done
but $175,000 would provide a cushion.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding a planned action was not done for a large area that has
such different environmental conditions such as exist on Highway 99. For example, some intersections
flow better than others, other areas, such as at the county line, are at a complete fail. The idea of doing
one SEPA covering the entire length of Highway 99 seemed odd. She relayed information she found via a
link on MSRC that states, as a result the city pays for studies and process that would normally be paid for
by private applicants. Although there is no formal method under state law to recover the costs of upfront
analysis, some jurisdictions have developed cost-sharing agreements with local property owners and
associations interested in utilizing the planned action process. Councilmember Petso relayed her concerns,
1) the Council is being asked to subsidize private development, and 2) a planned action for a very large
area, such as the entire length of Highway 99, leaves little opportunity for a cost-sharing agreement with a
group of property owners versus the possibility for recouping costs if done in a targeted area.
Ms. Hope responded this has been available via GMA for approximately 15 years. Initially the state
wanted a way to fund these in perpetuity and gave grants to jurisdictions as pilot projects while they
researched cost-sharing methods. There never have been any good cost-sharing methods for planned
actions. Developers/property owners fund environmental work on a project-by-project, piecemeal basis,
not for an entire area. Some local governments have done a planned action EIS to consider an entire area
versus property-by-property as development occurs.
Packet Page 130 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 18
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the initial thought was $150,000 would be needed to do the
entire 2-mile stretch of Highway 99. Ms. Hope advised $100,000 plus $50,000 would cover the full
planned action, codes and environmental analysis. She would work with the Council on determining the
exact area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her interest in participating in that.
Council President Buckshnis referred to the $6500 for Council meeting videotaping, advising it is a
necessity and in the future would be included in the budget. The intent is to utilize Senior Executive
Council Assistant Jana Spellman as a legislative assistant for 4 hours/month and the proposed $6,500
would fund videotaping by Ms. Bevington.
Councilmember Petso relayed the $250,000 is intended for onetime expenditures. She suggested building
the cost for a legislative assistant and/or videotaping into the Council budget rather than from the Council
allocations.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council discuss using the existing council assistant as a
legislative aid. An option would be to reduce Ms. Spellman’s hours to 16/week. Council President
Buckshnis supported having Ms. Spellman provide 4 hours/week as a legislative aid because she is
already in the office, has history, is able to find things quickly, etc.
Councilmember Bloom observed it appeared the council assistant’s hours would be increased and the
additional 4 hours would be as a legislative assistant. Council President Buckshnis explained the council
assistant previously worked 20 hours which included 4 hours videotaping Council meetings. She is unable
to videotape evening meetings; therefore, her hours have been reduced to 16/week. She would like to
have a 20/hour work week, an additional 4 hours/week. Council President Buckshnis proposed rather than
an additional 4 hours as the executive assistant, she would act as a legislative aid for all Councilmembers
4 hours/week. Councilmember Bloom preferred to discuss what Councilmembers wanted in a legislative
aid, identify a job description and the hours it would entail and include that in the Council budget.
Council President Buckshnis advised Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie, City Attorney Cates
and Ms. Spellman have drafted a job description for the legislative aid; she will have it sent to the
Council.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about the Building and Facility Maintenance Needs Study.
Councilmember Johnson advised it was not her idea but she wanted to champion it. This study was
discussed at the Finance Committee and would provide an inventory of needs rather than operating in a
break/fix mode. Mr. James explained this was done in Mukilteo; an inventory was done of all the
buildings, parks, facilities that included the estimated life of all the components. Mukilteo’s study cost
approximately $9,800; he added $10,000 due to Edmonds’ size.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed the legislative assistant position description and an estimate of the hours
needed to be done first. He was uncertain 4 hours/week would be sufficient to answer questions posed to
staff and to provide data and information independent of what is provided by staff. Council President
Buckshnis advised the proposal is 4 hours/week or 20 hours/month. She queried several Councilmembers
regarding their needs for legislative assistant and it was not a full-time person. Her proposal was to utilize
the existing person in that capacity.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she spends a lot of time doing what a legislative aid could
do. The current job specification for the council assistant is 4 hours/week videotaping and 16 hours in the
Council office. She asked if the proposal was for the current council assistant to work in the office 20
hours/week and the $6500 would fund a person to videotape Council meetings. Council President
Buckshnis relayed Ms. Spellman’s job duties have been reduced to 16 hours/week because she is unable
to video evening meetings. Ms. Bevington has been videotaping 4 hours/week. Her suggestion to get Ms.
Spellman back to 20 hours/week would be 4 hours/week as a legislative aid.
Packet Page 131 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 19
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Ms. Spellman will no longer videotape Council meetings.
Council President Buckshnis advised that was correct at this time. Her contract will be adjusted to reflect
she will no longer videotape Council meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented some
Councilmembers are interested in determining how many hours would be needed for legislative aid type
work.
Councilmember Petso commented she had not heard of people sharing a legislative assistant and the
concept seems very odd. For example, one Councilmember may ask the aid to research what cities have
done to help acquire parks; and another Councilmember may ask him/her to research what cities are doing
to sell off surplus parks. She was hesitant to have a single, shared legislative assistant among seven
people.
12. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Due to the late hour, Mayor Earling advised this would be delayed to a future meeting.
13. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS
This item was rescheduled to a future meeting via action taken at the conclusion of Agenda Item 9.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling advised Rick Schaefer, the Principle at Tetra Tech, was scheduled to make a presentation
at the November 28 meeting. His father passed away so his presentation has been rescheduled to
November 25.
Mayor Earling thanked Council and staff who attended the Five Corners ribbon cutting last week. Staff
and elected officials have endured a lot of bullets as that project moved along. Early reports, including
some from people who were opposed to the roundabout, have been positive.
Mayor Earling invited the public to the Veterans Day Ceremony at the Veterans Plaza at 11 a.m.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Buckshnis advised she is working on the extended agenda. The Council will not be
meeting on December 23 or 30.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Packet Page 132 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 18, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Diane Buckshnis, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember (arrived 7:25 p.m.)
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Rob English, City Engineer
Deb Sharp, Accountant
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the
Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson,
Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday,
Finance Director Scott James and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 7:02 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 7:15 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:18 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Peterson.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO,
TO REORDER THE AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: CHANGE ITEM 8 TO ITEM 11, ITEM 9 TO
Packet Page 133 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 2
ITEM 10, ITEM 10 TO ITEM 8 AND ITEM 11 TO ITEM 9. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present for the vote.)
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON, TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS 6 AND 7 AND MOVE THE
DECISIONS FOR THOSE ITEMS TO FOLLOW ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present for the vote.)
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Items C, D and E be removed from the Consent Agenda and
Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items
approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211469 THROUGH #211552 DATED NOVEMBER
13, 2014 FOR $1,797,077.68 (REISSUED CHECK #211496 $32.76). APPROVAL OF
REISSUED PAYROLL CHECKS #61281 $33.11 AND #61282 $708.90
F. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
G. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH YAKIMA
COUNTY
Item A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2014
Councilmember Bloom requested the following corrections:
• Page 6, 2nd full paragraph, 4th sentence, add “not” following “that it would.”
• Page 6, 2nd full paragraph, 5th sentence, change “$86,00” to $86,000.”
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE ITEM A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Peterson was not present
for the vote.)
Item C: PUBLIC WORKS QUARTERLY PROJECT REPORT
Councilmember Petso suggested the Public Works Quarterly Report should have been reviewed in a
study session prior to scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. She relayed a question that she had emailed to
Public Works Director Phil Williams: the quarterly report shows the City will be receiving a grant in
December for a project on 76th Avenue. When Council last discussed that project, concerns were raised
regarding access and the backup that occurs at Edmonds-Woodway High School and College Place
Elementary. She questioned why the City would accept a construction grant prior to resolving the access
issues. Mr. Williams responded this project provides an opportunity to address backups onto 76th that
occur with student drop-off at Edmonds-Woodway High School. Staff has met with representatives from
Edmonds-Woodway High School and the Edmonds School District; the conceptual solution is to turn the
high school driveway into an exit only and move access to the drop-off area to 216th. Staff will work with
Edmonds-Woodway High School to design improvements and striping on their property to allow drop-off
to occur in an efficient and safe manner. That design has not yet been done; staff plans to present an
amendment to the David Evans & Associates design contract at next week’s study session to add that
issue and others. Once resources are available, a detailed design will begin.
Packet Page 134 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 3
Councilmember Petso asked about a similar problem that occurs at College Place Elementary. Mr.
Williams advised the design phase of the restriping project on the north end has not yet begun. Staff will
work with Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to accommodate the needs of College Place. He
summarized staff is aware of the issue and it will be resolved during design.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the grant was for the intersection improvements only. Mr. Williams
answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS
TO APPROVE ITEM C.
Councilmember Bloom commented the quarterly report indicates the 2014 funds for Neighborhood
Traffic Calming have been carried forward into 2015. She recalled those funds had been allocated to the
SR 104 crosswalk. Mr. Williams relayed his understanding that a budget adjustment could be made to
move those funds into the 2015 budget to supplement the $10,000 budgeted in 2015. The funds for the
crosswalk were paid out of ending fund balance.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON ABSTAINED.
Item D: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3982 PROVIDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) MODIFYING THE
DEFINITION OF "LOT" (ECDC 21.55.010), DEFINING "LOT OF RECORD" (ECDC
21.55.015) AND ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING "INNOCENT
PURCHASER" (ECDC 20.75.180). (AMD20140001)
Councilmember Petso explained she previously voted against this and will vote against it again.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
VOTING NO.
Item E: REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD
WATER QUALITY UPDATES -DECANT FACILITY RETROFIT PROJECT AND
PROJECT ACCEPTANCE
Councilmember Petso inquired about the applicability of the City’s purchasing policy to the project; the
agenda memo states in accordance with purchasing policies, the Public Works Director can authorize the
bid as construction costs for the project were less than $50,000. As this project has an engineer’s estimate
of $69,000 and total construction costs of $51,000, she would expect it to be classified as a project in
excess of $50,000 and to follow that procedure in the purchasing policy. Mr. Williams answered staff
tries to provide all the information about an entire project which is the intent of the purchasing policy. He
agreed if the bids had been over $50,000, Mayor Earling’s signature would have been required.
Councilmember Petso explained the reason for her questioning was recalling the experience with Haines
Wharf.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director Edmonds Senior Center, referred to the proposed update to the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP), specifically the restoration opportunity identified in the SMP that
would pull back the parking bump-out at the senior center and align it with the bulkhead along the
waterfront to restore beach habitat. If this restoration opportunity is pursued, he pointed out the
Packet Page 135 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 4
importance of reducing the parking setback to 40 feet as allowed by the SMP. The senior center currently
has 79 parking spaces; if the existing bump-out is retained and used for parking, initial studies show up to
109 parking spaces could be provided, a most desirable increase. If the bump-out is pulled back and there
is a 40-foot setback, parking spaces will be reduced to 86. A 60-foot foot setback reduces parking below
the existing amount. He envisioned the new building would be very popular and the more parking the
better. Parking on the waterfront should not be the only consideration; restoring beach habitat and
beautifying the area should weigh more heavily in the long run. These two needs, parking versus
restoration need to be balanced in light of the public programming nature of the new community/senior
center. To achieve that balance, a 40-foot setback is appropriate. At the point construction is ready to
begin, the restoration project may be able to attract significant state and federal funds.
Brent Malgarin, recalled at the last meeting when Pam Stuller advised there were approximately 350
members of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID), Councilmember Mesaros
comment he found it surprising that all 350 supported the EDBID. He has been collecting signatures to
shut down the EDBID because he is opposed to it on numerous levels. He has contacted 58 members, 48
have signed on to close it, 10 chose not to for various reasons. He summarized not all the members are in
favor of the EDBID.
Val Stewart, Edmonds, speaking as a resident and not a Planning Board Member, thanked the Council
for their unanimous vote on October 21, 2014 to approve a 100-foot setback and 50-foot buffers in the
Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment in the SMP which shows a commitment to preserving and
enhancing the nearshore environment. With regard to Item 8, SMP adoption, she explained the senior
center is in the Urban Mixed Use I environment; the Council will need to consider how parking setbacks
fit into the overall scheme of beach restoration and public access. She requested the Council consider the
following in their decision-making: hard shoreline armoring such as concrete bulkheads, seawalls and
riprap is no longer allowed unless there are extreme circumstances. In the past these techniques were
utilized to combat shoreline erosion threatening properties along the shoreline. It is now known that
hardening a shoreline can endanger neighboring properties and threaten salmon and is best used as a last
resort. She described soft shore stabilization which focuses on enhancing ecological functions. Hard
armoring techniques use manmade materials not found on the site; soft shore stabilization utilizes natural
materials found locally such as sand, gravel, large wood and native plants. A recent UW study showed
more shorebirds inhabit unarmored beaches. The connectivity between adjacent beaches is also an
important feature of natural shorelines. She suggested two goals for Urban Mixed Use I, to restore natural
beach habitat and to preserve and enhance public access.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the request by one Councilmember to allocate $100,000 from
Council funds in the budget for a train trench study and Mayor Earling’s plans to request $1.25 million
from the legislature for an alternatives study. He has also heard the Council plans to only spend $10,000
on a peer review of the study done by the consultant. He did not support spending any money on a
specific remedy until a complete study of the alternatives has been conducted. He referred to incorrect
information in My Edmonds News about the alternatives. He preferred to find out from experts what the
right solution was before spending any money on a specific remedy.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2015 PROPERTY TAXES
Mayor Earling recalled the Council voted under Agenda Item 3 to move the decisions on Items 6 and 7
until later on agenda due to Councilmember Peterson’s request to be present for the decision. As
Councilmember Peterson has arrived, he suggested moving the decisions back to those items.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO,
TO MOVE DECISIONS REGARDING ITEMS 6 AND 7 BACK TO THOSE ITEMS. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 136 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 5
Finance Director Scott James described the 2015 Regular Property Tax Levy:
• 2015 Budget Includes 1% Property Tax Increase
• Assessor Shows City of Edmonds Assessed Values Increasing 10.8% (Increase in AV before
adding in new construction)
• New Construction adds $26.57 million Assessed Value
He described the 2015 Regular Property Tax calculation for the City:
Description Amount
2014 Levy Amount $9,819,161
Add New Construction $42,748
Add Allowance for Adjustments $32,985
Add Refunds $6,764
2015 Starting Point $9,901,658
Add 1% of 2014 Levy $98,192
Total 2015 Levy $9,999,850
Mr. James reviewed a graph of the ten year assessed property values history for the City, highlighting
assessed values of $4.8 billion in 2005, peaking at $7.7 billion in 2009, and estimated at $6.7 billion in
2015. He provided a graph of the rate per $1,000 of assessed value history, highlighting a rate of $1.69 in
2005, $1.19 in 2008, $1.76 in 2013 and projected to be $1.47 in 2015.
He provided an overview of the 2008 – 2015 EMS Tax Levy:
• In 2008 citizens voted to make the EMS Levy a permanent $0.50 levy
• During 2010 – 2013 assessed property values declined
• During this span of time Edmonds assessed value dropped just over 31%
• EMS levy cannot exceed $0.50
• In a declining assessed value environment the City’s EMS levy also declines
Mr. James provided a comparison of EMS Tax Levy 2009-2015
Year Action EMS Levy Levy Savings
2009 $0.50 Permanent EMS Levy becomes effective $3,854,605 $0
2010 Assessed Values Decline 9.8% $3,477,741 $376,864
2011 Assessed Values Decline 7.5% $3,216,629 $637,976
2012 Assessed Values Decline 9.9% $2,897,322 $957,283
2013 Assessed Values Decline 4.3% $2,772,620 $1,081,985
2014 Assessed Values Increase 10% $3,051,206 $803,399
2015 Assessed Values Increase 11.3% $3,395,376 $459,229
$4,316,736
He reviewed a graph of EMS Property Tax Rate per $1,000 of assessed value history, highlighting $0.47
in 2005, $0.32 in 2008, and permanent levy effective in 2009. He described the 2015 EMS Property Tax
calculation for the City:
Description Amount
2014 Levy Amount $3,051,206
Add New Construction $13,283
2015 Levy 3,064,489
Add ”Banked Capacity” $330,887
Total 2015 Levy $3,395,376
Packet Page 137 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 6
Mr. James explained why City administration is recommending these tax increases:
2015 New Ongoing Costs:
Fire District 1 Services Contract $978,000
Prisoner Care $163,950
ESCA/SERS $9,300
SNOCOM $45,332
Impacts to the General Fund $1,196,582
Future Financial Challenges
In 2016 Transfer to 617 Firemen’s Pension Fund S/B increased by: $10,000
In 2016 transfer to 009 LEOFF Fund S/B increased by: $100,000
In 2016 Transfer to 012 Contingency Fund S/B increased by: $442,800
Impacts to General Fund $552,800
Total Impact to General Fund
$1,749,382
Mr. James summarized the above financial challenges have no new ongoing source of revenue. He
described the impact of the tax increases:
• 2014 Average Residence Value: $351,100
• 1% Regular Tax Levy Increase: $5.65
• Keeping EMS Levy at $0.50: $18.96
• Average Residence would pay $24.61 in 2015
• Or about $2.05 per month extra
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation
portion of the hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3983, LEVYING 1% REGULAR PROPERTY
TAX INCREASE FOR 2015, LEVYING 11% EMS TAX INCRASE AND LEVYING $925,309 FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY VOTED DEBT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the 11% increase in the EMS tax increase was equal to the $0.50
EMS levy. Mr. James answered yes, it would bring the levy up to $0.50. Councilmember Bloom observed
the voters already approved a $0.50 EMS tax levy.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON 2014 AMENDMENTS TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Council previously discussed these
amendments, they were reviewed by the Planning Board and a recommendation forwarded to the City
Council and the Council had further discussion in August. She identified the proposed amendments:
• Replace the existing Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan with the plan approved by
Council in February 2014
• Replace the existing Community Cultural Plan with the plan approved by Council in February
2014
• Text amendment regarding Westgate
o Does not change the code
Packet Page 138 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 7
o Work with the existing code or the proposed code for Westgate.
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained there was a robust public process to develop the PROS
Plan and Community Cultural Plan. The Planning Board vetted the plans in December 2013 and held a
public hearing on January 8, 2014. The Council reviewed the plans and held two public hearings on
February 4 and 25 and unanimously approved the plans on February 25, 2014. The plans have been
submitted to the State to be eligible for the grant process; grants were due May 1, 2014. This is basically a
housekeeping amendment; the City has traditionally included the PROS and Community Cultural Plans in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Hope advised the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is not part of this proposed amendment. That will be
considered as part of the budget process and a future amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the Westgate text language and asked the difference between mixed
use and a mix of uses and why mixed use was selected rather than mix of uses. Ms. Hope responded they
can mean the same thing; mixed use refers to a mix of different types of uses. Councilmember Bloom
relayed her understanding of Ms. Hope’s explanation that using one or the other would not limit where
uses could be placed on a site and would allow room for whatever final decisions is made regarding
Westgate. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember Petso referred to discussions regarding flexible mixed use on Highway 99 such as
commercial development at the front of a site and residential toward the back instead of the standard
mixed use with residential over commercial. She asked whether the term mixed use would include both
types of development. Ms. Hope answered it would allow full flexibility.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3984, AMENDING THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTING THE 2014 PARKS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLAN AND THE 2014 COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLAN AS ELEMENT S OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REPLACE THE EARLIER VERSIONS OF THOSE
ELEMENTS; AMENDING SUBSECTION C OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE CHAPTER OF
THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCORPORATE NEW LANGUAGE FOR T HE WESTGATE
NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. INTENT TO APPROVE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the City approval process:
• Assemble complete draft SMP
• Complete SEPA review and documentation
• Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt
• Hold public hearing
• Prepare a responsiveness summary
• Approve SMP and submit to Ecology
• Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines
He explained Ecology’s approval process generally takes six months to complete. The process for a
“minor” amendment is the same as a full blown SMP update. He reviewed the ecology approval process:
• Provide public notice and opportunity for comment
Packet Page 139 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 8
o Minimum 30 day comment period
o Send comments to local government within 15 days
o Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments
• Prepare decision packet
o 30 days after receiving response to comments, Ecology prepares decision packet
o Ecology may:
Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is
Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes
Delay the SMP Amendment
• Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval
He explained with the proposal to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center building, questions arose
regarding how the SMP applies to the site. The SMP Restoration Plan includes a restoration opportunity:
relocation of parking lot (bump-out) to restore beach habitat. In the proposed SMP relocation has been
changed to reconfiguration to address the bump-out, not relocation of the entire senior center parking lot.
He identified the bump-out on an aerial photograph, explaining the bump-out was constructed in the early
1960s for the geodesic dome that was brought up from the Seattle’s World Fair. He provided a
photograph of the bump-out from the beach level and the seawall project completed in 2003. The
restoration project would be to remove the bump-out and line up the beachfront.
Mr. Lien identified SMP regulations that apply to the Senior Center development:
• Urban Mixed Use I Environment
• Senior Center structure
o 15-foot setback
o 30 feet in height
• View corridor
o 30% of parcel width
o Adjacent to north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor
given development on adjacent properties
• Parking
o 60-foot setback
He described parking setback reductions allowed in the Urban Mixed Use II:
• 1 square foot for every foot of walkway or publically accessible open space
• Minimum 40-foot setback
He displayed a potential site plan for the senior center, identifying the 60-foot parking setback. The
parking in the site plan is similar to the existing parking; he identified the area of parking that would be
considered a nonconforming use and could continue as a nonconforming use. An option would be to
apply the parking setback flexibility allowed in Urban Mixed Use II to the Urban Mixed Use I.
For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained within the Urban Mixed Use I environment where the
senior center is located, the parking setback is 60 feet and there is no option to reduce it to 40 feet. In
Urban Mixed Use II, the setback can be reduced 1 foot for every lineal foot of walkway or square foot of
open space provided to a minimum of 40 feet. He displayed a potential site plan if the bump-out was
removed and the parking setback reduced.
Councilmember Petso asked what other properties would be affected by a change to allow the parking
flexibility in Urban Mixed Use I. Mr. Lien identified the properties in the Urban Mixed Use I
environment, advising all properties in that area could benefit from the setback reduction.
Packet Page 140 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 9
Mr. Lien identified the provision for parking setback reduction flexibility in 24.60.080.D.3.c; the Council
could approve a change to allow the parking setback reduction flexibility that applies to Mixed Use II to
apply to Urban Mixed Use I.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO HAVE THE PARKING SETBACK FLEXIBILITY IN URBAN MIXED USE II
APPLY TO URBAN MIXED USE I.
Councilmember Johnson asked how long the 60-foot setback had been in effect in the SMP. Mr. Lien
answered at least since the SMP was last updated in 2000. Setbacks differ for parking and structures,
largely because parking is not considered a priority use within the shoreline area. The parking setback
flexibility may have been allowed for the Urban Mixed Use II zone because that zone largely applies to
the marina where parking is important and where there is a water dependent use versus the Urban Mixed
Use I zone where uses are office space and some residential.
Councilmember Johnson asked if a 60-foot setback was consistent with any grant or State regulation. Mr.
Lien answered not that he aware of.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1326, EXPRESSING INTENT TO ADOPT AN
UPDATE TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Engineer Rob English recalled a presentation was made to Council in October; this discussion has
been carried forward for several Council meetings. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the 2015-2020
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and an ordinance be prepared to adopt the 2015-2020 Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP) with the budget.
Councilmember Johnson commented there is one new project description related to the senior center.
Parks & Recreation Carrie Hite highlighted two changes, the first in the CFP related to the senior center.
A rebuild of the senior center has been in the CFP for quite some time. That has been revised to reflect
that the non-profit will rebuild the senior center and the City’s responsibility will be to rehabilitate the
grounds and beach access surrounding the senior center when construction begins. The second change is
the addition of the Veterans Plaza in the CIP which includes a project description, project benefit rational
and a $10,000 initial budget based on Councilmember Peterson’s recommendation.
Council President Buckshnis relayed she has provided input to staff regarding funding for the Sunset
Avenue project. She agrees with keeping that project on the list but preferred to see how the design goes
before estimating the cost. She felt including $2 million in 2018 was premature.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the funding was included as a placeholder. Mr. English
responded if the City applied for a construction grant in the future to build something more permanent
such as sidewalks and facilities on the south and north end, it would be appropriate to have the $2 million
in the plan. If the Council chose to construct something less, it was better to have the funds in the plan
than to have no funding. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas supported retaining the full $2 million.
Councilmember Petso suggested restoring the project description back to a walkway versus a multiuse
pathway. She asked why that was not recommended by staff. Mr. English answered that could be done, it
was up to the Council. Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed that could be done, pointing out a
Packet Page 141 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 10
multiuse path was the intent when staff applied for the design grant. The trial project in place on Sunset
Avenue, recommended to be in place for one year, will allow the public to experience the geometry and
for the Council and public to evaluate the results. He explained the important of gaining some experience
with the multiuse pathway. If it is discovered via that experience that it does not work, the City would
have the justification to return to the granting agencies and request a change. If the Council decides to
change it to a walkway that does not allow wheeled vehicles like bicycles, etc., that experience cannot be
gained and it will look like the City changed its mind rather than having any documented reasons.
Council President Buckshnis explained the reason she wanted to remove/lower the dollar amount was to
provide the Council more control over determining whether or not to continue with a multiuse path. Mr.
Williams assured the Council has total control over the project. The project has not yet been designed;
there have been concepts proposed and there is the current trial. At the end of the trial there will be many
opportunities for the Council and public to comment on the final geometry. The $2.099 million in funding
is in 2018 because the funds are not available and the project has not yet been designed. It is important to
have a project and funding in the out years to show the City is thinking about a project that will cost more
than a trivial amount of money.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to retain multiuse in the description at least until the trial
period is concluded. Council can change how much is spent on the project, however, changing the project
to a walkway at this time defeats the purpose of the trial multiuse pathway.
For the granting agency and the public, Councilmember Petso stated her opinion that the concept has been
tested and it does not work. The two things that do not work are, 1) the angle parking, and 2) the multiuse
pathway. The angle parking is unsafe for drivers backing out and she has witnessed people using the
pathway crossing the street to the sidewalk when they see a bicycle approaching. She was hopeful that
would be sufficient to persuade the granting agencies should that issue arise. The project was originally
on the CIP as a walkway project, people enjoy it as a walkway and she preferred to return to a walkway.
Councilmember Johnson asked what the project description was in last year’s CIP. Mr. Williams
answered it has been called the Sunset Avenue Walkway. There was an expectation when staff interacted
with the granting agencies that a multiuse pathway would be built. His intent is to protect the funds spent
to date to bring the project to this point to avoid the granting agencies requesting the money back because
the City did not build what they said they were going to build. The project description in the 2012 CIP is
to develop a 200-foot trail with the expansive views of Puget Sound, Olympic Mountains and train to
connect downtown businesses to surrounding neighborhoods, water access points and the existing parks.
The details state the walkway will be ADA accessible and will accommodate walkers, joggers, bicycles,
picnickers and those who would enjoy the view.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Buckshnis about removing the amount, explaining
the project is very controversial and there are a lot of strong feelings on either side. She will find it
difficult to approve the CFP/CIP until the issues related to the Sunset Avenue Walkway have been
resolved. She commented this discussion has been scheduled on the agenda on two prior occasions but as
removed due to lengthy agendas. There were a number of items on the CFP/CIP that she wanted to
discuss further and she felt the Council could not vote on the CFP/CIP tonight without an opportunity for
a thorough discussion.
Main Motion
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS
TO APPROVE THE DRAFT 2015-2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AND
DIRECT AN ORDINANCE BE PREPARED TO ADOPT THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN (CFP).
Packet Page 142 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 11
Councilmember Bloom reiterated the Council has not had enough opportunity to discuss the individual
projects on the CFP/CIP. For example the alternatives study is still a large issue; it has been discussed for
two years and each time it becomes increasingly confusing as to what the study will consider.
Councilmember Mesaros spoke in favor of the motion as well as including $2 million for the Sunset
Avenue Walkway project. He emphasized these are not final project plans; it is declaring the City’s intent.
The projects will still return to the Council for approval and there will be tremendous opportunities to
discuss projects and even discard them.
Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND TO POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT WEEK’S WORK SESSION.
Council President Buckshnis anticipated the CFP/CIP would have been discussed at a study session as
there are some contentious items. With regard to whether to include the $2 million for the Sunset Avenue
Walkway, she commented there are two sides to every story. The CIP is a wish list; in a perfect world the
CIP could match the budget. She supported moving the discussion to a study session.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Councilmembers’ minds are already made up with regard to
the walkway, it was no secret and it had been going for months. She asked, 1) what would be gained by
postponing the discussion to another study session where Councilmembers could just agree to disagree
again, and 2) when does the CFP/CIP need to be completed and adopted. Mr. English answered the CFP
can be adopted with the Comprehensive Plan amendment which was done earlier tonight or when the
budget is approved. The CIP is a guidance tool for the budget; it should be adopted ahead of or with the
budget.
If the Council approved the CFP/CIP tonight, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether individual
projects could come back to Council such as the at-grade separation or the walkway. Mr. English
responded the Council could bring specific projects back for discussion. If any project moves forward,
there are milestones for City Council approval such as the design consultant, etc. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas observed approving the CFP/CIP with the Sunset Avenue Walkway did not give staff
authorization to build it. Mr. English assured pros/cons will be discussed with the Council and public at
the end of the trial.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Alternatives Analysis was in last year’s CFP/CIP. Mr.
English recalled a lengthy discussion last year regarding the title of that project. Councilmember Peterson
understood there is a lot of controversy regarding the Sunset project but the Council has discussed that
project a great deal. There have been fairly extensive discussions regarding most of the other projects as
well. The reason he made the motion to approve the CFP/CIP is to take some action and he was unsure
what the purpose of postponing would be. He did not support the motion to postpone to next week’s study
session, finding the CFP/CIP has been discussed enough.
Councilmember Petso referred to inconsistencies between the budget and CIP for 2015 and asked what
happened if the budget and CIP did not match. She has discovered at least four instances where they do
not match. Mr. English responded there is no specific requirement that the CIP mirror the budget but they
should as the CIP is a planning level document. Councilmember Petso recalled in in prior years if the
budget included funds in 2015 for a project, the CIP showed the same amount and the CIP description
was added to the budget book. It does not appear that was done this year; there are different amounts and
different projects. Mr. English expressed interest in the differences she had discovered; it was his
understanding Councilmember Petso’s questions had been addressed by the Finance Director.
Councilmember Petso said postponing until next week would provide an opportunity for the Council to
adopt a CIP that agrees with the budget because they currently do not entirely match.
Packet Page 143 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 12
Councilmember Petso asked in what year the Alternatives Analysis was funded. Mr. English answered
there is $1 million in 2019 and $1 million in 2020. Councilmember Petso commented that project, which
formerly was imminent, had been pushed out to 2019. Mr. English agreed, noting the first three years of
the CIP are constrained; projects in the first three years have secured funding or funding is reasonably
expected to be secured. Funds for the Alternatives Analysis are not secured; therefore, that project is in
the second three years.
Mr. Williams advised if the budget and CIP do not match, the budget is controlling as only what is
authorized in the budget can be spent. If more was listed in the CIP for a project than was included in the
budget, a budget amendment would be required. Mr. Taraday agreed the budget controlled.
If the Council wanted to spend money on a preliminary analysis of a train trench and peer review,
Councilmember Petso asked whether the train trench would need to be in the CFP/CIP or was that a
separate budget item. Mr. English answered the Council could chose to add it to the budget regardless of
whether it was in the CIP. City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented there is no RCW that controls the CIP
and it can be amended at any time. The CFP, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan and technically
subject to the once a year limitation, can also be amended in conjunction with a budget amendment.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the CIP needs to be revised to reflect decisions the Council makes
during budget deliberations. Mr. Taraday answered because there is no RCW that speaks to the CIP, it is
not illegal for the two documents to be inconsistent although he assumed the intent was for them to be
consistent. To the extent there was any conflict, the budget controls.
Councilmember Petso observed there are projects in the CIP that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan such bike lanes on 76th in the CIP and bike lane on 84th in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taraday
responded the CIP and CFP are intended to be consistent. Because the CIP does not have a State law
effect, to the extent there is an inconsistency, the CFP controls over the CIP. The CFP is adopted by
ordinance as part of the Comprehensive Plan; the CIP is an internal document.
Call for the Question
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL,
CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmembers misunderstood that the above vote was for the Call for the Question.
Reconsider
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION FOR THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Action on Call for the Question
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Action on Amendment #1
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Action on Main Motion
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW THE MAIN MOTION.
Packet Page 144 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 13
Mr. Williams requested Councilmembers email staff regarding what they would like to discuss at the
study session.
Mayor Earling commented what was lost in the Council’s discussion was the fact that the Council
ultimately must approve any project before it moves forward which provides plenty of opportunity for
investigation and detailed discussions. The decision on the CFP and CIP is in fact not a final decision but
simply to keep projects on a list. In some cases it is a wish list; not including any indication of the value
on the wish list such as for the Sunset Avenue project begins to neutralize the City’s ability to obtain
grants.
10. AUTHORIZATION FOR A SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT OF DIGITAL UNIVERSAL
CAMERA (DUC), STEERABLE PIPE RANGER VIDEO TRANSPORTER AND
APPURTENANCES TO RETROFIT THE PUBLIC WORKS SEWER VIDEO CAMERA TRUCK
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the Public Works sewer video truck is used to
periodically video the sanitary sewer pipe system to look for defects; those repairs are then added to the
Wastewater CIP. The same needs to be done in the storm system which will require an expansion of the
current capabilities. The proposed purchase of a higher definition camera will allow staff to video-inspect
both sewer and storm pipes using the existing Cues truck/chassis, software and equipment. Cues has an
approximately 80% market share in the State of Washington for this type of equipment. The new camera
is compatible with an existing chassis and the proposal also includes the purchase of an updated chassis,
Pipe Ranger 2. The intent is to begin videoing both storm and sewer pipes late 2014/early 2015.
Mr. Williams explained the Storm Fund will pay the Sewer Fund for the trained staff to operate the truck;
the cost of the equipment will be shared by the two utilities. In the interest of consistency spare parts,
existing training, it is preferable to continue with the existing company, Cues, the reason for the
recommendation for sole source procurement. The packet also includes a Vendor Certification stating
Cues has not offered this at lower price to other clients. For example, Seattle paid $98,000 for the camera
last year; Edmonds’s price is $91,000. He summarized this is a good case for a sole source procurement
and he recommends Council approval.
Councilmember Petso referred to an email the Council received tonight questioning the appropriateness
of the sole source procurement. She asked why this was not first discussed at a study session. Mr.
Williams answered it would typically have been discussed at a study session; however, the order needs to
be submitted in a couple days in order to pay for it out of the 2014 budget. He assured no additional or
different information would have been provided at a study session.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Finance Director had reviewed the sole source procurement and
the concerns raised by the citizen. Mr. Williams advised it is not a finance question; the question is
whether it meets the criteria in the City’s purchasing policy for a sole source procurement.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the policy requires that other vendors be contacted. Mr. Williams
answered no. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was a requirement for a firm or not to exceed
price. Mr. Williams referred to the letter from Cues that outlines the cost. He assured if the invoice from
Cues does not match their quote, it will not be approved.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT FROM
CUES, INC. OF A VIDEO CAMERA SYSTEM AND VARIOUS SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS.
Council President Buckshnis clarified the reason this vendor was selected was because the City has the
equipment that fits this camera. Mr. Williams provided an analogy, rather than purchasing Toyota
headlights and adapting them to fit your Honda, it is preferable to purchase Honda headlights.
Packet Page 145 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 14
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
11. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE PROPOSED EDMONDS DOWNTOWN
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2015
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained this item is further
discussion regarding the 2015 work program and budget for the Edmonds Downtown Business
Improvement District (EDBID) also known as the Downtown Edmonds Alliance. At the Council’s
request, the EDBID’s 2015 budget compared to previous years will be provided.
Pam Stuller, Walnut Street, President, EDBID Members Advisory Board, explained the EDBID has
a very effective Board, and each of the 11 elected members take their role as stewards of the EDBID’s
resources very seriously. The Board holds publicized semi-monthly meetings that are open to members
and the public. The EDBID has accomplished a great deal since their inception approximately 18 months
ago from the creation of the bylaws and work plan to a new name and official identity. Much of that
progress is due to an enormous amount of volunteerism.
As a young organization, Ms. Stuller recognized it took time to develop trust and create a successful
precedent. The Board appreciates the scrutiny of the Council and seriousness with which they do their
jobs and assured the elected board members share that commitment. While it is discouraging to hear
about a petition to disband the EDBID, with over 320 businesses, there remains a tremendous amount of
support for what the EDBID is doing. She looked forward to beginning the exciting and strategic work
that the EDBID was created to implement.
Cadence Clyborne, HDR Engineering, EDBID Treasurer, explained in response the Council’s request,
the budget summary was revised to be more consistent with a balance sheet format. She displayed the
balance sheet, highlighting the 2015 proposed budget that is in the work plan, 2014 end of year
projection, year-to-date, and 2013 final financials. The 2015 proposed budget includes:
• Beginning balance of $48,129
• Estimated revenues of $81,880 from assessments (assumes 92% collection rate)
• Total revenue of $130,009
• Estimated expenses as outlined in work plan
• Estimated ending balance of $46,009
She explained financial information has always been included in the EDBID minutes. At the request of a
member a few months ago, the spreadsheet has been posted to the EDBID’s website. In the future the new
balance sheet format will be presented at EDBID meetings and posted on the website. The Advisory
Board meets at 8:00 a.m. the 2nd and 4th Thursday in Room 225 at the Edmonds Center for the Arts.
Main Motion
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT’S 2015 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET.
Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE WORK PLAN TO INCLUDE A REVIEW OF THE EQUITY OF THE FEES
ASSESSED BY THE CITY TO EDMONDS TO EDBID MEMBERS BE COMPLETED AND
PRESENTED TO COUNCIL BY JUNE 2015.
Packet Page 146 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 15
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding and appreciation for the work done by the Advisory
Board. The reason she was proposing these amendments was because in talking with business owners and
the fact that a petition was being circulated, there is a lot of conflict and people who are unhappy with the
way things have been done as well as how the EDBID was set up. Her amendments are an attempt to
resolve the concerns she has heard; unless the concerns of the membership are considered, the EDBID
will be unable to move forward in a manner that will work for all the members. For example, although
friends of the EDBID and all the members of the EDBID were invited to a get-together, the voucher
based on $12 lunches indicated only 26 people attended which was not a good turnout.
Councilmember Bloom referred to an email she received at 6:15 p.m. today that she forwarded to
Councilmembers expressing concerns with the EDBID. She stated the membership of the EDBID is not
supporting the Advisory Board’s work; the business owners she has talked said they wish they had been
asked about the Ed! brand and there are questions about the square footage fee assessment. She
summarized many members are dissatisfied but are afraid to speak their mind. She recognized the hard
work done by the Advisory Board and assumed they would not have to work so hard if they had the
support of the membership.
With regard to the proposed amendment, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the square footage range for
assessments is too large; the EDBID essentially assesses a 5,000 square business and a business with a
very small space at a similar rate.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council has full discretion to review and make changes to
assessments. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded everything about the EDBID is subject to the
Council’s discretion. He noted to the extent the direction in Councilmember Bloom’s motion required a
financial expense for the EDBID, it did not fit within any of the categories of authorized expenses.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a more appropriate way would be to schedule a review of the
EDBID fees as a future Council agenda item. Mr. Taraday commented the Council has a lot of power
over the EDBID; he was unsure procedurally what would need to happen to review the assessments but
he could research that in the meantime.
Action on Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Bloom requested the Council President schedule a review of the EDBID Assessments on
an upcoming study session. Recognizing that the issue of sending businesses to collections was also not a
work plan item, she requested that issue be discussed at a future study session. She pointed out 29
business owners have been sent to collections.
Amendment #2
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUEST CLARITY BE ADDED TO ITEM C, ASSESSMENT AND
EVALUATION, AND ITEM D, MEMBER ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH, SPECIFICALLY
REGARDING EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ANONYMOUS INPUT FROM BID MEMBERS.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the EDBID’s written response to this suggestion stating this could be
incorporated. She requested specific language be included regarding obtaining anonymous input from
EDBID members as some members are not comfortable sharing their thoughts.
Councilmember Petso asked what specific language Councilmember Bloom would like to have added.
Councilmember Bloom suggested Survey Monkey surveys be conducted on a regular basis to get input
Packet Page 147 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 16
related to the work the Board is doing. Councilmember Petso asked Mr. Doherty whether that was
something he could assist the EDBID with. Mr. Doherty answered yes.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the motion included direction to act on the surveys, pointing out
Survey Monkey is very unscientific. Councilmember Bloom said she wanted the Advisory Board to get
input from people who are uncomfortable sharing input with the Board. She was not suggesting how they
would use the information, only providing an avenue for members to provide input without being
identified.
Council President Buckshnis asked how the Board would use the input from such surveys.
Councilmember Bloom responded she hoped the Board would use the information to inform how they
spend the EDBID members’ money.
Action on Amendment #2
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Amendment #3
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT BUDGETED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES IN ITEM B TO $6,000 FOR 2015 WHICH EQUALS $500 PER MONTH.
Councilmember Bloom said the reason for this motion was because there was not the support of the
EDBID that she would like to see at this point and she anticipated $6,000 for administrative services
would be more acceptable to the membership than $17,000. She explained $6,000 would allow the
EDBID to hire a contract administrative person at the rate of $25/hour for 20 hours/month or 5
hours/week. That person could do minutes, post on the EDBID website, etc.; the EDBID could
consolidate what the person did and use the person very effectively.
Council President Buckshnis referred to the EDBID’s written response that there is a lot of administrative
work. Her issue is ensuring the 501(c)3 is totally separate; the EDBID administrator cannot provide
administrative services to the 501(c)3. Ms. Clyborne advised their research of other BIDs with 501(c)3s
found they have an agreement with the city for payment for services. That has not yet been fully vetted by
the board. She advised there are other administrative costs in addition to hiring a consultant such as the
post office box, supplies, website fees, etc.
Action on Amendment #3
AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES.
Amendment #4
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION, TO REMOVE ITEM K, RESEARCH OF POTENTIAL BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENT, FROM THE WORK PLAN.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated due to the conflict in the membership, she felt this was not the time to
seek new members.
Councilmember Petso asked whether this was something the Council could do when/if they wished. Mr.
Taraday suggested to the extent this required a financial expense on the part of the EDBID, it did not fit in
any of the categories of expense authorized in the implementing legislation, probably should not be
undertaken by the EDBID and therefore would be inappropriate to include in the work plan. Exploring a
modification to the boundaries would be more appropriately undertaken by the City or the Economic
Packet Page 148 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 17
Development Director. Mr. Taraday provided further context; the Council is approving the budget for the
EDBID, authoring them to spend money on certain items. This does not fit within the categories of
expense that the City authorized when it created the EDBID; it can be worked on by City staff. He
suggested the motion be acted on.
If this was not a budget item and was just something the EDBID planned to work on, Councilmember
Peterson questioned why it was not appropriate for the EDBID to include it in their work plan. The
budget implication would occur if/when a decision was made to expand the boundary. To the extent the
EDBID wants to do leg work to explore changing the boundaries, they do not need to come to the Council
for authorization if it does not require an expense. That effort would be similar to what occurred prior to
forming the EDBID which did not require Council authorization. Mr. Taraday responded by keeping this
item in the work plan and the administrative person working on it, that would be an inappropriate use of
the funds. Councilmember Peterson suggested if it is not in the work plan, some members may object to
the Board talking to potential new members. Mr. Taraday summarized the Council’s role is related to
approving expenditures; anything that occurs outside that is not within the purview of this action item.
Councilmember Mesaros observed there was nothing in the budget related to Item K and the motion is not
in order as it does not reflect budget items which are the Council’s purview.
Action on Amendment #4
AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND MESAROS VOTING
NO.
Amendment #5
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE $10,000 ALLOCATED TO THE SMALL GRANTS
PROGRAM.
Councilmember Bloom explained the EDBID membership should not be expected put their money
toward the 501(c)3, a separate organization that the EDBID is forming. It made no sense to her and she
felt those funds should be retained within the EDBID.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding the EDBID would be in charge of the small grants, not
the 501(c)3. Ms. Stuller explained the intent of the small grants program is to harness the power of the
membership by providing them grants to help be the boots on the ground to get more done in the coming
year. The grants are intended to completely apply to the scope of work and are a way to help catalyze
additional action from the membership. Ms. Clyborne advised the small grants program is entirely
unrelated to the 501(c)3.
Councilmember Petso relayed the EDBID could have included $10,000 in their budget for miscellaneous
projects; by setting up a grant program there will be application deadlines, documentation, etc. Ms. Stuller
agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether the intent was to spend the money “come heck or high
water” or would the funds be held if no appropriate applications are submitted. Ms. Stuller advised the
funds would not be granted unless appropriate applications were received.
Councilmember Petso suggested an amendment requiring each proposed grant be reviewed by City staff
for compliance with the applicable RCW and ECC provisions prior to the award of a grant. Ms. Stuller
had no objection to adding that language to the work plan. Councilmember Petso advised she would
probably not support the proposed amendment and would make the amendment she described.
Action on Amendment #5
AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES.
Packet Page 149 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 18
Amendment #6 and Action
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE FOLLOWING AS THE NEXT TO THE LAST
SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH J OF THE WORK PLAN, “EACH PROPOSED GRANT WILL BE
REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF FOR COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 35.87A.010 AND EDMONDS
CITY CODE 3.75.030 PRIOR TO AWARD OF A GRANT.” MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Peterson voiced his opposition to the suggestion of having further discussion regarding
some issues at a Council study session, anticipating a series of micromanaging meetings. He recognized it
was up to the Council President when/if to schedule that discussion.
Councilmember Bloom suggested the Council also discuss having a representative attend EDBID
Advisory Board meetings; she recommended the Council President and one other Councilmember. The
Council needs to be very involved in the oversight of the EDBID as the EDBID Advisory Board is the
only one of the City’s boards that has the authority to spend money. She disagreed with Councilmember
Peterson because the Council is responsible even if it possibly means micromanaging.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested this may be an appropriate topic for the Council retreat in
early 2015.
Action on Main Motion as amended
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso requested the Council President schedule the EDBID fees and collection policy on
a future study session. Council President Buckshnis advised she has scheduled those as well as research
of a potential boundary adjustment on the December 9 study session agenda.
12. REVIEW & POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF UPDATED RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE MANAGEMENT
POLICY
Public Works Director Williams advised this was discussed at last week’s study session. A resolution and
policy in place since 1978 establishes guidelines for trimming and removing trees in the right-of-way that
are not street trees and require any trimming or removal to be authorized via a right-of-way construction
permit issued by the City. The policy authorizes specific reasons for trimming or removing a tree in the
right-of-way related to safety such as the tree impedes sight lines, is diseased and in danger of falling, or
is causing damage or significant maintenance to public infrastructure. Neither the policy nor the
resolution included the ability to authorize removal/trimming of a tree in the right-of-way that is
damaging private infrastructure.
The proposed policy would add the ability for the City to issue a permit if a tree in the right-of-way is
causing damage to private infrastructure. The Tree Board reviewed the issue and provided a
recommended policy. He referred to three revisions he suggested at last week’s study session, two that
were typos and a third, to remove the requirement to obtain a right-of-way permit to trim/remove a tree
over 8 feet tall. He pointed out an 8-foot tall tree could be 1-2 inches in diameter. He reviewed the
practical implications of requiring a right-of-way permit to trim/remove any tree feet tall over a height of
8 feet: apply for a right-of-way construction permit, minimum price $115; and hire a certified arborist to
prepare a report stating the tree meets the criteria for removal, at a cost of several hundred dollars. He
doubted many property owners would go to that effort to trim/remove a tree of that size. Further, a tree of
that size was unlikely to be causing safety issues or damaging private infrastructure. He noted one of the
criteria in the proposed policy was a tree could be trimmed/removed if it had grown to a size that was
inappropriate for its current location.
Packet Page 150 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 19
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with removing that requirement in view of how hard the Tree
Board worked on the proposed policy. The Tree Board includes a certified arborist and others with
experience with trees. She consulted the Tree Board Chair, Susan Paine, who is very familiar with
Seattle’s tree code, regarding the proposed change. Ms. Paine’s response was a permit to trim an 8-foot
tree is needed; she envisioned a person harming a young tree under 6 inches in diameter by harsh pruning.
Councilmember Bloom referred to trees in the right-of-way that have so harshly pruned that they do not
grow properly. She preferred to retain the requirement for a permit for trees 8 feet in height. Mr. Williams
understood Ms. Paine’s point of view but questioned the City’s ability to control pruning via a permit
program. He reminded a tree would need to meet the criteria for removal before a permit could be issued.
He suggested an educational campaign citing the national standards on tree pruning rather than a
regulatory approach may be more successful in addressing those concerns.
Councilmember Petso provided a scenario: a homeowner with a 5-inch diameter tree over 8 feet tall
located in the City right-of-way trims the tree periodically. Under the proposed code, that homeowner
would be in violation of the code. Mr. Williams agreed the homeowner would be in violation, both in the
proposed code and the existing code. Councilmember Petso asked about enforcement. Mr. Williams
advised enforcement occurs when a situation is brought to the City’s attention. Councilmember Petso
relayed her understanding under the proposed code, a property owner would be required to obtain a right-
of-way permit to trim a tree larger than 6-inches in diameter or over 8 feet tall. Mr. Williams agreed.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the criteria, observing most of them are very specific and not subject
to opinion. However, the criteria that a tree has outgrown its location could be disputed and she preferred
it not be included as a criteria. Mr. Williams advised the permit requires a State certified arborist
determine the tree has outgrown its location. The City needs to have that expertise available as well; there
is currently no certified arborist on staff. When the tree code is presented to Council it will include some
resource requests. Councilmember Johnson stated the determination that a tree has outgrown its location
is a judgment call and even two arborists could have a difference of opinion. She preferred not to have a
judgment call be a criterion, commenting there are historic trees that may be more valuable than the shade
they create.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIOUSLY.
Councilmember Bloom commented the report by a certified arborist would address Councilmember
Johnson’s concerns. She agreed it was a subjective, noting there are also plans for a Heritage Tree
Program which hopefully will protect valuable, old trees. A certified arborist will be able to determine
whether a young tree has outgrown its location or if it is a valuable, old, native tree. Councilmember
Johnson recalled when this first arose, the example staff provided was a very mature cedar tree whose
roots essentially destroyed the adjacent property owners’ grass. Mr. Williams commented it was a
massive Redwood tree that grew very fast. That tree is causing some of the problem listed as criteria for
removal/trimming in the policy and the policy would allow roots to be pruned, etc. Another issue with a
tree like that is the cost to trim or remove it. As long as the tree is not damaging public infrastructure, the
property owner would initiate the process, pay the permit fee, hire the arborist, and pay for
removal/trimming if the City is convinced it meets the criteria.
Main Motion
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE UPDATED RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE
MANAGEMENT POLICY AS AMENDED BY THE EDMONDS CITIZENS TREE BOARD.
Councilmember Peterson clarified this was the policy on page 988-990 of the packet (includes
amendments recommended by Mr. Williams).
Packet Page 151 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 20
Councilmember Bloom preferred to vote on the Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy recommended by
the Tree Board. Mr. Williams distributed the policy as recommended by the Tree Board. (includes the
requirement for a permit for an 8-foot tall tree).
Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
AMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CODE ORIGINALLY
RECOMMENDED BY THE TREE BOARD.
Amendment #2 and Action
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO FIX THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS POINTED OUT BY
MR. WILLIAMS AND CHANGE THE TITLE OF SECTION 5 TO “REPLANTING.
RECOMMENDED REPLANTING RATIOS.” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Action on Amendment #1
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO.
Action on Main Motion as amended
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment.
Kurt Greiner, Edmonds, referred to two funding proposals in the Council’s allocation of $250,000,
$10,000 for a peer review and $90,000 for a train trench study. He urged the Council not to approve the
$10,000 peer review because a firm could not be asked to compare the current $10,000 study because it
was not complete. He referred to the Tetra Tech Report which states until the design is complete there are
a myriad unknown conditions that cannot be specifically accounted for in the construction cost estimate.
He relayed an email from Phil Lovell that the estimate in the Tetra Tech report can be judged as
inadequate in depth but further refinement and/or accuracy of any estimate at this point would be
pointless without further design development. After reviewing the Tetra Tech report and applying
standards he was familiar with, he emailed the Council an outline of other ways of doing this that are less
expensive, more environmental and will save time. Until those are properly identified, he did not see how
a peer review could be done. He urged the Council to approve the $90,000 study to obtain that
information so that a peer review can be conducted. With regard to alternatives such as moving the ferry
terminal, he pointed out ferries cannot dock there in bad weather, the site is not ready and the funds are
not available. With regard to an overpass, a study was completed in 2012. He concluded the City needed
to consider alternatives; it is good business as well as required by NEPA.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the opportunity for public comment.
Councilmember Petso explained although she initially requested $10,000 for a peer review, she withdrew
that request when a consensus emerged that it was not really a study worthy of being peer reviewed. Her
current proposal is $90,000 for a preliminary study and $10,000 for a peer review of that preliminary
study.
Finance Director Scott James reviewed the Council’s list of changes
Proposal
#
Description Cash Increase
(Decrease)
1 Veterans Park Design ($10,000)
2 Train Trench Study ($90,000) & Peer Review ($10,000) ($100,000)
Packet Page 152 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 21
3 Highway 99 Study and Planning ($100,000)
4 Planned Action EIS (2015 Phase 1 $75,000, 2016 Phase 2 $75,000) ($75,000)
5 Building & Facility Maintenance Needs Study ($20,000)
Subtotal of Allocations ($305,000)
Amount Requests Exceed Balance to Allocate ($55,000)
Due to the late hour, Mayor Earling suggested deferring further discussion to next week.
Council President Buckshnis commented although she was ready to vote on the budget now, she
encouraged Councilmembers to provide questions/concerns/changes to staff so the process can move
forward during future budget discussions.
Councilmember Petso advised in addition to one-time expenditures the Council has allocated from the
$250,000, she is considering funding Police Department Decision Package 3, ongoing cost to restore the
Crime Prevention Officer. She will forward Councilmembers the original decision package which was
pulled when the Fire District 1 bill was received. To help cover the cost, she is reviewing the budget for
ongoing expenditures that could be convert to onetime items; one potential source is converting the
Finance Department Intern to a one-time expenditure rather than ongoing.
Mr. James advised he will post the latest revisions to the 2015 preliminary budget book changes and the
Council allocation of the $250,000 to the City’s website tomorrow.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported the Swedish-Edmonds auction last Friday raised $708,000.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
Packet Page 153 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 9, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Diane Buckshnis, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Deb Anderson, Accountant
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. INTERVIEW OF TREE BOARD APPLICATIONS FOR 2 VACANCIES
At 6:15 p.m., the City Council met with three candidates for appointment to the Tree Board. The meeting
took place in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Safety Complex. All Councilmembers and
Mayor Earling were present.
2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING REAL ESTATE PER RCW 42.30.110.1(c)
At approximately 6:30 p.m., the City Council met in executive session regarding real estate per RCW
42.30.110.1(c). The executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held
in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a
result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor
Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present
were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Scott Passey. At
6:46 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 6:59 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS. MOTION CARRIED (6-
0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINED.
Packet Page 154 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 2
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 2014
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2014
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211744 THOUGH #211872 DATED DECEMBER 4,
2014 FOR $237,297.41 (REISSUED CHECK #211744 $1,266.99). APPROVAL OF
REISSUED PAYROLL CHECK #61383 FOR $272.98, PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT
AND CHECKS #61384 THROUGH #61396 FOR $478,775.50, BENEFIT CHECKS #61397
THROUGH #61406 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $499,109.56 FOR THE PAY PERIOD
NOVEMBER 16, 2014 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2014
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY ROLAND
TEGMAN ($569.89)
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE 76TH AVE. W @ 212TH ST. SW
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
F. REAPPOINTMENT OF DARCY MACPHERSON TO EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE
BOARD
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Tom Wilks, Edmonds, president of a technology company, offered his perspective of the Edmonds
Business Improvement District (BID). Many other members of the BID are dissatisfied with the current
situation; people are upset because they feel it was forced on them, it is not inclusive and the focus is on
the retail and restaurants, the fees are too high and not appropriate for the problems being solved and the
spending to date and the proposed spending will not provide any benefit to them. He recognized there
were a lot of other people working very diligently to make the BID successful. He provided the following
suggestions:
• Re-poll or survey the membership and use assessments as a mechanism for communicating
• Adjust the fee structure to place more emphasis on building ownership
• Create a class of business that is exempt as some businesses will not benefit from the BID’s
activities
• Propose an offset to the assessment based on a contribution to a broader City-wide cause. He
would rather write a check to the General Fund than to a budget that promotes Starbucks
• Develop an a la carte pricing structure that allows businesses to participate at the level that is
proportionate to the benefit they receive
• Expand the BID’s boundaries across the highway to be all inclusive
He cautioned if this is not corrected, there is a good possibility Edmonds will lose businesses; it will not
be the primary reason a business leaves but will be a contributing factor.
Packet Page 155 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 3
Brent Malgarin, Edmonds, recalled on November 10, 2014 in response to a question from
Councilmember Petso, City Attorney Jeff Taraday said while there was a substantial effort put into
collecting signatures for a petition, it was realized in course of the review of those signatures that it would
not meet the legal standard for a petition. Yet Ordinance 3909 states whereas the owners and operators of
businesses located within the area and representing approximately 60% or more of the assessment levied
by this ordinance signed a petition in support. Those two statements are in contradiction and he pointed
out a legal document cannot contain false information. He referred to RCW 98.76.175 that states, material
statement means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the
discharge of his or her official powers or duties. He urged the Council to consider the matter, asserting the
paperwork was not done legally, and suggesting the Council obtaining out counsel.
Rose Cantwell, Edmonds, representing the Senior Center, commented the trend in advertising is new
this and that, new and improved. The new senior citizen whose lives has been helped and extended by
social security and Medicare are living longer and many are donating their time to their communities. She
was very proud of the Senior Center, pointing out the Mayor is a prime example of a senior citizen
serving their community; he could surely have found a much easier job. The Senior Center building is
deteriorating and needs to be replaced, a problem that has been discussed for the past 15 years. The lease
agreement on tonight’s agenda will allow the Senior Center to raise the funds to build a new community
center. She could not think of a better use for that land that was committed to the purpose of serving
senior citizens when it was sold to the City. She urged the Council to resolve the land lease so they can
begin raising funds to solve this age old problem.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the code of ethics for elected officials on tonight’s agenda, relaying it
does not include an enforcement policy, ethics board, ethics officer or mechanism to file complaint. He
recalled the at July 8, 2014 Public Safety & Personnel Committee meeting, Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas expressed reluctant to have an enforcement policy and if there was one, that it might be handled
in executive session, a concept he disagreed with. The August 27, 2013 minutes state Councilmember
Petso feared someone who did not agree with an official’s position on an issue could file an ethics
complaints and that she was unlikely to support a code of ethics that included a complaint process, ethics
officer and enforcement. He questioned why waste the Council’s or the public’s time with a code of ethics
that did not contain an enforcement policy, complaint procedure and would not done in the open. He
referred to Bainbridge Island’s code of ethics that includes an ethics board and an easy to understand
complaint form. Some cities use contracted ethics officers on a complaint driven basis. Next, as a
downtown retailer, he suggested giving the BID a chance to show what it can do for all of downtown. The
BID was not set up to help Starbucks or any other individual retailer but to help the entire downtown
generate more tax dollars and make it a better place to shop.
Ferrell Fleming, Executive Director, Senior Center, referred to Agenda Item 13, identifying the
context for their proposal, 1) the 47 years partnership between the City and Senior Center, 2) the Strategic
Action Plan adopted in 2013, 3) Council resolution 1313 adopted March 2014, and 4) the immediate
needs of their fundraising process. The vast majority of cities in the county define providing recreational
and supportive services to its older citizens as an important civic function; in most cases delivered via a
senior center, usually city owned, staffed and managed. If Edmonds had to fully fund the senior Center, it
would cost at least what the senior center pays and probably more; their current budget is $650,000 and
the City’s share is $60,000. The Senior Center wants to work with the City to define what the City wants
with regard to use of the facility and he was certain language could be developed to provide appropriate
flexibility over time. The intent is for the new building to be a community center, not just a senior center.
The notes provided to the Council again raise the issue of relocating the center; resolution 1313 adopted
in March 2014 has several references to the current site. The Strategic Action Plan rates updating the
senior center on its current site as very high and rates relocating the senior center as very low. The seniors
who use the center are passionately dedicated to this site. The question of who is responsible for the
Packet Page 156 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 4
parking lot, parking study, design and construction can be worked out as the process moves forward and
could be left as a mutual responsibility. At the end of the project the Senior Center will own the building
but the park will be owned by the City. If the parking lot bulkhead is pulled back, the walkway connected
going south, green space on the water’s edge increased, he was confident the City could identify
considerable grant money. Their application for State capital funds, a development grant from the Hazel
Miller Foundation and large donations from individual donors all require appropriate site control which a
mutually agreed upon ground lease and signed option release would provide.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented the Senior Center is interviewing someone next week to assist with
the capital campaign. The capital campaign cannot go forward until the lease is agreed upon. This is a
time sensitive issue; the campaign needs to start as soon as possible while enthusiasm is high. With regard
to the train trench, he recalled the figure $250 million was identified to start the project in 3 years. The
project likely would not start for 5 years and the cost would increase to $400 million. He pointed out $400
million was City’s entire budget for 10 years. He urged the City not to spend any more money on the train
trench, anticipating once digging began, problems would mount. He preferred to build something else for
a lower amount over the top for emergency vehicles. Next, he questioned the need for a Diversity
Commission, commenting Edmonds was the most diverse city in the universe where everyone is
welcome.
ACTION ITEMS
7. APPOINTMENT TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM,
TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF RONALD BRIGHTMAN AND BARBARA DURR.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE 5TH AVENUE OVERLAY PROJECT
AND PROJECT ACCEPTANCE
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented this is a normal close out for the Council to accept the
paving and ramps on 5th Avenue. The project was largely completed last year; closeout has taken some
time due to documentation issues. The construction contract the Council approved last year was $732,732
with a $73,000 management reserve; the final amount spent was $739,050, 8.3% under budget.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE 5TH AVENUE
OVERLAY PROJECT AND ACCEPT THE PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. AMENDMENT TO THE WOODWAY POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 3, 2014
Police Chief Al Compaan explained this matter was before Council at the November 3, 2014 meeting and
at the September 9, 2014 Finance Committee meeting. On November 3 the Council approved the draft
Woodway contract for a period of 6 months to allow time for further discussion/negotiation with
Woodway. The existing contract expires December 31, 2014; the 6 month interim contract will begin
January 1, 2015 and be effective through June 30, 2015 unless Council takes further action tonight.
Council President Buckshnis corrected a statement in the agenda memo; clarifying she requested the term
of the contract be reconsidered.
Packet Page 157 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 5
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the intent of the 6 month period was to evaluate the
increase in the fee by $60/month from $3,000/month to $3,060. The Council approved the contract with
the 6 month term by a vote of 6-1. She was confused why this matter was being reconsidered.
Councilmember Mesaros relayed his discussion with Woodway Mayor Nichols included how the contract
could be extended for a longer period of time to provide them a sense of certainty regarding services they
would receive from the Edmonds Police Department. During discussions with Woodway, he suggested
increasing the monthly fee as well as the term of the contract. Woodway Mayor Nichols was not willing
to accept that and wanted to return to a three year contract. The intent of the six month interim contract
was to allow those conversations to continue.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding additional data would be collected and provided to
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas during the six months. She asked whether taking this action tonight
would abdicate that commitment. Councilmember Mesaros recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
wanted more information but he did not recall a commitment was made. Councilmember Petso relayed
her understanding was the result of the email she and Councilmember Mesaros received Friday; she will
check the minutes.
Councilmember Petso relayed a question regarding the legality of a city subsidizing another jurisdiction’s
operations. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there is a constitution prohibition related to the gifting of
public funds. In his opinion this does not constitute a gifting of public funds even if it is considered a
slight subsidy. The State Supreme Court has watered down what it means to gift public funds, it is nearly
impossible to have something considered a gift of public funds. He suggested Chief Compaan answer
whether there is a subsidy. From a strictly constitutional standpoint, he would be surprised if the court
would overturn this contract as a gift of public funds.
Councilmember Petso observed the contract only allowed it to be terminated in the event of breach. She
asked if there was another termination provision based on notice. Mr. Taraday offered to check the
contract.
Councilmember Bloom commented this was sprung on the Council; there was a 6-1 vote to review the
contract after 6 months and issues were going to be brought back to the Council for consideration
including the fee assessed to Woodway.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
POSTPONE THIS UNTIL COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS IS PRESENT.
Councilmember Bloom commented this is a 3 year contract; the fees are being increased only $60/month
for 18 hours of service to Woodway per day. When this was last discussed, her primary concern was the
tax percentage allocated was much lower for Woodway residents than Edmonds residents. The amount
the City receives from Woodway is not enough to hire even one additional officer; the City needs to hire a
crime prevention team that was eliminated when cuts were made. She summarized this was not a wise
financial decision and more time was needed to determine whether the fee could reasonably be increased.
She recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas felt very strongly about this and she was actively involved
in the initial negotiation and voted against the $3,000/month fee. She was uncomfortable making a
decision without Councilmember Fraley-Monillas at the meeting.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmember Bloom’s indication the City provided 18 hours of
service per day to Woodway. Chief Compaan clarified Woodway provides their own police services 8-9
hours per day and via this contract Edmonds provides the balance in the form of response to Priority 1
and 2 calls. Councilmember Bloom observed Edmonds provides approximately 16 hours of service per
Packet Page 158 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 6
day to Woodway. She reiterated the percentage of tax is much lower for Woodway residents than
Edmonds residents.
Councilmember Mesaros clarified the 16 hours of service provided to Woodway is not same as Edmonds
Police provides to Edmonds residents. Chief Compaan answered it is not the same extent as far as
providing visible patrol; Edmonds Police respond to Priority 1 and 2 calls to 911.
Council President Buckshnis commented this is the same argument the Council has had in the past.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her concern and the minutes do not indicate that she required
additional information. Although some people think Edmonds should force full-time service on
Woodway, this contract is only for part-time, on-call, Priority 1 and 2 service to Woodway. Due diligence
has been done with Chief Compaan, Finance Director Scott James, Mayor Nichols, Mayor Earling and the
Finance Committee and sufficient information provided to Councilmember Mesaros to negotiate with
Woodway.
In response to Councilmember Petso’s earlier question, Mr. Taraday relayed the contract can be
terminated without cause by the provision of 90 days written notice.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO
VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS
JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE WOODWAY POLICE CONTRACT APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 3, 2014, TO CHANGE THE TERM FROM A 6 MONTH TERM TO A
3 YEAR TERM.
Councilmember Petso clarified even though the contract would have a term of 3 years, it can be
terminated with 90 days’ notice. Mr. Taraday answered yes. He relayed his understanding of the motion
was to amend the Council’s earlier action with regard to the contract in Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 9.
That contract contains the language that allows termination without cause upon 90 days written notice.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess to allow the Council to move to the table for the study session.
STUDY ITEMS
10. PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented there were differences between the submitted CIP in
2015 and the proposed budget. Although they do not necessarily have to match, due to the preference that
they match, the numbers were changed so that they match including four items in Facilities.
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite relayed that based on Councilmember Petso’s comments, a
change was made to the description of City Park Improvement on CIP page 29. There are two projects
listed for City Park Revitalization, one is the revitalization itself and the other is improvements to the rest
of City Park. A second change was the addition of the Veteran’s Plaza to the CIP.
Packet Page 159 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 7
Mr. Williams explained this item was discussion, questions and answers with the hope of scheduling it for
adoption on next week’s agenda.
Councilmember Petso relayed one of her concerns was balancing the building fund budget with the CIP.
She referred to an email from Mr. Williams that indicates there is an extra $15,000 if something comes
up. She suggested including that as miscellaneous in the budget book or CIP so that they balance. Mr.
Williams was amenable to that change.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her strong feeling that emergency vehicle and pedestrian access needed to
be separated out in the CFP/CIP, included in Comprehensive Plan and be something that is looked at
immediately. Her rationale was the alternatives study, whatever is decided to study whether it is a trench,
underpass, overpass, tunnel, modified Edmonds Crossing, none of those alternatives specifically address
emergency vehicle and pedestrian access. The funds to study this are in 2019 and 2020, meaning nothing
will be done about emergency vehicle and pedestrian access for 5 years. This is a crucial issue and the
City owes it to the citizens to begin it now. She recommended this issue be included similar to the
trackside warning system that includes funding for a study next year and installation in 2016. She noted
the same was done for the Sunset Avenue Walkway project; funding of the study was not constrained.
She summarized emergency vehicle and pedestrian access did not have to be constrained if the City
believed funding could be obtained to study it.
Councilmember Bloom recalled Councilmember Petso identified 2-3 possible funding sources including
the Recreation Conservation Office (RCO), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) or a partnership with
BNSF or Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The facility could be used as park;
she referred to the Vancouver pedestrian only land bridge that was built some time ago for a cost of $12
million. She recognized Edmonds’ project would be more extensive as it would include a lane for
emergency vehicle access. Two potential locations have been discussed by the community, Bell Street
and Pt. Edwards down from the potential future Edmonds Crossing location to Admiral Way. One
engineer in the public has discussed the possibility of the Bell Street location but no formal study has
been done. She did not want to wait to address emergency vehicles in an alternatives study in 5 years and
then an unknown number of years until it was constructed. When the Council takes action on the
CFP/CIP, she intends to make a motion to add that project to the CFP/CIP and the Comprehensive Plan.
She asked other Councilmembers to explain why they felt that was not a good idea.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if funds for an alternative study were in next year’s budget. Mr. Williams
answered it is not in the budget because there is no funding yet to pursue it. There are efforts underway to
reach consensus in the legislature with regard to accessing State funds. He could not justify including it in
the budget unless there was a good indication the funds would be available. Councilmember Mesaros
observed there is an emphasis on moving the alternatives study forward. Mayor Earling agreed
emergency vehicle and pedestrian access would be one of the issues considered in an alternatives
analysis. Councilmember Bloom clarified she wanted to discuss separating emergency vehicle and
pedestrian access from the alternatives study.
Councilmember Mesaros was unclear why that needed to be separated. Councilmember Bloom explained
because of the time involved and because there could be an accident now or someone could die over there
because emergency vehicles could not reach them or there could be a blockage that affects the ferries. She
anticipated there may be ways to provide emergency vehicle and pedestrian access in more rapid way to
provide service to the senior center, the dog park, the dive park, the residences and restaurants and to
assure citizens the City is working toward finding a solution sooner rather than waiting until the ferry and
railroad problems are addressed. Mr. Williams explained the description of the alternatives analysis
includes waterfront access issues emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions to providing
emergency access. If that issue is separated from the alternatives analysis, he asked the amount and source
of those funds. Councilmember Bloom referred to the sources cited by Councilmember Petso.
Packet Page 160 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 8
Councilmember Petso said her comment was with regard to funding options not necessarily dollar
amounts. She asked how much it would cost to start looking at the possibility of a Bell or Edmonds Street
overpass or near Pt. Edwards. She asked whether RCO funding could be pursued if there was a sufficient
recreation component. Ms. Hite responded the recreational value add for a pedestrian walkway over the
tracks would definitely qualify for RCO funding. The emergency vehicle portion would not quality so a
project that included both would likely be funded on a percentage basis. Such a pedestrian walkway may
be competitive if it connected to the waterfront trail system. Mr. Williams commented an emergency
vehicle overpass at Bell or Pine Street would be a really big project and considering the feasibility of
building it would not be a trivial endeavor. A predesign study that would take both to a certain level of
design to determine which one was the most cost effective and efficacious, and 30% design to obtain
design and construction funds, would be a sizable study. Councilmember Petso asked for a dollar amount
for predesign to identify options. She noted funding for a train trench which would offer a complete
solution was also in the out years similar to funding for the alternative study analysis. She asked how
much would be required to take a first look at emergency access, similar to the citizens; proposal for the
City to take a first look at the train trench idea. Mr. Williams said he would prefer to think about it and
talk with a few people before he identified an amount. He reiterated building an overpass at either
location would be a sizable project.
Councilmember Petso commented the Council has not been discussing this proposal for several weeks
like they have other proposals. She asked whether there was time to schedule and provide proper notice
for a public hearing next week on the possible inclusion of these two items into the CFP and budget. City
Clerk Scott Passey answered public hearing notice following the land use public hearing notice procedure
which provides ten days’ notice; two weeks lead time is required to place the notice. Councilmember
Petso asked whether there was a requirement that the budget and CFP/CIP have ten days’ notice. Mr.
Passey answered yes for the budget which was done earlier this year.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether a public hearing would be required to make this change to the
CFP/CIP. Mr. Passey answered there was not a legal requirement; it was optional if the Council wanted to
notice a public hearing.
Council President Buckshnis commented she looks at this from regional standpoint. She questioned
whether a separate emergency vehicle and pedestrian access would compete with the alternatives analysis.
Mr. Williams anticipated there would be confusion; recent conversations with legislators have been in
regard to a comprehensive solution He acknowledged there may not be one single capital project to solve
all the issues and there could be independent projects as a result of the alternatives analysis. The outcome
of the study is unknown until it is conducted. If the intent is a flyover at Bell or Pine for the purpose of
getting emergency vehicles across and possibly pedestrians but would not provide any automobile traffic
or do anything to help the Washington State Ferry (WSF), it would be immensely difficult to fund even
with a concept. Council President Buckshnis envisioned the projects would compete with each other for
funding. The top priority for the alternatives study is waterfront access with emphasize on prioritizing
near term solutions to provide emergency access. Mr. Williams commented pursuing grant funds for any
CIP project is a very competitive process. Adding confusion and potential overlapping concepts would
require explanation.
Councilmember Bloom said she understood it would require explanation. Her concern was including
something in the CFP/CIP and the Comprehensive Plan that focuses specifically on emergency vehicle
and pedestrian access is long overdue and she was concerned with continuing to delay it. Delaying
emergency access was a disservice to any citizen who crosses the tracks and could potentially be subject
to a train breakdown, heart attack, accident, derailment, explosion, etc. She questioned the purpose of
waiting any longer and reiterated the need to address emergency vehicle and pedestrian access separately;
resolving the ferry at-grade crossing issue is different than emergency vehicle and pedestrian access, they
Packet Page 161 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 9
do not have to be addressed together. She preferred to focus on the two options that have been proposed
sooner rather than later. She was stunned to learn emergency vehicle and pedestrian access was not on
any of the City’s plans. The only thing in Edmonds Crossing was an elevator which would not help if
there was any serious blockage or disaster.
Council President Buckshnis expressed concern with separating emergency vehicle and pedestrian access;
if the legislature develops a transportation package, they will look at Edmonds’ transportation problem in
its entirety. If the emergency vehicle and pedestrian access was a separate project, the City may be
required to fund themselves and it will not be inexpensive. She reiterated the description of the
alternatives analysis clearly states as number 1, waterfront access issue emphasizing and prioritizing near
term solutions. In the State’s tight budget, that includes a $1 billion deficit, everyone needs to be on the
same page. Edmonds is unique because there is not only pedestrian safety but also the at-grade crossing
and ferry access on a State highway. The City should be at the top of the list for getting this done because
it really needs to be done sooner rather than later.
Councilmember Bloom agreed but pointed out funds for the alternatives study is not on the CIP/CFP until
2019/2020. Council President Buckshnis suggested it could be moved up. Mr. Williams explained the
City is requesting the money now; it is not in the first 3 years of the CIP because there is not a reasonable
expectation or any indication from a funding source that the funds will be available. There is no guarantee
that funding request will be success in this legislative session.
Mayor Earling commented he understood Councilmember Bloom’s concern. He recalled language was
added last year regarding the emergency vehicle and pedestrian access and it was first in the priority list
in response to Councilmember Bloom’s concern. Considerable work has been done to advance the idea of
an alternatives analysis and there has been some preliminary success. He feared the creation of dueling
projects would cause problems in getting anything out of the legislature for either project and he feared it
would be difficult to find adequate funding if the focus was only on emergency vehicle and pedestrian
access. Although some funds may be available via an RCO grant, there are other projects for which staff
would like to obtain grants. Further, much of PSRC’s money is federal funds and since the recession,
there is a huge list of priorities in the region and for the State to fund. He did not want to jeopardize the
bigger picture, long term solution that would address the issues Councilmember Bloom is concerned
about. He summarized identifying funding for a separate project would be difficult and he feared
requesting two projects would create more problems.
Councilmember Petso referred to Mayor Earling’s comment that the bigger solution would address
Councilmember Bloom’s concerns; it was her understanding several of the other solutions to the train
issues do not address emergency access. For example the Edmonds Crossing project did not have a
provision for emergency access and she has been told WSF is adverse to permitting emergency access in
conjunction with its facility for security reasons. She questioned whether that was misinformation. Mayor
Earling answered probably not, but it could be considered in the alternatives analysis as add-on. The cost
of the Edmonds Crossing project, without emergency vehicle and pedestrian access, is in the range of
$300 million. With the numerous transportation needs statewide and in the Puget Sound area, he
envisioned that putting together funding for a $300 million project would be challenging. It is in the
City’s best long term interest to do a thorough analysis of potential alternatives which includes emergency
vehicle and pedestrian overpass. Mayor Earling commented he has been around the block enough times to
know it will be very difficult to find $5-12 million for a standalone project.
Mr. Williams commented the guidelines in GMA suggested projects for which there is not a reasonable
expectation of funding be placed in the last three years of the CIP. If the Council believes based on the
effort underway that there is a reasonable expectation funding will be available a year earlier, there is
nothing preventing moving it up a year. If funding is not found, the project can be moved back. He agreed
a project tends to look like a higher priority when it is moved up on the CIP. He clarified there is a
Packet Page 162 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 10
general expectation in GMA regarding a reasonable expectation of funding. The City’s policy in the past
has been if there are design funds to pursue a project, that is considered a reasonable expectation that
design and construction will follow and those projects are moved up. If there are no funds identified, the
project is generally placed in the first of the last 3 years. Mr. Taraday agreed under GMA the first 6 years
of the CFP is supposed to be the feasible phase of the plan; that does not necessarily mean the City has to
identify the source of all the funds but there shouldn’t be projects for which there is not a feasible plan.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Councilmember Petso’s comment that WSF would not allow
emergency vehicle access with Edmonds Crossing for security reasons, and asked whether the same
would be true for an over or underpass. Mr. Williams answered he had never heard that; he was not
employed by the City when Edmonds Crossing was being discussed. He assumed WSF would be
supportive of emergency vehicle due to the number of people that use the ferry and the potential of the
train blocking access to a ferry user with a health issue.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated her understanding that a tunnel would require two lanes each for
unloading and one lane dedicated to emergency vehicle access. Mr. Williams did not envision having a
dedicated lane for emergency vehicle access; it would be too expensive for the amount of use, and he did
not envision two dedicated lanes in and two dedicated lanes out. The ferry would be loaded the same way
is today, the same lanes are used for loading and unloading. Councilmember Bloom asked whether an
alternatives study that prioritized emergency vehicle access would include a tunnel. Mr. Williams
responded the tunnel could be 3 lanes instead of the 5 lanes Councilmember Bloom envisioned; it would
depend on how vehicles are queued, etc.
Mayor Earling observed the Council has had a healthy discussion about this issue and he suggested
Councilmember Bloom make a motion at the next meeting if she chose.
Councilmember Petso said it is still her intent to make a motion to take the term “multiuse” out of the
Sunset Avenue Walkway. She has not receiving a lot of emails in support of bikes on the west side of
Sunset nor do many bikes use the west side of Sunset. The road has been striped for bicycles and the
walkway for pedestrian and that is how it is being used.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for action on next week’s agenda.
11. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
Finance Director Scott James referred to the list of Mayor’s Preliminary Budget Book Changes that is
available on the City’s website. The changes will increase the ending fund balance in the General Fund by
over $580,000; General Fund expenses are reduced by $201,000; and there is $379,000 in revenue
increases. He suggested the Council’s discussion focus on changes to the budget, questions to staff and
the allocation of the $250,000. He referred to the financial challenges he has described to the Council in
the past, pointing out those are serious dollar amounts that need to be addressed. The challenges include
nearly $1.2 million in ongoing costs that will need to be addressed in next year’s budget. Beyond 2015,
other challenges loom. When Mayor Earling developed the 2015 budget, he chose a path of caution; his
budget message stated he was trying to make prudent decisions. Although Mayor Earling received
requests from staff for ongoing increases, he chose a conservative path. Future costs include additional
funding for the Firemen’s Pension, the LEOFF Fund, and the Contingency Reserve Fund for which the
Council’s adopted policy is 8%-16%.
Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. James’ comment that the policy for the Contingency Reserve Fund
is for it to contain 8%-16%. She asked whether the Contingency Reserve Fund was above 8% but not yet
at 16%. Mr. James agreed. He acknowledged the City has another reserve fund, the Risk Management
Packet Page 163 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 11
Reserve, that by policy is 2%; there has been some discussion about including that in the Contingency
Reserve Fund to increase the percentage.
Council President Buckshnis asked the difference between Council Preliminary Budget Book Changes
and the list of Council Allocations of $250,000. Mr. James explained the Preliminary Budget Book
Changes are suggested changes to the budget and are more of an ongoing nature with the exception of
hiring a consultant to complete the develop code rewrite; the $250,000 is the amount the Mayor identified
for Council allocations for one-time costs. Council President Buckshnis suggested hiring a consultant to
complete the rewrite be moved to the list of allocations from the $250,000.
Based on Councilmember Bloom’s comments, Councilmember Petso requested the train trench study and
peer review be changed to $50,000 and a new $50,000 item, Emergency Access Preliminary Analysis, be
added. She asked for details regarding what the Highway 99 Study and Planning will fund. Development
Services Director Shane Hope explained $100,000 was suggested by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to
develop a plan and some standards for Highway 99 to develop streetscape, etc. There has also been
discussion regarding an additional $75,000 for an environmental analysis that would be integrated.
Councilmember Petso asked how the $100,000 item differs from the $10 million streetscape project in the
plan. Ms. Hope answered the $10 million is for construction of the streetscape, not the plans and design
standards. The plan would also address land uses in the vicinity, not just Highway 99 itself.
Councilmember Petso asked whether it will include a parking study. Ms. Hope answered yes.
Councilmember Johnson commented it was appropriate to discuss the Planned Action EIS as it relates to
planning for Highway 99. Although she has not had an opportunity to speak to Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas, she has discussed a combined effort phased over several years with Ms. Hope. Given those
parameters, quite a bit could be accomplished with $100,000. However, that would require the
understanding of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Ms. Hope commented ideally for a planned action, the
planning and the environmental analysis would be done at the same time. If the entire amount was not
available, the $100,000 initial study could be conducted the first year followed by $75,000 the next year
for environmental review.
Councilmember Johnson suggested it could begin mid-year 2015 and continue into 2016 when additional
budget may be available. She observed the intent was a comprehensive analysis; the question was how to
slice the dollars. Ms. Hope agreed, recalling beginning in mid-2015 and taking about a year had been
discussed. Councilmember Johnson asked whether $100,000 would suffice for 2015. Ms. Hope answered
yes.
Councilmember Bloom asked how long the rewrite of the development by Makers will take. Ms. Hope
answered the end of November 2015. Councilmember Bloom suggested the next phase of the rewrite
begin as that is concluding so there is some overlap. She asked whether that was reasonable within staff’s
workload, how the code rewrite relates to the Highway 99 Study and whether they could be combined to
be more efficient. Ms. Hope answered Highway 99 actually needs a study and plan; it is separate from the
code rewrite. While both will result in code, there needs to be a separate review although they could occur
concurrently. With regard to whether the second phase of the code rewrite could begin in late 2015, Ms.
Hope answered possibly; the challenge would be making that work and whether funds would be available.
Councilmember Bloom recalled her proposal was $300,000 as that was the amount Ms. Hope indicated
would be required in addition to the $115,000 to do a complete rewrite of the development code. She
asked whether it would be reasonable in 2015 to allocate $150,000 for the code write to overlap the
current effort. Ms. Hope answered the amount of work in the first phase of the code rewrite will make it
challenging to do more in the first year. She recommended waiting until the 2016 budget to add more.
Packet Page 164 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 12
Councilmember Petso asked for Council feedback on, 1) the Crime Prevention Officer in the event
ongoing funding can be identified for at least three years, and 2) potentially combining the Contingency
Reserve and the Risk Management Reserve Funds.
Councilmember Peterson said he would support the Crime Prevention Officer if funding can be identified.
With regard to combining the two reserve funds, the policy to create those two funds was recently
adopted and he preferred to wait a couple of budget cycles before combining them especially with some
of the higher profile litigation issues the City has been involved in as well as statewide litigation. He
preferred to retain the Risk Management Reserve as a separate fund, observing that was a more
transparent method.
Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Peterson’s comments regarding support for an
additional police officer if funds are available in the budget. As a newer member of the Council,
Councilmember Mesaros followed Councilmember Peterson’s lead in allowing more time before the
reserve funds were combined.
Councilmember Petso observed the reserve funds have been through a couple budget cycles, recalling it
was instituted during the Haines Wharf issue and the recognition that a major settlement was likely.
Councilmember Johnson requested information regarding the total cost of the Crime Prevention Officer,
including salary, benefits and other items, be provided before next week’s meeting.
Councilmember Bloom asked staff to comment on Decision Package 14, Public Relations Assistant. Her
understanding was that position was to provide two-way communication to the public and improve ways
for the public to communicate with Council. What she has seen is press releases and public relations and
little on the side of improving communication online, making information available to the public, a way
to respond to the public’s questions or an increase in transparency. Economic Development &
Community Services Director Patrick Doherty responded the City’s website is currently under
reconstruction; there is a short contract using 2014 dollars to revamp the website. The architecture the
website is based on is out-of-date, pages cannot be added and it is no longer supported by the vendor. In
fact a meeting was held today to discuss how the public interacts with staff, contacts and a City liaison.
The “contact us” on the City’s website currently identifies contacts by department or by issue. There is
also a link to Citizen Liaison which contacts Cindi Cruz who assists with identifying a contact. The
upgraded website will update that in a quick link tab at the top of the website
With regard to the work the public relations consultant, Carolyn Douglas, has been doing, Mr. Doherty
explained there hasn’t been the platform for her to interact with the City’s website due to the need for
reconstruction. Under that contract next year two new things will occur, 1) an upgraded website that
would allow more interaction as well as be easier for staff to update, and 2) the Facebook page will be
created pending Council approval of the social media policy next week. The Facebook page will provide
information regarding achievements and accomplishments, good news, and what’s happening in the City.
Once those are completed, the scope of work for the public relations consultant includes many of the
things Councilmember Bloom mentioned such as engaging the public; responding to the public; providing
transparency; being a conduit between Council, Mayor, directors, and staff as well as interacting with the
media in a proactive manner
Councilmember Bloom recalled she wanted a Council blog so people can communicate directly with
Councilmembers. She did not believe that was included in the job description or the plans. She asked if
there was another way for citizens to communicate; for example Mukilteo has “Ask the Mukilteo” feature
that allows the public to ask questions on the website and have responses displayed on the website. She
asked whether there would be a mechanism for questions and answers to be viewed on the City’s website.
Mr. Doherty answered that functionality, a bulletin board, does not currently exist nor was it identified in
Packet Page 165 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 13
this contract. He noted a blog would be difficult due to the Open Public Meetings Act. Councilmember
Bloom said she has let go of that idea. He noted a bulletin board often contains general information and/or
a running Q&A regarding large projects; many citizens have a specific question about an issue that they
do not necessarily want posted. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the bulletin board could be
considered in the context of this position. Mr. Doherty explained responding to questions would require
the expertise of each department; the public relations consultant could be involved in the process but it
was doubtful one person could respond to all questions.
Mayor Earling commented although he felt having another police office was a splendid idea, staff
members were also needed in the Finance Department, on the second floor and there are other personnel
needs. He noted one of the premises of the budget was to limit ongoing expenses. Although a Crime
Prevention Officer was only $110,000 - $120,000 a year, that cost is ongoing. He requested
Councilmembers talk to the Finance and Parks Departments and the second floor about their staffing
needs.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Councilmember Petso’s reference to fund a Crime Prevention
Officer for 3 years, explaining funding for 5 years would be necessary to attract quality applicants.
Councilmember Petso said 3 years was her commitment to Chief Compaan that he would not be hiring
someone that would immediately be terminated.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the City had considered an ideal staffing pattern for all
departments to provide a better understanding of total staffing when a position is requested. Mayor
Earling said each department could be asked to provide a list. Council President Buckshnis commented
that was one of the things that would be done if the City ever moved to Budgeting By Priorities. She was
hopeful the budget and CFP/CIP will be approved at next week’s meeting and encouraged
Councilmembers to contact directors, her or Mayor Earling with any questions.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
12. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES DISCUSSION
Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite referred to a memo in the Council
packet regarding the new guidelines for public defender services in Washington and the most recent court
ruling against the cities of Burlington and Mt. Vernon. This proposal is the result of several discussions
with the City Attorney and places the City in a good position to offer public defense services for indigent
defendants according to State’s guidelines. She reviewed staff’s recommendations.
1. Authorize the Mayor to sign a new contract with Feldman and Lee for 2015
The City is current under contract with Feldman and Lee for 2014. An RFQ was not prepared for
2015 awaiting the court ruling. She noted no one has been overseeing the public defender contract; it
is a capacity issue as well as a question of who is responsible, whether it is the Court, the City
Attorney, or Human Resources. When the Council approved an amendment to the Feldman and Lee
contract in April, the City Attorney recommended that be considered as well as an RFQ process
instituted for public defense services. As there is not an RFQ process underway, staff recommends
securing the services of Feldman and Lee until someone is hired to assist with the RFQ process.
Although the recommendation is for a six month contract with Feldman and Lee, they expressed a
preference for a one year contract. If Council direction is to enter into a six month contract, that will
need to be negotiated with Feldman and Lee.
3. Adopt a budget amendment for 2014 in the amount of $66,000 to cover the contract the Council
adopted in March 2014
4. Add an allocation to the 2015 budget for the public defender in the amount of $70,000 due to the
caseload requirements adopted by the State.
Packet Page 166 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 14
5. Add a placeholder in the budget of $25,000 for a public defense supervisor, pending a
recommendation by Eileen Farley (attorney who worked with Burlington and Mt. Vernon) regarding
how the City can satisfy the requirements of the court ruling.
Funds in the 2014 professional services budget are being used to pay Ms. Farley to draft an RFQ and
analyze the City’s public defense system and services and make a recommendation. Many cities and
counties are struggling to meet the mandated requirements without any funding and are adding part-
time and full-time positions to oversee public defense services. She did not think Edmonds needed to
do that but she wanted Ms. Farley to provide a recommendation.
Mr. Taraday clarified some mechanism for ongoing supervision of the public defender is needed but
it does not necessarily need to be a half-time permanent City employee.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested adding an evaluation process for the public defender’s services to
Item 5. He asked the term of the contract with Feldman and Lee prior to the most recent contract. Mr.
Taraday answered Feldman and Lee have been the City’s public defender for decades and have been on
an approximately four year contract cycle. The most recent contract that ends December 31, 2014 was
approximately a nine month contract due to the caseload requirement issue. Councilmember Mesaros
asked the approximate monthly caseload. Ms. Hite recalled 450-550 including traffic infractions. Mr.
Taraday clarified those do not all require a public defender. Councilmember Mesaros asked the
percentage of cases that utilize the services of a public defender. Mr. Taraday’s vague recollection was
the indigent defense cases generated by Edmonds would be approximately 700/year. He recalled Feldman
and Lee’s indication they would need two full-time attorneys to staff Edmonds.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the contract extension could be 8 months instead of 6 or 12. Ms.
Hite answered a different term could be negotiated with Feldman and Lee. Mr. Taraday relayed Feldman
and Lee was interested in a one year contract; he was unsure how much of their argument was leverage
and how much was a legitimate, logistical staffing concern. He asked Feldman and Lee whether they
would be willing to sign a six month extension and their answer was that would be difficult but they
would do a one year extension. Depending on tonight’s discussion, he can approach Feldman and Lee
again but he felt a six month extension would be more difficult.
Councilmember Peterson commented another consideration with a six month extension is the City will
have a new judge which will be chaotic enough without changing public defenders. He suggested a one
year extension to not add an extra element of chaos would serve everyone well. Although an RFP may be
drafted within six months, he preferred to provide a cushion to ensure the RFP was done correctly as well
as addressed the changes instituted by the court.
Councilmember Petso requested Ms. Hite ensure the Finance Director incorporated this increase in his
budget projections. Ms. Hite agreed to relay that information to him.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on next week’s Consent Agenda with a one year
extension in Feldman and Lee’s contract.
13. SENIOR CENTER LEASE DISCUSSION
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this is a proposed ground lease for the Senior Center.
She recalled the Council unanimously passed a resolution on March 18, 2014 supporting the rebuild of
the Edmonds Senior Center at its current location. On October 21, 2014 the Council unanimously
approved having staff negotiate a ground lease with the Senior Center so that a capital campaign could be
launched. The Senior Center has provided a draft ground lease as well as an option to lease. She explained
the Senior Center is currently located in a City-owned building; the option to lease gives them control of
the land so that they can launch a capital campaign. The option to lease provides the Senior Center the
Packet Page 167 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 15
option to lease the ground for a term of 55 years with extensions. The lease identifies the terms of the
agreement when they actually break ground on the new center.
The City Attorney, Public Works Department and she have thoroughly agreed the documents. She
reviewed questions that have been raised.
1. Cost of the lease.
Ms. Hite recommended skipping this item for now.
2. Does the Council intend to allow the Senior Center to build on the existing site?
The agenda memo includes questions posed by the City Attorney regarding whether this is the
optimal location for the Senior Center, does the Council want to consider development of a Senior
Center at a different location or reaffirm the resolution approved this spring.
Councilmember Mesaros commented although the Council should be open to considering location
options, there is a historical precedent for keeping it at its present location. The strategy for a
community center that many more citizens will be able to use it makes it an ideal location.
Councilmember Bloom recommended the Council honor the resolution that was unanimously
approved and support the Senior Center at its current location. To be questioning the location of the
Senior Center at this point would be unfortunate timing as they are ready to launch their capital
campaign.
Councilmember Johnson commented in the event emergency access is not provided, it would be
prudent to give consideration to alternatives for providing emergency services to the people who
potentially will be isolated from medical services.
Council President Buckshnis commented Dr. Hickman is on staff at the Senior Center. She expressed
support for the resolution previously approved by the Council.
3. Assuming the current location is the best location, the Senior Center will need to follow land use
codes in designing and constructing the building. Are the City’s land use regulations enough or does
the Council wish to include something in the lease that would allow the City to be involved in the site
plan such as where the building is located on the site, how park redevelopment occurs, etc.
This can be negotiated into the lease or the City can have legislative discretion to approve or reject
the proposed site plan once one is prepared.
Councilmember Petso requested either it be stated in the lease or that the City have the legislative
discretion to approve or reject to ensure any approval addresses the needs of the community and the
senior center. She did not want to leave that up to the development code. Ms. Hite relayed the Senior
Center envisions a very collaborative process.
Councilmember Peterson suggested minimizing Council guidance as the Senior Center goes through
their process; he preferred Council be involved at a specific percentage of design. Ms. Hite suggested
identifying a public process in the lease.
4. Does the City want to take on the responsibility of the parking lot study, design, and construction?
The parking lot is part of the development around the senior center as well as the park plan which is
separate from the parking lot. She recommended the City take responsibility for the park land and
redevelopment around the Senior Center.
For Councilmember Peterson, Ms. Hite advised responsibility meant financial, design, parking lot
study and construction. Councilmember Peterson observed the parking lot is shared with beach users,
envisioning there could be a negotiated amount of parking for the center and beach users and the
Packet Page 168 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 16
Senior Center and the City could be responsible for a percentage of the design and construction costs.
He suggested the lease indicate the parking lot would be a shared expense. He was hopeful the
contracts for the building, parking lot and park could be coordinated.
Councilmember Mesaros asked what was the alternative to the City accepting responsibility. Ms. Hite
answered the Senior Center would be responsible. Councilmember Mesaros suggested including
public access to parking in the least agreement.
Councilmember Petso was okay with the parking lot being the City’s responsibility as long as it was
within the City’s control. She could accept shared responsibility but feared control issues may arise.
Councilmember Mesaros found a shared responsibility acceptable; a percentage that was fair to the
Community Center as well as the public.
Councilmember Peterson commented the ideal would be the parking spaces would be designated for
the Community Center during certain hours.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the City’s land use code will dictate a minimum number of
parking spaces for the center and may do the same for the park.
Councilmember Mesaros commented that may solve the ratio question. Mr. Taraday envisioned once
the square footage of the building is determined, the code will require a certain number of parking
spaces to serve the building.
5. Should the City require a performance bond or similar security?
Councilmember Mesaros was not supportive of a performance bond or similar security unless
someone could provide a compelling reason. He commented the City and Senior Center were acting
in good faith and the Senior Center is taking on a fundraising campaign to provide a new building.
Mr. Taraday provided a hypothetical concern, what happens if the senior center started construction
on the building and could not complete it for some reason, leaving an unfinished building.
Councilmember Mesaros commented a performance bond seemed punitive. Mr. Taraday explained it
was required of all subdivisions. Mayor Earling clarified every construction project in the City has a
bond.
Councilmember Petso was convinced a bond should be required, whether it was paid for by the City,
the Senior Center or a shared expense.
Councilmember Bloom agreed it should be required for the Senior Center if it is required for all other
development. Councilmember Mesaros agreed.
6. Are there any other concerns with the proposed lease option and ground lease?
Councilmember Peterson asked when details such as when the building is available for uses other
than the Senior Center, who does scheduling, etc. needed to be worked out. He wanted the Senior
Center to be able to proceed but envisioned in ten years there may be new ideas regarding how the
community center is used by the City; it was difficult to write a contract before it the building is
constructed and before the amenities are finalized. Ms. Hite suggested there could be an ability to
amend the lease in the future. She agreed some specificity is necessary for the option to lease. The
building is intended to be a community center and Parks & Recreation will schedule classes and
programs. The current Senior Center usage is during the day Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 3:00-4:00
Packet Page 169 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 17
p.m. with rentals on the weekend. She envisioned the City would request use of the facility and
programming in the late afternoon until 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. the Frances Anderson
Center is totally booked on those nights; additional space would be an asset to the citizens of
Edmonds. She will propose that in the lease and it could be amended as necessary in the future.
Councilmember Petso asked whether sample leases could be obtained from similar facilities. Ms. Hite
offered to request other cities’ leases.
Ms. Hite suggested she confer with the City Attorney, make revisions to the lease using the Council’s
input, obtain other cities’ leases and return to Council in the next few weeks to include discussing the cost
of the lease in executive session.
14. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS
This item was postponed to a future meeting so that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas could present for
the discussion.
15. DISCUSSION OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID)
ISSUES
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled the Council approved
the BID’s work program and budget on November 18, 2014 and identified 3 key issues for further
discussion, 1) assessment rate structure, 2) delinquent payment collections, and 3) BID boundary
expansion.
With regard to the assessment rate structure, Mr. Doherty referred to the existing rate structure for open
door and by appointment businesses in the agenda packet. He researched 11 other BIDs; the one that is
the most similar is Poulsbo in that it uses square footage of the business to determine the assessment rate.
Poulsbo’s rates are very similar to the BID for businesses under 500 square feet, higher for 500-1000 and
substantially lower for large businesses although Poulsbo’s cap is substantially higher. In the remainder of
the BIDs/BIAs including one being proposed in Ballard, eight in Seattle, and Olympia, the assessment
structures vary widely and include square footage, size of property, property owners versus business
owners, gross income, number of employees, parking spaces, flat fees and a combination. If the Council
wished to pursue revising the assessment structure, 3-4 options could be developed.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how the current rate structure was determined. Mr. Doherty advised it
was proposed by the BID proponents, discussed with staff and presented and approved by Council.
Councilmember Petso explained she has meet with a number of people on this issue. She requested Mr.
Doherty investigate adjusting the fee structure in the near term to take into account the following
objectives: lowering the cost for smaller businesses, lowering the cost for appointment only businesses
and perhaps creating an additional discount for businesses not at street grade. She suggested if those
objectives could be considered promptly, there may be enough goodwill created to look at more
complicated issues such as whether to charge based on number of employees, square foot, property
owner, or other creative alternatives that exist. Her near term objective was to demonstrate responsiveness
and this might be a way to do that without actually losing a wheel.
Councilmember Bloom expressed support for revising the BID assessment rate structure. In conversations
with a lot of people, owners of appointment only and open door businesses, she found a lot of contention
and concern about the fees that are levied. First, there are a number of businesses who believe the BID
provides them no benefit. The BID’s mission was to provide value to everyone, that there would be
benefit to all members. That is already not the case. She acknowledged the BID Board was working very
Packet Page 170 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 18
hard and has done a great deal of work. Second, the way the fees are structured essentially penalizes small
businesses. For example, a business over 5,000 square feet such as IGA, pays $600/year; an open door
business of up to 500 square feet pays $360/year, more than half as much as IGA does. In her opinion this
was a significant issue. The University District uses a per square foot calculation but has a lower
minimum.
Councilmember Bloom relayed another issue related to the things that the BID is paying for that benefit
property owners. For example, there was an allocation of over $600 for Christmas lights on Main Street.
She questioned how that provided any benefit other than to those businesses and said it was a benefit to
the property owner rather than the businesses because it essentially subsidized the property owners. She
recommended including the property owners in a change to the assessment rate structure, commenting the
best measure of the value provided by the BID was the increase in property values. Including the property
owners in the rate assessment structure would also mean including condominiums. She suggested the fees
could be adjusted in a way that would include property owners and lower the fee for other businesses.
Councilmember Peterson disagreed with Councilmembers Bloom and Petso. He recalled an incredible
amount of work went into determining the rate structure including review of all the BIDs Mr. Doherty
referred to. He has talked to a lot of businesses who are thrilled with the rate structure and what the BID is
doing. Any time there is a fee involved, there will be a camp of people who do not want to pay it and
others who love it, whether it is federal income tax or a ferry ride. He envisioned if a per square foot price
were instituted, larger footprint stores like IGA would be just as furious. He noted Christmas lights were
unlikely to increase property values but they add tremendous value to every business throughout the BID
especially at this time of the year to businesses and to businesses outside the core. He summarized the
assessment structure was well thought out and not everyone would be happy with the fee. He was more
than happy to pay the fee and felt the BID benefited the area.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out the BID is very young; if the Council decides to monkey around
with their fees, next year the larger stores like IGA will be complaining which will require changing the
assessment again. Continually adjusting the rate structure will never allow the BID to do the work they
were established to do. He suggested giving the BID time and not micromanaging the fee structure. The
BID did a lot of work establishing the rate assessment, the Council approved the rate and the Council
should live with it.
Councilmember Mesaros relayed in speaking with one BID member about the fees and the proposal to
have property owner pays the assessment instead of businesses, they were not in favor of that proposal
because they feared the property owner would increase their lease, possibly even more than the
assessment. The business was very supportive of the assessment rate structure, echoing some of
Councilmember Peterson’s comments that no one likes to pay additional fees but they could see the long
term benefit to their business and the City. He spoke with another BID member who has an office on the
second floor that pays the higher amount for by appointment business. He was very pleased to be part of
the BID and saw the benefits it provided their employees and in attracting employees.
Councilmember Petso commented Councilmember Bloom thinks she did not go far enough and
Councilmember Peterson thinks she went way too far. She repeated her suggestion in the hope that the
BID Board would not object; she favored lowering the fee for small businesses, lowering the amount
changed to appointment only businesses, and providing a small discount for businesses that are not at
grade. The rationale for her suggestions was the last packet provided solid evidence that the BID was
over-charging small businesses relative to large businesses and there was a sense and possibly fact that a
lot of what the BID wants to accomplish would benefit open door businesses versus appointment only
businesses. Either a fee reduction or a fee schedule that shifts more of the cost to open door businesses
would help start on the path of not having a business community and Council divided on this issue.
Packet Page 171 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 19
For the audience, Councilmember Peterson pointed out there currently is a significant difference in the
rate structure between open door businesses and appointment only businesses.
Councilmember Bloom commented what she meant about the Christmas lights was the BID was
subsidizing the property owners; the lights should have been the property owners’ expense. Ultimately the
only way to measure the success of the BID was an increase in property values. She has spoken with
numerous businesses; Councilmember Mesaros has spoken to two businesses. Councilmember Mesaros
asked for a number. Councilmember Bloom answered probably 30.
Councilmember Peterson commented the intent of the BID is to increase business, not increase property
values. Councilmember Bloom said she has not spoken to any appointment only businesses who feel the
BID provides any benefit to their business. Councilmember Peterson relayed that he has spoken to a lot.
Councilmember Bloom said not only has she talked to numerous business that do not feel there is any
benefit to their business, people are really angry about the way this was done. That is another issue that
Councilmember Petso is trying to address. The BID is supposed to facilitate cooperation between
business owners as well as revitalize the business area which Edmonds doesn’t really need. The way the
BID was formed, switching from a petition method which did not have signatures of 60% of the
businesses to a resolution method even though Ordinance 3909 says there was over 60% created such bad
feelings that 21-29 businesses are in collections. Some of them are voluntarily not paying their
assessment because they are so upset by the fact they are being assessed; it is a matter of principle to
them. In order to address the anger about being assessed without their approval and involvement, the
Council needs to look at the assessment.
Councilmember Mesaros commented the BID has elected a group of leaders who are representative of the
membership and their meetings are open for all members to attend and provide input. He suggested
members talk to the leadership group and the leadership group make recommendations. The Council
needs to honor the work done by that group. If a group of businesses do not like the decisions made by
the BID Board, they should approach the BID Board, not the Council.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that the Council was responsible for the fee schedule and
in changing the fee schedule the Council was not messing with the BID Board. Mr. Taraday responded
any modification of the fee schedule requires a public hearing and notice the same as the original fee
schedule. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council had an obligation to ensure there was a
relationship between the revenue generated by BID and the programs the BID spend the money on. For
example if 100% of the money came from appointment only businesses and the work plan proposed
spending 100% of the money on advertising for open door businesses, would the Council be expected to
make an adjustment. Mr. Taraday answered the primary obligation of the Council with regard to oversight
is to determine that there is special benefit to the assessed businesses. The BID collects a special
assessment; there is to be a relationship between the assessment and the benefit.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday clarified he did not want the statement he just made to be interpreted to mean that each
single business owner needs to see that benefit for him or herself. The statute does not require that level of
precision. In the aggregate, there should be a relationship between the classifications of businesses that
are being assessed and the assessment.
Councilmember Mesaros clarified in his previous statement about honoring the recommendations of the
BID, he was not intimating that the Council did not have the responsibility to approve or alter that
recommendation. When an elected group that represents a body presents a recommendation, it should be
Packet Page 172 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 20
the exception that the Council makes changes versus making changes because some members do not like
the decisions that have been made.
Council President Buckshnis commented it was unlikely the Council would reach resolution tonight. This
is a small portion of the City’s $93 million budget and there are other, more pressing issues. She
suggested conducting a survey using Survey Monkey. She has only heard from three people and everyone
else seems satisfied. She summarized it may depend on who a Councilmember talks to.
Councilmember Johnson commented she was an early supporter of the BID and she appreciated their self-
governance. She did not expect 100% satisfaction; it appeared there was a 90% satisfaction rate or at least
a 90% quiet majority. She encouraged anyone who was dissatisfied to participate directly in the BID
process and she encouraged the Council to stay the course long enough to see the benefit of the BID
structure. She did not support any changes but encouraged those who were dissatisfied to voice their
concerns to the BID Board and for the BID Board to address their concerns.
To Councilmember Mesaros, Councilmember Bloom explained the BID Board did not set the fee
schedule. It was recommended by a group of business owners who circulated petitions to present to
Council. They did not obtain 60% and the method was changed midstream which was very confusing. To
Councilmember Johnson’s comment about a 90% quiet majority, Councilmember Bloom explained she
has spoken to a lot of people who are afraid to come forward and many who are mad but do not have the
time to get involved. Because people are unable/unwilling to come forward did not equate to a 90% quiet
majority.
Councilmember Bloom appreciated Council President Buckshnis’ suggestion for a survey/poll of the
membership. She recommended it be done anonymously by a third party. It was the Council’s
responsibility to conduct a survey because the 60% approval was not achieved and the BID was formed
by resolution. The Council needs to determine if there is 60% approval. She requested Mr. Doherty
research a way to do a statistically valid anonymous survey to determine if there is 60% approval.
Councilmember Mesaros said he realized the Board of Directors did not recommend the fee structure.
However the current Board has not recommended any changes to the structure and their budget utilized
the same assessment structure. Mr. Doherty agreed.
Councilmember Petso commented it is a fairness issue. If organization wants to spend 75% of the
assessments on projects that have a larger benefit to open door businesses, then 75% of the assessments
should come from those businesses. She hoped the BID Board would discuss and recommend a revision
to the assessment rate schedule. Mr. Doherty explained the intent was at some point for a majority of the
Council to indicated whether they wanted to reconsider the assessment rate structure.
Council President Buckshnis commented the process took three years and during that time some
businesses changed. She accepted the ruling provided by the City Attorney. She suggested an opinion poll
via Survey Monkey. She preferred to let the BID go another year before changing the assessment
structure. She noted 27 of the over 300 businesses did not pay their assessment.
With regard to the collection policy for delinquent payments, Mr. Doherty explained the current
procedure is assessments are billed quarterly. If payment is not received, a 30-day letter is sent. If a
business responded in any way, staff works with the business and has worked with businesses for up to a
year. If a business does not respond at all, they are eventually sent to collections which is what other cities
do. In his opinion not having collections may not be legal and it would undermine the system.
To illustrate the level of disagreement, Councilmember Bloom recalled a conversation with a business
that is voluntarily going to collections to make a statement and he is not the only one. She was inclined to
Packet Page 173 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 21
suggest collections be suspended until the matter is resolved but did not feel other Councilmembers
would support that.
With regard to expanding/ revising the BID boundary, Mr. Doherty explained this issue was raised by the
BID in their work program but Mr. Taraday pointed out it was not an appropriate task for the BID. If the
Council was interested in expanding/revising the boundary, a majority of the Council would need to direct
staff to proceed. Staff’s position is that is not an issue right for the next year. He suggested the following
issues be presented to the Council in the future for a vote:
• An assessment study and develop options
• Revisit the collection policy
• Consider revising the boundary
• Options for a survey
Council President Buckshnis agreed with expanding the boundaries particularly with the opening of
Salish Crossing. Councilmember Peterson suggested allowing Salish Crossing to get up and running for at
least a year.
Councilmember Bloom commented the only way she would support expanding the boundaries would be
if the fees were adjusted.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 7½ MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. SISTER CITY COMMISSION MATCHING GRANT REQUEST
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained the Edmonds Sister
City Commission received a $500 grant from the US Charitable Gift Trust to support activities related to
the mission of the Sister City Commission, which is to promote international communication and
understanding through exchanges of people, ideas and culture. One of the goals of the Commission for
2015 is to present a series of cultural/educational events at local schools intended to introduce children in
the Edmonds community to the Japanese culture. With an additional $500 from the City Council to match
the $500 provided by the US Charitable Gift Trust, the Sister City Commission will be able to carry out
this program.
Councilmember Petso suggested more information be included in the packet in the future such as the
grant application to the other agency.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda.
17. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE
This item was postponed to the January 13 meeting.
18. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Packet Page 174 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 9, 2014
Page 22
Mayor Earling reminded of the Town Hall meeting tomorrow at Pt. Edwards from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. He
has used the green umbrellas outside City Hal and has head very positive feedback from the community
including noticing the several green umbrellas in use at a time.
Mayor Earling reported three candidates for the judge position have been interviewed. He will provide the
Council his recommendation next week.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Peterson announced his reappointment of Kevin Garrett and John Dewhirst to the
Economic Development Commission.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board has completed their work on the Tree Code. Senior
Planner Kernen Lien will present the Code to the Council in the future and then to the Planning Board.
She relayed her thanks to the consultant Elizabeth and staff. She reported on an affordable housing
symposium she attended where she met John Owens, Makers, who will be doing the development code
update.
Councilmember Johnson wished her father, who was born in 1926 and is 88 years old, a Happy Birthday.
Council President Buckshnis relayed Mayor Earling and she are meeting with attorneys and lobbyists
about the alternatives study as well as have a meeting scheduled with BNSF. Councilmember Johnson,
Mayor Earling and she are also meeting with individual legislators in an effort to clarify how important
emergency access and other issues with the train tracks are to Edmonds.
21. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
22. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
Packet Page 175 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 6, 2015
Following a reception for Councilmember Strom Peterson at 6:00 p.m., the Edmonds City Council
meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue
North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember (arrived 6:40 p.m.)
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(c).
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks
& Recreation Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 6:53p.m., Mayor Earling announced
to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 5 minutes would be required in executive
session. The executive session concluded at 6:58 p.m.
2. MEET WITH SISTER CITY CANDIDATE NORIKO TSENG FOR CONFIRMATION TO THE
EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION
At 6:59 p.m., the City Council met with Sister City Candidate Noriko Tseng. The meeting took place in
the Council Chambers, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers and Mayor
Earling were present.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m. and led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
Packet Page 176 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 2
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2014
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #212021 THROUGH #212168 DATED DECEMBER
18, 2014 FOR $1,400,051.90, #212169 DATED DECEMBER 22, 2014 FOR $8,759.24 AND
#212170 THROUGH #212285 DATED DECEMBER 31, 2014 FOR $629,152.24.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61408 THROUGH
#61418 FOR 463,333.53, BENEFIT CHECKS #61419 THROUGH #61425 AND WIRE
PAYMENTS OF $440,831.50 FOR THE PAY PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2014 THROUGH
DECEMBER 15, 2014. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #61426
FOR $708.90. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61427
THROUGH #61435 DATED JANUARY 5, 2015 FOR $485,727.78, BENEFIT CHECKS
#61436 THROUGH #61446 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $415,215.01 FOR THE PAY
PERIOD DECEMBER 16, 2014 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2014
C. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER DIANE BUCKSHNIS
FOR HER SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
D. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER STROM PETERSON
FOR HIS SERVICE AS A COUNCILMEMBER
E. CONFIRMATION OF NORIKO TSENG TO THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY
COMMISSION
6. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2015
Mayor Earling reviewed the selection process: The Mayor will call for nominations. No Councilmember
may nominate more than one person for a given office until every member wishing to nominate a
candidate has had an opportunity to do so. Nominations do not require a second. The Mayor will repeat
each nomination until all nominations have been made. When it appears no one else wishes to make a
nomination, the Mayor will ask again for nominations. If none are made, the Mayor will declare the
nominations closed. After the nominations are closed, the Mayor will call for a vote in the order that the
nominations were made. Councilmembers will be asked to signify their vote by raising their hand. As
soon as a nominee receives four votes, the Mayor will declare the Council President elected and no votes
will be taken on the remaining nominees. The same process will be repeated for the election of the
Council President Pro Tem.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DO
THE ELECTIONS BY BALLOT RATHER THAN IN ORDER OF NOMINATION.
Mayor Earling clarified it would be a written ballot. Councilmember Petso agreed State law does not
permit a secret ballot.
Packet Page 177 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 3
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling opened nominations for Council President.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON NOMINATED ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR THE
POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
There were no further nominations.
NOMINATION OF ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2015
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2015
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM NOMINATED LORA PETSO FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED KRISTIANA JOHNSON FOR THE POSITION
OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON NOMINATED THOMAS MESAROS FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
There were no further nominations.
Councilmember Bloom made a statement regarding her nominee; since she has been in on office there has
been an ongoing, not so subtle campaign to diminish the status of the legislative branch of Edmonds
government. Today Council is considering taking part in diminishing its own status, considering breaking
precedent by electing a member, Councilmember Mesaros, who has less than ten months of experience, to
a position of authority within the Council. She felt this disrespected the Council’s role in government and
also disrespects the voters who place the Council in a position of responsibility. She nominated
Councilmember Petso because she has over eight years of experience as a Councilmember and is the most
qualified to be Council President Pro Tem.
Councilmember Peterson said he proudly nominated Councilmember Mesaros; although he has served on
the Council a short time, his work has been exemplary. His ability to work within the community, with
staff, and with Councilmembers; his even demeanor; and his view for moving the process forward no
matter the outcome says a lot for his legislative stance. His professional work outside the community has
been tremendous. He was honored to nominate Councilmember Mesaros for this position.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she nominated Councilmember Johnson who served as Council Pro
Tem last year and could have been Council President this year. She served on a number of committees
last year, her leadership is well known and she should continue for another year as Council President Pro
Tem.
City Clerk Scott Passey distributed Roll Call sheets to be used as ballots and read the results of each
ballot:
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 1
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Packet Page 178 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 4
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification that four votes for one person were required to
select the Council President Pro Tem. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 2
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 3
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she abstained from the vote because all three nominees have
valuable input and ways to serve the City and she did not want to alienate anyone. If the vote is a 3-3 tie,
she will have to break tie but at this point she did not intend to enter into the election.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 4
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 5
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Mayor Earling relayed a question whether the Council wanted to adjourn to executive session for
discussion or continue voting. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether adjourning to executive
session would be appropriate. Mr. Taraday offered to review the statute; he did not believe it would be
appropriate because although the Council can adjourn to executive session to discuss the qualification of a
candidate for appointment to a vacancy, but did not think it was appropriate in this circumstance.
Councilmember Johnson observed it would take four votes to select a Council President Pro Tem not just
a simple majority. City Clerk Scott Passey agreed four votes would be required. Mr. Taraday advised four
votes is a simple majority of the seven Councilmembers present.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 6
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Packet Page 179 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 5
In response to the earlier question, Mr. Taraday advised in his opinion the exemption for evaluating the
qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office did not apply. While each Councilmember
holds elective office, he did not consider the Council Presidency to be an elective office in the way that
the phrase is used in the RCW. He recommended the Council not go into executive session to discuss the
qualifications of the candidates.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 7
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Mayor Earling declared a five minute recess.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 8
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 9
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Petso asked whether the candidates could make a statement regarding their interest in the
position. Mayor Earling answered that was not in keeping with past protocol. Mr. Taraday advised the
Council can alter its own procedure.
Councilmember Petso thanked Councilmember Johnson for her work this year and Councilmember
Mesaros for his interest in serving in this role. She would be happy to serve in the role of Council
President Pro Tem for the coming year, having worked with Council President Fraley-Monillas in the
past. She would serve without the expectation of it being a building block toward the future. She
expressed the goal of being inclusive of all Councilmembers and trying to ensure everyone is aware of
things she is working on and her plans.
Councilmember Mesaros was pleased Councilmember Peterson nominated him. He was excited to serve
as Council President Pro Tem. He brings new ideas and ways of doing things and a fresh approach to the
Council. In response to Councilmember Bloom’s comment about his lack of longevity on the Council, he
viewed that as a strength with regard to what he can bring to the table such as his leadership experience
working in healthcare and consulting. He was eager to serve the City in this role.
Councilmember Johnson said her primary goal was to serve the residents and citizens of Edmonds. She
agreed Councilmember Petso has had quite a lot of experience including serving as Council President Pro
Tem twice and Council President once. Councilmember Mesaros brings a fresh set of eyes and his lack of
experience should not disqualify him. She offered continuity between the old and new Council
administration. The Council needs to work together and she found these discussions uncomfortable
because they seem so divisive at a time when the Council should be working together.
Packet Page 180 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 6
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council President Pro Tem must be selected
tonight. Mr. Taraday read from ECC 1.02.031, Following the initial six month term, the Council President
shall be elected for one year terms by the City Council at the first Council meeting of each year and shall
serve a one year term until his/her successor is elected. At the same time, the City Council shall elect the
Council President Pro Tempore. He summarized according to the City Code it needed to be done at this
meeting but there was no State law that required it.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 10
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 11
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Council President Fraley-Monillas offered a list of things she needs from a Council President Pro Tem in
order to be efficient and do her job well:
• Makes decisions quickly and efficiently
• Think outside the box, just because something has been done one way doesn’t mean that has to
continue
• Help manage special projects that may come up, again thinking outside the box
• Ability to be easily reached for discussion
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested if the Councilmember did not fit those qualifications, he/she
not be successful in the position in the coming year.
As outgoing Council President, Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council started last year and
the previous year on a rocky road; she had thought tonight would be a seamless process and suggested the
Council work together. The resolution commending her for her service as Council President enumerates
all the work the Council accomplished last year as a team. Similar to Councilmember Johnson, she found
this process embarrassing and disruptive. She reiterated Councilmember Johnson is the best candidate for
the position of Council President to provide continuity.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 12
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 13
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Packet Page 181 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO MOVE #7, SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM, TO ITEM 18A. MOTION
CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
8. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2015
Council President Fraley-Monillas read the appointments:
Committee Representative
Community Transit Mayor Earling & Councilmember Buckshnis (Alt)
Disability Board Councilmember Bloom & Council President
Fraley-Monillas
Economic Development Commission Councilmembers Mesaros & Petso
Highway 99 Task Force Council President Fraley-Monillas &
Councilmember Johnson
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission Councilmembers Petso & Johnson
Lake Ballinger Work Group Councilmember Buckshnis
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Position #2
Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee TBD
PFD Oversight Committee Councilmember Petso
PFD Task Force Not meeting at present
Councilmember Petso if meetings resume
Port of Edmonds Councilmembers Bloom & Mesaros
Regional Fire Authority Not meeting at present
Councilmember Petso and Mayor Earling if
meetings resume
SeaShore Transportation Forum Councilmember Mesaros
Snohomish County Emergency Radio System
Governing Board
Position #2
SNOCOM Councilmember Mesaros
Snohomish Health District Council President Fraley-Monillas
Snohomish County Tomorrow Councilmembers Buckshnis & Bloom
Salmon Recovery – WRIA-8 Councilmember Buckshnis
Transportation Committee Councilmember Johnson
Tree Board Liaison Councilmember Bloom
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES FOR
2015. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SNOHOMISH HEALTH
DISTRICT BOARD
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION 1330 APPOINTING COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS TO
THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD.
Councilmember Johnson said she had no problem with appointing Council President Fraley-Monillas.
She expressed concern with the wording in Section 1 that identifies the appointee for the calendar year
2015 and thereafter until such time as the Council shall make a new appointment. She preferred to make
the appointment for the calendar year 2015 and make the appointment annually as has been done in the
past.
Packet Page 182 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 8
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the resolution reflected the same language that was used in the
past. City Clerk Passey advised the same wording was used in the past. He referred to a scrivener’s error
at the end of the resolution, the date of January 6, 2016 should be January 6, 2015.
Mayor Earling answered the language “until such time as the Council shall make a new appointment”
would address a situation where a successor was not named immediately, the previous appointee could
continue until a new appointment was made. Council President Fraley-Monillas found the language in the
resolution acceptable.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1331, APPOINTING DAVE EARLING AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AS THE ALTERNATE TO THE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION.
Councilmember Bloom relayed she did not understand why the Mayor was appointed to this position
rather than a Councilmember. Instead of voting tonight, she suggested postponing a decision to allow
discussion at a work session. She was not opposed but she wanted to understand.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Mayor Earling has a tremendous amount of knowledge related to
Snohomish County Public Transportation and she believed he was the best fit for this appointment.
Mayor Earling offered to provide some background. Councilmember Bloom reiterated she did not
understand why this was not a Council position and she preferred to discuss it at a study session.
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the reason she assigned Mayor Earling was there were so
many other committee positions to fill, if the Mayor was willing to take on a committee, she was willing
because it was one less committee meeting for a Councilmembers to attend.
Councilmember Johnson suggested it was appropriate to move a topic to a study session when one
Councilmember wanted to discuss it at a study session.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A STUDY SESSION.
Councilmember Peterson asked if the motion to postpone was in order. Mr. Taraday offered to research.
Council President Fraley-Monillas advised no one on the Council asked to serve on this committee.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether this appointment was time sensitive. She was concerned
postponing to a study session and scheduling it on a subsequent business meeting agenda would mean the
representative would miss a meeting. Mayor Earling advised postponing a decision would mean the City
would not have a representative at Thursday’s board meeting.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested voting on the assignment but still have a study session regarding the
role of the position and how it benefits the City.
Packet Page 183 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 9
Mayor Earling explained the appointment to Community Transit is a position that could be filled by the
Mayor or a Councilmember. If he is not appointed, the City will also lose its seat at on the Sound Transit
Board because one follows the other. Community Transit has a two year election cycle; elections were
held last year. Although there are three larger cities, Lynnwood, Marysville and Edmonds, there are only
two seats and which cities fill those seats is decided by those three cities. If he was not the representative,
the other two members would have the discretion to appoint the Lynnwood representative who was
currently an alternate. He summarized if he is not appointed tonight, the City runs the risk of not having a
Community Transit seat and guarantees the City does not having a Sound Transit seat.
In response to the earlier question, Mr. Taraday advised the motion to postpone is in order even when
another motion is pending.
Councilmember Bloom expressed her appreciation for Mayor Earling’s explanation. This has confused
her every year for the past three years and this is first she has heard about the connection between the
positions. That was the reason she wanted to postpone the appointment to clarify and understand the role
of the two positions and the value of appointing the Mayor rather than a Councilmember. She
acknowledged they are two very important positions and the Council should consider whether it was
better to appoint a Councilmember rather than the Mayor.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support a motion to postpone, reiterating no Councilmember
requested this appointment.
If the Council made this appointment tonight, Councilmember Petso asked whether Council President
Fraley-Monillas planned to schedule this on an upcoming study session. Council President Fraley-
Monillas agreed that would be appropriate.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM,
JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, requested Council review of the Edmonds sign code be scheduled for March
10, 2015. This date gives the Planning Board ample time to review the sign code and submit revisions.
The Planning Board’s February 25, 2015 agenda includes Urban Design Element which fits well with the
sign code review since good sign codes seek to maintain the attractiveness that good urban design
produces. She explained her appeal of the Planning Department’s decision on an Old Mill Town sign was
directed to the Hearing Examiner. She did not believe her complaint was a matter for the Hearing
Examiner who decides only whether an action complies with the code. The Planning Department
correctly decided that the sign did comply with the code. The sign code section that permitted the sign
needs to be changed, one of several sign code sections that need to be revised. Since only the legislative
branch enacts and amends ordinances, she requested the Council execute its early 2014 decision to make
review of the sign code a priority. The legislative branch sets its own agenda and the date when items are
heard.
Nathan Proudfoot, Edmonds, a volunteer with Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA),
explained ESCA provides volunteers for Edmonds as well as several neighboring communities in South
Snohomish County and North King County including Kenmore and Woodinville. He invited community
members to get involved in ESCA by visiting their website, ESCA1.com or sign up for a Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) or radio class. CERT training is designed to prepare citizens to help
Packet Page 184 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 10
themselves, their family and their neighbors in the event of catastrophic disaster. Professional emergency
services personnel will not be available to help everyone immediately so citizens can make a difference
by using their CERT training to protect and save lives. ESCA began providing CERT classes in 1996 and
has graduated 800 citizens from the CERT program. The next class is January 15 – March 5, Thursdays
from 7:00 – 10:00 p.m. at Northshore Fire Station 51 in Kenmore. Training is provided in emergency
preparedness, fire safety, light urban search and rescue, medical triage and treatment, damage assessment,
incident command, disaster psychology and terrorism.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, wished the Council Happy New Year, commenting the Council was off to
the usual start as illustrated by the Council President Pro Tem election. He referred to public comments
made by bicycle enthusiasts at meetings late last year, noting it was unfortunate they did not speak out
when Public Works painted over the bike lane on Sunset Avenue. The bike lane on Sunset worked very
efficiently for 20 years; the current situation, bicycles sharing the substandard pathway or larger sidewalk
is problematic. He recalled the bike lane was created to reduce the width of Sunset to prevent kids from
cruising and parking in the middle of the street. The bike lane has existed since then and there has not
been any real controversy on Sunset other than the threat of fence and planting brambles to keep people
off the bluff. He suggested the City was assuming liability for injury on a sidewalk with pedestrians and
bikes as well as liability for the poor design of the angle parking. He recommended it be corrected now
and not allowed to continue for a year.
Dave Page, Edmonds, wished the Council Happy New Year. He relayed following the last Council
President Pro Tem vote, he commented to Ron Wambolt that it was democracy in action. Mr. Wambolt’s
response was it beats the alternative. Mr. Page agreed, relaying he was grateful to live in a country where
citizens can have it out at Council meetings and have an opportunity to make a difference. In response to
Mayor Earling’s inquiry about topics for the State of the City address, he suggested talking about the
good things that have been happened. The City has been through hell and walked a fine line; some cities
have not recovered and are deeply in debt. The Mayor and Council have done a remarkable job in the last
2-3 years.
12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO COUNCILMEMBER DIANE
BUCKSHNIS FOR HER SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN 2014
Council President Fraley-Monillas read Resolution 1328 thanking Councilmember Buckshnis for her
service as Council President beginning January 7, 2014 for a one year term. Council President Fraley-
Monillas presented the resolution and a plaque to Councilmember Buckshnis.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she just drove the car last year; she thanked the Council team for
all the wonderful accomplishments and the tremendous job everyone did during 2014.
13. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE THANKING COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON FOR HIS SERVICE AS AN EDMONDS CITY COUNCILMEMBER
Council President Fraley-Monillas read Resolution 1329 thanking Councilmember Peterson for his
service on the City Council since he was appointed January 20, 2009 to fill Position 2 and during his
subsequent election to two consecutive terms. Council President Fraley-Monillas presented the resolution
and a plaque to Councilmember Peterson.
Councilmember Peterson thanked the City for the resolution. With regard to the environmental work the
City has worked on, when packing for his desk in Olympia he found a jar of disgusting water distributed
when Algalita Marine Research Foundation made a presentation to the Council in 2009, the year the
plastic gyre was discovered in the Pacific Ocean, his inspiration for the plastic bag ordinance. The
community has rallied around environmental issues and has often led the way. He thanked City staff, an
Packet Page 185 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 11
incredible group of people, for their dedication which is reflected in the environmental initiatives and
awards the City has won. It has been a true honor to work with such dedicated professionals who care
about the City and its citizens in everything they do.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayors Earling, Cooper and Haakenson and current and past
Councilmembers. He recognized being a Councilmember was a tough job, one that Councilmembers all
relish and appreciate. While Councilmembers may disagree, he assured everyone was serving for the right
reason and that’s what makes democracy work. He summarized he was proud to have served the citizens
of Edmonds as a Councilmember and looked forward to continuing to serve the citizens of Edmonds and
the 21st District in Olympia.
14. WELCOME TO THE NEW EDMONDS LIBRARIAN, CHY ROSS
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the new Edmonds Librarian, Chy Ross, replaces
former Librarian Leslie Chaplin who retired. She invited the Council to join her in welcoming Mr. Ross
to the community; he has great ideas for the library and the community.
Librarian Chy Ross expressed his appreciation for the warm welcome he has received in Edmonds. He is
excited about the opportunity to manage the Edmonds Library. He illustrated why he loves working in the
library and was excited to be at the Edmonds Library; today in a half hour on the library floor he helped a
4-year old sign up for her first library card, helped a teen select a mystery for a class assignment, helped a
patron find a manual online for an electronic item, and helped another patron get set up on a public
computer to complete an online job application. The Edmonds Library is busy and vital and the people of
Edmonds enjoy and value the library by using in variety of ways. This is illustrated in how much library
is used; in 2014 an average of 720 people visited the library each day taking advantage of a variety of
resources and checking out an average of 1,000 books and materials.
His focus will be to continue that good work as well as to work hard to ensure the library remains relevant
and responsive to the community and to provide viable information services that the Edmonds community
needs. He wants the library to be engaged with community and be a catalyst for a connected,
economically sound community. His goal was that the library be the first place people think of when they
have an informational need and that the library continues to be Edmonds’ community doorway to reading,
resources, and lifelong learning and a center for people, ideas, and culture. He invited the Council to stop
in and say hello.
15. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ISSUES
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled when the Council last
discussed this at a study session, there were three issues raised during consideration of the Edmonds
Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) 2015 work program and budget, 1) the rate structure, 2)
the BID’s boundaries, and 3) collections. He referred to the memo and attachments included in the agenda
packet that were reviewed at the study session and requested the Council consider whether to direct the
Mayor and staff to study any of the issues and return with alternatives for Council consideration. He
described the three issues:
• Bid assessment rate structure
o Questions have been raised regarding current rate structure.
o Information provided indicates there are a variety of rate structures, no trend line to follow.
• Delinquent payment collections
o Current procedure
Members who do not pay are sent a notice with 30 days to reply.
Staff works with members who reply, even up to a year.
Packet Page 186 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 12
Members who not reply, they are sent to collections
• Boundary
o BID offered to study whether to expand the boundaries
o Determined that was a Mayor/staff work item, not a BID task
Councilmember Bloom recalled the Council had a very lengthy discussion during the study session. She
expressed concern that none of the previous discussions including comments made by BID members
during Audience Comments were attached to agenda as is typically done. The Council was essentially
starting from ground zero because she was unable to reference what had been stated during previous
discussions. She felt the Council needed information regarding previous discussions to be able to discuss
this.
Main Motion #1
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO NEXT WEEK’S WORK SESSION.
Councilmember Petso suggested discussing this at the Council retreat.
Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY /COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE COUNCIL RETREAT.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council had decided not to pursue some items and the biggest
issue was the rate structure. Councilmember Bloom recalled that as well but the agenda materials did not
reflect that discussion. She preferred to discuss the issues at length at a retreat with the attachments.
Council President Fraley-Monillas envisioned the retreat as an opportunity to work on goals for the next
year, not as an extension of a Council meeting. She preferred to discuss this at a work session.
Action on Amendment #1
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES.
Councilmember Peterson commented the Council has had at least two work sessions on this and he was
uncertain what a third work session would accomplish. The Council has discussed these issues ad
nauseam and he was ready to make a decision. Finding the related information in this electronic era is
simple if Councilmembers felt there was not enough information attached to the agenda. The Council has
a lot of issues on future agendas including Highway 99, transportation studies, the Comprehensive Plan
update, sign code, etc. He felt it was a bad way to start 2015 discussing items that have already been
discussed 3-4 times in 2014. He did not support the motion to postpone.
Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred to consider the issues tonight and suggested Mr. Doherty
could reference any additional information. Mr. Doherty advised this was not an opportunity to decide
what to do but to decide whether to direct staff to research and return with options. The information in the
minutes from previous meetings are opinions and observations from the public, BID and Council
regarding the importance or veracity of the issues; there is no conclusory information in the record. What
was discussed at the last study session was the potential of not pursuing two of the items but a definitive
decision could not be made because it was study session. The intent at this business meeting was to
decide which if any of the issues to direct staff to pursue.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated there was no information attached to agenda. Although it is easy to
find, it is also easy to attach to the agenda. She did not support proceeding with discussion tonight when
all the information was not attached to the agenda for the Council and public’s reference. It should not be
Packet Page 187 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 13
the Council’s burden to sort through materials; it should be attached to the agenda for easy reference. It is
helpful but also necessary to have that information available.
Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Doherty to summarize the Council’s discussion at the study session
and indicate whether he has a recommendation.
Call for the Question & Action
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR THE
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Action on Main Motion #1
MAIN MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES.
Mr. Doherty recalled several people expressed opinions at previous study sessions. With regard to the rate
structure, the BID currently has a two-tiered system whereby open door and by appointment businesses
are assessed different rates. Questions have been raised regarding whether the difference between the
open door and by appointment assessments rates is appropriate, whether there should a lower rate for by
appointment businesses, whether the square footage ranges are too large, and concern by some that the
structure is not fair to by appointment businesses and the rate is too high. Staff’s research found other
BIDs utilize a variety of rate structures including square footage, size of property, gross income of the
business, number of employees, etc. As he stated at the study session, staff’s soft recommendation is it
may be early in the life of the BID to make a change.
With regard to expanding the boundary, there was discussion at the study session that this may not be the
time to raise that issue. With regard to the collection of delinquent payments, Councilmembers expressed
concern at the study session with how an assessment program could be operated if members could simply
opt out and not pay. As illustrated by the BID’s work program and budget, the BID projects and programs
a certain income stream to fund activities in the work plan. If the BID could not count on that income
because members could decide whether to pay, it would be difficult to fund a work program.
Main Motion #2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO, TO REQUEST THE MAYOR AND STAFF RESEARCH ALL THREE AREAS AND
RETURN WITH MORE CHOICES.
Councilmember Peterson reiterated the Council has had two work sessions specifically about this as well
as other study sessions and presentation by the BID and staff. He was unsure what other information staff
would provide. With regard to the assessment structure, there is no standard structure and he was doubtful
new research would find a standard. With regard to delinquent payments, if BID members do not pay
their assessment and are not willing to work with the BID, it is a delinquent payment. Expanding the BID
boundaries cannot be studied if there is this much unease about how it is operated. He supported staff’s
soft recommendation to allow the BID to proceed and to continue to provide feedback to the Council.
Councilmember Petso asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether he had had an opportunity to review
Washington State case law and appellant court decisions with regard to the equity of fee assessments. Mr.
Taraday answered no. Councilmember Petso asked the same of Mr. Doherty. Mr. Doherty said he
reviewed one case that was outlined on Municipal Services Research Center (MSRC) regarding
assessments. His understanding from that case was the Edmonds Downtown BID’s assessments did not
violate the conclusions of the case. That case was related to the use of the fees having some benefit for the
members; the question of benefit is ultimately almost schematic and philosophical. Mr. Taraday relayed
his understanding of this agenda item was to determine whether he should do that research.
Packet Page 188 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 14
Amendment #1 and Action
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO BREAK IT INTO THE THREE OPTIONS AND
VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON VOTING NO.
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in more information on how to expand the
boundaries. She understood now may not be the right time but research would provide information
regarding what to expect. She also expressed interest in how other BIDs do collections. She agreed
enough information may have already been provided regarding the rate structure.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed enough information has been provided on the assessment structure. It
would be interesting to learn how other BIDs collect delinquent collections. He agreed it would be good
to know the process for expanding the boundary, recalling the boundary could be expanded up to 10%.
Councilmember Petso explained the reason she was concerned about the rate structure was it may be
illegal to charge businesses disproportionate to the benefit they receive. If the BID was overcharging by
appointment businesses or small businesses relative to the benefit they could arguably be receiving, that
was a concern and she preferred to allow Mr. Taraday to research that question.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso, pointing out the rate structure is the most
controversial issue. The information Mr. Doherty presented only illustrated the difference in the rates and
nothing about fairness. She also recommended the Council consider the comments made at previous
Council meetings by BID members Tom Wilks and Brent Malgarin regarding the rate structure. More
than the other two issues, she felt it was very important for the Council to consider and get more
information regarding the rate structure, particularly the legality.
Councilmember Johnson was satisfied with the work that has been done by the Finance Director
regarding delinquent payments and staff has also thoroughly described the process for expanding the
boundaries. The first year a business is part of the BID, they are not assessed. She was satisfied if the
Council chose to have further discussion regarding the rate structure but felt the Council did not need any
additional information on the other two issues.
Main Motion #3
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT
THE COUNCIL REQUESTS A PRESENTATION AT A STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE
RATE STRUCTURE AND SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING A LEGAL REVIEW OF THE
GUIDELINES FOR AN APPROPRIATE RATE STRUCTURE.
Action on Main Motion #3
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS, PETSO AND JOHNSONVOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Main Motion #4
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
REVIEW THE METHOD OF COLLECTION AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT TO PURSUE COLLECTIONS AGAINST THE MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO
ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FEES.
Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding the motion. Councilmember Bloom explained she
was interested in a review of how collections are being done, how many people are not paying and
reviewing the appropriateness of pursuing collections.
Packet Page 189 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 15
Acton on Main Motion #4
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Main Motion #5
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM, TO DIRECT THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO RESEARCH THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE POTENTIAL BID BOUNDARY EXPANSION AND WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE
DONE.
Action on Main Motion #5
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
16. PRESENTATION UPDATE ON THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT FINAL FEASIBILITY
STUDY
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster advised the City recently received a $157,000
grant to continue the project. Tonight’s presentation will show preliminary route options for the
daylighted channel through Marina Beach Park and Ms. Hite will describe the Master Plan process. He
acknowledged the City’s partners in this project: Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) who has
provided three grants since 2011; Keeley O’Connell, EarthCorps, who has helped the City with this
project for past 3 years and has been a great advocate in the community; and Dave Cline, Shannon &
Wilson, the primary consultant on the project.
David Cline, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. explained tonight’s presentation will provide an overview of the
feasibility study, the alignment options and how they dovetail with the Marina Beach Master Plan
process, a separate yet parallel process. He provided a lidar image of the study area, the 32-acre marsh
under consideration for restoration with SR 104 on the east, Harbor Square and Dayton Street to the
north, the Unocal property to the south and the BNSF railway property to the northwest that parallels the
daylighted area. The image identified the existing open channel and the proposed daylight route that
would need to be excavated that would cross underneath the railroad and onto Marina Beach Park. The
stream currently flows along the open channel along the Unocal and BNSF property, turns into
stormwater pipes, a portion owned by the Port of Edmonds, through a tidegate on the park property,
through City property and discharges to Puget Sound.
Mr. Cline displayed a photograph of the existing open channel looking north (Unocal property on the
right and BNSF property on the left). The feasibility study looked at using the same channel alignment
and the same general configuration but providing enhancements and improvements including riparian
treatments such as shrubs, possibly trees, plantings and modifications to the channel to improve fish
passage habitat in the form of structure allowing the appropriate velocity with tidal exchange as well as
riparian cover, shading and food for fish as they move along the long, straight migration corridor.
He displayed a photograph of the existing open channel looking south, identifying the area on the Unocal
property that was excavated, cleaned up and filled. He identified the approximate daylight alignment that
would be excavated to create a channel similar to the upstream area that would be enhanced with the same
riparian wood treatments. He displayed photographs of the existing stormwater pipe outfall and the
tidegate (floodgate). The project will replace the tidegate because hydrodynamic modeling in the
feasibility study show flooding conditions can be improved with a daylight channel. In the current
configuration, the stormwater pipes and tidegates create a chokepoint that backs up water toward SR 104
and Dayton Street. A floodgate is still needed to protect from tidal inflow into low lying interior areas.
Packet Page 190 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 16
Mr. Cline reviewed the Willow Creek Daylight Project schedule:
• Early Feasibility Study – Completed (May 2013)
• Final Feasibility Study – In progress (July 2015)
• Marina Beach Park Master Plan – In progress (July 2015)
• Will Creek Daylight preliminary design – Starting (summer 2015), complete (fall 2016)
Mr. Cline displayed the image of the channel, identifying the location of a pre-fabricated bridge as
mitigation for Sound Transit work in the area. He described Marina Beach Preliminary Daylight options:
Option A: Southerly Route near Off-Leash Dog Area
After the prefabricated bridge Channel turns south of the parking lot in the off-leash dog area. He
identified the location of geotechnical borings, test pits, etc. used to inform whether there was any
contaminated soils, soil conditions, bank stabilization, etc. He provided photographs with a depiction of
the channel alignment through the off-leash dog area, explaining this would be a large excavation, 40-50
feet across, with fairly flat side slopes and 10-foot bottom widths. The size is based on geomorphology of
other tidal channels in the area.
Option B: Northerly Route along Existing Grass, Parking and Beach area
After the prefabricated bridge, channel goes in a northwesterly direction, through the south parking lot,
the existing grassy knoll, and out through the woody debris beach area. He provided photographs with a
depiction of the alignment through Marina Beach Park and the beach.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the microalgae beds at the off-leash dog area. Mr. Cline answered
that is a good food source for fish. The feasibility studies considered the shoreline attractants for
migrating fish which include drift, food sources such as the microalgae beds, and the stream flow.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happens at very low tides. Mr. Cline answered there are a lot of
coastal creeks and streams that experience similar conditions at very low tide. There may not be fish
passage at that time but there will be access to the channel at higher tide. The excavation will extend to
the sandy area in front of the woody debris; the elevation of the channel is near the mean tide level. The
tide is expected to inundate the area 50% of the time. He anticipated there would continue to be low flow
at low tides due to good stream flow plus the marsh will take a long time to drain.
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Marina Beach Master Planning process has begun.
The two preferable channels for the creek over Marina Beach will drastically change the landscape. Staff
went through an RFP process; following an evaluation panel and reference checks, Walker Macy was
hired to lead the public process for the Marina Beach Master Plan and they are in the process of gathering
information. A Project Advisory Committee has been formed comprised with representatives of the
Planning Board, Off-Leash Area, Friends of the Edmonds March, Marina Beach users, as well as Keely
O’Connell and Mr. Shuster who will work with Mr. Cline and his team to match science with the Master
Plan and have a robust public process to consider how Marina Beach Park look and feel with daylighting
of Willow Creek. She assured there would be several touch points with the Council in the coming months
and was hopeful the Master Plan would be adopted by July 2015.
Councilmember Mesaros asked about plans for people to traverse the stream. Ms. Hite answered there is
no plan yet. As part of the interview process, consultants were asked to provide ideas of how the stream
would be incorporated into the park. Walker Macy suggested footbridges as well as adding an educational
and environmental component to the park.
Councilmember Petso referred to the fee the City pays the Port of Edmonds for the use of the storm pipe
and asked if that pipe was connected with this project. Public Works Director Phil Williams identified the
Packet Page 191 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 17
section of pipe on the Port’s property that the City’s stormwater flows through and the City pays a
quarterly lease for use of the pipe. Councilmember Petso asked whether this project offers an opportunity
to relocate that pipe to eliminate that lease. Mr. Williams answered the project offers opportunity to have
that conversation with the Port. The pipe could have a use in the after condition as part of an active
system to help with flooding problems. The flooding study, which is also a companion to this project, has
not been completed. This project will remove the creek flow from that pipe and may provide opportunity
to use the pipe for another useful purpose. Councilmember Petso commented the payment is not an
insignificant amount and she was hopeful the project would reduce that obligation.
Councilmember Johnson pointed out the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a significant unfunded
project, the relocation of the ferry to this general area. She asked whether that was considered in the
feasibility studies. Ms. Hite answered yes; Walker Macy is considering the conceptual drawings in the
Master Plan of Marina Beach.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the alternatives analysis that may include a train trench and asked
how that was considered. Mr. Williams answered the alternatives analysis could provide more
information than currently exists regarding what a train trench would look like, design options for the
trench, etc. There may be ways to make this project and that project compatible but that would need to be
studied further. He recalled challenges identified during Tetra Tech’s presentation regarding vertical
curves, linear distance required to reach a certain depth, etc. Initial estimates of the length of the train
trench would put it in conflict with the current location of the bridge. Further preliminary design would
need to be done to provide answers.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the public information process for the Marina Beach Master Plan.
Ms. Hite answered the Project Advisory Committee will help guide the process and three public open
houses are planned as well as touch points with the Planning Board, Council and public hearings. The
process will include public open house, outreach to park users on initial concepts, schematic design
process, another public open house to look at alternatives, presentation of alternatives to the Council and
final decision on a concept. She summarized this is a Master Plan so it will be a concept design.
17. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG
DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised this is the same agreement signed last year. The
Edmonds City Code allows her and the Mayor to authorize concessions in parks. Because the code
addresses seasonal concessions and this is a year-round concession, she brought this to the Council for
approval. This concession is appropriate for the park, many people use the ATM before boarding the ferry
and it adds to Park Department revenues.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY
AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how much the City receives from this concession. Ms. Hite
answered $200 during the first 6 month; she offered to inform the Council when a full year’s revenue was
reported. In total the City receives $10,000 for all park concessions.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL UPDATE OF COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEWS,
APPOINTMENT PROCESS, AND APPLICATION FORM QUESTIONS
Packet Page 192 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 18
Mayor Earling advised Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Peterson have been
working on this. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Attachment 1, Edmonds City Council
Candidate Interview and Voting Process. She clarified neither she nor Councilmember Peterson had any
vested interest in the process but were presenting options in an effort to make the process smoother than it
was the last time.
Councilmember Peterson explained he and Council President Fraley-Monillas were tasked with codifying
the process. Proposed changes include:
• Expanding the application to include some basic questions
• Councilmembers submitting interview questions so there was consistency between interviews
• In lieu of interviewing all applicants, each Councilmember would identify five to be interviewed
Councilmember Peterson explained the addition of basic questions and Councilmembers each identifying
five candidates to be interviewed may allow the Council to begin the interview process with some
semblance of agreement. He clarified Councilmembers were not required to vote for a candidate they
identified to be interviewed. When the process reaches voting, many cities do different things; he felt
voting was democracy in action.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember are also encouraged to contact applicants in
advance of the interview to get questions answered. She recalled a lot of time had been spent during past
interviews asking candidates questions related to Councilmember’s individual interests. Extra Council
questions are proposed to be limited to one per Councilmember and the suggested interview timeframe is
40 minutes which is an increase from the current 30 minutes. The proposed process addresses the order of
appearance, not allowing candidates in the Council Chambers until they are interviewed, two minute
opening statement, formal and informal questions, two minute closing statement, and adjourning to
executive session.
Due to the late hour, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council address the application tonight
and continue discussing the other issues at future meetings. She asked what changes had been made to the
application. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised volunteer experience, strengths and weaknesses,
and greatest challenge were added.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested changing the title to reflect Position 2. Council President Fraley-
Monillas suggested eliminating the position number from the application.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that whoever was appointed to Position 2 would run
for office in the fall to retain their position. Councilmember Peterson agreed. Council President Fraley-
Monillas suggested adding that information at the top of the application.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council also discuss live streaming of the interviews at a future
meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ACCEPT THE APPLICATION WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED AND SCHEDULE THE
REMAINDER OF THE DISCUSSION FOR A WORK SESSION.
Councilmember Johnson asked when applications were due. Mr. Taraday advised it is up to Council to
make that decision. Councilmember Peterson suggested making the changes to the application, make the
application available Monday, January 12, and require applications be submitted by Monday, February 2
which would provide three weeks to apply. The deadline for submitting the application is provided on the
last page of the application.
Packet Page 193 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 19
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Student Rep Eslami commented when filling out college applications, the question was often asked why
this college. He suggested adding a question to the application about why the person wanted to serve.
President Fraley-Monillas suggested amending Question 6 to read, “Why do you wish to serve and what
do you believe to be the greatest challenge for our council?”
Councilmember Johnson pointed out a typo in Question 5, yours should be your.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18A. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2015 (Continued)
Councilmember Petso asked if the meeting could be continued to a date certain, January 13, and therefore
comply with the requirement that the Council President Pro Tem be elected at the first meeting. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday responded that is an interesting idea but raises questions regarding the Open Public
Meeting Act Special Meeting notice and seems a little contrived. Councilmember Petso agreed it was
contrived but thought the Council had the ability to continue a meeting to a date certain. Mr. Taraday
answered the Council can certainly continue hearings but he was not certain how Roberts Rules of Order
addressed continuing a meeting. If this matter is not decided tonight, whether the meeting is continued or
adjourned, the Council has given itself an argument that they have technically complied with City code.
Councilmember Petso relayed her preference to comply with the code.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the language was at the first meeting or could this agenda item
be moved to another meeting and the current Council President Pro Tem remain until a new one is
elected. Mr. Taraday relayed the language in the code states, “at the same time.” Whether a continued
meeting would be at the same time was an interesting question.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 14
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros
Councilmember Petso 1 Petso
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 15
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros
Councilmember Petso 1 Petso
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Bloom reiterated her earlier statement that electing Councilmember Mesaros who only
has ten months in office was a bad precedent to set and it was disrespectful to citizens. Councilmember
Johnson has much more experience than Councilmember Mesaros. She still strongly supports
Councilmember Petso and feels she is the best candidate for job but she strongly opposes appointing
someone with so little experience and felt it was a disservice to the voters. She commented nothing
prepares a person to be a Councilmember except being a Councilmember, not previous leadership, or any
previous experience. A Councilmember is a political position and it is not comparable to anything
Councilmember Mesaros had done in the past. She could not support someone who had so little
experience.
Packet Page 194 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 20
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 16
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros
Councilmember Petso 1 Petso
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 17
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros
Councilmember Petso 1 Petso
Abstain Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 18
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Petso 1 Petso
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 19
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Petso 1 Petso
Ballot 20
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Petso 1 Petso
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO TAKE UP THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM NOW
AND RETURN TO THIS AFTERWARD. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mr. Taraday had determined the Council needed to stay
all night voting or could voting be continued at the next meeting. Mr. Taraday answered if each meeting
is considered to be a session under Roberts Rules which Edmonds has historically done, each meeting has
new agenda. That is the reason reconsideration is appropriate at the same meeting. If the goal is to be as
technically correct and compliant with the code as possible, it would not be proper to add to this to the
agenda of the next meeting along with other new items that were not on this agenda. To be technically
correct, this meeting/session would be continued to a separate meeting. There is a distinction under
Roberts Rules of Order between one session and another. The continued part of this session could occur
on January 13 at a certain time and the next session could be the regular January 13. The code does not
talk about sessions or Roberts Rules; it states the first meeting of year and at the same time. If the Council
wants to be true to the code, the decision should be made tonight. He clarified no one is going to sue the
City if a decision is not made tonight; there is not a lot of legal risk associated with not making a decision
tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO, TO MOVE THIS TO 5:30 ON JANUARY 13.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to have this meeting on January prior to the study
session. Mr. Taraday said he would advise City Clerk Scott Passey to prepare a special meeting notice
Packet Page 195 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 21
that states continuation of agenda item 7 from January 6. The regular January 13 meeting would have its
own agenda, notice, etc.
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained she made this motion because the Council was on ballot 21
and it is 10:30 p.m. Now that the Council knows who is interested in the job, those Councilmember can
think about whether they wanted the job of Council President Pro Tem, have discussions with coworkers,
etc. and possibly a quicker resolution may be reached on January 13.
Councilmember Petso said to the best of her knowledge she is at present the swing vote and she assured
this is more likely to be resolved on January 13 than tonight.
Councilmember Mesaros pointed out there will be one less Councilmember on January 13.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how much work Mr. Taraday did with the Council Pro Tem last year
when she was not around. Mr. Taraday answered he was not sure if the work he did with Councilmember
Johnson in her capacity as Council President Pro Tem was materially different than any other
Councilmember; it did not seem she asked anything more of him than any other Councilmember asked of
him. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not mean to marginalize the Pro Tem position, but clarified
the Pro Tem fills in when the Council President is not available.
Councilmember Petso clarified if was up to her to choose one of the other candidates, based on the
information she has at this time, she was not able to do so. It was not specifically related to the duties of
the office or the individual seeking to serve; in at least one instance, other issues were impacted by the
choice and she was not able to change her vote tonight.
Councilmember Johnson asked if tonight was Councilmember Peterson’s last meeting. Councilmember
Peterson said tonight was his last meeting. For that reason, Councilmember Johnson felt it was important
to press on.
Councilmember Petso suggested if there were only six Councilmembers, the candidate receiving three
votes would be elected. Mr. Taraday clarified three is not a majority of six. Council President Fraley-
Monillas clarified four votes would still be needed to make a selection even with six Councilmembers.
Mr. Taraday said if there was a 3-3 tie with 6 Councilmembers, Mayor Earling could break the tie.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso requested a two minute break to confirm her information. Mayor Earling declared a
brief recess.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:50 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Nominee Votes Councilmember
Ballot 21
Councilmember Johnson 2 Johnson, Buckshnis
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros
Councilmember Petso 3 Petso, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 22
Councilmember Johnson 2 Buckshnis, Johnson
Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas
Packet Page 196 of 312
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 6, 2015
Page 22
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Ballot 23
Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 24
Councilmember Johnson 2 Johnson, Buckshnis
Councilmember Mesaros 3 Peterson, Mesaros, Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Ballot 25
Councilmember Johnson 2 Johnson, Buckshnis
Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros
Councilmember Petso 3 Petso, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas
Ballot 26
Councilmember Johnson 4 Johnson, Buckshnis, Mesaros, Peterson
Councilmember Mesaros 1 Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Petso 2 Petso, Bloom
Mayor Earling announced Councilmember Johnson was elected Council President Pro Tem.
19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Due to the late hour, this item was omitted.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Due to the late hour, this item was omitted.
21. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 10:47 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately five minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the
Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson,
Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff
Taraday, Finance Director Scott James, and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at
10:55 p.m.
22. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:55 p.m.
23. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Packet Page 197 of 312
AM-7469 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Renee McRae
Department:Parks and Recreation
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of 2015 Yost Pool Operations
Recommendation
Staff recommends that we enter into an agreement with the YMCA for the operations of Yost Pool for the
2015 season.
If Council is amenable to partnering with the YMCA to operate Yost Pool for the 2015 season, forward
the attached agreement to the February 17 Council Consent agenda for approval.
Previous Council Action
As part of the Strategic Plan, Council adopted Action 3a.6 to create and implement a long term financial
and operational strategy for the updating/upgrading, refurbishment and retrofitting of the current Yost
Pool facility.
As part of the 2014 PROS plan, Council adopted strategies for the Parks Department to create and enter
into partnerships in order to provide cost effective operations.
In 2014, Council approved a pilot program with the YMCA for the daily operations of Yost Pool,
excluding the office staff, cash handling, programming, and pool maintenance.
Narrative
In 2014, the City partnered with the YMCA to manage the day-to-day operations of Yost Pool, excluding
the office staff, cash handling, programming, and pool maintenance. The YMCA managed the operations
safely and efficiently in this pilot year, and the partnership was beneficial to both parties, as well as the
Edmonds' residents.
The YMCA would like continue its partnership with the City of Edmonds for operating Yost Pool for the
2015 season. They will continue to:
Hire, train, and supervise all lifeguards, swim instructors and swim team coaches.
Maintain responsibility for paying for all program supplies, i.e. swim lesson equipment that needs
replacing.
Packet Page 198 of 312
The Y is proposing these changes to the structure of the partnership for 2015:
The Y would be responsible for all cash handling, registration and revenue collection for all
programming.
The Y will hire, train, and supervise the office staff.
The Y will handle the day-to-day maintenance of the pool and pool chemicals, including testing
daily chemistry and adding chlorine and other chemicals as needed to maintain a safe swimming
environment. The Y Facilities Director will be responsible for this daily operation.
The Y will use a janitorial service to clean the locker rooms and office.
The Y will pay the City of Edmonds $40,000 for use of the pool space.
The City will continue to manage and collect the revenue from the banner program, supply chemicals and
pay utilities.
Attachments
Spreadsheet rev exp 2015 projections
Draft agreement with YMCA
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/05/2015 09:06 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/05/2015 11:28 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/05/2015 11:36 AM
Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 02/04/2015 01:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/05/2015
Packet Page 199 of 312
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 projected 2015 Y proposal
Pilot year w Y City operating No city staff
Revenue 141,425 113,461 124,274 133,602 133,239 134,250 40,000
Banner sales included in above included in above included in above included in above included in above included in above 3,600
Expenditures
Aquatics cost center 129,558 114,546 107,577 98,367 85,249 124,100 0
Utilities*21,974 26,414 22,492 19,610 17,791 17,791 17,791
Chemicals/supplies 10,291 13,878 17,469 14,072 17,938 14,000 14,000
-20,398 -41,377 -23,264 1,553 12,261 -21,641 11,809
Lynnwood's new
pool under
construction.
Manager left half
way through
season. Backfilled
with full-time
staff.
2014: YMCA
agreement was
for $82,000; only
$69,592
expended.
Revenue projected
in 2015 budget.
Projected utilities
using 2014 actuals.
*Utilities are May-September
Packet Page 200 of 312
AGREEMENT FOR RECREATION USER CONCESSION AT YOST PARK
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF
EDMONDS, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”) and the YMCA of
Greater Seattle (hereinafter referred to as “Concessionaire”).
WITNESSETH:
City hereby grants to Concessionaire the right, license, and privilege to operate a recreation user
concession at Yost Park in the manner and for the purposes hereinafter specified.
The following terms, conditions, and covenants shall govern this Agreement:
A. GRANT OF CONCESSION
Concessionaire is granted the right to manage the 2015 operations of Yost Pool.
B. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall be for the 2015 Yost Pool season. Yost Pool will open June 1,
2015 and operate through September 7, 2015. Preparations for opening will be done prior to
June 1. All clean up following the closing will be done no later than September 11, 2015.
C. PAYMENTS
Concessionaire shall pay City $40,000 (Forty Thousand Dollars) under this Agreement.
Concessionaire shall pay City four monthly payments of $10,000 on or before the 10th day of
June, July, August and September during the term of this Agreement.
D. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES: The City shall:
1. Maintain responsibility for paying all utility fees and chemical supplies.
2. Maintain responsibility for paying all capital expenses, such as, for example, the
replacement of pool boilers and other similar equipment, as needed.
3. Maintain responsibility for selling pool advertising banner space and supervising the
advertising banner program. All revenue received from the advertising banner
program will go to the City.
E. CONCESSIONAIRE RESPONSIBILITIES. The Concessionaire shall:
1. Safely operate Yost Pool for the 2015 season pursuant to the YMCA of Greater
Seattle Aquatic Standards, as set forth in Attachment A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. This includes coverage for open swims, swim
Packet Page 201 of 312
lessons, rentals, swim team, swim meets, and all scheduled pool activities, and
otherwise maintaining responsibility for all pool/site management.
2. Hire, train, supervise, schedule, and process payroll for all pool staff, including office
staff, lifeguards, swim instructors and swim team coaches. Provide uniforms for all
staff members.
3. Undertake all cash handling and cash receipting at Yost Pool, including registration
and revenue collection for all programming of the Yost Pool for the 2015 season.
This includes swim lessons, swim team, daily fees and rentals.
4. Staff lifeguards at a ratio consistent with established aquatics standards and/or best
practices.
5. Undertake the day-to-day maintenance of the pool and pool chemicals, including
testing daily chemistry and adding chlorine and/or other chemicals as needed to
maintain a safe swimming environment. The YMCA Facilities Director shall take
responsibility for this daily operation.
6. Hire and supervise a janitorial service for the daily cleaning of the pool and pool site,
including but not limited to restrooms (including toilets and urinals), entrance, locker
rooms, office, pool deck, upper deck, party rooms, trash, and other related areas.
7. Pay for all program supplies, including but not limited to the provision and
replacement of swim lesson equipment, cleaning and toiletry supplies not provided by
the janitorial service, and first aid supplies and equipment.
8. Use its best efforts to provide excellent customer service, respond to complaints in a
timely manner and notify the City of all complaints in a timely manner.
F. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement;
that this is not a contract of employment; and that Concessionaire is an independent entity with
respect to the business hereunder. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the
relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. No agent, employee or
representative of Concessionaire shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of
City for any purpose. Concessionaire shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives, volunteers and subcontractors during the operation of the recreation
concession covered by this Agreement. Concessionaire shall also be solely responsible for any
payment due to its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors, including workers
compensation and related costs. Concessionaire warrants that it has conducted a criminal
background check for any agent, employee, representative or other person performing services
on its behalf. Concessionaire warrants that it has conducted a criminal history background check
pursuant to the Child and Adult Abuse Information Act as authorized by RCW 43.43.830-845,
for any prospective employee who will or may have unsupervised access to children under
Packet Page 202 of 312
sixteen years of age or developmentally disabled persons or vulnerable adults during the course
of his or her employment or involvement with the business or organization, or any prospective
volunteer who will have regularly scheduled unsupervised access to children under sixteen years
of age, developmentally disabled persons, or vulnerable adults during the course of his or her
employment or involvement with the business or organization under circumstances where such
access will or may involve groups of five or fewer children under twelve years of age, three or
fewer children between twelve and sixteen years of age, developmentally disabled persons, or
vulnerable adults.
G. INSURANCE
Concessionaire will, at Concessionaire’s sole expense, provide a Certificate of Insurance
evidencing commercial general liability insurance coverage during the term of this Agreement,
written on an occurrence basis, with limits no less than $5,000,000 each occurrence and
$10,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage.
Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and
shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-
completed operations, stop gap liability, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability
assumed under an insured contract. In addition, the Concessionaire will obtain and maintain
Sexual Abuse/Molestation Insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and
$2,000,000 general aggregate. The City shall be named as an insured under the Commercial
General Liability and Sexual Abuse/Molestation insurance policies with respect to the operations
performed using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 10 01 and Additional Insured-
Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute endorsements providing
equivalent coverage. The Concessionaire’s Commercial General Liability insurance policies
shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or
insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Concessionaire’s
insurance and shall not contribute with it. Failure on the part of the Concessionaire to maintain
the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, upon which the
City may, after giving five (5) business days’ notice to the Concessionaire to correct the breach,
immediately terminate the Agreement or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and
pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the
City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Concessionaire
from the City. A copy of the endorsements 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 a claim is made or suit is brought, except
with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
H. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
The Concessionaire 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 out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for
injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
I. RULES GOVERNING CONCESSION OPERATION
Packet Page 203 of 312
During all hours of operation, Concessionaire shall maintain on duty adequate personnel to
comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement. Concessionaire represents that
Concessionaire and its agents, employees and representatives have the necessary knowledge,
skill and experience to competently provide the recreation concession operation hereunder and
will do so in a professional manner consistent with customary practices.
J. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
Each and every term and condition herein set forth and contained in this Agreement are
expressly made terms, covenants, agreements and conditions, and a breach of any one of them by
Concessionaire shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. In the event Concessionaire shall
fail to comply with any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions of this Agreement, or
in the event Concessionaire violates any local, City, County, State, or Federal law, in connection
with the operation hereunder, upon giving the Concessionaire ten (10) days’ advance written
notice, City may terminate this Agreement as provided herein. Provided, the Parks, Recreation
& Cultural Services Director may order Concessionaire to cease operations hereunder
immediately at any time should the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director determine
that the operation is detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare.
In the event of termination of this Agreement, all the rights, licenses, and privileges herein
contained shall be terminated, Concessionaire shall have no further rights hereunder, and it shall
be lawful for City immediately thereafter to remove all property of Concessionaire from said
premises.
K. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT/AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION
This Agreement, together with any and all attachments and addenda, represents the entire and
integrated Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended,
modified or added to only by written instrument properly signed by both parties hereto.
L. NO DISCRIMINATION
Concessionaire shall, in all hiring or employment made possible or resulting from this
Agreement, take affirmative action to ensure that there shall be no unlawful discrimination
against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, age, color, religion,
national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, liability for service in the armed
forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical
handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
qualification. This requirement shall apply to, but not be limited to, the following: employment,
advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for
training, including apprenticeship.
No person shall be denied, or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefit of any services
or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement on the grounds of sex, race, age,
color, religion national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, liability for
Packet Page 204 of 312
service in the armed forces of the United States, disability or the presence of any sensory,
mental, or physical handicap, or any other protected class status.
Concessionaire shall comply with RCW 4.24.660 (Zackery Lystedt Law) regarding youth sports
concussion and head injuries. Concessionaire shall comply with the City’s Gender Equality
Policy, pursuant to RCW 49.60.505.
M. NO WAIVER
Waiver by City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
N. NOT ASSIGNABLE
The recreation concession services to be provided by Concessionaire shall not be assigned,
transferred, subcontracted or otherwise disposed of without the express written consent of City.
O. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Concessionaire in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal,
State, Public Health, and local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing,
certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals,
and any other standards and criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates written
below:
CONCESSIONAIRE CITY OF EDMONDS
Julie Brown David O. Earling, Mayor
Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
YMCA of Greater Seattle
Date: Date:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
_______________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 205 of 312
1
YMCA of Greater Seattle Aquatic Standards
ADMINISTRATION
1.An Aquatic Policy and Procedures Manual which includes both branch and association aquatic policies and procedures is availab le as reference for staff
and volunteers.
2.The senior executive in branches and groups shall be versed on the Aquatic Standards of the Association.
3.Each Pool shall be managed by a qualified professional Aquatic Director
4.Each pool shall have a certified pool operator responsible for water quality, pool maintenance and mechanical support.
5.The branch is represented at 80% of the Association Aquatics Core Group meetings.
CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
1.CPR/AED, First Aid and Lifeguard response skills of
all Lifeguard candidates shall be tested prior to hire
2.All required certifications and trainings are verified and photocopied prior to hire. These copies are available on the pool deck and a copy su bmitted
with hiring paperwork to be entered into HRIS
3.All staff and volunteer positions have a written copy of performance expe ctations and a signed Lifeguard Standards agreement on file. These will also
be used to evaluate performance.
4.All aquatic staff shall be trained in aquatic emergency safety procedures in addition to staff orientation prior to guarding or instructing.
5.Aquatic staff shall meet the following requirements and maintain the following certifications. Copies of required certificat ions shall be accessible to the
lifeguard in charge or on-deck supervisor. These records must be accurately maintained in the HRIS data base.
Aquatic Director: CPR for PR, First aid certification, Lifeguard certification, Swim Instructor certification and shall be at least 21 years of age. CPO, AFO or
YMCA POOL strongly encouraged, as well as Lifeguard & Swim Instructor Trainer-level certification
Aquatic Coordinator: ARC CPR/AED FPR, First Aid, Lifeguard Training, Swim Instructor Certification
Aquatic Supervisor: ARC CPR/AED FPR, First Aid, Lifeguard Training, Swim Instructor Certification
Swim Coach: ARC CPR/AED, First Aid, Safety Training for Swim Coaches
Lifeguard I & II: American Red Cross (ARC) CPR/AED for PR; First Aid or YMCA lifeguard certification & O2 Administration, 18 years of age. Cert ification in
Waterfront Lifeguarding is required for all staff guarding natural bodies of water. Certification in Administering Emergency Oxygen is required by staff a t
facilities with EMS response of greater than ten minutes.
Assistant Lifeguard: ARC CPR/AED for PR, First Aid, lifeguard certification, minimum of 16 years of age. A Lifeguard I or II must be on duty at all times.
Swim Instructor I: CPR/AED for PR; First Aid, and a minimum of 25 hours of in-house training
Swim Instructor II: CPR/AED for PR; First Aid, YMCA Instructor certification or ARC Water Safety Instructor.
Attachment A
Packet Page 206 of 312
Water Exercise Instructor: CPR for PR, First Aid and YMCA Water Fitness or AEA Water Fitness Instructor certification or equivalent. Specialty Instructors
must possess formal certification in that specialty
6. Branch aquatic staff meetings are held quarterly.
A record of the meeting including attendance and content shall be kept on file for three years.
7. Each branch will support the annual Aquatic Training and Certification plan. This will be measured by adherence to the certification policies above
8. A resource library shall be maintained and available to available to staff, which includes a min of YMCA Swim Instructor Manu als, a YMCA or ARC
Lifeguard Manual and YMCA Water Fitness for Health
MISSION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
1. Program philosophy follows a member-involvement model whereby participants are provided with opportunities to become involved as volunteers,
donors and advocates.
1. A process is in place for review and planning that involves staff and volunteers in review of programs and services in consideration of changing
community needs, demographics and other external trends and factors.
2. YMCA program foundations (values, inclusion, relationship building) are reflected in al l programs.
3. Programs are designed and promoted to attract and retain a group of people who reflect the demographics of the branch service area. An
environment is created that welcomes and includes people of different ages, abilities, incomes, genders, races, backgrounds and beliefs.
4. National YMCA swimming lesson programs shall be offered following approved curriculum and standards. Exception to the standa rd must be Approved
by the Core Group or designee
5. A balanced aquatic program shall be provided that responds to the needs of the membership and community
6. The following instructor to student ratios shall be maintained.
Parent and Child 1:12
Preschool and Youth Beginner 1:6
Youth Intermediate & above 1:10
7. Accurate daily records of attendance and student progress shall be maintained throughout the sessions and regular progress re ports issued to students
and parents.
8. Swim Team shall be organized as part of the YMCA with staff accountability to the YMCA.
9. Program Evaluations shall be provided to participants a minimum of twice per year . Improvement plans shall be implemented following each survey for
any area not rated at 4.5 or higher
Packet Page 207 of 312
3
FACILITY & EQUIPMENT
1. The Aquatic Director shall maintain a copy of the current Health Code for the local jurisdiction and is responsible for knowledge of the contents and
guidelines.
2. Food or beverage shall not be permitted within six (6) feet of the pool water.
3. The following equipment shall be maintained at the swimming pool.
a. Telephone/ communication device
b. Designated area for first aid treatment and equipment.
c. Standard 16 unit first aid kit.
d. Minimum of two blankets.
e. One backboard with straps and head restraints.
f. One shepherd's crook pole or reaching pole.
g. One rescue pole per 1500 sq. ft of surface. (Pole should be minimum of ½ the width of swim area up to 12 feet).
h. One ring buoy, heaving jug or thrown rope.
i. Rescue tube or buoy for each lifeguard on duty
4. An AED is clearly identified, easily accessible, and there is visual and documented verification of routine maintenance.
5. Emergency Oxygen shall be provided at facilities with EMS response that is greater than ten minutes. It is clearly identifie d, easily accessible and there is
visual and documented verification of routine maintenance.
6. A summoning device (preferably a Safety Turtle) is clearly identified, easily accessible, and there is visual and documented verification of routine
maintenance.
SAFETY ASSURANCES
1. A currently certified Lifeguard, who is responsible for the safe operation of the pool/Waterfront, shall be on surveillance at all times the pool/Waterfront
is in operation.
2. The swimming area shall be secured when no lifeguard is on duty.
3. A lifeline designating the deep-end is in place during open swims
4. The maximum number of bathers/swimmers at one time shall not exceed the following limits as defined by the King County Health Department.
5. The lifeguard to swimmer ratio shall not exceed the following:
a.1- 20 Family & Rec Swims
b.1-30 Structured programs
6. When large inflatable, slide or other large toy is in use, additional Lifeguards shall be on duty specifically dedicated to the feature.
7. Each lifeguard on duty shall wear a distinguishing uniform, swim suit, shorts and carry the following equipment at all times: whistle, rescue tube or
buoy, rescue mask and gloves. Summoning device shall be available for immediate use. If worn, footwear must be non-slip and appropriate for the
decking surface. It is recommended that guards practice running with footwear to assure rescue capability. Guards must be rescue ready.
8. When beginning a shift, the lifeguard shall walk around the swim area. Inspecting the entire bottom and evaluating the area prior to taking over
responsibility for the swim area. If relieving another lifeguard, a brief interchange should take place between the two guards to discuss any special
swimmers or conditions. Scanning must continue during this brief interchange
Packet Page 208 of 312
9. Timed response drills and Zone Validation tests shall be conducted to determine guard stations/areas of responsibility and to demonstrate the 10 by 20
response. These tests shall be completed at least quarterly. Results shall be documented and submitted to the Association Director of Aquatics .
Records shall also be kept on site.
10. Lifeguards shall be positioned so that they have full view of their area, both above and below the water surface and so they can recognize a swimmer
in need of help within 10 seconds and reach them in 20 (includes activation of summoning device). Their view shall be no greater than 180 degrees
and shall have no obstructions - no glare, obstacles, nor people passing between them and the water.
11. When more than one lifeguard is on duty, they shall be stationed in different positions for best coverage of the area, z ones/areas of responsibility shall
be well defined and the guards shall rotate their viewing position at least every thirty minutes .
12. Lifeguards must actively scan their area of responsibility every ten seconds when on duty.
If required to talk to patrons, guard must continue to scan their zone and give a brief answer. Long conversations are not permitted. No ancillary
duties are allowed to detract from active scanning.
13. Lifeguards will maintain standing height eye level while guarding, whether from an elevated chair or at the waters’ edge. Lifeguards will maintain
standing height eye level while guarding, either from an elevated guard chair or at the water’s edge.
14. The Lifeguard-in-charge or on-deck supervisor is responsible for knowing that the water quality meets health department standards. The
lifeguard-in-charge or on-deck supervisor is responsible for knowing that water quality meets health department standards .
15. Lifeguards shall not be on surveillance duty for more than 2 continuous hours without a minimum of 10 minute break to be give n by a certified
lifeguard. A lifeguard shall not be scheduled for more than two hours
of continuous duty without a break, to be given by a certified lifeguard.f
16. Aquatic emergency procedures are posted in location(s) accessible and frequented by staff. Procedures shall provide for guard response time to a
swimmer in distress that meets 10 by 20 rule. Aquatic Emergency pro cedures shall include instructions on use of the summoning device, procedures for
calling 911 including the street address of the facility and the use of an AED.
17. Procedures shall be in place, which allow for a single lifeguard on duty to alert back-up staff and/or call 911 in the event of an aquatic emergency.
Aquatic staff shall be trained as to these procedures as well as any second responders responsible for back up. This training will be provided by the
Aquatic Director.
18. When there is swimming at a YMCA sponsored activity or event held other than at a YMCA pool, the responsible staff person sha ll assure that the
Association Aquatic Standards are met.
19. When a director or management staff is not in the facility, there shall be a designated person in charge, who is able to assist a lifeguard in the case of
an aquatic emergency. This person must be a minimum of 18 years old, have CPR/AED for the Professional Rescuer certification , be trained in aquatic
emergency procedures and have a full understanding of his/her responsibility in responding to an aquatic emergency. These responders should attend
in-service training to develop and maintain necessary skills and confidence.
20. Incident/Accident reports are filed in accordance with Association procedures. NOTE: Any death, injury or illness requiring admittance to a hospital
emergency room shall be reported to Susan Strong, AO Risk Management and the local Health Department utilizing the provided form on the p-drive
within 48 hours.
21. Swimming pool/area rules shall be posted in accordance with Health code
22. All children 13 years of age or younger are assessed utilizing the Association Swim Test and are visibly marked prior to ente ring the swim area
Packet Page 209 of 312
5
23. In-service Sessions to practice emergency rescue skills and to assess staff knowledge and proficiency of emergency and safety procedures shall be
conducted monthly. In-service is mandatory and a system of accountability is in place. Over a twelve-month period these sessions shall cover CPR/AED
for PR, emergency response procedures, lifesaving rescue skills, spinal and non-spinal backboard skills, scanning and first aid. The Aquatic Director
shall keep a record of these sessions on file for five years and send a copy of this record to the Association Director of Aquatics each month.
24. An internal auditing system is in place to develop lifeguard skills, knowledge and performance (i.e. shado w drops, manikin drops, red ball and cap
drills)
25. Quarterly Peer Audits are conducted, documented and submitted to the branch Aquatic Director and Association Director of Aqua tics by due date.
26. 15 Aquatic Quick Checks are documented each week. These are then submitted to the Association Office each month.
27. 100% of aquatic staff have received Child Abuse Prevention Training
28. 100% of all staff have attended Lifeguard Scanning Training within 90 days of employment
29.Each Branch is represented by a team of Guards at annual LG competition
POOL MAINTENANCE
1. Commercial grade (10ppm) chemical testing kits shall be used. Reagents shall be within expi ration date and shall be stored to avoid extreme changes in
temperature and prolonged exposure to sunlight.
2. Pool chemistry levels and spa temperatures shall be maintained in compliance with the local guidelines and records will be retained for 5 years.
3.Detailed records/Log sheet reflecting water quality readings, issues & remedies, additions is maintained
4.Decks are sanitized a minimum of twice a week and is documented
5. Pool is vacuumed a minimum of every-other day and is documented.
6.Pump room/Chemical room locked
7.Chemicals properly stored
8.Pump room clear of clutter, clean and organized
Packet Page 210 of 312
AM-7413 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Naming of Fire Station #16.
Recommendation
Move the agenda item forward to the next Council meeting for public comment, consideration, and action
as appropriate.
Previous Council Action
On June 17, 2014, Council approved the attached policy to guide decisions on naming City facilities.
Narrative
Staff received direction from Council members earlier this year to work with citizen input and City policy
guidelines in order for the Council to consider the naming of Fire Station #16 in honor of Betty Mueller.
This has been proposed by citizens to recognize her considerable work behind the levy that provided
funding for its construction. The City policy on naming facilities is the first attachment to this agenda
item. The citizen input that staff received is contained in the second of the attachments for this agenda
item.
Last year staff did some preliminary investigative work on how memorial signage might work at this Fire
Station. In terms of the options explored, there are several choices that vary in cost and visibility to
consider. In general terms, they consist of reworking the existing monument signage on the street at a
cost of approximately $1000, or reworking the existing bronze plaque or creating an entirely new one for
essentially this same cost. Two additional alternatives would consist of introducing new stainless steel
lettering directly to the side of the building. This could be done in 2” or 5” letters, depending on the
location of the installation. The costs would run between $1800 and $2750, based on the size chosen. A
photo of the existing monument signage on 196th St. is the third attachment. The existing building
bronze plaque is the fourth attachment, and a graphic representation showing how two lettering schemes
might work (beneath the address numbers and beneath the station number) is the final attachment for this
agenda item. The current understanding is that any memorial signage authorized and chosen for this fire
station would be funded through citizen contribution.
Attachments
Naming City Facilities
Citizen Input on Naming
Monument Sign
Packet Page 211 of 312
Monument Sign
Bronze Plaque
Metal Letter Options
Betty Mueller information
Edmonds Enterprise article 1994
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 01/22/2015 09:10 PM
Parks and Recreation Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:57 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:58 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/23/2015 09:01 AM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 09:12 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 01/13/2015 06:39 AM
Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015
Packet Page 212 of 312
City of Edmonds
City policy related to the naming of City buildings and physical resources shall be administered
by the City Clerk's Office. The City will choose names for public buildings and property owned
by the City of Edmonds based on the building or property’s relationship to any of the following criteria:
A. Neighborhood, geographic or common usage identification.
B. Building or property’s purpose.
C. A natural or geological feature.
D. A historical figure or place.
E. An individual, living or deceased, who has made a significant land, building, or monetary
contribution to the &ity for the building or property being named.
F. An individual, living or deceased, who has contributed outstanding civic service to the city
and, if deceased, has been so for a period of at least one year.
12.62.020 Naming of City-owned Public Buildings and Properties – Procedure.
A. Whenever the City Council wishes to consider naming a City-owned building or property, the
issue shall be referred to the City Council’s 3DUNV3ODQQLQJ 3XEOLF:RUNV&RPPLWWHH to establish
thespecific process and to make a recommendation(s) to the full Council.
B. Before taking action, the City Council shall provide an opportunity for public comment on the
recommendation(s) from the 3DUNV3ODQQLQJ 3XEOLF:RUNV&RPPLWWHH.
12.62.030 Naming of Interior Features.
The interior features or spaces of a City-owned building may be named separately from the main
building subject to the criteria and procedures set forth in this Chapter.
12.62.040 Name Changes.
A. Designation of a name shall not prohibit the renaming of the building or property at a future
date, or the designation of a sunset for the name at the time of approval.
B. Name changes shall be subject to the criteria and procedures set forth in this Chapter.
Packet Page 213 of 312
There is a movement to name Fire Station 16 after one of Edmonds's
pioneer woman, Betty Mueller. I want you to know a little about Betty
so you can be proud to have her name on your building. Betty is the
number one person most responsible for your station and the entire city
hall complex to have been built. Betty was also the one who got the fire
foundation organized and off the ground. Betty and I were on Mayor
Laura Hall's think tank in 1994 when Betty announced that the city
buildings were old, dilapidated and out of code. She said the firehouse
was so dangerous and cramped that getting down the pole during a fire
call was more hazardous than going to the fire.
It was cold in the winter and hot in the summer. 1994 was the first big El
Nino with temps over 100 degrees upstairs where the firefighters tried to
sleep.
Betty proposed to the city council that we float a bond issue for the 10
million estimated costs. It was voted down 5 to 2. The prevailing attitude
was that a bond issue would never pass. That's when Betty went to work.
With the help of the community services director, Betty organized tours
of the out of code buildings. She showed people in groups what the
problems were and what it would take to fix it. After meeting with the
council in May of 1994, they again showed reluctance. Undeterred Betty
called Connie Chung of Channel 5 News and had a televised news
conference in my office building at Edmonds Realty. That did it. We had
to raise the $17,000 to put it on the ballot. Everybody chipped in. The
firefighters collected money in boots and helped man phone banks to get
the job done. In November of 1994 71% of the citizens voted yes. Up to
then, that was the largest majority in history.
Betty Mueller never minced words. She called a spade a spade
regardless of what anyone else thought and some people got
their feelings hurt. She was not invited to the groundbreaking nor was
she invited to the ribbon cutting when it was finished. Let me tell you
friends, she couldn't care less. She did what she did because it needed to
be done. She started the fire foundation with another big supporter of
firefighters, Mr. Chuck Cain. We should name one after him.
In closing, Betty had a bulldog's strength in her convictions and she had
moral fiber of steel. I have read about the greatness of Eleanor
Packet Page 214 of 312
Roosevelt. She and Betty would have been great friends. Betty passed
away recently, I think she was 93 or 94. She directed her family to keep
it on the low down, private not public. Many of us didn't get a chance to
say goodbye, I wish I could have because I loved her. Betty Mueller was
one of a kind. The world could use more people like her. Betty Mueller
was a great friend to firefighters. I hope you read this and wish you
would have known her. Thank you for taking the time.
If you all support the movement, please email Joan Bloom at
Joan.bloom@edmondswa.gov. She is the chairperson for the
Parks/Planning and Public Works. One email from the chief will
suffice.
David Page
1233 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Cell: 425-319-1234
Packet Page 215 of 312
Packet Page 216 of 312
Packet Page 217 of 312
Packet Page 218 of 312
Betty Mueller
Before moving to Edmonds in 1949, Betty studied at Dance Masters of
America to become a certified dance instructor. For many years she taught
Dance classes for countless young girls and boys in Edmonds.
Betty volunteered for many Edmonds related organizations including the
4th of July Parade and South Snohomish County Museum. During the early
1990s Betty found her true calling, as a community organizer. From this time
period and well into her eighties, she made an immeasurable impact on this
beautiful city on Puget Sound:
Chairman of “Repeal of the EMS Transport Fee” initiative.
Petition drive to ban casinos in Edmonds.
Founder of Edmonds Police Foundation
Founder of Edmonds Public Safety Foundation
Founder ACE: Alliance of Citizens of Edmonds
I believe that a fitting tribute to Betty Mueller’s tireless efforts to enhance the quality
of life for the citizens of edmonds ,would be the naming of the 196th Street fire
hall in her memory.
Regards,
Rich demeroutis
Packet Page 219 of 312
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
0
o
f
3
1
2
AM-7468 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of an ordinance amending the 2015 Budget for Carryforward items previously discussed and
approved by Council during the 2014 Budget Year.
Recommendation
After tonight's Council discussion, place the item on the February 17th Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
Staff prepared one decision package request to present Council for their review and discussion to
carryforward an unexpended project budget that was previously approved by Council in 2014.
Background:
During the development and approval of the 2015 Budget, staff included estimated budget amounts for
projects that were underway. As the 2014 Budget Year came to a close, actual project expenditures were
able to be determined.
Tonight's Budget Amendment proposal will roll the unexpended 2014 Project Budget into the 2015
Budget.
Staff Presentation to Council:
The Decision Package includes budgeted amounts that Council approved during the 2014 Budget Year.
Since the item was already discussed and approved by Council, staff will be prepared to answer questions
regarding the Carryfoward Budget request.
Attachments
2014 Carryforward Budget
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 02/05/2015 12:10 PM
Packet Page 221 of 312
Finance Scott James 02/05/2015 12:10 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/05/2015 03:57 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/05/2015 04:07 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/06/2015 08:03 AM
Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 02/04/2015 01:03 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/06/2015
Packet Page 222 of 312
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3990 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund
Transfers and increases in appropriations; and
WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is
transferred from one fund to another; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations
and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and
federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2015
Budget; and
WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified;
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3990 adopting the final budget for the
fiscal year 2015 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F
adopted herein by reference.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
Packet Page 223 of 312
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ___
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 224 of 312
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 3990 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________,2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 225 of 312
2015 2015
FUND FUND BEGINNING ENDING
NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE
001 GENERAL FUND 5,964,686 36,806,017 38,805,775 3,964,928
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 518,557 276,200 361,825 432,932
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 724,375 1,180 - 725,555
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 4,563,491 19,800 800,000 3,783,291
013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - 55,859
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,062 7,500 7,900 662
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 215,149 513,000 598,800 129,349
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 42,632 43,000 76,033 9,599
111 STREET FUND 208,647 1,729,030 1,703,419 234,258
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 305,230 8,026,935 8,146,704 185,461
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 408,637 78,859 134,275 353,221
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,764 61 - 17,825
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 112,841 67,675 70,000 110,516
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 55,412 20,564 26,871 49,105
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 12,938 1,240 3,000 11,178
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 75,297 22,900 21,500 76,697
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,989,184 904,000 2,485,000 408,184
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 689,893 902,000 683,400 908,493
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 248,128 46,478 43,795 250,811
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 15,922 - - 15,922
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 90,325 164,500 171,784 83,041
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,065,746 5,498,765 6,001,243 563,268
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 150,868 533 - 151,401
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 848,760 11,970 - 860,730
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,190 10,212 10,400 3,002
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 650,000 650,000 -
211 LID FUND CONTROL 5,967 22,600 28,567 -
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 76,581 28,627 - 105,208
231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 667,693 667,693 -
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 925,310 925,310 -
421 WATER 5,693,945 7,581,442 10,354,300 2,921,087
422 STORM 4,736,346 3,774,407 6,969,141 1,541,612
423 SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT 9,585,482 9,833,310 15,071,010 4,347,782
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,959 844,416 845,416 842,959
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 5,520,333 1,502,567 1,667,801 5,355,099
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 179,364 65,350 77,629 167,085
Totals 45,026,570 81,048,141 97,408,591 28,666,120
Packet Page 226 of 312
ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2015
FUND FUND 3985 3990 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 Feb-15 Feb-15 Budget
001 General Fund 36,806,017$ -$ -$ 36,806,017$
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 276,200 - - 276,200
011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 1,180 - - 1,180
012 Contingency Reserve Fund 19,800 - - 19,800
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,500 - - 7,500
016 Building Maintenance 356,600 156,400 - 513,000
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 43,000 - - 43,000
111 Street Fund 1,729,030 - - 1,729,030
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,458,211 448,724 120,000 8,026,935
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 78,859 - - 78,859
118 Memorial Street Tree 61 - - 61
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 67,675 - - 67,675
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,564 - - 20,564
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,240 - - 1,240
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 22,900 - - 22,900
125 Park Acq/Improvement 904,000 - - 904,000
126 Special Capital Fund 902,000 - - 902,000
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,478 - - 46,478
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 164,500 - - 164,500
132 Parks Construction 4,998,765 500,000 - 5,498,765
136 Parks Trust Fund 533 - - 533
137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 11,970 - - 11,970
138 Sister City Commission 10,212 - - 10,212
139 Transportation Benefit District 650,000 - - 650,000
211 Lid Fund Control 22,600 - - 22,600
213 Lid Guaranty Fund 28,627 - - 28,627
231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 667,693 - - 667,693
232 2014 Debt Service Fund 925,310 - - 925,310
421 Water 7,581,442 - - 7,581,442
422 Storm 3,681,407 93,000 - 3,774,407
423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 9,833,310 - - 9,833,310
424 Bond Reserve Fund 844,416 - - 844,416
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,502,567 - - 1,502,567
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 65,350 - - 65,350
Totals 79,730,017$ 1,198,124$ 120,000$ 81,048,141$
Packet Page 227 of 312
ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2015
FUND FUND 3985 3990 0 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 Feb-15 Feb-15 Budget
001 General Fund 38,585,504$ 100,271$ 120,000$ 38,805,775$
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 361,825 - - 361,825
012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 - - 800,000
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,900 - - 7,900
016 Building Maintenance 380,000 218,800 - 598,800
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,033 - - 76,033
111 Street Fund 1,703,419 - - 1,703,419
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,501,107 525,597 120,000 8,146,704
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 134,275 - - 134,275
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 70,000 - - 70,000
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,871 - - 26,871
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 - - 3,000
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 21,500 - - 21,500
125 Park Acq/Improvement 2,361,000 62,000 62,000 2,485,000
126 Special Capital Fund 471,400 200,000 12,000 683,400
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 43,795 - - 43,795
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 171,784 - - 171,784
132 Parks Construction 5,362,900 638,343 - 6,001,243
138 Sister City Commission 10,400 - - 10,400
139 Transportation Benefit District 650,000 - - 650,000
211 Lid Fund Control 28,567 - - 28,567
231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 667,693 - - 667,693
232 2014 Debt Service Fund 925,310 - - 925,310
421 Water 9,738,039 616,261 - 10,354,300
422 Storm 6,607,641 361,500 - 6,969,141
423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 14,235,422 835,588 - 15,071,010
424 Bond Reserve Fund 845,416 - - 845,416
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,667,801 - - 1,667,801
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 77,629 - - 77,629
Totals 93,536,231$ 3,558,360$ 314,000$ 97,408,591$
Packet Page 228 of 312
Fund Number
Change in
Beginning Fund
Balance Revenue Expense
Change in Ending
Fund Balance
001 120,000 - 120,000 -
112 - 120,000 120,000 -
125 62,000 - 62,000 -
126 12,000 - 12,000 -
Total Change 194,000 120,000 314,000 -
Packet Page 229 of 312
Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Page Description
Carry Forwards from 2014
General Fund 001 000 39 597 42 55 12 Interfund Transfer 120,000
General Fund 001 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 120,000
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 90 Interfund Services 15,000
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 15,000
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction 164,000
Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 91 Reimb from other fund 74,000
Street Construction 112 200 397 95 001 00 Interfund Transfer 120,000
REET 2 125 000 68 595 33 65 90 Reimb to other fund 62,000
REET 2 125 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 62,000
REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 65 90 Reimb to other fund 12,000
REET 1 126 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 12,000
Annual Street
Preservation
Program
Packet Page 230 of 312
Budget Amendment for:Carryforward
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Strategic Plan Task Action Item:
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
30,000 15,000 0 0 0 0
170,000 15,000 0 0 0 0
840,000 164,000 0 0 0 0
(750,000) (74,000)0 0 0 0
0 62,000 0 0 0 0
0 12,000 0 0 0 0
Interfund Transfer 001.000.39.597.42.55.12 120,000 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $290,000 $314,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$604,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ending Cash: Carryforward 120,000 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 62,000 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Carryforward 12,000 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 120,000 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $314,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.00
Carryforward Item
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:
Annual Street Preservation Program: The 2014 budget for pavement preservation
was $1.2M. This amount was reduced to $940,000 after $260,000 was set aside for
a local match to the federal grant secured for the 220th overlay project (to be built
in 2015). The 2014 actual expenditures were approximately $746,000, leaving
$194,000 to be carryforward into 2015. These funds will pay for curb ramp
replacements on 100th St. where the recent pavement overlay was completed and
additional preservation work.
Public Works
STREETEngineeringFund
Name:Annual Street Preservation Program
Bertrand Hauss
E4CA/c438
4a.2 (53)
Intefund Services 112.200.68.595.33.65.90
Professional Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00
Const Proj from Funds 112.200.68.595.33.65.91
Const Proj to Funds125.000.68.595.33.65.90
Const Proj to Funds 126.000.68.595.33.65.90
Total Expenses
Comments
001.000.308.00.000.00
125.000.308.30.000.00
126.000.308.30.000.00
112.220.397.95.001.00
Packet Page 231 of 312
AM-7462 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on Draft Utilities Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
Recommendation
Provide direction on whether to move forward with the previously presented Draft Utilities Element OR
with the new Revised Draft Utilities Element. [No final action is required at this time.]
Previous Council Action
City Council held a public hearing on Feb. 3, 2015.
Narrative
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a Utilities Element, which needs to be updated as part of the
2015 Comprehensive Plan update. A draft Utilities Element was presented at the City Council's public
hearing Feb. 3. It was acknowledged at the hearing that the draft still needed some fine-tuning.
Attached are the original versions presented at the hearing, along with a Revised Draft version that
responds to issues discussed at the hearing. See attachments 2 and 3 for the original drafts (i.e., the
"clean" version and the "tracked changes" version) and a new attachment 5, which is a revised Draft
Utilities Element that reflects discussion from the February 3 City Council meeting.
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element addresses the City's water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste
utilities. For the current update, the general idea has been to add a brief discussion for each utility type
and to reference the more detailed adopted plan for each. However, the Solid Waste section is somewhat
more detailed than the sections for other utilities (water, sewer, and stormwater) because the City
does not have its own separately adopted solid waste plan.
The Planning Board had initial discussion regarding the Utilities Element on December 10, 2014. On
January 14, the Planning Board discussed a draft Utilities Element, suggested changes, and recommended
that the City Council review the draft element, as revised. (See Attachment 3 for approved minutes and
Attachment 4 for draft minutes.)
At a February 3 public hearing, the City Council discussed the Draft Utilities Element and Council
members pointed out several items that would benefit from refined language. Staff has since prepared
a Revised Draft Utilities Element to clarify these items. (See Attachment 5, Revised Draft).
NEXT STEPS
Packet Page 232 of 312
--Discussion of the Draft Utilities Element, with any direction by the City Council, at the Feb. 10 study
session
--Further refining of the draft element after Feb. 10
--Feb. 25 public open house on this element and other parts of the Comp Plan
--Continued work on drafting updates to the Comp Plan
--Final public hearings in June on the full Comp Plan Update.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Utilities Element, clean version
Attachment 2: Utilities Element, showing proposed edits
Attachment 3: PB Minutes 12.10.14
Attachment 4: Draft PB Minutes 1.10.15
Attachment 5: Revised Draft Utilities Element
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/05/2015 12:05 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/05/2015 12:59 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/05/2015 01:02 PM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 02/03/2015 11:10 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/05/2015
Packet Page 233 of 312
Utilities Element
Potable Water Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The City of Edmonds has for many years acquired all of its finished water under a long-term
wholesale purchase agreement with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD).
AWWD, in turn, purchases its water from the City of Everett’s regional water system. Everett’s water
source is the upper Sultan River and the water from that basin is collected in Spada Lake,
approximately 30 miles east of downtown Everett. It flows from there to Chaplain Reservoir where it
is treated and placed into one of four large transmission main lines that move it westward to the
urbanized areas of Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds distributes this water on a retail basis to
our customers and bills them for this service. Edmonds provides for operation, maintenance, capital
improvements, and replacement of the “end-user” system that provides storage to cover peak usage
periods and that further provides required fire protection volumes, and maintains the required the
minimum and maximum allowable pressures.
Goals, policies, and design criteria for operating this system are developed as part of the City’s
Comprehensive Water System Plan and assist the Utility in establishing priorities for both its
operation and maintenance budgets as well as its six-year and 20-year Capital Improvement Plans.
These goals, policies, and design criteria are found in Chapter 5, Policies and Design Criteria, in the
2010 Water System Plan under the following sections: water service, water supply, and facility
policies and design criteria. The City’s financial policies are described in Chapter 10 of the Water
System Plan and include a recommended utility rate structure and an asset management-based
replacement program designed to provide adequate on-going revenues to fully fund operations,
maintenance, debt service and the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The Edmonds City Council made a decision after the approval of the 2010 Water System Plan to
adopt a rate structure that has been designed to fund from current rate revenues a very long range
program of replacing its aging network of water mains rather than using debt financing to fund that
program. As a result rates have been adjusted in each of three recent years to get closer to that goal.
The plan is to examine the utility’s financial capacity after the third year of this effort and make a
decision whether or not to continue that rate adjustment for the remaining three years.
Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The City’s policy for sewer service recognizes its function is not to determine allowable land uses
within its service area but to respond to the capacity and service levels needs necessary to support the
land uses approved in the City’s land use planning processes. Development of the City’s
Comprehensive sewer plan is currently guided by policies adopted by City Council and by the
Comprehensive Plans from adjacent agencies. These plans provide guidance to the City for
management and operation of its sewer system and set the timing for expansions and upgrades to
sewer infrastructure over the next thirty years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and
decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information
regarding the City’s plans for sewer system extensions within its service area. This approach allows
the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting
Packet Page 234 of 312
environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams
located in Edmonds.
The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity, material types of the various pieces of infrastructure,
pipe inspection assessments of the sewer system, anticipated future wastewater flow rates, and the
structural condition of the sewer collection system. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from
existing flow data using population growth projected within the sewer service area. This growth rate
is expected to continue to be modest at an average of 0.5% per year.
An implementation plan is provided as part of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, including an
estimated timeline for constructing selected projects that are in need of maintenance or upsizing. The
financial analysis includes asset management of the system along with a utility rate structure to
support the policies and goals set forth in the adopted Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
Similar to the Water Utility, as noted above, the Sewer Utility has embarked on a program to convert
from debt-financing pipe replacements to one where the program can be funded directly from rate
revenues.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goals and Policies
The City owns and operates an extensive system of drainage pipes and ditches to convey stormwater
runoff to streams, lakes, and Puget Sound that are designed to prevent and minimize damage to
private property, streets, and other infrastructure. Due to extensive alteration of the natural landscape
in most areas of the City from development, the amount of stormwater that runs off the land in larger
storm events is substantial, and runoff in all storm events carries a variety of pollutants that wash off
of their source areas into receiving waters.
The City is faced with the challenge of conveying stormwater runoff safely and cost-effectively while
preventing or minimizing adverse high flow impacts (erosion, flooding, and sediment deposition),
water quality degradation in lakes and streams receiving runoff, and degradation of aquatic habitat
caused by high flows and water quality degradation. The NPDES Phase II permit has and will
continue to have a significant impact on the workload and operational budget of the both the
Engineering Division and the Storm Crews within the Public Works Department. Approximately 2/3
or more of the total stormwater operational budget is spent on permit-related compliance programs
Goal and policies have been developed to guide the Utility to tackle the issues at hand. These goals
and polices, once approved by the City Council, will replace those in the listed in the “Water
Resources and Drainage Management” land use element of the City’s current Comprehensive Plan
(Edmonds 2009). These current goals and policies were first approved in 1985. Over the past 25
years, the practice of stormwater management has changed significantly. These new goals and
policies reflect that change. Once this plan is approved by Council, it will be incorporated by
reference in the Utility Element section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Four goals have been
developed by the City for this plan.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A. Manage the storm and surface water system by
combining preservation of natural systems and engineered solutions to:
• Provide for public safety;
• Minimize property damage;
Packet Page 235 of 312
• Preserve and enhance critical areas;
• Promote sustainability;
• Comply with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal B. To preserve, protect, and (where feasible) restore
surface water resources to provide beneficial uses to humans, fish, and wildlife.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal C. Use public education to increase understanding of
sustainability and other environmental values to help protect surface water resources.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal D. Provide adequate funding through an equitable
stormwater utility rate structure and outside funding sources to support necessary programs (including
asset management-based replacement program) that meet goals A, B, and C.
To accomplish these goals, the City developed guiding policies for the flood protection, water quality,
aquatic habitat, and stormwater utility funding program areas. More detailed goals and polcies are in
the current adopted version of the Storm and Suface Water Comprehensive Management Plan.
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and disposal is a sophisticated system that continues to evolve in using the
most efficient and economical methods. Waste prevention and recycling have risen to become an
elemental part of solid waste management planning. Curbside recycling, along with yard and food
waste collection service, has become the norm as everyday activities for most residences, businesses,
and schools. Engagement in these beneficial behaviors conserves resources, reduces litter, saves
energy and contributes to greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
The City is a signatory on the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan and
an active participant on the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The County Plan provides a
blueprint for which the City is able to provide education and outreach to all sectors in regards to
proper disposal and recycling, and opportunities for collection and proper handling of several
common unwanted materials.
Solid Waste Goal A. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and follow the directives
outlined in the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan, including:
A.1 Work directly with County Solid Waste staff to implement recommendations that
strengthen recycling, organics diversion, waste prevention, and product
strewardship programs.
A.2 Support the County’s initiatives to work with the certified solid waste haulers to
harmonize services and communication formats, and to expand their educational
efforts, especially classroom workshops and presentations in the schools.
Solid Waste Goal B. The City of Edmonds should strengthen local controls over collection of solid
waste in accordance to the following policies:
B.1 Investigate the requirement for city-wide mandatory garbage collection, combined
with recycling services.
Packet Page 236 of 312
B.2 Update and revise the original Recycling Ordinance to reflect current and alternative
collection methods and service scenarios.
Solid Waste Goal C. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and provide education and
incentives for recycling and other waste diversion practices:
C.1 Continue the Waste Prevention and Recycling Program which provides outreach and
education to the community in all aspects of best solid waste management
practices.
C.2 Provide support for the establishment and expansion of public recycling
opportunities, on an ongoing basis, and at all public events.
C.3 Support programs that establish collection and recycling infrastructure for materials
that are toxic, hazardous, hard-to-handle or under-recycled.
C.4 Establish a policy that can assist in the reuse, recycling, and proper disposal of
construction and demolition debris that is generated by development in the City.
Solid Waste Goal D. Investigate policies and activities that will lead to development of a Zero
Waste Strategy.
D.1 Learn basic concepts as they apply to both waste management planning and
materials management planning.
D.2 Pursue waste prevention and reduction strategies.
D.3 Establish a city-wide Buy Recycled policy.
D.4 Eliminate or reduce use of hazardous materials in city operations.
Other Utilities
New utility systems and technologies are constantly developing or evolving. Rather than being
reactive, the City should seek to plan for these new services as they develop.
Other Utilities Goal A. Provide for public needs while protecting the character of the community
and assuring consistency with other plan goals.
A.1. New technologies should be planned and carefully researched prior to developing
new regulations or reviewing siting proposals.
Other Utilities Goal B. Public and private utility plans should be encouraged that identify long-range
system needs and that are coordinated with the City’s comprehensive plan.
B.1. All utility projects should be coordinated to provide opportunities for projects to
address more than one system improvement or maintenance need.
Packet Page 237 of 312
Other Utilities Goal C. Utility structures should be located whenever possible with similar types of
structures to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
C.1. When such locations are not available, utility structures should be located or sited
so that they are as unobtrusive as possible and are integrated with the design of
their site and surrounding area.
C.2. Free-standing structures should be discouraged when other siting opportunities are
available.
Packet Page 238 of 312
Utilities Element
Potable Water Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The City of Edmonds has for many years acquired all of its finished water under a long-term
wholesale purchase agreement with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD).
AWWD, in turn, purchases its water from the City of Everett’s regional water system. Everett’s water
source is the upper Sultan River and the water from that basin is collected in Spada Lake,
approximately 30 miles east of downtown Everett. It flows from there to Chaplain Reservoir where it
is treated and placed into one of four large transmission main lines that move it westward to the
urbanized areas of Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds distributes this water on a retail basis to
our customers and bills them for this service. Edmonds provides for operation, maintenance, capital
improvements, and replacement of the “end-user” system that provides storage to cover peak usage
periods and that further provides required fire protection volumes, and maintains the required the
minimum and maximum allowable pressures.
Goals, policies, and design criteria for operating this system are developed as part of the City’s
Comprehensive Water System Plan and assist the Utility in establishing priorities for both its
operation and maintenance budgets as well as its six-year and 20-year Capital Improvement Plans.
These goals, policies, and design criteria are found in Chapter 5, Policies and Design Criteria, in the
2010 Water System Plan under the following sections: water service, water supply, and facility
policies and design criteria. The City’s financial policies are described in Chapter 10 of the Water
System Plan and include a recommended utility rate structure and an asset management-based
replacement program designed to provide adequate on-going revenues to fully fund operations,
maintenance, debt service and the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). [A2]
The Edmonds City Council made a decision after the approval of the 2010 Water System Plan to
adopt a rate structure that has been designed to fund from current rate revenues a very long range
program of replacing its aging network of water mains rather than using debt financing to fund that
program. As a result rates have been adjusted in each of three recent years to get closer to that goal.
The plan is to examine the utility’s financial capacity after the third year of this effort and make a
decision whether or not to continue that rate adjustment for the remaining three years.
Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The City’s policy for sewer service recognizes its function is not to determine allowable land uses
within its service area but to respond to the capacity and service levels needs necessary to support the
land uses approved in the City’s land use planning processes. Development of the City’s
Comprehensive sewer plan is currently guided by policies adopted by City Council and by the
Comprehensive Plans from adjacent agencies. These plans provide guidance to the City for
management and operation of its sewer system and set the timing for expansions and upgrades to
sewer infrastructure over the next thirty years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and
decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information
regarding the City’s plans for sewer system extensions within its service area. This approach allows
the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting
Packet Page 239 of 312
environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams
located in Edmonds.
The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity, material types of the various pieces of infrastructure,
pipe inspection assessments of the sewer system, anticipated future wastewater flow rates, and the
structural condition of the sewer collection system. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from
existing flow data using population growth projected within the sewer service area. This growth rate
is expected to continue to be modest at an average of 0.5% per year.
An implementation plan is provided as part of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, including an
estimated timeline for constructing selected projects that are in need of maintenance or upsizing. The
financial analysis includes asset management of the system along with a utility rate structure to
support the policies and goals set forth in the adopted Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
Similar to the Water Utility, as noted above, the Sewer Utility has embarked on a program to
convert from debt-financing pipe replacements to one where the program can be funded directly from
rate revenues.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goals and Policies(updated
2010)
The City owns and operates an extensive system of drainage pipes and ditches to convey stormwater
runoff to streams, lakes, and Puget Sound that are designed to prevent and minimize damage to
private property, streets, and other infrastructure. Due to extensive alteration of the natural landscape
in most areas of the City from development, the amount of stormwater that runs off the land in larger
storm events is substantial, and runoff in all storm events carries a variety of pollutants that wash off
of their source areas into receiving waters.
The City is faced with the challenge of conveying stormwater runoff safely and cost-effectively while
preventing or minimizing adverse high flow impacts (erosion, flooding, and sediment deposition),
water quality degradation in lakes and streams receiving runoff, and degradation of aquatic habitat
caused by high flows and water quality degradation. The NPDES Phase II permit has and will
continue to have a significant impact on the workload and operational budget of the both the
Engineering Division and the Storm Crews within the Public Works Department. Approximately 2/3
or more of the total stormwater operational budget is spent on permit-related compliance programs
Goal and policies have been developed to guide the Utility to tackle the issues at hand. These
goals and polices, once approved by the City Council, will replace those in the listed in the “Water
Resources and Drainage Management” land use element of the City’s current Comprehensive Plan
(Edmonds 2009). These current goals and policies were first approved in 1985. Over the past 25
years, the practice of stormwater management has changed significantly. These new goals and
policies reflect that change. Once this plan is approved by Council, it will be incorporated by
reference in the Utility Element section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Four goals have been
developed by the City for this plan.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A. Manage the storm and surface water system
by combining preservation of natural systems and engineered solutions to:
• Provide for public safety;
Packet Page 240 of 312
• Minimize property damage;
• Preserve and enhance critical areas;
• Promote sustainability;
• Comply with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal B. To preserve, protect, and (where feasible)
restore surface water resources to provide beneficial uses to humans, fish, and wildlife.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal C. Use public education to increase
understanding of sustainability and other environmental values to help protect surface water
resources.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal D. Provide adequate funding through an
equitable stormwater utility rate structure and outside funding sources to support necessary programs
(including asset management-based replacement program) that meet goals A, B, and C.
To accomplish these goals, the City developed guiding policies for the flood protection, water
quality, aquatic habitat, and stormwater utility funding program areas. More detailed goals and
polcies are in the current adopted version of the Storm and Suface Water Comprehensive
Management Plan.
Packet Page 241 of 312
A.
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and disposal is a sophisticated system that continues to evolve in using the
most efficient and economical methods. Waste prevention and recycling have risen to become an
elemental part of solid waste management planning. Curbside recycling, along with yard and food
waste collection service, has become the norm as everyday activities for most residences, businesses,
and schools. Engagement in these beneficial behaviors conserves resources, reduces litter, saves
energy and contributes to greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
The City is a signatory on the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan and
an active participant on the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The County Plan provides a
blueprint for which the City is able to provide education and outreach to all sectors in regards to
proper disposal and recycling, and opportunities for collection and proper handling of several
common unwanted materials.
B. Solid waste disposal is becoming a major problem in urban areas. Landfill sites are filling
and new environmentally acceptable ones will be hard to find. Landfills can only be considered
as an interim measure. There is presently a technological explosion in solid waste management.
Citizens are entitled to the most efficient and economical disposal methods.
Citizens now recognize that our natural resources are limited and need to be reused. Recovery
of resources and/or the production of energy from solid waste could help defray costs of solid
waste collection.
Backyard burning of garbage is a source of irritation to nearby residents and is a cause of air
pollution.
Littering is unsightly as well as unsanitary. The "throwaway" philosophy is a waste of natural
resources and detracts from the natural beauty of our surroundings.
Solid Waste Goal A. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and follow the directives
outlined in the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan, including:
A.1 Work directly with County Solid Waste staff to implement recommendations that
strengthen recycling, organics diversion, waste prevention, and product
strewardship programs.
A.2 Support the County’s initiatives to work with the certified solid waste haulers to
harmonize services and communication formats, and to expand their educational
efforts, especially classroom workshops and presentations in the schools.
Solid Waste Goal B. The City of Edmonds should strengthen local controls over collection of solid
waste in accordance to the following policies:
B.1 Investigate the requirement for city-wide mandatory garbage collection, combined
with recycling services.
Packet Page 242 of 312
B.2 Update and revise the original Recycling Ordinance to reflect current and alternative
collection methods and service scenarios.
Solid Waste Goal C. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and provide education and
incentives for recycling and other waste diversion practices:
C.1 Continue the Waste Prevention and Recycling Program which provides outreach and
education to the community in all aspects of best solid waste management
practices.
C.2 Provide support for the establishment and expansion of public recycling
opportunities, on an ongoing basis, and at all public events.
C.3 Support product stewardship initiatives programs that establish collection and
recycling infrastructure for materials that are toxic, hazardous, hard-to-handle or
under-recycled.
C.4 Establish a policy that can assist in the reuse, recycling, and proper disposal of
construction and demolition debris that is generated by development in the City.
Solid Waste Goal D. Investigate policies and activities that will lead to development of a Zero
Waste Strategy.
D.1 Learn basic concepts as they apply to both waste management planning and
materials management planning.
D.2 Pursue waste prevention and reduction strategies.
D.3 Establish a city-wide Buy Recycled policy.
D.4 Eliminate or reduce use of hazardous materials in city operations.
Other Utilities
C. Goal. A regional solid waste management authority should be established to coordinate solid
waste disposal in accordance with the following policies:
Regional sanitary landfills should be used only as an interim measure.
The ultimate regional disposal system should be a resource/energy recovery system.
Edmonds should work with Snohomish County and King County to establish recycling facilities that
would be economically feasible.
D. Goal. The City of Edmonds should strengthen local controls over collection of solid waste in
accordance with the following policies:
D.1. Mandatory city-wide garbage collection should be required to minimize dumping and to
eliminate backyard burning and resultant air pollution.
Packet Page 243 of 312
D.2. Homeowners should be charged by the garbage can to encourage recycling and
separation of wastes at home. Those who use fewer cans should pay less.
D.3. Edmonds should conduct a city-wide educational campaign on solid waste telling citizens
how they can minimize the problem.
E. Goal. Edmonds should enforce litter control and encourage community litter pickups and
prevention programs.
F. Goal. Edmonds should encourage recycling to conserve natural resources and reduce energy
consumption in accordance with the following policies:
F.1. Continuous studies should be made of proposals for recycling solid waste.
Edmonds should encourage the use of returnable bottles and cans and reusable shopping bags to save
energy and resources.
F.2. Edmonds should work toward the elimination of excess packaging.
F.3. Markets for recycled materials are fluctuating and their stabilization should be encouraged.
F.4. Individuals and/or industry should be encouraged to set up recycling centers in the community.
F.5. Demonstration programs should be used to determine acceptable methods of home separation of
wastes, collection and recycling.
Other Utilities
A. New utility systems and technologies are constantly developing or evolving. Rather than being
reactive, the City should seek to plan for these new services as they develop.
Other Utilities Goal A. The goal is to pProvide for public needs while protecting the character of
the community and assuring consistency with other plan goals.
A.1. A.1. New technologies should be planned and carefully researched prior to
developing new regulations or reviewing siting proposals. The goal is to provide
for public needs while protecting the character of the community and assuring
consistency with other plan goals.
Other Utilities Goal B. Public and private utility plans should be encouraged that identify long-
range system needs and that are coordinated with the City’s comprehensive plan.
A.2. B.1. All utility projects should be coordinated to provide opportunities for
projects to address more than one system improvement or maintenance need.
Other Utilities Goal C. Utility structures should be located whenever possible with similar types
of structures to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
Packet Page 244 of 312
C.1. When such locations are not available, utility structures should be
located or sited so that they are as unobtrusive as possible and are integrated with
the design of their site and surrounding area.
A.3. C.2. Free-standing structures should be discouraged when other siting
opportunities are available.
Packet Page 245 of 312
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
December 10, 2014 Page 6
Student Representative Zhao said he was excited to learn about the concept of the senior center being changed into more of a
community center. He said he and his friends go to the beach a lot, and high school students also hang out near the senior
center. It will be good to create more of a community space to serve all citizens of the City in this great location.
INTRODUCTION OF UTILITIES ELEMENT AND RELATED ELEMENTS
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the current Utilities and Capital Facilities Elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment
1). He noted that the 1st Paragraph makes reference to other plans for the sewer, water and stormwater systems. He reported
that, at this time, staff is working to extrapolate all of the goals and policies contained in these individual plans so they can be
called out to the Utilities Element. While this will add a few more pages, it will be helpful and necessary information. Staff
will also consider policies for other utilities that do not have specific plans in place, such as solid waste. He invited the
Board Members to offer their comments and suggestions as staff moves forward with the draft update.
Chair Cloutier asked if fiber optics would be addressed as a separate utility. Mr. Chave answered that he is not sure it would
be a separate utility, but it should be mentioned in the plan. Chair Cloutier noted that it was recently discussed as being
regulated as a utility at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) level.
Board Member Lovell asked if Goals B.1, B.2, B.3 and C.1 on Page 101 of Attachment 1 are current enough to represent
what is actually happening. Mr. Chave reported that the Public Works Department has been invited to review the Utilities
Element and provide feedback to make it more current. He agreed that some of the language is dated. He noted that solid
waste and recycling in Edmonds is unique because the City relies solely on independent carriers. Many jurisdictions actually
contract with carriers because they feel they get a better deal for their residents.
Board Member Lovell asked if it would be appropriate to include an additional goal that encourages recycling and reuse of
materials when demolition or redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave agreed that would be an appropriate goal to include in the
Solid Waste Section, and it could be implemented via the Development Code.
Board Member Stewart suggested that the 1st Paragraph in Item A on Page 101 of Attachment 1 could be changed by
replacing the word “efficient” with “sustainable.” Chair Cloutier noted that the Solid Waste Section also needs to address
composting and salvaging materials during demolition.
Mr. Chave said staff would like the Board to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to also include a policy related
to underground utilities.
Board Member Lovell suggested that the need for public restrooms and the senior center should be specifically referenced in
Goal F on Page 106 of Attachment 1. Mr. Chave pointed out that Goal F refers to “essential public facilities,” which is a
term of art in State Law and is not the same as “important public facilities. Essential Public Facilities include uses, such as
prisons, that are difficult to site because the community by and large does not want them. The City must have a section in
the Comprehensive Plan that talks about how to deal with these uses, and that is what this section attempts to do. It is not
about important facilities such as restrooms, etc.
NOMINATION/ELECTION OF 2015 BOARD POSITIONS
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE
BOARD IN 2015. BOARD MEMBER NELSON SECONDED THE NOMINATION.
BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE
BOARD IN 2015. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE NOMINATION.
AFTER A VOTE, THE BOARD ELECTED BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE
BOARD IN 2015.
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER LOVELL TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE
BOARD IN 2015. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE NOMINATION.
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 246 of 312
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
January 14, 2015 Page 10
The Parks Department’s interest would be developing the southern portion of Sunset Avenue so it is more inviting for people
to sit and view the sound. She supports the bicycle/walkway trail. She said she leads the senior walking program, and every
time they got to Sunset Avenue they ended up on a dirt path. By the end of the summer they were able to walk on cement on
the view side. The project is controversial, and the intent is to gauge community feedback after the one-year trial period.
Chair Tibbott asked if funding for the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project would come from the Parks or Public Works Budget.
Ms. Hite said there are a number of funding options. However, parks funding and/or RCO grant funding would only be
available if it is a dedicated trail with a division to a street. As currently configured, the walkway would not qualify.
Board Member Robles asked if the City has a stake in the Meadowdale Playfield turf project. Ms. Hite answered
affirmatively. She explained that the City of Lynnwood is taking a lead on the project, and they have applied for grant
funding. In addition, $1 million from a recent school district bond is dedicated to the playfields. The City actually uses the
playfields via a joint partnership with the school district and the City of Lynnwood. Lynnwood maintains the fields and the
City of Edmonds helps pay for the maintenance. The City of Edmonds has set aside capital money to help with the turf
project, and she anticipates that the fields will be replaced in 2016 or 2017. She noted that the City of Edmonds owns the
Meadowdale Clubhouse and has plans to replace the play equipment this year. Board Member Robles asked if the City has
plans to remodel the interior of the clubhouse, and Ms. Hite answered not at this time. Board Member Robles commented
that it would great to have an entry into the county park from Edmonds.
Board Member Stewart asked how much additional potable water would be required to operate the spray pad beyond what is
used now. Ms. Hite said the proposed recirculating system would significantly reduce the amount of water needed to operate
the facility. She noted that Edmonds would be the first spray pad in Snohomish County that uses a recirculating system
rather than a direct-to-drain system. As proposed, the water would be chlorinated and recirculated to the site. Vice Chair
Lovell suggested that educational signage be added near the spray pad to inform the public of the sustainable benefits of the
proposed system.
Ms. Hite concluded her presentation by noting that the Parks Department staff is an incredible team, and they have
accomplished a lot over the past year. They are passionate about their work and committed to Edmonds.
Chair Tibbott asked Ms. Hite to extend the Board’s appreciation to the Parks Department staff. He also suggested that the
written report should be published on the Planning Board’s website.
DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION FOR UTILITIES ELEMENT OF 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Mr. Chave explained that the Utilities Element covers potable water, sanitary sewer, storm and surface water management
and solid waste. The goals and policies outlined in the Storm and Surface Water Management Section came directly from the
Storm and Surface Water Management Plan that was more recently updated, and there is a reference to the plan where more
detailed information is available. However, because there are no itemized goals and policies in the Potable Water and
Sanitary Sewer Plans, the language in the respective sections is more narrative to reflect the language in the plans. When the
two plans are updated in the future, they will be reformatted to be consistent with the Storm and Surface Water Management
Plan. The Solid Waste Section contains essentially new language that replaces the old, dated language.
Board Member Stewart recalled discussions amongst the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee regarding recent staff and
City Council discussions about developing a zero waste policy. She asked if this policy has evolved to the point it can be
presented and incorporated into the Utilities Element. She expressed her belief that more work is needed on the Solid Waste
Section. Mr. Chave noted that the section has been substantially written by Steve Fisher from Public Works, and it represents
his best shot at what he understands the current direction to be. However, he acknowledged that the document could change
based on ongoing discussions with the City Council regarding future programs.
Board Member Robles noted that the Solid Waste Section does not address items such as electronics, batteries, and light
bulbs. While the law requires that these items be recycled at a specialized center, there is no incentive for people to do so and
the items often wind up in the garbage. He acknowledged it is already difficult for utilities to receive two separate sets of
garbage, and there may be resistance to accepting a third. However, he felt it is necessary.
Packet Page 247 of 312
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
January 14, 2015 Page 11
Mr. Chave pointed out that Goal D on Page 99 of Attachment 1 actually addresses the concept of zero waste strategies. In
addition, Goal C talks about toxic and other types of materials that are difficult to recycle. Board Member Nelson voiced
support for Goal D, which calls for investigating policies and activities that will lead to development of a zero waste strategy.
Vice Chair Lovell referenced Goal C.3 on Page 142 of Attachment 2 and suggested it be changed to read, “Support programs
that establish collection and recycling infrastructure for materials that are toxic, hazardous, hard-to-handle or under-
recycled.” Mr. Chave agreed to seek feedback from Mr. Fisher regarding this proposed change. He said he does not
anticipate a problem with adding the word “hazardous,” and he would also ask what “product stewardship initiatives” is
intended to include as opposed to “program.”
Board Member Stewart said her understanding is that the storm and surface water goals and policies will be rehashed in some
fashion, zeroing in on water resources and drainage management. She asked if this discussion would also include green
infrastructure techniques such as permeable pavement, rain gardens, and evapo-transportation practices. Mr. Chave agreed to
forward the Board Members a link to the Storm and Surface Water Management Plan, which is also available via the City’s
website. He said his understanding from the stormwater engineer is that it includes extensive discussion about green
infrastructure techniques.
Chair Tibbott asked to what extent the Utilities Element would connect with the Shoreline Management Program (SMP). Mr.
Chave answered that there is a connection in a very general sense because there are utility facilities located within the
shoreline area. There are goals and policies in the SMP that talk about the utilities, particularly about stormwater and natural
features, and there is a lot of discussion in the SMP and Critical Area Regulations about promoting and protecting natural
drainage systems, etc. However, the emphasis between the two documents is different. Chair Tibbott said he understands the
emphasis is different, but he would not want one to override or be incompatible with the goals of the other. Mr. Chave did
not believe that would be the case. He encouraged the Board Members to review the Storm and Surface Water Management
Plan and forward their questions to the Stormwater Engineer.
Board Member Stewart announced that the group, Edmonds Woodway High School Students Saving Salmon, along with four
partners (Sound Salmon Solutions, City of Edmonds, Earthcorp, and NOAA), have applied for a grant from the Fish and
Wildlife Foundation to develop a water-quality testing program using students who are trained and supervised to do the
monitoring. She expressed her belief that the program would support what needs to happen with regarding to monitoring
water quality for humans and fish. At this time, they are looking to set up ten monitoring locations, and a walk will be
scheduled to identify the good sites for water-quality testing. She invited Board Members to participate.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
It was discussed that the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for Board review on
January 28th. Vice Chair Lovell reported on his attendance at the December 17th meeting of the Economic Development
Commission, at which the discussion focused on a draft of their recommended goals and policies for inclusion in the
Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This input will be incorporated into the document that is
presented to the Board for review on January 28th. He summarized that the Commission identified five major goals: healthy
business community, land use policies to support economic development, diversifying the city’s economic make up,
sustaining and attracting business and investment and expanding and enhancing the tourism sector of the City. He said he
would attend the Commission’s January 21st meeting and provide additional feedback to the Board.
Vice Chair Lovell said the Economic Development Commission also had a discussion about potential topics for more
detailed study in 2015. The topics included: safety issues related to the railroad crossing, surveying current business/retail
establishments, identifying areas where economic development can be promoted, engaging the Highway 99 businesses and
working collaboratively with them, setting up a business-oriented website, analyzing and enhancing waterfront businesses,
food trucks, creating a public gathering space, zoning changes to enhance economic development, Five Corners
opportunities, boutique hotel in downtown, an EDC liaison program, items in the Strategic Action Plan and studying how to
capture ferry traffic for greater tourism opportunity. He said he expects the Commission will narrow the list down in the next
few months and establish subcommittees to study the issues further.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Packet Page 248 of 312
Utilities Element
Water
The City of Edmonds has for many years acquired all of its potable water under a long-term
wholesale purchase agreement with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District. The District, in
turn, purchases its water from the City of Everett’s regional water system. Everett’s water source is
the upper Sultan River and the water from that basin is collected in Spada Lake, approximately 30
miles east of downtown Everett. It flows from there to Chaplain Reservoir where it is treated and
placed into one of four large transmission main lines that move it westward to the urbanized areas of
Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds distributes this water on a retail basis to local customers
and bills them for this service. Edmonds provides for operation, maintenance, capital improvements,
and replacement of the “end-user” system that provides storage to cover peak usage periods and that
further provides required fire protection volumes, and maintains the required the minimum and
maximum allowable pressures.
Goals, policies, and design criteria for operating the water system are developed as part of the City’s
Comprehensive Water System Plan (2010). The Water System Plan has detailed information that
helps establish priorities for the utility’s operation and maintenance budgets as well as its six-year and
20-year Capital Improvement Plans.
Edmonds’ current Utility system rate structure was designed to fund a long-range program of
replacing the community’s aging network of water mains and sewer mains from current rate revenues
rather than debt financing. The first three years of this program were approved by City Council on
November 19th, 2013 with the first rate increase taking place on 1/1/2014, the second one on 1/1/2015
and the third annual adjustment is set for 1/1/2016. The financial results for this program will be
reviewed during budget discussions in 2016 and a decision will be made regarding continuance of the
program and the rate structure necessary to support it.
Water System Goals and Policies
Goals, policies, and design criteria for the City’s water utility are found in Chapter 5, Policies and
Design Criteria, of the 2010 Water System Plan under the following sections: water service, water
supply, and facility policies and design criteria. The City’s financial policies are described in Chapter
10 of the same Water System Plan and include a recommended utility rate structure and an asset
management-based replacement program designed to provide adequate on-going revenues to fully
fund operations, maintenance, debt service and the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Sanitary Sewer
The City provides sanitary sewer service to area customers. Its operations include a wastewater
treatment plant. The system is described in the City’s Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan of 2013.
The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity, material types of the various pieces of infrastructure,
pipe inspection assessments of the sewer system, anticipated future wastewater flow rates, and the
structural condition of the sewer collection system. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from
Packet Page 249 of 312
existing flow data using population growth projected within the sewer service area. This growth rate
is expected to continue to be modest at an average of 0.5% per year.
An implementation plan is provided as part of the adopted Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. This
includes an estimated timeline for constructing selected projects that are in need of maintenance or
upsizing. The financial analysis includes asset management of the system along with a utility rate
structure to support the policies and goals set forth in the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
Similar to the Water Utility, the Sewer Utility includes a program to convert from debt-financing pipe
replacements to one where the program can be funded directly from rate revenues.
Sanitary Sewer System Goals and Policies
The City’s policy for sewer service recognizes its function is not to determine allowable land uses
within its service area but to respond to the capacity and service levels needs necessary to support the
land uses approved in the City’s land use planning processes. Development of the City’s
Comprehensive sewer plan has been guided by policies adopted by the City Council and coordinated
with the sewer plans from adjacent agencies.
The adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan provides guidance to the City for management and
operation of its sewer system and sets the timing for expansions and upgrades to sewer infrastructure
over the next twenty thirty years. The City’s adopted Plan serves as a guide for policy development
and decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information
regarding the City’s plans for sewer system extensions within its service area. This approach allows
the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting
environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams
located in Edmonds.
Chapter 2.5 of the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (2013) includes specific policies for
managing the system.
Storm and Surface Water Management
The City owns and operates an extensive system of drainage pipes and ditches to convey stormwater
runoff to streams, lakes, and Puget Sound in a manner designed to prevent and minimize damage to
private property, streets, and other infrastructure. A more detailed description of this system is
contained in the adopted Storm & Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (2010).
Due to extensive alteration of the natural landscape in most areas of the City, the amount of
stormwater that runs off the land in larger storm events is substantial, and runoff in all storm events
carries a variety of pollutants that wash off of their source areas into receiving waters.
The City is faced with the challenge of conveying stormwater runoff safely and cost-effectively while
preventing or minimizing adverse high flow impacts (erosion, flooding, and sediment deposition),
water quality degradation in lakes and streams receiving runoff, and degradation of aquatic habitat
caused by high flows and water quality degradation.
Local governments manage their stormwater under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)permit issued by the state Department of Ecology that stems from the Federal Clean
Water Act. permit. For many cities in Western Washington, such as Edmonds, the required permit is
Packet Page 250 of 312
Tthe NPDESWestern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater pPermit issued by the state
Department of Ecology. This Permit “permits” the City to discharge its collected stormwater into
streams, lakes, and Puget Sound if a series of programs and activities are implemented to help
improve water quality. This permit requires a high degree of stormwater management in compliance
with state and federal regulations. This Pemit has and will continue to have a significant impact on
the workload and operational budget of the both the Engineering Division and the Storm Crews
within the Public Works Department. Approximately 2/3 or more of the total stormwater operational
budget is spent on permit-related compliance programs.
Storm & Surface Water System Goals and Policies
Goal and policies for the system are contained in the Storm & Surface Water Management
Comprehensive Plan (2010). have been developed to guide the Utility to tackle the issues at hand.
These goals and polices, once approved by the City Council, will replace those in the listed in the
“Water Resources and Drainage Management” land use element of the City’s current Comprehensive
Plan (Edmonds 2009). These current goals and policies were first approved in 1985. Over the past 25
years, the practice of stormwater management has changed significantly. These new goals and
policies reflect that change. Once this plan is approved by Council, it will be incorporated by
reference in the Utility Element section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The goals are summarized
below.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A. Manage the storm and surface water system by
combining preservation of natural systems and engineered solutions to:
• Provide for public safety;
• Minimize property damage;
• Preserve and enhance1 critical areas;
• Promote sustainability;
• Comply with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal B. To preserve, protect, and (where feasible) restore
surface water resources to provide beneficial uses to humans, fish, and wildlife.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal C. Use public education to increase understanding of
sustainability and other environmental values to help protect surface water resources.
Storm and Surface Water Management Goal D. Provide adequate funding through an equitable
stormwater utility rate structure and outside funding sources to support necessary programs (including
an asset management-based replacement program) that meet goals A, B, and C.
To accomplish these goals, the City developed guiding policies for the flood protection, water quality,
aquatic habitat, and stormwater utility funding program areas. More detailed language for goals and
polciespolicies are in the current adopted version of the Storm and SufaceSurface Water
Comprehensive Management Plan.
1 The enhancement of critical areas typically occurs through the planting of native vegetation, the daylighting of
creeks, restoration of habitat, and/or other methods found to improve the critical area’s functions and values.
Packet Page 251 of 312
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and disposal is a sophisticated system that continues to evolve in using the
most efficient and economical methods. Waste prevention and recycling have risen to become an
elemental part of solid waste management planning. Curbside recycling, along with yard and food
waste collection service, has become the norm as everyday activities for most residences, businesses,
and schools. Engagement in these beneficial behaviors conserves resources, reduces litter, saves
energy and contributes to greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
The City is a signatory on the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan and
an active participant on the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The County Plan provides a
blueprint for which the City is able to provide education and outreach to all sectors in regards to
proper disposal and recycling, and opportunities for collection and proper handling of several
common unwanted materials.
Solid waste disposal is becoming a major problem in urban areas. Landfill sites are filling and
new environmentally acceptable ones will be hard to find. Landfills can only be considered as
an interim measure. There is presently a technological explosion in solid waste management.
Citizens are entitled to the most efficient and economical disposal methods.
Citizens now recognize that our natural resources are limited and need to be reused. Recovery
of resources and/or the production of energy from solid waste could help defray costs of solid
waste collection.
Backyard burning of garbage is a source of irritation to nearby residents and is a cause of air
pollution.
Littering is unsightly as well as unsanitary. The "throwaway" philosophy is a waste of natural
resources and detracts from the natural beauty of our surroundings.
Goals and Policies
Solid Waste Goal A. Continue to support and follow the directives outlined in the Snohomish
County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan, including:
A.1 Work directly with County Solid Waste staff to implement recommendations that
strengthen recycling, organics diversion, waste prevention, and product
strewardship programs.
A.2 Support the County’s initiatives to work with the certified solid waste haulers to
harmonize services and communication formats, and to expand their educational
efforts, especially classroom workshops and presentations in the schools.
Solid Waste Goal B. Strengthen local controls over collection of solid waste in accordance to the
following policies:
B.1 Investigate the requirement for city-wide mandatory garbage collection, combined
with recycling services.
Packet Page 252 of 312
B.2 Update and revise the original Recycling Ordinance to reflect current and alternative
collection methods and service scenarios.
Solid Waste Goal C. Continue to support and provide education and incentives for recycling and
other waste diversion practices:
C.1 Continue a program to provide outreach and education to the community in all
aspects of best solid waste management practices.
C.2 Provide support for the establishment and expansion of public recycling
opportunities, on an ongoing basis, and at all public events.
C.3 Support product stewardship initiatives programs that establish collection and
recycling infrastructure for materials that are toxic, hazardous, hard-to-handle or
under-recycled.
C.4 Establish a policy that can assist in the reuse, recycling, and proper disposal of
construction and demolition debris that is generated by development in the City.
Solid Waste Goal D. Investigate policies and activities that will lead to development of a Zero
Waste Strategy.
D.1 Learn basic concepts as they apply to both waste management planning and
materials management planning.
D.2 Pursue waste prevention and reduction strategies.
D.3 Consider a purchasing policy that would increase the proportion of recycled
products the City purchases.
D.4 Eliminate or reduce use of hazardous materials in City operations.
Other Utilities
New utility systems and technologies are constantly developing or evolving. Rather than being
reactive, the City should seek to plan for these new services as they develop.
Other Utilities Goal A. The goal is to pProvide for public needs while protecting the character of the
community and assuring consistency with other plan goals.
A.1. New technologies should be planned and carefully researched prior to developing
new regulations or reviewing siting proposals. The goal is to provide for public
needs while protecting the character of the community and assuring consistency
with other plan goals.
Other Utilities Goal B. Public and private utility plans should be encouraged that identify long-range
system needs and that are coordinated with the City’s Ccomprehensive Pplan.
B.1. All utility projects should be coordinated to provide opportunities for projects to
address more than one system improvement or maintenance need.
Packet Page 253 of 312
Other Utilities Goal C. Utility structures should be located whenever possible with similar types of
structures to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
C.1. When such locations are not available, utility structures should be located or sited
so that they are as unobtrusive as possible and are integrated with the design of
their site and surrounding area.
C.2. Free-standing structures should be discouraged when other siting opportunities are
available.
Packet Page 254 of 312
AM-7440 11.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Police Uniform Vendor Contract Renewal
Recommendation
It is the recommendation and request of staff that Council move this item forward to the February 3, 2015
Business Meeting for approval via the consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
For many years, the Police Department has had vendor contracts with Blumenthal Uniforms and
Kroesen's Uniforms. These contracts are for the purchasing of department patrol and academy uniforms,
bullet resistant vests, and duty belts/equipment. There are no substantive changes to these contracts
beyond brand/model suppliers on the part of the vendors. The contracts (including price lists) are
attached. These contracts would be retroactive to January 1, 2015 and be valid for a three year term,
expiring on December 31, 2017.
In addition, the Police Department wishes to utilize a third vendor, Bratwear, for some of these same
items. This provides the department with not only price options, but also assists with availability issues.
Bratwear is also a sole source provider of the style/brand of uniform that the Department will be
transitioning to in that the current uniform shirts, which are a proprietary style/color, are now no longer
being manufactured and are no longer available. This contract (including price list) is attached. It will
also be retroactive to January 1, 2015 and will be valid for a three year term, expiring on December 31,
2017.
All contracts have been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and have been approved as to form.
Attachments
Blumenthal Contract
Kroesen's Contract
Bratwear Contract
Bratwear Pricing
Kroesen's Pricing
Packet Page 255 of 312
Blumenthal's Pricing
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/22/2015 04:00 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01/22/2015 04:55 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 08:30 AM
Police Linda Hynd 01/23/2015 01:11 PM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 01/22/2015 02:16 PM
Final Approval Date: 01/23/2015
Packet Page 256 of 312
1
POLICE UNIFORM CONTRACT
CITY OF EDMONDS
This contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into this _____ day of __________, 20__,
between Blumenthal Uniforms and Equipment (“Blumenthal”), with principal offices located at
20812 International Boulevard, SeaTac, Washington and the City of Edmonds (“the City”), with
principal offices located at 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with a uniform supplier to provide uniform
items for its police employees; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have Blumenthal, pursuant to certain terms and
conditions, supply the necessary uniform items to outfit the City’s police employees;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope of Work: Blumenthal agrees to provide the City with the uniform items
as requested and established by the City in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference as if set forth in full. Blumenthal must be able to completely outfit new police
employees within seventy-two hours and must make all uniform items, in a wide variety of sizes,
readily available from stock on hand. This Contract does not establish Blumenthal as the sole
source for City purchases, and the City specifically reserves the right to go elsewhere for its
needs if Blumenthal cannot supply the particular item within the times provided herein. The City
may also designate additional suppliers if, by doing so, it obtains the lowest overall price for its
uniform needs. The City reserves the right to engage in non-exclusive contracts with multiple
vendors in order to provide the lowest possible price on a per-item basis.
2. Ordering of Items: The City will designate certain employees as its buyer(s) for
the purposes of ordering items from Blumenthal pursuant to this Contract. The City will so
inform Blumenthal as to the names of these individuals. The City will submit its order by phone
or by facsimile on official letterhead, with any phone orders to be “backed-up” by facsimile as
soon as practicable. Blumenthal is not to accept orders from individual police employees under
the terms of this Contract, except as follows:
Some of the City’s police employees are not covered by the City’s “quartermaster” system.
Some employees receive a uniform allowance so they can individually purchase uniform items
from any vendor as long as the items meet certain standards of the City. Some of these
employees may desire to purchase uniform items from Blumenthal.
Blumenthal agrees to honor prices for items listed in Exhibit A attached hereto for “individual
employee” purchases. However, for Blumenthal to honor this contract price, the City’s
Packet Page 257 of 312
designated buyer(s) will order the items(s) on behalf of the “individual employee” utilizing the
same procedure as specified above. In addition, it will be noted on the order facsimile that this is
an “individual employee” purchase. It will be the responsibility of Blumenthal and the
“individual employee” to agree upon payment terms for any items ordered by the City’s buyer
where the facsimile order specifies an “individual employee” order. The City will not be
responsible for payment of “individual employee” orders.
Under the terms of this Contract, all shoulder patches and bone buttons will be sewn on by
Blumenthal at no charge when a new uniform shirt is purchased. All service stripes and
chevrons will be sewn on at the City’s expense. Tailoring requested by a police employee will
be done by Blumenthal at the City’s expense, provided that an Assistant Chief of Police has first
authorized such tailoring.
3. Term of Contract: Blumenthal shall begin performing the services under the
terms of this Contract effective January 1, 2015, and the Contract will remain in effect until
December 31, 2017, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 8. Blumenthal
retains the right to request price increases on an annual basis, provided that Blumenthal first
provides the City with documentation supporting the price increase, such as information relating
to a price increase from its supplier. The City has the right to deny such a request, but will not
unreasonably do so.
4. Compensation: The City shall pay Blumenthal for the police uniform items
provided pursuant to this Contract, except in the case of “individual employee” purchases as
noted in Paragraph 2, at the price rates established in Exhibit A. All prices listed in Exhibit A
include any charges for delivery to the City. No later than October 1st of each Contract year,
Blumenthal shall provide the City with an updated price list and samples of any items that
replace or supersede any items on the expiring list. The City shall have forty-five (45) days to
review and accept or reject the uniform prices and samples. Blumenthal shall provide the City
with monthly invoices for supplying uniform items. The City shall pay Blumenthal within thirty
days of receipt of each invoice. Invoices shall include the name of each employee for which the
respective uniform items are being provided. Blumenthal agrees that the City will not be billed
for items ordered as “individual employee” purchases as specified in Paragraph 2.
5. Assignment and Subcontract: Blumenthal shall not assign or subcontract to any
person or entity any portion of the services contemplated by this Contract without the City’s
written consent.
6. Independent Contractor: The City and Blumenthal agree that Blumenthal is an
independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Contract. Nothing
in this Contract shall be considered to create an employer/employee relationship between the
parties hereto. Neither Blumenthal nor any employee of Blumenthal shall be entitled to any
benefit accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Contract. The City
shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting Federal Income Tax or Social
Security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the
duties of an employer with respect to Blumenthal or any employee of Blumenthal.
Packet Page 258 of 312
7. Indemnification: Blumenthal shall protect, defend, save harmless and indemnify
the City and its agents, officers and employees from and against all claims, suits and actions for
all damage or injury arising from the negligent and/or malicious acts, errors or omissions and any
willful, wanton, malicious or intentional tortious conduct on the part of Blumenthal or its agents
and/or employees. Blumenthal further agrees to fully indemnify the City from and against any
and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, of defending such claim or demand. Additionally,
Blumenthal specifically waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington,
the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to
indemnify the City extends to any claim, demand or action brought by or on behalf of any
employee of Blumenthal, and includes any judgment, award and costs thereof including
attorneys’ fees incurred. This paragraph shall not apply to damages and claims resulting from
the sole negligence of the City.
8. Termination: The City may terminate this Contract at any time by providing
written notice of termination to the other party. Such termination shall become effective thirty
days after receipt of said notice. In any case whereby this Contract is terminated prior to the
stated expiry date, the City shall provide reasonable compensation to Blumenthal for the uniform
items and services provided pursuant to this Contract and accepted by the City up to the date of
termination.
9. City Review/Approval: Upon delivery to the City of any police uniform items
required by the scope of work identified in Paragraph 1, the City may accept or reject such
uniform items, and may request such modification of said uniform items as it deems appropriate.
To service such modifications, Blumenthal must have on-site tailoring facilities. Blumenthal
shall promptly perform such modifications and correct any defects present in the uniform items.
Blumenthal shall not be entitled to compensation for time devoted to correcting defective police
uniform items.
10. Force Majeure: Neither party shall be considered in default in the performance
of its obligations herein to the extent that the performance of said obligation is prevented or
delayed by any cause, existing or future, which is unforeseen and beyond the reasonable control
of the affected party.
11. Applicable Law and Venue: This Contract shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action upon the terms of
this Contract shall be within King County, Washington.
12. Entire Agreement: The City and Blumenthal agree that this Contract is the
complete expression of the terms between the parties hereto and no other agreement, oral or
otherwise, which regards the subject matter of this Contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind
any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes
that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Contract.
13. Notice: Whenever it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be
given or served by either party to this Contract, such notice or demand shall be given or served,
and shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by
Packet Page 259 of 312
first-class mail, addressed to the address of the party as specified in the opening paragraph
herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Blumenthal and the City have caused this Contract to be
executed by the person authorized to act in their respective names.
CITY OF EDMONDS: BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT:
Dave Earling, Mayor By
Its
ATTEST:
________________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Page 260 of 312
1
POLICE UNIFORM CONTRACT
CITY OF EDMONDS
This contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into this _____ day of __________, 20__,
between Kroesen’ Uniforms (“Kroesens”), with principal offices located at 1918 Minor Avenue,
Seattle, Washington, and the City of Edmonds (“the City”), with principal offices located at 121
Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with a uniform supplier to provide uniform
items for its police employees; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have Kroesens, pursuant to certain terms and conditions,
supply the necessary uniform items to outfit the City’s police employees;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope of Work: Kroesens agrees to provide the City with the uniform items as
requested and established by the City in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference as if set forth in full. Kroesens must be able to completely outfit new police
employees within seventy-two hours and must make all uniform items, in a wide variety of sizes,
readily available from stock on hand. This Contract does not establish Kroesens as the sole
source for City purchases, and the City specifically reserves the right to go elsewhere for its
needs if Kroesens cannot supply the particular item within the times provided herein. The City
may also designate additional suppliers if, by doing so, it obtains the lowest overall price for its
uniform needs. The City reserves the right to engage in non-exclusive contracts with multiple
vendors in order to provide the lowest possible price on a per-item basis.
2. Ordering of Items: The City will designate certain employees as its buyer(s) for
the purposes of ordering items from Kroesens pursuant to this Contract. The City will so inform
Kroesens as to the names of these individuals. The City will submit its order by phone or by
facsimile on official letterhead, with any phone orders to be “backed-up” by facsimile as soon as
practicable. Kroesens is not to accept orders from individual police employees under the terms
of this Contract, except as follows:
Some of the City’s police employees are not covered by the City’s “quartermaster” system.
Some employees receive a uniform allowance so they can individually purchase uniform items
from any vendor as long as the items meet certain standards of the City. Some of these
employees may desire to purchase uniform items from Kroesens.
Kroesens agrees to honor prices for items listed in Exhibit A attached hereto for “individual
employee” purchases. However, for Kroesens to honor this contract price, the City’s designated
Packet Page 261 of 312
buyer(s) will order the items(s) on behalf of the “individual employee” utilizing the same
procedure as specified above. In addition, it will be noted on the order facsimile that this is an
“individual employee” purchase. It will be the responsibility of Kroesens and the “individual
employee” to agree upon payment terms for any items ordered by the City’s buyer where the
facsimile order specifies an “individual employee” order. The City will not be responsible for
payment of “individual employee” orders.
Under the terms of this Contract, all shoulder patches and bone buttons will be sewn on by
Kroesens at no charge when a new uniform shirt is purchased. All service stripes and chevrons
will be sewn on at the City’s expense. Tailoring requested by a police employee will be done by
Kroesens at the City’s expense, provided that an Assistant Chief of Police has first authorized
such tailoring.
3. Term of Contract: Kroesens shall begin performing the services under the terms
of this Contract effective January 1, 2015, and the Contract will remain in effect until December
31, 2017, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 8. Kroesens retains the
right to request price increases on an annual basis, provided that Kroesens first provides the City
with documentation supporting the price increase, such as information relating to a price increase
from its supplier. The City has the right to deny such a request, but will not unreasonably do so.
4. Compensation: The City shall pay Kroesens for the police uniform items
provided pursuant to this Contract, except in the case of “individual employee” purchases as
noted in Paragraph 2, at the price rates established in Exhibit A. All prices listed in Exhibit A
include any charges for delivery to the City. No later than October 1st of each Contract year,
Kroesens shall provide the City with an updated price list and samples of any items that replace
or supersede any items on the expiring list. The City shall have forty-five (45) days to review
and accept or reject the uniform prices and samples. Kroesens shall provide the City with
monthly invoices for supplying uniform items. The City shall pay Kroesens within thirty days of
receipt of each invoice. Invoices shall include the name of each employee for which the
respective uniform items are being provided. Kroesens agrees that the City will not be billed for
items ordered as “individual employee” purchases as specified in Paragraph 2.
5. Assignment and Subcontract: Kroesens shall not assign or subcontract to any
person or entity any portion of the services contemplated by this Contract without the City’s
written consent.
6. Independent Contractor: The City and Kroesens agree that Kroesens is an
independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Contract. Nothing
in this Contract shall be considered to create an employer/employee relationship between the
parties hereto. Neither Kroesens nor any employee of Kroesens shall be entitled to any benefit
accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Contract. The City shall
not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting Federal Income Tax or Social Security
or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an
employer with respect to Kroesens or any employee of Kroesens.
Packet Page 262 of 312
7. Indemnification: Kroesens shall protect, defend, save harmless and indemnify
the City and its agents, officers and employees from and against all claims, suits and actions for
all damage or injury arising from the negligent and/or malicious acts, errors or omissions and any
willful, wanton, malicious or intentional tortious conduct on the part of Kroesens or its agents
and/or employees. Kroesens further agrees to fully indemnify the City from and against any and
all costs, including attorneys’ fees, of defending such claim or demand. Additionally, Kroesens
specifically waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the
Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to indemnify
the City extends to any claim, demand or action brought by or on behalf of any employee of
Kroesens, and includes any judgment, award and costs thereof including attorneys’ fees incurred.
This paragraph shall not apply to damages and claims resulting from the sole negligence of the
City.
8. Termination: The City may terminate this Contract at any time by providing
written notice of termination to the other party. Such termination shall become effective thirty
days after receipt of said notice. In any case whereby this Contract is terminated prior to the
stated expiry date, the City shall provide reasonable compensation to Kroesens for the uniform
items and services provided pursuant to this Contract and accepted by the City up to the date of
termination.
9. City Review/Approval: Upon delivery to the City of any police uniform items
required by the scope of work identified in Paragraph 1, the City may accept or reject such
uniform items, and may request such modification of said uniform items as it deems appropriate.
To service such modifications, Kroesens must have on-site tailoring facilities. Kroesens shall
promptly perform such modifications and correct any defects present in the uniform items.
Kroesens shall not be entitled to compensation for time devoted to correcting defective police
uniform items.
10. Force Majeure: Neither party shall be considered in default in the performance
of its obligations herein to the extent that the performance of said obligation is prevented or
delayed by any cause, existing or future, which is unforeseen and beyond the reasonable control
of the affected party.
11. Applicable Law and Venue: This Contract shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action upon the terms of
this Contract shall be within King County, Washington.
12. Entire Agreement: The City and Kroesens agree that this Contract is the
complete expression of the terms between the parties hereto and no other agreement, oral or
otherwise, which regards the subject matter of this Contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind
any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes
that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Contract.
13. Notice: Whenever it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be
given or served by either party to this Contract, such notice or demand shall be given or served,
and shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by
Packet Page 263 of 312
first-class mail, addressed to the address of the party as specified in the opening paragraph
herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Kroesens and the City have caused this Contract to be
executed by the person authorized to act in their respective names.
CITY OF EDMONDS: KROESENS UNIFORMS:
Dave Earling, Mayor By
Its
ATTEST:
________________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Page 264 of 312
1
POLICE UNIFORM CONTRACT
CITY OF EDMONDS
This contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into this _____ day of __ 2014__, between
Alpha Parts & Supply, Inc.dba Bratwear (“Bratwear”), with principal offices located at 5417 12th
Steet East, Suite 100 Fife, Washington and the City of Edmonds (“the City”), with principal
offices located at 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with a uniform supplier to provide uniform
items for its police employees; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have Bratwear, pursuant to certain terms and conditions,
supply the necessary uniform items to outfit the City’s police employees;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope of Work: Bratwear agrees to provide the City with the uniform items as
requested and established by the City in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference as if set forth in full. Bratwear must be able to completely outfit new police
employees within seventy-two hours and must make all uniform items, in a wide variety of sizes,
readily available from stock on hand. This Contract does not establish Bratwear as the sole
source for City purchases, and the City specifically reserves the right to go elsewhere for its
needs if Bratwear cannot supply the particular item within the times provided herein. The City
may also designate additional suppliers if, by doing so, it obtains the lowest overall price for its
uniform needs. The City reserves the right to engage in non-exclusive contracts with multiple
vendors in order to provide the lowest possible price on a per-item basis.
2. Ordering of Items: The City will designate certain employees as its buyer(s) for
the purposes of ordering items from Bratwear pursuant to this Contract. The City will so inform
Bratwear as to the names of these individuals. The City will submit its order by phone or by
facsimile on official letterhead, with any phone orders to be “backed-up” by facsimile as soon as
practicable. Bratwear is not to accept orders from individual police employees under the terms of
this Contract, except as follows:
Some of the City’s police employees are not covered by the City’s “quartermaster” system.
Some employees receive a uniform allowance so they can individually purchase uniform items
from any vendor as long as the items meet certain standards of the City. Some of these
employees may desire to purchase uniform items from Bratwear.
Packet Page 265 of 312
Bratwear agrees to honor prices for items listed in Exhibit A attached hereto for “individual
employee” purchases. However, for Bratwear to honor this contract price, the City’s designated
buyer(s) will order the items(s) on behalf of the “individual employee” utilizing the same
procedure as specified above. In addition, it will be noted on the order facsimile that this is an
“individual employee” purchase. It will be the responsibility of Bratwear and the “individual
employee” to agree upon payment terms for any items ordered by the City’s buyer where the
facsimile order specifies an “individual employee” order. The City will not be responsible for
payment of “individual employee” orders.
Under the terms of this Contract, all shoulder patches and bone buttons will be sewn on by
Bratwear at no charge when a new uniform shirt is purchased. All service stripes and chevrons
will be sewn on at the City’s expense. Tailoring requested by a police employee will be done by
Bratwear at the City’s expense, provided that an Assistant Chief of Police has first authorized
such tailoring.
3. Term of Contract: Bratwear shall begin performing the services under the terms
of this Contract effective August 1st, 2014 and the Contract will remain in effect until July 31st,
2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 8. Bratwear retains the right to
request price increases on an annual basis, provided that Bratwear first provides the City with
documentation supporting the price increase, such as information relating to a price increase
from its supplier. The City has the right to deny such a request, but will not unreasonably do so.
4. Compensation: The City shall pay Bratwear for the police uniform items
provided pursuant to this Contract, except in the case of “individual employee” purchases as
noted in Paragraph 2, at the price rates established in Exhibit A. All prices listed in Exhibit A
include any charges for delivery to the City. No later than July 31st of each Contract year,
Bratwear shall provide the City with an updated price list and samples of any items that replace
or supersede any items on the expiring list. The City shall have forty-five (45) days to review
and accept or reject the uniform prices and samples. Bratwear shall provide the City with
monthly invoices for supplying uniform items. The City shall pay Bratwear within thirty days of
receipt of each invoice. Invoices shall include the name of each employee for which the
respective uniform items are being provided. Bratwear agrees that the City will not be billed for
items ordered as “individual employee” purchases as specified in Paragraph 2.
5. Assignment and Subcontract: Bratwear shall not assign or subcontract to any
person or entity any portion of the services contemplated by this Contract without the City’s
written consent.
6. Independent Contractor: The City and Bratwear agree that Bratwear is an
independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Contract. Nothing
in this Contract shall be considered to create an employer/employee relationship between the
parties hereto. Neither Bratwear nor any employee of Bratwear shall be entitled to any benefit
accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Contract. The City shall
not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting Federal Income Tax or Social Security
or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an
employer with respect to Bratwear or any employee of Bratwear.
Packet Page 266 of 312
7. Indemnification: Bratwear shall protect, defend, save harmless and indemnify
the City and its agents, officers and employees from and against all claims, suits and actions for
all damage or injury arising from the negligent and/or malicious acts, errors or omissions and any
willful, wanton, malicious or intentional tortious conduct on the part of Bratwear or its agents
and/or employees. Bratwear further agrees to fully indemnify the City from and against any and
all costs, including attorneys’ fees, of defending such claim or demand. Additionally, Bratwear
specifically waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the
Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to indemnify
the City extends to any claim, demand or action brought by or on behalf of any employee of
Bratwear, and includes any judgment, award and costs thereof including attorneys’ fees incurred.
This paragraph shall not apply to damages and claims resulting from the sole negligence of the
City.
8. Termination: The City may terminate this Contract at any time by providing
written notice of termination to the other party. Such termination shall become effective thirty
days after receipt of said notice. In any case whereby this Contract is terminated prior to the
stated expiry date, the City shall provide reasonable compensation to Bratwear for the uniform
items and services provided pursuant to this Contract and accepted by the City up to the date of
termination.
9. City Review/Approval: Upon delivery to the City of any police uniform items
required by the scope of work identified in Paragraph 1, the City may accept or reject such
uniform items, and may request such modification of said uniform items as it deems appropriate.
To service such modifications, Bratwear must have on-site tailoring facilities. Bratwear shall
promptly perform such modifications and correct any defects present in the uniform items.
Bratwear shall not be entitled to compensation for time devoted to correcting defective police
uniform items.
10. Force Majeure: Neither party shall be considered in default in the performance
of its obligations herein to the extent that the performance of said obligation is prevented or
delayed by any cause, existing or future, which is unforeseen and beyond the reasonable control
of the affected party.
11. Applicable Law and Venue: This Contract shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action upon the terms of
this Contract shall be within King County, Washington.
12. Entire Agreement: The City and Bratwear agree that this Contract is the
complete expression of the terms between the parties hereto and no other agreement, oral or
otherwise, which regards the subject matter of this Contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind
any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes
that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Contract.
Packet Page 267 of 312
13. Notice: Whenever it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be
given or served by either party to this Contract, such notice or demand shall be given or served,
and shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by
first-class mail, addressed to the address of the party as specified in the opening paragraph herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bratwear and the City have caused this Contract to be
executed by the person authorized to act in their respective names.
CITY OF EDMONDS: ALPHA PARTS & SUPPLY, INC DBA
BRATWEAR:
Dave Earling, Mayor By
Its
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Page 268 of 312
It
e
m
Mo
d
e
l
Pr
i
c
e
2XL+
UN
I
F
O
R
M
S
SH
I
R
T
,
M
E
N
'
S
S
H
O
R
T
S
L
E
E
V
E
,
D
K
N
A
V
Y
SH
T
-
T
D
0
2
D
N
5
9
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
M
E
N
'
S
L
O
N
G
S
L
E
E
V
E
,
D
K
N
A
V
Y
SH
T
-
T
D
0
2
L
D
N
64
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
S
H
O
R
T
S
L
E
E
V
E
,
M
E
D
B
L
U
E
M-
H
S
1
4
9
6
/
F
-
H
S
1
4
9
7
42
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
L
O
N
G
S
L
E
E
V
E
,
M
E
D
B
L
U
E
AN
I
M
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
M-
H
S
1
4
9
4
/
F
-
H
S
1
4
9
5
46
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
S
H
O
R
T
S
L
E
E
V
E
,
W
H
I
T
E
M-
H
S
1
2
2
3
/
F
-
H
S
1
2
7
8
47
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
L
O
N
G
S
L
E
E
V
E
,
W
H
I
T
E
M-
H
S
1
1
2
5
/
F
-
H
S
1
1
7
7
52
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
C
O
N
T
E
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
D
U
T
Y
,
D
K
N
A
V
Y
SH
T
-
C
D
0
2
D
N
82
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
B
D
U
,
L
O
N
G
S
L
E
E
V
E
PR
O
P
P
E
R
F
5
4
5
2
33
.
0
0
$
SH
I
R
T
,
L
O
N
G
S
L
E
E
V
E
,
M
E
D
B
L
U
E
CL
E
R
K
S
M-
H
S
1
4
9
4
/
F
-
H
S
1
4
9
5
51
.
0
0
$
PO
L
O
S
H
I
R
T
,
B
L
U
E
B
E
R
R
Y
SA
N
M
A
R
L
4
4
8
23
.
0
0
$
27.00 $
PA
N
T
S
,
M
E
N
'
S
P-
T
D
0
2
N
P
D
N
99
.
0
0
$
PA
N
T
S
,
W
O
M
E
N
'
S
P-
T
D
0
2
N
P
D
N
99
.
0
0
$
PA
N
T
,
C
O
N
T
E
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
D
U
T
Y
,
D
K
N
A
V
Y
P-
C
D
0
2
L
T
D
N
13
0
.
0
0
$
JU
M
P
S
U
I
T
A
L
L
S
E
A
S
O
N
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
DK
N
A
V
Y
JM
P
9
3
T
D
A
S
D
N
51
5
.
0
0
$
JU
M
P
S
U
I
T
W
I
N
T
E
R
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
DK
N
A
V
Y
JM
P
9
3
T
D
D
N
51
5
.
0
0
$
JU
M
P
S
U
I
T
S
U
M
M
E
R
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
DK
N
A
V
Y
JM
P
9
3
T
D
L
T
D
N
47
5
.
0
0
$
BE
L
T
CL
E
R
K
S
DU
T
Y
M
A
N
1
5
1
1
19
.
9
5
$
5.
1
1
R
A
I
N
P
A
N
T
S
BL
A
C
K
48
0
5
7
-
0
1
9
95
.
0
0
$
5.
1
1
T
D
U
P
/
C
R
I
P
S
T
O
P
P
A
N
T
BL
A
C
K
74
0
0
3
-
0
1
9
44
.
5
0
$
5.
1
1
T
D
P
R
I
P
S
T
O
P
S
H
I
R
T
,
L
O
N
G
S
L
E
E
V
E
BL
A
C
K
72
0
0
2
-
0
1
9
47
.
7
5
$
PA
T
R
O
L
D
U
T
Y
J
A
C
K
E
T
J-
P
D
0
7
37
5
.
0
0
$
PA
N
T
,
M
O
T
O
R
B
R
E
E
C
H
,
S
U
M
M
E
R
,
D
K
N
A
V
Y
P-
M
C
9
9
4
L
T
D
N
21
5
.
0
0
$
PA
N
T
,
M
O
T
O
R
B
R
E
E
C
H
,
W
I
N
T
E
R
,
D
K
N
A
V
Y
P-
M
C
9
9
4
D
N
23
5
.
0
0
$
TU
R
T
L
E
N
E
C
K
S
H
I
R
T
,
N
A
V
Y
MO
C
K
N
E
C
K
S
H
I
R
T
,
N
A
V
Y
HA
T
,
L
A
P
D
S
T
Y
L
E
I
N
C
R
C
A
N
D
C
A
P
S
T
R
A
P
MI
D
W
A
Y
L
A
P
D
59
.
0
0
$
CA
P
C
O
V
E
R
NE
E
S
E
4
4
7
C
C
N
CA
P
S
T
R
A
P
,
S
N
A
K
E
S
T
Y
L
E
S
I
I
L
V
E
R
CA
D
E
T
7
-
4
5
0
CA
P
S
T
R
A
P
,
S
N
A
K
E
S
T
Y
L
E
G
O
L
D
CA
D
E
T
7
-
4
5
1
TI
E
,
W
O
M
E
N
'
S
C
L
I
P
O
N
BR
O
O
M
E
4
5
0
5
5
-
6
1
8.95
$
TI
E
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
N
A
V
Y
C
L
I
P
O
N
BR
O
O
M
E
4
5
0
1
5
-
6
1
8.95
$
TI
E
,
L
O
N
G
N
A
V
Y
C
L
I
P
O
N
BR
O
O
M
E
4
5
0
4
5
-
6
1
9.50
$
Packet Page 269 of 312
TI
E
,
W
O
M
E
N
'
S
N
A
V
Y
V
E
L
C
R
O
BR
O
O
M
E
4
5
1
2
2
-
6
1
13
.
9
5
$
TI
E
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
N
A
V
Y
V
E
L
C
R
O
BR
O
O
M
E
4
5
0
9
5
-
6
1
13
.
9
5
$
TI
E
,
L
O
N
G
,
N
A
V
Y
V
E
L
C
R
O
BR
O
O
M
E
4
5
1
1
5
-
6
1
14
.
5
0
$
BO
O
T
S
BO
O
T
,
W
O
M
E
N
'
S
G
O
R
E
T
E
X
H
I
-
T
O
P
RO
C
K
Y
4
0
4
4
BO
O
T
,
M
E
N
'
S
G
O
R
E
T
E
X
H
I
-
T
O
P
L
U
G
S
O
L
E
RO
C
K
Y
8
0
3
2
BO
O
T
,
5
.
1
1
A
T
A
C
6
"
5.
1
1
1
2
0
0
2
B
L
K
85
.
7
5
$
BO
O
T
,
5
.
1
1
A
T
A
C
8
"
5.
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
B
L
K
92
.
5
0
$
BO
O
T
,
M
E
N
'
S
D
A
N
N
E
R
A
C
A
D
I
A
21
2
1
0
25
8
.
0
0
$
BO
O
T
,
L
O
W
T
O
P
TH
O
R
O
G
O
O
D
8
3
4
-
6
0
5
6
ME
N
'
S
S
H
O
E
B
L
A
C
K
RO
C
K
Y
2
0
2
5
TH
O
R
O
G
O
O
D
CL
E
R
K
S
MK
7
0
6
B
L
TH
O
R
O
G
O
O
D
CL
E
R
K
S
53
4
-
6
9
0
8
BO
D
Y
A
R
M
O
R
BA
L
L
I
S
T
I
C
V
E
S
T
,
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
A
N
K
VI
S
I
O
N
A
X
I
I
I
A
W
/
O
U
T
T
H
O
R
S
H
I
E
L
D
2
C
A
R
R
I
E
R
S
VI
S
I
O
N
A
X
I
I
I
A
2
C
A
R
N
O
T
H
O
R
89
6
.
0
0
$
DU
T
Y
G
E
A
R
HO
L
S
T
E
R
,
A
L
K
M
I
D
R
I
D
E
L
E
V
E
L
I
I
NO
L
I
G
H
T
63
6
0
-
2
1
9
1
2
8
.
8
0
$
DU
T
Y
B
E
L
T
B
W
,
2
.
2
5
AK
E
R
B
0
1
60
.
0
0
$
DU
T
Y
B
E
L
T
B
W
,
2
.
2
5
BI
A
N
C
H
I
7
9
5
0
59
.
0
0
$
AS
P
H
O
L
D
E
R
B
W
C
L
O
S
E
D
B
O
T
T
O
M
AK
E
R
5
5
2
F
O
R
2
1
/
2
6
29
.
7
5
$
AS
P
H
O
L
D
E
R
B
W
C
L
O
S
E
D
B
O
T
T
O
M
BI
A
N
C
H
I
7
9
1
2
-
2
4
0
2
2
23
.
9
9
$
KE
E
P
E
R
,
B
W
H
I
D
D
E
N
S
N
A
P
BI
A
N
C
H
I
7
9
0
6
13
.
7
5
$
MA
C
E
H
O
L
D
E
R
,
M
K
4
,
B
W
,
H
S
AK
E
R
5
7
0
H
34
.
7
5
$
MA
C
E
H
O
L
D
E
R
,
M
K
4
,
B
W
,
H
S
BI
A
N
C
H
I
7
9
0
7
-
2
2
0
9
9
30
.
2
5
$
CU
F
F
C
A
S
E
,
S
I
N
G
L
E
,
B
W
,
H
S
AK
E
R
5
0
8
H
37
.
0
0
$
CU
F
F
C
A
S
E
,
S
I
N
G
L
E
,
B
W
,
H
S
BI
A
N
C
H
I
7
9
0
0
-
2
3
1
0
1
28
.
7
5
$
KE
Y
H
O
L
D
E
R
AK
E
R
5
6
4
22
.
5
0
$
KE
Y
H
O
L
D
E
R
BI
A
N
C
H
I
7
9
1
6
-
2
2
1
1
9
21
.
0
0
$
DO
U
B
L
E
M
A
G
P
U
C
H
,
B
W
,
H
S
BI
A
N
C
H
I
7
9
0
2
-
0
2
-
2
5
3
4
1
35
.
5
0
$
DO
U
B
L
E
M
A
G
P
U
C
H
,
B
W
,
H
S
SA
F
A
R
I
L
A
N
D
7
7
-
7
6
-
4
H
S
35
.
0
0
$
Packet Page 270 of 312
HA
N
D
C
U
F
F
S
PE
E
R
L
E
S
S
7
0
0
B
N
27
.
5
0
$
TA
C
T
I
C
A
L
B
A
T
O
N
F
-
2
1
B
AS
P
5
2
4
1
1
84
.
0
0
$
TA
C
T
I
C
A
L
B
A
T
O
N
F
-
2
6
AS
P
5
3
6
1
1
88
.
5
0
$
GE
A
R
B
A
G
HW
I
D
B
1
0
0
49
.
0
0
$
HI
V
I
S
S
A
F
E
T
Y
V
E
S
T
W
/
P
O
L
I
C
E
F
R
O
N
T
A
N
D
B
A
C
K
HS
3
3
3
7
39
.
0
0
$
CO
L
L
A
R
B
R
A
S
S
,
E
.
P
.
1
/
2
"
R
H
O
D
I
U
M
CW
N
I
E
L
S
E
N
15
.
0
0
$
CO
L
L
A
R
B
R
A
S
S
,
E
.
P
.
1
/
2
"
G
O
L
D
CW
N
I
E
L
S
E
N
15
.
0
0
$
TI
E
B
A
R
,
W
/
S
E
A
L
A
N
D
E
P
R
H
O
D
I
U
M
CW
N
I
E
L
S
E
N
TI
E
B
A
R
,
W
/
S
E
A
L
A
N
D
E
P
G
O
L
D
CW
N
I
E
L
S
E
N
SE
T
O
F
B
U
T
T
O
N
W
/
W
A
S
H
E
R
S
,
T
O
G
G
S
I
L
V
E
R
WA
T
E
R
B
U
R
Y
SE
T
O
F
B
U
T
T
O
N
W
/
W
A
S
H
E
R
S
,
T
O
G
G
G
O
L
D
WA
T
E
R
B
U
R
Y
CH
E
V
R
O
N
S
,
S
G
T
,
P
A
I
R
4.00
$
CH
E
V
R
O
N
S
,
C
O
R
P
,
P
A
I
R
4.00
$
SE
R
V
I
C
E
B
A
R
S
1.00
$
EACH
ME
T
A
L
N
A
M
E
T
A
G
S
N8
S
L
V
R
O
R
G
O
L
D
14
.
9
5
$
EM
B
N
T
A
G
,
J
K
T
,
(
F
.
M
.
L
A
S
T
)
8.00
$
EM
B
N
T
A
G
,
S
H
I
R
T
,
(
F
.
M
.
L
A
S
T
)
8.00
$
PR
I
N
T
P
A
N
E
L
,
P
O
L
I
C
E
,
R
E
F
L
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
I
L
V
E
R
18
.
0
0
$
AC
A
D
E
M
Y
HA
N
E
S
T
-
S
H
I
R
T
51
8
0
6
.
2
5
$
8
.
2
5
$
LA
S
T
N
A
M
E
O
N
S
H
I
R
T
GR
A
Y
S
W
E
A
T
S
H
I
R
T
JE
R
Z
E
E
S
5
6
2
M
12
.
5
0
$
13.25 $
LA
S
T
N
A
M
E
O
N
S
W
E
A
T
S
H
I
R
T
GR
A
Y
S
W
E
A
T
P
A
N
T
S
JE
R
Z
E
E
9
7
3
M
14
.
2
5
$
15.95 $
PA
N
T
S
,
N
A
V
Y
U
N
I
F
O
R
M
6
5
/
3
5
RE
D
K
A
P
5
P
5
6
T
0
0
BL
U
E
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
P
A
N
T
S
5.
1
1
7
4
0
0
4
-
7
2
4
44
.
5
0
$
BL
U
E
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
P
A
N
T
S
,
R
I
P
S
T
O
P
5.
1
1
7
4
0
0
3
-
7
2
4
47
.
2
5
$
PA
N
T
S
,
C
A
R
G
O
B
D
U
PR
O
P
P
E
R
F
5
2
0
1
31
.
5
0
$
AC
A
D
E
M
Y
S
H
I
R
T
,
S
/
S
WI
T
H
S
E
W
N
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
S
RE
D
K
A
P
S
T
6
2
N
V
20
.
5
0
$
AC
A
D
E
M
Y
S
H
O
R
T
S
SP
O
R
T
T
E
K
S
T
3
1
0
15
.
2
5
$
L/
S
T
A
C
T
I
C
A
L
G
E
A
R
S
H
I
R
T
SP
O
R
T
T
E
X
-
T
4
7
3
L
S
15
.
9
9
$
16.99 $ Packet Page 271 of 312
TR
A
F
F
I
C
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
PI
C
K
E
T
T
1
8
6
1
9.95
$
GR
A
V
I
T
Y
G
R
I
P
H
A
N
D
T
R
A
I
N
E
R
GR
A
V
I
T
Y
G
R
I
P
P
MO
U
T
H
P
I
E
C
E
BA
S
E
B
A
L
L
H
A
T
W
/
E
M
B
E
P
58
5
28
.
0
0
$
EL
B
O
W
G
U
A
R
D
HA
T
C
H
N
E
3
5
15
.
0
0
$
KN
E
E
G
U
A
R
D
HA
T
C
H
N
E
4
5
32
.
0
0
$
AL
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
WA
I
S
T
A
D
J
U
S
T
M
E
N
T
18
.
0
0
$
AL
T
E
R
R
I
S
E
18
.
0
0
$
SH
O
R
T
E
N
S
L
E
E
V
E
12
.
0
0
$
SE
W
O
N
E
M
B
L
E
M
IN
C
L
U
D
E
D
W
I
T
H
G
A
R
M
E
N
T
5.00
$
SE
W
O
N
B
A
D
G
E
IN
C
L
U
D
E
D
W
I
T
H
G
A
R
M
E
N
T
5.00
$
SE
W
O
N
N
A
M
E
IN
C
L
U
D
E
D
W
I
T
H
G
A
R
M
E
N
T
5.00
$
SE
W
O
N
C
H
E
V
R
O
N
S
,
P
A
I
R
IN
C
L
U
D
E
D
W
I
T
H
G
A
R
M
E
N
T
5.00
$
SE
W
O
N
B
U
T
T
O
N
S
5.00
$
TA
P
E
R
S
I
D
E
S
O
F
S
H
I
R
T
18
.
0
0
$
SE
W
O
N
P
O
L
I
C
E
P
A
N
E
L
5.00
$
SE
W
O
N
V
E
L
C
R
O
O
N
B
A
C
K
O
F
E
M
B
L
E
M
5.00
$
EM
B
R
O
I
D
E
R
N
A
M
E
8.00
$
SE
W
O
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
T
R
I
P
E
S
IN
C
L
U
D
E
D
W
I
T
H
G
A
R
M
E
N
T
5.00
$
RE
M
O
V
E
E
M
B
L
E
M
S
,
P
A
I
R
5.00
$
Packet Page 272 of 312
KR
O
E
S
E
N
'
S
U
N
I
F
O
R
M
L
I
S
T
-
U
P
D
A
T
E
D
P
R
I
C
I
N
G
It
e
m
Mo
d
e
l
Kr
o
e
s
e
n
'
s
20
1
5
.
0
0
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
/
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
D
i
s
c
%
P
r
i
c
e
L
i
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Sh
i
r
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
S
h
o
r
t
S
l
e
e
v
e
d
F
/
C
7
4
6
R
9
2
2
6
69
.
5
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Sh
i
r
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
d
F
/
C
4
1
4
W
9
2
2
6
7
92
.
5
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
W
o
o
l
s
/
s
d
a
r
k
n
a
v
y
UD
7
0
r
9
5
8
6
72
.
5
0
M
a
t
c
h
e
s
3
2
2
8
9
p
a
n
t
s
W
o
o
l
l
/
s
s
h
i
r
t
UD
2
0
W
9
5
8
6
61
.
2
5
M
a
t
c
h
e
s
3
2
2
8
9
p
a
n
t
s
Sh
i
r
t
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
(
F
.
M
,
.
L
a
s
t
)
3
/
4
"
x
3
"
c
l
o
t
h
4.
7
5
4.
9
5
Sh
i
r
t
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
(
F
.
M
,
.
L
a
s
t
)
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
i
l
v
e
r
5.
9
5
w
/
m
y
l
a
r
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
Se
w
o
n
e
m
b
l
e
m
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
NC
2.
0
0
Se
w
o
n
b
a
d
g
e
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
Se
w
o
n
n
a
m
e
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
Se
w
o
n
c
h
e
v
r
o
n
s
,
p
e
r
p
a
i
r
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
p
r
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
Se
w
o
n
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
NC
2.
0
0
Se
w
o
n
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
1.
0
0
0.
7
5
Re
m
o
v
e
e
m
b
l
e
m
s
,
p
e
r
p
a
i
r
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
Tu
r
t
l
e
n
e
c
k
s
h
i
r
t
s
,
n
a
v
y
B
l
a
u
e
r
8
1
0
0
X
29
.
5
0
25
.
0
0
Mo
c
k
t
u
r
t
l
e
n
e
c
k
s
h
i
r
t
s
,
n
a
v
y
B
l
a
u
e
r
8
1
0
0
X
29
.
5
0
25
.
0
0
B
l
a
u
e
r
8
1
1
0
X
Sh
i
r
t
,
s
h
o
r
t
s
l
e
e
v
e
,
m
e
d
b
l
u
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
49
.
5
0
44
.
0
0
95
R
6
6
2
5
Sh
i
r
t
,
s
h
o
r
t
s
l
e
e
v
e
,
w
h
i
t
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
37
.
5
0
35
.
0
0
65
R
5
4
0
0
Sh
i
r
t
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
,
w
h
i
t
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
39
.
5
0
37
.
0
0
15
W
5
4
0
0
Sh
i
r
t
,
B
D
U
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
P
r
o
p
p
e
r
5
4
5
2
32
.
5
0
27
.
8
6
Kr
o
s
e
n
'
s
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
h
a
r
g
e
t
o
a
p
p
l
y
o
u
r
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
t
o
n
e
w
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
*
*
W
I
L
L
N
O
W
C
H
A
R
G
E
$
2
.
0
0
U
N
D
E
R
N
E
W
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
Kr
o
e
s
e
n
'
s
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
h
a
r
g
e
t
o
a
p
p
l
y
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
m
Kr
e
o
s
e
n
'
s
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
h
a
r
g
t
o
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
o
l
d
e
m
b
l
e
m
s
w
h
e
n
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
Packet Page 273 of 312
Pa
n
t
s
,
M
e
n
'
s
w
o
o
l
n
a
v
y
S
P
D
m
o
d
3
2
2
8
9
14
0
.
0
0
99
.
0
0
st
y
l
e
O
/
S
Pa
n
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
w
o
o
l
n
a
v
y
S
P
D
m
o
d
3
2
2
8
9
12
5
.
0
0
90
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
d
a
c
r
o
n
w
o
o
l
S
P
D
B
l
a
u
e
r
8
5
6
1
P
7
89
.
5
0
85
.
5
0
Pa
n
t
,
W
o
m
e
n
'
s
w
o
o
l
n
a
v
y
S
P
D
m
o
d
3
5
2
8
9
13
0
.
0
0
90
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
,
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
A
,
F
e
c
h
h
e
i
m
e
r
4
4
9
0
0
1
0
2
.
5
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
84
.
0
0
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
s
t
y
l
e
#
4
7
6
8
0
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
n
t
w
/
N
i
n
j
a
P
o
c
k
e
t
N/
A
N/
A
Co
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
S
u
m
m
e
r
W
e
i
g
h
t
P
t
N/
A
N/
A
Pa
n
t
,
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
A
,
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
C
o
.
8
6
5
0
4
2
.
0
0
42
.
0
0
Ra
i
n
P
a
n
t
s
48
0
5
7
-
1
9
99
.
9
9
93
.
0
0
5.
1
1
T
D
U
P
/
C
R
i
p
p
a
n
t
s
7
4
0
0
3
-
0
1
9
44
.
9
9
44
.
0
0
5.
1
1
T
D
P
R
i
p
S
h
i
r
t
l
/
s
72
0
0
2
-
0
1
9
54
.
9
9
47
.
0
0
Ju
m
p
s
u
i
t
N/
A
Na
m
e
t
a
g
Pa
t
c
h
e
s
Ba
d
g
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
r
i
p
e
s
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
s
Sl
e
e
v
e
l
e
s
s
S
w
e
a
t
e
r
v
e
s
t
S
A
I
6
6
0
0
24
.
5
0
21
.
0
0
U
P
T
O
X
L
24
.
0
0
2
X
L
A
N
D
U
P
Pa
t
r
o
l
D
u
t
y
J
a
c
k
e
t
JP
D
0
7
N/
A
5
i
n
1
J
a
c
k
e
t
(
B
a
s
i
c
C
h
a
r
g
e
)
5
.
1
1
4
8
0
1
7
-
7
2
4
2
4
9
.
9
9
22
4
.
0
0
BU
C
P
a
t
r
o
l
J
a
c
k
e
t
(
B
a
s
i
c
C
h
g
)
P
J
4
0
0
N/
A
Ja
c
k
e
t
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
(
F
.
M
.
L
a
s
t
)
1
"
x
5
"
c
l
o
t
h
6.
5
0
6.
5
0
Re
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
P
a
n
e
l
H
e
r
o
e
s
p
r
i
d
e
7.
5
0
7.
0
0
Ha
t
,
L
A
P
D
s
t
y
l
e
i
n
c
r
a
i
n
c
o
v
e
r
M
i
d
w
a
y
L
A
P
D
55
.
5
0
56
.
0
0
an
d
c
a
p
s
t
r
a
p
Ca
p
c
o
v
e
r
,
b
l
a
c
k
n
y
l
o
n
Bl
a
u
e
r
1
0
1
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
Packet Page 274 of 312
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
c
a
p
w
/
e
m
b
r
o
i
d
e
r
16
.
8
0
R
i
c
h
a
r
d
s
o
n
5
8
5
E
m
b
r
o
i
d
e
r
"
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
o
l
i
c
e
"
Em
b
r
o
i
d
e
r
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
Ca
p
s
t
r
a
p
,
s
n
a
k
e
s
t
y
l
e
s
i
l
v
e
r
E
i
s
m
a
n
L
u
d
m
a
r
7.
5
0
6.
5
0
Ca
p
s
t
r
a
p
,
s
n
a
k
e
s
t
y
l
e
g
o
l
d
E
i
s
m
a
n
L
u
d
m
a
r
7.
5
0
6.
5
0
W
a
t
c
h
c
a
p
na
v
y
/
g
o
l
d
13
.
9
5
Ti
e
,
w
o
m
e
n
'
s
c
l
i
p
o
n
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
5
5
-
6
1
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
Ti
e
,
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
n
a
v
y
c
l
i
p
o
n
B
r
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
1
5
-
6
1
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
Ti
e
,
L
o
n
g
n
a
v
y
c
l
i
p
o
n
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
4
5
-
6
1
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
Ti
e
,
w
o
m
e
n
'
s
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
B
r
o
o
m
e
4
5
1
2
2
-
6
1
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
Ti
e
,
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
B
r
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
9
5
-
6
1
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
Ti
e
,
L
o
n
g
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
1
1
5
-
6
1
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
Ti
e
,
L
o
n
g
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
1
3
5
-
6
1
7.
0
0
Bo
o
t
s
,
A
c
a
d
i
a
21
2
1
0
W
S
P
24
3
.
6
0
Bo
o
t
s
,
B
l
a
c
k
h
a
w
k
I
I
Da
n
n
e
r
2
4
6
0
0
22
9
.
0
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
23
5
.
2
0
D
a
n
n
e
r
P
a
t
r
o
l
#
2
5
2
0
0
Bo
o
t
,
W
o
m
e
n
'
s
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
h
i
-
t
o
p
R
o
c
k
y
4
0
4
4
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
11
2
.
0
0
R
o
c
k
y
#
4
0
9
0
Bo
o
t
,
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
h
i
t
o
p
l
u
g
s
o
l
e
R
o
c
k
y
8
0
3
2
1
4
7
.
5
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
18
3
.
4
0
R
o
c
k
y
#
8
1
3
2
1
Bo
o
t
,
5
.
1
1
A
T
A
C
6
"
5
.
1
1
1
2
0
0
2
-
B
L
K
86
.
0
0
84
.
0
0
Bo
o
t
,
5
.
1
1
A
T
A
C
8
"
5.
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
-
B
L
K
95
.
0
0
91
.
0
0
Bo
o
t
,
S
t
r
i
k
e
r
8
"
,
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
D
a
n
n
e
r
4
2
9
8
0
14
5
.
0
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
17
0
.
8
0
D
a
n
n
e
r
S
t
r
i
k
e
r
#
4
3
0
0
3
Bo
o
t
,
8
"
S
t
i
k
e
r
I
I
G
T
X
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
13
0
.
2
0
D
a
n
n
e
r
K
i
n
e
t
i
c
#
2
8
0
1
0
Bo
o
t
,
A
T
A
C
8
"
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
o
f
1
2
0
0
4
-
0
1
9
12
9
.
9
9
11
9
.
0
0
Bo
o
t
,
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
c
r
o
s
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
r
D
a
n
n
e
r
4
2
9
0
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
13
4
.
4
0
D
a
n
n
e
r
S
t
r
i
k
e
r
#
4
3
0
2
7
Bo
o
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
n
y
l
o
n
/
l
t
r
/
A
c
a
d
i
a
D
a
n
n
e
r
2
1
2
1
0
22
9
.
0
0
24
3
.
6
0
Sw
a
t
M
e
t
r
o
A
i
r
9
"
w
/
s
i
d
e
z
i
p
O
S
W
A
T
1
2
3
4
0
1
87
.
3
3
Sw
a
t
M
e
t
r
o
A
i
r
5
"
w
/
s
i
d
e
z
i
p
O
S
W
A
T
1
2
6
1
0
1
71
.
8
4
Sh
o
e
,
l
o
t
o
p
Th
o
r
o
g
o
o
d
8
3
4
-
6
0
5
6
1
1
5
.
5
0
10
9
.
2
0
Me
n
'
s
s
h
o
e
B
l
a
c
k
Ro
c
k
y
2
0
2
5
93
.
0
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
10
5
.
0
0
R
o
c
k
y
#
5
0
0
0
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
w
/
2
v
i
s
i
o
n
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
A
l
p
h
a
E
l
i
t
e
I
I
I
A
Do
n
o
t
c
a
r
r
y
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
w
/
1
v
i
s
i
o
n
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
A
l
p
h
a
E
l
i
t
e
I
I
I
A
Do
n
o
t
c
a
r
r
y
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
B
A
-
3
A
0
0
S
-
S
M
0
1
N
A
7
6
5
.
0
0
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
B
A
-
2
0
0
0
S
-
S
M
0
1
NA
83
5
.
0
0
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
3
A
S
M
0
2
83
5
.
0
0
2
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
2
S
M
0
2
79
0
.
0
0
2
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
3
A
S
M
0
2
76
0
.
0
0
1
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
2
S
M
0
2
72
5
.
0
0
1
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
Packet Page 275 of 312
AB
A
X
t
r
e
m
e
XT
0
2
3
A
69
1
.
0
0
2
m
e
n
s
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
AB
A
X
t
r
e
m
e
XT
0
2
3
A
69
1
.
0
0
2
f
e
m
a
l
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
Ho
l
s
t
e
r
,
A
L
S
m
i
d
r
i
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
I
I
6
2
8
0
-
2
1
9
16
0
.
0
0
91
.
6
3
B
W
S
T
X
Sa
f
a
r
i
l
a
n
d
D
u
t
y
H
o
l
s
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
I
I
I
6
3
6
0
-
2
1
9
11
3
.
1
9
B
W
S
T
X
Du
t
y
B
e
l
t
B
W
2
1
/
4
Ak
e
r
B
0
1
54
.
5
0
54
.
5
0
Du
t
y
B
e
l
t
B
W
2
1
/
4
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
5
0
52
.
5
0
45
.
3
3
Be
l
t
,
B
l
a
c
k
B
W
1
3
/
4
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
6
6
0
5
16
.
9
0
17
.
0
0
#
7
0
5
0
Be
l
t
,
B
l
a
c
k
B
W
1
1
/
2
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
6
6
0
6
17
.
0
0
#
6
0
5
0
Li
n
e
r
B
e
l
t
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
21
.
3
5
#
7
2
0
5
AS
P
H
o
l
d
e
r
B
W
c
l
o
s
e
d
b
o
t
t
o
m
A
k
e
r
5
5
2
f
o
r
2
1
/
2
6
2
8
.
5
0
26
.
3
0
AS
P
H
o
l
d
e
r
B
W
c
l
o
s
e
d
b
o
t
t
o
m
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
1
2
-
2
4
0
2
2
o
r
4
5
.
5
0
20
.
6
5
Ra
d
i
o
H
o
l
d
e
r
W
/
S
w
i
v
e
l
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
45
.
1
5
Ke
e
p
e
r
,
B
W
h
i
d
d
e
n
s
n
a
p
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
6
14
.
5
0
11
.
9
0
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
#
7
0
5
0
Be
l
t
K
e
e
p
e
r
s
/
D
R
i
n
g
/
4
p
k
27
.
5
0
K
&
W
5
3
5
O
B
K
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
H
a
r
n
e
s
s
15
.
9
5
k
&
W
0
3
5
O
B
K
Ma
c
e
H
o
l
d
e
r
M
K
4
B
W
H
S
A
k
e
r
5
7
0
30
.
5
0
30
.
5
0
Ma
c
e
H
o
l
d
e
r
M
K
4
B
W
H
S
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
7
28
.
5
0
23
.
2
8
Ma
c
e
P
o
u
c
h
,
s
m
a
l
l
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
23
.
2
8
#
7
9
0
7
Cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
s
i
n
g
l
e
B
W
H
S
A
k
e
r
5
0
8
32
.
5
0
31
.
6
4
Cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
s
i
n
g
l
e
B
W
H
S
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
0
28
.
5
0
24
.
1
5
Cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
d
o
u
b
l
e
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
29
.
2
3
#
7
9
1
7
Cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
d
o
u
b
l
e
,
W
/
H
S
29
.
2
3
#
7
9
1
7
Ke
y
h
o
l
d
e
r
Ak
e
r
5
6
4
20
.
0
0
19
.
9
5
Ke
y
h
o
l
d
e
r
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
1
6
21
.
5
0
18
.
3
8
Do
u
b
l
e
m
a
g
p
o
u
c
h
B
W
H
S
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
2
38
.
5
0
32
.
2
0
Do
u
b
l
e
m
a
g
p
o
u
c
h
B
W
H
S
S
a
f
7
7
-
7
6
-
4
H
S
39
.
5
0
31
.
6
8
Ha
n
d
c
u
f
f
s
65
0
1
28
.
5
0
25
.
3
4
P
e
e
r
l
e
s
s
7
0
0
Ex
p
a
n
d
a
b
l
e
B
a
t
o
n
H
o
l
d
e
r
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
20
.
6
5
#
7
9
1
2
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
B
a
t
o
n
F
-
2
1
B
AS
P
5
2
4
1
1
84
.
5
0
88
.
2
7
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
B
a
t
o
n
F
-
2
6
AS
P
5
3
6
1
1
87
.
5
0
92
.
8
2
Ge
a
r
B
a
g
Pr
e
m
i
e
r
P
B
G
-
0
8
1
53
.
5
0
35
.
9
5
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
P
a
t
r
o
l
B
a
g
49
.
0
0
5
.
1
1
#
5
9
0
1
2
Hi
V
i
s
S
a
f
e
t
y
V
e
s
t
Bl
a
u
e
r
3
3
9
P
49
.
5
0
44
.
0
0
Si
d
e
b
r
e
a
k
A
S
P
B
a
t
o
n
C
a
s
e
5
2
4
3
3
-
B
W
36
.
4
0
Fl
a
s
h
l
i
g
h
t
r
i
n
g
B
W
7.
0
0
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
#
7
9
0
9
Le
t
t
e
r
s
E
.
P
.
1
/
2
"
R
h
o
d
i
u
m
E
m
b
E
n
t
15
.
9
0
14
.
0
0
Packet Page 276 of 312
Le
t
t
e
r
s
E
.
P
.
1
/
2
"
G
o
l
d
Em
b
E
n
t
15
.
9
0
14
.
0
0
Ti
e
b
a
r
w
/
s
e
a
l
&
E
P
R
h
o
d
i
u
m
C
.
W
.
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
16
.
3
0
13
.
9
5
Ti
e
b
a
r
w
/
s
e
a
l
&
E
P
G
o
l
d
C
.
W
.
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
16
.
3
0
13
.
9
5
Se
t
o
f
b
t
n
s
w
/
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
,
t
o
g
g
-
s
i
l
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
10
.
5
0
10
.
5
0
Se
t
o
f
b
t
n
s
w
/
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
,
t
o
g
g
g
o
l
d
W
a
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
10
.
5
0
10
.
5
0
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
s
,
s
g
t
,
p
r
Em
b
l
e
m
E
n
t
5
4
2
5
S
3
.
0
0
2.
5
0
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
s
,
c
o
r
p
,
p
r
Em
b
l
e
m
E
n
t
5
4
2
5
C
3
.
0
0
2.
5
0
Se
r
v
i
c
e
b
a
r
s
Em
b
l
e
m
E
n
t
5
3
9
6
0.
7
5
0.
5
6
In
s
i
g
n
i
a
5
/
8
"
2
s
t
a
r
(
c
o
l
l
a
r
)
M
/
2
0
9
2
A
-
G
F
8.
7
5
In
s
i
g
n
i
a
1
"
2
-
s
t
a
r
s
J1
0
1
s
m
o
o
t
h
10
.
2
9
Me
t
a
l
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
s
N8
s
l
v
r
o
r
g
o
l
d
15
.
0
0
15
.
0
0
Sh
i
r
t
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
d
,
m
e
d
b
l
u
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
55
.
9
0
52
.
1
5
(
a
n
i
m
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
)
45
W
6
6
2
5
Pa
n
t
,
p
o
l
y
/
w
o
o
l
/
p
l
e
a
t
e
d
F
e
c
h
h
e
i
m
e
r
3
2
2
3
1
4
9
.
5
0
46
.
5
5
AC
A
D
E
M
Y
Ha
n
e
s
T
-
s
h
i
r
t
Ha
n
e
s
T
5
1
8
0
4.
5
0
17
.
5
0
w
/
n
a
m
e
La
s
t
n
a
m
e
o
n
s
h
i
r
t
Gr
a
y
s
w
e
a
t
s
h
i
r
t
Je
r
z
e
e
s
5
6
2
M
B
i
r
c
h
1
0
.
5
0
22
.
0
0
w
/
n
a
m
e
La
s
t
n
a
m
e
o
n
s
w
e
a
t
s
h
i
r
t
Gr
a
y
s
w
e
a
t
p
a
n
t
s
Je
r
z
e
e
s
9
7
3
M
B
i
r
c
h
1
3
.
0
0
14
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
s
,
n
a
v
y
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
6
5
%
/
3
5
%
B
i
g
B
e
n
P
T
6
2
N
V
20
.
5
0
24
.
0
0
Bl
u
e
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
p
a
n
t
s
51
1
-
7
4
0
0
4
-
7
2
4
44
.
9
9
44
.
0
0
Bl
u
e
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
p
a
n
t
s
-
r
i
p
p
a
n
t
s
5
1
1
-
7
4
0
0
3
-
7
2
4
44
.
0
0
44
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
s
.
C
a
r
g
o
/
B
D
U
Po
p
p
e
r
F
5
2
0
1
32
.
5
0
22
.
2
6
Ac
a
d
e
m
y
s
h
i
r
t
s
/
s
Bi
g
B
e
n
S
T
6
2
N
V
31
.
0
0
25
.
5
0
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
Ac
a
d
e
m
y
s
h
o
r
t
s
Sp
o
r
t
T
e
l
S
T
3
1
0
12
.
0
0
13
.
0
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
t
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
11
8
6
I
9.
5
0
9.
9
5
Gr
a
v
i
t
y
g
r
i
p
h
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
e
r
G
r
a
v
i
t
y
G
r
i
p
p
N/
A
Mo
u
t
h
p
i
e
c
e
Mo
u
t
h
p
i
e
c
e
NA
1.
2
5
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
h
a
t
w
/
e
m
b
E
P
19
.
9
5
16
.
8
0
L/
S
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
G
e
a
r
s
h
i
r
t
Un
d
e
r
A
r
m
o
r
1
2
0
1
0
8
5
2
8
.
0
0
Di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
14
.
9
8
S
a
n
M
a
r
El
b
o
w
G
u
a
r
d
Ha
t
c
h
N
E
3
5
15
.
0
0
11
.
0
0
Kn
e
e
G
u
a
r
d
Ha
t
c
h
N
E
4
5
32
.
0
0
24
.
0
0
Packet Page 277 of 312
Ap
p
l
y
H
e
a
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
9.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
W
a
i
s
t
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
(N
o
r
m
a
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$
1
0
.
0
0
)
10
.
0
0
10
.
0
0
Al
t
e
r
r
i
s
e
(N
o
r
m
a
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$
1
0
.
5
0
)
10
.
5
0
10
.
5
0
Sh
o
r
t
e
n
s
l
e
e
v
e
(N
o
r
m
a
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$
1
0
.
0
0
)
10
.
0
0
10
.
0
0
Ta
p
e
r
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
s
h
i
r
t
10
.
0
0
10
.
0
0
Se
w
o
n
P
o
l
i
c
e
P
a
n
e
l
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
Se
w
v
e
l
c
r
o
o
n
b
a
c
k
o
f
e
m
b
l
e
m
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
He
a
t
s
t
a
m
p
1
l
i
n
e
1
s
i
d
e
7.
5
0
6.
2
5
CL
E
R
K
S
Sh
i
r
t
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
d
,
m
e
d
b
l
u
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
37
.
5
0
37
.
5
0
13
9
R
5
4
2
5
Po
l
o
s
h
i
r
t
,
b
l
u
e
b
e
r
r
y
Sa
n
m
a
r
L
4
4
7
21
.
0
0
21
.
0
0
Po
l
o
s
h
i
r
t
3
/
4
s
l
e
e
v
e
Co
l
b
a
l
t
B
l
u
e
L
8
0
1
22
.
5
0
2
5
.
5
0
3
x
l
22
.
5
0
Po
l
o
s
h
i
r
t
s
/
s
Co
l
b
a
l
t
B
l
u
e
L
8
0
0
20
.
5
0
2
3
.
5
0
3
x
l
20
.
5
0
Em
b
r
o
i
d
e
r
n
a
m
e
8.
9
0
8.
9
0
Pa
n
t
,
p
o
l
y
/
w
o
o
l
/
p
l
e
a
t
e
d
8
6
5
9
-
1
0
42
.
0
0
42
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
,
5
1
1
-
t
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
34
0
7
I
T
-
0
1
9
46
.
2
0
Pa
n
t
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
#
8
5
6
7
24
.
5
0
24
.
5
0
Pa
n
t
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
#
8
5
6
8
31
.
0
0
31
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
#
8
5
7
2
43
.
9
0
43
.
9
0
Pa
n
t
,
p
o
l
y
/
c
o
t
t
o
n
/
n
o
p
l
e
a
t
s
8
5
7
6
-
0
1
0
-
1
2
26
.
9
5
26
.
9
5
Pa
n
t
,
5
1
1
t
w
i
l
l
P
D
U
A
C
l
a
s
s
M
o
d
e
l
#
6
4
3
0
4
51
.
9
9
51
.
9
9
Bl
a
c
k
M
i
c
r
o
F
l
e
e
c
e
J
a
c
k
e
t
L
2
2
3
22
.
5
0
2
5
.
5
0
3
x
l
22
.
5
0
Bl
a
c
k
/
C
h
r
o
m
e
J
a
c
k
e
t
L7
9
0
s
o
f
t
s
h
e
l
l
46
.
9
9
4
9
.
9
9
3
x
l
46
.
9
9
Ca
r
d
i
g
a
n
S
w
e
a
t
e
r
SA
I
6
3
0
0
36
.
5
0
36
.
5
0
Po
r
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
J
a
c
k
e
t
l2
2
2
B
l
a
c
k
42
.
5
0
42
.
5
0
Be
l
t
60
5
0
-
0
1
17
.
9
0
17
.
0
0
Ne
w
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
MK
7
0
6
B
L
62
.
5
0
Ne
w
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
W
K
7
0
6
B
L
62
.
5
0
Th
o
r
o
g
o
o
d
53
4
-
6
9
0
8
10
0
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
Pr
o
p
e
t
s
h
o
e
s
Ma
x
i
G
r
i
p
W
S
R
0
0
3
6
2
.
5
0
62
.
5
0
Packet Page 278 of 312
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
T
E
M
S
F
O
R
2
0
1
5
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
Bl
a
u
e
r
S
u
p
e
r
s
h
i
r
t
P
o
l
y
W
o
o
l
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
s
/
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
B
e
l
l
e
v
u
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
A
Ca
r
g
o
p
a
n
t
85
6
5
76
.
0
0
Dr
e
s
s
p
a
n
t
85
6
1
p
6
82
.
0
0
No
n
c
a
r
g
o
p
a
n
t
85
6
0
72
.
0
0
L/
S
s
h
i
r
t
84
3
6
68
.
0
0
S/
S
s
h
i
r
t
84
4
6
60
.
0
0
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
P
a
t
r
o
l
t
e
k
L
e
a
t
h
e
r
G
e
a
r
Do
u
b
l
e
M
a
g
20
C
23
.
8
0
Tr
i
p
l
e
M
a
g
29
23
.
8
0
Ke
y
w
i
t
h
f
l
a
p
31
12
.
6
0
Co
v
e
r
e
d
k
e
y
h
o
l
d
e
r
31
C
17
.
5
0
As
p
H
o
l
d
e
r
32
A
16
.
8
0
Ba
t
o
n
r
i
n
g
32
P
10
.
5
0
Be
l
t
k
e
e
p
e
r
s
33
15
.
4
0
Ha
n
d
c
u
f
f
c
a
s
e
35
P
21
.
0
0
OC
h
o
l
d
e
r
36
A
23
.
8
0
La
r
g
e
F
L
h
o
l
d
e
r
37
B
L
10
.
5
0
Mi
n
i
F
L
h
o
l
d
e
r
37
M
12
.
6
0
Co
m
p
a
c
t
F
L
h
o
l
d
e
r
37
S
12
.
6
0
Sa
m
B
r
o
w
n
B
e
l
t
B2
38
.
5
0
Packet Page 279 of 312
It
e
m
Mo
d
e
l
Bl
u
m
e
n
t
h
a
l
De
p
t
U
s
i
n
g
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
D
i
s
c
%
I
t
e
m
Sh
i
r
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
S
h
o
r
t
S
l
e
e
v
e
d
E
l
b
e
c
o
7
4
0
8
Z
67
.
9
5
2
.
4
%
Sh
i
r
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
d
E
l
b
e
c
o
7
4
8
0
Z
89
.
9
5
2
.
1
%
Sh
i
r
t
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
(
F
.
M
,
.
L
a
s
t
)
2
2
B
B
w
h
t
o
r
g
l
d
l
t
r
s
4.
9
5
2
8
.
7
%
Sh
i
r
t
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
(
F
.
M
,
.
L
a
s
t
)
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
i
l
v
e
r
Se
w
o
n
e
m
b
l
e
m
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
N/
C
6
0
%
Se
w
o
n
b
a
d
g
e
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
1.
0
0
6
0
%
Se
w
o
n
n
a
m
e
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
1.
0
0
Se
w
o
n
c
h
e
v
r
o
n
s
,
p
e
r
p
a
i
r
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
p
r
2.
5
0
Se
w
o
n
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
NC
Se
w
o
n
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
O
G
$
2
.
5
0
1.
0
0
Re
m
o
v
e
e
m
b
l
e
m
s
,
p
e
r
p
a
i
r
2.
5
0
Tu
r
t
l
e
n
e
c
k
s
h
i
r
t
s
,
n
a
v
y
7
7
0
0
22
.
5
0
1
6
.
5
%
Mo
c
k
t
u
r
t
l
e
n
e
c
k
s
h
i
r
t
s
,
n
a
v
y
8
6
0
0
22
.
5
0
Sh
i
r
t
,
s
h
o
r
t
s
l
e
e
v
e
,
m
e
d
b
l
u
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
45
.
5
0
95
R
6
6
2
5
Sh
i
r
t
,
s
h
o
r
t
s
l
e
e
v
e
,
w
h
i
t
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
25
.
0
0
65
R
5
4
0
0
Sh
i
r
t
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
,
w
h
i
t
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
33
.
0
0
2
4
.
9
%
15
W
5
4
0
0
Sh
i
r
t
,
B
D
U
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
P
r
o
p
p
e
r
5
4
5
2
29
.
9
5
Packet Page 280 of 312
Pa
n
t
s
,
M
e
n
'
s
w
o
o
l
n
a
v
y
S
P
D
F
e
c
h
h
e
i
m
e
r
1
3
0
5
7
O
/
S
1
0
8
.
0
0
6
%
st
y
l
e
O
/
S
Pa
n
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
w
o
o
l
n
a
v
y
S
P
D
F
e
c
h
h
e
i
m
e
r
1
3
5
0
7
1
0
8
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
d
a
c
r
o
n
w
o
o
l
S
P
D
F
e
c
h
h
e
i
m
e
r
3
2
2
2
0
N/
C
Pa
n
t
,
W
o
m
e
n
'
s
w
o
o
l
n
a
v
y
S
P
D
F
e
c
h
h
e
i
m
e
r
1
3
5
0
7
W
1
0
8
.
0
0
Pa
n
t
,
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
A
,
5
.
1
1
4
4
0
6
0
T
N/
A
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
n
t
w
/
N
i
n
j
a
P
o
c
k
e
t
N/
A
Co
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
S
u
m
m
e
r
W
e
i
g
h
t
P
t
N/
A
Pa
n
t
,
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
A
,
N/
A
Ra
i
n
P
a
n
t
s
48
0
5
7
-
1
9
85
.
0
0
5.
1
1
T
D
U
P
/
C
R
i
p
p
a
n
t
s
7
4
0
0
3
-
0
1
9
42
.
5
0
5.
1
1
T
D
P
R
i
p
S
h
i
r
t
l
/
s
72
0
0
2
-
0
1
9
42
.
5
0
Ju
m
p
s
u
i
t
N/
A
Na
m
e
t
a
g
Pa
t
c
h
e
s
Ba
d
g
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
S
t
r
i
p
e
s
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
s
Sl
e
e
v
e
l
e
s
s
S
w
e
a
t
e
r
v
e
s
t
S
A
I
6
6
0
0
25
.
0
0
Pa
t
r
o
l
D
u
t
y
J
a
c
k
e
t
JP
D
0
7
N/
A
5
i
n
1
J
a
c
k
e
t
(
B
a
s
i
c
C
h
a
r
g
e
)
5
.
1
1
4
8
0
1
7
-
7
2
4
23
9
.
0
0
4
.
4
%
BU
C
P
a
t
r
o
l
J
a
c
k
e
t
(
B
a
s
i
c
C
h
g
)
P
J
4
0
0
40
0
.
0
0
Ja
c
k
e
t
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
(
F
.
M
.
L
a
s
t
)
1
3
D
N
D
N
w
h
t
l
t
r
s
/
4.
9
5
2
8
.
7
%
Re
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
P
a
n
e
l
X
1
4
4
0
3
8
B
(
1
0
1
7
0
)
8.
0
0
3
3
.
0
%
Packet Page 281 of 312
Ha
t
,
L
A
P
D
s
t
y
l
e
i
n
c
r
a
i
n
c
o
v
e
r
M
i
d
w
a
y
L
A
P
D
44
.
9
5
an
d
c
a
p
s
t
r
a
p
Ca
p
c
o
v
e
r
,
b
l
a
c
k
n
y
l
o
n
Ne
e
s
e
4
4
7
C
C
N
7.
9
5
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
c
a
p
w
/
e
m
b
r
o
i
d
e
r
11
.
9
5
1
4
.
3
%
E
m
b
r
o
i
d
e
r
"
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
o
l
i
c
e
"
10
.
0
0
1
6
.
6
%
Ca
p
s
t
r
a
p
,
s
n
a
k
e
s
t
y
l
e
s
i
l
v
e
r
C
a
d
e
t
7
-
4
5
0
9.
9
5
Ca
p
s
t
r
a
p
,
s
n
a
k
e
s
t
y
l
e
g
o
l
d
C
a
d
e
t
7
-
4
5
1
9.
9
5
W
a
t
c
h
c
a
p
na
v
y
/
g
o
l
d
9.
9
5
Ti
e
,
w
o
m
e
n
'
s
c
l
i
p
o
n
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
5
5
-
6
1
5.
1
4
Ti
e
,
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
n
a
v
y
c
l
i
p
o
n
B
r
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
1
5
-
6
1
5.
1
4
5
3
%
Ti
e
,
L
o
n
g
n
a
v
y
c
l
i
p
o
n
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
4
5
-
6
1
5.
1
4
5
3
%
Ti
e
,
w
o
m
e
n
'
s
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
B
r
o
o
m
e
4
5
1
2
2
-
6
1
6.
9
5
Ti
e
,
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
B
r
o
o
m
e
4
5
0
9
5
-
6
1
6.
9
5
Ti
e
,
L
o
n
g
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
1
1
5
-
6
1
6.
9
5
Ti
e
,
L
o
n
g
n
a
v
y
v
e
l
c
r
o
Br
o
o
m
e
4
5
1
3
5
-
6
1
6.
9
5
Bo
o
t
s
,
A
c
a
d
i
a
21
2
1
0
W
S
P
23
9
.
9
5
Bo
o
t
s
,
B
l
a
c
k
h
a
w
k
I
I
Da
n
n
e
r
2
4
6
0
0
26
2
.
9
5
Bo
o
t
,
W
o
m
e
n
'
s
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
h
i
-
t
o
p
R
o
c
k
y
4
0
4
4
Bo
o
t
,
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
h
i
t
o
p
l
u
g
s
o
l
e
R
o
c
k
y
8
0
3
2
Bo
o
t
,
5
.
1
1
A
T
A
C
6
"
5.
1
1
1
2
0
0
2
-
B
L
K
85
.
0
0
Bo
o
t
,
5
.
1
1
A
T
A
C
8
"
5.
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
-
B
L
K
87
.
9
5
Bo
o
t
,
S
t
r
i
k
e
r
8
"
,
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
D
a
n
n
e
r
4
2
9
8
0
16
9
.
9
5
Bo
o
t
,
8
"
S
t
i
k
e
r
I
I
G
T
X
Bo
o
t
,
A
T
A
C
8
"
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
o
f
1
2
0
0
4
-
0
1
9
11
5
.
0
0
Bo
o
t
,
G
o
r
e
t
e
x
c
r
o
s
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
r
D
a
n
n
e
r
4
2
9
0
0
13
3
.
9
0
Bo
o
t
,
M
e
n
'
s
n
y
l
o
n
/
l
t
r
/
A
c
a
d
i
a
D
a
n
n
e
r
2
1
2
1
0
23
9
.
9
5
9
.
4
%
Sw
a
t
M
e
t
r
o
A
i
r
9
"
w
/
s
i
d
e
z
i
p
O
S
W
A
T
Sw
a
t
M
e
t
r
o
A
i
r
5
"
w
/
s
i
d
e
z
i
p
O
S
W
A
T
Sh
o
e
,
l
o
t
o
p
Th
o
r
o
g
o
o
d
8
3
4
-
6
0
5
6
1
1
5
.
0
0
Me
n
'
s
s
h
o
e
B
l
a
c
k
Ro
c
k
y
2
0
2
5
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
w
/
2
v
i
s
i
o
n
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
A
l
p
h
a
E
l
i
t
e
I
I
I
A
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
w
/
1
v
i
s
i
o
n
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
A
l
p
h
a
E
l
i
t
e
I
I
I
A
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
B
A
-
3
A
0
0
S
-
S
M
0
1
80
0
.
0
0
Ba
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
V
e
s
t
,
2
n
d
C
h
a
n
c
e
B
A
-
2
0
0
0
S
-
S
M
0
1
72
5
.
0
0
Packet Page 282 of 312
Ho
l
s
t
e
r
,
A
L
S
m
i
d
r
i
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
I
I
6
3
6
0
-
2
1
9
12
0
.
0
0
Sa
f
a
r
i
l
a
n
d
D
u
t
y
H
o
l
s
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
I
I
I
Du
t
y
B
e
l
t
B
W
2
1
/
4
Ak
e
r
B
0
1
39
.
4
2
Du
t
y
B
e
l
t
B
W
2
1
/
4
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
5
0
49
.
9
5
Be
l
t
,
B
l
a
c
k
B
W
1
3
/
4
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
6
6
0
5
19
.
9
5
Be
l
t
,
B
l
a
c
k
B
W
1
1
/
2
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
6
6
0
6
19
.
9
5
Li
n
e
r
B
e
l
t
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
AS
P
H
o
l
d
e
r
B
W
c
l
o
s
e
d
b
o
t
t
o
m
A
k
e
r
5
5
2
f
o
r
2
1
/
2
6
18
.
9
2
AS
P
H
o
l
d
e
r
B
W
c
l
o
s
e
d
b
o
t
t
o
m
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
1
2
-
2
4
0
2
2
o
r
2
0
.
4
9
Ra
d
i
o
H
o
l
d
e
r
W
/
S
w
i
v
e
l
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
Ke
e
p
e
r
,
B
W
h
i
d
d
e
n
s
n
a
p
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
6
14
.
9
5
Be
l
t
K
e
e
p
e
r
s
/
D
R
i
n
g
/
4
p
k
16
.
9
5
1
9
%
ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
H
a
r
n
e
s
s
36
.
9
5
Ma
c
e
H
o
l
d
e
r
M
K
4
B
W
H
S
A
k
e
r
5
7
0
20
.
8
3
Ma
c
e
H
o
l
d
e
r
M
K
4
B
W
H
S
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
7
23
.
3
3
Ma
c
e
P
o
u
c
h
,
s
m
a
l
l
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
Cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
s
i
n
g
l
e
B
W
H
S
A
k
e
r
5
0
8
22
.
1
2
Cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
s
i
n
g
l
e
B
W
H
S
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
0
25
.
2
0
Cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
d
o
u
b
l
e
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
cu
f
f
c
a
s
e
,
d
o
u
b
l
e
,
W
/
H
S
44
.
9
5
Ke
y
h
o
l
d
e
r
Ak
e
r
5
6
4
18
.
9
5
Ke
y
h
o
l
d
e
r
Bi
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
1
6
18
.
9
5
Do
u
b
l
e
m
a
g
p
o
u
c
h
B
W
H
S
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
7
9
0
2
34
.
9
5
Do
u
b
l
e
m
a
g
p
o
u
c
h
B
W
H
S
S
a
f
7
7
-
7
6
-
4
H
S
34
.
9
5
Ha
n
d
c
u
f
f
s
Pe
e
r
l
e
s
s
7
0
0
N
21
.
4
1
Ex
p
a
n
d
a
b
l
e
B
a
t
o
n
H
o
l
d
e
r
B
i
a
n
c
h
i
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
B
a
t
o
n
F
-
2
1
B
AS
P
5
2
4
1
1
78
.
9
5
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
B
a
t
o
n
F
-
2
6
AS
P
5
3
6
1
1
78
.
9
5
Ge
a
r
B
a
g
Pr
e
m
i
e
r
P
B
G
-
0
8
1
39
.
9
5
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
P
a
t
r
o
l
B
a
g
49
.
9
9
Hi
V
i
s
S
a
f
e
t
y
V
e
s
t
Bl
a
u
e
r
3
3
9
P
47
.
9
5
Si
d
e
b
r
e
a
k
A
S
P
B
a
t
o
n
C
a
s
e
5
2
4
3
3
-
B
W
44
.
9
5
Fl
a
s
k
l
i
g
h
t
r
i
n
g
B
W
10
.
9
0
Le
t
t
e
r
s
E
.
P
.
1
/
2
"
R
h
o
d
i
u
m
B
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
t
o
n
17
.
9
5
Le
t
t
e
r
s
E
.
P
.
1
/
2
"
G
o
l
d
Bl
a
c
k
i
n
g
t
o
n
17
.
9
5
Ti
e
b
a
r
w
/
s
e
a
l
&
E
P
R
h
o
d
i
u
m
B
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
3
6
7
17
.
9
5
1
2
.
4
%
Ti
e
b
a
r
w
/
s
e
a
l
&
E
P
G
o
l
d
B
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
3
6
7
17
.
9
5
1
2
.
4
%
Packet Page 283 of 312
Se
t
o
f
b
t
n
s
w
/
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
,
t
o
g
g
-
s
i
l
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
8.
9
5
2
5
.
1
%
Se
t
o
f
b
t
n
s
w
/
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
,
t
o
g
g
g
o
l
d
W
a
t
e
r
b
u
r
y
8.
9
5
2
5
.
1
%
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
s
,
s
g
t
,
p
r
Em
b
l
e
m
E
n
t
5
4
2
5
S
2.
9
5
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
s
,
c
o
r
p
,
p
r
Em
b
l
e
m
E
n
t
5
4
2
5
C
2.
9
5
Se
r
v
i
c
e
b
a
r
s
Em
b
l
e
m
E
n
t
5
3
9
6
0.
7
5
In
s
i
g
n
i
a
5
/
8
"
2
s
t
a
r
(
c
o
l
l
a
r
)
11
.
9
9
-
-
-
In
s
i
g
n
i
a
1
"
2
-
s
t
a
r
s
J1
0
1
s
m
o
o
t
h
14
.
7
0
-
-
-
Me
t
a
l
n
a
m
e
t
a
g
s
N8
s
l
v
r
o
r
g
o
l
d
9.
9
5
Sh
i
r
t
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
d
,
m
e
d
b
l
u
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
51
.
2
5
An
i
m
a
l
(
a
n
i
m
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
)
45
W
6
6
2
5
Pa
n
t
,
p
o
l
y
/
w
o
o
l
/
p
l
e
a
t
e
d
F
e
c
h
h
e
i
m
e
r
3
2
2
3
1
46
.
7
5
An
i
m
a
l
Ha
n
e
s
T
-
s
h
i
r
t
Ha
n
e
s
T
5
1
8
0
6.
0
8
Ac
a
d
e
m
y
La
s
t
n
a
m
e
o
n
s
h
i
r
t
10
.
0
0
Gr
a
y
s
w
e
a
t
s
h
i
r
t
Je
r
z
e
e
s
5
6
2
M
B
i
r
c
h
1
2
.
4
7
La
s
t
n
a
m
e
o
n
s
w
e
a
t
s
h
i
r
t
10
.
0
0
Gr
a
y
s
w
e
a
t
p
a
n
t
s
Je
r
z
e
e
s
9
7
3
M
B
i
r
c
h
1
0
.
9
1
Pa
n
t
s
,
n
a
v
y
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
6
5
%
/
3
5
%
R
e
d
K
a
p
5
P
5
6
T
0
0
Bl
u
e
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
p
a
n
t
s
51
1
-
7
4
0
0
4
-
7
2
4
35
.
9
9
Bl
u
e
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
p
a
n
t
s
-
r
i
p
p
a
n
t
s
5
1
1
-
7
4
0
0
3
-
7
2
4
35
.
9
9
Pa
n
t
s
.
C
a
r
g
o
/
B
D
U
Po
p
p
e
r
F
5
2
0
1
Ac
a
d
e
m
y
s
h
i
r
t
s
/
s
Re
d
K
a
p
7
M
7
6
S
N
V
18
.
1
8
Ac
a
d
e
m
y
s
h
o
r
t
s
Je
r
z
e
e
s
T
-
1
1
0
10
.
9
5
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
t
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
11
8
6
I
7.
9
5
Gr
a
v
i
t
y
g
r
i
p
h
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
e
r
G
r
a
v
i
t
y
G
r
i
p
p
7.
7
9
Mo
u
t
h
p
i
e
c
e
Mo
u
t
h
p
i
e
c
e
1.
2
5
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
h
a
t
w
/
e
m
b
E
P
21
.
9
5
L/
S
T
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
G
e
a
r
s
h
i
r
t
Un
d
e
r
A
r
m
o
r
24
.
9
9
El
b
o
w
G
u
a
r
d
Kn
e
e
G
u
a
r
d
Ap
p
l
y
H
e
a
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
W
a
i
s
t
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
(N
o
r
m
a
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$
1
0
.
0
0
)
6.
7
5
3
2
.
5
%
Al
t
e
r
r
i
s
e
(N
o
r
m
a
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$
1
0
.
5
0
)
7.
0
0
Packet Page 284 of 312
Se
w
o
n
P
o
l
i
c
e
P
a
n
e
l
2.
5
0
5
0
.
0
%
Se
w
v
e
l
c
r
o
o
n
b
a
c
k
o
f
e
m
b
l
e
m
5.
0
0
He
a
t
s
t
a
m
p
1
l
i
n
e
1
s
i
d
e
6.
0
0
7
.
6
%
Sh
i
r
t
,
l
o
n
g
s
l
e
e
v
e
d
,
m
e
d
b
l
u
e
F
l
y
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
5
1
.
2
5
Cl
e
r
k
s
13
9
R
5
4
2
5
Po
l
o
s
h
i
r
t
,
b
l
u
e
b
e
r
r
y
Sa
n
m
a
r
L
4
4
7
25
.
0
0
Cl
e
r
k
s
Po
l
o
s
h
i
r
t
3
/
4
s
l
e
e
v
e
Co
l
b
a
l
t
B
l
u
e
L
8
0
1
Cl
e
r
k
s
Po
l
o
s
h
i
r
t
s
/
s
Co
l
b
a
l
t
B
l
u
e
L
8
0
0
Cl
e
r
k
s
Em
b
r
o
i
d
e
r
n
a
m
e
8.
0
0
Pa
n
t
,
p
o
l
y
/
w
o
o
l
/
p
l
e
a
t
e
d
8
6
5
9
-
1
0
Cl
e
r
k
s
Pa
n
t
,
5
1
1
-
t
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
34
0
7
I
T
-
0
1
9
Cl
e
r
k
s
Pa
n
t
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
#
8
5
6
7
Cl
e
r
k
s
Pa
n
t
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
#
8
5
6
8
Pa
n
t
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
#
8
5
7
2
Cl
e
r
k
s
Pa
n
t
,
5
1
1
t
w
i
l
l
P
D
U
A
C
l
a
s
s
m
o
d
e
l
#
6
4
3
0
4
Cl
e
r
k
s
Bl
a
c
k
M
i
c
r
o
F
l
e
e
c
e
J
a
c
k
e
t
L
2
2
3
Cl
e
r
k
s
Bl
a
c
k
/
C
h
r
o
m
e
J
a
c
k
e
t
L7
9
0
s
o
f
t
s
h
e
l
l
Cl
e
r
k
s
Ca
r
d
i
g
a
n
S
w
e
a
t
e
r
SA
I
6
3
0
0
35
.
9
5
Cl
e
r
k
s
Be
l
t
60
5
0
-
0
1
Cl
e
r
k
s
Ne
w
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
MK
7
0
6
B
L
10
9
.
9
5
Cl
e
r
k
s
Ne
w
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
W
K
7
0
6
B
L
10
9
.
9
5
Cl
e
r
k
s
Th
o
r
o
g
o
o
d
53
4
-
6
9
0
8
12
9
.
9
5
Cl
e
r
k
s
Pr
o
p
e
t
s
h
o
e
s
Ma
x
i
G
r
i
p
W
S
R
0
0
3
Cl
e
r
k
s
Packet Page 285 of 312
AM-7475 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of an Interlocal Agreement with Mountlake Terrace for the 228th St. SW Corridor
Improvement Project.
Recommendation
This item will be carry forward to the study session on February 24th for further discussion.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th
Ave and install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 / 228th St. and 76th Ave/ 228th St.
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.
The 228th St. Corridor Improvement Project has been combined with the SR99 Illumination Phase 3
project. The Phase 3 improvements will install new street lighting on SR99 between 212th St. and 220th
St. The street light poles will include lower level pedestrian lighting and banners.
The project also includes the pavement reconstruction of 228th St/Lakeview Drive in the City of
Mountlake Terrace. The initial scope of improvements were to provide a 2-inch grind and overlay on
228th St/Lakeview Drive. This work was to be funded by the federal grant received for the project with
the 13.5% local match paid by Mountlake Terrace.
During the final design phase, Mountlake Terrace determined it was necessary to reconstruct 228th
St/Lakeview Drive in lieu of a 2-inch grind and overlay, because of the poor condition of the pavement
surface and underlying base material. The increased design and construction cost beyond the original
2-inch grind and overlay will be funded by Mountlake Terrace.
Attached is a draft Interlocal Agreement with Mountlake Terrace to address each agency’s costs and
responsibilities during the upcoming construction phase. Staff is presenting the initial draft for discussion
and anticipates that some changes will be made before the final draft is presented at the Study Session on
February 24th.
Packet Page 286 of 312
Attachments
Draft ILA with Mountlake Terrace
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 02/06/2015 08:59 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 02/06/2015 09:05 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/06/2015 09:07 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/06/2015 09:55 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/06/2015 09:57 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 02/05/2015 04:19 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/06/2015
Packet Page 287 of 312
228th ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
between
THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
and
THE CITY OF EDMONDS
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter “the Agreement”) is entered
into under the authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, by and
between the City of Mountlake Terrace (hereinafter “MOUNTLAKE TERRACE”), a
municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and the City
of Edmonds (hereinafter “EDMONDS”), a municipal corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Washington (individually “Party” and collectively “the Parties”), to
provide for the design and construction of the 228th St. Corridor Improvements Project,
and to define the Parties’ respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this
undertaking.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes two or more political subdivisions
or units of local government of the State of Washington to cooperate on a basis of mutual
advantage to provide for services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, EDMONDS is completing the designs for their 228th Corridor
Improvements to improve EDMONDS’ transportation system by constructing a new
section of 228th St between State Route 99 and 76th Ave and installing new traffic signals
at the intersections of 228th St and State Route 99 and 228th St and 76th Ave and other
related transportation improvements; and
WHEREAS, EDMONDS is completing the designs for their State Route 99
Illumination Improvements Project to enhance street lighting on State Route 99 between
220th St and 212th St; and
WHEREAS, EDMONDS plans to bid both projects together in an effort to
achieve more favorable bids on both projects; and
WHEREAS, for the purposes of this Agreement, the 228th Corridor
Improvements Project and State Route 99 Illumination Improvements Project shall be
referred to collectively as the “228th CORRIDOR PROJECT”; and
WHEREAS, the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT has received federal and state
grants that must be spent in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, EDMONDS has been working with a qualified design consultant
to complete the plans, specifications and estimates (hereinafter “CONTRACT BID
DOCUMENTS”) for the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, EDMONDS agreed during the preliminary designs to use grant
funds to pay 86.5% of the design and construction costs for a 2-inch pavement grind and
overlay of 228th St/Lakeview Drive in MOUNTLAKE TERRACE; and
Packet Page 288 of 312
WHEREAS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE agreed during the preliminary designs
to reimburse EDMONDS the remaining 13.5% of design and construction costs for a 2-
inch pavement grind and overlay of 228th St/Lakeview Drive; and
WHEREAS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE made the determination during final
designs to reconstruct 228th St/Lakeview Drive in lieu of a 2-inch pavement grind and
overlay; and
WHEREAS, EDMONDS has agreed at MOUNTLAKE TERRACE’S request to
include the following improvements in the 228TH CORRIDOR PROJECT and
CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTS:
1. Reconstruction of 228th St/Lakeview Drive between stations 19+17
and 36+30 as depicted on drawing # PV04 – PV08 attached hereto;
and
2. Construction of four (4) pedestrian curb ramps on 228th St/Lakeview
Drive; and
3. Installation of one (1) 2-inch diameter conduit between stations 13+20
and 23+50 for MOUNTLAKE TERRACE’S fiber optic traffic signal
coordination system as depicted on drawing IC02 attached hereto.
WHEREAS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE agrees to reimburse EDMONDS for
13.5% of the design cost to complete a 2-inch pavement grind and overlay of 228th
St/Lakeview Drive; and
WHEREAS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE agrees to reimburse EDMONDS for
13.5% of the actual construction cost of a 2-inch pavement grind and overlay of 228th
St./Lakeview Drive as determined by the schedule of work in Exihibit B using unit bid
prices specified in the awarded construction contract for the 228TH CORRIDOR
PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE agrees to reimburse EDMONDS for
the actual cost to design and reconstruct 228th St/Lakeview Drive that exceeds the actual
construction cost of a 2-inch pavement grind and overlay, as determined by the schedule
of work in Exhibit “B” using unit bid prices specified in the awarded construction
contract for the 228TH CORRIDOR PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, EDMONDS agrees to use grant funds to pay 86.5% of the design
and construction cost to replace four (4) pedestrian curb ramps on 228th St/Lakeview
Drive, since this work would have been required as part of a 2-inch pavement grind and
overlay; and
WHEREAS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE agrees to reimburse EDMONDS the
remaining 13.5% of the design and construction costs for replacing four (4) pedestrian
curb ramps on 228th St/Lakeview Drive; and
Packet Page 289 of 312
WHEREAS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE agrees to reimburse EDMONDS for all
design and construction costs to install one (1) 2-inch diameter conduit and pull boxes
between stations 13+20 and 23+50; and
WHERAS, Exhibit “A” is a preliminary summary of design fees, opinion of
construction costs, estimated construction management costs and estimated allocation of
costs between EDMONDS AND MOUNTLAKE TERRACE for: (1) 2-inch pavement
grind and overlay of 228th St/Lakeview Drive; (2) pavement reconstruction of 228th
St/Lakeview Drive; (3) construction of four pedestrian curb ramps; and (4) installation
one 2-inch diameter conduit between stations 13+20 and 23+50 as depicted on drawing
IC02; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT is scheduled
to begin in spring 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of
defining their respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this
undertaking; and
WHEREAS, the City Councils of the City of Mountlake Terrace and the City of
Edmonds have taken appropriate action to approve their respective City’s entry into this
Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants
contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
TERMS
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to allocate and define the
Parties’ respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities concerning the establishment,
operation and maintenance of this undertaking. This Agreement further seeks to establish
a formal arrangement under which MOUNTLAKE TERRACE will reimburse
EDMONDS for:
• 13.5% of the design cost to complete a 2-inch pavement grind and overlay
of 228th St/Lakeview Drive; and
• 13.5% of the actual construction cost of a 2-inch pavement grind and
overlay, as determined by the schedule of work in Exhibit “B” using unit
bid prices specified in the awarded construction contract for the 228TH
CORRIDOR PROJECT; and
• The actual cost to design and reconstruct 228th St/Lakeview Drive that
exceeds the actual construction cost of a 2-inch pavement grind and
overlay, as determined by the schedule of work in Exhibit “B” using unit
bid prices specified in the awarded construction contract for the 228TH
CORRIDOR PROJECT; and
Packet Page 290 of 312
• 13.5% of the grant matching funds for the costs of design and construction
to replace four (4) pedestrian curb ramps on 228th St/Lakeview Dr.; and
• All design and construction costs to install one (1) 2-inch diameter
conduit and pull boxes between stations 13+20 and 23+50, as shown on
Sheet IC02 for its fiber optic traffic signal coordination system, all as part
of the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT.
Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the
Parties hereto. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, this Agreement shall
remain in effect until: (a) MOUNTLAKE TERRACE’s written acceptance of all
infrastructure provided herein; or (b) December 31, 2017, which ever shall first occur.
Provided however, the Parties may at their option, renew and/or amend this Agreement
for a mutually agreed upon term by a writing signed by both Parties.
Section 3. Termination. Prior to the award of the contract for the 228th
CORRIDOR PROJECT, the Parties may mutually agree to terminate this Agreement,
upon written notice by email or otherwise in which case this Agreement will be null and
void. Provided however, if all bids on the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT are greater than
twenty percent (20%) over the engineer’s estimate and EDMONDS determines not to
award the contract, either Party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other
Party with thirty (30) days written notice of its intent to terminate. Provided further, if
more than half of the bid unit prices for the pavement reconstruction, curb ramp
installation, and conduit installation (Bid Schedule D of CONTRACT BID
DOCUMENTS) on the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT are greater than twenty percent
(20%) over the bid unit prices in other schedules, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE may
terminate this Agreement by providing EDMONDS with thirty (30) days written notice
of its intent to terminate. Provided further if the contract for the 228th CORRIDOR
PROJECT work is awarded, the Parties may terminate this Agreement only for material
breach of this Agreement, after providing the other party with thirty (30) days written
notice of its intent to terminate. Notice shall state the reason(s) for termination. The
breaching Party shall have the opportunity to cure the breach and/or mitigate damages.
Termination or expiration shall not alter the MOUNTLAKE TERRACE payment
obligations under Section 6 for services already rendered and shall not alter the Parties’
respective obligations under Section 9 and Section 13 of this Agreement.
Section 4. Obligations of MOUNTLAKE TERRACE. MOUNTLAKE
TERRACE agrees to:
A. Provide periodic payments to EDMONDS, pursuant to Section 6 of this
Agreement, to reimburse EDMONDS for:
1. 13.5% of the design cost to complete a 2-inch pavement grind and
overlay of 228th St/Lakeview Drive; and
2. 13.5% of the actual construction cost of a 2-inch pavement grind and
overlay, as determined by the schedule of work in Exhibit “B” using
unit bid prices specified in the awarded construction contract for the
228TH CORRIDOR PROJECT; and
3. The actual cost to design and reconstruct 228th St/Lakeview Drive that
exceeds the actual construction cost of a 2-inch pavement grind and
Packet Page 291 of 312
overlay, as determined by the schedule of work in Exhibit “B” using
unit bid prices specified in the awarded construction contract for the
228TH CORRIDOR PROJECT; and
4. 13.5% of the grant matching funds for the costs of design and
construction to replace four (4) pedestrian curb ramps on 228th
St/Lakeview Dr.; and
5. All design and construction costs to install one (1) 2-inch diameter
conduits and pull boxes between stations 13+20 and 23+50 as shown
on Sheet IC02 for its fiber optic traffic signal coordination system, all
as part of the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT.
B. Provide periodic payments to EDMONDS, pursuant to Section 6 of this
Agreement, for construction management costs to administer Bid
Schedule D as follows: a) at the documented hours invoiced to
EDMONDS by its retained construction management company and design
consultant for time spent on Bid Schedule D , plus b) the documented
hours for EDMONDS’ employees at the employee’s direct hourly rate of
pay and overhead rate.
C. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by EDMONDS or its
agents regarding the pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and
conduit installation.
D. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by the consultant
for the pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and conduit
installation (Bid Schedule D of CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTS).
Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
E. Provide (apply for and obtain) MOUNTLAKE TERRACE permits for any
work to be performed within MOUNTLAKE TERRACE at no cost to
EDMONDS. Provided, that nothing herein shall be construed as waiving
or otherwise abridging MOUNTLAKE TERRACE’S regulatory authority
for work within MOUNTLAKE TERRACE. No time restrictions shall be
placed on such permits that would restrict EDMONDS’ Contractor from
working during the days and hours allowed in the CONTRACT BID
DOCUMENTS.
F. Provide timely review of designs prepared by EDMONDS’ consultant,
and complete final design approval by the timelines established by
EDMONDS to meet its construction bidding schedule.
G. Obtain Bid Award Concurrence from the MOUNTLAKE TERRACE City
Council in accordance with Section 7 within thirty (30) days of the bid
opening. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE may withhold Bid Award
Concurrence if the low bid for the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT is greater
Packet Page 292 of 312
than twenty percent (20%) over the engineer’s estimate or if more than
half of the bid unit prices for the pavement reconstruction, curb ramp
installation, and conduit installation (Bid Schedule D of CONTRACT BID
DOCUMENTS) on the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT are greater than
twenty percent (20%) over the bid unit prices in other schedules. If the
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE City Council does not provide Bid Award
Concurrence within the 30-day time period, EDMONDS will eliminate
this MOUNTLAKE TERRACE work from the contract and
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE will be responsible for all costs to construct
the three items outlined in paragraph 4A, above in a separate contract
administered by MOUNTLAKE TERRACE.
H. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE shall attend EDMONDS’ weekly construction
coordination meetings.
I. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE will coordinate all corrections, concerns,
issues, changes and contractor correspondence through the EDMONDS
Project Manager.
Section 5. Obligations of EDMONDS. EDMONDS agrees to:
A. Assume responsibility for constructing the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT
in accordance with the design plans approved by MOUNTLAKE
TERRACE (including but not limited to securing all necessary
consultants, contractors, and subcontractors). All construction contracts
shall be procured through a formal competitive bidding process consistent
with applicable State law. EDMONDS shall be solely and exclusively
responsible for ensuring the compliance of said bidding process with all
applicable procedures required under federal, state and local regulations.
B. Submit to MOUNTLAKE TERRACE written invoices for payment in
accordance with Section 6. Include copies of invoices from consultants
and contractors, clearly indicating the MOUNTLAKE TERRACE portion
of the invoices. Provide MOUNTLAKE TERRACE a brief written
progress report with each invoice, describing in reasonable detail all work
performed regarding pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and
conduit installation during the period covered by the invoice.
C. Assume lead agency status and sole responsibility for applying for and
obtaining any and all regulatory permits necessary to complete all work
within MOUNTLAKE TERRACE for the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT.
D. Provide MOUNTLAKE TERRACE personnel reasonable access to the
228th CORRIDOR PROJECT’S construction area for purposes of
monitoring the progress of work performed.
Packet Page 293 of 312
E. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by MOUNTLAKE
TERRACE or its agents regarding the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT.
F. Provide Construction Management and Inspection services for Bid
Schedule D of CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTS (pavement
reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and conduit installation), including
inspection, materials submittal approvals, daily reports, and paynotes to
accomplish construction. EDMONDS will provide MOUNTLAKE
TERRACE with copies of inspection reports/logs, quantity takeoff sheets,
paynotes, force account tracking, independent estimates and project
correspondence when work has been completed on MOUNTLAKE
TERRACE portions of the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT.
Section 6. Payment Schedule. The Parties agree to the following billing and
payment schedule:
A. For each outside construction contract expense incurred by EDMONDS
regarding the 228th CORRIDOR PROJECT as outlined in Section 4,
above, EDMONDS shall, within sixty (60) days of the date EDMONDS is
billed or invoiced for any undisputed charge by its consultants, contractors
and subcontractors, submit an invoice to MOUNTLAKE TERRACE for
its share of said expense for Bid Schedule D of CONTRACT BID
DOCUMENTS (pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and
conduit installation). Said invoice shall contain a reasonably detailed
explanation of the methodology utilized by EDMONDS in calculating the
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE share of each expense. Construction
contract(s) shall provide for separate bid schedules, or other means to
clearly identify the MOUNTLAKE TERRACE portion of the project
costs. Design contract(s) shall identify all tasks and work performed
associated with MOUNTLAKE TERRACE portion of the design on
invoices, fee estimates and project status reports. Time is of the essence
and EDMONDS shall not unreasonably delay submittal of invoices for the
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE share of expenses.
B. Within thirty (30) days of receiving any invoice pursuant to subsection
6.A, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE shall tender payment to EDMONDS in
the form of a check, money order or other certified funds for the invoiced
amount; PROVIDED THAT:
(1) The total payment by MOUNTLAKE TERRACE for invoices
submitted by EDMONDS shall not exceed:
• 13.5% of the design cost to complete a 2-inch pavement
grind and overlay of 228th St/Lakeview Drive; and
• 13.5% of the actual construction cost of a 2-inch pavement
grind and overlay, as determined by the schedule of work
Packet Page 294 of 312
in Exhibit “B” using unit bid prices specified in the
awarded construction contract for the 228TH CORRIDOR
PROJECT; and
• The actual cost to design and reconstruct 228th St/Lakeview
Drive that exceeds the actual construction cost of a 2-inch
pavement grind and overlay, as determined by the schedule
of work in Exhibit “B” using unit bid prices specified in the
awarded construction contract for the 228TH CORRIDOR
PROJECT; and
• 13.5% of the grant matching funds for the costs of design
and construction to replace four (4) pedestrian curb ramps
on 228th St/Lakeview Dr.; and
• The actual construction costs to install one (1) 2-inch
diameter conduit and pull boxes between stations 13+20
and 23+50 , as shown on Sheet IC02 for its fiber optic
traffic signal coordination system, all as part of the 228TH
CORRIDOR PROJECT; and
• The documented hours invoiced to EDMONDS by its
retained construction management company and design
consultant for time spent on Bid Schedule D , plus b) the
documented hours for EDMONDS’ employees at the
employee’s direct hourly rate of pay and overhead rate;
(2) EDMONDS failure to submit an expense invoice in a timely manner
shall extend MOUNTLAKE TERRACE’s payment obligation as
reasonably necessary.
(3) EDMONDS shall timely notify MOUNTLAKE TERRACE in writing
if expenditures necessary to complete design, installation, and construction
management of Bid Schedule D of CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTS
(pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and conduit installation)
are expected to exceed these amounts.
Section 7. Construction Bid Acceptance. Upon construction bid opening,
EDMONDS shall obtain concurrence from MOUNTLAKE TERRACE prior to award of
the pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and conduit installation work as
provided in Section 4, herein. Within 7 days after bid opening and prior to acceptance of
the bid and award of a contract, EDMONDS shall provide written notice to
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE of its financial responsibility. Concurrence with bid award
by EDMONDS shall take place as provided in Section 4.G herein.
Section 8. Construction Change Orders. The following change order
authorizations are hereby established for schedules and items of work to be paid by
EDMONDS:
Packet Page 295 of 312
A. The EDMONDS Public Works Director / City Engineer, with the prior
written concurrence of the MOUNTLAKE TERRACE City Engineer, may
authorize change order requests up to $40,000 per change order;
PROVIDED that such change order does not place the total amount of
change orders over the management reserve, in which case, the
EDMONDS City Council must approve the change order.
B. Each change order request exceeding $40,000 shall be reviewed by both
EDMONDS (by its Mayor or City Council, as directed by its internal
policies) and MOUNTLAKE TERRACE (by its City Council) for
approval or denial, and any such approval shall require the concurrence of
both Parties.
C. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE approved change order(s) involving a change
in scope shall have the scope change authorized in writing by
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, and shall be subject to and increase or
decrease of the EDMONDS construction management fees set forth in
Section 4.B.
Section 9. Construction Claims and Disputes. If construction claims for
additional payment are made by the construction contractor and/or disputes result
regarding work in Bid Schedule D, EDMONDS shall endeavor to resolve the
claims/disputes. Provided however, EDMONDS shall obtain MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
approval prior to resolving the claims/disputes. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE will
participate in resolving claims/disputes as necessary. Financial responsibility for
approved construction claims/disputes arising from Bid Schedule D of CONTRACT BID
DOCUMENTS (pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and conduit
installation) shall be the sole responsibility of MOUNTLAKE TERRACE. If such claims
exceed the sums set forth in Section 6, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE shall authorize in
writing additional sums to cover the cost of the claim/dispute.
Section 10. Construction Project Acceptance. Upon satisfactory completion
of Bid Schedule D of CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTS (pavement reconstruction, curb
ramp installation, and conduit installation), resolution of all claims for additional
payment, completion of all contract closeout documents and agreement between
EDMONDS and the contractor, EDMONDS shall recommend final acceptance to the
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE City Engineer. Approval by the MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
City Council shall be the responsibility of MOUNTLAKE TERRACE staff.
Section 11. Ownership and Disposition of Property. Bid Schedule D of
CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTS (pavement reconstruction, curb ramp installation, and
conduit installation) and all appurtenances thereof, constructed pursuant to this
Agreement shall become and remain the exclusive property of MOUNTLAKE
TERRACE upon completion.
Packet Page 296 of 312
Section 12. Administration; No Separate Entity Created. Pursuant to RCW
39.34.030, the parties hereby appoint a Contract Administrator who will be responsible
for administering this Agreement, and at the direction of the parties, this Contract
Administrator shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that this Agreement is
implemented in accordance with its terms. The Parties hereby designate the EDMONDS
Public Works Director, or his designee, as the Contract Administrator for this Agreement.
No separate legal entity is formed by this Agreement.
Section 13. Release, Indemnify, Defend and Hold Harmless Agreement.
Each Party to this Agreement shall be responsible for its own negligent and/or wrongful
acts or omissions, and those of its own agents, employees, representatives or
subcontractors, to the fullest extent required by the laws of the State of Washington.
Each Party agrees to protect, indemnify and hold the other Party harmless from and
against any and all such liability for injury or damage to the other Party or the other
Party’s property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and causes of action of
every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in
connection with, or arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by its
own fault or that of its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors.
Each Party specifically promises to indemnify the other Party against claims or
suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its own employees, contractors, or subcontractors,
and waives any immunity that each Party may have under that title with respect to, but
only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify the other Party. This waiver has been
mutually negotiated by the Parties. Each Party shall also indemnify and hold the other
party harmless from any wage, overtime or benefit claim of any of the first Party's
employees, agents, representatives, contractors or subcontractors performing services
under this Agreement. Each Party further agrees to fully indemnify the other Party from
and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the
other Party is held harmless therefrom.
Section 14. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be
brought in Snohomish County Superior Court.
Section 15. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that
nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship
between MOUNTLAKE TERRACE and any employee, agent, representative or
contractor of EDMONDS, or between EDMONDS and any employee, agent,
representative or contractor of MOUNTLAKE TERRACE.
Section 16. Notices. Notices to MOUNTLAKE TERRACE shall be sent to the
following address:
City of Mountlake Terrace
City Engineer/Engineering Services Director
6100 219th S. SW, Suite 200
Packet Page 297 of 312
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Notices to EDMONDS shall be sent to the following address:
City of Edmonds
City Engineer
121 Fifth Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Section 17. Duty to File Agreement With County Auditor. Pursuant to RCW
39.34.040, after this Agreement is executed by both Parties, EDMONDS shall either file
this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor or make it available on the
EDMONDS website.
Section 18. Integration. This document constitutes the entire embodiment of the
Agreement between the Parties, and, unless modified in writing by an amendment to this
Interlocal Agreement signed by the Parties hereto, shall be implemented as described
above.
Section 19. Non-Waiver. Waiver by any Party of any of the provisions
contained within this Agreement, including but not limited to any performance deadline,
shall not be construed as a waiver of any other provisions.
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE CITY OF EDMONDS
By: By:
Arlene Fisher, City Manager Dave Earling, Mayor
Date: Date:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Virginia Olsen, City Clerk Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Packet Page 298 of 312
________________________ _________________________
Gregory G. Schrag, City Attorney Office
of the City Attorney
Packet Page 299 of 312
EXHIBIT A
(Sheet 1 of 1)
No. Description Design fees
Total
(1)+(2)+(3)
%
Share
%
Share
(1)(4)(6)(8)
1 2-inch pavement grind and overlay of 228th
St/Lakeview Drive $26,000.00 2 $250,770.00 3 $30,092.40 $306,862.40 5 $265,435.98 86.5 5 $41,426.42 13.5
2 Reconstruction of 228th St/Lake View Drive $738.00 1,4 $454,300.00 3 $54,516.00 $509,554.00 5 0.0 5 $509,554.00 100.0
3 4 pedestrian curb ramps $2,500.00 1 $16,550.00 3 $1,986.00 $21,036.00 5 $18,196.14 86.5 5 $2,839.86 13.5
4 1,000 feet of 2-inch conduit $431.00 1 $11,300.00 3 $1,356.00 $13,087.00 5 0.0 5 $13,087.00 100.0
Totals: $29,669.00 $732,920.00 $87,950.40 $850,539.40 $283,632.12 $566,907.28
Notes
1. Construction cost will be determined from the contract award.
2. Cost Estimate Prepared by Perteet
3. 12% Estimate for City Construction Management Costs. Final allocation of costs will be in accordance with terms provided herein with this Agreement.
5. Final allocation of costs between each agency will be in accordance with the terms provided herein with this Agreement.
Preliminary Summary of Construction Costs
4. Construction cost estimate for the pavement reconstruction represents the total cost to reconstruct Lakeview Drive/228th St less the cost to complete a 2-inch pavement grind
and overlay.
Opinion of
Construction
Costs MLT
(2)(7)
Construction Mgmt
Costs (12%)
(3)
Edmonds
(5)
Packet Page 300 of 312
Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost
Flaggers HR 250 $0
Saw Cutting Existing Pavement LF 220 $5 $1,100
HMA Cl. 1/2 In. PG 64-22 TON 910 $0
Planing Bituminous Pavement - 2 In.SY 7300 $0
Adjust Catch Basin EA 18 $0
Inlet Protection EA 16 $0
Erosion/Water Pollution Control EST 1 $0
Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 HUND 1 $0
Adjust Monument Case and Cover EA 2 $0
Paint Line LF 2270 $0
Plastic Wide Lane Line LF 390 $0
Plastic Crosswalk Line SF 580 $0
Plastic Stop Line LF 30 $0
Plastic Traffic Arrow EA 4 $0
Temporary Pavement Marking LF 5400 $0
Adjust Gas Valve Box EA 3 $0
Adjust Water Valve Box EA 20 $0
Adjust Sanitary Sewer Manhole EA 2 $0
SUBTOTAL =$1,100
Item Unit Quantity % of Subtotal Cost
Roadway Surveying LS 1
Mobilization LS 1
Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1
Traffic Control Supervisor LS 1
Pedestrian Traffic Control LS 1
Inflation Adjustment (3%)$100
Management Reserve (5%)$200
OVERLAY TOTAL =$1,400
Exhibit "B"
2-inch Grind & Overlay 228th St/Lakeview Drive
Schedule of Work
Packet Page 301 of 312
AM-7467 13.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
Recommendation
For information only.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Attached is the quarterly report for capital improvement projects managed by the Public Works
Department. The fourth quarter report for 2014 contains information on the estimated project budget,
2014 budget, change orders, funding sources and schedule.
Attachments
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 02/05/2015 12:23 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 02/05/2015 12:29 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/05/2015 03:57 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/05/2015 04:06 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/06/2015 08:03 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 02/04/2015 11:45 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/06/2015
Packet Page 302 of 312
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
Fishing Pier Rehab Design/Permit Facilities Consultant $190,000 Budget amendment
to follow at first
opportunity in 2015.
_WDFW
Contract
#132156
016 Mar-16 Oct-15 Des ●Design and permitting funded through WDFW grant.
●Additional grant funding will be sought for construction project.
●Design contract was fully signed in late October with Berger
ABAM.
●BergerABAM has produced 30% drawings as of late
December.
●Schedule of project was updated in late December, making
the decision to delay the beginning of construction until 2016 to
be able to work under favorable weather conditions for the
maximum time.
ESCO III Facilities Ameresco $758,683 $758,683 $60,000 _016 _Mar-15 Con ●ESCO Contract through WA DES process.
●Edmonds Senior Center rooftop HVAC units have been
replaced.
●The connection to Meadowdale's heating system is the one
outstanding item to complete.
●Another $1100 of utility rebates was received, with around
$15,000 still remaining to be obtained.
Public Works Yard Water Quality
Upgrade (Waste Facility Upgrade)
Facilities Consultant $115,000 $154,000 _$170,000 422 Jul-14 Sep-14 Cl-Out ● Construction completed October 2014 (75% grant funded).
● Grant expired 12/31/2014.
● Project close-out 1Q 2015.
City Park Spray Park Parks Site Workshop $1,585,000 $1,126,000 _$500,000 125, 132 Feb-15 Jun-15 Des ●Playground Structures installed 6/14.
●Spray Park Design at 90%. Awaiting final design and
specifications from consultant.
Dayton Street Plaza Parks Barker $168,000 $168,000 __132 TBD TBD On-Hold ●Coordinating with Parks Dept to possibly go to construction in
2015
●$168,000 - 2013 Budget Amend (Feb)
2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Sewer MSA $2,121,800 $125,000 __423 Apr-15 Dec-15 Des ●Survey Completed 10/14.
●Design at 60%; plans under review by City.
●Property owners contacted about obtaining utility easements
for existing sewerlines 12/4.
●SEPA application submitted 12/14.
Annual Sewer Replacement
Project Phase 1
Sewer MSA $2,105,941 $1,471,023 __423 Mar-14 Sep-14 Cl-out ●$417,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
●Shoreline Constr awarded $1,224,607.49 contract in April
2014.
●Substantial Completion granted August 15, 2014
●Change Order #1 written for $40,333.84 July 3, 2014
●Closeout in progress.
Annual Sewer Replacement
Project Phase 2
Sewer CHS $3,284,488 $2,349,589 __423 May-14 Dec-14 Con ●$838,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
●Shoreline Constr awarded $1,778,837 contract in May 2014.
●Construction in progress, 98% Complete.
●Change order #1 issued for -$4050 (Aug 2014)
●Change Orders #2 for $75,930.02 and #3 for $46,267.81 in
review by contractor. Total expected to be > $100,000. Council
notified per Purchasing Policy.
Citywide Sewer CIPP Sewer City $529,600 $529,600 __423 Jun-15 Dec-15 Pre ●Site selection began 9/14. With design to commence once
sites are finalized. Finalization of sites expected by Jan 2015.
●-$500,000 -2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
ScheduleProject Budget
Packet Page 303 of 312
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12,
14 & 15
Sewer CHS $4,602,121 $245,000 $75,095 _423 Aug-12 Oct-13 Cl-Out ● Construction 100% Complete.
●Change Order No.1, $47,087.35
●Change Order No.2, $17,258.72
●Change Order No.3, $18,641.10
●Change Order No.4, $21,190.78
●Change Order No.5, ($29,086.49)
●Substantial Completion 10/25/13
●Physical Completion 7/25/14
●Final Acceptance 10/21/14
238th St Drainage to Hickman
Park - Phase I
Storm City $373,160 $374,160 $2,732 _422 Aug-14 Dec-14 Con ● Project broken into two phases due to grant for sidewalks.
● Phase I constructed in 2014 (Alley infiltration system upgrade
south of 107th PL W. and 102nd AVE W. infiltration system
upgrade - behind church).
● Phase I, Change Order No. 1: $2731.82 (1/9/15)
● Phase II stormwater improvements on 238th St SW with
sidewalk in 2015 (connect to Hickman Park infiltration).
● $283,870 - 2014 Budget Amendment (3/14)
City-Wide Drainage Improv.Storm CHS
L. Berger
$236,000 $236,000 __422 Aug-14 Dec-14 Con ● Substantial completion reached November 19, 2014
● Project close-out 1Q2015.
Dayton St & SR 104 Drainage
Improvement Study
Storm L. Berger $90,878 $365,000 __422 __Study ● Consultant has begun pre-design work for Dayton Street
Pump Station
● Draft Pre-Design Report schedueld for 2nd Quarter 2015
Dayton St. Storm Improvements
(6th to 8th)
Storm TBD TBD $365,000 __422 __On-Hold ● Project to start up again in 2015
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Storm City $55,000 $55,000 __422 __Study ● McAleer Creek culvert replacement complete. Project
managed by City of Mountlake Terrace.
● Edmonds continues to work with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer
Creek Watershed Forum on technical, lobbying, and
administrative issues.
● City of Edmonds Web-based lake level indicator continues to
provide residents with useful information.
Northstream Pipe Abandonment Storm CHS $55,000 $55,000 __422 __Z-on Hold ● Evaluation of options to abandon old 24 and 30 inch storm
line underway.
● Construction originally planned for 2015
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction
Retrofit Study
Storm Tetra Tech $388,772 $150,000 _$188,722 422 __Study ● Project ongoing with Consultant
● $188,772 grant secured from Department of Ecology to
supplement budget.
● $128,037- 2014 Budget Amendment (March)
● Council update given 6/21/14
● Public Meeting on Draft Plan held August 14, 2014
● Final Council Report 12/2/14
● Ecology Comments being addressed
● Final Reports to be completed by 2/28/2015
Perrinville High Flow Management
Projects
Storm Tetra Tech $50,000 $150,000 _$50,000 422 __Des ● Grant received for Ecology for Low Impact Development
Retrofits ($50,000) to cover the cost of a 90% of design.
● 90% Design completed and approved by Ecology
Storm Drainage Improvements -
88th & 194th
Storm CHS $159,000 $165,000 _422 Mar-15 _Des ● Design underway to line an old 8 inch storm line
● Construction now scheduled for 2015
SW Edmonds #4-106/105 Storm City $85,000 $85,000 _$70,000 422 Mar-15 _Des ● Grant received for Ecology for Low Impact Development
Retrofits ($70,000) to cover 82% of design costs.
● 2014 Budget Amendment (March)
● 90% Design completed and approved by Ecology
Packet Page 304 of 312
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
Video Assessment of Stormwater
Lines
Storm City $0 $250,000 __422 __Study ● City purchased new camera system to improve video
assessment capability.
● Training on new system 1 Q 2015.
Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds
Marsh Final Feasibility Study
Storm Shannon &
Wilson
$150,000 $500,000 _$357,331 422 __Study ● Project schedule adjusted to merge with Marina Beach Park
Master Planning Process.
● Estimated completion now early 3rd Q 2015.
● Council presentaion scheduled for January 2015
● Addtional $157,331 grant secured from RCO-SRF Board for
prelimnary design and permitting.
15th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $374,000 $354,000 _$374,000 112 Aug-14 Dec-14 Con ● Construction Complete
● Education program at Sherwood Elementary is ongoing
2014 Pavement Preservation
Program
Street Snoh. County $1,200,000 $1,200,000 __112 Mar-14 Dec-14 Con ● City signed an agreement with Snohomish County to
complete pavement preservation (short overlay stretches, long
overlay stretches, and chip seal), as part of their 2014
Snohomish County Preservation Program.
● $260,000 out of the $1,200,000 was budgeted for a local
match for a Federal grant (programmed for 2015). These funds
are no longer available and will be paid for out of the 2015
Preservation Program
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Improvements
Street Perteet $7,948,624 $2,710,000 _$6,491,000 112
421
422
423
Feb-15 Jun-16 Des /
ROW
● Design 99% complete.
● Right of Way acquisition (9 out of 10 property owners have
signed the ROW documents) and the remaining property owner
has agreed to Possession & Use (on-going negotiations /
possible mediation).
● A TIB grant in the amount of $1.7M was secured for additional
construction funding (for total of $5,234,000 in construction
funding when combined with HSIP grant secured in '12).
236th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $494,000 $474,000 _$494,000 112 Jun -15 Oct-15 Des ● Design 5% complete.
● The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 236th St.
SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary, on one side of the
t t 238th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $1,391,000 $1,364,600 _$591,000 112 Jun -15 Dec-15 Des ● Design 5% complete.
● The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 238th St.
SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W, on one side of the
street.
5th Avenue Overlay Project Street Otak, Inc.$1,002,532 $14,800 _$551,000 112, 422 &
421
Jul-13 Feb-14 Cl-Out ●Contract in Closeout
76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Street Dave Evans $6,106,753 $657,000 _$4,140,397 112
421
422
423
Dec-15 Dec-16 Des /
ROW
● Design 65% complete.
● Grant funds are funding the design and ROW phases.
● A $3,200,000 Federal construction grant is scheduled to be
awarded by December '14.
ADA curb ramp upgrades along
3rd Ave. S
Street City $129,000 $75,000 _$90,000 112 Oct - 14 Jan-15 Con ● Construction 15% complete
● Contractor expected to wrap up January, 2015
Citywide Pedestrian Countdown
Display & Cabinet Upgrades
Street Harris / DKS $325,332 $266,000 $43,967 $300,000 111
112
Oct-13 Oct-14 Completed ● Construction 100% complete.
● CO #1: $14,616
● CO #2: ($6,716)
● CO #3: $36,067
Packet Page 305 of 312
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
Five Corners Roundabout (212th
St. SW @ 84th Av. W)
Street Dave Evans $3,809,386 $2,894,880 $27,811 $2,399,500 112
421
422
Mar-14 Dec-14 Cl-Out ● Construction 99.5% complete.
● Substantial completion was achieved in October '14.
● 1-Yr plant establishment started Nov. '14
● CO #1: No Cost Change Order
● CO #2: $1,740
● CO #3: No Cost Change Order
● CO #4: ($9,240.00)
● CO #5: $3,288.90
● CO #6: No Cost Change Order
● CO #7: $6,186
● CO #8: $4,743
● CO #9: $16,353
● CO #10: ($3,400)
● CO #11: $7,877
● CO #12: $263
Main St. @ 9th Ave.(interim
solution)
Street City $10,000 $10,000 __112 __On-Hold ● On-Hold
Residential Neighborhood Traffic
Calming
Street City $10,000 $10,000 __112 __Study ● The 2015 budget for this program is $20,000.
● A press release will be submitted in February '15, requesting
residents to submit stretches with speeding issues. The Traffic
Calming Program process (as identified in the 2009
Transportation Plan) will be followed (such as minimum of 8
resident signatures will be required in submittal / prior to detailed
evaluation of stretch).
SR-104 Complete Street Corridor
Analysis
Street Fehr & Peers $150,000 $75,000 __112 __Study ● Study 30% complete.
● The project began in September 2014 and is scheduled to be
completed in June 2015.
State Route (SR) 99 International
District Enhancements (Phase 3)
Street KPG $684,000 $592,000 _$684,000 112 Feb-15 Jun-16 Des ● Design 99% complete.
● Project to be advertised in February '15 and construction to
begin in April '15.
● The construction of this project is being combined with the
228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project (both projects are
within proximity of each other, have a similar construction
timeline, and same grant funding source).
● A grant for $684,000 was secured for this project ($591,000 of
which is allocated to the construction phase).
Sunset Walkway Improvements Street MacLeod
Reckord
$1,878,000 $221,000 _$249,000 112 TBD TBD On-Hold ● Design 15% complete.
● The City has striped the proposed improvements for a trial
period so citizens can get a general idea of how the project
would look once completed. Once the trial is completed,
surveys will be distributed and an Open House will be held to
decide whether to complete the design or cancel the project
The design is on-hold until that time.
Transportation Plan Update Street Fehr & Peers $180,000 $90,000 __112 __Study ● Plan 30% complete
● The project began in September '14 and is scheduled to be
completed in June '15.
Packet Page 306 of 312
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
2013 Replacement Program -
Waterline
Water City $1,577,720 $3,000 $3,509 _421 Mar-13 Nov-13 Cl-out ●Construction at 100%.
●D&G Backhoe awarded $1,304,457.70 contract in April 2013.
●Substantial Completion Awarded Oct 31, 2013 for 2013 WL
Replacement.
●Conflict with Sewer for 224th & 76th Project required
replacement of watermain to allow for sewerline replacement.
This project bid separately from watermains since that project is
already in progress. 224th Replacement complete.
●224th Project awarded Aug 2013 to Earthwork Enterprises.
Constr completed Oct 2013.
●1 change order for $3,509.10 issued.
●-$100,000 - 2013 Budget Amendment (Aug)
● $50,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
● Final Acceptance by Council Oct 21, 2014.
● Closeout in Progress.
2014 Replacement Program -
Waterline
Water MSA $1,905,784 $1,709,639 $41,833.11 _421 May-14 Feb-15 Con ●Earthworks Enterprises awarded $1,474,496.90 contract in
6/14.
●$197,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (6/14)
●Construction began 8/4/14.
●Change Order No. 1: $18,178.66 (11/14/14)
●Change Order No. 2: $23,654.45 (12/16/14)
●Construction 70% complete. Contractor on schedule.
2015 Waterline Replacement Water Stantec $2,792,692 $95,181 __421 Apr-15 Dec-15 Des ●$320,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Jun)
●Design in progress.
76th Ave W Waterline Extension
with Lynnwood
Water Roth Hill $940,300 $3,000 $48,153 _421 Oct-12 Aug-14 Cl-out ●Change order for unsuitable soils processed Sept 2013 for
$48,153.
●Emergency Declared in Nov 2013 to complete project
because Lynnwood dismissed contractor due to various issues.
●Earthwork Enterprises hired to complete waterline work. Work
completed by December 20, 2013.
●Lakeside Industries hired to place temporary pavement along
road alignment. Work Completed by December 20, 2013.
●COE & Lynnwood discussing final paving for roadway
currently scheduled for summer 2014.
●$175,000-2013 Budget Amendment (Feb).
●$100,000 - 2013 Budget Amendment (Aug)
●$140,300 - 2013 Budget Amendment (Nov)
●$26,294 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
●Lynnwood settled claim with Santana on 5/14.
●$60,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (June)
●Project complete Aug. 2014
●Closeout in ProgressCoating Project WWTP TBD $636,000 $20,000 __423 __Pre ●This project will begin in 2014. Clarifier #3 was first to be
coated. During the yearly PM it was discovered that the topping
has failed. This may have to repaired before coating work can
continue.
Control system upgrade WWTP Parametrix $1,700,000 $434,728 __423 Jan-14 Dec-18 Con ●Reliability -replace aging control system equipment and
provide for redundancy
●The project is progressing on schedule and within budget.
System Platform and the new historian have been installed and
we are beginning the PLC 100 replacement.
Facility repair and improvement
project
WWTP Tetra Tech $350,000 $350,000 $20,185 _423 Feb-14 Sep-14 Con ●Reliability - repair men's locker room, floor damage and
reallocate space based on need.
●The work is progressing on schedule however there was
considerably more work and cost to demoslish the concrete
floor than anticipated. There will be 2 change orders submitted
in the coming week. The additional work was tracked on a
force account.
Packet Page 307 of 312
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
Incinerator regulatory compliance
& improvement
WWTP CH2M Hill &
Coal Creek
Environmental
$1,040,000 $55,000 __423 _Dec-14 Con ●Regulatory - Design is complete and installation of the mercury
removal modules will occur in 2014.
● The Title 5 Air Operating permit was accepted by PSCA. This
brings us into compliance with new regulations.
Offsite Telemetry WWTP City $0 $22,000 __423 _Mar-15 _●Staff are installing solar panels to power the 5 offsite metering
stations and installing local PLC 's to totalize, save and send
data across radio vs. phone lines.. This is an energy, and costs
savings measure and will ensure the quality of our data.
Pagoda Repairs WWTP City $32,000 $32,000 __423 _Dec-14 _●We are in the process of getting bids for this repair work at the
Pagoda. The external tiles are damaged wear and vandalism
and may pose a significant risk to WW equipment.
Switchgear replacement WWTP HDR $1,400,000 $20,000 $27,453 _423 Apr-13 Dec-14 Cl-Out ●Reliability - This project is completed and in project close-out.
Variable frequency drive
installation
WWTP City $100,000 $0 __423 _Jul-14 Con ●Reliability - VFD's are on site. 1 is completely installed - The
installation is being pushed out to late 2014 - we will try to install
with plant staff
Ad Advertising
Pre
Des
ROW
Ad
Con
Cl-Out
Study Study
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Advertise for Construction Bids
**Active Phase
Preliminary Design
Design
Construction
Close-out Construction Contract
Packet Page 308 of 312
AM-7460 14.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/10/2015
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell
Department:Public Works
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to Purchase Freightliner Vactor 2100 CB Vacuum Truck
Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to the Department of Public Works & Utilities to purchase
a new Freightliner Vactor 2100 CB Vacuum Truck from Owen Equipment under Washington State
Purchasing Contract No. 01912 - Item 0818.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The Fleet Maintenance Division of the Public Works & Utilities Department is prepared to replace Unit
31, a 1996 Volvo Vactor 2100 Vacuum Truck, that has been in constant service with the City for over 18
years and has surpassed the limits of its required reliability and is rapidly approaching the end of its useful
life. The $449,920.92 purchase of its necessary replacement, a Freightliner Vactor 2100 CB Vacuum
Truck, has been previously approved in the 2015 Budget and monies for the purchase shall come from
the 511 vehicle replacement B-Fund. It is anticipated that the auction of the retired Unit 31 will generate
approximately $50,000 which will then be deposited into the vehicle replacement B-Fund.
The new Freightliner Vactor 2100 CB Vacuum Truck will be a single engine design that meets 2014
TIER 4 emissions standards and is expected to reduce annual maintenance costs. Owen Equipment has
certified that the City is receiving the lowest price offered as compared to similarly situated clients,
terms, and conditions. This is confirmed by the purchase occurring through Washington State
Department of Enterprise Services purchasing Contract No. 01912 - Item 0818, ensuring full compliance
with all legal requirements for competitive solicitation of quotes and the award of purchases to the lowest
responsible bidder.
In order to proceed with this purchase under current City purchasing policy requires City Council
authorization via the attached Resolution as the amount exceeds the $100,000 threshold.
Attachments
Authorizing Resolution
Form Review
Packet Page 309 of 312
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works (Originator)Kody McConnell 02/03/2015 12:13 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/03/2015 02:06 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/03/2015 02:23 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/03/2015 02:31 PM
Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 02/03/2015 09:07 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/03/2015
Packet Page 310 of 312
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, DECLARING THE PURCHASE OF
FREIGHTLINER VACTOR 2100 CB VACUUM TRUCK
TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT AND APPROVING
THE USE OF SUCH PROCESS.
WHEREAS, the City's purchasing policies and procedures require competitive bids for
procurement of goods and services exceeding $10,000 in cost, and,
WHEREAS, it is prudent for the City to modernize its equipment, and the City has identified
the Freighliner Vactor 2100 CB Vacuum Truck as a necessary purchase; and;
WHEREAS, such equipment has been demonstrated to provide an overall labor cost savings
which will be realized by citizens and/or ratepayers of the City, and
WHEREAS, the City has diligently researched the relevant market, has identified Owen
Equipment operating under Washington State Purchasing Contract No. 01912 – Item 0818 as the sole
regional supplier of the desired equipment, and has obtained assurances from the supplier that the
equipment has been offered for sale to the City at the lowest available competitive market price, and
WHEREAS, advertising for bids under these circumstances would yield no superior bidders
and would needlessly waste the administrative and financial resources of the City; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that the nature and availability of this equipment creates
special market standards and conditions which justify the use of sole source procurement, and that
the price charged the City is consistent with the lowest price offered by the equipment vendor for
other similarly situated customers.
RESOLVED this 10th day of February, 2015.
DAVE O. EARLING, MAYOR
Packet Page 311 of 312
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Packet Page 312 of 312